Why?

I've never claimed to be a scholar and I'm sure in the minds of many I'm nothing more than a simpleton but I can't help that is seems simple.

In the 1860's the church was united. Some came in and introduced some things that caused division (instrumental music, missionary societies, "higher textual criticism"). There is no doubt in any one's mind that the division would not have happened if the items were not introduced.

The group that brought in the things that caused division has continued to drift further and further away from that which resembles the church revealed in the Bible, it has also continued to shrink.

Some today are saying that the ones who stood patiently and waited for those who left to return need to repent and accept the things that caused division in the first place. This is leading to more fracture and division.

Why would we want to go down that road again? I'm told that in order to be seen as serious in the quest for unity I must compromise on the very things that caused division in the past. That just doesn't seem to add up...

Unity can be found by all returning to a church that in practice looks more like the New Testament church not less like it. I do not claim perfection (in fact I'm miles away from it) in my quest but I know that these innovations will not lead me closer to the practices of the New Testament church. So should I compromise the scriptures for unity? Where would that get me?

I'm not looking for a debate here. But in more than one blog my brethren who have determined not to accept these innovations are being labeled as the ones that are causing division. How can that be?