These study lessons are for individual or group Bible study and may be freely copied or distributed for class purposes. Please do not modify the material or distribute partially. Under no circumstances are these lessons to be sold.
Comments are welcomed and may be emailed to [email protected].
THE WORK OF THE CHURCH
A Study of the Divisions Among Brethren
Curtis Byers
2015 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Among Brethren
Introduction
The last broad division among brethren took place about 60 years ago. That particular division resulted over the issues of institutionalism and various types of cooperative arrangements between churches. But it has not been the only division among brethren. Since the beginnings of the Restoration Movement in the early 19 th century there have been several divisions, primarily over the work of the church. Since one goal of the early restorers was to bring unity to the many “Christian” groups of that day, the very fact that divisions exist is seen as evidence by many that the whole notion of restoring the New Testament church is flawed. Such is not necessarily the case, and it is one of the objectives of this study to clearly define what “restoring the New Testament church” means.
The other major objective of this study is to learn the lessons that the previous divisions teach. Many Christians today have not experienced the agony caused by divisions between brethren (which is akin to that experienced by those who have to leave the religion of their parents in order to follow Christ), nor have they studied the fundamental doctrinal issues at stake. Consequently, we are at risk (1) of underestimating the dangers that constantly confront the people of God, or (2) of repeating past errors with the inevitable division that would result. The only way to counter these risks is for all Christians to prayerfully study this history for themselves 1. It is hoped that this study will yield an understanding of the differences that led to the various divisions and that an assessment can be made as to the relevant scriptural teachings upon these differences. In particular, it is imperative that we understand the differences in how Scripture was viewed.
I am not a trained historian so there may be significant omissions or errors of detail in this material of which I am not aware. Nor have I formally documented the precise source of many of my statements, though a list of references is given of all the sources I used in preparing this material. But, I have tried to be accurate and fair in presenting the historical circumstances and scriptural arguments made by those involved in the various issues. Nothing can be gained by misrepresentation of another’s views. If I have failed in this regard, I honestly ask that it be brought to my attention so I can make correction.
Most of us in this present study hold common conclusions regarding these differences (regardless of how we have arrived at these conclusions). Such is obvious, otherwise we would not be fellowshipping each other. Yet, we could be wrong. It is dangerous to approach any study of the Scriptures with the dogged conviction that we already know what is right. Rather, our conviction must be that we can know what is right if we submit our will to God’s and be willing to listen to Him as we study His word. Truth has no fear of examination. Significantly, it is this open mindset that has led brethren to publicly debate these differences. Truth is not a matter of private interpretation. Honest minds, unfettered by prejudice, should come to similar conclusions. It is in this spirit that I hope we each approach this study.
May God bless our study.
1 On a personal note, the first such formal study I had was in a class at Broadmoor in the mid-1970s that was taught by Ron Halbrook and Dan King. That class was extremely helpful in clarifying the issues in my mind. The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Among Brethren
Course Outline
Lesson 1 An Overview of the Divisions Between Brethren
Lesson 2 The Restoration Plea
Lesson 3 Is the Restoration Plea Biblical?
Lesson 4 Missionary Societies
Lesson 5 Instrumental Music / Pastor Rule Excursus: Pastors
Lesson 6 Bible Classes / One Cup / Located Preacher Excursus: On Cup in History
Lesson 7 Colleges
Lesson 8 Benevolent Institutions
Lesson 9 Sponsoring Churches
Lesson 10 Evolution of Mainstream Churches
Lesson 11 Fellowship
Lesson 12 Review
Appendix Steve Wolfgang, Speech Delivered at the Nashville Meeting
References
Front Cover Church of Christ at Midway, Kentucky 1844-1895; Destroyed by Fire First Church of Christ to add instrumental music (melodeon) in worship; 1860.
The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 1 An Overview of the Divisions Between Brethren
Beginnings of the Restoration Movement
In the late 1700s and early 1800s, many religious leaders in Europe and America became dissatisfied with the religious structures of their day and many restoration movements began. In Europe, groups such as the Swiss Brethren, the Anabaptists, and the Church of the Brethren, constituted “the first major and enduring effort to go back to primitive beginnings” [Conklin, p.2]. But, the American spirit was especially fertile for Restorationism , that is, the desire to restore primitive, apostolic Christianity. Religious historians consider groups as diverse as the Mormons, Christadelphians, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Jehovah Witnesses as examples of restorationists that originated in the United States.
“The American Revolution stimulated social changes every bit as dramatic as the political changes it brought about…What was true for America at large was no less true for its Christian churches…One of the practices that the American passion for liberty most affected was Bible reading. A principal reason that so many new denominations sprang to life in America between the War for Independence and the Civil War – Disciples and “Christians” of several varieties, Adventists, Mormons, Cumberland Presbyterians, offshoots of Methodists, and more – was the new opportunity for unfettered interpretation of Scripture. Americans in the early nineteenth century transformed an earlier battle cry of the Reformation, “the Bible alone,” into a distinctly American appeal – “no creed but the Bible!” … This blend of Christianity and democracy created a Christian message specifically adapted to the shape of American social realities. That message was, in turn, brought to a wide circle of the previously unchurched by vigorous representatives of a liberated Christian faith. Leaders of the Restoration Movement, for example, such as Barton W. Stone (1772-1844), Thomas Campbell (1763-1845), and his son Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), sought to roll back the corruptions of the centuries and restore the purity of primitive Christianity. Their message was thoroughly imbued with an American spirit.” [Noll, History of Christianity , p.148-151].
The term Restoration Movement (or, Stone-Campbell Movement ) is usually reserved for efforts begun independently by Barton W. Stone (in northern Kentucky) and Thomas Campbell (soon joined by his son Alexander, in western Pennsylvania). Both were forced to resign from their respective Presbyterian synods for teachings and practices they believed to be consistent with the New Testament but were contradictory to Presbyterian tenets. For over 20 years, they worked separately of each other but came to hold similar beliefs. Stone and some other restoration-minded groups only called themselves Christians and their churches the Christian Church or the Church of Christ. The Campbells, now with Alexander taking the leading role, preferred the name Disciples for both themselves and their churches. In 1832, they jointly recognized each other as brothers in Christ and quickly became one of the fastest growing groups in America. Their desire was simple – to unite Christians by restoring the primitive church of the New Testament.
Divisions within the Stone-Campbell Movement
The early restorer’s goal for unity was not achieved. Not only did most religious groups refused to abandon their creeds, but there have been several divisions within the Stone- Campbell Movement. Of the many reasons that might be given for these divisions, doctrinal disputes, sectional/socio-economic differences, and competing allegiances are probably the three main grounds of the divisions.
1-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Doctrinal Disputes Any group that seriously seeks to follow the Bible and concludes that certain biblical teachings are essential is susceptible to division. For once teachings contrary to these essential biblical teachings are set forth, there are only two options. Either the ones putting forth the contrary teachings must renounce them, or the others seeking to maintain proper biblical teaching must separate themselves. This explains many of the divisions that occurred within the Protestant Reformation. The New Testament itself gives evidence of division for similar reasons. Consequently, the Restoration Movement with its emphasis on “no creed but the Bible” and a call to imitate the New Testament church was at risk of division. This should not be surprising; human pride has always fought against God’s will and is not content to restrict itself to a “Thus says the Lord.”
Sectional/Socio-Economic Differences The Civil War clearly had a major impact on the Protestant denominations in the United States. Every major denomination divided between the North and South at the start of the Civil War; the Southern Baptists had already separated in 1845. Technically, there was no division within the Churches of Christ/Christian Church/Disciples of Christ since there was no central organization to divide. But plainly a wedge was driven between the northern and southern churches. Equally significant, following the war, the South was economically depressed for decades. Thus, when the division between the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church was formally recognized in 1906, the Churches of Christ were predominantly in the poorer south and the Christian Church was primarily in the wealthier north. Obviously, there were exceptions, but this was generally true. Ed Harrell, a historian who has written extensively on the Restoration Movement, believes these sectional/socio-economic differences promoted different mindsets that became a primary basis of division; the doctrinal issues were important but not critical. This too should not be surprising given the New Testament teaching as to the type of mindset that is receptive of God’s will (Matthew 11:4-5; Mark 10:23-27; Luke 6:20-26; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; James 2:5).
Allegiances One of the first divisions noted in the New Testament was over petty allegiances to certain preachers of the gospel (1 Corinthians 1-3). In a similar way, allegiances to religious structures have been a regular source of divisions. This was especially true among Protestant groups and has played a significant role in the Restoration Movement. Conventions, societies, personalities, colleges, publications, etc. have all had their promoters and cheerleaders, but none of them are worthy of supplanting our primary allegiance to Jesus Christ.
Less honorable motives, such as pride and envy, can also lead to division, but such motives by their very nature are often not discernable much less provable. Undoubtedly, some of the divisions within the Restoration Movement were the result of, or at least accelerated by, the ungodly attitude of some men. But as one brother has observed that to blame the divisions “on a bunch of cantankerous nuts who couldn’t think straight, wanted to be big fish in a small pond, or were just plain mean…simply will not float as historical explanation.” [Wolfgang, History (I) , p.16]. It should also be understood that “division” in this study does not simply mean “disagreement”. There have always been, and will continue to be, disagreements between brethren over what particular passages mean, how Christians ought to act, etc. Within any given congregation, there will be disagreements over questions such as whether Christians can fight in war, is it appropriate for Christians to vote, is the veil of 1 Corinthians 11 binding on women
1-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren today, etc. But the very fact that these disagreements exist is evidence that not all disagreements lead to division, even though particular individuals may have left a congregation because of these questions. “Division” in this study means when there were serious enough disagreements so as to lead to a break in fellowship in a significant number of congregations. It is, however, instructive to observe the type of disagreements that have led to breaks in fellowship. Generally, divisions have resulted over disputes concerning the work and practice of the church. Missionary societies, instrumental music in worship, financial support of institutions, the use of Bible classes or multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper all have to do with the functioning of the church together. Consequently, the objectors to these practices felt compelled to separate themselves if they were to remain loyal to their understanding of scripture. On the next page, there is a chart that summarizes the 200-year history of the Stone- Campbell Movement and the major divisions that have happened. Also included are various estimates of the number of members associated with each group. Please understand that all such statistics are only approximate. This is especially true after 1906 when the name Churches of Christ, and even Christian Church, was used both by those who accepted missionary societies and instrumental music and by those who rejected them. Also, it should be clear that the correctness of any view is not determined by the number of people who agree with it. At the end of this lesson, there is a Venn diagram that shows the relationship between non- institutional churches. This study, after first looking at the 19 th -century division between the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church, will take a close look of the 20 th -century divisions in the Churches of Christ. In each instance, we will first try to understand the issue at stake and then reflect upon the teaching of scripture to determine the proper response.
1-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Stone Movement 1804 1 Campbell Movement 1809 2 “Christians” “Disciples of Christ”
18323
Stone-Campbell Movement 4 Churches of Christ / Christian Church / Disciples of Christ (25,000 – 1832 5) (600,000 – 18806)
Missionary Society Instrumental Music Pastor System
1906 7 Churches of Christ Christian Church/Disciples of Christ (160,000 – 1906 7) (982,000 – 1906 7) (433,700 – 19268) Modernism Ecumenicalism Open Membership
1920s-30s 1927 9 Christian Church Christian Church No Class/One Cup/ & Churches of Christ (Disciples of Christ) No Located Preacher (1,100,000 – 1980s 10 ) (1,100,000 – 1980s10 ) Churches of Christ 1930s (1,333,000 – 2001 11 ) (807,000 – 2001 12) (38,000 Combined – 2015 13 ) Premillennial Churches of Christ (12,000 - 1970 14 ) (6,000 - 1997 15)
Institutionalism Sponsoring Churches (1,000,000 – 1951 16 )
1950s – 60s Non-Institutional Mainstream Churches of Christ Churches of Christ (148,900 – 2015 13 ) New Hermeneutic Charismatic Movement Role of Women Instrumental Music Modernism/Ecumenicalism 1980s-90s
1990s 18 International Churches Institutional Progressive of Christ (ICOC) (1,030,000 Combined – 2015 13 ) (99,500 – 2012 17 )
Note: Numerical estimates are approximations of the members/adherents in the U.S., except ICOC. 1-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Notes
1 Date of the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery . 2 Date of the Declaration and Address . 3 On January 1, 1832, representatives of the Stone and Campbell movements met and agreed to merge. Campbell had not actively sought this union, but eventually accepted it. [Conklin, p.27- 28]. 4 Many religious historians currently prefer the label “Stone-Campbell Movement” to the label “Restoration Movement.” Churches within this movement were called Churches of Christ, the Christian Church, or Disciples of Christ, reflecting the preferences of Stone and Campbell. 5 Holloway & Foster, Renewing , p.63. 6 Estimate of the General Missionary Society [Harrell, Sources of Division , p.5]. 7 When preparations were being made for the first U.S. Religious Census of 1906, David Lipscomb confirmed that the Churches of Christ were separate from the Christian Church. 8 U.S. Religious Census of 1926. 9 1927 is the first year that new North American Christian Convention (NACC) met, representing the more conservative Christian Church/Churches of Christ. The International Convention of Disciples of Christ continued to represent the more liberal contingent until they were restructured, and formally identified themselves as a denomination, in 1968. Thereafter, they identified themselves as the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and was represented by the General Assembly of the Christian Church. 10 Association of Religion Data Archives [Christian Church/Churches of Christ-http://thearda.com/ Denoms/D_1070.asp (retrieved 3/3/2015); Disciples of Christ-http://thearda.com/Denoms/ D_1071.asp (retrieved 3/3/2015)]. 11 Reported in Directory of the Ministry of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. 12 Reported by the Disciples of Christ [Encyclopedia of SCM , p.182]. 13 Royster, Carl H. Churches of Christ in the United States , 2015 Ed. (21 st Century Christian, Inc.). 14 Wolfgang, Steve. "The Impact of Premillennialism on the Church," Guardian of Truth 30:1 (January 2, 1986), pp. 1315, 29. 15 Lynn, Mac. Churches of Christ in the United States (and Its Territories) , 1997. 21 st Century Christian. They are no longer listed separately in the directory compiled by Carl Royster. 16 Association of Religion Data Archives [http://thearda.com/Denoms/D_1093.asp (retrieved 3/3/2015)]. 17 ICOC 2012 Membership Survey; membership reached a maximum of 135,000 in 2002 [http://www.icocco-op.org/content/view/176/97/ (retrieved 3/4/2015)]. 18 In 1995, Ed Harrell stated that the Mainstream Churches of Christ have divided into two groups [“Christian Primitivism and Modernization”, p.111]. In 2005, he labelled these groups the “Institutional Churches of Christ” and the “Progressive Churches of Christ” [ The Emergence of the “Church of Christ” Denomination , 2005 Preface].
1-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
CHURCHES OF CHRIST
MAINSTREAM
(9,382)
NON -INSTITUTIONAL (1,840)
NON -CLASS (167 )
NO LOCATED PREACHER (259)
(MUTUAL ONE CUP EDIFICATION) (583 ) (99)
The number in parenthesis is the number of congregations identified with the teaching indicated. Source: Royster, Carl H. Churches of Christ in the United States, 2015 Ed. (21 st Century Christian, Inc.)
1-6 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 2 The Restoration Plea
The Restoration Plea
“The leaders of the varied nineteenth-century restoration movements in American Christianity generally believed that they were a part of the quest for religious reform that began with the Reformation. They often called themselves reformers and set out to strip the church of the unscriptural additions of the centuries. They generally believed that the reformers of the past had gone as far as their insight would take them, and they honored them for their contributions, but they saw in the Protestant churches of their day countless perversions that had destroyed the unity of the Christian church. Successful reformation would have to be based on a return to the pattern of New Testament Christianity” [Harrell, Restorationism , p.845]
Each restorer had their own vision as to how to restore New Testament Christianity, yet there surfaced some common principles by which they proceeded.
James O’Kelly In 1793, O’Kelly and about 10,000 “Republican Methodists”, located mainly in Virginia and North Carolina, broke away from the Methodists as a result of a conflict with the Methodist leadership in America. The following year they adopted the name Christian Church that was based on the six following principles (Holloway & Foster, p.26-27):
1. The Lord Jesus Christ as the only Head of the Church. 2. The name Christian to exclusion of all party and sectarian names. 3. The Holy Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the only creed, and a sufficient rule of faith and practice. 4. Christian character, or vital piety, the only test of church fellowship and membership. 5. The right of private judgment and liberty of conscience, the privilege and duty of all. 6. The union of all followers of Christ to the end that the work may believe.
For the most part they maintained Wesleyan practices such as infant baptism. But in 1810, the congregations in Virginia started teaching adult immersion and called themselves Independent Christian Baptists (Kelly remained with the North Carolina congregations).
Abner Jones and Elias Smith In 1801, Abner Jones, a Vermont Baptist, repudiated the Calvinistic creed of his fellow Baptists and, with a small group who joined him, took only the name Christian. About the same time, Elias Smith, a New Hampshire Baptist, also decided to adopt a simpler form of Christianity and started a new movement where they also only called themselves Christians. Jones and Smith joined in 1803. Doctrinally, they rejected creeds and were very tolerant of diverse views. In 1811, Smith traveled to Virginia and met with the newly formed Independent Christian Baptists and they agreed to an affiliation under the name Christian Church, which is sometimes called the Christian Connection.
Barton W. Stone A conflict with the leaders of the Presbyterian Church over the nature of conversion led to Stone, along with four others, being suspended from the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky in 1801. In 1803, fifteen congregations formed the Springfield Presbytery, but within 10 months they dissolved and produced the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery . This document (given below) clearly presents the essence of the “restoration plea.” Because they held some common views, Stone joined with the Christian Connection.
2-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Thomas and Alexander Campbell Thomas Campbell came to this country in 1807 and joined the Seceder Presbyterians. Disturbed by the sectarian division between the various Presbyterian groups, he conducted a communion service that was open to all the Presbyterians in the area. Charged with heresy, he was suspended by the Associate Synod of North America in 1809. That same year, he and some friends began meeting as the “Christian Association”. At its very first meeting, Campbell presented his vision for their association: “That rule, my highly respected hearers, is this, that where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” After the group accepted this rule, it is reported that one stated, “If we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in Scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it” (Hailey, Attitudes , p.52-53). Campbell was assigned the task of producing a written statement that explained the purpose of their association. The result was the document entitled Declaration and Address (given below). It was at this time that Campbell’s family, who had remained in Ireland, migrated to America and joined Thomas in western Pennsylvania. His son, Alexander, had already come to similar conclusions as his father and, because of his many abilities, soon took the lead in pleading for a return to New Testament Christianity. By 1811, they started the Brush Run church. They practiced the congregational form of church government and adopted immersion for adult baptism. Although Alexander remained in western Pennsylvania, Thomas made several moves: Ohio, Pittsburgh, northern Kentucky, and then back to western Pennsylvania in 1819. In the meantime, the Brush Run congregation joined the Redstone Baptist Association (1815) with the understanding they had the freedom to preach what they understood the scriptures to teach. He continued with the Baptists until the mid-1820s when his teachings and writings forced him out of Baptist associations. In 1832, Stone and representatives of the Campbell Movement, recognizing that they held many common beliefs, agreed to merge their efforts to restore New Testament Christianity. ______
The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery
THE PRESBYTERY OF SPRINGFIELD sitting at Cane-ridge, in the county of Bourbon, being, through a gracious Providence, in more than ordinary bodily health, growing in strength and size daily; and in perfect soundness and composure of mind; but knowing that it is appointed for all delegated bodies once to die; and considering that the life of every such body is very uncertain, do make and ordain this our last Will and Testament, in manner and form following, viz.:
Imprimis . We will , that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of 1 Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one 2 hope of our calling. 3 Item . We will that our name of distinction, with its Reverend title, be forgotten, that there 4 be but one Lord over God's heritage, and his name one. 5 Item . We will , that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and 6 executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free 7 course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus . 8 Item . We will , that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy 9 Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple 10 Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven , without any mixture of 11
2-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none 12 henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron . 13 Item . We will , that the church of Christ resume her native right of internal government,— 14 try her candidates for the ministry, as to their soundness in the faith, acquaintance 15 with experimental religion, gravity and aptness to teach; and admit no other proof of 16 their authority but Christ speaking in them. We will , that the church of Christ look up 17 to the Lord of the harvest to send forth laborers into his harvest; and that she 18 resume her primitive right of trying those who say they are apostles, and are not . 19 Item . We will , that each particular church, as a body, actuated by the same spirit, choose 20 her own preacher, and support him by a free-will offering, without a written call or 21 subscription —admit members—remove offenses; and never henceforth delegate her 22 right of government to any man or set of men whatever. 23 Item . We will , that the people henceforth take the Bible as the only sure guide to heaven; 24 and as many as are offended with other books, which stand in competition with it, 25 may cast them into the fire if they choose; for it is better to enter into life having one 26 book, than having many to be cast into hell. 27 Item . We will , that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray 28 more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and 29 confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh. 30 Item . We will , that our weak brethren, who may have been wishing to make the 31 Presbytery of Springfield their king, and wot not what is now become of it, betake 32 themselves to the Rock of Ages, and follow Jesus for the future. 33 Item . We will , the Synod of Kentucky examine every member who may be suspected of 34 having departed from the Confession of Faith, and suspend every such suspected 35 heretic immediately, in order that the oppressed may go free, and taste the sweets of 36 Gospel liberty. 37 Item . We will , that Ja------, the author of two letters lately published in Lexington, be 38 encouraged in his zeal to destroy partyism . We will , moreover, that our past conduct 39 be examined into by all who may have correct information; but let foreigners beware 40 of speaking evil of things which they know not. 41 Item . Finally we will , that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may 42 see their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late. 43
ROBERT MARSHALL, JOHN DUNLAVY, RICHARD M'NEMAR, Springfield Presbytery , B. W. STONE, June 28 th , 1804 JOHN THOMPSON, DAVID PURVIANCE ______
The Declaration and Address (Excerpt of the initial part including 13 propositions set forth by Campbell)
FROM the series of events which have taken place in the churches for many years past, 1 especially in this Western country, as well as from what we know in general of the present 2 state of things in the Christian world, we are persuaded that it is high time for us not only 3 to think, but also to act, for ourselves; to see with our own eyes, and to take all our 4 measures directly and immediately from the Divine standard; to this alone we feel 5 ourselves Divinely bound to be conformed, as by this alone, we must be judged. We are 6 also persuaded that as no man can be judged for his brother, so no man can judge for his 7 brother; every man must be allowed to judge for himself, as every man must bear his 8 own judgment--must give account of himself to God. We are also of opinion that as the 9 Divine word is equally binding upon all, so all lie under an equal obligation to be bound by 10
2-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
it, and it alone; and not by any human interpretation of it; and that, therefore, no man 11 has a right to judge his brother, except in so far as he manifestly violates the express 12 letter of the law. That every such judgment is an express violation of the law of Christ, a 13 daring usurpation of his throne, and a gross intrusion upon the rights and liberties of his 14 subjects. We are, therefore, of opinion that we should beware of such things; that we 15 should keep at the utmost distance from everything of this nature; and that, knowing the 16 judgment of God against them that commit such things, we should neither do the same 17 ourselves, nor take pleasure in them that do them. Moreover, being well aware, as from 18 sad experience, of the heinous nature and pernicious tendency of religious controversy 19 among Christians; tired and sick of the bitter jarrings and janglings of a party spirit, we 20 would desire to be at rest; and, were it possible, we would also desire to adopt and 21 recommend such measures as would give rest to our brethren throughout all the 22 churches: as would restore unity, peace, and purity to the whole Church of God. This 23 desirable rest, however, we utterly despair either to find for ourselves, or to be able to 24 recommend to our brethren, by continuing amid the diversity and rancor of party 25 contentions, the veering uncertainty and clashings of human opinions: nor, indeed, can 26 we reasonably expect to find it anywhere but in Christ and his simple word, which is the 27 same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Our desire, therefore, for ourselves and our 28 brethren would be, that, rejecting human opinions and the inventions of men as of any 29 authority, or as having any place in the Church of God, we might forever cease from 30 further contentions about such things; returning to and holding fast by the original 31 standard; taking the Divine word alone for our rule; the Holy Spirit for our teacher and 32 guide, to lead us into all truth; and Christ alone, as exhibited in the word, for our 33 salvation; that, by so doing, we may be at peace among ourselves, follow peace with all 34 men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. Impressed with these 35 sentiments, we have resolved as follows: 36
1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.
2. That although the Church of Christ upon earth must necessarily exist in particular and distinct societies, locally separate one from another, yet there ought to be no schisms, no uncharitable divisions among them. They ought to receive each other as Christ Jesus hath also received them, to the glory of God. And for this purpose they ought all to walk by the same rule, to mind and speak the same thing; and to be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.
3. That in order to do this, nothing ought to be inculcated upon Christians as articles of faith; nor required of them as terms of communion, but what is expressly taught and enjoined upon them in the word of God. Nor ought anything to be admitted, as of Divine obligation, in their Church constitution and managements, but what is expressly enjoined by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles upon the New Testament Church; either in express terms or by approved precedent.
4. That although the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are inseparably connected, making together but one perfect and entire revelation of the Divine will, for the edification and salvation of the Church, and therefore in that respect can not be separated; yet as to what directly and properly belongs to their immediate object, the New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament Church, and as perfect a rule for the particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members.
2-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
5. That with respect to the commands and ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ, where the Scriptures are silent as to the express time or manner of performance, if any such there be, no human authority has power to interfere, in order to supply the supposed deficiency by making laws for the Church; nor can anything more be required of Christians in such cases, but only that they observe these commands and ordinances as will evidently answer the declared and obvious end of their institution. Much less has any human authority power to impose new commands or ordinances upon the Church, which our Lord Jesus Christ has not enjoined. Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.
6. That although inferences and deductions from Scripture premises, when fairly inferred, may be truly called the doctrine of God's holy word, yet are they not formally binding upon the consciences of Christians farther than they perceive the connection, and evidently see that they are so; for their faith must not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power and veracity of God. Therefore, no such deductions can be made terms of communion, but do properly belong to the after and progressive edification of the Church. Hence, it is evident that no such deductions or inferential truths ought to have any place in the Church's confession.
7. That although doctrinal exhibitions of the great system of Divine truths, and defensive testimonies in opposition to prevailing errors, be highly expedient, and the more full and explicit they be for those purposes, the better; yet, as these must be in a great measure the effect of human reasoning, and of course must contain many inferential truths, they ought not to be made terms of Christian communion; unless we suppose, what is contrary to fact, that none have a right to the communion of the Church, but such as possess a very clear and decisive judgment, or are come to a very high degree of doctrinal information; whereas the Church from the beginning did, and ever will, consist of little children and young men, as well as fathers.
8. That as it is not necessary that persons should have a particular knowledge or distinct apprehension of all Divinely revealed truths in order to entitle them to a place in the Church; neither should they, for this purpose, be required to make a profession more extensive than their knowledge; but that, on the contrary, their having a due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge respecting their lost and perishing condition by nature and practice, and of the way of salvation through Jesus Christ, accompanied with a profession of their faith in and obedience to him, in all things, according to his word, is all that is absolutely necessary to qualify them for admission into his Church.
9. That all that are enabled through grace to make such a profession, and to manifest the reality of it in their tempers and conduct, should consider each other as the precious saints of God, should love each other as brethren, children of the same family and Father, temples of the same Spirit, members of the same body, subjects of the same grace, objects of the same Divine love, bought with the same price, and joint-heirs of the same inheritance. Whom God hath thus joined together no man should dare to put asunder.
10. That division among the Christians is a horrid evil, fraught with many evils. It is antichristian, as it destroys the visible unity of the body of Christ; as if he were divided against himself, excluding and excommunicating a part of himself. It is antiscriptural, as being strictly prohibited by his sovereign authority; a direct violation of his express command. It is antinatural, as it excites Christians to contemn, to hate, and oppose one another, who are bound by the highest and most endearing obligations to love each other as brethren, even as Christ has loved them. In a word, it is productive of confusion and of every evil work.
2-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
11. That (in some instances) a partial neglect of the expressly revealed will of God, and (in others) an assumed authority for making the approbation of human opinions and human inventions a term of communion, by introducing them into the constitution, faith, or worship of the Church, are, and have been, the immediate, obvious, and universally acknowledged causes, of all the corruptions and divisions that ever have taken place in the Church of God.
12. That all that is necessary to the highest state of perfection and purity of the Church upon earth is, first, that none be received as members but such as having that due measure of Scriptural self-knowledge described above, do profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures; nor, secondly, that any be retained in her communion longer than they continue to manifest the reality of their profession by their temper and conduct. Thirdly, that her ministers, duly and Scripturally qualified, inculcate none other things than those very articles of faith and holiness expressly revealed and enjoined in the word of God. Lastly, that in all their administrations they keep close by the observance of all Divine ordinances, after the example of the primitive Church, exhibited in the New Testament; without any additions whatsoever of human opinions or inventions of men.
13. Lastly, that if any circumstantials indispensably necessary to the observance of Divine ordinances be not found upon the page of express revelation, such, and such only, as are absolutely necessary for this purpose should be adopted under the title of human expedients, without any pretense to a more sacred origin, so that any subsequent alteration or difference in the observance of these things might produce no contention nor division in the Church.
Comments / Questions
1. Each of the above statements of principles was an attempt at restoring the New Testament church. a. Carefully read O’Kelly’s six principles. Are all six consistent with Scriptures?
b. The primary focus of Stone’s Last Will and Testament concerns the governance of the church. 1) Note particular expressions that support this conclusion.
2) In determining how the church should be governed, what is clearly Stone’s source of authority?
2-6 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
c. The thirteen propositions of Thomas Campbell in the Declaration and Address succinctly summarizes many of the essential points of the ‘Restoration Plea’.
1) The first proposition conceives of the universal church consisting of individuals, not churches. The second proposition correctly observes that the church only exists in a local sense upon the earth. 2) The third proposition states the principle that nothing can be bound upon others except what is “expressly taught” in the scriptures, which Campbell takes to mean taught “in express terms or by approved precedent.” 3) The fifth proposition affirms that the silence of the scriptures do not give one the right to establish some binding teaching: “Nothing ought to be received into the faith or worship of the Church, or be made a term of communion among Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.” 4) The motivation to limit one’s faith and practice to scripture is so that unity can be found. (See propostitions 1, 9, and 10.)
Any disagreements with any of Campbell’s propositions?
d. There are several similarities between the statements of O’Kelly, Stone, and Campbell. For example, compare these three statements.
O’Kelly (3): “The Holy Bible, …., the only creed, and a sufficient rule for faith and practice.” Stone (3 rd Item ): …that people have free course to the Bible…” Campbell (Declaration , Line 3): “we are persuaded that it is high time for us not only to think, but also to act, for ourselves; to see with our own eyes, and to take all our standards directly and immediately from the Divine standard.”
What are all three evidently reacting against?
2. The “Restoration Plea” is simply the appeal to test all things by the New Testament. It has often been presented by the following slogans:
a. “No creed but the Bible.” Explain this in your own words.
The restorers saw creeds as being a primary barrier to unity. Why is this?
b. “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.” Explain this slogan in your own words. Give an example of both parts.
2-7 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
c. “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; in all things love.” Give an example of what is “faith” and what is “opinion”.
Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell disagreed on many things. For example, Stone did not accept the Trinity and was a premillennialist, yet they accepted each other as brothers. Did they contradict this principle?
This concept did not originate with the restorers. It was first stated by Peter Meiderlin, a early 17 th century Lutheran theologian, in a call to peace amid the waring conflict between Lutherans: “In essentials, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; but in all things love.”
d. “We are Christians only.” What is the point of this slogan? How has this slogan of the restorers been misunderstood?
3. What difficulties, if any, are there in interpreting these slogans? In other words, is it obvious how to apply these slogans to all religious questions?
4. The two goals of the early restorers (1) to restore NT Christianity and (2) to unite all Christians have always existed in tension. That is, it is difficult to achieve both.
1) So were the restorer’s naïve? Is there another path to unity?
2) Which goal should take precedent?
5. What, in your view, needs to be restored of New Testament Christianity?
2-8 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 3 Is the Restoration Plea Biblical?
Introduction Unity is desirable. Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, prayed to the Father concerning his disciples “that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17:11). The fragmentation of Protestantism convinced the restorers that the prevalent practice of adhering to creeds and differing hierarchies would never bring about unity. The restorers sought to reunite Christians by a sole allegiance to apostolic teaching as found in the New Testament. Although that message found a good measure of success, the majority of those who claimed to be followers of Christ remained committed to beliefs and practices not found in the New Testament. Does that failure suggest that the restorer’s approach to unity was wrong? Not necessarily. The right message has never been universally accepted – reflect on the limited response to the message of the prophets and even to the message of Jesus. Whether unity is achieved or not can never be the determining factor in deciding if a message is correct.
But the restorers still may have been wrong. Was their restoration plea biblical? Does God approve the primitivist mindset to throw away every teaching or practice that cannot be found in the Apostles’ teaching and practice?
The Seat of Authority
Since the first century, Christians have generally found authority in three places (Ed Harrell):
1) Gnosticism : Authority inheres in special revelation/knowledge; believed not only by the Gnostics in early Christianity, but also by those claiming latter-day revelations such as Joseph Smith.
2) Apostolic Succession : Authority inheres in the church; fundamental belief of Roman Catholicism, but also Protestant groups who have creeds or hierarchical structures that carry authority.
3) Apostolic Primitivism : Authority inheres in the apostolic writings of the New Testament. This was the view of the restorers.
Perhaps a fourth way should be added for the postmodern,
4) Individualistic Readings : Authority (which itself is a questionable concept in postmodernism) inheres in the individual reader of the Bible, not in the author. With such an approach, nothing is universally wrong.
The Role of the Apostles
The authority of the Apostles can be demonstrated from the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels and from the writings of the Apostles preserved in the New Testament. It is relevant to note that the reason the apostolic writings have been preserved (canonized) is the authoritative value the Christians in the decades following the period of the New Testament placed on these writings.
I. The Words of Jesus
A. Jesus gives binding and loosing authority to the Apostles.
1. Matthew 16:18-19 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of
3-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
2. Matthew 18:18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
B. Jesus promises to send to the Apostles the Holy Spirit for the explicit purpose of giving them “all truth.”
1. John 14:25-26 These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
2. John 15:26-27 But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. 27 And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.
3. John 16:7-13 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
4. Acts 1:1-2 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
C. In the Great Commission, Jesus authorizes the Apostles to teach all they have been commanded. Implied is that the Apostles have been given everything that needs to be taught.
1. Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.
2. Hence, the teaching is called the “apostles’ teaching”: Acts 2:41-42.
II. The Writings of the Apostles
A. God revealed to the Apostles his will: 1 Cor 14:37; Gal 1:6-9, 12-16; Eph 3:3-5; Col 1:24-26; 2:6-7; 1 Thess 2:4, 13; 1 Jn 1:5.
B. The Apostles taught the same thing in all the churches: 1 Cor 4:16-17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33-34; 16:1; 1 Tim 6:3-4.
C. The Apostles, along with Jesus Christ, form the “foundation” of the church: Eph 2:19-20; Titus 1:2-5.
3-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Can We Understand the Apostolic Teaching?
There have always been skeptics who contend that we just cannot all understand the New Testament alike. They would simply point at the diversity of Christian teachings and practices as proof. More recently, the postmodern interpreter contends that all written texts conveys meaning only in the mind of the reader, not in the mind of the author of the text. But that is not the view found in Scripture. Consider the following:
1. Scripture consistently states that people are accountable to do what the Lord says (e.g. 1 Jn 2:3-5). If it were impossible for us to understand the will of the Lord, then it would be unreasonable to hold us accountable for what we could not know.
2. First century Christians are told that God desires that all should have “knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:3-4; 2 Tim 2:24-26; 2 Tim 3:6-8; Titus 1:1-3; Heb 10:26-27). If God desires it, then it must be possible.
3. Paul clearly expressed his belief that his writings were understandable to his readers.
a. Ephesians 3:3-5 …how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
b. Paul prayed for the Colossians understanding, Col 1:9-10.
Is the Apostolic Teaching Restrictive or Permissive?
Granted that the Apostles had authority to speak truth, does it follow that Christians are restricted to do only what the Apostles said, or are Christians permitted to teach and practice other things as long as they still do what the Apostles said? This is sometimes stated another way: is the silence of the Scriptures restrictive or permissive?
General Considerations
1. Jesus himself was restricted to teach what the Father told him. Carefully read John 12:44-50.
2. “The name of the Lord Jesus” is a common expression in Acts and the writings of Paul. A person’s “name” stands in the place of the person. Thus, to do something in the “name of Jesus” simply means that you are doing it as Jesus would do it. Or, to speak in the “name of Jesus” is to speak exactly the same thing that Jesus would speak if he were there in person. Now read Col 3:17: And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him .
3. Consider the consequence if apostolic teaching is permissive. Anything, unless it is explicitly prohibited, would be permissible: councils, bishops, priests, baptism of infants, good work societies, the use of icons in worship, etc. Where can a line be drawn?
The Principle of Silence
The discussion concerning the OT priesthood in Hebrews 7:11-14 is the classical statement about silence. The point is this: When God said that priests were to come from the tribe of Levi, then that automatically excluded the possibility of priests coming from any other tribe even though God did not explicitly say that they could not come from the other tribes.
3-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
So, the principle seems clear. When God specifies something, all other things of the same type are excluded. Thus, when God told Noah to use gopher wood, then that means he could not use oak. Or, when God specifies a type of fire, then other sources of fire are not permitted (Nadab and Abihu, Lev 10:1-2; 16:12). In this sense, God’s commands (whether through Moses, the prophets, Jesus, or the Apostles) are restrictive.
But what about things which God has not given commands. For example, if God has instructed us to observe the Lord’s Supper each week (I know this is not accepted by all, but assume it to be true for this example), can Christians put more emphasis on one week (say Easter) than on all the others? Or, since the NT shows evangelists preaching the gospel directly to an audience, can Christians write books to teach the gospel? Or, if Paul authorizes elders in churches, would it be acceptable for us to have a “presiding” elder over the other elders? If you answer these questions differently, then why the difference. Think of other examples.
The Church
The major divisions in the churches over the past two hundred years have centered on issues concerning the work, or mission, of the church. What exactly is the “work of the Church”? Varying answers to that question is what has given rise to division.
Obviously, one can never understand what the mission of the church is unless one first understands what the church itself is. Yet, to study the nature of the church in this lesson would take us too far afield. Suffice it to say that the different metaphors used for the church in the New Testament (kingdom, body, house, vineyard, temple, etc.) suggest that the church is primarily a relationship between Christ and his followers. It is the collective body of those who have received the blessings in Christ by submitting themselves to Christ. But it is more than that. In first century usage, a church (Gk. ekklesia ) was a called assembly. Thus, (1) Christians are those who have been called (by Jesus Christ, Romans 1:6; 1 Corinthians 1:2; by God, 1 Peter 1:15), and (2) they have been called together. Implied is that their relationship to Christ also brings them into relationship with each other.
Augustine spoke of the Invisible Church and the Visible Church to highlight the truth that only God knows who are his and that there may be those believed by others to be in the church, but who aren’t. Others distinguish between the Universal Church, the body of the saved of all time, and the Local Church, the body of the saved in any one location. The strength of this distinction as compared to Augustine’s is that it correctly highlights that the visible church is local by its very nature (note that the Invisible Church = Universal Church). The weakness of this distinction is that it could suggest that since the local church is a functional (i.e., working) relationship then so is the universal church. Such an understanding not only gave rise to Catholicism, but also was a major component in Alexander Campbell’s argument for a missionary society (as we will study in a later lesson)
We can learn what the mission and work of the church is by reading (1) what the Apostles taught and by (2) what the churches in the New Testament did. The latter is as instructive as the former.
3-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
How is the Apostles’ Role related to the Work of the Church?
1. List the five “gifts” that Christ gave to the church as stated in Ephesians 4:11 and describe briefly the primary function of each gift.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Note Since each of the first four categories is preceded by the article in the Greek and the article is absent before “ teachers ”, some interpret this to mean that “ pastors and teachers ” are intended to represent one category [e.g. NJB “ to some…they should be apostles; to some prophets; to some, evangelists; to some, pastors and teachers ”; see ESV also].
2. The reason Christ gave these gifts is stated in verses 12-16.
a. Verse 12 as translated by the KJV: “ For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: …” Note there are three phrases each beginning with “ for ”, which might suggest equality, that is, these are three independent reasons. This may suggest the following relationship:
the perfecting of the saints
for the work of ministry
the edifying of the body of Christ
or, there may be a linear sequence in view, which suggest the following:
for the perfecting of the saints →→→ for the work of ministry →→→ for the edifying …
However, the first “for” (“for the perfecting of the saints” ) is a translation of the Greek preposition pros that means “with a view to”, whereas the Greek preposition for the other two instances ( “for the work of ministry” , “for the edifying of the body of Christ” ) is eis that means “in order to”. This change of pronoun is reflected in the ASV: “for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: …”, which suggests the following relationship:
unto →→→ the work of ministering for →→→ the perfecting of the saints unto →→→ the edifying …
In other words, the initial goal of Christ’s gift was to equip (perfect) the saints which, in turn, enabled them to perform the two tasks of ministry and edifying.
3-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
The ESV is typical of more recent translations: “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,…” (NRSV sim., REB sim.).
So, how do you understand the relationship?
b. What are the two aspects of ministry (Gk. diakonia )?
1) [e.g. Acts 11:29; 12:25]
2) [e.g. 2 Tim 4:5]
c. What is the ultimate goal of the work of ministry and edifying of the body of Christ as given in verse 13?
d. What is the measure of whether we have become the “perfect man” as given in verses 14 (negatively) and 15 (positively)?
The Work of the Church as Seen in Acts and the Letters
1. In what activity is the church engaged in each of the following passages in Acts?
2:42
2:44-45
2:46
4:32-35
6:1-6
11:19-24
11:27-30
12:5
13:1-3
14:27
18:26-27
20:7
3-6 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
2. In what activity is the church engaged (or told to do) in each of the following? Rom 16:17
1 Cor 5:4-5
1 Cor 9:11-14
1 Cor 11:17ff
1 Cor 14:1-19; 26-28
1 Cor 16:1-4
2 Cor 8:1-5
2 Cor 8:8-15; 9:1-15
Phil 1:5; 4:15-16
Phil 3:16-18
Col 3:16
1 Tim 5:3, 16
3. How would you categorize the work and mission of the church as seen in the above passages?
3-7 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 4 Missionary Societies
Introduction The first major division among the churches resulted in the formation of the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church. The three doctrinal issues at the center of this division were the Missionary Society, Instrumental Music and the Pastor System. This lesson focuses upon the first issue, that is, whether it is scriptural to use Missionary Societies to evangelize the world.
Historical Setting
The religious world at the time of the early restorers was accustomed to a wide variety of ecclesiastical organizations: conventions, synods, conferences, councils, etc. The restorer’s argued strongly against such governing bodies and it was their conflict with such bodies that gave impetus to their restoring efforts. The restorers were equally distrustful of the various non- governing organizations created by the denominations to accomplish a specific work, e.g., missionary societies, Bible societies, temperance societies, etc.
In his early years, Alexander Campbell argued forcefully against such non-church organizations. For example, in the first article of the opening issue of The Christian Baptist Campbell, writing about the first century churches, Campbell said:
“Their churches were not fractured into missionary societies, bible societies, education societies; nor did they dream of organizing such in the world….They knew nothing of the hobbies of modern times. In their church capacity alone they moved.… They dare not transfer to a missionary society, or bible society, or education society, a cent or a prayer, lest in so doing they should rob the church of its glory…” [The Christian Baptist , Vol. 1, No. 1, 1823] Again, notice Campbell’s response later that year to a reader of his paper about Bible societies (the purpose of Bible societies was to distribute copies of the Bible):
“With regard to bible societies, they are the most specious and plausible of all the institutions of this age. No man who loves the bible can refrain from rejoicing at its increasing circulation. But every Christian who understands the nature and design, the excellence and the glory of the institution called the Church of Jesus Christ, will lament to see its glory transferred to a human corporation. The church is robbed of its character by every institution, merely human, that would ape its excellence and substitute itself in its place.…Let every church of Christ, then, if it can only disseminate twenty bibles or twenty testaments in one year, do this much. Then it will know into what channel its bounty flows; it will need no recording secretary, no president, no managers of its bounty. It will send all this pageantry, this religious show, to the regions of pride and vanity, whence they came. Then the church and its king will have all the glory.” [The Christian Baptist , Vol. 1, No. 5, December 1, 1823] Such was the view of all the early restorers including Stone. However, even as Campbell wrote these words he left the Redstone Baptist Association and joined the Mahoning Baptist Association (MBA). Apparently, Campbell saw no inconsistency between his writings and his practice. To increase its membership, the MBA hired Walter Scott in 1827 as an evangelist. Later, Scott became convinced that such an arrangement was unscriptural and was instrumental in seeing the MBA dissolved in 1830 even though Campbell would have preferred it continue.
In that same year, Campbell ceased his publication of The Christian Baptist and began a new publication The Millennial Harbinger . Although he was no longer a member of a formal association of churches, Campbell still strongly believed there was a need for church cooperation, and he wrote a series of seven articles in The Millennial Harbinger during 1831-32 entitled “The
4-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Cooperation of Churches”. He encouraged churches to cooperate through “cooperation” or “district” meetings. At these meetings, delegates (Campbell preferred the term ‘messengers’) would decide how money given by the cooperating churches would be spent in the area of evangelism. Campbell’s plan met with significant resistance by many who simply had to appeal to his earlier writings. Campbell argued that the NT expressions such as the “churches of Galatia” and “churches of Macedonia” suggested that these churches were arranged into districts and since the Scriptures did not specify the type of arrangement, churches could decide how they cooperated. Throughout the 1830s, numerous cooperative efforts were started but most were abandoned. Still, by 1840, cooperation meetings were being held in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, and Virginia.
Believing even greater organization among the churches was needed, Campbell wrote a 16- article series in 1841-43 entitled “The Nature of the Christian Organization” in which he “proposed the establishment of a ‘general organization’ among the churches….He proposed that the churches hold a convention and devise a general organization. Such an organization, according to Campbell, would leave the churches free to manage their own internal affairs, but it would enable them to concentrate their resources in preaching the gospel, and it would have authority to ordain evangelists and settle disputes within a local church” [Humble, Story , p.38- 39]. Along with these articles, Campbell included the following short article “On Co-operation” which gives the gist of his thinking:
“Great need of a more rational and scriptural organization. 1. We can do comparatively but little in distributing the Bible abroad without co-operation. 2. We can do comparatively but little in the great missionary field of the world either at home or abroad without co-operation. 3. We can do little or nothing to improve and elevate the Christian ministry without co-operation. 4. We can do little to check the fraud committed upon the benevolence of the brethren by irresponsible, plausible, and deceptious persons, without co-operation. 5. We cannot concentrate the action of the tens of thousands of Israel, in any great Christian effort, but by co-operation. We can have no thorough co- operation without a more ample, extensive, and thorough church organization. These five points are enough for one lesson.” [Millennial Harbinger , Vol.6, No. 11, Nov., 1842] It is important to understand the difference between the organization that Campbell now proposed as compared to the cooperative effort between churches he earlier supported. The cooperation of churches did not require a separate organization with its own officers, staff, etc. But the proposed ‘general organization’ would be a separate organization from any local church and have its own officers who would have the authority as to how to spend the money given to them by the local churches. This type of organization was exactly what Campbell had criticized in the 1820s.
Walter Scott, although an old friend of Campbell’s, was strongly opposed to Campbell’s plan for a “general organization”, believing instead that the church was already organized. Apparently, most of the brotherhood agreed with Scott at the time and no action was taken. However, in 1845, the first brotherhood organization, the American Christian Bible Society, was formed in Cincinnati with D.S. Burnet as president (Burnet had earlier opposed churches even cooperating with one another). Campbell was opposed to this society, not because he was against the principle, but supposedly because (1) the Baptists already had a Bible Society through which individual Christians could act, and (2) the society was formed by only a limited number of churches and therefore was not representative of the entire brotherhood. Others suggested that Campbell’s opposition was simply because he was not a prime mover behind the
4-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren society. In addition to the Bible society, a Tract Society was also formed at this time. Both were dissolved in 1856.
In 1849, Campbell again pushed for a “general organization” by calling upon brethren to decide how it should be formed, who should attend, etc. After discussion in the various papers of that day, it was decided that a general convention would be held in Cincinnati on October 23, 1849 in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Christian Bible Society. Ten states were represented and 156 in attendance. Campbell was absent, due to illness (or so he claimed), but was nonetheless elected president of the newly formed American Christian Missionary Society (ACMS) and continued to serve in that capacity until his death in 1866. The convention also called upon the churches to give support to the American Christian Bible Society, which remained a separate organization.
Opposition to the ACMS was immediate. Jacob Creath, Jr. charged that Campbell had changed his teaching from his early years. Various churches publicly objected to the missionary society saying that the church is the only missionary society authorized by Christ. Tolbert Fanning, generally considered the most influential preacher in the South in the 1850s and 60s, was elected vice-president of the society, but soon became convinced of its unscripturalness. In 1855, he started the Gospel Advocate with the express purpose of examining the issues of church organization and cooperation. Interestingly, Fanning attended the annual meeting of the ACMS in 1859 to voice his opposition. However, he concluded by saying, “But I am happy to say, that from what I heard on this floor, we are one people. With us all there is one faith, one God, one body, and one spirit.” Apparently, no division was imminent over this issue.
However, it was the side effects of the Civil War that solidified the opposition to the ACMS. Prior to the war, abolitionists formed the Christian Missionary Society to protest the ACMS selecting a slave owner, Dr. James Barclay, as its first missionary to Jerusalem. And at its first annual meeting during the Civil War, the ACMS adopted a resolution (supported by James A. Garfield) calling on “brethren everywhere to do all in their power to sustain the proper and constitutional authorities of the Union.” Fanning, a pacifist, took this as a call to arms. Others such as Benjamin Franklin (probably the most popular preacher in the North, editor of the American Christian Review , and also a pacifist), J.W.McGarvey, and Moses Lard were severely critical of the ACMS becoming politically involved. [Benjamin Franklin, after the war, began to oppose the ACMS on scriptural grounds, whereas McGarvey continued to give support to the society, and although Lard did not have scriptural objections to it, he thought it was a “dangerous institution”.] Again, in 1863, the ACMS passed even a stronger resolution in favor of the North. The ACMS passed these to assure that it had no disloyalty to the Union, but the effect was to alienate the churches in the South. For example, after the war was over, Fanning called for a general consultation meeting of Southern Christians which was held in Murfreesboro in June, 1866. This was objected to by Northern Christians such as Benjamin Franklin. This sectional division in the churches was only to become more pronounced, so that by the time the formal division between the “Churches of Christ” and the “Disciples of Christ/Christian Church” was acknowledged in 1906, the southern churches were primarily “Churches of Christ” and northern churches “Disciples of Christ/Christian Churches”.
The ACMS continued to have problems maintaining support. With Fanning’s and Lipscomb’s Gospel Advocate (suspended shortly after the war begun and restarted in 1866 with Lipscomb as co-editor) and Franklin’s American Christian Review opposing the ACMS, a group of Northern brethren (including Garfield) started the Christian Standard with Isaac Errett as editor. Errett
4-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren argued on behalf of the ACMS along with a northern perspective on issues involving the past war. Various modifications were made to the ACMS to make it more acceptable (even Franklin briefly supported it for a couple of years after the adoption of the “Louisville Plan”), but these simply crippled it in carrying out its primary purpose.
Among the “progressives”, the desire for societies continued. By 1906, in addition to the ACMS there also had been formed the Foreign Christian Missionary Society, the Christian Women’s Board of Missions, the National Benevolent Association, Board of Ministerial Relief, the Board of Extension, and the National Temperance Board.
Comments / Questions 1. There is basically only one positive argument that was given in support of a missionary society. “Alexander Campbell had argued that God had given to the church the responsibility of saving souls, but to what church – the church in the local sense or the universal church? His answer: the church universal had been given the obligation of preaching the gospel to save souls…but he did not tell the church the ways and means of preaching the gospel; therefore, it was left free to devise any kind of scheme in order to accomplish this work.” [Earl West, “Learning a Lesson from History (II)”, Gospel Guardian , Vol.13, No.6, June 8, 1961, p.2 (reprint of 1950 articles)] Thus, it is on the grounds of expediency that the supporters of the missionary society claimed the right for its existence. What do you think of this argument? What are its strengths and weaknesses?
2. The thrust of this argument was to get around the need for finding specific scriptural authorization. “You say, ‘Your Missionary Society is not scriptural’ – and you mean by this, that there is no special express precept in the Scriptures commanding it. We concede this without a moment’s hesitation. There is none; but what do you make of it? Is everything which is not scriptural therefore wrong?” [W.K. Pendleton, Millennial Harbinger , November, 1866] Answer Pendleton’s question (Pendleton was Campbell’s son-in-law): Is everything which is not scriptural therefore wrong? (Be careful; give this a lot of thought)
What does Pendleton’s argument do to Thomas Campbell’s plea: “We speak were the Bible speaks, we are silent where the Bible is silent.”?
4-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
3. If the use of missionary societies were expedient (i.e. optional, but acceptable), on what practical basis do you suppose its supporters argued for its use?
4. As we have seen, the restorer’s main goal was to unite all Christians by appealing to Scripture alone. So, how can one justify dividing the church over an expedient?
5. How would you argue against missionary societies?
6. Some have argued against the formation of private organizations (e.g. the Cogdill Foundation) to carry out the work of evangelism on the same basis as they would argue against missionary societies. Can individuals jointly work to evangelize outside the church?
7. If churches cannot cooperate by means of a missionary society, then are there any legitimate means by which churches can cooperate in evangelism? (This question will resurface when we discuss the sponsoring church arrangement.)
4-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 5 Instrumental Music / Pastor Rule
Introduction The major doctrinal issues at the forefront of the division between the churches of Christ and the Christian Church were (1) the missionary society, (2) the use of instrumental music in worship, and (3) the implementation of the one-man pastor rule concept. Although opposition to all three was quite vocal, the introduction of instrumental music in worship probably was the primary act that openly fractured the churches.
Instrumental Music
“Church historians agree that the first recorded example of a musical instrument in Christian worship was an organ introduced in about 670 in a Roman Catholic Church in Rome by Pope Vitalianus” [Price, Old Light , p.83]. John Price, a Reformed Baptist pastor, gives an excellent history of musical instruments in Christian worship. He notes that all the early Reformers (Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, etc., except Luther) opposed the use of instruments in worship and that it was not used in Protestant churches until the mid-1770s, usually with opposition.
The first Disciples’ congregation to introduce the instrument into the worship was in Midway, Kentucky in 1859 or 1860 where L.L. Pinkerton preached. [However, the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement says that the Sixth Street Church in Cincinnati where D.S. Burnet preached began using instruments in 1855 (p.414).] A melodeon was first brought into Saturday night gatherings designed to improve the singing with the intent of just helping to set the pitch. Soon it was used in conjunction with the singing, and then moved into the worship on Sunday.
Prior to this, little discussion about the use of instrumental music had taken place among the brethren. The question was briefly discussed in the early 1850s. Questioned about its use, Alexander Campbell commented on the instrument as follows: “And that all persons who have no spiritual discernment, taste, or relish for their spiritual meditations, consolations and sympathies of renewed hears, should call for such an aid, is but natural…. But I presume, to all spiritually- minded Christians, such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert” ( Millennial Harbinger , Sept. 1851).
Limited controversy was stirred over the instrument until the close of the Civil War. By that time, most of the first generation of reformers had died or were near death (Campbell died in 1866). Thus, the discussions were held between the second generation of restorers. Most of the major figures were against it: Franklin, McGarvey, Lard, Grubbs, Pendleton (Campbell’s son-in- law). Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb were also against the instrument, but did not need to say as much about it in the Gospel Advocate because its use was rare in southern churches. Even as late as 1890, no more than five churches in Tennessee had adopted the instrument [Hughes, Reviving , p.87]. Others such as Isaac Errett (editor of the Christian Standard ) did not believe the instrument was wrong, but opposed its introduction because of the tension and strife it introduced in the brotherhood. Nonetheless, as time progressed, more and more congregations (particularly larger urban churches) introduced the instrument which usually resulted in those opposing the instrument being compelled to leave to form new congregations.
Interestingly, several men, such as McGarvey and Lard, opposed the instrument, but accepted the missionary society. This moderate position died with these men, so that ultimately the instrument and the society were either both accepted or both rejected.
5-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Comments / Questions
1. Initially, the instrument was simply justified on the basis that it was an aid to the singing, in much the same way as pitch pipes, song books, etc. Anything wrong with this argument?
2. Some argued that Christians could use the instrument in their worship since it was used by the Israelites in their worship or that they are used by the angels in heaven. What say you?
3. The primary argument was that the Greek word psallo translated “ sing ” in Romans 15:9; 1 Corinthians 14:15; and James 5:13 and translated “ making melody ” in Ephesians 5:19 originally meant to “to strike the strings of an instrument, play an instrument”. Some in the late 1800’s carried this to its logical conclusion and said that the use of instruments was not just optional, but required. However, New Testament lexicons say that in the New Testament the word simply means ‘to sing’. If an instrument is implied as perhaps in Ephesians 5:19, what is the instrument?
4. All of these specific arguments are subsidiary to the larger question of what is the appropriate hermeneutic: is the silence of the Scriptures permissive or restrictive? Hughes describes the two resulting traditions as ecumenical progressivism and sectarian primitivism (Reviving , p. 48).
5. Most of the attention has been upon whether the instrument could be used in the worship of the church. Differences still exist among brethren as to whether an instrument can be used by individuals in their homes in worship to God. Any thoughts?
Pastor Rule
In the early years of the restoration, most preachers provided for their livelihood through secular work, usually farming. This was the case, in part, because many of the restoration churches were in poor rural areas and there was universal opposition to the clergy system as practiced by Catholicism and the denominations. Alexander Campbell was so strongly opposed to the concept of a clergy that he did not think it right to pay a man to work with a church although he could be supported while preaching to the lost. This mindset was fairly universal for quite some time among Christians. Even as late as 1862, J.W. McGarvey noted that he was aware of only seven congregations in the state of Kentucky that were supporting preachers to work in their midst.
Gradually, more congregations supported preachers, but, in addition, other innovations were introduced. First, there was the desire to secure the services of an “educated” preacher. By default, this generally necessitated that the man be relatively young since many of the frontier preachers were not highly educated (of course, there were exceptions). Second, the concept of “evangelistic oversight” was introduced in the case where a congregation did not have elders. After all, it was thought, who would be better qualified than the preacher to see to the affairs of the church? This evolved into the idea of joint oversight of the evangelist and the pastors (elders), and then ultimately into the practice of the one-man pastor (evangelist) rule. This practice became pervasive among the churches that supported the missionary societies and used the instruments. The churches had gone full circle from opposing the clergy to fully instituting a
5-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren clergy system. Perhaps best symbolizing this transition is reflected in Isaac Everett adopting the title ‘Reverend’ and speaking of the churches of Christ as a denomination [Boring, p.121].
After the formal division in the early 1900s, Ed Harrell commented that there were only six or seven fully supported preachers among the churches of Christ.
Comments / Questions
6. Thus, several issues were intertwined with the development of the one-man pastor rule. Answer each of the following by citing Biblical precepts or examples.
a. Can a preacher be paid for his work as an evangelist?
b. Can a preacher work for a congregation for an extended period of time?
c. Does an evangelist have the right to “pastor” the congregation along with the elders?
7. Is there a danger that evangelists will:
1) Be treated like clergy by the brethren?
2) Considered themselves a “pastor” over the congregation?
How can this be avoided?
8. Is the located, paid evangelist necessary in order to convert the lost and to strengthen the congregation?
The Root Cause of the Churches of Christ/Christian Church Division
It is easy to think that the divisions were the result of intellectual differences. That is, each side simply interpreted Scripture differently. Yes, they did, but Ed Harrell has long argued that the division between the churches of Christ and the Christian Church were over reasons more fundamental than the doctrinal differences between them.
“As it happened, the first innovations injected by the liberals in the movement were instrumental music and organized societies. But they were only the first, many others followed; many others were bound to follow. Instrumental music and organized societies were in essence the accidental basis of the doctrinal division in the movement. They certainly were not the cause of the schism. The cause was that the church had grown to include incompatible kinds of people.” [ Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination , Section IV]
Harrell argues that people of wealth, living in urban areas, and desirous of status will want a sophisticated form of institutionalized Christianity. On the other hand, people of limited means and unconcerned about standing in society are more willing to accept an other-worldly message with its de-emphasis on current needs.
5-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Who is to Blame for the Division?
Can blame be assigned to either side for the division over the missionary society or the instrument? Was the society or instrumental music mandated by Scripture? If optional, should they have been left out of the worship in the interest of unity?
Pastors
[Excerpted from John F. Rowe and G.W. Rice, eds., Biographical Sketch and Writings of Elder Benjamin Franklin , 4 th Ed. G.W.Rice, 1881. p.33-35]
The American Christian Review was started about the time two parties sprung up in the Reformation, who were known respectively as the advocates of "Liberalism" and "Conservatism." In regard to this condition of things, Joseph Franklin, in the biography of his father (pp. 273, 4), pertinently puts it thus:
“In the present contest between ‘liberalism’ and 'conservatism’ there has been a tendency to extremes always. When the Disciples fell into disagreement on the subject of the ministry, this tendency was constantly manifested. Liberalists, (or ‘progressives,' as they were generally called,) held that ‘the spirit of the age’ demanded a more cultivated ministry. But this ‘culture’ did not refer so much to the knowledge of the Bible and of human nature, which were the great essentials of success in the ministry, as to the knowledge of letters. It often happened that, in their anxiety for literary culture, the more important parts of the minister's training were not noted with sufficient care. Older preachers, who by years of success in the ministry had demonstrated their ability, were elbowed to make room for young men of whom nothing was known but that they had more literary and social polish. Young ministers were often flattered and caressed until their heads were turned with self- conceit and they could never thereafter be profited by their experiences. This extreme brought the ‘progressives’ into contempt as a worldly-minded class of people, who were indifferent to soundness in the faith. “The conservatives, on the other hand, (often sneeringly called ‘old fogies,’) sometimes made such a defense of the uneducated ministers as implied an entire indifference to the matter of literary culture. They seemed, at times, to fear the soundness in the faith of any man, and especially young men, who was above the average in literary culture. It is safe to say that neither party fairly represented the other, and yet, that each gave the other some ground for the misrepresentation. And it is true, also, as before stated in these papers, that the line of separation between the parties was never very clearly marked. Local surroundings and prejudices modified the contest in most of the churches.” About the period of 1856, the “pastorate” began to be discussed. This meant, by its special advocates, that “educated pastors” must take the oversight of the churches. A “peace” having been “conquered,” the churches were all to be reconstructed. There had been “too much war,” said the advocates of the “pastorate,” and the time for “developing the resources of the churches had come.” The advocacy of this peace measure had the effect of curtailing the work of the evangelist. The mind of the brotherhood had been diverted from the evangelical field—which has ever been the forte of the Disciples of Christ—by the cry for an “educated ministry” and “settled pastors." The old pioneer evangelists at once took the alarm; for they saw in the new movement the portending fact that they must take a secondary position. Seeing so great a demand for an “educated ministry,” there came a strife among the colleges as to which should secure the most accomplished teachers, and as to which should provide the largest number of educated pastors for the churches. Colleges sprung up in every direction; teachers, by scores, rushed to the colleges; in a short time
5-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
hundreds of pastors, without age or experience, and some without any previous religious education, were seen rushing (with diploma in hand) for the most inviting churches, the majority of which had been built up by the now slighted evangelists. Benjamin Franklin was the last man to oppose the edification of the churches, or to lay an embargo on the development of their resources, or in any way undertake to suppress their life and growth; but he ever maintained that the efficiency and government of the individual churches belongs to the Scriptural eldership, and not to “the pastor,” an officer raised above the elder, and unknown in the New Testament. Franklin early foresaw that the introduction of an officer unknown in the Word of God would foment agitation, if indeed it would not cause an open rupture. Alarmed at the direction things were taking, he thus, in the February number of the Review for 1856, spoke:
“If we are not sadly mistaken, here is where the attention of the brotherhood needs directing now It is no matter how many schemes the brethren engage in, nor how good their object, if they neglect evangelizing, the cause will fail. In every city, town, village and neighborhood where evangelical labors are not enjoyed, the cause is languishing and suffering. The attention of the evangelists has been divided and distracted by unavailing and useless schemes, to the neglect of the great evangelical work. Schemes of organization have been commented on, until the brethren have become sickened, and they turn from the subject at the first sight of the caption of an article treating on it, feeling conscious that it will not afford relief. Long theories upon officers and their qualification, and fine descriptions of the details of the pastorate appear in the prints; but the churches fall soundly asleep under their fine theories. If we intend to save the cause, we, as evangelists of Christ, have something more to do than to seek good places and earthly comfort. The Lord did not intend evangelists to open an office, and sit down in it and wait for sinners to come to them to be converted. But he intended the living preacher to go to sinners, and with the living voice preach the word of the living God. The command is to go, go, and keep going , while God shall give us life; go, believing in God, with a strong faith—trusting in the Lord for a support now, and eternal glory in the world to come.
“A little preaching on the Lord's day will not do the work. The Word should be preached every day and every night as far as possible. We cannot confine our labors to cities, towns and villages, expecting preaching to be brought to us, as work to a tailor, hatter, or shoemaker; but we must go out into the country among the people, and be one of them, as messengers sent from God to take them to heaven. We are not to confine ourselves to the fine meeting-houses; but when we can do no better, go to the court-house, the town or city hall, the old seminary, the school-house, or the private dwelling, and preach to the people. We must not wait for the large assembly, but preach to the few, the small, humble and unpromising congregations. We must not merely pretend to preach, while we are only complaining of them and telling how bad they are, whining over them and murmuring, showing contempt for them and for all their arrangements, but preach to them in the name of the Lord, remembering that in every form we see there is a living spirit, upon which Jesus looked when he died, and which is worth more than the great globe on which he walks. No matter how lowly, how humble, how poor and uncomely all their temporal arrangements, you will find on acquaintance some who will love the Lord, turn from their sins, and become jewels in the Lord’s, and also in the preacher’s, crown of rejoicing.”
We have thus quoted at length to show how, by such simple words of teaching, and by always keeping himself on a level with the humblest capacity, he not only inculcated Scriptural doctrine, but how he won the affections of the “common people,” and held their confidence to the end, while at the same time he commanded the respect of leading minds.
5-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 6 Bible Classes / One Cup / Located Preacher
Introduction Following the schism between churches of Christ and the Christian Church, other issues arose among churches of Christ. The initial challenges came from the right. The contention centered on the “silence” of the Scriptures and the role of examples in determining authority.
Bible Classes
Issues: (1) Can the church divide into multiple classes for Biblical instruction? (2) Can women teach in any of these classes?
In the background of this issue stood the question of the Sunday School organization. Even before the Restoration Movement, denominations formed independently organized Sunday School societies whose purpose was to educate the children. Thus, resistance was given to these extracongregational organizations by many of the restorers on the same basis as they resisted the missionary society. Even though those within the churches of Christ after the split with the Christian Church did not form separate Sunday School organizations, some brethren resisted having classes formed and directed by the elders of the local congregation. This issue was hotly debated, especially in Texas, and resulted in several hundred non-Bible-class congregations separately themselves in the 1920s [Foster, “Educational Ministry,” Encyclopedia of Stone- Campbell Movement , p.296]. (Incidentally, I remember those of my parents’ generation not being comfortable with the term “Sunday school” and would only use the term “Bible class”.)
The non-class brethren argue that the New Testament teaches that we are to “come together” into a common assembly for worship. Appeal is made to Acts 14:27; 15:30; 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:20, 33; 14:23; Hebrews 10:25. It is believed that these passages only authorize a “common assembly”, therefore, on the basis of the silence of the Scriptures, it is understood by these brethren that all other modes of assembly are not authorized. In addition, it is argued that a women is not permitted to teach because (1) she is to be silent in the assembly (1 Cor 14:34-35) and (2) women are not permitted to teach in public (1 Tim 2:12).
Comments / Questions
1. Consider the seven passages above that allude to a common assembly. For what reasons did brethren assemble in these passages, and do these reasons necessitate that there be a common assembly?
However, can there be other reasons to assemble which don’t necessitate a common assembly? If yes, why would such assemblies not violate the silence of the Scriptures?
2. The non-class brethren acknowledged that a woman can teach in private (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3-4; 2 Tim 1:5; 3:15). However, they understand 1 Timothy 2:12 to exclude all public teaching, even the teaching of children. Study 1 Timothy 2:12. What do you think is excluded by this passage? Be as specific as possible.
6-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
One Cup
Issue: Can individual cups be used in the observance of the Lord’s Supper?
The one-cup brethren argue that during his final Passover meal that Jesus and his disciples only used one cup. They draw this conclusion from Matthew’s account (26:27-28): And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, they feel compelled by his example to use only a single cup today.
By extension, one-cup brethren will argue that the early church used only one cup. It is doubtful that this can be established, but it is true that in recent history the practice of using individual cups arose after the discovery of bacteria. For example, J.W. McGarvey protested:
“I have been a member of the church for 43 yrs, and it has been my good fortune to be acquainted with several of our most learned and influential ministers, Alexander Campbell among them, and it seems strange to me that they did not find a necessity for the individual cups. It is not at all strange; for such a necessity has not even yet been discovered. The desire for it has originated in the squeamishness of certain women with weak stomachs, and it is supported by the new fad among physicians about BACTERIA, those little bugs which hang on the lips of people, and stick to the communion cup, then cling to the lips of the next participant, and thence descend into the stomach of the latter, seize upon his vital organs, and eat away on them till some fatal disease ensues.” [Christian Standard , Feb. 26, 1910]
Some brethren, such as David Lipscomb, initially opposed this “innovation”, but afterward endorsed it. However, although individual cups were not used in churches of Christ until the early 1900s, it was not uncommon for two or more cups to be used as a practical matter (see further the Excursus on the One Cup in History at the end of this lesson).
The one-cup brethren further argue that the use of one cup has spiritual significance. The relevant passages are Matthew 26:27-28//Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20//1 Corinthians 11:25. Note the difference between the account given in Matthew and Mark with that given in Luke and 1 Corinthians. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus says: “This is my blood of the new covenant.” The object of “this” is not explicitly identified, but it is reasonable to assume that “this” = “fruit of the vine”. In Luke and 1 Corinthians, it reads “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” . Note that the “cup” is identified with the “new covenant”. One-cup brethren therefore contend that the cup has significance all to its own (e.g. since there is only one new covenant, there should only be one cup) and, thus, the Lord intended that we should use just one cup.
Most one-cup groups (86% of congregations, Royster) also argue that the loaf (bread) has significance and that there should only be one loaf (see Mat 26:26; 1 Cor 10:17).
Of interest, some congregations within both the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church/Churches of Christ have recently returned to “using one cup through instinction, a practice … in which the worshippers dip their portions of bread in the common cup” [Blowers, “The Lord’s Supper,” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement , p.491].
6-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Comments / Questions
3. Even if Jesus and the disciples used a single cup, are the one-cup brethren correct to insist on us only using one cup today?
The larger question is: To what extent should we duplicate the precise action of the night Jesus instituted the Supper during the Jewish Passover? Upper room? Order of taking the elements? The use of one loaf? The use of unleavened bread? The giving of thanks prior to breaking the loaf? The observance of the Supper on a Thursday, etc.
The use of unleavened bread is probably the most interesting for the purposes of our discussion. Nowhere in the Biblical accounts is the adjective “unleavened” given, only the generic word “bread” is used. [Similarly, the generic “fruit of the vine” is used, not the specific “grape juice”.] Unleavened bread is used since Jesus instituted the Supper during the Passover and we know that no leaven was permitted during the Passover feast. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses leavened bread.
Similar thinking has led to a division between one-cup brethren as to whether “unfermented” fruit of the vine or “fermented” fruit of the vine (= wine) should be used. Those contending for wine (about 5% of congregations, Royster) argue that only juice that has fermented is free of leaven. Of course, the opposing brethren deny this.
4. But does Matthew 26:27-28 (and Mark 14:24) demand the understanding that only one cup was used? [There are good reasons to believe that the Passover practices we read in the Jewish rabbinic literature accurately portrays the first century practice. If so, the Jewish practice would have been for each participant to have their own cup.]
5. The usual argument against the one-cup idea is that the “cup” is used figuratively to stand for its contents. Is there anything within the verses given above which would indicate a figurative use?
6. Of course, the point of the one-cup argument given above is to destroy this figurative identification of the cup with its contents. That is why the differences in the accounts are highlighted to show that the “fruit of the vine” = “my blood” and “cup” = “new covenant”. But are these differences over emphasized? Can they be reconciled as saying the same thing?
6-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Located Preacher
Issue: Can a preacher primarily work with one congregation for an extended period of time?
An essential component of the pastor system, which system was rejected by brethren within the churches of Christ, was the practice of having a located preacher. Probably most objected to the pastor system because of the authority that the preacher unscripturally assumed or was given. Nonetheless, some brethren, such as Daniel Sommer (1850-1940), were opposed to the practice of having a located preacher by itself. They prefer that brethren be “mutually edified” with different brethren doing the teaching. Sommer recanted some of his views on this issue prior to his death, but his son, D. Austin Sommer, W. Carl Ketcherside, and Leroy Garrett continued to press the issue into the 1950s resulting in a number of “mutual edification” churches.
Both Ketcherside and Garrett are good examples of those who ride the pendulum from one extreme to the other. In his early years, Ketcherside also opposed Christian colleges. In the late 1950s, he widen his view of fellowship to include even those in the Christian Church. By the 1970s, he no longer believed baptism was necessary. By the time of his death in 1989, his fellowship essentially included any who professed devotion to Christ irrespective of their particular doctrinal beliefs. Similarly, Garrett began to broaden his fellowship during the 1950s while studying for his doctorate in philosophy at Harvard. In Hughes judgment, Ketcherside and Garrett were the early voices that led to the progressive movement in the mainstream Churches of Christ [ Reviving , p.313].
Comments / Questions
7. What are some good reasons to have a “located preacher”?
8. What are some bad reasons to have a “located preacher”?
9. What are some good reasons to not have a “located preacher”?
6-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
One Cup in History
The Roman Catholic Church has always used one cup in the observance of the Eucharist. Starting in the 12 th century, only bread was offered to the Catholic worshipper; the wine was drunk only by the priest. This practice was fixed in 1414 at the Council of Constance when it was forbidden that Catholic worshippers drink the wine. Now (since Vatican II in 1965 as best as I can tell) both the bread and the wine are offered to the worshipper, although the worshipper can refuse, especially for health reasons, to take the wine. The same practice is common in Anglican churches. Alternatively, Roman Catholics and many Protestant groups permit instinction – the practice of dipping the bread into the single cup.
Protestant denominations also followed the Catholic practices of using one cup until the 1890s. Although, if the congregation was large, some might have used two or more cups in the interest of time. But by the late 19 th century, concerns over disease transmission gave rise to the use of individual communion cups. The first use of individual cups by various denominations is as follows [Wed, “Who First Adopted Individual Cups”, 2011]:
Scovill Ave. Methodist Episcopal, Cleveland, Ohio December 6, 1891 Vaughnsville Congregational, Vaughnsville, Ohio 1893 North Baptist, Rochester, New York May 6, 1894 Central Presbyterian, Rochester, New York May 13, 1894
With respect to the question as to when individual cups first were used in churches of Christ, Ronny Wade, a member of the one-cup fellowship, wrote:
“Brother C. E. Holt of Florence, Al. may well have been the first non-instrument preacher to come out in favor of individual cups. His article in the June 11, 1911 Gospel Advocate claimed that the use of individual cups was probably much cleaner and more sanitary than several people drinking from the same cup. David Lipscomb, then editor of the paper, was not so easily convinced. In fact he steadfastly opposed the use of the individual communion cup, for a rather lengthy period of time. It was only after a visit from G. C. Brewer that Lipscomb began to weaken somewhat and say that he was about to reach the conclusion that the cups were in no way a violation of scripture teaching. Soon after this Brewer introduced the individual cups into the Central Church of Christ in Chattanooga, Tn. A short time later Lipscomb wrote in the Advocate [January 7, 1915, cb] that he no longer felt that individual cups were a violation of new testament teaching. From this point forward churches began adopting them throughout the country.” [ Old Paths Advocate , July 1, 1991]
However, Wade acknowledges that even during the time of Alexander Campbell that two or more cups were often used to accommodate the size of the gathering or to accommodate the practice of having one cup for the men and one for the women.
Interestingly, some Primitive Baptist churches still use one cup (and they do not have separate Bible classes for children – both for the same reason as the non-class, one-cup brethren).
6-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 7 Colleges
Introduction From the earliest days of the restoration, Christians have formed schools to educate their young people. Consequently, two questions have arisen: (1) Can a private, non- church related school teach the Bible? and (2) Can churches support schools that teach the Bible?
Historical Background
High rates of illiteracy were common on the frontier in the early period of the Restoration Movement. States had not yet universally agreed to provide public education for all its citizens, so most schools were private, often started by one man. At times, the most educated men in a community were ministers so they often started academies (usually primary and secondary education).
The first institution of higher learning within the Restoration Movement was Bacon College (named after Francis Bacon). It opened in 1836 with Walter Scott as president and was initially located at Georgetown, Kentucky. In 1840 it moved to Harrodsburg, closed in 1850, but reopened in 1857 as Kentucky University. Transylvania University (the oldest university west of the Alleghenies and previously controlled successively by Presbyterians, Unitarians, and Methodists [http://www.transy.edu/about/history.htm , retrieved 4/21/2015]) and Kentucky University merged in 1865 and the College of the Bible was one of the colleges formed by this merger. The College of the Bible in essence became the first theological school among the Disciples. Robert Milligan was its first president, but it was J.W. McGarvey who was the backbone of the college for nearly 50 years (1865-1911). Upon McGarvey’s death, it quickly succumbed to modernism. Still affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), it is now called the Lexington Theological Seminary. Transylvania University remains as a separate institution also affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
Alexander Campbell formed and financed Bethany College (Bethany, West Va.) in 1840 (first class of 100 began in November, 1841). Campbell envisioned the Bible as being the centerpiece of liberal arts education. “The college was unique in that it was the first college to teach the Bible as a subject along with other studies” [McAllister, “Alexander Campbell,” Encyclopedia of Religion in the South , p.158]. (As an aside for the benefit of today’s students, students at Bethany took 20 classes a day, beginning at 6:30 am and concluding at 4:30 pm [Murch, p.146].) Moses Lard and J.W. McGarvey both graduated from Bethany. Bethany College continues to this day as a college affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Scores of other schools opened so that by the period immediately following the Civil War there were over 250 private- or church- owned colleges, seminaries, academies and institutes. Most of these schools were on the frontier and many ceased to exist after only a few years of service.
After the division with the Christian Church, schools continued to be formed by those in the churches of Christ. The major schools still existing that were formed in the latter 1800s and early 1900s are Lipscomb University (originally Nashville Bible College; 1891), Abilene Christian University (Texas; 1906), Harding University (1924; moved to Searcy, AR in 1934), Freed- Hardeman University (Henderson, TN; 1908), and Pepperdine University (Los Angeles; 1937).
Following World War II, there was a tremendous growth in all colleges as a result of the returning veterans seeking entrance. At least ten junior colleges, including Florida Christian
7-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
College (1944; changed to Florida College in 1963), opened by 1960. At this time, there are 24 degree-granting colleges (Webb, Search , Appendix 2) operated by members of the churches of Christ. In addition, there are numerous “schools of preaching” scattered throughout the country for the specific purpose of training preachers. Many, perhaps most, are the work of a local church.
Can Schools teach the Bible?
From the beginning, many were skeptical of colleges having a proper role in the teaching of the Bible. It appears that there were two opposite concerns: 1) whether the Bible can be taught solely as a secular subject (that is, without the intent to teach what is necessary to be saved), and 2) whether it was appropriate for colleges to train men for preaching.
With regard to the first concern, Alexander Campbell strongly believed that a college should be non-sectarian and that Bible “facts” ought to be taught that were commonly held by all Christian denominations. The Bible was used to provide an appropriate “moral” education. Of course, others thought schools should be enlisted to help promote the distinctive teachings of the Restoration Movement.
With regard to the second concern, some of the resistance can be attributed to the related concern among many Christians whether a man could be paid to preach regularly for a congregation. To these brethren, having colleges to train preachers was the first step to a professional clergy. For example, Tolbert Fanning, who started Franklin College (Franklin, TN) in 1845, commented:
“The church of God is the only authoritative theological school on earth; and it is the only one which Christians can consistently encourage…. We maintain the important learning is obtained in the Church, and if we are correct, each Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is a seminary for instructing the members in the various departments of labor they are to perform.” [Gospel Advocate , Vol. 2, 1856, p.299]
In a context of urging elders to bring out the talent in young men, Benjamin Franklin said:
“The church must furnish the preachers of Christ. No other institution will ever do it. We need not look to our colleges to make preachers. They will never do it. We need colleges as much as any of our brethren have ever thought; but not to make preachers, but to educate our young men who want to preach or do anything else.” [Book of Gems , p.476]
David Lipscomb observed:
“We think the most fatal mistake of Alexander’s Campbell’s life, and one that has done much and we fear will do much more to undo his life’s work, was the establishment of a school to train and educate young preachers. “We believe the whole principle of taking young men with undeveloped characters and unfixed habits and educating them for preachers, or any other specific work in the church, is hurtful to the extreme. It has a tendency to make merely professionals of them. They are educated for preachers. They often lose their first ardor and then think they are entitled to a living out of their profession and look to it more as means of a livelihood than of doing good.” [Gospel Advocate , Vol. 17, 1875, p.345-46]
Yet, David Lipscomb and J.A. Harding started Nashville Bible School in 1891. They consistently refused to have special classes for young men seeking to preach. Nonetheless, Daniel Sommer was less than enthusiastic about the formation of this school. He commented:
7-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
“There is a Bible school in Nashville, Tenn., which we presume is doing a good work, but if the brethren who have it in charge ever call it a college, and give the pupils a regular college course, and a diploma with titles, then we will predict that it will be an institution of mischief. Collegism among disciples led to preacherism, and preacherism led to organism and societyism, and these led to worldliness in the church.” [Quoted by West, Search , Vol. 2, p.385]
Some brethren, like Daniel Sommer, have objected to the mere teaching of the Bible in a secular school. They reason that the church is the only authorized institution to preach the gospel, thus, any other institution that preaches the gospel (i.e. teaches the Bible) is unauthorized on the basis of the silence of the scriptures. In essence, the Bible department of a college is the same as a “missionary society”. Even as late as the 1940s, Carl Ketcherside of St. Louis expressed disagreement with schools teaching the Bible.
Comments / Questions
1. So, what are your thoughts on whether a school can teach the Bible as a secular subject? Does it somehow neutralize the power of the Gospel?
2. On the other hand, what are the dangers of having Bible departments in secular colleges that give degrees in Biblical studies or related area?
3. Then there is the more general concern whether individuals can join together to create an organization to teach the Bible. Can only the church teach the Bible? If another organization teaches the Bible does this adversely reflect upon the all-sufficiency of the church?
4. After considering the above questions, consider these comments of Richard Hughes, a member of the mainstream (“institutional”) churches of Christ:
“The progressive movement in Churches of Christ could never have arisen apart from the institutions of higher learning that Churches of Christ established earlier in the century. It is ironic, but scarcely unprecedented, that these colleges should have helped to produce a movement that in many significant ways undermined their original aims and intentions….In order to offer graduate programs in religion, these colleges had to secure significant numbers of professors with doctoral degrees in biblical and related studies….This was the beginning of a virtual host of aspiring scholars from Churches of Christ who would take up doctoral-level studies at prestigious institutions of higher education throughout the United States and abroad, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Union Theological Seminary…” [Hughes, Reviving , p.310-312]
Of course, these schools were also the very ones steep in modernism. Is it any wonder that the graduates of these schools led the progressive movement in churches of Christ? Does this give any pause about the whole notion of studying the Bible in an university setting?
7-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Can Churches Support a College?
“G.C. Brewer…was perhaps the first influential leader among the Churches of Christ to encourage congregations to support colleges from the congregational treasury. He did so, first, in an important address at the Abilene Christian College lectureship in 1931 and again in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate in 1933. Significantly, none of these appeals raised much opposition. It is true that throughout the 1930s Foy Wallace and others questioned the growing power of colleges, but it was not until the late 1930s and the early 1940s that the college-in-the-budget question became a burning issue in its own right.” [Hughes, Reviving , p.231]
The need for financial support from congregations increased dramatically when the colleges were needing to build new facilities to accommodate the returning veterans after WWII. When this first became an issue, all the colleges published a statement to the effect that it was not their practice to solicit contributions from churches, some even said that they would not accept such contributions. However, as Brewer later argued with some evidence, most of these schools, including Bethany under Campbell and Nashville Bible School under Lipscomb, had accepted contributions from churches. [See Brewer, Contending , p.223f.] Whether Brewer was correct or not is now a moot point since all the colleges operated by members of churches of Christ now accept funds from churches, except Florida College. Arguments to justify the church support of colleges include (1) the church is dependent upon the colleges for providing preachers, elders, etc., and (2) the schools do a “good work” in the education of young people and providing a wholesome environment for them. The first argument is diametrically opposed to the views of most of the early restorers.
Other novel arguments were sometimes given; e.g. J.D. Thomas who argued that supporting colleges was an extension of the church’s obligation to care for orphans ( We Be Brethren , p.186ff). Batsell Baxter went so far to even ask
“Where is there any New Testament authority for a Christian to give to any good work in any way than as an individual through the church? … If you give the money through the church and in the name of Christ, the church gains respect and the name of Christ is glorified. If you give it without any relation to Christ and the church, you get the praise, and Christ and the church are left out.” [Quoted by Hooper, p.168]
Are arguments really necessary to counter such thinking?
Comments / Questions
5. Is the church-supported school parallel to a church-supported missionary society?
6. How would you address the arguments given for churches supporting colleges?
7. Robert Turner wrote a good history of schools in the Restoration Movement [Preceptor , Six Articles between April and October, 1962]. One central contention he voiced was that “any project or institution operated by or for the benefit of the church at large, “the brotherhood”, tends to denominationalize that brotherhood” [Preceptor , June, 1962]. His point is that a wrong concept of the church is encouraged whenever one thinks there exists a ‘brotherhood’ that needs to be maintained. Any thoughts?
7-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 8 Benevolent Institutions
Introduction Christians in the New Testament understood their obligations to all men in time of need. With regard to needy Christians, we read of instances where Christians within a congregation supported others in need that were part of the same congregation (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-5:11; 6:1-6). We also read of one congregation of Christians sending to another congregation that had widespread need (Acts 11:27-30; 24:17; 1 Cor 16; 2 Cor 8-9; Rom 15:25-27). We do not read of any churches supplying the needs of those outside the church. Nor do we read of churches giving money to another institution or organization for the purpose of supplying the needs of others.
Historical Background
Examples can be given in early restoration history of benevolent actions. Two widely publicized instances include the sending of relief to the British Isles due to severe famines in 1847 and 1848, and the sending of funds to churches in Kansas in 1860 due to a widespread crop failure. In each case, the funds were either sent directly through a local church or through a publishing office.
In the early years of the restoration, rejection of benevolent societies as a proper recipient of church support accompanied the general rejection of all other religious societies such as missionary societies. In it not insignificant that the first efforts at organized congregational cooperation in areas of benevolence were encouraged by leaders of wealthy urban congregations in Kentucky, such as David S. Burnet, John T. Johnson, Lewis L. Pinkerton, and John W. Parish.
Some brethren were unconvinced, however, that such benevolent actions were scriptural. For example, Tolbert Fanning said:
“Hence I state in conclusion, that I doubt the policy of establishing orphan schools to bring up unfortunate children without trades and professions, and still more on the ground, that these orphan schools, to my mind, are attempting to perform, in part, the labor which it is the imperious duty of each congregation to do.” [Gospel Advocate , Vol. II, October 1856, quoted by Harrell, Quest , p. 78]
The first orphan home built by the Disciples was the Christian Widow’s and Orphan’s Home in Louisville (chartered in 1872, operational in 1883). Six years later another opened in St. Louis.
After the division with the Christian Church, Daniel H. King summarized the opening of orphan homes among churches of Christ as follows:
“Among members of Churches of Christ the Tennessee Orphan Home is the oldest. It was established in 1909…by the West Seventh St. church of Christ in Columbia, Tenn. It was formally opened on Sept. 5, 1910. Other homes date after it: Tipton, Tipton, Okla., 1922; Potter, Bowling Green, Ky., 1915 [1914, cb]; Boles, Quinlan, Tex., 1926; Sunny Glenn, San Benito, Tex., 1936; Southern Christian, Morrilton, Ark., 1926. In 1939 only 6 “homes” existed, but by 1959 there were 21 others. By 1960, 1500 children were being cared for in 27 locations in 12 states.” [“Institutional and Cooperational Controversy: An Historical Study”, Symposium ]
8-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Some early opposition to orphan homes did exist. For example, C.M. Pullias said, “…this way of a few getting together and saddling on the church of Christ orphan homes and schools or anything else is a very serious thing, and will in the course of time prove to be a curse to the church…” ( Tidings of Joy , July 1919). Nonetheless, Pullias, like most Christians in the early decades of 1900s, did not oppose the church supporting orphan homes. However, they generally sent relatively small amounts of money.
In 1947, N.B.Hardeman, desiring to increase the support given to colleges by the churches, linked the support of schools and orphan homes together thinking that since most brethren believed it appropriate to support orphan homes he could convince them to support colleges.
“I have always believed that a church has the right to contribute to a school or an orphanage if it so desired….The same principle that permits one must also permit the other. They must stand or fall together.” [Gospel Advocate , October 23, 1947, p.844]
But the result of his argument was unexpected.
“…Hardeman sought to force the issue by comparing congregational support of college to congregational support of orphans’ homes. The strategy backfired: he simply succeeded in making orphans’ homes the object of the same sort of dispute that already focused on the colleges.” [Hughes, Reviving , p.233]
Consequently, from that time on most of the discussions centered on the right of churches to support orphan homes, and to some extent, elderly homes. Unfortunately, the discussions were not always honest attempts to understand what the Bible teaches. Prejudicial attempts were made, and often succeeded, in depicting those against church support of orphan homes as being “anti” orphan. Of course, that was not the case.
As the discussion progressed, there arose another question as to whether benevolent acts of the church could only be directed toward “saints only”. All New Testament examples of church benevolence were directed toward saints in need (read Acts 2:41-45; 4:34; 6:1; 11:28-29). The application of this to the orphan home issue was rather straightforward. Most orphans do not come from Christian homes, thus to help such orphans with church funds would be to act without New Testament authority. (This sounds familiar to the argument that not all the students in the schools being supported by the churches were Christians.) This aspect was not, and is not, the central point of contention. However, it bolstered the contention that the “antis” were heartless.
Many congregations, to avoid supporting a separate organization, chartered the orphan homes under the oversight of the elders of a local church – a practice believed essential by some within the institutional camp such as Reuel Lemmons, editor of the Firm Foundation. This was acceptable to even many of the noninstitutional critics, but it still not address the question of whether the church could support all orphans, and it introduced another point of contention. If that local church could not provide the full support for the orphan home, could it accept funds from other churches? This issue will be addressed in the next lesson.
Many written and oral debates were held during this time. However, in the December 9, 1954 issue of the Gospel Advocate , the editor B.C. Goodpasture commended a plan that would mark and “quarantine” all preachers who opposed the church supporting institutions. This action led to preachers being fired, meetings cancelled, and a division within and between congregations.
8-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Interestingly, during the heat of the discussion, many claimed that orphan homes were even superior to private homes for the rearing of children. (See Grider, “Orphan Homes”, FC Lectures , 1982.) That such is clearly false is supported by the fact that even by the 1960s, orphan homes became less and less prominent in American society because of the widespread recognition that orphan homes are inadequate in providing the needs of children. The mainstream churches support very few orphan homes today, but do support a host of institutions.
As an example of the current level of support for orphan home, the 2014 Annual Report of Potter Children’s Home and Family Ministries says that 35% of their total income came from “Church Donations” ($705,676 of the total of $2,038,904) [http://www.potterministries.org/ uplimg/documents/2014%20Annual%20Report%20PDF.pdf].
In any case, orphan homes were clearly not needed for the church to provide for its orphans. Christians have always been ready and willing to take orphan children into their own homes and adopt them when possible. It is terribly unfortunate that this “non-issue” was used as a wedge to divide brethren.
Arguments for Church-Supported Benevolent Institutions
There were three primary arguments that were used by those in favor of church-supported benevolent institutions.
1) It was claimed that using institutions to obey the command to care for those in need was simply an expedient method. The Bible, it was argued, does not tell us how to care for the orphans, thus we are at liberty to select whatever method we choose.
Response : It is not a question of how , but who . Who has the oversight of the work? Do the elders of each local church who contribute to the orphan home decide which children would be helped, how much they would be helped, etc. or does the Board of the Orphan Homes make those decisions?
2) It was claimed that an institutional orphans’ home was simply a “restored home” with the institution acting in place of the parents ( en loco parentis ). The argument ran as follows: The church can help a home in need. If the parents in that “original” home were to die, the orphans’ home is simply a “restored home” that is in need and therefore worthy of church support. (This argument was commonly made by, and presumably originated with, Guy N. Woods in his debates.)
Response : The church does not help “homes”, but needy individuals.
3) It was argued that “whatever the Christian can do, the church can do”. Thus, if the Christian can support an institution, or if a Christian could support a non-saint, then the church could do either of these things.
Response : This clearly is a case of “what proves too much, proves nothing.” An individual could support the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, the Republican party, etc. Not many, if any, would agree that the church can support all these organizations.
8-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Comments / Questions
1. There are three passages to which appeal is made to support the contention that churches can support non-Christians. Study each of these passages. Are these instructions for the churches or individuals?
James 1:27
Galatians 6:10
2 Corinthians 9:13 (In the KJV of this passage, the last phrase reads “and all men ”; but the word “ men ” does not appear in the original Greek text. The ESV simply says “all others”. So the question is whether the ‘others’ are Christians or non-Christians.)
2. Those that argued “whatever a Christian can do, the church can do” would say that even if some or all these passages are directed to the individual, the church can nonetheless do the same. But seriously consider 1 Timothy 5:16 and its context. Does the individual have obligations that the church does not have?
3. How is the autonomy of a local church violated by the use and support of institutions? [Realize that in supporting a benevolent institution, the decision-making authority as to who is worthy of support, the type and amount of support, etc. is not the church’s, but the institution’s.]
4. To help understand that the point of contention was not simply whether one could “send money to an institution,” answer the following. Can a church purchase the services of an institution to help needy saints? For example, can it buy groceries to give to needy saints? Can it rent an apartment for needy saints? Can it build a house for needy saints?
If yes to the above, then what is the difference between doing these things and sending money to some organization to do the exact same things?
8-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
5. Why is it that the church (i.e., a collectivity of Christians) has an obligation to Christians and not to all those in the world? Consider the reason that Paul gives as to why the Gentile churches had an obligation to the needy saints in Jerusalem: Romans 15:25-27; 1 Corinthians 9:11.
6. Do each of us have obligations to help those in the world that are in need? (Better not answer “No” – remember the parable of the Good Samaritan.)
7. What, do you think, is attractive about simply sending money to an institution to care for the needy instead of either doing it (1) individually, or (2) directly by the church in the case of needy saints?
8. It is true that the questions as to whether a church can support a college or an orphan home do stand or fall together. But isn’t it also true that both stand or fall with the right of a congregation to support a missionary society? No church during these controversies would think it proper to support a missionary society (after all, that was a major reason for the split with the Christian Church). If a church can fulfill its obligation to the orphan by providing support to an independent institution, then why could it not do the same with its obligation to preach the gospel?
9. One older, well-known preacher among the noninstitutional brethren suggested in the 1980s, in an effort to restore the broken fellowship, that all the brethren could be united within the same congregations as long as the noninstitutional brethren were not forced to financially contribute to institutions such as colleges or orphan homes (of course, by this time, there were also elderly homes and recreational centers being constructed and maintained). Thus, he proposed a “box in the vestibule”, separate from the general collection, where those wanting to support these institutions could place their money. What do you think of that approach?
8-5 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 9 Sponsoring Churches
Introduction Reluctant to form an independent organization to carry out an extensive work, some churches took on the work themselves and asked other churches to assist by contributing funds to them. Thus, these churches became “sponsoring churches”. Again, the question was asked, “Where is the authority for such an arrangement?”
Historical Background
At the time missionary societies were debated, it was suggested by T.M. Henley in a letter to Alexander Campbell that an alternative way to carry out the same work would be for a group of churches to send funds to a single church that would then carry out the work by employing an evangelist (see Humble, Story , p.38). This arrangement was practiced on occasion, but it did not stop the ground swell in favor of a missionary society.
A similar arrangement was made in West Tennessee in 1910 when the church at Henderson (home of Freed-Hardeman College) accepted funds from neighboring churches to support a preacher to work in that area. David Lipscomb argued against this arrangement by making a comparison to the missionary society:
“Now what was that but the organization of a society in the elders of the church? The church elders in Henderson constitute a board to collect and pay out money and control the evangelist for the brethren of West Tennessee, and all the preachers are solicitors for this work.” [Gospel Advocate , March 24, 1910, p.364 quoted by Frost, Old Issues , p.27]
Following World War II, many returning servicemen became aware and sensitive to the world-wide need to preach the gospel. In the minds of many, the work was too big to accomplish by individual churches acting alone. Thus, the idea was conceived where one church would take on the task of evangelizing some foreign country and would solicit help from other congregations. In 1947, the Broadway church in Lubbock, Texas became the sponsoring church for the missionary work in Germany by sending Otis Gatewood there to preach. Likewise, The Union Avenue church in Memphis, Tennessee became the sponsoring church for the work in Japan, and the church in Brownfield, Texas took on the work of evangelizing Italy.
Such acts did not go unopposed. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., along with others drew a parallel with Roman Catholicism:
“History is repeating on ecclesiastical organization. It comes now in the form of the little church working through the big church – which is centralization. It amounts to little elders turning their responsibility of their work over to big elders – which is diocesan in principle. Thus hierarchal and ecclesiastical centralization is growing – elders over elders – bishops over bishops. Remember, the pope of Rome is just an overgrown metropolitan bishop. With one eldership of one church taking over the work of many elders of many churches, and with this centralized eldership overseeing workers by the dozens who are not even members of the church were elders are supposed to elder, what will be left to the local autonomous organization of the New Testament church.” [“The Issues Before Us”, Gospel Guardian , Vol.1, No.1, 1949, p.3, quoted by Hoyt Houchen, “Sponsoring Church Arrangements: Herald of Truth (A Test Case)”, FC Lectures , 1982.]
Wallace later changed his mind, like many brethren, and began supporting the arrangement he once opposed.
9-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Probably the sponsoring church arrangement that helped bring the division to a head was that involving the Herald of Truth. Two young preachers, James W. Nichols and James D. Williford, conceived of a national radio broadcast. Nichols had started preaching on the radio in 1947 in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In 1950, he was joined by Williford to link six stations together in a joint broadcast in Iowa and Wisconsin. They introduced their program with the announcement: “The churches of Christ salute you with a herald of truth”. Presented with the opportunity to broadcast on a national network, they first contacted the College Avenue church in Abilene to sponsor the program. When they declined, the Highland church in Abilene agreed to assume the oversight of this project and the national broadcast began in 1952 and expanded to television in 1954. Not able to financially support the cost of the program, the Highland church solicited and received funds from other churches. By 1954, over 1,000 churches sent support. This grew to over 2,700 churches by 1964 (about 1 in 10 churches). In 1968, the Christian Chronicle reported that the Highland church only contributes about 4 percent of money spent on the Herald of Truth [Don Hastings, “The ‘Herald of Truth’ is Unscriptural,” Truth Magazine , Vol. 16, Dec. 9, 1971, p.11-13].
Earl West, a historian of the Restoration Movement, lamented at the time (although he also later changed his teaching):
“So, a local congregation obligates itself to spend a half-a-million dollars in one year for a national radio broadcast, or a benevolent institution. Is anyone so naive to suppose that this is the work of a local church? A local congregation has obligated itself to become the agency through which the church universal can act.” [“Congregational Cooperation,” Gospel Guardian , Vol. 5, No. 17, Sept.3, 1953, p.265]
In the debates that later took place, the Highland church initially said that this broadcast was the work of all the churches contributing. When pressed that this meant that they were thus assuming the oversight for a multitude of churches, they then said that the work was their work alone. This, of course, presented problems to those congregations who sent funds to Highland, since they were then presented as turning their work over to another church. Either way, the arrangement was inconsistent with New Testament teaching. Organizationally, the Herald of Truth was an independent institution with its own officers, staff, facilities, and money.
Richard Hughes, a historian affiliated with the mainstream churches, argues that “the greater significance of the ‘Herald of Truth’ lies in the changes that occurred in the content of its preaching between 1952 and the 1970s” ( Reviving , p.240). He demonstrates that the distinctive teachings of the church became less prominent under Batsell Barrett Baxter (the primary Herald of Truth evangelist from 1960-81), and that teachings on “spiritual growth and peace of mind, how to develop healthy family relationships, and how to cope with anxiety and fear or with the various stages along life’s way” (p.241) became more frequent and dominating. These were themes common to many denominational, evangelical ministries. Consequently, the need for the Herald of Truth became less vital, so that today the Herald of Truth is less significant.
Other sponsoring church arrangements existed, particularly in the carrying out many evangelistic “campaigns”. In these efforts, a church would set about to put on the campaign, and would finance it by receiving funds from other churches. Attention was given in 1991 to the “One Nation Under God” campaign proposed and sponsored by the Sycamore church in Cookeville,
9-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Tennessee. That church sought contributions of individual Christians and churches to enable them to mail an evangelistic appeal to every household in the United States.
Arguments for the Sponsoring Church Arrangement
1. Like the support of orphan homes, a general argument was made that the sponsoring churches did a “good work” and therefore justified in seeking support of other churches.
2. It was argued that NT examples of one church sending to another church in benevolence would also sanction one church sending to another church in evangelism.
3. Since sponsoring churches are not able to completely support the work attempted, they are “needy” churches and therefore qualified to receive support from other churches.
Comments / Questions
1. Elders are to be shepherds, overseers, and teachers of the church. Who do they have the oversight of? (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet 5:1)
2. The New Testament teaches that men who labor in the preaching of the gospel should be financially supported (1 Cor 9:6-18; 1 Tim 5:17-18). Under what arrangement were men supported? (Phil 4:15-16; 2 Cor 11:8-9)
3. Similar to the orphans’ home, how does the sponsoring church arrangement destroy the autonomy of each church?
4. Those in favor of the sponsoring church arrangement have tried to embarrass their opponents by stating that those opposed to the direct support of one church by another would logically be opposed to sending old song books to another congregation, loaning chairs for use in a gospel meeting, etc. What do you think? Is giving away old song books, or loaning chairs, ok or not? And if so, is this parallel to the sponsoring church arrangement?
5. Whether the issue is missionary societies, colleges, orphan homes, or sponsoring churches, does it not seem that the driving force behind these is the desire to be “BIG”? Why is that attractive to many, and, on the other hand, so counter to New Testament Christianity?
9-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 10 Evolution of Mainstream Churches
Introduction In the introduction to the book containing the 1970 Freed-Hardeman lectures, Thomas Warren, the chairman of the Lecture Committee, wrote:
“During most of the fifties and the early sixties, God’s people were involved in controversy: (1) as to whether the Scriptures authorize one church to assist another church in the preaching of the gospel, and (2) as to whether a church has the right to render benevolent assistance to non-Christians. The negative position relative to such issues has been referred to ‘anti-ism.’ Apparently that issue has been discussed thoroughly and is no longer pertinent to more than a handful of people.” [ The Church Faces Liberalism , Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1970]
There are two things interesting about this statement. First, it is clearly propaganda (a nice word for a lie) in that it minimizes the extent of disagreement with the mainstream view of institutionalism and the sponsoring church arrangement – more than 100,000 Christians is surely more than a “handful”. Second, the theme of this lectureship was to warn, and to try and defeat, the increasing liberalism within the mainstream churches. A brief survey of the lectures given that year already shows that by 1970 the mainstream churches were fighting the beliefs that instrumental music was acceptable, that theistic evolution was correct, that one can have fellowship with denominationalists, that God’s revelation is unknowable, and so on.
While any group of people may have errant views held by some within the group, the fundamental problem faced by the mainstream churches was, in my view, that they had no sound Biblical basis on which to argue against the encroaching liberalism. Having jettisoned the hermeneutics which insisted on a “thus says the Lord”, they were unable to restrain all the new ideas being borrowed from denominationalism.
Consequently, by around 2000, another division within the mainstream churches had occurred. In the mid-1960s, Ed Harrell wrote a monograph entitled the Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination in which he argued that the mainstream churches were well on their way to denominational status. In the 1960s and 70s, those that were more progressive in their thinking simply left the churches of Christ to join other denominations. But by the late 1980s and 90s, these progressives found acceptance in some churches of Christ. That the Church of Christ denomination now exists, and is welcomed, among the more progressive element of the mainstream churches is not debatable and is one of the main theses in Richard Hughes’ Reviving the Ancient Faith .
The remainder of this lesson will chronicle the progressive doctrines and practices being adopted. Additional information can be found in an article by Steve Wolfgang (see the Appendix, p. A-14, -15).
The ‘Social Gospel’
The ‘social gospel’ movement was initially a late 19 th century and early 20 th century attempt to apply Christian ethics to social problems. Theologically, it was connected to post-millennialism in that it envisioned mankind progressively getting better. Thus, its message was directed toward the social needs of mankind. By elevating the physical needs of man to the same level, or even above, the spiritual needs of man, it sought to establish the kingdom of God on earth.
10-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Charles Sheldon’s In His Steps (1897) skillfully portrays the mindset of the movement. However, the experience of World War I seriously undermined its basic premise of mankind’s progressive improvement, so that only remnants of this movement can still be seen today.
It is certainly true that disciples of Jesus Christ must have love and compassion for all men, and the elimination of true social injustice is an appropriate work of Christians. Certainly, Christians above all should not be guilty of perpetuating social injustices. But it seems a fundamental misunderstanding to think that Jesus would have us more concerned about our physical needs than our spiritual needs. Nor is the church (as opposed to individuals) ever chartered in the New Testament with this task.
The debate over support of orphan homes was, in part, a debate over whether the goal of the social gospel is true. Acceptance of the social gospel concept resulted in other practices among mainstream Churches of Christ.
° In the 1947, M. Norvel Young at the Abilene Christian College lectureship called upon churches to build new buildings and to provide for a “large fellowship room” and “cooking facilities near this room” (Hughes, Reviving , p.247). This did not ‘catch on’ immediately, but by the late 1960s and early 70s many churches built such facilities.
° The providing of homes for elderly. Initially, for those who required medical care, but now simply as a retirement community.
° The providing of meals for sick and the elderly, e.g. ‘Meals on Wheels’.
° The providing of gymnasiums, team sports, summer camps, etc.
° The providing of classes, seminars, and services directed at the practical needs of members, e.g. financial and estate planning, job training, exercise sessions, etc.
Evangelistic Methods
° In the 1960s, a nationwide program called Campus Evangelism sought to evangelize the nation’s college campuses. Led by Jim Bevis and the Broadway church in Lubbock the movement began to teach and practice many things unacceptable to the majority of mainstream churches.
° The Crossroads Movement was an offshoot of Campus Evangelism, and the Boston Church of Christ sprung from the Crossroads Movement. The Boston Church of Christ founded churches in other major cities of the world which collectively is known as the International Churches of Christ with the headquarters in Boston. [Wikipedia, International Churches of Christ ]
Doctrinal Issues
° The role of the Holy Spirit was hotly debated in the 1960s culminating with Pat Boone “speaking in tongues.” In Nashville in the 1970s, Don Finto, the minister at Belmont Church of Christ and a professor at David Lipscomb, claimed to have been baptized in the
10-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Holy Spirit. Changing their name to simply the Belmont Church, the congregation followed Finto and quickly accepted instrumental music and other denominational features. [http://www.belmont.org/who-we-are/our-history/]
° The acceptance of modernism (denial of miracles, etc.) by some like those among the progressives in the Christian church at the turn of the century.
° The preaching of Unity-in-Diversity of Ketcherside and Garrett led to serious differences within the mainstream churches (and, to a lesser extent, in the non-institutional churches).
° The preaching of a “New Hermeneutic” (whose supporters seem more certain of what it is not then what it is) that supplanted the traditional understanding of scriptural authority had broad appeal.
° The preaching of a “core gospel” as the basis of fellowship is becoming widely accepted, which does not include baptism.
° There are the beginnings of participating in and accepting the goals of the ecumenical movement.
Worship
° The use of soloists, choir groups, and praise leaders is occurring (even women quartets).
° Some churches are practicing the observance of the Lord’s Supper at weekday services.
° Already, some are accepting the use of instrumental music. In an article chronicling the acceptance of instrumental music by the Otter Creek Church of Christ, The Tennessean (March 6, 2015) reported that there were 20 other churches of Christ using the instrument. Perhaps of relevant interest, the article notes that the average age of the members of Otter Creek was 27.
° The practice of having women teachers (of men) and, even women preachers, is becoming accepted. One website lists 64 churches of Christ in the United States that use women to varying degrees in the public worship [http://www.wherethe spiritleads.org/gender_inclusive_churches.htm]. Another site is dedicated to women ministers in the churches of Christ [“Women in Ministry Network”, http:// womeninministrycc.com/].
Conclusion
The mainstream churches seem to be subdivided into three groups: conservatives, moderates, and progressives. The conservatives still seek Biblical approval for their practices using the traditional hermeneutic for establishing authority. The progressives, and the moderates to some degree, do not feel restricted by Biblical teaching and are willing to accept all manner of new innovations.
10-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 11 Fellowship
Introduction Christians of every generation have had to be concerned about the question of fellowship. The early restorers did not always agree and the history of the Restoration Movement has been one of differences and breaks in fellowship. Yet, brethren have not divided over many differences. So… Who can I fellowship? Who can I not fellowship? What is the basis on which we are to decide questions of fellowship?
Fellowship with God
In the first instance, a Christian must seek to be in fellowship with God (sometimes called “vertical” fellowship). To do so, we must “walk in the light” (1 Jn 1:5-7) by living a life of faith and obedience to God. The New Testament passages that speak of a Christian “falling away” highlights the fact that fellowship with God is not automatic, nor necessarily permanent (Heb 6:4-6; 1 Jn 5:16). There must be constant attention given to how we conduct ourselves and the willingness to repent and confess our sins. God knows all who are in fellowship with him (2 Tim 2:19; 1 Cor 4:5).
Sin
Those who “walk in Those who “walk in light” are in fellowship darkness” are not in with God. fellowship with God.
Fellowship with Other Christians
Fellowship with other Christians (called “horizontal” fellowship) is based on fellowship with God. In truth, we are to have fellowship with, and have love for, all those who are in fellowship with God. If we do not love our brethren (those in fellowship with God), then we walk “in darkness” and do not have fellowship with God (1 Jn 2:9).
Thus, it is incumbent upon all Christians to make a judgment as to the correctness of another’s claim to be in fellowship with God. If we believe their claim, we must extend fellowship to them. If we do not believe their claim, then we are not to “receive” nor “greet him” lest we “shar(e) in (their) evil deeds” (2 Jn 10-11; Eph 5:11).
11-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Those in fellowship with Those in fellowship with God God should be in fellowship should not fellowship those with each other. not in fellowship with God.
Those in fellowship with God may make It is, of course, possible for people incorrect judgments as to who is in to fellowship each other, but fellowship with God. neither are in fellowship with God.
Comments / Questions
1. Will Christians always make the right judgment?
2. Will Christians be accountable for their judgments?
3. Are their situations where a Christian’s judgment is wrong, but where he may not be liable?
The Basis for Fellowship
Simply stated, we are to fellowship those who are faithful followers of the teachings of Christ. Thus, if we can rightly determine Christ’s teachings, then we can judge whether another if a faithful follower of that teaching. However, therein lies two possible problems: (1) Can we know, without doubt, Christ’s teaching on all matters, and (2) Can we judge whether another person is a follower of Christ’s teaching to the level God expects?
11-2 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
Comments / Questions
4. How would you answer those two questions? Give examples to illustrate your answer.
5. Is there a difference between being a “perfect” follower of God and a “faithful” follower of God? If so, what?
6. If one says that he cannot know for certain God’s will on some particular matter, can he still know God’s will with certainty on some other matter? Why the difference?
7. Reflect on the divisions within the Restoration Movement we have studied. Why did the questions concerning the missionary society, instrumental music, Bible class arrangements, institutionalism, etc. give rise to division?
8. List other questions brethren have disagreed on?
Why have these not resulted in division?
Should they have resulted in division? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Are brethren to look upon all other brethren with whom they disagree as “false teachers”? What is the criteria to be used in determining whether one is a “false teacher”?
11-3 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
9. One brother has said “We enjoy fellowship with any brother in Christ, even though he may differ with us, so long as the fellowship does not: (1) involve us in wrong practice, (2) commit us to unscriptural doctrine, or (3) constitute an endorsement of his error.” Do you agree with this statement?
The Nature of Fellowship
Fellowship, as used in the New Testament, means “a sharing, communion, joint participation”. Although one might argue that two Christians, unknown to each other, are in fellowship with each other simply on the basis of their sharing a common salvation in Christ, such a fellowship does not call for any action on the part of either Christian. Fellowship is used in Scriptures in a more practical sort of way. Thus, Christians are in fellowship with one another if they jointly participate in some common activity. For example, Paul regularly spoke of being in fellowship with those who directly supported him – they both participated in the sharing of the gospel.
Comments / Questions
10. Is fellowship an individual matter, a congregational matter, or both? (Consider the case of “withdrawing fellowship”.)
11. Can one church have fellowship with another church? How? (Give Bible example.)
12. What is our attitude to be toward other churches with whom we have no joint participation?
13. What is the benefit of each church being autonomous?
11-4 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
LESSON 12 Review
Review Questions
1. Who were the primary leaders that started the Restoration Movement in this country?
2. What is the “Restoration Plea”?
3. What were the two primary objectives of the early restorers?
4. What words are descriptive of the character and nature of the church?
5. What effect did the Civil War have on the churches in the north and south?
6. What were the issues in the division between the Christian Church and the churches of Christ?
7. Which issue was discussed first: the college or orphan homes?
8. What were the issues in the division within the churches of Christ in the 1950s and 60ss?
Lessons Learned
1. If the Restoration Plea is accepted and understood, then the history of the Restoration Movement becomes less significant.
2. Creeds are inherently divisive.
12-1 The Work of the Church: A Study of the Divisions Between Brethren
3. Three mindsets displayed within the history of the Restoration Movement:
1) Restore New Testament Christianity in all particulars. 2) Restore New Testament Christianity by limiting oneself to New Testament teachings. 3) New Testament teachings and practice are not restrictive.
4. Divisions result due to different mindsets; particular issues simply highlighted differing mindset.
5. Generally, significant divisions occur only when the issues relate to the work or worship of the church, and they are multi-issued.
6. Brethren have tolerated a good deal of diversity in individual beliefs and practice.
7. Brethren are quick to differ, but divisions don’t happen quickly. The autonomy of each church helps to insulate it from outside influences.
8. Generally, colleges have been vehicles of progression. (Don’t read into this more than it says. One could also say that preachers have been vehicles of progression, but that does not mean we should stop encouraging men to preach.)
9. Privately-owned journals have had both good and bad influences.
Final Question : What does all this mean? Do we despair thinking that unity is never possible, or is there a proper course of action suggested by all this?
12-2
Appendix
Speech Delivered at the Nashville Meeting Steve Wolfgang Danville, Kentucky
History and Background of the Institutional Controversy (1) "While there are a few places where 'anti-ism' is still a real threat to the true faith, it is generally of no consequence. Isolated little groups of 'antis' still meet; but they are withering away and are having no appreciable effect on the brotherhood at large." This analysis of the dreaded "antis" written by a young preacher at the end of the 1960s, probably summarized the "majority view" in Churches of Christ toward "non-cooperation" churches. This "false doctrine" was not only considered "antagonistic to clear Bible teaching" but the typical “anti usually cut his own throat by his arrogant and malicious acts and statements" and was "quick to draw a line of fellowship and exclude himself from the larger portion of our brotherhood."(1) A decade later, the editor of the Gospel Advocate reiterated the "dying-on-the-vine" theme in an editorial in which he estimated that the "antis" composed 5 percent of churches of Christ and pleaded with them to "come back home . . . to the old paths . . . and preach again in the great churches," alleging that "anti doctrine cannot build great churches, inspire missionaries, and encourage pure and undefiled religion."(2) A well-known church-supported-college professor argued not long afterward that those who teach that Christians could "visit fatherless and widows by taking them in your home" have "taken the narrow, crooked pig-path of radicalism."(3) As one might expect, such florid rhetoric was often answered in like manner. One young preacher on the other side of the controversy, describing a college lectureship which included at least four sessions of "anti bashing," accused those who made a hobby of being anti-anti of having a "denominational concept of Christianity" and "a blind spot with regard to establishing authority regarding matters which divide us." Other assessments of the "liberals" have included descriptions ranging from "ignorant" to "deluded" to "malicious."(4) How did it come to this? What produced such rhetoric, and the divisive actions which often accompanied it? In this speech, I propose to do several things: (1) I wish to attempt a brief historical chronicle of the events which elicited the comments just quoted. Some may know that I am preparing a biography of Roy Cogdill, and much of my insight into this issue comes from that preparation. I intend for this section to be history, fairly told, rather than propaganda. To that end, I bring whatever historical training and ability I may possess. Most historians long ago abandoned any illusions of being totally "objective," but like most, I want to be fair. Like everyone else, I have a viewpoint which despite my best efforts will occasionally bob to the surface, and fairness and honesty as a historian impel me to recognize it rather than hiding behind the fictional mask of "objectivity." I believe that the record will demonstrate that this division was not "one-sided," as it so often has been portrayed, blamed on a bunch of cantankerous nuts who couldn't think straight, wanted to be big fish in a small pond, or were just plain mean. One surely might find examples of all of the above, but such generalizations simply will not float as historical explanation. Should I fail in my attempt to be fair and even-handed, I am sure brother Lynn and brother Ramsey will call it to my attention. (2) In addition to playing historian, I want to wear the hat of a reporter of more current concepts for a moment. Within the last two months, in preparation for this meeting, I circulated more than 100 questionnaires to various preachers, elders, and members of "conservative" or "non-institutional" churches of Christ. I make no claims for it as a "scientific" polling device, but I did try to circulate it among what I perceive to be a typical, or "representative," sampling of those opposed to centralization of churches and church support of human institutions. More than fifty completed questionnaires were returned, and I will draw on the comments of several of them where they are germane to the discussion. In so doing, I seek to answer at least part of the question, "How do we view each other?" The answers provided in these questionnaires are candid (in exchange for which I promised anonymity), and they are perhaps not always objective, but they express feelings honestly held. Some might question the accuracy of the perceptions they reveal, but the expressions of their views may help us as we seek to understand each other.
A-1 (3) I sometimes tire of the attempt to be "objective," and thus the third thing I wish to attempt is some sort of "analysis" of all this information in an attempt to answer not only "what happened" or "how," but "why." Some may not like what I say, and one is surely free to reject it if he wishes. All I ask is a fair hearing, without being dismissed out of hand. The Last Fifty Years Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear - the prime time of N.B. Hardeman, G.C. Brewer, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr.; of Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant and Joe Warlick; of H. Leo Boles, James A. Allen, and a cast of thousands. By all accounts, both the economic prosperity of the 1920s and the Depression of the Thirties were years of solid growth and development among churches of Christ. Although it is impossible to gather precise numerical data, the Census of Religious Bodies for 1926 reported more than 433,000 members for churches of Christ; several reliable sources estimated their numerical strength at upwards of half a million.(5) Not only were they growing numerically, but the gospel was spreading geographically, across what a later generation would dub the "Sunbelt," and into the "Rustbelt" of the industrial North, into places like Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and the West Coast.(6) Institutionally and educationally, various para-church organizations were also growing and prospering. Nashville Bible School had become David Lipscomb College, and Harding College settled in Searcy, Arkansas in 1934 after sojourning awhile in Bowling Green, KY, Odessa, MO, Cordell, OK, Harper, KS, and Morrillton, AR.(7) When George Pepperdine college joined the ranks of these and other schools such as Abilene Christian and Freed-Hardeman College a band of colleges stretching from Tennessee through Texas to the West Coast was completed.(8) Orphanages, beginning with Tennessee Orphan Home in 1909, included other institutional orphan care facilities such as Potter Orphanage (Bowling Green, KY, 1914), Boles Home (Quinlan, TX, 1927), and Tipton (Tipton, OK, 1928).(9) New technologies such as radio, the automobile and the infant airline industry allowed rapid and widespread dissemination of the gospel. So frequently was the gospel heard on WLAC in Nashville that the station was dubbed, "We Love All Campbellites." Wide-area broadcasts such as the one on KRLD in Dallas shared by two young preachers and law-school students, W.L. Oliphant and Roy E. Cogdill, were commonplace. (10) It was also, arguably, a period marked generally by doctrinal harmony and unity. Although it would be difficult to get the entire cast of preachers named above to agree on every issue, and while it is true that strong egos resulted in various frictions, by and large the period since the division of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches until World War II was primarily one of significant doctrinal harmony. Even the few instances of disagreement prove the rule: those who deviated could be expected to be, and were, roasted as heretics. Even the most vocal and visible divisive issue, premillennialism, serves as an illustration of the relative doctrinal unanimity among the churches. Although the issue created quite a disturbance (seemingly as much because some did not criticize it extensively enough to satisfy its most vocal opponents as for the specific issue itself), the number of churches actually espousing the doctrine was quite limited. By and large, it was effectively contained in a small number of churches localized in Kentucky, Indiana, and Louisiana - churches which a generation later numbered only about 100 with perhaps 10,000 members. The quickest and most effective way to tar a church or college in the 1930s was to label them "premillennial sympathizers." (11) Perhaps a portion of this relative internal harmony can be seen in the numerous widely-publicized and well attended debates during the period. N.B. Hardeman's debates on instrumental music with Ira Boswell of the Christian church and with the well-known Baptist Ben Bogard; G.C. Brewer's discussion with "companionate marriage" advocate Judge Ben Lindsey; Foy E. Wallace's skirmish with Texas Fundamentalist J. Frank Norris, and a host of others literally too numerous to mention revealed a remarkable unanimity in the church on fundamental issues, as well as a manifest militance against all perceived threats to the faith. Certainly, to their religious neighbors, the church surely looked like a coherent, united, militant and growing religious body. (12) "Unity efforts" of a sort were underway as well. When Daniel Sommer, estranged for thirty years from his co-belligerents in the instrument/missionary society controversy, embarked in 1933 on an extended tour of the South, his visits to Nashville, Henderson, Memphis, Dallas, and other places resulted in significantly decreased tensions over the right of colleges to exist and of churches to employ local evangelists and use Bible class literature. The failure of his alliance with F.D. Kershner of the Christian Church to promote harmony between the two groups may have given impetus to the Witty-Murch "unity meetings" of the next decade, but also reminds us that churches of Christ were largely united in rejecting such overtures. (13)
A-2 In summary, when one looks at churches of Christ a half-century ago, one can easily make a case, at least on the surface, for a high level of doctrinal unity and harmony; an agreement on the spiritual nature and work of the church, and the kind of distinctive, no-nonsense preaching which was common knowledge both among members of the church and their religious neighbors. One need not be an "anti" to have such perceptions; a recent book by several historians among institutional churches states the obvious: "There was a time when Churches of Christ were widely known as a people of the Book. All who knew us knew that we hungered above all for the word of God. They knew that we immersed ourselves in its truths and sacrificed dearly to share the gospel with those who had never heard. These were our most fundamental commitments. We knew it, and others knew it." Although these authors disdainfully reject "the hard and ugly sectarian spirit which did incalculable damage to our movement for so many years," they make a strong case for the invasion of secularism as "American members of Churches of Christ have spiraled upward to a much higher socio-economic plane." While I reject the solution they propose, and their pejorative use of terms such as "rigid, dogmatic, sectarian spirit" which produced a "posture of aloofness," I believe they are substantially correct in their analysis of the present, if not their representation of the past or their proposals for the future.(14) Two recollections by well-known older preachers who began preaching in those days well summarize the case. When asked to compare the church and its members in the 1980s to those of the 1930s, a recent president of David Lipscomb College responded, "I don't think they see the glory of the church, unencumbered by denominationalism, as I did . . . when I was growing up." Furthermore, he opined, "I don't think members of the church think the church, is different from Protestantism. When I started preaching members of the church believed Protestants needed to be saved. We've lost a lot of that. It goes back to an understanding of the distinctiveness of the church. At an earlier time they really felt the gospel was a lot better than Protestantism." (15) These sentiments are echoed succinctly by G.K. Wallace, recently deceased, as he described his earliest preaching days in the 1920s and 1930s: "Most of the baptisms were from the denominations. In those days denominational people would come to our meetings. . . . Denominational people do not come these days to our meetings and if they did they would not, in most places, hear anything that would lead them out of false doctrine." (16) But other forces and factors were at work, as well, as the following summary by Bill Humble well illustrates: "larger and more expensive buildings, the more affluent middle-class membership, the number of full-time ministers, the increasing emphasis on Bible schools and Christian education, and missionary outreach all reflect a gradual but impressive growth. . . . After World War II the church enjoyed a remarkable growth in urban areas. As its members climbed the economic and educational ladder, the church moved 'across the tracks."'(17) While I concur that World War II was a watershed in the history of churches of Christ, even before Pearl Harbor there were harbingers of what was to come. Although several colleges unobtrusively had been accepting contributions from church treasuries for years, G.C. Brewer created quite a stir at the 1938 ACC lectures when "many who were present understood Brewer to say that the church that did not have Abilene Christian College in its budget had the wrong preacher."(18) A decade later, N.B. Hardeman and others would revive this controversy in a public attempt to attract financial support for colleges directly from church treasuries.(19)
Endnotes 1. Rubel Shelley, "Some Basic Errors of Liberalism," in The Church Faces Liberalism: Freed-Hardeman College Lectures , 1970 (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), pp. 33-34. 2. Ira North, "Our Anti-Cooperation Brethren Should Come Back Home," Gospel Advocate , 121:19 (May 10, 1979), pp. 290,294. 3. Tom Holland, Challenge of the Commission: Sermon Outlines from Acts (Brentwood, TN: Penman Press, 1980), p. 20. See also Gayle Oler, "No Soup," Boles Home News , March 25, 1954, p. 1: "Infidelity, agnosticism, and 'anti-ism' have much in common. None ever brought a helping hand or healing ministry to the unfortunate of earth living in want and misery. Nor have they ever built a home for homeless children or a hospital in which to minister to the sick." 4. Steve Wolfgang, "Do You Have Time?" Weekly Reminder 15:21 (February 9, 1977), pp. 1-2 (Expressway Church of Christ, Louisville, KY). See also exchange of letters with William Woodson, ibid., 15:39 (June 15, 1977) pp. 2-3. Other comments from questionnaires returned to the author in October-November, 1988.
A-3 5. U.S. Bureau of Census . . . Religious Bodies, 1926. Washington, D.C., 1930,11, 394, 396; see H. Leo Boles, "Query Department," Gospel Advocate 69 (January 20, 1927), 62; G.A. Dunn, "Brother Batsell Baxter's School," Firm Foundation 42:30 (July 28, 1925), p. 3; John Allen Hudson, "New Census Incomplete," Gospel Advocate 82:50 (December 12, 1940), 1180. 6. For a general history of this period see Earl West, Search For the Ancient Order , IV, 1987. Themes in this paragraph are developed more specifically in Steve Wolfgang, "Myths and Realities: Churches of Christ in the Twentieth Century" (paper read at the Restoration History Conference, Bethany College, July 1977); and Wolfgang, "From Dissent to Consent: Twentieth Century Churches of Christ" (paper read at the American Society Church History Meeting, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, March 1979). 7. For an account of the Harding/Armstrong cluster of colleges, see Lloyd Cline Sears, For Freedom. The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Company, 1969). 8. See M. Norvel Young, A History of Christian Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City, MO: Old Paths Book Club, 1949) for a history of the growth and development of various schools and colleges. 9. On Potter Orphanage, see Ben F. Taylor, History of Potter Orphan Home (Bowling Green, KY: Potter Orphan Home and School, n.d.). For related developments see "Christian Colleges" and "Education and Benevolence" (Chapter 9 and 10) in Earl West, Search for the Ancient Order , III, pp. 234-304. An example of a typical appeal on behalf of an orphanage can be found in Childhaven News 1:6 (October 1949), pp. 1,4. Abuses at this particular home have been featured prominently in the secular press as well as various papers reflecting the non-institutional position. See Birmingham News, Sunday April 22,1984, pp. IA, 10A; Ken Green, "The Childhaven Affair,” Searching the Scriptures 25:9 (September 1984), pp. 197-201, which featured an interview with a preacher who lived at Childhaven from 1963- 1972 while a child. See also Jack Holt Jr., "Victims of Institutionalism," Gospel Anchor 10:2 (October 1983), pp. 28-31. 10. "Our Messages" (from E. A. Timmons, M.D., Columbia, TN), Gospel Advocate 69:1 (January 6, 1927), p. 8; see William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ as Seen Through the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), p. 319. 11. Steve Wolfgang, "The Impact of Premillennialism on the Church," Guardian of Truth 30:1 (January 2, 1986), pp. 1315, 29; Cecil Willis, W. W. Otey. Contender for the Faith (Akron, OH: by the author, 1964), pp. 264-267, 304, 310312; William Woodson, Standing for Their Faith: A History of churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950 (Henderson, TN: J&W Publications, 1979), chapter 11; and Banowsky, pp. 196-199, 223-224. 12. The relationship between churches of Christ and other religious bodies is explored in Wolfgang, "Churches of Christ and the Fundamentalist Controversy" (paper read at the American Academy of Religion meeting, Atlanta, GA, 1981). 13. See Steve Wolfgang, "Controversy Concerning Unity Movements Among Churches of Christ" in Their Works Do Follow Them: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1982 (Tampa, FL: Florida College, 1982), pp. 213-239; Wolfgang, "Consequences of Factionalism," in Factionalism: A Threat to the Church (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983), pp. 90-96. Both are based on James Stephen Wolfgang, A Life of Humble Fear: The Biography of Daniel Sommer, 1850-1940 (M.A. thesis, Butler University, 1975). 14. C. Leonard Allen, Richard T. Hughes, and Michael R. Weed, The Worldly Church: A Call For Biblical Renewal (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988). Quotations are from pp. 1-2, 6-7. 15. Robert E. Hooper and Jim Turner, Willard Collins, The People Person (Nashville: 20th Century Christian, 1986), pp. 116, 118. 16. G.K. Wallace, Autobiography and Retirement Sermons (High Springs, FL: Mary Lois Forrester, 1983), p. 17. 17. Bill Humble, The Story of the Restoration (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation, 1969), p. 70. 18. Willis, W. W. Otey , 287. See also Athens Clay Pullias, Information Concerning Financial Gifts to David Lipscomb College by Congregations of the Church of Christ, 1891-1968 (Nashville, privately published [DLC?], n.d. [1968?]). 19. N.B. Hardeman, "Spending the Lord's Money," Gospel Advocate 92 (May 29, 1947), p. 372, and "The Banner Boys Become Enraged," Firm Foundation 64:43 (October 28, 1947), p. 1; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Bible Banner , September, 1947, p. 16; Wolfgang, "Unity Movements," pp. 220-21, 234; Willis, W. W.
A-4 Otey, pp. 321 ff.; on Hardeman, see J.M. Powell and Mary Nelle Hardernan Powers, NBH: A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1964); and James R. Cope, "N.B. Hardeman: Orator, Evangelist, Educator, and Debater," in They Being Dead Yet Speak: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Temple Terrace, FL: Florida College, 1981), pp. 133ff. The argument advanced by Hardeman that the orphanage and the college "stand or fall together" would be championed more successfully fifteen years later (to a more receptive audience) by Batsell Barrett Baxter, Questions and Issues of the Day in the Light of the Scriptures (Nashville, 1963), and reviewed by James R. Cope, Where Is The Scripture? (Temple Terrace, FL: by the author), 1964; and James P. Needham, A Review of Batsell Barrett Baxter's Tract: "May the Church Scripturally Support a College?" (Orlando, FL: Truth Magazine Bookstore [reprint], 1970). Another advocate of church support of colleges, and a discussion of other related issues, is J.D. Thomas, We Be Brethren: A Study in Biblical Interpretation (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press, 1958). pp. 186-194.
Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 7, pp. 208-211 April 6, 1989
History and Background of the Institutional Controversy (2) World War II In truth, although there were such previews of what was to come, World War II can be seen as a chronological line of demarcation. First, as one generation passed from the earth, another was coming to prominence. In one eighteen month period during 1940-41, as the nation prepared for war, a number of well-known older preachers (Daniel Sommer, J.D. Tant, Joe Warlick, F.B. Srygley - household names in many places in the brotherhood) passed away, and were "replaced" in positions of editorial responsibility by much younger men such as B.C. Goodpasture.(1) Reactions to the war itself, and the discussion of the "carnal warfare" question revealed that an interesting shift of opinion had occurred between the wars as this new generation had come to prominence. As late as World War 1, David Lipscomb's strong non-participatory stance still held sway among a strong and vocal minority in the church. Objections to Christians serving in war resulted in such incidents as the closing of Cordell Christian College by the local "defense council," and the arrest and threatened execution of two young Christians who were shipped to, Leavenworth Prison, and lined up before a firing squad to be shot.(2) The Gospel Advocate ceased the re-publication of David Lipscomb's old articles on "Civil Government" and no-participation in warfare only under threat from federal government either to cease and desist the publication of such anti-war propaganda or be shut down altogether.(3) By World War II, however, shifting sentiment, the emergence of a new generation, and, to be sure, the surge of patriotic opinion following the attack on Pearl Harbor, produced a strikingly different environment. B.C. Goodpasture needed no government intervention to persuade him to close the columns of the Gospel Advocate to further discussion; by 1943 he did it voluntarily. Indeed, a close examination of some of the early criticisms of the cooperative efforts in preaching in Italy and Germany stemmed from the fact that some of the "missionaries" seemed to their critics much too quick to "apologize" for the devastation inflicted on Europe by American armed forces.(4) The Post-World War II Era Even before the army of GI's returned home in 1945 to marry, continue their education, or launch careers (or all of the above), a new consciousness regarding evangelism and a seeming willingness to try whatever sounded good in spreading the gospel had overtaken many of the churches and those who preached or served as elders over them. The educational boon of the GI Bill also swelled the ranks of colleges across the country - and "Christian colleges" seemed determined not to be a whit behind the chiefest. Spurred in most cases, no doubt, by well-intentioned impulses to spread the gospel as widely as possible, churches were inundated after the war with numerous appeals: to support cooperative works in Germany, Italy, and Japan ("overseen" by churches in Texas and Tennessee who assumed a centralizing role in such support); or the proliferation of institutions soon swelled to more than thirty);(5) and not least by the "Christian colleges, whose swelling enrollments of returning GI's helped create a seemingly insatiable appetite for funds to sustain their growth. That there had been some "historical precedent" for centralized support of city-wide evangelistic endeavors cannot be successfully disputed. The cooperative efforts of the Hardeman "Tabernacle Meetings" of the Twenties and Thirties were reflected in other such post-World II endeavors as the
A-5 Houston Music Hall meetings, in which the Norhill church undertook to oversee funds from Houston-area churches so that Foy E. Wallace, Jr., could preach lessons which, transcribed and later published as God's Prophetic Word and Bulwarks of the Faith , would provide sermon material on which an entire generation of preachers would "cut their teeth." The local preachers at Norhill at that time were Luther Blackmon and Wallace's close friend, Roy E. Cogdill, who before long would launch his own printing company largely to be able to publish Wallace's books as well as his paper, the Bible Banner (later, the Gospel Guardian - in which Cogdill would later renounce the centralized arrangement of the Music Hall meeting).(6) Cogdill, Blackmon, Gospel Guardian editor Yater Tant, and others who initially supported such efforts were forced by conviction of conscience, and, as they saw it, consistency, to withdraw their support for such collective endeavors in much the same way as men like Tolbert Fanning and Benjamin Franklin, initial supporters and defenders of nineteenth-century missionary society endeavors, eventually withdrew their support for such efforts and indeed became vocal opponents of such works.(7) For those who began to think twice about centralized foreign evangelistic efforts "under the oversight" of a single large American church, an additional concern was the message preached (or, in the eyes of many, not preached) by the "missionaries" receiving such support. David Filbeck has ably, demonstrated that much of the opposition to the centralized missionary society of the Christian Church was due to the diluted (even modernistic) message of those so supported, and some of the same concerns - as much about message as about methods - are, I believe, reflected in some of the writing in opposition to centralized evangelistic support, where many smaller churches contributed to support preachers in the countries devastated by World War II by sending their contributions to a large, prosperous, "overseeing" church.(8) What Were "The Issues"? The proliferation of humanly-arranged institutions seeking church contributions (particularly the increasing volume of educational institutions openly soliciting money from churches) and the growing numbers of congregations assuming the right to "oversee" the work of other churches with the financial support of many more were only a part of the scenario. Combined with the upward socio-economic mobility of members of the church, many of whom experienced the shift from the day-to-day, hand-to-mouth existence of Depression-era poverty to the disposable income and consumerism of the post-war boom which moved the South toward parity with the nation, these factors and more provided a complex scenario fraught with possibilities for differences, disagreement, and division. By the time a national radio (and later, television) program, the "Herald of Truth," was added to the list of orphanages, homes for the aged and for unwed mothers, schools, colleges, publishing ventures (Gospel Press, for example) and intermittent appeals for increasing numbers of projects centralized under a few large, prosperous churches, an increasing number of brethren began to question various aspects of these endeavors. The study of "the current issues" (as they were often generically labeled) produced a tension between the boosters of the new projects and those who raised pesky questions about their scriptural validity. That tension was reflected in the increasing vehemence with which both sides pressed their positions in various "brotherhood journals." Roy Cogdill's Banner Publishing Company was created in large part to allow Foy E. Wallace, Jr., to continue in the Banner/Guardian his opposition to the increasingly open appeals for church support of colleges, orphanages and other parachurch enterprises which surfaced with increasing frequency in B.C. Goodpasture's Gospel Advocate and in Texas Firm Foundation after G.H.P. Showalter was succeeded in 1954 by Reuel Lemmons.(9) Other papers were begun as well, often for the expressed purpose of examining these issues. The Preceptor , begun in 1951 by several brethren affiliated with Florida Christian College was followed almost a decade later by another Tampa journal, Searching the Scriptures . Halfway between the launching of these journals, and half a continent away, Truth Magazine was begun in the Chicago area. None of these upstart journals, however, enjoyed the extended longevity and familiarity (to say nothing of the large subscription lists) of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation , which were joined by new journals such as the Spiritual Sword in the fight against the "antis."(10) The discussion of these "issues" was perhaps most vocally expressed in a series of formal debates in the half-decade beginning about 1954. From Indianapolis (Holt-Totty, October 1954; Woods-Porter, January 1956) to Texas (Harper-Tant, Lufkin, April 1955 and Abilene, November 1955) to Alabama (Cogdill- Woods, Birmingham, November 1957; Wallace-Holt, Florence, December 1959), men who had once stood shoulder to shoulder and made common cause against all enemies did battle with each other. These debates, published and re-published for wider consumption by various brotherhood printing concerns, reflected hundreds of other unpublished public discussions and thousands of private conversations and arguments which spread to nearly every hamlet in the land where there was a church of Christ. Together with the written discussions in various "brotherhood journals," they provided an arsenal for anyone who sought to do battle on either side.
A-6 The Arguments In debates, sermons, and various articles in religious journals, non-institutional preachers have normally advanced the following propositions: 1. That God has revealed in Scripture certain patterns for believers to follow in executing their collective duties in congregational work and worship (Heb. 8:5). 2. That these "binding" patterns are expressed in terms of (a) "generic" or "specific" statements or commands; (b) specific accounts of action, and (c) necessary conclusions or inferences drawn from Scripture (Acts 15).(11) 3. That the "general" or more "generic" statements or commands allow differing optional or expedient ways of obeying those requirements, while specific statements or examples provide more restrictive instructions and do not authorize alternative procedures. 4. That the differences between "general and specific" can be detected, and distinguished from incidentals, or from a variety of expedient ways, by correctly following common sense hermeneutical principles.(12) 5. That the Scriptures enjoin upon Christians a broad range of individual duties, obligations and privileges which can be carried out in a variety of optional and expedient ways, that God may be glorified. 6. That, by contrast, the collective duties enjoined upon Christians in their collective congregational capacity, are fairly limited and consist of worshiping God through prayer, vocal music, proclamation of the gospel, and the first day of the week observance of the Lord's Supper and financial collection to enable the congregation to carry out its collective responsibilities in discharging its own edificational and teaching duties, assisting needy saints, and supporting preachers in their work of proclamation and teaching. 7. That, while some collective duties may overlap individual obligations (teaching, singing, prayer, for example), individual and collective (congregational) activity are not identical and can be easily and clearly distinguished one from the other. 8. That since collective activity, which requires a common mind, acceptance and agreement to common supervision (by elders, if qualified), and the pooling of financial resources is inherently fraught with possibilities of disagreement in matters of detail, it should be limited to those activities clearly enjoined upon Christians in acting together as a congregation, allowing room to respect the conscience of others, even of weak or untaught brethren (Romans 14). 9. That, in regard to preaching the gospel, Scripture reveals only that evangelism was accomplished by individual preachers, self-supported or remunerated by congregations (by example, directly, without the aid of some intermediary or "sponsoring" church, or "missionary society," whether called by that name or identified as a "steering committee" or other terminology - 2 Cor. 11:8-9; Phil. 4:15-18). 10. That Scripture several times records that churches assisted their own needy saints, or sent funds for the temporary relief of congregations in "want," - but that such relief was temporary, not sent from one prosperous church to another, and never for purposes of evangelism in which each congregation has equal obligations to the limit of its ability. Most conservatives have stressed the independence and autonomy of each local congregation, insisting that twentieth-century "sponsoring-church" conglomerates or other centralizing tendencies, no less than a missionary society or the Baptist associations and conventions, compromise New Testament principles regarding the nature of Christ's church.(13) 11. That the church Jesus died to purchase is a spiritual institution with a uniquely spiritual function, and is therefore not to be remade into a hybrid welfare organization-country club responsible for alleviating social ills or for the entertainment of its members. 12. That human societies and institutions (colleges, orphanages, publishing companies, hospitals, etc.) which may be utilized as expedient means on a fee-for-service basis, cannot be appended to the church and maintain their livelihood by church donations, and that all such attempts to make them parachurch or church-related institutions is foreign to the New Testament.
Endnotes 1. Ed Harrell, "B.C. Goodpasture: Leader of Institutional Thought, in They Being Dead Yet Speak. Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981 (Tampa: Florida College, 1981). Note Harrell's observations that "Foy
A-7 Wallace scorched heretics; Goodpasture warned them that they would lose their position in the brotherhood" (p. 250). See also J.C. Choate, The Anchor That Holds: The Life of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971). 2. Sears, For Freedom, pp. 156-157. 3. Earl West, "World War I and the Decline of David Lipscomb's Civil Government" (unpublished ms., Harding Graduate School of Religion Library, 1976, p. 11); see West, III, chapter 13. For background on Lipscomb and nineteenth century pacifism. See David Edwin Harrell, Jr., "Disciples of Christ Pacifism in Nineteenth Century Tennessee," Tennessee Historical Quarterly 21:3 (September, 1962), pp. 263-274. 4. Cled Wallace, "That Rock Fight in Italy," Gospel Guardian 1:36 (January 19,1950), pp. 1,5; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., "Going Off Half-Cocked, " Gospel Guardian 1:44 (March 16, 1950), pp. 1,5; Roy E. Cogdill, "We Are Not Anti-Foreign Evangelism," Gospel Guardian 1:47 (April 6, 1950), pp. 1,5. See Willis, W. W. Otey , pp. 306f. 5. Willis, W. W. Otey , p. 312. In 1949 there were 14 "Orphan Homes and Homes for the Ages" listed in G.H. P. Showalter and Leslie G. Thomas, comps., Church Directory and List of Preachers of Churches of Christ (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1949), p. 212). 6. See Cogdill-Woods Debate: A Discussion on what constitutes scriptural cooperation between churches of Christ (Lufkin, TX: Gospel Guardian Company, n.d. [1958?1, pp. 204-208, 214-215. 7. See James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX Sweet Publishing Company, 1969, chapters 10-12, especially pp. 176-181, 187-188, 193-195; Earl West, Elder Ben Franklin: Eye of the Storm (Indianapolis: Religious Book Service, 1983), pp. 158-160, 211, 222ff.; Joseph Franklin and J.A. Headington, The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (St. Louis: John Burns, Publisher, 1879), pp. 304-305. The discussion of "historical precedent" is an interesting one which one or both sides often adduce to bolster claims, but which is ultimately meaningless since, even if uniform, what the "pioneers" did provides no validity for doctrine or practice unless one accepts an "authority of tradition" viewpoint akin to that of Roman Catholicism. In this context, it simply demonstrates that sincere, intelligent, and honorable persons can and do change their minds and actions for a variety of reasons; or, that people sometimes do contradictory things and are not always self-consistent. 8. David Filbeck, The First Fifty Years: A Brief History of the Direct-Support Missionary Movement (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 36-59. While the objections of some of the opponents of centralized missionary work among churches of Christ did not center around traditional "modernism," the heavy emphasis on the social gospel aspects of much "mission work" was a definite factor. See the articles cited in note 23 above, as well as Otis Gatewood, Preaching in the Footsteps of Hitler (Nashville: Williams Printing company, 1960), pp. 72-75. Though defending his "relief works" in Germany, Gatewood acknowledged that "Problems arose as a result of such work, it is true. Some wanted to be baptized only to get food and clothing." Furthermore, "all this [distribution of food and clothing] took much time that could have been spent teaching the Bible" (pp. 70, 72). 9. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Fanning Yater Tant, and Roy E. Cogdill, mimeographed letter, March 21, 1949; Foy E. Wallace, Jr., "The New Gospel Guardian ," Fanning Yater Tant, "Policy of the Gospel Guardian ," and Roy E. Cogdill, "Publisher's Statement," Bible Banner 12:3 (April 1949), 1-2. 10. Harrell reports that "by the early 1950's the Advocate's circulation had grown to over 20,000; during the centennial drive of 1954 and 1955, the number of subscribers rose to an inflated figure of over 100,000; by the time of Goodpasture's death in 1977, the circulation had stabilized at just over 30,000." Furthermore, he observes: "The Gospel Advocate was the most powerful single center of influence among the churches of Christ of the 1950s. Goodpasture formed strong alliances with other institutions, particularly David Lipscomb College. He was the outspoken friend of all the institutions supported by churches; . . . in return the leaders of those institutions promoted the Advocate" ("B.C. Goodpasture," in Florida College Annual Lectures, 1981, pp. 243, 249). 11. See David Koltenbah, "The Three Methods of Argument to Establish Divine Authority and the Three Arguments in Acts 15 (Parts I-III)" Truth Magazine 11:10-12 (July, August, September, 1967), pp. 234ff., 255ff., 275ff.; "The Apostles' Appeal to Scriptural Authority," in Biblical Authority, It's Meaning and Application: Florida College Annual Lectures, 1974 (Fairmount, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1974), pp. 80-94. A M.A. thesis by Milo, Hadwin at Abilene Christian College which assails the idea that apostolic examples provide any basis of New Testament authority was published as The Role of New Testament Examples as Related to Biblical Authority (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974). A
A-8 conclusion, subtly stated on p. 53, is that there is no way to authorize observance of the Lord's Supper each first day of the week from the New Testament evidence (cf. pp. 39, 53). For alternate viewpoints, see Thomas B. Warren, When Is An Example Binding? (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian of Christ); “Why Are We at an Impasse?" Restoration Quarterly 30 (First Quarter 1988), pp. 17-42. 12. See Roy E. Cogdill, Walking By Faith (Lufkin: Gospel Guardian Company, 1957; 6th Ed., 1967), especially pp. 13-28; Earl West, "Learning a Lesson from History (no. 1-3)," Gospel Guardian 1:40, 41, 42 (February 16, 23 and March 2, 1950); and "Congregational Cooperation," Gospel Guardian 13:18 (September 7, 1961, pp. 273ff. [reprint)). For contrasting views, see Athens Clay Pullias, "Where There Is No Pattern," Lipscomb Spring Lectures: Volume I (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 19", pp. 90-102 (see Cecil N. Wright a lecture in the same volume [pp. 103-11.2], "Principles of New Testament congregational Cooperation," a summary of his series in the 1951 Gospel Advocate ). 13. See Robert F. Turner, "Cooperation of Churches, in The Arlington Meeting (Orlando, FL: Cogdill Foundation, n.d. 1969]), pp. 252ff. This work is probably the most extensive and best discussion of the institutional "issues." See also Gaston D. Cogdell and Robert F. Turner, The Cogdell-Turner Discussion (Fairmount, IN: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1983). On congregational independence, perhaps the clearest statement is Turner, "Restoration of Congregational Independence," in The Restoration Heritage in America. A Biblical Appeal for Today . Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976 (Marion, IN: Cogdill Foundation, 1976), pp. 213-229. Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 8, pp. 240-243 April 20, 1989
History and Background of the Institutional Controversy (3) The Yellow Tag of Quarantine Although discussions of these issues would persist and churches would continue to divide for at least another decade, by 1954 the editor of the Gospel Advocate was quite willing to entertain a motion that the "yellow tag of quarantine" (the stigma of which probably cannot be realized except by a generation which knew not antibiotics and the post-World War II "wonder drugs") be hung on the door of the infested "antis" in order to contain their contagion.(1) In such an environment, the pressure on other institutions (particularly the newer schools such as Florida Christian College) to "go along" and "line up" could be resisted only at great risk to the financial health and "brotherhood prestige" (read: ability to attract tuition paying students and potential donors) of its administration and faculty. Business ventures (such as the CEI bookstore, for example) were boycotted if the positions of their owners and operators were considered heterodox. Nor were the pressures any less on churches, many of which at least partially rationalized a $10 or $20 monthly orphanage donation on the grounds of "showing that we're not anti." Deacons and church treasurers who dared to reveal reservations about church support of institutions are known to have been told either to write a check to an institution or resign and go elsewhere. For that matter, individual preachers, too many to be merely anecdotal, have reported cancellation of meetings, threats of termination of job or outside support ("if you espouse such a doctrine you won't have any place to preach") and occasional firings from local congregations because they dared to preach (or to preach against a majority view) on such controversial subjects. "Confessions" of wayward souls who repented, recanted, and were reclaimed from the heresy of "anti-ism" were featured prominently in the Gospel Advocate and included a stellar cast: Earl West, Pat Hardeman, Hugo McCord, C.M. Pullias, John D. Cox, and a host of others.(2) The list goes on: "no anti need apply" in solicitations for preachers: "the closest thing to an anti church in the New Testament was "Antioch"; fertilizer bags waved from the pulpit; "James 1:27" and/or "Galatians 6:10" printed in church ads and painted on church signs dotting the landscape. Lawsuits over property disputes, paraded across the pages of daily metropolitan newspapers for all the unbelieving world to see, while not commonplace, were not unknown.(3) Instances of fisticuffs and scuffles in the lobby were not uncommon. Carnality and ugliness abounded. In short, by the early 1960's a clear message had been delivered to the minority tagged "anti" by the majority. Delivered with all the smug superiority and condescension of an older sibling, it said, "Go away, kid - you bother me." As Filbeck has demonstrated in his chronicle of the missionary society controversies,(4) a similar mentality had evolved which was no longer willing to consider optional what had been first defended as mere expediencies. The colleges, orphanages and other institutions appended
A-9 to the churches now seemed to many to be indispensable - absolutely necessary - to the work of the church. Seen in this light, it was an easy step to elevate their value well above whatever questionable virtue the maintenance of fellowship with the cantankerous "antis" might possess. Noninstitutional brethren could be deemed expendable if they could not agree to go along and get along. Many seemed to believe their fellowship less valuable to the cause than the emerging network of colleges and other institutions erected and funded by the churches, ostensibly to the greater glory of God. It is no doubt true that there may have been instances of non-institutional brethren who used "mirror logic," vacating the premises before they were invited to leave, displaying rancorous attitudes in the process, heaping derision and vilification upon their "liberal" opponents. I am not arguing that non- institutional brethren always behaved themselves as they should; surely there is enough sin to go around in this or any other division. Whatever the case, the division over institutionalism was clearly induced by much more fundamental causes than that some brethren on either side behaved themselves in a manner unbecoming to Christians - which is at least part of the reason why it will take more than simply "talking" with each other to heal this breach. Division did not come simply because brethren mistreated each other (though no doubt some did), but was due to much more basic causes. It will not be reversed unless and until those more fundamental problems are remedied. And whatever may be said of the conduct of individuals of either persuasion, it is certainly true that the levers of brotherhood "power" were clearly with the institutional majority, and the message they sent, perceived by their non-institutional brethren was a rough equivalent of "Go play in the traffic." Separation, Growth and Development And so they did. Despite the disdainful portrayals and reports of impending doom quoted at the beginning of this paper, "antiism" seems not to have perished from the earth just yet. A clearer, more objective view is provided by Bill Humble: "The most serious issue that churches of Christ have faced in this century is church cooperation and 'institutionalism.' Led by Roy Cogdill, Yater Tant, and the Gospel Guardian, a substantial number of churches have come to oppose such cooperative programs of evangelism as the Herald of Truth and the homes for orphans and aged, as they are presently organized. During the past 15 years many debates have been held, churches have divided, and fellowship has been broken. This is the most serious division, numberswise, that churches of Christ have suffered. Whether the division is final, or whether it can be healed, is yet to be determined."(5) Perhaps the note of hopeful optimism struck here was induced by the Arlington Meeting, conducted about the time Humble's book was being written, and in which he participated. Although one can applaud the good intentions and positive tone of that meeting (the book which came from it is one of the best tools for study of this controversy), time has revealed, however, that Arlington accomplished little in healing division, restoring fellowship, or reversing any of the trends which produced the division in the first place. I enter this section with trepidation, since what I propose to do is objectionable to some as an attempt to "number Israel" or "count the faithful" - thankless tasks which would perhaps be scripturally objectionable even if they were not impossible. Some have even objected to gatherings such as these as attempts to "line up" churches and brethren into groups or to promote a "we-consciousness" which might be viewed as a precursor to behaving like a sect. I share some of these concerns, but in an attempt to provide some dimensions to the problem, I venture the following information. Brother Lynn has turned his energies in the last decade to the gathering of factual data about numbers of congregations, etc. Using some of his information, I am led to believe that as of 1987 there were approximately 1,959 congregations which could reasonably be identified as opposing centralization and cooperative endeavors in the work of the church. Although the number of members in those churches was not easily available. I put pencil to paper and, based on older data he provided me several years ago, calculated that the average membership in a "non-mainstream" church was a fraction less than 95 members per congregation (and a fraction larger, in fact, than the average for "mainstream" churches - which simply shows that aside from the "100 Largest Churches of Christ" which used to be listed occasionally in the Gospel Advocate it is apparent that the average churches on each side are quite similar to each other in size).(6) Among the members of these churches, there is enough interest in religious journalism to support a number of papers which still reflect the non-institutional viewpoint. The largest of these are the monthlies Christianity and Searching the Scriptures with about 6500 and 5500 subscribers, respectively. Guardian of Truth (result of the 1981 merger of the Gospel Guardian and Truth Magazine ), is issued twice monthly, has about 4500 subscribers, publishes books, tracts, and Bible class literature, and operates bookstores in Bowling Green, KY and Athens, AL. Other journals include Faith and Facts , Gospel Anchor , Sentry , and Torch , which are monthly or quarterly publications with smaller subscription lists.
A-10 Florida College, in suburban Tampa, is an accredited junior college which also offers a four-year Bible curriculum. Existing for years without soliciting or accepting contributions from churches, it is patronized largely by members of churches of Christ which oppose such church support of institutions. It currently enrolls 380 students from 35 states and seven foreign countries.(7) A fairly popular feature in the training of younger preachers has been an "apprentice"-type relationship in which a congregation with an older preacher will employ a young man for a period of time (usually a year or so) to study with the older man, share preaching and teaching responsibilities, and "learn by doing." Several congregations, notably in Washington, California, Kentucky and Florida, have had more extensive arrangements of "special classes" for the instruction and training of young men desiring to preach. Although most churches of the non-institutional persuasion obviously do not participate in evangelistic projects such as Herald of Truth, various churches have for years maintained wide-area radio broadcasts on clear-channel stations (Arch Street in Little Rock, for example). Over the last fifteen years, however, a more popular approach has been the proliferation of local "call-in" type programs on local radio (or, more recently, local cable TV outlets). Churches in several major metropolitan areas have found mass mailings of correspondence courses using city directories to "target" areas to be successful in reaching new converts. In foreign evangelism, non-institutional churches have usually opted for other means than sending "American missionaries" overseas for extended periods (though non-institutional churches presently support about twenty such men in England, Ireland, Norway, West Germany, Chile, Argentina, Australia, Japan, People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and elsewhere). Sometimes foreign nationals are brought to the U.S. for a period of study and then supported for a period of time in their native culture by American churches (examples of men trained in this way include Canada, Australia, and other places). Other native preachers converted (either by Americans or foreign nationals trained in America) and working in their own culture are heavily supported by American churches. I would estimate that a fairly high percentage of non-institutional churches have supported men engaged in foreign evangelism.(8) Obviously, churches of the non-institutional persuasion do not donate financially to benevolent institutions; instead, they have "practiced what they preached" and provided such care individually. In 1965, Eugene Britnell surveyed 60 preachers who opposed church support of institutional orphan homes and accumulated a list of 450 orphans and widows cared for by such Christians ("Our Defense to Those Who Falsely Accuse Us"). In documentation assembled for the Willis-Inman Debate (1966), Cecil Willis gathered information demonstrating that 17 children had been adopted or cared for by the faculty at Florida College, which at that time consisted of about 25 families; and that the eight families represented by the editorial staff of the Gospel Guardian had provided homes at one time or another for at least ten children who were not the natural offspring of those families. (This is perhaps also the place to notice that a reading of the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation for 1958-1962 demonstrates that the "institutional" brethren came very near fragmenting themselves over whether orphanages could be organized under a corporate board or must be overseen directly by elders of a church.) Current Perceptions As I prepared for this meeting, it occurred to me that some attempt to gauge how the non-institutional brethren see their counterparts among the institutional churches might prove useful. To that end, I mailed more than 100 questionnaires to various preachers, elders, and members of my acquaintance from coast to coast. As I explained earlier, I make no claim for it as a scientific polling device, but I received about 50 completed questionnaires from people in fifteen states, who took the time to share with me their perceptions of the past controversy, the current state of affairs, how they felt about the past, present and future of the churches embracing the two persuasions, and where they feel the "institutional" churches are headed. As time permits, I would like to share some of their reactions with you.(9) As one might expect, they were not generally appreciative of institutional brethren, although when I asked them to list what they saw as positive features of institutional churches, most listed zeal, sincere willingness to reach the lost, and similar traits. Several of the preachers who personally participated in this controversy observed that (in the words of one who says he "was one of the first gospel preachers to be 'fired' because of my stand on the issues"), "we could have been more temperate and patient with those with whom we differed." Most reported little, if any, contact with institutional brethren, although one older preacher in the West reported that "I have had a pleasant relationship with ______. We have coffee together and have discussed our differences. We have mutually shared problems which are experienced in both liberal and conservative camps. . . . I see no hope for [unity] if we mutually isolate ourselves from all communication." But a California preacher's comment is typical of several responses: "The more 'conservative-liberals' don't seem to be as susceptible to discussions. Still seem to have the attitude
A-11 promoted by the Gospel Advocate of 'ignore them, don't acknowledge them, and they'll go away!. . . Most of those who reported having discussions with institutional brethren found them amiable, despite the common notion that discussions promote disharmony. One well-known conservative preacher opined, "When we pull in our horns and show kindness and less disagreeableness, they generally are more receptive." But most seemed to be of the opinion that "bad attitudes" or "hot-headedness" were not major factors in the controversy, and certainly not the basic reasons which produced division. Many respondents seemed frustrated that most institutional preachers did not, in their opinion, seem to realize what it is that disturbs the "conservatives." One young conservative preacher reported initiating informal discussions with an older "institutional" preacher who has had at least one formal debate on these issues. The older preacher admitted "not fully understanding" any distinction between the individual and the church, and reported "never getting bro. Turner's point about the church not being composed of congregations" - both points which to conservative brethren seem basic and fundamental. But perhaps more than anything else, the respondents registered an air of resignation borne of their past experiences that nothing much has changed even in the best of circumstances; that institutional brethren seemed, in their experience, totally unwilling to yield in their allegience to their institutions. One Florida preacher, in a discussion with the superintendent of a church-supported orphanage, asked, "If all the money you are now receiving from churches could be replaced by money from individual contributions, would you take your hand out of the church treasuries and thus stop the division of churches over this matterT He answered no, he would not." When asked where they see the institutional brethren heading, most responded by noting the growing fissures evident among brethren who have been united in the past in their support of institutions. Many agreed in essence with the analysis of one young preacher who left an institutional church after attending both Lipscomb and Harding Graduate School, and who from that perspective predicted, "they must divide - they are already divided in many cases. Their differences between one another are too great for them to continue to work together." One Texas preacher noted specifically that "the more liberal element in institutionalism continues to control highly visible institutions (colleges, etc.). The more conservative element in institutionalism is being left behind and is trying to form a coalition through lectureships and journals. Yet some of the most vocal conservatives are amazingly tolerant in having fellowship with the more liberal element."
Endnotes 1. B.C. Goodpasture, "An Elder Writes," Gospel Advocate 96:46 (November 18, 1954, p. 906; and "They Commend the Elder Who Wrote," Gospel Advocate 96:49 (December 9, 1954), p. 962; Cecil B. Douthitt, "The Yellow Tag of Quarantine," Gospel Guardian 6:35 (January 13, 1955), p. 1. 2. See Earl West, "A Statement and an Explanation," Gospel Advocate September 19, 1957, p. 594, and other statements in succeeding issues over the following year. 3. See James P. Needham, The Truth About the Trouble at Taylor Boulevard (Louisville, KY, privately published, 1964). That the old "fertilizer-on-the-yard" argument is alive and well is readily apparent in Furman Kearley, "By All Means Save Some," Gospel Advocate 130:11 (November 1988), p. 5. 4. Filbeck, The First Fifty Years, 36-46. 5. Humble, Story of the Restoration , p. 74. The note of cautious optimism struck here may be due to the Arlington Meeting, held about the time Humble's book was written and in which he participated. However, the positive tone produced by Arlington was short-lived. An attempt at a follow-up meeting at Leakey, TX a year later produced the following exchange: One preacher said, 'Give us the Scripture authorizing the things you are doing and advocating; that is all we ask.' A prominent preacher retorted, 'Give us Scripture! Give us Scripture! You can teach an old green parrot to say "Give us Scripture." That is all you fellows say.' I was amazed! . . . Some churches could surely use an old green parrot to cry out, 'Give us Scripture! Give us Scripture!' . . . Few preachers are saying it" (Joe Fitch, "An Old Green Parrot," in Plain Talk [Oaks-West Church of Christ, Burnet, TX] 6:2 [April, 1969], p. 3; see Robert F. Turner, "That Leakey Meeting," Plain Talk 5:12 [February, 1969], p. 2). 6. The Guardian of Truth Directory of Churches of Christ 1989 lists approximately 2,265 congregations in the United States; other information from Mac Lynn to Steve Wolfgang, September 29, 1987 (letter and enclosures: "Statistical Summary" and "Congregational Character" for 1987 edition of Where the Saints Meet ); 1981 data reported in Flavil R. Yeakley, Jr., "Reasons for Optimism Regarding Prospects for Church Growth," Gospel Advocate 123:11 (June 4, 1981), p. 327. The figures for average members per congregation are 94.97 for all "Churches of Christ" (12,706 congregations with 1,206,799 members), with the average for "mainstream" churches (10,165 congregations with
A-12 965,439 members) marginally smaller than those for "non-mainstream" churches (2,541 congregations with 241,330 members). Figures for 1997 indicate 13,364 total "churches of Christ" with 1,275,533 members; noninstitutional churches number 1,959 (about 15 percent of the total congregations claiming to be "churches of Christ"; no-class and one-cup churches comprise 1085 congregations. For a discussion of various aspects of "counting the Christians" see Mac Lynn, "The 100 Largest," Gospel Advocate 121:22 (May 31, 1979), 344345; Carl W. Wade, "Where Are We Now?" Firm Foundation 96:42 (October 16, 1979), p. 659; and periodic issues of Mac Lynn's Missions Bulletin , issued from 1977-1987 by White Station and Ross Road Churches, Memphis, TN. 7. Florida College News Bulletin , October 1988, p. 1. The congregation at Danville, KY for a number of years has offered special training classes, taught by the local preacher, one of the elders, and other preachers. About 75 men have been in the program; many of them are now preaching in fifteen states was well as Canada, Mexico, South America, Spain, and West Germany. 8. For current information on various aspects of foreign evangelism by non-institutional churches, see Sewell Halls monthly columns in Christianity Magazine published monthly at Jacksonville, FL). 9. In order to encourage the respondents to speak as candidly as possible, I promised that no one would be quoted by name. It is clear, however, that both my questions and many of my respondents' answers have been heavily influenced by the historical interpretation advanced by Ed Harrell. Anyone who really wants to understand the conservative mentality of non-institutional brethren needs to read, for example, "The Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination" (reprinted many times as a tract; originally in Gospel Guardian 18:40, 41, 42 [February 16, 23 and March 2, 1967); "Some Practical Observations on the Middle of the Road," Gospel Guardian 20 (September 5, 1968), 273-278; "Emergence of the Church of Christ Denomination Update," Vanguard 5:2 (January 25, 1979); and Harrell's 1981 Florida College lecture on B.C. Goodpasture, op. cit. Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 9, pp. 272-275 May 4, 1989
History and Background of the Institutional Controversy (4) Since I have already used this speech to act as historian, preacher, and reporter, I will go ahead and try my hand at prognostication! About a decade ago, a preacher from the institutional persuasion asked me two questions at the conclusion of a gentlemanly discussion of our differences: (1) Was this division preventable or inevitable, and what might have been done to preclude the division of churches? (2) Is it reversible - is there any possibility of the restoring of fellowship and a feeling of brotherhood and good will to any level even approaching that of a generation ago? I would like to answer the second question first. My answer is, "No" - although I hasten to add that I would be happy to be proven wrong and to be relieved of my cynicism. A wiser historian than I has stated the case fairly starkly, however, in terms with which I must concur. Remarking on the aftermath of the Arlington Meeting, Ed Harrell asked, "Does anyone seriously believe that ... the thousands of unscriptural promotions dreamed up will . . . suddenly, or slowly, begin to disappear? Of course not. No man could bring it off; not 20 or 50 or 200 men could bring it off. And not only could they not, they will not bring it about."(1) In essence, what those of us you call "anti" are asking of our brethren is what you have been asking of the Christian Church people with whom the Joplin-type "Restoration Forums" have been conducted over-the last several years - or what H. Leo Boles asked of them at the "National Unity Meeting" in Indianapolis in 1939,(2) almost a half-century ago: that you give up the practices which divide us. Sadly, we recognize that you are not likely to react positively to such a suggestion. Indeed, it was the recognition of the fact that this was not going to happen which caused thousands of conservative brethren to renounce the many loyalties in this world - to alma mater, congregations where they once worshiped, past friendships, even family - and go their own way. Such a movement to turn the clock back would require that institutional brethren in thousands of places make a conscious decision to place fellowship with their noninstitutional brethren on a higher plane than the support of human institutions - and I think everyone here knows that simply isn't going to happen. Again, I would be delighted to be proven wrong, but everything except my wishful thinking tells me otherwise. Furthermore, the situation seems to be moving in the wrong direction for anything like this to happen. Just as some of you have discovered that your differences with even the "independent" Christian Churches (to say nothing of the "Christian Church/Disciples of Christ") involve far more than just instrumental music, so most of us who have tried to follow what is developing among institutional brethren perceive a
A-13 steady shift away from the church described in the New Testament. As one of the respondents to my survey put it, "It isn't just supporting an orphanage anymore. The liberal church in town here split this congregation almost eighteen years ago over the orphanage issue - but ironically doesn't support one to this day! What they have done is to accept people we have withdrawn from, no questions asked; or accept in full fellowship people who have left here after hearing, preaching - they didn't like on divorce and remarriage, the role of the Holy Spirit, examination of premillennial claims or of the Masonic Lodge - all of them 'shaken in' with the clear understanding that they will not hear any preaching on those or any other controversial issues. Don't let someone tell you it's just 'sending a few dollars a month to an orphanage' - it's how we look at the Bible, the church, living the Christian life, and much more. The longer it goes on, the more incompatible we will become." That this is not just the isolated carping of a disgruntled "anti" is seen, I think, in the 1986 "Expression of Concern" signed by hundreds of preachers of the institutional persuasion.(3) While their concerns are specifically directed toward the theistic evolution problem and other situations at ACU, they also state more general concerns: I. We are deeply disturbed over the liberalism that is so evident in the brotherhood today. By "liberalism" we mean especially the following items, though not excluding other specifics that could be mentioned: A. There is a drifting from the Bible-centered, definitive, distinctive doctrine that once characterized our preaching. Presently, uncertain sounds and weak messages emanate from many pulpits among us. Brethren are becoming accustomed to diluted and polluted preaching. We are rapidly approaching the point where many of our people, including preachers and elders, no longer know the difference between true Christianity and the corrupted forms of it so prevalent about us. B. There is a concerted effort on the part of some of our brethren to restructure the organization, worship and work of the church along sectarian lines, thus tending to denominationalize the New Testament body of Christ. C. A spirit of doctrinal compromise and fellowshipping of those in blatant religious error has permeated our ranks. D. The world has made alarming inroads into the church. Instead of the church influencing the world for righteousness, as it should, the world has adversely affected many brethren in matters of morality and conduct of life. E. The typical emphasis of the denominational world on recreation, entertainment, and solving the social ills of society has been incorporated into the thinking and programs of many congregations, supplanting the God-given work of meeting the desperate spiritual needs of those both within and without the body of Christ. No "anti" could have stated the case better. Indeed, from attending lectureships in the last five years at Pepperdine, ACU, Lipscomb, Freed-Hardeman and several "evangelism workshops," my observation is that these brethren are exactly right in their analysis - particularly with regard to the "social gospel" aspects of institutional churches. Just within the past year or two, I have seen articles in the Gospel Advocate encouraging, without rebuttal or rebuke from the editor or anyone else, the use of church buildings not just for fellowship dinners justified as "love feasts" but for "Scouts, quilting groups, exercise meetings, senior citizens, family reunions, receptions, and youth basketball and volleyball teams" in addition to "seminars on aging, divorce recovery, self-esteem, personal finances, stress and biblical exposition of books" - as if all were equally justifiable.(4) Others, enough to lead me to believe these are not isolated incidents, have advertised secular adult education classes, English as a second language, and GED classes offered by the church; counseling centers, medical-dental clinics, daycare centers, and "counseling services" which provide, among other things, job placement services. Brethren who might have been scandalized even a decade ago by the use of the church building for a "Chris Christian Concert" or a "Day at the Movies" (both with an admission fee) or a youth rally featuring the "World's Largest Hot Dog" all in the name of the crucified Christ - "ain't seen nothing'" yet.(5) Nor is it simply that many institutional churches seem to be hip-deep in the social gospel. Some who seem unwilling to accept or even to wrestle with the implications of following "commands and examples" seem bent on short-circuiting the process by challenging the validity of such an approach altogether. An approach which gratuitously sweeps aside any attempt to discover the details of God's plan is ultimately as offensive to "conservatives" as some of our reactions may be to those who are set to "re-examine traditional Restoration hermeneutics." Indeed, upon reading one such effort produced by an institutional
A-14 brother on "establishing authority," one non-institutional preacher remarked, "I could come nearer enjoying unity and fellowship with a conservative Southern Baptist." Furthermore, to the historian, the current trend toward abandoning attempts to ascertain what is authorized by utilizing commands, examples, and conclusions drawn therefrom (giving them the back of the hand only to replace them with humanly-perceived "principles") is old news. These hoary ideas, laden with nineteenth and twentieth century cultural values, are the very arguments promulgated a century ago by those who were moving to become what we know as the Christian Church (particularly the Disciples of Christ). Once any attempt at a literal understanding of the Bible was abandoned, these concepts were advanced to "defend" everything from instrumental music to women preachers to the "higher criticism" of the Bible. Just as an example, notice this excerpt from an 1893 Christian Standard article entitled "No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches," in which one writer argued, "A principle may set aside an apostolic precept. It may brush aside an apostolic decree. We do that constantly. We follow the apostolic example whenever we like it; when we do not, we depart from it."(6) Given this historical perspective, it is difficult to understand how someone who argues that there is "no pattern" expressed in Scripture regarding the work of the church, and that we are therefore at liberty to do whatever seems best to us, can gainsay the identical argument, which is now being advanced by defenders of instrumental music in the worship.(7) But the end is not yet: even more fundamental concepts such as the inerrancy of Scripture are being questioned by some. Although the inerrancy of Scripture and other related concepts have been challenged by some on the "fringes" of "Churches of Christ" (in Mission , for instance), it is still startling to read the following assertion by a professor in a "Christian college," and published in a journal long associated with that institution.(8) "It is consistent to believe that the Bible is authoritative in matters of faith and practice, but may be incorrect in geographical or historical details. Once a person abandons the concept of divine dictation, he must abandon the idea of inerrancy." I would like to believe that this is a misprint, or that I have somehow misunderstood the author, but it would not be the first instance of doubt being cast upon the veracity of Scripture by those who are freely accepted and granted the "right hand of fellowship" by institutional brethren. No is it an unexpected development among those who believe it is a work of the church to financially support "the ministry of continuing study toward a doctorate."(9) I believe these brethren who "Expressed their Concern" have put their finger on an historical undercurrent which was also revealed in the aftermath of the instrumental music/missionary society division. Those who are on the "pro" side of both sets of issues soon discovered that they were not a homogeneous group, and found (or are finding) reasons to separate from each other. As was the case with men such as J.W. McGarvey or Isaac Errett, first generation leaders who serve as a "bridge" for a little liberalism often discover that succeeding generations are not content to stop where their forebears drew arbitrary lines, and are determined to carry to logical extension the incipient practices of the former generation.(10) Even before I mailed my survey forms, I received an unsolicited letter from a young, but influential, preacher in what I would identify as the Firm Foundation/Spiritual Sword "orbit." He was insistent to tell me what I already knew: "that a very deep schism exists now in the institutional churches of Christ and when the final division comes (and it will) it will be greater in scope than that which occurred in 1952- 1954." This young preacher's observations on developments within the "left wing" of institutional churches of Christ simply confirm Ed Harrell's prediction more than 20 years ago that "the time will come when the editorial era of B.C. Goodpasture will evoke only embarrassed, apologies from sophisticated leaders in the Church of Christ."(11) From a diametrically opposite perspective, a young man who left the "conservative" church in which he was raised , sojourned awhile among the institutional churches, and is now involved in a denominational group on the state university campus where he is a professor - comes this analysis: that among institutional brethren there are "two fractions (not counting the MISSION-types, who are mainstream to liberal evangelicals) - one set is as 'patternistic' as conservatives without the common set of 'examples, commands,' etc. The other is a 'grace-unity' type that wants to retain C of C identity/features without having to defend them rigorously. The latter is a Christian Church with acapella music." Given these circumstances, to ask a question about restoring fellowship with the "antis" is to answer it. It would border on the absurd if it were not a logistical impossibility. And, it appears to me that in answering the second question, we have come a long way toward the answer to the first. Was the division so totally doctrinal that it was caused by the sheer force of logic on the one side and stubborn stupidity in the rejection of that logic on the other? In truth, although logic and doctrine played an important role, division came not just because brethren disagreed (which they did) or because some people misbehaved (which also occurred). They divided because they had divergent concepts of God, the Bible, the church, how to
A-15 live as a Christian, and a host of other things. That is the sort of thing that likely will not be reversed by this meeting or a dozen like it, unless I miss my guess. What then can meetings like the "Nashville Meeting" produce? Several things come to mind. (1) It might result in some people changing their minds, their lives, and their convictions about some of these issues. (2) More likely, it will simply reinforce convictions already long held. (3) It will provide an insight for learning about each other, which might be useful even if nothing else results. (4) From my perspective, it may help some of us who are younger resolve that it will not happen again in our lifetime, if we can help it at all. Perhaps such divisions are inevitable every two or three generations as new levels of perceived sophistication are attained. But I would like to think that by learning from the past, by teaching "with great patience and instruction" (2 Tim. 4:2, NASB), and by recognizing the factors and circumstances which breed division, perhaps our children or their children can avoid a quick rush into another division which can never be healed. Maybe the task is futile - some whose judgment I respect have said as much. But I must try.
Endnotes 1. Harrell, "Middle of the Road," p. 275. Even after heterodox theology among the Herald of Truth staff was publicly exposed by some of its staunchest former supporters, it quickly became clear that the critics were not about to abandon their allegiance to the principle of broadcast evangelism under a large, centralizing church; nor could any influential body of preachers muster enough influence to "kill" such a program. See Memphis Meeting With Representatives of Herald of Truth: September 10, 1973 (n.p., n.d.). 2. H. Leo Boles, "The Way of Unity Between the 'Christian Church' and Churches of Christ" (Memphis, TN: Getwell Church of Christ, 1985). This pamphlet is a reprint of Boles' speech which was originally published serially in Gospel Advocate 81 (May-June 1939 issues), and responded to in Christian Standard 74 (May-June 1939). See also "Unity Urged for Church Branches" ( Indianapolis News , May 3, 1939), and Indianapolis Star 36 (May 3, 1939), p. 15; "Disciples Discuss Unity With Churches of Christ Leaders," Christian Evangelist 77 (May 11, 1939), pp. 499-500. For accounts of Boles' speech, see J.E. Choate, I'll Stand on the Rock: A Biography of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1965), and The Anchor That Holds (op. cit.), 147-152. 3. An Expression of Concern (Ft. Worth, TX: Gospel Preachers, 1986). See also Roy Deaver, "Two False Extremes: Anti-ism and Liberalism," Spiritual Sword 16:2 (January 1985), p. 6; Garland Elkins, "The New Anti-ism" Spiritual Sword 17:1 (October 1985), p. 17; Thomas B. Warren, "Anti-ism Shackles the Church; Liberalism Opens the 'Floodgates' of Apostasy," Spiritual Sword 17:3 (April, 1986), p. 1; Probably the most complete statement of the position of this "cluster" of brethren vis-a-vis institutionalism is Thomas B. Warren, Lectures on Church Cooperation and Orphan Homes (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press [reprint]; original edition, 1958). 4. Douglas F. Parsons, "Increasing Church Visibility," Gospel Advocate 130:3 (March, 1988), pp. 24-25. For an interesting and still-relevant exchange on "social-gospelism" among churches of Christ, see J.W. Roberts, "What is the Social Gospel?" Gospel Advocate 104 (July 2, 1959), 419-420; and Ed Harrell, "Thoughts on Dishonesty," Gospel Guardian 11:20 (September 24, 1959), pp. 312-314; and Harrell, "The Social Gospel," Gospel Guardian 12:15 (August 18, 1960), pp. 225ff. 5. Ashwood Leaves (Nashville, TN), February 2 & 9, 1986, and October 11, 1987; Bering Today (Houston, TX), July 1978; see Steve Wolfgang, "Social Christianity," Weekly Reminder 16:46 (August 16, 1978), pp. 1-3). 6. George T. Smith, "No Man Wishes Women to Keep Silence in the Churches," Christian Standard 29 (October 7, 1893), p. 798. For further discussion and documentation of this kind of reasoning, see David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), especially chapters I and 13 (Harrell notes in the Preface that "the first and last chapters, taken together, are an interpretive essay on the sociological development of the church"). 7. For the present state of this argument, see Alan E. Highers, "The Status of the Instrumental Music Controversy," in Dub McClish, ed., Studies in I and 2 Thessalonians and Philemon: The Seventh Annual Denton Lectures, November 13-17, 1988 (Denton, TX: Valid Publications, 1988), pp. 480-493. 8. John T. Willis, review of William J. Abraham, The Divine Inspiration of Scripture , in Restoration Quarterly 29:3 (Third Quarter, 1987) p. 169. For previous discussion of similar statements, see the references to David H. Bobo's 1960 Abilene lecture in Banowsky, 109-110, 139-140, 145; and Warren
A-16 Lewis, “Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable," Mission 5:7 January 1972), pp. 195ff; responses in March and April 1972 and rejoinder by Lewis in July 1972 issues of Mission ; Lewis, "Let's Look at the Text - again!" Mission 8:3 (September 1974), pp. 86ff; R. Lanny Hunter, "Restoration Theology: A Schoolmaster," Mission 7:12 (June 1974), pp. 356ff.; editorially truncated response by Ron Halbrook and Steve Wolfgang, "The Approval of God," Mission 8:4 (October 1974), p. 123. 9. Bill Flatt, "Harding Graduate School of Religion Commencement, 1975" Gospel Advocate 117:26 (June 26, 1975), p. 404. On the preoccupation with academic degrees and "scholarship" among institutional preachers, see Ralph T. Henley, "Scholarship," Spiritual Sword 6:3 (April 1975), 35ff.; and Henley, "How to Get A Cheap Degree Cheap," Gospel Advocate 119:18 (May 5,1977), 276-277. 10. See Harrell, "Middle of the Road," 274. 11. Ibid. Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 10, pp. 296-297, 309-310 May 18, 1989
These articles from Guardian of Truth appears to have been scanned which resulted in some errors. An updated version of these articles have been reprinted in Deason , Simple Pattern, p.1-38 which has been used to correct some of the scanning errors.
A-17 References
General Studies
Allen, C. Leonard. Distant Voices: Discovering a Forgotten Past for a Changing Church. ACU Press, 1993.
Baker, William R., ed. Evangelicalism & The Stone-Campbell Movement . InterVarsity Press, 2002.
______. Evangelicalism & The Stone-Campbell Movement , Vol. 2. ACU Press, 2006.
Barnett, Maurice James. The Scheme of Redemption: By What Authority? Vol. 3. Barnett, 2005.
Baxter, Batsell Barrett. Family of God: A Study of the New Testament Church . Gospel Advocate Company, 1980.
Boring, M. Eugene. Disciples and the Bible: A History of Disciples Biblical Interpretation in North America . Chalice Press, 1997.
Carson, Glenn Thomas, Douglas A. Foster, and Clinton J. Holloway, eds. One Church: A Bicentennial Celebration of Thomas Campbell’ Declaration and Address. Leafwood Publishers, 2008.
Casey, Michael W. The Battle Over Hermeneutics in the Stone-Campbell Movement 1800-1870 . The Edwin Mellen Press, 1998.
Clayton, Joe Neil. The Thunderous Silence of God . Cogdill Foundation, 1972.
Deason, Jim, ed. The Simple Pattern: A Straight-Forward Explanation of Institutionalism & Related Issues. Deason, 2012.
Foster, Douglas A, Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams, eds. The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Eerdmans, 2004.
Foster, Douglas A. Will the Cycle Be Unbroken? Churches of Christ Face the 21 st Century. ACU Press, 1994.
Frost, Gene. Individually Supported Missionary Societies . Reprint of material first presented in Gospel Anchor, October, 1976 – May, 1978, including an exchange with Mike Willis.
______. Old Issues Do Not Fade Away: A Study in Centralization of Churches and Institutionalism . Reprint of material first presented in Gospel Anchor, January, 1975 – May, 1976.
Hadwin, M.R. The Role of New Testament Examples as Related to Biblical Authority . Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1974.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. Emergence of the “Church of Christ” Denomination . Harwell/Lewis Publishing Company, 2005 (orig. 1962).
______. Christian Primitivism in the Twenty-first Century: Thinking “Inside the Box” About Restoring New Testament Christianity . Harwell/Lewis Publishing Co., 2007.
R-1
Hawley, Monroe. The Focus of Our Faith: A New Look at the Restoration Principle . 20 th Century Christian Foundation, 1985.
______. Is Christ Divided? A Study of Sectarianism . Howard Publishing Company, 1992.
Hill, Samuel S. and Charles H. Lippy, eds. Encyclopedia of Religion in the South , Second Ed. Mercer University Press, 2005.
Hughes, Richard T. The Primitive Church in the Modern World . University of Illinois Press, 1995.
______. Reclaiming a Heritage: Reflections on the Heart, Soul & Future of Churches of Christ. ACU Press, 2002.
Humble, Bill J. Campbell and Controversy . Old Paths Book Club, 1952.
Nelson, Robert H. Understanding the Crossroads Controversy. Star Bible Publications, 1981.
Paregien, Stanley, ed. Thoughts on Unity. Mission Messenger, 1970.
Phillips, Dabney. Restoration Principles and Personalities . Youth in Action, Inc., 1975.
Price, John. Old Light on New Worship: Musical Instruments and the Worship of God, a Theological, Historical and Psychological Study. Simpson Publishing Co., 2005.
Richardson, Robert. The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation Urged By A. Campbell and Others, Third Ed. H.S. Bosworth, 1853. (e-Book Edition, Stone-Campbell e- Prints, May 2013)
Squire, Russel N. Where the Bible is Silent: Essays on the Campbell-Stone Religious Restoration of America . Southland Press, Inc., 1973.
Tant, Jefferson David. The History of the Institutional Controversy , rev. October, 2009 (unpublished paper).
Thomas, J.D. Harmonizing Hermeneutics: Applying the Bible to Contemporary Life . Gospel Advocate Co., 1991.
______. We Be Brethren . Biblical Research Press, 1958.
Winkler, Herbert E. Congregational Cooperation of Churches of Christ . 1958 (Second Edition, 1961).
Class Studies/Workbooks
Allen, Matthew and Ralph Girder. Why Are Churches of Christ Divided Today? A Study of Liberalism in the church of Christ . 1997. (via Internet)
Archer, Jeff. Institutionalism. One Stone Press, 2014.
Boyd, Leon and Dan King. Responsibility and Authority in the Spiritual Realm. Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1992.
Cogdill, Roy E. Walking By Faith . Gospel Guardian Company, 1957 (Second Edition, 1959).
Cooper, James E. The Christian and the Church . Cooper Publications, 1991.
R-2
Deaver, Roy C. Ascertaining Bible Authority. Biblical Notes Publishing, 1997.
Earnhart, Paul. Studies in Church History and the History of Doctrines . Unpublished.
Everett, Jim R. Study Material on “Institutional” Issues . (via Internet)
Halbrook, Ron and Dan King. A Symposium on Issues That Have Divided Brethren: Eighteen Historical and Biblical Studies . Presented at Church of Christ at Broadmoor.
Jenkins, Ferrell. Biblical Authority . Florida College Bookstore, 1990.
King, Dan and Leon Boyd. Responsibility and Authority in the Spiritual Realm. Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1992.
______. The Early Church: First Century Christianity Revealed in the New Testament . Florida College Bookstore, 1999.
McClister, David. Institutionalism: Its Roots and Fruits (no date; via Internet).
Moore, Billy W. A Study of Authority . 1971.
Owen, Bob. Problems That Have Caused Division . 1986. Unpublished.
Pope, Kyle. Issues of Division Among Modern Day Christians: A Bible Class Study in Twelve Lessons . Ancient Road Publications, 2002.
______. “Beyond What Is Written”: A Study of Institutionalism. Ancient Road Publications, 2004.
Stauffer, L.A. The Church: A Biblical Perspective . Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1994.
Debates/Discussions
The Arlington Meeting . Cogdill Foundation. Meeting held January, 1968.
Book-Miller Debate . Phillips Publications, 1955. [Debate held March 15-17, 1955 in Orlando, Florida between Morris B. Book (Christian Church) and James P. Miller (Church of Christ) on instrumental music in worship.]
Both Sides of the Music Question Discussed. C.E.I. Store, 1957. [Written discussion on the use of instrumental music in worship between Robert H. Bunting (Church of Christ) and J.D. Marion (Christian Church).]
Britnell-Woods Debate. Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1981. [Debate held May 16-17, 1977 between Eugene Britnell and Guy N. Woods on the issue of orphan homes.]
The Cogdill-Woods Debate . Gospel Guardian Company. [Debate held November 18-23, 1957 between Roy Cogdill and Guy N. Woods.]
The Indianapolis Debate . Gospel Guardian Company, 1955. [Debate held October 18-22, 1954 between W.L.Totty (and Sterl Watson who substituted for Totty due to illness) and Charles A. Holt; College, Orphan Homes, and Sponsoring Church.]
R-3
Jackson-LaCoste Debate. Thrust, Vol. V, Issue II (no date, c.1986). [Written debate on whether churches could provide assistance to those outside the church.]
Tant-Frost Debate on the Organ and Society Work in the Church of Christ . Originally Published 1904, republished by Britnell Publications, 1999.
“Whiteside-Clark Discussion on the Sunday School Question,” Firm Foundation , September 1906 – February 1907, republished by Miss Whiteside, 1969. [Written discussion between R. L. Whiteside and Nimrod L. Clark on the question of whether churches could teach via separate Bible classes: Whiteside – Yes; Clark – No.]
The Willis-Jenkins Debate . Cogdill Foundation, 1976. [Debate held September 23, 24, 26,27, 1974 between Cecil Willis and Jesse Jenkins as to whether private schools, such as Florida College, could teach the Bible as part of their curriculum.]
Lectures/Lectureships
Ferguson, Everett. “Church Music in Ephesians/Colossians,” Part 1, 2, and 3. Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship, 2002. [http://foracappella.org/a-cappella-articles/, retrieved 3/6/2015]
______. “Congregational Singing in the Early Church.” Pepperdine University Symposium “Ascending Voice,” June 5, 2007. [http://foracappella.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ Congregational-Singing-in-the-Early-Church.pdf, retrieved 3/6/2015]
Jenkins, Ferrell. “Please Don’t Call Us ‘Anti’.” 55th Anniversary Pepperdine University Bible Lectures, May 1, 1998.
The Church Faces Liberalism, Freed-Hardeman College Lectures, 1970. Gospel Advocate, 1970.
Disciples and The Church Universal. Reed Lectures for 1966 (Second Annual Series). Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1967.
Instrumental Music: Faith or Opinion. Freed-Hardeman University Preachers’ and Church Workers’ Forum 1991 . Publishing Designs, Inc., 1991.
Restoration: Then and Now . Ninth Annual Lectureship, East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions, 1983.
The Restoration Heritage in America: A Biblical Appeal for Today . Florida College Annual Lectures, 1976.
Their Works Do Follow Them . Florida College Annual Lectures, 1982.
Restoration Histories
Casey, Michael W. and Douglas A. Foster. The Stone-Campbell Movement: An International Religious Tradition. University of Tennessee Press, 2002.
Cherok, Richard J. Debating for God: Alexander Campbell’s Challenge to Skepticism in Antebellum America. Abilene Christian University Press, 2008.
R-4
Choate, J.E. and William Woodson. Sounding Brass and Clanging Symbols: The History and Significance of Instrumental Music in the Restoration Movement (1827-1968) . Freed- Hardeman University, 1991.
Garrett, Leroy. The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches . College Press Publishing Company, 1981.
Hailey, Homer. Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement . Guardian of Truth Foundation Publications, 1975.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866 . The Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966.
______. Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ , Volume 2. The University of Alabama Press, 1973, 2003.
______. The Churches of Christ in the 20 th Century: Homer Hailey’s Personal Journey of Faith . University of Alabama Press, 2000.
Holloway, Gary and Douglas A. Foster. Renewing God’s People: A Concise History of Churches of Christ . Abilene Christian University Press, 2006.
Hooper, Robert E. A Distinct People: A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20 th Century . Howard Publishing Company, 1993.
Hughes, Richard T. Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America . William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
Hughes, Richard, Nathan O. Hatch, and David Edwin Harrell, Jr. American Origins of Churches of Christ: Three Essays on Restoration History . ACU Press, 2000.
Hughes, Richard T and R.L. Roberts. The Churches of Christ, Denominations in America, No. 10, ed. By Henry Warner Bowden. Greenwood Press, 2001.
Humble, Bill. The Story of the Restoration . Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1969 (Republished by Faith and Facts Press).
______. The Missionary Society Controversy in the Restoration Movement (1823-1875) . Hester Publications, 1964 (Ph.D. Dissertation).
McAllister, Lester G. and William E. Tucker. Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) . The Bethany Press, 1975. (Disciples of Christ historians)
McMillon, Lynn A. Restoration Roots: The Scottish Origins of the American Restoration Movements. Hester Publications, 1983.
Murch, James DeForest. Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement . The Standard Publishing Company, 1962. (Christian Church/Churches of Christ historian)
Richardson, Robert. Memoirs of Alexander Campbell. Standard Publishing Co., 1987.
Tristano, Richard M. The Origins of the Restoration Movement: An Intellectual History . Glenmary Research Center, 1988. (Roman Catholic scholar)
Webb, Henry E. In Search of Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement , Revised Ed. ACU Press, 2003.
R-5
West, Earl Irvin. The Search for the Ancient Order: A Study of the Restoration Movement , Vol.1: 1849-1865, Gospel Advocate Co., 1949; Vol. 2: 1866-1906, Religious Book Service, 1950; Vol. 3: 1900-1918, Religious Book Service, 1979; Vol. 4: 1919-1950, Religious Book Service, 1987.
West, William Garrett. Barton Warren Stone: Early American Advocate of Christian Unity. The Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1954.
General American Religious Histories/Studies
Ahlstrom, Sidney E. A Religious History of the American People. Yale University Press, 1972.
Clark, Elmer T. The Small Sects in America: Their Historical, Theological, and Psychological , Revised Ed. Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1949.
Conkin, Paul K. American Originals: Homemade Varieties of Christianity. University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
Gaustad, Edwin and Leigh Schmidt. The Religious History of America: The Heart of the American Story from Colonial Times to Today , Revised Ed. Harper Collins, 2002.
Holifield, E. Brooks. Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War . Yale University Press, 2003.
Hughes, Richard T., ed. The American Quest for the Primitive Church . University of Illinois Press, 1988.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. “Epilogue,” p.239-245.
Humble, Bill J. “The Restoration Ideal in the Churches of Christ,” p.220-231.
Hughes, Richard T., ed. The Primitive Church in the Modern World. University of Illinois Press, 1995.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. “Christian Primitivism and Modernization in the Stone-Campbell Movment,” p.109f.
Jacobsen, Douglas and William Vance Trollinger, Jr., eds. Re-Forming the Center: American Protestantism, 1900 to the Present. Eerdmans, 1998.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. “Bipolar Protestantism: The Straight and Narrow Ways,” p.15f.
Hughes, Richard T. “Why Restorationists Don’t Fit the Evangelical Mold; Why Churches of Christ Increasingly Do,” p.194f.
Mead, Frank S. and Samuel S. Hill (Revised by Craig D. Atwood). Handbook of Denominations in the United States , 11 th Edition. Abingdon Press, 2001.
Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada . William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992.
______. America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. Oxford University Press, 2002.
R-6
______. The Work We Have to Do: A History of Protestants in America. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Sweet, William Warren. The Story of Religion in America , Revised Ed. Harper & Row, 1950.
Articles
“Fellowship,” Gospel Guardian , Special Issue (No Date; early 1970’s?)
“Lest We Forget,” Guardian of Truth , Vol. XXX, No.1, January 2, 1986.
Cavender, Bill. “Reminiscences”, Truth Magazine , Vol. XLVI, No.7 – Vol. XLVII, No.5, April 4, 2002 – March 4, 2004. (This is part of a longer autobiographical sketch; this section deals with events and remembrances during the institutional discussions.)
Christopher, H. “On Instrumental Music in Churches of Christ,” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. IV, October, 1867, p.349f.
Clayton, L.B. “I Believe in Christian Colleges,” Gospel Guardian , Vol.11, May 7, 1959, p.1f.
Dann, David. “Are You Part of the International Church of Christ?” Truth Magazine , Vol. 48, No. 4, February 4, 2004, p.8-10.
Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. “Restorationism and the Stone-Campbell Tradition,” Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience , Vol. II, Charles H. Lippy and Peter H. Williams, ed. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1988. [Portions of this article were reprinted and annotated by Harrell in Christianity Magazine , March 1985 to July 1986.]
______. “The South: Seedbed of Sectarianism,” Varieties of Southern Evangelicalism , David Edwin Harrell, Jr., ed. Mercer University Press, 1981.
______. “Emergence of the Church of Christ Update,” Vanguard , Vol.5, No.2, January 25, 1979.
Kimbrough, Earl. “Essentials to Christian Unity – 1887,” Faith and Facts Quarterly , Vol. 8, January, 1980, p.8f.
Lard, Moses E. “Instrumental Music in Churches and Dancing”, Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. I, March, 1864, p.330f.
______. “Have We Not Become a Sect?” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. I, March, 1864, p.242f.
______. “The Reformation For Which We Are Pleading – What Is It?” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. I, September, 1863, p.5f.
______. “A Few Words on Missionary Societies,” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. IV, April, 1867, p.149f.
M. “Review of ‘W.’ on Missionary Societies,” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. V, No.2, April, 1868, p.194f.
North, J.B. “Restoration Movement,” Dictionary of Christianity in America , Daniel G. Reid, ed. Intervarsity Press, 1990.
Petty, Daniel. “The Instrumental Music Controversy in the Restoration Movement,” Truth Magazine , Vol. 18, No. 38, August 1, 1974.
R-7
Rollman, Hans. “In Essentials Unity: The Pre-history of a Restoration Movement Slogan,” Restoration Quarterly , Vol. 39, No. 3, 1997.
Ross, Bobby Jr. “Who Are We?” The Christian Chronicle (christianchronicle.org). March, 2007; retrieved February 21, 2015.
Turner, Robert F. “Educational Institutions Among the Brethren,” Preceptor , April, 1962.
______. “Development of a Theory of Education,” Preceptor , May, 1962.
______. “The Schools and Denominationalism,” Preceptor , June, 1962.
______. “ ‘Bible Schools’ Become a Brotherhood Issue,” Preceptor , ?, 1962.
______. “The Problem of Church-School Ties,” Preceptor , September, 1962.
______. “A Close Look at ‘Our’ Colleges,” Preceptor , October, 1962.
[The above six articles by Turner were retrieved April 17, 2015 from http://lavista churchofchrist.org/LVarticles/CollegeIssue.html]
W. “Missionary Societies,” Lard’s Quarterly , Vol. V, No.1, January, 1868, p.32f.
Wade, Ronny F., “History of Individual Cups,” Old Paths Advocate , July 1, 1991. http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1991/07/OPA19910707.htm, retrieved April 11, 2015.
Wallace, Wm. E. “Roots and Heritage: A Series Reviewing Historical Backgrounds,” Vanguard , Vol. 7, No.7 – Vol. 10, No. 8, July 1981 – August 1984.
Wed, Brenda T. “Who First Adopted Individual Cups as a Regular Communion Practice?”, Sharper Iron Forum , retrieved April 10, 2015.
Wolfgang, Steve. “History and Background of the Institutional Controversy,” (4 articles) Guardian of Truth , Vol. XXXIII, No. 7 (April 6, 1989), No. 8 (April 20, 1989), No. 9 (May 4, 1989), and No. 10 (May 18, 1989).
R-8