Attitudes Toward Ministry Education Among the Founders of the

By Kerry Williams

Any examination into the present-day methods of ministerial education employed among

Churches of Christ should include a thorough analysis of the figures who conceived of and shaped the Restoration Movement at the beginning of the nineteenth century, from which the

Churches of Christ came. What did the founders feel were necessary skills and knowledge for successful ministry? How effective did they consider clergy training in their time to be? What methods of ministry training did they endorse, and which approaches did they reject? The answers to these and other questions are vital in order to understand why Churches of Christ have employed the philosophies of education that are presently used, and how those pedagogical models came to be.

The American Restoration Movement represents a unique American religious heritage.

Three present religious groups find their origins in the movement: Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches. Each of the three sects are distinctive in doctrine and practice, having taken different evolutionary courses from their commonly shared heritage.1 Yet, all three still retain specific markers unique to their restoration heritage and find commonality in their shared origins. Together, these three religious groups constitute the largest religious communion originating on American soil. In his article concerning the identity of “”

(Restoration followers of Alexander Campbell), James Cook asserts that Restoration followers

1 Henry E. Webb, In Search of Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement (Abilene: ACU Press, 2003), 5. 1

were most distinctly American in that their core spiritual identity was interwoven with their

“blatant Americanism.”2 As a result, one would expect that recognized religious historians, particularly those who focus upon religious development in the United States, would devote significant attention to the Movement and the men who formed it. However, this has not proved to be true, with most research concerning the early history of the Restoration Movement and its founders originating from within one of the three groups. Information on the movement and its founders must therefore be obtained through research into the works of restoration historians, the limited references available in broad works of religious history, and the primary writings of the restoration fathers themselves.

While the seed ground of is planted with the influence of hundreds of eighteenth and nineteenth century thinkers, the principle founders of the Restoration Movement were Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. In the decades immediately following

American independence, these men experienced a cultural environment of fertile soil for their message of returning to primitive Christianity, their philosophy of abandoning the religious innovations developed through time, and returning to the example of the early church as recorded in the New Testament for a standard of Christian practice. In the early years of the nineteenth century, both men adopted similar theological ideas independent of the other, until they learned of one another’s work and ultimately united their efforts into one fellowship. Any understanding of minister training and educational norms among restoration churches must

2 James Maverick Cook, “Identity and Nostalgia Among the Campbellites,” Restoration Quarterly, 48:3 (2006), 133. 2

therefore include an examination of both Campbell and Stone, particularly in regard to their views concerning education and the essential characteristics of effective preachers.

Barton Stone was born in 1772 in Port Tobacco, Maryland, to a prosperous land-owning family. His father died when he was only three years old, leaving Barton’s mother with four children. Fortunes turned for the Stones, and poverty drove them to rural Pittsylvania County,

Virginia, where Barton would spend most of his young life.3 The religious climate in

Pittsylvania County was contentious, with denominational leaders zealously attacking the motives and practices of other groups to solidify their own standing and glean members. As a result, “Stone’s early exposure to denominational infighting shaped a lifelong distaste for sectarianism.”4 When he came of age, limited educational opportunities led him to Guilford

County, North Carolina, where he attended a simple institution named, “Log College,” operated by a Presbyterian pastor named David Caldwell.5

Stone accepted the ordination candidacy bestowed upon him by the Presbyterian Church in 1793.6 After his departure from the Log College, he struggled to determine if ministry was truly his calling, working two years in Washington, Georgia as a Professor of Language in the

Methodist Academy.7 It was during this period that he became confident of his destiny and he

3 Matthew D. Smith, “Barton Warren Stone: Revisiting Revival in the Early Republic,” Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 111:2 (2013), 169-170. 4 Ibid., 170. 5 Ibid., 171. 6 James M. Mathes, “Biographical Sketch,” in Works of Elder B.W. Stone, (Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstatch, Keys, and Co., 1859), 16. 7 Ibid., 17. 3

“heard the call” to preach. The Orange Presbytery in North Carolina licensed him as a fully ordained minister in 1796. Stone made his way to Kentucky and began preaching in 1797 for two struggling churches near Cane Ridge and Concord.8 His dissatisfaction with sectarian denominationalism continued to grow, until he ultimately denounced his title as a Presbyterian minister and disconnected himself from all denominational ties. His departure, along with several like-minded preachers, is chronicled in his “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield

Presbytery,” to which he was connected in Kentucky, penned by Stone in 1804. Stone’s message could be characterized as reactionary to prevailing influences of the times, as he sought to reject the Calvinistic theology and creedal devotion prevalent in the reformed tradition. He drew upon

Baconian logic and its adherence to application of the scientific method to all areas of thought, to construct his system of primitive Christianity that underpinned his movement.

His passionate pleas for undenominational Christianity and piety of faith in expectation of a coming apocalypse resulted in mass appeal, with Stone’s disciples numbering over ten- thousand soon after his movement began. Frontier citizens were converted in such numbers over such a short span of time, that Stone himself opined that the message “spread like fire in dry stubble.”9 The spirit of the frontier provided the perfect kindling for his fire of restoration, as rural frontiersmen were fiercely independent-minded and prided themselves on their ability to think for themselves. Stone’s Baconian logic appealed to them, and many rejected the denominational creeds developed in the urban centers and universities of the old world and the

8 Smith, 176. 9 Ibid., 177. 4

East. Stone’s preaching was so persuasive and the growth of his ministry so negatively impactful for surrounding denominations, that Stone reported that there were even threats to his life.10

Stone focused his ministry on evangelistic preaching and the growth of his movement, writing less prolifically than his restoration contemporaries, particularly Alexander Campbell.

He would ultimately publish one journal, The , which operated from 1826 to

1845. He wrote a serial history of churches in Kentucky and an autobiography, but little else.

Stone had received his education largely through a mentoring model employed by Caldwell at the Log College, and his own efforts to train ministers would largely follow that same pattern.

He taught classes in both Lexington and Georgetown Kentucky from 1815 to 1834, and had a particular love of training young men who desired to preach and spread the vision of “restored

Christianity,” Stone’s concept of the primitive original nature of the Church wherein Christians only follow the precepts set forth in the New Testament apart from human opinion or preference.

Aspiring preachers would often be invited along as he went into the countryside preaching, and as he evangelized in churches he would encourage young converts to take on the life of ministry.

The potential preachers would receive tireless attention, as Stone would return to their locations over and over, continuing to prod them toward making a decision to preach.11

10 R.L. Roberts and J.W. Roberts, “Like Fire in Dry Stubble – The Stone Movement, Part 1,” Restoration Quarterly, 7:3 (1965), 1. 11 Ibid., 2. 5

Stone’s legacy can be summarized through the lens of his tremendous zeal for evangelism in the American frontier. He loved the sincere, hardworking, and pious people of rural Kentucky, and was invigorated by their zealous acceptance of his preaching. Stone and his followers spread their Restoration message with passion, converting thousands to the cause.

R.L. and J.W. Roberts speak to the power of his appeal:

The fervid spirit of evangelism characteristic of Stone and his followers was the key to

their success. Stone had the true genius of a religious leader. He fired his companions

with the conviction that the church had gone into apostasy in the Middle Ages and that

religious people must come out of Babylon and go back to the Bible and the Lord’s

Church or be lost.12

Alexander Campbell immigrated to the new world from Scotland in 1809, following his father, Thomas Campbell, who had arrived two years prior. The two preachers had sojourned to

America in order to leave behind what they saw as an oppressive clergy and ecclesiastical tradition that had served to corrupt true Christianity in Europe. They were repulsed by an old- world clergy who used their position to advance their own power and suppress the voices of any who dared to dissent with their views. Once in the new world, Alexander married Margaret

Brown in 1811 and took possession of a farm gifted to him by her father in Western Virginia,

12 Ibid., 7. 6

which would forevermore be called “Bethany.”13 From there he preached in the community’s small congregation, wrote and edited two long-running journals, and operated a college until his death in 1866. Tireless in work and unfaltering in conviction, contemporaries of Alexander

Campbell marveled at his accomplishments. He served as an editor, preacher, traveler, teacher and author, and as one observer remarked, knew “no rest during his conscious hours.”14

Campbell’s aggressive and charismatic preaching and his keen logical mind advanced him as a minister, writer, and debater. As he conflicted with the religious powers of his time, he proved to be a gifted and persuasive disputant, so much so that Sydney Alstrom describes Alexander

Campbell as “aggressive and disputatious,” making it his mission to “point out the ‘errors’ of existing churches.”15

The philosophical backgrounds of Campbell, Stone, and their followers are imperative to understanding the formation of their ideas and how those ideas connected to their views on education and minister training. “Baconianism” was a common ideal in early nineteenth century

America, which Alexander Campbell, and to a lesser extent Barton W. Stone, vocally ascribed.

Francis Bacon built upon John Locke’s theories of reason and logic, to form a practical system through which to view the world using observation and common sense interpretation of facts.

Often referred to as “common-sense realism,” this ideology aimed to logically defend

13 John L. Morrison, Alexander Campbell: Educating the Moral Person, (Jack Morris, 1991), 33. 14 , The Trials of the Ancient Order, (Delight: Gospel Light Publishing, 1993), 56. 15 Sydney E. Alstrom, A Religious History of the American People, (New Haven and London: Yale, 1972), 447. 7

Christianity from skepticism by, “exonerating belief from the charge of superstition.”16 In the midst of a scientific age, advocates of common-sense philosophy therefore sought to defend the reasonableness of spiritual belief.17

No less important to our understanding of how their ideas developed, is a comprehension of the unique religious environment in America in the early eighteenth century, particularly in contrast with European Christianity. “The American Revolution severed existing ties between the American Churches and the European counterparts,” explains Michael Hines.18 Americans had fled Europe to acquire freedoms in the new world, and religious freedom was at the top of the list of many immigrants’ fondest desires. As the nation threw off the shackles of governmental control, so denominations severed themselves from their ecclesial bodies in the old world. Individualism, democratic decision making, voluntary participation, and independence from state sanction or control were sacrosanct to these religious pilgrims. As a result, American religious groups found themselves in a great religious marketplace of ideas, unencumbered by the traditions and loyalties of the past. Fierce competitiveness was born from the constitutionally protected religious freedom, which elevated tensions between denominations.19

16 Carisse Mickey Berryhill, “Common Sense Philosophy,” in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Foster, Douglas A., Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams Eds, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 230. 17 Ibid. 18 Michael Hines, History of the American Restoration Movement, (Sun City: Michael W. Hines, 2014), 21. 19 Ibid., 22. 8

The objective of Campbell and Stone’s religious revolution was two-fold. First, they sought to correct what they saw as corruption and dissent in the protestant denominations. Their original objective was unity among Christian believers, as they envisioned a Christian utopia in

America where all Christ-followers were of one accord on matters of faith and doctrine. The appeal throughout the early years of the United States of this non-denominational unity was distinct, as entire churches which considered themselves as “free” or “independent” rallied to the call for restoration.20 The fiery spirit of restoration preachers, particularly Stone and Campbell, clearly appealed to the masses as well and stoked the fire of frontier independent thought among western Americans. One entire group, known as the German Baptists, united with the Stone branch of the movement in 1815.21

Their second objective centered upon a hermeneutical ideal. As all of the protestant denominations claimed Christianity, yet were divided on multiple issues, the restoration fathers sought to devise a means of biblical interpretation that could unite all Christ-followers into one faith. Distinct denominations in the early nineteenth century adhered to creeds which defined each group’s distinguishing brand of Christianity. Campbell and Stone saw these creeds as human opinion and innovation and the barrier that kept Christians apart. They proposed that true

Christians would have no creed but the Bible, and be referenced by no name other than

“Christian.” Although other American reformers called for more unity among believers than existed at the time, and others promoted a return to scripture as the standard of faith, Campbell

20 Roberts and Roberts, 3. 21 Ibid. 9

and Stone were unique in their marriage of the two concepts. Michael Hines makes this clear, identifying the unique heritage of the Restoration Movement as being rooted in the interweaving of these concepts. He states, “A few individuals called for Christian unity but the Restoration

Movement was the first to wed a plea for unity to a return to biblical authority.”22

As a result of these two objectives, the Churches of Christ developed a distinctively anti- denominational identity, as the aim of being “only Christians” and leaving behind sectarian models served to provide a rally point of commonality for members of the movement. Richard

T. Hughes explains that, “their [members of the restoration movement community] resolute rejection of these labels [“sect” and “denomination”] has been central to what Churches of Christ have been about for almost two hundred years.”23 He identifies the irony of this reality, noting that the group’s rejection of the terms “sect” and “denomination” have thereby become, “central to their own identity.”24 In a sense, the dedication to no human creeds therefore became the identifying creed of retorationists. Alstrom addresses the ironic results of the Movement’s insistence on the rejection of creeds, stating that, “Campbell’s campaign for undoing denominationalism was the chief factor in the origination of a new denomination.”25 This observation is common among non-restoration religious historians but is vehemently rejected by present day Churches of Christ, who remain insistent that they are not a denomination but rather

22 Hines, 23. 23 Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 2. 24 Ibid. 25 Alstrom, 448. 10

the current manifestation of the church of the New Testament. Such thinking is unique to

Churches of Christ and other restorationist groups, as the majority of Christian organizations assert their own preferred doctrine while recognizing that they are one of many “types”

(denominations) of Christianity as a whole. Campbell and Stone’s followers reject the very idea that there are separate parts (sects or denominations) that together form the whole of Christianity.

The religious climate of the early nineteenth century was combative. Sermons were often steeped in condemnation, as preachers saw themselves as cultural guardians of all that was moral and upright. As a result, differences between religious leaders were frequently contentious. The medium of conflict was public debate. Religious debates were widely publicized and drew large crowds, as they served as both a source on information and entertainment. The founders of the

Restoration were particularly skilled in contentious rhetoric, debating often with their denominational rivals to great success.

Periodical journals provided the medium through which most restoration ideals were propagated. Publications were began by practically every influential restoration preacher, including Campbell and Stone. It was through such journals that doctrinal positions and organizational ideals were formulated, as writers would propose thoughts to be either endorsed or debated by other editors and contributors. With wholly autonomous congregations not connected to any denomination or organizational body, the Restoration Movement relied upon

11

the papers to inform and instruct, resulting in editors who, “both reflected and shaped popular orthodoxy at any given time.”26

Campbell and Stone profoundly influenced a number of other preachers and religious thinkers. As they opposed the denominational powers of their day, many preachers who were equally disenchanted with the status quo rallied to the cause. Doctrinal purity was of paramount concern to early restoration leaders. The disunity they observed in the denominational world was attributed to disagreements between sects concerning worship practices, moral teachings, and theological perspectives. A common practice of religious groups at the time was to publish creed books which outlined the particular beliefs of the church and laid forth membership requirements for parishioners. Both Stone and Campbell saw these creeds as symptomatic of the root problem; churches and church leaders had abandoned God’s will as revealed in the Bible and pursued their own opinions. Denominations had therefore, in Stone and Campbell’s minds, become bastions of corruption for a self-serving clergy. In response, the Restoration founders proposed a return to “New Testament Christianity,” marked by a hermeneutic devoted only to the restoration of primitive Christianity as recorded in the New Testament. The eventual result in Churches of Christ of this hermeneutic was the development of atypical doctrinal positions, including the rejection of instrumental music in favor of congregational a capella singing and the partaking of communion every Sunday rather than monthly or quarterly. These practices were defended in light of Stone and Campbell’s rhetoric as necessary due to the absence of

26 Hughes, 10. 12

instruments in the New Testament record and the inclusion of the Lord’s Supper “as oft as they came together.”

The Restoration Movement found its origin in what was considered the American

“frontier” of the early nineteenth century. Stone’s work concentrated in Kentucky and

Campbell’s in Western Virginia. Stone’s influence spread northwest into Ohio, , and

Illinois, as Campbell’s grew southwest into and Tennessee. Frontier education, both theological and secular, was far removed from any present counterpart, in that standards and criteria currently associated with higher education were non-existent. Henry Webb, restoration historian, explains:

It must be borne in mind that recognized educational standards did not exist in the

nineteenth century, and the terms college and university were used quite carelessly and

did not convey the meaning that they do today. The Disciples were largely rural people,

and most rural areas lacked public high schools.”27

As a result, many students who attended bible colleges on the frontier did not have the equivalent of a high-school education, and classroom instruction would thereby focus on the basic needs for success in a frontier culture.28

27 Webb, 224-225. 28 Ibid., 225. 13

Seminaries and colleges were common fixtures for the denominations from which restorationists had made their exodus, and were often seen as a source of the error perpetuated by those sects. Arguments were made that pure religion would be void of such institutions.

Following the new restoration tradition of referencing only biblical authority for church practice,

Stone argued against seminaries and colleges saying, “Paul did not establish, or recommend to be established, colleges for the education of a learned ministry,”29 Nevertheless, the need for a trained clergy became evident due to the lack of men to fill pulpits for the rapidly growing movement, and calls to establish training institutions slowly took root. Stone himself would ultimately teach in such institutions while still maintaining his misgivings concerning the dangers they posed to pure Christianity.

The first attempt to form any institution of higher learning among early restorationists came in 1833 with a charter to open a school in New Albany, Indiana. The school never became a reality, but the idea gave birth to a college in Georgetown, Kentucky three years later in 1836.

Named after the philosopher Francis Bacon who had so profoundly influenced restoration theology through “baconianism,” Bacon College moved to Harrodsburg, Kentucky in 1839 where it continued for a decade before being absorbed into the new Transylvania University.30

29 B.W. Stone, “Young and Old Preacher,” in Works of Elder B.W. Stone, (Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstatch, Keys, and Co., 1859), 201. 30 Webb, 160-161. 14

Throughout the rest of the nineteenth century, colleges were began in thirteen states, one

Canadian province, and Washington D.C., totaling thirty-one schools by the end on the century.31

Barton Stone’s perspectives on education must be determined by piecing together his writings and interpreting his actions, as he seldom addressed the subject directly. However, his opponents were quick to criticize his movement, partially due to what they considered a lack educational emphasis. Sydney Alstrom addresses the criticisms leveled against Stone by his former associates, explaining, “Barton Stone and other New Light leaders of the were coming under suspicion not only for indecorous churchmanship and low educational standards, but for heresy as well.”32 Presbyterians had long valued a catechetical system and a well-educated ministry.33 Barton Stone’s emphasis solely upon the authority of the written word and the doctrinal purity of a preacher over his credentials, stripped ecclesial powers of influence in local congregations. His de-emphasis on formal education therefore became a major point of departure symptomatic of the divergent values of his movement from the religious status-quo of the time.

One of his writings, entitled “An interview between and old and young preacher,” records conversations between Stone and a new college graduate in the pursuit of preaching. There is clearly no disdain shown to the young man for his higher education, as Stone even references the

31 Ibid., 225-226. 32 Alstrom, 445. 33 Ibid., 444. 15

benefits of knowing Socrates, Demosthenes, and Cicero,34 yet the letters indicate that the old preacher believed the young man needed much more instruction toward the ministry. The nine interviews insinuate a powerful mentor/mentee relationship, which Stone clearly believed to be the most productive form of clerical instruction. The primary caution he imparts to the aspiring minister in regard to his education concerned the temptation of pride inherent in higher learning, as he warned that the young, “especially those favored with a liberal education like yourself, are apt to feel more self-confident and independent than others.”35 Arrogance among the clergy with whom Stone had long wrestled clearly vexed him, causing such men to act, in Stone’s opinion, as if “everything must emanate from them and terminate with them.”36 The true problem, in his judgement, was that they had elevated themselves to, “a superior order of men - they are clergy and the people are laity.”37 He warned his student to resist the temptation of pride at all costs, even to ignore the gracious compliments of church members in order to resist becoming “puffed up.”38 His stern warnings to this young man were echoed throughout Stone’s life, as evidenced by his essay, “To Young Preachers,” in which he wrote, “Some are tempted to please man by an ostentatious show of learning and talents. This is to preach self, not the Lord Jesus - it is to advance self, and not the cause of Christ.”39

34 B.W. Stone, “Young and Old Preacher,” 165. 35 Ibid., 165. 36 Ibid., 201 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid., 185. 39 B.W. Stone, “To Young Preachers,” in Works of Elder B.W. Stone, (Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstatch, Keys, and Co., 1859), 343. 16

A love of simple scripture in contrast to “complex theology” colored Stone’s views regarding ministerial training as well. To his protégé he charged that the young man had “long walked in the fogs of scholastic divinity, which have obscured the sun and the air, or thrown on the Scriptures an almost impenetrable fog,” and that the young preacher’s mind had therefore become, “tangled and confused.”40 A strong prejudice against the theological scholasticism common among seminaries in his time was unapologetically communicated, as Stone believed that their emphasis on the traditional curriculum of the religious academy had obscured and corrupted the true gospel.

The issue of ministerial financial support was of significant importance to Stone and the churches that followed in his stead. Stone’s passion for growth had caused him to range far and wide to spread his message, and his itinerant lifestyle was imitated by his followers.41

Evangelistic zeal was therefore intense among Stonites, and ministers were frequently sent westward to preach. These proselytizers were often supported financially by the churches who sent them forth.42 However, Stone himself was not in favor of a regular salary for ministers, stating, “I am opposed to stipulated sums of money to be offered an evangelist for his services.”43 Many early restorationists shared this sentiment, believing that salaried ministers were susceptible to the corruption of greed and the quest for power. Instead, men of such

40 B.W. Stone, “Young and Old Preacher,” 170-171. 41 R.L. Roberts and J. W. Roberts, “Like Fire in Dry Stubble – The Stone Movement, Part 2,” Restoration Quarterly, 8:1 (1965), 3. 42 Ibid., 2. 43 B.W. Stone, “Young and Old Preacher,” 199. 17

conviction should devote their passions to preaching while supporting themselves and their families through other business endeavors. Throughout his ministry, Campbell himself derived the bulk of his personal income from the agricultural income of his Bethany farm.

In essence, it was a desire for spirituality among those called to minister that was of paramount importance to Stone. He wrote of the need for preachers who engaged in deeply emotional communion with God and their parishioners, who “converses much with his own heart, and is often on his knees.”44 He felt that training should aim to develop the preacher’s soul and fill him with the Holy Ghost, rather than simply develop a competent knowledge of religious language and practice. “I love learning,” he wrote, “but it cannot supply the lack of the Spirit.”45

For this reason he feared the impulse of some of his followers to develop structured educational models. He stated that, were his disciples to have “colleges and seminaries among us as our own,” then, “we shall as a people surely denigrate, and lose what little of the Spirit we may have, and sink into carnality.”46

It seems clear that Stone faced a crisis of conscience on the issue of ministerial training.

His prejudices against the seminaries and colleges operated by contemporary religious groups is plainly evident in his writings and sermons. Yet, when asked directly if he opposed colleges and human learning, he responded, “No, far from it - I wish we had ten for every one we have.” He

44 B.W. Stone, “Address to Elders, Etc.,” in Works of Elder B.W. Stone, (Cincinnati: Moore, Wilstatch, Keys, and Co., 1859), 330. 45 B.W. Stone, “Young and Old Preacher,” 200. 46 Ibid., 200-201. 18

then qualified his response, stating, “but I do not wish to see them made a part of heaven’s religion.”47 Stone clearly saw the need for a clergy well educated in the scriptures, but feared the possible results of such education.

Like Stone, Alexander Campbell’s viewpoints concerning the formal education of ministers varied at different stages of his life, transforming in tandem with the evolution of his doctrinal viewpoints. Campbell was self-educated, and did not himself possess a college degree.

In spite of this, he became the founder of Bethany College and served as president of the school for twenty-five years.48 Regardless of his lack of formal education, he was frequently referred to by the title “Doctor” by his peers and contemporary educators.49 The skill with which he spoke and debated impressed both supporter and opponent alike. Former President James Madison, who served with Campbell in the Virginia Constitutional Convention, stated that Alexander was,

“the best expositor of the Scriptures he had ever heard.”50

Campbell was often very distrustful of the academy and its influence upon churches. His deep-seated resentment of organized clergy was clearly communicated in his sermons and his writings. Believing that preachers of the established denominations were pawns of their ecclesial bodies who endorsed the status quo above biblical truth, he endeavored to differentiate his practice and ministry from theirs. Webb explains that Campbell, “created hostility toward

47 Ibid., 201. 48 Morrison, 18. 49 Ibid. 50 Leroy Garrett, “Alexander Campbell,” in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, Foster, Douglas A., Paul M. Blowers, Anthony L. Dunnavant, and D. Newell Williams Eds., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 113. 19

clerical ‘hirelings’ who preached for pay, and he had set the example of never taking any pay for preaching.”51 Like Stone’s followers, the early frontier churches under Campbell’s influence followed suit, and were led by elders who accepted little or no pay for preaching.52 This standard necessitated a bi-vocational clergy, as professional ministers would have no means of compensation for their work. Over time, the standard was forgotten, as congregations grew larger and desired full-time clergy to meet the needs of parishioners. The change, however, was begrudgingly accepted by Campbell’s protégés. , an early restorationist and follower of Campbell who himself established two colleges,53 “lamented the ‘pastor system’ and

‘the idea of theological schools to manufacture preachers.”54 These attitudes concerning denominational clergy and the seminaries that trained them explain a great deal in regard to

Campbell’s personal perspectives on how ministers should be trained within the movement.

Campbell’s prejudices regarding clergy and minister training in his time were even more pronounced than Stone’s, and clearly influenced his overall views on education. His perspective concerning the general education available in the United States centered upon the formulation of a “common school” for teaching his society’s commonly held beliefs rooted in Christian morality.55 Although he would educate ministers for twenty-five years as the president and an instructor at Bethany College, he was originally more concerned with the education of the

51 Webb, 203. 52 Morrison, 18. 53 A. R. Holton, “Tolbert Fanning,” in Restoration Quarterly, 1:1 (1957), 32. 54 Webb, 204. 55 Morrison, 22. 20

nation’s children. Morrison tells us that Campbell believed, “the classroom teacher would shape the moral destiny of children even more than the minister – given Campbell’s generally low opinion of the clergy, so much the better.”56 His concern for the moral education of children stemmed from his belief that Christian families had become carnal in their desires for their offspring, more concerned with status and achievement than with holiness and piety. He wrote,

“Most saints, in this generation, appear more zealous that their children should shrine on earth, than in heaven - and that they may be rich here, at the hazard of eternal bankruptcy.”57 A desire that education be focused upon the spiritual rather than egoistic pursuits of this world therefore influenced his views concerning primary education, and also shaped his outlook on higher learning, particularly in terms of ministry training.

In spite of his distrust of seminaries and the training afforded ministers by the denominational bodies of his day, Campbell turned to a university model to train soldiers for his new theological movement. The first attempt by Campbell to educate others, with the help of his father Thomas Campbell, began in 1823 at his home in Bethany. It was named “the Buffalo

School,” and it survived a mere three years before it was disbanded in 1826.58 Designed primarily for “young men,” so that they might learn to minister the Gospel, Buffalo was built with the philosophy that families provided the best model of education.59 A patriarchal figure

56 Ibid., 25. 57 Alexander Campbell, “The Regeneration of the Church,” in , August 1833, 364. 58 Morrison, 35. 59 R. Edwin Groover, The Well-Ordered Home: Alexander Campbell and the Family, (Joplin: College Press, 1988), 111-112. 21

was found in Campbell himself, and matriarchal influence was provided by his wife. Boarding schools were not uncommon on the frontier, yet Buffalo’s dormitory approach deviated greatly from accepted norms. Students were boarded in direct contact with Campbell’s family, in order to “inculcate moral and spiritual values.”60 By all known accounts, Buffalo Seminary was a success when Campbell decided to close the doors in 1823. His precise reasons for the closure are not known. However, he constantly had to balance teaching and administration responsibilities with an extensive travel schedule, and took note that “few of his students were choosing to devote their lives to the ministry.”61 Whatever his motives, it was not long until his desire to operate a school was resurrected. In spite of the short tenure of this first foray into higher education, he subsequently founded Bethany College in 1840, which has been in continuous operation to the present day. Although Bethany did produce many of the subsequent leaders of Campbell’s revolution, he was true to his views regarding “Common schools,” as the college emphasized liberal arts subject matter in addition to scriptural instruction.

Campbell’s aversion to traditional clerical training was evident in Bethany’s charter, which contained a provision specifically forbidding the teaching of theology. Webb states that

Campbell’s, “Hostility toward a professional clergy rendered special clerical education unacceptable.”62 Continuing in his philosophy of “common school” curriculum, Bethany mirrored the present model of liberal arts learning, as history, classic literature, and rhetoric were

60 Ibid., 114. 61 Ibid. 62 Webb, 226-227. 22

all required portions of the curriculum. Like Buffalo Seminary, Campbell intended Bethany to educate the whole person, with a primary school serving as a feeder for the college. A family environment and Church fellowship would be essential to the educational process. Campbell’s announcement in the Millennial Harbinger incorporated all of these aspects. He wrote:

A New Institution. Plan of Literary, Moral, and Religious School: or the Union of Four

Institutions in One – The Combination of the Family, the Primary School, the College,

and the Church in One Great System of Education.63

The primary school never developed into more than a boarding school,64 while Bethany

College thrived. The original aims through which the school was conceived were, however, accomplished, as scores of men obtained their education at Bethany and went on to further

Campbell’s theological movement. Campbell considered the school to be one of his most significant achievements, remarking that his relationship to his students was like that of a father and a son.65

In spite of his aversion to “theological education,” Campbell did incorporate regular

Bible instruction.66 His emphasis on “Bible” rather than “Theology” stemmed from his disdain for ordained clergy and seminaries, as he deeply believed in the importance of knowing and

63 Alexander Campbell, “A New Institution,” in Millennial Harbinger, October 1839, 446. 64 Groover, 124. 65 Ibid., 126. 66 Webb, 227. 23

being true to the scriptures, but felt that the accepted academic pursuits of Biblical training were potentially corrupting to the true gospel. Campbell’s departure from accepted norms of theological training and Bethany’s divergence from those models served to further alienate him and the Restoration from the broader religious community. Colby Hall, former Dean of Brite

Seminary at Texas Christian University, asserts that his refusal to include theology in Bethany’s curriculum was, “the final withdrawal from the sophisticated theological world that set Campbell outside the bounds of their esteemed sanctuary.”67

Although theology would eventually become standard curriculum, subsequent

Restoration colleges continued to emphasize non-theological subject matter for decades, as both

Stone and Campbell’s influence and strong views on the subject held enormous sway. Tolbert

Fanning’s Franklin College, chartered in Nashville Tennessee in 1845, adopted a curriculum inclusive of agriculture and foundations of various trade professions. It was designed to be, “an education that involved the whole man,” and “fit one for responsibilities and duties in all walks of life,”68 Franklin was recognized by the State of Tennessee as far more than simply a clergy workshop, but a vital institution for the education of the state’s citizenry. It wasn’t until 1865 when J.W. McGarvey, a prominent preacher in the Movement, took a faculty position at

67 West, 50. 68 Holton, 33.

24

Kentucky University in Lexington, that emphasis shifted toward a more traditional approach to theological instruction.69

A foundational pillar of Campbell’s philosophy of education was the belief that logic would prevail if students were allowed to equally examine evidence supporting opposing viewpoints. This manifestation of intellectual freedom was uncommon in religious circles of the time. The free marketplace of ideas was sacred to him, and he believed without reservation that, when presented with all the facts from all sides, his view of primitive Christianity would always prevail. In his publication, Campbell supported his unwavering dedication to this ideal, pledging to “never approve nor censure anything without the clearest and most satisfactory evidence from reason and revelation.”70 Proving true to his promise, Alexander printed both sides of numerous debates throughout the life of his two publications.71 He also encouraged free thought among students at Bethany College with debates on contentious subjects, such as the morality of slavery, being common. Campbell himself held strong positions on the subjects debated (he freed his own slaves and endorsed repatriation of slaves to Africa), yet he encouraged those with dissenting views to speak proudly in defense of their convictions.

Campbell strongly felt that the craft of preaching in the early eighteenth century had been reduced to inferior forms. Alger Fitch states that Alexander believed that, “The popular method of preaching from a text received the blame for lay ignorance of the Scripture and clerical

69 Webb, 227. 70 Alexander Campbell, in Christian Baptist, I, p, x. 71 Morrison, 38. 25

proclamation of party doctrine,” and that, “such a preacher was not preaching Christ but himself.”72 He was most vexed by the lack of scripture employed by many of his contemporaries. Bible verses, sometimes as few as three in one two-hour sermon,73 were often included only to make a particular point that was deemed important to the speaker. This practice came to be known as “proof-texting” and Campbell vocally denounced it as a mistreatment of scripture. These frustrations undoubtedly helped to shape Campbell’s ideology of preaching and his philosophy of how men should be trained to minister.

Due to his opinion of the poor state of preaching in his time, “Campbell called for all teachers and preachers under his influence to restudy the ancient scriptures for a sure answer to the questions ‘What should we preach?’ ‘How should we preach?’ and ‘When and where and why?’”74 These three queries constituted the education construct through which he would train the men who furthered the Restoration Movement. The rational study of the Bible to determine biblical authority and thereby strip religion of human opinion and tradition became his driving force. Discipline and commitment were therefore essential to his definition of faithful preaching, as sermonizers were expected to go beyond simple outlines and illustrations, and dig deeply into the whole of the Bible in order to synthesize the breadth of scripture and mine out God’s intended meaning on every pertinent subject.

72 Fitch, 22. 73 Ibid. 74 Ibid., 27-28. 26

The aforementioned viewpoints of Campbell and Stone resulted in a powerful clergy who were not considered, by themselves or their parishioners, to be clergy. Official distinctions between clergy and laity were erased. Ministers often adopted the authoritative and domineering tone of Campbell, yet their authority was unofficial, derived from the force of their personality rather than any official elevation of their position. Alstrom explains that preachers were, “in no sense above the laity, and not to be set apart by the title ‘reverend,’” and that “all higher levels of ecclesiastical organization (if allowed at all) were regarded as purely informal and without authority.”75 With such widespread devaluation of the institutional authority of ministers, it is no surprise that unceremonious forms of ministry training were valued as highly or even higher than traditional seminary models. Alstrom’s use of the word, “informal” is therefore descriptive of minister training in the early nineteenth century.

Although classroom instruction was utilized, a form of mentorship was greatly preferred by both Campbell and Stone. They both took potential preachers “under their wings,” where they would learn directly from an experienced minister. Campbell personally tutored a number of those men who would ultimately follow in his footsteps, and Stone searched out potential protégés in every town he visited. Clearly the restoration founders believed that ministerial training was, at its core, best realized as an intimate endeavor. In this way, knowledge could be imparted alongside zeal, which was vitally important to Stone, and personal piety as emphasized by Campbell.

75 Alstrom, 448. 27

As we have seen, the founders of the Restoration shared a deep-seated resentment of clerical structures as they existed in their time, and feared the influence of those models on their young movement. Pride and self-serving ambition seem to be at the core of their concerns.

Humility was far more important to them than academic credentials or acceptance in the theological world. They hoped, therefore, to find means of education that impressed modesty upon their students, developing a character more concerned with the gospel and its spread, than the glory of the spokesperson.

28