Restoration History

Restoration History

Loyalty Resolution• First wartime meeting of ACMS in 1861

at Cincinnati.– South not represented.– Question: would society take stand

favoring the North?– Issue raised by Dr. John P. Robison

of Ohio--called on “brethren everywhere to do all in their power to sustain the proper and constitutional authorities of the Union.”

Loyalty Resolution

• James A. Garfield, in Union uniform, made short speech in favor of the resolution.– Adopted with only one dissenting vote.– But, the society had to adjourn for a 10-

min. “recess” before the vote was taken.– So technically the motion was accepted

by a “mass meeting” of those present--not by the society in formal session.

James A. Garfield(1831-1881)

Loyalty Resolution• With the news, Fanning was

heartbroken and angry.– Just before GA had to suspend

publication due to the war, he told readers that the society had adopted resolutions approving “the wholesale murder” of the Southern people.

– His viewpoint: the society was encouraging “thousands of professed servants of the Prince of Peace” to enlist in the Union army.

Loyalty Resolution

• Fanning: “Can we fraternize with them as brethren?”– Unless there was thorough repentance on

their part, didn’t see how he could “ever regard preachers who enforce political opinions by the sword, in any other light than monsters in intention, if not in very deed.”

– “How can Christian men of the South do otherwise?”

– 2 years before: “We are one people.”

2nd Loyalty Resolution

• 1863, a stronger resolution adopted.

• One reason, pressure from a small but vocal group of militant abolitionists.

• Thru 1850s they--Pardee Butler, Ovid Butler, John Boggs--demanded--– Slavery be denounced.– Southern slave-owners be

disfellowshiped.


• Even A.C. criticized.– C. had long opposed slavery, but saw

abolitionism as even greater danger to unity.– Abolitionists denounced him as “soft” on

issue and est. rival college in Indianapolis--• Northwestern Christian University.• Later Butler U.

• Northwestern Christian Magazine, ed. by John Boggs, (1854), abolionist.

John Boggs(1810-1897)

Pardee Butler(1816-1888)

2nd Loyalty Resolution• NCM denounced ACMS for being

“implicated in the sin of slavery.”– Dr. James Barclay had been a

slaveholder before becoming society’s first missionary.

– 1858 abolitionists established a rival missionary society--Christian Missionary Society.

– Membership requirement: “No complicity in the crime of American Slavery.


• So, before war, brotherhood in North divided between two rival missionary societies competing for support.– Abolitionist society not disbanded

when war began.– John Boggs warned ACMS that unless

it would bear “testimony against slavery as the cause of the present rebellion” division would remain.


• Beset by extreme criticism, ACMS also faced rumors that it was disloyal to the Union.

• Thus, in 1863, it adopted a new loyalty resolution which denounced these rumors as “false and slanderous” and declared its unqualified support of the North.

2nd Loyalty Resolution• Action alienated many former supporters.• McGarvey said society had destroyed its

usefulness and should “cease to exist.”• Moses E. Lard called it a shameful action and

warned if it ever passed another political resolution, “it should die.”

• B. Franklin, American Christian Review, said society had abandoned “its legitimate work.”

• After war, F. was the society’s opponent in North.

Sectional Bitterness

• Divisive effect evident after the war ended.• 1866 Fanning proposed a “general

consultation meeting” in South.– Hardships in South.– Communications disrupted, periodicals

suspended, preachers unable to travel.– Thus, F. thought S. Christians needed to

“counsel together” on condition of church.– Murfreesboro, June, 1866 (6 states).

Benjamin Franklin(1812-1878)

Tolbert Fanning(1810-1874)


• When B. Franklin read it, objected that N. Christians excluded: “There is no South or North in our gospel.”– Fanning responded that he doubted “the

propriety of a hasty religious reconstruction” with North.

– Since they had been “employing the fist of wickedness,” “It seems to me that men engaged in such service, may not be very well prepared to engage in genuine spiritual cooperation.”


• GA resumed pub. in 1866.– Lipscomb lost no time in writing about

wartime resolutions.– Language more bitter than Fanning’s.

• L. recalled expecting ACMS to help with peace and pacifism.

• “We found only vindictive, murderous spirit ruling its counsels, and encouraging the Christian (?) work of Christians North robbing and slaughtering Christians South.”


• L. charged ACMS had performed valuable service to North “in inducing the followers of the prince of peace to become men of war and blood.”– Said before war nothing more effective than

Franklin’s articles in American Christian Review in restraining Southern Christians from enlisting.

– But 1861 resolution had caused enlistment.


• Resolution, L. knew, had caused Southern brethren to enlist, & some didn’t return.

• “We felt, we still feel, that the Society committed a great wrong against the Church and the cause of God. We have felt, we still feel, that without evidence of a repentance of the wrong, it should not receive the confidence of the Christian brotherhood.”


• ACMS records furnish evidence of divisive impact of war.– 1879 report admitted society was fighting a

“fearful battle” against its opponents.– First source noted was “the alienations

produced by the late war.”

• War had so shattered sense of brotherhood that could never again be called “one people” in meaningful sense.


• War not only reason for division.– Before war S. Christians had accepted

a stricter view of restoration principle—e.g., opposition to missionary society.

– But, S’s stricter interpretation didn’t result in division until war bitterness had destroyed atmosphere of good will in which doctrinal differences might have been discussed.


• Two threads of alienation had become tangled together and had shattered unity.– Sectional bitterness.– Different understandings of

restoration principle.• Tolbert Fanning would never again

say, as in 1859, “We are one people.”

Influence of Editors• Often said: “The Restoration Movement

has not had bishops; it has had editors.”

• True that editors have wielded great influence.– With bishops, power is in their hands.– With congregational governance, there

must be leadership.– In RM this leadership has been provided

by editors.

Influence of Editors

• Years following the Civil War were fateful ones for the movement.

• And during these years it was the editors, once more, who led the movement.


• Benjamin Franklin and the American Christian Review.– ACR most influential journal in North

after war– Franklin (1812-1878) .

• Self-made man with little formal education.

• Most popular preacher in brotherhood during 1860s and 1870s.

Influence of Editors• Benjamin Franklin.

– Spoke language of masses and enjoyed their confidence.

– Most popular debater after Campbell and his debates added to his popularity as a preacher.

– Began as an editor in 1845.• The Reformer (1845-1847)• Western Reformer (1847-1850)• Proclamation and Reformer (1850-1853)

Benjamin Franklin(1812-1878)

Influence of Editors• F’s great influence as editor was through

ACR (1856 for rest of his life, till 1878).– A monthly at first and then a weekly

newspaper-size in 1858.– Soon most influential in brotherhood.– F: “The Review is intended for and adapted

to the masses. It is a plain gospel paper. . . . It aims to imitate the style of Jesus and the apostles, and to stand firmly for their teaching in all things.”

The Influence of Editors

• ACR was thoroughly conservative in its approach to NT Christianity, strongly opposed to instrumental music and other “innovations.”

• ACR’s policy toward ACMS was in important factor in controversy which rocked the church after the Civil War.


• F. had been a supporter of ACMS.– Attended convention in 1849.– Elected a manager in 1850.– Held some office for 17 years straight years,

including a term (1856-1857) as corresponding secretary, the most important office.

– In 1858 defended the ACMS in a heated editorial controversy with David Oliphant.


• Civil War turned F’s support to opposition.– Opposed Christians serving in army and

believed ACMS should stay with its “legitimate work.”

– When ACMS adopted 1863 resolution, F. warned if society brought “strife and contention” to church, it should be abandoned.

– 1866 said he would no longer support society; had come to believe it to be unscriptural.

Influence of Editors• Isaac Errett and the Christian Standard.

– Part of northern brotherhood increasingly critical of Franklin and the ACR.

• Group more liberal in spirit.• Believed F. was too narrow and dogmatic.• Led by Phillips brothers, Isaac Errett, James A.

Garfield, Dr. J. P. Robison, W. K. Pendleton.• Determined to launch a new weekly to offset

ACR.• Christian Standard appeared April 7, 1866.


• Isaac Errett (1820-1888), editor.– Had been reared in Haldanean church of

Christ in New York.– Had learned printer’s trade and became

interested in writing.– Little formal education, but great natural

ability, especially as writer.– Preached for Ohio churches in 1840s.– Warren, Ohio (1851-1856); gained reputation.

Isaac Errett(1820-1888)


• Had some involvement with missionary societies from 1853 on.– 1853 secretary of Ohio society.– Corresponding secretary for national society

for several years.– Became co-editor of Millennial Harbinger in

1861 and was closely associated with Alexander Campbell during C’s last years.

Influence of Editors• CS barely survived its birth.

– Founders assumed it would have a large circulation, but were mistaken.

– Suffered heavy financial losses; stockholders voted to discontinue, but agreed to transfer ownership to Errett.

– R. W. Carroll Co. of Cincinnati assumed control and put it on sound financial basis.

– Errett editor from beginning (1866) to his death in 1888--22 years later.


• CS the only weekly that supported missionary societies during years just after Civil War.– ACR began opposing in 1866.– In South GA opposed through late

1850s, and sectional bitterness intensified opposition.

• But missionary society not the main issue between CS and GA.


• GA & CS discussed-– Whether Christians had a right to

engage in military service.– Who was responsible for the Civil

War.– The status of the freedmen in the

South.

Influence of Editors• Errett argued that when a govt. was

threatened with rebellion, the sword had a righteous mission to fulfill.– Insisted Christians had been under a

“sacred obligation to maintain and defend a government so unrighteously assailed.”

– Said Lipscomb’s view that Christian should have nothing to do with govt. was “a new-born faith” espoused by those “in sympathy with a lost cause.”


• But real clash of ideas was in North where ACR and CS stood opposed on a variety of issues.– 1st over missionary society, later

instrumental music.– But these just symptomatic of

problems that were deeper.

Influence of Editors• ACR conservative in spirit, more Biblical

in its approach, committed to preserving the faith of the past.

• CS more liberal in tone, admitted many new practices as expedients, and was less hostile to departures from traditional ways– Errett 1st preacher to accept title “Reverend.”– Called critics “loudest croakers against

‘progression.’”

Influence of Editors• Franklin reflected opposite spirit: “We

are heartily sick listening to progressive Christians continually talking about a ‘higher order of Christianity,’ and ‘keeping up with the time.’... These Church progressionists progress so rapidly that they frequently transcend the limits of Christian duty.”

• Warned they were more interested in “conciliation and compromise.”


• David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate.– Most influential journal in South.– Resumed publication 1866, Tolbert

Fanning and David Lipscomb editors.– By 1868 L. the sole editor.– L. (1831-1917) editor for more than 45

years, exercising greater influence than any other man in South.

David Lipscomb(1831-1917)


• L. attended Franklin College and influence of Fanning is obvious--– in L’s opposition to missionary

societies.– in L’s opposition to instrumental

music.– in L’s views on civil government.


• L. (with E. G. Sewell & F. D. Srygley) made greatest contribution through GA, but his activity not limited to this.– Respected preacher, though simple

expository sermons unusual for the time.– Had many ties with Texas churches,

included a “Texas Department” in GA.– Wrote extensively about missionary society

when Texas troubled in 1880s.

Elisha GranvilleSewell

(1830-1924)

F. D. Srygley(1856-1900)

Fletcher DouglasSrygley

Influence of Editors• L. helped found Fanning Orphan School

in 1884, after Fanning’s death.

• Founded Nashville Bible School (DLU) in 1891.– Faculty: Himself, his brother, William

Lipscomb and James A. Harding.– Later: “I have found more satisfaction

in teaching the Bible to the young men and women at school than in any work of my life.”

James A. (Alexander)Harding

(1848-1922)


• L’s editorials ranged over all the major questions for nearly 50 years and his conservative views often involved him in controversy.– Discussed the Christian and

government with Isaac Errett.– Wrote many articles against

missionary society.


Influence of Editors• L. believed society to be a substitute for

the divine plan.• To J. W. McGarvey he wrote that if the

society could do the church’s missionary work, societies could do the church’s other work and the church would become “an empty, meaningless form, and sounding brass, emasculated of its spirit, divested of its sanctity, and its authority and usefulness are gone forever.”

J. W. McGarvey(1829-1911)


• L. had an unwavering child-like faith in the Bible.

• On 40th anniversary as editor: “The Cardinal thought in my religion has ever been to follow the will of God, as expressed in precept or by approved example; to stand on safe ground; to be sure of the approval and blessing of God.”

Influence of Editors• Written debate with Thomas Munnell on

missionary society 1867.– L. had said that 10,000 churches could

scripturally cooperate.– M. asked him to describe how that many

churches could cooperate in a business-like way without an organization.

– “We do not know that God proposed to convert the world in a business-like way.”

Thomas Munnell(1823-1898)


• “Wise men, intent on the accomplishment of a great object, would scarcely choose a babe, born out of wedlock, cradled in a manger, as the efficient superintendent in the accomplishment of that work.”


• Businessmen “would have hardly sought out unlearned, simple hearted fishermen as their agents, would not have chosen the infamy of the Cross, and the degradation of the grave. This is so unbusiness-like that, business men, entering in strive to change it to a more business-like manner.”


• Concluded: “God’s ways are not man’s ways, for the foolishness of God is wiser than man.”

• L’s greatest legacy--a resolute faith in the authority of God’s word.


• J. W. McGarvey and Moses Lard.– Both lived in KY after the war.– Worked together on two journals:

Apostolic Times and Lard’s Quarterly.– Both shared a mediating viewpoint on

controversies of the day.– That is, favored missionary society but

opposed instrumental music.


• J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) lived in Lexington, KY from 1862 till his death.– Attended Bethany College and preached 10

years in Missouri.– Usually remembered as a teacher, writer and

preacher, rather than editor.– Taught in College of the Bible in Lexington

more than 40 years and trained hundreds of young preachers.

J. W. McGarvey(1829-1911)


• Wrote number of important books:– Commenatry on Acts (1863, rev. 1892)– Lands of the Bible (1881)– Evidences of Christianity (1886)– Authorship of Deuteronomy (1902)

• And he wrote extensively (articles) to warn brotherhood of the threat that “biblical criticism” posed to their faith.

Influence of Editors• Moses Lard (1818-1880) reared in deepest

poverty but determined to obtain an education and preach.– Graduated from Bethany after age 30.– Preached in MO for more than a decade.– Great preacher, so great that when at his

best, there was no other preacher in brotherhood his equal.

– Eloquence legendary during his lifetime.

Moses Lard(1818-1880)


• During war, Lard’s pacifism brought great hardship in MO.– At McGarvey’s suggestion, he moved

to Georgetown, KY in 1863.– Was warmly received in KY and was

able to begin a project planned earlier--a quarterly journal, Lard’s Quarterly.

– The Quarterly continued for 5 years (1863-1868).

Influence of Editors• Lard’s Quarterly included essays by

Lard, McGarvey and others.– One of finest pieces of journalism in history

of Restoration Movement.– But not enough subscribers to continue.– So 5--McGarvey, Lard, Robert Graham,

Winthrop Hopson, L. B. Wilkes--began a weekly, the Apostolic Times.

– Imp. in 1870s for opposition to instrumental music.

A Pivotal Year

• 1866 a pivotal year for movement.– Key year in history of 3 journals that

would heavily influence the church.• Gospel Advocate resumed

publication.• Christian Standard began publication.• American Christian Review reversed

editorial policy and began to oppose missionary society.

A Pivotal Year

• Alexander Campbell died; with his unifying influence gone, controversies seemed to erupt everywhere.

• 1866 marked the beginning of a decade of controversy and alienation.– When the decade was over, a split in the

church had become inevitable.– These editors (above) would play key roles.

Decade of Decision

• The ten years following the Civil War (1866-1875) were crucial in history of the movement, particularly in the North.– American Christian Review and

Christian Standard were often in controversy with one another.

– Their clashes revealed that two distinct parties were appearing within the church in the North.

The Louisville Plan

• 1st clash between Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Errett involved the missionary society.– When obvious that ACR was anti-society (1867),

Errett began a vigorous defense.– As opposition grew, its friends attempted to win

support of the opposition by making imp. changes in the constitution.

– Life-memberships, life-directorships, purchased with a contribution, abolished in 1868.

The Louisville Plan• Louisville Plan, with far more radical

changes in structure, adopted in 1869.– A thorough overhaul of society’s

organization seemed only way to being peace.

– Committee of 20 appointed to propose new plan for missionary work.

– Committee’s proposals adopted in Louisville in Oct., 1869; hence the name “Louisville Plan.”

The Louisville Plan

• LP disbanded the old missionary society & new missionary boards were set up at district, state and national levels.– Secretary appointed in each district.– His responsibility to visit churches in his

district and solicit funds for missions at all levels--local, state, world-wide.

The Louisville Plan

• Most imp. feature of LP was its proposal for financing the work of the various boards.– District boards would use half of the

funds they collected in the district and send half to state boards.

– State boards, in turn, would send half what they received to the national board.

The Louisville Plan

• J. W. McGarvey proposed an amendment which allowed each church to specify some other distribution of funds if they desired.

• In the end, this provision so deprived the national board of funds that it was powerless to carry on any missionary work.

The Louisville Plan• CS gave strong editorial support to new

plan and pleaded that it be given a fair test “unembarrassed by controversy.”

• Man whose attitude was most imp. for success of the plan was Benjamin Franklin.– He hailed it with enthusiastic praise.– Said it was not a missionary society

patterned after “sectarian models” but a simple and wise arrangement of churches.

The Louisville Plan• F’s approval appears rather naive.

– Compared with old society, LP was much more like an ecclesiastical structure.

– Surprising he did not see this immediately.– Perhaps he was tired of controversy.– Whatever, he gave the LP support for 2

years.– By 1871 he observed that churches were

sending only meager sums to national board.– Said churches were saying they could make

better decisions.

Instrumental Music Controversy

• “Era of good feeling” that might have followed LP was quickly shattered by controversies in the North.– Instrumental music in worship.– Central Church’s new building in

Cincinnati.

Instrumental Music

• IM not used or discussed in early movement– 1st discussion 1851 in Ecclesiastical

Reformer when a reader asked J. B. Henshall if instrumental music would not add solemnity to worship.

– H. spoke against, but later carried some articles by others in favor.

– John Rogers then asked AC’s opinion.

Instrumental Music

• AC’s answer was brief and blunt.– If churches had “no real devotion or

spirituality in them” IM might be “an essential prerequisite to devotion.”

– But added: “To all spiritually-minded Christians, such aids would be as a cow bell in a concert.”

– After C’s statement, question was not discussed for another ten years.

Instrumental Music

• 1st use by Midway, KY.– Dr. L. L. Pinkerton (one of early liberals in

brotherhood) was the preacher.– Ca. 1860 began using a small melodeon.– 1860 P. said as far as he knew he was

the only preacher in KY who had advocated IM and Midway was the only one to use it.

Dr. L. L. (Lewis Lettig) Pinkerton

(1812-1875)

The Melodeon at Midway, Kentucky

Original Building at Midway, KY(Destroyed by fire about 1900)

MidwayChristianChurch(today)

L. L. PinkertonStained Glass

InMidway Christian

Church

Instrumental Music

• Reason for Midway’s use was poor singing, so bad (Pinkerton) it would “scare even the rats from worship.”

• Opposition at Midway.– One elder, Adam Hibler, and a negro

slave removed the offending melodeon through a window of the church building.

– It was later returned.

Instrumental Music• 1st extended discussion of IM 1864-

1865.– W. K. Pendleton, editor of Millennial

Harbinger after AC, conceded IM was not used during early Christian centuries.

– But, for P., a question of “mere expediency.”

– Main players were A. S. Hayden and J. W. McGarvey.

• Hayden agreed with Pendleton.• Not McGarvey.

William KimbroughPendleton

(1817-1899)

Instrumental Music

• McGarvey: “In the earlier years of the present Reformation, there was entire unanimity in the rejection of instrumental music from our public worship. It was declared unscriptural, inharmonious with the Christian institution, and a source of corruption.”

Instrumental Music

• McGarvey never receded from his views.– More than 20 yrs. he wrote frequent articles

against IM.– Eventually he realized that most churches in

KY and the North were determined to use the organ.

– He turned to Biblical criticism and other topics.

– But he always believed it was wrong and refused to be member of a church using it.

Instrumental Music

• Had hoped that Broadway in Lexington would abstain during his lifetime.– Was preacher and elder there.– But he was “painfully disappointed.”

Autobiography– Broadway began using organ 1903

and McGarvey moved.• 1911 an organ was used at his funeral.• “This is a great wrong, for he opposed it

all his life.”

Instrumental Music• Moses E. Lard another unyielding

opponent– 1864 called the organ “a defiant and impious

innovation on the simplicity and purity of the ancient worship.”

– L. advised how to deal with the problem:• Resolve never to enter church with organ.• No one who moves show unite with one

using an organ.• Whenever an organ is introduced,

abandon that church immediately.

Moses Lard(1818-1880)

Instrumental Music

• Lard believed following the 3-point plan, “these organ-grinding churches will in the lapse of time be broken down, or wholly apostatize, and the sooner they are in fragments the better for the cause of Christ.”

Instrumental Music

• 1868 Ben Franklin estimated that there were about 10,000 churches in the brotherhood and that not more than 50 were using IM.– But despite opposition of F., McGarvey, Lard

and many others, other congregations began to introduce the instrument in the early 1870s.

– Usually in larger urban churches that the organ first appeared, so social and economic influences played a part in the growing use.

Instrumental Music

• Occasionally introduction of organ resulted in almost comic situations.– In St. Louis a church bought an

Episcopal church building in 1867 that had an organ in it, but did not use it.

– A pro-organ party left in disgust and built Central Christian Church, which had no organ.

Instrumental Music

• CS carried many articles on both sides of music question in late 1860s, but after Isaac Errett revealed his views in editorials in 1870, found himself in bitter controversy with Benjamin Franklin.– E’s editorials counseled against use but

on the basis of the law of love.– Noted that many were conscientiously

opposed and it would bring disunity.


Instrumental Music

• “Better is poor singing where love is, than the grandest tones of the organ and hatred therewith.”– On other hand Errett argued that there

was no law against organs.– “We have no conscientious scruples

against the use of instruments.”

Instrumental Music

• Benjamin Franklin realized that if brotherhood attitudes changed, Errett’s advice would change.– “We put it on no ground of opinion, or

expediency. The acts of worship are all prescribed in the law of God.”

– F. was arguing for earlier Restoration principles.

– Further, F. saw organ as symptomatic of deeper changes occurring in church.

Instrumental Music

• Ben Franklin called the organ “the accompaniment of lifeless, formal and fashionable churches, in cities, where pride, aristocracy and selfishness prevail; where the poor have no sympathy, comfort or place.”

Instrumental Music• Interesting that while IM was the

controversy in the North David Lipscomb had little to say on subject in the Gospel Advocate.– Reason: churches under L’s influence

were already opposed to use.– L. did chide men like McGarvey for what

seemed an obvious inconsistency in opposing organ but supporting missionary society.

– L--if could take one, could take the other.

Central Christian Church

• Central church in Cincinnati dedicated new building in Feb., 1872--immediately a focal point for controversy in North.– Largest in C., seated over 2000, had

largest stained glass window in America.– Cost over $140,000 with $8,000 organ.– BF saw this as an unbearable

extravagance.

Central Christian ChurchCincinnati, Ohio

Central Christian Church• ACR editorial--

– Called it a “temple of folly and pride.”– Would blush to speak of the “ancient

order” or the “gospel restored” in such a place.

• Central used Baptist, Methodist and Congregational ministers in a week of preaching that opened the building and F. saw this as making peace with denominationalism.


• BF particularly incensed at introduction of the organ at Central.– Charged that it knew that “an

overwhelming majority” of their brethren could not worship with the organ.

– “This is the kind of millstone they would hang about our necks to sink and disgrace us.”


• Inevitably, the ACMS and LP were engulfed in the controversy over Central.– ACMS had held many annual

meetings in Central’s old building.– The influential leaders of the

missionary society were members of Central.


• BF changed that when brethren came to C. to visit center of their missionary work, they would be appalled that thousands of dollars had been “squandered in worldly show” and that the church’s worship had been “corrupted.”

• Concluded that when brethren saw what had happened in C., they would not want that kind of gospel sent to anyone else.


• War of words over CCC was more bitter and acrimonious than anything that had appeared previously in the CS and ACR.

• Indicated that the alienation between the conservative and progressive Disciples was becoming more serious with each new controversy.

Recap• Beginnings

– O’Kelly movement• James O’Kelly• Republican Methodists

– New England Christians• Elias Smith• Abner Jones

• The Stone Movement– Barton W. Stone – Cane Ridge Revival– Springfield Presbytery– John Mulkey

Recap

• The Campbell Movement– Thomas Campbell– The Declaration and Address– Christian Association of Washington– Alexander Campbell– The Brush Run Church– The Redstone Association– The Christian Baptist– The Mahoning Association– Walter Scott and “The Gospel Restored”

Recap

• The Campbell Movement– Separation from the Baptists

• The Movements (Campbell & Stone) Converge– Similarities & Differences– Unity (union?) achieved 1831-1832– A Decade of Growth

• The Missionary Society Controversy– The Millennial Harginger– A.C.--“The Cooperation of Churches”

Recap

• The Missionary Society Controversy– American Christian Bible Society 1845– American Christian Missionary Society 1849– A Decade of Opposition

• Tolbert Fanning• The Gospel Advocate 1855

• The Civil War Ordeal– Pacificism– Abolitionism– Loyalty Resolutions (ACMS)– Sectional Bitterness

Recap

• The Missionary Society Controversy– American Christian Bible Society 1845– American Christian Missionary Society 1849– A Decade of Opposition

• Tolbert Fanning• The Gospel Advocate 1855

• The Civil War Ordeal– Pacificism– Abolitionism– Loyalty Resolutions (ACMS)– Sectional Bitterness

Recap

• The Influence of Editors– Benjamin Franklin American Christian

Review– Isaac Errett The Christian Standard– J. W. McGarvey and Moses Lard Lard’s

Quarterly and The Apostolic Times– Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb The

Gospel Advocate

Recap

• The Decade of Decision– The Louisville Plan– The Instrumental Music Controversy– Central Christian Church– Foreign Christian Missionary Society

• The Lines of Division– The Progressives Win the North– The Conservative South– The 1906 Census– Why the Division?– Liberalism in the Christian Church

Numbers

• 1832—the united movement probably numbered between 20,000 and 25,000 members.

• 30 years later the estimated membership was nearly 200,000.

• By 1860 there were 17 states where at least a thousand Christians could be counted.

Numbers*

• KY 45,000• IN 25,000• OH 25,000• MI 20,000• IL 15,000• TN 12,285• IA 10,000• VA 8,430• NY 2,500

• NC 2,500• TX 2,500• AL 2,458• MS 2,450• AR 2,257• CA 1,223• GA 1,100• MI 1,000

*According to Garrison & DeGroot

Foreign Christian Missionary Society

• 1875 Isaac Errett and W. T. Moore led in organizing Foreign Christian Missionary Society.– LP had been a dismal failure.– Substantial sums raised at district level,

very little was being sent to national level.– Not enough money to pay overhead

expenses and no foreign mission work being done.

– From 1872 on BF had attacked LP.

4th & Walnut Christian ChurchLouisville, KYFCMS Founded Here

FCMS• Thus FCMS born out of failure of LP.

– Constitutionally, new society was a return to the pattern of ACMS with paid memberships providing most of the funds for operating.

– Isaac Errett elected president; continued to death, 1888.

– Financially more successful than LP.– Within few years missions est. in

Denmark, England, France, Turkey, India, Japan and Panama.

FCMS• Est. of FCMS made it clear that

progressive Disciples in North were determined to brush aside all opposition.– R. M. Bishop, pres. of old LP, said there

was no way to satisfy those who opposed society.

– Believed men like Ben Franklin were “no longer oracles” in the brotherhood.

– “We need no longer wait on their cooperation.”

Foreign ChristianMissionary Society

1904

FCMS

• Similarly, W. T. Moore declared bluntly in 1875 that since some would not cooperate in anything, “I think we ought to say to all such that we cannot wait on them any longer.”

• With FCMS, division among Christians in the North had become inevitable.

• One more ingredient needed--time.

William Thomas Moore(1832-1926)

Lines of Division• Progressives Win the North.

– 3 decades after the establishment of FCMS, the census bureau in 1906 listed the Christian Ch. and Churches of Christ separately.

– During the period, controversies continued, churches divided, and the two sides drifted apart.

– During the period, majority of Christians in the North were won to the more liberal views of the progressives.

Progressives Win North• Progressives’ victory largely the work of

two journals--the Christian Standard and the Christian-Evangelist.– C-E began in 1882 with merger of two

earlier papers with joint editors--J. H. Garrison and B.W. Johnson (People’s New Testament with Notes), until Johnson’s death in 1894.

– Garrison continued as sole editor until 1912.

J. H. Garrison(1842-1931)

James Harvey Garrison(1842-1931)

B. W. Johnson(1833-1894)

Progressives Win North• C-E gave strong support to missionary

society and use of IM.

• Relations with CS were cordial.– Shortly before his death in 1888, Isaac

Errett wrote that the two journals had been “the two most effectual instrumentalities” in winning acceptance of missionary society.

– Said he and J. H. Garrison had agreed on all points of “doctrine and practice and expediency.”

Progressives Win North• Why did the progressives win?

– Influence of IE and JHG not the whole story.– Conservatives lacked comparable leaders

after death of BF in 1878 and fought among themselves.

– John F. Rowe became editor of the American Christian Review.

• 8 years later, financial problems.• Rowe hoped to buy, but owner refused

and Rowe resigned.

J. F. Rowe(1827-1897)

Progressives Win North• Rowe began rival journal, Christian Leader.

– ACR purchased by Daniel Sommer.– Soon Sommer & Rowe were in a bitter

personal feud and conservatives badly divided.

• Daniel Sommer (1850-1940) published ACR for over 50 years but it never had its old influence.– Octographic Rewiew, the Apostolic Review.– Deeper changes--ultraconservative spirit.

Daniel Sommer(1850-1940)

Daniel Sommer

Progressives Win North• Sommer, just before death recalled

incident at Bethany: “I denounced publicly the first deviation from apostolic simplicity that I found among ‘disciples,’ and I have been acting on the same principle ever since.”– His role--brotherhood critic.– Christian colleges and orphan homes

unscriptural.– Opposed the “located preacher.”

Carl Ketcherside(1908-1989)

Leroy Garrett

The Conservative South

• Majority of southern churches had committed to conservative understanding of restoration plea as early as 1850s.

• GA most influential journal.– David Lipscomb edited it (1866-1912) and

was never any doubt about its conservative thrust.

– When division came, most of non-IM churches were located in South where GA was read.


• One of GA states was Texas.– Churches of Christ destined to become

stronger in Texas than in any other state.– Many Tennesseans settled in Texas and

many brought the GA with them.– Except for TN, GA had largest circulation in

TX.– For many years GA had “Texas Dept.”

edited by John T. Poe.

John T. Poe(1836-1917)


• When Austin McGary est. Firm Foundation at Austin, Texas in 1884, GA had an ally in its opposition to the “innovations.”

• McGary (1846-1928) a native Texan who had had a colorful career as a frontier sheriff before he became a Christian.

Austin McGary(1846-1928)


• Missionary society did not become a serious issue in TX until mid-1880s.– Earlier, churches had cooperated in

supporting a “state evangelist,” but under one congregation, usually Sherman.

– C. M. Wilmeth one of the “state evangelists.”– 1886 a state missionary society formed in

spite of opposition of Wilmeth, John T. Poe, R. M. Gano, Carroll Kendrick and others.

R. M. Gano(General Richard

Montgomery Gano)(1830-1913)

C. M. Wilmeth(1848-1898)

Carroll Kendrick(1815-1891)


• Instrumental music followed in wake of missionary society in TX.– Before 1886 only few TX churches using

the instrument.– Many more after that.– J. D. Tant estimated more than a 100

TX churches had divided over the instrument.

J. D. Tant(Jefferson Davis)

(1861-1941)


• GA & FF untied in opposition to the missionary society and instrumental music.

• They took opposite sides on rebaptism.– Issue: whether one who had been immersed,

but not specifically for remission of sins, had to be rebaptized.

– Austin McGary thought rebaptism necessary while DL opposed it.

– Question discussed over a period of years.

Austin McGary(1846-1928)

The 1906 Census

• US Census Bureau gave official recognition to division in 1906 census (pub. 1910).– 6-17-07 S. N. D. North wrote DL and asked

whether there was “a religious body called ‘church of Christ’ not identified with the Disciples of Christ, or any other Baptist body.”

– If was such a church, North wanted information about organization and principles and how a complete list could be obtained.

The 1906 Census

• In reply, Lipscomb outlined the basic principles of the Restoration Movement as formulated in Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address.

• Next, Lipscomb charged that these principles had been betrayed with the introduction of the missionary society and instrumental music.

The 1906 Census

• DL: “The polity of the churches being purely congregational, the influences work slowly and the division comes gradually. The parties are distinguished as they call themselves “conservatives” and “progressives,” as they call each other “antis” and “digressives.”

The 1906 Census• “In many places the differences have not as

yet resulted in separation. There are some in the conservative churches in sympathy with the progressive, who worship and work with the conservatives because they have no other church facilities. The reverse of this is also true. Many of the conservatives are trying to appropriate the name ‘churches of Christ’ to distinguish themselves from ‘Christian or Disciples’ Churches.”

The 1906 Census

• Few months later North visited GA offices and arranged for J.W. Shepherd, a GA co-editor, to compile a list.– The count was inexact, but the 1906

census revealed two significant facts about division.

• 1st, Christian churches the larger body.• 2nd, Christian churches had won the North.

J. W. Shepherd(1861-1948)

The 1906 Census• Christian Churches larger.

– 8,923 congregations, 982,701 members.

– 2,649 congregations, 159,658 members in churches of Christ.

• Progressives had won the North.– From Ohio to Nebraska Disciples

outnumbered 534,695 to 31,883 or 19 to 1.– Same ratio from Maine to Florida.

The 1906 Census

• TN 41,411 14,904• TX 34,006 39,550• KY 12,451 123,659• AR 11,006 10, 269• IN 10,259 108,188• AL 9,214 8,756• OK 8,074 24,232

C of C CC/D of C

The 1906 Census

• MO 7,087 159,050

• OH 4,954 83,833

• IL 3,552 101,516

• 1916 census, churches of Christ were stronger than Christian churches in TX, 71,542 to 54,836.

• Also TX had surpassed TN as state with largest membership of churches of Christ.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

TN TX KY AR IN

C of C

CC/DofC

The 1906 Census

The 1906 Census

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

AL OK MO OH IN

C of C

CC/DofC

Why The Division?

• 1) The basic problem underlying the MS and IM controversies was the rise of two antagonistic interpretations of rest. prin.– AC had formulated strict view in CB--NT

a blueprint for the church.– Later, many interpreted the restoration

principle less rigidly and allowed many practices as “expedients.”

Why The Division?

• The basic issue was the same whether the practice was the society or the organ.

• They were defended by some as “expedients,” and opposed by others as unauthorized by the NT pattern.

• Moses Lard correctly warned in 1869 that expediency might be the rock on which RM went to pieces.

Why The Division?

• 2) Sectionalism and Civil War bitterness.– Churches in South had turned against

the Cincinnati missionary society, but that had not produced alienation.

– But when sectional feelings were added to the doctrinal disagreements, the sense of oneness was shattered.

Why The Division?• 3) Another factor, esp. in North, was

growing social and economic differences among Christians.– Sociologists would describe it as the evolution

of a denominational spirit.– Errett and Garrison came to think of movement

as a denomination among denominations.– Another spirit (e.g., Franklin & Lipscomb) was

that their brotherhood was the true church restored.

Christian Church Liberalism• While in the dividing process, Christian

Church began to feel strain of serious internal tensions.

• Key to the problem theological liberalism.– New liberal theology and Biblical criticism

arose in Germany from work of Schleiermacher, Wellhausen, Ritschl and Harnack.

– Widely accepted by Americans in 1880s & 1890s.

Christian Church Liberalism• Christian Church unable to escape.

– Alexander Procter (1825-1900) and George W. Longan (1819-1891), prominent MO preachers, among first to accept conclusions of Biblical criticism.

– 1889 Dr. R. C. Cave of St. Louis shocked the brotherhood with a sermon at the Central Church which openly denied virgin birth and bodily resurrection.

– The sermon (& its repercussions) was reported in the St. Louis Republic Dec. 9, 1989.

Christian Church Liberalism• C. said Abraham & Moses were grossly

ignorant of the true character of God.• Denied both the virgin birth of Jesus

and his bodily resurrection; described the Bible as an evolution, not a revelation; declared there was no such thing as a divinely-given “plan of salvation”; affirmed that water baptism was not found in the great commission.

• Brotherhood not ready and Cave left the church.

Christian Church Liberalism• Further, denominational preachers

reacted in shock and outrage.• J. H. Garrison, editor of the Christian-

Evangelist, finally withdrew from the Central Church as a result.

R. C. Cave(Robert Catlett)

(1843-1923)

George W. Longan(1819-1891)

George W. Longan

Christian Church Liberalism• After Disciples Divinity House est. at U.

of Chicago in 1894, many began doing graduate work at Chicago and Yale.– Liberalism soon spread among Disciples.– Liberals had strong editorial champion after

1908 when Charles Clayton Morrison became editor of the Christian Century.

– Later Christian Century broke ties with Disciples and became voice of liberal Protestantism.

Christian Church Liberalism• The DDH had its beginnings in mind of

Herbert L. Willett.– In 1893 he proposed establishing a seminary

in connection with the U. of Chicago, the new Rockefeller-endowed institution.

– Through Willett’s influence William Rainey Harper (U. of C. president) was asked to address the Disciples’ convention in Chicago, Oct. 1893.

– Harper explained the advantages the U. could offer to any theological school established in affiliation with it.

Christian Church Liberalism• The DDH was founded in 1984 with Willett

as dean.

• Since the Disciples had no graduate school in theology, many graduates from their colleges began to flock to Chicago where they eagerly imbibed liberal ideas and doctrines.

• Others went to Yale, which was also controlled by liberals by this time.

Christian Church Liberalism• The medium for the development of a

liberal strategy for the capture of the schools and agencies of the Disciples was the Campbell Institute.

• This fellowship of college and university trained ministers was first organized in 1892 as the Campbell club by 5 graduate students at Yale Divinity School.

• Since all its members had been exposed to liberal theology, it was a natural breeding ground for liberalism.

Christian Church Liberalism• In 1896 some Yale & Chicago men

organized the Campbell Institute, which grew to several hundred in membership, representing most of the Disciples’ colleges.

• They met especially at state and national conventions.

• Their influence among the Disciples was pervasive for the next 50 years.

The Disciples Divinity HouseUniversity of Chicago

The Disciples Divinity House(near Vanderbilt U. campus)

Disciples Divinity House

The Disciples Divinity House at Vanderbilt provides a center of Disciples community within the context of a major ecumenical divinity school and an exciting city. It is a place where Disciples gather for worship and meals together, for social events and friendship, for mutual nurture and support. But it is more than a place. It is a community in which lifelong connections are forged, friendships bonded, beliefs tested, and life experiences sifted in light of new thoughts and new people. It is a community in which Disciples discover what makes them Disciples and a context in which their identity and call can be challenged and confirmed.

Christian Church Liberalism

• Meanwhile, the Christian Standard took a determined stand against the new liberalism.– J. W. McGarvey began a regular column on

“Biblical Criticism” in CS in 1893 and continued until his death.

– McGarvey was 64 when began, but even so, he read extensively and mastered the liberals’ views.

– Concluded that conclusions of biblical criticism jeopardized NT teaching on salvation.


• McGarvey never retreated.– Christian-Evangelist & Christian Century both

came in for sharp criticism.– But he did not stop there.– Most prominent scholars in America--Charles

A. Briggs, William Rainey Harper, Lyman Abbott, Washington Gladden and George Foote Moore--were scornfully attacked.

– But McGarvey’s message was really for the average Christian.


• McGarvey also published books on the subject.– Evidences of Christianity– The Authorship of Deuteronomy– Jesus and Jonah– The Text and Canon of the New Testament– Credibility and Inspiration


• McGarvey wanted Hall L. Calhoun, a Ph.D. from Harvard, to succeed him as president of the College of the Bible.

• The Liberals had other ideas; almost immediately on McG’s death, a liberal was chosen president of both the College of the Bible and Transylvania College.

• Calhoun was made dean of the seminary in 1912 and did the best that he could to maintain faithfulness to the Bible, but he could not hold back the liberal tide.

Christian Church Liberalism• Calhoun—

– Held positions of trust in all 3 wings of the Restoration Movement.

– Was a student and protégé of J. W. McGarvey.

– President of Bethany College.– Co-President with N. B. Hardeman for one

year.– Preached for the Belmont congregation in

Nashville.– Preached for Central in Nashville—30 min.

daily radio program.

Hall Laurie Calhoun(1863-1935)

A youngHall L. Calhoun

Christian Church Liberalism• Christian Standard & Christian-Evangelist

had stood together on missionary society and instrumental music.– But when new liberalism appeared, the two

journals moved apart.– C-E more open to Biblical criticism than the

CS– When Federal Council of Churches began in

1908, Disciples joined.• J. H. Garrison supported.• Christian Standard opposed.


• Next, the activities of the missionary society became a serious issue in the 1920s.– When became known that society’s

missionaries were practicing “open membership” in mission fields, Christian Standard turned against the society.

– As result Christian Church was now divided into two rival fellowships.


• Liberal group is the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ)--Indianapolis.– C-E, now the Christian, official journal

• Conservative group “independent” or “conservative” Christian churches. – Christian Standard their most influential

paper.

Twentieth Century Growth• Churches of Christ have experienced

remarkable growth in 20th c.– From 159,658 in 1906 to– 317,937 in 1916.– More than 100% growth in decade

(1906 count likely incomplete).– 433,714 by 1926, 50% growth for

decade.– TX, TN, AR, OK, in order, led.

Twentieth Century Growth

• Difficult to obtain accurate statistics for growth after 1926.– 1936 so incomplete nearly all churches

showed sharp declines in membership.– C of C 433,714 (1926)--309,551 in 1936.– Statistics so unsatisfactory that

government discontinued its religious census after 1936.


• Membership had grown to 2,250,000 or 2,500,000 by late 1960s.– The Yearbook of American Churches for

1967 says 2,350,000.– 1967 Louis Cassels, Religion Editor for

United Press International, called chs. of Christ the “fastest growing major religious body in the United States.”


• Numbers do not tell the full story of the dynamic growth of chs. of Christ.– Larger and more expensive buildings.– More affluent middle-class membership.– Number of full-time ministers.– Increasing emphasis on Bible school

and Christian education.– Missionary outreach.

Twentieth Century Growth• As century began, chs. were largely rural.

– Small frame buildings & once-a-month preaching.

– Larger urban chs. had nearly all gone with Christian Church.

– Rural character obvious in 1926 census.• 6,226 congregations (average size 70),

5,330 rural.• By 1940s many more congregations

appearing in larger towns and cities.

Twentieth Century Growth• After WW II remarkable growth in urban

areas.– Members climbed economic &

educational ladder, ch. moved “across the tracks.”

– Small frame bldg. with few Bible classes meeting in different corners of the auditorium disappeared.

– 1000s of new bldgs. were erected, some costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.


• Many great preachers contributed to growth.– Early in century: M. C. Kurfees, Price

Billingsley, George Klingman, C. R. Nichol, A. G. Freed, James A. Harding and G. Dallas Smith.

– Kurfees many years at Campbell Street in Louisville, KY; wrote Instrumental Music in Worship.

– Klingman delivered lectures in Abilene in 1907--forerunner of Abilene lectureship.

James A. Harding(1848-1922)

(While a student at Bethany College)

James Alexander Harding(1848-1922)

Pattie CobbHarding

A. G. Freed(1863-1931)(Arvy Glenn

Freed)

C. R. Nichol(1876-1961)

(Charles ReadyNichol)

M. C. Kurfees(1856-1931)

(Marshall Clement Kurfees)

N. B. Hardeman(1874-1965)

(Nicholas BrodieHardeman)

Joe S. Warlick(1866-1941)

J. D. Tant(1861-1941)(Jefferson

Davis Tant)


• Early in century:– C. R. Nichol engaged in many

debates, as did J. D. Tant, J. W. Chism, Joe Warlick and others.

Twentieth Century Growth• By 1930s and 1940s N. B. Hardeman, G.

C. Brewer and Foy E. Wallace Jr.– “Hardeman tabernacle meetings” in

Nashville.• 1st 1922 Ryman Auditorium brought large

crowds.– Hardeman-Bogard, Brewer-Lindsey and

Wallace-Norris attracted brotherhood interest.– 1967 William S. Banowsky-Anson Mount

debate on “Playboy philosophy” showed was still interest in debates.

Twentieth Century Growth• The Bible school has played a very imp.

role in 20th c. growth.– Jesse P. Sewell was one of first to see

possibilities of congregational development through adequate classes.

– Sewell to Grove Avenue in San Antonio in 1927 and planned education program far in advance of anything brotherhood had before.

Jesse P. Sewell

20th Century Journals• GA & FF supplied leadership to chs. that

opposed society and instrument in late 1800s, and their influence has continued.

• GA: M. C. Kurfees, E. A. Elam, H. Leo Boles, Foy E. Wallace Jr. and B. C. Goodpasture.

• FF: Edited by G. H. P. Showalter from 1908 to death in 1954.– Reuel Lemmons took editorship in 1955.– FF “middle-of-the-road” under Lemmons.

20th Century Journals

• Many other journals have contributed.– Christian Leader (began in 1800s)

exerted strong influence in the North.• Edited by F. L. Rowe for many years.

– Christian Worker began in Wichita, KA in 1915 and was widely read in Midwest.

• Edited by Rue Porter in 1940s & 1950s.


• Other Journals--– Christian Chronicle founded 1942 by

Olan Hicks who edited it for 12 years.• Imp. milestone.• Earlier journals had carried “news

and notes,” but main contents were doctrinal and inspirational.

• Chronicle intended to report brotherhood news.


• Twentieth Century Christian, edited by Norvel Young, featured shorter inspirational articles--wide circulation.

• Others--Christian Woman, Teenage Christian, Christian Bible Teacher, Power for Today--have been designed to fill special needs in the church.

Christian Colleges• Christian colleges imp. in growth.

• Leaders committed to Christian education made a tragic mistake.– 1900 to 1930 far too many schools

were established, most of which died.– Lockney Christian College, Gunter

Bible School, Clebarro College and Sabinal Christian College among early TX colleges that failed.

Christian Colleges• 1929 crash brought financial problems to

all colleges.– Decade of 1930s witnessed the closing

of Thorp Spring Christian College, Cordell Christian College and Burritt College.

– Burritt, Spencer, TN, had been in operation since 1849.

– Thorp Spring had served more than half a century.

Christian Colleges

• 1940, 5 colleges had survived the Depression.– David Lipscomb College– Freed-Hardeman College– Abilene Christian College– Harding College– Pepperdine College

Christian Colleges

• David Lipscomb– Founded as Nashville Bible School,

1891.– The oldest.

• Freed-Hardeman– 1908.– By A. G. Freed and N. B. Hardeman.

Christian Colleges

• 3) Abilene– Childers Classical Institute until

1920.– Founded by A. B. Barret in 1906.– Annual Bible lectureship begun in

1918.– Moved “on the hill” in 1929.

Christian Colleges• 4) Harding

– Began 1924 through merger of Harper College, Harper, KA (1915-1924) and Arkansas Christian College at Morrilton, Arkansas.

– Moved to Searcy in 1934.

• Pepperdine– 1937 in Los Angeles, named for George

Pepperdine, founder of Western Auto.– 1940--5 schools had enrollment under 2,000.– Only Pepperdine accredited, no graduate work.

Christian Colleges

• Growth since WW II has more than matched growth of churches.– All older schools accredited.– All 5 (and more) have graduate programs.– Late 1960s--more than a score of new

schools have sprung up--Okla. Christian, Lubbock Christian, York, Alabama Christian, Christian College of Southwest, Fort Worth Christian, Michigan Christian.

– Late 1960s enrollment--more than 15,000.

Controversial Issues• Several issues have strained unity in 20th c.• Anti-Sunday School.

– Whether scriptural to have Sunday School classes discussed just after 1900.

– More serious in TX than elsewhere.– Lockney & Gunter colleges associated

with this group.– Continues into current time as very small

minority.

Controversial Issues• Premillennialism.

– 1,000 year reign on earth after 2nd coming.

– 1st raised 1914-15 by R. H. Boll in front page editorials of GA.

– Boll dropped from GA, but in 1916 became editor of Word and Work.

– Two milestones:• Boll-H. Leo Boles--written debate (1928).• Foy E. Wallace-Charles M. Neal (1933).

Controversial Issues

• Premillennialism.– Wallace led struggle against premill.,

and more than any other, caused its rejection.

– Louisville, KY was the center.– Harding College was under a cloud of

suspicion for suspected premill. sympathies.

Controversial Issues• Sommerism.

– Views of Daniel Sommer--opposition to located preachers, colleges and orphan homes--have troubled the ch. in North through 20th c.

– W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett were champions in 1940s and 1950s.

– K & G did an about-face in 1960s and called for wider fellowship to include all who stand in restoration tradition without doctrinal differences.

Controversial Issues

• War Question.– Whether Christian can take a life in

military service often debated.– Not made a test of fellowship--left to

individual conscience.– David Lipscomb’s pacifism continued to

have influence though WW I era.

Controversial Issues• War Question.

– 1926--450 preachers responded to survey, “Do you believe that a Christian can scripturally take human life in war?”--only 24 said “yes.”

– During WW II a sharper division appeared.

• Bible Banner said Christian could accept military service.

• During both wars, conscientious objector more the exception than the rule.

Controversial Issues• Congregational Cooperation.

– Most serious 20th c. issue church cooperation and “institutionalism.”

– Led by Roy Cogdill, Yater Tant and the Gospel Guardian, significant number of chs. have come to oppose Herald of Truth and homes for orphans and aged.

– Many debates during 1950s & 1960s.– The most serious division, numbers-

wise.

Fanning Yater Tant(1908-)

World Missions

• Awakening to world missions one of notable signs of vitality.– Earlier in century only feeble efforts.– J. M. McCaleb to Japan in 1892.– 3 decades later, 33 Americans had worked

there and 1,000 had been baptized.– Ch. the 7th largest Protestant body in Japan.– Other early work in India, Persia, South

Africa and Mexico.

J. M. (John Moody)McCaleb

(1861-1953)

World Missions

• John Sherriff, converted in Australia, went to South Africa before 1900.

• The W. N. Shorts established a mission at Sinde, Rhodesia, in 1923.

World Missions

• Cause of missions weakened in 1920s because of ties with premillennialism.– Highland ch. in Louisville, KY a leader in

encouraging missions.– But was known as premillennial.– R. H. Boll and Don Carlos Janes were

both associated with it.

World Missions• Seemed that when missionaries returned

to US, they inevitably went to Highland.– Thus many suspected missions in

Japan, India and perhaps Africa were premillenial.

– J. W. Shepherd published a missions’ directory in 1931--could list only 29 missionaries.

– They were working in Africa, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines and Brazil.

World Missions• Great mission expansion since WW II.

– Scattering of 1000s, mostly military, a modern diaspora.

– Returned to countries where they served and awakened countless US chs. to opportunities.

– “Enemy countries” of WW II became targets of first work.

– Otis Gatewood and Broadway Ch. in Lubbock, TX aroused others.

World Missions

• Church planted in Germany (1947), Japan (1947), and Italy (1949).

• These beginnings encourged others and chs. were planted in every major country of Europe except Portugal.

World Missions

• Post-war mission awakening crowned with some amazing successes.– Nigeria--an American

correspondence course sparked an indigenous restoration movement that resulted in 1000s of conversions.

• 1st Americans arrived in 1952.• 10 years later more than 40,000

Christians.

World Missions

• First attempt at group evangelism came in 1961 with an “exodus” of 13 families to Sao Paulo, Brazil.– An “exodus” more than 60 yr.

earlier.– C. M. Wilmeth led group to

Tampico, Mexico in 1897.

World Missions

• India another field “white unto the harvest.”

• Canadian missionaries working in India since 1963 have baptized 1000s in Assam and Madras areas.

• Late 1960s Churches of Christ had about 350 missionary families in more than 80 nations.

The Continuing Restoration• 3 major religious bodies have historic

roots in the Stone-Campbell restoration of the early 1800s.– Disciples of Christ.– “Independent” or “Conservative”

Christian Churches.– Churches of Christ.

• These groups now hold opposite views as to the validity of the restoration principle.

Disciples of Christ

• Leadership of DofC (the liberal wing) has now abandoned the concept of restoring NT Christianity.– Believe in light of modern scholarship it

is no longer possible to accept the NT as a pattern for the church.

– The whole 19th c. effort to restore the ch. was an impossible search for an illusion.

Disciples of Christ

• The work of Campbell, Stone and McGarvey must be dismissed a well-intended but wrong.

• Dr. Ronald Osborn, Dean of Christian Theological seminary and past-president of the Disciples’ International Convention, is quite frank in his repudiation of the concept.

Disciples of Christ• Osborn one of editors of 3-vol. restudy

of the Disciples (1963).

• “Many of the papers constituting this volume and the two succeeding volumes in this series explicitly repudiate restorationism, as do numerous other studies recently written by Disciple scholars. as an interpretation of apostolicity, restoration is no longer feasible.” The Reformation of Tradition, p. 318.

Disciples of Christ

• Ralph Wilburn, Dean of Lexington Theological Seminary, wrote in the same volume, “The restoration idea is basically a false concept. . . . It would seem wise to abandon the use of the term altogether.”

Disciples of Christ

• If repudiated, what happens to distinctive practices once thought essential in a restored church?– What about immersion?– Weekly communion?– Congregational independence?

Disciples of Christ• Osborn, Christian Century (9-25-63):

– “The biblical and theological scholarship of recent decades has made restoration untenable.”

– As a result, “Most Disciples who have repudiated restorationism have no adequate basis for justifying their congregationalism, weekly communion, immersion-baptism, boards of elders and deacons (vestiges of a one-time lay ministry) or other distinctive practices.”

Disciples of Christ

• DofC one of denominations in the COCU whose aim is merger of 8 protestant chs.

• Late 1960s they underwent a “restructure” movement that ended the old congregational freedom and created a denominational structure.

• What would happen to immersion and weekly LS?

• They are being abandoned.

Disciples of Christ• What has caused Disciples to make such

a radical break with the past? Theological liberalism.– When began sending men to Yale and

Chicago for graduate work ca. the turn of the century, prevailing climate of thought extremely liberal.

– Within a single generation Disciples’ leadership was so molded in the image of liberalism that there remained no rationale for restoring NT Christianity.

Disciples of Christ

• Restoration principle demands a conservative view of inspiration and authority of scripture.– When liberals see Bible as a fallible

book, how can they be concerned about restoring the church as it was in the NT?

– Why restore what might be fallible?

“Independent” Christian Churches

• “Independent” or “Conservative” Christian chs. do not share DofC liberalism.– So opposed to “restructure” movement that

division with Disciples became final.– 1960s edition of Directory of the Ministry,

listed 4,456 congregations with 1,008,988.– Are strongest in IN, OH, IL, KY and MO.– Have an annual “North American Christian

Convention” which attracts 15,000 a year.

“Independents”

• Have nearly 400 missionaries supported directly by chs., and more than 30 Bible colleges.

• Doctrinally--conservative and committed to restoration principle.

• Practice baptism for the remission of sins, weekly communion, free churches overseen by elders, and often wear name “church of Christ.”

“Independents”

• Most imp. difference with chs. of Christ is use of instrumental music.

Churches of Christ

• Still committed to rest. principle, but are questions about the future.– Will they remain conservative

theologically?– Will they hold to the rest. principle?– How will they view the work of

restoration?• A task completed in past?• A challenge for each generation?

Churches of Christ• When C of C. history since 1906 is

compared to DofC, there are significant differences.– 1) Remarkable growth of C of C.

• 1/6 as large in 1906, now (late 1960s) larger both DofC and “Independents”

• 2,350,00 to 1,918,471.• Explained by Biblical faith & restoration

zeal.• By contrast, liberal theology brings

numerical decline.

Churches of Christ• 2) Cultural isolation of C of C.

– Entered 20th c. largely Southern, rural and on wrong side of tracks.

– Early, preacher with a college education, the exception rather than the rule.

– Even after more college education, graduate work was rare.

– 1930s & 1940s preacher knew his Bible and restoration principle, but didn’t know Barth or Brunner.

Churches of Christ• Today C of C are emerging from their

cultural isolation.– Higher social, economic and

educational levels.– The preacher with a doctorate

appearing in increasing numbers.– Stand at a crossroads somewhat

analagous with that of DofC earlier in century.

– Emerging from isolation, DofC was won to liberalism.

Churches of Christ

• What is future for C of C?– Will fall under influence of liberalism?– Will question whether there is a NT

pattern?– As more seek graduate education beyond

Christian colleges, some will become too liberal to remain in fellowship.

– Many have already done this.

Churches of Christ

• What is the future?– With time, more who have abandoned

the principle will choose to remain in pulpits.

– Dangers will intensify.– If are aware of dangers that accompany

end of cultural isolation, have a better chance to overcome these dangers.

Churches of Christ

• But are also differences with DofC at 1900.– 1) We can profit from DofC’s history &

avoid, “It could never happen to us.”– 2) Theological climate is more

conservative than 1900--evangelicalism much stronger in relation to liberalism.

Churches of Christ

• Differences:– 3) Our Christian colleges are doing a

better job of introducing students to contemporary issues and preparing for issues to be faced in graduate studies.

– 4) Conservative cause has more articulate voices (like Christianity Today) than was true at beginning of 20th c.

Churches of Christ

• Future is a mixed mosaic.– Challenges should cause serious soul

searching.– Brotherhood ostrich renders a

disservice when he ignores the obvious.– Is a real question whether the faith that

has brought us where we are will survive.

– But are also unprecedented challenges and opportunities.

Churches of Christ

• Mixed mosaic.– If can break out of cultural isolation

without loss of faith--– If we can raise up men of unwavering

faith whose training will qualify them to approach classes we have never approached before--

– Then the Restoration Movement might yet make such an impact as the Campbells envisioned.

Continuing Challenge

• Has the ch. of NT been restored? Fully restored?

• Or is restoration a continuing challenge which calls each generation anew?

• Restoration implies that ch. in every age must stand under judgment of scripture, ever striving to become what God would want, but ever falling short.


• So, restoration is a continuing challenge.– Yet, our heritage from the past should

not be treated with contempt.– We owe a debt of gratitude to our

spiritual forefathers.– If it is self-righteousness to assume

that work of restoration is complete and perfect,

– Is ingratitude to look with disdain on what has been received from past.

Continuing Challenge• Examples of successes:

– 1) Immersion as exclusive practice of early ch. (Cf. Acts 8:36-39; Rom. 6:3,4; Col. 2:12).

• Burial reenacted burial and resurrection of Christ.

• No sprinkling of infants in early ch. & will not be in a restored one.

• Immersion was “for the remission of sins” & always stood between the sinner and salvation in NT (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; I Peter 3:21).


• 2) Early ch. observed LS on the first day of week as a weekly proclamation ofl the Lord’s death “till he come” (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:23-29). (No other time recorded)

• 3) Vocal music--“singing and making melody with your heart”--early ch’s way of praising God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; I Cor. 14:15). (No instrument for several centuries)


• 4) Local chs. in NT were free and autonomous.– Christ honored as head of church.– Two classes of officers in each church--

• Bishops or elders or shepherds exercised the oversight.

• Deacons were special servants.


• Can be no NT church without such marks as believer’s baptism and oversight of elders.

• Renewal of many such NT practices has carried us a long way toward goal of the primitive church.

• Yet, imp. as these are, they are outward observances and not the sum total of discipleship.


• Lord might say: “As you have tried to restore the church, you have stressed the outward observances like baptism, but have left undone the weighter matters of the law like commitment and sacrificeand the life of prayer. These ye ought to have done, but not left the others undone.”


• Examples of failures--NT attitudes which we have yet to restore:– 1) Early Xtians so committed that they

“continued stedfastly” and joyfully accepted the loss of homes, or even life itself, for his sake.

• To live was Christ--the only thing that mattered.

• Contrast that with today’s apathy.


• Failures:– 2) Early ch’s commitment transcended

concern for material things.• Sold houses and laid money at

apostles’ feet.• Corinthians “deep poverty” did not

prevent them from sharing with others.• Contrast with today’s materialism.


• Failures:– 3) Early ch. fervently evangelistic.

• Went everywhere preaching word when driven out.

• Covered Roman world in one generation.

• Have we restored the missionary fervor?


• Failures:– Early ch. believed that there was power

in prayer and that God really answered their prayers.

• They prayed.• Compare.• Are we sure we have restored the NT

church?

Continuing Challenge• Restoration of NT church is a heritage we

have received from past.• But also is a challenge we face in present.• As long as ch. lacks fervor and spirituality

of early church--• As long as we are complacent,

materialistic, and apathetic toward lost world--

• Rest. must challenge every single Christian anew.

Restoration History

Documents

christian missionary

loyalty resolutionwith

loyalty resolutionjames

loyalty resolutionfanning

nd loyalty resolutionbeset

nd loyalty resolutionso

nd loyalty resolutionaction

nd loyalty resolution1863