The Struggle for the Soul of Churches of Christ (1897-1907):Hoosiers, Volunteers and Longhorns

John Mark Hicks

When the division between Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches was recognized by the religious census of 1906, the theological perspectives among the Churches of Christ were fairly diverse. While there was an ecclesiological consensus to separate from the Christian Churches, there was considerable diversity between the three major representative “traditions” among Churches of Christ which threatened that formal unity.

The Traditions and the Papers

Bobby Valentine and I have previously identified this diversity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as (1) the Tennessee Tradition (or Nashville Bible School tradition, represented by the Gospel Advocate [hereafter GA] published in Nashville, Tennessee), (2) the Texas Tradition (represented by the Firm Foundation [hereafter FF] published in Austin, Texas), and (3) the Sommer Tradition (represented by the Octographic Review [hereafter OR] published in Indianapolis, Indiana).1 Michael Casey, in whose honor I pen this piece, believed this was a fruitful line of inquiry into the theological development of Churches of Christ as “there are general patterns that offer historical explanations” when history is understand as an interpretative “discipline” rather than the “’trivial pursuit’ of ‘facts’.” While the multiple “traditions hypothesis may be flawed and need correction,” Mike found it “compelling.”2 In Mike’s honor, I continue the exploration of this typology by looking at the decade when the Churches of Christ emerged as—to use David Lipscomb’s own language in 1907—a “distinct and separate” body from the Christian Churches.

1907 is my terminus ad quem. While the 1906 census symbolizes the division, the public discussions of this official recognition took place in 1907. In July of that year Lipscomb published his letter to S. N. D. North, the Director of the Bureau of Census, and made a clear distinction between the “Church of Christ” and the “Disciples of Christ” (or Christian Churches). His summation has been quoted often in recent years: “There is a distinct people taking the word of God as their only and sufficient rule of faith, calling their churches ‘churches of Christ’ or ‘churches of God,’ distinct and separate in name, work, and rule of faith from all other bodies of people.”3 By the end of 1907 there is little doubt that a division had occurred among a people who opposed division.4

1897 is my terminus ad quo. Lipscomb, who was one of the most hesitant to sever relations with the Christian Church, opened 1897 with this editorial observation: “I am

1 John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine, Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding (Abilene, TX: Leafwood Publishers, 2006) 19. Cf. John Mark Hicks, “K. C. Moser and Churches of Christ: A Historical Perspective,” Restoration Quarterly 37.3 (1995) 139-157.2 Michael Casey, Stone-Campbell History Archive List, October 1, 2007, under the subject line “’Baptist Baptism’ and Soteriology.”3 David Lipscomb, “The ‘Church of Christ’ and the ‘Disciples of Christ,’” GA 49 (18 July 1907) 450.4 See Douglas A. Foster, “The 1906 Census of Religious Bodies and Division in the Stone-Campbell Movement: A Closer Look,” Discipliana 66 (Fall 2006) 83-93.

fast reaching the conclusion that there is a radical and fundamental difference between the disciples of Christ and the society folks. These desire to build up a strong and respectable denomination. To do it they rely on strong and moneyed societies, fine houses, fashionable music, and eloquent speeches too often devoid of gospel truth.”5 Later in the year Lipscomb re-emphasized his perception in an article entitled “The Vital Point,” which is “unless we surrender all and follow truth, we are not disciples of Christ.”6 Lipscomb saw evidence that the “society folks” were no longer “disciples of Christ”—Cave’s inclusivism (saved without explicit faith in Christ), Garrison’s unionism (uniting with churches that sprinkle infants), and Minton’s denominationalism (building up societies and organizations that supplant the work of the church). When James A. Harding offered the debate proposition that the use of instrumental music in worship assemblies “is a sin that justifies the withdrawal of Christian fellowship by those who oppose it from those who use it,” he also added “I do not regard myself as belonging to the same religious body with Brother Briney,” his potential debate opponent and long-time friend.7 Surveying the GA’s pervasive recognition of division, Woodson concluded that the “1897 may be regarded as the year when the final tapestry of division was completed.”8

The separation of Churches of Christ as a distinct body was led by several major papers between 1897 and 1907. While there was a constant proliferation of smaller papers, three papers particularly carved out such a secure niche that their editors functioned as de facto “Editor-Bishops” among Churches of Christ: GA (edited by David Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell), FF (edited by Austin McGary [1884-1902], George Savage [1902-1905], and N. L. Clark [1906-1907]), and OR (edited by Daniel Sommer and L. F. Bittle). Because of their wide influence, deep roots, and interaction with the above journals, two other papers play a significant role in this period: The Way (edited by James A. Harding [1899-1903]) and the Christian Leader (edited by John F. Rowe [1886-1897] and James S. Bell [1898-1903], hereafter CL). These merged as The Christian Leader and the Way [hereafter CLW] under the dual editorship of Harding and Bell from 1904 to 1910. Harding himself saw this as the union of northern and southern readers for the sake of the kingdom of God9 and believed that the GA, CL and The Way were cut from the same cloth in terms of editorial policy.10 CLW also absorbed the Texas Gospel Review in 1904 whose staff writers included Joe Warlick, J. N. Armstrong, R. C. Bell, Jesse P. Sewell, and R. H. Boll.11 Through these mergers, as Casey has noted, the paper “became a national journal rivaling” the other three with strong representation north of the Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.12

5 David Lipscomb, “The Churches Across the Mountains,” GA 39 (7 January 1897) 4.6 David Lipscomb, “The Vital Point,” GA 39 (19 August 1897) 516.7 James A. Harding, “The Instrumental Music Question—A Correspondence between W K. Homan and J. A. Harding,” GA 39 (29 May 1897) 323. Briney had actually served as an evangelist with the Harding’s home church in Winchester, Kentucky from 1871-1874.8 William Woodson, Standing for their Faith: A History of the churches of Christ in Tennessee, 1900-1950) (Henderson, TN: J & W Publications, 1979), 56.9 James A. Harding, “An Intricate Problem Solved,” CLW 18 (5 January 1904) 8.10 James A. Harding, “Shall We Stop Discussion?” CLW 21 (26 March 1907) 8.11 However, Warlick, displeased with the CLW, soon began his own paper from Dallas, Texas, The Gospel Guide in 1905.12 Michael Casey, “Christian Leader,” in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, ed. Douglas A. Foster, et.al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) 193.

CL (published in Cincinnati, Ohio), prior to its merger with The Way, was largely an irenic version of Benjamin Franklin’s American Christian Review [hereafter ACR]. Rowe followed Franklin as editor of the ACR in 1878 but the paper was sold to Daniel Sommer in 1886. Sommer assumed editorship in 1887 and changed its name to the OR. In the meantime, Row started the CL in 1886. Arguably, the CL functioned as a more gentle ACR and was more sympathetic with the GA than either the FF or the OR. In fact, the CL came under fire for this perceived softness toward issues.13 The merger with The Way, clearly representative of the Tennessee tradition, was not altogether surprising. But it was, at times, a flashpoint between competing ideas as the Franklin roots of the paper and Sommer’s influence across the Midwest clashed with the Tennessee tradition through the pages of the CLW from 1904 to 1907.

Given this history, I have focused my comparison of the three traditions in the following way. The Texas Tradition is represented by the FF under its multiple editors and the Hoosier Tradition is represented by OR. For the purpose of this essay, the Tennessee Tradition is primarily represented by the GA (1897-1898) until The Way (1899-1903) appeared as a major voice and united with CL as CLW (1904-1907). James A. Harding, whom Richard Hughes described as the “epitome” of the “apocalyptic vision” (what I call the Tennessee Tradition),14 is the tradition’s most prolific editor and antagonist during the years 1897-1907.

Two words of caution are necessary. First, the geographical designations are not delimitations. They do not limit the traditions to those regions nor do they mean that everyone within those regions was an adherent to that tradition. There was considerable cross-fertilization between the traditions, especially as they united against the “society folks.” The designations are helpful “handles” derived from the root source and major papers that promote that particular theological perspective. Second, these trajectories are not rigid but fluid. While there are clear loyalties to particular papers and ideas, there is also variety within the traditions themselves. Subscribers to and writers for FF, for example, are not monolithic. Consequently, while discerning the common thrusts of these traditions is legitimate, it is important to resist reductionism and forcing ideas into preconceived molds.

A Common Tradition: Separation from the “Christian Church”

Despite whatever differences Hoosiers, Volunteers, and Longhorns had with each other, they were united on a broad front against a common foe. “The great enemy to the Church of Christ today is the sect called Christian Church,” wrote Denton, a prolific contributor to the FF.15 Across the spectrum there was a constant and incessant warning about the failure of the Christian Churches to remain true to the “old paths” recorded in the New Testament and epitomized by Alexander Campbell’s Christian Baptist. Writers

13 James S. Bell, “The Leader’s Course,” CL 14 (13 March 1900) 8. For example, on several occasions Bittle noted the interest some progressives had in winning the support of John F. Rowe and the CL (cf. “Missionary Work,” OR 40 [23 November 1897] 4 and “Flattering Words,” OR [19 October 1897] 4).14 Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 138.15 J. W. Denton, “The Difference Between the Christian Church and Church of Christ,” FF 19 (10 February 1903) 1.

habitually referenced, printed or pointed back to articles and positions of Campbell’s first periodical as if they were “continuing the work of reform” begun there.16

During the years 1897-1907, and previously by some, the Christian Church was increasingly regarded as simply another denomination. “[W]hat of the Christian Church?” Harding asked. “It is the youngest of the denominations, and the most energetic of them all” and “traveling from Christ…faster than any one of them,” he answered.17 “All denominations, including the Christian Church with its fast notions,” Sommer wrote, “are a compromise.”18 In 1874 Benjamin Franklin had predicted this development. According to Bittle’s reminiscence of a conversation a few years before his death, Franklin “regarded division as inevitable unless the progress of innovations could be checked.” He was not hopeful and believed he was witnessing “the gradual formation of a new sect.”19 In 1900 Sommer could write that it was a “hopeful sign” that “now the churches of Christ are drawing the lines of demarcation more deeply and widely.”20

While there are obvious sociological and sectional dimensions, even causes, of the division between the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church,21 there were also significant hermeneutical and theological grounds as well. In the eyes of the editors at the turn of the century, these were the primary reasons for separation. Consequently, I will focus on those for the purpose of this essay.

An Ecclesio-Hermeneutical Principle

Their common ground—in terms of the dispute with the Christian Church—was both hermeneutical and ecclesiological. The contention among Churches of Christ was that a basic, though somewhat complicated, principle separated them from the Christian Church.

The issues that generated conflict between the two religious bodies were many. They ranged from instrumental music to choirs, from fund-raising festivals to funding missionary societies, from one-man pastor systems to female evangelists. Though diverse all these “sources of contention” were opposed on the basis of a legal hermeneutical “principle” (though some were also opposed on sociological grounds). Succinctly stated, it is a call to “an immediate return to New Testament faith and practice, in which nothing shall be taught that has not the apostolic sanction, and no expedient allowed that is not necessary to carry out the Lord’s commands.”22 This principle has its

16 L. F. Bittle, “The Old Contention,” OR 44 (26 November 1901) 4. A few other examples would be: George Savage, “Extracts from the ‘Christian Baptist’—1825,” FF 19 (5 February 1903) 3; Daniel Sommer, “Nineteenth Century Efforts to Restore the Bible to Mankind,” OR 44 (16 July 1901) 1; and the CL reprinted articles from Campbell’s Christian Baptist, including “Purity of Speech,” throughout 1902-1903; see CL 17 (27 January 1903) 2.17 James A. Harding, “The Church of God Versus the Denominations,” The Way 5 (17 September 1903) 866.18 Daniel Sommer, “Epistles to Elders and Deacons. Number Twelve,” OR 43 (20 March 1900) 1.19 L. F. Bittle, “Reminiscence,” OR 44 (26 March 1901) 4.20 Daniel Sommer, “Epistles to Elders and Deacons. Number Thirty Seven,” OR 43 (25 September 1900) 1.21 David Edwin Harrell, The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, 1973), 2:323-350.22 L. F. Bittle, “Concerning Division,” OR 47 (21 June 1904) 4 (original stated in all caps).

roots in the Reformed Regulative Principle,23 and was discerned through a pervasively accepted hermeneutical method of command, example and necessary inference.24

This principle assumes that the New Testament specifies obedience to positive law. The function of positive law as a test of loyalty was promoted by Benjamin Franklin,25 and was a well-known category among Churches of Christ.26 It is an exclusive principle: one must only do what the law prescribes—to do more or less other than what is necessary to comply with the command is disobedience. Consequently, only necessary expedients are authorized. Further, the principle only applies to ecclesial forms, that is, the worship and work of the church. “Man knows what worship is, only as the Lord has prescribed it,” Franklin argued. “The worship is all positive, and comes with the weight of authority.”27 The OR, quoting one of Franklin’s purposes for the ACR, maintained that one of its purposes was “to advocate the worship prescribed in Scripture, the whole of it; no more, no less; as the only true and acceptable worship of God in the New Institution.”28

The point, as Harding saw it, was that whatever God commands includes “everything necessarily implied” by the command, “but nothing else.” While “common sense” is required “to decide in what way they can best do what” God commands, God “never leaves it to their common sense to decide whether they shall do something else” since “adding to, taking from, or changing in any way the ordinances of the worship of his house” is forbidden. 29

This is what divides Churches of Christ from Christian Churches, according to Harding. “The difference is one of principle. It is radical and the chasm” between the two bodies “must of necessity become wider and wider” since the difference will evidence itself in increasing ways. “It is not directly a question about organs, choirs, missionary societies, etc.,” Harding notes, “but about abiding in the word of Jesus as expressed in the New Testament.” The point is not whether or not to use the instrument or contribute to missionary societies, but “whether God was competent to settle the question.” While there are some who sin ignorantly when they add to God’s word and others who sin out of weakness due to their circumstances, the most significant group are those who know the word but believe they have “a better way than the primitive one.” These are those who sin willfully and with a high hand they blaspheme the Holy Spirit.30

23 See the discussion of this principle in John Mark Hicks, Johnny Melton, and Bobby Valentine, A Gathered People: Revisioning the Assembly as Transforming Encounter (Abilene: Leafwood Publisheres, 2007) 96-102, 119-124.24 James A. Harding, “Laying on of Hands—The Grounds of Unity,” The Way 3 (26 September 1901) 203: “I have been taught all my life that the Scriptures teach ‘by precept, by approved apostolic example and by necessary inference,’ and it is certain that this is correct.” Cf. James A. Harding, “The Right Hands of Fellowship,” GA 25 (22 February 1883) 11825 Benjamin Franklin, “Positive Divine Law,” in Gospel Preacher: A Book of Twenty-One Sermons (Cincinnati, OH: G. W. Rice, Publisher, 1877), 1:193-217.26 L. C. Chisholm, “Positive Divine Law,” FF 18 (16 September 1902) 1 and “Positive Divine Law. Part II,” FF 18 (7 October 1902) 1.27 Benjamin Franklin, “Instrumental Music in Worship,” in Gospel Preacher, 2:414.28 L. F. Bittle, “Our Purpose,” OR 40 (23 November 1897) 4.29 James A. Harding, “A Digressive Preacher’s Position and Brother Atkisson’s Request,” The Way 5 (10 December 1903) 1058.30 James A. Harding, “Primitive Christians and Progressives—The One Difference Between Them,” The Way 4 (24 July 1902) 130.

Biblical-Theological Ground

While some thought the above was sufficient for separation (e.g., Sommer, Harding, McGary), it was the rise of Higher Criticism and a new understanding of unity that signaled a clear break for others (Lipscomb, Bell, Rowe). Indeed, these elements sowed the seeds of another division within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the mid-20th

century between the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church). In the first decade of the 20th century, however, these issues drove a wedge between Churches of Christ and the Christian Church that proved irreconcilable.

Higher Criticism. When Sommer attended an Indianapolis convention in 1897, he found “that ‘higher criticism’—otherwise the higher conceit which tampers with the integrity of the Sacred Text—was a subject of controversy.” Sommer thought all the controversialists were in the “same boat” though some in the stern (McGarvey, Lord) and others in the bow (Willett, Garrison). There is, after all, “no rational stopping place between wholehearted Bibleism on the one hand and wholehearted Atheism on the other.”31 This “unrest” within the Christian Church, which would eventually divide them, had the effect of turning the stomachs of those among the Churches of Christ.32 Harding boldly declared H. L. Willett “an unbeliever in and blasphemer of the Word of God…an infidel.”33 Sommer attributed the distribution of higher critical ideas to the “higher education of preachers,” especially the Disciples Divinity House in Chicago which was “intended to be a theological seminary of considerable pretentions.”34 Such a seminary, of course, was anathema to all the leaders of the Churches of Christ.

Church Federation. At the Omaha convention in 1902, Elias B. Sanford, secretary of the National Federation of Churches and Church Workers, invited the Disciples of Christ to participate in their unity efforts. J. H. Garrison, editor of the Christian Evangelist, embraced the invitation, but J. A. Lord, editor of the Christian Standard, rejected it. Papers among Churches of Christ saw that debate, unimaginable within their own circles, as further evidence of their different spirit. Sommer’s response to the intramural dispute within the Christian Church was a kind of “I told you so” attitude. This is what one reaps when churches sow a worldly gospel driven by innovations.35 Bell declared it a power grab similar to the “kingdoms of this world.”36 Savage called the development “disgusting and inexcusable.”37

When Garrison, B. B. Tyler, and others declared, in the course of this Federation discussion, other religious bodies as “churches of Christ,” this generated a torrent of articles attacking this “new” agenda within the Stone-Campbell Movement. Armstrong saw Garrison’s position, consistent with Sanford’s, as affirming that “all denominations

31 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. First Article,” OR 45 (10 June 1902) 1, 8.32 L. F. Bittle, “Unrest,” OR 44 (20 May 1901) 4.33 James A. Harding, “H. L. Willett and the Story of the Brazen Serpent,” CLW 21 (3 Dec 1907) 8. Cf. James A. Harding, “Are They Christians or Infidels?” CLW 19 (16 May 1905) 8.34 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Sixth Article,” OR 45 (22 July 1902) 8.35 Daniel Sommer, “Poor Joseph! Always Wrong!” OR 46 (21 May 1903) 1.36 James S. Bell, “Church Federation—What It Would Be,” CL 17 (23 June 1903) 8.37 George W. Savage, “Federation of Churches, Doctors, Doctored, and the Reason Why,” FF 19 (6 February 10 1903) 4.

are churches of Christ, and taken together constitute the church of God, and…this is the foundation of all federation of churches.”38

At the heart of this discussion is a different understanding of unity. Garrison and those who supported the Federation understood unity at a Christological level—faith in Jesus. Others, including Lord and the editors among Churches of Christ, understood unity at an ecclesiological level. “We can not afford to go in and federate with them, and the Lord will not allow them to come in and federate with us,” Kidwell wrote, “unless they will submit to being immersed, for that alone is scriptural baptism.”39 For Churches of Christ unity has prescribed ecclesiological boundaries: right baptism, right Supper, right worship, and right organization. There can be no “federation” with those whose congregations are not scripturally sanctioned. It is better, thought Skagg, that the Christian Church be “absorbed by the other denominations and then the churches of Christ will not be deceived by the plea that ‘we be brethren’.”40

The Christian Church became a charter member of the Federal Council of Churches in 1908. This was yet another seal on the division and a portend of another to come.

Separation

Some divisions, McGary’s co-editor Jackson wrote, “are right and necessary.”41 Consequently, McGary denied that he is a “member of the religious body known as the Disciples of Christ (the big ‘D’ type) or Christians (the digressive sort),” and he “intend[ed] to continue to eschew and oppose the evil course of these men who have gone out from among us and set up shop for themselves.”42 Separation, then, was the intention of Churches of Christ in the first decade of the 20th century. Bittle even described Jesus as the “Separator” who would distinguish between the faithful wheat and the heretical chaff.43 There was no longer any “neutral ground” and any kind of “neutrality is a kind of treason against him who commands us to fight the good fight of faith.”44 Though delighted that others had caught up with his initial attempts at separation in the 1889 “Address and Declaration,”45 Sommer complained that it took “ten to twenty years…to convince [the] leading opponents that the spirit of innovationism was a deep-rooted heresy.”46

In the wake of this separation, Sommer commented, “apostolic disciples began to draw the lines between ‘the church of Christ’ and ‘the Christian church’.”47 As early as 1891 A. M. Morris, a writer for the OR, wrote a pamphlet entitled Difference Between the

38 J. N. Armstrong, “Faris’ Letter and Church Federation,” CLW 20 (8 May 1906) 1. Cf. James S. Bell, “Are They Scriptural Churches of Christ?” CLW 20 (15 May 1906) 8.39 W. T. Kidwell, “Is the ‘Federation’ Spirit Any New Thing?” FF 22 (26 June 1906) 1.40 W. P. Skaggs, “Digression Gone to Seed,” FF 19 (4 January 1903) 1.41 J. W. Jackson, “Divisions,” FF 13 (9 March 1897) 4.42 Austin McGary, “Untitled,” FF 16 (20 February 1900) 124.43 L. F. Bittle, “Separation,” OR 43 (6 March 1900) 4. Cf. James A. Harding, “Scraps,” The Way 3 (17 October 1901) 226.44 L. F. Bittle, “Our Ideal,” 44 (29 October 1901) 4.45 Daniel Sommer, “An Address,” OR 32 (5 September 1889) 1, 5, 8; the “Declaration” also appeared in the CL 4 (10 September 1889) 2.46 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Eleventh Article,” OR 45 (26 August 1902) 1.47 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Sixth Article,” OR 45 (22 July 1902) 1.

Church of Christ and the Christian Church.48 By 1903 James A. Harding was lamenting that “in the forty-three years that have passed,” congregations have divided in “hundreds of places all over our land” with the result that in “the same city, town or village we find the ‘Church of Christ’ and the ‘Christian Church’ the two having no Christian fellowship for each other.”49 Eventually, despite some debate in the 1920s GA, “Church of Christ” became the exclusive name on the church sign and in the “Yellow Pages” as a unifying identification for the body Lipscomb described as “distinct and separate.”

Divergent Traditions: The Struggle for Identity

Nostalgia easily recalls an ideal unity when it never existed. Though the FF, OR, CL, The Way, CLW, and GA were heremeneutically and ecclesiologically united in a common front against the Christian Church, there was significant theological diversity among the journals. That even McGary could recognize that McQuiddy, after meeting him in Gospel Advocate office at Nashville, stood “firm for the ‘old paths’,” though previously he had thought him “’progressive’ in the digressive sense of the word” indicates that the front against the Christian Church was solid.50 But there was so much diversity and, according to Tolbert Fanning’s niece Lottie Johnson, so much “strife over foolish and unlearned questions” that many feared that it would undermine the fight against the innovations.51 Bittle, for example, cautioned that “the friends of the ancient order of things should discard minor issues and personal interests, and unite in a vigorous campaign in favor of the faith and worship, doctrine and discipline, constitution and methods of the Church the apostles left them.”52 Yet, when George Savage, the new editor of the FF in 1902, sought to purge it “from evil speakings,”53 he was accused of adopting the “digressive ‘sweet-spirited’ policy plan.”54 Given the intense heat of separation from the Christian Church and identity formation among Churches of Christ, suspicion and mistrust reigned among the papers.

The disagreements were significant and the diversity immense. Theological differences among Churches of Christ ranged from polity issues (e.g., number, qualification, selection, ordination and authority of elders) to materialism (e.g., soul sleep), from mutual edification to located evangelists, from the corporate practice of the right hand of fellowship to the necessity of confession before baptism, from a prescribed order of worship to legitimate uses of the contribution on Sunday, from women working outside the home to female participation in the assembly, from involvement in politics to institutionalism (including Sunday Schools and Bible Colleges), from debating the relation of the kingdom to the church to whether the Sermon on the Mount applies to Christians, from war-peace questions to social involvement in temperance movements, from the nature of special providence to reality of contemporary miracles, and from

48 A. M. Morris, Difference Between the Church of Christ and the Christian Church (Moberly, MO: Sentinel Printing Co., 1891).49 James A. Harding, “Our Practice,” The Way 5 (13 August 1903) 786.50 Austin McGary, “Virginia Trip, and Other Places and Things,” FF 16 (8 January 1901) 8.51 Lottie Johnson, “From Sister Johnson,” FF 14 (5 July 1898) 213.52 L. F. Bittle, “Flattering Words,” OR 40 (19 October 1897) 4.53 George Savage “The Policy of the Firm Foundation Will Be to Manifest the Spirit of Christ,” FF 18 (23 September 1902) 4. 54 George Savage, “An Unjust Charge—We Think It Is Not True,” FF 20 (29 March 1904), 4.

biblical names for the church to eschatology (millennialism, renewed earth theology). This brief essay cannot summarize all the divisive issues the papers discussed from 1897 to 1907.

In order to highlight some significant theological differences between the traditions, this section will focus on four issues that rose to prominence among the papers as Hoosiers, Longhorns and Volunteers collided: (1) Faith and Baptism, (2) Indwelling of the Holy Spirit, (3) Institutionalism, and (4) Sunday Schools. While Texas and Indiana both took different positions from Tennessee on the latter two, Indiana and Tennessee occupied the same general ground on the first two. These are but a few of the many windows through these traditions might be compared. Others are worthy of attention, particularly divine providence, eschatology and kingdom theology, but the limitations of space prohibit a thorough comparison.

In general, though not exclusively, the Tennessee Tradition embraced dynamic divine action in the world as the in-breaking kingdom of God, the Indiana Tradition stressed the non-institutional character of that kingdom, and the Texas Tradition rejected any semblance of dynamic divine action other than a cognitive understanding of the Bible which iteself resulted in divisive ecclesiological debates within the Texas Tradition. As the Tennessee Tradition stressed “divine dynamics” rather than “human mechanics,” in the language of the Nashville Bible School graduate R. C. Bell, this central “apocalyptic” vision shaped how almost every theological concept was appropriated. The Texas Tradition, relatively devoid of divine dynamics, embraced human cognition and ability as the critical factor in humanity’s relationship with God, understanding the law of God aright, and practicing it with precision. Though the Indiana Tradition shared some formal characteristics with Tennessee, it stressed non-institutional ecclesiology and opposition to worldly wisdom, wealth and power as the centerpiece of its agenda. The Tennessee Tradition is more dynamic than the other two traditions, and both Indiana and Texas tended to focus on ecclesiological form and function in ways that the Tennessee tradition transcended with an eschatologically-driven kingdom vision.

Faith and Baptism

Over two hundred articles were exchanged on the subject of rebaptism (reimmersion) in the years 1897-1907, and, of course, many before that since the FF began in 1884 (at least in part) to oppose “sect baptism.” Harding debated the question with both Austin McGary and J. D. Tant; T. R. Burnett debated McGary. Lipscomb and McGary exchanged numerous articles. It threatened to split the church apart. Tant, however, expected that within “fifteen years” that people “coming into the fellowship of the church of Christ on their sectarian baptism [would] be a thing of the past” because “the gospel is having its leavening influence in Tennessee.”55

Texas had several problems with Tennessee on the subject of rebaptism; it was a gospel issue for them. McGary, for example, argued that this is simply another instance in which the GA did not abide by the “rule” that we should speak only as the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. “We maintain that [the FF] holds fast to this rule on all questions, and we kindly deny that the [GA] does.”56 In fact, the GA is acting on the same principle as those who “justify instrumental music” and the “missionary

55 J. D. Tant, “Too Many Papers,” FF 15 (10 January 1899) 23 (emphasis mine).

society” since they “violate [Scripture’s] silence here by teaching other ways that sinners may be forgiven and enter the kingdom of Christ.” McGary thus regards the neglect of this principle as applied to rebaptism as another step toward a “divided brotherhood.” 57 Indeed, it is a gospel issue because the GA receives as Christians those who are not authentically Christian.

Another significant problem for Texas was that Tennessee, by “shaking in the Baptists,” embraced a broader vision of the kingdom than was comfortable for Texans. “Shaking” refers to giving the right of fellowship to Baptists who seek to unite with a Church of Christ. By so doing, Texans claimed, Tennesseans were acknowledging Christians among the sects. As for the FF, editor Savage declared that his paper “has never ‘fallen’ so far as to teach this conglomeration of faithless ‘union’ and communion.”58 J. W. Denton complained that, according to the GA, though believers enter “the kingdom of God” by immersion, they enter the Baptist church “by a shake of the hand” and the GA wants to give them their hand “and shake [them] back where [they] belong.”59

Burnett succinctly stated the point at issue. “The Firm Foundation,” he wrote, “says that faith in Christ is not the faith that qualifies for baptism, but faith that baptism is for the remission of sins.”60 What one “must believe,” according to Harding, “is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is the faith that saves” as “devotion to Christ, resolution to follow Christ.”61 In other words, Jesus saves through faith and faith is fundamentally a matter of discipleship rather than intellectual assent to the doctrine of baptism itself. It is faith in the work of God rather than faith in the human understanding of baptismal design. Consequently, “[t]hough he may have a thousand false notions, and scarcely understands one other doctrine of the Bible, [the one seeking baptism] has one right: he does believe with his whole heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; and this is perfect preparation for baptism.”62

Further, opponents of rebaptism turned the sectarian argument on its head. “The rebaptism extreme, as advocated by many, is an intensely sectarian idea,” according to Sommer.63 Rebaptists “adopt the sectarian plan of sitting in judgment on the fitness of

56 As quoted by T. R. Burnett, “Burnett’s Budget,” GA 39 (26 August 1897) 533. McGary, “Editorial,” FF 14 (13 September 1898) 284: “We cheerfully admit that neither the society nor the organ has anything to do with this vile attack upon us by the Advocate. But the trouble between us is traceable to the very same presumptuous spirit that brings the society and the organ into the work and worship of the church. Bros. Lipscomb, Harding and their wicked confederates in this attack upon us claim to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. But, like Homon and his confederates in advocating the society and organ, they speak where the Bible does not speak, and are silent where the Bible does not speak, in their defense of Baptist baptism….these brethren are tenfold more palpably culpable in their effort to defend their practice of receiving Baptists on their baptism, because, in holding to this practice, they prove that they are willfully going beyond the authority of the Lord.”57 Austin McGary, “The Firm Foundation—Its Aims and Principles,” FF 16 (8 January 1901) 8. Cf. Austin McGary, “Some Splendid Words,” FF 16 (9 January 1900) 24 and “Editors Must be Criticized,” FF 18 (29 April 1902) 4.58 George Savage, “Brother Burnett’s Charges,” FF 21 (28 November 1905) 4.59 J. W. Denton, “Burnett’s Reply to Pearson,” FF 22 (17 March 1906) 3.60 T. R. Burnett, “Burnett’s Budget,” GA 39 (26 August 1897) 533.61 James A. Harding, “The Faith That Prepares for Baptism,” CLW 18 (1 November 1904) 8, 9.62 James A. Harding, “The Faith That Prepares for Baptism,” CLW 18 (1 November 1904) 9.63 As quoted by N. L. Clark, “On the Firing Line,” FF 22 (6 November 1906) 4. Cf. Daniel Sommer, “Items of Interest,” OR 40 (23 March 1897) 1.

persons for baptism.”64 As early as 1891 Sommer published a tract defending the following proposition: “Single immersion performed in the name of the Godhead even by a sectarian and even in connection with certain sectarian errors is valid baptism when rendered for the purpose of obeying Christ.” He published it because the FF was intent on “working division in the brotherhood” and consequently he permitted “no discussion of the rebaptism question” in OR.65

The charge that “shaking in the Baptists” means that there are Christians among the sects is on target. Harding is quite clear about it. “I suppose,” he writes, “there are people among all the so-called ‘Christian denominations’ who have believed in Christ with their whole hearts, who in deep penitence of soul have confessed his holy name, who have been buried in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life, who are diligently studying his holy law and who are daily striving to do his will….we may expect [them] to be saved.” Whether these believers ever came out of denominationalism or not, Harding’s understanding of baptismal and sanctifying grace entailed that God is gracious with their failings if they are not rooted in a rebellious spirit. "Wherever an [immersed believer] is,” according to Harding, “if he is daily, diligently seeking the truth, if he is promptly walking in it as he finds it, we may expect him to be saved."66 This gracious attitude toward those who walk sincerely among the denominations is what the editors of the FF feared because it enlarged the kingdom beyond the borders of their vision of the “Church of Christ.”

Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

Other than rebaptism, the nature and work of the indwelling Spirit was the most controversial topic in the years 1897-1907. For example, more than fifty articles were exchanged among the papers in 1897-1898 and over one hundred in the years 1904-1906. These involved some extremely heated and divisive interactions as one can see in the explosive discussion between J. C. Holloway and James A. Harding in the 1905 CLW.67 When The Way and CL merged in 1904, Harding’s strong belief in the enabling indwelling of the Spirit was opposed by some elements of the CL constituency68 and ultimately led Warlick to begin the Gospel Guide in Dallas where he endorsed Holloway and opposed Harding.69

The Holloway-Harding exchanges, however, were anticipated in 1897-1898 when J. W. Denton of the FF and T. R. Burnett of the GA—who both joined the fray in 1905 as well70—hammered out the question. Generally, the OR sat out these discussions because they thought the personal indwelling of the Spirit a settled question. Bittle, for example, 64 Sommer, “A Letter with Comments,” OR 47 (2 Feb 1904) 3.65 Daniel Sommer, “Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work,” OR 40 (29 June 1897) 1, 8.66 James A. Harding, "Questions and Answers," The Way 4 (17 July 1902) 122. For further discussion, see John Mark Hicks, “A Gracious Separatist: Moral and Positive Law in the Theology of James A. Harding,” Restoration Quarterly 42.3 (2000) 129-147.67 Hicks and Valentine, Kingdom Come, 60-66. Cf. Bobby Valentine, “James A. Harding’s Theology of the Indwelling Holy Spirit: Highlighted by His Discussion with Dr. J. C. Holloway,” Christian Scholar’s Conference Papers, 1999.68 B. F. Bixler, “Another Voice,” CLW 30 (18 July 1905) 2.69 J. S. Warlick, “???” 1 (1 June 1905) 63.70 For example, J. W. Denton, “The Spirit and Word,” FF 21 (4 July 1905) 1 in addition to five other articles that year

occasionally answers questions regarding the issue as if there were no real dispute—it is, he wrote “as most Christians allow.”71 “In dwelling personally with and in the saints,” according to Bittle, “the Holy Spirit acts as the representative of Christ and God.”72 Sommer also dismisses attempts to reduce the presence of the Spirit to information or testimony. On the contrary, the testimony of the Spirit is that God gives “obedient believers” the Spirit “personally, entering their hearts and dwelling in them.”73 The OR had no patience for the “word-alone” theorists, but neither did it emphasize the reality, power and function of the indwelling Spirit in any significant way.

The FF stood firmly against any conception of the indwelling Spirit other than through the word alone by faith.74 The FF opposed the personal and enabling power of the Spirit as a form of “mysticism,” an “absurd idea” that is “purely sectarian in origin.”75

Advocates of such are still “in the fog of sectarian mysticism.”76 The subjective nature of the supposed comfort and help of the indwelling Spirit was, in the minds of many, analogous to the “mourner’s bench” and “Pentecostial showers.”77 It rendered the word insufficient because the Spirit operates directly. If “the Spirit comes from God to the Christian, then” this is “direct operation” and if the “Spirit (as a person) dwells in the church today, then the days of miracles are not past and the Mormons are right.”78 Instead, the word is sufficient as God “leads, guides, controls men by his Word” and he does not “have to be here personally to do it.”79 That was only for the apostles and those gifted in the apostolic age. Personal indwelling advocates need to “get out of the Age of Miracles.”80 The general contention was that the Spirit dwells in the heart by faith in the word of God in the same way that Christ and the Father dwell in the hearts of believers.81

More specifically, Denton’s position reduces to an empirical epistemology of language. God comforts by the words of his Holy Spirit because “you can not comfort anything that has no ideas, and you can not have ideas without words.”82 Since, according to Denton, humans can only be “influenced” by “coercion” and “moral suasion,” the Spirit does not act on the human heart, whether for sinner or saint, “independent of the word” or “separate and apart from the word.” If “Spirit of God uses means over and beyond the revealed will of God in persuading men…then the word of God is not sufficient.”83 The “Spirit does not have to be here in person to teach, rule and guide by His word any more than Blackstone must be here to rule, guide or settle a point

71 L. F. Bittle, “The Invocation of the Spirit,” OR 40 (11 May 1897) 4.72 L. F. Bittle, “The Gift of the Holy Ghost,” OR 44 (26 November 1901) 4.73 Daniel Sommer, “Concerning What the Holy Spirit Says to Sinner and Saints,” OR 46 (14 July 1903), 1. Other examples in OR are E. C. Richardson, “The Work of the Holy Spirit. Fourteenth Article. The Operation of the Spirit,” OR 45 (4 May 1902) 2 and Henry Benge, “My Experience with the Doctrine of the In-Dwelling Holy Spirit,” OR 48 (2 May 1905) 3 among others.74 For example, G. A. Trott, “The Indwelling Spirit,” FF 22 (13 March 1906) 4.75 G. T. Walker, “The Indwelling of the Spirit,” FF 15 (20 June 1899) 385.76 L. C. Chisholm, “Spiritual Influence,” FF 21 (14 November 1905) 2.77 G. T. Walker, “The Indwelling of the Spirit,” FF 15 (20 June 1899) 385.78 J. W. Denton, “Reflections on the Spirit,” FF 20 (9 February 1904) 1.79 J. W. Denton, “Bro. Burnett’s Muddle Again,” FF 14 (6 September 1898) 282.80 J. W. Denton, “Bro. Burnett’s Muddle Again,” FF 14 (6 September 1898) 282.81 Jackson, “The Critics Criticised,” FF 16 (9 January 1900) 29; G. T. Walker, “The Indwelling of the Spirit,” FF 15 (4 July 1899) 421; George Savage, “Brother Burnett’s Charges,” FF 21 (28 November 1905) 4.82 J. W. Denton, “Bro. Burnett’s Muddle Again,” FF 14 (6 September 1898) 282.83 J. W. Denton, “The Spirit and the Word,” FF 21 (4 July 1905) 1.

of law.” 84 The Spirit helps our infirmities or comforts our souls through epistemology alone since we live by the word of God alone rather than “comforting us in some unknown and unspeakable way.”85 The work of the Spirit is thus reduced to an empirical epistemology of language.

Many in the Tennesee tradition were horrified by such statements though some were rather ambiguous, e.g., David Lipscomb himself.86 Burnett called it the “word alone doctrine” or “Spirit-in-the-word theory.” “They have the idea,” he wrote, “that the thought or idea in the word is the Holy Spirit.”87 In contrast to past Stone-Campbell luminaries (e.g., Campbell, Franklin, Lard, Brents), the position of the FF “admit[s] that the sectarians were right” about “the reformation” in that “we have no Holy Ghost.” The FF “is so shy of the sectarian theory of the Spirit alone that [it] has switched off on the other side of the track to the word-alone doctrine.” Burnett contends for a “Spirit-and-word theory” where the Spirit “dwells in the temple or church of God on earth today” and wields the word as a sword.88

Harding, and others in the Tenneseee tradition, thought this was such an important question that the denial of the personal indwelling Spirit who enables transformed living was tantamount to infidelity or at least “semi-infidel[ity].”89 Such a denial is a “withering, deadly curse to those that believe it.”90 “Does the Holy Spirit do anything now except what the Word does?” Harding asks. “Do we get help, any kind or in any way, from God except what we get by studying the Bible?”91 The specific point was whether there was any power available to the Christian that was not simply a matter of ideas, cognition or epistemic awareness. Rather than the mind passively receiving ideas as in an empirical linguistic epistemology, the Tenneseee tradition embraced—in the words of R. H. Boll—that by the personal presence of the Spirit “there is an influx of power,” citing Ephesians 3:16.92 The Spirit is the believer’s divine enabler and transformer.

The Texas Tradition distanced themselves from these sectarian ideas. In fact, L. C. Chisholm—as others did as well—linked the baptismal and Spirit controversies. It is “no wonder” that those who ask “questions about spiritual influence” are also the same

84 J. W. Denton, “Question and Answer,” FF 21 (29 August 1905) 1.85 George Savage, “The Spirit in Christians,” FF 20 (1 November 1904) 4.86 Though Lipscomb insisted that “the Spirit of God is in the word, and acts through it” [“The Holy Spirit and the Word of God,” GA 39 (29 April 1897) 260], he nevertheless believed by the Holy Spirit God “took up his abode in the church, and the Holy Spirit was the representative of the Godhead that dwelt in his spiritual body, or temple…The Holy Spirit would…take up his abode in this church, or body, and those who obeyed would enjoy a fullness of the Spirit hitherto unknown” [“The Spirit Before Pentecost,” 40 (10 November 1898) 716]. Both C. E. W. Dorris [“The Holy Spirit,” GA 40 (23 September 1898) 606] and Harding [“Another Effort to Get Dr. Holloway Out of the Fog,” CLW 19 (24 October 1905) 8] opposed Lipscomb on his insistence that the Spirit “is in the word” and received by those who receive the word even before baptism.87 T. R. Burnett, “Owen to the Rescue,” GA 40 (21 April 1898) 251.88 T. R. Burnett, “On the Holy Spirit,” FF 20 (10 May 1904) 3. This article is followed by an editor’s note from George Savage: “The Holy Ghost operates on both saint and sinner. It does it by teaching. This teaching is in the Bible.” Also “Burnett’s Budget,” GA 40 (14 July 1898) 443: “You have proved the charge made by the sectarians for fifty years, that you do not believe in the Holy Spirit at all. No Spirit in the body, except the ideas contained in the word.”89 James A. Harding, “Another Effort to Get Dr. Holloway Out of the Fog,” CLW 19 (24 October 1905) 8.90 James A. Harding, “Saving Souls, Special Providence, Dr. Holloway,” CLW 21 (29 January 1904) 8.91 James A. Harding, “Questions and Answers,” The Way 4 (17 July 1902) 123.92 R. H. Boll, “The Spirit’s Indwelling,” CLW 19 (16 May 1905) 1.

ones who “have said that men need not know just when God forgives their sins.”93 Both derived from denominational theology and demonstrated the impurity of the Tennessee heresy.

Institutionalism

Sommer recognized two extremes in 1902: “innovationism” and “hobbyism.” Both introduce “dissentions and divisions” as the innovators advocate “human devices” and the hobbyists strain “Scripture against sectarians.” Generally, Sommer means the Christian Church by innovators and the FF, GA, and other smaller papers by hobbyists. Further, “[C]hurches in several southern states,” particularly the Tennessee Tradition identified by GA and The Way, have “thrust upon” the apostolic churches “a new and modified phase of innovationism,” that is, the Sunday School, its literature and the Bible College.94 These are embarkations “on the ‘high seas’ of human institutionism.”95 Because of southern agitation, as he saw it, Sommer began a campaign against both the colleges and the Sunday Schools in first few years of the 20th century.96 Several exchanges in the papers ensued between Sommer and various representatives of the Tennessee Tradition as well as debates with J. N. Armstrong and B. F. Rhodes.97

Sommer objected to “Bible Colleges” at several levels. Recalling Alexander Campbell’s founding of Bethany College in 1840, Sommer noted that Campbell “erred in connecting the church with the world in both fact and form when he established Bethany College as a religio-secular institution with the Lord’s money.” Campbell set a precedent which “implied that the church” was “not a sufficient pillar and basis of truth, but needs a college to supply its deficiency,” such as the training of preachers.98 The college was, in effect, a “religio-secular educational society” analogous to the missionary societies.99 Moreover, this worldly connection prompted disciples “to make a show of greatness” and thereby manifest a “lack of gospel humility.” Colleges, like Bethany, are human institutions designed to do the work of the church, sustained by the Lord’s money, and promote worldly values.100

Sommer regarded it as the “most unpleasant task of [his] editorial life” when, through the pages of the 1902 OR, he began opposing the Nashville Bible School (founded 1891) and Potter Bible College (founded 1901). “[C]ertain southern editors and preachers, supposed to be apostolic,” he wrote, “have been prominent in planning, founding and managing religio-secular institutions with the Lord’s money which they have called ‘Bible School’ and ‘Bible College’.” The former was in operation before he “learned of the purpose to establish such an institution” and he attempted to at least convince the founders of the latter to keep “Bible” out of the name of the institution. Not only was “Campbell’s institutionalism” not “sufficient forewarning for [the] southern 93 L. C. Chisholm, “Spiritual Influence,” FF 21 (14 November 1905) 2.94 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Eleventh Article,” OR 46 (26 August 1902) 1, 8.95 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Tenth Article,” OR 46 (19 August 1902) 1.96 Daniel Sommer, “Sunday-Schools and Sunday-School Literature,” OR 44 (26 February 1901) 1.97 B. F. Rhodes and Daniel Sommer, A Report of Skirmishes Between a Religious Journal and a Religio-Secular College (Indianapolis, 1907) and J. N. Armstrong and Daniel Sommer, A Written Discussion on the Bible School (Indianapolis, 1908).98 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Ninth Article,” OR 45 (12 August 1902) 1.99 Daniel Sommer, “A Serious Letter,” OR 29 (18 July 1905) 3.100 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Ninth Article,” OR 45 (12 August 1902) 1.

brethren,” they have added to the “heresy” by sacrilegiously using “Bible” in the name of their secular school.101 When southerners responded that Sommer was against education, he clarified that “all” that he had “written on the subject has been under these two headings, namely, the mistake of thus using the Lord’s money, and the mistake of thus naming such institutions.”102 He penned series of eight articles to stress the former point.103

The “southern brethren,” according to Sommer, have embraced institutionalism in principle just as Campbell did when he established Bethany College in 1840 which led to the founding of the American Missionary Society in 1849. Sommer sees the south headed on the same trajectory. “Human institutions have been the curse of the disciple brotherhood. It is the rock upon which the ship of Zion has been split” when Campbell endorsed and adopted it. The South is now following his example, and the “Sunday school, with its extra officiers and special literature,” was the “first human institution which they adopted in connection with the church.” From Sunday School to Bible Colleges, institutionalism had taken root among the “southern brethren” and its ultimate end is division and a denial of the simplicity of Christ.104 “We judge the future,” Sommer observed, “by the past.”105

When Sommer was asked by D. W. Nay of Pleasant Hill, Missouri, whether the GA and FF106 are both “unsound in the doctrine of Christ” because they were in “sympathy with [the] colleges,” he reminded Nay of the history of apostasy. “In the catalog of successful betrayers, Alexander Campbell was first, Isaac Errett was second, and John W. McGarvey has been third” because Campbell began institutionalism, Errett promoted it, and McGarvey compromised his hermeneutic in favor of institutionalism when he opposed instrumental music but embraced the societies. In light of this history Sommer believed Nay would “easily judge who are the most dangerous men of that part of the brotherhood which is now regard as apostolic.” The institiutionalists, Sommer wrote, will divide the church: “Who splits the log—the man who drives the wedge, or the man who opposes driving it?”107 In 1889, Sommer blamed the “modern school men” for the division between Churches of Christ and Christian Churches. In the Bible College movement among the “southern brethren” he saw the future in the past.108 Sommer saw himself in a unique position as only the OR was opposed “to all sectarianism, to all innovationism, and to all hobbyism.”109 Sommer was, in effect, the last refuge of apostolicity within the Stone-Campbell Movement. In his own view, his opposition to 101 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Ninth Article,” OR 45 (12 August 1902) 1, 8.102 Daniel Sommer, “A Plain Statement and Challenge,” OR 46 (4 August 1903) 1.103 See Daniel Sommer, “Concerning the Unscripturalness of Establishing Religio-Secular Schools with the Lord’s Money,” OR 46 (8 September 1903) 1, 8; 46 (16 September 1903) 8; 46 (23 September 1903) 8; 46 (29 September 1903) 8; 46 (6 October 1903) 8; 46 (13 October 1903) 8; 46 (20 October 1903) 8; and 46 (27 October 1903) 8.104 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Ninth Article,” OR 45 (12 August 1902) 1, 8. Cf. James A. Harding, “Concerning Six Bible Schools,” The Way 5 (26 November 1903) 1025-7.105 Daniel Sommer, “Signs of the Times. Tenth Article,” OR 46 (19 August 1902) 1, 8.106 George Savage, “Open Letter,” FF 21 (7 February 1905) 4: “But Bible Schools, properly managed, are not preacher factories. Preachers are not made in Bible schools. The boys and girls are educated there to better fit them for the trials of life, and if they make preachers, it is because they study the Bible themselves, learn the worship in the congregation and push their zeal to spread the truth.”107 Daniel Sommer, “A Serious Letter,” OR 48 29 (18 July 1905), 3. 108 Daniel Sommer, “Address,” OR 32 (5 September 1889) 1, 5, 8.109 Daniel Sommer, “’Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work.’ Third Article,” OR 40 (20 July 1897) 1.

Bible Colleges in the first decade of the 20th century effectively “save[d] the churches of Christ north of the Ohio River from being deceived by the ‘college caze,’ which was common in the Southland’.”110

Sommer’s perspective was eventually shared by many within the FF orbit. J. D. Tant, for example, feared that “many good brethren in Texas are going Bible College crazy” and that “the work of the church to teach the Bible and make gospel preachers is fast being turned over to the Bible colleges, and the church is losing its identity along the line.”111 Tant, in a letter to Sommer in 1937, acknowledged that Sommer was right about colleges and apostasy. “Bethany and Lexington are living examples,” he wrote, “and it won’t be long till Nashville and Abilene will follow.” The day was coming when it would be said about Sommer that “We had a prophet among us and did not know it.”112

By 1936, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., with some disgust, recognized that “we are institutional already.”113 This institutionalization would lay the groundwork for a division among Churches of Christ in the 1950s that would parallel the division between Churches of Christ and the Christian Church in size and significance.

Sunday School

While Sommer opposed the Sunday School as a form of institutionalism that subverts parental obligations and becomes an appendage to the church,114 some regions of the Texas tradition opposed it primarily on hermeneutical and ecclesiological grounds. The distinction is important because while Sommer opposed the human institution (as did Lipscomb as well), others opposed the division of the church into separate classes on the first day of the week and the use of women as teachers in children’s classes. For a few years, while N. L. Clark, President of Gunter Bible College in Gunter, Texas, was one of the four editors (1906-1907) along with G. A. Trott, the FF opposed such Sunday schools, though this was not unanimous among the writers or editors. Though opposition to the Sunday school and its literature in the FF predated Clark,115 none of the prior editors opposed the division of the church into classes on Sunday morning for the purpose of teaching. All the previous editors, however, did oppose the Sunday School organization independent of the church.116

Clark’s rational is hermeneutical rather than institutional. “I have opposed the Sunday School because it is not in the Book.”117 It is “unknown to the New

110 Daniel Sommer, “A Record of My Life,” Apostolic Review 86 (15 July 1941) 9, as quoted by James Stephen Wolfgang, “A Life of Humble Fear: The Biography of Daniel Sommer, 1850-1940” (M.A. Thesis, Butler University, 1975) 114.111 J. D. Tant, “Information Wanted,” FF 27 (21 March 1911) 6.112 Daniel Sommer, Apostolic Review 81 (7 December 1937) 5 as Wolfgang, “A Life of Humble Fear,” 115.113 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “Broken Cisterns,” FF 53 (1 September 1936) 5.114 See Daniel Sommer, “The Sunday School Question Considered. Chapter I,” OR 44 (3 November 1903) 8; “The Sunday School Question Considered. Chapter II,” OR 44 (10 November 1903) 8; “The Sunday School Question Considered. Chapter III,” OR 44 (17 November 1903) 8.115 For example, Henry W. Taylor, “New Innovation,” FF 13 (23 February 1897) 6 and A. G. Huckeba, “Against the Sunday School,” FF 19 (24 March 1903) 3.116 Austin McGary, “The Sunday School Question,” FF 15 (18 April 1899) 248 and George Savage, “Is the Firm Foundation a Sunday School Organ?” FF 19 (8 December 1903) 4.117 N. L. Clark, “What Shall We Do About It?” FF 23 (12 March 1907) 4.

Testament.”118 His opposition to the Sunday school is on the same ground as his opposition to “the modern pastor system, a salaried ministry, etc.,” that is, on the unqualified adherence to the motto of the Restoration Movement—to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. For Clark the rejection of the Sunday School is a matter of biblical authority and the hermeneutic of silence, just like his opposition to rebaptism, instrumental music, and the societies. Ecclesiologically, he opposed limiting public teaching to a single preacher and argued that the maturing and education of the church belonged in the hands of the elders. As an advocate for mutual edification, he believed the Sunday school divided the church in order to give more power to the preacher. Since “everybody will agree” that it is Scriptural for the church—with Bible in hand--to “meet regularly,” for elders to “direct and lead in the worship” as they give “opportunity to other brethren to teach, admonish and exhort, for “evangelists to be sent by the churches to preach the gospel in destitute fields,” and for “parents” to “teach their children the Bible at home,” why divide the church by introducing a Sunday School about which Scripture is silent.119

In addition, the Sunday School, according to L. C. Chisholm, was the favorite means by which innovators introduced their agendas into churches. The societies were first organized through the Sunday School, instruments were first introduced in the Sunday School, and women were first given “prominence” by teaching in the Sunday School. Consequently, the “Sunday school is the first move to set aside the word of God” and the “first innovation the church ever accepted came through this” seemingly “harmless institution.”120 Opponents, then, saw the Sunday School as a threat, a tool in the hands of potential innovators. In the suspicious climate of the first decade of separation from the Christian Church, the Sunday School was not only unnecessary and a violation of the silence of Scripture but it posed a danger to the purity of the church.

In 1896 there were few congregations using Sunday Schools in Texas but within twenty years there were “good Bible Schools in all the congregations.”121 The opposition to Clark by Robert L. Whiteside (especially through his debate with Clark122) and J. D. Tant encouraged the growth of Sunday School classes in Texas churches. The growth of the Sunday School alarmed its opponents, and it moved from “harmless institution” to heresy. “I regard the Sunday School as an innovation,” Clark wrote. “I can’t see it in any other light.”123

In contrast the CL had little discussion of this question though it occasionally published articles encouraging class instruction in the churches.124 The Tennessee Tradition, on the other hand, promoted Sunday schools as part of the work of the church under the oversight of the elders with the GA publishing literature for classes. Only a few, like J. M. Barnes, opposed it.125 Lipscomb, for example, suggested that the Leiper’s Fork 118 N. L. Clark, “An Explanation,” FF 23 (24 September 1907) 4.119 N. L. Clark, “What Shall We Do About It?” FF 23 (12 March 1907) 4.120 L. C. Chisholm, “Reminiscences of the Past,” FF 19 (3 November 1903) 1.121 Lee P. Mansfield, “Then and Now,” FF 22 (14 March 1916) 3.122 Robert L. Whiteside and N. L. Clark, “The Sunday School Question,” FF 22 (4 September 1906) 4; 22 (23 October 1906) 4; 22 (13 November 1906) 4; 22 (11 December 1906) 8; 23 (15 January 1907) 4; and 23 (19 February 1907) 4.123 N. L. Clark, “Editorial Notes,” FF 23 (29 January 1907) 4.124 John Augustus Williams, “Reminiscences—IV. Sunday-Schools,” CL 12 (18 January 1898) 2.125 J. M. Barnes, “’Asking for the Old Path—Where is the Good Way’,” GA 25 (24 June 1897) 396-7 and “The Sunday School a Body,” GA 39 (4 November 1897) 690.

church near Nashville suspend the institutional Sunday School work and incorporate that work into the life of the local congregation itself. “Brethren,” he pleaded, “can’t we come together here, or anywhere else as the church, and do the work that the Sunday School is doing?”126 If so granted, then the “question, according to Lipscomb, is: “May Christians meet together at other than the chief meeting, and teach one another and others the word of God in classes arranged according to advancement and knowledge?” To Lipscomb the answer was obvious.127 Sunday Schools, as part of the work of the local church, were an expedient means for Christians to teach the word of God.

Conclusion

In the first decade of the 20th century, the Tennessee Tradition, through the GA and CLW along with the growing number of Bible Colleges, was the most dominant influence among Churches of Christ. The tradition, with its representative papers, was known for its open and irenic discussion of issues among Churches of Christ without division. W. J. Brown of Cloverdale, Indiana, for example, noted that the “tone and spirit” of the GA and The Way were different from other papers whose “lordly editors” subverted the unity of the brotherhood.128 This kind of free discussion among those who disagree is what lies behind the title of Armstrong’s article “United, Yet Divided.”129

The strong eschatological, dynamic and countercultural kingdom vision of the Tennessee Tradition, however, was displaced in the mid-twentieth century. The Texas Tradition, through the influence of the FF as well as numerous smaller papers, gained ascendancy in the 1930s-1940s, Texas Tradition editors (Foy E. Wallace, Jr. and John T. Hinds—both staff writers for the FF in the 1920s) were appointed to the GA in the 1930s, and the CL morphed into a practical mirror of the FF in the mid-1930s. Rebaptism was no longer a living issue among the churches and advocates of the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit were a small minority. Other dimensions of the Tennessee Tradition had also faded, including millennial eschatology, special providence for believers, and a broader vision of the kingdom. By the late 1950s there was little difference in theological perspective between the FF and GA.

Though the OR’s subscription list numbered 10,000 in 1924 [then known as the Apostolic Review], the FF was double that number.130 The OR was relatively marginalized by its Northern and Midwestern constituency. As a minority voice in the Stone-Campbell Movement in the Midwest (there were only 5,000 members of Churches of Christ in 1906 in Indiana, and that was the largest number in any state north of the Ohio), it had little influence on southern churches in Texas and Tennessee. The uniqueness of the Sommer Tradition was ultimately lost in the expanse of the Stone-Campbell Movement and overwhelmed by the sheer numbers and influence of southern Churches of Christ. At the same time, however, the non-institutional emphases of the Indiana Tradition were embraced by southern non-institutional churches in the 1950s.

126 David Lipscomb, “Sunday Schools,” 39 (28 January 1897) 52.127 David Lipscomb, “The Sunday School,” 39 (26 August 1897) 534.128 W. J. Brown, “Let This Mind Be In You,” The Way 3 (13 June 1901) 88.129 J. N. Armstrong, “United, Yet Divided,” The Way 4 (14 August 1902) 156.130 Wolfgang, “Sommer,” 119, n. 2. The FF at the time of WWI had 20,000 subscribers, according to Lane T. Cubstead, “The Firm Foundation, 1884-1957: The History of a Pioneer Religious Journal and Its Editors” (Thesis, University of Texas, 1957), 117, n. 17.

But it was at the time of most conformity (the 1940s) that the Churches of Christ, dominated by the Texas Tradition, began to implode with disputes over the precise legal application of the cherished hermeneutic of the fathers. As the non-institutional Churches of Christ emerged in the 1950s, they renewed an anti-worldly stance but this was overshadowed by the mechanical nature hermeneutical debates over legal technicalities. A socially alienated non-institutional Church of Christ in the Texas Tradition lacked the dynamism of the Tennessee Tradition and the deep-rooted counterculturalism of the Sommer Tradition. Generally, 1950s non-institutionalism among southern Churches of Christ was a Texas “Sommerism” without the nonsectarian (e.g., rebaptism) and dynamic (e.g., indwelling of the Spirit) nature of the Tenneseee Tradition or even the Indiana Tradition. At the same time, institutional Churches of Christ also lacked the nonsectarian and dynamic nature of the Tennessee Tradition. In essence, the 1950s division devolved into a fight over how best to apply the hermeneutic of the fathers which was reminiscent of the Sunday School discussion in the first decade of the century.131 The institutional division was, in effect, a squabble within the Texas Tradition.

The critical turn in the story of this essay is the loss of a dynamic sanctifying presence of God in the hearts of believers through the personal indwelling of the Spirit as symbolic of the broader loss of “divine dynamics” within Churches of Christ as a whole. At an earlier point in the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement, the movement had generally chosen Fanning’s Baconian rationalism over Robert Richardson’s openness to the work of the Spirit beyond the sacred page.132 The first decades of the 20th century were a similar turn. The Texas Tradition ultimately won the day on the nature of the indwelling Spirit among Churches of Christ. The loss of dynamic divine power in sanctification and the reduction of the Spirit’s work to an empirical epistemology of the word fostered debates over patterns and mechanics rather than an emphasis on the transforming, enabling and sanctifying life in the Spirit.

Yet, this Spiritual theology was not wholly lost. Though K. C. Moser “was brought up at the feet of teachers who denied the indwelling of the Spirit,” in the late 1920s he discovered for himself “that no doctrine is more plainly taught than the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit.”133 Moser understood this as the hinge of grace and legalism since to “deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit [is to] leave grace for law.” “Legalism,” he wrote, “is the father of the denial of the personal indwelling of the Spirit.”134 Living in the flesh, believers experience a war within themselves “between the ‘law of sin’ whiach is in our members and the Holy Spirit ‘which dwelleth in you.’”135 The indwelling presence of the Spirit “keep[s] this” law “under subjection so that the child of God can successfully serve him.” Without the power of the Spirit the “law refuses to permit man to obey God as he should.”136 Moser’s emphasis here was a renewal of the Tennessee 131 This is most readily seen in the various debates of the 1950s, especially Roy E. Cogdill and Guy N. Woods, Woods-Cogdill Debate (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1958).132 C. Leonard Allen, Things Unseen: Churches of Christ in (After) the Modern Age (Siloam Springs, AR: Leafwood Publishers, 2004), 71-98.133 K. C. Moser, “Brother Colley Seeks Information,” FF 47 (11 March 1930) 3. See Bobby Valentine, “In with Wallace, Out with Brewer: K. C. Moser and the Herald of Truth in the 1920s,” Christian Scholar’s Conference paper, Rochester College, 2007.134 K. C. Moser, “Reply to Brother Colley,” FF 47 (6 May 1930) 3. See K. C. Moser, The Way of Salvation (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co., 1932), 137.135 Moser, The Way of Salvation, 137.136 Moser, The Way of Salvation, 133-134.

Tradition as represented by Harding, R. H. Boll, J. N. Armstrong, R. C. Bell and others. As a result, Moser was ostracized by the FF.137

While Foy E. Wallace could commend Moser as “sound to the core” in 1923, J. N. Armstrong could subsequently commend Moser as “sound to the core” in 1934.138 Moser’s shift from Texas to Tennessee is remarkable and bucks the general trend in Churches of Christ. Wallace and Armstrong were representatives of two different traditions and neither was well-disposed toward the other. As the Texas tribe increased, the Tennessee tribe decreased but not without hope that it would again rise to prominence. That subsequent rise is due, in part, to the Moser-prompted “Man or the Plan” controversy and a renewed emphasis on the personal indwelling of the Spirit in the late 1950s and early 1960s.139

137 The Baptist debater Ben Bogard embarrassed G. H. P. Showalter, editor of the FF, by asking him: "What are you folks going to do with Moser?" See "The 'Faith Alone' Idea," FF 51 (3 April 1934) 4.138 Foy E. Wallace, Jr., “A Summary and A Tribute” Herald of Truth 3 (October 25/November 1 1923) 11; J. N. Armstrong, “Extemporaneous Meeting” GA 76 (29 March 1934) 317. I am indebted to Valentine’s “In with Wallace, Out with Brewer” presentation for demonstrating this shift and illuminating these commendations.139 See John Mark Hicks, “The Man or the Plan? K. C. Moser and the Theology of Grace Among Mid-Twentieth Century Churches of Christ,” Presentation for the 18th Annual W. B. West Lectures for the Advancement of Christian Scholarship, October 5, 1993, available at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/moser/jmhindex.html.