IIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII p.

Ill/ill Ill/H Will it it l/ L m R A R Y

W
. 3 1293 01087 9314

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST AS

REVEALED BY THE PULPIT ADDRESSES DELIVERED

AT THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION
(1927 - @579),

presen
Keith Peter Keeran

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph D degnmin Arts and Letters
(Interdisciplinary)

 

 

/Ze"d?/7L 7675,43K1J

Major professor

 

Datej~7TZJ>

0-7639

 

A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHRIST AS
REVEALED BY THE PULPIT ADDRESSES DELIVERED
AT THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION
(1927 - 1977)

By

Keith Peter Keeran

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Interdisciplinary Doctoral Studies Program

1978

6/0351 I/g’

ABSTRACT

A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES AND CHURCHES OF CHIRST AS
REVEALED BY THE PULPIT ADDRESSES DELIVERED
AT THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION
(1927 - 1977)

By

Keith Peter Keeran

The North American Christian Convention is one of the larg-
est religious gatherings of its kind in the world, usually regis-
tering more than fifty thousand people from the United States and
foreign countries. Planned and programmed by leaders of Christian
Churches and Churches of Christ, the Convention offers a yearly
platform fer Biblical preaching and discussion on vital issues of
Christian concern, and an opportunity for Christian pe0ple to share
the experiences of fellowship with other Christians.

The development of the Churches of Christ and Christian
Churches (known collectively as the American Restoration Movement)
has not been steered by legislative conferences. Its impetus has
been pulpit-centered. The Convention, without becoming a policy-
making assembly, has supplied a crucial need by providing a medium
for brotherhood-wide fellowship and stimulation. The church has
benefited immeasurably from the spiritual and intellectual offerings

of this, its chief forum for the communication of ideas. In short,

Keith Peter Keeran

the Convention has been the most vital platform of a pulpit-centered
people.

This study was designed to examine the pulpit addresses at
the North American Christian Convention, l927-l977. The investiga-
tion was divided into two major areas. Part I concerned the Con-
vention's origin and purpose. Part II of the study concerned the
ideas and issues which were treated by the Convention speakers.

The purpose of this study was to determine and define the
issues and ideas with which the speakers were concerned and view
them within the context of the religious--historical climate of
which they were a part. Within such categories as the Bible, God,
man, salvation, and the church; the convictions of the Convention
speakers were compared with the prevailing thought of America's
religious mainstream.

Without being a historical interpretation of the period or
a critical investigation of the Convention messages, the research
reflects the central body of Christian thought of an otherwise non-
creedal religious movement. To know the North American Christian
Convention is to know the thought which forms the basis for belief,
attitude, and conduct among churches of the Restoration Movement.

The puplit addresses delivered at the North American Chris-
tian Convention revealed that the Christian Churches and Churches of
Christ have maintained an unusually stable belief system during the
past fifty years. During the period from l927 to 1977, the Conven-

tion continued to remain faithful to the purpose for which it was

Keith Peter Keeran

designed, namely, "to tell and hear some of the old things--those

things most surely believed among us."

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

By no method of calculation can this dissertation be con-
sidered the product of any one individual. Rightly assessed, it
represents not only the accumulation of the writer's experience,
preparation, and reflection, but the indispensible contribution of
his family, his parents, his professors, his former teachers, his
colleagues, his students, and those whose influence, sacrifice, and
cooperation have helped to make this research project possible.

In light of such acknowlegment, debts of gratitude are due
to many whose names, for want of space and the fallibility of human
memory, have regrettably been omitted, but particularly to Dr. Mary
Schneider of the Department of Religious Studies for her assistance
as the director of my doctoral program, and to Dr. William Hixson
of the History Department and to Dr. David Ralph of the College of
Communication Arts for their assistance throughout my program. Also,
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Robert Anderson, Chairman of
the Department of Religious Studies and to Dr. Madison Kuhn, Dean
of the College of Arts and Letters for their inspiration. To my

{typists Anita Zehr, Becky Foland Miller, and Nancy Heath whose tire-
iless efforts at typing and retyping the manuscript required count-

., w \ ,eua
less hours and tremendous patiente, I also with to express thanks.

ii

But most of all I thank my wife Topsy who proofread this
project and who along with my children: Keith Loran, Shannon Dean,

and Angela Renae endured considerable neglect without complaint.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
PART I. THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION
I. INTRODUCTION .

The Problem

Significance of the Problem

Review of Literature

Methodology and Sources

Plan of Reporting . . . . . . . . .
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

OKOO‘GOON N

II. THE AMERICAN RESTORATION MOVEMENT . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . ll
The Origin and Purpose of the Restoration
Movement. . . . . . . . . l3
Twentieth Century Developments . . . . . . . 24
The Instrumental Music Controversy . . . . . 25
The Open Membership Controversy . . . 28
Fundamentalism and the Restoration Movement. . . 32
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

III. THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION . . . . . 45

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Origin and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Structure and Organization . . . . . . . . 52
The Convention Speakers . . . . . . . . . 55
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

PART 11. MAJOR ISSUES AND IDEAS
IV. THE BIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 64
The Inspiration of the Bible . . . . . . . . 69
The Bible and Evolutionary Theory . . . . . . 86
Science and the Bible . . . . . . . . . 96
The Higher Criticism . . . . . . . . . . 98
Studying the Bible . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO7
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llO

iv

V. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, MAN, AND SALVATION

Introduction . .
God, the Father .
The Existence of God
The Divine Nature .
Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
The Holy Spirit .
Man' 5 Response . .
The Nature of Man . . .
God's Plan for Redeeming Man .
Summary .
Footnotes .

VI. THE CHURCH

Introduction . .

The Nature of the Church.
The Kingdom . . .
The Body of Christ . .
Sectarianism Within the Brotherhood

The Organization of the Church.

'The Worship of the Church
The Nature of Worship
The Acts of Worship . .

The Mission of the Church .
The Church and Social Concern
The Church and Education

Summary . . .

Footnotes .

VII. CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
A. “The Folly of Open Membership"

B. Statement Read by Chairman Collis at Annual Meeting
of Trustees of College of the Bible, May 24,

BIBLIOGRAPHY .

Page
117
ll7

282
297

PART I.

THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

For half a century, the North American Christian Convention
has been a significant American platform for the pronouncement of
conservative religious thought. The Convention has been supported
by and is designed to serve the religious movement known as the
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ. This religious body,
the fifth largest American church, has drawn heavily upon the
spiritual and intellectual offerings of the Convention.

Since the first Convention was held in 1927, the largest
annual gathering of members of the Christian Churches has been that
which has assembled to hear the Convention addresses. In recent
years, more than 25,000 listeners have made the annual pilgrimage
to the Convention. The addresses which they have heard are repre-
sentative of the thought and public presentation of spokesmen for

the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study is to describe the pulpit
addresses at the North American Christian Convention, 1927-l977.
This overall problem is divided into a two-fold problem statement.
First, what has been the nature of the origin and development of
the North American Christian Convention, 1927-1977? This first

2

major area of investigation is subdivided into four constituent
questions: How did the Convention originate? What have been the
features of its growth and development? Who have comprised the
Convention audiences? Who have been the Convention speakers?
Second, what has been the nature of the ideas and issues
discussed at the North American Christian Convention, 1927-1977?
This second major area of investigation is also subdivided into
constituent Questions: What major ideas and issues have been pre-
sented in the Convention addresses? What growth and development
have occurred in the ideas and issues discussed in the Convention
addresses? How have these ideas and issues been related to the
religious thought and attitudes of the times? What has been the
significance of these ideas and issues in the development of the

Christian Churches and Churches of Christ?

Significance of the Problem

 

For several reasons, this study is thought to be of sig-
nificance to students of religion, history, and communication.

First, the North American Christian Convention addresses
represent some of the best pulpit-speaking produced by spokesmen for
the Restoration Movement. Since its inception, the Program Commit-
tee of the Convention has prided itself upon selecting able speak-
ers and thinkers of the church and has insisted upon careful and
conscientious preparation. As a result, these addresses reflect
the finest composition and delivery among speakers of the Christian

Churches and Churches of Christ. Mark Collis, speaking of the

original Convention program in 1927 said: “No one should be put on
this program who cannot be trusted to give the people his best
thought, expressed in the very finest manner, and delivered with
all the grace and force of which he is capable."1
Second, the durability of the North American Christian Con-
vention seems to indicate its significance as a platform for the
expression of ideas and issues effecting the church. With roots
reaching back to the "annual church meetings" of the 1820's, the
Convention has flourished through a half century of social and
political convulsion. Three Conventions were held in the "twenties,"
three in the "thirties," four in the "forties," and since 1950
the North American Christian Convention has assembled annually.
Third, the ideas and issues featured in the Convention

addresses comprise a significant expression of the heart of the
religious movement. From the very first program, hearers have
testified that the pulpit addresses were both timely and representa-
tive of the movement's religious thought. Edwin V. Hayden's 1978
observation was typical:

Good listening is important to good preaching, anywhere. It

was definitely so in the North American Christian Convention

at Oklahoma City, July 11-14. The convention theme, "God

Has Spoken," may have had something to do with it. When

God's Word is faithfully proclaimed, His people listen. So

the thousands who attended the preaching sessions in the

Myriad Arena came to hear. Not all of them arrived in time

for the opening prayers, but they were responsive, and they

stayed to hear the preachers out. Solid applause greeted

many statements in which God's word-~or sometimes the

preachers'.and the audience's firm conviction--was brought
to bear on present problems.

As a result, the principal ideas woven through the estimated 700
addresses of this Convention series aptly reflect the distinguish-
ing features of the religious movement.

Fourth, the Convention appears remarkably significant to
the student of oral communication when judged in terms of its abil-
ity to attract and hold large audiences. This series, which pro-
vides metropolitan centers across America with their largest con-
vention assemblies, is apparently among the most widely attended
speaking platforms in America. The largest meeting of members of
the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is the audience which
assembles each year to hear these Convention addresses. This
gathering of twenty-five thousand or more is without question one
of the largest annual religious assemblies.

Fifth, the pulpit addresses at the North American Christian
Convention have apparently stimulated the spiritual and numerical
growth of the movement. The unique organizational policy of this
religious group has added to the significance of the North Ameri-
can Christian Convention as its chief platform for the communication
of ideas. Because of an emphasis on local congregational autonomy,
the church avoids ecclesiastical organization and conference
assemblies. Consequently, without becoming a policymaking confer-
ence, the Convention has provided a basis for brotherhood fellow-
ship and intellectual stimulation.

Unlike many Protestant church bodies, this movement has

been guided from the pulpit and the convention and lecture platform,

rather than from legislative decisions reached around the confer-
ence tables of synod meetings. In short, the North American Chris-
tian Convention has been a vital speaking platform of a movement
which has been sparked primarily from the pulpit.

Sixth, this study is important in light of the scarcity
of scholarly literature dealing with the platform expression of
conservative Christian thought. The North American Christian Con-
vention thus comprises an untapped source of study in the history
of Christianity in American culture and in the history of American

public address.

Review of Literature

 

A review of all previous literature which might be relevant
to this study indicates that the North American Christian Conven-
tion constitutes an untapped source of investigation in the study
of Christian thought and American public address. A detailed
search of church history and communication monographes, doctoral
dissertations, microfilm abstracts, and church sources reveals
that so scholarly treatment of the Convention has ever been
attempted. Several studies which concern the history of the Chris-
tian Churches and Churches of Christ and biographies of individual

Convention speakers were helpful.

Methodology and Sources
"The history and literature of speechmaking inform us not

only in the art and practice of speechmaking, but serve admirably

to throw light on aspects of the general culture of which they are
expressions."3 This statement indicates the area of greatest con-
tribution served by this study. The North American Christian Con-
vention is a platform which became a vital forum of ideas and
inspiration for the religious group which it represents. For fifty
years it has gathered to itself men who have grappled with the
issues confronting the future of the church. To know the history
of this convention series, to be acquainted with the men who came
to speak and those who came to listen, to grasp the ideas which
they tested and developed, is to know something ultimately of the
historical and theological foundation of the Christian Churches and
Churches of Christ.
This study employed the historical research method, which

has been defined by Greg Phifer:

Historical method requires the student to seek out and criti-

cally evaluate the reports of observers of past events in

order to describe accurately what happened, and to clarify,

as best he can, the relations among those events.4

The use of the historical method in solving the research

problem posed by this study involved two major steps: a recon-
struction of the historical setting and an interpretation of the
ideas and issues expressed in the pulpit addresses within the per-
spective of the religious movement which gave them birth. The
acquisition of historical data was enhanced by the fact that some
of the early policy makers of the Convention were still alive and

available for interview. Personal interviews with O. A. Trinkle,

Dean E. Walker, and Joseph H. Dampier afforded first-hand contact

with "en who have served in the role of Convention president. In
addition, appointments with Leonard G. Wymore, the current Conven-
tion Director; and information provided by regular attendants at
the programs provided intimate insights into the half century of
the Convention's development.

The classification of the pulpit addresses according to
major thematic categories presented a seemingly insurmountable
task. The ideas of each speaker were compressed into a concise
abridgement, and each address was outlined so as to preserve its
thought structure. Significant quotations indicative of the
thematic emergence were recorded from each address. While most of
the pulpit addresses presented but one major theme, the task was
often made tedious by sermons which dealt with various major ideas.
Ultimately, three major categories were selected to relate the
historical and theological development of the Churches of Christ
and Christian Churches during the period 1927-1977. These are
the Bible: the Doctrine of God, Man, and Salvation; and the Church.
Without being a historical interpretation of the period or a criti-
cal analysis of either message content or rhetorical processes
employed by the Convention speakers, the research serves to reveal
the central body of thought which forms the basis for belief,
attitude, and conduct among churches of the Restoration Movement.

Research in the history of a religious forum becomes most
significant when pursued in connection with important issues and

ideas. One is sensitized to these ideas and issues by consulting

the various points of view which emerge from the problems and chal-
lenges faced by speakers and their listeners. Examination of the
complementing and conflicting ideas of the representative spokesmen
for.a movement provides a historical awareness of the streams of

thought flowing within the movement.

Plan of Reporting

 

With the discovery, recording, and organizing of the data
into three thematic categories, a two-fold division of the study
appeared most adequate in providing a means for reporting the find-
ings in a unified and meaningful manner. Part One presents the
North American Christian Convention as a historical institution,
and Part Two concerns an analysis of the major ideas and issues of

the Convention.

CHAPTER I

FOOTNOTES

1Mark Collis, “The Convention Proposed for this Fall,”
Christian Standard (March 19, 1927): 269.

2Edwin V. Hayden, "Good Listening Enhanced Good Preaching,"
Christian Standard (September 10, 1978): ll.

 

3James H. McBath, "Speechmaking at the Chautaugua Assembly,"
1874-1900 (Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1950),
p. 9.

4"The Historical Approach," in Introduction to Graduate
Study in Speech and Theater, ed. Clyde W. Dow (East Lansing,
Michigan: University ofTMichigan Press, 1961), p. 53.

 

10

CHAPTER II

THE AMERICAN RESTORATION MOVEMENT

Introduction

 

To properly interpret and appreciate the speaking at the
North American Christian Convention, one must be acquainted with
the principle features of the religious movement which gave the
platform its birth, which sustained its development, and to which
it returned inestimable spiritual and intellectual nourishment.

As the nineteenth century dawned, sixteen states were in
the Union with a population of some 5,250,000. Estimates show that
only 3,000 to 3,500 churches were in the nation, and only 10 percent
of the population claimed membership. By 1820 some 2,600,000
people, or 27 percent of the population lived west of the Appala-

chian Mountains.1

The frontier increased its residents by nearly
200 percent between 1820 and 1840, while the nation as a whole
gained only 80 percent. Ohio's population expanded from 50,000 in
1802 to 600,000 by 1820, becoming larger than Massachusetts. In
1809 New York had 100,000 pe0p1e; Buffalo, Cincinnati, and St.
Louis were frontier towns; and Chicago did not exist.2
The frontier man was individualism personified. He often
wrote his own law, educated his own children, set his own bones,

built his own house. He saw little need for a special priest to

11

12

intervene between himself and his Creator. The man on the American
frontier was characterized by self—confidence and lack of respect
for ecclesiastical authority. His individualism led him to believe
that every man had an innate ability to discover religious truth
simply by a rational investigation of Scriptures.3 The stage was
set for a religious upheaval of widespread influence in America.
The recently-gained religious liberty, the multiplying sects of a
divided Christendom, and the rapid expansion of the American fron-
tier with its corollary of religious indifference, were among the
factors favorable to the birth of a unionistic, non-creedal, Bible-
centered movement.

Religion in American culture has assumed a multiplicity of
forms from the beginning. These religious traditions, which were
primarily the offspring of the Protestant Reformation, were intro-
duced early as settlers came from various European countries.
Lutherans, Reformed and Anabaptists from many lands were commingled
with Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists,
Quakers, and later Methodists. Before long some important indige-
nous bodies were added to the transplanted ones. Robert T. Handy
has compared the American religious scene to "a tropical jungle,
where stout and ancient trees are crowded by mushrooming new
growth."4 This indigenous "new growth“ is the primary thrust of
the current investigation.

As the eighteenth century drew to a close, preachers in
Scotland, Ireland, and America began to plead for a restoration

of New Testament Christianity. The two fundamental principles

13

that guided the efforts of these spokesmen were that all believers
in Christ should be united, and that the only possible basis for
such unity was the acceptance of the Bible as the absolute author-
ity in religion. The resulting upheaval, often termed "The Ameri-
can Restoration Movement," is today America's largest indigenous
religious movement and the fifth largest Protestant group on

American soil.5

The Origin and Purpose of the Restoration Movement

 

Before a movement bursts into flame, there lies that period
when isolated sparks shine forth for a moment. Hence, the great
figures of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, were preceeded by
others with similar determination and goals. Centuries before the
Reformation began its sweep through Germany, the Waldenses of
northern Italy and southern France had struggled and died in con-
flict against Roman Catholic authority; in the fourteenth century
the bones of Wycliffe were dug up in England and burned for his
independent views and practices; one century before Luther posted
his "Ninety-Five Thesis" on the door of the Castle Church in
Wittenburg, the Bohemian John Huss had been burned at the stake.
These protests against corruption in the church and moves to exalt
the Bible played their role in bringing Christendom to the kindling
point at the eve of the Reformation.

In like manner, who can say at what moment the Restoration
Movement began? Because of the timely and effective leadership

provided by Thomas Campbell and his brilliant son, Alexander, these

14

men are often considered the founders of the movement. However, the
restoration activity was well underway in America before the Camp-
bells migrated from Ireland in the early 1800's. James O'Kelly in
Virginia and North Carolina, Abner Jones in New England, and

Barton W. Stone in Kentucky, had announced restoration intentions
well before the Campbells set foot on American soil.

James O'Kelly was a minister in the Methodist Church who
favored the congregational form of government and the New Testament
as the only book of discipline. When his own church, under the
leadership of Coke and Asbury, adopted the episcopal form of church
polity, O'Kelly and his friends withdrew. At Manakin Town, North
Carolina, on Christmas Day, 1793, the secession was accomplished.
O'Kelly and his followers adopted the name "Christian," and acknowl-
edged Christ as the only head of the church and the Bible as the
only rule of faith and practice.6 The movement which he started was
later swallowed up in the larger effort, but he and his followers
deserve credit as pioneers of the restoration idea.

Similarly, Abner Jones, a Baptist, of Hartland, Vermont,
early in the nineteenth century began to urge the abandonement of
human creeds and dsiciplines and a return to the doctrines and
practice of the New Testament. From 1800 to 1803 he organized
congregations at Lyndon, Vermont, and at Bradford and Pierpont,

New Hampshire. Jones and his followers refused to wear any name
except "Christian."7 Perhaps the most significant movement that

preceeded the Campbells was that led by Barton W. Stone. A

15

Presbyterian, Stone was educated at the famous school of David
Caldwell in North Carolina. In the spring of 1801, Stone attended
a revival meeting in Logan County, Kentucky, conducted by James
McGrady and other Presbyterian ministers. Excited, he returned

to his congregation at Cane Ridge, Kentucky, where in August 1801
he began the celebrated Cane Ridge Revival; perhaps the most
extraordinary revival ever held in America. The attendance was
estimated at from thirty to fifty thousand. Fourcn'five preachers
frequently spoke at the same time in different parts of the encamp-
ment. Thousands of people professed conversion, and the effect of

8 At the

the meeting was felt all over Kentucky and the Mid-west.
close of the revival, an attempt to "Calvinize" the converts was
opposed by Stone and others who, while Presbyterians, had adopted
arminianism. In 1802, six preachers--Richard McNemar, John Thomp-
son, John Dunlavy, Robert Marshall, David Purviance, and Barton

W. Stone--withdrew from the Presbyterian Church and united to form

the independent Springfield Presbytery. They published their
position in a book called The Apology of the Springfield Presbytery.

 

In this volume, all human creeds were denounced and an appeal was
made to return to the Bible alone. In less than a year, it occurred
to this group that the very existence of the Springfield Presbytery
"savored of the party spirit" and damaged their plea for freedom
from the rule of human organization. On June 28, 1804, they issued
“The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery." It

declared the right of self-government for each congregation,

16

protested against religious division and party splits, and insisted
on the Bible as the sole authority in religion. The document
declared: "We will that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into
union with the body of Christ at large; for there is but one Body
and one Spirit, even as we called in one H0pe of our calling."9

While Stone was advancing restoration ideals in Kentucky,
Thomas Campbell arrived from Ireland where he had served as a
minister for the Seceder Presbyterian Church. Due to ill health he
emigrated to America in 1807, and settled in Washington County,
Pennsylvania. Once in this country, he was received into the
Associate Synod of North America, which represented all Seceder
Presbyterians. He was assigned to the Presbytery of Chartiers in
western Pennsylvania, which appointed him to an itenerant ministry
among Irish immigrants. He was among many of his own people, some
having immigrated from his own part of Ireland. His views, already
expanding back in Europe, developed even more in the New World.

He was not prepared for the narrow sectarian restrictions that his
presbytery placed upon him--to minister to and serve the Lord's
Supper to Seceder Presbyterians only. He was soon under their
judgement for disregarding sectarian differences in that he served
communion to all Presbyterians.

The minutes of the presbytery, which tell the story of his
trial indicate that there was more involved than his liberal
practices as a preacher on horseback. It was not simply that he
had ecumenical tendencies, but that he had serious misgivings about

the theology of his church. Seven charges were brought against

17

him, and these were debated in various hearings for two years, but
about midway through the dispute Campbell withdrew from the presby-
tery and left the Presbyterian ministry. The charges had to do
with his opposition to creeds as terms of communion and fellowship,
his sympathy for the lay ministry, his desire to associate with
other churches, his idea that men can preach without being called,
and his belief that a believer can live in this world without sin-
ning. He more or less admitted guilt to all of these except the
last one. The presbytery suspended him. He appealed to the Synod
in Philadelphia. After a week or so of hearings his suspension
was rescinded, but he was rebuked for his deviations from the faith.
The presbytery resented his reinstatement and therefore gave him
no appointment. He was finally suspended again for not submitting
to their authority.]0
The break with the Presbyterian Church was complete. By the
time the presbytery deposed him from "the office of Holy Ministry,"
he had already written the famous "Declaration and Address," and
had organized the Christian Association of Washington, Pennsylvania.
The association was to help "unite the Christians in all the sects."
It was not to be another church. It was Campbell's hope that many
such societies would arise across the nation, dedicated to the
task of reforming the church and restoring its unity. Before the
Assocation in 1809, he delivered the "Declaration," which is still
called the theological Magna Charta of the Restoration Movement.H

This distinctive document called for reform through unity. It is

this feature that made the Campbell-Stone movement unique; it pled

18

for a unity of all believers as well as a restoration of the primi-
tive faith. The idea of restoration goes far back and can be evi-
denced in the Anabaptists and Waldensens, but the twin streams of
restoration and unity were distinctive features of the Restoration
Movement in America.

Campbell's document set forth the principles of unity. The
church, he insisted, is by its very nature one, and cannot help but
be one, if it is God's church. Nothing can be made a term or basis
of unity except what is expressly taught by Christ and His apostles.
Nothing can be made a term of fellowship that is not as old as the
New Testament. Inferences from scripture may be true doctrine, but
they cannot be made binding upon others further than they perceive
them to be so. Doctrinal systems may have value, but Campbell
insisted that they cannot be made essential to the faith since they
are beyond the understanding of many. Full knowledge of the Bible
is not necessary in order for fellowship to be extended, and no one
was to be required to make a profession which was more extensive
than his understanding. Campbell believed that division by its very
nature was sinful, nor did he believe that opinions should be made
tests of fellowship. He contended that the primitive faith as
revealed in the New Testament should determine the ordinances of
the church.

The "Declaration and Address" was the first document to
definitely and comprehensively proclaim the "plea" of the Restora-
tion Movement. Its thirteen propositions may be summarized as

follows: The church of Christ is "essentially, intentionally and

19

constitutionally one." That although this unity presupposes and
permits the existence of separate congregations or societies, there
should be perfect harmony and unity of spirit among all of them.
That the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for Chris-
tians. That the Old and New Testaments alone contain the authori-
tative constitution of the Church of Christ. That no human
authority has power to amend or change the original constitution
and laws of the church. That inferences and deductions from the
Scriptures, however valuable, cannot be made binding upon the con-
sciences of Christians. That differences of opinion with regard

to such inferences shall not be made tests of fellowship or commun-
ion. That faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God is a sufficient
profession to entitle a man or woman to become a member of the
Church of Christ. That all who have made such a profession, and
who manifest their sincerity by their conduct, should love each
other as brethren and as members of the same body and joint-heirs of
the same inheritance. That division among Christians is antichris-
tian, antiscriptural, unnatural and to be abhorred. That neglect
of the revealed will of God and the introduction of human innova-
tions are and have been the causes of all the corruptions and
divisions that have ever taken place in the Church of God. That
all that is necessary to secure the highest state of purity and
perfection in the church is to restore the original ordinances and
constitution as exhibited in the New Testament. That any additions

to the New Testament program which circumstances may seem to

20

require, shall be regarded as human expedients and shall not be
given a place of higher authority in the church than is permitted
by the fallible character of their origin.12
Campbell had the first printed text of the "Declaration"
with him when he met his son Alexander and the family on a road in
western Pennsylvania, October 19, 1809, following their forty-four
day voyage across the Atlantic. Thomas Campbell met his son with
some uneasiness, not sure how Alexander would react to the account
of his treatment by the Presbyterian Synod and Presbytery and his
decision to preach independently to people of all denominations.
Strangely enough, Alexander, thousands of miles away, had been led
to an almost identical position. After reading the "Declaration
and Address," Alexander determined to dedicate his life to the
dissemination of the principles and views set forth in the docu—
ment.13
When his father left for America, Alexander, although only
nineteen years old, had been placed in charge of Thomas Campbell's
academy at Rich Hill, Ireland. When the older Campbell had been
in America a year, he sent word to his family that they should join
him. As the family began their voyage, however, a storm wrecked
the ship off the coast of Scotland and for a time they gave them-
selves up as lost. While in this condition, like Martin Luther in
a similar position, Alexander Campbell dedicated himself totally
to God's service if his life should be spared.14 The shipwreck

caused them to put off their coming to America until the following

season. This delay had great influence in the training of Alexander

21

for he attended the University of Glasgow that year. During this
period he became personally acquainted with leaders among independ—
ent Christian groups with which his father had also been acquainted.
Greville Ewing and Robert and James Haldane were the closest of
Alexander Campbell's friends. All of these men were agreed in their
emphasis upon restored primitive Christianity. It should also be
noted that both Campbells were influenced by the religious ideas of

John Locke, especially as developed in his Letter Concerning Tolera-

 

tion and Essay on Human Understanding, In the former, Locke

 

asserted:
Since men are so solicitous about the true church, I would
only ask them here, by the way, if it be not more agreeable
to the Church of Christ to make the conditions of her commun-
ion consist in such things, and such things only, as the
Holy Spirit has in the Holy Scriptures declared, in express
words, to be necessary to salvation.

Alexander Campbell's own defection from the Presbyterians
occurred at precisely the same time that his father's name was
being erased from the roll of the Chartiers' Presbytery in America.
The year was 1809; the place was Glasgow, Scotland. The occasion
was the semi-annual communion service of the Anti-Burgher Seceder
Presbyterian Chruch. Eight hundred Scots had gathered for the
service which excluded other kinds of Presbyterians. Alexander was
troubled about breaking bread in such a sectarian atmosphere. Hav-
ing been examined by the elders and found worthy of communion, he
had been given a metal token by which he could gain access to the

service. Token in hand, he waited for the last of eight or nine

tables to be served, hoping he might resolve his doubts in those

22

last moments. With his doubts unresolved, he dropped the token in
the plate as it cane by, but refused to break the bread or drink
the cup, believing that it was a communion with Christ from which
other believers were barred. He turned away and walked out; and
life was never again the same for Alexander Campbell. His biogra-
pher and physician, Robert Richardson, wrote of that occasion:
"It was at this moment that the struggle in his mind was completed,
and the ring of the token, falling upon the plate, announced the
instant at which he renounced Presbyterianism forever--the leaden
voucher becoming thus a token not of communion but of separation."16
That "moment" is generally regarded as the beginning of the Restora-
tion Movement in America. While James O'Kelly and Barton Stone had
already begun restoration efforts in America, and Thomas Campbell
had written the most formative document in the Movement's history,
it took Alexander Campbell to make the Movement what it came to be;
and the turning point in his life was that dramatic moment in
which he turned his back against the party of his fathers and
resolved to be a free man in Christ.

In 1823, Alexander Campbell, who had replaced his father
as the movement's most effective leader, broadened his agitation
for reform through the medium of the press. He began to publish a

periodical, The Christian Baptist. From 1830 to 1868 this periodi-

 

cal, under a new name, The Millennial Harbinger, formed the back-

 

bone of the movement's literature. Under its influence, individual
congregations all across the midwestern and southern portions of

the United States repudiated their denominational creeds in an

23

attempt to rely upon the Bible as their sole authority in faith and
practice.17
In Spite of the difficulties of travel and communication,
these separate streams of dissatisfaction within existing religious
conditions slowly became aware of one another and began to merge
into one significant restoration effort. By 1820, the works of
Jones in New England and O'Kelly in Virginia and North Carolina,
generally united in purpose with the action of Barton W. Stone.
In 1831, the followers of Campbell and the followers of Stone met
in Lexington, Kentucky, to explore merger possibilities. At the
meeting's end, a new and significantly large church body, popularly
called the Disciples of Christ, was born. "Raccoon" John Smith,
one of the influential restoration preachers, gave the concluding
address. He declared: "Let us, then, my Brethren, be no longer
Campbellites or Stonites, new lights or old lights, or any other
kind of lights, but let us come to the Bible and to the Bible alone,
as the only book in the world that can give us all the light we
need."18
Alexander Campbell did not profess that his teachings were
new and original but that they were true, and the truth he pro-
claimed rested upon the authority and inspiration of the infalli-
ble Scriptures. The movement was begun not to found something dif-
ferent in organization and theology, but to restore the ancient
order of things as revealed in the Word of God.

From the outset the purposes of Stone and Campbell included

those tenets held dear to the present stage of the movement. A

24

horror was displayed against human creeds and pretensions of a
clergy class. They sought authorization for faith and practice
from the Scriptures alone--the court of final appeal was the Word
of God. They maintained the independence of the local church and
sought unity among Christians by conformity to the New Testament
pattern. The atonement of Jesus Christ was not limited in a Calvin-
istic way, but confession and obedience to God's Son was an invita-

tion Open to all.

Twentieth Century Developments

The churches of the Restoration Movement were one of the
few religious bodies that did not divide over the issues of the
Civil War. Although the slavery question and the debate as to
whether the Christian could take up arms during civil strife caused
violent repercussions in the movement, the absence of centralized
organization spared the brotherhood from a major split. The post-
war period, however, saw this bright outlook and unified effort
quickly darken. Religious unity had been maintained in the face
of political division, but dark clouds of dissension began casting
their shadows over the church concerning issues which were consid-
ered matters of Biblical faith by some and matters of personal
Opinion by others.

The two principle issues of disagreement concerned the use
of instrumental music in worship and the practice of "open member-
ship"--receiving the pious unimmersed into the fellowship of the

church. Thus, a gradual and almost imperceptible Separation began

25

to occur as the conservatives alleged that the progressives were
departing from the original platform under Campbell and Stone. By
the turn of the century the lines of division were being drawn on

both of these issues.

The Instrumental Music Controversy

 

Shortly after the Civil War and just a month after Alexander
Campbell's death, Moses E. Lard wrote in his Quarterly that the
Restoration Movement would never divide. Now that it had with-

stood the turmoil of war, nothing could divide it.19

Restoration
leaders were still talking that way in 1883. David Lipscomb, editor

of the Gospel Advocate wrote:

 

We have never seen a circumstance in which we were willing
to advise division in a church of Christ. Our friends have
frequently, when evils have entered a church, blamed us for
not advising division, withdrawal from a church, etc. They
have chided us with cowardice in action--we plead this. We
are too cowardly to advise a step in religion never advised
by the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God so far as we have
learned, never saw a chuch of God so corrupted as to
advise withdrawal from it. 0
Lipscomb's language was both forthright and consistent with
the ideals laid down by the pioneers of the movement. His views
were conservative, though moderate. He opposed instrumental music,
which was then in no more than a dozen congregations, but he refused
to make it a test of fellowship.
The question of the use of instrumental music in public
worship was the result of two conflicting interpretations of the
church. There were, on the one hand, those who believed the church

should move on with the rest of the world and adapt the spirit of

26

the New Testament to conditions that were in constant flux. They
held that, when not forbidden by the New Testament, they were free
to adapt their program to changing needs. On the other hand, there
were those who believed the matter of the church was fixed for all
time, and the fact that certain things were not sanctioned was
sufficient ground for rejecting them. The men on both sides were
equally honest, but they had a different approach to the issues
that were raised. It should be noted that those who opposed the
use of instrumental music in public worship were not "anti-
progressive," but rather "anti-digressive;" they were opposed to
any digression from what they understood to be the divinely insti-
tuted worship of God. They did not argue that there must be
explicit authority for every accessory of worship such as meeting
houses, pulpits, pews,iumWIbooks, etc, but only that every element
of worship must be scripturally authorized. They insisted that
there was either precept or precedent for sermon, song, prayer,
scripture-reading, and the Lord's Supper, but none for instrumental
music.

All historians among the Restoration Movement churches
credit Dr. L. L. Pinkerton, of Lexington, Kentucky, with intro-
ducing the furst musical instrument into the worship of the church,
in 1859. By 1889 division over the use of instrumental music

seemed inevitable. Daniel Sommer, editor of the Octographic

 

Review in Indianapolis, embarked on a plan to bring the pro-
instrument people to account. He arranged for a mass meeting of

the faithful at Sand Creek, Illinois, which attracted six thousand

27

people. By the meeting's end it was determined that those who use
the instrument could not and would not be regarded as brethren.2]
Interestingly, David Lipscomb had by this time, shifted his position
from one of moderation to one of exclusivism.

In 1906, S. N. North, director of the United States Census
Bureau, was confused with the data he had on Christian Churches,
Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. He wrote to David
Lipscomb to determine if Churches of Christ should be considered
separate. Lipscomb had already prepared a list of "faithful"

churches and preachers. He informed North that a separate listing

would be appr0priate.

Unity in Diversity.--To Alexnder Campbell and Barton W.

 

Stone, and their long line of descendants, the only unity that

had ever been or ever could be was, and is, unity in diversity.
This concept was the very genius of the American Restoration Move-
ment. The pioneers not only saw the essential oneness of the
church, even in the maze of sectarian divisions, but they realized
that unity could find outward expression only in diversity of
opinion. So their plea became "in essentials unity, in non-
essentials (opinions) liberty, in all things love." Restoration
advocates could not accept his slogan and argue for unity only on
the ground of conformity. They affirmed that there must be unani-
mity or conformity in matters of faith--truths and principles that
are clearly and distinctly set forth in scripture, but diverse areas

subject to various interpretations must be kept open and free.

28

Over the years, this philosophy of Restoration has been the
prevailing and guiding influence of every North American Christian
Convention. Hence, the programs have included names from those
churches which do not choose to use instrumental music in public
worship as well as many who employ it as an aid to singing. The
finest spirit is expressed toward representatives of each group
by the other. The Convention has proven to be a demonstration of

unity in diversity.

The Open-Membership Controversy

 

"Open-membership" was the practice of some Christian
Churches and Churches of Christ of admitting into full voting
membership in the congregation persons who had never been immersed
(baptized), but wished to transfer membership from some denomina-
tional group.

The very first church which might be considered a definite
congregation to the American Restoration Movement, the Brush Run
Church where Thomas Campbell preached, was, in 1811, an "open-
membership" congregation. That is, there were many unimmersed
persons in its membership, including Thomas Campbell himself. At
this time, the baptismal question had not been raised. Later,
after careful and long deliberation, Thomas and Alexander Campbell
and their wives, were immersed and the apparent New Testament
position on baptism by immersion was adopted. However, as the
twentieth century began to dawn "open-membership" was both con-

sidered and adopted by some restoration congregations. This move

29

away from the conservative New Testament position of the Campbells
was not a new "adventure in understanding" but represented a repudia-
tion of some of the distinctive insights which were arrived at by
deep study, soul-searching, and sacrificial obedience by early
leaders of the Restoration Movement.
It is also true that Barton W. Stone, who was the leader
of the "Christian Church" movement in Kentucky, did not hold quite
the same views on the significance of baptism held by the Campbells
and their followers. While he believed in “immersion for the for-
giveness of sins,“ his general emphasis on the importance of
"spiritual experience and Christian character" as the main thrust
of Christian preaching caused him to think of baptism as of little
practical concern. The influence of such views may well have been
in the background of some liberal attitudes toward "open-membership."
In tracing the history of open-membership in a thesis sub-
mitted to Butler University for the Bachelor of Divintiy degree,

which was later published in the Christian Standard,22 Carl S. Led-

 

better said of the origin of the question:

L. L. Pinkerton, it seems, was the earliest open advocate
of the practice. In the Christian Standard of 1873,
appeared a series of articles over Mr. Pinkerton's name
entitled, "No Immersion--No Membership in a Church of
the Reformation." . . . Pinkerton's position was that if
left to him, he would admit the un-imnersed, yet he him-
self felt that ba tism and immersion meant "one and

the same thing."2

 

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
the rise of Protestant liberalism and the urbanization of many

congregations tended to further the open-membership cause in many

 

30

areas. It is significant that the combination of liberalism in
theology and an urban location is seen in practically every
instance where this practice was adopted. Sydney E. Ahlstrom names
"the philosopher, psychologist of religion, and theological radi-
cal Edward S. Ames, and the biblical scholar Herbert L. Willet"
both associated with the Chicago Divinity House as the most eminent
Disciple liberals. He then adds: "Immeasurably more influential
was Charles Clayton Morrison, who in 1908 founded the Christian
Century and made it a potent ecumenical, socially oriented

24

journal." Morrison promoted open-membership in a series of

articles in the Christian Century in 1911. Discussing the men most

 

responsible for the open-membership movement among the Christian
churches and churches of Christ, and against whom the greatest
fight had been made, Ledbetter cited Ames, Morrison and Willet as
"the most vital and forceful proponents of the open-membership pro-
gram in this century."25
Debates were hot and personalities entered heartily into
the discussions. The problem of open-membership rested principally
in a question about the Scriptures, their historicity and authority.
The relaxation of insistence on Scriptural immersion indicated, to
the conservatives, a prior relaxation of conviction concerning the
Scriptures themselves. Hence, the controversy over open-membership,
apparently placed the churches of the Restoration Movement squarely

in the middle of the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversy. Ahlstrom

states that these churches along with the Northern Presbyterian

31

Church and the Northern Baptist Convention "were torn by the Funda-

mentalist controversy far more violently than other denomina-

26

tions." Stewart G. Cole also states in his significant book,

The History of Fundamentalism: "At the present time [1931] the

 

Disciples' denomination is more seriously divided than is any
other evangelical people in America."27
Although no "official" break occurred between the conserva-

tives and the liberals due to the autonomous nature of the indi-
vidual congregations, there is currently no fellowship between the
two groups. In fact, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
is no longer considered, in a practical sense, to be a part of the
American Restoration Movement, in that it has admittedly forsaken
the historic plea to restore the ancient order which prevailed in
the church of the first century. Liberal Disciple historian,
A. W. Fortune, well summarized some of the differences to be found
between the liberals of today and the pioneers of yesterday:

There have been some radical changes in the church since the

days of Barton Stone and the Campbells. If they were to

come back and visit our churches today, they would not

feel at home. They might feel that we have departed from

the faith. There have been many changes in the organization.

They would find societies, especially of the women and young

people, of which they had not dreamed. Instead of the

elders and deacons managing the affairs of the church, they

would find aministrative boards, of which the heads of

departments are members. They would perhaps be amazed when

they found that there are women on these administrative

boards.28

Further emphasizing the departure of Disciple liberals from

the Restoration Movement in particular and conservative Christianity

in general, Joseph W. Grundner wrote in his Christian Denominations:

 

32

The Disciples of Christ have departed farthest in doctrine

from Christianity. The fundamental principle of their sys-

tem is rationalism. . . . They reject many of the super-

natural truths of faith, including the eternal generation

of the Son and the divinity of the Holy Ghost.2

The liberals and conservatives are further distinguished

as separate groups when growth rate statistics are considered.
C. Stanley Lowell, in his book The Ecumenical Mirage declared:

The churches with the most evangelistic vigor are the non-

ecumenical bodies. The biggest gainer by far during the

the last two decades has been the nonecumenical Churches

of Christ which even boast of the fact that they have no

denominational connectionalism whatsoever. Their rate of

growth was 116 per cent from 1940-50 and it was 222 per

cent from 1950-60! For an enlightening comparison place

these figures along side of the ultra-ecumenical sister

denomination, the Disciples of Christ. This denomination

recorded a gain of less than 1 per cent between 1940 and

1950 and 5-1/2 per cent between 1950 and 1960.30

The North American Christian Convention was born out of

the controversy of the twenties. It was a reaction against and
response to modern religious liberalism. It continues to function
as the principle voice and reflection of New Testament Christianity
embodied in those churches identified historically and doctrinally
with the 19th century American Restoration Movement and the first
century Church.

Fundamentalism and the Restoration
Movement

The Fundamentalist controversy which affected the churches
of the American mainstream during the first three decades of the
twentieth century, was paralleled by the forementioned smaller but

not less disastrous controversy in the Restoration Movement. These

33

two strivings, whether rising from the same or separate sources
issued into two spiritual contests, the contestants of which were
labeled "liberal" and "conservative." One was a widespread theo-
logical struggle, the other was contained within a single religious
body. The widespread controversy began in renowned theological
centers. The smaller struggle took the form of intercongregational
and interinstitutional strife. While different, both the funda-
mentalist controversy and the debate over "open-membership" were
started at about the same time, though as with all struggles it is
difficult to say precisely when. hilike manner, both reached
unofficial climaxes at approximately the same time. The larger
controversy drew towards conclusion at Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925.
The smaller struggle approached its climax at Memphis, Tennessee,
in 1926.

. In the realm of broad and basic theological dogma restoration-
ists and fundamentalists were in essential agreement. While it is
true that even the most extremely fundamental of the fundamentalists
churches subscribed to certain doctrines which restorationists con-
sidered to be "liberal" innovations, this in no way suggests that
they were to be found even further to the right than fundamentalism
on the doctrinal continuum. As shall be seen later, their argument
with mainstream conservative Protestantism did not center in theo-
logical detail but in the very nature of the church. If they were
not to the right, neither were they to the left of fundamentalism.
The historian of the era would not have discovered restorationists

among those many critics labeling fundamentalism as a

34

hyperconservative cause deserving to fail because Of its overly
orthodox interpretation Of basic Christian doctrine.

Were restorationists also fundamentalists? Fundamentalism
is describable in terms of its origin, creed, and dispostion. Ern-

est Sandeen's definitive study, The Roots of Fundamentalism iden-

 

tifies the two movements which converged to form the twentieth
century phenomena known as fundamentalism. These are British
millenarianism "especially the form of futurism taught by John

"3‘ and the

Nelson Darby and known . . . as dispensationalism;
deeply Calvinistic Princeton theology. Sandeen uncovered no evi-
dence indicating that a Disciple of Christ ever attended any mil-
lenarian conference or wrote for any of the periodicals published

32 While concurring with other historians (Ahlstrom,

by them.

Funiss, Cole) that the Disciples Of Christ were seriously divided

by the controversy Of the 1920's, Sandeen interestingly concludes:
In this case, millenarian beliefs did not contribute to the
dispute. In fact, it has proved impossible to find more
than a handful of Disciples represented in millenarian
activities. The denomination seems to have been practically
immune to millenarian ideas, possibly because of its strong
anti-Calvinist theological stance. At any rate, millenarian-
ism does not help explain the issues or outcome Of the 33
struggle in the Disciples denomination during the 1920's.

If restorationists can in no way be identified with the
converging "roots" of fundamentalism; if indeed they were theologi-
cally Opposed to both dispensational millenarianism and Calvinism,
it seems unlikely that they were a part of and in sympathy with the
fundamentalist movement. It therefore appears that Cole's extensive

treatment of the Disciples Of Christ in his History of Fundamentalism

 

35

is misplaced, and that the controversy in their ranks must be
explained in terms other than fundamentalism.

Furthermore, the principles upon which the Restoration Move-
ment was based may be clearly distinguished from fundamentalism.
With regard to creed, restorationists held that their faith was in
a Person--Jesus the Christ, not in a series of propositions. Hence,
a believer need not state his views on the nature of Scripture,
atonement, the second coming of Christ or many other important
doctrines. In contrast, fundamentalism "centered on creeds, and
not deeds. Truth had no relationships, as it were, unless it was
accompanied by an open declaration of faith in specific statements,
conceived as statements of truth."34

In addition, the Campbellian approach to Scripture was dif-
ferent from that of the fundamentalists. In place of a Biblical
positivism or an uncritical reading Of the Bible considered equally
authoritative in all its parts, Alexander Campbell called for care-
ful attention to the data of "historical criticism." That is, every
text must be interpreted in the light of the total historical
situation which occasioned it and to which it was addressed. Who
wrote the passage, to whom, under what circumstances, for what pur-
pse, in what linguistic form? TO the restorationists, these were
some of the essential questions which must be put to every Biblical
text if the Word of God was to be understood.

Campbell noted that the Bible contained both supernatural
or revealed truth and historical material. Apparently the function

Of inspiration in supernaturally revealed truth differed somewhat

36

from the inspiration of written history. Further, Campbell argued
for the progressive character of the revelation disclosed in
Scripture. In all his study Of the Bible, Campbell made use Of the
best scholarship Of his day.

The fathers Of the Restoration Movement considered the docu-
ments of the Bible to be witnesses to Christ, hence, their faith
was not in the Bible but in the Christ. Even so, they considered
the Scriptures a reliable and faithful testimony to Him in whom
they were saved.

In the judgement of the restorationists, fundamentalism
accented private aspects of orthodox belief to the serious neglect
Of the doctrine of the church. To be saved was one thing to the
fundamentalist; to be a member of the church was something else.
For this reason fundamentalists neglected or at best minimized the
importance of the sacraments. If the church was of secondary
importance, then baptism and the Lord's Supper were not essential
concerns. This view of the church had its effective origin in the
teachings of John Nelson Darby. Darby, the high priest Of "dis-
pensational premillennialism," held that the church was a parenthe~
sis in history; an institution created by God because the Jews had
crucified Christ-~a tragedy which God had not planned or even
anticipated. Restorationists, on the other hand, considered the
church to have been a part of the divine design even "before the
foundation of the world," hence, they considered the sacraments as

indispensable marks Of the church--a fact which makes clear why the

37

controversy over open-membership caused chaos and schism in the
Restoration Movement but was not even contemplated by fundamental-
ists.

In dispostion, the fundamentalist was characteristically
dogmatic, sectarian, and alert for intimations Of heresy in every-
one except himself. He interpreted the Bible 1egalistically and
was intolerant Of alternative understandings. Fundamentalism dis-
played great reluctance tO acknowledge the validity Of a profession
Of Christian faith which did not subscribe to every article Of its
creed. Unless a person held to the theory of the verbal and plenary
inspiration Of Scripture, the complete inerrancy Of its autographs,
and the authority of Scripture-legalistically applied, he could not
be genuinely Christian. The whole Bible stood or fell as a unit.
The smallest discrepancy rendered the entire revelation question-
able.

In contrast tO fundamentalism, the spirit of the Campbellian
movement was apparently one Of Openness and generosity toward all.
They did not claim to be the only Christians but "Christians only."
Inherent in the ethos Of restorationism was an unwillingness to
identify with any doctrinal tradition. They were not Augustinians,
Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans, or even Campbellites. Restora-
tionists appreicated the contribution of these and many other
scholars in the history of the church without becoming their dis—
ciples. They considered themselves disciples of Christ. This was
surely one of the implications Of their motto, "Where the Scrip-

ures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are

38

silent." For this reason there were written no restorationist
textbooks in theology, or official statements of doctrine. They
were content to accept the writings of the Old and New Testaments
as the record Of events in which God revealed himself and His will
to mankind. The treatisies Of devout and able men, while acknowl-
edged with respect, were considered human Opinion.

On the surface, the average historian of the period from
1900 to 1930 might have been prone to speculation. He may even
have guessed that the conservative and autonomous Churches Of
Christ and Christian Churches were an Off-shoot of the liberal
Disciples of Christ denomination, created by violence in the main-
stream of controversy. Such is the interpretation of Stewart G.
Cole's treatment, "The 'Restoration Movement' in the Disciples

35

Denomination" in his History of Fundamentalism. Incompatible

 

with Cole's statement, but equally erroneous, is Louis Gasper's
assessment of the controversy's outcome within the Disciples Of
Chirst:
Denominational strife was rampant during the 1920's par-
ticularly in the North among the Baptists, Presbyterians,
and Disciples Of Christ. By 1929 the Disciples of Christ,
however, discovered a formula to settle its differences
without division, something which the other two churches
were unfortunately unable to do.36
Unfortunately the formula Of which Gasper writes was a well-kept
secret, for in 1926 as the International Convention Of Christian
Churches (Disciples of Christ) convened in Memphis, Tennessee, the
debate over open-membership became so heated and the controversy

so intense and the cause so hopeless that the conservatives walked

39

out, severing permanently their connection with the liberals who
now controlled most of the denomination's agencies, including the
powerful United Christian Missionary Society. James DeForst Murch
described the circumstances and consequences Of the 1926 conven-
tion:

The U.C.M.S.'s own white-wash Of the open-membership charges

was featured in a report of a "Commission to the Orient,"

headed by Cleveland J. Kleihaver, minister Of the Open—

membership University Church, Seattle. Mark Collis,

W. D. Cunningham, and other evangelicals who dared to take

the platform to state their grievances were insulted and

made to appear as fools. The Official Memphis Convention

was a complete "Vindication" and victory for the liberal

cause, and many conservatives went home determined that

they would never again set foot in such a national gather-

ing. . . . The United Society now became a test Of fellow-

ship which sundered Old ties at local as well as national

and state levels.37

The conservatives retreated to the Pantages Theater, a short

distance from the Memphis Convention Center. There, before a capac-
ity crowd, several sermons were preached decrying the practice of
open-membership. The most noteable address in this series was
delivered by P. H. Welshimer, who would in subsequent years serve
three items as president of the North American Christian Conven-

tion.38

His address, "The Folly of Open-Membership" is included
as an appendix. It is representative of the conservative protest
against the practice of open-membership. Groundwork was laid for
the first meeting in this significant series Of conventions to

be held the following year in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The item of controversy traditionally assigned to the

division among Disciples as its dissension producing cause was the

 

4O

practice Of Open-membership; but did this item Of debate go fully
to the heart of the schism between conservatives and liberals? Is
there explained hiopen-membership the essence Of the split and
schism? It was, unquestionably, the tangible, emotion-packed

issue of specific contention; an issue so tangible that the leading
thinkers Of the movement were compelled to make a choice. With the
choosing came the contention which split homes, congregations, and
severed an entire movement.

This was the issue of division, but there is a difference
between issues and causes. It may be soundly stated that Open-
membership was not the primary cause but rather secondary. It was
the issue; the result. The result was occasioned by the real root
cause: a loss of respect among some men in the movement for the
"New Testament as a perfect constitution for the worship, discipline,
and government of the New Testament Church, and as a perfect rule

for the particular duties Of its members."39

That premise from
Thomas Campbell's “Declaration and Address" was no longer acceptable
to liberal Disciples. The dramatic loss of confidence in the Bible
which was sweeping across the nation in the wake Of evolution and
higher criticism was no respector Of church boundry lines. Con-
servatives charged that it had slipped over into the Disciple camp
and had taken captive a number Of articulate preachers.

The spiritual unrest which the questions Of evolution and

higher criticism brought to the mainstream had an influence upon

the comparatively mild Open-membership question which came to

41

trouble the movement. The questions which agitated both movements
were related to the larger science-religion controversy. The
first--the primary questions posed by evolution and higher criticism
--brought forth the national controversy. The more secondary ques-
tion of open-membership was raised by the controversy. The primary
one conspired to create doubt as to the authority Of the Bible.

The secondary question was an inevitable by-product of that doubt.
There is therefore, little question that the conservative response
within the Disciples Of Christ was profoundly effected by the
issues and questions raised during the turbulent 1920's. The

North American Christian Convention, born out of controversy, was
and continues to be a significant conservative reaction to modern
religious liberalism and an important forum through which the
restorationist mentality may be viewed.

The fundamentalist controversy was related causally to the
division among the Disciples Of Christ, and hence, was related to
the events which gave birth to the North American Christian Con-
vention. That is, the root cause of the fundamentalist controversy
and the root cause Of division within Disciple ranks stemmed
directly from the issues Of the science-religion encounter at the

turn Of the twentieth century.

CHAPTER II

FOOTNOTES

1James Truslow Adams, The March Of Democraqy(New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933), p. 110.

 

2Ibid., p. 115.

3David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest for a Christian America
(Nashville: Disciples Of Christ Historical Society, 1966), pp.
28-29.

4Stephen Neill, ed., Twentieth Century Christianity
(Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and CO., Inc., 1963), p. 179.

5F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p. 372; see aTsO, Stephen
Neil, ed., Twentieth Century Christianity_(Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday and CO., Inc., 1963), p. 181.

6Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences (Rosemead,
California: Old Paths Book Club,T1945), pp. 38-42.

71bid., p. 42.

8James R. Rogers, The Cane Ridge Meeting House (Cincinnati:
Standard Publishing CO., 1910), pp. 157-158.

 

 

91bid., p. 173.

10F. D. Kershner, "The Message of Thomas Campbell,"
Christian Standard (March 16, 1940): 5, 6, 8, 23.

11F. E. Mayer, The Reli ious Bodies of America (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 19 6), p.'374.

12Frederick D. Kershner, The Restoration Handbook, Vol. 1
(Cincinnati: Standard Publishing CO., 1918), p. 15: The most
recent publication of the "Declaration and Address" is in Knofel
Stanton, The Paraphrase Of Thomas Campbell's "Declaration and
Address" (JOplin, Missouri: College Press,Tl977).

 

 

42

43

13James DeForest Murch, Christians Only: A History of the
Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing CO., 1962),
p. 57.

 

 

14Ibid., p. 55.

15Donald F. Durnbaugh, The Believers Church (New York: The
Macmillan CO., 1968), p. 150.

16Robert Richardson, Memoirs Of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 1
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and CO., 1871), p. 190.

 

 

‘73. B. Tyler, A History of the Disciples of Christ (New
York: The Christian Literature CO., 1894), pp. 133-135.

18B. A. Abbott, The Disciples: An Interpretation (St. Louis:
The Bethany Press, 1924), p. 14.

19Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1
(Nashville, Tennessee: Gospel Advocate CO.,)1949), p. 297.

 

 

 

201bid., p. 298.

2Itiames DeForest Murch, Christians Only (Cincinnati: Stand-
are Publishing CO., 1962), pp. 216, 217.

22
1941).

 

Christian Standard (August 31, 1940 through February 8,

 

23Carl S. Ledbetter, "Open-Membership," Christian Standard
(August 31, 1940): 5.

 

24Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History Of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 777.

25Carl S. Ledbetter, "Open-Membership," Christian Standard
(September 21, 1940): 3.

 

 

 

26Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Rel' ious History Of the American
'People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 775.

27Stewart G. Cole, The History Of Fundamentalism (New York:
Harper and Row Publishers, 193T), p. 160.

 

28A. W. Fortune, Adventuring with Disciple Pioneers (St.
Louis: Bethany Press, 1942), p. 76.

29Konrad Algermissen, trans., Joseph W. Grundner, Christian
Denominations (London: B. Herder Book CO., 1945), pp. 826-827.

 

 

44

30C. Stanley Lowell, The Ecumenical Mirage (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1967), p. 61.

31Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots Of Fundamentalism (Chicago:
The University Of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xix.

 

321bid., p. 163.

33Ibid., p. 264.

34Nelson Hodges Hart, "The True and the False: the Worlds
of an Emerging Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism in America,
1890-1920" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976),
p. 178.

35Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York:
Harper and Row Publishers, 1931), pp. 132-162.

36Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement (Paris: Mouton
and CO., 1962), p. 15.

37James DeForest Murch, Christians Only (Cincinnati:
Standard Publishing CO., 1962), p. 253.

 

 

 

38F. H. Welshimer, "The Folly of Open-Membership," an
address representative Of the conservative protest against Open-
membership and is included as an appendix to this study.

39Thomas Campbell, "Declaration and Address" (Pittsburgh:
Centennial Edition, 1909).

CHAPTER III

THE NORTH AMERICAN CHRISTIAN CONVENTION

Introduction

 

The North American Christian Convention is one Of the larg-
est religious gatherings Of its kind in the world, usually regis-
tering more than 50,000 people from the United States and foreign
countries. Planned and programmed by leaders of Christian Churches
and Churches of Christ, the Convention offers a yearly platform for
Biblical preaching and discussion on vital issues of Christian
concern, an Opportunity for Christian people to share the

experiences Of fellowship with other Christians.

Origin and Purpose

 

The North American Christian Convention was born in a time
of crisis and controversy. Conservatives called for such a gather-
ing because Of a widespread departure from "the faith once delivered
to the saints" in the religious body known variously as the Dis-
ciples of Christ, Christian Churches, and Churches Of Christ.

Long before the dawning Of the twentieth century there had
arisen a new interpretation Of Christianity. This new interpreta-
tion had its origin in scientific naturalism and resulted in the
abandonment of such vital Christian doctrines as the inspiration

and authority Of the Bible, the unique deity of Christ, the

45

46

centrality of atonement for sin, the bodily resurrection Of Christ,
the personal resurrection Of the saints, the second coming of
Christ unto final judgement, the doctrines Of heaven and hell, and
every vestige of the supernatural elements of the Christian faith.
The Restoration Movement, as has been demonstrated, was a victim of
this trend. Colleges, conventions, and missionary societies

became prey to this new "heresy" and the brotherhood was torn from
center to circumference with controversy. As the possibility of
halting or reversing the trend diminished, the conservatives took
the important step in 1927 Of organizing the North American Chris-

tian Convention.1

After several years Of earnest effort to correct
the departures from the faith within Disciple ranks, all hope was
abandoned by the conservatives and they looked to a new day of
cooperation and advance outside the orbit Of the Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ). These men were not opposed to cooperation,
but they felt very deeply that brethren "could not walk together
except they were agreed" in the fundamentals of the Christian faith.
On November 12, 1926, a meeting was called at Memphis,
Tennessee, which voted unanimously to set up a "Committee on Future
Action." The Committee named, consisted of P. H. Welshimer, chair-
man; W. R. Walker, 0. A. Trinkle, W. E. Sweeney, F. S. Dowdy,
R. S. Tuck, and Mark Collis. Early in 1927 the Committee assembled
in Columbus, Ohio, and decided to issue a call for a North American

Christian Convention to be held in Indianapolis, Indiana, October 12-

16 Of that year. The main themes under discussion there were to be:

47

"The Deity Of Christ,“ "The Integrity of the Scriptures," "The
Church," and "Christian Evangelism." The conservatives were deter-
mined to deal with the basic issues upon which their brotherhood
had divided. It was their hope that a constructive restatement of
the historic Bible faith, apart from extraneous conflicting charges
and countercharges, might again bring a measure Of unity among a
strife-torn people.

The Christian Standard of March 19, 1927, carried the first

 

Convention announcement. Mark Collis, minister of the Broadway
Christian Church in Lexington, Kentucky, was chosen as spokesman Of
the Committee, to state the spirit and purpose Of the forthcoming
meeting. He declared that the Convention in Indianapolis was to be
a mass meeting Of "believers" which would cause "enemies of the
truth and righteousness to take notice." It was to be a convention,
not in the usual denominational sense, but of all those whose mem-
bers are born from above, born Of the water and the spirit, who
are walking according to the Spirit, and whose names are written in
the Lamb's book Of 1ife--in other words, not a denominational or
sectarian assembly.

NO form of rationalism, unitarianism, nor unbelief was
to be expressed from the platform. The faith of the brethren was
to be strengthened by a consideration of the cardinal doctrines Of
the apostolic church. It was not to be a “Fundamentalist" conven-
tion, but a completely Christian convention.2 While the first
convention was born in controversy, the conservatives were determined

that it would not be controversial. The best defense was to be

48

aggressive proclamation. P. H. Welshimer, who presided over the
first Convention, described the nature Of the Indianapolis program:

In these last days too many Of our churches and preachers
are being entangled in a yoke Of bondage. Modernism of the
rankest type has made its inroads into the thinking of the
preaching Of some. . . . The Indianapolis convention will
be a clarion call back to the Old paths. The convention
program will not leave the Old paths to fight or quarrel
with anyone, but it will constructively present the things
that need to be stressed in this hour, and any man not in
sympathy with the procedure of this gathering will be
manifesting in no uncertain manner the fact that he is out
Of step with the great Restoration movement.3

Welshimer stressed that the meeting in Indianapolis would
be a constructive preaching convention which would treat such
themes as: "Saved by the Blood Of Christ," "Faith," "Repentance,"
“Baptims,” "What Must I do to be Saved?" sermons Of each Of the
New Testament conversion accounts, "The Inspiration Of the Scrip-
tures," and addresses on such subjects as: "The Great Apostacy,"
"The Reformation," "The Restoration," and "Christian Unity."4

The Convention was called into existence on the premise that
the people committed to the restoration principle needed and desired
a time when they could come together to listen and share in the
public proclamation Of the Word Of God. This emphasis has con-
tinued through the years. Edwin Hayden defined the purpose of the
Convention as one Of defending, reviving and furthering the plea
for the restoration of New Testament Christianity:

In each generation the restoration plea faces new attacks
from which it needs to be defended, it endures new neglects
in which it needs to be revived, and it finds new Opportu-
nities in which it needs to be furthered. The furthering

would provide a sufficient goal and purpose if and when no
defending or reviving were needed.5

49

Dr. Dean E. Walker, chancellor of Milligan College, sug-
gested that the North American Christian Convention had a five-
fold purpose:

1. Sociologically: to exhibit the quality of people in
Christ.

Theologically: to educate people in the revelation of
God in Christ.

Religiously: to inspire the practice Of the faith in
Christ.

Evangelistically: to proclaim Christ as Savior and Lord.
Eschatologically: to point toward restoration of man

to filial relationship with God, fraternal relationship
with one another, through reception of the Way, the Truth,
and the Life--in Christ.6

01-wa

Edwin S. Sweeney, one Of the first Convention speakers,
gave the Object Of the assembly in this statement:
The primary Object Of this convention is that members of the
entire brotherhood be given an opportunity of assembling
here to take part in and hear a restatement of the fundamental
principles for which we, as a people, stand--a reaffirmation
Of the principles upon the Scriptural validity of which rests
our right to a separate existence in the religious world.
Unlike the Athenians who "spent their time in nothing else
but either to tell or hear some new thing" we are here to
tell and hear some Of the Old things--"those things most
surely believed among us."7
It is difficult to determine with accuracy the attendance
figures at the first North American Christian Convention. S. S.
Lappin reported that 1,140 had registered before the first session.
He estimated the first audience at 3,500 and according to his
count there were 6,000 persons present for the Sunday afternoon
communion service.8 James T. Nichols, reporting the Convention for

the Christian Standard, made this statement relative to the registra-

 

tion: "In this convention, 1,190 people outside Of Indianapolis

had gone to the expense and hardship Of the journey, and paid the

50

9

fifty cents' registration fee before the Opening session." The

Indianapolis Star reported that the Convention Opened with a regis-
10

 

tration of 1,054 and estimated the first audience at 4,000. This

newspaper estimated the attendance at the Sunday afternoon service

at 8,000.11

S. S. Lappin characterized the 1927 Convention as a "turn
in the road" toward a better day in the brotherhood. He said
there was "a noticeable absence of bitterness, wrangling, or
protest." The sessions throughout were "constructive, educational,
and inspirational." So happy were the people that they passed
unanimously a call for a second Convention recognizing "a growing
sentiment for a yearly meeting" with no "Official Convention machin-

ery" and dedicated to the same purposes which marked the Indianapolis

Convention.]2

The only resolution passed by the North American Christian
Convention in Indianapolis was a resolution providing for another
such meeting. The resolution read as follows:

The Indianapolis Convention will soon adjourn "sine die," and
cease to be. That is well. There should be nO continuing
convention Officiary or machinery whatsoever, but it is only
the part of wisdom that each yearly meeting should make pro-
vision for its successor. Therefore, it is: Resolved, That
a committee be, and is hereby appointed to arrange for the
next general yearly meeting, to be held in the month of
October, 1928; and aforesaid committee to decide upon date
and place, issue the general call, promote publicity, prepare
the program, and perform such services as may be required;

and that this committee be composed Of the following brethren:
Wallace Tharp, Alabama; Edwin R. Errett, Ohio; J. H. Stam—~
baugh, West Virginia; W. S. Martin, Georgia; C. C. Taylor, 13
Oklahoma; Ira M. Boswell, Kentucky; J. H. 0. Smith, Missouri.

The continuation Committed named above laid plans immedi-

ately for a convention in Kansas City, Missouri, October 10-14, 1928.

51

The committee reiterated the aims set forth by their predecessors.
From Kansas City through the years to the present time there has
been strict and faithful adherence to the purposes to which the
gathering was first committed.

The Convention experienced years Of decline as attendance
sometimes dipped and fluctuated between 1,200 and 2,000. Lack of
adequate promotional machinery kept the meetings in Indianapolis
where local congregational facilities assured basic needs and per-
sonnel. The Convention almost degenerated into a "preachers meet-
ing" and lost its appeal to the "grassroots" leadership of the
churches throughout the nation. Then in 1960 at Columbus, Ohio,
the North American Christian Convention and the National Christian
Education Convention combined their resources to provide confer-
ences, panel discussions, and workshops for Bible school and Church
workers. The Convention had become a family gathering and had caught
a vision of service to local congregations everywhere. Later a
youth convention developed with a program relevant to their unique
needs.

In 1961 at Lexington, Kentucky, there were 7,800 registra-
tions. Then came Long Beach, California, with 10,648; St. Louis
with 17,378; Tulsa with 19,378; Louisville with 25,551. In Cin-
=cinnati in 1972 all the city's rooming and convention facilities
:overflowed as some 28,000 assembled at Riverfront Stadium for the
Friday evening Convention session--the largest single gathering in

the history of the Restoration Movement. The 1977 edition of the

52

North American Christian Convention was also held in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Total registrations for the gathering were 51,134.14
By nature, a North American Christian Convention is not a
convention of churches. It is instead a "Christian" convention, a
gathering Of Christian persons, in which a follower of Christ need
no additional identification to establish his membership. Since
a North American Christian Convention is not a church convention,
it cannot do church business. It limits itself to making provision
for other such gatherings in future years. This significant series

Of meetings has been held for half a century without any formal

constitution or by-laws.

Structure and Organization

 

After the Columbus, Ohio, Convention in 1960, it became
evident that the assembly was soon to become one Of the largest
annual religious gatherings in America. No longer could it ade-
quately be served by volunteer services. It was also increasingly
evident that the conditions in the "brotherhood" (namely, the per-
sistent tendency toward theological liberalism) which the Convention
had sought to correct had become permanent, and the necessity for
its continuing existence had become greater than ever.

Structurally, a North American Christian Convention is
made up of three groups: members, committees, and employees.

The members are those persons who attend and/or register
for a Convention. Since it is not a delegate convention, each

member represents only himself. By their financial support,

53

attendance, participation, and communication of ideas and sugges-
tions, the members determine the quality of both a convention in
session and conventions yet to come. Members vote only once a
year, and that is to approve or disapprove a slate of forty nomin-
ees to the Convention Committee to prepare future conventions. The
roster to be voted on has been developed by a nominating committee
and has been screened by the 120 member Convention Comnittee.

Considered of greater significance than the formal vote is
the member's use Of the evaluation sheet that is made available to
him at each Convention. He is urged to make comments on the pro-
gram, personnel, and to Offer suggestions about future conventions.

The ultimate responsibility for any Convention in this
series rests with the Convention Committee, whose basic membership
is 120, with forty being chosen each year for a three-year term. The
Convention Committee, through its own democratic process appoints
an Executive Committee which is responsible for Convention business
when the Convention Committee is not in session. Officers for each
Convention are the president, president-elect, secretary, and treas-
urer. Officers are appointed to their position for one year and
one Convention. Continuity is maintained in that most Of the Offi-
cers are men who have served in various capacities with the Conven-
tion Committee before being elected to Office. The Committee also
chooses a president-elect, who Observes the operation for a year
before accepting responsibility for his own Convention.

In fifty years, the Convention Committee had evolved from

a half-dozen men to 120, representing the whole nation

54

geographically and virtually every possible phase and description
Of Christian ministry and service.

With reference to schedule, the Convention itself had
changed from totally separate gatherings called at undesignated
times, to annual meetings with dates, places, and themes chosen
several years in advance. Advanced planning for future Conventions
was necessitated by the increased difficulty in securing adequate
facilities to accommodate the large gathering of people.

Accordingly, in 1963, a full-time salaried position Of
"Convention Director" was created with Leonard G. Wymore chosen to
serve in that office. The "Convention Director" is not an Officer
Of the Convention, but an employee. His duties have to do with the
mechanics of Convention planning and not with policy. He is ulti-
mately answerable to the Convention Committee, he cannot be a member
of that Committee; and he cannot speak for the Convention or in any
way officially represent it to any religious body.

As a safe-guard to preserve and protect the original purpose
and function of the North American Christian Convention, the Con-
vention Committee imposed upon itself restrictions, which if faith-
fully obeyed, will keep it true to that nature envisioned by its
founders and to the spirit of the Restoration Movement of which it
is a part:

Realizing the dangers Of any extra-Scriptural or human form
of organization and/or cooperation, due to habit, instinct,
place, learning, and the physical senses, the North American
Christian Convention commits itself now and henceforth to the

following safeguards of individual, group, and congregational
freedom in the body of Christ: The Convention shall assume no

55

official or exclusive character. . . . It shall at all times
respect the freedom and authority Of the local church. . .

It shall not assume the Character or functions Of the church
of Christ. . . . It shall not assume the character of a
church council or synod, nor in its relation to the churches
enact regulations; make rulings or recommendations; pass
resolutions; propose; sanction, or legalize procedures;
invest with authority; ordain to special ministries: endorse,
forbid, exclude, or excommunicate persons, groups, or agen-
cies; or exercise controls of any nature. . . . It considers
Christian fellowship to be personal, vital, and spiritual,
rather than structural or organizational; moral, not legal;
voluntary, not coerced; natural, not artificial; and predi-
cated upon faith in and wholehearted commitment to Jesus Christ
as Lord and Saviour. . . . It shall have no affiliation with
parties, factions, agencies, institutions, or special inter-
ests; neither shall it seek to imprison the fellowship Of
Christian brethren within the frontiers of any single form
of human organization.15

The Convention Speakers

 

The North American Christian Convention is first and fore-
most a preaching convention. The convention was called into exist-
ence on the premise that the people committed to the restoration
principle needed and desired a time when they could come together to
listen and share in the public proclamation of the Word of God. The
expressed wish was for a general meeting of Restorationists, not
for the purpose Of listening to business reports and agency pro-
motion, but for the single purpose of preaching "whatever brought
us into being as a separate religious people and justifies our con-

]6 This emphasis has continued through

tinued existence as such."
the years.

When the National Christian Education Convention merged with
the North American Christian Convention in 1960, there was some con-

cern that preaching would be de-emphasized. That has not happened.

56

On the contrary, the larger audiences and the varying age groups
have been an apparent stimulus in producing greater interest and
proficiency in preaching. When a Convention speaker stands before
thousands Of people, his months of preparation take on added sig-
nificance and he is stirred to pulpit eloquence.

The Executive Committee in consultation with the Convention
Committee, is charged with the responsibility each year of choosing
appropriate themes and speakers. An analysis of the programs of
the North American Christian Convention, from 1927 to 1977, revealed
that they have followed faithfully the principles Of program subject
matter and personnel, as projected by the early Convention advo-
cates.

Convention themes are chosen and designed with a view to
promoting messages which will be Biblically oriented. The men who
are chosen to speak on specific subjects are expected to be aware
of the political and social situation out of which they speak and
show the relevancy Of the message of Christ to that moment in
history. For instance, in 1927 when the Convention was inaugurated
in Indianapolis, there was real concern that the Disciples of Christ,
a large body Of people who had historical connection with the
Restoration Movement had abandoned restoration principles and were
willing to return to the denominational background out Of which the
movement arose. Thus, the theme for the Indianapolis Convention was
"Preach the Word." In 1968, when the Convention met in Cincinnati,
the United States was intensly involved in Vietnam. Young people

questioned the moral implications Of the nation's participation in

57

the conflict as well as their personal involvement. The quest for
truth and free choice led people into actions that were sometimes
confusing and often contradictory. The Convention messages that
year centered around the theme in John 8:32, “You shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Themes are also chosen that will promote messages which
embody the basic principles of the Restoration Movement. The people
who have attended this Convention series over the years have heard
over and over again of the lordship of Christ, the authority Of
Scripture, and the effort to restore in faith and life the ideal
church revealed in the New Testament.

The Convention Committee has sought themes which, if handled
properly, would provoke action rather than reaction. Themes are
selected with a view to reconciling people on the basis of what
Restorationists are for, not what they are against. The desire Of
the committee has been to find a message that will treat not only
the problems Of peOple, but especially their possibilities.

Nearly three-forths of the addresses delivered at the North
American Christian Convention have been presented by college fac-
ulty, administrators, and trustees. The remaining portion have
been presented by ministers, missionaries, and a small number of
business and professional people who were known to be effective
communicators and efficient and successful administrators in their
respective fields of endeavor. I

The roster of speakers indicates that participants have

been selected on the basis Of their perceived commitment to the

58

Christian faith and especially to the principles Of the Restoration
Movement. Mark Collis, Offering guidelines for the original program
in 1927, presented the qualifications expected in speakers who are
invited to the Convention platform:

NO one should be put on this program who cannot be trusted

to give the people his best thought, expressed in the very

best manner, and delivered with all the grace and force Of

which he is capable.17

The committee makes a deligent effort to find those men who
can intelligently and inventively present the Biblical message.
However, the first and foremost requirement is that the speaker
believe in the truthfulness of the subject that he has been assigned
and that he be totally committed to its proclamation.
Speakers are chosen whose ministries have been successful.

There are in the Restoration Movement a rich variety of ministries.
They include the local church, the college classroom, the publishing
house, the campus ministry, the mission field, as well as other areas
Of service. An attempt is made to find men who have proved faithful
to whatever task they believe God has given them and whose lives
provide models of successful ministry. E. Ray Jones, a member of
the Executive Committee in 1972, explained:

The committee seeks men who have evidence in their ministry

a sense of fervency--men whose ministries indicate that the

Christian faith is no mere academic exercies. They have a

concern that men come to know the Christ who alone possesses

and dispenses eternal life. An attempt is made to find men

whose ministries have had in them a real sense of urgency--

men who have been grasped by the gospel--men who not only

possess a great faith, but are possessed by that faith and
have a supreme desire to be fruitful in its delivery.‘8

59

An attempt is made to choose speakers whose ministry has
earned the respect Of the church. For this the connfittee depends
not only on its own acquaintance with potential speakers, but also
on the recommendations coming from members of the Convention aud-
ience, either directed to committeemen or indicated on the evalua-
tion sheets that are given to all who attend each year's Convention.
By directing such a recommendation,members have a part in choosing
Convention personnel.

Speakers at the North American Christian Convention are
free to use whatever method Of communication they choose. They
are at liberty to use a manuscript or to speak with or without
notes. They are also given the freedom to choose their approach to
the subject or topic given to them. Certain guidelines are handed
to speakers so that there will not be unnecessary overlapping, but
in their development Of the message they have complete freedom.
These men speak only for themselves. They do not represent the
Convention in the sense that their thoughts are the "Official" Con-
vention position. The Convention holds no "Official" position. It
is a forum which does nothing more than reflect the thinking of
the movement's best thinkers.

Mark Collis described the 1927 Convention in Indianapolis
with this observation:

The committee did not think it necessary to bring in sectarian
speakers to make any Of these addresses. They showed the

people that our own brethren can make great speeches. Several
on the program, who proved themselves to be men of great plat-

from ability, had never been heard in one of our conventions
before.l9

60

Sam Stone, current editor Of the Christian Standard, Offered

 

this interesting comparison between the 1927 and the 1977 Conven-
tion speakers:

The golden anniversary celebration of the North American
Christian Convention concluded in Cincinnati, Ohio, on

July 8. "It is impossible to do justice to all the
addresses and sermons. The meeting was exactly what the
committee designed it to be--a preaching meeting. Almost
without an exception, the addresses gave evidence of the
most careful preparation. There were thought, polish,
finish, and force to every one of them. Thousands of the
brethren expressed happy surprise at the discovery Of
remarkable ability in men Of whom they had never heard. The
committee itself was most agreeably surprised at the uni-
fromly high character of the work Of the speakers." The
quotation above was from Edwin R. Errett's evaluation of
the first North American Christian Convention held in
Indianapolis, Ind., October 12-16, 1927. His description Of
the sermons is also an accurate tribute to the preachers

at this year's gathering.20

The North American Christian Convention came into being to provide
an international platform for Biblical preaching in a day when the
Bible was being challenged, discounted, and negated due to Philo-
sophical Rationalism and Theological Liberalism. In the judgement
Of Restorationists it is still needed in the face of today's sub-
jectivism and insistence on relativism. Hence, this unusual Con-
vention series is becoming a religious phenomenon unique in the
annals Of American history. True to its original ideals, the North
American Christian Convention continues to (l) preach that the
Biblical message is perpetually relevant to all Of life, (2) promote
Christian fellowship, (3) evangelize the lost, (4) perfect and
encourage the program Of the local congregation, and (5) proclaim

the divine plan for the achievement of Christian unity.

CHAPTER III

FOOTNOTES

lSydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History Of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 914.

2Mark Collis, "The Convention Proposed for this Fall,"
Christian Standard (March 19, 1927): 5.

 

3P. H. Welshimer, “A Clarion Call to Followers Of the Old
Paths,“ Christian Standard (May 21, 1927): 3.

4

 

Ibid.

5Edwin v. Hayden, "Still My Convention,“ Christian Standard
(August 6, 1978): 6.

 

6Ibid.

7Edwin S. Sweeney, "Autonomy Of the Local Church," Christian
Standard (November 5, 1927): 7.

85. S. Lappin, "A Turn in the Road," Christian Standard
(October 22, 1927): 9.

 

9James T. Nichols, "With One Accord in One Place," Christian
Standard (November 5, 1927): 7.

10Indianapolis Star, October 12, 1927.

 

nIndianapoiis Star, October 15, 1927.

 

12$. 5. Lappin, "A Turn in the Road," Christian Standard
(October 22, 1927): 10.

 

13"A Resolution Adopted at Indianapolis," Christian Standard
(October 22, 1927): 5.

14Sam Stone, "Reluctant to Change," Christian Standard
(August 28, 1977): 3.

 

 

61

62
15Edwin V. Hayden, “Report: Committee on Restudy" (Cin-
cinnati: North American Christian Convention, 1972).

16w11iiam E. Sweeney, "Our Position is a Plea," Christian
Standard (July 16, 1927): 3.

17Mark Collis, "The Convention Proposed for this Fall,"
Christian Standard (March 19, 1927): 5.

18E. Ray Jones, "Of Preachers and Sermons," Christian
Standard (March 5, 1972): 7.

19Mark Collis, "The Brethren Review the Convention,"
Christian Standard (October 29, 1927): 6.

20Sam Stone, "A Great Preaching Convention," Christian
Standard (August 28, 1977): 7.

 

 

PART II

MAJOR ISSUES AND IDEAS

CHAPTER IV

THE BIBLE

Introduction

 

The ideal of a righteous character built after the pattern
Of Christ and according to the revelation of the Holy
Spirit by which we shall share the fellowship Of our Sav-
ior and the redeemed of earth throughout eternity, has
stood practically unchallenged through the centuries as
man's highest ideal. Destroy or take away this ideal

and you destroy the thing Of greatest value.

Is there any danger of this ideal being lost? NO, not

lost to the whole race, but it may be lost to many. .
Since many now consider the Bible to be a record of myths
and traditions, written centuries ago by men who were ignor-
ant Of the things now discovered by modern thought, how can
they hold the Bible as authoritative or its picture of God
and Christ as true. . . . Preachers purported to be ambas-
sadors of Christ and messengers of His cross are found side
slapping the blood atonement, the deity Of Jesus and the
inspiration Of the Scriptures.1

It was indeed appropriate that C. C. Taylor should include
these words in the opening paragraphs Of one of the first addresses
ever delivered at a North American Christian Convention. The
inerrant authority Of the Bible was the indispensable cornerstone
upon which the Restoration Movement had been founded. And yet, by
the first decade of the twentieth century, church historians could
quite accurately report: "One Of the most obvious effects of the
scientific spirit has been to weaken the unquestioning acceptance

2

of the authority of the Bible." For the convention speakers to

ignore the problems pertaining to science was to forfeit their

64

65

Claims as "seekers Of truth.” To surrender to the evidence was to
impeach the validity Of the book upon which their faith was founded.
The inevitable response was one Of unyielding defense. Convention
speakers were under Obligation to show that the Bible stands the
test Of criticism.

It was more than coincidental that P. H. Welshimer and his
colleagues were setting the foundation upon which the platform of
the North American Christian Convention would rest. All across the
nation distressed conservatives organized in reaction. Williston
Walker reveals that many Of those who "were shaken by the new
ideas . . . reacted by holding to their view Of biblical infalli-
bility with greater rigidity. They founded a series Of important
Bible conferences in defense of their views--Niagara, Winona, Rocky

"3

Mountain. In his book History Of Fundamentalism, Stewart G. Cole

 

describes "the Bible and prophetic conference movement," as one Of
the chief means of organized reaction to liberal Christianity.4
No annual retreat or conference did more to reinforce old-
fashioned Protestantism than the Niagara Bible Conference. From
this conference in 1878 came the Niagara Creed, "one Of the most
significant documents in the history of the Fundamentalist move-
ment."5 The creed contained fourteen articles or points which
"gave life and shape to the Fundamentalist movement." Later, in
1910, the General Assembly Of the Presbyterian Church put forth the
celebrated Five-Points of doctrine which eventually came to repre-

sent the creedal statement Of conservative Protestantism. The five

affirmations, declared to be essential, were: the inerrancy of the

66

Scriptures, the virgin birth Of Christ, the substitutionary atone-
ment Of Christ, the physical resurrection of Christ, and the mir-
acles Of Christ.6
In 1919, over 6,000 people gathered in Philadelphia for
the World's Bible Conference. Many Of the most widely known expo-
nents of conservative Protestant theology presented their ideas
at the conference. They represented the organized, militant mind
of reactionary evangelicalism. Beginning with biblical inspiration,
the speakers discussed the doctrines of God, Christ, Satan, sin,
atonement, sanctification, grace, redemption, Church, second advent,
prophecy, resurrection, and future punishment. As a result Of the
Conference, the World's Christian Fundamentals Association was

7 In addition, scores of Bible conferences have been con-

born.
ducted annually throughout America. Men of revivalistic tempera-
ment have cultivated their convictions and preserved the faith Of
their fathers by means of these mass meetings. Cole revealed some
Of the ingredients which by 1920 had combined to transform the
Bible conference movement into a permanent type Of social institu-
tion within Christianity:

The hearty singing of revival hymns, the spirit of deep piety,

the vigorous doctrinal convictions awakened by different

types of preachers, and the development Of suspicion and

distrust toward progressive churchmen, empowered the company

with a sense Of Christian invincibility and with one Of

divine commission to champion the threatened faith.8

Rather than being an isolated complaint, the North American

Christian Convention was but one voice in this loud chorus of

vigorous protestations. Historians have frequently labeled this

67

counter-chorus the "fundamentalist movement." The avalanche of
publicity it received on the front pages of the American press in
the early 1920's was described by Ralph H. Gabriel as "both a novel
and unexpected American phenomenon."9 The North American Christian
Convention must be interpreted in connection with this phenomenon,
as one contribution to a national movement. While a handful of
the assemblies which arose to Champion orthodoxy were able to enjoin
the loyalty of conservative Christians from many faiths, most of
them represented some particular religious group and made their
appeals to their own constituency. Such was the case with the
North American Christian Convention. The founders of the Convention
had never visited an assembly at Niagara, Winona, or Rocky Mountain,
and they made no conscious effort to duplicate these Bible confer-
ences. The same social and religious conditions, however, that
gave rise to these nationally prominent conferences, motivated
P. H. Welshimer and the Committee for Future Action to provide a
medium through which the forces Of the Restoration Movement might
be solidified. The ideas and issues of the North American Christian
Convention must be viewed, therefore, against the bold backdrop
of the fundamentalist reaction to liberal Christianity, the whole
of which the North American Christian Convention was apparently a
part.

The basis for the clash between fundamentalism and modernism
centered around their differing attitudes toward the nature and

proper use of the Bible. For centuries Christians had assumed that

68

the Bible was a special revelation from God and that whatever it
declared was to be accepted as truth without question. By 1878,
however, Julius Wellhausen was questioning both the Mosaic author-
ship and the literary unity Of the Pentateuch and thereby under-
mining the idea Of the Bible as the verbally inerrant Word of God.10
For the typical modernist of the early twentieth century, the Bible
was a varied literature issuing out of the long development of
Hebrew and Christian religion. Its validity as a final authority
for belief was questionable, but was exceedingly valuable when
approached like any other literature, for whatever inspiration and
guidance its various parts actually contained. The modernist
reasoned that it was no longer necessary to spend time or effort
harmonizing the hopelessly discordant in the interest of an arti-
ficial theory of verbal inspiration. Above all, he claimed that
the spiritual force Of the Bible was not weakened but strengthened
when so used. Shortly before the turn Of the century, Washington
Gladden phrased the compromise position Of many so-called modern-
ists:

Are not the idolaters who make it reason to disbelieve a

single word Of the Bible, and the iconoclasts who treat it

as nothing better than any other book, equally far from the

truth? Is it not the part Of wisdom to use the book ration-

ally, but reverently; to refrain from worshipping the letter

but to rejoice in the gifts of the Spirit which it proffers?11

The fundamentalists responded that under such qualifying

clauses the Bible was no longer a revelation. Instead of a message

from God to men, it was merely men's thoughts about God. Christian-

ity, the fundamentalists contended, has been founded upon an

69

infallible message from God, to which all human reason must be sub-
jected. If in the event Of conflict between revelation and scholar-
ship human judgement was to be the knife which bisected the Bible
into portions of truth and error, then, argued the conservatives,
reason rather than revelation has become the norm in religion. In
his 1927 address, "The Menace Of Modernism," convention speaker
C. C. Taylor charged:

'The modernist adopts the methods of historical and literary

science in the study of the Bible and religion. He uses

science to test the values Of inherited orthodoxy, and Of

course he includes the theory Of evolution as science. He

uses historical and literary criticism, which includes much

Of German rationalism, for the same purpose. The common

ground of these two instruments which modernists use is 50

explain everything by natural law; there is no miracle.1

It was into this agitated emotional and intellectual environ-

ment that speakers at the North American Christian Convention stepped
when they rose to address their audiences on the nature and purpose
of the Bible. This chapter considers those Convention addresses
which dealt with the Bible--its inspiration, its relationship to

science and the evolutionary hypothesis, the higher criticism of

the Bible, and the study Of the Bible.

The Inspiration Of the Bible

 

TO the nen who spoke and for the audience which listened,
there was no question more vital than that of inspiration. If the
Bible were not Of divine origin, they should not bow to its claims
Of authority, rely on its statements of fact, and could not derive

hope and Comfort from its premises. In fact, the journey from

70
their homes to the Convention had no real purpose if the Bible
was but the work of men. On the other hand, if the Bible came from
God, its authority was unquestionable and its statements infalli-
ble. For those who spoke and for those who listened, much was at
stake.

The question of inspiration was not Only crucial to the
Convention assembly but was at the very heart of the orthodox
reaction across the nation. Other conservative bodies took Offi-
cial action to reaffirm their faith in the Bible as an inspired
revelation. In 1923, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church readopted the ”Five-Points" originally passed at its 1910
session. The minutes of the meeting read:

Furthermore, the General Assembly calls the attention of
the Presbyteries to the deliverance of the General Assembly
of 1910, which deliverance is hereby affirmed and which is
as follows:

1. It is an essential doctrine Of the Word Of God and
our standards that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide
and move the writers of the Holy Scripture as to keep them
from error.13

A year earlier, the Northern Baptist denomination had passed
a similar resolution. In a strategy move designed to Offset the
advances of liberalism, the convention's minutes read:

Whereas: the Northern Baptist Convention, in its 1922 ses-
sion, held at Indianapolis, Officially declared the New
Testament to be the sufficient ground of its faith, and
Whereas: there is a wide difference of Opinion among our
Baptist people as to what the New Testament does teach,
Therefore: Be it resolved that the Bible teaches, and we
believe,

1. Of the Scriptures--that the Bible was written by men
supernaturally inspired; that it has truth without any
admixture Of error for its matter; that, as originally
written, it is both scientifically and historically true and
correct; and therefore is and shall remain to the end of the

 

71

age, the only complete and final revelation of the will Of
God to man; the true center Of the Christian union and the
supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds and
Opinions should be tried.14

In 1923, William Jennings Bryan, the titular head of the
fundamentalist party, wrote an article on the "Five-Points." He
declared that "the Bible is either the Word Of God or a man-made
book." Concerning the first Of the fundamentals, the inspiration
Of the Bible, Bryan said:

Upon the first propostion all the rest depend. If the Bible
is true--that is, so divinely inspired as to be free from
error--then the second, third, fourth, and fifth propositions
follow inevitably, because they are based on what the Bible
actually says in language clear and unmistakable. If, on

the other hand, the Bible is not to be accepted as true,
there is no reason why any body should believe anything in

it that he Objects to, no matter upon what his Objection is
founded.15

To these fundamentalist reaffirmations the modernists responded
that they likewise believed the Bible to be in a sense inspired,
but not infallibly so; to be valuable but not perfect; to contain
the Word of God, but not equaling the Word Of God. The appeal Of
their position was undergirded with the insistent plea that their
new view was not the destroyer but the saviour Of the Bible.
William Newton Clarke, a well-known advocate Of the new theology,
said succinctly: "The Bible is inspired as it is inspired, and

16

not as we think it ought to be inspired." An editorial in the

Christian Century declared in 1924:

On the otherhand, the Modernist starts with no preconception
as to what the Bible ought to be, but is interested to dis-
cover what it actually reveals regarding its origin and
nature. He perceives that the Protestant reaction from the
papal dogma of an infallible Church resulted in the opposing

72

doctrine Of the infallible Bible, and that neither of these
claims rests upon valid grounds. The Bible is not a super-
naturally produced or safeguarded collection of documents,
but the honest and reverent work of men living at various
periods in the history of the Hebrew and Jewish people,
over an interval Of more than a thousand years; that it is
a record of the most notable chapters in the history of
religion. . . . These writings lay no claims to exactness
in matters Of history, chronology, or science.17

"The greatest Of all books," continued Robert A. Ashworth.
"is the Bible, the supreme literature Of the spiritual life, . . .
but it is not infallible or inerrant, nor does it Claim to be

18

so." Shailer Matthews in his definitive work, The Faith Of

 

Modernism, maintained that deep within the modernist movement was
a method of appreciating and using the Bible. He contended that
the crucial conflict between the modernist and the fundamentalist
did not lie in differing degrees of loyalty to or respect for the
Bible, but in dissimilar presuppositions for studying it. Explain-
ing his contention, he asserted:

The true method is followed by the Modernist: to study the

Bible with full respect for its sanctity but with equal

respect for the students intellectual integrity. We must

begin with the facts concerning it, interpret its actual

value and use it for what it is actually worth. Only thus

can it properly minister to our spiritual needs.19

Bedell, Sandon, and Wellborn, authors Of the significant

book, Religion in America, summarized the modernistic view Of

 

biblical inspiration:

. the Bible was studied with the same attitude and the
same Objective, scientific methods as those applied to any
other ancient document. What appeared to the critics to be
errors and contradictions in the biblical text were pointed
out; questions of the date and authorship of the various
books of the Bible were raised. Time-honored beliefs, such
as the conservative assumption that Moses himself had written
the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament,

73

were denied. The critics concluded that the biblical docu-
ments were written by many different authors, edited, and
re-edited across the centuries. Books like Isaiah were
classified as having two or more different authors, whose
works had been combined. From the perspective of the new
sciences the belief that the Bible enjoyed a unique statua as
a reliable, authoritative source Of truth was challenged. 0

In their defense of the doctrine Of inerrant inspiration,
the convention speakers were in essential agreement with such funda-
mentalist leaders as Machen, Bryan, Macartney, Riley, Gray, and
Torrey. Although in their printed addresses the speakers rarely
referred to the writings Of these men, it is reasonable to assume
that they were familiar with and encouraged by the vigilance of
their contemporaries in the larger struggle. In 1927, J. H. Stam-
baugh served as one of the principle speakers at the Convention.
His message entitled, “Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem" occasion-
ally demonstrated awareness Of the basic writings of the funda-
mentalist leaders. Emphasizing the superiority Of Biblical teach-
ing as evidencing divine inspiration, Stambaugh cited the titular
head of fundamentalism and champion of Bible believers, William
Jennings Bryan:

William Jennings Bryan challenged the scoffers and infidels
in a 1921 address delivered at the Moody Bible Institute
when he said, "We believe that this Bible was by inspiration
given. Let those who say this Book is not Of divine origin
put their theory to the test. Let them gather their best,
not from a single race or section, but from every race and
clime. Let them take these selected few and give them the
advantage of all the libraries and all the colleges, and
then let them give the world a book to take the place of
this Bible of ours. If they cannot do it, they must admit
either that our Book comes from a source higher than man, or
that nineteen centuries of civilization have so dragged us

down that man cannot be expected to do today what man
could do then.

74

Will they accept this challenge? NO; they will take the
Bible and look through it to find some words or phrases or
sentences that they can construe as contradicting some words
or phrases or sentences somewhere else.21

In discussing their concept Of Biblical inspiration, the
speakers frequently referred to Uneetymology of the word "inspira-
tion." The Vice President Of Academic Affiars at Pacific Christian
College, Dr. Paul R. McReynOlds, told his 1974 Convention audience:

There is only one legitimate passage which we can use exegeti-
cally to understand a Biblical nature of inspiration and that
is found in II Timothy 3:15-17. I say this because it is

the only passage of scripture that contains the word "God-
inspired." Another passage which closely approximates II Tim-
othy is II Peter 1:19-21. But we also have to make some deduc-
tions and consider things together that are not automatically
as they are in these two passages. The word theopneustos
means "God breathed." This is the only occurrence of this
word throughout the whole New Testament. In classical usage
it refers to dreams given by God instead of the ordinary
dreams of men, but it implies visions Occurring in a man's
mind so that he might understand the ideas Of God. The
closest parallel I find to this in scripture is the word
theodidaktoi in Thessalonians 4:9 meaning "taught by God."
Because of this, and for other reasons, I see the scripture
teaching "All scripture is God-breathed." It is one word

or breathed out by God.22

 

 

To the Convention speakers, inspiration was a supernatural
influence Of the Holy Spirit upon divinely chosen men. Consequently,
their writings became authoritative and infalliable. McReynolds
explained:

Inspiration is the influence Of the Holy Spirit on the mind
Of selected people which, in turn, enables them to adequately
and accurately pen God's word for men. . . . John writes

that the task of the HOly Spirit is to convince/convict the
world of sin, righteousness and the judgment. He does this
in and through the scriptures which He inspires. He then
continues to make evident that the living Word Of God has
value for all people.23

75

The unity Of the scriptures demonstrated by their internal
quality was most Often pointed to as an evidence Of inspiration.
The speakers were in agreement with fundamentalists at large in
this stress upon the Bible's unity. James M. Gray, the Dean Of
Moody Bible Institute, wrote: "The character Of its contents, the
unity Of its parts, the fulfillment of its prophecies . . . all
these go to show that it is divine, and if so, that it may be

24

believed in what it says about itself." Archibald Alexander

Hodge's 1928 book, Outline of Theology, was typical of scores Of

 

volumes dedicated to exposing the "destructiveness of modernist
theology." On the point of internal evidence Of inspiration and
Biblical unity, Hodge declared:

We do not reason in a circle when we rest the truth of the
inspiration Of the Scriptures on their own assertions. We
come to this question already believing in their credibility
as histories, and in that Of their writers as witnesses of
facts, and in the truth of Chritianity and in the divinity

Of Christ. Whatever Christ affirms of the Old Testement, and
whatever he promises to the Apostles, and whatever they assert
as to the divine influence acting in and through themselves,
or as to the infallibility and authority of their writings,
must be true. Especially as all their claims were indorsed

by God working with them by signs and wonders and gifts Of

the Holy Ghost. It is evident that if their claims to
inspriation and to the infallibility and authority of their
writings are denied, they are consquently charged with fanati-
cal presumption and gross misrepresentation and the validity
Of their testimony on all points is denied}5

Dr. Leroy J. Garrett, editor Of the Restoration Review,

 

journeyed to the Convention in Anaheim, California, in 1974 to
speak of "The Nature of Biblical Authority and the Restoration Move-
ment." With regard to the essential nature Of Biblical unity, he

declared:

76

I take the position that the authoritative basis of our
religion is centered, not in a book per se, but in a Person,
the Founder of our faith and the Captain of our salvation,
the Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible describes him as the Word
of God (Rev. 19:13), and that Word was an authoritative
reality long before there were any New Covenant scriptures.
And even the Old Covenant scriptures, which was the only
Bible that the earliest Christians had, was (and is)
accepted as authoritative in that Jesus set the seal Of

his own authority upon them. . . . Since God is ultimate
truth, only He has absolute authority. This authority He
has given tO his Son. It is to the extent that we discern
this truth in Jesus in the scriptures that the Bible is
authoritative to us. The scriptures of both Old and New
Covenants are thus authoritative in that they reflect him
and bear witness to his mission in this world.26

In 1966, Richard Phillips emphasized the unity and harmony
of the Biblical record by citing the different authors and their
backgrounds:

The Bible consists Of sixty-six books, composed by about
thirty different authors, during a period Of about sixteen
hundred years, and under the most diverse circumstances con-
ceivable. Moses wrote the Pentateuch in the wilderness, when
science, literature, and the arts were in their infancy.
Daniel and Ezekiel prophesied in captivity. Paul dictated
several Of his most important epistles while he was a prisoner
at Rome, and under the care and vigilance Of a Roman guard,
and John wrote the Revelation while he was banished to
Patmos. . . . and yet, with all Of this diversity Of time,
place, and peOple, there is not a single error or contradic-
tion in it. 7

"The Bible," said Thomas Hagger in 1927, "is the one book
which contains law, prophecy, poetry, biography, history and
letters. Yet all the writers unite in presenting one grand theme.
It is out Of the question that such remarkable unity could be the
product Of an accident."28

While stressing this general thematic unity, many speakers

also mentioned the fulfillment of prophecy, historical accuracy, and

77

scientific foreknowledge as features of the Bible which support its
harmony and consonance with other fields of learning.

In addition to the unity Of the Bible, Speakers Often
pointed to the superiority Of Biblical teaching as evidence Of
divine inspiration. This was also a means of proof commonly used by
leading fundamentalist writers. For instance, in 1925, Thomas
J. McCrossan, a professor of biblical languages, published a book
for the Presbytery Of Minneapolis, which featured five reasons "why
we know the Bible is inspired by God." In addition to prophetic
fulfillment, scientific foreknowledge, and historical accuracy, two
of his "reasons" were related to the character and influence of the
biblical nessage: "the moral and spiritual teachings of the Bible,"
and the fact that its teachings "alone can transform Character."29

In an effort to negate the infallibility of the scriptures,
modernist writers countered that while the Bible contains noble and
elevating inspirations, they are mingled with gross and immoral
ideas. Durant Drake declared:

God's anger and desire for vengence are repeatedly mentioned;
and the picture the unprejudiced reader would form of this
Jewish deity from many Old Testament passages is that Of a
cruel, and blood-thirsty tyrant. He "hardens Pharaoh's
heart" that he may punish the Egyptians in a spectacular
manner; He throws stones down from Heaven on Israel's foes;
He commands the sun to stand still that more Of them may be
slain before dark; He bids His chosen people invade the land
of a neighboring tribe, burn all their cities, slay all the
males, adults and children, and all the married women, and
keep the virgins for their own enjoyment; He slays seventy-
thousand innocent Israelites for David's sin in taking a
census of the people.30

Although the Convention speakers did not deal with the

liberal charge that the "Jewish deity was a cruel and blood-thirsty

78

tyrant," they did exert much effort in emphasizing the moral worth
Of the Bible. In a 1929 address, Henrietta Heron remarked:

Hidden in the Book is the story Of the Christ, the record

Of His marvelous teachings about "the way“ of life--here

are the blessed promises, here the solution to all of life's

problems, here the key to rising Victoriously over every outer

circumstance. Here is the assurance of immortality, here the

~certainty that we have a risen Lord by our side. Here are

strength for the weak, comfort for the sorrowing, light for

the bewildered, hope for the despairing, victory for the

tempted, courage for the faint, light for those in darkness.

In quiet meditation and study of God's word, motives are

righted, eyes are Opened, knowledge increased, values of life

adjusted, purposes strengthened, courage renewed, spirits

refreshed and power replenished.31

In illustrating the power and influence Of Bible teachings,
speakers gave attention to its impact upon world civilization, its
cultural contributions, and its transforming power. L. H. Apple's
1964 address, "Preaching the Word Of God," discussed the relation-
ship and influence Of the Bible on the churched and unchurched
community. He credited the impact Of the scripture with advances
against moral conflict, racial strife, and spiritual crises in the
churches. "It has done more," said Apple, "to answer the basic
needs of men today than any other force in the world. With all Of
the progress that has been made in science, education and health,
only the word of God is able to lift man up mentally, physically,
and spiritually.32
After discussing in detail the moral, intellectual, and

emotional contributions made through Biblical teaching, James
G. VanBuren concluded in 1958:

The Word has been able to lay hold Of a Luther writhing

in the toils Of Roman monasticism; it has motivated the

shoe cobbler, William Carey, so that he became the trans-
lator of the Word for millions in India; it moved the

 

79

Campbells, father and son, to lift the standard Of Christian

reformation in the nineteenth century, and it still can work

its wonders today. Right now, in some Indian village, in

some Himalayan mountain hut, or in some ornate American man-

sion the miracle of the living, energetic, incisive, and

critical word is at work.33

An interesting facet of the controversy between fundamental-

ism and modernism which was reflected in the Convention addresses
concerned the method or nature of divine inspiration. In Spite of
the Open conflicts, liberal leaders frequently insisted that the
two groups held a Significantlylarge body Of beliefs in common. An

article in the Christian Century_asserted: "Both hold that the

 

Bible is inSpired Of God, and is in a unique sense, the Word Of
God . . ."34

Modernists claimed that fundamentalists' insistence upon a
rigid scriptural inerrancy reflected human insecurity, and that it
represented not so much a high view Of Scripture as a rigid and
over-limited one. Modernists did not consider that errors in the
Bible affected its purpose at all, but rather that the reality of
a historical event did not depend upon an inerrant account of the
event. In fact, contended the modernists, errors were the inevit-
able accompaniments Of the process of a progressive revelation,
constituting primitive and temporary forms through which the essen-
tial Biblical message was passing to maturity.

In essence, then, fundamentalists argued that the Bible
came into existence through a process of divine, supernatural

inspiration and that it was to be used as a final, absolute, and

infallible authority. Modernists, in contrast, denied Biblical

 

8O

infallibility and chose to interpret the Bible as they interpreted
other great literature, preferring an appreciative rather than an
authoritative view of the Bible's religious insights. Convention
speaker J. E. de Gafferelly warned his audience in 1931 that while

modernism tended to accept the general religious ethic taught in

35

the Bible, it had rejected the language Of the Bible. Such a

rejection was grounds for Ernest Hunter Wray's indictment: "Thou-

sands Of preachers across the country now no longer believe in the

36

inSpiration Of the Scriptures." C. C. Taylor suggested the prob-

lem in his 1927 message:

In view of the many ways in which the word "inspired" has
been defined, it is not enough to say that the Bible is
inspired. Most modernists, while not accepting the Bible
as a trustworthy record of the revelation of God, do accept
it as a trustworthy record of the human experiences of God.
SO might the Book of the Dead Of the Egyptians be, the
Vidas of the Hindus, and the Koran of the Mohammedans.37

 

Some modernists maintained that the Bible did not teach a
single, harmonious system Of doctrine and moreover, was not infalli-
ble with regard to scientific Opinion, ethical theories, histori-

38 They held that the writers

cal judgments, or spiritual insights.
of the Bible had recorded thoughts that may have been given to them
by God, but that they were not under special guidance in the selec-
tion Of language. Gerald Birney Smith suggested that such thoughts
had perhaps been given to the writers by means of their personal
experiences with God. This concept of inspiration was frequently

39 The modernists were

labeled the "natural" or "thought" theory.
particularly irritated with the apparent mechanical and literalistic

nature of the verbal position, charging that it reduced the writers

 

81

to mere passive machines. The incomparable Harry Emerson Fosdick
reflected the modernist tone when he declared: "They [the funda-
mentalists] insist that we must all believe . . . in a special
theory Of inspiration--that thecwiginaldocuments Of the scripture,
which, of course, we no longer possess, were inerrently dictated to

40 Modern-

men a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer."
ists also asserted that nany conscientious people having been
taught to believe “all the Bible or none at all," had become dis-
enchanted with the literalistic word-for-word theory and were thus
driven into skepticism.

The Fundamentalists met the liberal assault upon the verbal
theory by reasoning that divine guidance in the selection Of lan-

guage was essential to the production Of an infallible revelation.

Benjamin B. Warfield in his significant book, The Inspiration and

 

Authority of the Bible, summarized the historic position Of many

 

fundamentalists:

The Church has held from the beginning that the Bible is the
Word Of God in such a sense that its words, though written
by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them the marks
of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, under
such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words
Of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will. It
has always recognized that this conception of co-authorship
implies that the Spirit's superintendence extends to the
choice of the words by the human authors [verbal inspiration,
but not a mechanical dictationl] and preserves its product
from everything inconsistent with a divine authorship--thus
securing, among other things, that entire truthfulness which
is everywhere presupposed in and asserted by Scripture by
the biblical writers' [inerrancy].41

J. Gresham Machen reasoned that the fundamentalist position
with regard to the inspiration of the Bible did not deny the human

characteristics Of the biblical writers, "but it holds that by the

 

82

Spirit of God these writers were preserved from the errors which

are found in other books.42

Hence, the question of verbal inspira-
tion was, to the fundamentalist, the key which determined whether
the Bible was of human or divine origin. If the Bible was composed
of nothing more than the record of the religious experiences Of
certain men, or even a more or less questionable record of what they
thought they experienced, then it was both solely human and imper-
fect in character. If the Scriptures were merely man's enlarging
thought and discovery of God rather than God's revelation of Him-

self to man, then they were worthless as a guide from the predica-

ment of sin. Writing in the Princeton Theological Review, a schol-

 

larly journal which supported conservative views, Professor George
Johnson summed up the conservative position: "If inspiration does
not render the holy Scriptures infallible, their nature is no longer
divine but human."43
The verbal theory of inspiration, sometimes called the

plenary theory, was clearly the position which the speakers at the
North American Christian Convention defended. The early speakers
who touched upon the method of inspiration maintained that the Holy
Spirit guided the pen in the writing Of the words in the original
or autograph documents. Claude C. Taylor, a professor of theology
at Phillips University, was the first speaker to suggest the nature
Of Biblical inspiration. His understanding Of the verbal theory
led him to conclude that the writers of the Bible simply recorded

the words given them by the Holy Spirit. In his 1927 address,

Taylor attacked the modernist views of Shailer Matthews:

 

83

What is the attitude Of modernists to the inspiration Of the
Scriptures? I shall quote from Professor Matthews again.

He says: "The modernist believes in studying the Bible
according to accredited historical and literary methods.
These methods, though not theological, but scientific, are
used in the interest of the religious life." What is this
scientific method to which he refers? Hear him again: "For
nearly a century the Bible has been studied scientifically.
Such study has not started from the assumption of super-
natural revelation, but has sought information regarding the
origin, time of writing and the integrity Of the Biblical
material."

A little later he says: "But no sooner do men thus study
the Bible than facts appear which make belief in its verbal
inerrancy untenable." By the phrase, "verbal inerrancy," I
am sure the author would not insinuate that any scholar
believes that the text from which our English versions are
translated is an exact duplicate of the original. He means
to cast doubt upon the belief in the inspiration Of the Word.
That there are errors Of transcription are all agreed. But
it is quite another thing to hold that God had nothing to

do with guiding the words of the original text.44

Taylor concluded that if God left the wording Of the Bible
to the erring judgment Of fallible man, "I would put a question
mark after every command and every promise recorded in Scipture."45

While some conservatives defended the concept of inerrant
revelation by means Of such direct counter-attack, others claimed
that the modernists had actually misrepresented the real doctrine
Of verbal inspiration. They urged that the verbal theory be not
confounded with the mechanical or dictation theory, a concept Of
inspiration which implied the absolute supression of the human
element. In 1933, Basil Holt reported that if the verbal theory
were to be equated with the mechanical concept, even moderate con-
servatives would immediately consider it an untenable explanation

46

for the method Of inspiration. The conservatives quickly

responded that no tension existed between an accurate understanding

 

 

84

Of the verbal theory and the presence Of the human element in the
wording of the Scriptures.

Although the Convention speakers were united in their
rejection of the "natural" or "thought" theory as an explanation
Of inspiration--that the Bible writers were inspired in the same
sense as were Milton, Browning, or Shakespeare--there was a signifi-
cant division of feeling as to the nature Of the theory of verbal
inspiration. Leroy J. Garrett, in his 1974 address, carefully
qualified the verbal theory to include the dimension of human person-
ality in the wording of the Scriptures. "While the Scriptures are
completely inspired," said Garrett, "there is no evidence that every

47

word is given Of the Holy Spirit." He continued his disclaimer

with an appeal to the view of verbal inspiration held by Alexander
Campbell, the titular head of the Disciples Of Christ:
He said: "We must regard these writers as using their own
modes Of speech, and as selecting their own words, both in
speaking and writing; yet so plenary was their inspiration
that they could not select an improper term or a word not
in accordance with the mind of the Spirit. That they did
select different words to express the same ideas cannot be
disputed" (Mill. Harb, 1834, p. 200). Rejecting the dicta-
tion theory commonly held, he believed the Spirit directed
the writers in the selection Of the sources, but left them
free to write out of their own individual uniqueness.48
In 1974, Paul R. McReynolds, while supporting Garrett's
view that "the personalities of the writers are allowed tO be
expressed,"49 moved away from the use of the term "verbal" to the
term "dynamic." In essence, the speakers were not far apart in
their view of inspiration. McReynold's "dynamic" view held that

the Holy Spirit guided the writers as He did all the Apostles and so

 

85

the scripture in a real sense is like Christ, that is, "fully divine
and fully human." McReynolds said, “We don't fully understand that

in referenceix1Christ and I don't totally understand that in ref-

erence to the Scriptures."50

The "dynamic" view contains elements of both human person-
ality and ”dictation" theory. McReynolds explained:

I accept the dynamic view because Of a number Of passages in
scripture. One I want to refer to in particular is Revela-
tion 1:11. John is listening to God Speak to him in a vision
and he hears, "Write what you see and send to the churches."
And so John wrote what he saw. Because he was also told to
write what he saw, he wrote it, as I see it, in his own words.
Therefore, the book of Revelation includes John's human inter-
pretation Of the things he saw. There is certainly some dic-
tation within the scriptures. When one looks into the giving
Of the law on Mt. Sinai, we see that God wrote down the words
Himself. There are passages in Revelation and passages in
other books in the New Testament which have been dictated
word by word. For example, in Revelation the author has the
ideas and then writes them down as he sees the words coming
in order that he can convey the ideas with which he is
inspired.51

Recent Speakers while coming out strongly for a verbal the-
ory of inspiration have voiced general agreement with Garret and
McReynolds and appear to recommend a more moderate brand Of verbal
inspiration than that advocated by several earlier speakers. Cur-
rently, the Convention speakers tend to agree that the writers of
Scripture were free to speak through their own individual back-
ground, personality, vocabulary, and style. In concluding his 1974
address, Paul McReynolds selected conservative language to articu-
late a position with which all other Convention speakers and their

auditors would heartily agree:

 

86

In conclusion, then, inspiration is the influence Of the
Holy Spirit on the minds Of selected men, enabling them to
adequately and accurately produce God's Word for all peO-
ple. . . . The Bible is the Word of God objectively, but
it also becomes the Word Of God alive as the Spirit uses
it again and again to encounter persons . . . And without
the Spirit, the words are only written on paper with ink.
We can know, without doubt, every scripture is God breathed,
beneficial for teaching, for demonstrating what is wrong,
for correction, and training in what is right, so that the
man Of God may be an artisan, totally equipped for every
good work.52

The Bible and Evolutionarnyheory

 

The question of an inerrant Bible came conspicuously into
focus in connection with the creation of the world and the origin
of man. "The doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to
that of creation. Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it
impossible to believe in the Bible." Although not many modernists
would have subscribed to this statement attributed to Huxley, the
proponents of both liberal and conservative causes were well aware
that the roots Of the theories regarding the inspiration Of the
Bible could be traced to the evolutionary hypothesis. The theologi-
cal naturalism which was given birth by evolutionism encouraged the
view that the Bible, and therefore, the religion which it embodied,
were the products Of naturalistic development.

The avant-gard Of the science-religion controversy of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Charles Darwin's

1859 publication of the Origin Of Species. Believing that all life

 

had evolved from pre-existant life, Darwin suggested that animals
and plants had gradually developed in the course Of countless

centuries. Discounting the Genesis account of creation, man was

 

 

87

presented, not as the handiwork Of divine purpose, but as the
chance product of a process Of natural selection. With the January,
1860, circulation of an American edition Of Darwin's book an irre-
pressible conflict Of ideas on science and religion began.

Perhaps the conflict was never more irrepressible than dur-
ing the emotional moments of the modernist-fundamentalist contro-
versy of the 1920's. In fact, fundamentalism's zenith mark was
reached on a hot and sultry day in 1925 in a packed Dayton, Ten-
nessee, courtroom when William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow

53 The cir-

conducted a verbal battle over the fatherhood of man.
cumstances which led two of the leading figures of the era to
square Off before a judge and a jury in the Scopes "monkey trial"
are relevant to an understanding Of the attidue toward evolution
held by speakers at the North American Christian Convention.

By the turn of the century the most ardent defenders Of
orthodoxy were forced to admit that the doctrine of evolution,
though an unproved hypothesis, had become an integral part of the
modern mind. As Richard HOfstadter points out, John Fiske and

54

Asa Gray had crowned the movement with respectability. In 1892,

Lyman Abbott published The Evolution Of Christianity, in which he

 

described evolution as God's method of doing things. He "sought
to show that in the spiritual, as in the physical, God is the secret
and source of light. Accordingly, Abbott spoke of the evolution

55

Of the Bible, the Church, Christian Society, and the Soul." By

the early 1900's many religious leaders had taken it for granted that

 

 

 

88

the evolutionary hypothesis could be positively used in the inter-
pretation Of the Christian religion. Although there were various
levels Of acceptance, the modernists gave general assent to the
doctrine, arguing that the story of evolution furnished new evi-
dence for the existence of God and the creation of the world, and
was more spiritually and intellectually satisfying than the argument
from special creation. It was particularly welcomed as a reason-
able relief from the difficulties implicit within the Genesis
account. The modernist maintained that the essence of the Bible
and the Christian religion were both salvaged and made relevant to
modern man by the doctrine of theistic evolution. They reasoned
that man's opportunities for understanding God and being related to
Him were not terminated but greatly enhanced in the findings Of

science. Harry Emerson Fosdick, in a New York Times article, "A

 

Reply to Bryan in the Name of Religion," asserted:
In a world nailed together like a box, God, the Creator,
had been thought Of as a carpenter who created the universe
long ago; now, in a world growing like a tree, even putting
out new roots and branches, God has more and more been seen
as the indwelling spiritual life . . . Positively the idea Of
an immanent God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely
grander than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God Of
an Old theology.55
The modernists had very little patience with what they termed
the "sweeping generalizations and uninformed denials" of their
adversaries. Edwin Grant Conklin, a scientist at Princeton Uni-
versity, charged that Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan
avoided even a "second hand" study of the evidence for evolution

and hence failed "to qualify as trustworthy witnesses." Citing

 

 

89

the evidences drawn from morphology, physiology, embryology,
palentology, homology, heredity and variation, Conklin observed:

Against all the mountain of evidence which Mr. Bryan tries to
blow away by a word, what does he bring in support Of his view
of special creation? Only this, that evolution denies the
Biblical account of creation of man.

In face of all these facts, Mr. Bryan and all his kind hurl
their medieval theology. It would be amusing if it were not
so pathetic and disheartening to see these modern defenders
Of the faith beating their gongs and firing their giant crack-
ers against the ramparts Of science.
Henry F. Osborn, president Of the American Museum Of
Natural History, was another scientist who questioned the scholar-

ship of the fundamentalists. The Earth_§peaks to Bryan and Evolu-

 

tion and Religion in Education were the two volumes he contributed

 

to the verbal battle over science and the Bible. Suggesting that
the Bible itself supports the spiritual and moral evolution of man,
he asserted: "Evolution by no means takes God out Of the universe,
as Mr. Bryan supposes, but it greatly increases both the wonder,
the mystery, and the marvelous order which we call 'natural law,'
pervading all nature."58 Reviewing for readers of the New York
Times the Foxhall, Piltdown, Heidelberg, Neanderthal, and Cro-
Magnon fossil discoveries, Osborn concluded:

It is a dramatic circumstance that Darwin had within his

reach the head of the Neanderthal man without realizing that

it constituted the "missing link" between man and the lower

order Of creation. All this evidence is today within reach

of every schoolboy. It is at the service Of Mr. Bryan.59

For the fundamentalist cause, on the other hand, the doctrine

of evolution quickly became a giant in the land which threatened

faith in the Bible, the Church, the whole of the Christian system.

 

 

90

It seemed obvious that the theories of verbal inspiration and evo-
lution could not exist side by side. Evolution not only cut to
ribbons the first chapters Of Genesis, but equally contradicted the
whole of Christ's substitutionary atonement which is built upon
man's fall and need for redemption. The conservatives maintained
that the Bible was structured around the doctrine Of sin inherent
in the account of the fall Of Adam and Eve. If sin were only the
remains of the ape in man, then it was not only less serious, but
man was less guilty. TO the fundamentalist, man's need of salvation
by a divine redeemer was challenged; the very life Of the Christian
religion was at stake. Admitting that God could have used evolu-
tion as the tool of creation had He so elected, they replied that
the Bible distinctly teachers that man did not evolve from lower
species but was created by special design. Theistic evolution was
blamed for the Godlessness which prevailed in intellectual circles.
Charging that as materialists most evolutionists were admitted
atheists or agnostics, William Jennings Bryan said of those claim-
ing to be theistic evolutionists:

Some call themselves "theistic evolutionists," but the the-

istic evolutionist puts God so far away that he ceases to

be a present influence in the life. . . . This is a living

world. Why not a living God upon the throne? Why not allow

Him to work now? . . . The real question is, Did God use

evolution as His plan? If it could be shown that man, instead

of being made in the image of God, is a development of beasts,

we would have to accept it, regardless of its effect, for

truth is truth and must prevail. But when there is no proof

we have a right to consider the effect of the acceptance of

an unsupported hypothesis.50

The persistent and stubborn fundamentalists introduced into

the legislatures of nearly half the states of the union, bills

 

91

designed to forbid the teaching of evolution. While in Texas,
Louisiana, Arkansas and South Carolina they pushed such bills
through one house only to fail in the other, in Tennessee, Florida,

6] But

and Mississippi their injunctions were written into law.
the intensity of feeling was perhaps best attested by the numerous
leagues which sprang up with a view to eliminating the theory from
America. In 1923, William B. Riley instituted the Anti-Evolution
League of Minnesota, which a year later became the Anti-Evolution
League of America. J. W. Porter, a Kentucky minister, was the
first president of the national organization, and geologist George
M. Price, advertised as one of the greatest living scientists, was
its prominent spokesman. A second organization, the Bryan Bible
League, was almost singlehandedly the work of Paul W. Rood of
Turlock, California. Rood testified: "In the year that Bryan died,

I saw also the Lord."62

Harry Rimmer of Los Angeles, who had been

a science student for a number of years, became a Christian in 1920
and immediately set out to reconcile the facts of science with the
teachings of the Bible. In 1921, he and fifty other men established
still another league, the Research Science Bureau, "the only scien-
tific association in existence whose Charter specifically states
that it is a corporation that is set for the scientific defense of
the Word of God."63 Cole was of the opinion that Rimmer's efforts
against evolution consisted of nothing more than pseudo-science.

In 1927, Rimmer joined forces with the Defenders of the Christian

Faith, an organization headed by the popular lecturer Gerald 8. Win-

rod of Kansas. It was Winrod who characterized Harry Emerson

 

92

Fosdick as the one who looked for the genesis of man in a speck of
jelly. The Bible Crusaders of America was the Anti-Evolution League
headed by the wealthy Florida capitalist George F. Washburn. He
urged faithful churchmen to compel legislators in every state to
enact anti-evolution laws, or to replace them with men who would

do so. Washburn also offered five hundred dollars to any "Agnostic,
Modenistict,Evolutionist, or Atheist of equal prominence,‘I who
would meet Riley, John R. Straton, or J. Frank Norris in public

debate.64

Two thousand dollars was offered to any opponent willing
to enter into a series of six debates. Edward Y. Clark was the
founder of the Supreme Kingdom, a secret anti-evolution society
patterned after the Klu Klux Klan. The show-window of the leagues
headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, featured a gorilla shackled in
chains.

Ultimately, the fundamentalists came to center their Oppo-
sition in the charge that evolution, at its best, was but an unproved
hypothesis. They frequently pointed to such scientific admissions
of incomplete evidence as William Bateson's 1921 address to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science in Toronto,
Canada. Theologian Gerald Birney Smith rebutted that Bateson's
message but "shows how far removed is his attitude of scientific
honesty from the dogmatic attitude of the anti-evolutionists."65
Bryan, however, continued to emphasize that "the word 'hypothesis,‘

though euphonious, dignified, and high sounding, is merely a scien-

tific synonym for the old-fashioned word 'guess.'" Asserting that

 

93

the proponents of theistic evolution reduce the Bible to a "scrap of
paper“ he called upon all Christians everywhere to arise and "pro-
tect religion from its most insidious enemy."66

The speakers on the program of the North American Christian
Convention were among those who rose to meet the enemy's challenge.
Although the evolutionary hypothesis was not a major issue within
the Convention, from 1927 to 1977 more than a dozen speakers dis-
cussed the problems posed by the teaching. An analysis of their
addresses reveals a united attitude toward the theory of evolution,
theistic or otherwise--absolute rejection.

From the very first, the Convention speakers were unable
to envisage any level of harmony betewwn the evolutionary hypothesis
and the teachings of the Bible. In the early programs the methods
of refutation, resembling those used by the nationally prominent
conservatives, ranged from righteous indignation to heated, bitter
and abusive language. While some speakers dwelt on the frailties
of science in general, others attempted to discredit the evolution-
ary hypothesis by criticizing its various facets. In 1927, Glenn
G. Cole reminded his listeners that, "The list of scientists who
have tired Of the assumptions of the unprovable theory [had] swollen
to large numbers." Cole cited a number of anti-evolution books
written by "some of the best scientists" expressing themselves in
"clear-cut statements as to the false claims of the theory."67

L. A. Chapman continued the attack on evolution in his

1928 message, "Whence Came Man?":

 

1_fi—“"

94

. . in the name of scientific truth, we must affirm that

there is no shred Of trustworthy evidence that there has been

any transmutation of species from one type to another. The

findings of the best scientists in the world do not support

the theory of the origin Of species by natural selection. . . .

When it is said that a man had an ape for his grandfather, we

are talking nonsense if we are talking by the principles of

sane reason. . . Evolution cannot account for the beginning

of life on this planet, for the facts of consciousness, nor

for moral freedom and personality. It confesses that it is

.helpless here, and this is a crucial point.68

In J. B. Briney's 1928 Convention address the "law of

reversion" was used to refute the theory of evolution. Briney sug-
gested that facts and experiments show that nature, instead of
"lifting itself by its own bootstrap from lowerix>higher plans of
life," struggles, when diverted from its normal Courses, to get
‘back to primordial conditions, or stubbornly refused to continue in
the direction into which it was diverted. "We have a conspicuous
example . . . in the case of the mule," said Briney. "This animal
is a cross between the horse and donkey, and cannot take another
step, being sterile." Dealing more specifically with Darwinism,
Briney also discussed and discounted the Pithecanthropus, Heidel-
burg, Piltdown, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Talgai fossil specimens
as possible "missing links" from lower to higher life forms. He
concluded the address with the firm declaration that, "There is
absolutely no proof that a lower species ever produced a higher
1 species, or any Species different from itself. Such a phenomenon
1 never had any existence except in the fertile brain of an evolu—
tionist."69

The most thorough analysis of the Darwinian theory was John

 

 

 

Ralls' 1964 speech, "Creation Versus Evolution." His crucial point,

 

 

 

95

in agreement with all of the Speakers preceding him, was that the
.evolutionary theory is but a theory with no evidence in its support.
Ralls declared:

So little has science substantiated the claim of chance and
accidental formation and development of life that the scien-
tist, Loren Eiseley, calls the evolutionary theory a myth.

He confesses that, in order to avoid embarrassment, science
felt impelled "to create a mythology of its own: namely, the
assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved
to take place today had in truth taken place in the primeval
past" (The Immense Journey, p. 144).

 

Contrary to popularly accepted brash assertions that all came
by accident not only is there no supporting evidence, as
Eiseley admits, but Professor Conklin, biologist at Princeton
University, speaking of probability of life originating from
accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged
Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."70

The words of all the Convention speakers were strikingly
reminiscent of William Jennings Bryan's stated position:

Christianity has nothing to fear from any truth; no fact
distrubs the Christian religion or the Christian. It is
the unsupported guess that is substituted for science to
which opposition is made, and I think the objection is a
valid one.

Inherent within all the speeches on evolution presented at
the North American Christian Convention was a deep concern for the
<consequences of such a doctrine in the lives of people. In his
1965 address, James S. NcKowen voiced the sentiment of the Convention
audience when he warned of the "giant" that seeks to destroy us:

He rears his ugly head in many schools in the teaching of a
godless system of the origin of man. Now we are not arguing
against the scientist who believes that evidence overwhelmingly
supports an orderly biological development of man. We are
protesting against any theory of origin that makes man's

nature only that of an animal, but with a more usable body and
a keener mind.

 

 

96

Today's great revolution is called spuriously, "The New Moral-
ity." It is not new--it is a tried way, and has been found
wanting in every decadent society known to man. It is as old-
fashioned as the Garden of Eden and everlastingly fatal for
anyone to forget that he is a child of God--stamped with God's
image, and destined to work out God's purposes.

This giant puts pressure on you from every side to act like
an animal. Your instincts are natural; express them, he
demands. He has an entire repertoire of songs, books, and
movies which plead with you to let yourself go and enjoy
life. Always enjoyment is linked with surrender to physical
urges.

Of course, when we live like an animal we must die like an

animal; without hope ang without God, cast, as Tennyson says,
as rubbish to the void. 2

Science and the Bible

 

Even among the fundamentalists, the prestige of science dur-
ing the first three decades of the twentieth century was colossal.
Kenneth Scott Latourette points out that additions to the knowledge
and mastery of the physical environment contributed to great and

73 Under the deluge of

transforming changes in the life of mankind.
new machines and the dictums of Albert Einstein, the man in the
street and the woman in the kitchen were ready to believe that
science could accomplish almost anything. Harry Emerson Fosdick
well stated the effect of the prestige of science upon churchmen:

When a prominent scientist: comes. out strongly for religion,

all the churches thank Heaven and take courage as though it

were the highest possible compliment to God to have Eddington

believe in Him. 4

In the interest of survival, the fundamentalists had seen no

alternative but to attack the evolutionary hypothesis. They did
not, however feel disposed to take on the whole scientific spirit

of the age. To fight evolution had been risky, but essential; to

 

T—-——%

97

fight science would have been suicidal. In searching for a solution

to their dilemma, the conservatives were reminded that evolution had

 

been disposed of on the grounds that it was an unproven theory.

They concluded therefore, that the Christian faith could accommodate
the verified findings of science. Gatewood observed, "Fundamental-
ists, no less than modernists, recognized that they lived in an

age of science; in fact, the aim of their struggle was to achieve
75

 

religious certitude in an age of science."

It is certainly true that while the North American Christian

 

Convention speakers unanimously rejected the theory of evolution as
unproven and inferior to the Genesis record, their attitudes toward
scientific knowledge in general were favorable. The addresses which
treated the science-religion controversy suggested attempts to recon-
ciliation. Generally, the messages sought to harmonize proven
scientific facts with the teachings of the Bible, to demonstrate

the compatibility of science and religion.

In 1928, Arthur Holmes, a professor of psychology at the
University of Pennsylvania, was the first Convention Speaker to
affirm unwaveringly, "There is no conflict between religion and
science when science is properly defined:"

How can this profound and dangerous issue be ameliorated or
removed? It cannot be accomplished by eliminating religion.
That is man's oldest and best grounded discipline. Nor by the
denial of science. Its triumphs have been too brilliant to
deny, and its benefits too valuable to be rejected. These two
antagonists must find a common ground upon which they can live,
and can both serve mankind with fidelity to their principles
and value to their constituents. . . . Against practical
science religion has no objection unless it is misused to

manufacture weapons to slay human beings. The real battle-
ground, therefore 1ies between theology and pure science, or

 

 

98

the attempt to build by observation and induction an organized

system of all possible knowledge, made up of theories and

laws designed to guide human thinking and human conduct.76

Thirty-six years later, John Ralls, a professor at Lincoln

Christian College echoed Holmes' 1928 affirmation. He asserted that
science had been the benefactor of mankind in medicine, in animal
husbandry and agriculture, in entertainment and in comfort and con-
veniences. "Now some would use this popularity and prestige of
science as a mask," Ralls concluded, "for propagating a theory that
is not substantiated by fact, in order to spread a denial of God
and rejection of Christ--in short, to further a materialistic phil-

osophy, an atheistic religion."77

The Higher Criticism

 

In the eyes of the fundamentalist groups, not only did the
Darwinian hypothesis imperil the foundations of faith in the God of
the Bible, but its companion, the higher criticism, represented an
equally treacherous threat to the infallibility Of the Bible. Stem-
ming from the application of scientific methods to the study of
history, the higher criticism subjected the Bible to rigorous
historical analysis. Imported from German university centers, higher
criticism was the use of accepted methods Of historical investiga-
tion to answer certain questions about the Scriptures:

Who wrote them? Are the documents, as we have them, genuine
compositions of the authors who were supposed to have written
them? Has material been added? Have they been altered? What
were the historic circumstances under which they have been

written? 00 the writings show reflections of those circum-
stances?78

 

 

99

Biblical scholars, known as higher critics, sought to dis-
cover the original purpose and distinctive message of each book of
the Bible, actual authorship, approximate date of writing, and
other pertinent facts to Show the relevance of each book to its

time. They proceeded on the assumption that the Hebrew religion

79

developed from primitive to more advanced ethical concepts. The

higher critics insisted that the Scriptures were human documents

containing the errors one might expect to find in such a monumental

80

literary production. By 1924, Shailer Matthews could render the

following summary of the work of the critics:

. there is practical unanimity in the belief that the
Pentateuch and many other Old Testament writings are com-
binations of much older material; that the Biblical material
has been subjected to successive editings; that many of the
Old Testament writings are centuries younger than the events
they record; and that several of the New Testament books did
not spring from apostolic sources in the sense that they
were written by the apostles themselves. . . . At the end of
thirty years of widespread critical and historical study of
the Scriptures it would seem as if ministers, at least, would
know these conclusions. The fact that the rank and file of
ministers are not only unacquainted with a scientific study of
the Bible, but are ignorant of some of the more elementary
facts concerning the geriptures is a commentary on the working
of the dogmatic mind.

Without concurring with Matthews' conclusions regarding the
historical method, the Convention speakers would have agreed, that
for the most part, the Convention audiences did not consider the
problem of higher criticism to really be a problem. "While it is
not easy to over-emphasize the importance of the issues raised by
modern science," wrote WilliamIL Brown in 1922, "it is well to

remember that the number of persons directly and consciously affected

 

 

100

by them is less than we are apt to suppose. . . ."82

At any rate,
whether for lack of information cw‘ in deference to the greater needs
of the audience, many Convention speakers either avoided the issue
altogether or bypassed it. It should be remembered that the higher
criticism created its greatest turbulence around the turn of the
century and by 1927 was beginning to subside.83 Modernists viewed
this lull in the struggle as a clear indication that the fight for
scientific technique and its accompanying spiritual freedom had been
won. They maintained that the historical method was finally coming
of age. Speaking of the established position of higher criticism,
E. F. Scott of Union Theological Seminary wrote in 1921: "We know
at last what our religion is based on; faith has found a real start-

ing point."84

The conservatives, however, were inclined to assign
to the lull a note of surrender and admission of error on the part

of the liberals. John L. Campbell in his book, The Bible Under

 

Fire, declared:

The tide has turned. In the realm of scholarship the battle
against Higher Criticism has been fought and won. The haughty
boast of Scientific Methods and assured results no more occa-
sion an 5alarm. . . . An abler scholarship has pricked the
bubble.

Campbell's comments were similar to those of J. B. Briney
at the 1928 Convention in Kansas City, Missouri:

The "positive and arrogant" claims of "higher critics" have
been so often and so thoroughly discredited, that it is
somewhat marvelous that they can hold up their heads and look
an intelligent public fully in the face while exploiting
their theories at the present time. Indeed, the leaders

of thought along this line are not as "positive and arrogant"
in presenting their claims, as they once were, although the
"small fry," who adopt ideas at second or third hand, and

 

 

 

101

seem to think it smart to masquerade in the cast-off duds of
an antiquated German "kultur," are still making considerable
noise by rattling the dry bones that are to be found in the
limbo of critical fads.

It may not be amiss to occasionally bring out before the
public some Of the ghosts of departed critical theories,
that intelligent people may see their ungainliness, and
appreciate their harmlessness.85
It is apparent that both modernists and convervatives were
claiming victory, but whether the peace was more due to a truce than
a settlement is perhaps not certain.87
It is possible to conclude that by 1927 the opposing posi-
tions had become so fixed and the gulf between them so great that
any meaningful dialogue was virtually impossible. Strife within
certain large religious groups or denominations was rampant during
the 1920's, especially in the North among the Baptists, Presbyter-
ians, and Disciples Of Christ. Louis Gasper inaccurately asserts:
"By 1929 the Disciples of Christ . . . discovered a formula to

n88

settle its differences without division. . . . However, Sydney

Ahlstrom's more accurate scholarship reveals:
As the possibility of halting or reversing these several trends
["1iberal theology and biblical criticism"] diminished, the
conservatives took the important step in 1927 of organizing
the North American Christian Convention. NO formal separation
took place, but two quite distinct fellowships arose and the
denomination's leading historian would subsequently speak of
the conservatives as constituting a second group. . . .39
Although the turbulence created by higher criticism had been
felt years earlier by theology in general, its impact was just begin-
ning in many conservative camps by the time the North American Chris-

tian Convention was being founded. It is therefore not surprising

 

‘T‘f:______________________________________________________"""""""""'"""""""""""II

102

that the chief spokesmen for a movement which had been founded upon

 

the inerrancy of the Scriptures should react sharply against such
criticism of the Bible. In the 1927 address that inaugurated the
Convention, Wallace Tharp gave the orthodox answer to higher criti-
cism:

At once I canzhear multitudes of good peple saying: "We
will never have anything to do with the higher criticism."
But if they will just stop and take a sober second thought,
they may discover that the higher criticism is a legitimate
branch of human knowledge. Practically all of the ancient
literature of the world has come down to us in its present
form through the labor of the lower and the higher critics.
Think of the sifting of all this ancient literature, discover—
ing the manuscripts, securing a pure text and a definite
history of each ancient book, its compilation, discovering
its author and his whereabouts. . . . In its purity, then,
it is to be noted, the higher criticism of the Old Testament
is simply an honest investigation of the facts about the
historical revelation of God to determine, just as in a
truly scientific study of nature, how God actually did pro-
ceed, not how he must have proceeded. We have then, no
fight to make against criticism properly and legitimately
conducted. Our fight is against the destructive criticism
of the rationalistic school. Higher criticism has been
perverted from its proper, natural and intended purpose of
assisting earnest believers in investigating and studying
the Bible, and has been prostituted to savage, destructive
attacks upon the Bible and the supernatural Sharacter of the
Holy Scriptures by unbelievers and infidels. 0

 

Tharp's address was typical of other Convention messages
that treated higher criticism. Two dominant themes were repeatedly
discussed. First, there was a willingness to accept the concept of
criticism; the speakers having confidence that the Bible would be
uninjured by the close scrutiny of historical analysis. Concurrent
with this respect for the technique of criticism, there was a firm
rejection of many conclusions which the “rationalistic school" of
higher critics ultimately reached. In his 1927 address, Claude C.

Taylor, noting that higher criticism was championed by the advocates

 

 

103

of religious modernisn, offered vociferously a definition in answer
to the question, "What is a modernist?":

. . . he uses science to test the values of inherited ortho-

doxy, and, of course, he includes the theory of evolution

as science. He uses historical and literary criticism,

which includes much of German rationalism, for the same pur-

pose. The common ground of these two instruments which

modernists use is to explain everything by natural law;

there is no miracle.

. . . If miracles are rejected, as they are usually by

those who accept the theory of evolution and the results

of destructive criticism, there is no possibility of holding

Christ to be anything more than man. Hence we see modernists

at one in their thought of Christ with atheists, ethicists,

agnostics, materialists and Unitarians.91
While Taylor was outspoken in his attitude toward modernists, he
demonstrated a friendly attitude toward "legitimate" higher criti-
cism:

Higher criticism is a legitimate study and helpful, if friendly,

to an understanding of the Bible. But the fact is that

modernists have accepted the conclusions of that branch Of

criticism, which many have chosen to call destructive, because

it destroys faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures and,

therefore, causes skepticism as to their authenticity.92

In 1974, Leroy Garrett approached the problem of Biblical

criticism from a historical perspective. With reference to the
founders of the Restoration Movement and Alexander Campbell in
particular, the speaker thought it appropriate to ask, "To what
extent are our views of Biblical criticism consistent with theirs?"
Garrett observed that even though Campbell lived before the dawn Of
modern scientific biblical criticism, his own grammatico-
historical approach to the scriptures was well in advance of his

time:

 

 

 

104

He had no fear of an honest, vigorous examination of the
Bible in its historical and cultural setting. He laid

down principles of interpretation that alarmed the clergy,
such as: "the same philological principles, deduced from
the nature of language, or the same laws of interpretation
which are applied to the language of other books, are to

be applied to the language of the Bible" (Christian Systems,
p. 4). . . . Nor was Campbell alarmed by a possible error
here and there in scriptures. Asked in the Campbell-Owen
debate about the reference to Jeremiah in Matt. 27:9
instead of Zechariah, he explained that a writer could
easily make such a mistake since the Old Testament was
divided in a different way then; but even if it be an error
it in no wise affects the credibility of Matthew's testimony
concerning Jesus, he insisted.93

 

Paul K. McAlister echoed the thought and sentiment of
Alexander Campbell in his 1977 address, "Inspiration, Written Word,
and Truth." He contended that the statement, "the Bible is true"
could maintain cognitive status only if it conformed to truth cri-
teria that would confirm or disconfirm any cognitively significant
claim.

It would seem imperative that the phenomena of scripture
should speak for itself and that it be judged true or

false on the same basis that one would judge any cognitively
significant document.

Such tests as internal consistency or external corroboration
as well as the manuscript or biblical tests must be consid-
ered relevant. To reject propositional revelation by pre-
supposition or to reject propositional revelation by means
of creating a special "faith-truth" both lead to a vacuous
concept of revelation.9

In response to the alleged contradictions and discrepancies
of the Bible which were often emphasized by the higher critics,
McAlister declared: "Are we not most reverent if we say that many
of the matters that detractors of the sacred scriptures have
decried as error are accidental to the divine revelation and do not

affect its substance?" He concluded:

 

105

What may be considered an error may be nothing more than the
fact that our standards of exactness were unimportant to a
Biblical author rounding off a number or with regard to the
nature of geneologies. This kind of example leads one to
believe that what needs to be accomplished is the renewed
commitment hermeneutically to allow the authors to define
their own purpose of writing. Their purpose will act as a
guide so that we do not read into a given context something
the author was unconcerned about.96

In a similar vein, Leroy Garrett, in his 1974 address,
asserted that divine revelation had come to us through "earthen
vessels" and consequently bore the mark of human imperfections.

Garrett added:

I agree with the likes Of T. H. Horne and Wescott & Hort
that the inerrancy of scripture means that there is no
substantial error in the Bible. There is no imperfection
that materially affects its message or its great teachings.
Witnesses to any event do not have to agree in every par-
ticular for their testimony to be valid. Indeed, it is the
variations that indicate that there has been no collusion.97

Studying the Bible
Langdon Gilkey offered the following Observation of American
church life in 1963:
Our churches are, to be sure, full, respected, loved, and
supported by staggering donations of human time, energy, and
money. Their membership, their physical plant, and their
activities increase yearly. . . . The Bible is seldom read
and its contents are virtually unknown--though it is in theory
greatly revered.98
Similar observations on the part of speakers at the North
American Christian Convention prompted them to discuss the need
and methods for Bible study. Addresses in this category ranged

from hints On how to do an exegesis to suggestions on which versions

to use.

 

 

 

106

Numerous speakers made mention of the rules for studying
the Bible. "Study the passage, keeping in mind to whom it was

written, who is writing, for what purpose, and under what circum-

"99

stances. In addition, Convention audiences were frequently

reminded to study a text within its context, study every passage
in the Bible that relates to a given subject, and approach the

study with an honest and open heart "rightly dividing the Word Of

truth."100

With reference to methology in the study of the Bible, Leroy
Garrett returned to the counsel of Alexander Campbell:

Influenced as he was by Francis Bacon and John Locke, Campbell
insisted that the student must approach the scriptures induc-
tively rather than deductively. He believed in the kind of
free inquiry that was void of all presuppositions in approach-
ing the biblical text. The "textuary divines," as he called
them in his more ungracious moments, have their premises
already in hand, and so they proceed to find those texts

that will justify their conclusions. He laid down a standard
for biblical study that hardly anyone could be expected

to follow perfectly, including himself: "I have endeavored to
read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me;
and I am as much on my guard against reading them today,
through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago,
as I am against bein influence dy any foreign name, authority,
or systenr whatever” (Christian Baptist, 1826, p. 201).101

The concluding remarks of Paul K. McAlister's 1977 address
are appropriate:

Often liberals and conservatives are "poles apart in agree-
ment." The liberals have considered revelation as subjec-
tivity. And too often because of the lack of serious content,
conservative preaching and witness puts the faith at the same
level of subjectivity by claiming that, or acting as though,
faith equals emotion.

We must be pressed into a serious question of hermeneutics
--tO let the text speak for itself. We must be set for the
defense of scripture as the true word of God. The Bible is
not a special kind of truth, it is simply "true." If the

 

107

propositions are not true in the context Of the author's
intent, we have no sure word. We have much at stake in the
reliability of the scriBture, "they have been written that
we might all believe."1 2

Summary

To the Convention speakers, Christianity was the religion of
the Bible, the religion of a fixed and finished book of Scripture.
The Restoration Movement had been established upon the authority of
the Bible. By 1927, they had become the church's lifeline and vital
support. The speakers believed that specially selected men had
come under the influence of the Holy Spirit and recorded the final
and infallible will of God in the Bible.

The early speakers were generally agreed that the Bible was
absolutely or verbally inspired; that God guided the writers both
in their thought and in the selection of their words. A few speak-
ers, however, perhaps conscious of the imposing conclusions of the
higher critics, suggested that the writers enjoyed the latitude of
individual or personal expression in the recording of their accounts.
While agreeing with the idea that God inspired and protected the
message of the original autographs, a few recent speakers proposed
that transmission or copyset flaws of several varieties had entered
the text since the original canon was completed. Perhaps it would
be accurate to conclude that the majority of the latter Speakers
favored a modified verbal theory, as applied only to the original
autographs. That is, while believing that the Holy Spirit influ-

enced the very wording Of the Scriptures, they were nonetheless

 

 

108

repelled by the mechanical or dictation concepts of the strict
verbal view. On the other hand, while believing that each writer
was free to color his account with his own style, personality, and
background, they were vigorously suspicious of a theory which did
not involve God in the actual selection of the language. It can
also be concluded that the various shades of differences in the
speaker's Opinions found a common denominator in the doctrine of
Biblical infallibility.

To the Convention speakers, the Christian faith and the
theory of evolution were mutually exclusive. They, with one accord,
were unable to tolerate any measure of compatibility between the
implications of Darwinism, and the concept of an infallible Bible.

While the speakers unanimously rejected the evolutionary
hypothesis as unproven and inferior to the Biblical account of
creation, their attitudes toward scientific knowledge in general
were favorable. Generally, the Convention speakers sought to
harmonize proven scientific facts with the teachings of the Bible
in an effort to demonstrate the positive compatibility between the
two.

Though reacting vigorously against the accusations of the
"rationalistic School" of "destructive critics," the speakers none-
theless encouraged a favorable disposition towards historical analy-
sis and critical investigation. They challenged the widespread
conclusions of the higher critics as being unsound, but at the same

time applied to their own study of the Bible many of the valuable

 

109

tools and techniques of their opponents. The speakers rejected

the findings of the rationalistic higher critics as being motivated
by the unproven theory of evolution, as being shaped by prejudiced

and presupposed disdain for the supernatural, and as being nurtured
on the false notion that the Bible is replete with inconsistencies

and contradictions.

Finally, the Observation that legitimate Bible study had
begun to decline in recent years led several speakers to remind
their audiences of the need and methods for Bible study. Emphasis
was given to the inductive method and "commitment to serious

exegesis" was demanded.103

CHAPTER IV

FOOTNOTES

1C. C. Taylor, "The Manace of Modernism," Christian Stan-
dard (November 19, 1927): 1.

2William A. Brown, The Church in America (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1922), p. 142.

3wi11iston Walker, A History_of the Christian Church (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959), p. 517.

4Stewart G. Cole, History of Fundamentalism (New York:
Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931), p. 31.

 

 

 

 

5Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xiv.

6
7

 

Ibid.
Ibid., p. 243.

8Cole, History of Fundamentalism, p. 233.

 

9Ralph H. Gabriel, Christianity and Modern Thought (New
Haven: Yale University Pressj—1924), p. v.

10Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History Of the American
People (New Haven: Yale UniversityTPress, 1972), p. 772.

1]Washington Gladden, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York:
Houghton Mifflin CO., 1891), pp. 380-381.

 

 

 

12Taylor, "The Meance of Modernism," p. 1. Taylor was a
professor in the College of the Bible at Phillips University, Enid,
Oklahoma.

13E. C. Vanderlaan, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (New
York: H. W. Wilson CO., 1925), p. 21.

14

 

Christian Work (May 31, 1924): 702.

 

110

 

111

15"The Fundamentals," Forum (July, 1923): 1556-

16William Newton Clarke, Sirry Years With the Bible
(New York: Scribner and Sons, 1917), p. 133.

17

 

Christian Century, (April 3, 1924): 424.

 

18Robert A. Ashworth, "Modernism and Christian Assurance,"
Christian Work (March 1, 1924): 269.

19Shailer Matthews, The Faith of Modernism (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1924), p. 48.

 

 

20George Bedell, et al., Religion in America (New York:
Macmillan Publishing CO., 1975), p. 222.

2IJ. H. Stambaugh, "Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem,"
Christian Standard (November 12, 1927): 5.

22Paul R. McReynolds, "The Biblical Nature of Inspiration,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

23

 

 

 

Ibid.

24James M. Gray, The Fundamentals, III, p. 17, as quoted by
Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, p. 205.

 

 

25Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (Grand
Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1928), p. 69.

26Leroy J. Garrett, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and
the Restoration Movement," Theological Forum: North American Chris-
tain Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

27Richard Phillips, “The Christian Student and the Intellect-
ual Revolution'I (mimeographed: NACC), 1966.

 

 

28Thomas Hagger, "The Book We Should Read," Christian Stan-
dard (November 19, 1927): 5.

29Thomas J. McCrossan, The Bible: Its Christ and Modernism
(New York: Christian Alliance PublishingTCo., 1925), p. 5.

30Durant Drake, Problems of Religion: An Introductory
Survey (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916), p. 272.

3"Henrietta Heron, “Pentecost Preparation Power," Christian
Standard (November 23, 1929): 7.

112

32L. H. Apple, “Preaching the Word of God," Christian
Standard (September 5, 1964): 3.

33James G. VanBuren, "God's Word Lives," Christian Standard
(August 2, 1958): 7.

34

 

Christian Century (April 3, 1924): 424.

 

35J. E. de Gafferelly, "The Bible, the Word of God," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington,
Kentucky, 18 June 1931 (manuscript).

36Ernest Hunter Wray, "Faithful Until Death," address deliv-
ered at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky,
19 June 1931 (manuscript).

37C. C. Taylor, "The Menace of Modernism," Christian Stan-
dard (November 19, 1927): 1.

38Harry Emerson Fosdick, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?"
as quoted in Ernest Wrage and Barnet Baskerville, Contemporary
Forum (New York: Harper and Row, 1943), pp. 97ff.

39Gerald Birney Smith, A Guide to the Study of the Christian
Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916), p. 555.

40Fosdick, “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?“ Contemporary
Forums Po 99.

4lBenjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of
the Bible (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and ReformedTPublishing
CO., 1948), p. 173.

423. Gresham Machen, "Christianity Vs. Modern Liberalism"
as quoted in Ernest Wrage and Barnet Baskerville, Contemporary
Forum (New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. 127.

43George Johnson, The Princeton Theological Review, article,
1914, p. 461.

 

 

 

 

 

 

44C. C. Taylor, "The Menace of Modernism,“ Christian Stan-
dard (November 19, 1927): 4.

451pid.

45

Basil Holt, "The Inspiration of the Scriptures," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Springfield,
Illinois, 22 June 1933 (manuscript).

 

113

47Leroy J. Garrett, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and
the Restoration Movement," Theolggical Forum: North American
Christian Convention , 1974-1977 (mimeographedjiNACC), 1977.

48

49Paul R. McReynolds, "The Biblical Nature of Inspiration,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

 

Ibid.

50Ibid.

5'Ibid.

52Ibid.

53Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement (Paris: Mouton
and CO., 1963), p. 18.

54Richard HOfstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought,
)860-1915 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), p. 14. The chapter entitled
"The Coming of Darwinism," recounts in detail the reception of evolu-
tion in America by scientists and theologians.

55Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 771.

56

 

 

 

New York Times, March 12, 1922.

 

57New York Times, March 5, 1922.

 

58Henry F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education
(New York: Charles Scribner‘s SOns, 1926), pp. 34-352

 

59New York Times, March 5, 1922.

 

60New York Times, February 26, 1922.

6Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed., Controversy in the Twenties
(Nashville: Vanderbuilt University Press, 1969), p. 287.

62Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York:
Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931), p. 262.

63

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 264.

64Ibid., p. 272.

65eerTad B. Smith, Journal of Religion, May 1922.

 

66New York Times, February 26, 1922.

 

 

114

67Glenn G. Cole, "The Present Status of Evolution," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 14 October 1927 (manuscript). Cole cited the following
anti-evolution books: The Case AgainSt Evolution by George Barry
O'Toole, Ph.D.; The Dogma OTTEVOTUtion By Louis T. Moore, Ph.D.;
Faith and Knowledge_Ey—Edmund Hoppe, Ph.D.; The Problem of Origins
by L. STTKeyser; he Logic of Evolution by ChaFles B. MCMuTlen,
Ph.D.; and The New GeOTOgy by Price.

68L. A. Chapman, "Whence Came Man?" address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Kansas City, Missour,
11 October 1928 (manuscript).

69J. B. Briney, "The Theory of Evolution Examined," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Kansas City,
Missouri, 11 October 1928 (manuscript).

70John Ralls, "Creation Versus Evolution," Christian Standard
(January 23, 1965): 7.

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York Times, February 26, 1922.

 

72James S. McKowen, "How to Kill a Giant," Christian Standard
(September 11, 1965): 3.

73Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianiry
(New York: Harper and Row Co., 1953), p. 1064.

74Frederick L. Allen, Only Yesterday_(New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1931), p. 199.

 

 

75Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., Controversy in the Twenties
(Nashville: Vanderbuilt University P?ess,’1969), pTTTSO.

 

76Arthur Holmes, "Passion and Precision in Preaching Christ,"
Christian Standard (November 19, 1928): 3.

77John Ralls, "Creation Versus Evolution," Christian Stan-
dard (January 16, 1965): 4.

78Dores R. Sharpe, Walter Rauschenbusch (New York: Macmillan
Company, 1942), p. 6.

79Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement (Paris: Mouton
and Co., 1963), p. 8.

80Washington Gladden, Recollections (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1909). p. 259.

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

8'Shaiier Matthews, The Faith of Modernism (New York: Mac-
millan Co., 1924), p. 42.

82William A. Brown, The Church in America (New York:
Macmillan Co., 1922), p. 140.

83Between 1882 and 1925 the Christian Standard carried 480
articles denouncing the claims of "destructive higher criticism."
From 1927 to 1976 only six such articles appeared; a clear indica-
tion that by the time of the inaugural Convention in 1927 the
struggle with the higher critics was on the decline.

84E. F. Scott, The New Testament Today_(New York: Macmillan
CO., 1921), p. 87.

 

 

 

 

85John L. Campbell, The Bible Under Fire (New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1929), p. 105.

86J. B. Briney, "The Authority of the Bible," address deliv-
ered at the North American Christian Convention, Kansas City,
Missouri, 13 October 1928 (manuscript).

87William E. Hocking, Science and the Idea of God (Chapel
Hill: The University of North CaFOlTna Press, 1944), pp. 3-26.
See the chapter entitled, "Science and Religion Today: A Truce
or a Settlement."

88Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement (Paris: Mouton
and Co., 1963), p. 15.

 

 

 

89Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 914. Ahlstrom
cites Alfred T. DeGroot as "the denomination's leading historian."

90Wallace Tharp, "The Deity of Jesus," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,
12 October 1927 (manuscript).

9IClaude C. Taylor, "The Meance of Modernism," Christian
Standard (November 19, 1927): 3.

92

 

Ibid., p. 4.

93Leroy Garrett, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and the
Restoration Movement," Theological Forum: North American Christian
Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

 

94Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

 

116

95Ibid.

96Ibid.

97Leroy Garrett, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and the
Restoration Movement," Theological Forum: North American Christian
Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

98Langdon Gilkey, Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God
Language (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963), pf7104.

99Knofel L. Staton, "Stimulating Adults to Study the Bible,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention
13 July 1973 (manuscript).

100P. H. Welshimer, "Preach the Word," Christian Standard
IOctober 12, 1940): 2.

10lLeroy Garrett, "The Nature of Biblical Authority and the
Restoration Movement," Theological Forum: North American Christian
Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

 

 

102Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC),—T977.

103Ibid.

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD, MAN, AND SALVATION

Introduction

 

Woodrow Wilson, reflecting "a wide Spread and highly tradi-
tional American belief--that most European governments were callous
or corrupt or even sinful," entered the war "to make the world safe

1 Full of

for democracy," but it ended in bitterness and cynicism.
doubts about their role in history, Americans began to doubt them-
selves. Many turned against the historic traditions of generosity,
idealism, and tolerance. Convinced that in them alone reposed
purity and virtue in a world dominated by corruption and evil,
Americans sought to isolate themselves from sin. Church attendance
declined because people could no longer be assured that they were
going to meet God when they went to worship. Science had under-
mined ancient faiths, and new life-styles that emphasized leisure
flouted "tried-and-true" virtues. Tradition-honored ideas of right
and wrong were questioned at the very source of their transcendental
authority, and frequently abandoned. High school students pondered
the accident of genetics that had placed them on an insignificant
satellite spinning aimlessly through one of the countless millions

of galaxies scattered throughout Space. In 1916 James Lenba, a

professor of psychology at Bryn Mawr College, published a shocking

117

 

118

study of college students which showed that young people had suf-
fered a definite loss of faith during their four years of exposure
to modern ideas.2 The unceasing pronouncements of science and
scholarship boldly confronted believers with the if, why, where, and
how of God's existence, while supplying few satisfying answers. To
the list of disintegrating influences of the 1920's, Paul Goodman
and Frank Gatell added these:

Americans were torn between traditional values and new stand-

ards quickly adopted by young people. Now more than ever,

science rather than religion promised to unlock the secrets

of the universe, and with waning faith came moral attitudes

that transformed interpersonal relations. Women seeking

first-class citizenship tried to work out more satisfying

roles in society. The family lost cohesiveness as its

members made greater demands for autonomy that weakened the

authority of the once all-powerful patriarch. And men and

women experimented with new attitudes toward sexuality which

made sensual pleasure an integral part of the pursuit of

happiness, not the Occasion for the growth of guilt com-

plexes.3

One of the basic tenets of Orthodox Christianity which came

under fire during this age of uncertainty was the doctrine of the
Trinity or Godhead. This conceptualization which was formalized in
the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople had been accepted by the
great majority of Christians in all ages, wrote Lewis Stearns, "not
because it was proclaimed by universal councils, but because it
commended itself to the Christian consciousness of the Church as
scriptural and true."4 The essence of the theory which strives to
lay equal emphasis on the unity and trinality of God, can be simply
stated as: God is one; the Father is God; the Son is God; the

Holy Spirit is God; yet the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are

119

eternally distinct. Stearns, whose Present Daerheology was pub-

 

lished in 1898, stated it in greater detail:

God in His essence or nature is indivisibly One. To this one
nature belong the divine attributes, infinity, eternity,
immensity, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, wisdom,
holiness, righteousness, truth, and love. These are not
three Eternals, but only one Eternal. . . . But in the unity
of the Godhead three Eternal distinctions, which are called,
in the technical language of theology: hypostases or persons.

. But the three divine persons possess the same nature,
the one identical essence. They do not divide it, they do
not share it; it is their common nature in the sense that
each possessed the whole in its indivisible unity.5

More than fifty addresses at the North American Christian
Convention were devoted to a discussion of the doctrine of the God-
head or the nature of one of its three personalities. Although
there were a few earlier references to the relationship between the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Convention yielded no definitive
study of the doctrine of the Godhead until Arthur Holmes' 1931
address, "The Personality of God." Early in his message he summed
up the Trinitarian doctrine:

God, as Spirit, has been pleased to give certain self-
revelations of himself to men, the chief of which is the
hypostatical manifestation "sonwise," or in Son, as
affirmed by the writer to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2). To
this should be added, at least, John's explanation that
"no man hath seen God at any time, God's only begotten has
declared him" (John 1:18). Acceptance of these facts of the
manifestation of God, enables one to appreciate more fully
the implications of such terms as “Father," "Son," and
"Holy Spirit," hypostatical references to the one God as
originator, revealer, and administrator of himself and His
relations to humanity, by Son through Spirit.6

Holmes reflected the prevailing attitude of the Convention
speakers toward the unsolved mysteries of the Trinity when in his

conclusion he declared: "Emerson once said, 'When we attempt to

120

define and describe God, both language and thought desert us, and
we are as helpless as fools and savages.‘ It is obvious that only
God can comprehend God. Rather than being scholars about the God-

head, let us be reverent and obedient to the Godhead."7

God, the Father

 

"The Christian churches of America," wrote Anton T. Boisen,
"are agreed in believing that human destiny is under an intelligent
and friendly control that can best be represented by the idea of a
Heavenly Father." It is likely that this basic belief was never
more suspect and subject to greater challenge than during the open-
ing decades of the twentieth century. The course of Christianity
during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, according to
the historian Kenneth Scott Latourette, had been sorely challenged.8
By 1900, the theory of evolution, Biblical criticism, and the Social
Gospel had convincingly asserted that much of the Reformation
orthodoxy was mere myth. In short, the new ideas seemed to many
"to destroy the very foundations of religion, and leave the indi-
vidual forsaken in a Godless world'."0
Paul K. McAlister, in his 1977 treatment of "Inspiration,
Written Word and Truth,“ described a twentieth century God-concept
against which he and his Convention colleagues recoiled in shock.
Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from
a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revelatory
article "Gods." Once upon a time two explores came upon a
clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many
flowers. One explorer says "Some gardener must tend this
plot.“ The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So

they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever
seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they

 

121

set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol
with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Wells' Ipe_
Invisible Man could both be smelt and touched though he
could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some
intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire
ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never
give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But
there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible to
electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no
sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the
garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But
what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what
you call invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener
differ frgm an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener
at all?"

 

Many liberals no longer appeared to God as the designer
and guardian of religion. Religion, it seemed, would continue,
even if God ceased to play any part in religious thinking. "We are
thus brought face to face with the question," wrote Gerald B. Smith,
”whether such a religion needs inevitably to affirm the existence

12 For liberal theolo-

of God. Is theism essential to religion?"
gians or churchmen who did not sense the realitycniGOd, the doctrine
of God was not a rigid religious essential.

Consequently, as brotherhood spokesmen made preparation for
Convention addresses they sensed the challenge to defend the con-

cept of God as revealed in the Bible on two battlefronts; not only

that He existed, but that He existed as a personal, Heavenly Father.

The Existence of God

 

In his article on "Classical Protestantism," Robert M. Brown
suggested a prevailing Protestant attitude toward attempts to prove

the existence of God:

122

. classical Protestantism has by and large taken a dim
view Of attempts to prove the existence of God. Not only
are the proofs usually suspect on grounds of logical or
philosophical analysis, but even if valid their cumulative
effect is no more than to suggest that the evidence points
toward a "Something Somewhere," that appears to have a slightly
better than fifty-fifty chance of existing. This is a far cry
from the outgoing, seeking God of the Bible.13
Convention speaker A. N. Hinrichsen, in his 1954 address,
"The Fact of God," echoed Brown's suspicion. Hinrichsen said: "The
opening sentence of the Bible is dazzling in its majestic daring.
The Bible never argues for the existence of the obvious--God. It
takes for granted this patent truth." He further contended that
evidence for God's existence is abundant in the Bible while argu-
ments for it are not. "Jesus," said Hinrichsen, "never argues con-
cerning God. 'If it were not true, I would have told you!’
expresses His attitude."14
In spite of an announced disdain for "proofs of God," a few
Convention speakers specifically designed their messages to demon—
strate His existence through the use of extra-Biblical lines of
reasoning. The traditional philosophical arguments for the exist-
ence of God provided a basic structure for analyzing the various
"proofs" offered by the brotherhood's leading voices. There are
four principle traditional arguments for the existence of God which
seek to answer affirmatively the question, "Does God exist?" They
are the ontological argument, the cosmological argument. the teleo-
logical, and the moral argument. The first three attempt to answer
the question of God's existence inferentially, by rational demon-

stration. The last is an appeal to the presence and experience of

moral values.

 

123

The ontological argument, based on the "idea“ of the exist-
ence of a perfect Being, claims Anselm and Descartes as its chief
advocates. Assuming the position, "I do not seek to understand so
that I may believe; but I believe so that I may understand. For

. unless I believe, I shall not understand," Anselm declared

‘5 He concluded:

that the existence of God is self-evident.
Even the Fool, then, is forced to agree that something-than-
which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought-exists in the mind, since
he understands this when he hears it, and whatever is under-
stood is in the mind. And surely that-than-which-a-greater-
cannot-be-thought cannot exist in the mind alone. For if it
exists solely in the mind even, it can be thought to exist in
reality also, which is greater. If then that-than-which-a-
greater-cannot-be-thought exists in the mind alone, this same
that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is that-than-which-
a-greater-can-be-thought. But this is Obviously impossible.
Therefore there is absolutely no doubt that something-than-
which-a- reater-cannot-be-thought exists both in mind and in
reality. 5

In short, man's very ability to conceive an infinite and perfect
being testifies to His existence. Williston Walker describes the
theory, which was opposed by Gaunilo, a monk of Marmoutiers, in
Anselm's lifetime, as a play on words, but he admits that its
permanent validity has not lacked defenders.17
In 1931, P. H. Welshimer asserted at the North American
Christian Convention: "We believe in God because we cannot help
it! . . . Faith in God's existence and reality is axiomatic, one

of the many self-evident factsinlife."18

G. H. Cachiaras sup-
ported the argument in 1942, referring to belief in the existence
of God as "a universal phenomenon of humanity." Cachiaras reviewed

for his audience the "idea" of God as expressed by the ancients.

 

 

 

124

The ancients, lacking the advantageous aid of the Hebrew
Scriptures, gave much thought to this most wonderful assump-
tion and most magnificent postulate ever laid down in human
thought. Homer wrote: "AS young birds open their mouths

for food so all men crave the gods." Plutarch said: "NO one
ever saw a city without temples and gods, one which does not
have recourse to prayers or oaths, or oracles, which does not
offer sacrifices to obtain blessings, or celebrate rites to
avert evils." And, Cicero wrote: "There is no people so
wild and savage as not to have believed in a god even if they
have been unacquainted with his nature. . . . Now, a thing
concerning which the nature of all men agrees, must of neces-
sity be true."19

Welshimer, in 1931, and Cachiaras, in 1942, also advanced
the cosmological theory. The argument, which was based on the

cause-effect hypothesis, suggested that the final cause of all

20

things must be the one self-existent Being, God. Plato and

Aristotle were among the first to say that every created thing must
be created by some cause. Since there are countless secondary
causes in existence, beyond all secondary causes there must be an
uncaused and self-existent Original-First Cause. Lewis Sperry
Chafer explained the argument:

Ex nihilo, nihil fin-~out of nothing, nothing can rise--is
an axiom which has been recognized by philosophers of all
the ages. To assert that anything has caused itself to
exist is to assert that it acted before it existed, which
is an absurdity. Nonexistence cannot engender existence.
Had there ever been a situation in eternity when there was
neither matter nor spirit, no being of any description--
intelligent or unintelligent, created or uncreated--, the
universe itself a poundless vacuity, thus it must have
remained forever.2

From the Convention platform in 1954, A. N. Hinrichsen
similarly reasoned:
Nature without and within tells us He is there. The external
glory of the heavens and of nature evokes and elicits the

dependent and worshipful spirit of man. The "law of universal
causation" is a necessary assumption.

 

 

125

The very nature of our rational faculties compels us to
assume that every contingent thing has an efficient or ade-
quate cause. We are forced to find a beginning, a first
cause. We are forced to find a beginning, a first cause,
necessary and self-existing, not an unending series of
caused causes. The Bible satisfies us at that point
(Genesis 1:1), and there we base our faith and our

reason.

Burris Butler also spoke in 1963 about the reasonableness of
viewing God as the first cause. He pinpointed the cosmological
premise:

Everything God has said and done is evidence that God is. I
do not see Him with my eye directly and unveiled; but neither
do I see your personality except by the material form you
inhabit and control, by which you manifest yourself in words
and deed. Only by these do I learn what you know, or how you
feel, or what is your choice or will. So also we know what
God is by what He has said and done, and by the physical forms
in which He has displayed His power.

Something must have been the ultimate source and cause of all
things that exist. Some may guess that matter or blind,
impersonal force always was, and produced all things. But
that would suppose an unintelligent and nonliving source and
an inadequate cause for a universe including life and per-
sonality. Matter is destructible and does not have the
characteristics of necessary and eternal being. Only God
could be an adequate cause and Creator of all things.23

Probably one of the most historically forceful arguments for
the existence of God is the teleological argument, commonly called
the argument from design or order. It suggests that the presence of
order in the universe points to God as the source of that order.24
It is, therefore, really a specialized application of the cosmologi-
cal argument. The Darwinian doctrine of natural selection would
purport to undermine the effectiveness of the theory by showing

that changes have come about through purely natural causes rather

than by supernatural design. Although both Trueblood and Chafer

126

admit that the teleological argument cannot stand alone, Trueblood
defends it by asserting that Darwin's attack is "no longer evident

25 and Chafer adds that "no division of naturalistic theism

today,"
is so engaging or so capable of endless illustration as the teleo-
logical argument."26 A century before Christ, the Stoic philosopher,

Cicero, in De Divinatione, expressed the argument from order and

 

design.

Can anything be done by chance which has all the marks of
design? Four dice may be chance turn up their aces; but,
do you think that four hundred dice, when thrown by chance,
will turn up four hundred aces? Colours, when thrown upon
canvas without design, may have some resemblance to a human
face, but do you think they could make a picture as beauti-
ful as the Coan Venus? . . . The truth is, indeed, that
chance never perfectly imitates design.27

It is significant that the Opening paragraph of Alexander

Campbell's The Christian System makes reference to the orderly

 

design of the universe.

ONE God, one system of nature, one universe. That universe

is composed of innumerable systems, which, in perfect concert,
move forward in subordination to one supreme end. That one
end of all things is the sovereign and infinite pleasure Of
Him who inhabits eternity and animates the universe with

his presence. So worship and adore the heavenly hierarchies,
saying, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor,
and power; for thou has created all things, and for thy
pleasure they are and were created."28

Again, in chapter two, "The Bible," Campbell asserted:

ONE God, one moral system, one Bible. If nature be a system,
religion is no less so. God is "a God of order," and that is
the same as to say he is a God of system. Nature and
religion, the offspring of the same supreme intelligence,
bear the image of one father--twin sisters of the same divine
parentage.29

 

 

127

Several Convention speakers advanced the teleological argu-
ment for God's existence. In his 1960 address, Dr. George Schweit-
zer, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Tennessee,
stated the Christian thesis: ". . . the universe expresses the unity
of God. It is ruled by one Mind, not many. . . . The most distant
heavenly body reveals the same chemical compounds as we have on
earth." Schweitzer concluded, "By God's grand design they are all
governed by the same laws Of gravitation, cohesion, and chemical
affinity. The astronomer can depend on them to do what they have
always done, and . . . predict exactly what they will do a thousand

30 In 1963, Reggie Thomas alluded to the teleologi-

years from now."
cal theory by describing the inmutable laws of the universe as

fixed and unchangeable, suggesting that "unity and design are shown
in all branches of knowledge, whether geology, . . . or biology,

n31

. or anthropology . . . Paley's classical illustration of

the watch in his Natural Theology, the habits Of insects and animals,

 

the grandeur of the human body, and the precision of the stars and
planets were data Welshimer and Cachiaras used in support of this
theory. The former pointed to the statement of astronomer Sir
Robert Ball: "There are five hundred movements in every star--
900,000,000 stars kept going since time began--and every movement

32 John Ralls' 1964 address, "Creation

according to law and order."
versus Evolution," reaffirmed the teleological theory in his con-
servative Christian response to materialistic science and philoSOphy.

He suggested that ". . . science with all its discoveries had yet

 

128

found no adequate cause for things as they exist, and we may say
that they have failed to find it because they have lacked the will
to believe in God." Ralls further explained:

The universe has more than being. It has order--many evidences
of plan and intelligent design. The more we see of it the
more we are impressed with the skill and wisdom of Him who
made it. The creation is a mathematical organization of a
fixed number of simple elements combined upon orderly princi-
ples, as the alphabet is combined to produce the poem
"Evangeline" or a play by Shakespeare with all its beauty of
form and meaning. Can chance do that? To believe that the
orderly world of delicate checks and balances, intricate
designs, and marvelous adaptations all came from "fortuitous
concourse of atoms" or mass particles in motion through eons
of time, we may as well believe that the works of Shakespeare
happened by means of a long series of explosions in a printing
shop! Can natural law account for it all? Law must be
enacted. Law is what proves the law maker. Law in itself

a creation, not a creator. Natural law is only man's state-
ment of uniformities observed in God's creation.33

The fourth theory which the Convention speakers employed as
a proof of the existence of God was the anthropological or moral
argument. Though some forms of the moral argument are more ancient,
it is generally associated with Immanuel Kant. "Two things fill
the mind with a new and increasing admiration and awe," asserted
Kant, ". . . the starry heavens above and the moral law within."34
In 1954, Convention speaker A. N. Hinrichsen, explained: "Kant
argued from the moral imperative, the inward law written on a man's
heart, in his constitution. It is in this set-up or constitution

35 Hinrichsen stated the

that religion takes its rise or basis."
essence of the moral theory with the observation that "the universe

includes persons who have moral nature and consciousness of responsi-
bility. . . . The adequate cause for such an effect must be Himself a

person who is possessed of a moral nature.“36

 

129

Cachiaras expanded his 1942 discussion to include man's
sense of benevolence as a proof of God's existence. He reminded
his audience that the daily blessings and sustaining power that are
evident everywhere witness to the existence of God who made and
controls heaven and earth. "Who cannot believe in a living, bene-
volent God," asked Cachiaras, "when he thinks of all the blessings
he continues to enjoy at His hands, in spite of his sinfulness?"37

The cosmological, ontological, and teleological proof are
closely related. Some historians of philosophy have viewed them
as variations of the cosmological argument. "The best that might
be claimed for them," said MacGregor, "is that one helps out the
other, but no one of them by itself does the required job."38
James Oliver Buswell also concluded: “There is no argument known
to us which, as an argument, leads to more than a probable conclu-
sion."39 The very fact that a plurality of such arguments is needed
indicates that not one of them is alone sufficient to prove God's
existence. Perhaps Anselm, who did not profess to be able to demon-
strate God's existence to the unbeliever but sought only to justify
to his own intellect the faith that he held, has established the
purpose which these traditional arguments best serve. The moral
argument, which had great influence in the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, does not purport to prove the existence of God by the
exercisecfi’pure reason, but suggests that the existence of moral law
demands an ultimate Being which exists independently as the source

of all morality. It was to this argument that the Convention speak-

ers most frequently, if inferentially, appealed. Edwin Burtt

130

observes that although the conservative uses the three arguments of

natural theology, he tends to rely most heavily upon the appeal to

man's moral conscience.40

In summation, a portion of G. H. Cachiaras' concluding state-
ment is appropriate:

This is our case for God. The existence of the universe pre-
supposes the being of an almighty and infinitely wise designer
and creator. The very fact of life witnesses to a living God,
who is the possessor of life. The benevolent and providential
care that we enjoy testifies to a kindly and loving Father in
heaven. Truly, God is!41

The Divine Nature

 

The question of God's existence was in reality not as central
to the controversy of the 1920's as was the question Of the nature
or type of God which existed. An editorial in the Christian
Century declared: "In a debate on God the minds of the Funda-
mentalist and the Modernist do not meet. To oppose system against

42 Here definitely

system involves endless and sterile disputation."
was a major source of difference between the two minds. Rather than
putting theism against atheism, the two systems actually began with
two different gods. The essential qualities of one system's god
was totally repugnant to the nature of the other god.

The conservatives had inherited from the Reformation leaders
the traditional Protestant concept of God as a Being with personal-
ity, possessing both will and intelligence, and immeasurably more

personal than mere idealized reality<n~absolute energy.43 The

theology of fundamentalism was basically Calvinistic, and its chief

131

theologian, J. Gresham Machen, served as professor at the Presby-
terian affiliated Princeton Theological Seminary.44 Hence, the god-
concept of the movement was in the tradition of Calvin's system of
election, foreordination, and predestination. Although some of the
conservatives rejected the Calvinistic theory of inherited guilt,
preferring the doctrine of Arminianism and transmitted guilt, there

was complete accord that God was a personal Father, the Creator,

Ruler, Savior, and ultimate Judge of the world.45

To the liberal mind, the only hope for Christianity rested

in the depersonalization of God from the "conception Of a diety

46

whose character is on a level with that of Moloch." Horace

Bridges, in his attack upon the "God of Fundamentalism," confronted
Machen:

I challenge Dr. Machen to say whether a human parent could
under any circumstances have the right to consign his own
child, for any offence whatsoever, to lifelong torture. More
particulaly, could we have the right to do so if the child's
offence were admittedly due to some hereditary defect of
nature which it could not avert? Add to this the supposi-
tion that the father, before begetting the child, had known
what it would do and had deliberately prepared the torture
chamber in advance of its reception. That is an exact a
parallel as can be drawn between human action and the pro-
cedure of God as described by Fundamentalism.4

For modernism, God was not thought of as a transcendent
personality "higher than, and independent of, the universe He has

48 but rather as the immanent "ground" of all being, as the

made,"
unity and totality of finite things, and as a universal essence
which all existence shares.49 To the liberals, the doctrine of
divine immanence served to bridge the gap between nature and the

supernatural and make them completely one.

132

Asserting that the critical mind could no longer allow the
idea of a transcendent God, many liberals insisted that He did not
exist, except perhaps as a figment of frightened imaginations con-
jured up to meet a psychological need. "My position then," announced
Dr. William L. Davidson, "is that God is a necessity of human

nature."50

In denying existence to the personal God of the Bible,
the liberals not only disclaimed possessing any fear of incurring
the divine wrath, but manifestly insisted that they were giving
honor to the God which actually existed. The liberals, therefore,
deemed all of the conservative doctrines concerning God, His cove-
nents, His modes of operation, and His plans for eternal reward and
punishment, fictitious and unethical.

In the judgment of conservatives, aside from the rejection
of the inspiration of the Bible; the depersonalization of God was
liberalism's most devastating contribution. They considered the
doctrine of divine immanence to be the satanic product of evolution
and the arch-enemy of Christian truth.

Many of the Speakers of the North American Christian Con-
vention had sought to prove the existence of God and several more
answered the call to protect His personal character and preserve
the idgnity of the divine nature. Paul McAlister's 1977 address
pictured for the Convention audience the abstract theory of God
which many speakers attacked. Describing the theological situation
at the turn of the century, McAlister said:

With the growing acceptance of natural law came a correspond-

ing rejection of the notion of God's presence or activity in
the world. Since the categories of supernatural theism were

133

denied, the only place left for God was to relegate Him to a
deistic never-never land. Instead of a world of God's crea-
tion and government, the "spirit of the age" posited that

this world is naturally governed, and in fact, the system of
this world came a closed system in which there was no room at
all for a free and sovereign deity. The growing advances in
science seemed to fan the flames of anti-supernaturalism.

The classical liberalism of the late 19th century offered
overwhelming optimism. The Optimism, however, was short-
lived. In the early 20th century, world war, economic strife
and social struggle threatened human subscription to Optimism.
Man on his own demonstrated his inability to be master of

his own fate. Karl Barth, German pastor schooled in liberal-
ism, dropped a bomb upon the literal view of man. His commen-
tary on Romans recognized that despair had dethroned optimism
and that man stood in need of a transcendent God. It was dur-
ing this same time that the major thrust of existentialist
despair began to be reflected in literature. 1

Speaking fifty years earlier, Mark Collis countered the
liberal position with the Biblical description of the first person
of the Godhead:

The disbeliever, sometimes in the pulpit or the professor's
chair, ridicules our faith in God saying that we believe in

a God that is like an old man with hands and feet and face
and eyes and ears and heart. The rational believer has such
a conception Of God. We believe that God is spirit, that He
is incorporeal, that He in invisible to human eyes, except
when for purposes of revelation, He assumes a form that man
could look upon. When the apostle says we are to "put on the
new man who is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him
that created him," and that “Christ, being in the form of
God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be on an equal-
ity with God," the terms "image" and "form" are not used in

a physical sense; the likeness is spiritual. It is a likeness
in knowledge and righteousness, and holiness.

All this implies that God is not a principle, a law or a force,
but a person. And so the Bible presents Him. God speaks; He
uses the personal pronouns I, mine, me; He thinks, He plans,

He executes His plans; He loves and wants to be loved; He is
pleased and is grieved; He commands and required obedience;

He consciously rewards and punishes.52

The God-concept of fundamentalism was attacked by some mod-

ernists who claimed that God had a dual nature. The problem of

134

reconciling the wrath or anger of God in the Old Testament with His
teachings concerning mercy in the New Testament was disturbing. The
modernist tried to solve the problem by advancing a "Two God" theory.
They suggested that the God of the Old Testament period was a
"tribal God," a "God of war." This God was apparently forced out by
the demands of a more enlightened or evolutionally progressive peo-
ple, and in His place came the God of the New Testament era. This
view, characteristic of certain ancient Gnostic systems, was Opposed
vigorously by fundamentalists.

Among the many hundreds Of addresses delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, only one was found which treated the
"Two God" theory; an indication that the Convention speakers con-
sidered the theory to be no serious threat or that they felt other
needs were more pressing. Arthur Holmes' 1931 address, “The Per-
sonality of God," offered the following conclusions:

The first conclusion is that there is ONE God. This is a
"universe," not a multiverse." Therefore, more than one

God would be superfluous. This one God "is over all, and
through all, and in you all." The second conclusion is that
God is capable of wrath, but that He is "abundant in loving-
kindness and tender mercies." In God, "wrath" and "mercy"
are blended perfectly. "Who could respect a God incapable
of wrath, and who could love a God incapable of mercy?"

The third conclusion is that God is holy. He is unequivo-
cally opposed to all unrighteousness. He has set, as His
goal, a new world "wherein dwelleth righteousness." Our
task is more than to merely pray "Thy kingdom come, Thy

will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." Our task is to
help bring it to pass. And that transformation begins in
your heart and mine! Let us resolve to be more worthy of
His mercies and help to save a sinful world from His right-

eous wrath, that it might share with all the redeemed the
infinite scope of His everlasting mercies.53

135

Revolting against the immanentism of classical liberalism,
a modernistic theory which emphasized the transcendence of God began
to sweep across the country. Defeat and destruction in World War I
deflated optimism and formally ended the philosophical reign of
radical divine immanence. Karl Barth, a theologian whose emphasis
on "the otherness of God" depersonalized God into a kind of dis-
interested, motionless, impersonal force;54 recognized that man
stood in need of a transcendent God. In his 1977 address, Paul K.
McAlister referred to the "legacy" which the nineteenth century
theologian G. W. F. Hegel contributed to this concept:
For Hegel the transcendence arises out of the flow of history.
Transcendence was located in the process. Whatever the inten-
tion, the result was that the transcendent was not so much
viewed as above as now ahead. Subsequent theology influenced
by Hegel has opted for the future as the locus of the trans-
cendent. But the transcendence of the future still remains
unaccessible. Hegel's legacy has provided numerous difficul-
ties, e.g., one must account for the fact that though man is
viewed as part of the process, indeed everything is part of
the process, but if that is true, who is standing outside the
process who could inform us as to the goal of the process.55
The Convention speakers rejected the extremes of these views
of God on the grounds that they tended to depersonalize the divine
nature. The first because it tended toward pantheism, and the
second because it reduced God to an unapproachable, impersonal
abstraction. They agreed, however, that the personal God of the
Bible is both immanent and transcendent. Burris Butler stated in
his 1963 address:
The church speaks of God, self-existent and transcendent.
"In the beginning, God," posits the very first sentence of

Genesis. That God is, is properly the first revelation Of
God concerning Himself. When Moses, the first known recorder

136

of this revelation, had his confrontation with God at the
burning bush, he asked His name. "Who shall I say hath
sent me?" "Say that I AM THAT I AM hath sent you.“ Here
is the personal, spiritual, self-existent, totally other
first cause.

. . we have a finite universe--a finite creation, but an
infinite God, an infinite Creator. God is in all and through
all, but this is not the "god" of pantheism, for God is at
the same time wholly other--separate from, and infinitely
superior to, and sovereign over the universe that He has
created. The church speaks of God immanent. "In the begin-
ning, God created.” This great, infinite God was present
and personally involved in every detail of creation.

. this is no mechanistic process in which personified
force winds up a world and turns it loose to run itself down,
while He amuses himself with other things. In the course of
every electron and every galaxy, the direct personal will of
God is involved. In the clothing of the flower, in the
feeding of the bird, God is there; He is involved. He is
actively at work. . . .

This immanent omnipresent God is omniscient--He knows all.
He is omnipotent--all powerful. Now recognize that He is
holy--the moral absolute. Add to this that He created us
for holiness and holds us to a moral accounting. Is it

any wonder that one of Old exclaimed, "It is a fearful thing
to fall into the hands of the living God."56

Through the years many speakers dealt with various facets
of the divine nature. A glance at the addresses reveals the speak-
ers concept of the character and personality of God. In 1933

Evariste Hebert named peace, holiness, mercy, justice, love, power,

57

truth and grace as being characteristics of God's nature. In 1940,

Morris Butler Book listed four basic features of God's personality:

"God's divine nature is life, light, and truth, but above all it

58

is love." In the same year, Basil Holt referred to God as "the

one universal, perfect, personality--originating producing, making

1159

possible all things in the universe. Two years later, J. H.

Dampier stated: "God is a Father and thus provides, guides,

137

disciplines, educates, protects, directs, and exemplifies redemp-

tive love and perfection. He is represented as both immanent and

transcendent."6O

A. N. Hinrichsen's 1954 address, "The Fact Of God," was the
platform's most thorough examination of God's nature in terms of
His omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent characteristics.

Hinricksen reflected the attitude of all the Speakers who
had attempted to articulate the divine nature as he concluded:

For us to see God in one unitary glance is a most difficult
task, yet it is proper that we attempt to view Him in His
many features. Indeed, it is imperatively important that
we try to see Him in His whole. He is a person and is not
to be separated into or reduced to "principles" or "attri-
butes." God is more than attributes or the sum total of
all His attributes, for He is the "living God." He is

more than "laws," "forces," or "rules" for He is clothed
with the vitality of life. Our fellowship is not with
impersonal law nor a system of abstractions, but the living
God who can be loved and served.6

Jesus Christ, the Son of God

 

There was no emphasis more central to the Convention plat-
form than the deity and absolute sovereignty of Christ. In the
preface to B. B. Warfield's The Person and Work of Christ, Samuel G.
Craig revealed that this Christocentric emphasis was not peculiar
to the churches of the Restoration Movement: "The view Of the
person of Christ . . . that He was perfect deity and complete human-
ity united in one person . . . has been confessed for nearly two
thousand years by practically all of those calling themselves
Christians." In addition, Craig asserted: “Every great branch of

the Christian Church has assigned to His death--the place of

138

62

primary importance." Frank Stagg, in his New Testament Theology,

 

stated the classical position of conservative Protestantism with
regard to the centrality of Christ:
The New Testament is from first to last about Jesus Christ.
He is the one alone indispensable to its concern. Every
other person in the New Testament has importance only in
relationship to Jesus: for or against him friend or foe.
He is the unmistakable center to the total event which the
New Testament describes. God has acted in self-revelation
and in redemption, and this divine event is centered in One
alone. God who "in many measures and in many manners of
old" did speak to the fathers in the prophets has in these
last days spoken in his Son (Hebrews 1:1f).63
In 1943 the conservative National Association of Evangeli-
cals, convening in Chicago, drafted a statement of faith on which
the delegates representing forty denominations could agree. With-
out a dissenting vote the delegates affirmed:
We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His
virgin birth, and His sinless life, in His miracles, in His
vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His
bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of
the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.64
This Christocentric emphasis, basic to the life Of the North
American Christian Convention, was articulated by Ernest E. Laughlin
in his 1946 address, "What Christ Taught About Himself:" "Jesus
Christ is the central figure of human history. All history before
Calvary converges upon Him. All history since Calvary diverges
from Him. History is His story."65
Throughout the platform's five decades, Christ was featured
as the heart and life Of Christianity. Year after year the speak-
ers affirmed that Christ was the foundation and "Chief Cornerstone"
of the Church. In 1946 Russell E. Boatman said the apostles and

prophets agreed concerning the centrality of Jesus Christ.

139

The prophets present Christ as our prophet, priest, and King.
He is our substitute and our Saviour, God's Son and our sacri-
fice. He is deity and is to be heard and heeded. When Paul
said the church is builded on the foundation of the apostles
and the prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself being the chief
cornerstone, he was saying what the hymn writer was declaring
when he wrote, "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ
her Lord." There is no variance in the teaching of the 66
apostles and the prophets concerning our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Incarnation of Christ.--The Convention speakers

 

described Jesus, using distinctively biblical language: "the Good
Shepherd, the Bread of Life, the Door, the Way, the Water of Life,
the Resurrection, the Light Of the World." But speaker P. H.
Welshimer captured the characteristic most basic to Christ's nature
by citing the opening words of the Gospel of John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt
among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only
begotten Of the Father), full of grace and truth.57
Lpgpg, the Word, was a philosophical Greek term used to
characterize the divine nature of Christ. It's use, however, led to
the posing of many questions: What is the nature of the Lpgpp?
How was Christ both man and God? Were there two Gods, the Father
and the Son? The Convention's answer to the ageless christological
controversy can be simply stated: although the human mind cannot
fully conceive the nature of Christ, His complete humanity and com-
plete divinity completely quality Him to be man's savior.
"Paul's deep seated conviction that Jesus is the incarnate

God," declared John E. Greenlee in 1959, "is often precise, sometimes

almost matter of fact, but, nevertheless, unquestionable."68 The

140

main point of Robert 0. Fife's 1963 address was that "God's self-
disclosure reached its perfect climax in Jesus of Nazareth, the
Word of God made flesh." Fife said, "In Jesus so dwelt 'all the
fulness of the Godhead bodily' that He could say with unadorned
realism to His most intimate associates, 'He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father.”69
The most thorough investigation of the ngg§_was in the
l959 address by Henry E. Webb, “The Power of the Word of God."
Webb explained that the Greeks and Romans who read the Gospel of
John did not share our difficulty in understanding the L939§_con-
cept because it was old and widely understood in John's day.70
Webb informed his audience that the philosophers of Greece
had no revelation from God, and so it was impossible for them to
know Him as a person. The only way they could know about God was
to look at His handiwork; His creation in nature and man. The
creative intelligence which is reflected in the created order of
the universe the Greeks referred to as Logos, He said that although
most of the better Greek and Roman thinkers agreed that there had
to be some kind of a divine, powerful, creative intelligence, or
Logos, their agreement ended there. Some held that the Logg§_was a
great world-soul, from which each individual soul derived its origin.
Others held that the ngg§_was impersonal--a mere rational force.
"This confusion is not surprising," Webb asserted, "for these are
questions that only revelation can answer, because the answer lies

beyond the limits of purely human investigation."7]

141

Webb then made six important, but not unique affirmations
about the ngg§_from the Gospel of John, after which, he concluded
with the essential seventh proposition, namely, that the Logg§_
became flesh.

(l) John asserts that the Lo 05 was in the beginning, and
hence is eternal, and uncreatea.

(2) He claims that the Lo 05 was with God. The pr0position
used is one that originally meant face-to-face and suggests
a most intimate personal fellowship. This is most important.
God is a person, not a force. Because He is a person, He
can have fellowship with men, who are persons. Men are
persons because they are created after the likeness of a
personal God. Because God is a person, ultimate truth,
which is of God, is also personal; and it can be communi-
cated to man on an intelligent personal basis, which God
does in revelation.

(3) "The Logos was God" (Greek: "God was the Logos").

John asserts that the Word was deity, not a god, but One
God.

(4) John asserts that the Logos was the Creator. This same
sentiment is expressed in Psalm 33:6. "By the word of the
Lord the heavens were made." The philosophers would agree
with John here.

(5) John claims that the Logos is the source of life.

(6) The Logos is the source of knowledge and understanding,
the illuminator of men.

With these six points neither Greek nor Jew would find
serious disagreement. But, after discussing the witness-
bearing ministry of John the Baptist, John blasts his readers
with a seventh, and an unbelievable assertion; that this
divine, eternal, creative, intelligent life-giving Logos
became flesh and dwelt temporarily as a man among men. It
is well-nigh impossible for us to comprehend the antithesis
which this statement suggested to the people of John's day.
The Logos represented everything high, noble, divine, and
perfect, while flesh represented the epitome of evil, imper-
fection, and corruption.72

It was Webb's judgment that the endless philosophical spec-
ulations in connection with the ngg§_christological problem did
little except divide and confuse Christendom. He emphasized that a
concept of the ngg§_which could not be expressed in the language of

the Bible should not be bound upon the church.73

142

The Deity of Christ.--By 1920, the empirical method of

 

modern science and the fruits of higher criticism had openly, and
to many convincingly, challenged the deity of Christ. C. C. Taylor,
a l927 speaker, quoted Shailer Matthews: "And thus we come to the
real basis of confidence in what the church calls the deity of
Christ. It is the religious appeal of Jesus Himself, His power to
evoke religious faith. . . . For He functions in life as a revela—
tion of God, not as a man who has been given apotheosis." Taylor
concluded: "Surely this is enough to show that this modernist does
not believe in the deity of Jesus as set forth in the Scriptures."74
As a result of the slashing attacks of liberal theology,
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Chruch in l9l0 and again in
l9l6 and 1923 ad0pted a five point doctrinal statement which they
declared to be essential.75 Four of the five points, the virgin
birth of Christ, the atonement of Christ, the resurrction of Christ,
and the miracle working power of Christ, were designed to reinforce
the believer's confidence in the divinity and authority of Christ.
The key to understanding the differences between the fundamentalist
view of Jesus and the modernist view is found in the dissimilar
attitude with which the opposing forces approached Him. The conserva-
tive respect for Biblical revelation produced a conceptualization
in which Jesus was the instrument of the "plan of salvation" which
had engaged the divine mind from the beginning. Modernism, in its
historical approach to Jesus, insisted that the personality of

Christ as a fact of history must be reinterpreted in fresh and

I43

vital terms for every age. In short, the former approached Jesus
primarily as a fact of faith; the latter primarily as a fact of
history.

Just as differences regarding the God-concept did not emerge
as much from a question of God's existence as from the discussions
of the nature of that existence, so the center of the controversy
over Christ was not to decide whether Christ was divine, but to
determine the nature of that divinity. Was Christ truly God, or
just a man with some type of "Messianic consciousness?" This was

the issue at question. The Watchman-Examiner stated the terms of

 

the debate as the conservatives saw it: "The Bible and the Bible

only can settle the questions at issue. Let Fundamentalists and

76

Liberals come forth to battle armed with their Bibles." William

Jennings Bryan presented the nature of Christ and the type of divin-
ity to which the fundamentalist mentality subscribed:

The Bible, from beginning to end, teaches the deity of Christ.
In the Old Testament, His coming is foretold and His Divine
character is plainly announced. Seven hundred years before
His incarnation, Isaish said, "He shall be called Mighty

God, the everlasting Father;“ adding, "Of the increase

of his government and peace there shall be no end.‘I Isaiah
describes also the substitutionary atonement of the promised
Messiah.

Matthew announces the Virgin Birth of Jesus, who was to "save
his peOple from their sins." Luke describes in greater
detail the conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost and says
that "of his kingdom there shall be no end.“77
The liberals also subscribed to the divinity of Christ,
although at best, indirectly.78 The doctrine of divine immanence

appeared to have its most striking effects upon the traditional

144

conceptions of the person of Christ. Those who applied the doctrine
looked for Christ's divinity in His humanity. Christ was viewed as
divine in the sense that all men are divine. The incarnation of God
in Christ was considered as anticipation of what all humanity, in
the course of the evolutionary process, might hope to become in the
future. The liberals thus concluded that the historical Jesus had
achieved in His character all that God ever intended or expected of
His creation and the perfect manhood which resulted could as well

be termed "divine Sonship."

The North American Christian Convention was dedicated to the
defense of Christ as the pre—existent Word, the incarnation of God
in the flesh, which was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a
virgin, resurrected from the grave, and ascended into Heaven. In
fact, the majority of the Convention addresses that discussed the
person of Christ were designed to reaffirm His sonship. It is no
overstatement to assert that, to the Convention speakers, there was
no middle ground; Christ was wholly deity or He was nothing at all.
In l946 Ernest E. Laughlin summarized the claims of Christ:

Faithful men of the first century carried on an aggressive,
high-pitched preaching program. . . . The "Paraclete" had
brought to their memory all things whatsoever he had said
unto them," all things He had taught them about Himself.
In fact, He taught them nothing that did not relate to Him-
self. He made Himself central. It was not ethics, philosophy,
morals, "ecumenics." Uncomprimisingly He declared that He
was the Son of God, the ransom for sin, and the Founder, Head,
and Redeemer of His church. 9

P. H. Welshimer, minister of the First Christian Church in

Canton, Ohio, measured these claims against the accusations of

modernism, and concluded:

145

There are many ideas afloat concerning Jesus of Nazareth.
Some label Him a fanatic, some call Him an egotist, others
see in Him an imposter, while others call Him a good man.
They behold a peerless teacher. To set the world right con-
cerning the only begotten Son of God, the Word that tells of
Him and contains His teaching must be preached. He was not a
fanatic. Fanatics are men of one idea, and they are gener-
ally small ones. Jesus was a man of great ideas, and He

had many of them. He was not an egotist. He was the humblest
man that ever walked in the tide of times. He was not an
imposter, for He never imposed upon anybody, nor did He make
a single false promise to any man, nor demand of any man any-
thing that was unreasonable.

When the Word is preached concerning the Christ, He will not

be recognized as the son of Joseph, but will be received as

the Son of God. He is a good man, and much more. Without

being the divine Son of God He could not be good, for if He

be not the Son of God He made claims which He cannot substan-

tiate.80

Laughlin and Welshimer selected language similar to that

which William Jennings Bryan employed in his popular book, Seven
Questions in Dispute. Bryan declared: "Christ's claims to divin-
ity were either true or false; there is no middle ground. . . . Was
he an imposter? If so, He was the greatest imposter of all
time."81 Convention speaker E. E. Laughlin's 1946 speech, "What
Christ Taught About Himself," described the liberal concept of
Christ's death, a factor which caused the Convention speakers to
be sympathetic toward Bryan and other prominent leaders in the
national struggle.

The liberals are willing to admit that He died. "But," they

question, "was it necessary?" A Chicago representative of

this school of thought states: "His ignominious death may

not have been what the Father planned, but that is beside

the point. The point is that Jesus believed it was the

Father's will and acted accordingly."

"Confidentially,“ says this man who "aims" to please every

one, "Jesus may not have been in on the total program as
God thought of it."

146

Over against this bold insinuation, hear the Master: "All
things have been delivered unto me of my Father." Again,
"therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my
life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me,
but I lay it down of myself. This commandment have I
received of my Father."82

Most of the Convention speakers supported their belief in
the deity of ChristwwiU1rational and carefully organized evidence.
Whereas the speakers who attempted to prove God's existence employed
philosophical and moral arguments, the preponderance of evidence
advanced to demonstrate the deity of Christ was almost exclusively
~based upon the teaching of the Bible.

Assuming the authority of the Bible, Russell E. Boatman
argued for the deity of Christ on the basis of testimony offered
by the Old Testament prophets.

Christ is described and identified when the prophet states
that this Son is to wear the name of Deity and possess the
very attributes of God. For He is called by the holiest
names men can use when addressing their praise unto God . . .
He is to possess the attributes of Deity, which makes Him
co-eternal with God, self-existent! A son who can be rightly
called "The Everlasting Father" is a strange child indeed.
But this amazing paradox is easily understood as the God-man
demonstrated His divine origin, nature and mission in His
miracles, His message, and His passion. So also with the
other names ascribed to Him, "Wonderful Counsellor," "Prince
of Peace." These are attributes of Deity and permit no such
watered-down interpretations as modernists are accustomed

to make. Jesus was God in human flesh-~Immanuel, God with
us--this the prophets clearly taught.32

The evidence advanced in favor of Christ's divinity
embraced three primary aspects of his early life: His character,
His teachings, and His miracles. One of the most prominent means
of proof was the character of His life. In l965 E. Ray Jones said:

“He lived a life so unique that it could only have been that of God

I47

Himself."84

In the same year, E. Richard Crabtree commented: "He
did not merely teach it, He demonstrated it! He cared! He cared
for little children . . . He cared for the blind and the lame and
the sick,"85 and in l976 David Roberts declared: ". . . it was
through His deeds of ministry and service that His Messiahship

86 One year later, James G. VanBuren's

could be clearly seen."
address, "Grace, Truth, and Glory," named prayer, forgiveness,
truthfulness, kindness, love, and compassion as the enduring virtues
of Christ's character.87
Other speakers focused attention upon the uniqueness and
influence of Christ's teachings. In l96l, J. K. Rutherford said,
"never a man taught like Christ. His ethical teachings establish

88 Sev-

IHim permanently as the central character of human history."
eral addresses were primarily designed to exalt Jesus as a great
teacher. In an address prepared for the l956 Convention, P. H.
Welshimer observed: "The Jews of this day do not accept Jesus as
the Christ, but pay tribute to Him as having been a great teacher."89
In the same year, John Bolten, Sr., president of the Standard Pub-
lishing Foundation, said that "the influence of His teachings went
far beyond the Jewish nation, even to the uttermost parts of the
earth."90 Raphael H. Miller's l937 address cited the words of
John Stuart Mill: "Who among His disciples or their proselytes
were capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus or imagining
the life and character revealed in the Gospel."91
According to the Convention speakers, Jesus came not only

as "a good man speaking well," but He carried with Him divine

148

credentials-~miracles--which proved He was the Son of God. In l960,

Convention speaker George Adler explained the purpose of Christ's

miracles:

In the light of the incarnation, the point of Jesus' personal
miraculous works became more clear. John argues from these
acts to His deity. I think it fair to conclude that Jesus
performed miracles as an attestation of deity. He did not
heal simply as an act of kindness, or as a demonstration of
the divine beneficence, even though these things were
involved; but He showed forth 'hi the miracles that He was
the Son of God with power. If His desire in the miracles
was just to take care of man on earth, then He could have
spent all His time in doing this. He pointed out, however,
in respect to the man born blind that it was His purpose
"that the works of God should be made manifest in him"
(John 9:3).92

In the religious controversy of the l920's, the general ques-
tion of the validity of miracles was never a point of contention.
The modernist, of course, was inhospitable to all miracles while,
for the fundamentalist, the question was settled in the doctrine of
an inerrant Bible. Only the virgin birth and the resurrection of
Christ from the dead, however, became the testing ground. At this
point the so-called fundamentalist was joined by many moderate con-
servatives and even by some who did not share the view of Biblical
inerrancy. E. C. Vandelaan wrote:

Many a Christian who finds it necessary to treat the Book of
Jonah as an allegory, and who is not quite sure about the
conversational power of Balaam's ass, grows frightened when
it is proposed to treat these supposed events in the life of
Jesus, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection, as
legendary.93

The fundamentalists waged their defense for all Biblical

miracles on the case for the virgin birth and the resurrection.

Since they were vitally related to the very substance of Christianity,

149

their removal would necessitate a major modification of the ortho-
dox doctrine about Christ. On the other hand, if these two miracles
could be demonstrated to be true, all Biblical claims of super-
natural intervention by Christ and the Apostles would automatically
become more believable.

In his book, Seven Questions in Dispute, Bryan described the

"94 He

virgin birth as "the very root of the question of deity.
pointed to the record in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and
appealed to the reasonableness of the unique birth as evidence in
favor of the miracle. J. Gresham Machen reasoned that Christ's sin-
lessness and the supernatural nature of His work could not be
explained apart from a distinctively supernatural birth. In a
lengthy treatise on the virgin birth Machen concluded:

The New Testament presentation of Jesus is not an agglomera-

tion, but an organism, and of that organism the virgin birth

is an integral part. Remove the part, and the whole becomes

harder and not easier to accept; the New Testament account of

Jesus is most convincing when it is taken as a whole. Only

one Jesus is presented in the Word of God; and that Jesus

did not come into the world by ordinary generation, but 95

was conceived in the womb of the virgin by the Holy Ghost.

John R. Straton, in his debates with the Unitarian Charles

F. Potter, affirmed the possibility of the virgin birth in light
of both faith and science. Going further, he asserted that Old
Testament prophecy and the testimony of Matthew and Luke made the
miracle probable. "Here is one doctrine," said Straton, "upon which
Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Greek Catholics all stand

together."96

150

The modernists, meanwhile, made much of the fact that only
two of the Gospels contain any reference whatsoever to the alleged
miracle. Having observed the absence of the doctrine in the Pauline
and Johnnine epistles, liberals concluded that since it demonstrated
no influence in the teaching of most of the New Testament writers
it must not be regarded as a tradition central to apostolic think-
ing. Some cast aspersions upon the historical accuracy of the testi-
mony of Matthew and Luke but, above all, the liberals were unable to
reconcile the scientific method with the orthodox notion that Jesus
was miraculously conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin
Mary, without benefit of an earthy father. In his book, The Man

from Nazareth, Harry Emerson Fosdick consented that God specially

 

influenced Christ's birth but hastened to explain: ". . . it was in
the later Hellenistic era of the church that the story of the virgin
birth arose, . . . this would explain why the early records of
Jesus' first contempories reveal no slightest sign that they even
thought of him as physically begotten by the special act of God."97
The bodily resurrection of Christ from the grave was con-
sidered by orthodoxy to be the supreme sign for the truth of
Christianity. Appealing to the language of Paul, "If Christ be not
risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain,"98
millions of words were spoken and written by the fundamentalists
inthe 1920's in an effort to determine what actually became of the

body of Jesus. E. Y. Mullens, the long-time president of the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, dealt at length with the

151

miracle of the bodily resurrection in his book, Why Is Christianity

 

Irygg_ He pointed to the detailed records from the four Gospels,
the testimony of the Apostle Paul, and the major part which the
miracle played in the establishment of the Christian Church as
evidence in favor of its authenticity. He also reviewed and refuted
the alternative theories advanced to explain the empty tomb: that
the disciples stole the body, that Jesus did not really die but was
merely unconscious, that the supposed witnesses of the resurrection
had a hallucination. Mullens summarized the conservative position:
"Christianity stands or falls with the resurrection of Jesus. The
issue may as well be squarely faced. Other miracles of Christ are
easy to accept if this one took place. Our hope is built on it."99

The modernists, on the other hand, refused to believe in or
even to grant the necessity for the doctrine of bodily resurrection.
"I do not believe," announced Dr. Fosdick at the Yale Lectures on
Preaching, "in the resurrection of the flesh."100 Ascribing to
Jesus a continued spiritual existence in the lives of His followers,
the liberals drew their inspiration from Paul's concept of an
emergence of Christ's spirit from the region of the dead rather than
the orthodox tradition of bodily resurrection in the Gospels.

In keeping with the larger national struggle, the two mira-
cles which figured most prominently in the North American Christian
Convention evidence for the divinity of Christ were also the virgin
birth and the bodily resurrection. In l940, Morris Butler described

the central position occupied by the doctrine of the virgin birth:

152

I'His name was called Jesus." He was so named by the angel
before He was conceived in the womb (Luke 2:2l). Paul says,
"made ofaiwoman, made under the law," and the original term
in that Galatian letter, "made" implies positively and
means definitely "to make" in a supernatural sense. Our
Lord is of heavenly origin, a supernatural being, an eternal
person. I accept the doctrine of the virgin birth! And
believe me, in this melee of infidelity today, the starter's
tape in the race toward all spiritual delusion is rejection
of this doctrine! The virgin birth is the pivotal doctrine
of the Christian iaith.lOl

Mark Collis' l929 address, "The Person of Jesus, the Christ,"
related the Old Testament prophecy concerning the doctrine to its
New Testament fulfillment:

The prophets spoke of His coming. They said He would be the
son of a virgin, and His name would be Immaneul (God with us);
that He would be born in Bethlehem; that He would be deSpised
and rejected of men; that He would be wounded for our trans-
gression, yet called the Wonderful, Counselor, everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace, and that of the increase of His govern-
ment and of peace there would be no end.

Then, in the fullness of time, the Holy Spirit came upon Mary,
and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and Jesus was
born in Bethlehem that night when the angels appeared to the
sheperds and said: "There is born to you this d15 in the
city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord." 2

In 1954, Orvel C. Crowder, president of Atlanta Christian
College, challenged those denying the virgin birth to explain a
sinless life on the part of a totally human person. He then
explained: "Christ is more than deity. The virgin birth means that
He is also man, the last Adam, our perfect human elder brother. In
His humanity Christ is our sin-purging sacrifice."103

Of much greater significance in terms of Convention attention
was the miracle of the resurrection. Harry Minnick set the tone for

most subsequent discussions of the resurrection when he said in

153

1927: "The internal evidence of Scripture plainly teaches that the

body in which Jesus lived when crucified, was risen from the dead."104

Minnick pointed to the testimony of Jesus before and following His
resurrection, the testimony of the soldiers who guarded the tomb,
the harmonious accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels, and
the many post-resurrection eye-witnesses as given veracity to the
truth of the miracle.

In the same year, James Small introduced his address by
pointing to the vital position of the resurrection in the Christian
system:

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the keystone of Christian-
ity. Rob Christianity of the resurrection of Jesus and you
rob it of that which explains the church, the kingdom and the
quickened lives of God's people. Rob us of the resurrection
of Jesus, and His power to make friends, to be remembered, to
make His words live and to inspire others with His spirit,
cannot be explained.‘05

"There is much that we do not understand," said Harold

Scott in 1956, "but the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus

106

is the anchor of our hope.” Edwin G. Crouch echoed this emphasis

in 1960:

If Jesus rose from the dead, then it is not difficult for us
to believe the other miracles attributed to our Lord. If
Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the miracles attribu-
ted to Him are of little value . . . Furthermore, if the
apostles are found to be false as to the central facts of
Christianit , their testimony is valueless as to the lesser
details.10

"The body of Jesus was removed either by human instrumen-

tality," postulated W. A. Fite, ”or He was raised by the super-

108

natural power of God." In answer to this question, Fite and

154

others discussed various hypotheses that have been suggested to
explain away the resurrection. In refutation, they offered "many
infallible proofs." A paragraph from W. A. Fite's I942 address is
apprOpriate:

A Roman may shout that an "hallucinated woman gave to the

world a resurrected God;" but we have more evidence than the

testimony of Mary Magdalene. Our New Testament tells us

that He was seen by 520 different persons on thirteen differ-

ent occasions. They saw Him, they heard Him speak, they

talked with Him, they walked with Him, they ate with Him,

they touched Him and handled Him and they all could not

have been hallucinated.109

To the conservative, the resurrection of Jesus Christ was

by Biblical testimony the "first fruits" of something yet to come--
the bodily resurrection of all human beings. To the liberals,
however, "in an age of electric light, it was too much to expect men
to believe the resurrection."”0 Theologians such as Rudolph
Bultmann contended that resurrection faith did not root in any
objective event. Rather, it rested in the "preaching" of the resur-
rection. "The faith is in the preaching--not in some event which

"111

stood outside the preaching. In other words, it was in the

preaching that the risen Christ was experienced and the church was
born. "Thus, Bultmann would escape history by demythologizing."112

In l974, Robert O. Fife attempted to offer the conservative
response. He reminded his audience that the resurrection of Jesus
is recounted as a unique event; yet, historical reason is analogi-
cal and comparative. "Therefore," Fife asked,"how can we know

historically an event which is incomparable?"H3 Fife noted that

it was to this question that Richard Niebuhr addressed his book,

155

Resurrection and Historical Reason. Niebuhr questioned man's image

 

of the uniformity of nature. He held that the creation itself was
spontaneous, and that nature has always had in it an element of
spontaneity. To Niebuhr, the resurrection was as natural as the
creation. It "epitomizes the original creativity that informs all
history and underlies every conception of nature."n4
Fife also noted that to Niebuhr the resurrection accounts
have their own analogical elements. The unfamiliar was mingled
with the familiar.
So Jesus was recognized by the two in Emmaeus through His
breaking of the bread (Luke 24:31). But even in the presence
of the Risen Lord, the commitment of faith was necessary.
Thus, Thomas at last confessed Him, saying, "My Lord and
my God!" But others, even at the ascension "doubted"
(Matt. 28:17). Faith did not come cheaply. It was cer-
tainly not the product of a "wish."115
Niebuhr contended that it was only by faith that the disciples were
“able to assimilate the startling synthesis of the known and the
strange presented to them in the risen Christ and see more deeply
into the reality of God's providence.“H6
Fife then concluded that Neibuhr did not advocate a special
"holy—history" in which God acts--a history outside man's critical
investigation, but that he rather affirmed that all historical
knowledge partakes of faith. "The revelation of God in Jesus is
therefore not so alien to human reason as some have supposed."H7
Fife further supported his contention, that modern man could
know and understand the resurrection of Christ as a historical

event, by citing German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. Like

156

Niebuhr, Pannenberg affirmed that faith must rest on credible his-
torical evidence, and to Pannenberg the resurrection is the ulti-
mate event of history.

Now the history of the whole is only visible when one stands

at its end. Until then, the future always remains as something
beyond calculation. And, only in the sense that the perfec—
tion of history has already been inaugurated in Jesus Christ

is God finally and fully revealed in the fate of Jesus. With
the resurrection of Jesus, the end of history has already
occurred, although it does not strike us in this way. It is
through the resurrection that the God of Israel has substan-
tiated his deity in an ultimage way and is now manifest as

the God of all men .....

Fife then, finally concluded that "the resurrection is not
alien to history. Rather, it is the category whereby the whole is
understood."n9

Reverence for a resurrected Lord was the life-giving force

which annually drew thousands to the North American Christian Con-

vention.

The Holy Spirit

 

The third member of the Godhead received little attention in
the Convention addresses. Although through the years there were
numerous references to the nature and work of the Holy Spirit, not
a single main address was exclusively designed to delineate that
nature, and only one speaker discussed in depth the work of the
Holy Spirit; and even that l927 address by T. H. Johnson, "The
Office of the Holy Spirit," was limited to a discussion of the
operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion. In recent years, due

to an emerging neo-pentecostalism, various related topics such as

157

the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and charismatic
gifts have been treated.

T. H. Johnson sought to identify the Holy Spirit in his
l927 address:

When we speak of the Holy Spirit, we express the name of one
of the eternal persons addressed when God said, ”Let us make
man in our image;" of the Presence that brooded over the
waters when the earth was without form and void and when
darkness covered the deep; of the Spirit who overshadowed
Mary when God became incarnate in human flesh that He might
put to death sin in the flesh; and of that Divine presence
who came to lead the church onward and upward until it shall
be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, when God shall
dwell with men, and the lamb shall lead them into fountains
of living water, and God himself shall wipe away all tears
from their eyes.

In 1928, Donald McLean characterized the Holy Spirit by
saying:
Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit is a Comforter, a Teacher
and a Guide. Peter tells us "the promise is unto even as many
as the Lord our God shall call," and Paul tells us "if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his," and
and we know from the context he was writing of the Holy
Spirit. Men have problems to solve and doubts to clear, they
have battles to fight and burdens to bear, hence they should
be taught regarding this helper. All religions tell men
what they ought to do, but only the Christian religion gives
the power to do it, and that power is given through the Holy
Spirit when a man becomes a partaker of the divine nature.1 1
Although Convention information regarding the nature of the
Holy Spirit was scarce, several speakers discussed the work of the
Holy Spirit. In l93l, C. G. Kindred stressed that the Spirit
inspired the writers of the Bible and works today through the teach-
ings of the Bible. "Holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Spirit. . . ." said Kindred. "The Holy Spirit guides the

church today by His word, by His law contained in the New Testament.

158

That congregation of believers that is guided by the New Testament
plus nothing, minus nothing, is as completely guided by the Holy
Spirit as was the church on the day of Pentecost."122
Other speakers, not content to limit the activity of the

Spirit to the work of inspiring and energizing the word, suggested
that the Holy Spirit dwells constantly within the heart of the
believer. Paul McReynolds declared in his l974 address: "The task
of the Holy Spirit is to convince/convict the world of sin, right-
eousness and the judgment. . . . It is the indwelling Spirit that
gives 1ife."'23 w. F. Lown continued the theme in l976 when he
asserted:

The life of the body is the spirit. The life of Christ's

body is the Holy Spirit. Paul says, "Do you not know that

you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?"

(ICor. 3:l6). And again, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord'

except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. l2:3). While these

statements are made concerning the individual Christian,

this assures us that the Holy Spirit is the vivifying force

in the church.

A body from which the spirit has departed is just that--a

body--a cadaver. It is also true that a congregation which

is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit is an organized religious
cadaver.124

Robert Stacy added, in l976, that the Spirit in the heart is
the ultimate source of power hiprayer ". . . when we hardly know how
to pray or what to pray for, the Spirit within us personally goes
to God in our behalf. He prays the prayers we are unable to

125

pray." In the same year, Don DeWelt's discussion of the indwel-

ling Spirit was prefaced with this comment:

159

The word Spirit or "Pneuma" is an interesting word; it has
been translated "wind" in John 3:8ff; we might say "atmos-
phere." The Holy Spirit can and does produce an atmosphere
and indeed is Himself that atmosphere. We can live in an
atmosphere and at the same time breathe in it. The Christian
at once dwells in the Spirit's environment and yet is indwelt
by the Spirit wag is his inspiration (Literally, "something
breathed in").1
With regard to the alleged phenomenon of the Holy Spirit
known as “glossalia” or "speaking in tongues,“ the Convention
speakers voiced overwhelming disapproval. While some referred to
the trend toward neo-pentecostalism as "Satanic," most chose less
offensive language with which to couch their thoughts. Typical of
the later was Wilford F. Lown's 1975 address, "A Biblical Study
of Tongues."
Glossolalists often ask whether others believe their expe-
rience not to be of God. I do not purport to judge the
sincerity or genuineness of any brother's experience. God
alone must do that. All of us must, however, inspect the
fruits of the lives about us. Of a truth, few of us hold
up well under such an inspection.)2
The chief contribution of Lown's address was the presentation of a
list of eight observations which he made concerning "glossaliaz"
it is attended by extreme sincerity, tongue speakers have a great
sense of power, they find great joy in each other's company, they
have great concern for each other, they are disproportionately con-
cerned with only this tongue-speaking aspect of their faith, they
tend to disrupt the fellowship if they cannot dominate it, they
can learn the behavior--whether the practice is of God or not, and
tongue-speaking tends to be their criterion of the "spiritual" life

of others. Lown concluded:

160

"Let us discern that person or doctrine which is divisive and try,
in love, to minister to the need. Meanwhile, let us truly let the
Holy Spirit help us to maintain the unity which He can bring. . . .

This is little enough to do for Him who died for us."128

Man's Response

 

The World Conference on Fundamentals at Philadelphia in
l919 declared: "We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our
sins according to the Scriptures as a representative and substitu-
tionary sacrifice; and that all that believe in Him are justified

‘29 In the traditional orthodox

on the ground of His shed blood."
interpretation, Christianity is essentially a supernatural means or
method of salvation. Human history is viewed within the framework
of an original divine creation, followed by the fall of man, which
necessitated a special provision of divine grace for his redemption.
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement was one of the several
points upon which fundamentalism was hinged; and one of the sources
of loudest complaint against liberalism was its neglect of emphasis
"on the efficacy of the shed blood." Through the love of God the
sinless Christ had offered Himself as an atonement for the sins of
the world, thus becoming man's personal Saviour.

Although the individual Convention addressed yielded a wide
array of ideas about the Godhead, its personalities, their work and
nature, the speakers decisively named love as the dominant character-

istic of God's personality; and the Convention's most frequently

quoted passage of Scripture was John 3:l6: "For God so loved the

161

world that He gave His only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth

on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."130 Along

with the theme of God's love, one of the phrases within the verse
contained a key convention concept: ". . . that whosoever believeth
on Him. . . ." The Convention speakers declared there to be a human,
as well as a divine side to God's plan for man's salvation. The
human side of salvation can be observed through an examination of
two dominant themes which the Convention speakers presented: the

nature of man and God's plan for redeeming man.

The Nature of Man

 

One of the points of clearest distinction between the
addresses at the North American Christian Convention and the typical
emphasis of the fundamentalist movement centered in the difference
of philosophy regarding man's nature. Since the basic theology of
fundamentalism was Calvinistic, the movement was saturated with
Calvin's system of predestination and election. While not all of
fundamentalism subscribed to the doctrine of predestination, many
of the religious bodies were essentially Calvinistic and virtually
all of the genuinely theological voices of the movement were pre-
destinarian. While the Convention speakers berated the doctrine of
predestination they would hasten to the defense of classical funda-
mentalism's insistence upon the doctrine of man's insoluble guilt
and dependence upon God's grace. Each viewed man as a spiritual
creature formed in the very image of God; and each conceded that

man had been deceived by Satan and had voluntarily corrupted his

162

nature by turning his back upon God in Eden, choosing both the
pleasures and consequences of sin. For the Calvinistic fundamen-
talist, man's nature immediately became inherently and hopelessly
evil, with each succeeding generation conceived in a state of utter
guilt and born into a totally depraved condition. It is from this
state of hopeless condemnation that God's grace through Christ's
death snatches these of the elect, who have been called according
to His purpose. Man is afforded no opportunity to alter his condi-
tion for better or worse, except as God's grace should foreordain
him as one of the elect. The Calvinist is particularly repelled by
the suggestion that man can play any part in his escape from sin.
eFor the Convention speakers, man is not inherently evil, but
basically virtuous. Although he is born righteous and free of sin, he
is unavoidably prone to sin and eventually becomes contaminated by
the evil in the world about him. Above all, his fate is not deter-
mined by an arbitrary external power; he is a moral individual with
the fundamental freedom to choose between good and evil--to elect
to accept God's grace or ignore it. His guilt is not inherited but
brought about by his own tendency to choose the evil; his salvation
is not pre—destined, but can only result from his own willingness
to choose the grace offered in Christ. It is in the nature of man's
acquisition of guilt and in his degree of freedom in escaping guilt
and its consequences that the emphasis of typical fundamentalism
differs most sharply with the addresses at the North American Chris-

tian Convention.

163

To the Convention speakers, man was primarily a spiritual
creature constructed in the very image of his creator. "When man
was created, he was created in the image of God. God shared with
man His own character," said Knofel Staton. “That was God's own
Spirit He shared with man, the Holy Spirit. The fruit of that

."131 Since

Spirit is the character of God--love, joy, peace. . .
"God is love," and since man reflects the very nature of God, the
Convention speakers concluded that man, by his very nature, must
love something. Man was designed to love. In creating man, how-
ever, God granted him complete freedom in selecting the object of
his love. Stressing the doctrine of the freedom of the will,
Claude J. Miller declared: "There can be no right except for him
who is able to do wrong if he chooses to do so. There can be no
moral character at all, except where it is possible for one to
choose between right and wrong, and do which ever he pleases. . . .
I cannot love unless I am free also to hate. Free will is the key-

H132

stone of the arch of human nature. Miller further supported

his argument with this assertion from Fairbairn's Philosophy of

 

the Christian Religion.

 

God, growing weary of the ceaseless uniform obedience of the

sun and stars and planets--all nature obeying Him in mathe-

matical precision because they could not help it--at last

said: "Let us make man and give him a free will to obey or

disobey, that I may have the joy of voluntary obedience." 33

This freedom, argued many Convention speakers, not only

gave abundant opportunity to love God, but it also provided him
with unlimited opportunity to fulfill the need to love in illegiti-

mate ways. Since Adam turned his back upon Eden, this has

164

been man's inescapable problem. Rejecting the love of God, he has
lavished his affections on objects which are but limited and finite.
Consequently, his level of satisfaction has been limited and finite.
Sin is the term which the speakers used to describe the
condition which results when man places any thing or person other
than God in the center of his affections. Some Speakers defined
sin as a condition in which the physical nature comes to have domi-
nance over the Spiritual.134
George W. Knepper's 1928 address, I'The Problem of Sin and
Its Solution," specialized in the nature of man and the scheme of
redemption. Knepper cited man's dependence upon his own knowledge
rather than his willingness to love God, as the basic weakness of
humanity. He, along with other speakers, interpreted man's failures
as being caused by the destructive work of Satan. “Satan is a liar
and has never subscribed to the truth-in-advertizing code," said
Robert Russell in l976, ". . . no matter how promising Satan's
attractions are, they never premanently satisfy. He makes great
promises but never delivers. I have everything to lose, but nothing
to gain."135
Thus, while rejecting the doctrine of inherited sin, the
Convention speakers nonetheless held that man, by his very nature
is an incurable sinner. "If we decide to go our own way without
His character, He will let us," said Knofel Staton. "Individual

independence from God--the wages of that sin is death, which is

alienation from the inner presence of God."136 Through the years

165

the speakers consistently emphasized the gravity and enormity of

sin. Whatever Became of Sin? was more than the title of a book by

 

the noted psychologist, Dr. Karl Menninger; it was a serious ques-
tion to Bob Russell. In his l976 address, he cited Menninger's
central question: "Doesn't anyone sin anymore--doesn't anyone
believe in sin?" He then declared:

It is imperative that we, as trustees of the word of God,
emphasize the biblical doctrine of sin. None of us would
return to the puritanical punishment; the stocks, the tongue
slitting, and the cheek branding were excessive penalties
which ignored God's grace and forgiveness. Yet have we not
permitted the pendulum to swing too far in the opposite
direction? We've emphasized love, forgiveness, and grace,
but said little about sin, wrath, and punishment. As a
result many view God as a doting old grandfather who would
never hold man accountable for his sins. It was Heine, the
German philosopher and poet, who cynically explained his lack
of fear of hell, by saying, "God will forgive, it is His job."
Man will never understand the tremendous cost of forgiveness
unless he understands the exorbitant price of sin. He will
never appreciate the freedom available in Christ unless he
understands the total enslavement of sin. He will not appre-
ciate the urgency of salvation unless he understands the
dreadful consequences of sin.137

Many conservatives feared that modern theology made no room
for a real conception of sin. While for some liberals the theory
of evolution had made sin merely a necessary stage in man's develop-
ment toward perfection, for others the doctrine of divine immanence
and the concept of the universal Fatherhood of God had eliminated
the seriousness of sin and reduced man's degree of guilt. The
conservatives insisted that sin, which inevitably produced enmity
with God, involved deep personal guilt. The corrupting character
and guilt of sin were considered such as to require more than mere

social reformation and humanistic improvement as a remedy. The

166

ugliness and guilt of sin were only to be blotted out in a super-

natural regeneration made possible by the atonement of Christ.

God's Plan for Redeeming Man

 

In his l928 analysis of Current Christian Thinking, Gerald

 

B. Smith named as an essential of fundamentalism the interpreta—
tion of Christianity in terms of a supernatural plan of salvation.
The statement of leading fundamentalists served to confirm Smith's

analysis.138

"If we believe in a God," William Jennings Bryan
assured his constituents, "we must believe that we are a part of

His plan. . . . If one believes in a God who is all-loving, as

well as all-powerful, the scheme of redemption by substitutionary
suffering is not only believable but natural."139 Particularly
favoring the phrase, "the plan of salvation," Bryan held that no
Bible truth had been more clearly stated and yet none was more hotly
contested than the doctrine of the blood atonement. The hot con-
test emanated directly from the liberals' lack of reverence for the
hallowed doctrine of orthodoxy. Many modernists announced deep sus-
picions as to the necessity and nature of the blood atonement in

the Christian system. For instance, Walter Rauschenbusch calmly
stated that orthodoxy had committed a clossal blunder by treating
the atonement as something supernaturally distinct, rather than as

a natural part of the life of Christ. Both the life and the death
of Christ were seen to have value only as an example for Christians
of all ages. "His death," said Rauschenbusch, "is a matter almost

negligible in the work of salvation."140

167

The North American Christian Convention was clearly a con-
tribution to that phase of religious thought which interpreted the
Christian message in terms of a supernatural scheme of redemption.
The speakers suggested that the two basic requirements which had to
be fulfilled in God's atonement for man's sin were justice and mercy.
"The priestly ministrations of the temple of Israel make clear the
fact that, in the justice of God, sin cannot be lightly passed over
and condoned," declared Burris Butler in l940. "His death was for
our sins. Isaiah says: 'But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace
was upon Him; and with his stripes we are healed.‘ Thank God for
His abundant mercy."141

Similarly, Ernest E. Laughlin in l946 emphasized the twin
chords of justice and mercy in the scheme of redemption:

From the beginning, man has offended God. The penalty was
death. God had two alternatives--either He could impose the
penalty, or exercise mercy and say, "I forgive you." Before
He can do that, however, He must satisfy the law--there is a
debt to be paid for some one. Since man could not satisfy

the debt, God decided to assume it Himself. But He could not
die, so He sent His only begotten Son. Consequently, He can
be just, while at the same time exercise mercy and forgiveness.
In Christ the debt is paid1 God accepts the death of Jesus

in lieu of yours and mine. 42

Bob Russell illustrated how perfectly the death of Christ
fulfilled the requirements of justice and mercy by recounting an
incident in his personal life:

Several months ago I started home at the end of the day, when
suddenly I realized I was to be home at 5:00 p.m. to take my
son to baseball practice and it was already 5:05. I started
to hurry because I know how he paces the floor, nervous about

being late. As I darted for home I came upon a radar unit
and instinctively hit my brakes, then "innocently" cruised

168

by at 25 miles per hour. As I watched in the rearview mirror
one of the motorcycles came after me with lights flashing.

I was so disgusted with myself. I had just applied for
special insurance rates available to non-drinking drivers who
haven't had a ticket in two years. That was gone, plus a

$29 fine for sure. I pulled over, the policeman approached
the car and asked to see my license. He took a look at it
and said, "Bob Russell!" I looked up and saw a young police-
man with helmet, sunglasses and gear but did not recognize
him. "You don't recognize me do you?" He said, "I'm Steve
Mobley, you used to have me in Christian service camp!" "Oh,
yeah, Steve! Good to see you," I said. "Tell you what," he
responded, "I'm going to let you go. I hate to give a ticket
to a preacher. Try to hold it down to 25 miles per hour
through here though." That's mercy! But it's not justice. I
told that to a group of people shortly afterward and one lady
snapped, "I got stopped by the same policeman but he didn't
let me go!” If that policeman wanted to be both just and
merciful he would have to say, "Bob Russell, 1 like you. I
hate to give you a ticket but it's the law. It would not be
fair to others to show favoritism to you. Here's your ticket,
and here's $30 of my money to pay it." That's unthinkable on
a human level, but that's how God became both just and the -
one who justifies. He demonstrated both His love and His
righteousness on the cross.143

Thus the Convention speakers would shout agreement with
Marshall J. Leggett's statement: "Here is the perfect picture of
"agape" love: the omnipotent God letting His Son die for unlovely,
unlovable, sinful man. This is why the apostle John could point to
the cross and say, 'Herein is love: not that we loved God (of
course not!) but that He loved us and gave His Son to be the pro-

pitiation for our sins.'"144

Man can only filfill his purpose for
existing when he satisfies his need to love by loving Him whom he
was created to love. "Something happened on the cross which can
save me from my sins," Leggett reasoned, "God's love let it happen."

He continued:

169

This is the reason that you young people seek to live righteous,
Christian lives. It is not primarily because you are afriad

of getting caught; it is not because you just do not want to
break the commandment; it is because God loves you with a
perfect love and you can do nothing less than love Him and

live with yourself in good conscience. John says, "We love

him, because he first loved us."l45

Just as the two basic requirementscflijustice and mercy were
fulfilled in Christ'a death, so man's response to that death involved
the two fundamentals of grace and faith. "We desire to follow in
His way," explained Leonard Wymore in 1976, "not for the merit sys-
tem of law, but out of gratitude for His unmerited love and
grace."146 Other speakers agreed that the doctrine of God's free
grace is inconsistent with the idea of human merit. Man does not
deserve salvation as a reward for accomplishment, and God does not
provide salvation as though He were paying a debt for righteous
deeds.

Owen L. Crouch, correcting what he felt was an improper
emphasis, summarized the concept of the efficacy of grace:

Man in his eternal longing to be right with God and in his
ageless quests to seek the favor of the divine has brought

all kinds of gifts and sacrifices. All the regulations of
religious laws, all rules and rituals, all orders, all
penances have sprung from man's search for an acceptable
righteousness which will make him agreeable to the Deity.

. By making our salvation dependent upon good deeds 147

we make void both the grace of God and the death of Christ.

As grace is God's love in action, so fatih is man's love in
action; as love is expressed in God's grace; so love must be
expressed in man's faith.

In l962, Henry E. Hill made the point that God's grace is

conditioned in its application. "Grace is given to us on the

170

condition of faith or committed trust. Doesn't Paul say that it is
by His grace you are saved through faith." He continued:
On the human level we walk a few steps to the fountain where
God's grace is flowing. We stoop to drink and grace is
appropriated to us. The gift is free, but we still must
come to the water and drink freely. Our coming to the water
is our committed trust--our giving of ourselves for His
grace.

Orval Morgan spoke about "The Victorious Faith" in 1965 and
concluded: "All this simply means that a sinner is justified by
faith. In other words, he is made anew, just as if he had never
sinned. His faith included obedience to the Gospel which is the
power of God unto salvation."149 Therefore, faith includes the
acts of obedience which man performs and serves as the mainspring
which prompts all Spiritual activity. In this context, the Conven-
tion speakers often referred to the "five steps" in the "plan of
salvation." They were occasionally listed as hearing the Gospel,
believing it, repentance for sins, confession in the name of Christ,
and baptism for the remission of sins. These were interpreted as
being expressions of and inclusive in the concept of faith.

The speakers made it abundantly clear that the preaching of
the Gospel was essential if men were to be saved. Alger Fitch said:
The Word of God is for man's deliverance, both in the sense
that it is the instrument used to bring deliverance about,

and in the sense that it is for man to deliver. Indeed,
"Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be
delivered" (Joel 2:32), but there will be no calling upon

one in whom we do not believe or believing on one of whom

we have not heard. There must be the preaching of the Word--

the delivering of the message by the church--before there
can be the deliverance of the world from its sin.150

171

In I964, Leon Apple also emphasized man's need of hearing
the Gospel. He cited the great evangelist Dwight L. Moody who
once said,

I prayed for faith and thought that someday faith would come
down and stike me like lightning. But faith did not seem to
come. One day I read in the tenth chapter of Romans, "So
then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
I had closed my Bible and prayed for faith. I now opened my
Bible and began to study, and faith has been growing ever
Since.

Other speakers stressed the importance of repentance and
confession in the scheme of redemption. In l940, Dean Walker spoke
on "Scriptural Conversion." He said that "conversion is a change of
will: repentance is not sorrow, but the will to reform one's life.
It is not life, but unto life. . . . It is the fruit of faith. It
is the turning of the always present will, the ever continuing will,
to the service of God."152

A few years earlier, R. C. Snodgrass emphasized that true
repentance "will bear the fruit of a changed life."

Paul, in his defense before King Agrippa, stated that he had
urged his hearers that they should "repent and turn to God,
doing works worthy of repentance," With Paul, a man who had
sincerely repented evidenced it in the wholesomeness of his
work. Thus, New Testament repentance is motor. It is expan-
sive. It can't be tethered within the limited domain of the
mind, it breaks loose into the unfenced pastures of all of
human experience. In the light of the New Testament, sincere
repentance carries the essential elements of a sincere
reformation.153

Although most strongly stressed in the early programs, bap-
tism for the remission of sins was consistently a featured Conven-
tion theme. Knofel Staton stated in l975: "The way we 'make

disciples' is to call men to repentance. There is no discipling

172

without repentance. And without repentance, there is no spiritual
significance to baptism--not one." Staton supported his argument

with this assertion from Alexander Campbell's The Christian System:

 

Characters, not person, as such, are the subjects of baptism,
and without previous faith in the blood of Christ, and a deep
and unfeigned repentance before God, neither immersion in
water, nor any other action, can secure to us the blessing

of peace and pardon. It can merit nothing . . . to such only
as are truly penitent, dare we say, arise and be baptized,
and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,
and to such only can We say with assurance, you are washed,
you are justified, you are sanctified in the name of the Lord
Jesus; and by the Spirit of God.154

Sydney E. Ahlstrom, professor of American history and modern
church history at Yale University provided a valuable summation of

Campbell's position on baptism, in his masterful book, A Religious

 

History_of the American People:

For Campbell baptism was neither a gift of grace--a "sacre-

ment" as with the Roman Catholics or Lutherans--nor merely

a symbol signifying God's redemptive act, as with the Bap-

tists. It was the decisive formal compliance of the

believer with the command of Jesus, a washing away of sins,

not a "mysterious" supernatural transaction. 55

Several lecturers supported the premise that legitimate

baptism could only be in the form of immersion, not sprinkling or
pouring. James Van Buren explained: "In baptism we identify our-
selves with Christ, so Paul affirms, in that we experience a burial
and resurrection in water which unites us in inner commitment and
outer action with Jesus' death for our sins, His burial and His

resurrection."156 Van Buren then cited the Book, Present and

 

Future: Modern Aspects of New Testament Theology, written by the

eminent Roman Catholic theologian, Rudolf Schnackenburg:

173

Schnackenburg has some significant comments on Paul's view of
baptism, as expressed in Romans 6: "His [Paul's] readers
know that they have been baptized into Christ and now belong
entirely to him. Paul, however, remarks even more clearly
that in baptism they have been baptized into the death of
Chirst. . . . The apostle probably refers to the symbolism of
baptism as it was then administered: a person was totally
submerged in water so that he disappeared in it. . . . Hence
when we disappear under the water's surface in baptism, it
symbolizes a mystical union with the death and burial of
Christ. Along with the external event occurs an interior
event with consequences for our salvation: we are crucified
with Christ so that our 'old man' who was a slave to sin

is destroyed."157

P. H. Welshimer, the only man to serve three times as
president of the North American Christian Convention, summarized
the Plan of salvation;"

It is not sufficient that men shall give intellectual assent
to the fact of Christ; they must be led to accept Him, be
baptized into Him, and obey His marching orders. In the
Great Commission, Jesus said, "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved." I find nowhere in His teaching
and in the teaching of the apostles that that declaration
has been changed. What is written is written. If disciples
were made in the first century by belief in Christ, repentance
of their sins, confessing Christ and being baptized into
Christ, then disciples should be made in that same way in
this century. That is the unchanging law of redemption on
man's side of the proposition.158

§EEEELX
The Convention speakers found it difficult to improve upon
the historic Trinitarian concept which had been advanced by the

159 In

lawyer Tertullian: "God is one substance and three persons.“
other words, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit share equally the
possession of divinity or "God-ness;" yet they are three personal-

ities; three separate functioning beings.

174

Reacting against the abstract god of religious liberalism,
the speakers defended the dignity of the God as revealed in the
Bible on two major battlefronts. First, they sought to demonstrate
that God existed. Secondly, they attempted to delineate His personal
character as a Heavenly Father.

Admitting that the Bible did not prove, but rather assumed
the existence of God, several speakers appealed to extra-Biblical
lines of reasoning to establish His reality. In giving their assess-
ments of the divine nature, the speakers named love, light, life,
and spirit as being major concepts descriptive of God's character
and personality.

While rejecting the extreme implications of modern theol-
ogy's immanent and transcendent gods, the speakers nonetheless
agreed that God was both very near, and yet completely separated
from man.

The theme of God's love logically led the Convention Speak-
ers to discuss the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The difficult questions andrmsteriesposed by the christological
controversies did not deter the speakers from featuring Christ as
the ideal atonement for man's sins. While some speakers stressed
his perfect human life, others emphasized his absolute divinity;
all concurred that Christ was both completely human and completely
divine. He was, therefore, presented as the perfect fulfillment of
mercy and justice--the only avenue of perfect reconciliation between

man and God.

175

The speakers said comparatively little about the Holy
Spirit. A few speakers suggested that the chief work of the God-
head's third personality was to comfort and dwell within the heart
of the believer. With regard to the current alleged phenomenon of
the Holy Spirit known as "glossalia" or speaking in tongues, the
Convention Speakers voiced overwhelming disapproval.

Love was presented as the common lifeline which provided
a basis for the human-divine relationship. God's love was expressed
in grace, the gift of Christ. Man's love must be expressed in
faith, an absolute surrender to the will of the Father. Placing
heavy stress upon the enormity and universality of man's sin, the
speakers suggested that the only atonement for sin was the blood of
Christ. The redemptive blood, however, is conditional in its appli-
cation--conditioned upon the possession of a faith which is active
and obedient. Obedient faith and genuine repentance were often
described as essential steps in the I'plan of salvation," which cul-

minated in baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.

CHAPTER V

FOOTNOTES

1Paul K. Conkin and David Burner, A History of Recent
America (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1974), pp. 36L40.

2Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-
1931 (New Haven: Yale Universtiy Press, 1954), pp. 17, 122.

 

 

3Paul Goodman and Frank Gatell, America in the Twenties
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 0972), p. 2.

 

 

4Lewis F. Stearns, Present DaygTheology (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1898), p. 195.
5Ibid.

6Arthur Holmes, "The Personality of God," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky
18 June 1931 (manuscript).

7Ibid.

8Anton T. Boisen, Religion in Crisis and Custom (New York:
Harper and Brothers Co., 1955), p. 197.

9Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity(New
York: Harper and Row, 1953), p. 1226ff.

 

 

10Ralph H. Gabriel, ed., Christianity and Modern Thought
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924), p. x.

 

1]Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,“
Theolggical Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mifiéographed, NACC),'19771 McAlister was quoting from Anthony
Flew, "Theology and Falsification," in New Essays in Philosophical
Theolo , ed. Anthony Flew and Alasdair MacIntyre (New York: The
Macmil1an Co., 1955), p. 96.

12Gerald B. Smith, Current Christian Thinkigg(Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 146.

 

 

 

176

177

13F. Ernest Johnson, ed., Patterns of Faith in America
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 19.

 

14A. N. Hinrichsen, I'The Fact of God," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Long Beach, California,
25 June 1954 (manuscript).

15Anselm, Proslogion, trans. by M. J. Charlesworth, as
quoted in Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, II
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 158, 159.

 

 

16Ibid.

17Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959), p. 239.

18P. H. Welshimer, "Jesus the Christ, Son of God," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington,
Kentucky, 21 June 1931 (manuscript).

196. H. Cachiaras, "New Testament Preaching: The Message
to the Greeks (Mars Hill)," address delivered at the North American
Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,'h70ctober 1942
(manuscript).

200. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy in Religion (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 92.

21Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, I (Dallas:
Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 144.

 

 

 

22A. N. Hinricksen, "The Fact of God," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Long Beach, California,
25 June 1954 (manuscript).

23Burris Butler, "The Church Speaks of the God of Space,"
Christian Standard (August 19, 1963), p. 3.

24F1oyd E. Hamilton, The Basis of Christian Faith (New York:
Harper and Row, 1964), pp. 42, 43.

250. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy in Religion (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 93.

26Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, I (Dallas:
Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), p. 150.

27

 

 

 

Ibid.

28Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, 2nd ed.
(Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1839), p. 13.

 

178

29Ibid., p. 15.

30George Schweitzer, “Jesus Christ is Lord of Creation,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Columbus, Ohio, 13 July 1960 (manuscript).

3'lReggie Thomas, "The Church Speaks to Youth in the Space
Age," address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Long Beach, California, 29 June 1963 (manuscript).

32F. H. Welshimer, "Jesus the Christ, the Son of God,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Lexington, Kentucky, 21 June 1931 (manuscript).

33John Ralls, "Creation versus Evolution," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, St. Louis, Missouri,
9 July 1964 (manuscript).

34Geddes MacGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959), p. 113.

 

35A. N. Hinrichsen, "The Fact of God," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Long Beach, California,
25 June 1954 (manuscript).

36Ibid.

37G. H. Cachiaras, "New Testament Preaching: The Message
to the Greeks," address delivered at the North American Christian
Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana, 17 October 1942 (manuscript).

38Geddes MacGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy
(Boston: Houghton MIfflin Company, 1959), p. 113.

 

39James Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the
Christian Religion (Grand Rapids: Zondérvan Publishing House,
1962), p. 72.

 

 

40Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosophy (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951, rev. edf), p.7150.

 

41G. H. Cachiaras, "New Testament Preaching: The Message
to the Greeks," address delivered at the North American Christian
Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana, 17 October, 1942 (manuscript).

42Christian Century, March 20, 1924, p. 359.

43Edwin A. Burtt, Types of Religious Philosphy_(New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1951, rev. ed.), p. 150.

 

 

179

44A significant analysis of the contribution of the Prince-
ton theology of fundamentalism is offered by Ernest R. Sandeen,
The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1970)I

45J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith? (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1927).

 

 

46Horace J. Bridges, The God of Fundamentalism and Other
Studies (Chicago: Pascal Covici, 1925), p. 30.

47

 

Ibid.

48James M. Gray, Modernism: A Revolt Against Christianity;
A Revolt Against Good Government(Chicago: The Moody Bible Insti-
tute Colportage Association, 1924), pp. 5-10; as quoted in Willard
G. Gatewood, Jr., ed., Controversy in the Twenties (Nashville:
Vanderbuilt University Press, 1969), p. 78.

 

 

 

49Carl F. H. Henry, ed., Christian Faith and Modern Theology
(New York: Channel Press, 1964), p. 71.

 

SOGerald B. Smith, Current Christian Thinkigg_(Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 153:

51Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

52
1928): 7.

 

 

Mark Collis, "God," Christian Standard (December 8,

 

53Arthur Holmes, "The Personality of God," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky,
18 June 1931 (manuscript).

54wi11iston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New
York: Charles. Scribners' Sons, 1959), pp. 544-545.

55Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,“
Theological Forum, North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC), 1977.

56Burris Butler, "The Church Speaks of the God of Space,"
Christian Standard (August 10, 1963), p. 4.

 

 

57Evariste Hebert, "Finding the Word," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Springfield, Illinois,
22 June 1933 (manuscript).

180

58Morris Butler Book, "Exalting the Name," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana
12 October, 1940 (manuscript).

59Basil Holt, "The Hope of Immortality," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,
12 October 1942 (manuscript).

60J. H. Dampier, "The Victory of the Ascension," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 16 October 1942 (manuscript).

61A. N. Hinricksen, "The Fact of God," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Long Beach, California,
25 June 1954 (manuscript).

628enjamin B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ
(Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1950), p. vi.

 

63Frank Stagg, New Testament Theology (Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1962), p. 35.

 

64Louis Gasper, The Fundamentalist Movement (Paris: Mouton
and Co., 1963), pp. 28-29.

 

65Ernest E. Laughlin, “What Christ Taught About Himself,"
Christian Standard (June 1, 1946): 5.

 

66Russell E. Boatman, "What the Prophets Taught About
Christ," Christian Standard (May 25, 1946): 3.

57p. H. Welshimer, "Preach the Wrod," Christian Standard
(October 4, 1940): 1.

 

 

68John E. Greenlee, “The Lordship of Jesus,“ Christian
Standard (September 26, 1959): 3.

69Robert O. Fife, "The Church Speaks From God's Revelation,"
Christian Standard (August 17, 1963): 3.

 

7°Henry E. Webb, "The Power of the Word of God,“ Christian
Standard (May 26, 1956): 3.

711bid.
72Ibid.
73Ibid.

74C. C. Taylor, "The Menace of Modernism," Christian Stand-
gyg_(November 19, 1927): 4.

 

181

75Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xiv.

 

76Quoted in William Jennings Bryan, Seven Questions in
Dispute (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1924), p. 33.

77

 

Ibid.

78Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-
931 (New Haven: Yale Univer§ity Press, 1954), p. 16f

 

79Ernest E. Laughlin, "What Christ Taught About Himself,"
Christian Standard (June 1, 1946): 5.

BOP. H. Welshimer, "Preach the Word," Christian Standard
(October 12, 1940): 2.

81William Jennings Bryan, Seven Questions in Dispute
(New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1924), p. 40.

82Ernest E. Laughlin, "What Christ Taught About Himself,"
Christian Standard (June 1, 1946): 6.

 

 

 

 

83Russell E. Boatman, "What the Prophets Taught About
Christ," Christian Standard (May 25, 1946): 3.

84E. Ray Jones, "Components of Faith," Christian Standard
(July 24, 1965): 7.

 

 

85E. Richard Crabtree, "Incentives to Belief," Christian
Standard (August 28, 1965): 3.

86R. David Roberts, "Biblical Message on the Message and
the Means of Evangelism," address delivered at the North American
Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado, 8 July 1976 (manuscript).

87James G. VanBuren, "Grace, Truth and Glory," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 7Ju1y 1977 (manuscript).

88J. K. Rutherford, "If Christ Had His Way in Our Patriot-
ism," Christian Standard (July 1, 1961): 5.

 

89p. H. Welshimer, "Building the Church Through the Bible
School," Christian Standard (September 8, 1956): 5.

90John Bolten, Sr., "The Bible is the Word of God--Let's
Teach It and Live It,“ Christian Standard (September 8, 1956): 7.

 

 

182

91Raphael H. Miller, "The Faith that Overcomes the World,"
Christian Standard (July 12, 1937): 22.

92George Adler, "The Miracles of Christ," Christian Standard

 

 

(September 3, 1960): 4.

93E. C. Vanderlaan, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (New
York: The H. W. Wilson, Co., 1925), pp. 9:10.

94William Jennings Bryan, Seven Qgestions in Dispute (New
York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 0924), p. 62.

95d. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York:
Harper and Row, 1930, reprint, Grand RapTds: Baker Book House,
1965), p. 397.

96John Roach Straton, The Famous New York Fundamentalist-
Modernist Debates (New York: George H. Doran, Co., 1924), p. 169.

97Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Man From Nazareth (New York:
Harper and Row, 1949), p. 159.

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Corinthians 15:14, King James Version.

99E. G. Mullens, Why IS Christianity True? (Philadelphia:
American Baptist Publishing Co., 1921), p. 312.

100Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1924), p. 98.

101Morris Butler Book, "Exalting the Name of Christ,"
Christian Standard (December 21, 1940): 15.

102Mark Collis, "The Person of Jesus, the Christ,“ Christian
Standard (January 12, 1929): 6.

103Orvel C. Crowder, "Christ, Our Living Priest," Christian
Standard (August 7, 1954): 3.

104Harry Minnick, "The Resurrection of Jesus,“ address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 1927 (manuscript).

 

 

 

105James Small, "The Authority of Jesus," Christian Standard
(December 24, 1927): 5.

106Harold Scott, "Christ the Power for the Present Hour,"
Christian Standard (June 2, 1956): 5.

1°7Edwin G. Crouch, "Jesus Christ is Lord of All," Christian
Standard (August 27, 1960): 3.

 

 

183

108W. A. Fite, "The Victory of the Resurrection," Christian
Standard (February 6, 1943): 6.

109

110Robert O. Fife, "Revelation and Restoration," Theological

Ibid.

 

Forum: North American Christian Convention: 1974-1977 (mimeo-
graphed, NACC), 1977.

mIbid.

"Zlbid.

H3Ibid.

H4Richard Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason
(New York: Scribners Sons, 1957), p. 177.

 

115Fife, "Revelation and Restoration."

H6Niebuhr, Resurrection and Historical Reason, P- 152-

 

H7Fife, "Revelation and Restoration."

118As cited in Wolfhart Pannenberg, et al., Revelation as
History (New York: Macmillan Co., 1968), p. 142.

 

119Fife, "Revelation and Restoration."

120T. H. Johnson, "The Office of the Holy Spirit," Christian
Standard (December 3, 1927): 3.

12lDonald McLean, "Indoctrination--the Why and the How,"
Christian Standard (December 29, 1928): 6.

 

'ch. G. kindred, "Personality and Work of the Holy Spirit,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Lexington, Kentucky, 12 June 1931.

123Paul R. McReynolds, "Biblical Nature of Inspiration,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC),71977.

124W. F. Lown, "A Biblical Study of Tongues," Theological
Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeo-
graphed, NACC), 1977.

 

 

 

125Robert Stacy, "By the Spirit, Victorious," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Denver,
Colorado, 8 July 1976 (manuscript).

184

126Don DeWelt, "By the Holy Spirit, Victorious," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, 8 July 1976
(manuscript).

127W. F. Lown, "A Biblical Study of Tongues," Theological
Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977 (mimeographed,
NACC),’1977.

128

 

Ibid.

'zgoera1d B. Smith, Current Christian Thinking (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 73.

 

13ojohn 3:16, King James Version.

131Knofe1 Staton, The Kingdom of God Requires Conversion,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan, 9 July 1975 (manuscript).

132Claude J. Miller, "The Problem of Sin and Its Solution,"
Christian Standard (December 1, 1928): 6.

 

133Ibid.

134Ben Carroll, "By Sin Enslaved," address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado, 7 July 1976
(manuscript).

135Robert L. Russell, "By Sin Enslaved," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado,
7 July 1976 (manuscript).

136Knofel Staton, "The Kingdom Requires Conversion," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Detroit,
Michigan, 9 July 1975 (manuscript).

137Robert L. Russell, "By Sin Enslaved," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado,
7 July 1976 (manuscript).

138CTifton E. Olmstead, History of Religion in the United
States (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960),
ppT‘ZTA, 544-553.

139William Jennings Bryan, Seven Questions in Dispute
(New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1924), pp. 78-79.

 

 

 

140Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1919), p. 2 O.

14‘Burris Butler, "What is the Gospel?" Christian Standard
(October 26, 1940): 5-6.

 

185

142Ernest E. Laughlin, "What Christ Taught About Himself,"
Christian Standard (June 1, 1946): 6.

 

143Robert L. Russell, "By Sin Enslaved," address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado,
7 July 1976 (manuscript).

144Marshall J. Leggett, "True Love is of God," Christian
Standard (September 19, 1964): 6.

145Ibid.

146Leonard G. Wymore, "By Grace Transformed," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Denver,
Colorado, 9 July 1976 (manuscript).

147Owen L. Crouch, "The Constraining Power of the Love of
Christ,” Christian Standard (July 14, 1951): 11.

 

148Henry E. Hill, "The Glory of Redemption," Christian
Standard (August 25, 1962): 8.

149Orval M. Morgan, "The Victorious Faith," Christian
Standard (July 31, 1965): 4.

150Alger Fitch, "The Word of God for Man's Deliverance,"
Christian Standard (August 29, 1964): 4.

151L. H. Apple, "Preaching the Word of God," Christian
Standard (September 5, 1964): 3.

152Dean E. Walker, "Scriptural Conversion," Christian
Standard (November 2, 1940): 6.

153R. C. Snodgrass, "New Testament Repentance and Its Modern
Application,‘I Christian Standard (September 4, 1937), p. 7.

154Knofel Staton, "The Kingdom of God Requires Conversion,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan 9 July 1975 (manuscript).

155Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Reli ious History of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University ress, 1972), p.'449.

 

 

 

156James Van Buren, “The Meaning and Place of Baptism,"
Theological Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977
(mimeographed, NACC),’1977.

1571bid.

 

186

158P. H. Welshimer, "Preach the Word," Christian Standard
(October 12, 1940): 2.

159Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought,
Vol. I (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), p. 183.

 

CHAPTER VI

THE CHURCH

Introduction

 

The importance of the church in a study of the North American
Christian Convention cannot be overemphasized. Although character-
ized by a well planned informality, the Convention was fundamentally
a church meeting. The spirit of church brotherhood was the common
denominator which provided the basis for the annual fellowship. The
Speakers were church men; the audience came as members of the church.
It is not surprising that more than one-fifth of the Convention
addresses concerned the doctrine of the church--its nature, its

organization, its mission, its worship.

The Nature of the Church

 

From the report of the second World Conference on Faith and
Order held at Edinburgh in 1937, "it seemed to many that probably
the most divisive features in the theological controversies of
modern Christendom were rooted in differences about the nature of
the church."1 Fifteen years later, as over 250 delegates from
various communions met at Lund for the Third World Conference,
Sharp disagreement over the nature of the church still occupied a

prominent position.2

187

188

The task of comprehending the Convention's concept of the
nature of the church is enhanced by its rigid stance of respect for
and submission to the absolute authority of the New Testament. The
speakers addressed themselves, from first to last, to the "New
Testament Church." From their Restoration forebearers they inherited
the hope of converting the world to Christ. The material principle
for achieving this goal was the union and unity of all believers,
and the formal principle for attaining this unity was the restora-
tion of the primitive church as set forth in the New Testament.

In the Greek New Testament, the term most often used to
describe the church is "ecclesia." John Bolten, Sr., speaking on
"The Ecclesia of God," said in 1956 that the term literally means
"called out." Bolten went on to explain that the church consists
of "God's redeemed ones. It is a colony of heaven and its members
are registered in heaven." He concluded: "It is a universal
gathering of all true believers to which all true born-again Chris-
tians who were saved by the blood of Christ belong. That and that
a1one is the Church."3

Although many speakers equated the term "ecclesia" with
the whole number of regenerate believers on earth, contemporary
theologians did not agree that etymology itself justified such a

limited use of the word. Brunner's The Misunderstanding of the

 

Church, criticizes even the use of the term "institution" to

4 Greek scholar, Fenton J. A. Hort, adds that

describe the church.
the word, "ecclesia," does not exclusively mean a people "called

out of the world by God."5 George Johnson points out in his

189

important study of the New Testament doctrine that the notion that
"as ecclesia, the church is a community called out of the world by
God" is one that "may legitimately be deduced from passages in the
New Testament, according as the 'word' is defined, but it is not

6 The word was, therefore, not etymologi-

present in the word itself."
cally restricted to a religious meaning and might refer to any
assembly of citizens summoned by a herald to gather for specific
business at an appointed place.
Many speakers Specifically stressed that those who were

"called out" by the GOSpe1 were those who had rendered obedience to
the plan of salvation; hence, they concluded that the action of
salvation from sin and the process of incorporation into the church
occurred simultaneously. "The Day of Pentecost was one of the great-
est occasions in the history of man," said T. K. Smith in 1959.

On this day the church of Christ was born. Under the com-

plete guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's eternal and

unchanging plan of salvation was given. All who committed

themselves to Christ as repentant, faithful, baptized

believers were immediately members of His church, added by

the Lord.7

In 1974, Gerald A. Gibson added the inevitable corollary,

that, since the church equals the saved, membership in the church
is essential to eternal salvation:

The unchurched are lost. There is absolutely no salvation

outside the Church of Jesus Christ. If one soul can be

saved outside, then the whole world can. The Church is the

Body of Christ, with Jesus the Head. The Head controls the

Body. When one becomes a Christian, he automatically becomes

part of the Body, the Church. People say to me, "I want

to be saved, but don't want to be part of the Church."
That's impossible! You can no more be saved without being

 

190

part of the Church than you can be married without getting
married. For when ygu are saved, God adds you unto His
Church. Acts. 2:47.

By the term "ecclesia," therefore, the Convention speakers
referred to the corporate body of baptized believers. They con-
tended that the New Testament was very clear in its definition of
the nature of the church. Geddes MacGregor, in his volume on the
nature of the church, implicitly agrees that if the New Testament
were the sole court of appeal, much of the ecclesiological contro-
versy would disappear. MacGregor explains:

The New Israel consists of those who have been incorporated
into Christ by baptism. It would not have occurred to any
New Testament writer to suppose that a man might be "in
Christ" yet not "in the church;" it would have seemed a

logical impossibility, somewhat like saying of a man that
he has parents, yet is not a member of a family.9

The Kingdom

 

In addition to "ecclesia," the "Kingdom," was another scrip-
tural expression which the Speakers used to designate the nature of
the church. Most of those who discussed the "Kingdom of Heaven" or
the "Kingdom of God" employed the terms as synonyms for the church.

In 1915, A. C. McGiffert's book, The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas,

 

noted the "extraordinary prominence, in present-day Christian

thought and speech, of the kingdom of God."10

Although traditionally
identified with the church as an institution, the Kingdom of God,
according to McGiffert's 1915 vantage point, was more widely inter-
preted as the reign of the Christian spirit on earth. He attributed
this broader interpretation of the Kingdom to the influence of the

Social Gospel.

191

The majority of the Convention Speakers were quite decisive
in identifying the kingdom with the church. "The Kingdom is the
reign or rule of God in the lives of His people," said Russell
Blowers in 1975. "The great movement of which we are a part has

11 Blowers cited Alexander

pretty much equated Kingdom and Church."
Campbell's conviction that the Kingdom came on the first Pentecost

after the resurrection. In 1861, Campbell wrote in the Millennial

 

Harbinger:

No intelligent Christian man would now in all earnestness say
to the Lord Jesus or to His Father, 'Thy kingdom come.'. . .
on the first Pentecost after Christ's glorious ascension into
Heaven, and His coronation there, His reign or Kingdom posi-
tively commenced.12

The doctrine of premillennialism, an eschatological theory

13 contended that the true Kingdom

characteristic of fundamentalism,
of God had not yet been established. "The radical separation of
the present 'age of the church' from the coming 'Kingdom,'" said
Sydney Ahlstrom, "had its effective origin in the teachings of John
Nelson Darby."14 According to Darby, Jesus came to establish the
kingdom; but when the Jews rejected Him, He established the church
instead. Thus, the church is an unexpected parenthesis, totally
unknown to the prophets. All the Old Testament kingdom prophecies
must, therefore, be applied to the yet unfulfilled millennial king-
dom which dispensationalists believe will be ushered in by Jesus at
his second coming.

The doctrine of premillennialism frequently occupied the

attention of Convention speakers. A direct affront against Darbyism

by Henry Webb in 1973, was typical of the Convention response:

192

Darby's postponement theory is besieged with problems not the
least of which is its affront to the power of God, and reflec-
tion upon His integrity. Jesus stated that He had accomplished
all that the Father had sent Him to do (John 17:4-11). Did
God send Jesus to establish a kingdom? If so, then Jesus
either established it, or affirmed a falsehood. If God did
not send Jesus to establish a kingdom, why did Jesus preach:
"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand?" Why was He
constantly talking about the kingdom, comparing it to a

power, to a treasure, etc? If the Jews were able to stop
Jesus from establishing the kingdom at His first coming,

what assurance have we that they will not foil His plans at
His second coming? 5

Generally, those religious groups that were keenly conscious
of a social obligation characteristically opposed premillennialism.
By the same token, most postmillennarian bodies were ordinarily
intensely interested in social improvement. It is significant that,
while the churches of the Restoration Movement were affected very
little by the doctrines of the Social Gospel, they were, neverthe-
less, vigorously opposed to premillennialism.

Accepting the terms kingdom and church as Biblically synono-
mous, the Convention Speakers rejected the theory that Christ will
return to the earth at some future date to establish a kingdom and
reign for a literal thousand years. In his 1975 presidential
address, Russell Blowers expressed the unanimous sentiment of the
Convention speakers and audience when he declared:

We are not in Detroit to fit together eschatological puzzles,
or to set dates for the Second Coming, or passively to shift
into neutral and wait for some cosmic, cataclysmic curtain to
fall. We are here to exalt the King, the Lord Jesus Christ,
and to discover what the Kingdom is, what it is doing, how
we get in and stay in, and how it expands in the world. . . .
The second Coming of Jesus Christ is a blessed and certain
hope for which we are to yearn and for which we are to stand
in readiness, but to argue about the chronology of final
events can so preoccupy believers that they have no time nor

inclination to get on with the assigned task of discipling
the nations.16

193

The Body of Christ

 

The "Body of Christ" was another descriptive term which
appeared regularly in the pulpit addresses on the church. The
Convention messages employed the figure to feature the unity of
the apostolic church. The Restoration Movement had been motivated
by the hope of unifying all believers in Christ, and the modern
ecumenical discussion revived general interest in the study of the
unity of the early church. Although they accused the modern ecumeni-
cal theories and inter-church federations of fostering union without
unity, the speakers believed unity to be one of the chief and essen-
tial characteristics of the first century church.

Interwoven with the theme of unity was a heavy stress upon
the nonsectarian nature of the "Body of Christ." "To talk about
'the body of Christ' as limited to a certain party, movement, or
Segment, is to sectarianize the expression and to reveal our ignor-
ance," said Carl Ketcherside in 1972. "The Lord's church embraces
everyone of the Lord's people and it is true that these are not all
in the same partisan corral. The flock of God is still scattered
over the sectarian hills."17

Addresses on the origin and historical development of the
church were frequently used to demonstrate its unity and undenomina-
tional character. An important series of such addresses was
delivered in 1931, on the theme, "The Church Through History.‘I
Through the years, numerous speakers pointed to the record in the

second chapter of the Acts of Apostles, maintaining that the church

194

was born in Jerusalem on the first Jewish Pentecost after the resur-

rection of Christ.18

Others, charting the historical progression
of the church, concluded that it remained free from the "evils of
human apostacy" throughout the first century, despite intense
internal problems and overt persecutions.19
Within this historical perspective the speakers interpreted
Roman Catholicism as the apostate result of a series of human inno-
vations that eventually robbed the New Testament church of its
purity and simplicity. It is interesting to observe that some stu-
dents of church history have asserted that such groups as those
in the Restoration Movement hold several points in common with the

Catholic church. The book, Religious Thought in the Last Quarter

 

Century, published in l927, detected a strange attitudinal alliance
between Roman Catholicism and Protestant fundamentalism in its

fight against modernism. Editor Gerald B. Smith contended that the
Catholics and fundamentalists in protestantism "have precisely the
same feeling concerning authority." Both, he insisted, are concerned
with retaining the "older conception of authority in order to main-

20 In a

tain the older religious experience of absolute assurance."
second volume published the following year, Smith continued: "The
program of fundamentalism is in many respects precisely parallel to
the program of the Catholic Church in relation to modernism.21

If the Convention speakers could be justly linked with the
Catholic position in their fierce Opposition to a common foe, this

was the only congenial point of agreement in an otherwise totally

195

antagonistic relationship. For instance, Robert E. Elmore, intro-
ducing his 1931 address, "The Rise and Decline of the Church,"
declared:

Tolstoi said: "There is no room in the world for such an
institution as the church." If he meant the state church
of the czars, or the religio-political institution with
headquarters in Vatican City, or, indeed, so-called Protes—
tantism, with its warring sects styling themselves churches,
we have no difficulty in agreeing with him. But the insti-
tution Christ built and named the church is the salt of the
earth and the light of the world.22

Speaking on the same series, Bruce L. Kershner was equally
as disapproving of the Catholic concept of papal authority. He
concurred with this statement from the pen of Martin Luther:

In 1521 he wrote: "Whatever is ordered without the word of
God is not ordered by the true church, but by the synagogue
of Satan under the title and name of the true church--there-
fore the mad S0phists and papists must do one of two things:
let them prove their priesthood by the Scriptures, or they
must confess that these things are nothing but the dissimu-
lations of Satan and condemned idols. For whatever is not
founded on the Scriptures is certainly from the devil himself.
I shall here again state by fundamental principle which shall
be accepted by all Christians: that everything that is done
without Scripture, especially in religious matters, is of the
devil." From this quotation taken from his works it is
unmistakably clear that he began his reformation at the
proper starting point--the Scripture foundationhead--and that
he did not at that time regard tradition or the authority of
the church as an adequate authority for Christian teaching or
practice. The word of God was rightful authority, and every-
thing not founded upon it was to be abandoned. The period of
time during which he stood on this principle was the greatest-
and most fruitfu1 in his career.2

The speakers admitted that the Catholic controlled Middle
Ages yield little historical data relating to the existence of an
institution resembling that of the primitive church of the first

century. While a few speakers surmised that individual believers

196

might have continued to follow the New Testament blueprint in
remote, unknown quarters, others maintained that a carefully docu-
mented knowledge of the church's history was not germane to the
question of authenticity. In 1931, Basil Holt described various
efforts to restore primitive Christianity. He admitted that it was
"a futile effort to find something resembling the early church
through much of history. There is no unbroken line of succession.
The only true succession is the 'seed,‘ the Word of God." Holt
continued:
Jesus Christ said, "The seed is the word," and through His
apostle He sowed this seed, which blossomed forth in the
primitive church. Then Roman Catholicism built its building
over it, and the Reformation with its succeeding sects added
more and ever more buildings, till in the providence of God
the Restoration Movement arose with its plea that all these
superstructures be removed in order that the seed of the Word
might once more, under the rain of God's grace and the sun-
shine of His approving smile, burst forth in the beautiful
flower of New Testament Christianity.24
Moving to the sixteenth century, the Convention speakers
discussed the Protestant Reformation with mixed feelings of appre-
ciation and regret. "A thousand years rolled by," declared P. H.
Welshimer, "at the end of which time men began to get their eyes
opened . . . and there was a welling up in the hearts of many the

25 Although the reformers

desire to go back to purer doctrine."
were eulogized as brave souls who salvaged the freedom to study the
Bible and worship according to conscience, they were interpreted as
an imperfect transition between the "ebony blackness of Romanism,

and the purer light of the nineteenth century Restoration Movement."

Though there are no apparent historical ties between the two groups,

197

some interesting doctrinal similarities coupled with the common
charge that the Reformation was only half successful, is strongly

reminiscent of the position of the virile Anabaptist Movement of

the sixteenth century.26

In 1937, speaker P. H. Welshimer both commended and criti-
cized the work of the early reformers:

Upon the shoulders of Martin Luther stood other reformers,
notably John Calvin, whose plea was the divine sovereignty of
God; and John Wesley, who pleaded for spirituality within the
church. . . . All of these men were looking back toward that
which had been, but no one of them went the full distance

. . . back beyond Augsburg, Westminster, Nicaea and Rome to
Jerusalem.27

In his 1931 address, Bruce Kershner traced the factors which,
in his judgment, contributed to the failure of the Reformation in
achieving the restoration of primitive Christianity. With reference
to Martin Luther, Kershner asserted:

He could not brave the consequences of the movement he had
started. When he declared for the Scriptures alone as the
rule of faith and practice, he was brought face to face with
the tragic possibility of being delivered by his own peOple
into the hands of the pope, with none to help, and of ending
his life at the stake. When he declared against infant bap-
tism, he faced the necessity of prosecuting his work single-
handed, without the necessary support of the stalwart German
princes, apart from whom, as far as human reason could see,
he was certain to come to ruin; or of withdrawing from his
position and securing the coveted civil support; and he
yielded. When he proclaimed the liberty of the Christian man
and saw the consequent outbreak of the Peasants' War, he
retracted his position, threw himself into the opposite scale
and exhorted the nobles to slay the helpless serfs without
mercy. No man would regard Luther as a coward; he was among
the bravest of men; but when the consequences attendant upon
his reformation became evident he shrank back, and with his
own hands began to forge the shackles to bind again the
liberty he had released from prison. Thus, when Melanchthon
announced his points of th90109y: though they were in direct
contradiction to Luther's position on the authority of the

198

Scriptures, he said, "They were not only worthy of immortal-
ity, but of a place in the sacred canon." As he shrank back
more and more, he bound more tightly the creedal fetters.
While asserting that the Bible is the highest authority in
matters of faith, he and his followers kept effectually
interpreting it in accordance with ecclesiastical symbols
they could not discard. The passion for dogmatism thus
brought into his church became so insatiable that nothing
was too difficult for it to force upon the human conscience,
or too sacred for it to pervert. Very soon orderly interpre—
tation of Scripture disappeared from the universities of
Germany, and his followers were issuing Lutheran theology in
twenty-volume sets. The Lutheran Reformation thus went back
to its beginning, and from that time to this its most pro-
gressiyg leaders have had to march with shackles on their
imbs.

At the very first North American Christian Convention in
1927, Jesse R. Kellems noted the difference between the concepts of
reformation and restoration.

Martin Luther sought to reform the Catholic Church and the
result was the Lutheran Church. John Wesley set out to
reform the English Church and the result was the Methodist
Church. Thomas and Alexander Campbell and their co-laborers
did not attempt to reform any denomination but their efforts
were to restore the church as it was in the beginning.

The speakers contended that denominationalism, by its very
nature, fostered and condoned division in the "Body of Christ."
They regarded the organized divisions of modern denominationalism
as incompatible with the plan of unity in the apostolic church. In
the attack upon denominationalism, some speakers focused special
attention on "the Scriptural conception of unity":

The unity of the New Testament is not oneness in organiza-
tions, but just the reverse--unity without organization, or
in Spite of organization. All who, through a spirit of abso-
lute loyalty to ordinances, love their fellow-Christians as
brethren banish sectarianism from their hearts, refuse to be
members of, or aid, sectarian movements or organizations, are
already one in Christ. No other bond than that is needed to
constitute them one. How simple the Scriptural conception of
unity.30

199

Sectarianism Within the Brotherhood

 

Although the early speakers on church unity largely aimed at
the evils of organized denominationalism, in recent years an inter-
esting shift began to appear. Several speakers warned that the
brotherhood was not providentially immune to the human weaknesses
which manufactured denominationalism and destroyed the unity of the
apostolic church. They asserted that there were certain contentions
which only lacked sufficient time to develop into full-fleged denomi-
nations.

In the chapter on "The Restoration Movement," Cole's

History of Fundamentalism chronicles the church's inclination to

 

divide into bitter factions. As early as 1931, Cole wrote: "At
the present time the Disciples denomination is more seriously

divided than is any other evangelical people in America."31

Although
his remarks were aimed particularly at the liberal Christian Church
(Disciples of Christ), his comments were also relevant to the devel-
opment of the Restoration Movement's conservative wing. Cole
credited a "controversial psychology," "the debating spirit," and

"a disputational attitude" with permitting the movement's preachers
to "go to such extremes in personal attack and divisive action,

32 In

such as has not been experienced in other denominations."
1940, W. R. Walker stated the issues which tended to separate
brethren and stifle the unity which at one time had been the focus
of the movement.

Often no question of faith or loyalty to Christ was involved,
but personal opinion or prejudiced view was exalted to the

200

plane of creedal belief. Such matters as: The number of cups
that should be used in the observance of the Lord's Supper;
when, how and by whom the loaf should be broken; whether a
worship period should close with a prayer or a hymn; whether
Bibles only or whether lesson sheets Should be used in the
Bible schools; whether Bible schools for training preachers
are permissible; whether an elder is a life termer, or whether
he may be released after a period of service; whether a choir
or a solo singer shall lead the congregation in song; whether
"singing in the heart“ shall be accompanied only by the vocal
organs of the singer, or whether musical instruments may also
voice the melody! What a shame that we have brought our plea
for Christian unity into disrepute by such un-Christian con-
duct! Those responsible for dividing congregations and dis-
rupting fraternal fellowship over the petty trivialities
enumerated above are "heretics," in the New Testament sense
of the word.

W. Carl Ketcherside, whose wisdom, wit, and communicative
skills made him a Convention favorite, was most sensitive to the
divisive element of sectarianism within the brotherhood. His numer-
ous speeches at the North American Christian Convention were inter-
rupted by applause too frequently to tabulate, however, he was at
the same time considered by many--controversial. In 1963, Ketcher-
side described the prevalence of sectarianism in the Restoration
Movement:

We are the heirs of a noble movement, inauguated by brilliant
but humble men, to "unite the Christians in all of the sects."
Their effort was launched at a time when sectarianism was rife
and warring partisans called down heaven's blessing upon their
respective divisive establishments. We have lived to see a
complete reversal of that attitude. Schism is now regarded

as the scandal of modern Christendom. The sectarian spirit is
decried by the children of those who once defended it. It is
the tragedy of our own history that, having begun so auspi-
ciously, we have "fallen out by the way" and instead of being
a catalyst to bring together divergent elements, we constitute
one of the most divided movements in the contemporary American
picture. We have contributed to the number of factions and
fragments in the past; it remains to be seen whether we can
contribute anything vital to the unity of the future. I do
not hold with those who would abandon the ideal of restoration,

201

but I am not so much concerned for "restoring the Restoration
movement" as I am in recapturing that spirit which gave it
incentive and impetus.34

In the same address, Ketcherside warned his audience to distinguish
between the Restoration Movement and the church:

I regard every sincere baptized believer in our Lord Jesus
Christ as a child of God. Wherever my Father has a child I
have a brother. I am convinced that He has many children and
I have many brethren who have never even heard of the Restora-
tion movement. That movement is not the church and should
never be confused with it. There is only one church now,
there never was but one, and there will never be another. The
church is a divine creation and a divine organism. It is not
a human organization. A man might as well try to create
another God as to create another church. The church is the
body of my blessed Lord and is composed of all the saved of
all the earth. The church of God was on earth before Thomas
Campbell read his "Declaration and Address" and before Alexander
Campbell was born. Jesus has never been a head without a body,
a king without a subject or a shepherd without a sheep since
the Pentecostal birthday of the church. Whether we would
recognize and welcome some of the sheep if they came back
among us makes little difference, seeing that "the Lord
knoweth them that are his!“ I am determined to receive all
whom God recieves, and on the same basis that He received

me. He received me, not because of my perfection in knowl-
edge, but in spite of my imperfections. I am no longer so
much concerned that others believe all the things Ithink I
know, as I am that they know Him in whom I know I have
believed.35

A manifestation of sectarianism was the tendency of some
brethren to bind opinion into rigid law. This type of controversy
was not, however, limited to the churches of the Restoration Move-
ment. In the decades following World War I, the tensions over the
modernistic theories created a climate conducive to scrutiny, censor-
ship and law making. Investigating commissions, appropriately
dubbed "witch—hunters," and attempts to invoke doctrinal tests of
fellowship upon "suspected" ministers, were conmon to every major

denomination.

202

The tendency to investigate and officially censor was par-
ticularly apparent in the Baptist fellowship. Prior to the 1920
annual meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention, 150 leaders in
the church issued a call to a pre-convention "Conference on the
Fundamentals." This unofficial gathering was keynoted by an address
on "The Menace of Modernism in Our Schools," and when the convention
itself came formally into session, a motion was presented for an
official investigation of the religious opinions taught in all
Baptist schools. After bitter debate, a commission was set up to
investigate the loyalty of teachers in all Baptist institutions.36

Elsewhere the Situation was equally as tense. In 1922,
Harry Emerson Fosdick attacked heresy hunters in his famous sermon,
"Shall the Fundamentalist Win?" In response, such rebuttals as
John R. Straton's "Shall the Funnymonkeyists Win?" cropped up around
the nation. The Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910, 1916, and
1923 attempted to make all of their ministers swear allegiance to
an "essential," five-point doctrinal statement.37

The issue was also present in the Convention addresses. In
1963, Ketcherside expressed concern over the haste with which some
individuals questioned the soundness of their brothers in the move-
ment. He concluded:

One can be wrong about many things if he is right about Jesus
and still be saved; he can be right about everything else but
if he is wrong about Jesus he will still be lost. I am

determined to make nothing a test of fellowship which God has
not made a condition of salvation. Those who are good enough

to be in fellowship with Him are not too bad for me to be in
fellowship with them.38

203

Similarly, Robert Moorehead analyzed the problem in 1975:

"The prevailing attitude of some brethren is this: Unless you use
the right Brand X of Bible school literature,mouth the same cliches,
support the right college, attend the right camp, and finance the
right mission cause, you're not one of us." The speaker, however,
raised the eyebrows of some in his Convention audience when he
declared, "It is time that we begin to join hands with our brethren
in other denominations." Moorehead's address concluded in contro-
versy as he asserted:

Our church in Kirkland is made up mostly of people who have

come out of other denominations. We have those who believe

that tongues are possible, pre and post millenialists, those

who believe in eternal security, others who are for and against

laws legalizing abortion. We even have some ex-Baptists who

still believe in tithing. But one thing unites all of us

there . . . we are a part of God's forever family. Like

children of the same family, we're radically different in

many ways. But, we're one in His Spirit.39

In conclusion, it may be said that the Convention speakers

resolutely held that the nature of the church inhered in a fixed
apostolic pattern. They denied that the church was an accidental
ideology arising out of the unique environmental dynamics of the
first century. They believed that Jesus Christ conceived of Himself
as the founder of the church, an institution which fulfilled in
detail the expectations of the Old Testament prophets. Constituted
of baptized believers in whom the Spirit dwells the church was, to
the Convention speakers, the saved body of Christ. In spite of

acknowledged difficulties in living up to the pattern, they consid-

ered themselves to be living proof that undenominational Christianity

204

is possible in the midst of sectarian chaos. While conceding that
human limitations frequently marred the ideal, Sam W. Price's 1948
address, "The Challenge of the Restoration Movement," admirably
phrased the plea for an undenominational church:

We recognize and respect the Christian character of all
religious people--whether Protestant or Catholic. We ask
them to lay aside the errors of doctrine and practice and
embrace only the plain teachings of Christ and the apostles.
We are really not divided on anything that is plainly taught
in the Scriptures. The line of cleavage is on things not
taught in the sacred Scriptures. It is not necessary for

me to go to you or for you to come to me. If we will volun-
tarily drop and discard all of our un-Scriptural names,
doctrines, and practices right where we are and speak only
where the Bible speaks, and in its language, the thing is
done. Immediately Christian unity has become an accomplished
fact. If all of us go to Christ, we shall meet each other
at the cross and be together. If I could assemble in one
religious body and rightly compound the abiding faith of the
Catholic, the consecrated wealth of the Episcopalian, the
learning of the Presbyterian, the loyalty and zeal of the
Baptist, the lovingkindness of the Methodist, and the sound
doctrine of our people, I should have restored the primitive
apostolic Christian church in every item--a church that would
evangelize and convert the whole world in one generation, a
triumphant, glorious church, against which the very "gates
of hell" itself could not prevail!40

The Organization of the Church
In his 1956 address, P. H. Welshimer expressed a fundamental
tenet of the Convention discussion on church organization: "The
church is not a democracy in which people elect representatives
and men counsel together in the making and inforcing of laws. But,
it is rather, a kingdom in which Christ is the reigning monarch.
He never changes His laws."41

The speakers contended that the unit of ultimate organiza-

tion in the apostolic church was the local congregation.

205

Consequently, they categorically rejected any concept of churchwide
ecclesiasticism and sought to preserve the right of self-rule for
the local congregation. Several speakers emphasized the principle
of autonomy as a safeguard against general church-wide apostacy.
When answering the charges of ineffeciency and immobility because
of the absence of ecclesiastical organization, the speakers
responded: "The greatest growth of the church occurred during the
earliest period, when there was no hierarchy--no organization other
than the simple local organization of church officers, and local

42

autonomy was really practiced." "It Should be recalled," said

T. K. Smith, "that the church reached its lowest spiritual and moral
ebb when it had entered into its mostly highly organized period."43
The speakers maintained that each apostolic congregation

was governed by a body of elders who, upon meeting specific scrip-
tural qualifications, were delegated power of executive oversight
by Christ, the head of the church. Therefore, on a scale of descend-
ing authroity, the Speakers approved the following structure of
church government: Christ as the supreme head of the church, the
apostles as its founding fathers, the elders as administrators
within the local congregation, deacons as servants of the local
church, and evangelists as permanent teachers in the church.44 In
his 1931 speech, Robert E. Elmore summarized this chain of church
authority:

Christ is the head of the church, that in all things He might

have the pre-eminence. The government is upon His shoulder.
Christ's word, the apostles' teaching, all things whatsoever

206

He commanded, is the law of the church, the perfect law from
the one and only Lawgiver and Judge. Christ made the church
free. Subject to Him the one Lord and to His word the one
law, the church is free from all other lords and all other
laws, the local congregation managing its own affairs under
the supervision of elders and the service of deacons chosen
by the congregation itself from its own ranks.45

Contrasting rather sharply with a basic tenet of Roman
Catholicism, the Speakers contended that the office of apostle was
permanently vacated at the conclusion of the service of the original
twelve. The speakers were in basic agreement with most of the
Protestant world in opposing the Catholic position of apostolic
succession. In the traditional Protestant opinion the apostolic
office was inseparably attached to persons. The death of the per-

45 In 1937 P. H. Wel-

son implied the termination of the office.
shimer stated the position of the Convention platform: "The his-
toric episcopacy is claimed to be a source of authority by some
who teach that the bishops are the legitimate successors of the
apostles. Be it remembered that the apostles were eyewitnesses,
and eyewitnesses have no successors."47
When responding to the Catholic claim that Peter was the
first in a successive line of Roman pontifs, Gilbert 0. Nations
declared:
Peter could never have been bishop of Rome. The first cen-
turn was silent on bishops of cities. In that century there
was a plurality of bishops in every congregation. But early
in the second century a bishop in each important city was

exercising authority, over the cit and in some instances
over adjacent rural congregations.

207

The nature of the office in which the executive leadership
was vested following the apostolic period is revealed in the Bibli-

cal terms used to designate it. Presbuteros, presbyter or elder;

 

episkogos, bishop or overseer; and poimenn, pastor or Shepherd, are
the three Greek words which name and describe the office. Gilbert
Nations described the nature of the elder's responsibility and duty,
to which the Convention speakers subscribed:

The elders or bishops were the pastors of the New Testament
church. The word rendered "bishops" means pastors or over-
seers. Paul directed Timothy to prefer as elders those who
were gifted in teaching. There were no other pastors in the
first century. Scarcity of books in the primitive church,
fourteen centuries before the invention of printing, necessi-
tated the choice of those for service as elders whose Chris-
tian experience extended back, if possible, to contact with
the inSpired evangelists of the apostolic age. Only such
could teach with accuracy and confidence. From the greater
age of their membership in the church, they were called
elders. But with reference to their duty to care for the
flock, they were designated as bishops.49

In addition to the above, John R. Pierce said that elders

were to:
A. Pray for their preacher.
B. Defend their preacher to the congregation when necessary.
C. Tell the preacher exactly how they feel.
0. 'Feed-back from sermons occasionally.
E. A desire to grow spiritually and specifically in the area
of being an elder.
F.

Be a good example to the congregation.
1. no bad habits
2. tithers at least
3. faithfulness at all services
a. Bible School
b. Worship
c. Sunday night
d. Wednesday night
Shepherd the congregation
Hospital calling and sick and shut-in.
Encouragement to preacher
. Encouragement to deacons

car-42:6”)

208

K. See to it that the committee they are on operates.

L. Assume responsibility of special area of concern for each
elder.

M. Have a positive attitude. 50

N.

Take a strong doctrinal stand-in love.
Several speakers listed the qualifications for the office of
elder as recorded in I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9: blameless,
the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given
to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, not
greedy of filthy lucre, patient, not a brawler, not covetous, one
that ruleth well his own house, not a novice, a good report of them
that are without, having faithful children,rwfl:soon angry, a lover
of good men, just, holy, temperate, holding fast the faithful word.
Some speakers addressed the need for more truly qualified
elders, others highlighted specific problems or challenges which
the office must embrace. In 1928, C. C. Crawford emphasized the
importance of leadership by example: "If an elder teaches his
people to be truthful, he must not be false; if he teaches them to
forgive, there must be no malice in his heart. He must do these
things first, and then his teaching will te11."51
The Convention addresses yielded very little information
relating to the office of deacon. A few speakers suggested that the
nature of the office is characterized by the Greek term diakonos,
translated deacon and meaning: a servant, a waiting man, a menial,
or a messenger. Others mentioned that the deacons general area of
responsibility pertained to the physical matters of the church.

In his 1977 address, John Pierce described the office of

deacon:

209

The New Testament church was overseen and guided by the
ELDERS. Deacons were selected, not to help in the decision-
making areas of the church life, but to special tasks of
service as instructed by the elders and/or apostles and/or
evangelists. Deacons are assistants to the elders, taking
care of areas the elders and evangelists need to be freed
from so they can give more time to thg preaching of the Word,
shepherding of the body, and prayer.5

More Convention addresses were devoted to the office of
evangelist or preacher than any other position in the government of
the church. "Primary importance, both in time and importance, must
be given to evangelists," said W. R. Walker in 1942. "They are the
pioneers in church extension. They preceed pastors and teachers."53

Some of the most interesting and drastic shifts of brother-
hood custom within the Conventions fifty year history, are to be
observed in the speakers' changing attitudes toward the preacher and
his work. These attitudinal transitions effected both the preach-
er's place in the organization of the church and his work in the
church.

What is the place of the preacher in the government of the
church? During the early years of the Convention, most speakers
named the elder's office as the position of ultimate derived author-
ity. W. R. Walker described the relationship between elders and
evangelists:

Now, permit some special attention to be centered on the
work and personality of the men who have been definitely
called or ordained to the ministry of the gospel as preach-
ers, teachers, evangelists, of local churches. These men do,
or Should, serve under the supervision of the local congre-
gational bishops. Not all elders are "apt to teach." Many
godly men, who are otherwise well qualified to shepherd a
flock, either through lack of training or because of busi-

ness demands, have but limited preaching or teaching abil-
ity. Such men need a "pulpit voice." This they supply

210

in the person of ministers who devote all their time and
energy to the work of an exclusive ministry. A recognition
and acceptance of this relationship between elders and minis-
ters would solve some vexing problems in church management.5

Walker said that the preachers "obligation to the congregation is
just what his title expresses--that of 'minister.’ He is not a
'boss."'55 This position is in Sharp contrast with that expressed
by Robert G. Murphy in 1973. Addressing the preachers in his
audience, Murphy declared:

Everything rises or falls on the leadership you provide,

don't apologize for being the boss. I believe that this

was Jethro's concept of management-~you be the boss and

then delegate the work to others and develop them in it.

It is not, as some would tend to believe, the manipulation

of things and people for ulterior motives. You may find

some board members who will say, "Why don't you stick to

preaching and let us worry about the business and money?"

To these you can say that the ministry is business and

money and you cannot divorce them from God's program.

This is not to say that you take the position of a dicta-

tor with comglete autocratic control,but you have got to

be the boss. 5

Murphy's conceptualization of the role of the preacher must,
at this writing, be considered extreme. His position is modeled
after the Southern Baptist "pastor" concept in which the preacher is
the chief bishop and only elder in the congregation. Murphy recom-
mended Dr. W. A. Criswell and Dr. Jack Hyles as examples of effec-
tive ministers. Both are "pastors" in the Southern Baptist
denomination.57
In recent years, the overwhelming majority of Convention

speakers subscribed to a more moderate stance regarding the posi-
tion of the local evangelist or preacher. "A preacher, as an

evangelist-teacher works Side-by-side with the elders, under their

211

oversight," said John Pierce, "and at the same time as one who

admonishes and instructs them."58

Edwin V. Hayden summarized the distinctive roles of the
elders, deacons, and evangelist in the government of the local
congregation:

Each congregation is an independent unit, working in its
own way with like units elsewhere. Each congregation has
its elders, overseers, presbyters, or bishops--all names
for the same office--who are to be the shepherds of the
flock. Each congregation also has its deacons, ministers,
or servants--again various names for the same Scriptural
office-~to attend to its business and welfare. There are
also evangelists, pastors, and teachers. These features
are common to all New Testament congregations, and essen-
tial to them.59

After discussing the preacher's relationship to the total
organization of the church, the speakers turned their attention to
his special sphere of work. Although expressing a variety of opin-
ions, they discovered grounds for agreement in Robert C. Shannon's
statement: "My plea is, let your minister preach! Let him preach

the Word!"60

In his 1963 address, Shannon reminded his hearers that
"congregations have piled upon the minister's shoulders a thousand
duties unknown to ministers of a generation ago." He continued:
Bible preaching demands that we not become so burdened with
other duties that preaching becomes our Sideline . . . that
we not allow ourselves to become "sanctified mimeograph
operators" . . . that we refuse to see ourselves as salesmen-
promoters and office managers who quite incidentally deliver
a sermon or two each week.51
Agreeing that the distinctive work of the preacher was
preaching, the speakers offered several suggestions in the realm

of homiletics--the science of preparing and delivering sermons.

212

Robert Shannon's address, "A Plea for Bible Preaching," featured
the indispensable importance of proper and adequate preparation of

sermons 2

The minister must be allowed time to become a real person. He
must not become so busy with God's business that he has no
time for God. The developing of his own soul is a part of his
preparation. Give him time to read, time to pray; for "no man
preaches taller than he is." This does not mean that he will
neglect his calling ministry. He knows that preparing to
preach means studying people as certainly as studying books.
As Lhamon put it, "The ringing of doorbells is quite as essen-
tial as the announcing of texts." The minister knows this.

He understands that if he does not call, his preaching will
merit George Beto's description and become "magnificent
irrelevancy." But you must know that without time to study
and think, his preaching can never know what James Stewart
called "the commanding relevance of Jesus."62

More specifically, Paul K. McAlister stressed that in sermon
preparation the preacher commit himself to serious hermeneutics
and Biblical exegesis. "The 'nice sermon in search of a good text'

method belies the profession of the truth of the scripture. Sermons

63

must arise from careful exegesis of the text." In 1975, Erskine

Scates emphasized the importance of scheduling time for reading and
writing:

Whatever time you are able to use, it must be scheduled or
you will be excusing yourself for having pre-empted it by

all kinds of other "serious" matters. No amount of counsel-
ing, calling, administrating and planning can ever be suffi-
cient excuse for unnecessarily robbing you of your time to
study and to think. This is what the church needs most from
you and when they find you in any of these other important
duties, they get a fizzled fire-cracker if you have not given
absolute priority to books and writing.64

 

Young preachers were repeatedly urged to rely upon the

Bible as the chief source of sermon materials. To the Convention

213

speakers, the Bible was the preacher's message--his only message.
He had not earned the right to preach until he believed it com-
pletely and unequivocably.65
As the Convention platform was reasserting a need for
doctrinal preaching, Wyatt Aiken Smart reported a conspicuous
decline in doctrinal preaching from 1920 to 1940 in the typical
American pulpit. "Forsaking great doctrinal truths," said Smart,
"sermons had a tendency to become essays. Clever homiletics and
professional skill were more conspicuous than a sense of commission
from God."66 Meanwhile at the North American Christian Convention,
the call went forth for preachers with a message inspired by man's
need of salvation and charged with the confident preface, "God has

spoken."67

The Worship of the Church

 

Between 1926 and 1952, the major Protestant denominations,
enjoying an apparent victory over fundamentalism, showed an average
membership increase of 60 percent, but newly formed fundamentalist
sects--Pentecostals, Churches of God, Holiness Churches-~gained

68

between 400 and 900 percent. Much of what these groups were

striving to find--perhaps the very reason for their growth--was
reflected in a statement written in 1923 by fundamentalism's "most
perceptive and intellectural leader," J. Gresham Machen:
There are congregations, even in the present age of conflict,
that are really gathered around the table of the crucified
Lord; there are pastors that are pastors indeed. But such

congregations, in many cities, are difficult to find. Weary
with the conflicts of the world, one goes into the Church to

214

seek refreshment for the soul. And what does one find? Alas,
too often, one finds only the turmoil of the world. Is there
no refuge from strife? Is there no place of refreshing where
a man can prepare for the battle of life? Is there no place
where two or three can gather in Jesus' name, to forget for
the moment all those things that divide nation from nation
and race from race, to forget human pide, to forget the pas-
sions of war, to forget the puzzling problems of industrial
strife, and to unite in overflowing gratitude at the foot

of the Cross? If there be such a place, then that is the
house of God.6

The Nature of Worship

 

Corporate worship was a traditional Convention experience
which the audience greatly anticipated. At the same time, more than
two dozen addresses were concerned with the public worship of the
church, or one of its special acts. Worship was thus an important
facet of the platform which the speakers both experienced and
explained. Several speakers attempted to define worship. In 1965,
W. F. Lown stated:

In our English Bible some form of the word worship occurs 198
times. The term comes from the Anglo-Saxon "worth-ship" and
means the ascribing of worth. Hence, worship implies the art
of seeing the worth of God, and by contrast, evaluating other
things in the light of His supreme worth. The Hebrew word
which we translate worship literally means to bow down. Five
words in our Greek New Testament may be translated worship,
and suggest the following ideas: to do reverence, to make
obeisance, to do homage, to express awe or devotion, to honor,
to render service, and to act piously toward. When we wor-
ship, then, we are paying reverent devotion and rendering
service to God because we recognize His eternal worth.70

At the 1972 Convention, W. Carl Ketcherside cited a defini-
tion of worship offered by William Barclay:

The true, the genuine worship is when man, through his Spirit,
attains to friendship and intimacy with God. True and genuine
worship is not to come to a certain place; it is not to go
through a certain ritual or liturOY; it is not even to bring

215

certain gifts. True worship is when the spirit, the immortal

and invisible part of man,7speaks to and meets with God, who

15 1mmortal and 1nv1s1ble.
To worship and adore God the Father through the mediatorship of
Christ was, according to the Convention speakers, the supreme and
sacred privilege of the church and the only homage worthy of believ—
ers. The alternations between self-abasement and holy exaltation
invoked the assistance of the emotions as well as a profound and
reasoned faith. They contended that whatever external activities

are necessary for the exercise of worship, its reality and meaning

depend upon the reign of the Spirit of God in the hearts of men.

The Acts of Worship

 

The churches of the conservative Restoration Movement are
a nonliturgical body in which public worship centers around praise
and thanksgiving to God. The consensus of Convention opinion named
five channels or acts through which such public service may be
offered to God. Ketcherside summarized these traditional components
of worship in his 1972 address: "The five acts of corporate worship
are singing, praying, preaching, giving, and the Lord's Supper."72

As in all things, the authority for the form of public wor-
ship was based on an appeal to the divine pattern revealed in Scrip-
ture. The speakers concluded, however, that the early disciples had
no procedual form for their meetings, neither was there any such
directive offered in Scripture.73

The summit of Christian worship has traditionally been

reached in the observance of the Lord's Supper, in which believers

216

partake of the visible symbols of Christ's redeeming love and com-
memorate his agonizing death. "The Lord's Supper should be the

crowning service in the church," wrote Andrew Blackwood, "and thus

74

be earth's nearest approach to heaven." Agreeing that the Lord's

Supper should have a place of special primacy in the worship period,
the Convention speakers frequently referred to it as the "focal-
point" of Christian worship. "His death and resurrection are defini-

tive of His Messianic and redemptive nature," explained Mont

Smith in 1977. "All worship must point to that central fact."75

Similarly, A. G. Smith reminded his audience fifty years
earlier, that the death and resurrection of Christ were inseparably
linked in the memorial observance called "Communion" or the Lord's
Supper:

It is worthy of note in passing that the communion is unique
in that it celebrates the only death men ever celebrate. We
celebrate the birth of great men, and of our friends and of
our children, but Jesus' death is the only one men ever cele-
brate. And the only reason we celebrate it is because of the
empty tomb of that first glad resurrection morning that for-
ever banished the fear of death, and forever removed its
sting. The Lord's Supper is a prophecy as well as a memorial;
it looks forward as well as backward. In it we remember His
death till He comes again.76

In 1975, John Mills address, "The Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper," also emphasized that the observance of the Lord's Supper
should involve more than a remembrance of Christ's death:

We would do well to incorporate into our observances of the
Lord's Supper a greater emphasis on the resurrected Christ.
We are much closer to the Roman Catholic Church in doctrine
when we emphasize Jesus' death more than His resurrection.
Cullman has done us a great service in showing that those
resurrection appearances occurring during the breaking of

217

bread left an indelible note on the character of the Supper
for the early church. Little wonder why the early church
called the supper "Eucharist" (Thanksgiving)! Our people
need to experience the joy, hope, and peace which this 77
doctrine will add to our worship services and our lives!

The Convention speakers unanimously affirmed that the prac-
tive of the early church was to observe and/or participate in the
Lord's Supper on every first day of the week. They concluded that
such should be the practice of the church today. Mills stressed
the value of a weekly observance of the Lord's Supper:

We need to remember that the Lord's Supper was not just given
for our weekly obedience. Certainly, if our Lord says, "This
do," then we ought to obey because of our love for Him. But
Jesus' purpose in the Supper was to continue a mutual ministry
to us week by week toward the goal of our maturity. Cer-
tainly our personal self-examination in His presence, our
"discerning the body" (I Cor. 11:29), and our renewal of
loyalty as He ministers to us, should produce spiritual
maturity. When we see the Lord's Supper as a means to an

end, we can begin to give it its intended place in our worship.
Man was not made for the Lord's Supper, but the Lord's Supper
for man!78

The significance and primacy of the Lord's Supper, to the
Convention speakers, is further indicated by their almost total
Silence with reference to other acts of worship, namely: prayer,
singing, and financial contribution.

W. Carl Ketcherside expressed the prevailing attitude of the
Convention platform:

With no intention of shocking our audience we suggest that
if a community of saints fully grasped the Significance of
the Supper they might gather in solemnity and bless the cup
and break the bread, and having remembered the Lord, retire
to their own homes, or remain to eat together at a common
table in mutual love for one another, and be wholly pleasing
unto God. This in no sense argues that it would be wrong to
sing, pray, exhort or teach, but it does point out that to
make of all of these combined a ritual is without scriptual
foundation.79

218

The system of worship is one of the major factors in determ—
ining the character and in shaping the form of a religious movement.
It is one of the main media for inculcating and one of the principle
instruments for transmitting the essence of a faith. It is at once
one of the most blessed yet challenging opportunities to confront
the believer. The Convention speakers announced that only the most
diligent quest by the truly pure in heart would be rewarded by true

communion with God.

The Mission of the Church

 

Sharp disagreement over the nature and mission of the church
provided much of the arrmunition for the fundamentalist-modernist
wars of the 1920's. The conservative leadership conceived of the
church as an organization founded for the express purpose of propa-
gating a message of salvation to a lost world. This evangelistic
mission gave the church its very grounds for existence.80 The
modernists, on the other hand, refused to agree that Christianity
could be equated with the church. Harry Emerson Fosdick's 1922
volume, Christianity and Progress, stated the liberal view of the
church's mission in the world. Fosdick mentioned the tension which
existed between the evangelistic and rationalistic points of view:
"Two conceptions of the church are in conflict today in modern
protestantism, and one of the most crucial problems of America's
religious life in this next generation is the decision as to which

81

of these two ideas of the church Shall triumph." Denying that the

church should be based upon a fixed doctrinal system to which the

219

prospective member must conform, Fosdick maintained that the church
can exist without theological uniformity "wherever people have that
spiritual devotion, who possess that love. . . ."83
A year later fundamentalist champion J. Gresham Machen gave

rebuttal:

Two mutually exclusive religions are being propagated within

the Presbyterian church, as within other "evangelical"

churches. One is the great redemptive religion known as

Christianity; the other is the naturalistic or agnostic

modernism represented by Dr. Fosdick and by many Presbyterian

ministers. If one of these is true, the other is false.83

AS unrest prevailed within the main stream of religious

thought, the North American Christian Convention left little doubt
as to the direction of its influence: "Soul-winning is the church's
greatest business. God cared so much for the lost that He sent His
only begotten Son. Jesus cared so much that He became a curse for
us. The Apostles cared so much that they died the martyrs death."84
This passage from Gerald Gibson's 1974 address expressed the speak-
er's understanding of the primary purpose for the existence of the
church--to save the spiritually lost. This mission was often
divided into three areas of practical activity: benevolence, edu-

cation, and evangelism.

The Church and Social Concern

The different points of view as to the mission of the church
came into sharp focus under the keen microscope which was used to
examine the extent of its social responsibility. In 1917, ten years

before the first North American Christian Convention assembled,

220

Walter Rauschenbusch circulated his definitive formulation, A Theol-

ogy for the Social Gospel, in which he announced: "The social

 

gospel . . . is no longer a prophetic and occasional note. It is a
novelty only in backward social or religious communities. The

social gospel has become orthodox."85

Rauschenbusch, in becoming
the Social Gospel's theological voice, also brought to full frui-
tion the dedicated labors of Washington Gladden, often called "the
Father of the Social Gospel," Josiah Strong, Richard T. Ely, Edward
Bellamy, George D. Herron, Shailer Matthews, Francis G. Peabody, and
a host of lesser known advocates of social Christianity.86 Their
cooperative efforts, actually beginning in the decade following the
Civil War, not only quickened Christendom's social consciousness,
but also compelled a re-examination of the very nature of the
religious experience itself. Rauschenbusch postulated: "When we
submit to God we submit to the supremacy of the common good."
"Salvation," he boldly asserted, "is the voluntary socializing of
the soul."87

Under Rauschenbusch's leadership, the Social Gospel matured
as a moulder of opinion and greatly influenced the nature of American
protestantism. In 1908, the Federal Council of Churches gave formal
recognition to the social doctrine. The organization adopted a
"Social Creed of the Churches," which served for many years as
protestantism's official position regarding various social ques-

88

tions. By 1915, there were few religious bodies that had not

established social service commissions. Religious publishing

221

houses released annually an avalanche of pamphlets and books in the
interest of social Christianity. In 1927, Shailer Matthews wrote
that when "one compares this situation with that of the decade
following 1895, one is convinced that the old individualism of
evangelicalism is being supplemented by the social evangelicalism."89
Was the gospel social, or was it individual? Although it

would be misleading to label all of the friends of the Social Gospel
"modernists," and classify all of its opponents "fundamentalists,"90
a sizable part of the sharp reply of fundamentalism to modernism
was in condemnation of their socially saturated interpretation of
man's Spiritual predicament. AS the Social Gospelers attempted to
make protestantism relevant to the pungent wrongs of the new indus—
trial age and its accompanying congestion in the city, conservatives
responded with a chorus of anathemas. They were convinced that the
social practitioners were submerging the will of God beneath the
welfare of man. One disturbed critic wrote:

The social gospel lays enormous stress upon a man's physical

and material well-being. Religion is held to be nothing more

than a plan of social well-being. Christianity is considered

a scheme of social improvement. It is reduced to unitarianism

. . Education and sanitation take the place of personal

regeneration and the Holy Spirit.91

The Baptists were also alarmed. Their weekly journal, the

Watchman-Examiner, asked:

 

What, then, is the social ideal in its final analysis? It is
briefly this: surround the individual or community with a
good environment and salvation will result. No greater or
more insidious heresy ever issued from hell than this.92

In 1911, a Commission on Evangelism was established in the

Federal Council of Churches to counterbalance the work of the Social

222

Service Commission. "If anywhere social service has become only a
matter of humanitarian interest," declared the Commission in 1928,
"it is time to repeat the words of Bushnell, 'the soul of reform is

93 In February of 1914, two thousand men

the reform of the soul.'"
and women from nearly every state in the union assembled at Moody
Bible Institute to investigate so-called neglected truths of Chris-
tianity. They concluded that most Christians were "as harlots
flirting with the world, and substituting pitiful social service

for the power of blood."94 Although the roots of the Social Gospel
were religiously and politically complex, the movement was closely
interrelated with theological liberalism and grew as "a submovement
within religious liberalism."95 The liberals' optimism regarding \
the virtue of human personality and the evolutionary progress of
history, theories that were greatly shaken by the advent of World
War I, were primarily assumptions of the new social emphasis.

The Social Gospel's determined opposition, which cannot be
easily equated with fundamentalism, was also many-sided. On this
subject, however, the opposing voice of the North American Christian
Convention was singularly simple. While not a dozen specific ref-
erences to the Social Gospel can be found in the hundreds of printed
addresses, their very essence served to lodge one basic objection:
that the social liberals were neglecting the primary mission of the
church, namely, the winning of individual souls. Any interest which
the speakers manifested in labor reform, prohibition, capitalistic

control, mass unemployment, or bread lines was in some way inextric-

ably tied to spiritual rebirth and individual salvation.

223

The following passage, quoted at length, from W. R. Walker's
l937 address, was typical of the predominant attitude among the
Convention Speakers:

In part, our trouble today grows out of our impatience to see
ideal (or kingdom) conditions established immediately. Such
concern is commendable. But before we abandon the program
which the apostles inaugurated, for its realization, we

should be certain that their orders have been canceled and a
new set issued by the King to us. This impatience has led to
attempted enlargement of the gospel content. We hear of
"social gospel;" "economic gospel;" "labor gospel;" "inter-
national gospel;“ gospel of plenty;" and even of "the

abundant life!" But the apostles preached none of these, nor
any other adjectival gospel. They preached "the gospel of
Christ Jesus," and that, given time and opportunity, would
more than meet all special needs. They went steadily forward,
establishing and culturing churches, in the belief that Jesus
had planned for His church to be the divinely appointed and
led agency for the establishment of His kingdom. If Jesus'
kingdom could have been realized earlier or more perfectly by
the procedures championed by advocates of the "social gospel,"
why did not the apostles advocate and employ them? With the
exception of the problems raised by machine production, the
times in which the church was established were strinkingly
like our own. The government was regulating industry, setting
prices and fixing wages. There were eighty-seven labor unions
in Rome when Paul was there. Riots and unrest disturbed every
social stratum. Why, then, did the apostles ignore all these
conditions, as such, and consistently go on preaching the
gospel, baptizing believers strengthening church, etc." The
only answer possible is that by so doing they were executing
Jesus' will. It is safe to affirm that no better way has been
discovered. Jesus and His apostles refused, in every instance,
to become partisan. When a man asked Jesus to intervene in
the settlement of an estate, He refused, but gave a lecture
on covetousness. The same courage that led Him to do that, if
used today, would lead every thoughtful citizen to rebuke the
covetousness of the greedy, whether exhibited by employer or
employee, government official or relief worker. The church
can not, must not, become partisan. Another word should be
said about the social gospel. If amelioration of living con-
ditions had been Jesus' goal, why did He not establish pre-
ventive clinics, instead of healing disease? Why did He not
advise draining swamps instead of curing fever victims? Why
did He not build a hospital for the care of lepers instead

of healing a few? Why did He not instruct mothers how to
wash their babies' eyes, and keep flies off their pitiful

224

faces, instead of opening the eyes after the sight had been
lost? If men could be saved by education, why did He not
establish colleges? The ad0ption of such a program would
have insured the co-operation of practically all who became
His enemies; He would have been feted by the very Sanhedrin
that murdered Him. Had He but used the program so intem—
perately advised by some of His followers today, He could
easily have escaped Calvary, ridden an Arabian horse instead
of a donkey and named His own price for His services! A
Nobel prize would have been His. It can not be said that
‘the times did not permit that course. They were as propi-
tious for it as our own. Times have always been favorable
for I'social service," if it is content to limit itself to
earthly life alone. Jesus desired fruitful branches. Only
those who abide in Him can bear His fruit. How futile, then,
much present-day effort to produce kingdom fruit. In a
recent issue of one of our church papers appeared a cartoon
in which Protestant, Jew and Catholic were all pushing the
world uphill to a beautiful lighted summit, graced by a house
named "the kingdom of God!" How can two walk together unless
they agree? At least, they must agree on their destination.
But my query is, How can a Jew help in establishing the king-
dom of God when he refuses all allegiance to its King? Even
the exploitation of little children in business is not more
serious than the rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of the
living God.

My closing exhortation to minister and layman both is to con-
tinue kingdom building by establishing churches and evangeliz-
ing sinners. In no other way will the kingdoms of this earth
become the kingdoms of our God. The minister is not a chauf-
feur driving a church bus to a social depot, but a conductor
on a gospel train which will deliver every passenger to the
terminus, "eternal life," where Jesus awaits them. Let others
think in mass terms, if they must; but citizens of the "king-
dom of God" dare not so think, because the King Himself does
not so think. It may thrill certain types of mind to visualize
a “Christian state," "Christian society," "Christian indus-
trialism," "Christian culture," in which the whole order is
governed by Christian ideals. But Christ Himself did not so
plan. It is vain to hope for a "Christian order" in any
group, in which any of its members are not personally Chris-
tian. Ministers and laymen have just one great order from
the King: To evangelize sinners and culture saints, as indi-
viduals; not by racial, national or other organizational pro-
cedure. Had we all been as busy at our Christ-assigned task
as we have been in trying to do the impossible, bring in the
"kingdom" by compromising with those who reject our King, the
church would have been leaques ahead of its present achieve-
ment in introducing Christ's kingdom among men. At the risk

225

of being tiresome, I repeat, Christian fruit can be borne
only by a Christian. A Christian is "in Christ." He can be
fruitful so long as that vital relationship obtains. When

he severs himself from his divine Lord, he can no longer bear
fruit, and his fate is not reassuring to consider. Christian
fruit-bearing must always, everywhere, be personal.96

While the Convention addresses placed great emphasis on indi-
vidual salvation, the speakers demonstrated in their personal minis-
tries a keen awareness of social responsibility. P. H. Welshimer,
who served three times as president of the North American Christian
Convention made many speeches on behalf of the 18th Amendment to
ban the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages. Francis Arant,
Welshimer's biographer, said: "He would be heard on the radio in
later years, urging voters to get out and be counted, and vote for

97

certain candidates or social issues." During the depression

years of the 1930's, Welshimer established a benevolent program that

became well-known.

The word was passed around among the unemployed, 'Go to the
First Christian Church--that's the church that helps people.‘
Of course there was a limit to what the church or P. H. could
do, but they acquired a reputation for caring about the
privation of a large section of the population.98

In 1971 Ira North asserted that "the key word in church
growth is benevolence." He was, however, critical of the churches
of the Restoration Movement for their lack of benevolent programs.

The average church in America has no benevolent programs. I
know we have great teaching programs. We believe in mission
work. Where ever I find a Church of Christ, I find a group
that believes in sharing the gospel of Christ, but the average
congregation of my acquaintance really has very little benevo-
lent programs. If you don't believe I'm telling the truth,

you pick up a financial report and read of thousands of dollars
for their mission program, thousands of dollars for their

226

teaching program, thousands of dollars for their beautiful

buildings and wall-to-wall carpeting which is all right, but

see what it says for the Boor and the lowly and the down-

trodden and the homeless. 9

John Allen Chalk's 1974 address, "God Still Cares for the

Brokenhearted," cited two "reasons why the contemporary church has
failed and is failing to care for the brokenheartedz"

The failure to serve the needs of the brokenhearted, our

insensitivity to the brokenhearted, results from our Bibli-

cal ignorance and lack of vital personal relationship with

God through Christ. The ministries to needy humanity among

modern Christians will erupt in the lives of those whose

hearts are controlled by Jesus Christ and by God's Word.100

Many speakers, while agreeing that the primary purpose of

the church was spiritual in nature, maintained that a prudent social
consciousness would serve eternal ends. The addresses of these men
made no clear reference to the classical writings of the social
cause, and their remarks were characteristically more moderate than
the pr0posals of the movement's leaders. They did, however, concur
with the stated position of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that the ministry
of "helpfulness" as an activiy of the Christian community is the

101

ministry of “forbearing and sustaining." "If the Christian does

not bear the burden of his brother, how is he different from the
pagan?"102

Although there is ample evidence that the Convention urged
a broader conception of the church's benevolent mission, it can in
no wise be construed as a sounding board of the Social Gospel.

Although the speakers stressed the brotherhood of man, social

responsibility was always cast against the broader backdrop of

227

substitutionary atonement and rebirth at the individual level.
Accepting the social nature of personal existence, they tenaciously
clung to the belief that the individual was the truly important unit
in religion. Most important of all, they denied that men were
united in sin merely through their common involvement in social
evils and injustices. They insisted that individual redemption
occurs separate and apart from service to society. They rejected
the theory that men may find escape from their collective sins
through social solidarity. They regarded the active discharge of
benevolent responsibility not to be man's redeemer, but the natural

fruit of his personal redemption.

The Church and Education

 

No battleground more decisively portrays the blow-by-blow
account of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy than does the
conflict which occurred in the realm of educational activities. It
was in courteous regard to scholastic excellence that the liberals
made their appeal for a new theology; and it was partially against
scholastic rationalism that the conservatives reacted in alarm. In
an effort to purge the educational systems of the nation, the con-
servatives introduced anti-evolution bills into many state legisla-
tures; and it was just such an attempt at educational reform which
triggered the Darrow-Bryan duel at Dayton, Tennessee. Such was the
general inclination during the 1920's, as concerned citizens pressed
for state and national legislation in an effort to halt seditious

instruction in the public schools.

228

Christian Higher Education.--The conflict, however, was by

 

no means limited to public institutions. In the private schools and
denominational seminaries the issue was equally as heated. Between
1890 and 1930, the colleges and seminaries of virtually every major
denomination in America experienced shocking concussions. Early in

1919, the Watchman-Examiner, an independent Baptist paper published

 

in New York, unleashed a series of abusive and bitter editorials
questioning the soundness of the denomination's seminaries. For
five consecutive years following World War I, the annual assembly of
the Northern Baptist Convention was preoccupied with inquisitions

103 Even the

regarding reports of liberalism in its seminaries.
tradition-honored seminary at Princeton, Union Theological Seminary
in New York, and the divinity school in Chicago suffered similar
periods of controversy and convulsion.

A favorite means of formal reaction to the innovations of
liberalism was the practice of establishing Bible colleges dedicated
to the presentation of a changeless gospel in a changing world. As
the conservatives at once grew increasingly suspicious of public
education and lost faith in the remodeled theological tenets of
their own seminaries, they expressed a need for new and safer

‘04 The Moody Bible

training schools for their prespective clergy.
Institute, established in Chicago in 1886, typified the intent of
this educational movement. By 1919, Dean James M. Gray had guided
the institution into position as one of the most vociferous propo-

nents of conservative theology. If the printed word could have

229

protected the country from liberal theological tendencies, the
multitude of magazines, pamphlets, and books which came from the
Institutes' press would surely have contributed more than their
Share to the cause. The west coast sister of the Chicago school,
the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, also championed the course of
religious conservatism. Reuben A. Torrey, its German-trained super-
intendent, said the school was needed because of the advancing

‘05 Scores of Similar schools

apostacy predicted in the Bible.
sprang up among the denominations in defense of the faith. By 1913
the University of Chicago had become such a "hotbed of heresy" that
the Northern Baptist Seminary was founded in Chicago as an antidote.
In 1914, C. I. Scofield dedicated the Philadelphia School of the
Bible to the advancement of scriptural, dispensational, and pre-
millennial truth, and the Northwest Bible and Missionary Training
School was established in Minneapolis for similar purposes. At the
nation's capitol, the Patomac Bible College was born and the Evan-
gelical Theological College, an important nondenominational seminary,
was founded in Dallas. In his 1931 book, History of Fundamentalism,
Steward Cole estimated that "two score of these schools have been

106

founded in the last two decades." S. A. Witmer, executive direc-

tor of the Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges, estimated that
by 1963 the number of Bible Colleges had increased to 250.107
The churches of the Restoration Movement contributed sub-
stantially to the conservative cause in the field of education. The
pioneers of the Movement had been well educated men who were keenly

aware of the value of formal education. The respected Disciple's

230

historian, James Harvey Garrison, reported that "the prime movers in
the nineteenth century effort in behalf of Christian unity and

union . . . were educated men."108

Alexander Campbell, the Move-
ment's early leader, phrased the attitude of the restorers toward
education.
We need, as a people devoted to the Bible cause, and to the
Bible alone, for Christian faith and manners, and discipline,
have derived much advantage from literature and science, from
schools and colleges. . . . Of all people in the world, we
ought then to be, according to our means, the greatest patrons
of schools and colleges.10
According to Campbell's educational philosophy, the college was in
no way to be an institution in isolation. He believed that the
home, the primary school, the college, and the church should com-
prise "one great system of education." He intended his dream child,
Bethany College, to be part and parcel of such a system.
Accordingly, in 1840, Campbell announced in the Millennial
Harbinger:

I shall confidently calculate on raising such a school as is

not in this land; and receiving not the prayers only, but

with them large and numerous bequests and offerings equal to

the grandeur and benevolence of the undertaking. We shall

first want many thousands of dollars, and next many hundreds

of students.11

Both Alexander Campbell, and his father, Thomas, had studied

at the University of Glasgow. Barton W. Stone, whose merger with
the Campbell movement in 1832 resulted in the largest religious
group indigenous to America, was a graduate of Guilford Academy, and
had taught in a Methodist school in Georgia and a private college in

Lexington, Kentucky. In 1840, Campbell established Bethany College

231

in Virginia (now West Virginia), which he described not as a theo-
logical school, but as "a literary and scientific institution,
founded upon the Bible as the basis of all true science and true

11] Consistent with his plea for religious unity, Camp-

learning."
bell prescribed that the College Hall would be used every Sunday
for worship services and instruction "to be performed by respectable

112

ministers of various denominations." Not only were they educated

men, but the nature of their plea for unity required a basic respect
for academic excellence wherever it existed.”3
The interest which the leaders of churches in the Restora-
tion Movement had historically displayed in educational affairs was
significantly heightened by the theological tensions accompanying
the modernist-fundamentalist convulsion. An educational controversy
which indirectly effected the North American Christian Convention,
occurred at the Transylvania College of the Bible in Lexington,

Kentucky.”4

Mark Collis, who was a member of the "Committee on
Future Action" which called the first Convention into existence, and
a frequent speaker at the annual gathering, was named chairman of
the Board of Trustees at the Lexington college shortly before World
War 1. During his tenure of office, the religious questions dis-
turbing the peace of the nation crept onto the Transylvania campus.
In 1917, the Christian Standard, a chief publication of the Restora-
tion Movement, complained that the school had sold out to modernism

under the leadership of its president, R. H. Crossfield. Hall L.

Calhoun, Dean of the College, reported to readers of the weekly

232

magazine: "For more than a year I have been fully convinced that
destructive criticism was being taught in the College of the
Bible."”5 In the same issue of the Christian Standard there was
an editorial asking that a committee outside the college and without
"representatives of any of our colleges" investigate the charges.
In later issues, the Standard published several pages of protest
letters in favor of a "heresy" investigation.“6
At the center of the controversy were three primary issues:
academic freedom in teaching, the manner of instruction with regard
to "Higher Criticism" and the evolutionary hypothesis, and the com-
petency of the Board of Trustees of the college. Mark Collis,
Chairman of the Board, reported that early in 1917, a meeting of
the Trustees "was called to investigate these accusations. Unfortu—
nately, that meeting, as far as making a complete investigation is

CODCEFDEd. was a failure."117

The annual meeting of the Board of
Trustees convened on May 24, 1918, and listened as Collis read a
statement reviewing the controversy and calling for a complete
investigation and solution to the problems that vexed the college.
"I hoped that some kind of action would be taken on my statement,“
recalled Collis, “that it would be referred to a committee or would
provoke discussion. It was received without a word. It laid upon

the secretary's table, untouched."H8

Surrounded by a faculty and
many trustees who were not in agreement with his stubborn conserva-
tism, Collis was defeated in his bid for re-election to the Board on
which, for the past twenty-five years, he had served as chairman. He

lamented to the readers of the Christian Standard:

 

233

It was a sad day for me, not because of chagrin at being
dropped from a board of which I had been a member for
thirty-three years, but becauseit:was an expression of
determination to eliminate from its governing body those
who will not advocate or will not quietly acquiesce in the
subversion of our once beloved College of the Bible to this
new order, which is entirely at variance with the purposes
of the founders of the college and of the men and women who
gave their money to endow it. 19

The liberal invasion of the College of the Bible struck at
the very heart of higher education in the Restoration Movement. It
affected one of the oldest and most popular training schools for
the ministry. The outcome turned the tide toward liberalism! The
conservatives, on the other hand, were determined that the time had
come for a "crash program“ of new schools for the training of a
sound ministry.120

The subject of Christian education is, therefore, exceed-
ingly relevant to an understanding of the impact of the North
American Christian Convention. Both the Convention and the new
colleges emerged at the hands of concerned conservatives who were
compelled to answer the ascending charge that apostolic Christianity
and scholastic respectability were inherently at war.

Nearly three-forths of the addresses delivered at the North
American Christian Convention were presented by college faculty,
administrators, and trustees. These educators conceived of the
Convention as an ideal opportunity to acquaint their constituents
with the nature of and need for private colleges supported and con-

trolled by members of the church.

234

In 1928, Frank H. Marshall, Dean of the College of the Bible
at Phillips University, reminded his Convention audience of the
pressing need for Christian education on the college level:

With great effort and at great expense we are conducting our
Christian propaganda in the churches and Bible schools. Is

the faith we teach worth perserving? Can it be preserved and
propagated in the secular institutions? Are their instructors,
as a rule, Shining examples of Christian faith and life? Are
the science and philosophy taught there materialistic? The
answers to these questions have serious bearings on our great
objectives. The tax-supported institutions are not teaching
Christianity. They are not allowed to do so. They are frankly
not in this business. Dr. William Thompson, ex-president of
the Ohio State University, said: "Our nation gets its Chris-
tian ideals, not from the State universities, but from the
church institutions. Save for them we would lose those ideals,
and that would be a calamity to the nation.“ This truth is
often demonstrated by the way students returning from college
react upon the church. We could call a long roll of our emi-
nent business and professional men, pillars of the faith,
towers of strength in the church, made so because of the
influence of Christian education. 0n the other hand, we

think of numerous cases where a glowing, youthful interest

in Christian service has been partially, if not totally,
eclipsed, and can but wonder what the outcome would have

been if these youths had received Christian education.121

Marshall named the desire "to conserve the faith taught by
the churches" and "the need to train the leadership of the church"
as the two primary reasons for supporting Christian higher education.
He further reasoned that "the Christian institution should have
as its highest ambition service to the church to which it owes its
very existence."122

In 1937, Frederick D. Kershner, Dean of the College of
Religion at Butler University, affirmed the need for Christian

colleges that will service the churches with men who can lead both

spiritually and intellectually:

235

The fact is that the preacher needs a better education than
the lawyer, the doctor or the member of any other profession.
He must lead his people intellectually as well as spiritually;
he must make them think no less than feel and act. The ignor-
ant preacher libels his cause and perverts the truth. I
remember hearing one of our prominent men, as he was accounted
in his day, say, when I was a boy: "All we need in order to
make a preacher is to take a young man, give him six months

of instruction in the Bible and turn him loose." We have
turned a good many preachers of that kind loose and most of
them remain loose throughout their professional career. It

is the glory of the institution which I represent on this
program that it has always striven for an education that is
Christian and a Christianity that is educated. Its central
purpose has been to make Christ so real to the minister that
he may, in turn, make Christ real to his people.123

The distinctive feature of Christian higher education is its
Bible centered curriculum. The revealed truth of the Bible is
regarded as the integrating principle of all knowledge. All dis-
ciplines, all fields of study, all knowledge find their ultimate
meaning in the Incarnate Word whom the written Word discloses. Thus
the quest for an integrating principle is not ended by scientific
discovery nor by philosophic reflection, but by "revelation." It
follows, therefore, that Biblical truth has implications for psychol-
ogy, for history, for sociology, for physics and all the other
sciences. For example, it takes Biblical truth to disclose the
real nature of man, even though psychology and anthropology add
much to this sphere of knowledge.
In an article written for School and Society magazine,
Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein made this observation of Bible college
education:
The central feature of the Bible college is well worth looking
at, because it carries implications far beyond this one kind

of institution. This is the kind of education that has
solved for itself the perennial problem of educational

236

philosophy--the identification of an integrating principle
for the entire curriculum. For if the Bible is, to use
Lewis Mumford's brilliant figure, "a magnetic field at the
center which will continually polarize each fragment that
enters the field."124

From the earliest to the most recent, every Convention
speaker who addressed the theme of Christian higher education
agreed that the Bible must be at the center of the curriculum.
Marshall's 1928 address established firmly the prevailing pattern
of thought to which the speaker's subscribed:

The Christian institution of learning should make the Bible
the fundamental basis of its curriculum. We are, at least

in theory, pre-eminently a Bible pe0p1e. This is traditional.
From the days of Thomas Campbell to the present time, the
Bible has been the rock of our foundation. Remove it, and
we have not even shifting sand upon which to build. Methods
are importantirlcollege education, and collateral studies are
a necessity. The man who knows only one book, knows no book.
Nevertheless, though we teach all science and literature and
philosophy and relegate the Bible to a secondary place, we
find ourselves shorn of the power that gave our people vic-
tory, and we will lack the dynamic to make even brass

resound or cymbals clang. And how thankful we ought to be
that we are permitted to teach it, without the interference
of either civil or religious potentate, a boasted privilege
withheld even from the great State universities of the land.
Ours is the book to use, as an important text, the "greatest
book in the world." For real culture nothing can equal the
Bible. For philosophy it is better than the sages. For his-
tory it is matchless. For poetry it rivals the classics.
Even for philology, one will find in the New Testament
"greater books than Plato ever penned." Its Greek is as
musical, its cadence as rhythmical, as when Sappho sang of
love, when Pindar plead for truth, when Plato taught immor-
tality, when Euripdes penned the tragedy of retribution,

and Aeschylus thundered his deep notes of destiny. The
Biblelgg light and truth, but, more than these, it is

life.

In recent years, however, some speakers have expressed con-
cern that in many of the church's colleges biblically related areas

of study such as preaching, hermenutics and exegesis, and the study

237

of the biblically based Restoration Movement have been losing
ground. In 1977, Wayne Smith's presidential address, "Preach the
Word" sounded a warning that the emphasis on music and athletic
programs in the colleges was relegating the preaching of the Word
to a secondary position. "I love the Impact Brass [a popular music
group from Ozark Bible College, Joplin, MlssouriJ," Smith declared,

126 In the same series,

"but they did not die for me! (Applause.)"
Paul K. McAlister voiced alarm at the current trend toward sub-
jectivism and mystical experience among college students. "Our
colleges and seminaries must insist first of all upon serious
exegesis and then upon the implementation of that exegesis in the
church;" such was McAlister's remedy for the problem. He added:
"Too often we take up the church practice presented to us by the
culture, without noting that which made us unique--commitment to
serious exegesis."127
In the same year, Henry Webb, professor of church history

at The Emmanuel School of Religion, said that both the history and
the ideals of the Restoration Movement are "shrouded in mystery for
the average church member." He laid a major portion of the blame
for this ignorance on the colleges:

I learned many years ago, and to my dismay, that some of our

Bible Colleges offer nothing in the history of our Movement,

some of the others offer very little, and only a few require

such study as a condition for graduation. For 25 years I

have been evaluating transcripts and have consistently found

this to be the case. Many of our problems stem from this

unhappy neglect.128

In the final analysis, the Convention speakers would whole-

heartedly endorse the sentiment expressed by S. A. Witmer, that

238

Christian institutions of higher education "must never forget their
origin and their heritage. They must never yield to the rational-
istic and cultural forces of declension that have withered many

movements born of revival,n129

Christian Education and Evangelism in the Local Church.--

 

Another aspect of Christian education which the speakers discussed
involved the teaching program of the local congregation. In 1786,
just three years after Great Britain had declared the thirteen
colonies to be a free and independent nation, the first Sunday
School was started on this side of the Atlantic. It was organized
in the Virginia home of William Elliot, who arranged to have "white
boys and girls instructed in the Bible every sabbath afternoon."130
Since that time, the Sunday School movement has helped to shape the
growth and development of protestantism in America. On October 3,
1832, the First National Sunday School Convention was held in New
York, with 220 delegates representing fourteen of the twenty-four
states. Through the years these official assemblies have brought
together thousands engaged in a common task and has been one of the
strongest factors for the remarkable advance of the Sunday School
movement. "The Bible and the Bible Alone'I was the Slogan of these
early meetings and it is significant that through the years the
conservatives have provided the movement with its basic thrust.

In 1860, Dr. John H. Vincent, who just beginning this career
of recognized leadership in Sunday School circles, issued this

challenge: "Why cannot we have a teachers' institute, similar to

239

that of the public schools, in every district." In answer to this
need, Vincent and Lewis Miller instituted in 1874 a summer school

13] Soon

for teachers on the shores of Lake Chautauqua, New York.
"Little Chautauquas" sprang up all over the country, as church
leaders became aware of the need for better methods of teacher
training in their church schools. In 1872, the International Uni-
form Lesson system was introduced, and by 1875 nearly seven million
students in the United States and Canada were committed to these

lessons.132

By the time the modernist-fundamentalist controversy
claimed the attention of the nation, the Sunday School had become
firmly established as an American institution. Originally designed
to fill the vacuum created by the removal of religion from the public
school curriculum, the Sunday School had been founded and fed
largely by conservatives during the controversy with the liberals.
The Sunday School movement had a belated start among churches
of the Restoration Movement. These congregations had been nurtured
almost exclusively by evangelistic revival preaching in their early
years. No need for a Sunday School was felt. AS the movement
developed, the doctrinal position of the churches forbade the con-
cept of conference assemblies, hence the churches were denied many
of the ideas and stimulation which benefited the religious groups
which attended the National Sunday School Conventions. Because of
the close ties between the Sunday School movement and denomination—
alism, Restoration minded churches assumed an attitude of almost
beligerent opposition. "I have for some time," wrote Alexander

Campbell in 1824, "viewed both 'Bible Societies' and 'Sunday School,‘

240

as sortcfiirecruiting establishments to fill up the ranks of those
sects which take the lead in them."133 Although Campbell held this
position for some years, in time he began to change his mind. In
1847 a representative of the American Sunday School Union wrote to
Campbell at Bethany College and received this reply:

I never had but one objection to the administration of the

system--never one to the system itself. That objection was

simply to the sectarian abuse. . . . Our brethren, as the

burned child dreads the fire, dread sectarianism. But this

is, I doubt not, carried too far--especially when it prevents

them from co-operating in teaching, or in sending their

children to teach, or to be taught, in Sunday Schools. I

doubt not that our brethren in all places will see it a duty

they owe to themselves, to the church, and to the world,

either to have in every church a Sunday School of their own,

or to unite with the Sunday School Union in their truly

benevolent and catholic institution.1

In Kentucky, Baron W. Stone also opposed, then approved,
the Sunday School movement. It was his judgment that the school
was a legitimate work of the church and should not be considered
as an "outside institution." By 1850 the Sunday Schools had gained
a strong foothold among progressive congregations. By 1900, prac-
tically every congregation had made provisions for at least a
crude system of Sunday morning Bible study.135
A significant chapter in the history of Christian education

in America was written by P. H. Welshimer, the first president of
the North American Christian Convention. Welshimer achieved his
wide reputation through preaching, but was also known as "the
world's foremost authority" on Bible schools.136 The Sunday School
which he established at the First Christian Church in Canton, Ohio,
grew from seven students in 1902 to 7,716 in 1914. For many years

the Canton school was the largest in the world.

241

In 1909, Welshimer published a significant book, A Bible

137

School Vision. This book was not only the product of successful

 

experience, but also represented the very first comprehensive
statement of the educational program in the Restoration Movement.
Welshimer's interest and work in the Sunday School movement spread
around the world through his numerous lectures, speeches, and
Sunday School Clinics. He was also known to a wide readership
through his weekly Bible School lessons in the Lookout, an inter-
denominational magazine of Christian education. The "P. H. Wel-
shimer Bible Class," as his column was called, was a standard
feature of the periodical for forty-six years.138
To P. H. Welshimer and his colleagues at the North American
Christian Convention, the necessity of promoting the teaching func-
tion of the church was almost an obsession. They were deeply
impressed with, and frequently mentioned the fact that, Christ had
given teaching major emphasis in the Great Commission. In Matthew 28:
18-20, Jesus said: "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them . . .,"
and with renewed emphasis He said, "teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you." Christ was a Master
Teacher and His ministry was largely a teaching ministry. Hence,
the speakers at the North American Christian Convention interpreted
the purpose of the Sunday School to be to "win souls to Christ,
teaching them the Word of God and training them in Christian char-
acter and service."139

In his 1956 address, Roy C. Blackmore, noted the inseparable

link between Christian education and evangelism in the local church:

242

Evangelism and Christian education stand together. Some have
taught that you can separate these. Not so! Evangelism is
the very heart of Christian education. They were so linked
by our Lord in the great commission. Education without evan-
gelism may produce theological scholars but it will not com—
mit men to Jesus Christ. And there cannot be intelligent

and permanent decision for Christ without teaching. Evangel-
ism divorced from Scriptural indoctrination is not New
Testement evangelism. Thus, the Bible school is an excellent
springboard for an evan elistic program that will reach our
communities for Christ. 40

At the. very first North American Christian Convention in 1927,
J. Quincy Biggs Similarly asserted:
When the church school gained an important place in the pro-
gram of the church, naturally it became at once a great
evangelistic agency. Every wide-awake school has a program
which seeks to enlist the entire membership in the task of
winning disciples, instructing them in the teaching of
Christ, and training them in the application of these
teachings.141
Sunday School expert, P. H. Welshimer, declared in his
final Convention address, that the church school had become "the
greatest and most productive force in the church's program for
evangelism ..... eighty-five percent of the people uniting with
our churches by primary obedience come from the Bible school."142
Arthur W. Merkle's 1975 address described how the Sunday
School functioned at as an evangelistic arm of the church. "The
converts will tell others about the friendships and teaching that
they have had," Merkle explained, "and they will, by their enthu-
siasm, begin the recruiting of others. Thus a pattern of evangelism

‘43 In addition, he recommended that the

has been established."
practice of creating special classes for prospective members be

continued in the churches. Merkle explained how the class worked:

243

Do not confuse this approach with the "catechism" approach
of the denominations. The class does not all "join the
church" on a given Sunday as in a catechism program.
Instead, each individual makes his own decision and accepts
Christ into his heart as hg_feels the desire within his
heart.14

Another function of Christian education stressed by the
Convention speakers was the conservation and nurturing of new
Christians. Guy P. Leavitt asked: "Why do people come into the
church and then drift away? The answer is simply this: they are
neglected. They are not conserved for Christ." He then reminded
his audience of the crucial role played by the Sunday School in
conserving new members:

The second part of our Lord's commission to His peOple, His
church, is this: "Teaching them to observe all things what-
soever I have commanded you.” This is the teaching of con-
servation . . ., we are to teach the recruit to observe, to
do, whatsoever Jesus has commanded. He did not say "Teaching
them to know." He said, "Teaching them to observe." It is
not enough, therefore, merely to teach pupils to know what
the Bible says. We must translate these lessons into daily
living. Your Sunday school is the church at work conserving
the recruits by teaching them to live as Christians.145

Leavitt also noted that if Sunday Schools were to effectively
evangelize and train people to do Christian service, they must have
effective teachers. He viewed the Convention itself as an opportu-
nity for teachers to both improve their skills and increase their
awareness of valuable resource materials.

This convention, during the next three days, will offer
infbrmation, instruction, and inspiration for better teaching
in every department. Your publishing house has for you an
unsurpassed collection of training texts. Get these books;
read them; mark them; study, work, pray, and grow as a teacher
of the Word of God! For, without you, the teachers, and
without better teaching, we cannot have better Sunday Schools;
and without better Sunday schools, we cannot hope for a

better America and a better world.145

244

Several speakers agreed with Leavitt that the Sunday School
movement was a vital factor in the shaping of American morality.
Murl M. Jones said: “I believe the only way to restore our nation,
our world to moral sanity, is to bring about a return of sound
Bible teaching in our Bible Schools."147

"If you want to have better homes and an outstanding citizen-
ship, see to it that your sons and daughters are in Bible school."
declared Welshimer. "It is far better for parents to join these
children and go with them on the Lord's Day to Bible school than to

follow them to juvenile court."148

Summary

The Convention speakers could not conceive of Christianity
as being possible apart from Christ's church. They reverenced
Christ's church as a divine institution, "which He purchased with
his own blood,“ the very means by which God is saving the world.
They resolutely maintained that the nature of the church inhered
in a fixed apostolic pattern. From the first to the last they
addressed themselves to the "New Testament Church." Their ultimate
goal was to unite all redeemed believers in Christ through the res-
toration of the apostolic church in its nature, organization, wor-
ship, and mission. To be in Christ was to be in the church.
Although the church was itself not a saving institution, it was the
corporate body of the saved.

The Speakers decisively identified the "Kingdom of God" with

the church. The premillennial theories of the kingdom, which as

245

basic tenets of many conservative bodies absorbed a major share of
the fundamentalist controversy, were categorically rejected at the
Convention.

The speakers contended that the "ecclesia" which was estab-
listed on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ
was gradually corrupted by the human innovations which ultimately
crystallized into the Roman Catholic Church. Because of their dis-
dain for Catholicism, the Speakers were sympathetic with the motives
and principles which sparked the Protestant Reformation of the Six-
teenth century. The shortcomings of the reformers were usually
reduced to the differing concepts of reformation and restoration.
The speakers insisted that denominationalism, by its very nature,
fostered and approved division in the body of Christ. They con-
tended that the New Testament church was a nonsectarian/nondenomina-
tional institution.

Some of the most interesting and drastic shifts of brother-
hood custom were observed in the speakers changing attitudes toward
the preacher and his work. While the early addresses stipulated
that the preacher should be subordinate to the elders, some recent
speakers have maintained that the preacher is "boss." Most speak-
ers in recent years, however, have subscribed to a more moderate
position; one in which the preacher works side-by-side with the
elders of the church. While directing social activities, conduct-
ing visitation campaigns, delivering civic addresses, and handling

public relations affairs were often necessary and significant items

246

on the preacher's agenda, the speakers maintained that nothing
should over shadow his primary work--preaching the Word.

The speakers were obviously uncertain, particularly in the
early days, as to the nature of the church's responsibility in pro-
viding for man's physical and social needs. This uncertainty was
no doubt due, at least in part, to their overwhelmingly negative
reaction to the Social Gospel and the liberal advocates of social
Christiantiy. AS the years passed, however, they agreed that the
spiritual purpose of the church might be served by providing physi-
cal relief for the homeless, the hungry, and the lonely.

During the years of most bitter conflict between the funda-
mentalists and the liberals, churches of the Restoration Movement
established numerous colleges. Although several of these institu-
tions soon perished from economic starvation, the surviving ones
appear to fit rather neatly into the familiar pattern of private,
Bible-centered education which emerged from the fundamentalist con-
troversy. The speakers contended that complete education could
never be the product of a system of state-sponsored instruction
which virtually ignored the significance of spiritual values. The
local congregation was also viewed as an agency which should share
in the responsibility to educate the brotherhood. The speakers
maintained that the primary evangelistic thrust of the church came

through its Sunday School program.

CHAPTER v1
FOOTNOTES
1Geddes MacGregor, Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: The

Westminister Press, 1958), p. 4.

2R. Newton Flew, ed., The Nature of the Church (London:
SCM Press, 1951).

3John Bolten, Sr., "The Ecclesia of God," Christian Standard
(May 19, 1956): 1-2.

 

 

 

4Emil Brunner, The Misunderstanding of the Church, trans.
H. Knight (London: Lutterworth Press, 1952), pp. lOff.

5Fenton J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia (London: Mac-
millan and Co., 1898), p. 5.

 

 

6George Johnson, The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testa-
ment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943), p. 35.

 

7T. K. Smith, "The Glorious Church," Christian Standard
(September 12, 1959): 3.

 

8Gerald A. Gibson, "God Still Cares For the Lost," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Anaheim,
California, 24 July 1974 (manuscript).

gGeddes MacGregor, Corpus Christi (Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1958), p. 4.

10A. C. McGiffert, The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas (New
York: The Macmillan Co., 1915), p. 275.

1]Russell Blowers, "Thy Kingdom Come!" address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Detroit, Michigan, 8 July
1975 (manuscript).

12

 

 

Ibid.

247

248

13Ernest R. Sanden, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xix. Sandeen contends that
"Fundamentalism ought to be understood partly if not largely as one
aspect of the history of millenarianism," and particularly "the type
of millenarianism known as futurism and especially the form Of
futurism taught by John Welson Darby," viz. dispensational pre-
millennialism.

14Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 808.

15Henry Webb, "IS Fundamentalism Compatible with the Plea?"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Indianapolis, Indiana 11 July 1973 (tape recording).

16Russell Blowers, "Thy Kingdom Come!“ address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Detroit, Michigan 8 July
1975 (manuscript).

17Carl Ketcherside, "The Priesthood of All Believers,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 14 July 1972 (tape recording).

18William E. Sweeney, “The Challenge of Pentecost," Chris-
tian Standard (October 19, 1929): 3.

19Robert E. Elmore, ”The Rise and Decline of the Church,"
Christian Standard (July 4, 1931): 3.

20Gerald B. Smith, ed., Religious Thought in the Last Quarter
Centur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), pp. 100-
101.

 

 

 

21Gerald B. Smith, Current Christian Thinking(Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 64.

22Robert E. Elmore, "The Rise and Decline of the Church,"
Christian Standard (July 4, 1931), p. 3.

23Bruce L. Kershner, "Reformation Movements," Christian
Standard (August l, 1931): 4-5.

24Basil Holt, "Efforts to Restore the Primitive Church,"
Christian Standard (August 15, 1931), p. 4.

 

 

 

25P. H. Welshimer, "The Divine Basis for Christian Unity,"
Christian Standard (June 5, 1937): 8.

 

249

26For outstanding discussions of the Anabaptist Movement,
see the following: Donald F. Durnbaugh, The Believers' Church
(New York: Macmillan Co., 1968); Franklin Littell, The Anabaptist
View of the Church (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1958); WTlliston
Walker, AfHTStory of the Christian Church (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1959), pp. 326-332.

27P. H. Wilshimer, "The Divine Basis for Christian Unity,"
Christian Standard (June 5, 1937): 8.

28Bruce L. Kershner, "Reformation Movements," Christian
Standard (August 8, 1931): 8.

 

 

 

 

 

29Jesse R. Kellems, "Growth of the Restoration Movement,"
Christian Standard (October 29, 1927): 8.

30w. R. Walker, "When All of God's People Are One," Chris-
tain Standard (October 27, 1928): 4.

31$tewart G. Cole, History of Fundamentalism (New York:
Harper and Row, 1931), p. 160.

32

 

 

 

Ibid.

33W. R. Walker, "When All of God's People Are One," Chris—
tian Standard (October 27, 1928): 4.

34W. Carl Ketcherside, "The Church Speaks of Discovering
and Unleashing Hidden Powers," Christian Standard (August 3, 1963):
7-8.

 

 

35Ibid.
36Watchman-Examiner, VIII (July 1, 1920): 854.

 

37Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. xiv.

38W. Carl Ketcherside, "The Church Speaks of Discovering
and Unleashing Hidden Powers," Christian Standard (August 3, 1968):
8.

 

 

39Robert Moorehead, "The Kingdom Unites Men," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Detroit,
Michigan, 10 July 1975 (tape recording).

40Sam W. Price, "The Challenge of the Restoration Movement,"
Christian Standard (May 1, 1948): 13.

 

250

41P. H. Welshimer, "The Glory of the Church," Christian
Standard (June 30, 1956): 3.

42T. K. Smith, "The Glorious Church," Christian Standard
(September 12, 1959): 4-5.

 

43Ibid.

44Edwin V. Hayden, "Restoring the New Testament Church,"
Christian Standard (June 15, 1946): 7.

45Robert E. Elmore, "The Rise and Decline of the Church,"
Christian Standard (July 4, 1931): 3.

46T. O. Wedel, The ComingyGreat Church (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1945), p.4144}

 

 

 

47p. H. Welshimer, "The Divine Basis for Christian Unity,"
Christian Standard (June 5, 1937): 8.

48Gilbert 0. Nations, "The Church of the Dark Ages,”
Christian Standard (November 26, 1927): 3.

49

 

 

Ibid.

50John R. Pierce, "Developing Leadership in the Local Church,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977 (Manuscript).

51C. C. Crawford, "The Church and Missions," Christian
Standard (November 17, 1928): 4.

52John R. Pierce, "Developing Leadership in the Local
Church," address delivered at the North American Christian Con-
vention, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977 (Manuscript).

53w. R. Walker, "The Ministry Christ Ordained," Christian
Standard (October 31, 1942): 6.
54

55

56Robert G. Murphy, "Doing God's Work . . . On Purpose,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Indianapolis, Indiana, 12 July 1973 (manuscript).

57

Ibid.
Ibid.

Ibid.

251

58John R. Pierce, "Developing Leadership in the Local Church,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977 (manuscript).

59Edwin V. Hayden, "Restoring the New Testament Church,"
Christian Standard (June 15, 1946): 8.

 

60Robert C. Shannon, "A Plea for Bible Preaching," Christian
Standard (December 14, 1963): 9.

6'1bid.

62Ibid.

63Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio 6 July 1977 (manuscript).

64Erskine E. Scates, Jr., "Devoted and Oiscriminating Read-
ing," address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan 10 July 1975 (manuscript).

65P. H. Welshimer, "Preach the Word," Christian Standard
(October 12, 1942): 3.

66Luther A. Weigle, ed., Preaching in These Times (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940), pp. 130-135.

67This ideal has been constantly restated by the Convention
speakers and the 1978 meeting of the North American Christian Con-
vention treated the theme "God Has Spoken."

 

 

68Herbert W. Schneider, Reli ion in Twentieth Century Amer-
.igg (Cambridge: Harvard University ress, 1952), p. 212.

 

69J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1923), 179-180.

70W. F. Lown, "Our Oneness in Worship and Hope in the Lord,"
Christian Standard (April 30, 1966): 5.

71W. Carl Ketcherside, "The Priesthood of All Believers,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 14 July 1972 (tape recording).

72
73

 

 

Ibid.
Ibid.

74Andrew Blackwood, The Fine Art of Public Worship (Nash-
ville: Cokesbury Press, 1934), p. 204.

252

75Mont W. Smith, "Ethno-Theology: Restoration Theology
Translated," address delivered at the North American Christian Con-
vention, Cincinnati, Ohio 7 July 1977 (manuscript).

76A. G. Smith, "The Lord's Ordinances," Christian Standard
(December 15, 1928): 4.

77John Mills, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper,“ address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Detroit,
Michigan, 11 July 1975 (manuscript).

78

 

Ibid.

79W. Carl Ketcherside, "The Priesthood of All Believers,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio 14 July 1972 (tape recording).

80J.Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1923), pp. 168-170.

8'lHarry Emerson Fosdick, Christianity and Progress (New
York: Fleming H. Revell CO., 1922)] pp. 232-233.

82

 

 

Ibid.

83J. Gresham Machen, "The Battle Within the Churches,"
Homiletic Review (September, 1923): 186.

84Cera1d A. Gibson, "God Still Cares for the Lost," address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Anaheim,
California, 23 July 1974 (manuscript).

85Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theolpgy for the Social Gospel
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1919), p. 2.

86Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Re i ious History Of the American
PeOple (New Haven: Yale University ress, 1972), pp. 785-804.

87Walter Rauschenbusch, A Theology of the Social Gospel
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1917), p. 96. From the vast litera-
ture which tells the story of the Social Gospel, a penetrating and
definitive study is C. H. Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in

 

 

 

 

 

American Protestantism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940).

 

253

88Bera1d B. Smith, ed., ReligiOus Thought in the Last Quarter
Centur (Chicago: University of ChiCago Press, 1927), p. 235.
ccor Tng to Robert T. Handy the "Creed" urged the churches to
“stand for such things as equal rights and complete justice for
all, for the principles of arbitration in industrial dissensions,
for the abolition of child labor, for the regulation of the condi-
tions of toil for women so that the physical and moral health of
the community be safeguarded." A History of the Churches in the
United States and Canada (New York: OxfordTUniversity Press,
1977). p. 306.

89Ibid. The American Baptist Publishing Society and the
Methodist Book Concern were named as the chief publishing houses.

 

90Paul A. Carter, The Decline and Revival of the Social
Gospel (Ithaca, New York: Cornell'University Press, 1954), p. 60.
Carter describes several sources of Social Gospel opposition which
were "by no means Fundamentalist in temper."

91J0hn Horsch, Modern Religious Liberalism (Scottsdale, Pa.:
Fundamental Truth Depot, 1921 , p. 134.

92Stewart G. Cole, The History_0f Fundamentalism (New York:
Harper and Row, 1931), p. 83.

93Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America,
Annual Rgport, 1928, p. 60.

94James W. Gray, The Coming Kingdom of God (Chicago: Bible
Institute Colportage Association, 1914), p.510.

95Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History_0f the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 786.

95H. R. Walker, “Fruit-bearing Branches," Christian Standard
(May 8, 1937): 10.

 

 

 

97Francis M. Arant, "P. H.“--the Welshimer Story (Cincinnati:
The Standard Publishing Foundation, 1958), p. 71.

98Ibid., 74-75.

9glra North, "The Minister: Key Man in Church Growth,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Dallas,
Texas, 7 July 1971 (manuscript).

100John Allen Cha1k, "God Still Cares for the Brokenhearted,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Anaheim, California, 24 July 1974 (manuscript).

254

101Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. John W.
Doberstein (New York: Harper andBrothers,l954), p. 100.

102Dallas M. Roark, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Waco, Texas: Word
Books Inc., 1972), p. 70.

103Paul A. Carter, The Decline and Revival of the Social
Gospel (Ithaca, New York: Corfiéll University Press, 1954), p. 50.

m4Gerald B. Smith, Current Christian Thinking (Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1928), p. 69.

‘osNorman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954), pp. 72-73.

106Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York:
Harper and Row, 1931), p. 246.

 

 

 

 

 

107J. Edward Hakes, ed., An Introduction to Evangelical
Christian Education (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), p. 379.

108James Harvey Garrison, The Reformation of the Nineteenth
Century (St. Louis: Christian PubliShing Company, 1901), p. 153.

 

109Alexander Campbell, "Literacy Institutions," Millennial
Harbinger (August, 1836), p. 377.

noAs quoted in H. F. Lown, "Private Colleges in Crisis,"
Christian Standard (June 18, 1978), p. 9.

nlAlexander Campbell, "Bethany College," Millennial
Harbinger (May 1850): 291.

112Rollo James Bennett, "History of the Founding of Educa-
tional Institutions by the Disciples of Christ in Virginia and
West Virginia" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1932),
p. 212.

113Churches associated with the Restoration Movement estab-
lished sixteen colleges before the Civil War. From the war to 1900,
higher education continued to be an urgent concern, but unfortu-
nately many colleges died soon after their inception. In 1946,
Claude Spencer, curator of the Disciples of Christ Historical Soci-
ety, compiled what he termed an incomplete list of "colleges, semi-
naries, academies and institutes" founded as privately or congrega-
tionally supported institutions. It contained 256 names! See,
Winfred E. Garrison and Alfred T. DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ:
A Histgry7é5t. Louis: Christian Borad of Publication, 1948),
PP. - -

 

 

255

114The Transylvania school rivaled Bethany College for
honors as the oldest institution of higher education within the
Restoration Movement. It had descended from Bacon College, an
institution which was founded at Georgetown, Kentucky, in 1836, and
which had also influenced Campbell's establishment of Bethany
College. Ibid., pp. 248-253. See also, James DeForst Murch,
Christians Only: A History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati:
The Standard PublishThg Co., 0962), p. 281.

115Editorial, "Dean Calhoun Speaks," Christian Standard
(March 31, 1917), p. 9.

116"In Favor of the Impartial Investigation of the College
of the Bible," Christian Standard (April 14, 1917), p. 10.

117Mark Collis, "Mark Collis Proves Courage of His Con-
victions," Christian Standard (June 22, 1918), p. 3. The article
consisted of a statement read by Collis at the Annual Meeting of
the Trustees of the College of the Bible, May 24, 1918. Its Sig-
nificance is enhanced by the vivid description which he portrays
0f the encroachment of liberalism in a conservative institution of
higher education. The complete document is, therefore, included
as an appendix.

118Mark Collis, "Mr. Collis Makes Report of His Stewardship
to Brethren at Large," Christian Standard (June 22, 1918), p. 5.

119

 

 

 

 

Ibid.

120James Deforest Murch, Christian Only; A History of the
Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Co.,
1962), pp. 243-244.

121Frank H. Marshall, "The Ministry of Christian Education,"
Christian Standard (October 20, 1928), p. 4.

122

 

 

 

Ibid., p. 5.

123Frederick D. Kershner, "The Problem of Ministerial Train-
ing," Christian Standard (June 12, 1937), p. 23.

 

124Frank E. Gaebelein, "The Bible College in American Educa-
tion," School and Society (May 9, 1959), p. 223.

125Frank H. Marshall, "The Ministry of Christian Education,"
Christian Standard (October 29, 1928), p. 5.

126Wayne 8. Smith, "Preach the Word," address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, 5 July
1977 (tape recording).

 

 

256

127Paul K. McAlister, "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth,"
address delivered at the North American Christian Convention, Cin-
cinnati, Ohio 6 July 1977 (manuscript).

128Harry E. Webb, "Emphasizing the Restoration Ideal in the
College and the Local Church," address delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, 6 July 1977
(manuscript).

1295. A. Witmer, The Accrediting Association of Bible
Colleges Looks Forward (Fort Wayne: Accrediting Association of
BiEle Colleges, 1960), p. 13.

 

130James DeForest Murch, Christian Education and the Local
Church (Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Co.,)1943), p. 75.

131Clarence H. Benson; A Popplar History of Christian Edu-
cation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1943), p. 199. See also: Marianna
C. Brown, Sunday-School Movements in America (New York: Fleming
H. Revell Co.,)l90l), pp. 91-112.

 

 

 

132C. B. Eavey, History of Christian Education (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1964), pp. 257-258. See also: J. M. Price, et al.,
A Survgy of Religious Education (New York: The Ronald Press,
1940). PP. 159-160.

 

 

133Alexander Campbell, "Prefatory Remarks," Christian Bap-
tist (August 2, 1824), p. 5.

 

134Alexander Campbell, "Reply to Elder A. W. Corey,"
Millennial Harbinger (April, 1847), pp. 200-29l.>

135Hi11iam C. Bower and Roy G. Ross, The DiscipJeS and
Religious Education (St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication,
T936) , p. 35.

136Canton Repository, August 16, 1957.

 

 

 

 

137P. H. Welshimer, A Bible School Vision (Cincinnati: The
Standard Publishing Co., 1909),

138Keith P. Keeran, "A Critical Evaluation of Rhetorical
Processes in the Preaching of Pearl Howard Welshimer Through an
Analysis of Representative Sermons" (M.A. thesis, Abilene Christian
University, 1976), pp. 57-63.

139James DeForest Murch, Adventuring For Christ in Changing
Iim§§_(Louisville, Kentucky: The Restoration Press, 1973), p. l7l}

 

140Roy C. Blackmore, "How to Reach Your Community for
Christ," Christian Standard (September 15, 1956): 7.

 

257

141J. Quincy Biggs, "Evangelism in the Bible School,"
Christian Standard (October 22, 1927): 5.

142P. H. Welshimer, "Building the Church Through the Bible
School," Christian Standard (September 8, 1956): 5.

143Arthur W. Merkle, ”Conservation and Nurturing of New
Christians," address delivered at the North American Christian Con-
vention, Detroit, Michigan, 10 July 1975 (manuscript).

144Ibid.

145Guy P. Leavitt, “Better Sunday Schools for a Better Amer-
ica," Christian Standard (September l, 1956): 4.

146Ibid.

147Murl M. Jones, "God's Answer to Juvenile Delinquency,"
Christian Standard (September 15, 1956): 5.

148P. H. Welshimer, "Building the Church Through the Bible
School," Christian Standard (September 8, 1956): 5.

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

For fifty years the North American Christian Convention has
attracted able men to grapple with the questions confronting the
church. This study has proposed to isolate and define the ideas
and issues with which the speakers were crucially concerned. It
has also sought to interpret these ideas and issues against the
bolder backdrop of the historical context of which they were a part.
It was in the service of historical and theological interpretation
that this study of the North American Christian Convention best ful-
filled itself. The following general conclusions help to establish
the Convention as a significant religious assembly and forum for
conservative Christian expression.

1. The addresses at the North American Christian Convention
provide an informative index into the beliefs and attitudes of the
religious body known as the American Restoration Movement. Since
this body claims to have no creed but the Bible, is opposed to
legislative assemblies, is composed of exceedingly autonomous con-
gregations, and has made little effort to synthesize its beliefs or
record its historical development, a profile of its distinguishing
features is much needed. The principle ideas woven through the

addresses of the Convention platform comprise an adequate expression

258

259

of the heart of this loosely organized religious movement. In this
sense, the analysis of the ideas which have persisted through half

a century of discussion has sought to make a substantial contribution
as an essay in understanding.

2. The themes and issues of the Convention were inherently
fundamentalistic in nature. It has been said that the story of
Christianity can be marked by its transition from crisis to crisis.
One cannot estimate the historical relevancy of the Convention plat-
form without confronting on every hand the American phenomenon known
as the fundamentalist controversy. In the first three decades of
the twentieth century this was Christianity's crisis. A dearth of
reliable information has been produced, however, regarding the role
and development of the Restoration Movement during this momentous
crisis. The presence of such a vacuum becomes even more perplexing
in the light of the conservative views of this movement-~views which
would logically place it in the midst of such a controversy. This
unusual Situation can be largely explained by the Shortage of edu-
cated preachers and trained leaders in the church during the second
and third decades of the century. The shortage itself was a by-
product of the Disciples split in 1926. As has been true with most
religious schisms, the division among the Disciples saw the most
progressive and educated minds lean toward the left. Hence, when
the split occurred most of the intellectual leadership was siphoned
off into The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The conserva-

tives were virtually drained of an educated upper echelon. In one

260

generation the nature of the church's leadership changed from the
hands of men like J. W. McGarvey--brilliant, Princeton trained
language scholar--to the hands of men like P. H. Welshimer--th0ugh
godly and able, no academic counterpart of the former. AS a result,
the history of the Restoration Movement prior to the early decades
of the twentieth century, when the two groups were one, has been
accurately chronicled. But for the history of the movement since
that time, the conservatives have relied chiefly upon historians of
The Christian Church who, perhaps compelled to reminisce in writing
their own denomination's story, have devoted a chapter or so to
those who have consistently insisted upon maintaining the original
principles and plea of the Restoration Movement. The value of this
study, therefore, is enchanced by the fact that the twentieth
century record of what has become the largest religious group
indigenous to America is hazy. An analysis of the North American
Christian Convention serves to fill in the gaps and relate the
Restoration Movement to the larger controversy on the American
scene.

The manuscripts of the Convention platform were punctuated
with assertions and positions synonymous with the leading funda-
mentalist utterances. The various "points" or "fundamentals" which
became the creedal statement of the national reaction were almost
totally endorsed by the speakers. On such questions as the inspira-
tion of the Scriptures, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth,
the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, and the bodily resur-

rection and second coming of Christ the Convention speakers were as

261

fundamental as any American body. In addition to these cardinal
doctrines they voiced thorough if indirect agreement with the funda-
mentalists on other crucial issues of the era. For instance, they
held an identical attitude toward the theory of evolution. The
speakers were also united with the fundamentalist leaders in a
stance of opposition to religious modernism and the conclusions of
the higher critics. To further establish the position of the Res-
toration Movement, it can be concluded that the Convention speakers
were never critical of the fundamentalists for being overly ortho-
dox on the crucial points of Christian doctrine. Curiously, how-
ever, several prominent fundamentalist denominations were obviously
regarded by the Convention assembly as doctrinally liberal.

3. Almost paradoxically, it must be concluded that in spite
of the many points which the two movements held in common, the
North American Christian Convention and the Restoration Movement of
which it was an expression, were never organically a part of the
fundamentalist controversy. A historical analysis of the Convention
addresses urges the unavoidable judgement that the churches of the
Restoration Movement are an exceedingly conservative religious group
whose past is apparently unrelated to an American phenomenon with
which it logically should be thoroughly entangled. The principle
histories of fundamentalism by Cole, Furniss, and Gasper, attempt to
demonstrate close connection between the schism in the Restoration
Movement and the national controversy. Ernest Sandeen, however,

concluded that there was no evidence to support the theory that

262

Restorationists had anything in common with fundamentalism with
regard to theological origins. Both, fundamentalists and Restora-
tionists, responded vociferously to the encroachments of the evolu-
tionary hypothesis and the higher criticism. Although they often
touched and shared some basic points in common, the Restoration
Movement and the Fundamentalist Movement never really merged.

4. In spite of a general doctrinal affinity between the two
movements, the Restorationists, and hence the North American Chris-
tian Convention's, entry into the national controversy was further
precluded by the Convention speaker's disagreement with the funda-
mentalist denominations at specific points of doctrine. The two
tenets which most aroused Restorationists were the doctrines of
predestination and premillennialism. Since most of the fundamental-
ist denominations were Calvinistic, the theology of the movement
was essentially predestinarian. The Restoration Movement's defiance
of Calvinism was manifested in the Convention addresses. The idea
of the premillennial coming of Christ was also a main root of funda-
mentalism which alienated the Restorationists. The hand of the
Church was heavily set against a pre-millennial view which held that
the Church and Kingdom were identical realities.

5. While the Convention served as a stimulus to church
growth in the areas of benevolence, education, and evangelism, the
fifty years of pulpit addresses revealed no significant shifts in the
theological posture of the Christian Churches and/or Churches of

Christ. Strangely, the Convention assembly was more faithful to the

263

destiny of conservatism than the fundamentalist movement itself.
This was partially due to the controversy over open-membership which
helped to Hold a sensitive system of hermeneutics. Wide-spread
theological shifts in the last quarter century have removed several
of fundamentalism's most influential denominations and consequently
its strength is greatly deminished. Today, many of the old-line
churches which once bore the brunt of the controversy have for all
practical purposes forsaken allegiance to the doctrines of funda-
mentalism.

During the last thirty years of convulsion in which a large
measure of conservatives have abandoned the fight, or at least have
relaxed their defenses, the North American Christian Convention has
steered a consistently conservative course. Because of the refusal
to modify any cardinal doctrine of orthodoxy the autonomous
churches of the Restoration Movement remain today one of the truly
fundamental communions of the nation's major religious bodies. Even
the modifications which Convention speakers occasionally recommended
to the Church were more attributable to alterations in custom and
opinion than to any Significant shift in doctrine. That several
hundred speakers were able to preserve for five decades a stance of
virtual unanimity on major tenets of the Christian faith is somewhat
irregular in view of the drastic developments in contemporary
thought. The following theological ideas which several denominations
once held as fundamentalists but have now essentially altered, the

North American Christian Convention, never an organic part of the

264

fundamentalist movement, has consistently maintained: (1) The
Bible as the inerrant Word of God; (2) the deity and virgin birth
of Christ; (3) a literal belief in Christ's miracles; (4) the death
of Jesus as the retributive price which God required by virtue of
human sin; (5) the bodily resurrection of Christ; (6) the second
coming of Christ to claim the faithful and sentence the unrighteous.
Finally, it should be noted that while the assembly served
to solidify and reassert existing beliefs, it also, at least in
the realm of Christian doctrine, Served the Church as a reflection
rather than a conscience. The Conventions' reverence for the Bible
remained in 1977 as it was in l927. Maintaining that tradition,
the 1978 edition of the North American Christ Convention carried

as its theme: "God Has Spoken."

APPENDICES

265

APPENDIX A

"THE FOLLY 0F OPEN MEMBERSHIP"

266

THE FOLLY 0F OPEN MEMBERSHIP

By

P. H. Welshimer

Mr. Chairman and Friends: This is not a subject of my
choosing. I am not at all interested in this question of open
membership, but it has become the disturbing question within our
own ranks. I am speaking this morning on a subject that is both
unscriptural and antiscriptural, one that can not have any place
whatsoever in the program of the church of Christ.

Brother Lappin has given a fine statement as to the meaning
of open membership. All this argument about what it might mean is
a mere smoke screen. It is the reception into churches of Christ
of unimmersed persons.

I am wondering this morning what our fathers would have
thought one hundred years ago had they known that a company of
disciples of Christ ever would need to come together to give five
minutes' attention to this subject.

One of the very things from which they pulled away has
become one of the things which some of our folk are reaching forth
to accept. And yet, I think the happy situation is this, while
there are some who believe in or pretend to believe in the Open-
membership practice it has found no lodgment in the great heart of
the brotherhood. Nor will it ever find such lodgment, but it is

267

268

one of those things that are insidious, and, so long as here and
there one can be found who will counternance or advocate it, it is
indeed expedient that voices everywhere cry out against it.

When I was a student in Hiram College, thirty-one years ago,
one of our Cleveland churches was having considerable difficulty
over this question. It created some excitement on Hiram hill when
the word came that the Cedar Avenue Church in Cleveland (Harris
R. Cooley, minister) was advocating the reception into full fellow-
ship of unimmersed persons. Our Cleveland preachers called Profes-
sor B. S. Dean, of the college, to a meeting one Monday morning to
discuss this subject. And he read an excellent paper on "Shall
We Let Down the Bars?" Harris R. Cooley was the only preacher in
Cleveland, and, for all that we knew, the only one in Ohio, who
favored this unscriptural practice. But the times have changed. In
a little less than a third of a century that question has come to
be foremost in our discussions. It finds a place in the public
press. It comes to the front in the classrooms of some of our
colleges. It is an outstanding question on the mission field of
the Orient. Here and there the pulpit brings it forth, and here it
is on exhibition in a great International Convention. It has come
to be about the most divisive thing in many local congregations.
Preachers and other pronounced leaders in some of the churches are
making gestures toward this unholy thing. It has in many instances
prevented "the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace."

The few churches in our brotherhood who publicly announce

the reception into fellowship of the unimmersed do us harm and give

269

a wrong impression to all the people living in the community, for
they announce themselves as the "forward-looking brethren," who are
the leaders in thought in the great Restoration movement. These few
churches convey the impression that all the rest of the brotherhood
is going with them. It's the case of one bullfrog in the pond that
sounds like a million.

The danger of this thing lies not in the fact that a few
churches have swung away from the "old paths," but the greater
danger is to be found among a goodly company who at heart favor
this practive and quietly talk it and argue for it, thus deceiving
the very elect. I am not afraid of the fellow who meets me out on
the highway and points a gun if he gives metichance also to have a
gun. But I am afraid of him who hides behind the bushes in the
dark and there, unnoticed, draws his gun as I pass by. The out-and-
out, in-the-open open-membership churches fly their own flag and
toot their own horn. You know where to find them. But the preacher
who talks it on the side, and the college professor who teaches
this on the quiet, thus sowing the seed of discord, are to be feared.
At an Ohio State convention, held in Canton fourteen years ago, I
heard four preachers discussing this subject one night in front of
the McKinley Hotel. They were preachers of good churches. Two of
them were outstanding men in the Ohio brotherhood, pastors of
strong churches, and one, now deceased, came from a family of
preachers. They said: "The day is coming when, as a peOple, we

will be compelled to accept the open-membership position." Two of

270

them said: "We believe in it now, and the only reason we do not
practice it is that our churches are not ready for it, and to sug-
gest the practice would cause discord." One of those men is present
at this Convention. I said to them: “You men are contemptible
cowards; you announce here your belief in a certain thing, but you
are too cowardly to practice it. If the day ever comes when I
believe a thing, and the religious body or the congregation with
which I am identified does not believe it, I'll either teach them
to believe, or I will go to a crowd that does believe it." Some
folk stay because they are too cowardly to move out.

I think our brotherhood is in no immediate danger of depart-
ing from New Testament teaching on the subject of church membership.
Great changes in religious thought and action are not the result of
the thinking of a day. The papacy did not spring up over-night.

It is a long road from the departure from the church of the New
Testament until you land at the door of the papacy. That took years
to develop, but it had a beginning. Go back to the beginning and
compare the conditions then with those to be found when the papacy
became full-orbed. If the end could have been seen from the begin-
ning, there would have been no apostasy, and the long weary flight
of evil years of departure from the truth would certainly have been
avoided.

Refusal to resist the rising tide of this unholy practice
puts us in a fair way to be dashed to pieces against the rock which

stands yonder in the road of great success.

271

Open membership has to do altogether with Christian bap-
tism. We are not believers in baptism, but we are believers in
Jesus Christ, and we baptize because Christ commanded it. And if
we love him, we will keep His commandments. Men are playing over-
time on two strings today--love for, and loyalty to, Christ. I
know of no other way to prove my loyalty to Him than by being loyal
to His teaching. I may talk a great deal about my affection for,
and loyalty to, Jesus Christ, and about the world how I love Him,
but that avails me nothing if I turn from Him, trampling His word
under my feet and flinging His authority to the winds.

I said the open-membership question brings forth again the
discussion of the baptismal question. Baptism depends upon the
authority of Christ and the inspiration and all-sufficiency of the
Scriptures. If you remove the authority of Jesus, you destroy the
meaning of baptism. If you eliminate the inspiration and all-
sufficiency of the Scriptures, you take away the meaning and sacred-
ness of baptism, and hence it would be of no importance to practice
anything and call it baptism.

This is a fight for more than an ordinance. It is a fight
for loyalty to Jesus Christ and for an appreciation of His authority,
the inSpiration of His word, and the compliance with stipulated
conditions that remission of sins may be granted.

The advocates of the open-membership plan are attempting
to adjust themselves to the fallacy of their religious neighbors.
Others have made the mistake of teaching that sprinkling is baptism,

while some argue that only immersion is New Testament baptism, but

272

the church has a right to change the ordinance. Then, to be broad,
and to appear to be Christian, the open-membership clan recognizes
the errors of others, and departs from the beaten path of the New
Testament Scriptures, endorsing those errors, simply to fly the
flag of unity. Because others are misled, why should we be? When
the blind lead the blind all go into the ditch.

Many of our denominational friends believe that sprinkling
is New Testaement baptism, because they have never been taught the
truth about the matter, nor have they investigated it. A dozen
years ago a denominational preacher in Canton, Ohio, said to me:
"The baptismal question does not disturb us Methodists. I have
not preached a sermon on baptism for twenty years, and I think I
never shall speak on it again. With us it is a settled question."
Now, suppose you belonged to his church, and your children come to
the age when they are ready for church membership. He has nothing
to say on the baptismal question. It is not considered vital. And
without any teaching he sprinkles babies, the young people and the
adults, and calls it baptism. The preacher, being a proclaimer of
the will of God, and using as his text-book the New Testament
Scriptures, naturally leads the people to believe that what he has
just practiced is in accordance with the New Testament teaching.
Whoever heard a Methodist preacher announce to his audience, when
ready to practice affusion, something like this: "This which I
am about to do finds no sanction in the Scriptures; it was not

authorized by Christ, nor practiced by His apostles. But this

273

church has a right to set aside the Scriptures and to change the
ordinance, hence this substitution, a sprinkling of water upon the
individual, is quite as effective as the burial of the individual
in water, which comports with New Testament teaching." And yet that
is what every affusionist preacher ought to say. Those who claim
to possess any scholarship argue no longer that sprinkling is the
New Testament action. The scholarship of the world knows better.
When I was a boy the church of Christ in my home village was
led in a very successful evangelistic meeting when the preaching
was done by W. J. Lhamon. Many came in from the denominations and
were Scripturally baptized. The Methodist church in the village
brought Professor Williams, of Delaware College, a teacher of
Greek, to discuss the baptismal question one Sunday evening. He
was honest in his statements and scholarly in his presentation of
facts. He said: "I have come tonight, not to try to prove that
sprinkling is the baptism authorized in the New Testament. I am a
teacher of Greek, and know the language. Baptizo in the Greek, the
word from which we get our word 'baptize,' carries with it the
thought of a burial, an immersion in water, and not a Sprinkling.
When Christ gave the great commission, He authorized His disciples
to immerse the believers in water. The apostles so understood Him,
and practiced only immersion. This is the only baptism recognized
in the New Testament Scriptures. We Methodists, and many other
religious bodies, practice sprinkling, not because it is in accord-
ance with New Testament teaching, but because we believe the church

has a right to change the ordinance." There you have it in a

274

nutshell. I admire the man who stands out in the open and takes an
honest and honorable position. What Professor Williams meant was
this: That in matters of religion the authority is vested in the
church, and not in the Christ. But pray, when did Christ delegate
His authority to any beyond that apostolic group? Here, again, we
find denominationalism is aping Romanism, so here are two roads on
which men may travel. He is wise who takes the road on which Christ
stands at its head. Christ said: "All authority hath been given
unto me; go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and 10,
I am with you always even unto the end of the world." The New
Testament Scriptures show us how they understood that commission.
These Scriptures contain the record of their teaching, and record
the results of that teaching. What the apostles taught is as bind-
ing on us today as are the words that fell from the lips of the Son
of God Himself, for they were Spirit-filled men, who, through
inspiration, made known to men His will.

One argues that the baptismal question is one of small
importance. That is to state that Jesus Christ authorized unneces-
sary things. He never set forth an ordinance, enacted a law or made
a command just for the fun of doing it. With Him everything was to
a purpose. He made no experiments, and He made no mistakes. The
great commission contains the marching orders to the church. The

men who had received their training in His school, and who were

275

endued with power from on high, left baptism exactly where the great
Teacher put it. With them it had some importance. It is associated
with the most important things of life. Note a few of them: The
preaching of the Word, belief, repentance, remission of sins, the
gift of the Holy Spirit, the new birth, the putting on of Christ,
the getting into Christ, entrance into the body of Christ--the
church. These are all important, and with them baptism finds a
place.

On the day the church was instituted, Peter, guided by the
Holy Spirit, and ever mindful of the conditions previosuly announced
when he received his commission, said to the believers who inquired
the way: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit." Here was the man to whom the keys of the
kingdom had been given, proclaiming the way to life. Can any one
say that baptism is unimportant?

Out from Jerusalem went the disciples, everywhere preaching
the Word, and to all who confessed their faith in Christ was the
command given to be baptized. In the eighth chapter of the Acts,
Philip baptized the Samaritans, and later, on the road from
Jerusalem to Gaza, he baptized the Ethiopian. In the ninth chapter
of the Act, and again in the twenty-second chapter, is the narrative
of the believing, penitent Saul of Tarsus being baptized. In Acts,
tenth chapter, Peter baptized Cornelius and his household. In the

sixteenth chapter, Paul baptized the households of Lydia and the

276

jailer. In the eighteenth chapter is another household baptism. In
writing of the church at Rome, Paul said: "We were buried with
Christ by baptism into death."

What mean all these baptismal occasions if baptism has no
meaning, and finds no place in the divine economy? And how do you
account for the fact that all the preachers--Peter, Paul, Ananias
and Philip--saw fit to stress this ordinance? There can be but one
answer: They were guided by the Holy Spirit, they recognized
Christ's authority, they were loyal to His word. They were not
doctors of divinity--they doctored nothing, but delivered His word
and made known His will to men. They were the messenger boys who
left the Western Union station, delivering the message unopened,
unchanged. That's the task of every preacher and teacher today.

Faith doesn't put you into Christ; it leads up to Him.
Repentance doesn't put you into Christ; it brings you to Him. Con-
fession doesn't put you into Christ, for "with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness, with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation.‘i But "as many as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ." I put on my coat this morning by getting into
my coat, and Paul says we put on Christ by getting into Christ.

And we get into Him through Baptism.

"Well," somebody says, "what has this to do with open member-
ship?" Just this: Open membership changes the ordinance of Jesus
Christ, it ignores His authority and gives promise of a conditional

blessing, while at the same time it ignores the conditions. From

277

the above it can clearly be seen that the New Testament Scriptures
teach that baptism is one of the steps by which sins are to be
forgiven, blotted out, remembered no more against one forever. An
institution that promises all this is too sacred to be tampered
with or changed. The consequences are too great. I have no right
to say unto a man, "Your sins are forgiven because you have followed
the teaching which you think to be right," when, in the light of
New Testament Scripture, I know it is not right. It is not our
business to pacify, but to teach. And when we do what Jesus com-
manded us to do, we know He will do what He has promised to do.

One says: "What's the difference, anyway? Baptism is only
a form, so why be concerned about the action?" For the sake of
argument, let us admit that it is only a form. Then, a form of
what? In Romans, sixth chapter, Paul teaches that baptism--immersion
--is a form of death, burial and resurrection. Now changed from an
immersion to sprinkling, and you have not even a form left. It is
like a cipher with the rim knocked off. If it were only a form,
it behooves one to practice immersion to retain that form.

To practice open membership and thus recognize one's
sprinkling to be baptism is to walk again under the torch-light
of Rome and to carry with you some of Rome's excess baggage. This
action of sprinkling, instead of immersion, has come full-orbed
from the throne of the hierarchy. It was first heard of in the
third century, when Novatian, a Roman presbyter, was too ill to be

immersed, and they poured water around him in the bed. Again, in the

278

eighth century, Pope Stephen sanctioned sprinkling as a substitute
for immersion in cases of sickness only, and it was called clinic
(or sickly) baptism. Then in 1311 the Council at Ravenna made
sprinkling equal with immersion, and permitted the candidate to
exercise the power of choice. Protestantism, in practicing sprink-
ling today, or in giving recognition to it, simply accepts that
which roots itself in the teaching of the apostate church.

One can have but little sympathy for him today who puts on
a sheet, and, in the busy marts of trade or from the pulpit,
denounces the Roman hierarchy, and then humbly stoops to practice
an ordinance which that hierarchy has imposed upon man.

Open membership destroys the possible ground for unity, for
there can be no unity except it be on the basis laid down in the
New Testament. We shall never stand together if we attempt to
stand on Opinions or on a platform about which there is controversy.
Our opinions must never become tests of fellowship. When Christ
speaks, all should listen. "Thus saith the Lord" takes precedence
over all opinions. The fact that a group of folk come together,
sit in the same pews, sing the same songs, listen to the same
preacher, and put their money in the same collection basket, doesn't
make unity any more than a group of five men and five women riding
on a street-car makes marriage. Christian unity will come when we
are agreed upon the essentials, and not until then. Upon this
matter of open membership there is disagreement because it is

unscriptural. I can have my arms and my limbs amputated and still

279

live. The surgeon may remove my eyes and stOp my ears, pluck out

my hair, and I will still live. But when he touches my heart, lungs,
or removes my stomach, or kidneys, or liver, I die. These are vital,
they are essential to life. So, likewise, some things are essential
to the church. Men may be in disagreement concerning the style of
architecture, the music and a hundred other things that are mere
expediencies, but you remove the deity of our Lord, His authority,
the inspriation and all-sufficiency of the Scriptures, change the
Christ-given plan of salvation, change the ordinance, and you have
struck at the vitals of the body of Christ--the church. Open member-
ship does this very thing with respect to forgiveness of sins, and
the condition of one's being added to the church.

The strange thing about open membership is this: Our breth-
ren who practice it desire to be broad, to exercise Christian
charity, and to recognize the character of others who have been
wrongly taught and are misled. I fully recognize the Christian
character of the unimmersed, penitant believer, I can fellowship
with him clear down the road, so far as we have gone together. Then
it becomes my duty to point out his mistakes and "Show him the way
of the Lord more perfectly." At Ephesus, when Paul learned that
twelve men who had been immersed had in the act followed only
John's baptism, he said, "have you received the Holy Spirit since
you believed?" They answered, "We have not so much as heard that
there be any Holy Spirit." Paul reimmersed them, giving them
Christian baptism. This was better than convering up their mistake

and permitting error to pass as a substitute for truth.

280

When Aquila and Priscilla heard the eloquent Apollos, and
knew that he was in error, although conscientious, having a zeal
which was not according to knowledge, they sat up with him and
"taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly." That's the only
way out. It's better than compromise.

Those who practice open membership today are inconsistent,
for they accept a deed performed by another which they themselves
refuse to perform. These preachers will not spinkle, but they
will accept the sprinkling done at the hands of another preacher.
They will not sprinkle a baby, but they will receive a man into
full membership who was sprinkled when he was a baby. And if that
man so received brings his baby to an open-membership preacher and
requests that he sprinkle the baby, he is compelled to say: "No, I
don't believe in it, hence I will not do it, but you go across the
road and let the Presbyterian preacher sprinkle the baby, and, when
he is old enough to confess his faith in Christ, I will endorse this
Presbyterian preacher's action." What's the difference whether the
open-membership preacher does the thing himself or employs another
man to do it? Is he not equally responsible?

In Canton at the present time three men are incarcerated,
each charged with having pulled the trigger of the gun that took the
life of Don Mellett, editor of the Canton Daily News. If proven
guilty of the deed, these men will pay the penalty in the electric
chair. But the prosecutor believes there are others who inspired

the plot and hired at least one of these men to do the shooting.

281

The authorities are just as desirous of ascertaining the names of
the men who were back of this murder as they are in apprehending the
man who fired the gun, for they who sanctioned and planned the
murder are as guilty in the eyes of the law as he who sent the
bullet into Don Mellet's heart. So, he who sanctions a departure
from the Scripture and pronounces it satisfactory unto the Lord is
as guilty of trespassing on forbidden ground as he who walks across.

Open membership, in conclusion, rejects the authority of
Jesus Christ, proclaims disloyalty to His word, has no Scriptural
precedence for its practice, leads not to unity, but marks division.
It promises something nowhere promised in the Scriptures, it is
both unscriptural and antiscriptural, and wears upon its face the
mask of inconsistency. One who would practice this unscriptural
thing Should do the whole thing right, put in a sprinkling fountain,
Sprinkle the babies and the adults, and thus proclaim with a loud
voice his departure from the "old paths," and manifest a deaf ear
to the voice of the Book. But if one would be true to the great
commission, "defend the faith once for all delivered unto the
saints," and "preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of
peace,“ let him speak only where the Book speaks, and stand with
certainty where the apostles stood, then he will have no apologies
to offer, no forgiveness to ask, but he will be loyal to Jesus
Christ, and faithful to His word. May God help us always to be
faithful.

APPENDIX B

STATEMENT READ BY CHAIRMAN COLLIS AT ANNUAL MEETING
OF TRUSTEES OF COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE, MAY 24, 1918

282

STATEMENT READ BY CHAIRMAN COLLIS AT ANNUAL MEETING
OF TRUSTEES 0F COLLEGE OF THE BIBLE, MAY 24, 1918

As your chairman, I deem it my duty to make certain state-
ments and recommendations to you as trustees of the College of the
Bible.

First, I ask you to consider the trust committed to this
Board. The Bible College of Kentucky University was founded in
1865 by Robert Milligan and John W. McGarvey. Its object was to
prepare young men for the ministry of the Christian Church by
thorough instruction in the Bible. After a few years that college,
on account, as alleged, of insufficient funds, was discontinued,
and the present College of the Bible, whose safe-keeping is com-
mitted to our care, was organized. There can be no doubt that the
purpose of its founders was to exalt the word of God and to send
out preachers mighty in the Scriptures to convert sinners and to
build up our churches. The work of Robert Graham, J. W. McGarvey
and I. B. Grubbs in teaching and training men for the ministry,
has never been excelled in our brotherhood. These men were scholars,
free from narrowness and abreast of the times; they reverenced the
Scriptures and were true to the purposes of our great cause. They
recognized the right of private judgment; in among themselves, but

in their faith and loyalty to the word of God they were one. They

283

284

believed the Bible to be inspired in such a way as to protect it

from mistakes and contradictions; they accepted what it said about
the miracles of the Old Testament and the New. They believed in the
deity of Christ and in his virgin birth. No one ever said that he
doubted the Scriptures or the efficacy of prayer, or that he had lost
his desire to preach because of the teaching and the influence of
these men. In their days every one knew what the College of the
Bible stood for.

The people who gave the money for our endowment did it with
the expectation that the purposes of the founders of this college
should be continued. Without that expectation the money that now
supports the College of the Bible could never have been obtained.

As an auxiliary to our work we have had the Christian Educa-
tion Society's fund, which was raised chiefly by John T. Johnson,
to aid young men preparing for the ministry. Not a penny of that
fund was given to teach anything but what was assuredly believed
among us. A short time before President McGarney's death he
secured a donation from Bro. Claud Garth, which amounted to about
ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.000), the income of which Bro. Garth
directed should be used in assisting young men studying for the
ministry. Bro. Garth was a man that revered the Bible. He said he
wanted his money to be used in preparing men to preach the gospel as
it was preached by J. W. McGarvey and Moses E. Lard. The income
from these two funds, which amount to about one hundred and twenty

thousand dollars (120,000.00), is helping to keep a majority of our

285

students in the college. It is a part of our trust to see that the
instruction given the beneficiaries of this money is of such a
character as to strengthen them in the faith that was once for all
delivered to the saints.

We have never made any official statement that the purposes
of this college are changed. On the other hand, in the selection of
teachers, we have always seemed to go on the presumption that we
were adhering to the principles for which the college was founded
and fidelity to which had made it such a power in our brotherhood.

It has been affirmed, however, that there have been most
serious departures from the teaching and the principles to which I
have referred. Specific charges were made early in 1917. A meet-
ing of this body was called to investigate these accusations.
Unfortunately, that meeting, as far as its making a complete investi-
gation was concerned, was a failure. After that, in the columns of
one of our religious journals, certain of our professors were
explicitly charged with teaching what discredited the word of God
and destroyed the faith of their students. A policy of silence on
the part of the accused was at first pursued, but finally a meeting
of the trustees of the college and the curators of Transylvania
University was called, at which the administration and the criti-
cized professors were endorsed. This endorsement was given without
any investigation. Such an endorsement, in the estimation of many
of our brethren, is absolutely worthless and is regarded as worse

than no endorsement at all.

286

On the same day we, the trustees of the College of the Bible,
met in a separate session to receive a committee who asked that we
appoint a time and place to receive another committee authorized to
present a request from certain donors. A majority of the Board
refused to make such an appointment, and so denied brethren and
sisters who gave their money to endow this college the privilege of
making a respectful request of those who are managing the funds that
they put into our hands.

Since these meetings statements have been made by the presi-
dent and the accused professors. These statements have not relieved
the situation. In fact some think the statements confirm many of
the most serious charges.

It is still claimed--

That the views held on the inspiration of the writers of the
Bible are exceedingly loose;

That instead of apparent discrepancies in the sacred Word
being reconciled, as in most cases they easily can be, they are
treated in such a way as to discredit the narrative;

That certain miracles of the Old Testament and of the New
are denied;

That the Bible account of the creation and the fall is
rejected and men are said to "all up;"

That the term "deity," in Speaking of Christ, is avoided and
the term "divinity," as it can be used by Unitarians, is used;

That the virgin birth, without the intervention of a human

father, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, are not affirmed.

287

These are but a few of the charges that, it is said, have
not been satisfactorily met. How easy it would have been to meet
them and to have put our brethren at rest, if the professors'
views on these questions are in harmony with what our college has
stood for from the beginning of its history!

In addition to the foregoing, there is much that has come
to us in the form of letters that has never been made public, and,
I think, has never received proper consideration. W. K. Azbill,
writing under date of March 31, 1917, says:

Dear Bro. Collis:--Having just received the Christian Standard
of this date, and read the matter of the College of the BiBle,
I am moved to write to you. It is not that I would hastily

rush into the unfortunate controversy, but as one of the
alumni and a friend of the college, I would be faithful to is.

 

I owe a debt of gratitude to Prof. E. E. Snoddy, and personally
I regard him very highly. Having heard him preach at the
Euclid Avenue Church of this city, and being greatly pleased

by his sermons, just when "Science and Faith" was in manuscript,
and I was about to submit it to the publishers, I sought his
assistance by requesting him to read the manuscript; and he
kindly did this, and sent me a letter which was very helpful.

My relations with him are, and always have been, fraternal.

In what I shall tell you, I will be most careful not to do

him an injustice.

Subsequent to the things above mentioned, Bro. Snoddy read a
paper before our preachers' meeting here on “The Philosophy
of Henri Bergson," in which paper he intimated his agreement
with that author's views. In remarks on the paper I criti-
cized the work, “Creative Evolution," and Bro. Snoddy asked
for time, at some future date, that he might set forth his
own views, with the aim of being perfectly understood. The
request was granted, and I asked for time in which to review
his explanation. In a friendly way, he suggested that con-
troversy between us be avoided, and consent was given for

me to present a short apper on "Bergsonism," to be given after
his address.

In his addresses, Bro. Snoddy's mental attitude was that of
approval of Bergson's views, and he distinctly said he found
more satisfaction in them than that life is motion, and that
”if God should cease to act, he would cease to be."

288

I hand you herewith the paper I read following his, in which
you will find quotations from Bergson showing what are his
ideas of life, Spirit, and God.

If the trustees of the College of the Bible desire to have
these conceptions imparted to the student body with the
approval of a very winsome personality, by a man of high
moral intentions, a man of recognized learning and reputa-
tion, Dr. Snoddy is the right man in the right place. You
may Show this to Bro. Snoddy, and you may read it to the
Board of Trustees, if you see fit.

It seems to me strange that men who hold such views do not
see the wrong they are doing to those who founded and to
those who are supporting our Bible schools. I am sure that
Professor Snoddy would not intentionally do great wrong. But
Christ himself testified that even those who kill his follow-
ers may think they are doing God's service.

Let us hope that this unhappy matter may be so wisely managed
as to do the least possible harm, and result in some good.
There is no doubt but that the nerve of religious interest

is being deadened by unbelief in the college. Fraternally
yours, W. K. AZBILL

A brother prominent in our ministry writes:

One evening I was sitting at supper by a brother pastor, a
minister of the Baptist Church, when he asked me about one
of the accused professors, this occurring about three years
ago, and remarked that he was very "liberal." I asked, "How
liberal?" and he replied, "He is as liberal as Willett, or
more so." I asked him how he knew, and he said they roomed
together when both were taking postgraduate work in one of
the great universities.

I am not writing this for publicity, but I am debating in my
own mind whether under such conditions common sense would
justify our having colleges. What is the use? Why should
the brotherhood spend money in that direction?
This brother afterwards, in an interview, reiterated what
he wrote and stated that the one mentioned by the Baptist preacher
was Professor Fortune.
One of our California preachers, a man of sterling integrity,

wrote Sept. 22, 1917, expressing his surprise at the appointment of

Professor Bower to a position on our college Faculty.

289

I regarded the brother's statement as somewhat vague and
wrote asking him for something more specific. This is his answer:

Dear Bro. Collis:--I have delayed writing you for this long
time in order to have something definite to give you. I
wanted to see some of the brethren at Wilshire Church in

Los Angeles, and learn from them about some propositions
made to that church by Professor Bower when he was their
minister. I succeeded in doing this last week. I put the
question direct to one of the leading brethren of the Wil-
shire Christian Church in this way: "I want to ask you a
question; you can answer it or not, just as you please. The
question is this: Is it true that Professor Bower, while
minister at the Wilshire Church, made overtures and sugges-
rions that the church receive this unimmersed into its
fellowship?" His answer was this: "It is true. He came to
me as an elder of the church, in the presence of another
prominent member of the church, with these plans, and pro-
posed that they be adopted by the church and made a part of
its policy and program. That it was the only way to succeed,
and that it was the proper thing to do, and vital to the
cause and success of the kingdom. It was Bower's proposition
to receive the unimmersed into the fellowship of the church
without immersion."

At about the same time he publicly defended this practice
before the Ministers' Union of Los Angeles. He excused
himself when his position was attacked, saying that he was
only taking that position for the sake of argument, because
he had been asked to speak on that phase of Christian baptism.
His address on that occasion held forth the teaching that the
unimmersed were Christians, and they had the fruits of the
Spirit, and that we so recognized them; and that sooner or
later we, as a people, would have to come to this position
and fellowship with them in our churches, and that their
baptism was valid, because they were conscientious in the
matter, and had done it in obedience to the command of our
Lord. Not that these are his exact words, but this is the
substance of what he said. This, together with what he pro-
posed to the brethren at Wilshire Church, shows clearly his
state of mind upon the question of the unimmersed, and that
we should receive them into the fellowship of the church.

A physician in Missouri wrote me, June 16, 1917, stating
that about two years before that he had written to Professor Fortune,

enclosing a stamp, asking him for the name of a Senior who would

290

likely give his complete induction of the Scripture teaching on two
subjects, "The Holy Spirit" and "Satan." The brother said he felt
the need of this help, especially in the prayer-meeting. He offered
to pay for this service. But the service was never rendered.

Subsequently this Missouri brother wrote to President Cross-
field, putting a series of questions to him. These questions related
to the Books of Genesis, Isaish, and Daniel. Then he put the follow-
ing questions:

Do you believe, or have you ever said, that the Christian
Church would have to give up some things it has always con—
tended for before Chritian union comes about?

Do you believe, or have you ever said, that we would have to
abandon exclusive immersion for baptism before there can be
Christian union? Do the professors in the College of the
Bible believe Paul's statement that "Adam was first formed,
then Eve?" If so, how do they reconcile that with the doc-
trine of evolution? .

Then he concluded his letter with these words:

These questions, I think, cover the ground. Now, if Bro.
Crossfield will be kind enough to let me hear from the chair
once occupied by the beloved and sainted Milligan, I shall
be very grateful to him. I enclose two stamps.

Here is President Crossfield's reply:

It would require a volume to answer your questions. The
question for us is not, "What did Mr. Campbell contend for?"
or "What did Milligan insist on?“ or "What did Braham labor
for?" or "What did McGarvey stand for?" but, "What think ye
of Christ?" Oh, no, we have not departed from the ancient
faith.

The brother, commenting on our president's letter, says:
I was never more disappointed in an inquiry in my life. Not

a question answered. And so easily could they have been
answered.

291

In addition to this I felt that I should not withhold from
you the fact that a brother who was in a position to testify stated
to me that he knew that in a class of twelve advanced students a
majority of them did not believe in the divinity of Christ.

Through the influences of this hurtful teaching many young
preachers who are serving our churches are propagating these false
views.

A brother writes:

I have in mind two, both graduates, who openly talk and teach
that they do not believe it is necessary for a person to be
baptized, and are willing that the unbaptized be received into
the church; and they say that they got it from one of the men
now under accusation at Lexington. They do not believe the
miracles of the Bible, etc., etc.

It has been reported to me that one of our students, one
who seems to have more influence in the college than any other,
upon three different occasions made light of the ordinance of
baptism and the preaching of what has been known among us as "First
Principles." Another is said to have held up his Bible and remarked,
"You may believe all that is in this book, but I do not."

I have written much, much more than I intended, but still
more might have been written. I hope that I have presented suffi-
cient to make us realize the seriousness of the conditions that
confront us as trustess of the College of the Bible.

I ask you now to consider some of the results of this
deplorable situation:

1. The brotherhood is greatly disturbed over our college,

the name of which at one time was regarded as a synonym for sound

Bible teaching.

292

2. Our churches are troubled, and that harmony which
existed at one time in Kentucky iS destroyed. A few years ago the
fellowship of our brotherhood in this State was complete and beauti-
ful. These college conditions have greatly marred that fellowship.

3. There is great danger that our missionary enterprises
will suffer because of these unhappy conditions.

4. By the liberal use of scholarships, and of the Garth
and Education Funds, and by persistent advertising and soliciting
for students, we may be able to keep up a fair enrollment, but as
the time passes and the clouds of doubt and suspicion continue to
gather over our institution, the securing of students will become
more and more difficult.

5. The usefulness of the college depends upon a generous
endowment. This endowment was well started through the influence
of the names of Graham, McGarvey and Grubbs. In about a year before
the death of President McGarvey, considerably more than one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000) was secured by our financial secretary,
W. T. Donaldson. The money given was donated by men and women who
expected the Bible to be taught in the college as it had been from
its beginning. Since the death of President McGarvey we have
scarcely added five thousand dollars ($5,000) to our endowment,
except what has been collected from subscriptions made before Bro.
McGarvey's death and from the Men and Millions Movement. Money in
considerable sums intended for our college has been diverted to

other channels because of this dangerous teaching. Wills, it is

293

said, have been changed by which we shall lose bequests intended

for us. A brother who gave five thousand dollars ($5,000) for

the Grubbs Chair of Exegesis is demanding that his money be turned
over to another institution, because we have not complied with the
condition made in accepting the gift that the teaching in that chair
Should not depart from that of the revered and scholarly Grubbs.
Others feel as this brother does.

6. Worst of all, if what is alleged be true, we are teach-
ing that which will eventually undermine the faith of the people by
placing in our pulpits men without firm convictions with regard to
divine truth; and this wonderful movement for which Kentucky has
stood unshaken is doomed. Do we want to write "Ichabod“ over the
cause for which our fathers suffered and sacrificed so much? God
forbit.

A determined and persistent effort has been made to cloud
the issue by circulating reports that these charges have been made
on account of jealousy, and on account of certain strained relations
between brethren involved in the controversy. This effort is most
unworthy. Who can read another man's heart and know what his motives
are? I think it can be conclusively shown that there is absolutely
no ground for attributing such unworthy motives to those who oppose
the administration. As for the strained relations, they are
unquentionably the result of this controversy and not its cause.

But whatever may be the motives prompting those who bring

the charges, these are the facts: Definite statements have been made

294

of erroneous teaching on the part of our professors; the great
majority of those claiming to have the knowledge of these things
have never appeared before a competent and impartial tribunal; the
law of our Saviour--"by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall
every word be established"--has never been applied.

The charges can not be met by impeaching the motives of
those who bring the charges.

Brethren, a great responsibility rests upon us. This is
not our institution. It belongs to our brotherhood. It was estab-
lished for a well-known purpose. It is our duty to see that that
purpose is carried out.

If, however, the trustees have decided to depart from that
purpose, we should frankly state our policy and give our reasons for
that departure. If we are not committed to a changed policy, let
us take some steps to put ourselves and the college right in the
estimation of our people.

The passing of resolutions by us and the issuing of bulle-
tins cannot restore confidence. Let us look honestly at conditions
as they are. It seems to me that the best remedy for all con-
cerned is to wipe our slate clean. I would suggest that we suspend
for a year, and that this time be taken for a thorough reorganization
of our teaching force and for the purpose of getting our finances
into better shape. I would further suggest that the plans and pur-
poses of the college be kept during this year before our brethren,

that they may understand that we propose to have such teaching done

295

in this historic institution as its sainted founders would approve
if they were to come back to us.

Some of you might go further than that, and suggest that we
all resign and a new Board of Trustees be elected by the donors, the
real owners of the college. To this I would give my approval, if
it can be done legally.

If you are disinclined to this thorough work of reorganiza-
tion, I would recommend that a committee of brethren be chosen, men
of unquestioned integrity, men in whom our people everywhere have
confidence, to make complete investigations of conditions and to
recommend a course of action for us.

I would suggest that this committee be composed of the mem-
bers of our State Missionary Board who have no official connection
with the college and an equal number of brethren chosen by the donors
who have asked for an investigation. I would further suggest that
these brethren select some other brother, preferably a lawyer in
good standing, to assist them in the investigation.

I recommend that this committee have full power to conduct
the enquiry according to rules adopted by themselves and that they
shall decide whether a stenographer be employed and the proceedings
be published for the information of our brethren.

All the expenses of this investigation should be paid by
the college.

If this investigation should prove that the charges against

our professors are false, it will be a glorious day for our college.

296

If, on the other hand, they should bring to light conditions that
need to be changed, these changes should at once be made and the
good name of the College of the Bible be restored. Truth need never
fear the light. "He that doeth truth cometh to the light that his
deeds may be manifest that they are wrought in God."

You will notice, brethren, that I make two alternate sugges-
tions:

1. That we take a year to reorganize the college;

2. That a thorough and impartial investigation be made.

If these recommendations do not meet with your approval, and
a wise plan suggests itself to you, a plan that will put our beloved
college in a position to carry on the glorious work for which it
was established, and will restore peace and good will to a brother-
hood that is now so sadly disturbed over these heart-breaking con-
ditions, let that plan be adopted.

This statement is submitted to you with the hope that you
may give these matters your serious consideration and that in so
doing you may be guided by that wisdom which comes down from above,
so that on the last day, you and I, as trustees of the College of
the Bible, may not be ashamed of the way in which we have met the
responsibilities of this critical time. MARK COLLIS

Chairman Board of Trustees of the College of the Bible, Lexington, Ky.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

 

Journals

Adler, George. "The Miracles of Christ." Christian Standard
(September 3, 1960).

 

Apple, L. H. "Preaching the Word of God." Christian Standard
(September 5, 1964).

 

Ashworth, Robert A. "Modernism and Christian Assurance." Christian
Work (March 1, 1924).

Biggs, J. Quincy. "Evangelism in the Bible School." Christian
Standard (October 22, 1927).

Blackmore, Roy C. "How to Reach Your Community for Christ."
Christian Standard (September 15, 1956).

 

Boatman, Russell E. "What the Prophets Taught About Christ."
Christian Standard (May 25, 1946).

 

Bolten, John, R. "The Bible is the Word of God--Let's Teach It
and Live It." Christian Standard (May 19, 1956).

"The Ecclesia of God." Christian Standard (May 19. 1955).

 

Book, Morris Butler. "Exalting the Name of Christ." Christian
Standard (August 19, 1963).

Butler, Burris. "The Church Speaks of the God of Space." Chris-
tian Standard (August 10, 1963).

 

. "What is the Gospel?" Christian Standard (October 26,
1940 .

 

Campbell, Alexander. "Prefatory Remarks." Christian Baptist
(August 2, 1824).

 

"Bethany College." Millennial Harbinger (May, 1850).

. "Literary Institutions." Millennial Harbiner (August,
1836 .

 

298

299

Campbell, Alexander. "Reply to Elder A. W. Corey." Millennial
Harbinger (April, 1947).

 

Campbell, Thomas. "Declaration and Address" (Pittsburg: Centennial
Edition, 1909).

Canton Repository, August 16, 1957.

 

Collis, Mark. "The Brethren Review the Convention." Christian
Standard (October 29, 1927).

. "The Convention Proposed for this Fall." Christian
Standard (March 19, 1927).

"God." Christian Standard (December 8, 1928).

 

. "Mark Collis Proves Courage of His Convictions."
Christian Standard (June 22, 1918).

 

. "Mr. Collis Makes Report of His Stewardship to Brethren
at Large." Christian Standard (June 22, 1918).

 

. "The Person of Jesus, the Christ." Christian Standard
(January 12, 1929).

 

Crabtree, E. Richard. "Incentives to Belief." Christian Standard
(August 28, 1965).

 

Crawford, C. C. "The Church and Missions." Christian Standard
(November 17, 1928).

 

Christian Century (March 20, 1924).

 

Christian Century (April 3, 1924).

 

Christian Work (May 31, 1924).

 

Crouch, Edwin G. "Jesus Christ is Lord of All." Christian Standard

 

(August 27, 1960).

Crouch, Owen L. "The Constraining Power of the Love of Christ."
Christian Standard (July 14, 1951).

 

Crowder, Orvel C. "Christ, Our Living Priest." Christian Standard
(August 7, 1954).

I'Dean Calhoun Speaks." Christian Standard (March 31, 1917).

 

Elmore, Robert E. "The Rise and Decline of the Church." Christian
Standard (July 4, 1931).

300

Fife, Robert 0. "The Church Speaks from God's Revelation.‘I Chris-
tian Standard (August 17, 1963).

 

Fitch, Alger. "The Word of God for Man's Deliverance." Christian
Standard (August 29, 1964).

Fite, W. A. "The Victory of the Resurrection." Christian Standard
(February 6, 1943).

 

"The Fundamentals." Forum (JUIY- 1923)-

Gaebelein, Frank E. "The Bible College in American Education."
School and Society (May 9, 1959).

 

Greenlee, John E. “The Lordship of Jesus." Christian Standard
(September 26, 1959).

 

Hagger, Thomas. "The Book We Should Read." Christian Standard
(November 19, 1927).

 

Hayden, Edwin V. "Good Listening Enhanced Good Preaching."
Christian Standard (September 19, 1978).

 

. "Restoring the New Testament Church." Christian Standard
(June 15, 1946).

 

. “Still My Convention." Christian Standard (August 6,
1978 .

 

Heron, Henrietta. "Pentecost Preparation Power." Christian
Standard (November 23, 1929).

Hill, Henry E. "The Glory of Redemption." Christian Standard
(August 25, 1962).

 

Holmes, Arthur. "Passion and Precision in Preaching Christ."
Christian Standard (November 10, 1928).

 

Holt, Basil. "Efforts to Restore the Primitive Church." Christian
Standard (August 15, 1931).

"In Favor of the Impartial Investigation of the College of the Bible."
Christian Standard (April 14, 1917).

 

Indianapolis Star, October 12, 1927.

 

Indianapolis Star, October 16, 1927.

 

Johnson, George. The Princeton Theological Review, article, 1914.

 

301

Johnson, T. H. "The Office of the Holy Spirit." Christian Standard
(December 3, 1927).

 

Jones, E. Ray. "Components of Faith." Christian Standard (July 24,
1965 .

 

. "Of Preachers and Sermons." Christian Standard
(March 5, 1972).

 

Jones, Murl M. "God's Answer to Juvenile Delinquency." Christian
Standard (September 15, 1956).

Kellems, Jesse R. "Growth of the Restoration Movement." Christian
Standard (October 29, 1927).

Kershner, Bruce L. "Reformation Movements." Christian Standard
(August 1, 1931).

 

. "Reformation Movements." Christian Standard (August 8,
1931 .

 

Kershner, Frederick D. "The Problem of Ministerial Training.“
Christian Standard (June 12, 1937).

 

. "The Message of Thomas Campbell." Christian Standard
(March 16, 1940).

 

Ketcherside, W. Carl. "The Church Speaks of Discovering and
Unleashing Hidden Powers.“ Christian Standard
(August 3, 1963).

 

Lappin, S. S3 "A Turn in the Road." Christian Standard (October 22,
1927 .

 

Laughlin, Ernest E. "What Christ Taught About Himself." Christian
Standard (June 1, 1946).

Leavitt, Guy P. "Better Sunday Schools for a Better America."
Christian Standard (September 1, 1956).

 

Ledbetter, Carl S. "Open-Membership." Christian Standard
(August 31, 1940).

 

. "Open-Membership.” Christian Standard (September 21,
1940 .

 

Leggett, Marshall J. "True Love is of God." Christian Standard
(September 19, 1964).

 

Lown, W. F. “Our Oneness in Worship and Hope in the Lord." Chris-
tian Standard (April 30, 1966).

 

302

Lown, W. F. "Private Colleges in Crisis." Christian Standard
(June 18, 1978).

 

Machen, J. Gresham. “The Battle Within the Churches." Homiletic
Review (September, 1923).

Marshall, Frank H. "The Ministry of Christian Education.“
Christian Standard (October 20, 1928).

 

McKowen, James 5. "How to Kill a Giant." Christian Standard
(September 11, 1965).

 

McLean, Donald. "Indoctrination--the Why and the How." Christian
Standard (December 29, 1928).

Miller, Claude J. "The Problem of Sin and Its Solution." Christian
Standard (December 1, 1928).

Miller, Raphael H. "The Faith that Overcomes the World." Christian
Standard (June 12, 1937).

Morgan, Orval M. "The Victorious Faith." Christian Standard
(July 31, 1965).

 

Nations, Gilbert 0. "The Church of the Dark Ages." Christian
Standard (November 26, 1927).

New York Times, February 26, 1922.

 

New York Times, March 5, 1922.

 

New York Times, March 12, 1922.

 

Nichols, James T. "With One Accord in One Place." Christian
Standard (November 5, 1927).

Price, Sam W. "The Challenge of the Restoration Movement."
Christian Standard (May 1, 1948).

 

Ralls, John. "Creation Versus Evoltuion." Christian Standard
(January 16, 1965).

 

. "Creation Versus Evolution." Christian Standard (Janu-
ary 23, 1965).

"A Resolution Adopted at Indianapolis." Christian Standard
(October 22, 1927).

 

Rutherford, J. K. "If Christ Had His Way in Our Patriotism."
Christian Standard (July 1, 1961).

303
Scott, Harold. “Christ the Power for the Present Hour." Christian
Standard (June 2, 1956).

Shannon, Robert C. "A Plea for Bible Preaching." Christian
Standard (December 14, 1963).

Small, James. "The Authority of Jesus." Christian Standard
(December 24, 1927).

 

Smith, A. G. "The Lord's Ordinances." Christian Standard
(December 15, 1928).

 

Smith, Gerald B. Journal of Religion (May, 1922).

 

Smith, T. K. "The Glorious Church." Christian Standard (Septem-
ber 12, 1959).

 

Snodgrass, R. C. "New Testament Repentance and Its Modern Applica-
tion." Christian Standard (September 4, 1937).

 

Stambaugh, J. H. "Rebuilding the Walls of Jerusalem.“ Christian
Standard (November 12, 1927).

Stone, Sam. "A Greater Preaching Convention." Christian Standard
(August 28, 1977).

 

. "Reluctant to Change." Christian Standard (August 28,
1977 .

 

Sweeney, Edwin S. "Atonomy of the Local Church." Christian
Standard (November 5, 1927).

Sweeney, William E. "The Challenge of Pentecost." Christian
Standard (October 19, 1929).

. "Our Position is a Plea." Christian Standard
(July 16, 1927).

 

Taylor, Claude C. "The Menace of Modernism." Christian Standard
(November 19, 1927).

 

VanBuren, James G. "God's Word Lives." Christian Standard
(August 2, 1958).

 

Walker, Dean E. "Scriptural Conversion." Christian Standard
(November 2, 1940).

 

Walker, W. R. "Fruit-bearing Branches." Christian Standard
(May 8, 1937).

 

304

Walker, W. R. "The Ministry Christ Ordained." Christian Standard
(October 31, 1942).

 

. "When All of God's PeOple Are One." Christian Standard
(October 27, 1928).

 

Watchman-Examiner, VIII (July 1, 1920).

 

Webb, Henry E. "The Power of the Word of God." Christian Standard
(May 26, 1956).

 

Welshimer, P. H. "Building the Church Through the Bible School."
Christian Standard (September 8, 1956).

 

. “A Clarion Call to Followers of the Old Paths." Chris-
tian Standard (May 25, 1927),

. "The Divine Basis for Christian Unity." Christian
Standard (June 5, 1937).

. "The Glory of the Church." Christian Standard (June 30,
1956 .

 

“Preach the Word." Christian Standard (October 4, 1940).

 

“Preach theonrd." Christian Standard (October 12. 1940)-

Manuscripts

 

Blowers, Russell. "Thy' Kingdom Come!" Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Detroit, Michigan,
8 July 1975.

Book, Morris Butler. “Exalting the Name." Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 12 October 1940.

Briney, J. B. "The Authority of the Bible." Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Kansas City,
Missouri, 13 October 1928.

"The Theory of Evolution Examined." Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Kansas City,
Missouri, 11 October 1928.

Cachiaras, G. H. "New Testament Preaching: The Message to the
Greeks (Mars Hill)." Address delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,
17 October 1942

305

Carroll, Ben. "By Sin Enslaved." Address delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado, 7 July 1976.

Cha1k, John Allen. l'God Still Cares for the Brokenhearted."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Conven-
tion, Anaheim, California 24 July 1974.

Chapman, L. A. "Whence Came Man?" Address delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, Kansas City, Missouri,
11 October 1928.

Cole, Glenn G. “The Present Status of Evolution." Address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 14 October 1927.

Dampier, J. H. "The Victory of the Ascension.” Address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 16 October 1942.

de Gafferell, J. E. "The Bible, the Word of God." Address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Lexington,
Kentucky, 18 June 1931.

DeWelt, Donald. "By the Holy Spirit, Victorious." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
8 July 1976.

 

Fife, Robert 0. "Revelation and Restoration." Theolo ical Forum:
North American Christian Convention: 1974-1977, 71977.

Garrett, Leroy. “The Nature of Biblical Authority and the Restora-
tion Movement." Theological Forum: North American Chris-
tian Convention, 1974-1977,)1977.

 

Gibson, Gerald A. "God Still Cares for the Lost." Address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Anaheim,
California, 24 July 1974.

Hebert, Evariste. "Finding the Word." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Springfield, Illinois,
22 June 1933.

Hinrichsen, A. N. "The Fact of God." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Long Beach, California,
25 June 1954.

Holmes, Arthur. "The Personality of God." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky,
18 June 1931.

306

Holt, Basil. "The Hope and Immortality." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,
12 October 1942.

"The Inspiration of the Scriptures.“ Address delivered
at the North American Christian Convention, Springfield,
Illinois, 22 June 1933.

Kindred, C. G. "Personality and Work of the Holy Spirit." Address
delivered at the North Ameican Christian Convention, Lexing-
ton, Kentucky, 12 June 1931.

Lown, W. F. "A Biblical Study of Tongues." Theolo ical Forum:
North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977, 1977.
McAlister, Paul K. "Inspiration, Written Word and Truth." Theologi-

cal Forum: North American Christian Convention, 197 - 977,
1977.

 

McReynolds, Paul R. "The Biblical Nature of Inspiration." Theolo i-
cal Forum: North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977,
1977.

 

Merkel, Arthur W. "Conservation and Nurturing of New Christians."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan, 10 July 1975.

Mills, John. "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.“ Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan, 11 July 1975.

Minnick, Harry. "The Resurrection of Jesus.“ Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 1927.

Murphy, Robert G. "Doing God's Work . . . On Purpose." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Indianapolis, Indiana, 12 July 1973.

North, Ira. "The Minister: Key Man in Church Growth." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Dallas, Texas, 7 July 1971.

Phillips, Richard. "The Christian Student and the Intellectual
Revolution," 1966.

Pierce, John R. "Developing Leadership in the Local Church."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Conven-
tion, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1977.

307

Ralls, John. “Creation Versus Evolution." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, St. Louis, Missouri,
9 July 1964.

Roberts, R. David. "Biblical Message on the Message and the Means
of Evangelism." Address delivered at the North American
Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado 8 July 1976.

Russell, Robert L. "By Sin Enslaved." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado,
7 July 1976.

Scates, Erskine E. Jr. “Devoted and Oiscriminating Reading."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan, 10 July 1975.

Schweitzer, George. "Jesus Christ is Lord of Creation." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Columbus, Ohio, 13 July 1960.

Smith, Mont. W. ”Ethno-Theology: Restoration Theology Translated."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Conven-
tion, Cincinnati, Ohio, 7 July 1977.

Stacy, Robert. "By the Spirit, Victorious." Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado
8 July 1976.

Staton, Knofel. "The Kingdom Requires Conversion." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Detroit, Michigan, 9 July 1975.

"Stimulating Adults to Study the Bible." Address deliv-
ered at the North American Christian Convention, 13 July
1973.

Tharp, Wallace. "The Deity of Jesus." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Indianapolis, Indiana,
12 October 1927.

Thomas, Reggie. "The Church Speaks to Youth in the Space Age."
Address delivered at the North American Christian Conven-
tion, Long Beach, California, 29 July 1963.

Van Buren, James G. "Grace, Truth and Glory." Address delivered

at the North American Christian Convention, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 7 July 1977.

. "The Meaning and Place of Baptism." Theolo ical Forum:
North American Christian Convention, 1974-1977, 1977.

 

308

Webb, Henry E. “Emphasizing the Restoration Ideal in the College
and the Local Church." Address delivered at the North
American Christian Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio, 6 July
1977.

Welshimer, P. H. "The Folly of Open-Membership." Address delivered
at the Pantages Theater, Memphis, Tennessee, 1940.

"Jesus the Christ, Son of God." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky,
21 June 1931.

Wray, Ernest Hunter. "Faithful Until Death." Address delivered at
the North American Christian Convention, Lexington, Kentucky,
19 July 1931.

Wymore, Leonard G. "By Grace Transformed." Address delivered at the

North American Christian Convention, Denver, Colorado,
9 July 1976.

Interviews

 

Dampier, Joseph. Professor, Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson
City, Tennessee, 7 July 1977.

Trinkle, O. A. Retired minister, Alma, Michigan, 3 November 1974.

Walker, Dean. Chancellor, Milligan College, Johnson City,
Tennessee, 7 July 1977.

Wymore, Leonard. Director, North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 10 July 1977.

Letters
Murch, James DeForest. Personal letter, March 6, 1971.
Phillips, Mildred Welshimer. Personal letter, October 11, 1976.
Wymore, Leonard. Personal letter, November 24, 1975.

Personal letter, May 6, 1976.

Personal letter, February 3, 1977.

Personal letter, April 26, 1977.

309

Igpe Recordings

 

Ketcherside, Carl. "The Priesthood of All Believers." Address
delivered at the North American Christian Convention,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 14 July 1972.

Moorehead, Robert. "The Kingdom Unites Men." Address delivered at
the North American Chrisian Convention, Detroit, Michgian,
10 July 1975.

Smith, Wayne 8. "Preach the Word." Address delivered at the
North American Christian Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio,
5 July 1977.

Webb, Henry. "Is Fundamentalism Compatible with the Plea?"

Address delivered at the North American Christian Conven-
tion, Indianapolis, Indiana, 11 July 1973.

Miscellaneous

 

Hayden, Edwin V. "Report: Committee on Restudy“ (Cincinnati:
North American Christian Convention, 1972).

Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. Annual
Report, 1928.

Secondary Sources

 

Books

Abbott, B. A. The Disciples: An Interpretation. St. Louis: The
Bethany Press.

 

Adams, James Truslow. The March of Democracy. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1933.

 

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. A Religious History of the American People.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

 

Algermissen, Konrad; trans. Joseph W. Grundner. .Christian Denomina-
tions. London: 8. Herder Book Co., 1945.

 

Allen, Frederick L. Only Yesterdgy. New York: Harper and Brothers,
1931.

Arant, Francis M. "P. H."--The Welshimer Story, Cincinnati: The
Standard PubliShing Foundation, 1958.

 

310

Bedell, George, et a1. Religion in America. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., 1975}

 

Benson, Clarence H. A Popular Historyyof Christian Education.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1943.

The Bible, King James Version.

Blackwood, Andrew. The Fine Art of Public Worship. Nashville:
Cokesbury Press, l934.

 

Boisen, Anton T. Religion in Crisis and Custom. New York: Harper
and Brothers Co., 1955.

 

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life To ether, trans. John W. Doberstein.
New York: Harper and rothers, 1954.

 

Bower, william C., and Ross, Roy G. The Disciples and Religious
Education. St. Louis: Christian Board’of Publication, 1936.

 

Bridges, Horace J. The God of Fundamentalism and other Studies.
Chicago: Pascal CoVici:"l925.

 

Brown, William A. The Church in America. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1922.

 

Brunner, Emil. The Misunderstanding of the Church, trans.
H. Knight. "London: Lutterworth Press, 1952.

 

Bryan, William Jennings. Seven Questions in Dispute. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., l924.

 

Burtt, Edwin A. Types of Religious Philosophy, rev. ed. New York:
Harper and Brothers, T951.

 

Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theolpgy of the Christian
Religion. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, l962.

 

Campbell, Alexander. The Christian System, 2nd ed. Cincinnnati:
Standard Publsihing Co.,)1839.

 

Campbell, John L. The Bible Under Fire. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1929.

 

Carter, Paul A. The Decline and Revival of the Social Gospel.
Ithaca, New York: “COrnelllUniverSity, 1954.

 

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology, 1. Dallas: Seminary
Press, 1947.

 

311

Clarke, William Newton. Sixty Years with the Bible. New York:
Scribner and Sons, 1917.

Cole, Stewart G. History of Fundamentalism. New York: Harper
and Row, 1931.

 

Conkin, Paul K., and Burner, David. A Hsitory of Recent America.
New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1974.

 

Dow, Clyde W. "The Historical Approach." In Introduction to Gradu-
ate Study in Speech and Theater. East Lansing: University
of Mi chigan Press T1961 .

 

Drake, Durant. Problems of Religion: An Introductory Survey, New
York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916.

 

Durnbaugh, Donald F. The Believers Church. New York: The Mac-
millan Co., 1968.

 

Eavey, C. 8. History of Christian Education. Chicago: Moody Press,
1964.

 

Flew, Anthony. "Theology and Falsification." In New Essays in
Philosophical Theology, Edited by Anthony Flew and Alasdair
Maclntyre. Mew YOFk: The Macmillan Co., 1955.

 

 

Flew, R. Newton, ed. The Nature of the Church. London: SCM Press,
1951.

 

Fortune, A. W. Adventuring with Disciple Pioneers. St. Louis:
Bethany Press, 1942.

 

Fosdick, Harry Emerson. Christianity and Progress. New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1922.

 

The Man From Nazareth. New York: Harper and Row, 1949.

 

 

. The Modern Use of the Bible. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1924}

Furniss, Norman F. The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918-1931.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.

 

Gabriel, Ralph H., ed. Christianity_and Modern Thought. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1924.

 

Garrison, James Harvey. The Reformation of the Nineteenth Century.
St. Louis: ChristianiPublishing Company, 1901.

 

312

Garrison, Winfred E., and DeGroot, Alfred T. The Disciples of
Christ: A History. St. Louis: Christian Board of Publica-
tion, 1948.

 

 

Gasper, Louis. The Fundamentalist Movement. Paris: Mouton and
Co., 1963.

 

Gatewood, William B., Jr. Controversy in the Twenties. Nashville:
Vanderbuilt UniversityiPress, 1969.

 

Gilkey, Langdon. Naming the Whirlwind: The Renewal of God Lan-
guage. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963.

 

Gladden, Washington. Recollections. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Co., 1909.

 

. Who Wrote the Bible? New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1891.

 

Gonzalez, Justo L. A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I. Nash-
ville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

 

Goodman, Paul, and Gatell, Frank. America in the Twenties. New
York: YHolt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1972.

 

Gray, James W. The Coming Kingdom of God. Chicago: Bible Institute
Colportage Association, 1914.

 

Hailey, Homer. Attitudes and Consequences. Rosemead, California:
Old Paths BoOk Club, 1945.

 

Hakes, J. Edward, ed. An Introduction to Evangelical Christian
Education. Chicago: Moody Press, 1964.

Hamilton, Floyd E. The Basis of Christian Faith. New York: Harper
and Row, 1964.

Harrell, David Edwin, Jr. Qpest for a Christian America. Nashville:
Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966.

Henry, Carl F. H., ed. Christian Faith and Modern Theology. New
‘York: Channell Press, 1964.

Hocking, William E. Science and the Idea of God. Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1944.

Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. Grand Rapids:
‘Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1928.

 

313

HOfstadter, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston:
Beacon Press, 19552

 

Horsch, John. Modern Religious Liberlism. Scottsdale, Pa.: Funda-
mental Truth Depot, T921.

 

Hort, Fenton J. A. The Christian Ecclesia. London: Macmillan
and Co., 1898.

 

Johnson, Ernest, ed. Patterns of Faith in America. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1957.

 

Johnson, George. The Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.

 

Kershner, Frederick D. The Restoration Handbook, Vol. 1. Cin-
cinnati: Standard PuBlishing Co.:il918.

 

Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity. New York:
Harper and Row Co., 1953.

 

Lowell, C. Stanley. The Ecumenical Mirage. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1967.

 

MacGregor, Geddes. Corpus Christi. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1958.

 

. Introduction to Religious Philosophy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1959.

 

Machen, J. Gresham. Christiantiy and Liberalism. New York: The
Macmillan1Co.,1923.

 

. The Virgin Birth of Christ. New York: Harper and Row,
1930; reprint: Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1965.

 

What Is Faith? New York: The Macmillan Co., 1927.

 

Matthews, Shailer. The Faith of Modernism. New York: The Mac-
millan Company, 1924.

 

Mayer, F. E. The Religious Bodies of America. St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1956.

 

McCrossan, Thomas J. The Bible: Its Christ and Modernism. New
York: Christian Alliance Pfiblishing Co., l925.

 

McGiffert, A. C. The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas. New York:
The Macmillan Co., l915.

314

Mullens, E. G. Why Is Christianity True? Philadelphia: American
Baptist PuBlishing Co., 1921.

 

 

Murch, James DeForest. Adventuring for Christ in Changinglimes.
Louisville, Kentucky: The Restoration Press, 197 .

. Christian Education and the Local Church. Cincinnati:
The Standard PubliShing Co.,il943.

 

. Christians Only. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co.,
1962.

 

 

Neill, Stephen, Ed. Twentieth Century Christianity. Garden City,
N. Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1963.

 

Niebuhr, Richard. Resurrection and Historical Reason. New York:
Scribners Sons, 1957.

 

Olmstead, Clifton E. History of Religion in the United States.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l960.

 

Osborn, Henry F. Evolution and Religion in Education. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Rauschenbusch, Walter. A Theology for the Social Gospel. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 19l9)

 

Richardson, Robert. Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. I. Phila-
delphia: J. B. Lippincott andiCo., 1971.

 

Roark, Dallas M. Deitrich Bonhoeffer. Waco, Texas: Word Books
Inc., 1972.

Rogers, James R. The Cane Ridge Meeting House. Cincinnati:
Standard Publishing Co., 1910.

 

Sandeen, Ernest R. The Roots of Fundamentalism. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Schneider, Herbert W. Religion in Twentieth Century America.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.

 

Scott, E. F. The New Testament Today. New York: Macmillan Co.,
1921.

 

Sharpe, Dores R. Walter Rauschenbusch. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1942.

 

Smith, Gerald 8. Current Christian Thinking. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1928.

 

315

Smith, Gerald B. A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916.

 

, ed. Religious Thought in the Last Qparter Century.
Chicago: University of'ChicagoiPFess, 1927.

Stagg, Frank. New Testament Theology. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1962.

 

Stearns, Lewis F. Present DaySTheology. New York: Charles Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1898.

 

Straton, John Roach. The Famous New York Fundamentalist-Modernist
Debates. New York: George H. Doran, CO., 1924.

 

Trueblood, 0. Elton. Philosophy in Religion. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1957.

 

Tyler, 8. B. A History of the Disciples of Christ. New York: The
Christian Literature Co., l8941

 

Vanderlaan, E. C. Fundamentalism Versus Modernism. New York:
H. W. Wilson CO., 1925.

 

Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New York:
Charles Scribner'siSons, l959.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1948.

. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: The
Presbyterian and RefOrmediPuhlishing Co., 1950.

 

Wedel, T. O. The Coming Great Church. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, l945.

Weigle, Luther A., ed. Preaching in These Times. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1940.

 

Welshimer, P. H. A Bible School Vision. Cincinnati: The Standard
Publishing Co.,il909.

West, Earl I. The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1. Nashville,
Tennessee: Gospel Advocate Co.,—1949.

Witmaer, S. A. The Accrediting Association of Bible Colle es Looks
Forward. FOrtihayne: ’Accrediting’ASSOCiation of 1 1e

Coileges, 1960.

316

Unpublished Material

Bennett,

Rollo James. "History of the Founding of Educational
Institutions by the Disciples of Christ in Virginia and

West Virginia." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pitts-

burgh, 1932.

Hart, Nelson Hodges. "The True and the False: The Worlds of an

Keeran,

McBath,

Emerging Evangelical Protestant Fundamentalism in America,
1890-1920." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1976.

Keith P. "A Critical Evaluation of Rhetorical Processes
in the Preaching of Pearl Howard Welshimer Through an
Analaysis of Representative Sermons." M.A. Thesis,
Abilene Christian University, 1976.

James H. "Speechmaking at the Chautaugua Assembly, 1874-
1900. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1950.