Like several of the the other small colleges in northwest Texas, Hereford College had its sports teams. Students played tennis, baseball, basketball, and for a few years, football. The main sport was baseball.
In the early 1900s, schools in the region spent no money on sports programs. If students played, depending on what game it was, they first had to clear and mark a field, or set up a court with a tennis net or basketball goals. In addition, student athletes paid for their own equipment and provided their own transportation. On occasion, students were able to persuade townspeople to contribute to the local college team. But for the most part, players spent their own money in order to play.
Some of the more interesting tidbits of information relate to the Hereford football team. In that time and place, uniforms were simple jerseys and trousers, with no protective gear like thigh pads and shoulder pads. Apparently, some players didn't own a leather helmet.
Hard, open-field hits were not common. A typical play from scrimmage involved hiking the ball to the quarterback who would run down the field surrounded by his teammates. Once the defense surrounded the ball carrier and his blockers, the large throng of players would begin to slow and one or more of the defenders would make the tackle.
Scoring was also much different than it is today. Typically, when the offense pushed deep into the other team's territory, they attempted a drop-kick field goal. However, because a touchdown scored more points, some teams preferred to maintain the offensive attack.
In order to overcome a strong goal-line stand, some offenses resorted to a risky play. Within a few feet of the goal, the offense would hike the ball to the quarterback, then pick him up and throw him over the opposing linemen. This play usually produced a touchdown. But it often resulted in a painful injury for the ball carrier. Not long after it became common, officials outlawed this play.
Source
W. M. Stoker, A Pictorial History of Early Higher Education in the Texas Panhandle (Canyon, TX: West Texas State University, 1976), 26, 30.
Monday, January 28, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Christian Colleges and Disciple Division: Hereford and Lockney
To what degree were the Disciples of Christ distinguished from the Churches of Christ before the U.S. Census Bureau listed them separately beginning in 1906?
The historiography of two Christian colleges established in northwest Texas prior to the recognition of the split suggests that division predated the founding of these schools by a number of years. For example, in his 1955 book, The Story of Texas Schools, C. E. Evans identifies "Pan-Handle Christian College," sometimes called Hereford College, which began in 1902, as a Christian School, while Lockney Christian College, established in 1894, is listed as a Church of Christ School.[1]
Likewise, in his 2018 book, Higher Education in Texas, Charles R. Matthews, Chancellor Emeritus of the Texas State University System, places Hereford Christian College among schools established by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Lockney Christian College among schools established by the Church of Christ.[2]
Although W. M. Stoker in his Pictorial History of Early Higher Education in the Texas Panhandle does not take up the history of the college at Lockney, he does refer to Hereford Christian College's affiliation with the Disciples of Christ.[3]
Scholars writing denominational history, as opposed to educational history, make exactly the same distinction. For example, in his book A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ, M. Norvel Young discusses Lockney Christian College, but not the college at Hereford.[4] In the same way, History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950, by Stephen Eckstein Jr., provides information about Lockney Christian College, but does not mention Hereford Christian College.[5]
The historiography of two Christian colleges established in northwest Texas prior to the recognition of the split suggests that division predated the founding of these schools by a number of years. For example, in his 1955 book, The Story of Texas Schools, C. E. Evans identifies "Pan-Handle Christian College," sometimes called Hereford College, which began in 1902, as a Christian School, while Lockney Christian College, established in 1894, is listed as a Church of Christ School.[1]
Likewise, in his 2018 book, Higher Education in Texas, Charles R. Matthews, Chancellor Emeritus of the Texas State University System, places Hereford Christian College among schools established by the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and Lockney Christian College among schools established by the Church of Christ.[2]
Scholars writing denominational history, as opposed to educational history, make exactly the same distinction. For example, in his book A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ, M. Norvel Young discusses Lockney Christian College, but not the college at Hereford.[4] In the same way, History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950, by Stephen Eckstein Jr., provides information about Lockney Christian College, but does not mention Hereford Christian College.[5]
By the same token, in Religion on the Texas Frontier, Carter Boren, who traces the history of the Disciples in the Lone Star State, offers a section titled "Panhandle Christian College, 1902-1911," but says nothing of the college at Lockney.[6] Again, in his book The Disciples Colleges: A History, D. Duane Cummins includes a table listing "Church of Christ Colleges" in one column and "Disciples Colleges" in another. He places "Lockney College" in the Church of Christ column and "Hereford-Panhandle Christian College" in the Disciples column.[7]
Of course, it is possible for later sources to simply project into the past a division that did not exist at the earlier time in question. But in this case, the overall evidence suggests that these two Christian colleges were typical of a division that had existed for some time. Beginning in the late-nineteenth century, some leaders and historians of the Restoration Movement in America insisted that the Civil War did not result in immediate division. In fact, they said, the coherence of the Disciples movement was remarkable. But it is much more likely that the radical autonomy of the congregations in the movement made it more difficult for observers to perceive division. Along this line, as early as 1965, Restoration historian Bill Humble concluded:
[1] C. E. Evans, The Story of Texas Schools (Austin, TX: Steck Company, 1955), 352, 355.
[2] Charles R. Matthews, Higher Education in Texas: Its Beginnings to 1970 (Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2018), 87-90, 295, 297.
[3] W. M. Stoker, A Pictorial History of Early Higher Education in the Texas Panhandle (Canyon, TX: West Texas State University, 1976), 16.
[4] M. Norvel Young, A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City, MO: Old Paths Book Club, 1949), 148-52.
[5] Stephen Daniel Eckstein Jr., History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950 (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963), 166, 170, 209, 217, and 310.
[6] Carter E. Boren, Religion on the Texas Frontier (San Antonio, TX: Naylor Company, 1968), 250-51.
[7] D. Duane Cummins, The Disciples Colleges: A History (St. Louis: CBP Press, 1987), 84.
[8] B. J. Humble, "The Influence of the Civil War," Restoration Quarterly 8 (Fourth Quarter 1965), 246.
Of course, it is possible for later sources to simply project into the past a division that did not exist at the earlier time in question. But in this case, the overall evidence suggests that these two Christian colleges were typical of a division that had existed for some time. Beginning in the late-nineteenth century, some leaders and historians of the Restoration Movement in America insisted that the Civil War did not result in immediate division. In fact, they said, the coherence of the Disciples movement was remarkable. But it is much more likely that the radical autonomy of the congregations in the movement made it more difficult for observers to perceive division. Along this line, as early as 1965, Restoration historian Bill Humble concluded:
The Civil War . . . so shattered the sense of brotherhood between northern and southern Christians that they could never again be called 'one people' in any meaningful sense. . . . What had happened was that two threads of alienation--sectional bitterness and antagonistic understandings of the restoration principle--had become tangled together and had shattered the Christians' oneness.[8]Notes
[1] C. E. Evans, The Story of Texas Schools (Austin, TX: Steck Company, 1955), 352, 355.
[2] Charles R. Matthews, Higher Education in Texas: Its Beginnings to 1970 (Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2018), 87-90, 295, 297.
[3] W. M. Stoker, A Pictorial History of Early Higher Education in the Texas Panhandle (Canyon, TX: West Texas State University, 1976), 16.
[4] M. Norvel Young, A History of Colleges Established and Controlled by Members of the Churches of Christ (Kansas City, MO: Old Paths Book Club, 1949), 148-52.
[5] Stephen Daniel Eckstein Jr., History of the Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950 (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963), 166, 170, 209, 217, and 310.
[6] Carter E. Boren, Religion on the Texas Frontier (San Antonio, TX: Naylor Company, 1968), 250-51.
[7] D. Duane Cummins, The Disciples Colleges: A History (St. Louis: CBP Press, 1987), 84.
[8] B. J. Humble, "The Influence of the Civil War," Restoration Quarterly 8 (Fourth Quarter 1965), 246.
Saturday, January 05, 2019
Why Should a Christian Learn Church History?
What follows here is a bit of material I might use in introducing the study of Christian history. . . .
What are some reasons for a Christian studying the history of the church? Why are we doing this? In response to that sort of question, I want to offer two ideas. My hope is that these two concepts can frame and set the tone for everything that follows.
1. The first point is general: We study Christian history because in the same way that memory is vital to personal identity, knowing a shared history is vital to group identity. If a movement is going to remain vibrant, then the people within that movement must know the basics of their history. Along this line, British historian John Tosh writes that no society or movement "can sustain an identity or a common sense of purpose without 'social memory' -- that is, an agreed [upon] picture of a shared past, which in most cases will be positive, if not inspiring."[1] Knowledge of a shared past is basic to identity, and so the church should know its history. A good bit of literature stands behind this view. If someone is looking for scriptural support for this idea, consider the fact that many of the momentous sermons in the Bible include an historical prologue. So, whether it is Moses or Joshua or Samuel speaking to the ancient Israelites, or it's the Apostles preaching in the Book of Acts, many of these sermons begin with the history of the people of God.[2]
2. The second point is directly and distinctively Christian: We study Christian history because many of the episodes teach us lessons and offer examples of people who exhibited true faith. People who are attempting to live a true Christian life need good models of other people who have been, in the words of Romans 12, "joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer" (verse 12). We often see and hear that very thing whenever we delve into the history of the church. Which is to say that the study of Christian history can have a devotional quality to it, and be spiritually rewarding.
Notes
[1] John Tosh, Historians on History, 2nd ed. (Harlow, England: Pearson Educational Limited, 2009), 6.
[2] See, for example, Deuteronomy 1:6-3:29; Joshua 24: 2-13; 1 Samuel 12:6-11; and Acts 13:17-25.
What are some reasons for a Christian studying the history of the church? Why are we doing this? In response to that sort of question, I want to offer two ideas. My hope is that these two concepts can frame and set the tone for everything that follows.
1. The first point is general: We study Christian history because in the same way that memory is vital to personal identity, knowing a shared history is vital to group identity. If a movement is going to remain vibrant, then the people within that movement must know the basics of their history. Along this line, British historian John Tosh writes that no society or movement "can sustain an identity or a common sense of purpose without 'social memory' -- that is, an agreed [upon] picture of a shared past, which in most cases will be positive, if not inspiring."[1] Knowledge of a shared past is basic to identity, and so the church should know its history. A good bit of literature stands behind this view. If someone is looking for scriptural support for this idea, consider the fact that many of the momentous sermons in the Bible include an historical prologue. So, whether it is Moses or Joshua or Samuel speaking to the ancient Israelites, or it's the Apostles preaching in the Book of Acts, many of these sermons begin with the history of the people of God.[2]
2. The second point is directly and distinctively Christian: We study Christian history because many of the episodes teach us lessons and offer examples of people who exhibited true faith. People who are attempting to live a true Christian life need good models of other people who have been, in the words of Romans 12, "joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer" (verse 12). We often see and hear that very thing whenever we delve into the history of the church. Which is to say that the study of Christian history can have a devotional quality to it, and be spiritually rewarding.
Notes
[1] John Tosh, Historians on History, 2nd ed. (Harlow, England: Pearson Educational Limited, 2009), 6.
[2] See, for example, Deuteronomy 1:6-3:29; Joshua 24: 2-13; 1 Samuel 12:6-11; and Acts 13:17-25.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
