Sunday, February 16, 2025
Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple
Saturday, April 10, 2021
Silas Kennedy and the Christian Church at Davis, Oklahoma
In August 1897, Silas Kennedy established a congregation of the Christian Church at a community in the Chickasaw Nation known today as Davis in Murray County, Oklahoma. He served as one of the congregation's first elders and beginning in 1898, led the church to start construction of its first meeting house.[1] Kennedy took an active role in the civic life of early Davis. Beginning in 1900, when the growing town had ten doctors and three dentists, he served on the local Board of Health.[2]
Davis became home to the Kennedy family. Silas died there, at age 69, in the spring of 1918. He was still serving as minister and his funeral was held at the church he had established over twenty years before. His wife, Charlcy Dockary Kennedy survived until 1933. One of their three sons, Luke M. Kennedy, became a dentist and had practices in Davis and, later, Elk City, Oklahoma, where he died in 1943.[3] No fewer than eleven members of the extended family lie buried in a plot at the Greenhill Cemetery in Davis.
Notes
[1] Theresa Gabel, ed., Davis, Oklahoma (Davis, OK: Arbuckle Historical Society, 1981), 168. See also D. C. Gideon, Indian Territory (New York: Lewis Publishing Company, 1901), 197, which indicates the existence of a Christian Church at Davis around the turn of the century.
[2] Ibid., 192; R. W. Chadwick and Sharon Chadwick, “Davis,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=DA015.
[3] "Gone to His Reward. Rev. S. E. Kennedy," Davis News, April 25, 1918; "Mrs. S. E. Kennedy Buried Here Monday," Davis News, January 26, 1933; "Dr. L. M. Kennedy Buried Here Tuesday," Davis News, January 21, 1943.
Thursday, July 23, 2020
Amarillo, Texas, and the Christian Church/Churches of Christ
In the spring of 1888, Thomas G. Nance, a preacher for the Christian Church and Church of Christ--the names were interchangeable then--was on his way from Tennessee to his new home in Plainview, Texas. At the time, there was no train service to Plainview. During his stop at Amarillo, Nance preached at the home of Mr. and Mrs. William Harrell. Upon leaving for Plainview, he promised to come back and preach again sometime. True to his word, the preacher returned, riding on a freighter wagon. He committed to making the trip once a month and was usually paid five dollars each time. By 1889, several families with connections to the Restoration Movement, so-called Campbellites, had arrived in Amarillo. In August, Nance led this group to establish the First Christian Church. Since then, Amarillo has been home to several congregations of the Christian Church and the Church of Christ.[1]Note:
[1] Herbert and Carolyn Timmons, "Christian Church From 1888," Amarillo Sunday News and Globe, Golden Anniversary Edition, 1938; Stephen Daniel Eckstein Jr., History of Churches of Christ in Texas, 1824-1950 (Austin, TX: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1963), 173-74.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Judge L(ysius) Gough (1862-1940)
Lysius Gough was born in 1862 in Lamar County, Texas, his parents having moved there from Kentucky. As a teenager, he moved on his own to West Texas where he got a job working as a cowboy on the T-Anchor Ranch. Several times he worked a cattle drive, guiding a herd of thousands all the way through present-day Oklahoma to the rail head in Kansas. Having grown up in a strict Disciples home, he refused to drink, smoke, or swear. Noticing this, his fellow cowboys named him "Parson."
In the years that followed, Gough established himself as a community leader, serving as a lawyer and judge, and working in the cattle, farm, and real estate businesses in Castro and Deaf Smith Counties.[2]
Gough and his wife, Ida Etta Russell Gough, who died in 1904 at the age of 35, helped to establish the Christian Church in Hereford in 1899.[3] He was one of the founders of Hereford College and Industrial School in 1902.
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Fiftieth Anniversary of the First Christian Church, Hereford, Texas (Hereford, TX: First Christian Church, 1949), 5.
Additional Source
Article on Lysius Gough in the Handbook of Texas Online:
https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fgo20
Monday, December 23, 2019
Reuben Harrison (R. H. or "Rube") Norton (1860-1944)
Reuben Harrison Norton--who went by R. H. or Rube--was born in Johnson County, Texas, in February 1860. He was married to the former Lou Alice Corbett, who was seven years his junior. The couple made their first home in Stephens County, where she had grown up. In 1891, the Nortons began moving west. Rube was setting out to establish himself in the cattle business. The couple's first stop was Quanah, Texas, where they lived until 1896. Another move took them to Amarillo, where Rube owned and operated a grocery store. In 1898, the Nortons moved to Hereford even before the town was established. There in Deaf Smith County, Rube became a successful stockman. He built a reputation for raising some of the best cattle in Deaf Smith County. At its peak, the Norton Ranch covered more than 5,000 acres.[1] R. H. and Lou Alice Norton were charter members of the Christian Church in Hereford, established in 1899.[2] Having lost his wife in 1915, R. H. was a widower for nearly thirty years. He died at his daughter's home in Amarillo in 1944. The couple lie buried next to one another in West Park Cemetery in Hereford.[3]
Notes
[1] Bessie Patterson, A History of Deaf Smith County (Hereford, TX: Pioneer Publishers, 1964), 55-56.
[2] The Fiftieth Anniversary of the First Christian Church, Hereford, Texas (Hereford, TX: First Christian Church, 1949), 5.
[3] Patterson, A History of Deaf Smith County, 55-56. See the photo of the couple's gravestone at the following URL: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/143191489/reuben-h_-norton#view-photo=117535885
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Christian Colleges and Disciple Division: Hereford and Lockney
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]
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. Along this line, see also Jonathan Franklin Woodall, "The Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movement," PhD diss., University of Memphis, 2014.
Friday, December 28, 2018
A Brief History of Hereford College (1)
![]() |
| Deaf Smith County Texas |
The headline of the local newspaper for July 19, 1901, captured some of the excitement. Community leaders in Hereford, a northwest Texas town named after a sturdy breed of beef cattle, were nothing if not ambitious. Now they had a new ally.
As the paper explained, Randolph Clark had recently visited Hereford at the invitation of G. R. "Rat" Jowell, a prominent local rancher, the Deaf Smith Count surveyor, and a founding member of the local Christian Church. Clark, a graduate of Bethany College and a long-time educator and preacher among the Christian churches, had changed his mind about Hereford. Before his visit, "the idea of a college at this point or in this section of the country" never entered his mind. He considered the region nothing more than "a waste desert and wholly unfit for anything save cattle raising." But now, said the paper, Clark recognized
the health-giving properties of this dry atmosphere, the excellence of our water and the ease and little cost of obtaining it, the vigorous growth of trees, shrubbery, flowers and all kinds of garden produce and grain, the thriftyness [sic] and high moral standard of our citizens, the excellent drainage of Hereford and the easy access to it from all parts of the country.[1]The "easy access" to Hereford had come just two years earlier, in 1899, when the Pecos and Northern Texas Railway completed track running southwest through the town all the way to Farwell at the New Mexico border. As a result, Hereford enjoyed a railroad connection to Amarillo and, from there, to other parts of the U.S.[2]
It was an exciting place at an exciting time. When Clark made his first visit to Hereford, the town was only three years old. But it was already home to more than one general store, a grocery store, a meat market, drug store, restaurant, confectionery, hotel, saloon, furniture store, and feed yard. Hereford had a barber, a blacksmith, and a postmaster.[3] Something else would soon be added. In the summer of 1901, a front-page story announced, "We Will Have a College."[4]
Notes
[1] Editorial, Hereford Reporter, July 19, 1901. The URL for this issue is as follows: https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth142256/m1/1/, accessed April 15, 2019. For G. R. Jowell as an active, successful rancher in Deaf Smith County, see, for example, notices in the Hereford Reporter, August 6, 1901, p. 5.https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth142259/m1/5/?q=Rat%20Jowell For Jowell as the county surveyor, see "A New Firm," Hereford Reporter, August 6, 1901, p. 6 https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth142259/m1/6/. For Jowell as a founding member of the Christian Church at Hereford, see The Fiftieth Anniversary of the First Christian Church, Hereford, Texas (Hereford, TX: First Christian Church, 1949), 5. G. R. Jowell's middle name was Ratliff, which appears to be a variation of an old family name, Radcliff. Apparently, somebody once called George Ratliff Jowell by the name "Rat," and it stayed with him. For the nineteenth-century image of the Great Plains as the "Great American Desert," see G. Malcolm Lewis, "William Gilpin and the Concept of the Great Plains Region," Annals of the Association of American Geographers 56, no. 1 (March 1966): 35-36.
[2] Handbook of Texas Online, H. Allen Anderson, "HEREFORD, TX," accessed December 28, 2018, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/heh02; H. Allen Anderson, "PECOS AND NORTHERN TEXAS RAILWAY," accessed December 28, 2018, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eqp09. For Amarillo's railroad connections to other parts of the U.S., see Paul H. Carlson, Empire Builder in the Texas Panhandle: William Henry Bush (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1996), 85-86.
[3] Bessie Chambers Patterson, "Hereford: From Cow Town to Capitol [sic] of Farming Empire,1898-1952," 4. This manuscript is housed in the Panhandle-Plains Historical Museum, Canyon, TX.
[4] Hereford Reporter, July 19, 1901.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Stone-Campbell Restoration History and Teaching: A Brief Survey
The following is a brief overview of the history and outlook of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. I wrote it in order provide basic information to readers of an academic paper who are not of Disciples heritage, who are not members of the Christian Church or Churches of Christ. My goal here is to evaluate and improve this statement. I welcome all respectful questions and comments: The phrase Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement refers to a back-to-the-Bible tradition that grew out of the teachings of Barton W. Stone (1772-1844, pictured here), Thomas Campbell (1763-1854), and, above all, his illustrious son, Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). The great evangelist of the movement was Walter Scott (1796-1861), a distant relative of the famous Scottish novelist by that name.[1] These leaders and their followers pursued a distinct religious goal: the restoration of primitive Christianity. They spoke of restoring “the ancient gospel,” the Bible’s most basic claims about Christ which everyone must believe and respond to in obedience. They sought to discover the biblical progression by which one becomes a Christian, and they identified the following steps: faith, an assent to the claim that "Jesus is the Christ, the son of God" (Matthew 16:16); repentance, a radical turn from sin and self, and a turn toward God; baptism by immersion for the forgiveness of sins, the gift of God's Holy Spirit, and the promise of eternal life.[2] They also set out to restore what Alexander Campbell called “the ancient order of things,” especially the Bible's teaching about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the congregational offices of elder and deacon, church discipline, and approved names for believers and for the church. Additionally, restoration pertained to matters more personal and inward: to self-control, pure speech, right living, the love of mercy, and the hopeful spirit of the New Testament.[3]
The project of restoration involved tearing down as well as building up. Christians of the Stone-Campbell movement sought to erase all distinctions between clergy and laity. Along with what often seemed to them the arbitrary authority of religious elites, they also rejected the authority of creeds, confessions, extra-biblical traditions, and specialized, learned theology. They replaced all such traditions with a populist hermeneutic according to which every person was welcomed, even expected, to read and understand the Bible for oneself. Having embraced the tenets of Enlightenment philosophy and American freedom, Stone, the Campbells, and like-minded believers acted upon their conviction that the imposition of illegitimate authority in matters of faith provoked disunity and amounted to a certain type of idolatry, a defiance of Almighty God. Such pseudo-authorities were never needed anyway, since the essential teachings of the Bible, the Word of God, could be understood and agreed upon by all responsible people who were truly seeking the Lord.[4]
Tired of new creeds and new parties in religion, and of the numerous abortive efforts to reform the reformation; convinced from the Holy Scriptures, from observation and experience, that the union of the disciples of Christ is essential to the conversion of the world, and that the correction and improvement of no creed, or partisan establishment in Christendom, could ever become the basis of such a union, communion, and co-operation, as would restore peace to a church militant against itself, or triumph to the common salvation; a few individuals, about the commencement of the present century, began to reflect upon the ways and means to restore primitive Christianity.[8]
Ironically, sometime after the Civil War, Christians associated with what Alexander Campbell called “the current reformation,” a movement designed to unify all true believers on the basis of the simple gospel and plain Bible teaching, splintered into two distinct groups. On one side stood those Christian Churches that would eventually give rise to the Disciples of Christ denomination and the independent Christian Churches. (Those two now-distinct churches emerged as separate groups during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries). Predominately, these congregations were in northern states, with power centers in places like Cincinnati and Indianapolis. They tended to value the later Alexander Campbell’s emphasis on Christian forbearance and unity at the expense of doctrinal particulars. However, influenced by then soldier-preacher and future U.S. President James A. Garfield (1831-1881), representatives of the northern congregations used resolutions issued by the Disciples’ American Christian Missionary Society to officially endorse the Union.
On the other side stood congregations that typically wore the name Church of Christ. Following the war, these churches were influenced by leaders like Tolbert Fanning (1810-1874)—who as a young man had been mentored by Alexander Campbell—and especially Fanning’s protégé, David Lipscomb (1831-1917). Both Fanning and Lipscomb resided in Middle Tennessee. The Churches of Christ were characterized by their commitment to the earlier Alexander Campbell’s emphasis on biblical primitivism and strict doctrine. For them, this specifically meant opposition to instrumental music in worship, and to all para-church institutions like the Disciples’ American Christian Missionary Society, which members of the Churches of Christ insisted were not authorized by Scripture. Unlike the Disciples of Christ, who prized Christian unity, the Churches of Christ more often saw the restoration of the faith and practice of the New Testament church not as a means, but as an end.[10]
With two fellowships of autonomous congregations having gone their separate ways and having begun to grow apart from one another, it fell to the federal Census Bureau in 1906 to enquire, call attention to the fact of division, and finally provide, at least for their purposes, distinct names for the groups. Nowadays, three discrete church bodies trace their roots back to Stone and Campbell: the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), which embraces its denominational identity, the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ (sometimes referred to as Independents), and the acappella Churches of Christ.[11]
Beginning in the early decades of the twentieth century, historians referred to this tradition as the American Restoration Movement, or simply the Restoration Movement.[12] The more recent moniker, Stone-Campbell Movement, first appeared more as a descriptor than as a title per se, in, for example, Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker’s 1975 history of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) titled Journey in Faith.[13] The newer name has had some success in replacing the older one, especially among scholars, ever since 1981, when Leroy Garrett published the first edition of his interpretive survey, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches.[14]
Notes
[1] Perhaps the best source for becoming acquainted with the Stone-Campbell Movement is Christian History 106 (2013), an issue of the magazine titled "The church to end all churches? The unifying vision of the Stone-Campbell Movement." All four leading figures of the early movement have entries in both the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement and Oxford's multivolume American National Biography. Although the Restoration Movement, sometimes called the Stone-Campbell Movement, is often considered an American phenomenon, it is significant that three of the four founders mentioned here were not born in America. Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell were born in Northern Ireland, and Walter Scott was born in Scotland. More to the point, as James L. Gorman has recently argued, "[t]he influences of the evangelical missionary movement that emerged throughout the transatlantic region in the 1790s was the clearest and most comprehensive context that produced the earliest manifestation of the Campbell Movement in 1809." See Gorman, Among the Early Evangelicals: The Transatlantic Origins of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 2017), 15. For a summary of Gorman's important work, see the author's review in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History 70, no. 1 (January 2019), 203-04.
[4] See Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), esp. 3-46 and 67-80. For an explanation of the Puritan roots of the Stone-Campbell Movement, especially its Bible-centered primitivism, see Theodore Dwight Bozeman, To Live Ancient Lives: The Primitivist Dimension of Puritanism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988). A good overview of the basic theological outlook of American restorationist leaders can be found E. Brooks Holifield, Theology in America: Christian Thought from the Age of the Puritans to the Civil War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), ch. 14. Paul M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, and D. Newell Williams provide a fine review of the historiography of the movement in “Stone-Campbell History Over Three Centuries: A Survey and Analysis,” in the Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, xxi-xxxv. For a good historical summary of the worldwide Restoration Movement, see Douglas A. Foster, "Disciples of Christ," Encyclopedia of Protestantism, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Routledge, 2004), 2:593-97.
[9] The unity of the church is a prominent theme in the two great “charter documents” of the Stone-Campbell Movement. The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery, signed by, among others, Barton W. Stone in 1804, quotes from “the seven ones” passage found in Paul’s Epistle of the Ephesians, chapter 4. The “Imprimis” of The Last Will and Testament reads: “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 are called in one hope of our calling.” Similarly, Thomas Campbell’s 1809 Declaration and Address cites or alludes to Christ’s prayer for the unity of his followers, recorded in John 17, as well as to “the seven ones” passage several times. See Christopher R. Hutson, “Scripture Index to the Declaration and Address,” in The Quest for Christian Unity, Peace, and Purity in Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address: Text and Studies, eds. Thomas H. Olbricht and Hans Rollmann (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2000), 129-47. See also Alexander Campbell, "A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. No. III," Christian Baptist 2, no. 9 (April 4, 1825), 198-205.
[10] On the earlier versus later Alexander Campbell as a key to understanding some of the differences between Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ, see Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 32-44. For some of his insights, Hughes credits an unpublished manuscript by Don Haymes, “A Battle of Giants: Alexander Campbell and Bishop John Baptist Purcell in Cincinnati, 1837.” For restoration as the means to unity versus restoration serving the goal of purity and, thus, salvation, see Jay Smith, “Notes on Thomas Campbell’s Declaration and Address,” Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 3 (Third Quarter, 1961): 113-18.
[11] The names used in the Library of Congress subject authority records are: Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and Churches of Christ. Catalogers and researchers sometimes refer to these three groups simply as Disciples, 4Cs, and 2Cs. Although restorationist champions of undenominational Christianity would no doubt object to the use of such terms, everyone conversant with the history understands exactly what they mean. The state-of-the-art treatment of the worldwide history of the entire movement can be found in D. Newell Williams, Douglas A. Foster, and Paul M. Blowers, eds. The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2013), especially chaps. 1-5. The history of the nineteenth-century American Restoration Movement and, after division, the twentieth-century Churches of Christ is best told by Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith.
[12] See, for example, M. M. Davis, The Restoration Movement of the Nineteenth Century (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company, 1913); Charles Crossfield Ware, North Carolina Disciples of Christ: A History of Their Rise and Progress, and Their Contribution to Their General Brotherhood (St. Louis, MO: Christian Board of Publication, 1927), 23, 52, 62, 78, 137, 323, 333, 343, and 372; Homer Hailey, Attitudes and Consequences in the Restoration Movement (Los Angeles: Citizen Print Shop, 1945); Enos E. Dowling, The Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1964); and, more recently, Henry E. Webb, In Search of Christian Unity: A History of the Restoration Movement (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1990).
[13] Lester G. McAllister and William E. Tucker, Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (Saint Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 149, 253, 443.
[14] Leroy Garrett, The Stone-Campbell Movement: An Anecdotal History of Three Churches (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1981). Because Garrett's book contained "Stone-Campbell" in its title, some have assumed that Garrett coined the phrase. Yet it actually predates even McAllister and Tucker. For example, Allie Vandaripe, "Perryville: Motorcade to Cane Ridge," (Danville) Kentucky Advocate, July 31, 1955, describes the Cane Ridge Meeting House as follows: "This historic spot is greatly revered by all congregations of the Christian Church, since it was at this place more than a century and a half ago that the Stone-Campbell Movement began in the one-room structure." The author seems to be using what was to her a familiar term.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
A Day in the Western History Collections at OU
Anyone who knows anything about college football knows that the Sooners are a perennial powerhouse. So I wasn't surprised, but was amused to see the note about the hours of operation on game days!
A plaque at the entrance to the building. . . .
The central reading room for the Western History Collections, an inspiring place to study! . . .
Among the one-of-a-kind items I examined was this 1907 photograph of the First Christian Church in Chickasha, Indian Territory. The photo was taken about eight months before statehood. . . .
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Rice Haggard, Barton W. Stone, and the Christians of Kentucky
It was likely in 1803 that Haggard made a trip westward from Virginia to Kentucky. One of his reasons for going there was to visit his brother David who, like Rice, had also served as a Methodist preacher. As early as 1791, David Haggard had been assigned to ride the circuit of Lexington, Kentucky. A few years later, he decided to settle in the newly-formed state.
Another of Rice Haggard's reasons for going to Kentucky was to arrange for the purchase of land, which he must have heard about from his brother. According to the records of Cumberland County, in 1798 David Haggard was granted 200 acres of land on the Little Renox Creek. The next year he was granted an additional 300 acres in the same vicinity. [1]
During his trip to see David, Rice Haggard met Barton W. Stone, a leader of the newly-formed Springfield Presbytery. The relationship between these two men, as well as the relationship between the former Republican Methodists in Virginia and the Christians in Kentucky, is not well known for the most part.
However, we do have the record of Joseph Thomas, known by his distinctive outfit and called by many in his day "the White Pilgrim." Thomas, a Kentucky preacher of the early 1800s, gives us some important first-hand information. Recounting the actions of Stone and the Springfield Presbytery in the early months of 1804, Thomas writes:About this time R. Haggard, a minister of the christian church in Virginia, heard of them. At that time he found them a wise, candid people, enquiring after the plain simple truth as it was laid down in the scriptures. And at a great meeting held by them at Bethel he proposed to them publicly the name by which they should distinguish themselves as the followers of Christ. -- "And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch."-- "And that the scriptures were all sufficient to govern the church of Christ, and that any other written rules or laws were spurious and only calculated to separate and keep apart the lambs of Christ." They then saw that the day of the redeemed had come, and that the day star, with all the shining beams of truth had shined into their hearts. With great joy and thankfulness they received this name, as being sent down from heaven for them to be called by. I will observe that in the time of the interview of R. Haggard with these people, I am induced to think that he received a greater and more perfect understanding of some of the doctrine of the gospel than he ever before received. . . .
Not long after this, at a memorable meeting, held at Cane Ridge in 1804, the Springfield Presbytery dissolved their body by a mutual and unanimous consent. [2]
Here, Thomas confirms for us two important facts about the Springfield Presbytery. First, Rice Haggard's counsel at the meeting at Bethel in April 1804 led to their adoption of the name Christian. Second, Haggard's influence among the Presbytery contributed to its eventual demise. It was no mere coincidence that the Bethel meeting took place in April and that the breakup came two months later on June 28th. In fact, the words of Stone himself relate that Haggard directly influenced him and his colleagues:
Under the name of the Springfield Presbytery we went forward preaching, and constituting churches; but we had not worn our name more than one year before we saw it savored of a party spirit. With the man-made creeds we threw it overboard, and took the name Christian--the name given to the disciples by divine appointment first at Antioch. We published a pamphlet on this name, written by Elder Rice Haggard, who had lately united with us. Having divested ourselves of all party creeds, and party names, and trusting alone in God, and the word of his grace, we became a byword and laughing stock to the sects around. Yet from this period I date the commencement of that reformation, which has progressed to this day. [3]Notice how Stone acknowledges the leadership of Haggard in that "reformation" with which Stone was associated.
Finally, the place of Haggard as a leader among the Kentucky Christians--not only in his suggestion of the name Christian, but also in more-general teaching--is confirmed for us by the remarks of Robert L. Davidson, a historian of the Presbyterian Church, who sarcastically wrote:
Filled with the pleasing dream of an approaching universal kingdom which was to embrace the whole earth, they proposed to establish a grand communion, which should agree to united upon the simplest fundamental principles according to a plan drawn up by Rice Haggard, such as worshiping one God, acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Saviour, taking the Bible for the sole confession of faith and organizing on the New Testament model. To this union, all disciples of Christ, they gave the name "The Christian Church" and would recognize no sectarian appellation. Their views were communicated to the world in the promised "Observations of Church Government" and An Address to the Different Religious Societies on the Sacred Import of the Christian Name. [4]
That Davidson knew of what he spoke is verified by a comparison of his description of the "plan drawn up by Rice Haggard" to what Haggard actually published in his pamphlet in 1804.
Of course, no one doubts that the leading personality among the Kentucky Christians was Barton W. Stone. But what hasn't always been recognized is that, in 1804, when Stone and his brethren were searching for answers, the veteran reformer Rice Haggard offered biblical counsel and timely suggestions. Indeed, it is said by Davidson that it was the plan drawn up by Haggard which was approved and adopted by the Springfield Presbytery.
Considering that description, a person has to wonder how the Stone Movement might have been different had it not been for the timely influence of Rice Haggard.
___________________
[1] For more about this, see the outstanding article by R. L. Roberts, "Rice Haggard (1769-1819) 'A Name Rever'd'," Discipliana 54 (Fall 1994), pp. 67-81.
[2] Joseph Thomas, The Travels and Gospel Labors of Joseph Thomas (Winchester, VA: J. Foster, 1812), p. 26.
[3] Barton W. Stone, Biography of Eld. Barton Warren Stone (Cincinnati: J. A. and U. P. James, 1847), p. 50.
[4] Robert L. Davidson, History of the Presbyterian Church in the State of Kentucky (New York: R. Carter, 1847), p. 198.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Rice Haggard Among the Methodists
The beginning of the Rice Haggard story takes us back at least as far as December 1784, when the Christmas Conference of the Wesleyan Societies in America was held in Baltimore. At that conference Thomas Coke, who had been sent to America by John Wesley (pictured here), ordained Francis Asbury. Then, both Coke and Asbury were elected general superintendents in America, and the Methodist Episcopal Church began. In the last paragraph of his letter to the conference, John Wesley said:As our American brethren are now totally disentangled both from the State and from the English hierarchy, we dare not entangle them again either with one or the other. They are now at full liberty simply to follow the Scriptures and the primitive church. And we judge it best that they should stand fast in liberty wherewith God has so strangely made them free. [1]
The words of Wesley electrified the conference, especially those freedom-loving preachers among the Methodists like James O'Kelly who would later write:
We perceived the counsel in the circular letter to be good; because we were directed to follow the Scripture and the primitive church; and to stand fast in our liberties, seeing we were free from the power of kings and bishops. [2]
But such liberty within the newly-formed church would soon be lost. Not long after the Methodists became an independent group, Francis Asbury emphasized the monarchical aspect of their church government (as opposed to the democratic aspect), and set out to seize control. In defense of Asbury it might be argued that he had been sent by Wesley with some measure of authority. Yet these later actions were a step beyond what Wesley himself had in mind. Sometime later, he sent a rebuke to Asbury, the self-proclaimed bishop:
How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called bishop? I shudder, I start, at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent call me a bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, put a full end to this. [3]
History bears the sad testimony that Francis Asbury rejected Wesley's appeal.It was during this period that Rice Haggard converted to Methodism in 1787, then only eighteen years old. Two years later, he delivered his first sermon. A year after that, in 1790, he received an assignment to ride the Bedford circuit in Virginia. In 1791, he was ordained by Francis Asbury and rode the Cumberland circuit; in 1792, the Micklenburg circuit. [4]
Rice Haggard worked hard and made a good bit of progress among the Methodists. So it was natural for him to attend their Baltimore conference of November 1792. By that time, Francis Asbury had made great strides in his quest to control the church. But there was among the Methodists a group who believed that Asbury had stepped over the line, and they wanted to be controlled by no one but God.
At issue in 1792 was the right of a Methodist minister to reject the assignment given to him by Bishop Asbury. Though that was the particular point, men like James O'Kelly believed that there was a much larger question at stake. Would they be free to follow the Word of God, or would their first allegiance be to a man? During the sessions of debate, Rice Haggard looked on as James O'Kelly, brimful of passion, took a New Testament in hand and said,
Brethren hearken unto me, and put away all other books, and forms and let this be the only criterion and that will satisfy me. [5]
But soon the conference turned not on the authority of the Scriptures, but on the question of Asbury's character. This was a natural move for the Methodists. Their short history had been the story of the leadership of Wesley. It seems that their implicit reasoning went as follows: If, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Methodists had entrusted themselves to the benevolent rule of John Wesley, then why couldn't they do the same in America under Francis Asbury? With that question on the table, an elder stood up and asked,
[W]here is the man that will say [that Francis Asbury] ever injured a preacher?
After the question was repeated, a young man whose name was Rice, assured the conference that he had known two preachers who were injured by Asbury. Later, Haggard said, I am the man he has injured. After the right of appeal was rejected by the council, Rice Haggard walked out of the Baltimore Conference along with James O'Kelly and others. [6]
Nine months later, on August 2, 1793, O'Kelly and his colleages met at Piney Grove in Chesterfield County, Virginia, and sent a letter to Asbury. They requested a meeting at which everyone could examine the existing form of church government in the light of the Scriptures. On Christmas Day of that year, the O'Kelly group convened at Manakin Town to receive Asbury's reply. It read:
I have no power to call such a meeting as you wish, therefore if 500 preachers would come on their knees before me I would not do it. [7]
It seemed that Asbury assumed the power to make binding appointments, but had no such power to call a meeting to discuss the policy! It was then that O'Kelly, Haggard, and like-minded leaders saw no other option but to separate entirely from the Methodists and form another religious group which they called the Republican Methodist Church.
By 1801, they had not only adopted the name Christian for themselves as individuals, but had come to call the new body the Christian Church. [8] Interestingly enough, besides James O'Kelly, the only dissenter among the former Methodist preachers to stay the course was Rice Haggard.
______________
Notes:
[1] As quoted in Colby D. Hall, Rice Haggard: The American Frontier Evangelist Who Revived the Name Christian (Fort Worth, TX: University Christian Church, 1957), p. 24.
[2] Hall, Rice Haggard, p. 24.
[3] Hall, Rice Haggard, p. 24.
[4] Hall, Rice Haggard, p. 23. See also R. L. Roberts, "Rice Haggard(1769-1819) 'A Name Rever'd'," Discipliana 54 (Fall 1994), pp. 68-69.
[5] Roberts, "Rice Haggard," p. 69.
[6] Roberts, "Rice Haggard," p. 69.
[7] Roberts, "Rice Haggard," p. 69.
[8] Earl I. West, Search for the Ancient Order, vol. 1, reprint ed. (Germantown, TN: Religious Book Service, 1990), p. 10.



