Meta Chestnutt in Tennessee, 1886-1888

The previous post ended with a question: If Meta Chestnutt grew up in a liberal, "digressive" Disciples environment in North Carolina in the 1860s and 70s, why did she hold conservative, "anti" views as a young adult and for the rest of her life?

The most likely answer has everything to do with her time in Nashville, from 1886 until 1888. During her student days at the State Normal College, Chestnutt found herself in a thriving church environment. For example, she would have heard the the preaching and teaching of David Lipscomb (pictured here) and E. G. Sewell, co-editors of the anti-instrument and anti-society Gospel Advocate magazine, published from Nashville.

In 1870, Lipscomb realized he needed help in producing the Advocate. He asked Sewell to edit the magazine with him, and from that time until Lipscomb's death forty-seven years later, the two men worked together. Each was a powerful voice for the distinctive viewpoint of the emerging Churches of Christ. In addition to their teaching through the Advocate, the two leaders preached to thousands of people in Middle Tennessee and beyond. During those years, Sewell help to establish the Woodland Street Christian Church in East Nashville. He preached for the congregation for twelve years and for a time served as one of the church's elders. Lipscomb was also an active as a leader among Restoration Movement churches in and around Nashville. In 1891, he and James A. Harding would establish the Nashville Bible School, known today as Lipscomb University.[1] 

By the end of 1889, Lipscomb looked back over the past twenty years with pride: "In 1869 we had one church in Nashville with a membership of about 500. Now we have five churches and three promising missions with a membership of over 2,500 in the city."[2] The five congregations Lipscomb mentioned were the old first church, established in the mid-1820s, with its brand new building on Vine Street; North Nashville Christian Church (organized in 1882); Woodland Street in East Nashville (1883); and the Foster Street and South Nashville congregations, both established in 1887.[3]

Notes

[1] On David Lipscomb, see H. Leo Boles, Biographical Sketches of Gospel Preachers (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1932), 243-47; and Robert E. Hooper, "Lipscomb, David (1831-1917)," in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 480-82. On E. G. Sewell, see Boles, 238-42; and David H. Warren, "Sewell, Elisha Granville (1830-1924)," in ESCM, 680-681. See also David L. Little, "Gospel Advocate," in ESCM, 361-63. 

[2] "From the Papers," Gospel Advocate 31 no. 47 (November 20, 1889), 737.

[3] "History of the Christian Church in Nashville," Daily American (Nashville), (January 26, 1890), 10.

E. G. Sewell's Typological Interpretation of the Tabernacle, 1889

In an 1889 article titled "Information Wanted," E. G. Sewell responded to a question from "Wm. Jackson, Elk River Mills, Limestone county, Ala." Sewell wrote that "the tabernacle itself is understood to be typical of the church of God on earth, and of heaven." He further detailed that the Holy Place represented the church, and that the Most Holy Place was "typical of heaven itself." He also suggested that the candlestick represented the word of God, the table of shewbread pointed to the Lord's Supper, the altar of incense stood for prayer, and the brazen laver signified baptism. Here, Sewell commented that while the New Testament called on baptized believers to pray, the various Protestant denominations "in their prayer system of conversion" placed prayer before baptism. Sewell also suggested that the divine presence of the Lord in the tabernacle "is understood to be typical of the Holy Spirit, which filled the spiritual house, the body of Christ . . . and which dwells in the church, in Christians."[1]

Note

[1] E. G. Sewell, "Information Wanted," Gospel Advocate, October 2, 1889, 631.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (3)

In a follow-up article, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," which appeared in The Gospel Advocate for February 3, 1886, E. G. Sewell continued his Christian, symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle. In his first article, he had written about the table of shewbread and the candlestick.

Altar of Incense

In his second article, he turns to another item in the Holy Place, the altar of incense. Sewell notes that the priests of ancient Israel were to burn incense on this altar "every morning and evening continually." In this way, they constantly sent up to the Lord, as it were, a fragrant scent. And what does this image typify? Sewell answers that "the general understanding is that the offering of incense was a figure of prayer," and he cites a handful of passages from both the Old and New Testaments in which the burning of incense and prayer are related. For example, in the first half of Psalm 141:2 the writer says to God, "Let my prayer be set before thee as incense." In Revelation 5:8 and again in 8:3, the offering of incense is analogous to the prayers of the saints.[1]

Brazen Laver

This item stood "near the door of entrance into the tabernacle of the congregation," but was "on the outside." There the priests washed themselves before entering the tent. And this, wrote Sewell, "is understood to be figurative of baptism. And as the priest upon washing entered . . . into the tabernacle, so now those who obey the gospel, enter Christ by baptism." Conversely, "as the priest was not allowed to enter the tabernacle without washing at the laver, so no one can enter the church now without being baptized into Christ." Sewell highlights an inference that can be drawn from this interpretation: baptism, represented by the laver on the outside of the tent, comes before prayer, represented by the altar of incense which was inside the tent. Any priest who burned incense on the altar had to first cleanse himself at the laver. "So also if any one wishes to attend at the altar of prayer in the church of God, he must be baptized, must have his body washed with pure water at the door of entrance" into the church. Baptism, which brings the penitent believer into the church, comes before the life of faithful prayer.[2]

Moreover, wrote Sewell, this indicts "those people who teach alien sinners to pray to God for pardon, without baptism, without washing first." Such teachers are guilty of "reversing heaven's order." Sewell goes so far as to compare them to Nadab and Abihu of Leviticus 10. They were two of Aaron's four sons and were thus among the first priests in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, when the brothers "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not," they were destroyed by fire that went out from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2). Again, wrote Sewell, preachers who promote "a reversal of God's order" can be compared to Uzziah, King of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, though he was not a priest, Uzziah burned incense upon the altar. Consequently, he was stricken with leprosy, a skin disease he had for the rest of his life. Only when people are "washed" and thus "sanctified, justified" do they remove all doubt about their being prepared to officiate at God's altar in all spiritual things," including prayer to God through Christ.[3]

Here, Sewell clearly reflects significant differences between the doctrine of Christian initiation according to the Stone-Campbell tradition and that of most other conservative Protestants, like Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. Much earlier in the nineteenth century, Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, and like-minded leaders concluded that according to the New Testament, people who came to believe in Jesus as the Christ were to turn from their sins in repentance and be immersed into him for the remission of their sins.[4] Their teaching generated a noticeable change in the way that preachers in the Stone-Campbell Movement concluded their evangelistic sermons. Unlike many other Protestant preachers, whose sermons ended with an invitation for individuals to walk to the front of the assembly in order to anxiously pray for salvation at the mourner's bench, preachers among the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ invited those who believed the gospel message to come forward as an indication that they were turning from their sins and turning to the Lord in repentance, and that they desired to be immersed into Christ.[5] When emphasizing the significance of baptism, however, Sewell guarded against the idea of baptismal regeneration: "Not that baptism is the only prerequisite by any means. Faith and repentance must precede baptism, or no one is ready to be baptized. Everything in its proper place."

Altar of Burnt Offering

Nearing the end of his second article, Sewell refers to the Torah instructions regarding the altar of burnt offering: "two lambs should be offered to the Lord every day."[7]  This, writes Sewell, is "another indication of continued sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of prayer to the Lord on the part of Christians." The sacrifice of two lambs each day at the tabernacle was the standard under the Old Covenant. If that was so, then should not "we that enjoy the reality, the New Covenant, the fullness of God's love and mercy . . . with a loving, a joyful heart approach God daily with our sacrifices" of thanksgiving and praise?[8]

Apparently, Sewell did not notice or did not care that in making these comparisons he seemed to contradict the principle he had established earlier: it is only after being baptized that the believer, now a member of the priesthood, inside the Holy Place, can fittingly participate in spiritual activities. If confronted with this apparent inconsistency, Sewell would no doubt have clarified that it is altogether fitting for all people, in or out of Christ, to praise and give thanks to God. His earlier concern involved the virtual substitution of prayer for baptism. And it is baptism, according to his view, to which all penitent believers must submit in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and entrance into the church that Christ established.

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," Gospel Advocate 28 (February 3, 1886), 65.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Barton W. Stone, "The Christian Expositor," Christian Messenger 1 (January 25, 1827), 56-63; Alexander Campbell, "Ancient Gospel--No. I. Baptism," Christian Baptist 5, no. 6 (January 7, 1828), 121-24; "Ancient Gospel--No. II. Immersion," Christian Baptist 5, no. 7 (February 4, 1828), 158-63.

[5] Thomas H. Olbricht, "The Invitation: A Historical Survey," Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 1 (First Quarter 1961), 6-16.

[6] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 65.

[7] Ibid. The reference is to Exodus 29:38-43 and Numbers 28:3-8, according to which a lamb was to be sacrificed every day, one in the morning and one at twilight.

[8] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 66.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (2)

Candlestick

Next, Sewell interpreted the candlestick which, like the table of shewbread, stood in the Holy Place. The purpose of the literal, Old Testament candlestick was obvious. "The tabernacle was without windows, or any means of admitting light from without, and hence the lamps in the candlestick were the only light." And what does this symbolize? It stands for "the light-bearing attitude" of the church. "The light that shone out from the golden candlestick fitly represents the word of God, as the only light to guide people in the service of God. As the tabernacle had no other light by which to guide its work, so the church has no other light for its work, for its guidance of men to heaven, but God's word." Because this is true, Bible reading, Bible study, and Bible teaching are vital to the life of the church if it is to honor God and bless the lives of people.[1]

Note

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Tabernacle," Gospel Advocate 28 (January 27, 1886), 49.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (1)

In 1886, the same year that Meta Chestnutt came to Nashville to begin her studies at Peabody, E. G. Sewell, coeditor with David Lipscomb of the The Gospel Advocate magazine, based in Nashville, published two front-page articles that gave a symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle.

Sewell began by establishing the tabernacle's New Testament counterpart. Not surprisingly, he identified what Protestants had favored for hundreds of years: "That the Jewish tabernacle, in many of its leading features foreshadowed the church of God, is admitted by all." From there, he submitted that the second room, the Most Holy place, should be understood as "a figure, or type of heaven," with "the divine presence upon the mercy seat to foreshadow the eternal presence of God himself in that blessed abode." The first room, or Holy Place, is "a type of the church of the living God on earth." This stood to reason, because in the same way that one entered the Holy Place before going further into the Most Holy Place, so one enters the church before finally reaching heaven. Consequently "all the articles of furniture" in the Holy Place "and the acts performed here are figurative of the worship of the Lord's house on earth."[1] This orientation--with the Most Holy Place as heaven, the Holy Place as the church on earth, and area outside the tent as preliminary--provided the template for Sewell's biblical exposition.

Table of Shewbread

The remainder of Sewell's first article interprets the symbolic meaning of two items in the Holy Place: the table of shewbread and the candlestick. "The table," he wrote, "foreshadows the Lord's table in the church of God on earth." In the same way that the twelve loaves were replaced every week, so it is that every week, Christians are to partake of the Lord's Supper. And in the same way that the priests removed the loaves each Sabbath day, so there is a "specified time" for Christians to observe the Lord's Supper, "the first day of the week." Sewell emphasized that just as divine directions were not to be neglected by the Old Testament priests, "so the breaking of the loaf must not be neglected by the children of God now in the congregations of the Lord." In fact, fidelity to the will of God should, if anything, be stronger in the Christian age. "While the Jewish priests cold only consider the table and shewbread as a formal ordinance, Christians can now see in the broken loaf of the Lord's table an emblem of the actual, real body of the Son of God that was broken, mangled upon the Roman cross, that poor sinners might live."[2]

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Tabernacle," Gospel Advocate 28 (January 27, 1886), 49. See also "Temple Building," Gospel Advocate 31 (August 21, 1889), 536, where Sewell writes that the tabernacle "was figurative of the church of God, the spiritual temple on earth now," and "Information Wanted," Gospel Advocate 31 (October 2, 1889), 631. For a brief biography, see David H. Warren, "Sewell, Elisha Granville (1830-1924)," in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 680-81.

[2] Sewell, "The Tabernacle," 49.