Summary of "Unless Authorized to Act" by C. J. Dull

Dull, C. J., “Unless Authorized to Act: A Suggestion for the Timing Issue in the Civil War Hypothesis Concerning the First Division in the Stone-Campbell Movement.” Encounter 63, no. 4 (2002): 373-84.

Professor C. J. Dull begins with the notion that the Civil War marked the beginning of the end of any unity within the Stone-Campbell movement. He states, however, that "[t]he problem is that the tangible split did not happen then."  Moses Lard, in his classic 1866 editorial certainly did not think that a split was taking place. Two years later, W. K. Pendleton said much the same thing. Since then, interpreters have pointed to any number of events that supposedly mark the moment of division:

1866 - the death of Alexander Campbell
1879 - the death of Benjamin Franklin
1889 - the Sand Creek Address and Declaration
1903 - the revival at Henderson, Tennessee
1906 - the official census split

"What this paper wishes to suggest is that the reason such arguments [against musical instruments and the missionary society, fvb] found increasing plausibility toward the end of the nineteenth century was that there had arisen a class of congregational leaders and members who by the mere fact that they had served in the military, whether North or South, found the argument that silence excludes more compelling."

Dull cites a few examples where subordinates during the Civil War were upbraided for having done something that, though reasonable, was not authorized. The soldier who acted without authorization was out of line, no matter how practical or pressing his actions might have been.

" . . . we can conceive that the first member of the threefold hermeneutic--command, necessary inference, approved example--would have taken on special force for war veterans, and this stronger view of 'command' in which silence does prohibit would have come more naturally for them than for those who had not served."

Dull goes on to note evidence like presence of Churches of Christ near military installations worldwide, and what seems like periods of growth among a cappella churches in the wake of American wars.

"In summary, I wish to suggest that the Civil War was a contributing factor in our first split in that it helped to nurture and emphasize a perspective that valued more highly the value of silence than had previously been the case, an issue that resonated quite strongly at the beginning of the twentieth century and, apparently, following a quarter century of general peace and negative views of the military because of the Viet Nam conflict, much less at the end. . . . On the whole, emphasis has historically been placed on prominent individuals of the period and their role in this split. Perhaps many less prominent individuals may have been equally, if not more, significant. Rather than concentrating on what such individuals as Lipscomb, McGarvey and Hardeman said, we might consider investigating to whom they said it."

Though this article presents an interesting suggestion (see again the title), it begs for evidence from sermons and articles in which advocates of the threefold hermeneutic used military examples and metaphors. Dull does not provide such evidence, which may or may not be there. If this article could cite such evidence, then that could change Dull's suggestion and conception into a considerable argument. One can only wonder if, since the publication of this article, someone has taken up the challenge of trying to assemble the necessary evidence required in order to try the case.

Report on Bill Humble, "The Influence of the Civil War"

Humble, B. J. "The Influence of the Civil War." Restoration Quarterly 8 (Fourth Quarter 1965): 233-47.

In 1860, there were 1,241 congregations of Disciples in the North, and 829 in the South. Moreover, many of these congregations were in the Ohio Valley, and in border states like Kentucky and Missouri, where there was a good bit of internal division. These churches decided to stay completely out of politics because there were within the same congregation sympathizers on both sides of the slavery question. In time, preachers were completely hands-off regarding the War and its sources. The Disciples were determined to maintain the unity of their fellowship, unlike most denominations which had, by that time, already divided into North and South.

Christian Pacifism

Almost all of the Disciple leaders of the era (with the evangelist Walter Scott as a notable exception) argued for strict non-participation, either as a matter of conviction or in the practical interests of unity. J.W. McGarvey was an outstanding advocate of pacifism. This position was strong in Middle Tennessee, influenced by and reflecting the words of David Lipscomb.

At the same time, there were participants among the Disciples: both Alexander Campbell Jr. and Barton Stone Jr. wore the Confederate gray. James A. Garfield was a Union major general. And, in spite of the pacifists in the middle, brotherhood journals spanned the spectrum: from pro-Union abolitionists, to defenders of the Confederacy.

Franklin and Fanning: Sectional Symbols

Benjamin Franklin and Tolbert Fanning were mirror images of the other. Both were pacifists who mentioned their belief that the North (Franklin) and the South (Fanning) were in the right. And, they both believed as an expedient that, for the sake of unity, the only right course was for editors and preachers and churches to completely stay away from the war question.

On Record for the Union

During the first wartime meeting of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1861, there were no Southerners in attendance, and a pro-Union resolution was passed, encouraged by an out-of-session speech by James A. Garfield, wearing a blue uniform. In the pages of the Gospel Advocate, shortly before it discontinued publication, Tolbert Fanning reacted in shock and anger. Earlier, in 1859, Fanning had attended a meeting of the Society, announcing that congregations could and should conduct missionary activity, but also saying that he and others were one with those who supported the missionary society. It was when the society adopted the explicitly pro-Union statement that Fanning's language completely changed.

A Declaration of Loyalty

From the other side, there were abolitionists among the Disciples who felt strongly that the missionary society had not gone far enough, and that the organization should pledge an oath of loyalty to the Union. In 1863, the society formally made its pledge.

A Problem of Historiography

In 1866, Moses Lard confidently stated that the tensions of the Civil War had not broken the unity of the Disciples. Humble notes that a line of various restoration historians accepted and reported Lard's declaration:

1. W. E. Garrison, Religion Follows the Frontier
2. Garrison and DeGroot, The Disciples of Christ
3. Earl I. West, The Search for the Ancient Order, Vol. 1
4. James DeForest, Christians Only

Only David Edwin Harrell, in his 1962 Vanderbilt dissertation, "A Social History of the Disciples of Christ to 1866," challenged the assumption that the Disciples remained united through the Civil War.

"The assumption that the Disciples escaped a Civil War division requires drastic revision, perhaps a complete repudiation for the evidence proves that the Civil War did play an important role in the Disciples' schism" (245).

Humble observes that David Lipscomb, editor of the Gospel Advocate for decades starting in 1866, was even more bitter in his asides against the North than Fanning had been before the War. That is, the end of the war marked the beginning of wider division.

"The Civil War had 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" (246).

Humble says that if the Disciples had had a denominational structure, then the group would have divided into two distinct churches, much like other groups which did have a denominational structure. The Disciples told themselves that their unity had survived the war. In 1906, the United States Census Bureau said otherwise.