In the spring of 1837, having spent most of the previous fourteen years in Georgia, J. J. Trott moved back to Tennessee. It must have been a bittersweet time in his life. More than twenty years earlier, in 1815, his family had come to Tennessee from North Carolina, when Trott was still a teenager. It was there in the Volunteer State that he had placed his faith in Christ, joined the Methodist Church, and become one of their circuit-riding preachers.[1] Now, having spent so many years away, he was returning to his old home, to his family of origin and long-time friends.
Trott had first moved to Georgia in 1823. By then, his ability and dedication were obvious to Methodist leaders who made him a missionary to the Cherokees. In early 1828, he married a Cherokee woman in Georgia named Sallie Adair. Not long afterward, he was arrested, persecuted, and imprisoned as one of several missionaries to the Cherokees who refused to take an oath of loyalty to Georgia, an oath which effectively denied the land rights of all Indians within the state's supposed borders. It was also during these years that he happened upon the writings of Alexander Campbell, pursued a fresh study of the Bible, was immersed into Christ. A short time later, Sally died, but not before she was immersed by her husband. She left behind a young son and daughter.[2]
In spite of these hardships, Trott remained in Georgia during the early 1830s. He married another Cherokee woman, Rachel Pounds Adair (who was not a sister to the first wife) and pursued his goal of preaching what he called "the primitive gospel" among the Indians.[3] Although he had separated from the Methodist Church by this point, it seems that his early experience as a circuit rider had become a part of him. He was never content to preach in just one place. For example, an 1836 issue of the Millennial Harbinger places him in Louisiana preaching among the Cherokees there.[4]
In 1837, Trott could see that the Cherokees still in Georgia were destined to be removed by the federal government to the region west of Arkansas, Indian Territory. Rather than face that prospect, he chose to move his young family to Tennessee instead.
From 1837 to 1859, Trott resided in Tennessee. According to Tolbert Fanning, much of that time, Trott was a member of the church of Christ at Franklin College, Tennessee. He was also, according to Fanning, a regional missionary, surpassed by no one as a "self-sacrificing, independent, earnest, humble and faithful teacher" of the Christian faith.[5]
Notes
[1] Tolbert Fanning, "James J. Trott: Messenger of the Church of Christ at Franklin College, Tennessee, to the Cherokee Nation," Gospel Advocate 11 (March 25, 1869), 271-74; Joseph R. Bennett, II, "God's Gift to the Nation: The Biography of James Jenkins Trott, 1800-1868," http://www.therestorationmovement.com/_states/tennessee/trott.htm
[2] James J. Trott, "To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger," Millennial Harbinger (February 6, 1832), 85; Bennett, "God's Gift to the Nation." Regarding Trott's marriage to Sallie Adair, Bennett cites the February 1828 edition of the Cherokee Phoenix, the first American Indian newspaper. Concerning Trott's marriage to Sallie Adair and, later, to Rachel Pounds Adair, see Emmet Starr, History of the Cherokee Indians and Their Legends and Folk Lore (1921; repr., Tulsa, OK: Oklahoma Yesterday, 1979), 404.
[3] Bennett, "God's Gift to the Nation." Trott's reference to "the primitive gospel" is found in his letter "To the Editor of the Millennial Harbinger," 85.
[4] J. J. Trott, "Query." [Response by Robert Richardson] Millennial Harbinger (May 1836), 233. According to Russell Thornton, a Cherokee-American anthropologist, in the early 1780s, "Cherokees who had fought on the British side in the Revolutionary War asked permission of the Spanish governor at New Orleans to relocate west of the Mississippi River to what was then Spanish territory." Their request was granted by Don Esteban Miro, governor of the Louisiana territory. See Thornton, The Cherokees: A Population History (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1990), 44.
[5] Fanning, "James J. Trott."
Showing posts with label Tolbert Fanning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tolbert Fanning. Show all posts
Sunday, December 02, 2018
Saturday, November 24, 2018
James J. Trott: Missionary to the Cherokees, 2
In the fall of 1830, James J. Trott, a Methodist missionary to the Cherokee Indians in Georgia, was immersed into Christ at Overall's Creek, four miles from Murfreesboro, Tennessee.[1] Upon hearing the news of Trott's baptism, Methodist leaders set out to diminish his influence. By that time, he had served among their clergy for nearly a decade. Yet, the next published minutes of the regional Methodist conference included the following note: "James J. Trott, without an appointment." No reason was given.[2]
Trott soon realized that his separation from the Methodists was inevitable. Not only were they refusing to employ him anymore, more importantly, his disagreements with the denomination extended far beyond questions about the proper subject and mode of baptism. In the spring of 1832, he wrote a letter to a Mr. McLeod, Methodist Superintendent of Cherokee Missions. Trott stated that in addition to the practice of sprinkling infants, he had come to reject the authority of all human creeds and the denominational habit of treating human opinions as though they were matters of revealed faith. In particular, he renounced the notion, spelled out in the Methodist book of discipline, that the Lord expected him to adhere to John Wesley's creeds as his standard for teaching. He also rejected the polity of the Methodist Church with its four orders of bishops and five types of tribunals. He concluded his letter by describing his predicament and announcing his decision:
But this change did not dampen his commitment to making disciples among the Cherokee Indians. As noted in the previous post, in the early 1830s, the State of Georgia had brutally persecuted Trott, along with dozens of other missionaries, because he refused to take an oath of loyalty to the state which denied all Indian land claims. Still, according to the Cherokee Census Roll of 1835, he was then still residing in Georgia. According to the census, he lived near Oothcaloga Creek where he owned a mill. The record further indicates that Trott, whose first wife died in 1830, had since remarried, and that the two children from the first marriage were also living with him.[4]
Notes
[1] Tolbert Fanning, "James J. Trott: Messenger of the Church of Christ at Franklin College, Tenn., to the Cherokee Nation," Gospel Advocate 11 (March 25, 1869), 271-73.
[2] James J. Trott, Letter to Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger 3, no. 8 (August 6, 1832), 389.
[3] Ibid., 389-90.
[4] Copies of Manuscripts in the Office of the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, Muskogee, Oklahoma: Cherokee Census Roll of 1835, Compiled from Original Record selected by Grant Foreman, 14: 224. The entire entry for James J. Trott reads as follows: "Three Cherokees, 1 white marriage; 2 readers of English, they owned a mill; one weaver, 1 spinster, 2 descendants of reservees."
Trott soon realized that his separation from the Methodists was inevitable. Not only were they refusing to employ him anymore, more importantly, his disagreements with the denomination extended far beyond questions about the proper subject and mode of baptism. In the spring of 1832, he wrote a letter to a Mr. McLeod, Methodist Superintendent of Cherokee Missions. Trott stated that in addition to the practice of sprinkling infants, he had come to reject the authority of all human creeds and the denominational habit of treating human opinions as though they were matters of revealed faith. In particular, he renounced the notion, spelled out in the Methodist book of discipline, that the Lord expected him to adhere to John Wesley's creeds as his standard for teaching. He also rejected the polity of the Methodist Church with its four orders of bishops and five types of tribunals. He concluded his letter by describing his predicament and announcing his decision:
Thus, you see, I am compelled to refrain from preaching what I believe to be the truth, to preach what I cannot believe, to suffer expulsion, or to withdraw. I prefer the latter.[3]From then on, Trott considered himself a mere Christian and associated with the movement that Alexander Campbell called "the present reformation."
But this change did not dampen his commitment to making disciples among the Cherokee Indians. As noted in the previous post, in the early 1830s, the State of Georgia had brutally persecuted Trott, along with dozens of other missionaries, because he refused to take an oath of loyalty to the state which denied all Indian land claims. Still, according to the Cherokee Census Roll of 1835, he was then still residing in Georgia. According to the census, he lived near Oothcaloga Creek where he owned a mill. The record further indicates that Trott, whose first wife died in 1830, had since remarried, and that the two children from the first marriage were also living with him.[4]
Notes
[1] Tolbert Fanning, "James J. Trott: Messenger of the Church of Christ at Franklin College, Tenn., to the Cherokee Nation," Gospel Advocate 11 (March 25, 1869), 271-73.
[2] James J. Trott, Letter to Alexander Campbell, Millennial Harbinger 3, no. 8 (August 6, 1832), 389.
[3] Ibid., 389-90.
[4] Copies of Manuscripts in the Office of the Superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes, Muskogee, Oklahoma: Cherokee Census Roll of 1835, Compiled from Original Record selected by Grant Foreman, 14: 224. The entire entry for James J. Trott reads as follows: "Three Cherokees, 1 white marriage; 2 readers of English, they owned a mill; one weaver, 1 spinster, 2 descendants of reservees."
Friday, April 10, 2015
Division in the American Restoration Movement: A Summary of Jonathan Woodall's Dissertation
Woodall, Jonathan Franklin. "The
Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movment." PhD
diss., University of Memphis, 2014.
In 2014, Jonathan F. Woodall, under the guidance of Professor Sandra Sarkela, completed a PhD in the field of Communication at the University of Memphis. The dissertation, “The Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movement,” combines rhetorical studies with historical investigation of what traditionally has been called the American Restoration Movement.
As Woodall explains, the word termination is a technical expression that refers to the death of the founder of a movement. In this study, termination specifically points to the death of the religious pioneer and patriarch Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Woodall seems to favor the older term American Restoration Movement because, apparently, he does not believe that Barton W. Stone (1772-1844), though prior to Campbell, provided critical leadership in what has more recently been called the Stone-Campbell Movement. To be clear, the author does not explicitly deny Stone’s influence—especially his influence in one of the post-termination factions—so much as he simply focuses on Campbell as the much more significant figure. Again, the all-important “termination” event featured in this study is the death of Campbell.
Woodall's basic research question involves the commonly debated issue of exactly what generated division within a once-unified American religious movement of the nineteenth century. Also, when did division occur? From the early 1830s until he died in 1866, Alexander Campbell presided over an impressive and growing movement that sought to reconstitute biblical Christianity. Today, three distinct religious bodies represent the movement associated with Campbell: the Disciples of Christ denomination, independent Christian Churches, and the acappella Churches of Christ. The first group, the Disciples of Christ, would be listed among several liberal, mainline Protestant denominations. The other two groups subscribe to a conservative theology and practice congregational autonomy. How and when did these three branches emerge?
Woodall argues that, from the standpoint of rhetorical analysis, four sermons included in an 1868 anthology, The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church, edited by W. T. Moore, represent a key to answering those questions. The author explains that rhetorical studies involve, among other things, “the identification of groups” which will be generated “during a period of termination” (1). “[I]n a moment of termination, what is ultimately at stake is the movement's ideology” (2). Woodall asserts that in his exploration of American Restoration Movement texts, he has “located competing ideographs, or patterns, within the movement and discovered new leaders as they sought to organize their audience and convince them to support the ongoing efforts” (2). Significantly, he notes that a tension in the outlook of Campbell himself increased the likelihood of “competing ideographs” of the early post-termination period:
Campbell’s influence was far reaching, especially through the circulation of his perfecting ideology within his journal. However, Campbell’s ideology not only contained a perfecting myth, but a democratic view of religion with very little structure. In fact, there was no official leadership position outside the context of the local congregation; hence, Campbell’s leadership stood as a contradiction to the very ideology he promoted (12).
Woodall argues "that while the Restoration Movement of Campbell terminated at his death, new rhetorical leaders emerged using competing ideographs found within the work of Campbell to seek new inceptions leading to splintering." Close textual analysis of the four sermons he examines reveals "a widening diversity of ideas within the movement instead of a constant unity of beliefs, values, and practices" (20).
Paradoxically, Alexander Campbell’s compelling leadership of a movement committed to religious principles that were thoroughly democratic nearly guaranteed post-termination splintering. Either way, the heart of Woodall’s dissertation examines four leaders, all of whom knew Campbell, and all of whom contributed a sermon to Moore’s anthology. Following the Civil War and the death of Campbell, Moore wished to present a united front. According to his vision for the collection, all of the best-known preachers and editors of American Restoration Movement during the early post-termination period would speak with one voice. Yet, according to Woodall, it was not to be. In the pages of The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church he detects four competing ideologies. He provides a map of the four central chapters of his work when he writes,
The Movement had an emerging “association” ideology through the establishment of colleges and universities, fueled by the leadership of W. K. Pendleton; a “militant” ideology focused on the frontier and rural areas, fueled by Benjamin Franklin; a “purification” contingency in the South, fueled by Tolbert Fanning; and a “progressive” contingency in the North, fueled by the leadership of Isaac Errett. Each ideology can be traced back to Alexander Campbell’s own ideographs throughout his decades of leadership (30).
Significantly, not only did each of these post-termination leaders contribute a sermon for Moore’s anthology, each one served as the editor of an important serial publication of the time. Pendleton, a son-in-law to Alexander Campbell, took over the editorship of the Millennial Harbinger, which Campbell had begun in 1830. Franklin was editor of the American Christian Review, which promoted biblical primitivism and the common man, and exuded the popular myth of the wisdom of the rustic. Fanning was the founding editor of the Gospel Advocate magazine. Published from Nashville by a southern pacifist, the Gospel Advocate espoused a radical resistance to all human government and championed the kingdom of Christ alone. Errett, editor of the Christian Standard, espoused a progressive outlook which highlighted the fact that God had not written one book, but two. The church, said the Standard, should interpret both biblical and natural revelation in order to gain the understanding necessary for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.
Not only does Woodall’s work help to explain the sources and trajectory of division in the American Restoration Movement, it also provides an answer to the question of chronology. Specifically, the dissertation takes a side on the question of when division occurred. Did it happen at or near the time of the Civil War, or did the break come in the decades that followed? In his review of some of the pertinent literature, Woodall notes that scholars like Douglas A. Foster and Bill Humble have insisted that the movement divided in the 1860s. On the other hand, Earl I. West, the father of distinctively Churches of Christ historiography, said that almost everyone in the movement was attempting to hold it together, and that they succeeded in maintaining unity for some time following the war. Siding more with Foster and Humble, Woodall writes, “From the point of the Living Pulpit publication in 1868, it is almost impossible to view the Restoration Movement holistically” (170-71).
“The Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movement” represents a solid contribution to the study of the rhetorical range and history of the Campbell tradition. Although the dissertation was done in the field of Communication, specifically Rhetoric, historians of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement can learn much from it.
In 2014, Jonathan F. Woodall, under the guidance of Professor Sandra Sarkela, completed a PhD in the field of Communication at the University of Memphis. The dissertation, “The Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movement,” combines rhetorical studies with historical investigation of what traditionally has been called the American Restoration Movement.
As Woodall explains, the word termination is a technical expression that refers to the death of the founder of a movement. In this study, termination specifically points to the death of the religious pioneer and patriarch Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Woodall seems to favor the older term American Restoration Movement because, apparently, he does not believe that Barton W. Stone (1772-1844), though prior to Campbell, provided critical leadership in what has more recently been called the Stone-Campbell Movement. To be clear, the author does not explicitly deny Stone’s influence—especially his influence in one of the post-termination factions—so much as he simply focuses on Campbell as the much more significant figure. Again, the all-important “termination” event featured in this study is the death of Campbell.
Woodall's basic research question involves the commonly debated issue of exactly what generated division within a once-unified American religious movement of the nineteenth century. Also, when did division occur? From the early 1830s until he died in 1866, Alexander Campbell presided over an impressive and growing movement that sought to reconstitute biblical Christianity. Today, three distinct religious bodies represent the movement associated with Campbell: the Disciples of Christ denomination, independent Christian Churches, and the acappella Churches of Christ. The first group, the Disciples of Christ, would be listed among several liberal, mainline Protestant denominations. The other two groups subscribe to a conservative theology and practice congregational autonomy. How and when did these three branches emerge?
Woodall argues that, from the standpoint of rhetorical analysis, four sermons included in an 1868 anthology, The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church, edited by W. T. Moore, represent a key to answering those questions. The author explains that rhetorical studies involve, among other things, “the identification of groups” which will be generated “during a period of termination” (1). “[I]n a moment of termination, what is ultimately at stake is the movement's ideology” (2). Woodall asserts that in his exploration of American Restoration Movement texts, he has “located competing ideographs, or patterns, within the movement and discovered new leaders as they sought to organize their audience and convince them to support the ongoing efforts” (2). Significantly, he notes that a tension in the outlook of Campbell himself increased the likelihood of “competing ideographs” of the early post-termination period:
Campbell’s influence was far reaching, especially through the circulation of his perfecting ideology within his journal. However, Campbell’s ideology not only contained a perfecting myth, but a democratic view of religion with very little structure. In fact, there was no official leadership position outside the context of the local congregation; hence, Campbell’s leadership stood as a contradiction to the very ideology he promoted (12).
Woodall argues "that while the Restoration Movement of Campbell terminated at his death, new rhetorical leaders emerged using competing ideographs found within the work of Campbell to seek new inceptions leading to splintering." Close textual analysis of the four sermons he examines reveals "a widening diversity of ideas within the movement instead of a constant unity of beliefs, values, and practices" (20).
Paradoxically, Alexander Campbell’s compelling leadership of a movement committed to religious principles that were thoroughly democratic nearly guaranteed post-termination splintering. Either way, the heart of Woodall’s dissertation examines four leaders, all of whom knew Campbell, and all of whom contributed a sermon to Moore’s anthology. Following the Civil War and the death of Campbell, Moore wished to present a united front. According to his vision for the collection, all of the best-known preachers and editors of American Restoration Movement during the early post-termination period would speak with one voice. Yet, according to Woodall, it was not to be. In the pages of The Living Pulpit of the Christian Church he detects four competing ideologies. He provides a map of the four central chapters of his work when he writes,
The Movement had an emerging “association” ideology through the establishment of colleges and universities, fueled by the leadership of W. K. Pendleton; a “militant” ideology focused on the frontier and rural areas, fueled by Benjamin Franklin; a “purification” contingency in the South, fueled by Tolbert Fanning; and a “progressive” contingency in the North, fueled by the leadership of Isaac Errett. Each ideology can be traced back to Alexander Campbell’s own ideographs throughout his decades of leadership (30).
Significantly, not only did each of these post-termination leaders contribute a sermon for Moore’s anthology, each one served as the editor of an important serial publication of the time. Pendleton, a son-in-law to Alexander Campbell, took over the editorship of the Millennial Harbinger, which Campbell had begun in 1830. Franklin was editor of the American Christian Review, which promoted biblical primitivism and the common man, and exuded the popular myth of the wisdom of the rustic. Fanning was the founding editor of the Gospel Advocate magazine. Published from Nashville by a southern pacifist, the Gospel Advocate espoused a radical resistance to all human government and championed the kingdom of Christ alone. Errett, editor of the Christian Standard, espoused a progressive outlook which highlighted the fact that God had not written one book, but two. The church, said the Standard, should interpret both biblical and natural revelation in order to gain the understanding necessary for the advancement of the kingdom of Christ.
Not only does Woodall’s work help to explain the sources and trajectory of division in the American Restoration Movement, it also provides an answer to the question of chronology. Specifically, the dissertation takes a side on the question of when division occurred. Did it happen at or near the time of the Civil War, or did the break come in the decades that followed? In his review of some of the pertinent literature, Woodall notes that scholars like Douglas A. Foster and Bill Humble have insisted that the movement divided in the 1860s. On the other hand, Earl I. West, the father of distinctively Churches of Christ historiography, said that almost everyone in the movement was attempting to hold it together, and that they succeeded in maintaining unity for some time following the war. Siding more with Foster and Humble, Woodall writes, “From the point of the Living Pulpit publication in 1868, it is almost impossible to view the Restoration Movement holistically” (170-71).
“The Post-Termination Rhetoric of the American Restoration Movement” represents a solid contribution to the study of the rhetorical range and history of the Campbell tradition. Although the dissertation was done in the field of Communication, specifically Rhetoric, historians of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement can learn much from it.
Friday, June 13, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, January 03, 2014
Notes on "Divisions in North America: The Emergence of Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ," Chap. 5 in The Stone-Campbell Movement
"Divisions in North America: The Emergence of Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ," Chapter 5 in The Stone-Campbell Movement: A Global History (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2013): 76-93.
Overview of Contents
The chapter begins by noting that 1866 saw three important events:
(a) the death of Alexander Campbell
(b) the resumption of the Gospel Advocate
(c) the beginning of the Christian Standard.
For many years Campbell had worked to smooth over rifts in the Movement he presided over. But division, signaled by the content of the Advocate and the Standard, led to the recognition of two separate bodies: Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ, a division "documented by the 1906 U.S. Census of Religious Bodies" (76).
Tolbert Fanning imbibed the "apocalyptic" worldview of B. W. Stone, and the biblical primitivism of A. Campbell. Fanning, in turn, deeply influenced young David Lipscomb. Their outlook, combined with a strong sectional bias, generated among the Southern churches an opposition to
(a) missionary societies
(b) instrumental music in Christian worship
(c) the called, resident preacher system.
By contrast, Disciples, those in the North, misunderstood and rejected the Southern emphasis on what appeared to be doctrinal tests of fellowship based on identification of and adherence to scriptural positive law. Northerners emphasized a theme found in both The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery and Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address: that "compulsory confessions of faith" are "a source of religious tyranny and division" (80).
Those in charge of the U.S. Religious Census perceived the rift and began to ask questions. When Lipscomb published an official query and his own responses in the Gospel Advocate, J. H. Garrison responded in disbelief in the pages of the Christian-Evangelist. Lipscomb defended himself by insisting that he had simply answered a direct question posed by a government official and had provided clarity for readers of the Gospel Advocate. But to Garrison, Lipscomb's editorial represented a power grab and a throwing down of the gauntlet.
The authors observe that the 1906 Census both defined the previously-existing division and prompted congregations to choose a side. "In the impoverished and defeated South, most members of the Stone-Campbell Movement identified faithfulness to Christ as obedience to the positive commands of the New Testament. In the prosperous and victorious North, most Stone-Campbell Christians identified faithfulness as trust in the person of Christ" (84).
Churches of Christ also exhibited three distinct groupings:
(a) "the Tennessee Tradition, led by David Lipscomb and James A. Harding"
(b) "the Indiana Tradition, led by Daniel Sommer"
(c) "the Texas Tradition, led by Austin McGary" (89).
These three--named for origin, but not necessarily designating territorial dominance--vied for influence among Churches of Christ as the twentieth century unfolded. Each held sets of values that sometimes overlapped with one or both of the others, but on other points stood opposed.
The Tennessee Tradition "represented a fusion of the apocalyptic and positive law traditions of the Stone-Campbell Movement" (89). Indiana "shared the Tennessee Tradition's antipathy toward sophistication, worldliness, and the power of industrialists" (90). But unlike both Tennessee or Texas, Indiana took an even stronger stand against institutionalism, while upholding what were called the "rights, privileges, and duties" of women in Christian assemblies. The Texas Tradition was best-known for its rejection of any baptism that was not known by the candidate to be "for the remission of sins."
The chapter closes with the note that some leaders, like T. B. Larimore and Frederick D. Kershner, maintained a commitment to ignoring what they regarded as divisive issues.
Comments and Questions
1. When it comes to the historiography I'm acquainted with and presentations I've heard, it's clear that this chapter picks up and applies the term "apocalyptic" as it was used by R. Hughes in Reviving the Ancient Faith (1996). Hughes employed the term to describe the worldview of the Stoneite Movement. Similarly, the chapter borrows the three-fold variety (Tennessee, Texas, and Indiana) within emerging Churches of Christ that has been noticed and so named by J. M. Hicks and B. Valentine.
2. For reasons I have a hard time articulating, I've never thought that "apocalyptic" was the best word for what Hughes was describing. Now nearly twenty years later, in the wake of cultural items such as the spoof film This is the End, I like "apocalyptic" even less. Has/can anyone suggest an alternative word or phrase that would be a better fit and supplant the old term that is now semantically beyond the point of popping?
3. Significantly I suppose, this chapter ignores Hughes' suggestion in Reviving the Ancient Faith that the two branches described are partially the result of a change in A. Campbell. In 1837, he debated the Roman Catholic Bishop Purcell and thus became a popular defender of Protestantism over against Catholicism. As I recall, Hughes sees Churches of Christ as the heirs of the pre-1837 "sectarian" Campbell, with Disciples being the heirs of the post-1837, "ecumenical" Campbell (my terms in scare quotes, not necessarily Hughes'). To what extent is that an accurate and useful interpretation of the division?
4. It's much safer to agree that the authors have rightly picked up and used the work of D. E. Harrell, Jr. regarding sectional aspects of the division.
5. If I could add a potential footnote to the final section of the chapter, it would be the cooperation in Indian Territory between Meta Chestnutt (a North Carolina Disciple who received assistance from the ACMS) and R. W. Officer (an evangelist from Tennessee who opposed the societies and who was published more in the Octographic Review than in any other journal). As I recently discovered, they both knew and had significant contact with T. B. Larimore, who traveled to I.T. in order to encourage them and their work.
Overview of Contents
The chapter begins by noting that 1866 saw three important events:
(a) the death of Alexander Campbell
(b) the resumption of the Gospel Advocate
(c) the beginning of the Christian Standard.
For many years Campbell had worked to smooth over rifts in the Movement he presided over. But division, signaled by the content of the Advocate and the Standard, led to the recognition of two separate bodies: Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ, a division "documented by the 1906 U.S. Census of Religious Bodies" (76).
Tolbert Fanning imbibed the "apocalyptic" worldview of B. W. Stone, and the biblical primitivism of A. Campbell. Fanning, in turn, deeply influenced young David Lipscomb. Their outlook, combined with a strong sectional bias, generated among the Southern churches an opposition to
(a) missionary societies
(b) instrumental music in Christian worship
(c) the called, resident preacher system.
By contrast, Disciples, those in the North, misunderstood and rejected the Southern emphasis on what appeared to be doctrinal tests of fellowship based on identification of and adherence to scriptural positive law. Northerners emphasized a theme found in both The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery and Thomas Campbell's Declaration and Address: that "compulsory confessions of faith" are "a source of religious tyranny and division" (80).
"Two events symbolized the growing divergence of outlook in the Movement" (81). Those two events were
(a) the 1889 publication of the Sand Creek, Illinois, "Address and Declaration." Closely connected with the leadership of Daniel Sommer, this document wrote out those guilty of embracing and retaining "innovations." Significantly, both J. H. Garrison, editor of the Christian-Evangelist and Lipscomb, editor of the Advocate, condemned the document.
(b) the General Christian Missionary Convention held in Nashville in October 1892. Lipscomb attended and came away with much to criticize. As he put it, the event was "an open, defiant rejection of God and his holy word" (81).
(a) the 1889 publication of the Sand Creek, Illinois, "Address and Declaration." Closely connected with the leadership of Daniel Sommer, this document wrote out those guilty of embracing and retaining "innovations." Significantly, both J. H. Garrison, editor of the Christian-Evangelist and Lipscomb, editor of the Advocate, condemned the document.
(b) the General Christian Missionary Convention held in Nashville in October 1892. Lipscomb attended and came away with much to criticize. As he put it, the event was "an open, defiant rejection of God and his holy word" (81).
Those in charge of the U.S. Religious Census perceived the rift and began to ask questions. When Lipscomb published an official query and his own responses in the Gospel Advocate, J. H. Garrison responded in disbelief in the pages of the Christian-Evangelist. Lipscomb defended himself by insisting that he had simply answered a direct question posed by a government official and had provided clarity for readers of the Gospel Advocate. But to Garrison, Lipscomb's editorial represented a power grab and a throwing down of the gauntlet.
The authors note that "[t]he division reflected in the census data cut across racial lines" (82). They tell the stories of two black leaders, Alexander Campbell and S. W. Womack. Both parted from the society/instrument Christian churches in Nashville and eventually began the Jackson Street Church of Christ, "the 'mother church' of African American Churches of Christ" (83). Campbell and Womack recruited G. P. Bowser, an A.M.E. Church minister, who, beginning in 1897, left the Methodists for the Christian Church, and finally united with the Jackson Street Church. Bowser initiated the Christian Echo, and was involved in the establishment of the Silver Point Christian Institute at Silver Point, TN in 1907. From Jackson Street came one of the great evangelists of black Churches of Christ, S. W. Womack's son-in-law, Marshall Keeble.
Several intellectual and social currents (e.g., Darwinism) were felt most strongly in the prosperous, urbanizing North. Perhaps most significant among these was biblical higher criticism. In response to higher-critical theories, conservatism was personified by J. W. McGarvey. On the left were leaders like E. B. Cake, Alexander Procter, and most notably, Robert C. Cave. In December 1889, Cave preached a sermon, published in the St. Louis Republic under the title "Clerical Sensation," in which he denied the virginal conception and bodily resurrection of Jesus. J. H. Garrison, who had taken a moderate view on matters of higher criticism, believed that Cave has crossed a line. While condemning Cave's views, Garrison attempted to maintain both faithfulness to the core message and healthy spirit of inquiry.
Another moderate like Garrison was Isaac Errett. He was willing to affirm Christ as "the foundation of faith," and believed that the Bible was "a reliable guide." But notably, Errett would not affirm that the Bible was free from error, and refused to apply the word "infallible" to the Scriptures.
Such struggles among the predominately-northern Disciples generated "conservatives, liberals, and moderates." Some, like B.B. Tyler, W. T. Moore, and Samuel H. Church, the grandson of Walter Scott, were much more liberal and ecumenical in outlook than were others, like J. A. Lord, editor of the Standard, and H. G. Allen, editor of the Old Path Guide.
Such struggles among the predominately-northern Disciples generated "conservatives, liberals, and moderates." Some, like B.B. Tyler, W. T. Moore, and Samuel H. Church, the grandson of Walter Scott, were much more liberal and ecumenical in outlook than were others, like J. A. Lord, editor of the Standard, and H. G. Allen, editor of the Old Path Guide.
Churches of Christ also exhibited three distinct groupings:
(a) "the Tennessee Tradition, led by David Lipscomb and James A. Harding"
(b) "the Indiana Tradition, led by Daniel Sommer"
(c) "the Texas Tradition, led by Austin McGary" (89).
These three--named for origin, but not necessarily designating territorial dominance--vied for influence among Churches of Christ as the twentieth century unfolded. Each held sets of values that sometimes overlapped with one or both of the others, but on other points stood opposed.
The Tennessee Tradition "represented a fusion of the apocalyptic and positive law traditions of the Stone-Campbell Movement" (89). Indiana "shared the Tennessee Tradition's antipathy toward sophistication, worldliness, and the power of industrialists" (90). But unlike both Tennessee or Texas, Indiana took an even stronger stand against institutionalism, while upholding what were called the "rights, privileges, and duties" of women in Christian assemblies. The Texas Tradition was best-known for its rejection of any baptism that was not known by the candidate to be "for the remission of sins."
The chapter closes with the note that some leaders, like T. B. Larimore and Frederick D. Kershner, maintained a commitment to ignoring what they regarded as divisive issues.
Comments and Questions
1. When it comes to the historiography I'm acquainted with and presentations I've heard, it's clear that this chapter picks up and applies the term "apocalyptic" as it was used by R. Hughes in Reviving the Ancient Faith (1996). Hughes employed the term to describe the worldview of the Stoneite Movement. Similarly, the chapter borrows the three-fold variety (Tennessee, Texas, and Indiana) within emerging Churches of Christ that has been noticed and so named by J. M. Hicks and B. Valentine.
2. For reasons I have a hard time articulating, I've never thought that "apocalyptic" was the best word for what Hughes was describing. Now nearly twenty years later, in the wake of cultural items such as the spoof film This is the End, I like "apocalyptic" even less. Has/can anyone suggest an alternative word or phrase that would be a better fit and supplant the old term that is now semantically beyond the point of popping?
3. Significantly I suppose, this chapter ignores Hughes' suggestion in Reviving the Ancient Faith that the two branches described are partially the result of a change in A. Campbell. In 1837, he debated the Roman Catholic Bishop Purcell and thus became a popular defender of Protestantism over against Catholicism. As I recall, Hughes sees Churches of Christ as the heirs of the pre-1837 "sectarian" Campbell, with Disciples being the heirs of the post-1837, "ecumenical" Campbell (my terms in scare quotes, not necessarily Hughes'). To what extent is that an accurate and useful interpretation of the division?
4. It's much safer to agree that the authors have rightly picked up and used the work of D. E. Harrell, Jr. regarding sectional aspects of the division.
5. If I could add a potential footnote to the final section of the chapter, it would be the cooperation in Indian Territory between Meta Chestnutt (a North Carolina Disciple who received assistance from the ACMS) and R. W. Officer (an evangelist from Tennessee who opposed the societies and who was published more in the Octographic Review than in any other journal). As I recently discovered, they both knew and had significant contact with T. B. Larimore, who traveled to I.T. in order to encourage them and their work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
