Transcript RESTORATION HISTORY - Faulkner University

RESTORATION HISTORY
Part II
Internal Issues 1906-1930
By 1909 struggle for internal direction was
well under way.
 Two men represent the search in churches
of Christ.

–
–
Robert H. Boll introduced the study of
prophecy, leading to an open avowal of
premillennialism.
In 1927, H. Leo Boles accepted task of debating
millennial ideas with Boll.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

R. H. Boll and premillennialism.
– For 50 yrs. he led the movement from
Louisville, KY.
– Born 1875 in Germany; baptized 1895;
enrolled at Nashville Bible School 1895,
graduated 1900.
– Was present for L. S. White-Charles T.
Russell debate--enamored by Russell’s
style.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

Boll & premillennialism.
–
B. shortly became front-page editor for GA.
» Soon began writing articles on biblical
prophecy.
» But was not until 1915 that premillennialism
appeared on front page.
» GA removed Boll from his position, but
reinstated him by the end of 1915 with
explanation that all differences had been
resolved.
» But it quickly became clear Boll would not
abide by restrictions on speculative topics.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

The Highland church in Louisville, KY
became the center of pre-m movement.
– E. L. Jorgenson the preacher.
– R. H. Boll and Don Carlos Janes
members.
– Moved the magazine Word and Work
from New Orleans to Louisville.
– Now Boll and Jorgenson had a voice for
their views from Louisville.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

A side issue--relationship of missions and
premillennialism.
– By 1920 some missionaries in China had
defected to Seventh Day Adventists.
– J. M. McCaleb (Japan) continued close
relationships with Jorgenson and
Highland.
– Firm Foundation carried articles by
McCaleb and Don Carlos Janes.
Internal Issues 1906-1930
By 1918, GA had decided not to publish
anything written by Boll.
 FF didn’t treat pre-m until 1925.
– J. B. Nelson wrote several articles on the
kingdom and second coming.
– C. R. Nichol and R. L. Whiteside
published small book on Boll’s
speculations about the same time.

Internal Issues 1906-1930

H. Leo Boles vs. Premillennialism.
– Born 1874.
– Great-grandson of Raccoon John Smith.
– Edited GA in early 1920s.
– President of David Lipscomb 1913-1920
and 1923-1932.
– Enrolled in Nashville Bible School in
1903, stayed 7 years under tutelage of
David Lipscomb.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

After graduation, Boles continued at
Nashville Bible School as faculty member.
– David L. recommended Boles for
presidency in 1913.
– Boles led in name change to DLC.
– Until 1932 he involved himself deeply in
school work and writing.
Internal Issues 1906-1930

1927 Boles inherited task of debating R. H.
Boll on premillennialism.
– From May to Nov. B. & B. filled the GA
with arguments on the various facets of
the question.
» 1) The restoration of Israel.
» 2) Had the kingdom been established.
» 3) Is Christ now reigning?
» 4) The premillennial return of Christ.
Internal Issues 1906-1930
Debate ended amiably.
 Boles believed that enough agreement
existed between the two that they could
“fellowship each other as brethren in the
Lord.”
 In 1930s same topic would be discussed at
greater length, but feelings of mutual accord
would not exist.

War and Peace

The pacifist position.
– Tolbert Fanning strong proponent of the
Christian remaining aloof from political
involvement, including war.
» As early as Mexican War, expressed
view.
» As Civil War approached, he urged
Xtians to stay out--it was not the
Xtian’s battle.
War and Peace
David Lipscomb was staunchly patriotic
during Franklin College days and early
years of adulthood.
– Democracy “the first fruit of
Christianity.”
– The ballot box was sacred.
 As years passed into Civil War, his views
changed dramatically.

War and Peace

Now DL could not participate in any
government.
– Like Anabaptists saw govt. existing for
those who refused the rule of God.
– Thus, war was not the obligation of the
Xtian.
– God’s people must give allegiance only to
Him.
– “If my kingdom were of this world, then
would my disciples fight.”
War and Peace

DL’s study of Xtian and govt. during war
became lead articles in GA in 1866.
–
–

Years later appeared in Civil Government.
Many, especially students of Nashville Bible
School, accepted his ideas.
Was no uniform position among churches of
Christ.
–
–
When WWI approached, most positions were
expressed in papers.
DL’s views widely, but not totally accepted.
War and Peace

World War I: A Clash of Ideas
–
Daniel Sommer at other extreme.
» God forbids murder, therefore he
“commands someone kill the murderer.”
» Was ashamed of his German ancestry when
the Kaiser ignored treaties with other
nations.
» Urged Xtians to treat the government as we
would want the government to treat
Christians.
War and Peace

World War I: A Clash of Ideas
–
A. B. Lipscomb represented pacifism.
» Why was he a pacifist? “Because Jesus
was.”
» Pacifists (at WWI) called “slacker,”
“mollycoddle,” “milksop.”
» In response, L. urged, “dare to be called a
coward for Jesus’ sake!”
» L. did not oppose noncombatant service.
War and Peace

World War I: A Clash of Ideas
–
–
–
–
–
–
64,693 citizens asked for noncombatant status.
Only 4,000 finally applied.
1,060 were total objectors to war.
634 of those from Mennonites, Quakers and
Brethren.
CofC had 31; Jehovah’s Witnesses 60.
CofC had 200,000 members in 1917, 6th on
list.
War and Peace

World War II: Changing Views
– 12/7/41, G.H.P. Showalter prepared way
for many in churches of Christ to take an
active part in the recently declared war.
» What brought on the horrible war?
» Haters of God gained control of
aggressor nations.
» S. followed this line of reasoning to
make WW II a just war.
» G. C. Brewer could not see any war as
a good war.
War and Peace

World War II: Changing Views
– T. B. Wilkinson carried Showalter’s line
further.
» “Just as long as criminals are allowed
to go scot free and be made national
heroes...we will have wars.”
» Pacifism on the part of Christians made
this possible.
– Greatest opposition to Christians in
combat came from H. Leo Boles and J.
N. Armstrong in the pages of the GA.

War and Peace
World War II: Changing Views
– One matter of debate was whether to
support men placed in Civilian Public
Service Camps.
» Camps authorized by the government.
» But supported by and operated by
historic peace churches--Quakers,
Mennonites, United Brethren.
» B. C. Goodpasture --“It is generous of
the United Brethren to support our
boys, but we should not let them do it.
It is our responsibility.”
War and Peace
 World
War II: Changing Views
– 73 young men from CofC were in
camps by Oct. 1942.
– By end of war, 199 had served in 67
CPSCs.
– This total out of nearly 12,000
American conscientious objectors.
War and Peace

World War II: Changing Views
– By 1943 was organized response to needs
of conscientious objectors.
» I. B. Bradley (Dickson, TN) agreed to
forward funds.
» Firm Foundation received and
forwarded some funds.
» Californians responded; early meeting
in LA area raised $300 per month.
» Cost per man $35 a month.
War and Peace

World War II: Changing Views
– Not everyone supported the COs.
– Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (Bible Banner) could
not support those who would not support
their country.
– W. W. Otey (in Firm Foundation) asked
“how long would it be till the Japs and
Germans would be here murdering,
robbing, raping women and girls and
binding all in barbaric slavery.”
War and Peace

Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s influence
– Wallace (following O. C. Lambert’s lead)
suggested that Lipscomb’s view of
government was basically the same
espoused by most premillennialists.
– “...his book (Civil Government), beyond
the possibility of reasonable denial,
contains the seeds of that system.”
War and Peace

Foy E. Wallace, Jr.’s influence...
– Since W. so anti-premillennial and such a
strong advocate of participation in WW
II, the two positions made pre-mill the
vehicle of the anti-war sentiment.
– W. attacked both total pacifists and those
who accepted noncombatant roles.
– W. (1936) had taken a noncombatant
view, but by 1942 took the total
involvement view.
War and Peace

World War II: Changing Views
–
–
B. C. Goodpasture (GA) opposed Wallace.
There were harsh exchanges from their
respective papers.
»
»
–
Goodpasture--Gospel Advocate
Wallace--Bible Banner
Fact: The majority of young men accepted
military duty during WW II.
War and Peace

World War I: A Clash of Ideas
–
–
Most strong pacifists were graduates of
Nashville Bible School.
» H. Leo Boles (NBS, later Lipscomb).
» J. N. Armstrong (Harding U.)
Abilene Christian--a different direction.
» Participated in Student’s Army Training
Corps.
» “Our school is for genuine ministerial
students, not for slackers.”
1930-1939

1936 religious census would indicate a
religious depression--in CofC too.
– 1931, 1932, 1933, Firm Foundation
reported 13,715, 14,329, and 13,370
baptisms.
– 1938 Gospel Advocate reported 17,945
baptisms.
– Why the decline in the census? Probably
failure to respond to census.
Evangelism--1930s

Remained strongest in regions of earlier
strength--South and Southwest.
–
–
–
–
–
Few churches in Northeast.
P. D. Wilmeth (supported by Hillsboro) began
work with the small Manhattan congregation.
Few churches in Northwest.
Early 1930s saw foreign missionaries grow to
57 adults and 52 children.
George Pepperdine urged Far East missions.
Evangelism--1930s

War stifled foreign missions, but aided
growth in areas outside South and
Southwest.
– Military and defense work scattered
Christians to other areas.
– Dupont (Old Hickory, TN)--Richland,
WA built from transfers from Old
Hickory plant.
– Churches in places like Detroit and
Chicago populated by people from South.
Radio Evangelism--1930s
Central, Nashville, 1925 WDAD.
 Little later WLAC, owned by A. M.
Burton’s Life & Casualty Ins. Co.
– Broadcasting so extensive was said
WLAC=We Love All Campbellites.
 Pearl & Bryan (Dallas), WFAA.
 Number of chs, 1939, XERA, Del Rio, TX.
 By 1940 100 separate programs.

Higher Education--1930s
Abilene, Harding, DLC, Freed.
– Financial difficulties for all.
– But record enrollments.
 George Pepperdine (1937) endowed a new
school in California.
 Leading preachers were more and more
graduates of Christian colleges.
 Colleges training preachers and
missionaries.

GA & FF: Rivals
GA sub. list in TX had dwindled by 1930.
 Perhaps the reason GA went to TX for its
new editor in 1930--Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
 FF had begun in 1884 over rebaptism (sect
baptism)--rivalry continued.
– Under Wallace, GA led in opposition to
pre-millennialism.
– FF strong emphasis on evangelism.

Foy Wallace & G. C. Brewer

Wallace (1896-1979).
– Southwestern Christian C. & Thorp
Springs Christian College.
– But always questioned support and place
of Christian colleges.
– A “preacher’s preacher” with textual
(chap. & verse) emphasis.
– His sermons increasingly dealt with
issues facing the church.
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
(1896-1979)
Foy Wallace & G. C. Brewer

Becoming GA editor in 1930, W. became
issue conscious.
– Believed individual can, but church
cannot support Christian schools.
– W. & Brewer had their first disagreement
on this issue.
– Pre-mill became most imp. issue in GA.
– W. & B. both opposed, but disagreed on
methods of opposition.
Wallace & Brewer

Brewer born 1884, Giles County, TN.
– Student at Nashville Bible School.
– Tremendous influence through
evangelistic meetings, debates and
weekly articles in GA.
– Many earlier leaders had died by 1930
and B. was left to continue work of
Lipscomb, etc.
G. C. Brewer
(1884-1956)
Grover Cleveland
Brewer
Wallace & Brewer

B. debated frequently with wide variety of
opponents.
– Judge Ben B. Lindsey, 1928,
“companionate marriage.”
– Evolution and atheism.
– Baptists 35 times.
– SDAs 15 times.
– Universalists, Mormons, Pentecostals.
Wallace & Premillennialism

Issue of the early 1930s was pre-mill.
–
–
Wallace editor of GA.
1932 “Teaching Things Essential”
» “They use more paper and ink teaching these
things which they admit are not essential
than they do teaching things that are
essential--strictly essential.”
» “The plea we have to offer the unsaved
world is too great to allow dreamy brethren
to dwindle it down to phases of Adventism,
Russellism, and a lot of stray guesses under
the guise of prophesies.”
Wallace & Premillennialism

10/20/32 W. printed a challenge from
Charles Neal of Winchester, KY.
–

“The Bible clearly teaches that, after the second
coming of Christ and before the final
resurrection and judgment, there will be an age,
or dispensation, of one thousand years in
duration.”
Wallace responded:
–
“We think he should be accommodated, so his
challenge has been accepted.”
Wallace & Premillennialism

Wallace vs. Neal, Jan. 2-6, 1933.
– At times caustic, but W. not yet telling
people they could not believe pre-mill as
a private judgment.
– “Here is my hand, Brother Neal...Here is
my hand brother Boll. We will not tell
you to quit believing them. We only ask
you to quit pushing them on us. Will you
do it?”
– Only later would W. call in question those
who remained noncommittal.
Wallace & Premillennialism

Some questioned Wallace.
–
–
F. L. Rowe, Christian Leader, wished that some
Bible house would publish a Bible without the
book of Revelation.
G. C. Brewer, “A Plea for Unity,” ACC 1934
lectureship (in a time slot originally given to
W.):
»
»
Some will “press (a single issue), emphasize it and
almost idealize it.”
“A radical never converted anybody. A ranting
partisan never reflected honor upon any cause. A
bitter, bickering, contentious man is not welcome in
any company of sane souls.”
Wallace & Premillennialism

W. was offended:
– “The injury to the cause of truth could not
have been greater had R. H. Boll
appeared on the program in person
instead of being represented by Brother
Brewer. . . . It means that Brother Brewer
cannot be relied on to protect the church
from speculation and opinionism.”
Wallace & Premillennialism
 For
W., Brewer now became a
“Bollite,” not a pre-mill, but one who
would not condemn the doctrine.
 For W., the prophecy question was
equal to the missionary society issue
and the instrumental music controversy
that brought the 1906 division.
Wallace & Premillennialism

1934, L. L. Brigance, FHC, promised W.
that all Bible teachers there stood as one
against “Bollshevism.”
–

Same article: called movement “Boll Evil.”
Editorially in GA, F. B. Srygley asked
where other schools stood.
–
–
E. H. Ijams (DLC) & Frank Cox (ACC)
endorsed B’s positions.
J. N. Armstrong (Harding) was silent.
Wallace & Premillennialism

1935, Armstrong announced that he too
opposed speculative teaching.
–
–
–

But he denied any responsibility to report to
anyone.
Also, he thought pre-mill too much an issue.
Conflicts were going to bring division.
Srygley thought Armstrong’s opposition to
Boll was too compromising.
Wallace vs. J. Frank Norris
Nov. 5-7, 1934.
 Norris a fundamentalist-Baptist, Ft. Worth.
 Huge crowds, 6,000-7,000, as many as 800
preachers from CofC.
 Both men wanted the debate published, but
could not agree on particulars.

–
–
Norris finally pub. his speeches.
“Read the debate that so thoroughly annihilated
the opponent that he refused to have his side
published.”
Wallace vs. J. Frank Norris
1944 (10 yr. later) W. pub. an entire issue of
Bible Banner filled with the exchange of
letters and telegrams concerning the
debate’s publication.
 Norris several times invited pre-mill
members of CofC to the podium.

–
–
E.g., Dr. Eugene V. Woods, Frank M. Mulllins.
N. even called Mullins to speak in defense of
pre-mill.
Wallace Condemns Neutrals

After Norris debate, W. made his strongest
statements on the neutrals.
– “When the line has become so radically
drawn that college presidents and
prominent preachers will have to “go on
record” definitely one way or the other,
instead of trying to hide as neutrals in no
man’s land, they shall then deserve no
credit and should receive no respect for
taking a stand after the battle is over.”
Wallace Condemns Neutrals

W. included Brewer.
– Said B. had only read half of the WallaceNeal debate.
– “We are set for the defense of the truth.”
– “It is imperative that a firm policy of
dealing with this premillennial movement
be maintained.”
Wallace Condemns Neutrals

J. D. Tant supported W.
– “It is a general impression among the
churches where I go that the Harding
College as well as the Central church in
Nashville with few exceptions is in full
sympathy with the Boll foolishness.”
– “If we blot out the past and ignore their
(Boll) departures, I will yet live to see R.
H. Boll editor of the Gospel Advocate or
president of Harding College.”
Gospel Guardian/Bible Banner
1934 W. released from editorship of GA.
 Without a public forum he began the Gospel
Guardian in Oct. 1935.
– Attacked neutrals or “Bollites” with
ungloved hands.
– “We shall attend to apologists and
neutrals who carry water on both
shoulders and as often as they appear we
aim to see to it that they either take one
bucket off or spill them both.”

Guardian/Banner

Others spoke out-– Boles said of Boll & followers: “They
have gone beyond the boundary not only
of truth, but of reason and brotherly
love.”
– Fanning Yater Tant: “We must keep the
church militant.”
Guardian/Banner

Jan. 1936, Guardian had a red cover.
– Entire issue on pre-mill and Boll.
– Called Boll and friends “wolves in sheep
clothing.”
– W. included a one-page criticism of G. C.
Brewer: “Brother Brewer has not done
one thing to strengthen the defense of the
truth on these issues but has said and has
done many things, both publicly and
privately, to weaken it.”
Guardian/Banner

Before Guardian ceased publication in
1936, W. listed a number of men in a special
group: “All the neutrals in the church are
Bollites--that class of members among us
led by J. N. Armstrong, G. C. Brewer,
Claude F. Witty, Flavil Hall, et. al., who say
that they do not believe the doctrine and
whose sympathies seem to lie wholly on
that side.
Guardian/Banner

Between end of Guardian (1936) and
beginning of Banner (1938), W. wrote for
Firm Foundation.
– FF had taken over sub. list of Guardian.
– One article condemned use of Great
Songs of the Church, edited by E. L.
Jorgenson.
– Any association, even use of a hymnal,
made churches and schools suspect and
even Bollite.
Guardian/Banner

1938-1949 W. pub. the Bible Banner.
– William Wallace, W’s son said, “The
Bible Banner helped shape attitudes and
form loyalties destined to crystallize into
a movement of dissent in the 1950s.”
– Pre-mill was always a concern, but not
the only one.

Guardian/Banner
First issue-– “The present generation has not enjoyed
the thorough indoctrination accorded
former generations under the giants of
early restoration days. There must now
be a general return to militant preaching,
the old type of preaching--and the old
type of journalism--plain first principle
preaching and teaching and writing that
defends the truth against all errors,
teachers of error and institutions of error
by name, make, model, and number.”
Guardian/Banner

Same year BB began (1938), pre-mill the
topic of 4th Hardeman Tabernacle meeting.
– F. B. Srygley: H. “thinks that
premillennialism is connected with the
taproot of all of our differences and
troubles at the present time.”
– Central (Nashville) did not support the
meeting, adding fuel to allegation that it
was at least Bollite.
Wallace Back To Nashville

April & May, 1939 W. returned to Nashville
for meetings.
– Preached at Chapel Avenue.
– Also gave special lectures on Sunday
afternoons.
– 1st drew 3,000 to the Dixie Tabernacle.
– Subject: “What the Church in Nashville
Must Do To Be Saved.”
Wallace Back To Nashville

GA reported that W.
– “condemned institutionalism, modern
Judaism, and a compromising attitude
toward truth. He stressed the necessity of
keeping the church evangelistic, rather
than missionary. He condemned one-man
missionary societies, and said the name
‘missionary’ was ‘borrowed from the
denominational garbage can.’”
Wallace Back to Nashville

2nd Sunday--Premillennialism.
–
W. “cited instances of calling on sectarians to
lead prayer, affiliation with ministerial
alliances, and similar evidences of a softening
attitude toward error. Among his suggestions
for remedying the situation were these: The
elimination of soft preaching from the pulpit,
distinctive preaching on the radio, purging the
schools of sympathizers with premillennialists,
and a sturdier type of religious journalism.”
Effects

William Wallace (W’s son)-– “The victory was not without tragic
implications for the brethren who were
active in the opposition to millennial
theories. Attitudes, alienations,
resentments, methods, policies and
procedures growing out of the thirties
lingered to plague discussions of other
issues in the 1940s.”
Effects

F. L. Rowe-– “I am glad to have you express yourself
regarding the tactics of Brother Wallace.
I don’t know what in the world he hopes
to accomplish by circulating such stuff
among the brethren. It only serves to
embitter good brethren instead of trying
to bring them together. One of their
group of writers held a meeting in my
home church. He preached four very
forceful sermons, largely pugnacious, and
Effects

I asked him at the supper table to preach a
sermon on the Prodigal Son. He hesitated a
minute and then said, ‘Brother Rowe, I
cannot do it. I never have studied that
subject.’ From my way of thinking, we
need a little more of the love of God among
our brethren and a little more of the spirit of
the publican in humility, and then perhaps
we can have a united church and renew our
plea for unity.”