Is in honor, bound

Having staked out a position that since Jesus Christ prohibits his followers from using carnal weapons by which they fight, maim, or kill for the establishment of the kingdom of God, much less for a “human government”, David Lipscomb makes this point about voting:

“But if he [a Christian] cannot fight himself, can he vote to make another fight? What I lead or influence another to do, I do through that other. The man who votes to put another in a place or position, is in honor, bound to maintain him in that position, and is responsible for all the actions, courses or results that logically and necessarily flow from the occupancy and maintenance of that position.”

–David Lipscomb, “Preface” Civil Government. Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation To It. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1889, p. iv.

Consider the implications of Lipscomb’s position.

Memories: Photographs and Stories from the Restoration Movement…2023 Pepperdine Bible Lectures presentation

Jerry Rushford, John Mark Hicks and Mac Ice present Memories: Photographs and Stories from the Restoration Movement.  Here is the slide presentation and here is the audio recording.

Teaching through David Lipscomb’s Civil Government

It took but little thought to see that Christians cannot fight, cannot slay one another or their fellowmen, at the behest of any earthly ruler, or to establish or maintain any human government . But if he cannot fight himself, can he vote to make another fight? What I lead or influence another to do, I do through that other. The man who votes to put another in a place or position, is in honor, bound to maintain him in that position , and is responsible for all the actions, courses or results that logically and necessarily flow from the occupancy and maintenance of that position. A man who votes to bring about a war, or that votes for that which logically and necessarily brings about war is responsible for that war and for all the necessary and usual attendants and results of that war.

–David Lipscomb, “Preface,” Civil Government. Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian’s Relation To It. Gospel Advocate Publishing Company: Nashville, 1889, p. iv.

Almost fifteen years ago I proposed to work through, on this blog, D. Lipscomb’s Civil Government. It is clear that did not happen.  I have since then taught or presented about Lipscomb and his book three or four times.  One of those was briefly for the Smyrna Church in one class session; another was for faculty at Abilene Christian University as one class of a three-part series in the Adams Center for Teaching and Learning; and twice now I have taught through it in extended fashion for the University Church in Abilene.  The first was in September and October 2016 just before the general national election.  As the Lord wills, next week I will complete my part (in three sessions) of a larger series on religion and politics.  My co-teachers surveyed the landscape in broader ways, first by describing the polis and how communities and nations have organized to achieve their various ends.  Some of that set-up included a resume of some key Biblical texts along with some broad categories of how Christians have engaged civil powers.  Some of that will continue in the final weeks of the class. 

My task is to present Lipscomb’s position.  I do so for these reasons:

1) I surveyed the class (about 50 the first night) and it confirmed my suspicion that nearly all of us were educated at or worked for one of the Christian universities among Churches of Christ.  I think all but two or three indicated they either went to one of these schools or worked for one.  For many, like me, it was both.  Many were ACC alums, but a few Harding, Oklahoma Christian, and one (me) Lipscomb grad.  Point being is that almost all of us were trained in or worked in settings that would not exist had it not been for the educational trajectory established by David Lipscomb and James A. Harding at the Nashville Bible School, and before them by Tolbert Fanning at Franklin College.  Some had teachers who were only a generation removed from Lipscomb himself.  For example, some in the class remembered Jesse Sewell in his later years in Abilene; JPS sat at Lipscomb’s feet.  Whether those teachers carried forward the Lipscomb view in its broad sweep or in any of the particulars is another question.  Point is that we have been formed in a way by someone whose name might not know, or know only by name.  Most only knew Lipscomb by name.  I asked a corollary question: who has actually read DL’s book?  Only one hand.  A few read parts of it.   So, as I told the class, we are so close, yet so far to David Lipscomb.  Why not think together about the central theological conviction of a man whose worked has shaped us in ways we might not even be aware of?

2) Whatever we think of the broad sweep of Christian history, or of Restoration history, or of David Lipscomb, we care most for the testimony of the Holy Bible and what it might say, and how it might instruct and guide us.  Thus my second reason for taking this approach.  Lipscomb’s book is nothing if not a thorough handling of the Biblical text.  So, he will be a good conversation partner.  He has done what we hope to do: engage the Bible.  He, too, has convictions about the nature of Scripture, how it teaches and guides the church, and like us he is concerned that the church be faithful to the teaching of the apostles and evangelists as we have them in the received word.  By reading his book, we will have some pegs in the wall on which we can begin to hang our thoughts about the teaching of the Bible, our interpretive strategies, and our doctrinal convictions.

3) By approaching it this way, I can be faithful to the design of the class, which is titled very purposely the ‘Conversations Class.’  Though I lectured far more than is typical for this class, the point is to generate conversation: thinking aloud, raising questions (especially the questions that often people suppress when they come to ‘church’), and exploring the implications of various positions and interpretations.  We designed this class to purposely engage controversial questions.  I can think of no better place than the Conversations Class (or any other class at University Church) in which I would want to sit with my beloved fellow Christians to explore topics such as ‘religion and politics.’  As I told them Wednesday night, there is no better place than this room to talk and think about these questions.  And because this topic is so charged, approaching it through the lens of history for the purpose of helping us think together about our faith, is, I think, a very sound pedagogical strategy.  We can enjoy the historical distance (both the chronological distance and the theoretical distance) as a safe approach to interpretive grids (such as Lipscomb’s hermeneutic) or theological convictions (all civil powers are ipso facto rebellion against God) or to practical implications (such as should Christians vote).

What I hope we gain from this class is understanding of Lipscomb’s position. The quote above is provocative, and provocative as it is may be, it is tame by comparison to other portions of the book.  My goal is that we understand what Lipscomb claims.  Further, that we understand that it was a viable trajectory among Churches of Christ even as recently as a few generations ago.  Further, that these views were held by our close forbears; and finally, that as a conversation partner he will prompt us to ask of ourselves: what we will do with the text of the Bible?, and, how we will appropriate its message?

— 

Related posts:

David Lipscomb on voting, 1921

The Christian’s relation to worldly governments, 1910

David Lipscomb: A Bibliography

Preach the Word: James A. Allen at the Church Street pulpit

In about 1905 or so James A. Allen stood behind the pulpit from the old Baptist Church of Nashville (later the Church Street Christian Church) likely in the yard of his aunt’s home and this photograph was taken.

I wrote about this pulpit a few years ago, and included the photograph with the article.  I recently ran across this colorized version and thought it worth sharing.  A few years ago MyHeritage ran a special trial for a while wherein you could upload a few photos and run them through their colorization process.  It was a clever gimmick to gain subscribers.  In my case it worked.  I signed up a for the trial subscription and used the database.  I ran some family photos through the system, including the animation feature, and was just amazed.  I realize some have strong feelings about altering a historical record in this way, and I share the same concerns if the alteration is not noted.  So, consider it noted.

If I were to assemble the most iconic images relating to Nashville Churches of Christ and Restoration Movement history, this image would certainly make the short list.  What a fabulous image:

James A. Allen at the Church Street pulpit, ca. 1905. Colorized.

David Lipscomb compares Jesse Sewell against Alexander Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, Moses Lard and T. W. Brents

Some time ago I posted Benjamin Franklin’s impression of meeting and hearing Alexander Campbell in person for the first time.

In a similar vein comes David Lipscomb’s estimation of Jesse Londerman Sewell’s preaching.   This from Life and Sermons of Jesse L. Sewell (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1891), pp. 118-119:

—–

As a preacher he was a man of one book, he preached the word of God in a meek, earnest, faithful manner and kind spirit. He spoke with ease to himself, and his style was pleasant to his hearers. His power was in an earnest and sincere presentation of the truth, remarkable for its simplicity, conciseness and clearness. He was familiar with the Bible as but few men are. His discourses did not cover a wide range of thought, but were finished and complete, eminently pointed and instructive. They showed he had viewed his subject from every standpoint and that the bearing of every passage of scripture on a position, taken, had been carefully considered. I have heard Alexander Campbell, with his clear thoughts, reverential manner, noble bearing, and profuseness of imagery, Tolbert Fanning with his Websterian clearness and force of statement, and majestic mien, and forceful manner, Moses E. Lard with his close and clear analysis and elucidation of his subject and his power to touch the sympathy and to stir the feelings with his tender pathos, I have heard Dr. [p. 119] Brents with his well laid premises and strong and convincing logic, but for a well-rounded, finished, completed sermon, stating the full truth on his subject in manner so simple that the humblest could understand it, and guarding at every point, against possible misconception or objection, my conviction has been for years, that Jesse Sewell in his prime, was the superior of any man I ever heard. He lacked the aggressive force and self-asserting power that belonged to these other men. He was lacking in both the mental and physical activity and vigor that make a great leader, but for clearness of perception, the ability to look on all sides of a question, and to view it in all its lights and to form just and sound conclusions, then to state them with clearness and critical precision, he had few superiors. He was one of the safest and soundest scripture teachers to be found.

My conviction is, the hold the Christian religion has upon the people of Middle Tennessee, is due under God to Jesse Sewell, more than any other one man. His singleness of purpose and devotion to the work explains the reason. Brother Sewell’s whole life was one of quiet, earnest simplicity, industry and genuine honesty. He had no taste for show or display of any kind. …

David Lipscomb, Life and Sermons of Jesse L. Sewell (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Publishing Company, 1891), pp. 118-119.

 

It is a revealing analysis for in it we see:

–Lipscomb’s description Campbell, Fanning, Lard and Brents are from first-hand direct experience.  Lipscomb heard Campbell in Nashville in the midst of the Ferguson fiasco; he was formed by Fanning’s teaching at Franklin College and in the Nashville congregations; he could have heard Lard at several places but Nashville seems the likeliest (although I do not have a date at hand, but rely on memory); and what is true of Fanning is nearly true of Brents, who preached in many places.

–Lipscomb’s evaluation which reveals what impressed him about each man’s preaching, and from it we could triangulate those qualities of homiletic purpose, style, function, and content that most commended themselves to David Lipscomb.

–Lipscomb’s knowledge of the churches of Christ in Middle Tennessee and of Sewell’s work among them over a period of time.  That final analysis is striking for I would assumed Fanning’s activity (directly through his papers and through the influence of his school and students) would have been uppermost in Lipscomb’s mind.  Lipscomb may have assessed Fanning’s formative role in similar or approaching terms (I cannot recall off-hand).  In light of this from Lipscomb about Sewell, we should hold loosely to any assumption that Fanning was the dominant actor among these congregations.  At least we should in the absence of other evidence.  I am happy to learn more.

–Lipscomb also was known for his simplicity of lifestyle, although through Margaret’s innovative spirit they eventually lived at a standard quite above the Sewell’s two-rooms-and-a-lean-to (see p. 120 against Hooper’s biography).  E. G. Sewell certainly lived above this standard in his neat brick home in East Nashville.  But the point is that Lipscomb highly esteems simplicity, plainness, forthrightness, industry, devotion, and the like.  We see this from Lipscomb’s taste for personal attire to his preferred manner of ministry and mission work to his comments about church architecture.

–In these paragraphs we see something about Jesse Sewell, also Campbell, Fanning, Lard, and Brents.  And we something about D. Lipscomb, too.

 

C. E. W. Dorris helps us remember how Tolbert Fanning eulogized Barton Stone

Charles Elias Webb Dorris was a collector, and reader, of old periodicals.  His complete set of Gospel Advocate was one of the few in existence in his lifetime. Its rarity ensured he was sought after by budding historians such as Earl West (Search for the Ancient Order) and Stephen Eckstein (Churches of Christ in Texas).

Dorris used his library and the documents of the past therein  to engage with the issues of his day.  This is particularly true of the institutional controversy in the late 1940s through the 1950s.  I am thinking of a series of articles he penned for Preceptor.  He also occasionally sent snippets to B. C. Goodpasture for inclusion in Gospel Advocate.  Under the title “Honor to Whom Honor” he states that he has “thought for a long time that writers both past and present, give Alexander Campbell honor that belongs to Barton W. Stone. In this I am not by myself as will be seen in the following from the pens of Philip Mulkey and Tolbert Fanning.”  Dorris’ point is that Stone’s work preceded Campbell’s in time and his doctrine of restoration, “the ‘Bible alone’,” and the church also preceded Campbell’s.

The Mulkey excerpt is from Old Path Guide, 1879, pp. 291-292.  Perhaps I will at some point post it.  But here I am more concerned to post the short note Dorris quotes from Tolbert Fanning.

Dorris says, without further comment:

“Tolbert Fanning, in commenting on the death of B. W. Stone, said:

If justice is ever done to his memory, he will be regarded as the first great American reformer,–the first man who, to much purpose, pleaded the ground that the Bible, without note, commentary, or creed, must destroy antichristian powers, and eventually conquer the world.  Although I have heard Father Stone slandered, and his views grossly perverted, yet never did I hear mortal man utter a syllable derogatory to his moral worth. A man more devoted to Christianity, has not lived not died, and many stars will adorn his crown in a coming day. ” (Christian Review, 1844, page 288.)

–C. E. W. Dorris, “Honor to Whom Honor,” Gospel Advocate, July 19, 1951, p. 452.

What catches my eye, aside from Dorris’ use of the past and his claim about Stone, is how Fanning characterizes Stone’s work.  For Fanning, Stone is the pathbreaker who pleads for the Bible against “antichristian powers.”  This is how Fanning epitomizes Stone’s life’s work.  The Bible “without note, commentary, or creed must destroy antichristian powers and eventually conquer the world.”

This is how Fanning characterized Stone’s work.  Dorris picks it up and uses it a century later.  Did the readership of Gospel Advocate  in 1951 characterize the work of post-war Churches of Christ in the same way?  Would they recognize in their churches of that day Fanning’s description of Stone’s work?

A 1936 aerial photograph of South Nashville and the old City Cemetery showing Lindsley Avenue Church of Christ

This week Metro Archives posted to their Facebook page a fine aerial view of the neighborhood north east of the old City Cemetery. It shows the lay of the land in 1936, which is filled with residences in close proximity to each other, to light industry, with sprinkling of local commercial buildings and churches. This photograph captures a moment in time a generation before the encroaching interstate sliced the neighborhood in two, which itself (among other factors) reflected and intensified suburban flight. The object of the photograph was the cemetery as noted on the item itself. This image is from the Walter Williams collection, a fine trove of local photography. And I appreciate seeing the cemetery, but my eye went first to isolate the Howard School complex at 3rd and Lindsley, then with Lindsley Avenue Church of Christ identified, I moved west a block or so, and north a block or so, to locate the former building of the South College Street Church of Christ. In the second image below I lined the street in front of each in green. This photograph is basically oriented facing north. The Lindsley building is directly east of the green line; and South College is west of its green line.

The photograph documents what this neighborhood looked like for much of the first half of the 20th century. This was primary setting for the ministry of the South College Church, led in earnest for forty years by David Lipscomb, and served by a host of evangelists. This neighborhood is the proving ground for the Lipscomb theory of church growth by planting new congregations. All told some 37 congregations came out of South College either directly, or in time by secondary or tertiary ways. To my knowledge all of them were peaceful swarms.

South Nashville, showing City Cemetery and neighborhood. 1936, from Metro Nashville Archives. https://www.nashvillearchives.org/

South Nashville, showing City Cemetery and neighborhood. 1936, from Metro Nashville Archives. Green highlights show location of Lindsley Avenue Church of Christ and former building of the old South College Street Church of Christ. https://www.nashvillearchives.org/

Detail crop. South Nashville, showing City Cemetery and neighborhood. 1936, from Metro Nashville Archives. Green highlights show location of Lindsley Avenue Church of Christ and former building of the old South College Street Church of Christ. https://www.nashvillearchives.org/

Name Authority for Nashville, Tennessee Stone-Campbell Congregations, 5th edition, now available

Name Authority for Nashville Tennessee Stone-Campbell Congregations, 5th edition, revised and enlarged. April 18, 2020.  This list comprises 440 variations of time, place and character names for 247 known congregations of the Stone-Campbell Movement in Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee from 1812 to March 2020.

Vacation Bible School. Eastview Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee, early 1950s

Nashville, The City of David (Lipscomb): Three issues of Gospel Advocate remember Lipscomb and his legacy

The December 6, 1917 issue of Gospel Advocate was devoted to the memory of the recently-deceased David Lipscomb.  It is a rich treasure of memories and tributes. To my knowledge this issue was the first to carry Lipscomb’s photograph on the cover. Similar covers followed in 1931 (the July 11 Davidson County Special Number) and 1939 (the December 7 special issue about the history of the Nashville congregations).

These three issues are of significant historical value. As primary sources they provide information unavailable elsewhere. As interpretive reflections they are a beginning point for how Lipscomb was remembered and how congregational history was recorded and carried forward. The 1917 issue, other than newspaper obituaries and Price Billingsley’s diary, is the first secondary source about the life and impact of David Lipscomb. The Billingsley diary (housed at Center for Restoration Studies, Abilene Christian University) contains a description of the funeral along with its author’s candid thoughts and impressions. It was not intended, at the time, for public reading.

The issue of the Advocate, however, is a product of the McQuiddy Printing Company and is most certainly intended to capture the mood and ethos in the air just after Lipscomb’s death and by way of the mails deliver it to subscribers wherever they may be. In point of time, it is the first published sustained historical reflection on Lipscomb’s life and ministry. The 1931 and 1939 special issues focus on Lipscomb’s activity on the ground among the citizens of Nashville’s neighborhoods. Here his legacy is as a church planter: an indefatigable, patient, faithful steward. He plants, he teaches, he preaches, he organizes. He observes shifting residential patterns and responds with congregational leadership development. To meet the needs of the emerging streetcar suburbs, he urges elders to take charge of teaching responsibilities, engage evangelists and establish congregations through peaceful migrations and church plants. The 1931 and 1939 issues are testimonies to the effects of this approach. Along the way they preserve details and photographic evidence that is simply unavailable elsewhere.

All three are available for download below.

Click here to download the December 6, 1917 David Lipscomb Memorial Number.

Click here to download the historical sections from the July 11, 1931 special issue about the history of the Nashville Churches of Christ

Click here to download the December 7, 1939 special issue about the history of the Nashville Churches of Christ.

A shelf of books by David Lipscomb