Joe Warlick’s Baptist Blunders, 1905

Joe S. Warlick, Baptist Blunders and J. N. Hall and His Fridays in a Muddle. Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Company, 1905. 86 pp., 9 x 5 7/8 in. paper covers.

For a sketch of Warlick’s life and career, go here.  For a brief sketch about Hall by Ben M. Bogard, go here.  For Hall’s memoirs, go here.  I’m unaware of any other comparable front-cover illustration in Stone-Campbell bibliography.  If you know of any, please comment as I’m happy to learn of it.

Warlick, Baptist Blunders front cover Warlick, Baptist Blunders introduction 1 Warlick, Baptist Blunders introduction 2 Warlick, Baptist Blunders title page

Understanding Non-Sunday School Churches of Christ: Some Suggestions for First Reads

This installment includes just five suggestions for first-reads about one sub-set of acapella Churches of Christ.  Navigate the ‘First Reads Series‘ link in my Categories list to find earlier installments.  This brief list is in response to a request made in the comments on a February 2010 post, ‘The Situation in Tennessee.’

1. Thomas A. Langford, “N. L. Clark: Early Firm Foundation Editor and College President” in The Christian Academic: Exercising Faith in the University Setting. Ketch Publishing: Bloomington, Indiana, 2007.

2. Larry Hart, “Brief History of a Minor Restorationist Group,” Restoration Quarterly 22 (1979), pages 212-232.

3. Thomas A. Langford, “An Insider’s View of Non-Sunday School Churches,” Restoration Quarterly 45 (2003), pages 181-192.

4. [Roy Deaver and Lester Hathaway] Debate on the Bible Class Question and Women Teachers in Some of Those Classes. Chronicle Publishing Company, Inc.: Abilene, 1952.

5. [L. W. Hayhurst, Alva Johnson, Logan Buchanan and Van Bonneau] Debate on the Bible Class Question J. R. Chisolm and Jimmy Wood: Brownfield, TX, 1950.

Comments and additions to this list are earnestly solicited.

M. D. Clubb remembers J. W. McGarvey, part 4

Tenth Affirmative

Brother Boles’ reply to my argument from apostolic ex-[page 137]ample is so weak and void of reason that I pass it by with one brief remark.  My argument gives no consequence to the burning of incense.  The ninth chapter of Hebrews plainly says that the censer (in which the incense was burned) was a definite part of the Levitical ritual which was done away in Christ.  Nothing is plainer that this.  We have very definite and positive instruction as to incense.  But singing and prayer and instrumental music were no part of the Levitical ritual–no part of the Mosaic economy–and, hence, were not included in the things which had “waxed old and were ready to vanish away.” Just here I remark that professor McGarvey admits that the early Christians continued to worship in the temple after Pentecost, as they had been accustomed to do before.  And to this agree both Prof. H. B. Hackett, a member of the American Committee of Revision till his death, and Prof. Bernard Weiss, of Berlin University.  So far as I know, there is not a Biblical authority who takes any other position in regard to the matter.  The case is too plain to admit of contradiction. 

Any one who is willing to follow the example of the early Christians in the matter of worship in the temple will have no difficulty in knowing just what they did.  To say that they did not attend that same old prayer meeting in the temple to which they had been accustomed in that past is absurd, and would never have been thought of but for the desperate need of an untenable theory.

M. D. Clubb and H. Leo Boles, Discussion, Is Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Scriptural? Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1927, pages 137-138.

M. D. Clubb remembers J. W. McGarvey, part 3

Eighth Affirmative

To sum up, Brother Boles has given twenty-eight commentaries, and what do we find?  Ten of them are neutral–that is, in the comments quoted, they have nothing to say one way or the other.  Only six definitely support the negative.  they are: Adam Clarke, Dr. Whedon, John Calvin, Moses E. Lard, J. W. McGarvey, and Robert Milligan.  I give Lard, not because he says anything against instrumental music, in the passage quoted, but because he was opposed to it, as I freely concede.

M. D. Clubb and H. Leo Boles, Discussion, Is Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Scriptural? Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1927, page 111.

Not much here as they have moved away from arguing over McGarvey and are settling in on closing out the discussion.  Boles will not engage Clubb about McGarvey again; Clubb will mention JWM once more.

H. Leo Boles and J. W. McGarvey, part 2b

Seventh Negative

…J. W. McGARVEY: “To sum up these arguemtns, you can now see that this practice is one of recent origin among Protstant churches, adopted by them from the Roman apostasy; that is was one of the latest corruptionss adopted by that corrupt body; that a large part of the religious world has never accepted it; that, though employed in the Jewish ritual, it was deliberately laid aside by the inspired men who organized the church of Christ; and that several precepts of the New Testament implicitly condemn it.” (“What Shall We Do About the Organ?” pages 6, 7.)

This is the last of fifteen quotes Boles assembles to conclude his negative.  The purpose of the quotes is to establish his case that the history of instrumental music cannot be traced back to the earliest church.  I think Boles’ inclusion of McGarvey as the final quote is a double-whammy of sorts.  It is the final quote of the authorities Boles marshalls to prove his point; it serves to underscore that McGarvey agrees with the authorities.  Furthermore, given the back-and-forth between the disputants on McGarvey’s scholarship, it is rhetorical jab.

M. D. Clubb and H. Leo Boles, Discussion, Is Instrumental Music in Christian Worship Scriptural? Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1927, pages 108.