Antebellum Middle Tennessee and the “Lord’s Day” I

During the summer of 1858 Tolbert Fanning, President of Franklin College and a leader in Middle Tennessee for over twenty-five years, toured the congregations surrounding Nashville. He recounts this tour in the September 1858 edition of the Gospel Advocate (“Prospects in Middle Tennessee,” pp. 257-263).

He visited Hartsville and Bledsoe’s Creek congregations in Sumner county; Lebanon and Bethel in Wilson county; New Hope in Canon county; Ebenezer, Millersburg and Murfreesboro in Rutherford county, Shelbyville in Bedford county; Fayetteville in Lincoln county; Petersburg, Berea and Lewisburg in Marshall county; Williamsport and Columbia in Maury county; and Nolensville, Hillsboro, Thompson’s Station and Boston in Davidson county.

He drew three conclusions from his tour (pp. 262-263):

1. We have labored in Tennessee in word and teaching for twenty-nine years, and we never witnessed half the anxiety generally to hear and examine the Truth.

2. We never before saw half so many brethren determined to labor for the Lord. More churches are meeting for worship than have been at any previous date engaged.

3.  We conscientiously believe that the brethren no where on earth possess a higher appreciation of the Truth, and of spiritual life, than in Tennessee, and with all our reverses the prospects are flattering. A faithful perseverence [sic]  in well doing will remove mountains.

The recent “reverses” is an allusion to the devolution of the Nashville church under the leadership of Jesse B. Ferguson who embraced “spiritualism” as a theological method. His youth, popularity, and rhetorical flourish led the church away from its 1820s-1830s roots, according to Fanning.

However, this has occasioned a revival of sorts.

The apostacy and opposition of several popular men, who were numbered with us, have doubtless had the effect to induce the brethren to re-examine the foundation on which we are building, and the result is, that an unusual degree of intelligence is evinced by all who read and study, especially the Divine oracles. We regard it not the least flattery to intimate the probability that there are perhaps more independent thinkers, and devoted and intelligent Christians in Tenn., in proportion to the numbers professing faith, than in any other State in the Union. Our church afflictions have had the effect to weaken the confidence in the infallibility of men, to teach us humility, and we are not sure but they have had an influence to better qualify us for grappling with difficult questions.

Fanning reports that he has seen evidence of a great growth in the “spiritual life” of congregations in Middle Tennessee (p. 257). One of the major pieces of evidence for him was the growing practice of “meeting weekly to worship” (p. 262). It was more common, as Fanning notes, for churches to meet only once a month or only when an Evangelist was in town (as was still the case for some communities like Lebanon). For Fanning the “Lord’s Day” is a critical part of what it means to be a church, to cooperate in the work of the Lord, and to fulfill the mission of Christ.

In future blogs I hope, as time permits, to explore this theological idea as Fanning seeks to inculcate a reverence for the Lord’s Day on the part of Middle Tennessee congregations.



4 Responses to “Antebellum Middle Tennessee and the “Lord’s Day” I”

  1.   Tim Says:

    Just wondering if there is any way to determine how many congregations visited by T. Fanning were using the name “Christian Church”, and how many were using the name “Disciples of Christ”?

    • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

      There might be a way at the Tennessee Archives. I have looked into that angle. I doubt any were actually named–I have no memory of any at this stage in history–their congregation “Disciples of Christ.” However, “Christian Church” and “Church of Christ” would not have been uncommon and exchangeable.

      •   eirenetheou Says:

        Dear brother, do you mean that “Christian Church” and “Church of Christ” were not uncommon and were exchangeable or that they were not uncommon and were not exchangeable?

        In these latter days, one friend who loves the instruments in worship and will not forsake them has said to me, “Our congregation has always called itself a Church of Christ and they’re not going to call it anything else!” For others, “Christian Church” is not “biblical.” Both kinds have heard all those sermons on “Which Name Shall the Bride Wear?”

        Since the epithet “Christian” has acquired a human political identification for many people in these times, i have taken to calling myself merely a disciple of Jesus. i do not want to be identified with any faction of the human political order.

        God’s Peace to you.

        d

        • Avatar of johnmarkhicks  John Mark Hicks Says:

          Yes, that was badly stated. :-)

          “Christian Church” and “Church of Christ” were exchangeable almost throughout the whole 19th century. Thanks for noting my ambiguity. I don’t think we see a clear distinction (and only in some regions) until the last two decades of the 19th century, and probably “Church of Christ” is not the exclusive name until the 1920s-1930s (and that under protest from people like M. C. Kurfees and others).

          I tend to call myself a “disciple of Jesus” as well. In our culture “Christian” is politically-charged and for all the wrong reasons.

          Thanks, Don.

          Blessings

Leave a Reply