R. C. Bell, Divine Dynamics, and the Holy Spirit

February 28, 2012

R. C. Bell (1877-1964) attended the Nashville Bible School from 1896-1901. James A. Harding took Bell with him as a faculty member at the newly founded Potter Bible College in 1901. Later Bell would teach at several different colleges among Churches of Christ and eventually ended up at Abilene Christian College as a beloved teacher.

In 1959, Bell was asked to give a lecture on “A Lifetime Spent in Christian Education” and he used the opportunity to lament the shift among Churches of Christ that distressed him. In his autobiographical article in the 1951 Firm Foundation he had warned that the church needed a new infusion of the kingdom theology of James A. Harding in order “to save [it] from changing divine dynamics to human mechanics” (“Honor to Whom Honor is Due,” Firm Foundation 68 [6 November 1951], 6). Now, in his closing years, describes what is lacking among Churches of Christ in 1959.

The whole speech is available in another post. Below I have excerpted a few significant parts below.

“Especially, [Harding’s] soul-kindling faith in God as a personal Friend matched the wave length of my eager, hungry heart. I caught his contagious enthusiasm for God as a Father who personally identifies himself with each of His own, and for the Holy Spirit as a Comforter who personally resides in and empowers every Christian, slowly enough.  However, [his] conception of Christianity as “a divine-human encounter,” in which immediate spiritual communion between God and man is established and perpetually maintained, gradually, became also my conception of Christianity.

“I also knew that in such vital matters as Christians being crucified to the world and the world’s being crucified to Christians (Gal. 6:14), and as Christians really believing with all their hearts that the Holy Spirit was working personally in them to help their infirmity, to pray unutterable prayers for them, and to make all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:26-28) so that they, ever mindful of the Lord’s presence, might be anxious about nothing, praying in everything, thankful in anything, and possess ‘the peace of God, which passeth all understanding’ (Phil. 4:5-7), the primitive church was not being fully restored. In short, I knew that church of which I was a member was not identical in all things with the church of the New Testament.

“With more and more lived faith, as the years passed and I myself increased in spiritual stature, I taught, first, that the personal presence and conjoint working of the ‘Three-personal God’ (Father and Son and Spirit) in and through cooperating Christians is at the very heart of Christianity; and second that Christianity, primarily, consists, not in what Christians do for Christ, but in what Christ does for Christians.

“When Christians fail to make use of the sanctifying portion of Christianity, as though it were an optional adjunct instead of the built-in essential which it is, they harden into harsh, unloving, unloved, self-sanctifying, unlawful legalists and defeated Pharisees, biting and devouring one another as the Galatians were doing (Gal. 5:13-15). A man’s unchristian self-effort to justify himself no more certainly leads to arrogant self-righteousness than does the same kind of effort to sanctify himself.”


R. C. Bell: A Lament Over A Theological Shift Among Churches of Christ

March 7, 2011

R. C. Bell (1877-1964) attended the Nashville Bible School from 1896-1901. James A. Harding took Bell with him as a faculty member at the newly founded Potter Bible College in 1901. Later Bell would teach at several different colleges among Churches of Christ and eventually ended up at Abilene Christian College as a beloved teacher.

In 1959, Bell was asked to give a lecture on “A Lifetime Spent in Christian Education” and he used the opportunity to lament the shift among Churches of Christ that distressed him. In his autobiographical article in the 1951 Firm Foundation he had warned that the church needed a new infusion of the kingdom theology of James A. Harding in order “to save [it] from chaning divine dynamics to human mechanics” (“Honor to Whom Honor is Due,” Firm Foundation 68 [6 November 1951], 6). Now, in his closing years, describes what is lacking among Churches of Christ in 1959.

Below is the whole speech, but I wanted to highlight what I think is the essence of his point with the following selection taken from different parts of the speech:

Especially, [Harding’s] soul-kindling faith in God as a personal Friend matched the wave length of my eager, hungry heart. I caught his contagious enthusiasm for God as a Father who personally identifies himself with each of His own, and for the Holy Spirit as a Comforter who personally resides in and empowers every Christian, slowly enough.  However, [his] conception of Christianity as “a divine-human encounter,” in which immediate spiritual communion between God and man is established and perpetually maintained, gradually, became also my conception of Christianity.

I also knew that in such vital matters as Christians being crucified to the world and the world’s being crucified to Christians (Gal. 6:14), and as Christians really believing with all their hearts that the Holy Spirit was working personally in them to help their infirmity, to pray unutterable prayers for them, and to make all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:26-28) so that they, ever mindful of the Lord’s presence, might be anxious about nothing, praying in everything, thankful in anything, and possess “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:5-7), the primitive church was not being fully restored. In short, I knew that church of which I was a member was not identical in all things with the church of the New Testament.

With more and more lived faith, as the years passed and I myself increased in spiritual stature, I taught, first, that the personal presence and conjoint working of the “Three-personal God” (Father and Son and Spirit) in and through cooperating Christians is at the very heart of Christianity; and second that Christianity, primarily, consists, not in what Christians do for Christ, but in what Christ does for Christians.

When Christians fail to make use of the sanctifying portion of Christianity, as though it were an optional adjunct instead of the built-in essential which it is, they harden into harsh, unloving, unloved, self-sanctifying, unlawful legalists and defeated Pharisees, biting and devouring one another as the Galatians were doing (Gal. 5:13-15). A man’s unchristian self-effort to justify himself no more certainly leads to arrogant self-righteousness than does the same kind of effort to sanctify himself.

His emphasis on a personal (relational) dynamic is at the heart of what Bobby Valentine and I have called the “Tennessee Tradition.” He stresses what God does for us rather than what we do for God. He emphasizes a sanctification of life that is rooted in a divine-human encounter rather than located in a correct form. He hopes for a sanctified Christianity rather than an unloving legalism.

I believe Bell laments the shift among Churches of Christ from the Tennessee themes of his young adulthood to the Texas themes of his old age. Something, he feels, was lost. It was present in his mentor Harding and in the early institutions of the century (Nashville Bible School and Potter Bible College). He fears, however, it might be lost now. or at least marginalized.

Read his speech and feel his pain but also recognize his deep relationship with God and fervent faith in the God who can work redemption in our hearts and in/through our churches.

The following text was scanned and edited by Bobby Valentine, my good friend and co-author. I thank him for sharing it with me and now with you. The text is from Things that Endure: Third Annual Lectureship, Lubbock Christian College (Jackson, TN: Nichols Brothers, 1960).

A LIFETIME SPENT IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

 R. C. BELL

 At the age of eighteen years, three years after becoming a Christian, I enrolled as a student in the Nashville Bible School, Nashville, Tennessee, in 1896. That School grew directly into David Lipscomb College, and less directly into a score of other colleges, several of which, though now dead as colleges, yet speak.

 As an example of this deathless life of Christian education, the Shorts, the Scotts, the Merritts, the Reeses, and the Lawyers, most of whom have become two-generation families of missionaries in Africa, received the inspiration for their life-work in Western Bible and Literary College, Odessa, Missouri, and in Cordell Christian College, Cordell, Oklahoma, two schools that ceased to function as schools years ago. Then, think of the good in the world today that has its roots in Thorp Spring Christian College of our own state before her doors were closed.

 Under the teaching and daily influence of such men as David Lipscomb, James A. Harding and J. N. Armstrong, dedicated men serving God as school teachers, I soon began to see that Paul’s characterization of some who would hold a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof described me. Especially, Brother Harding’s soul-kindling faith in God as a personal Friend matched the wave length of my eager, hungry heart. I caught his contagious enthusiasm for God as a Father who personally identifies himself with each of His own, and for the Holy Spirit as a Comforter who personally resides in and empowers every Christian, slowly enough.  However, Brother Harding’s conception of Christianity as “A divine-human encounter,” in which immediate spiritual communion between God and man is established and [p. 105] perpetually maintained, gradually, became also my conception of Christianity. I shall ever be thankful unto the Sovereign Master of the mysterious sea of life for launching my life before the earthly voyage of this Man of God was over.

 This fuller understanding of Christianity changed the axis of my life and turned my world upside down. The revolution in my life with its new scale of values was similar, except that I had nothing to lose, to the revolution that Paul’s becoming a Christian made in his life. After naming seven fleshly things of which Jews were exceedingly proud, Paul declares that he no longer has “Confidence in the flesh,” but considers the things which were once all-important to him to be gainfully exchanged for Christ, for whom he suffers the loss of all things and counts them but refuse (Phil. 3:5-8). That Paul’s and Harding’s interpretation of Christianity, which I have up to my measure labored over a lifetime to impart to students, would have ever been mine, had I not attended the Nashville Bible School, is doubtful.  In any event that is where my revolution occurred.

 That the Gospel which Paul and Harding preached and practiced does so revolutionize lives was demonstrated in a family I knew sixty years ago. When the time came for the third son in that family, whose two older brothers had attended the Nashville Bible School, to go to college, his father, an “elder” in his congregation, said that, since Brother Harding had already ruined two of his boys, he wanted the third boy to go to another college.

 While I was at the Nashville school, the idea of teaching the Bible in such a school, in the Providence of God, as a life work grew steadily upon me. As I did not know, then, so well as I know, that I was better fitted by nature for this type of work than for exclusively preaching, the final decision did not come easily. All the while, I was praying God to guide my thinking, feeling and deciding, and I have never doubted that He did so. Consequently, when Brother Harding started another college at Bowling Green, Kentucky, named Potter Bible College, and asked me to become a member of [p.106] his faculty, I took his invitation as God’s opening a door for me. Religiously and gratefully therefore, I began in this manner a lifetime spent in Christian education in 1901 to continue until my retirement from the faculty of Abilene Christian College in 1951 – an even half century.

 I entered upon this work with the twofold conviction that the movement to restore Primitive Christianity was not fully materializing: first, because Christ was not being exalted to the position of solitary pre-eminence and dominant centrality as life-giving, all-pervading personal Savior that He occupied in His church when it was first inaugurated; and, second, His church, inasmuch as the Flesh and the Spirit “Are contrary the one to the other,” needed less Flesh and more Spirit – that is, less man and more God. May I add candidly and modestly that I began this work in the hope of helping to make the church of the twentieth century more like the church of the first century.

 Of course I knew that in such essential matters as there being but one church, as baptism being for the remission of sins, and as singing being the only music, the primitive church was being restored. But I also knew that in such vital matters as Christians being crucified to the world and the world’s being crucified to Christians (Gal. 6:14), and as Christians’ really believing with all their hearts that the Holy Spirit was working personally in them to help their infirmity, to pray unutterable prayers for them, and to make all things work together for their good (Rom. 8:26-28) so that they, ever mindful of the Lord’s presence, might be anxious about nothing, praying in everything, thankful in anything, and possess “The peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:5-7), the primitive church was not being fully restored. In short, I knew that church of which I was a member was not identical in all things with the church of the New Testament.

 With more and more live faith, as the years passed and I myself increased in spiritual stature, I taught, first, that the personal presence and conjoint working of the “Three-personal God” (Father and Son and Spirit) in and through cooperat- [p.107] ing Christians is at the very heart of Christianity; and second that Christianity, primarily, consists, not in what Christians do for Christ, but in what Christ does for Christians. What Christ with divine insight and foresight, and with anxious heart, said to correct the misplaced joy of the Seventy when they returned to Him rejoicing that the demons were subject unto them, namely, “Rejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20), continually became deeper and richer in meaning to me. Without this cardinal Christian truth which Christ impressed upon the Seventy, Christianity cannot properly function and fulfill itself. Christians, know that only Christ can write their names in heaven and that they can do nothing apart from Him so as to deserve credit for themselves, choose to let Him live in them to express Himself by doing Christian things in and through their surrendered personalities and bodies (Gal. 2:20).

 Across the years of my teaching in our Christian colleges, thousands of young people of the onrushing, swelling stream of humanity, often from two, sometimes from three, generations of the same family, still in the susceptible time of life, passed through my classes. As a teacher can never tell in which students the seed he scatters will “Spring up and grow, he knoweth not how,” I considered everyone one of these students, without respect of persons, a seedbed entrusted by parents and God to my sowing. A Christian teacher sows the word of God in hope, wherever, he may, both morning and evening, for he knoweth not “Whether this or that, or whether they both shall be alike good.”

Of course some of the seed I sowed fell by the wayside, some on rocky ground, some among thorns, some upon “Good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.” These good-ground hearers, a goodly number as pioneers in remote lands among strange peoples, many more, very many more, as evangelists, located preachers, elders, deacons, teachers of classes, business men, professional men, and all the rest, certainly including the self-effacing, godly women [p. 108] – unmarried, wives, mothers—are all, according to their respective personalities, talents, circumstances, and fidelity, wells of living “Water springing up unto eternal life.” Probably, this host of Christian men and women now scattered over the face of the earth, during our close associations as students and teacher, helped me more than I helped them. With what ecstasy, we shall at last bring in our ever increasing harvest of souls to become a part of the “Great multitude, which no man can number, out of every nation and of all tribes, peoples and tongues!”

 If students seemed but little interested sometimes in what I was trying to teach them, and apparently were not getting much into the heart of things, I was encouraged and strengthened to continue the teaching, kindly, patiently, hopefully, when I recalled that I subconsciously received good seed into my soul in Nashville that brought forth Christian fruit in future years. Yea, that seed is even now “Living and active … and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Many times have I with joy seen this experience of mine repeated in my students, a fact to which they freely testify.

 For just about half of the time I have spent in our colleges, I received no regular salary. Throughout the first eighteen years, and during some years since, my income was meager—even insufficient to meet the necessary expenses of my family. But this income, supplemented by what I received for preaching appointments on Sundays and evangelistic meetings during summer vacations, was ever a competency. We could have scarcely known this competency, however, had not my wife been a frugal, self-sacrificing homemaker and help meet in all things. She and I were happy classmates under Brother Harding his last year at Nashville, and, knowing the economic situation involved, planned our lifework together that year. Never has a husband and father had more unselfish help and encouragement from his wife and children to give himself wholly to his work than I have had. Mrs. Bell and I together share the esteem of former students and other friends, and together we hope to share Christ’s reward through all eternity.

 [p.109] As the subject the committee assigned me, “A Lifetime Spent in Christian Education,” does not exclude the years of my retirement, I wish to say, a few words about this period.  God, I believe, closed my classroom door eight years ago, and as He is not to be limited to miracles in religion any more than He is in nature, opened, superhumanly but without miracle, another door to me. I beg you, brethren, to feel brotherly toward me when I tell you that I have wondered whether there is not another analogy between God’s giving retirement to Paul in prison that he might write his elevated “Prison Epistles” and His giving me retirement that I might try to teach these same four Epistles through the Press.  Men who know God expect Him to do such things. Asked Mordecai of Esther, who had become queen of Persia by “good luck” as men say, in a national crises when only her perilous, dauntless deed could save the Jews from destruction, “Who knoweth whether thou art not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Est. 4:14).

When the late, beloved G.H.P. Showalter, Editor of the Firm Foundation, whom I had written that I had time and disposition to write some for his paper, kindly encouraged my writing, I began “Studies” in some of the Books of the New Testament, which I had been teaching for many years in college. After Brother Lemmons became Editor of the magazine, he graciously continued to publish my “Studies,” and continues to do so even until now. These “Studies,” since being printed in the Firm Foundation as separate articles, have been collected and published by the Firm Foundation Publishing House as booklets, or in the case of Romans as a book. I am truly grateful to these two good men for enabling me to continue my lifetime business of teaching God’s word. With this writing, two weekly Bible classes which I have continued to teach in the College Church, and other duties, I have been busy and happy.

 “Let one more attest

I have lived, seen God’s hand through a lifetime,

And all was for best.”

 Now, may a veteran make some suggestions for Christians [p. 110] in general by calling attention to some constitutionally Christian truths. When God purposed and wrought to redeem the sin-unk world, He was too wise and too good an Economist to include anything the vast Enterprise did not need. His work is never either deficient or redundant. It takes all of Christianity as God made it, therefore to justify, to sanctify, to spiritualize and to glorify Satanically deluded and deflowered humanity. As it takes the blood of God’s Son to justify men by washing away their sins, even so it takes the power of God’s Spirit to continue the redemptive work by sanctifying those who have been justified so that they may not continue to sin. To break the stranglehold of sin from Adam onward (Rom. 7:17-24), to lead upward out of the power and practice of sin unto the lofty “Sanctification of the Spirit” (2 Thes. 2:13), “Without which no man shall see the Lord” (Heb 2:14) as far transcends the utmost human reach as does to justify alien sinners by remitting the guilt and the penalty of their sins to begin with. Sanctification and holiness are by grace in the same way that justification and pardon are by grace. It matters not where men start in to save themselves by law, they “Make void the grace of God.” Indeed, Christianity all the way, from its beginning on earth unto heaven is all by grace. To add the principle of law with its inevitable meritorious works anywhere along the way implies that, inasmuch as men can save themselves, “Christ died for nought” (Gal. 2:21).

 When Christians fail to make use of the sanctifying portion of Christianity, as though it were an optional adjunct instead of the built-in essential which it is, they harden into harsh, unloving, unloved, self-sanctifying, unlawful legalists and defeated Pharisees, biting and devouring one another as the Galatians were doing (Gal. 5:13-15). A man’s unchristian self-effort to justify himself no more certainly leads to arrogant self-righteousness than does the same kind of effort to sanctify himself.

 But when Christians repent deeply enough to lose all “Confidence in the flesh,” to renounce all unchristian self- [p. 111] help, and in profound contrition to make use of all of Christianity, they grow into loving, compassionate, lawful, gracious, spiritual, Christian men and women. Because “Love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10), Christianity is God’s perfect way of making mature, lawful men. Behold, God as amazingly proficient Philosopher, Metaphysician, Psychologist and Psychiatrist!

 Does not Christ teach in His story of the “Good Samaritan” that zealots of law have no “compassion”? Can men without compassion have the mind of Christ, or of Paul? The best demonstration of how these respective religions of Law and of Grace work out in life is the hard, touch, cruel, cold-blooded Saul under law becoming the compassionate, gracious, gentle, warmhearted Paul under grace—the last bit of legal ice melted into tears, and as emotionally saturated and tender as a  good woman.

 Finally, my brethren, to give disproportionate importance to what we are doing for Christ as compared to what He is doing for us, thereby upsetting the inherent relationship between the divine and the human elements of Christianity, is, I fear, a more common and deadly perversion of the Gospel than we realize. There was the perversion that Christ corrected in the Seventy, and that Paul, knowing that in effect it made Christianity just another legal religion in which Christians try to earn merit and security before God by directly obeying law in their own natural strength, wrote the book of Galatians, with its stern warning against falling “Away from grace” (Gal. 5:4) to crush. This basic distortion of God’s Christianity, with its powerful, bewitching appeal to human pride and self-sufficiency, was departure enough from the Christian religion of grace and life toward the obsolete Mosaic religion of law and death to alarm Paul to his depths. And this enticing heresy, in modern dress, can just as subtly and effectually corrupt the only Christ-centered religion on earth today, with the power to forgiven sins and make men holy, into another of the countless, man-centered religions too “weak and beggarly” to take away sins, as it effected this corruption in its ancient [p. 112] Galatian dress. Here lurks an exceedingly insidious danger for any Christian, anywhere, anytime.

 Not until we cease trying to sanctify ourselves by misguided self-help, can we ever attain unto the “Sanctification of the Spirit.” Paul says that he had to die to law as a means of salvation before God could save him by grace (Gal. 2:19). Sanctification by legally meritorious works and moral character, and sanctification by Gospel grace and forgiveness are mutually exclusive—they simply will not mix. We must make our choice between the two, but the choice of either annuls the other. “But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise it is no more of grace” (Rom. 11:6). God made Christianity to work in this way, and it will not work in any other way. 

 Only God knows how much of the fleshliness, lukewarmness [sic], and lack of “Righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17), with their accompanying discouragement, fear of missing heaven at last, backsliding and despair among us today comes from our vain striving to do that which God never intended we should attempt to do in our own sin-corroded, disabled nature. Our very nature is against us; we must be born again of the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:8,9).  When we, believing that “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God,” cooperate with God by freely using His freely given superhuman love, wisdom, and power, we shall be contributing to the restoration of Primitive Christianity.”


Patterns, Legalism and Grace: J. D. Thomas

February 9, 2009

 Patternism and a healthy theology of grace are not mutually exclusive. 

previous post noted that Alexander Campbell did not make his particular understanding of the apostolic pattern a test of fellowship. The “ancient order” was not a soteriological category for him. Rather, it was a  matter of communal sanctification, a matter of growth, development and maturation. Consequently, he regarded other communities of faith than his own Christian.  What would “all that we have written on the unity of Christians on apostolic grounds” mean, he asked, “had we taught that all Christians in the world were already united in our own community?” (Millennial Harbinger 1837).

In this post I turn my attention to J. D. Thomas (1910-2004), Professor of Bible at Abilene Christian University for thirty-three years. He is the author of probably the most significant hermeneutical manual for Churches of Christ–We Be Brethren (1958).  It assumes (practically everyone assumed it in the 1950s), explains and applies the command, example, and inference (CEI) hermeneutic in some detail. The issue the illicited the book was the raging controversy surrounding institutionalism.

Between 1950-1970 about 10% of Churches of Christ banded together as non-institutional congregations. The issues are both broad and narrow. Broadly, these congregations rejected the cultural assimiliation of Churches of Christ, as they saw it, into the mainstream of American denominationalism. Narrowly, they opposed the use of church funds (collected in the church treasury for kingdom work) to support human institutions (incoporated entitites like schools, children’s homes, mission boards [e.g., sponsoring congregations], or any parachurch organization). To these churches the support of such human institutions to do the work of the church is analogous to the support of missionary societies to do the work of the church.

Churches of Christ were generally agreed upon an apostolic pattern in the 1940s:  five acts of worship (a capella singing, praying, teaching, Lord’s supper, and giving), congregational polity with a plurality of elders and deacons, silence of women in the assembly except for singing, etc. This was supported by the standard hermeneutic: command, example and inference (CEI). But the institutional controversy raised specific questions about how to use church funds and how to apply the received hermeneutic.

Thomas defends patternism, explains the hermeneutic and applies it to institutional issues. Roy E. Cogdill (1907-1985), one of the premier defenders of noninstitutionalism in the 1950s-1960s, reviewed Thomas’ book in 1959. That review, a series of articles, is available here. For Thomas, the NT contains a pattern–”a teaching that is binding or required of Christians today” and the “pattern principle” is “what bound the New Testament characters binds us, and what did not bind them does not bind us.”  And this pattern is “established by command, necessary inference, and example” (p. 254).

Thomas provided guidelines for how to apply the hermeneutic. His book has a glossary to define terms such as “generic authority,” “incomplete command,” “hypothesis of uniformity,” “hypothesis of universal application,” “excluded specific,” “overlapping classification,”  and “expedient.”  Sounds fairly technical, huh? Well, that is the point–Thomas took the standard CEI hermeneutic and gave it a “scientific” formulation in hopes of adjudicating the dispute between institutionalists and noninstitutionalists. My question has become–is reading the Bible for discipleship really that difficult?  See my series on “It Ain’t That Complicated.”

At the same time, Thomas is very concerned that the debate between institutionalists and noninstitutionalists reflects–on both sides–a deficient theology of grace. “Our real problem, and the place where we have become ‘bogged down’,” Thomas writes, “is in our tendencies to Legalism” (p. 119).  And “we should admit that we have all had Legalistic tendencies throughout the whole Brotherhood in tim past” (p. 116).  Hear his plea (239, 241):

The man who has not yet realized what it means that the Christian religion is a non-Legalistic, grace-faith system has not yet been able to be thrilled by its true meaning and beauty…When we truly realize the relatinship of faith and owrks in the Christian system–that we work because of our faith and to complete it, and not because of our relation to the Saviour, we find motivation for working even ‘beyond our power,’ yet with the greatest happiness and joy as children of the Most High God!…Matters such as ‘Love the Lord with all your heart,’ and ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,’ and ‘Christ liveth in me,’ cannot be reduced to little precise legal obligations.  Too many of us have thought of Christianity in too small terms and we have therefore failed to see its majesty and immensity and transcendent grandeur…All of us who have been in the church very long have been guilty of some Legalistic inclinations….none of us are ‘without sin.’ We have all no doubt argued strongly for points that we actually were not able to clearly prove to others. Perhaps there has been a degree of selfishness in the most of us, in being critical of the views of others without the ability to show clearly whereiin we were right. Tolerance, humility and a greater love for the Lord and for each other are in order if we want to solve our problems (and if we want to be saved). We must appreciate the fact that WE do BE BRETHERN, and that the tie that binds us in Christian unity is more important than our opinions.

 J. D. Thomas once told me that he was significantly influenced by the teaching and writing of K. C. Moser and that Moser’s understanding of grace was exactly the same as R. C. Bell, another of Thomas’ heroes in the faith and a primary representative of the Tennessee Tradition.  In fact,  Thomas once recalled that both R. C. Bell and G. C. Brewer were among the few who had a “good comprehension of grace” in mid-20th century Churches of Christ (Firm Foundation, “Law and Grace (2) 100 [23 August 1983] 579). And, I have argued, that it was partly the teaching of R. C. Bell and J. D. Thomas at Abilene Christian University that paved the way for a shift in the Texas Tradition toward a Tennessee (e.g., G. C. Brewer, K. C. Moser, James A. Harding) understanding of grace (see Thomas, The Biblical Doctrine of Grace). This shift, along with the popularity of Moser’s writings, led to “The Man or The Plan” controversy in the early 1960s. [As an aside, Harding College had actually kept this grace tradition alive through the teaching of J. N. Armstrong, Andy Ritchie, F. W. Mattox, and ultimately Jimmy Allen; and Harding College Press actually printed some of Moser's writings in the 1950s.]

My point is that though J. D. Thomas was a good patternist–a defender of patternism and CEI as a sound hermeneutic–he nevertheless preached a healthy theology of grace. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The question to pursue, however, is when does patternism subvert the gospel of grace in such a way that it actually becomes a legalism.  That question belongs to a future post.


Privilege or Silence: Women in Churches of Christ (1897-1907) III

January 23, 2009

In my next post I will turn my attention to “privilege,” but in this one I dig deeper into the argument for silence.

The Tennessee Tradition regarded public silence as godly submission on the part of faithful women. Given the Tennessee understanding that women were inferior to men in terms of leadership capacity and excluded from any ”public” life as outlined in my previous post, it is not surprising to see the New Testament construed in a way that fits that presupposition. When seeking to inductively collect and harmonize the New Testament’s teaching on “woman’s work,” the Tennessee Tradition concluded that the most significant distinction was public versus private. Women “must pray and teach, but not publicly” (Bell, The Way, 1903, 1046).

Priscilla taught Apollos with Aquilla. Phillip’s daughters prophesied. Corinthian women prayed and prophesied. “Women announced the resurrection to the eleven” and the Samaritan woman “proclaimed” Jesus “as the Christ to the people of her city.” “The fact that,” Harding continued, “women in the apostolic age prophesied (spoke by inspiration) makes it clear to my mind that women who know God’s Word now should teach it.” But this “by no means necessarily implies that she taught in the public meetings of the church” (Harding, CLW,1904, 8).

The discerning principle is not whether a woman may teach or not teach, or pray or not pray. Rather, it is the sphere in which she teaches or prays, and the sphere determines the nature of the leadership involved. Her sphere is the home rather than the “great assembly.” Since God created man as “the leader, the ruler,” when a woman “assumes the leadership” through prayer or teaching in the public sphere as she “directs and controls” the “thoughts” of others she then “takes a place for which she was not made” (Harding, CLW, 1904, 8). That sphere belongs to men whereas woman was given “the humbler, better place and more difficult work,” that is, the domestic life (Hawley, The Way, 1903, 810). “Her place,” Poe wrote, “is at home to guide the house [and] rear the children” (Poe, FF, 1901, 2). This principle is rooted in Creation and illustrated by the Fall. Eve “wrecked things when she took the leadership in Eden” (Harding, The Way, 1902, 393).

The home, however, is a place where women may teach and pray, and she may teach even her own husband—“even though he be a very great man”—as well as her children. When, for example, Priscilla studied the Scriptures with Apollos, “no leadership was assumed;” but rather “there was a social home-circle talk about the things of the kingdom of God” (Harding, CLW, 1904, 8). In another place, Harding offers a further characterization of this kind of “home” environment. When there are “private meetings of a social nature, where no organization is thought of, no leaders appointed, a Christian woman may teach” men, women or children and pray with them. “But when the meeting is organized, called to order, and leaders are appointed, those leaders should be men always” (Harding, CLW,1906, 8). Bell—one of Harding’s prize students—summarizes it this way: a woman “can teach anybody anywhere except in cases where publicity is connected with it” (Bell, The Way, 1903, 777).

But may she teach in a “mixed” Bible class on the first day of the week? Is that connected to “publicity;” is it public? Both Bell and Harding believed that a woman may read Scripture (when asked), answer questions (when asked), ask questions, and thereby “teach” in a Bible class on Sunday when to do any of these in the public assembly would be sinful (Harding, The Way, 1902, 393; Bell, The Way, 1903, 777). Consequently, the assembly is “public” in a way that the Bible class is not. The distinction is important for them because “teaching is not denied her.” She may teach in a Bible class through reading, questioning and answering questions. What is forbidden is “publicity or exercising dominion” over men. Consequently, she may answer or ask questions in a Bible class when she does so “in a quiet, submissive way, being in subjection to the public leader” (Bell, The Way, 1903, 777).  

Interestingly and at the same time raising the question of consistency, the Bible class has a “public leader” even though it is not “public” in the same way as the assembly, according to Bell, but when a woman participates in the class she does not engage in “publicity” which presumably means the only “publicity” in a Bible class is located in the “public leader” or appointed teacher. Though a woman may teach other women and children in a Bible class as the lead teacher (Harding, The Way, 1903, 417), she is not permitted to teach men as the “public teacher” because this would involve a public exercise of authority over men. Yet, a woman is able to audibly participate in a class as a student (read, ask questions and answer questions) while she is not permitted to audibly participate at all in the public assembly. It appears that the definition of “publicity” shifted somewhat between the assembly and the Bible class.

Lipscomb and Sewell, however, do not seem to have a problem with a woman teaching a Bible class including men if they teach in a “quiet, modest, womanly way” (Questions Answered, 736).  Sewell gives the example of the Tenth Street Church in Nashville (Questions Answered, 741-2): 

“after singing, the reading of the lession, and prayer, the different classes take their places in different parts of the house, so that each class is entirely to itself as a class, and the lesson is gone over by each class, and the teacher, just as if each class were in a house to itself. Some of these classes are taught by sisters and some by brethren. But the sisters who teach these classes are as private in their work as if they were teaching at home…If churches can find enough competent brethren that will teach all the classes, that is all well; but that is seldom the case; and when that fails and women teach classes, we think that allright also.”

And, of course, “when the hour nears its close, the class work is closed, and at eleven o’clock the church assembles in one body and the regular service begins. In this service not a woman says a word, except in singing” (Questions Answered, 741). Not even a sound, we might say, because 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says women should be silent in the assembly when the whole church is gathered as one body.

But did not women audibly pray and prophesy in the Corinthian assembly? Harding argued that when 1 Corinthians 11 is read as a positive answer to that question it contradicts 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Rather, Harding suggested that 1 Corinthians 11 applies to “any time or place” when women pray or teach (home, class or assembly) but that 1 Corinthians 14 regulates this general instruction with a specific prohibition against speaking in the public assembly. The point of 1 Corinthians 11 is a woman should always, whether in public or private, pray or teach “with her head covered” (Harding, CLW, 1906, 8). Harding, along with many others in the Tennessee Tradition, believed a covered head was a normative obligation for women whenever they prayed or taught (though some, like Lipscomb, thought long hair was a sufficient covering; but if the hair was not long, then the woman needed a further artificial covering–see Questions Answered, p. 706). 1 Corinthians 11 does not subvert 1 Corinthians 14. Instead, 1 Corinthians 14 regulates 1 Corinthians 11. This is confirmed, according to Harding and others who argued similarly, by 1 Timothy 2:8 where the prayer leader—the one who raises “uplifted hands”—is specifically designated as a male (Harding, ”Brother C. D. Moore,” CLW, 1907, 8).

The seriousness of this conclusion should not be underestimated. Paul’s prohibitions in 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14 were understood as “positive” instructions for the assembled, worshiping church. Below are some examples (emphasis mine).

 “The language is plain and positive” (Carr, CLW, 1905, 1).
“Paul’s language—plain and positive as it is…” (Elliott, CL, 1897, 2).
“[T]the Lord positively forbids it” (Hawley, The Way, 1903, 810).
“[S]he will preach in the face of God’s positive command not to do it” (Poe, FF, 1901, 2).
“This decree is like the one in Eden: it is positive” (Sewell, GA, 1897, 432).

This language is overtly legal in nature. The Stone-Campbell Movement inherited the use of “positive” and “moral” descriptions of divine law from their English Reformed (Puritan) heritage. A “positive law”—a specific legal injunction regarding the worship assembly, for example—cannot be disregarded without dire consequences. “When God positively commands,” Harding writes, “we should meekly obey”(emphasis mine; “Brethren Faurott,” CLW, 1907, 8). For example, “positive law” prescribed the five acts of worship and those who add to (e.g., instrumental music) that number sin against God’s law. “Nothing in the Bible is more positively forbidden” than public speaking by women in the church. When women are permitted to speak (teach or pray) in the public assemblies, the positive injunction against such is violated and violaters fall into the same category as Nadab and Abihu (emphasis mine; Sewell, GA, 1897, 692).

Consequently, the consensus among Southern churches—in both Texas and Tennessee as represented by respected editors—was that this was a line in the sand just like instrumental music or baptism itself. “That women are not allowed to make speeches in the meetings of the churches,” Harding noted, “is just as plainly and strongly taught as that believers are to be baptized” (Harding, “Was Paul Mistaken,” 1907, 8). When congregations permit women to “lead the prayers, to speak and to exhort in the meetings of the church,” Harding did not believe “God’s law was ever more flagrantly violated than…at this point” (Harding, “Brethren Faurott,” 1907, 8). These differences were just cause for separation and distinction, that is, division.

My next post will articulate a different perspective–the “privilege” of women to publicly lead prayers, read Scripture and exhort the assembly. The defense of that “privilege” comes from a rather unexpected source(s) within Churches of Christ at the turn of the century.

More to come….

References: 

R. C. Bell, “Woman’s Work,” The Way 5 (3 December 1903) 1046.

O. A. Carr, “Woman’s Work in the Church, What She Should Do in Public Worship. No. 3,” Christian Leader & the Way 19 (30 May 1905) 1.

J. Perry Elliott, “Queries,” Christian Leader 11 (5 January 1897) 2.

Harding, “Brethren Faurott, Sands and the Woman Question,” Christian Leader & the Way 21 (17  December 1907) 8.

Harding, “Bro. C. D. Moore, Sister Chloe’s Letter and the Woman Question,” Christian Leader & the Way 21 (29 October 1907) 8.

James A. Harding, “Questions and Answers,” The Way 4 (5 March 1903) 417.

James A. Harding, “Scraps,” The Way 3 (20 March 1902) 393.

James A. Harding, “Was Paul Mistaken, Or Did He Lie About It, or Are I Cor. 14:33-35 and I Tim. 2:8-13 Both True?” Christian Leader & the Way 21 (26 November 1907) 8.

James A. Harding, “Where and How Shall Women Speak and Pray?” Christian Leader & the Way 20 (31 July 1906) 8.

James A. Harding, “Woman’s Work in the Church,” Christian Leader & the Way 18 (8 March 1904) 8.

Henry H. Hawley, “Woman and Her Work,” The Way 5 (20 August 1903), 810.

John T. Poe, “Female Evangelists,” Firm Foundation 16 (29 January 1901) 2.

Elisha G. Sewell, “What May Women Do in the Church?” Gospel Advocate 39 (4 November 1897) 692.


Privilege or Silence: Women in Churches of Christ (1897-1907) II

January 21, 2009

My previous post provided the common ground upon which Churches of Christ distinguished themselves from the “digressives” in the first decade of the 20th century regarding “women’s work in the church.” The editors of the major journals among Churches of Christ were agreed that (1) women are not permitted to preach the word publicly (as evangelists in the field or speakers in the assembly), (2) women are not permitted to exercise ruling authority over the church as elders or bishops, and (3) women should avoid participation in the various societies associated with the progressives.

Some, primarily those associated with the Tennessee Tradition (e.g., David Lipscomb and James A. Harding), grounded their conclusions in a broad understanding of the role of women in society. They believed that women were forbidden any kind of public leadership whether in the home, church or society. Consequently, not only should they not speak publicly in the worshipping assembly, they should not speak publicly anywhere.  Not only should they not function as elders in the church, they should not become business leaders, presidents, or school teachers. Some, like R. C. Bell, believed that they should not even publish in the papers. After all, “if it is a shame for a woman to be a public speaker, why is it not a shame for her to be a public writer?” (Bell, The Way, 1903, 777). Consequently, they should not lead in church or society; they should not lead, for example, temperance societies or become involved in any kind of social activism in a leadership capacity.

Elisha G. Sewell, co-editor of the Gospel Advocate, argued this point in several 1897 articles. Based on Genesis 3:16, Sewell believed that (GA, 1897, 432):

From the time that sin entered into the world, and entered through woman, she has been placed in a retiring, dependent, and quiet position, and never has been put forward as a leader among men in any public capacity from the garden of Eden till now…This seems to have been a general decree for all time, for God has never varied from it an any age or dispensation….’Thy desire shall be to thy husband,’ is indicative of dependence—not in any slavish sense, but in the sense that she is to look to man as a leader and protector, and, in certain measure, supporter and provider….God himself never changed this decree, and does not allow man to change it.

The woman’s sphere of influence is the home, not public life. This is where she finds her purity and peace rather than engaging in the “busy cares of life” (Sewell, GA, 1897, 461).

While editors Lipscomb, Sewell and Harding all shared this perspective, probably the clearest case was made by R. C. Bell who studied at the Nashville Bible School and taught with Harding at Potter Bible College.  He suggested that women are superior to men in emotion but inferior in will while equal in intellect.  These differences reflect the function God has given to males and females.  Excelling in emotion, woman is tailored for home life but lacking in “will power” she “is not fitted for public life” since “she lacks, by nature, the will power to combat successfully against the cruel, relentless business world.”  The fact that woman was created from man’s side indicates that “she is to walk through life by man’s side as his helpmeet and companion, sheltered and protected from the world, and the rough, degrading contact of public life, by his strong, overshadowing arm.”  Bell’s conclusion then is that (The Way, 1903, 776):

woman is not permitted to exercise dominion over man in any calling of life. When a woman gets her diploma to practice medicine, every Bible student knows that she is violating God’s holy law. When a woman secures a license to practice law, she is guilty of the same offense. When a woman mounts the lecture platform or steps into the pulpit or the public school room, she is disobeying God’s law and disobeying the promptings of her inner nature. When God gives his reason for woman’s subjection and quietness, he covers the whole ground and forbids her to work in any public capacity…She is not fitted to do anything publicly….Every public woman—lawyer, doctor, lecturer, preacher, teacher, clerk, sales girl and all—would then step from their post of public work into their father’s or husband’s home, where most of them prefer to be, and where God puts them….You are now no longer a public slave, but a companion and home-maker for man; you are now in the only place where your womanly influence has full play and power

These are strong words and they are so distant from our contemporary context that we might cringe or at least blush reading them.  But one may admire the consistency, I suppose. If God created woman to serve under man’s protecting arm and God determined that man should rule over the woman as a result of the Fall, then this would apply not only to home and church, but also to society.  “That man should rule is the ordinance of God that grows out of the natures of man and woman. “God put in him the ruling qualities,” according to James A. Harding. While women are “very much superior to men” in many ways, “her superiority is not in leadership” (CLW, 1904, 9). Woman was designed for domesticity and reigns as queen in the home as a symbol of purity and love. “Woman may be queen, but she can never be king” and if she “seek and gain public place and power, then all is lost” (Hawley, The Way, 1903, 810).

This view was not only pushed by particular men but was also endorsed by some women. Effie S. Black, for example, scolded women who worked outside the home because “every woman who follows a profession or engages in a business makes it more difficult for some man to  provide the necessities for an invalid wife, an aged mother, helpless children, or whoever may be dependent upon him.”  Wives, of course, should work but in the home “for something better than gold,” that is, “better homes, nobler manhood and womanhood, higher ideals, purer thoughts, holier living, and all that can make our country–yes, and the whole world–better for having lived” (The Way, 1903,  397). 

Interestingly, this approach to the relationship of women to society and the church ran parallel with a strong cultural movement in the United States, particularly in New England and the South. It was called the “Cult of True Womanhood” or the “Cult of Domesticity.” This movement idealized women as the true embodiment of “piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity.” Such idealization excluded women from public life but honored their influence in the home (See, for example, Smith, CLW,  1906, 2-3). This perspective was pervasive until the “New Woman” movement appeared in the late 19th century pressing for the vote and a larger role in public life.

The clash of cultural movements is reflected, for example, by John T. Poe (a native Tennessean who moved to Texas) when he noted that “since woman took her hand from the cradle and grabbed at the ballot box a few years ago, her course has been away from her God given path and mission into paths of her own blazing out, and as a consequence the world is growing worse.”  Poe insisted that “God made women as helpmeets for man. Her place is at home” and not in public speaking. “If God had intended for women” for public speaking, “He would have given them a voice adapted to public speaking.” As it is now, her “squeaky voice, weak lungs and generally weak mental ability” disqualify her (FF, 1901, 2).

Cultures were in conflict.   The editors of the Tennessee Tradition had grown up and ministered in the cultural atmosphere of “True Womanhood.” But now a new cultural movement was rising which would lead to female suffrage, political leaders, and business women.  This cultural shift was terra incognita, and the Tennessee Tradition was wholly opposed to it.

But that was not true of everyone within Churches of Christ at the turn of the 20th century.

More to come…..

 
References

R. C. Bell, “Woman’s Work,” The Way 5 (6 August 1903) 775-777.

Effie S. Black, “Whould Wives Work?” The Way 4 (19 February 1903) 397.

James A. Harding, “Woman’s Work in the Church,” Christian Leader & the Way 18 (8 March 1904) 8-9.

Henry Hawley, “Woman and Her Work,” The Way 5 (20 August 1903)  810.

John T. Poe, “Female Evangelists,” Firm Foundation 16 (29 January 1901) 2.

Elisha G. Sewell, “What is Woman’s Work in the Church (Again)?” Gospel Advocate 39 (22 July 1897) 432.

Elisha G. Sewell, “Woman’s Real Position in the Church,” Gospel Advocate 39 (29 July 1897) 469.

F. W. Smith, “The Glory of  True Womanhood: A Sermon Delivered by F. W. Smith to Graduates of the Horse Cave High School,” Christian Leader & the Way 20 (1 May 1906) 2-3.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 942 other followers

%d bloggers like this: