The Immutable Kingdom – Appendix V

By Scott A. Klaft

A Never Ending Restoration

The names of the preachers of influence would change. The names of the schools of influence would change. The locations of sound, faithful, and strong congregations would change, but some things never change. Missions were sent over seas. Orphan homes were initiated, and sustained, with the benevolence of individuals within congregations. Debates were held both publicly, and in writing, sometimes within the church, as well as with the sects. World Wars were fought and won. The growth and regression of the church moved like the tide, but some things never change.

The principles upon which the churches of Christ began do not originate with the Campbell’s in the 1800’s, neither with Zwingli, Luther, or any other in earlier centuries. To assign some origin to a “church” other than that found in scripture is to denominate it as something other than the one belonging to Christ.

When any group of people, be they scholars, leaders, or individuals, come to a consensus that they will only do what the Bible specifically teaches, they have resigned themselves to principles that have their origin in the first century, and that of divine inspiration. Thus, if they have returned to the truth in theory, and their practices are conforming thereto, then they can be no other thing than that which the Bible calls them, a church of Christ.

It is admitted the human practice of true New Testament Christianity will inevitably fall short of Divine perfection as designed by the Almighty Creator. It is, nonetheless, the acknowledgement of the Bible as the only source of Divine knowledge, and the only reliable guide for faith and practice, which allows us to return to the approved pattern as God would have it.

Yet, how have we set our minds? The fact that independent thinkers with powerful minds were able to bring true churches of Christ back to prevalence in recorded history does not mean that we cannot drift once again. Have we not learned from the cyclical repetitions of liberty, sin, consequence, bondage, and repentance in the Old Testament as well as in our own history? How do we miss the fact that every one of us must be a Restorer?

Restoration of the church begins with me, and it begins with you. The church today, if it is to remain, must be first restored within us, and then we must train our young ones to restore it when it is their turn. The Restoration never ends.

The Restoration never ends because restoration is the whole essence of Christianity. The Lord came to the earth to restore man to his former place of favor with God. No honest heart who reads of Jesus Christ and His words can ignore the fact that He continually called men to return to the truth as it is taught in the scripture. It is love for truth and a willing return to it that enables a man’s faith that he may be restored to God’s favor; but, how many of us have that passion?

Lament not, dear brother or dear sister. The churches of Christ cannot be taken away; neither can they be destroyed, except by their own will to have it so. The glory of our Lord’s Body, the church, can never be diminished. Men may walk away from God, but the truth shall remain immutable, and immobile; and, all we have to do is return back to The Book that expresses those grand precepts to man. The mind of God expressed in the Word, and revealed in the flesh of Jesus Christ, has been restored to its original glory, there upon His throne. Trust in Him, and we shall never go wrong, we shall never be diminished.

Ultimately, as a society, the United States of America may only have been the mechanism by which God restored the true church into prominence. It is not impossible that the national privileges we now enjoy could be taken away so that our spiritual blessings may be better appreciated, but who can know such things? My prayer to God is that the church in every place will have whatever it needs to cast the light of God’s love, and to bring every thought into obedience of the gospel. Petition God for His blessings upon this country we love; but, always let be with the acquiescence of “Lord, thy will be done, and not mine”. Any struggles that come shall work out for good to God’s children, and for further opportunities of men to come to Him, just as history has shown us.

This concludes the series of The Immutable Kingdom.

Strive Excelsior!

The Immutable Kingdom – Appendix IV

By Scott A. Klaft

Educational Facilities

As the veterans of the Restoration plea began to fade into history, there were a great number of men who intended to refresh the troop numbers. The church grew in strength and influence as the numbers of churches in any given area multiplied. Soon there was need for men to fill their pulpits. Missionary work had begun by men like John Moody McCaleb, making it abundantly clear the world needed more men to preach. As there were many schools already formed by the sects, the brethren understood the danger of allowing the young, future leaders to be influenced by their philosophies. The brethren realized a very conspicuous need for schools wherein the truth could be taught with free flowing clarity.

There had already been several schools established by men such as Alexander Campbell with Bethany College, Robert Milligan with Kentucky University, and even the school in Nashville headed by David Lipscomb. For the most part, however, these schools could either not accommodate for the need, or the young people could not travel the distance. More schools were needed, and the brethren stepped up with the funds to create them. Jesse P. Sewell was instrumental in this regard.

Since new schools were springing up in many places, the old debate over the missionary society renewed once again. It seems that no matter how old some issues become, there are always means of resurrecting them. Many highly respected and influential preachers such as J. D. Tant saw these schools as a usurpation of the work given for the church to accomplish; and, therefore, these schools were a type of sect. Meanwhile, other spiritual and intellectual giants such as R. L. Whiteside observed, “Some brethren oppose the Christian Colleges because the Bible is taught in them; the devil opposed them for the same reason.”

Time pushed on, and the curriculum of the schools expanded to teaching in all areas in academia. The Nashville Bible School led the way, striding forward in this new century. It was particularly well supported by the brotherhood and fund-raising preachers due to the tremendous influence of the Gospel Advocate periodical. There were, of course, ebbs and flows in the beginning; but, by the time David Lipscomb passed on to his reward, the school was well established, and the Board of Trustees decided to honor the man by renaming the school after him (despite Lipscomb’s previous refusal to do so while still alive to object).

Abilene Christian College began in Middle Tennessee, but moved to West Texas to accommodate the need in 1906. R. L. Whiteside joined the faculty in 1908. Had it not been for the work of Jesse P. Sewell, it was likely that many of the schools being established might have collapsed for lack of funds.

A. G. Freed left another school in Denton, Texas to join his former student, Nicholas Brodie Hardeman in establishing a school in Henderson, Tennessee. Attempting to buy the old, emptied Georgia Roberson Christian College building, they were refused by the seller. They determined then to open across the street. The National Teacher’s Normal & Business College, after the generosity of J. A. McAlister of Milan, TN, finally opened the doors in the fall of 1908 with more than four hundred enrolled, and one hundred of them in Hardeman’s Bible classes. In 1914, the well beloved and venerated seventy-one year old T. B. Larimore came to the school to spend the rest of his days as the head of the Bible department and preacher for the church in Henderson, resulting in considerable attention being drawn to the school.

Many other schools and missions began in the early years of the 1900’s. The Western Bible & Literary College in Arkansas; Cordell Christian College in Oklahoma; Lockney College and Bible School in Texas, Gunter Biblical & Literary College in Fort Worth; Alabama Christian College; Thorp Spring Christian College, and many others, were established throughout the United States. Some survived. Some with new names; others did not survive at all.

(Next Week: The Conclusion of the Series)

The Immutable Kingdom – Appendix III

By Scott A. Klaft

(Other Great Men continued)

E. A. Elam

After hearing Tolbert Fanning preach, his father obeyed the gospel when E. A. Elam was but a child. His mother brought him up in a loving Christian home; and, when the time was right, sent him to Franklin College in Kentucky. There, the young man learned to be an independent thinker, yet making certain to write a weekly letter to his mother. The arrangement for his four school years was to attend classes as a student in the fall, and then to teach in the spring, after which he entered Burritt College. T. B. Larimore sent the invitation to join him at Mars Hill at the graduation.

At the end of the school year in 1880, Elam moved to Lebanon, Tennessee where he met and converted his deeply beloved future wife, Mary Thompson. As his ability to preach improved, the demand for his services expanded. The success of a preacher is impossible to measure or quantify by numbers, but just a portion of his influence may be recognized in that, by 1899, he had baptized more than fifteen hundred people. By the time of his death in 1929, it is said that he baptized more than any other did in the state of Tennessee; which, for that time period, is significant indeed.

L. S. White

Indefatigable and affable, L. S. White was widely acclaimed as one of the most successful preachers of the early twentieth century. Moving to Gallatin, Tennessee in 1898 for the ease of educating his children as well as the proximity to the railroad, he set the bar a bit higher for the other local preachers.

When White’s reputation as a preacher and debater spread across the country, an invitation for an extended meeting came from a congregation in Sherman, Texas that resulted in eighty-six conversions. Soon his relative celebrity spread there, and Dallas would be the next benefactor of his skills. As a result of the debates, and protracted tent-meetings in addition to his regular work, the church had unprecedented growth. Even some of the most effective preachers of the time marveled at White’s skill, knowledge, clarity, and uncompromising loyalty to the truth.

White’s work took him all over Texas and Tennessee. He was so well known that in many cases, the buildings in which he preached overflowed, and on occasion, literally hundreds had to be turned away for lack of space.

Despite early health disturbances, White lived to be over eighty years old. After World War I, his travels slowed greatly, and he worked mainly with local congregations. In 1945, his labors were restricted by suffering a stroke. After attending a lectureship in early 1949, White returned to his home in Fort Worth where he went on to his reward the following Lord’s Day at the age of eighty-one.

Foy E. Wallace

Becoming familiar with hardship early in life on the Texas frontier, Foy E. Wallace was born into a family who loved the church enough to make sure the community to which they moved was strong and sound in the faith. He obeyed the gospel at the age of thirteen and married his wife at eighteen. Friends noticed his godliness and suggested that he present the first sermon in the newly built church house, thus beginning his life of preaching in March of 1893. He was continually given to preaching thereafter. His forthrightness earned him the respect of many of his peers. It was said that whenever one was in his presence, they were constantly aware of being in the presence of a spiritual giant.

Wallace had two sons who, themselves, became well known and influential preachers, Cleddie and Foy Jr. Foy Jr. was particularly impressive; and, from his youth, the brotherhood highly publicized his skill. In each of their cases, not everyone would agree with everything they said, but both were widely loved and respected. By the end of the Great War, Wallace was not yet fifty years old. He evangelized Texas through World War II, until finally passing in 1949.

(Next Week: Educational Facilities)

(Click the picture, and see the video from which this was taken.)

The Immutable Kingdom – Appendix II

By Scott A. Klaft

(More Great Men of Century’s Turn)

F. D. Srygley

While David Lipscomb’s articles in the Gospel Advocate provoked deep thought and E. G. Sewell’s were flowing and elegant, the front-page editor, F. D. Srygley’s words lent a light-heartedness that earned him the moniker, “the Mark Twain of the reformation.” His ability to combine reverence with humor added greatly to the paper’s influence and circulation.

The relationship between Srygley and T. B. Larimore was deep and abiding from the day they met. Srygley, still in his early teens, stood outside the meetinghouse where a congregation of seven members were about to assemble. Larimore’s reflection thirty years later was that he was likely waiting to see the preacher as he passed by, probably never hoping to be any closer to him than he was that day. Instead, Larimore grasped the young man’s hand, put his arm around his small shoulders, and lead him into the building. There were never closer friends from that moment to the day of Srygley’s untimely death of heart disease in 1900.

During his forty-four years of life, he wrote for several papers, battled extremists on both sides of controversies, and was heavily involved with evangelism. The majority of his time in preaching was spent in the less fortunate and impoverished areas with the explanation that the larger, wealthier congregations can secure the best preachers adding that Jesus spent His time among the poorer people while on the earth. His illness was kept secret, but upon receiving news of his passing, there were many a heavy heart, and as many sent prayer to God for more men of his making.

James A. Harding

Although the work of the church was barely functioning through the paralysis of the Civil War, Moses E. Lard went to Winchester, Kentucky to help a preacher carry on a Gospel Meeting. That preacher was J. W. Harding, whose eldest son, in the course of the meeting, being only thirteen at the time, came forward to be baptized.

Having watched his father hold Gospel Meetings in which it was not unusual to baptize from fifty to one hundred before its end, James A. Harding was thoroughly impressed and had determined to be a preacher at a young age. He paid his way through college by teaching on the side, entering Bethany College only a few short months after the death of Alexander Campbell in 1866. Finishing in the spring of 1869 and returning to Kentucky to teach school, he preached only on occasion after a popular local preacher gave him a push. It was while recuperating from malaria in 1874 that an elderly brother came and spoke harshly to him, berating him for not preaching protracted meetings with all of his training and talents.

By 1882, Harding’s name had risen to prominence and Lipscomb made him a corresponding editor for the Gospel Advocate. His quick mind and speaking skills made him quite adept at evangelism as well as dealing with controversy and debate. He was quite pleased to be involved with several schools and colleges, particularly the Nashville Bible School established with the help of David Lipscomb in 1891. After the school’s tenth session, they wondered how they could house all of the students who had desired enrollment for the next session.

In Bowling Green, Kentucky, a couple had dedicated a potion of their farm to start the Potter’s Bible School, which would support itself by the one hundred forty acre farm’s profits. The Potter’s wanted to memorialize their son who had died without children and proposed this plan to Harding: that they would build the school if he would structure the faculty. Lipscomb, never intending to monopolize the education of youths, gave his approval by stating his desire that schools would be built everywhere. This school eventually failed, but Harding was buried in Bowling Green, KY in 1922 with his advocation for education felt throughout the brotherhood.

(Next Week: Other Great Men continued)

The Immutable Kingdom – Appendix I

By Scott A. Klaft

Other Great Shoulders Upon Which We Stand

To end an account of the institution of the church, the falling away, the Reformation, and Restoration movements prior to the turn of the century would be to do it a great injustice. The aim of these articles, however, has been to present to the reader with the principles upon which the church must be maintained; that, I believe, has been done. Nevertheless, there have been many other great men in the past one hundred years who have exemplified the restoration spirit, many who have lead the way through spiritual battles with eloquence and charisma. These warriors of the modern age deserve at least an honorable mention for their contribution to the advancement of the Lord’s Kingdom in the world. Unfortunately, it is likely that many who deserve an extensive biography may be missed. For this, an apology is given in advance that no injury is intended.

E. G. Sewell

The Sewell family was wholly given to the Baptist Church, but the eldest brother, William, married a woman who was a member of the church of Christ. In deference to his wife’s wishes, he attended worship with her and eventually came to see the truth, which, through a great deal of trouble, influenced the rest of the family. Several of his younger brothers would become preachers.

From early on, Elisha G. Sewell and David Lipscomb had been friends. They had frequent opportunities to renew their friendship as Sewell studied in Franklin College under David’s older brother, William. It was in 1870, when Lipscomb needed help editing the Gospel Advocate that the two combined their efforts; and, before long, one name was not mentioned without the other coming to mind. It was said that their friendship was likened unto Jonathan and David of the Old Testament.

While Sewell made no effort to please men and lacked any pretense, he was a more prominent man than he probably knew. He was known for his generous hospitality, and visiting preachers often found themselves staying at the Sewell home. F. B. Srygley came to hold a Tent Meeting in 1891. Still being a young man of appetite, he did not appreciate the general rule of thumb that one should only eat lightly before preaching. To his delight, he received advice from Sewell: “I always eat the same amount whether I preach or whether I listen to someone else preach.”

An extensive life of writing, preaching, and teaching came to an end on a Sunday, March 2, 1924, in the early morning hours. At the age of ninety-four, E.G. Sewell left an indelible influence of godliness and light in the world.

T. B. Larimore

Born in east Tennessee in 1843, Theophilus Brown Larimore graduated from Mossy Creek College at the age of twenty as one of their best students ever. He had a short tour in the Confederate army as a scout, but, after being captured and released upon an oath not to fight against the Union armies, he arrived in Hopkinsville, Kentucky to preach the gospel. (It is notable that his influence, while captured, carried over after the war in that he eventually baptized one of his former jailors.)

While preaching, teaching, and working as a logger, he trained at Franklin College under Tolbert Fanning, eventually graduating as valedictorian of his class, in 1867. He and his wife established a very successful school at Mars Hill, near Florence Alabama, from which many faithful gospel preachers graduated. After seventeen years with the school, the demand for his evangelistic ability was such that he devoted himself to it full-time, traveling from Maine to Mexico, and from the Carolinas to California, preaching twice a day and three times every Sunday. His preaching efforts continued until 1929 when his health prevented him from traveling. He passed from this life March 18, 1929.

(Next Week: Appendix II, More Great Men of Century’s Turn)

The Immutable Kingdom – Part 88

By Scott A. Klaft

Isaac Errett & Controversies …continued

Very soon after Errett produced the “Synopsis,” several voices of opposition were heard; but, the strongest came from Moses E. Lard when he reprinted it in “Lard’s Quarterly” of September 1863, pages 95 through 100. There, Lard wrote:

“There is not a sound man in our ranks who has seen the preceding “Synopsis” that has not felt scandalized by it. I wish we possessed one decent apology for its appearance. It is a deep offense against the brotherhood – an offense tossed into the teeth of a people, who, for forty years, have been working against the divisive and evil tendency of creeds.”[1]

The time Errett spent in Detroit was like a “coming out party” concerning his sheep-disguise. It was looked upon as an undeniable departure from New Testament principles, especially when he shocked the brotherhood by securing a nameplate over his office door engraved with the words, “Rev. I. Errett”. Bristling from his perception of the attitude of his opponents, Errett established the Christian Standard, a publication in which his true potential for divisiveness was realized. The most popular brotherhood publications at the time were the American Christian Review, edited by Ben Franklin, and the Gospel Advocate, edited by David Lipscomb, whom the writers in Errett’s paper labeled, “unlovely and “earth-born spirits” as well as  “cold”, and “legalistic”. They accused Franklin of being “narrow” and “bigoted”, fearing that his influence would hinder the Restoration Movement from following a more “liberal” and “progressive” path.

Among the many issues from which the Errett-group differed from the so-called “earth-born spirits” was that of participation in the Civil War. Franklin refused to allow even a discussion of such issues in the Review, which greatly offended Errett long before moving to Detroit. Now, Errett had his own means of promoting his war-driven designs.

Debating the issues of the day is certainly appropriate for a subject of discussion, but, apparently, civility toward dissenters was not within the scope of wartime agendas. Errett’s group was self-described as “wiser, sweeter and better” than their opponents. David Lipscomb once preached a sermon against Christians participating in war and at the conclusion, a man announced that if he could get a dozen men to help, they would give him “a long drop from a short rope.” Lipscomb had a difficult time believing their self-description as “wiser, sweeter, and better.”

There were many matters over which the Standard, in the hands of Errett and his supporters, would dissent with men such as Lipscomb, Franklin, Fanning, Lard, Larimore, Kurfees, Fall, Sewell, Harding, Brents, and hundreds of others. Errett’s group, however, greatly underestimated Benjamin Franklin’s influence and popularity among the brotherhood. They inevitably had difficulty in paying their own expenses, despite the claim that “everybody was calling for” the Standard. Nevertheless, their influence did take a life of its own.

The controversies of those days were over things such as special “societies,” instrumental additions to the singing in worship, and all such grounds upon which battle is still held to this day. Many volumes have been written upon these issues and the arguments many have been reworded, but they shall always remain, in essence, the same. All issues continually revolve around the subject of authority and how to ascertain it.

In the first century, authority was given for what is to be done in Christian faith and practice; but in just a very short time, men abandoned that system for one of human origin. The farther men took that liberty, the deeper into apostasy they went. It was many years before men of ability began to make the long, uphill trek back to biblical truth, but without complete unanimous devotion to that cause, there only arose more divisions and sects. Finally, God saw fit to arrange a time to restore that, which went astray; but soon, some of those so blessed, again abandoned the divine system. The story, however, is not all told, nor is the day over.

(Next Week: Other Great Shoulders Upon Which We Stand)

By Scott A. Klaft

Isaac Errett & Controversies

For many years after the Civil War, David Lipscomb was of feeble health. Upon hearing that a physician in Cleveland, Ohio had a potential cure for his ailment, he was determined to go. (After which, he thought it had helped him, at least temporarily, but he returned to fits of pain and hemorrhaging that would last until he was past the age of fifty). On his way to Cleveland for the hope of this “water cure,” he stopped often to visit with brethren, listen to many preachers, and spoke directly with a man who came to some renown, the editor of The Christian Standard, Isaac Errett.

While the two men stood on very different ground, they respected one another as gentlemen. Errett once wrote approving of Lipscomb’s frankness by saying, “…we always know where to find him; and if we must have controversy, we prefer to deal with an open and honorable disputant.” The controversies in which Lipscomb was involved greatly filled the post-war period of the Restoration.

It is particularly difficult to get an objective estimate of the influence of Isaac Errett from historians after the war. There is the viewpoint that he was the one man who “saved the Restoration Movement” from becoming a divisive “sect of jangling legalists”; and that he was the “epitome of spirituality and generosity.” Others regard his work as the subtlety of Satan, beginning a continuous wave of digression in a once unified people, thus causing division.

While Errett may or may not have developed an hostility for authoritarian notions from the strictness of his step-father, to try to discern a person’s motives is to stand on shaky ground. He had a thorough religious background from the efforts of his mother. He began his religious personal work as a writer while working for a printing business, and his natural skill and powerful elegance with words drew some attention locally. After accepting a teaching position in a school, he began to develop as a preacher of great enthusiasm, for which he received significant amounts of praise from the older members of the church. He was soon officially “set apart” as an evangelist, according to the custom of the time; and, in 1840, he resigned his teaching position for full-time preaching work with a new congregation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Here he met the woman who would eventually become his wife a year later.

Unfortunately, during this period, the church was generally apathetic about appropriately supporting their preachers. Errett began to seek a better means of supporting his family. In 1844, he moved to the Western Reserve where the eloquence of Walter Scott once enflamed the love of the truth in the church. While in the city of Warren, Ohio, Errett’s name came to be more frequently spoken and more prominently known in the brotherhood. Once again, however, the lack of support became an issue.

A church in Detroit, Michigan had undergone a split, seemingly without animosity, but certainly due to differences in respect for biblical authority. The group that stayed was as strong in the faith as any could expect, and their preacher, Alexander Linn was one of the future leaders against the digression of Christians living in Detroit. Led by his brother-in-law and another man, the group that left to start another congregation was very much given to taking liberty where the Bible did not authorize. It was this new congregation that offered employment to Errett as their preacher. The building they purchased was “dedicated” by W. K. Pendleton on January 11, 1863.

It was here that Errett’s new attitude appeared, particularly during and after the Civil War. Upon taking up this new work, he published a pamphlet entitled “A Synopsis of the Faith And Practice of The Church of Christ”. He enumerated ten articles of faith and practice with additional by-laws, regulations, and the order of business for the church. Naturally, the faithful brethren accurately recognized this “synopsis” as a creed, and vehement objections came from every quarter.

(To Be Continued Next Week)

By Scott A. Klaft

David Lipscomb continued…

As the spark that kindled the fires of war came in 1861, David Lipscomb had already determined for himself to have no part in it. He still owned his farm on the edge of Nashville, but was now preaching regularly. He spoke often against the war in general, never taking the southern or northern political side. He was, therefore, attacked by partisans of both sides, but Lipscomb was never dissuaded from the rightness of his position. He wrote letters to the political leaders, trying, with every ounce of strength, to persuade them from the great evil which inevitably came in the war. Through the course of the war, Lipscomb separated himself as much as possible, taking care of his farming and preaching the gospel at every opportunity.

In the disastrous wake of the war, he determined to do what he could to reunite the brotherhood that was obviously splintered and crestfallen in every sector. One of the most useful instruments to accomplish this daunting task was in giving rebirth to the Gospel Advocate. The editorship, however, would pose the first difficulty. Tolbert Fanning could no longer handle the work alone, and Lipscomb did not consider himself competent for the task. He was comparatively unknown in the brotherhood as a preacher, and he had done almost no writing.

In the fall of 1864, he made a trip to Lexington, Kentucky in the hope of securing a qualified man for the position. J.W. McGarvey had recommended a man and urged him to move to Nashville to do the work. The man, to this day, remains unknown. McGarvey also promised to write for the Advocate, but his words never found their way to print in the paper. One may only suppose the reason, but in all likelihood it was the Advocate’s opposition to Missionary Societies. McGarvey was a stringent supporter of them.

As a result of the war, brethren in the North and South were filled with indignation, and in many cases, nothing less than hatred. Lipscomb and Fanning desired to give all the benefit of the doubt, but both came to the conviction that those who had contributed to the war had abandoned God and left the righteousness of the Bible. To put the sufferings of the past behind them, however, they desired to return to the true course for the future, and renew the building of the church by substantive efforts and love of truth. Therefore, the reinstitution of the Gospel Advocate in 1866 directly appealed to a general sense of connection and association between the brethren of the North and in the South. As should be expected, the efforts were not always met with the embrace for which they had hoped.

While both Lipscomb and Fanning made a purposeful effort to not appear “regional”, accusations were made frequently that the Advocate took up the southern polemic. Perhaps they both held a deeply felt sympathy for the southern people, but reunion was their aim, not division. Unfortunately, the northern folk saw Lipscomb’s essays on civil government as taking a “poor looser” mentality. Thus, the popularity of the Advocate grew in the South, while it held little influence in the North.

The significance of this would be seen in due course. The Advocate pointedly opposed the introduction of the mechanical instrument in worship as well as the Missionary Societies. As a result, the churches of Christ in the South, for the most part, stayed true to its biblical principles. In the North, however, where the Advocate was rarely read, but was being influenced by another periodical, the Christian Standard, the greater majority of the churches swiftly accepted many new innovations. Fanning and Lipscomb’s lofty and noble goals of reunion had been used as an occasion for widening the division and solidifying the alienation among the brotherhood.

The Advocate endured similar difficulties that were typical of the age for other publications. Some went out of their way to attack, some went out of their way to support; but, endure it did, as did David Lipscomb himself.

(Next week: Isaac Errett & Controversies)

By Scott A. Klaft

David Lipscomb continued…

The young David Lipscomb attended a Bible School class taught by his father and had the benefit of observing his father’s devotion and dedication to God, the truth, and the church. His father gathered the family together every night to read the Bible, and they sat with rapt attention to the comments he would make.

One of their neighbors happened to be a Baptist preacher; and, although David’s father held him in high regard, he had no patience for his doctrine. At an age of about five, however, young David had no ability to discern the nuanced difference between what his father said was “false doctrine” and flat-out falsehoods. One day, the little lad came across their neighbor, and directly informed him that, according to his father, he was “such a liar.” While this is a cute and amusing childhood story, thus begins the character of David Lipscomb, fearlessly stating what he believed to be true without regard for the reprisals of men.

At the age of thirteen, he and his brother William went to spend a year with their grandfather in Virginia, who was a devout Baptist, who regularly took them to Sunday school. During this time, David memorized the four gospel accounts and the book of Acts. He regularly debated with his grandfather that baptism was indeed for the remission of sin, and he refused to join with the other young people in their march to the “mourner’s bench.”

In 1845, now at the age of fourteen and back home in his father’s house, David was recovering from typhoid fever. Without consulting anyone concerning his decision, David called for Tolbert Fanning, who had recently opened Franklin College and preaching throughout the county. With the briefest of discussion, a large box was filled full of water and Fanning baptized David. In January of the next year, David enrolled in Franklin College; three years later, he delivered the valedictory address at graduation. It was natural that these two audaciously independent minds would be drawn to one another; and, under the constant tutelage of Fanning, Lipscomb became, in many ways, his protégé. Doubtlessly, Lipscomb’s fearlessness to stand alone in future intellectual battles was due, at least in part, to Fanning’s influences.

While in school, Lipscomb was obviously above average, but his grades reflected that he was not at the top of his class. He was often graded low in the area of “manners,” which is particularly interesting in connection with his recollection of a “whipping” he once received for stealing a kiss from what he called a “cherry-lipped Baptist lass.”

A few years out from graduating college, he was well on his way to becoming a very successful farm owner, like his father. Also like his father, he spent considerable time in devotion to the Christian life and studying the scriptures. To this point, he had given no thought to becoming a preacher. He rightly asserted that every Christian was duty-bound to dedicate himself to the service of God in whatever way he could. He was naturally timid and thought of himself as merely a farmer doing what he could to help when the church needed someone to deliver a message.

Lipscomb was always involved in the work of the church, but his first sermons were just scant years before the Civil War. For his first, he had thoroughly prepared his thoughts on a passage, but when he stood, everything he had planned to say escaped him. He read through his text, hoping to remember, but when nothing came back to him, he quickly sat back down. The preacher who had encouraged him stood; but, he had been caught by such surprise, he also got confused, and the meeting ended with great embarrassment to them both.

Later, the older man spoke to him privately as they rode their horses side by side. “Brother David, I hope you will not let this discourage you.”

To which he replied, “Well, Brother Stroud, I will not be discouraged if I can help it; but I confess that it is enough to discourage a young man to see a man who has been preaching fifty years make such a failure as you made today.”

(Continued Next Week)