No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2018
The origins of the American-born Churches of Christ are exceedingly complex. While most historians have argued that Churches of Christ separated from Alexander Campbell's Disciples of Christ late in the nineteenth Century, this essay will suggest that the genesis of Churches of Christ was not a matter of Separation from the Disciples at all. Rather, Churches of Christ grew from two early nineteenth-century worldviews that coalesced and intertwined with one another in ways that often defy disentanglement. The first was the apocalyptic perspective of Barton W. Stone; the second was the radically sectarian mentality of the young and brash Alexander Campbell of the Christian Baptist period (1823-1830). As early as the 1830's, these two perspectives wed, brought together in part by the matchmaking power of poverty, marginality, and social estrangement. Together, they clearly shaped a portion of the Stone-Campbell movement that, in due time, would come to be known as a denomination separate from the Disciples; namely, the Churches of Christ.
I want to express profound gratitude to Mr. R. L. Roberts, retired archivist of the Center for Restoration Studies, Abilene Christian University, who first alerted me to the Strategic importance of Barton W. Stone for understanding Churches of Christ. His insights have been invaluable as I have developed not only this article but also the book Churches of Christ (forthcoming), a volume in the Greenwood Press “Denominations in America” series. That volume develops the almost 200-year history of Churches of Christ with reference to the themes laid out in this article.
1. Poverty was not the defining factor in the 1830's, but it was important. Later, in the South, the Civil War helped to enhance the sectarian outlook, as Professor David Edwin Harrell has amply documented. See Harrell, , ‘The Sectional Origins of Churches of Christ” Journal of Southern History 30 (August 1964): 261-77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. While Alexander Campbell never claimed, even during the Christian Baptist period, that the movement he led comprised the one and only true church, much of his early rhetoric pointed in that direction. By the late 1830% Crihfield and Howard, in particular, were defending the Church of Christ as the one true church. For Crihfield and Howard, see Hughes, Richard T. and Allen, C. Leonard, Illusions of lnnocence: Protestant Primitivism in America, 1630-1875 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 128-31.Google Scholar
3. This historiographic perspective has been shaped chiefly by historians writing from within the Disciples of Christ side of this movement. See, e.g, Garrison, W. E. and DeGroot, A. T., The Disciples of Christ: A History (St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, 1948), 404-6;Google Scholar and Tucker, William E. and McAllister, Lester G., Journey in Faith: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1975), 251-54.Google Scholar Most major histories of American religion rely on precisely this interpretation. See, e.g., Ahlstrom, Sydney E., A Religious History of the American People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 822-23;Google Scholar Gaustad, Edwin S., A Religious History of America, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1990), 258;Google Scholar and Hudson, Winthrop S., Religion in America: An Historical Account of the Development of American Religious Life, 4th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 260, n. 25.Google Scholar Interestingly the only text to date whose chief interest is a synthetic history of Churches of Christ employs the same interpretive assumptions but for opposite purposes. Thus, Earl I. West argues that “by 1906, … the ‘Christian Churches’ or ‘Disciples of Christ/ as they preferred to be called, took their instruments and their missionary societies and walked a new course.” See The Search for the Ancient Order, 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Earl West Religious Book Service, 1950), 2:448.
4. Harrell, “Sectional Origins” 264,277. See also Harrell, David Edwin, Quest for a Christian America: The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866 (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966);Google Scholar and Harrell, David Edwin, The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973).Google Scholar Bill J. Humble shared the view that the Civil War, with its attendant social factors, played a significant role in dividing the Disciples into two separate communions. See Humble, B. J., “The Influence of the Civil War,” Restora-tion Quarterly 8 (Fourth Quarter 1965): 245.Google Scholar
5. Wilson, Major L., “Paradox Lost: Order and Progress in Evangelical Thought of Mid-Nineteenth-Century America,” Church History 44 (September 1975): 352-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar R. W. B. Lewis made the same point when he argued that “the more intense the belief in progress toward perfection, the more it stimulated a belief in a present primal perfection.” See The American Adam: Innocence, Tragedy, and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955), 5. Richard Hofstadter concurred in The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), 7, arguing that American progress often was progress backward to “the primitivist sense of the ideal human condition.” There was by no means consensus in antebellum America on the specific content of the primordial age.
6. Clearly, many of the Transcendentalist communal experiments reflected this outlook. Thus, Bronson Alcott saw America as the site of “the second Eden” in which humankind might be restored to “rightful communion with God in the Paradise of Good.” See Sears, Clara E., Bronson Alcott's Fruitlands, with Transcendental Wild Oats by Louisa Alcott (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1915).Google Scholar John Humphrey Noyes imagined that the millennial age in which he lived, patterned after the perfections of the primitive church, would sustain not only social relationships free from selfish pride but even the scientific breeding of the perfect human being. See Carden, Maren Lockwood, Oneida: Utopian Community to Modern Corporation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969;Google Scholar repr., New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 12-13. Similarly, the humanitarian Crusade aimed at nothing less than the complete elimination of evil from the social fabric of American life.
7. Why, in an age dominated by postmillennial dreams and anticipations, would this minority voice exist at all? In the first place, Calvinism—with its emphasis on the sovereignty of God and the fallenness of humankind—led some to view with profound suspicion the assumption that human beings might create, through their own efforts, the kingdom of God on earth. In the second place, many who embraced such skepticism were people estranged from the progress and optimism of the age by social and economic circumstances. Thus, many found in William Miller's prediction that Christ would return in 1843 meaningful compensation for economic losses occasioned by the depression of 1837.
8. Almost alone among historians, Martin Marty recognized that the division between Disciples and Churches of Christ was finally a division between modernism and primitivism. See Modern American Religion, vol. 1: The Irony of It All, 1893-1919 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 163-64. Mart/s account does not recognize, however, that this ideological split was rooted in the differing worldviews of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone.
9. Professor Harrell does speak of the “divided mind” of the movement. Thus, he writes:
two distinct emphases emerged. One group conceived of Christianity in the denominational framework of practical religion, social and political activism, and, often, a nationalistic postmillennialism. A second group emphasized the sectarian tradition of Biblical legalism, a fanatical disposition, and uncompromising Separation from the world. (Quest for a Christian America, 66.)
However, Harrell does not recognize that, among the various roots of the sectarian side of the movement, the Stoneite tradition played a prominent role, nor does he emphasize the apocalyptic dimensions that often accompanied the sectarian phase of the movement, especially in the South.
10. R. L. Roberts, “Early Tennessee and Kentucky Preachers,” unpublished paper.
11. For delineation of the sectional alignments of Disciples and Churches of Christ in 1906, see Harrell, “Sectional Origins,” 263-64. By 1950, Disciples of Christ had their greatest strength in the five states comprising the original Campbell heartland—Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri—and in Texas, with slightly lesser strength in Iowa, Kansas, and Oklahoma to the west and in Virginia and North Carolina to the east. See Gaustad, Edwin S., Historical Atlas of Religion in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 65.Google Scholar On the other hand, by 1960, Churches of Christ were especially concentrated in middle and western Tennessee, northern Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. See Gaustad, Edwin S., “Churches of Christ in America,” in The Religious Situation: 1969, ed. Cutler, Donald R. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 1030-31.Google Scholar Both Disciples and Churches of Christ by the mid-twentieth Century had significant strength in southern California, a phenomenon explained by westward migration patterns.
12. See Hughes and Allen, Illusions of innocence, 115-16.
13. See Mills, Dean, Union on the King's Highway: The Campbell-Stone Heritage of Unity (Joplin, Mo.: College Press, 1987).Google Scholar
14. See Eames, Samuel Morris, The Philosophy of Alexander Campbell (Bethany, W.Va.: Bethany College, 1966), esp. 19-32;Google Scholar and West, Robert F., Alexander Campbell and Natural Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948), 220-21, 225.Google Scholar
15. On Campbel's postmillennialism, see West, Alexander Campbell and Natural Religion, 163-217; and Hensley, Carl Wayne, “The Rhetorical Vision of the Disciples of Christ: A Rhetoric of American Millennialism” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1972).Google Scholar
16. Campbell, “The Millennium,” Millennial Harbinger (hereafter MH), 5th series, 1 (June 1858): 335-36.
17. S. M. M'Corkle, “Signs of the Times,” MH 4 (October 1833): 483.
18. A Reformed Clergyman, “The Millennium—No. 3,” MH 5 (October 1834): 549; “The MiUennium—No. 7,” MH 6 (March 1835): 105; and “The Millennium—No. 8,” MH 6 (April 1835): 148.
19. A Reformed Clergyman, “The Millennium—No. 3,” MH 5 (October 1834): 549-50.
20. McCorkle, S. M., “Conversion of the World, No. 4,” Christian Messenger (hereafter CM) 14 (July 1844): 70–71;Google Scholar and “Conversion of the World—No. 4 [sie],” CM 14 (August 1844): 97-98.
21. S. M. McCorkle, “The Laymen [sie],” CM 13 (March 1844): 349.
22. See Williams, Newell D., “Barton W. Stone's Calvinist Piety,” Encounter 42 (Autumn 1981): 409-17;Google Scholar and Hughes and Allen, Illusions of Innocence, 112-16.
23. Stone, B. W., “A Compendious View of the Gospel,” in The Biography ofEld. Barton Warren Stone, Written by Himself (Cincinnati, 1847)Google Scholar, repr. in Dickinson, Hoke S., ed., The Cane Ridge Reader (Paris, Ky: Cane Ridge Preservation Project, 1972), 191-92.Google Scholar
24. Rogers, John, “Funeral Discourse on Eider H. Dinsmore,” American Christian Review 6 (September 17,1863): 181;Google Scholar and Isaac N. Jones, “The Reformation in Tennessee” included in J. W. Grant, “A Sketch of the Reformation in Tennes see” c. 1897, typescript, 35 (manuscript housed in Center for Restoration Studies, Abilene Christian University).
25. Grant, “A Sketch of the Reformation in Tennessee,” 9-10; cf. Jones, “The Reformation in Tennessee” 31-32; and Thomas, Joseph, The Life ofthe Pilgrim Joseph Thomas (Winchester, Va., 1817), 124,160,162-63, and passim.Google Scholar
26. Stone, Biography, 49-50; and “Christian Union. Lecture III,” CM 11 (May 1841): 316-17.
27. Letter from Martha Wilson to Aunt Julia, Bethany, Virginia, July 21, 1858, in Jones Family Papers, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Letter from Martha Wilson to Aunt Julia, Bethany, Virginia, September 11,1858; and postscript to letter from Martha Wilson to Aunt Julia, Bethany, Virginia, July 21,1858.
28. Dunlavy, John, The Manifeste, or a Declaration of the Doctrine and Practice ofthe Church of Christ (New York, 1847), 437;Google Scholar and Purviance, Levi, The Biography of Eider David Purviance (Dayton, Ohio, 1848), 248-49.Google Scholar See also B. W. Stone and others, Observations on Church Government, By the Presbytery of Springfield, 1808, in Dickinson, The Cane Ridge Reader, 12.
29. B. W. Stone, ‘To Eider William Caldwell,” CM 8 (May 1834): 148; see also B. W. Stone, “The Millennium,” CM 7 (October 1833): 314; and B. W. Stone, “Reply,” CM 7 (December 1833): 365-66.
30. See B. W. Stone, “The Signs of the Last Days,” CM 12 (August 1842): 301-6; B. W. Stone, “Signs of the Last Days—continued,” CM 12 (October 1842): 363-67; and B. W Stone, “The Coming of the Son of God,” CM 12 (April 1842): 166-70.
31. B. W. S., “Reflections of Old Age,” CM 13 (August 1843): 123-26. See also B. W. Stone, “Civil and Military Offices Sought and Held by Christians,” CM 12 (May 1842): 201-5; letter to T. P. Ware and letter from T. P. Ware, CM 14 (October 1844): 163-71; and “An Interview Between an Old and Young Preacher,” CM 14 (December 1844): 225-300.
32. See James M. Mathes, “Number III,” CM 10 (May 1836): 65-66; and Jn. T. Jones, Jno. Rigdon, M. Eider, and D. P. Henderson, Committee, “Report,” CM 9 (November 1835): 250-51.
33. Alexander Campbell, “American Christian Missionary Society President' Address,” MH, 4th series, 2 (March 1852): 124.
34. Most contemporary historians have not come to grips with the profound difference between Stone and Campbell regarding the restoration ideal. This is not surprising, for they also have failed to take seriously the apocalyptic worldview of Stone. David Edwin HarrelTs work is a case in point. Harrell argued that Stone and Campbell alike were committed to a “spirit of moderation” and to postmillennial visions of social progress. Harrell, Quest for a Christian America, 36, 41, 45. Indeed, “prior to 1830, both [men] … linked their religious reform efforts with the eventual Spiritual and social regeneration of the world.” Interestingly the one passage from Stone that Harrell cited to support this claim finds Stone arguing just the reverse, vehemently criticizing the postmillennial vision, and contending that “God would overturn, and overturn, and overturn, till Messiah shall reign alone, and all submit to his government.” Harrell, Quest for a Christian America, 41. The passage Harrell cites from Stone is from “Remarks on Liberty of Conscience,” CM 3 (February 1829): 91. Harrell did recognize that “the sectarian emphasis of nonparticipation in civil government centered around the influence of Barton Stone in the early years of the church,” but he never connected that emphasis either with Stone's apocalyptic, countercultural worldview or with the very same perspective one finds later in both Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb. Harrell, Quest for a Christian America, 54-55.
35. Lipscomb, David, “The ‘Church of Chrisf and the ’Disdples of Christ” Gospel Advocate (hereafter GA) 49 (July 18,1907): 457.Google Scholar
36. On Fanning, see Wilburn, James R., The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, Tex.: Sweet Publishing, 1969;Google Scholar repr., Malibu, Calif.: Pepperdine University Press, 1980). On Fanning's debt to Moore, Matthews, and Houston, see Wilburn, Hazard, 13-16; and Tolbert Fanning, “Obituary,” GA 6 (January 1860): 31. On Fanning's early apocalypticism, see Tolbert Fanning, “Ministers of Peace in the World's Conflicts,” GA 7 (November 1861): 347-48.
37. See Tolbert Fanning, “Reply to Brethren Lillard, Harding, and Ransome,” GA 7 (September 1861): 265-76; “The Church of Christ in Prophecy No. 2,” Religious Historian 2 (February 1873): 40-44; “Political Strife Amongst Christians,” Christian Review 1 (August 1844): 184-85; “ The Kingdom of Heaven’ A Spiritual Empire,” Christian Review 3 (May 1846): 101; and “Peace,” Christian Review 3 (March 1846): 65.
38. Fanning, for example, ran an entire series of fourteen articles entitled simply “The Church of Christ” in the Gospel Advocate from October 1855 through December 1856.
39. Most notable among Fanning's colleagues in the 1840's who employed an apocalyptic worldview to undergird their sectarian exclusivism were Arthur Crihfield and John R. Howard. On both, see Hughes and Allen, Illusions ofInnocence, 128-31.
40. Lipscomb, GA (1890): 199.
41. Lipscomb, Civil Government (hereafter CG) (Nashvüle: Gospel Advocate Pub. Co., 1889), 13-14,16-17,88-89,91,92,128,145.
42. Lipscomb, CG, 8-9,48,9-10.
43. Lipscomb, CG, 14, 46-7; “The Kingdom of God,” GA 45 (May 21, 1903): 328; and CG, 51-53.
44. Lipscomb, CG, 25,27-28 (see also 83-84), 96.
45. Lipscomb, “The Kingdom of God,” GA 45 (May 21,1903): 328; CG, 60.
46. Lipscomb, CG, 28.
47. For this Conference, see Weber, Timothy P., Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming: American Premillennialism, 1875-1925 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), 28.Google Scholar
48. David Lipscomb, ‘The Prophetic Conference,” GA 20 (November 21,1878): 725.
49. David Lipscomb, “Queries,” GA 37 (June 23, 1898): 397; and Lipscomb, David, Queries and Answers, ed. by Shepherd, J. W. (Cincinnati: F. L. Rowe, Publisher, 1918), 360.Google Scholar
50. Lipscomb, David, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles: Ephesians, Phillippians, and Colossians, vol. 4, ed. Shepherd, J. W., (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Co., 1939), 76;Google Scholar Lipscomb, CG, iii, 28 (see also 12-13); and Lipscomb, CG, 136.
51. James A. Harding, ‘The Kingdom of Christ versus the Kingdoms of Satan,” The Way 5 (October 15,1903): 929-31; E. G. Sewell, “Queries,” GA 37 (July 11,1895): 437; and P. S. Fall, “Interesting Reminiscences” [letter to Mrs. Alexander Campbell], GA21 (May 15,1879): 310.
52. See David Lipscomb, “Queries,” GA 40 (June 23, 1898): 397; and Sewell, “Queries,” 437.
53. Three factors help account for this oversight. First, the tendency of Disciple historians to understand their movement principally in terms of Alexander CampbelTs faith in progress has obscured not only the premillennial sentiments of Stone but also those of Lipscomb as well. Second, the fervent refusal, especially of Lipscomb and his circle, to speculate on the Second Coming has led some to assume that he simply had little or no interest in millennial themes. Thus, for example, David Edwin Harrell argued that Lipscomb was “persistently unwilling to discuss the subject,” something Harrell attributes to the general decline of interest in premillennial themes dating from before the Civil War. Harrell, Quest for a Christian America, 44, esp. n. 68. Third, beginning with World War I, Churches of Christ launched a frontal attack on premillennialism that lasted fully one-third of a Century. When that attack had run its course by the mid-1940's, most mainstream Churches of Christ had come to view premillennialism as a heresy. Historians working within the context of the church, therefore, might well have little inclination to discern the significance of such views among revered leaders such as Stone and Lipscomb. Thus, both of Lipscomb's biographers—Earl West and Robert Hooper—simply ignore the premillennial theme in Lipscomb. West identifies the “kingdom” with the “church” and simply fails to see the apocalyptic dimension in Lipscomb's thought. See West, The Life and Times of David Lipscomb (Henderson, Tenn.: Religious Book Service, 1954), 97-99. Hooper spiritualizes Lipscomb's notion of the kingdom, suggesting that a “perfect kingdom,” in Lipscomb's view, “could not be attained in this world,” but only “in the world to come.” Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: A Biography of David Lipscomb (Nashville: David Lipscomb College, 1979), 110-22, esp. 121.
54. Johnnie A. Collins has argued that Lipscomb's pacifism was principally a function of southern, post-Civil War sectionalism. Collins, “Pacifism in the Churches of Christ, 1866-1945” (Ph.D. diss., Middle Tennessee State University, 1984). That claim, however, is only partly true. In the first place, Lipscomb claimed that he arrived at these conclusions “early in life,” long before the Civil War (CG, iii). In the second place, to ascribe Lipscomb's position only to the war is to diminish the importance of a long intellectual tradition that began with Stone and of which Lipscomb was heir. On the other hand, it is dear that the Civil War drove Lipscomb to take the Stoneite tradition seriously in a way he had not before. Indeed, Lipscomb cast his vote in 1860 for John Bell, the presidential candidate of the Constitutional Union Party (GA, 1912, 953). But he never voted again after the war.
55. Lipscomb, CG, 28 (see also 83-84 and iv); and Brookes, James, “Gentile Dominion,” The Truth 6 (1880): 536 Google Scholar, cited in Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, 92-93. Cf. Robinson, J. J., “Is Sodal Service Part of the Apostasy?” Christian Workers Magazine 14 (July 1914): 729-32,Google Scholar also cited in Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, 92-93.
56. Tully, J. C., “The Divine Law of Expansion,” Christian Oracle 16 (January 18, 1899): 2;Google Scholar and Tully, J. C., “Responsibility of the Disciples of Christ to the Present Age,” Christian Quarterly Review 4 (1885): 581-82.Google Scholar For a brief discussion of the doctrine of Anglo-American progress among Disciples at century's end, see Harrell, The Social Sources of Division in the Disdples of Christ, 23-25. Harrell also notes that some Disciples leaders joined a postmillennial faith in American progress to prophetic themes.
57. Lipscomb, CG, 136-37,53-56.
58. David Lipscomb, “Withdrawal,” GA22 (September 16,1880): 597.
59. Boll, Roberth H., “What Shall the End Be?” The Way 2 (April 1900): 60–61;Google Scholar and “The Christian's Duty As To War,” Word and Work (hereafter WW) 11 (December 1917): 493-94.
60. Evidence abounds for the influence of dispensationalists on Boll. See, e.g., R. H. B., “About Books” WW 10 (February 1916): 88; “Bible Study Course,” WW 10 (January 1916): 28; and “Jesus Is Coming,” WW 10 (December 1916): 551. On Boll's dispensationalism, see Boll, R. H., The Kingdom of God (Louis-ville: Word and Work, n.d.).Google Scholar
61. R. H. Boll, “Words in Season,” WW 10 (July 1916): 338-39; and “The Olivet Sermon” WW 10 (November 1916): 487-92; J. C. McQuiddy, “Do the Kingdom and the Church Mean the Same Thing?” GA 61 (April 17,1919): 367; and “Is the Church the Vestibüle of the Kingdom?” GA 61 (March 20,1919): 271-72; Hardeman, N. B., Hardemaris Tabernacle Sermons, vol. 4 (Nashville: Gospel Advocate 10(July 1916):312-15.Google Scholar
62. F. W. Smith, “As a Matter of Simple Justice,” GA 62 (September 23, 1920): 931. Cf. J. C. McQuiddy, “Conscientious Objectors,” GA 59 (July 26,1917): 720-21.
63. M. C. K., “The League of Nations and the Peace of the World,” GA 61 (September 4,1919): 866-67; J. C. M'Q., “The Peace League,” GA 61 (March 27, 1919): 297-98; and A. B. Iipscomb, “Is Orthodox Christianity Today a Waning Power?” GA56 (March 5,1914): 282-83.
64. See Hughes, Richard, “The Editor-Bishop: David Lipscomb and the Gospel Advocate” in The Power of the Press: The Forrest F. Reed Lectures for 1986 (Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1986), 1–34.Google Scholar
65. See, e.g., Douthitt, Cecil, “Russellism Alias Bollism,” Bible Banner (hereafter BB) 1 (September 1938): 13;Google Scholar and T B. Wilkinson, “Heaven—the Kingdom—and Premillennialism,” BB 6 (November 1943): 11. But cf. also R. H. Boll, “Studies in Prophecy: Some Distinctions Between Russell's Teaching and Bible Doctrine,” WW 10 (July 1916): 312-15.
66. Foy Wallace, “What Is It All About—And What Difference Does It Make?” BB 1 (November 1938): 7; and “The ‘New Spiritual Contingent Called “The Church” ’—or, the Prophecies and Promises of God,” BB 1 (August 1938): 3.
67. Foy Wallace, “The Government—Civil and Military,” BB 4 (July 1942): 2; Glen E. Green, letter in “The Christian and the Government,” BB 4 (July 1942): 7; and Cled Wallace, “What Pearl Harbor Did to Us,” BB 6 (November 1943): 1.
68. Foy Wallace, “The Christian and the Government,” BB 4 (March 1942): 8. Highly inflammatory, this artide was unsigned. In July, however, W. E. Brightwell revealed that Foy Wallace had written the article, using BrightwelTs notes. W. E. Brightwell, “For the Vindication of the Cause,” BB 4 (July 1942): 6.
69. W. E. Brightwell, “For the Vindication of the Cause,” 5,7.
70. O. C. Lambert, “The David Lipscomb Book,” BB 7 (September 1944): 9-10.
71. O. C. Lambert, “The Lipscomb Theory of Civil Government,” BB 5 (October 1943): 3; “The David Lipscomb Book,” 15; “Canonizing Campbell and Lipscomb,” BB 6 (May 1944): 10; and letter from Lambert in Foy Wallace, “The Lipscomb Theory of Civil Government,” BB 6 (October 1943): 3.
72. Foy Wallace, ‘The lipscomb Theory of Civil Government,” BB 6 (October 1943): 6; “ The Glorious Millennial Morn” BB 6 (May 1944): 5; and “The Lipscomb Theory of Civil Government,” BB 6 (October 1943): 5.
73. E. R. Harper, “Is It the Truth—Or the Person?” BB 6 (March 1944): 7.
74. Eckman, George, When Christ Comes Again (New York: Abingdon, 1917);Google Scholar Mathews, Shailer, Will Christ Come Again? (Chicago: American Institute of Sacred Literature, 1917),Google Scholar and The Faith ofModernism (New York: Macmülan, 1924); Case, Shirley Jackson, The Millennial Hope: A Phase of War-Time Thinking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918)Google Scholar, and The Revelation of St. John: A Historical Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1919); Snowden, James H., The Coming of the Lord: Will It Be Premillennial?, 2d ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1919)Google Scholar, and Is the World Growing Better? (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1919); and Mains, George P., Premillennialism: Non-Scriptural, Non-Historic, Non-Scientific, Non-Philosophical (New York: Abingdon, 1920).Google Scholar For a discussion of the modernist attack on premillennialism, see Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming, 117-21.