They Split the Church in 2006!
Malcolm L. Hill

The church of Christ is not going to split. It has already split. The event that plainly proves it was the big gathering of the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ Church and people from the churches of Christ in Louisville, Kentucky June 27-30, 2006.

David Faust of the Christian Church said, "I was deeply moved by Rick's plea." (Rick Atchley is a preacher in the church of Christ who spoke at the Louisville gathering.) "I thought, something big needs to be done for the cause of Christian unity in 2006. I wondered, couldn't we mark the 100th anniversary of the 1906 'split' by expressing a new commitment to working together? Privately, without saying anything about it, except to the Lord, I felt a burden growing in my heart—and a personal sense of calling to do something about it. About this time, I was asked to serve as president of the NACC in 2006. I agreed, and now I am excited about the convention to be held June 27-30 at the Kentucky International Convention Center in Louisville, Kentucky. The theme? 'Together in Christ.'"

What should be the name of the new group from the church of Christ that has joined in with the Christian churches and the Disciples of Christ Church? The name that rightly represents them is The Denominational Churches of Christ. Why is this so? It is so because they went out from us because they were not of us (I Jn. 2:19). They without question are of a denominational mindset. They talk about how they are not of the traditional church of Christ. They call themselves progressive. They go around always talking about "our heritage." They claim the Stone-Campbell movement as their origin. They are always talking about "our fellowship." They claim Ephesians 4:4-6 as their "core doctrine." Instrumental music in worship to God is a matter of expedience to them. They believe we should fellowship all who believe in Jesus and "submit to His Lordship."

Culture plays a big role in their interpretation of the Bible. They practice contextualization which is to fit the Bible into what they want it to say which fits their theology. They talk much about what is contemporary. They even have a contemporary worship service. It is sometimes the case that the Denominational Church of Christ will have two worship services. One is for the "traditional members" and one is for the "contemporary members." The Madison Church of Christ in Madison, Tennessee, is a good example of this. The Denominational Church of Christ has moved in the instrument which they use sometimes in worship and sometimes they do not.

Please keep your eyes open brethren, for the Denominational Church of Christ. Watch and see what the schools among the people of the church of Christ do. Especially watch for the universities and schools of higher learning among the churches of Christ. Will they use the Denominational Church of Christ preachers on their programs and will churches of Christ use them for meetings, vacation Bible school, and other such programs? We shall see if they are going to obey Ephesians 5:11; II John 9-11; and Romans 16:17-18.

It is sad to say but true, the split has taken place in the church of Christ in 2006. It is ironic that the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ Church, and the Denominational Church of Christ actually divided the church of Christ instead of their claim to unite it.

Editorial
Malcolm L. Hill

The Living Oracles started in January of 1988. From the very first articles until now we sounded the warning that the church was headed in the wrong direction. We have always known that the church is not perfect and that there is going to be error in it. But what we thought we saw coming as early as 1975 and started writing about in the Living Oracles in 1988 is here and can be clearly seen if one loves the church of Christ.

We were writing about liberalism and its threat to the church as early as 1970. We were not writing about smaller matters in the church but we sounded the warning about the great threat of apostasy ahead if there was not a strong stand taken. We have every issue of the Living Oracles as proof that we were on target.

We strongly encouraged brethren to stand up and speak out and have nothing to do with those who were set on going in the wrong direction. Many of our brethren who would not preach false doctrine, refused to take a strong stand and to speak out against the leaders of today's apostasy. Their sin was that of silence and not the sin of preaching false doctrine. Today's departure from the faith reminds us of the AIDS problem throughout the world. If governments throughout the earth had quarantined those who had AIDS at the beginning, they could have eradicated or at least kept it under control. But today the whole population of earth is beginning to be threatened by it. Hiding our heads in the sand does not take care of many problems. If elders, deacons, preachers, church leaders, Bible teachers, and our Christian schools had taken a stand early on, today's destruction in the church of Christ would never have taken place. We might have lost a few congregations, but there would have been very few.

How many churches did we lose to liberalism and modernism in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s? Very very few. Men like LeRoy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside who were very liberal then were rejected and considered heretics in those years. In 1955 Ketcherside and Garrett came to the campus of Freed-Hardman trying to sow discord among the students. Brother H. A. Dixon, then president of Freed-Hardeman, asked them to leave the campus and they refused. He then called the police and had them put in jail. That is the way the liberal mess then was treated. Now LeRoy Garrett is looked upon as the saint of all saints by schools like Pepperdine, Abilene Christian, and other such institutions among churches of Christ. Ketcherside died a few years back but we feel sure that Abilene Christian University, Pepperdine University, and a number of liberal preachers of today would like to make a sacred shrine out of his grave site.

Christians have no place for people like Judas Iscariot, Ananias of Acts 5, Absolom of old, Demas who forsook Paul (II Tim. 4:10), and all who sow discord among the brethren (Prov. 6:16-19). All Christians hate every false way (Psa. 119:104). They are willing to stand up and be counted. Now is the time for God's people to stand up and speak out in clear and certain tones.

The Split of 1906
Glenn B. Ramsey

It has been said that the man who does not learn from the mistakes of other men is doomed to make the same or worse mistakes. It has usually been the case that the Lord's church has faced the ravages of apostasy each third generation! This does not mean that such will happen in the future, but it gives serious warning of that possibility.

In 1906 it was acknowledged that a clear division existed between the churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church denomination). That year (1906) was the first year that a census listed the Disciples denomination separately from the churches of Christ.

What were the conditions (situations) that led up to theof the body of Christ in 1906? We can only briefly list some of these (the ones this writer considers major) conflicts that resulted in this division. After we have considered the apparent causes of the split in 1906, we will discuss the similarities of that day and our day.

We should remember that the last half of the 1800s was a time of much turmoil and change. A major factor in these changes was the War Between the States in the 1860s. Many were the beliefs and practices that were unseated during this time. The reestablishment of beliefs about politics, government and religion would occur—but with some major changes from the beliefs of the past. There were good changes and there were bad changes. We leave others to discuss the political and governmental changes of the period. But we must note that any political or cultural changes have much to do with the religious philosophies or thinking that goes in a period of history.

After the major efforts in restoring New Testament Christianity in the late 1700s and early 1800s, relative peace and calm prevailed until about 1849 when the Missionary Society became an issue among the churches. Some allowed this to go unchecked. Others ignored the potential problems. Yet others opposed very strongly the innovation of the Missionary Society in the life of the church. These conflicts continued. But another wind was blowing across the religious countryside. After the War Between the States, an attitude prevailed that encouraged free-thinking and unfettered action of the individual. This also affected the thinking of religious people.

As people conducted the worship services in the local congregations, many gave way to their own thoughts and preferences rather than staying with the authority of the Scriptures—as had been their rule during the major battles of the restoration movement in America. The question of the churches supporting the Christian Missionary Society had caused much division already, but most with differing views on this subject still maintained fellowship. The "last straw" issue with the churches was the introduction of the mechanical instrument of music (piano, organs, etc.) into the worship services of the church. This (use of the instrument) was opposed strongly by many.

In open letters that were written to answer the recurring questions relative to the use of instrumental music in worship, Bro. J. W. McGarvey, who was a professor in the College of the Bible, Kentucky University, and Bro. F. G. Allen, editor of The Apostolic Guide gave two major objections to the use of the instrument in worship. These letters were printed by McQuiddy Printing Company in 1903. The title of the letters was "What Shall We Do About The Organ?" These letters made two major arguments: (1) that the practice belongs to a class of things expressly condemned in the New Testament, and (2) there is no apostolic precedent for such practices. (Pages four and five of the Letter I.) These brethren would allege that those who insisted on the use of the instrument to the division of the churches were willing to "hearken more to the spirit of the age than to the Spirit of God." (Page 7 of Letter I). McGarvey and Allen would press these arguments and no satisfactory defense of the practice against these two arguments was ever made. In spite of these statements it was a fact that Bro. J. W. McGarvey was unwilling to go (in practice) as far as he would go in arguments!

A summary of Bro. McGarvey's predicament is stated in Bro. Earl Irvin West's The Search For The Ancient Order Volume 2, page 441:

Now the enigma of J. W. McGarvey became clearly evident. On the one side McGarvey maintained his belief that the introduction of the instrument was "high handed wickedness"; on the other, he would never withdraw fellowship from those who used it. Again, McGarvey deplored the fact that Lipscomb, Sewell, and James A. Harding bitterly opposed the Society; [Missionary Society, gbr] on the other hand, McGarvey would never contract to preach at a place where the organ was used. But still it was plain that "society churches" were the ones that planted the instrument.

A thorough study of brother West's works, The Search For The Ancient Order, will be very helpful to students who are willing to profit by the mistakes of those in the past. However, the Bible is the final source of authority in determination of what pleases and what displeases God. May we all follow its teachings in all matters.

After 1906 the "Disciples" denomination continued to go away from the truth in all different directions. Today this group is in fellowship with most all denominations. We understand that most such congregations accept anyone into their fellowship on what is called "believers' baptism," which very often is not baptism for (in order to receive) remission of sins! Of course, the use of the instrument of music in worship services continues to be practiced by the Disciples group and the "Christian Church" denomination.

When those who profess allegiance to God reject as final authority His Word, the Bible, there is no end to the number of departures from the faith that will and do follow. Presently among those who used to be faithful churches of Christ there are many who are following the same procedures that resulted in the split of 1906. Indeed, we see in many areas those who have gone back to the ways of the apostate Christian churches. May our Lord bless godly Christians to awaken to the danger and hold fast to the faithful Word of God. To do less is to succumb to the same philosophies (of men, not of God) that led to the terrible conditions that existed around the early 1900s.

Give Us Preachers Like These!
Kerry Duke

Apollos and Paul

Apollos was an eloquent speaker (Acts 18:24). Paul was not (I Cor. 2:1). Apollos had admirers at Corinth, just as Paul did (I Cor. 1:12). The Corinthians thought more highly of Apollos and Paul than they should have (I Cor. 3:1-6), although some of them questioned Paul's apostleship (I Cor. 9:3; II Cor. 13:3).

Had Paul been an insecure, jealous man, he would have tried to keep Apollos out of Corinth. After all, Apollos outshined Paul in preaching ability. The Corinthians were critical of Paul's lack of polish as a speaker (II Cor. 10:10). A little man would have feared being compared to such a great orator. But Paul was no little man.

Instead of trying to block Apollos from going to Corinth and stealing the limelight, Paul encouraged him to go! In what might seem to be an incidental verse, Paul shows what a huge person he was:

As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time (I Cor. 16:12).

Paul really wanted Apollos to go to Corinth even though he knew some of them would be reminded of how much better Apollos could preach than Paul!

There is also a lesson here about the congregation. Had this verse not been in the Bible, we might have thought that the worst thing that could have happened to the church at Corinth would have been for Apollos to pay them a visit. These Corinthians were carnal and weak. Their immature attitude toward earthly advantages caused division in the church. This thinking always does. People tend to polarize on personalities. They become overly protective of the person they admire and overly critical of those who don't measure up to him, creating a vicious cycle indeed. Adoration of men is always divisive.

But Paul encouraged a man to go to Corinth who was a lightning rod for praise. Wouldn't this cause even more division? Perhaps there is more wisdom in what Paul recommended than we realize. People usually idolize someone who is distant—one who is dead or one who is not around them. The more a hero is around his admirers, the more commonplace his great abilities seem. Eventually these admirers see that he has weaknesses and faults just like any other man. Familiarity doesn't have to breed contempt, but it often does, especially in people who think too much of a man. There is no need for either of these extremes. But Paul did not think that Apollos going to Corinth would make a bad situation worse.

We need to take our hats off to Apollos as well. Had he been a glory-seeker, he would have dropped what he was doing to go to Corinth and be lavished with praise from his fans. But he had no desire at all to go at the time. Apollos was busy with other works that may not have been so glorious.

Peter and Paul

Preachers need correcting the same as everyone else. They correct others, so they should take correction when it is needed. But preachers do not always take reproof well. In fact, they can be the worst at receiving correction. A noble exception is Peter. He was reproved more than any preacher in the New Testament, and he took it like a man.

Paul confronted Peter to his face about the way he acted with Gentile Christians. He had been eating with them, but when certain Jewish brethren came, he separated from these Gentiles because he didn't want the Jews to see him having company with them. He was afraid these Jewish brethren would criticize him. What Peter did was bad enough in itself, but the example he set caused even more harm. Other brethren, including Barnabas, followed his actions and withdrew from the Gentiles as well. Paul rebuked Peter before them all, saying, "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal. 2:14).

How did Peter take this reproof? Did he get mad and hold a grudge against Paul? Lesser men would have resented him for embarrassing them in front of all these people. They would have made some negative or snide remark about Paul whenever his name was mentioned. But not Peter. Years after this confrontation, he said, "our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" (II Pet. 3:15). Peter didn't call Paul arrogant or mean-spirited. He called him beloved! He also complimented the great wisdom God had given Paul, even admitting himself that Paul wrote some things that were hard to understand!

Think of the humility this took. Peter was in effect acknowledging that Paul had been right and he had done wrong in the incident at Antioch years earlier. Then he praised Paul for his great knowledge and added that some of his writings were deep even from an apostle's point of view!

Peter and Paul are two of the most recognizable names in the New Testament. Each was gifted in his own ways. But there is no hint in Scripture that they had any jealousy or ill will toward each other. They were not in competition with each other; they were together in competition against the devil.

There is entirely too much pride among preachers today. These men desire the praise and attention of men. They crave recognition for their scholarship, their speaking abilities, and the great works they have accomplished. They want men to exalt them, and woe be to the soul who tries to correct them! Rebuke one of these brethren and you will make an enemy for life. You can correct others, and you can praise such a preacher for exposing others, but you must not challenge him. The acid test of a preacher is not how well he gives correction, but how well he takes it.

Paul and Jealous Preachers

Of all the insane things in the world, envy between preachers is one of the chief ones. A man preaches the Truth and souls are saved. What greater event could happen? Yet it is common for other preachers to envy that preacher because he is smarter, a better speaker, or a more effective soul winner.

Paul had to deal with jealous preachers. He wrote about the different motives they had in preaching:

Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel (Phil. 1:15-17).

How did Paul handle this jealousy? How do preachers today? How would you? If Paul had said these brethren were guilty of sin, he would have been correct. If he had written, as he did in the Roman epistle concerning some who had misrepresented his teaching, that "their damnation is just," we would not have concluded that Paul was vindictive or that he was taking their actions too personally. But the great apostle to the Gentiles said nothing in defense of himself or in condemnation of those who envied him. Instead, he looked at the bigger picture. Regardless of the reason these preachers taught the gospel, people were hearing the Truth:

What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice (Phil. 1:18).

How many preachers in Paul's shoes would take this high road? How many would say of a preacher who is trying to cause them hardship, "Well, in spite of his wrong attitude, he is preaching the truth, and I am happy about that"? Most preachers would probably spend their time talking about nothing else but what a scoundrel he is. If they were pressed, they might grudgingly admit, "Yes, he preaches the gospel. But . . ."

Paul was not a great man because he wrote more books in the New Testament than anyone else and could raise the dead. He was a great man because he was a good man. He looked beyond earthly recognition and focused on the good of the church as a whole more than on his personal rights. A little man thinks about himself—promoting himself, defending himself, rewarding himself. A big man looks beyond himself to the bigger picture. Paul was a big man!

What Was Their Secret?

The brethren in the first century preached the gospel to every creature (Col. 1:23). The key to their success was not superior intelligence or speaking ability. It was not advanced technology or motivational psychology. These men loved each other. They put the good of the church and the salvation of souls above their personal desires. They were willing to die for Jesus, so they were certainly ready to give up personal acclaim for Him. The apostles had argued about who was the greatest (Luke 9:46; 22:24), but they learned to appreciate and support each other. Vain competition between them didn't spread the gospel to all the world. Selfless sacrifice did. Paul said that recognition and praise from men was nothing but dung to him (Phil. 3:8). This attitude was the key to their success. They were willing to become the "filth of the world and the offscouring of all things" (I Cor. 4:13) in order to save the lost.

Do we wonder why the church is so divided today and why we are having trouble impacting the world? Be honest, preachers. Be honest, elders. Selfish ambition is crippling us.

We desperately need preachers like Paul who will recommend and support men who are more gifted speakers than they are. We need preachers like Paul who will put the edification of the church above their own personal vindication. We need big men like Peter who can take correction as well as give it. Glory-seeking, self-promoting,jealous little territorial preachers have their reward from childish Christians who pander to their ego. God give us real men and genuine servantsin our pulpits.

Christian Church and Church of Christ?
Malcolm L. Hill

Some say there is very little difference in the Christian Church and the church of Christ. Is this so? If it were so, we must understand that little can amount to much if God and His Word are involved in it. Strange fire is little with men but not so with God if He has specified (Lev. 10:1-2). A river is a river with man but not so with God if He has commanded a man to go and dip seven times in it (II Kings 5:1-10). A ribbon is a ribbon with man but not so with God if He says it is to be a scarlet ribbon (Josh. 2:18). All churches are just churches with the multitudes but not so with God if one wants to be saved (Acts 2:47).

The Christian Church differs much when compared to the faithful church of Christ. Let us notice some of the differences.

1. Christian Churches have no trouble calling their preachers "pastors." Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
2. Christian Churches have no trouble when their preachers call themselves "Reverend." Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
3. The Christian Churches have no trouble accepting the Missionary Society. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
4. Christian Churches believe the Lord's Supper can be taken any day of the week. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
5. Christian Churches have a Junior Board in them. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
6. Christian Churches have official Boards in them. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
7. Christian Churches have women elders. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
8. Christian Churches have women serving on Boards. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
9. Christian Churches have women deacons. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
10. Christian Churches receive into their fellowship the unscripturally baptized. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
11. Christian Churches practice baby dedication. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
12. Christian Churches observe Holy Week and have pre-Easter services with the denominations. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
13. Christian Churches have fund-raising services to support their church work. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose such.
14. Christian Churches say they began with the Stone-Campbell Movement. Faithful chuches of Christ deny very strongly that they began with the Stone-Campbell Movement.
15. Christian Churches use instrumental music in worship. Faithful churches of Christ strongly oppose this.
16. The Christian Church believes women can be preachers. Faithful churches of Christ do not (I Cor. 14:34).
17. Christian Churches believe that women can serve in the eldership. Faithful churches of Christ do not (I Tim. 3:1-6).
18. Christian Churches accept denominational preachers as brothers in Christ. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Gal. 3:26-27).
19. Christian Churches have interaction and worship with denominations. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Eph. 5:11).
20. Christian Churches often celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Matt. 15:8-9).
21. Christian Churches accept into their fellowship people who are living in adultery. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Matt. 19:9).
22. Christian Churches practice open fellowship. Faithful churches of Christ do not (II John 9-11).
23. Christian Churches accept church choirs. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Eph. 5:19).
24. Christian Churches accept those who wear names not written in the Bible. Faithful churches of Christ do not (Isa. 62:2).
25. Christian Church preachers thank God for religious division and that each man can go to the church of his choice. Faithful churches of Christ do not (I Cor. 1:10-13).
26. Christian Churches pretend to seek unity but in reality they foster division. Faithful churches of Christ preach and do all within their power to have unity and condemn division (I Cor. 1:10-13).
27. Christian Churches say they want unity among God's people but refuse to give up that which causes division and is not according to the Bible. Faithful churches of Christ are willing to give up anything the Bible does not authorize.
28. Christian Churches bind where God has not bound and loose where God has not loosed. Faithful churches of Christ bind where God has bound and loose where God has loosed.
29. Christian churches are not scriptural in doctrine, worship, nor organization. Faithful churches of Christ are scriptural in doctrine, worship, and organization. (Acts 2:42).
30. Christian Churches have jazz orchestras, tap dancers, and crooners at times. Faithful churches of Christ would not think of having such (Rev. 22:18-19).

Some Restoration History
Ronald D. Gilbert

The period between 1800 to 1850 saw many changes within our nation and in the church. Many men contributed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity. While we admire the progress these men made in their search for the truth and the obstacles they overcame, we understand that these men were just that—men—and subject to all the frailties and problems that men face. Many of us today are reaping the benefits of their work and toils. We will briefly consider some who stood out as leaders in searching for New Testament Christianity during 1800 to 1850.

Most start with Alexander Campbell but I wish to start with his father Thomas Campbell, 1788-1866. It was Thomas, not his son Alexander, that closed a speech with these words, "Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent." Alexander Campbell was brought up in a very religious home. Alexander and his father Thomas discussed and debated many issues. It was a rule in the Campbell family that each child would at some point during the day memorize a verse of Scripture and say it at the evening devotion. The Campbell children received a splendid education.

Alexander Campbell's name is probably the one talked about more in association with the restoration movement. This man was a student of God's Word. He spent hours daily studying the Book. He had a brilliant mind. Tobert Fanning said of him, "His arguments are always well arranged, and are generally full and satisfactory on every point he touches...for logic, scriptural knowledge, genuine criticisms, dignity of manner, fairness, and Christian courtesy. It is barely probable Alexander Campbell has an equal living. . ." Alexander preached his first sermon Sept. 16, 1810. After much study of the Scriptures, especially the topic of infant baptism, on Wed., June 12, 1812 Alexander Campbell was baptized into Christ for the remission of sins. Before the baptizing was finished, Thomas Campbell, his wife, and others (seven in all) were baptized. Not long after that the entire Brush Run church had been baptized. Alexander Campbell was a debator, writer, and educator. Campbell preached for several different denominations as he studied his way out of religious error. He preached at one time for the Baptist church, but he disagreed with them on many issues. The Baptist church accepted the Philadelphia confession of faith, Campbell rejected all creeds. The Baptists were strong in Calvinism. Campbell believed Calvinism was a corruption of Christianity. The Baptist church had the Lord's Supper every three months; with some it was once per month. Campbell believed it should be every Lord's day. Many of the Baptists believed that each congregation should only have one elder. Campbell believed there must be a plurality of elders. The Baptists believed baptism to be an ordinance required to obtain membership into the Baptist church, while Campbell believed it was for the remission of sins.

With all the good Alexander Campbell did, he was still a man. He defended the missionary society in his speeches and his paper.

Barton W. Stone was born Dec. 24, 1772 in Maryland. His parents had him sprinkled into the Church of England. Stone got his "license to preach" from the Presbyterians. He began to see where their doctrine and the Bible did not harmonize. Through the influence of friends Stone moved to Cane Ridge, Kentucky. Stone and four other preachers withdrew themselves from the Presbyterian synod of Kentucky and set up their own Presbyterian church. Stone studied the topic of baptism and reached the conclusion that it was immersion for the remission of sins and should be administered to a penitent believer. In 1823 at the Campbell-McCalla debate while Campbell was speaking on the design of baptism, Stone stood up and said, "Eureka! Eureka! I have found it, I have found it!" The plan of salvation now made sense to him. Campbell and Stone would become good friends and their studies led them to similar conclusions.

In 1831 the two groups united. One of the preachers at this meeting said, "Let us, then my brethren, be no longer Campbellites or Stonites, New Lights or Old Lights, or any other kind of lights, but let us come to the Bible and to the Bible alone, as the only book in the world that can give us all the light we need."

Walter Scott was born in Scotland on Oct. 31, 1796. Scott had a mind that was analytical. During the restoration movement, he gave one of the first clear analyses of the cases of conversion in the book of Acts. It is said of Scott that his great work was putting into practice the great principles that Campbell had advocated. In 1832 Scott began a publication called The Evangelist. Scott was a very benevolent man. It was said of him that he would often go to the store to buy food and give it all away before he got home. Walter Scott was the first president of Bacon College founded in 1836 at Georgetown, Kentucky; the first college among churches of Christ. Scott was very disturbed by the Civil War. He died in 1861.

Tolbert Fanning was born May 10, 1810 in Cannon County, Tennessee. Not many people that heard Fanning speak ever thought he would be a preacher. Fanning stood 6'6" and weighed about 250 pounds. Many have said that perhaps he was one of the most influential preachers in the South before the Civil War. He was a studious man staying up until 2 a.m. studying and writing. On Jan. 30, 1844 the Tennessee legislature granted a charter to build Franklin College. In the summer of 1855 Fanning and William Lipscomb began as editors of the Gospel Advocate. Fanning was one of the strongest opposers of the missionary society.

Ben Franklin was born Feb. 1, 1812. During his early days most thought he would not make much of a preacher. His education has been limited and his grammar was poor. However, he overcame these problems and became a powerful preacher, debater, and writer. At the death of Alexander Campbell many said that Franklin was the most prominent preacher in the church. In 22 years he baptized 8,000 people, held 25 debates while editing a paper and doing local work as a preacher. For a time he was a supporter of the missionary society. In 1856 and 1857 he even served as corresponding secretary to the society. By 1866 he was strongly against the society. He bitterly opposed the use of instrumental music in worship.

We are deeply indebted to these men and their battles. One can only wonder how many today would find New Testament Christianity if it was not to be found in our midst! However, as we study the lives of these men and others, let's remember they were just men. Let us keep our eyes on Jesus; He alone is our perfect example.

(A time line showing what was happening in the nation and what was happening in the church related to this article is found below.)