Truth Magazine

By Roy E. Cogdill

Nothing is more important than truth. Only the truth can make men free. Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Error will only further enslave, but truth makes men free! The wise man said, “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). Truth is supreme in its value. We can afford to pay whatever it costs and when once we possess it, we cannot afford to take any price for it. The importance and necessity of it should be always exalted in our hearts.

There is no substitute for truth. It can be replaced only with error. Nothing else is “just as good as truth.” Yet even in spiritual matters that concern the soul, we are often told that we should accept a substitute for the truth, for something else is just as good.

Truth is always consistent. It is never out of harmony with truth. There is no contradiction in truth. Whenever an apparent contradiction seems to exist, it is because we do not know the whole truth. There are not two correct answers to the same problem or question. When there is a variance, both cannot be right.

Truth is always narrow. Every kind of truth is narrow. Mathematical truth is narrow. Two and two make exactly four-no more, no less, and whoever says they make anything else is wrong. There are thousands of numbers that two and two do not make (error is broad) and only one that they do make-truth is narrow.

Scientific truth is narrow. Under ordinary conditions at sea level, water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, just that, no more, no less. There are thousands of temperatures at which water does not freeze. Suppose a man should say: “I am very broad in my scientific beliefs. I am not one of your scientific bigots who insist that water freezes at just 32 degrees, and that all who think differently are wrong. No, I admit that water freezes at 20,’ 25, 30, 32, 38 and 40 degrees, and at any other temperature. Just so a man is sincerer, it does not matter at what temperature he believes water freezes. I am broad in my science.” What would we think of such a man?

Historical truth is narrow. A given event took place in one particular way. There are thousands of ways in which it did not take place. It is the business of a jury to so consider the testimonies of the witnesses, each giving his impression, that they can determine just how the event did take place. So the historian is to use the date to determine just how the events he describes did take place. Suppose a professed historian should say: “I have very broad views of history. I abominate the narrow bigotry which says that a given event took place in only one particular way and that whoever says differently is wrong. I believe the event took place in a hundred ways, and just so a man is sincere, it does not matter how he believes it took place.”

Geographical truth is narrow. There is but one right direction to London from where the reader sits, while there are thousands of wrong directions. If you point toward London, you must point in one definite direction. If you point in either of a thousand other directions, you are not pointing toward London. Suppose a man should say: “I am not one of your geographical bigots, who say that there is only one right direction toward London, from where he stands, while all who point in any other direction are wrong. No, indeed, I am broad in my views of geography, and any way a man chooses to start, is the right way to London, if only he be honest; and whichever way he starts, he will get to London just the same.” What would intelligent people think of such an attitude?

Application

How does it come to pass that what is recognized as the most arrogant nonsense in all other realms, is greedily swallowed when it comes to the realm of religion, where truth is most important? Whether a man be right or wrong in mathematics, in science, in history, in geography, etc., is of comparatively small importance, but his character and his eternal destiny depend upon his being right in religion. Only the truth has the power to make men free from spiritual bondage.

While truth is narrow, it does not follow that anything is truth because it is narrow. One would be just as narrow if he affirmed that two and two make five and nothing else, as to say two and two make four. We may be narrow and still be wrong. Narrowness alone does not establish the truth. But if we are broad in what we believe to be the truth, we are certain to be wrong. Truth is narrow, and hence belief of the truth must be narrow.

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 469-470
June 5, 1975

By Cecil Willis

The fundamental fact upon which the church of Christ was built, and upon which it yet rests is, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. In Matt. 16:16, Peter confessed, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus said, “upon this rock I will build my church.” The rock upon which the church was built was not the apostle Peter, but the confession which the apostle Peter made, namely that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. How do I know this? In the first place, both the context and the language of Matt. 16 say as much. Not only this, but in 1 Cor. 3:11, the apostle Paul says, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The Sonship of Christ is the foundation and support of the church of Christ.

Univocal Usage of Language

I want us first to see what is meant by the expression “deity of Christ,” and then proceed to see some of the reasons why we believe Jesus to be the divine Son of God. There are many who apparently pay tribute to the Son of God by speaking of the deity of Christ, who actually, upon investigation into what they mean by “the deity of Christ,” are not honoring Him at all. Rather they are blaspheming the Son of God. I mean by that, that there are many who use the language of orthodoxy but certainly do not attach to the language the meaning ordinarily attached to it. That great warrior against liberalism, J. Gresham Machen, said the church “is being lulled to sleep by the use of orthodox terminology which has unorthodox beliefs behind it.” Later, the same writer depicts the problem of a common usage of language like this. “The willingness of unbelievers to use the terms in their sense coupled with a proneness of Christians to understand them in theirs, is causing the great issue between Christianity and unbelief to be obscured” (Machen, Christian Faith in the Modern World, p. 133). To the liberalist, “this use of traditional terminology seems like a stained glass in an old cathedral. It puts everything in a sort of dim religious light; it seems to impart a solemn glow of sanctity to what would appear to be bold unbelief if it were revealed in the true light of day” (Machen, Op. Cit, p. 136).

So, we must be sure that when those about us speak of the deity of Christ, they mean the same thing by it that the Bible means when it declares his divine Sonship. Sometime ago, I heard a denominational preacher say that modernism is as dead as dodo. However, that man just indicated that he is not cognizant of all the modernism that yet really does exist. Certain phases of the liberalistic movement may be waning, but myriads more arise to take their places. I heard that same man speak of what a good Christian Ghandi was; Ghandi was a Hindu, not a Christian. And on another occasion, he said that he was just as prepared to differ with the apostle Paul as he was with me. Modernism will not be dead as long as men like this are yet alive. They speak of the Bible as being the revelation, but they do not mean that the Bible is a supernaturally revealed and recorded revelation. They mean that the Bible is a very fallible, human account of revelation. that it is a very fallible, human account of revelation. When they speak of sin, they do not mean transgression of God’s law but that which is injurious to the body, or an antiquated mental attitude or an imperfect attitude. Modernism yet lives!

As I said, when some preachers speak of the deity of Christ, they do not mean the same thing by it as one who really believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. For example, under questioning, one who pays lip service to the Son of God may tell you that he means that Jesus is the Son of God in the same sense that every other human being is the Son of God, or in the same sense that every Christian is the Son of God. But this definitely is not what the Bible means when it calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. They speak of Him as a very influential and morally upright, religious reformer. It is true that he was a great religious teacher but one cannot stop here in his estimation of Christ “You may take Him as very God, or else you must reject Him as a miserable, deluded enthusiast. There is really no middle ground. Jesus refuses to be pressed into the mold of a mere religious teacher” (Machen, op. cit., p. 180).

Others who think themselves perfectly orthodox in their attitude toward Christ will speak of Him as the Son of God. But what do you mean when you say that Jesus is the Son of God? Do you mean that He had but one earthly parent and was begotten by the Holy Spirit? Do you mean that He was born of a virgin? They very quickly reply, “Of course, not. We mean that Jesus is the Son of God, in the church’s living experience.” Their doctrine of the Sonship of Christ is simply a part of the historical formulation of the church’s doctrine of Christ. Of course by now, they tell us, we have outgrown those outmoded concepts of him, which include the miraculous. “They will not say that Jesus was born of a virgin. They will not say that He worked miracles. They will not say that the things He said were always true; they will not say that He died as our substitute on the cross; they will not say that He rose from the tomb on the third day; yet, they say, He was God” (Machen, op. cit., p. 134).

Incarnation

What we mean when we say that Jesus is the Son of God is that which those words so obviously mean. In Matt. 3:17, God said of Christ, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark 9:7, at the transfiguration, God once again said, “This is my beloved Son.” Jesus was the Son of God in a sense in which no other human being has ever been the Son of God. In 2 Cor. 5:19, Paul says, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.” God was incarnate: in human flesh. To say that Jesus was God is to assert the preexistence of Christ, which, of course, the Bible does. In John 1:14, we read “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” As John speaks of the Word, he speaks of the Word which became flesh, Jesus. Of that Word he says, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Christ was God (Deity) and existed before He took upon Himself the form and the likeness of a man. In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul says, “Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.” Christ existed before he took on Himself the form of a man. By the deity of Christ, then, is meant that the man Jesus was God. In the first epistle of John, we find we have three first century false doctrines confuted. There were some that admitted the deity’ of Christ but denied his humanity. There were others who said that Jesus was but a human being, thus, not divine. There were others who said that Jesus was but an illusion. But John said that “whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God” (1 John 4:15). In I John 5:1, he said, “whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God.” The statement, “Jesus is the Christ, ” refuted the three false doctrines with which John was dealing. When one said “Jesus” he asserted the humanity of Christ; when one said is, ” he asserted the reality of Christ; and when one said Jesus is “the Christ, ” he asserted the divinity. By saying that Jesus is the Son of God, then, is meant that humanity really was Deity in Christ, and that Deity really was humanity when the eternal Christ became incarnate in the flesh.

Proofs of the Deity of Christ

After having seen what is meant by the deity of Christ, let us point out some of the reasons we believe in His deity. First of all, I would like to notice with you that Jesus never considered Himself the Son of God in the same sense as the disciples were sons of God. Of course, it is true that Christians are sons. In 2 Cor. 6:17-18, Paul said, “Wherefore come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” But Jesus never classified Himself as being but a man. In all four of the gospel accounts, never once did He speak of “our Father” so as to include Himself in the group. Often He spoke of “My Father,” and frequently “your Father,” but never “Our Father.” In Luke 2:48-49, we read about the occasion when Jesus was separated from His parents, when together they had gone to Jerusalem. When the despondent parents finally found Him, his mother said unto him, “Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold thy father and I sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? know ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” Note, He did not say, “Our Father,” but “My Father’s house.” In Matt. 7:21, he said “not everyone that sayeth unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” But someone says, “what about the Lord’s prayer; did not Jesus pray `Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name’ (Matt. 6:9)?” Yes, it is true that such a prayer is recorded, but for one to say this prayer is the Lord’s prayer is really a misnomer. This was not a prayer in which Jesus joined with His disciples. As Luke tells us about this prayer, he says, “One of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John taught his disciples to pray, And he said unto them, when ye pray, say . . .” and then follows what is commonly called the Lord’s prayer. This prayer should more properly be called “The Disciples Prayer.” It is a prayer Jesus taught His disciples to pray. So the first proof we offer for the Deity of Christ is the fact that He never spoke of Himself and His disciples being equally related to God. He never prayed “Our Father who art in heaven,” but spoke of “My Father” and “your Father.”

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, pp. 467-469
June 5, 1975

By Fred C. Melton

“We stay away from church, we seldom read the Bible, but we all need something to believe in . . . .”

You know, I can remember telling those great ghost stories around a bonfire out in the backyard when I was a child but I never did think that anyone took them seriously-that is until I came to Britain. I dare say there is hardly a hamlet, castle or parish church in all the United Kingdom that does not claim to have at least one ghost lurking about. Mind you, there are plenty of “spooky” places for ghosts to hide in these misty islands. Incidentally, that is something that has always puzzled me about ghosts-why are they always hiding in “spooky” old places? And why are they persistently seen only by those who believe in ghosts already? Frankly, I have been looking for a ghost ever since I have been in England but, alas, I have not seen one yet, and I have been in some pretty scary places including old castles and country manors which were declared to be haunted by the local inhabitants. I have even felt a chill go up the ole’ spine or had the urge to look over my shoulder for some unknown and as yet unseen, movement deep within the shadowy recesses of the occasional lonely country church but no spook has yet seen fit to actually reveal itself to this solemn scribe.

The theory seems to be that if someone in the past had met a violent or macabre death, their hapless soul could possibly be suspended in sort of a limbo between life and death and hang around the scene of their “departure” for some reason no one has yet been able to explain. The Catholic and Anglican churches in particular take these “happenings” quite seriously and provide a number of priests as “exorcists” to expel or sometimes satisfy “the spiritual needs” of these forlorn spirits. If you ever hanker to go ghost hunting yourself, it may be reassuring to note it is claimed by all those who profess to be “in the know” that such ghosts would not, even could not, molest you physically in any way. This brings up another small question as to why these spirits always manifest, yea, are even able to manifest themselves in some physical way such as a creaking door, thumpings on the floor and wall, or the sudden rush of a cool breeze (sudden drop of temperature is supposed to be a sure-fire sign of a ghost). As was noted before, I myself have experienced this “tingling of the spine” which could have been mistaken for a drop in temperature, but I never calculated it to be due to the presence of a ghost.

Superstitions Replace Religion

Does it surprise you to learn that twice as many adults in Britain read their horoscopes every week (even if one-half of them do not claim to believe in it) as read or hear anything about the Bible? For example, in a new countrywide national opinion poll, nearly 9 out of 10 people claim to believe in God. But when you get down to testing this, it becomes clear that most British religion has no practical relevance to the way the people live.

When given a list of superstitions, only 7 percent absolutely denied holding any of them. Far the most common superstitions were not walking under ladders and throwing salt over your shoulder-then came wishbones, the number 13, touching wood, black cats and broken mirrors. One person in 7 has a lucky charm. More than 25 percent believe in ghosts and nearly as many believe it is possible to communicate with the dead (of those who have tried, one-half claim to have succeeded). Four out of 10 people said they have had premonitions and 5 out of 10 have had the “I have been here before” feeling.

Well over one-half of all those questioned said: They do not attend church at all. Nine out of 10 Britains said one could lead a moral live without believing in God but the same number were not willing to write off the idea of God completely. They did not think the role of the church important in the world today; however, 75 percent thought it ought to be important. The vast majority of people in this country read the. Bible seldom or never. They think death is absolutely the end of personal existence or would not say there is anything to follow it. They do not believe in hell or in the devil and even more do not expect there to be a heaven, yet superstition is dramatically on the increase. The same people simply could not explain their readiness to accept the supernatural while at the same time rejecting religious values. In fact, belief in the supernatural is in some ways more enthusiastic than religious beliefs.

Consequences

There is more than a hint here that large numbers of people would like to have a church they could enthusiastically belong to or at least they would like their churches to offer a religious view of life which they could accept and at the same time satisfy their spiritual hunger.

Sorcery, and in my opinion the belief in sorcery in its various forms, is condemned throughout the scriptures, the witch of Endor notwithstanding. Yet, this spiritual confusion, which sometimes borders on desperation, reflects the fact that where there are no substantial religious moorings, superstitions tend to prevail whether in darkest Africa or modern Britain. Man, it seems, must worship something. He must believe in some form of spiritual values, however depraved those values may become. There is simply something in man that craves-indeed knows-a spiritual world does exist although he may seek to formally reject the idea.

Truth Magazine XIX: 30, p. 466
June 5, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

The Civil War

The dispute with Ferguson, the missionary society question, the controversy with Richardson and Campbell, and the burning of the church’s building were not the end of the church’s troubles, however. With the coming of the Civil War, the activities of the church were even more adversely affected. From the beginning, “most young Disciples North and South carefully packed their Bibles into saddlebags and rode off to war:”(1) Enrollments at Southern colleges, particularly, were adversely affected,(2) and this included Franklin College which suspended its activities.(3) Later, as Nashville “became the leading supply depot. in the West for the supplies of the Federal armies,”(4) especially during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign, the College grounds were used as barracks.(5) While the war had many adverse effects on the church directly during the time of the military hostilities, it also, indirectly, had a much more deleterious effect on the Churches of Christ generally and Nashville in particular. The pre-war doctrinal controversies alluded to above combined with sectional animosities to sunder the body of Christ during the next half-century: “. . .sectional hatreds, added to the already emerging arguments over the society question, created strife which has lasted over a hundred years;”(6) “the scars of these wounds are yet visible in the movement.”(7)

The main representations of this division were the sectionally-representative periodicals which emerged following the war, notably the Christian Standard in the North and the Gospel Advocate in the South. We have already alluded to the influence that Fanning had, even after his death, on a host of emerging younger preachers. The most obvious illustration of this phenomenon, is, of course, the Gospel Advocate. Fanning had begun the Advocate in 1855 with William Lipscomb. This was by no means his first (or last) attempt to religious journalism. Beginning in 1844, Fanning had published the Christian Review, which later, in 1849 became the Christian Magazine, under the auspices of Jesse B. Ferguson, who later used it to further his false doctrine. Fanning had also edited the secular periodicals, the, Agriculturalist and the Naturalist, during the 1840’s.(8) Later, he would publish the Religious Historian from 1872 until his death two years later. After the Gospel Advocate resumed publication in 1866, it was largely the paper of David Lipscomb. Lipscomb had been a student of Fanning’s at Franklin College, with (among others) Elisha G. Sewell and T. B. Larimore.(9)

The years of Reconstruction and those following were difficult years for the South, and the church in the South. They saw the church grow, but halve its growth due to doctrinal division. They saw the formation of the Tennessee State Missionary Society,(10) and the evolution of the church in Nashville to become Vine Street Christian Church, replete with organ and such “progressive” preachers as R. C. Cave and R. Lin Cave.(11) While we do not have the space to go into the details of the division, it was much like the division all over the nation, involving much acrimony, recrimination, and trials over church property.(12)

By the time the division had been completed, the churches in the Nashville area emerged as strong as those anywhere in the country.

At the turn of the century, the majority of the membership of the Church of Christ centered in Tennessee, with some 41,411 members in the Volunteer State-more than three times that of Kentucky and Alabama. Of the eight, adjacent states Arkansas, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi-the total membership of all combined did not exceed that of Tennessee.(13)

Post War Developments

One significant development which would have many later implications for the churches of Christ was the founding of Nashville Bible School in 1891. The school was operated for many years under the auspices of David Lipscomb (for whom it was later renamed) and, until the early twentieth century, by James Alexander Harding.(14) In 1901, Harding left, with his son-in-law, John Nelson Armstrong, to go to Bowling Green, Kentucky, and establish Potter Bible College, and later several other colleges at various places in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas (the one in Arkansas eventually culminated in Harding College).(15)

One cannot close a discussion of the earlier history of the church in the Nashville area without reference to the debates and large assemblies at the Ryman Auditorium. It had been built in 1892 by Captain Thomas G. Ryman, prominent Nashville citizen and affluent steamship magnate, who had been “converted” by the famous revivalist, Sam Jones. Originally named the Union Gospel Tabernacle, it was changed to honor Ryman after his death on December 24, 1904.(16) In the twentieth century, it became famous with the advent of radio as the “home of the Grand Ole Opry.” But it was also the scene of some significant religious gatherings. In the fall of 1921, plans were made which culminated in the first of the Hardeman Tabernacle meetings the following year, from March 26 to April 18, 1922.(17) Shortly thereafter, F. B. Srygley, one of the editors of the Gospel Advocate, received a letter which ultimately led to the discussion between N. B. Hardeman and Ira M. Boswell from May 31 to June 5, 1923.(18) The Christian Churches’ “Commission on Unity” had distributed a book by O. E. Payne on the Instrumental Music question, and was responded to with a challenge for public discussion with its chairman, John B. Cowden.(19) The outcome was not only the Hardeman-Boswell oral discussion in the Ryman Auditorium, but a written discussion between H. Leo Boles, President of David Lipscomb College and editor for the Gospel Advocate,(20) and M.D. Clubb, Christian Church preacher who had succeeded Cowden as editor of the Tennessee Christian.(21) Boles also carried on a written discussion on the premillennial controversy with R. H. Boll.(22) The premillennial controversy had plagued the churches of Christ since Boll first introduced the teaching on the front pages of the Advocate while he was on the editorial staff in 1915.(23) By the early 1930’s when Foy E. Wallace, Jr. had moved to Nashville to assume the editorship of the Gospel Advocate, the battle was at its peak and involved a number of public discussions.(24) The Hardeman Tabernacle Meetings of 1938 were also affected by the controversy,(25) which eventually involved a number of prominent Tennessee preachers, including G. C. Brewer,(26) as well as Boles, Hardeman, Wallace, and others.

While this is admittedly a brief sketch, hopefully it will shed some light on the early history of how the Lord’s church came to e1jist in this area,(27) and can provide background information for another article on the more current history of the Cause in the Nashville area.

Endnotes

1. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., Quest For a Christian America: Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1865 (A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume I; Nashville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), p. 153.

2. Ibid., p. 155.

3. Wilburn, pp. 210-211; Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 70.

4. Jesse C. Burt, Nashville: Its Life and Times (Nashville: Tennessee Book Company, 1959), p. 55.

5. Wilburn, p. 221.

6. Edward G. Holley, review of Wilburn, Discipliana, XXIX:4 (Fall, 1969), p. 78.

7. Harrell, op. cit., p. 170. See also chapters 4 (“Slavery and Sectionalism: An Entering Wedge”), and 5 (“Pacifism and Patriotism: The Cleavage Deepens”) especially pp. 170-174. See also idem., “The Sectional Origins of the Churches of Christ,” Journal of Southern History, XJCX (August, 1964), pp. 261-277; and The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900 (A, Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume II; Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Inc., 1973), especially chapters 1 and 13.

8. Wilburn, pp. 42-43, 58-60.

9. Ibid., p. 100.

10. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 189. See also chapter 05, “Reconstruction, Resentment, and Retaliation:” There were also numerous debates with sectarian preachers during this period. For example, David Lipscomb debated a Baptist named G. W. Griffin at Gallatin in January,’1872; in December of 1873, T. W. Brents of Lewisburg debated Jacob Ditzler, a Methodist debater, at Franklin (Wilburn, pp. 255-256). Brents, author of the widely known book, The Gospel Plan of Salvation, also debated an Indiana Baptist, E. D. Herod, at Franklin in March and April of 1887 (Gospel Advocate, XXIX:14 (April 6, 1887). There were many more such debates throughout the area; these are merely examples.

11. Alfred Leland Crabb, Nashville: Portrait of a City (Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill, 1960), p. 158.

12. See Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 208-225.

13. Corlew, et. al., p. 421.

14. Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 183-185.

15. See Lloyd Cline Sears, The Eyes of Jehovah: The Life and Faith of James Alexander Handing (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), and For Freedom: The Biography of John Nelson Armstrong (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969). After Harding left, Lipscomb deeded the current site of the school to the college, which now stands just off Granny White Pike in Nashville. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 185; William Waller, editor, Nashville: 1900 to 1910 (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1972), p. 288. For biographical information on David Lipscomb, see Earl I. West, The Life and Times of David Lipscomb, (Henderson, Tennessee: Religious Book Service, 1954).

16. William Waller, editor, Nashville in the 1890’s (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1970), pp. 120, 278.

17. See “History and Description of the Meeting,” by N. B. Hardeman, Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons (Nashville: McQuiddy Printing Company, 1922), pp. 9-14; and James Marvin Powell and Mary Nelle Hardeman Powers, NBH: A Biography of Nicholas Brodie Hardeman (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1964), chapter 15, “The Tabernacle Meetings,” pp. 169-183. The Ryman Auditorium was said to seat 6,000 to 8,000 persons, and, reportedly, it was filled to capacity and an estimated 2,000 more persons were turned away on the opening day of the series, March 28, 1922. Other similar series were held at Ryman in 1923, 1928, 1938, and 1942 (Powell and Powers, pp. 176, 179, 180, 182).

18. “Introduction” in Boswell-Hardeman Discussion on Instrumental Music (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1957 reprint), pp. 5-24.

19. Ibid. See also Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 251. F. B. Srygley estimated that between 6,000 and 7,000 people heard this discussion, (in Powell and Powers, p. 194).

20. Leo Lipscomb Boles and J. E. Choate, I’ll Stand on the Rock: A Biography of H. Leo Boles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1965, pp. 160-165.

21. The exchange was carried simultaneously in the Christian. Evangelist and the Gospel Advocate (Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp.249-252).

22. H. Leo Boles and R. H. Boll, Unfulfilled Prophecy: A Discussion on Prophetic Themes (Nashville: Gospel Advocate’ Company, 1954 reprint). This written discussion was first published in the Gospel Advocate between and including the issues of May 19 and November 3, 1927. See Choate and Boles, p. 167; Edward Fudge, “Millennialism in the Restoration Movement,” Gospel Guardian, XXI: 12-14 (July 24-August 7, 1969), pp. 181-185.

23. See the issues of the Gospel Advocate from March 11, 1915 to February 24,1916.

24. Probably the best known of these was the Neal-Wallace discussion in Winchester, Kentucky, in 1933.

25. See Powell and Powers, pp. 180-182.

26. See The Anchor That Holds: A Biography of Benton Cordell Goodpasture (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1971), pp. 140-146. For the biographical information on Brewer, see A Story of Toil and Tears of Love and Laughter (Being the Autobiography of G. C. Brewer, 1884-I956), Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957).

27. In 1958, the religion editor of the Nashville Tennesseean estimated that there were over 110 Churches of Christ in Davidson County (metropolitan Nashville). See James W. Carty, Jr., Nashville as a World Religious Center (Nashville: Cullom & Ghertner, 1958), p. 11.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 460-462
May 29, 1975