Truth Magazine

By Robert Jackson

(NOTE: The following three articles are by Robert Jackson who has preached in the Nashville area for nearly three decades. He presently works with the Riverside Dr. church. His observations on recent trends in liberalism are especially interesting since he has been watching the movement develop for twenty-five years. His articles reflect history in the making and are history themselves; each was written at the time of a specific event: the first in 1973, the second in 1974, and the third in 1975. We appreciate the opportunity to print them here in this special “Nashville” issue of Truth Magazine. His remarks illustrate the point that he and others have been making throughout the years of the current digression: When the New Testament pattern is thrown overboard, the ship of Zion is left without chart or compass. Anything can happen.)

“The Highland Situation” by Brother B. B. Baxter

The church received a letter from Brother Baxter dated October 1, 1973. Space will not permit me to notice everything that he had to say, but we will sum it up as briefly as possible.

(1) “I shall be glad to try to answer them, as best as I can. ” Brother Baxter admitted that they had received several questions in regard to the Herald of Truth and the Highland situation. He now says he is ready to answer them the best he can. This is exactly what we have been trying to get them to do for years. Just give us a Bible answer for the arrangement such as the Herald of Truth by the Highland Church. I am made to wonder if he will call all of these who now ask questions about the Herald of Truth “Antis.”

(2) Problems. Brother Baxter seems to think they mishandled the firing of Brother E. R. Harper. It is his own personal feeling that Brother Harper should have been retired with honor and with adequate income for life. He then lists other problems such as: the influence of the Radio-Television committee upon the elders. In other words, the committee has the oversight of the elders. This should cause them some concern! The influence of some is soft on the charismatic, Holy Spirit gifts issue. This, of course, should cause him some concern. It seems that they are waiting for a decision about these problems.

(3) The real problem: Don’t drop the contribution. I think Brother Baxter really brings out his true concern when he makes a plea for the elderships not to drop the program. I wonder if he would tell us whose program it is? If it is Highland’s, why would other churches drop it? Let Highland tend to its own program. Other churches have no business supporting the work of Highland unless it can be considered a “mission work.” Surely,; this large church is not On the mission list. If they program belongs to the other churches, why doe-c Highland have the oversight of it (1 Pet. 5:1-3)? Elders; are told to oversee the flock among themselves.

(4) Our attitude. Brother Baxter said their attitude would be one of “watchful waiting.” I am sure this will be the attitude of many. How long will they wait? We are waiting for someone to give chapter and verse fore such being a scriptural arrangement in the first place. Our attitude will be, “We shall see what we shall see!”

“3 Church `Splinters’ Trying for Unity”

The above headline is quoted from the Nashville Tennessean, Wednesday, June 12, 1974, page 11. Their following is quoted from the same article, “The editor is Leroy Garrett who is working in ‘Unity Forums’ to draw members of the Churches of Christ, members of their Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), and independent Christian Churches into dialogue sessions.” Well, here we are! Now I wonder what some of the churches of Christ in this city will do. Will they go along with the movement promoted by Brother Garrett? Will they be: ‘Anti” the proposal? It is getting quite close for some, is it not? In fact, it looks like the showdown is at hand. I have felt for some time that such a movement would be made, but I would have never guessed the man leading the movement would have been Brother Garrett. In a case you have forgotten, Brother Garrett is the main who led the movement in this city several years ago which taught that it was a sin for a local church to have a local preacher. Now, he has jumped the fence and gone all the way to accepting people who use instrumental music in worship. What a jump!

I wonder what some of the churches in this area will say if one of the following plans of unity is suggested: (1) The Christian Church and Disciples of Christ give up the Missionary Society and accept the sponsoring church plan. (The only difference between them is th at the Missionary Society is under a Board of Director’s and the sponsoring church is under the eldership of is local church.) (2) The churches in Nashville who favor the sponsoring church and church support of colleges, etc. accept the use of instrumental music if the others give up the missionary society. (Really, they are already united for there is no difference. There is no Bible authority for either.) It is our plea at the Riverside Drive church of Christ for churches to be organized work, and worship with Bible authority. This is our plea for Unity.

Greater Nashville Area Campaign for Christ

The church at Riverside Drive received some advertisement about the “Greater Nashville Area Campaign for Christ.” No doubt this effort will be received by the majority of churches in this area as a great and wonderful work-without considering if such is in harmony with the Word of God. This is what I am concerned about at this time. Is such an effort in keeping with the Scriptures? Remember that Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23). The church must act by the authority of Christ-by the authority of His Word. The church of Christ does not have the right to change a law that God has made, nor make a law that God has not made. Keep this in mind as we note a few things:

(1) Under the oversight of the Radnor elders. The letter stated that this work is being done under the oversight of the Radnor elders. Question for the Radnor elders: Is this your work or the work of other churches? If this is the work of Radnor and her elders, then where do they get the authority to bring other churches under their oversight to do Radnor’s work? If it is the work of other churches, then where do the elders at Radnor get the authority to oversee the work of those other churches? In fact, where do the Radnor elders get the authority to oversee anything other than the work at Radnor? Listen carefully to what the apostle Peter had to say about this issue: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind” (1 Pet. 5:2). The Radnor church acts contrary to the Word of God when she takes the oversight of the work of other churches. If the elders of the Radnor Church can supply the scripture for taking the oversight of the work of other churches, then I hope she will step forth and show where it is. Will she do it? We shall see what we shall see!

(2) No stopping place. You would think that brethren would learn from past departures that there is no stopping place. If we can do this without Bible authority, then we can add instruments of music to worship. We can, as some have, build gyms, etc. This lack of respect for God’s Word is what led to the movement that is now in our city that asserts that some can speak “in tongues” and perform miracles. What does Radnor tell these brethren when they say we do not need Bible authority for such action? What will Radnor tell them if they ask for Bible authority for her present action in this “campaign”? It is indeed a shame that brethren let their zeal act without knowledge.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, pp. 451-452
May 29, 1975

By Bill Hawkins

Trying to operate a divinely given relationship without following divinely given directions is never successful. Just as God has created the family relationship, He has also given rules in the Scriptures to regulate it. Many families today are either ignorant of them, or have chosen to ignore them, with the result being that their families are less happy and beneficial or completely wrecked.

The Family Is a Needed Relationship

When God said in Gen. 2:18, “it is not good that the man should be alone,” He surely could have made another sort of help meet for the man, but He chose to make woman. Then we learn from 1 Cor. 7:3-5 that both the wife and the husband are dependent upon one another for mutual needs. Since God has forbidden fornication and sanctified marriage (Heb. 13:4), He has by implication made the family the relationship in which children should be born, and has charged the parents with training them in His ways (Eph. 6:4). In this regard, most of us recognize that Timothy is a prime example of a Christian. Paul spoke on two occasions as though parental influence was a significant factor in making Timothy a Christian, speaking of “the faith which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice” (2 Tim. 1:5), and “from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures” (2 Tim. 3:15). In light of the human need for the family, is it any wonder that Satan is striving in his subtle ways to destroy it in our time by divorce, by “free love,” etc.?

Authority in the Family

Does any arrangement involving more than one person work as it should unless someone is in charge of it? We cannot expect the family to function properly without recognition by all members of the family that God has made the husband the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23-24) and both parents to be over the children (Eph. 6:1-2). It is not proper, according to worldly wisdom, for the wife to be in subjection to her husband, but it is the will of God. Neither is it proper, according to youthful Wisdom, for a child to submit to parents but it is according to God’s Word. This does not mean that the husband and father should do everything, but that the family is under his direction. He may give responsibilities to the wife in certain areas, and also to the children in like manner.

In spite of the fact that the Lord has made the parents to have authority over the children and commanded the child to obey the parents, we often see a kind of parental folly in these matters. I have never known a child who was completely, submissive on his own (while some certainly are more than others); this is something that parents must instill in them from birth without compromise. It does not take long for the parent to convince the young child by firmness that obedience to the parent is not only better, but also easier. This can never be done by foolishly allowing children to hit or fight back at the parents, to rail out disrespectfully, to argue with the child about whether he will obey, coaxing to obey, and other displays of weakness and compromise. Parents should certainly be willing to discuss matters of judgment and to be “reasoned with” by children but finally their judgment must prevail. After all, their age and experience is qualification enough for this and, as it has been said before, God’s way is for the parents to have the children not the children to have the parents. Parental folly sometimes occurs when one is persuaded by the Dr. Spock crowd that a child should not be whipped, or punished to obtain obedience. Not only will this system not work (look at society today), it also ignores Divine teaching. The American Standard New Testament renders Eph. 6:4 in this way; “and ye fathers provoke not your children unto wrath; but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord.” Notice that chastening is part of bringing up a child. In Prov. 13:24, the wise man said, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son; but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

Benefits Accompanied by Responsibilities

The husband is charged to provide for the family’s physical needs (1 Tim. 5:8), to love his wife as his own self (Eph. 5:23), and to avoid harsh, unjust dealings with his children. Avoid being critical of everything and complimentary of nothing so as to provoke and discourage the child; calculate every action to bring the child closer to God (Eph. 6:4). According to Tit. 2:4-5 and 1 Tim. 5:14, wives are responsible to love their husbands and children, to be workers at home, and to guide the house by taking part in all phases of the child’s development. Many of today’s women are so deluded by the “glamor” of business, professional, and social activities that they neglect motherhood; there is no work more influential and important than that of a godly mother. The child’s responsibility is to submit to the parents’ efforts to bring them up in the ways of God and to understand why parents make decisions not popular to them.

Truth Magazine XIX: 29, p. 450
May 29, 1975

By Steve Wolfgang

In the fall of 1796, 24-year-old Barton Warren Stone arrived in Middle, Tennessee, at a settlement known as “Bledsoe’s Creek, five miles east of Gallatin and the site of present-day Castalian Springs. Stone visited at Shiloh,. . .about a mile east of Gallatin, and then went on to Nashville.”(1) Stone, at that time a Presbyterian, had left North Carolina where he had attended David Caldwell’s “log college” at Guilford(2) (near present-day Greensboro) and had come in contact with revivalist James McGready in May.(3) When he left, Tennessee was only a territory; while he journeyed (via Virginia) across the Cumberlands to Knoxville, it had become the third state to join the original thirteen in the Union.(4) Leaving Knoxville, Stone journeyed west to Nashville, during which trip he encountered several Presbyterian preaching friends. Arriving in the vicinity of Nashville, Together the three friends traveled throughout the area holding services in the settlements. Stone did most of the preaching. . .The Presbyterian Church in Nashville was especially cordial to Stone, and. . .Stone preach (ed ) to the congregation several times. Stone had become a familiar and admired figure in the region. Virtually every person who saw and heard him remembered the occasion.(5) At that time, Nashville was a quite unimpressive frontier settlement, “a poor village, hardly worth noticing,” said Stone.(6) In October, Stone left Nashville and moved to a place near Lexington, Kentucky, called Cane Ridge.

Sixteen years later (in late 1812, while “Old Hickory” was returning to Nashville with his militia via the Natchez Trace), Stone also returned to the Nashville area.

The years in Kentucky (had) moved rapidly and were filled with dramatic and panoramic event.-pastor for the small Presbyterian congregations of Cane Ridge and Concord; climactic manifestations of the Great Western revival at Cane Ridge; doctrinal difficulties with the Washington Presbytery; jurisdictional ‘troubles with the Synod of Kentucky; participation in the establishment and dissolution of the Springfield Presbytery; the emergence and forming. . .and active leadership in the new communion devoted to the objective of church union.(7) The immediate cause of Stone’s return was the death of his wife on May 30, 1810, leaving him with four little girls. Stone remarried and moved back to Tennessee.

In Tennessee, Stone’s first efforts in preaching and establishing. . .congregations were in the area around Nashville. . .Here he was in familiar territory and in the presence of old friends. When he had been among them as a Presbyterian, they had heard him gladly; now, they reasoned, the man had not changed, even if his message and ecclesiastical affiliation had. . .Consequently, Stone found a ready and warm response to his proclamations and organizational endeavors from some of his friends and a few of their neighbors. When he moved to Mansker Creek, not far from present-day Hendersonville. . .he was able to extend the scope of his travels. Some trips took him as far as Rutherford County, and eventually to Maury and Marshall Counties. So Stone, the best-known leader of the Christian Church, patterning his activities somewhat along the line of the Methodist Circuit Rider, personally laid. the foundation for the movement in Tennessee.(8)

Although Stone left Tennessee after two years, his influence and the work he had accomplished among the churches remained much longer.

Philip Slater Fall

A decade later, another young preacher, Philip Slater Fall, moved to Nashville from Louisville. Fall had come to Louisville as the minister of the Baptist Church in January, 1823.(9) Before the year was out he had read Alexander Campbell’s famous “Sermon on the Law” as well as the first few issues of the new publication, the Christian Baptist.

He came out as a bold and earnest champion for the Restoration Movement which was being led by Alexander Campbell. Fall expressed his views both in private and in public. Soon his Louisville congregation was sympathetic to his position. Feeling that the Baptist Church, as it then existed, was not following the practices of New Testament Christianity, the Louisville congregation, late in 1823. . . recognized and followed the New Testament as its sole and sufficient rule of faith and practice,’ and the church had the distinction of being the fourth in which the ancient order of things’ had been introduced. It was preceded only by Brush Run, Wellsburg, and Pittsburg.(10)

Fall’s new insights were strengthened by Campbell’s visit to Louisville in November, 1824.(11) The following year, Fall received an invitation to move to Nashville to preach for the Baptist church there, as well as to teach at the Nashville Female Academy. The Nashville Baptist Church’s preacher had died, and they had heard of Fall; on August 23, 1825 they wrote him, stating that “some people have started a report among us that you have become a `Campbellite’. . .you need have no apprehensions on this ground. . .you will find enough here to support you who are tied to no doctrines but those that are indubitably scriptural.”(12) This analysis of the congregation proved correct, for after only a short time, the majority of the group followed Fall in renouncing the Baptists.

Fall carried most of the congregation with him, and this schism almost destroyed the original Baptist Church of Nashville before it was a decade old. Only five members of the congregation remained true to the old Baptist faith but this did not prevent them from organizing the First Baptist Church of Nashville.(13)

At the time that Fall moved to Nashville, it was described as a “picturesque town and the natural beauty of its setting perhaps compensated in part for the material and cultural refinements which it lacked.”(14)

In 1823-and in all probability the scene had changed little by 1825-there were only about five hundred buildings in the town. Less than a dozen boasted a third floor, and even some of the larger two-story dwellings were constructed of logs. There were at least seventy-three log houses within the corporate limits. . .(15) Little more than a year after Fall’s arrival, “in February 1827, Campbell came to Nashville, his first visit to the state and Capital City, where his daughter, Mrs. John Ewin, resided.”(16)

Several of the more gifted members. . . deeply convinced of the rightness of their position, `went everywhere, two by two, preaching the gospel.’ The membership grew rapidly and the church was well on its way to becoming the largest congregation of any faith in the state. It was the largest congregation in the Restoration movement.

In December, 1830, Alexander Campbell paid his second visit to Nashville, accompanied by Jacob Creath, a former Baptist minister with whom Fall had once served as an associate. . .On Tuesday, December 14, Campbell, along with Fall, left for Franklin and Columbia.

Services in Nashville were to be conducted by Jacob Creath in their absence. At Franklin, Campbell spoke to large groups which gathered in the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches. In Columbia, Fall preached in the Methodist church on Saturday evening and Campbell at both of the Sunday Services.

.Campbell’s visit to Nashville, and his travels to adjoining areas, inspired the new church to greater and more active interest in `Restorationism.’ Even some church leaders of other Protestant groups who had attended the Campbell addresses went back to their churches advocating a return to `New Testament Christianity.’ The Nashville congregation was then made aware of its strategic position both within the Restoration Movement and the South. When Campbell visited Nashville in 1835, the church. . .had grown to six hundred . . .(17)

Campbell had also made a trip to Nashville in 1831, and “this time had a public debate with Obediah Jennings, Nashville’s Presbyterian preacher;” that same year, Philip Fall resigned and returned to Kentucky due to ill health.(18)

The following year, in January, 1832, 21-year-old Tolbert Fanning enrolled in the University of Nashville.(19) Fanning had been preaching for three years, not always with good success. One elderly sister told him, “You have made a failure. You are neither called nor qualified to preach. You ought not to try. You will disgrace the cause.” Farming’s homespun clothing and gangling six-foot-six frame caused one brother to remark to him, “Brother Fanning, you can never preach, and will always run your legs too far through your breeches. Do go home and go to plowing.”(20) Even one of the pioneer preachers, Rees Jones, told him, “I do not think you will ever make a preacher. It might be well for you to go at something else.”(21) Fanning had also been arrested and sued for inciting slaves to rebellion in Murfreesboro after he rebuked, in a public sermon, a prominent church member who had the week before sold one of his slaves (also a church member), separating him from his wife and children(22).

Thus, Fanning sought to educate himself at the University of Nashville, from which he graduated in 1835. After Fall’s departure, the services of the church at Nashville were largely carried on by the elders, freeing Fanning and another young evangelist, Absalom Adams, to do evangelistic work in Middle Tennessee. One of the congregations Fanning was instrumental in starting was at Franklin (although Campbell preached in Franklin, there were no baptisms until August of 1831, when the two young preachers baptized seventeen).(23) Toward the end of his collegiate career, Fanning experienced a unique opportunity:

Young Fanning, barely twenty-five years old and nearing the completion of his college course, was permitted to accompany Campbell on a preaching tour in the spring of 1835 through Kentucky and other points East, and again on a more extensive tour the following year.(24)

The 1836 tour took them through the Western Reserve of Ohio to Cleveland, to Canada and New York via Lake Erie, and finally to Baltimore before returning to Bethany. Campbell wrote of his young protege:

The church (in Nashville-SW) now counts about six hundred members, and employs brother Fanning as its evangelist. This devout, ardent, and gifted brother, about finishing his academic studies in the University of Nashville. . .expects to graduate next September, and is desirous of fitting himself for permanent and extensive usefulness.(25)

In November, 1835, Fanning had married Miss Sarah Shreve at Nicholasville, Kentucky, and apparently made plans to teach with Walter Scott at Bacon College at the session ‘beginning November 14, 1836.(26) Tragically, however, his wife died shortly after their marriage. Fanning had met Charlotte Fall (Philip’s sister) while she was teaching at the Nashville Female Academy during Fanning’s student days at the University of Nashville. They were married on December 22, 1836, and the following month moved to Franklin to found another female academy.(27) For three years they remained in Franklin, “watering” what Fanning had “planted” there several years before.

In January, 1840, having become an officer of the Tennessee Agricultural Society and .editor of its periodical, the Agriculturalist, Fanning moved to a farm (which he dubbed “Elm Crag”) on the outskirts of Nashville, near the present site of the Metropolitan Nashville Airport, Berry Field.

This was the last move which Fanning made. As the years passed, the city of Nashville grew dearer to him. It was always a warm experience to return from an extensive preaching tour to the city into which he poured so much of himself during the thirty-five years that he was its citizen. When he moved there on January 1, 1840, Nashville was a thriving, active little city of seven or eight thousand people (not including Negroes ). Already it had become a, great emporium of trade, literature, and fashion for the state . . . . Even then it was being compared to Athens because of its educational accomplishments, and someone observed, it certainly cannot be said, there is a more church going place anywhere

When Fanning rode into town as the editor of the new Agriculturalist magazine, he could count four banks and about forty wholesale and retail stores . . . Other things made Nashville a center of interest in that year, including a great political convention: . .Such ado about nothing was usually quite irritating to Fanning. For him there were more important things. . .In the spring of that year, Fanning was encouraged to see twenty-six baptized into Christ in Nashville during a series of meetings. The preacher was B. F. Hall, from whose lips Fanning himself heard the gospel when he was a lad.(28)

However, things would not be so bright for the church in Nashville for a good while. During the decade of the forties and fifties, Fanning found himself enmeshed in the controversy between Campbell and Jesse B. Ferguson, whose universalism would carry a significant portion of the church in Nashville, Middle Tennessee, and other areas into apostasy.(29) Ferguson served as minister for the church in Nashville from February 24, 1846 until his resignation on June 1, 1856, and his teachings eventually resulted in a splitting of the Nashville congregation and a suit over the property.(30) On April 8, 1857, the large and finely furnished building burned to the ground; “many were convinced that it was the work of the Ferguson party” (who had lost the suit).(31) Philip Fall was invited to return, and accepted. By the eve of the Civil War, however, the congregation still numbered only slightly more than 200, “less than half of what it had been when Fall moved away from Nashville almost thirty years earlier.”(32)

Years before, in January of 1844, Fanning had received from the Tennessee Legislature a charter for Franklin College, named for Benjamin Franklin and operated on the property at Elm Crag. It is through this medium, perhaps, that Fanning exerted his greatest influence on the Churches of Christ. One historian has said, “his lasting influence stems from his work as mentor and molder of a generation of young Southern preachers who formed the vanguard of religious conservatism ip the Disciples of Christ in the last half of the nineteenth century. When the Churches of Christ emerged as an independent group early in the twentieth century, it was led by a coterie of Fanning proteges-David Lipscomb, William Lipscomb, and Elisha G. Sewell.”(33)

The forties also found Fanning engaged in , controversy, first with N. L. Rice, the year before the Campbell-Rice debate,(34) and also with those who were rapidly making. the church of the Lord a handmaid to their human institutions and projects.(35) While Fanning. respected Campbell, and “regretted that he gave (Rice) the opportunity” to “prepare for Campbell,”(36) the formation of the American Christian Missionary Society in 1849, and Campbell’s attendant acceptance of the presidency, signaled the beginning of a deterioration of the relationship between the two men which eventually resulted in a bitter controversy involving Fanning and, at first, Robert Richardson, and later an aging Alexander Campbell.(37)

Endnotes

1. Herman A. Norton, Tennessee Christians: A History of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ ) in Tennessee -(Nashville: Reed and Company, 1971), p. 5.

2. William Garrett West, Barton Warren Stone: Early American Advocate of Christian Unity (Nashville: Disciples of .Christ Historical Society, 1954), p. 3.

3. Stone had also come in contact with Hope Hull, a sympathizer of James O’Kelly, while teaching at Succoth Academy in Washington, Georgia, in 1795 (West, p. 14).

4. Tennessee was admitted to the Union as the sixteenth state on June 1, 1796 (Stanley J. Folmsbee, Robert E. Corlew, and Enoch L. Mitchell, Tennessee: A Short History, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1969, p. 112).

5. Norton, p. 6.

6. John Rogers, The Biography of Elder Barton Warren Stone Written By Himself: With Additions and Reflections by Elder John Rogers (Cincinnati: J. A. and U. P. James, 1847), p. 22.

7. Norton, p. 6.

8. Ibid., p. 7.

9. Ibid., p. 21. See also, for Fall’s career, Herman A. Norton, “Fall of Vine Street,” unpublished M. A. thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1951.

10. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 21.

11. Ibid.

12. Quoted in Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 22.

13. F. Garvin Davenport, Cultural Life in Nashville on the Eve of the Civil War (1825-1860 ) (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941), p. 92. See also Goodspeed’s General History of Tennessee, .(Nashville: Goodspeed Publishing Company, 1887), p. 701.

14. Davenport, p. 5.

15. Ibid.

16. Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 23. (After some mobility, the capital remained at Nashville after 1826. Corlew, et. al., pp. 205-206).

17. Norton, Tennessee Christians, pp. 24-25.

18. James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1969), p. 30.

19. Ibid., p. 26.

20. Ibid., pp.

21. Earl Irvin West, The Search For the Ancient Order: A History of the Restoration Movement, 1849-1906 (Volume I: 1849-1865; Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), pp. 111-112.

22. Wilburn, pp. 24-25.

23. Ibid., p. 29.

24. Ibid., p. 30.

25. Alexander Campbell, “Sketch of a Tour of 75 Days,” Millennial Harbinger, VI (June, 1835), p. 280.

26. Wilburn, pp. 36-7, 263-264.

27. Ibid., pp. 37-39, 42.

28. Ibid., pp. 43-44. Fanning’s farm was located not far from Andrew Jackson’s “Hermitage,” and was later sold to make way for the Nashville Airport (Wilburn, pp. 46, 93, 278, n. 2; Norton, Tennessee Christians, p. 70). One of the better histories of the state praised Fanning for his work in agriculture: “Enlightened leaders such as. . .Tolbert Fanning, editor of the Agriculturalist, urged farmers to diversify and practice crop rotation, contour plowing,and terracing” (Corlew, et. al., p. 294). See also Wilburn, pp. 43, 46.

29. Davenport, pp. 110-117: Wilburn, p. 66, and chapter 8, “No Room for Repentance: Nashville and Jesse B. Ferguson,” pp. 121-143.

30. Wilburn, pp. 124, 140-141.

31. Ibid., pp. 141-142.

32. Ibid., p. 142.

33. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., review of Wilburn, American Historical Review, LXXVI:1 (February, 1971), p. 200.

34. James W. Adams, “Tolbert Fanning: Southern Giant of the Restoration Movement,” Faith and Facts, II:3 (July, 1974), p. 36; Wilburn, 118-119.

35. See Wilburn chapters 9 (“Remember Nashville-And Lot’s Wife: Preachers and Church Organization”), 10 (“Concert of Action: Church Cooperation Before 1849”), 11 (“In the Multitude of Counselors: American Christian Missionary Society’), and 12 (“Before You Drive Us From You: Missionary Society Division Widens”).

36. Adams, p. 36; Wilburn, pp. 118-119.

37. Wilburn, pp. 198-203.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 443-446
May 22, 1975

By Howard See

In Psalms 107, the Psalmist extolled God’s mercies and exhorted the redeemed of the Lord. In the first two verses the Psalmist said, “O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy.” It is evident that the Psalmist considered the mercy of God in delivering Israel from the hand of the enemy, of such magnitude that those who had been thus redeemed should declare their redemption by God’s hand that all might know God’s power, love, and mercy. Their redemption was something about which one could rejoice, praise God, and tell others.

When one considers that their redemption was a physical redemption from the hand of another nation, by contrast the magnitude of our spiritual redemption in Christ Jesus becomes apparent. Paul stated that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law that the blessing of Abraham might come upon us (Cal. 3:13-14). He further taught that those who lived under the law were redeemed by Christ that they might receive the adoption of sons and thereby become heirs of Clod (Gal. 4:4-7; Cf. Heb. 9:15; 11:39-40; Rom. 8:16-17). Not only have we been redeemed from the law, but our redemption is from sin (Eph. 1:7), from all iniquity (Tit. 2:14), and from the vain conversation received by tradition from our fathers (1 Pet. 1:18-19). If the physical deliverance of Israel was considered sufficient cause for them to declare their redemption, how much more should the greatness of our redemption cause us to shout about that redemption from the house tops (cf. Mt. 10:27; Lk. 12:3). If the people of God today could be made to realize the greatness of God’s love, mercy, and goodness toward them in Christ, their mouths could not be muzzled to keep them from declaring to others what God has done for them. Indeed God so designed the kingdom as to be dependent upon the redeemed of the Lord “saying so.”

The religion of Jesus Christ is a taught religion. The author of the Hebrew letter, quoting Jeremiah, said, “. . .I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:10-11). One of the great contrasts between the law of Moses and the law of Christ involves the fact that children were born into God’s family, the Jewish nation, under the law of Moses by a fleshly or physical birth. They then had to be taught to know the Lord. Under the law of Christ, however, man is first taught to know the Lord. Faith produced in the hearts of men through the preaching of the Word (Rom. 10:17) leads them to come to the Lord in obedience to his will. They thus become children of God by a new birth (John 3:3-5). For this reason Jesus affirms that those who are taught of the Father are the ones who come unto him (John 6:44-45). John affirms that those in whose hearts faith has been produced by the gospel are the ones given power to become the sobs of God (John 1:11-12). The apostle Paul stated it well in Rom. 10:13-14 when he said, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?” In this context the Apostle demonstrated that “calling on the name of the Lord” for salvation involves hearing the gospel preached, believing the facts of the gospel and obeying the commands of the gospel (cf. vs. 16).

God has placed the responsibility for preaching or teaching the gospel of His Son upon those who are the redeemed. Jesus said to his disciples, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19-20). Paul said that “. . .it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). This responsibility of preaching or teaching God’s truth so that man might be saved has not been placed in the hands of a selected clergy. The New Testament knows of no clergy-laity distinction. Every Christian is to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Every Christian is to sanctify the Lord God in their hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks them a reason of the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15). Paul reproved Christians who by reason of time should have been teachers, but who had not grown in knowledge. Rather than being able to teach others as God intended, they still needed someone to teach them the elementary principles of the gospel (Heb. 5:12). When the Christians were dispersed from Jerusalem because of persecution “they. . .went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). Paul instructed Timothy saying, “The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Truly the Redeemed of the Lord are to “say so!”

The Psalmist indicates that those redeemed of the Lord should declare their redemption because of their appreciation for God’s power, love, and mercy extended to them in deliverance. Our appreciation for what God has done for us should certainly be sufficient to cause us to want to share our joys and blessings in Christ with others (Eph. 1:3). Just as the goodness of God leads to repentance (Rom. 2:4), the goodness of God should cause the redeemed of the Lord to “say so.”

The love that we have in our hearts for other people should cause each Christian to declare the message of God’s redemption. God has always required that man love other men (Mt. 22:37-39). Proper love for others will cause us to want them to be saved. But their salvation is dependent upon their hearing, believing and obeying the gospel (Rom. 1:13-17). When the redeemed of the Lord fail to “say so,” those whom they could have taught may never hear the gospel. Hence, faith cannot be produced that they might be led to obedience. The redeemed of the Lord will be held accountable in the judgment for their failure to declare their redemption (cf. Ezek. 3:1821). Jesus said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Mt. 7:12). Necessarily implied in the Lord’s statement is the fact that if we are thankful that someone took the time and put forth the effort to declare God’s message of redemption to. us, then we likewise ought to declare the message of redemption to others.

There are many reasons some of the Lord’s redeemed ones do not “say so.” Some are lacking in love for the Lord. Jesus said, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21). In verse 24 Jesus said, “He that loveth me not keepth not my sayings.” Inasmuch as the Lord has placed the responsibility of declaring the message of redemption upon the redeemed, a failure to “say so” indicates a lack of love for the Lord. Others, lacking proper love for their neighbors, fail to declare their redemption. Still others are ashamed of the Gospel. They will talk to others about everything but their redemption (cf. Rom. 1:16). Many put other things first and simply make no arrangements for time or opportunity to teach God’s plan of redemption to others. Many others are worldly minded (cf. 1 John 2:15). They are not truly interested in spiritual things and consequently are not really concerned about those who have not yet been redeemed. Truly the redeemed of the Lord must lay aside every hindrance, and be busy declaring God’s

message of redemption (Heb. 12:1-2; 2 Cor. 7:1; Gal. 5:7).

All of the ways by which to declare the message of redemption are ineffectual unless the redeemed conduct themselves in such a way that Christ can be seen living in them (cf. Gal. 2:20). Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Mt. 5:16). One of the greatest hindrances to human redemption is a failure of many who have been redeemed to be an example of righteousness. Peter emphasized the influence of a righteous life on others in discussing the husband-wife relationship (1 Pet. 3:1-6). This is one way in which all of God’s redeemed ones not only can “say so” but must “say so” if their redemption is to lead them to heaven. The redeemed of the Lord may also declare their redemption to others through the use of attractive, well written tracts.. Almost every local church makes good tracts available for use. There is power in the printed Word. The distribution of the printed Word is certainly one way that all can declare their redemption.

Peter declared that each redeemed person has the responsibility of growing in knowledge through study that they may be able to,,answer the questions asked of them concerning their lope in Christ (1 Pet. 3:15). Faithful Christians are to be able to teach others (Heb. 5:12; 2 Tim. 2:2). Each redeemed person should prepare himself in order to be able to sit down in the home of non-Christians and declare unto them the message of redemption. Those who have the ability should prepare themselves to declare God’s redemption through the teaching of Bible classes or in public preaching. Remember that God gives us responsibility on the basis of our ability. God knows what our ability is and holds us accountable for not using the full extent of the ability which he has given us (Mt. 25:14-30). May we each one say with the Psalmist, “Let the redeemed of the Lord say so,” and then do it.

Truth Magazine XIX: 28, pp. 441-442
May 22, 1975