J. W. McGarvey Redivivus. . .

WHAT MUST THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
DO TO BE SAVED? (7)

In this installment of what the Church of Christ must do to be saved I am doing something different in that I am saying we would do well if we would become more like one of our honored pioneers, J. W. McGarvey. This gentle scholar and preacher, more than any of the pioneers, qualifies as “the Church of Christ pioneer.” Thomas and Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, Walter Scott, and Raccoon John Smith are our pioneers only in a secondary sense, for in their day there was no “Church of Christ” as we know it today.

Back in the time of Campbell and Stone our folk (in the larger sense) wore three names: Disciples of Christ, Christian Church, and Church of Christ. They freely used all three names interchangeably. That alone distinguishes them from the tradition of Churches of Christ, for we are adamant about using that name only. Any congregation that uses any other name is suspect.

It was only when divisions took their toll in the Stone-Campbell movement that the three names took on sectarian meaning. Today those names point to three different denominations. The oldest and original branch has recently made its name official, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), though they still some-times use Church of Christ also. Then there is the unofficial, undenominational Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, who separated from the Disciples of Christ in recent decades, and are often referred to as Independent Christian Churches. They call themselves Christian Churches and Churches of Christ but not Disciples of Christ (not over their dead body!).

We, the Churches of Christ, are the only one of the three branches that uses that name exclusively. We seem to understand that we did not exist as a separate group back in the days of Campbell and Stone. Like the Independent Christian Church, we became a separate group by way of division, the first major split in the movement, which began to take form in the 1880’s and was clearly manifest by 1906 when the U.S. Census listed us as a separate denomination.

So, if we select a “patriarch” (since we do not have patron saints!) or “our honored pioneer” for the Churches of Christ it would hardly be Campbell or Stone. I nominate J. W. McGarvey. In fact I am naming this installment “J. W. McGarvey Redivivus” in that we might be saved if we will resurrect the spirit of McGarvey and encourage our people to follow him as he followed Christ. If we have an alter ego among the pioneers it would be “Little Mac” as he was called and revered by his students at the College of the Bible in Lexington where he served as both professor and president for 40 years. And McGarvey takes us back to Campbell himself, for he studied at the feet of the reformer at Bethany where he gave the Commencement address in Greek. In later years Campbell remembered McGarvey as one of his best and most gifted students.

McGarvey is our man for one special reason: He was adamantly opposed to instrumental music and vigorously fought against its introduction into the churches of his time. He was the first to argue that the instrument was a sin, and it was he who gave us our arguments against it, including the “argument from silence.” He was always exact, logical, scholarly, and persuasive. He was a giant of a scholar, even if diminutive in stature, to have on our side. When he got through lambasting the instrument, there wasn’t much left to say.

He opposed the instrument for decades, and the more he opposed it the more the churches adopted it. He at last quit arguing about it and writing about it, and when he was asked why, he conceded that it was hopeless. But he kept the instrument out of his home congregation, the old Broadway church in Lexington, where he served as both elder and preacher, for decades. It remained a cappella in deference to “Brother McGarvey,” But the church did have, with Little Mac’s approval, two pianos in the basement for Sunday School all those years. I’ll concede that’s not exactly “Church of Christ,” but McGarvey is still our man. After all, he opposed the instrument “in worship”!

When the Broadway church in 1902 at last tired of placating McGarvey and brought in an organ, the old scholar betook himself to another Christian Church across town that elected to remain a cappella. It was a noble testimonial and very Church of Christ-like. He was at the time the most renowned “Campbellite” in Lexington, if not in all of Kentucky, which was a very Campbellite state, and there he was walking out of the mother church for conscience sake.

But being a famous Campbellite isn’t all that McGarvey was at that time, for he had become one of the nation’s outstanding conservative scholars, and from his desk at the College of the Bible and in the columns of the Christian Standard he had stormed the strongholds of modem biblical criticism as it emanated from Germany and the University of Chicago. He answered all the devious arguments of “the higher critics” with the same severity as he opposed instrumental music, sometimes caricaturing them as dishonest and reprehensible. As a teacher of preachers he stood for a strong Bible-centered curriculum. He urged his students to memorize large portions of the Bible, and it was rumored that he himself knew practically all the Bible by heart. He had no equal when it came to communicating the Bible in simple, vital English.

So, there is a reason why Church of Christ colleges have “J. W. McGarvey scholarships” and why he might be canonized as our special pioneer.

But there is one problem in all this: J. W. McGarvey never belonged to the “Church of Christ”! He remained what he had always been, a Disciple of Christ, a Christian only. The story behind this is all the more reason why I call for J. W. McGarvey Redivivus as one more way to save the Churches of Christ.

When we look at the time McGarvey lived, 1829-1911, we see that he lived in the eye of the storm of the controversy that led to the separation of Churches of Christ, formerly recognized in 1906. It is noteworthy that in spite of his opposition to the organ, he refused to make it a test of fellowship, and when the Churches of Christ finally separated over the organ question, he refused to go along. He believed that the Movement did not have to divide over such differences, that there could be “organ” churches and “non-organ” churches and still maintain fellowship. While he opposed the introduction of instruments, he refused to divide over it.

Even though he left his old home church when it brought in the organ, he did not break fellowship with that church. He still visited and would occasionally preach for them, and that is where his funeral was conducted. In short, McGarvey was not a sectarian or an exclusivist. If the Churches of Christ are to be saved, they must resurrect the spirit of McGarvey. Like him, they can be strong in their convictions, including being non-instrumental, without consigning to hell all those who believe and practice differently. Like McGarvey, the Churches of Christ must not make a capella singing a test of fellowship. Again, like McGarvey, we can even say that for us instrumental music would be a sin in that it would violate our conscience to use it in worship, but we must not make it a sin for others. We must allow for honest differences on such issues.

The non-divisive spirit of McGarvey is further seen in his relation to Daniel Sommer and David Lipscomb, the “founding fathers” of the Church of Christ, both Editor Bishops, the former in the North, the latter in the South. In 1889 Sommer advocated an “Address and Declaration” in Sand Creek, Illinois in which he withdrew fellowship from the “innovators” over such departures as instrumental music. The document stated that they would not longer consider such ones as brethren. This was the beginning of the separate Church of Christ in the North. Sommer wrote in his paper that the Church of Christ would soon be as separate from the Christian Church as the Christian Church is separate from the denominations, and he added, “”Hallelujah!”!”

Since McGarvey was a celebrated scholar and anti-organ, Sommer courted his support. But McGarvey would have nothing to do with Sommer, for while he opposed the organ he did not believe in being factious over it.

So, what I am saying is that the Churches of Christ followed the wrong pioneer. We followed Sommer into sectarianism and exclusivism when we should have followed McGarvey as he followed Christ, by disagreeing without dividing.

Prof. Robert Hooper of David Lipscomb University, a Church of Christ institution, in his book on David Lipscomb, provides a revealing insight into the relationship between McGarvey and Lipscomb. While Lipscomb was also opposed to the organ, his main concern in the South was the imposition of a missionary society upon the churches, which was as “Northern” as it was unscriptural. Hooper rightly points out that Lipscomb was disturbed that McGarvey, who opposed the organ and held to a strict interpretation of the Bible, was a “society man.” How could McGarvey oppose the organ and support the missionary society?, Lipscomb lamented.

It is here that Hooper draws a revealing conclusion: “The one thing dividing them was McGarvey’s acceptance of the missionary society and his willingness to fellowship those whom he (Lipscomb) considered to be in error.” Whether intended or not, the Lipscomb scholar identified what has been the Achilles’ heel of the Churches of Christ all these years: a misunderstanding of the nature of fellowship. McGarvey understood that fellowship does not imply endorsement, and that he could enjoy communion with those who were “in error” about some things. Lipscomb did not understand that, for he presumed that if the organ and societies were wrong you could not be in fellowship with those who practiced them. Lipscomb confused fellowship and approval; McGarvey did not.

It disturbed Lipscomb that McGarvey would fellowship “brothers in error,” a bromide we have hung on ourselves all these years. McGarvey realized that those were the only ones he had to fellowship, for we are all in error about some things. That is precisely the point of Christian fellowship—that we accept each other as Christ has accepted us (Rom. 15:7), and that includes hang-ups, warts, and errors of all sorts. As Christ accepted us! Were we all free of error and right about everything when Christ in his love and mercy accepted us? How compelling! The Churches of Christ will never be saved until they come to see what Lipscomb could not see but what McGarvey did see.

The Lipscomb and Sommer mentality that we have to break fellowship when we differ on some “issue” like an organ or a society has been our undoing. That is why we not only broke fellowship with the Christian Church a century ago and became a separate church, but that is why we break fellowship with each other, spawning a new sect at the rate of one each decade in our 100 years of existence. We differ over the Sunday School and divide! We differ over communion cups and divide! We differ over church cooperation and divide! We differ over the millennium and divide! On and on it goes. We have been sold a bill of goods by Satan—and by some of our well-meaning forebears.

McGarvey is a flesh and blood example that we can look back to and up to, for in him we can see Christ’s concern for unity. Study him as he ministered to a little church outside Lexington for 19 years. While they were well acquainted with his scruples about the organ, they eventually adopted it anyway. But they went right on accepting each other without a hitch. He preached for “organ” churches during most of his long ministry, and he insisted that they not defer to his scruples during his visit. This he did because he understood what the fellowship of the Spirit is about. It transcends differences over secondary matters.

Oh, yes, I might add that McGarvey was not only anti-organ and pro-society, but also anti-plurality of cups for the Lord’s supper. He had his scruples, didn’t he? But therein is the beauty of the brother. He bore his scruples in peace, though not in silence, in “the fellowship of the Spirit” and refused to divide the Body of Christ over such differences.

J. W. McGarvey Redivivus! If in matters of unity and fellowship the Churches of Christ will be more like McGarvey and less like Sommer and Lipscomb they might be saved from obscurantism, isolationism, sectarianism, and factionalism. They were all three anti-organ, but there was a big difference. In that difference lies our salvation.—the Editor