The stages of development often seen in religious fellowships, related here by historian David Edwin Harrell, Jr., are well worth contemplating in these times.

1. From truth-oriented to group-oriented.

2. From open controversy to closed controversy.

3. From self-conscious rejection of society to self-conscious acceptance of society.

4. From builders to preservers.

B. C. Goodpasture fits neatly into a sociological model of second generation religious leaders. One can pretty well trace the evolution of a religious group by the changes in skills from first to second generation leaders.

1. From truth-oriented to group-oriented. First generation religious leaders are committed to ideas, often being forced to abandon their parent groups because of that commitment. Like the evangelists of New Testament days they preach their message regardless of the consequences. The second generation shows a growing concern about the good of the group, though ostensibly doctrine must still be measured by truth. But the emphasis changes. Instead of the church growing out of the truth, the truth becomes the possession of the church. The type of man demanded for the first work is a preacher, a Bible student, a defender of the truth; what is needed for the second is a conciliator and manager.

2. From open controversy to closed controversy. The method used to spread the message in a young religious movement, including the New Testament church, is open confrontation. Both in the first century and in more recent times the spread of the gospel has been marked by open discussion and debate. When one is truth-oriented, he has nothing to defend except his teachings and he has no tools for fighting except his ideas. When one’s religion becomes institutional other forces come into play. Open debate (even limited debate) may no longer seem wise if it disturbs the peace of the group and threatens the health of institutions. Furthermore, the institutions, capable of exerting pressure in indirect ways, exercise leadership which can be totally divorced from ideology. In short, B. C. Goodpasture’s leadership, it seems to me, begins a second period of religious controversy in the churches of Christ in the twentieth century, a period marked by the use of new techniques. Foy Wallace scorched heretics; Goodpasture warned them that they would lose their position in the brotherhood.

3. From self-conscious rejection of the society to self-conscious acceptance of the society. First generation religious leaders generally disdain the society they live in and openly attack the dominant religious institutions of that society. This sense of world-separation and its accompanying call for conversion is clearly present in the New Testament and in the early history of the restoration movement. Christians knew that the world considered them fanatics; they were not ashamed to be thought strange; they forged no truces with the dominant religions of their time. Second generation leaders are more apt self-consciously to seek peace with their society as the churches come to crave respectability…. “Plain” preachers and those of the next generation who are no longer “plain” generally do not say the same things.

4. From builders to preservers. There comes a time in the life of all religious groups when evangelists become confused with pastors, when evangelistic fervor turns to revivalistic concern, when debaters and polemicists turn to brotherhood managers, and when local churches become little more than sources of money for promoters. Such changes call for a shift to managerial leadership.

In the 1950s the preserving of the churches of Christ empire became central in the thought of many people. There was still a will to work, but it was directed toward preserving and improving the image of what had been hewn out of the society by the previous generation. There is a vast difference, though not always an apparent one, between preaching the gospel and converting sinners and in promoting the church of Christ.

Seeing Ourselves in Our Leaders

In every time some men have been widely visible to the Christians of their day. It has always been treacherous to view such men as “brotherhood leaders,” since such thinking almost inevitably conjures up a “brotherhood” to lead. But it also assigns a distorted weight of importance to such men; we tend to overestimate their influence; to see things in terms of what they have done to us.

Actually, these highly visible men are more like speedometers than steering wheels. They are not so much taking us some place as they are telling us where we are. B. C. Goodpasture did not make the churches of Christ what they were in the 1950s. He was a product of what they had become, perhaps the ablest product. And he led the people in the way that they had determined to go.

In the process of refreshing some older material for an upcoming series on the Quest for Undenominational Christianity, I came across this reference from an article I wrote a half-century ago.

“I presume to say that it has not escaped the notice of the careful reader of our religious periodicals, that there is, among our brethren, an increasing tendency to mercilessly criticize each other for any supposed error that they may harbor… Our religious papers are full of such controversies. One brother sets forth his views upon a certain subject, in all good conscience. Another objects to the reasoning and proof, and severely flogs him for advocating an absurd position. The first brother, finding his logic assailed, and even his motives sometimes impugned, is incensed and replies accordingly. ‘Like begets like,’ and so the controversy continues, increasing in virulence, abounding in sarcastic thrusts and personal allusions, until the ‘brother’ is lost sight of in the ‘antagonist.’ But little attention is paid now to the original matter of difference, but the greater portion of the replies are occupied in discussing ‘false issues,’ ‘exposing fallacies,’ ‘exposing non sequiturs,’ correcting ‘false impressions,’ etc.”

Observations:

(1) It has not escaped the notice of careful readers that this phenomenon is not limited these days to religious periodicals, but often is featured in social-media disputes and other venues regarding sports, politics, health issues, entertainment, and nearly any other topic one can name.

(2) Even when “another objects to the reasoning and proof” but, rather than “severely flogging” the “antagonist” for his “absurd position,” merely offers a reasoned dissent from the original, the discussion often devolves into a melee when the original proponent is the one who begets the flogging of “absurdities” which oppose her/his viewpoint. Others then join the fray.

(3) It is possible to speak truth in an unseemly, and ungracious manner which may deter some from seeing the truths thus disguised or obscured. It is also possible to lead some astray with a winsome, seemingly gracious manner that disguises the ugly truths of an unbiblical message.

(4) Historically, James H. Garrison was a “moderate” or “middle-of-the-road” voice in the late 19th-century division which produced the Disciples of Christ in the controversy over instrumental music, missionary/evangelistic societies, and other emerging denominational agencies. As “moderate” as he may have been, Garrison served as a bridge to ever more radical views and positions in the next generation of younger preachers and scholars – including his own son, W.E Garrison, a religious modernist who was long associated with the Disciples Divinity House at the University of Chicago, and helped produce the full-grown Disciples denomination.

James H. Garrison’s “moderate” views, expressed in the Christian-Evangelist, of which he was a founding editor, and his 1891 book, The Old Faith Re-Stated, attempted to convince readers that the leftward drift into modernist viewpoints of late-19th century Disciples were really no different from the positions of prior generations of believers, including Alexander Campbell, Barton W. Stone, and many others who left various denominations in their quest to become “Christians only.”

While James H. Garrison’s views may have seemed, to some, compatible with more “conservative” or Biblical views, in hindsight it becomes clear that his influence lay with those who walked a much more liberal/modernistic path back into some of the denominational structures which prior generations had left in their attempts to be independent of any denomination.