A Century Ago: The Conflict and Controversy That Created the North American Christian Convention

Included in the October 9, 1926, edition of Christian Standard was an eight-page “Supplement” published one month before the International Convention of the Disciples of Christ in Memphis, Tennessee. This “Supplement” announced that Leslie Wolfe (1876-1945), a long-time missionary to the Philippines, would attend the Memphis gathering to share his ordeal with the United Christian Missionary Society (UCMS) and his decision to remain in the Philippines as a direct-support missionary. It also criticized the progressive wing of the Disciples and called for debates on a triad of issues that had disrupted the Disciples throughout the first quarter of the twentieth century: Modernism, open membership, and the UCMS.

S. S. Lappin (1870-1960), former editor of Christian Standard, made it clear that open membership, the “belief in or practice of the reception of unimmersed persons into the membership of churches of Christ,” was the pivotal issue of the controversy. In addition to describing open membership as “the current expression of Modernism” within the Restoration Movement, Lappin made it clear that the well-founded concerns raised about open membership on the mission field by conservative Disciples had been repeatedly dismissed by the liberal leadership of the UCMS and brushed aside without consequences or response.

MODERNISM COMES TO THE MOVEMENT

Theological liberalism, or Modernism, originated in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries in Germany. By the latter half of the nineteenth century, it had spread throughout much of western Europe and across the Atlantic Ocean to North America. And while the ideas of modernist theology—most notably the promotion of Biblical Higher Criticism—initially made their way into the Restoration Movement via the academic classrooms, they did not immediately influence the practice and teachings of local churches. Before long, however, progressive liberalism filtered into both local congregations and foreign mission fields.

In December 1889, Dr. R. C. Cave (1843-1923), minister of Central Christian Church in St. Louis, preached a sermon on John 1:18 in which he claimed the Bible was the result of an evolutionary process rather than divine revelation. Furthermore, Cave denied the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus, while insisting that there are no conditions for salvation. When Cave’s sermon was published in the St. Louis Republic newspaper, it gained national attention within the movement and caused a significant upheaval. Cave ultimately lost his ministry position as a result of his objectionable teachings, yet many of the views he espoused soon gained acceptance within the movement.

Also in 1889, Hugh C. Garvin (1842-1918), who had studied in Germany and adopted many of the principles of theological liberalism, began teaching at Butler University. Garvin went on to introduce the concept of open membership to his students. By 1894, George E. Hicks (1865-1954), one of Garvin’s students, introduced the practice of open membership to his church in Indianapolis. While only a few additional instances (in Cleveland and New York) of open membership would be detected by the end of the nineteenth century, the practice gained a wider acceptance in the early years of the twentieth century.

With the advancement of Modernism and open membership, three significant results emerged. First, the liberal segment of the movement sought to cast aside (or redefine) the original principles of the movement. Second, the advocacy of theological liberalism brought about major conflicts within the churches, colleges, and mission fields. And third, there arose a swelling interest on the part of the theologically conservative elements of the movement to reassert the original aims and principles of the Restoration Movement.

THE CONSERVATIVE REACTION

As Biblical Higher Criticism, open membership, and other facets of theological liberalism made greater inroads into the movement in the early years of the twentieth century, conservative opposition arose from the likes of J. W. McGarvey (1829-1911) and others. Moreover, Christian Standard became the flag bearer for the traditional ideals and theological views of the Restoration Movement, especially the authority of Scripture.

At the 1919 International Convention of the Disciples of Christ in Cincinnati, Christian Standard organized a pre-conference “congress” that was endorsed by hundreds of people from within the movement (including Alexander Campbell’s daughter, Decima Barclay) to object to the further advancement of liberalism within the movement. Under the headline, “To the Rescue of the Restoration Movement,” Standard Publishing printed both the names of those who supported the congress and the gathering’s four objectives:

• To renew “New Testament evangelism, which is the crowning glory of the Restoration.”
• To repudiate “the materialistic philosophy which discredits Scripture.”
• To repudiate “the methods of compromise which would substitute a variety of human creeds for the simply creed of the New Testament.”
• “To take such action as may be found necessary to reassert the New Testament plea with clearness and increased vigor, and to insure its perpetuation unimpaired.”

The International Convention that followed the congress would establish the battlefield upon which the conservative-liberal struggle would ultimately play itself out.

THE NEW BATTLEFIELD

At the 1919 International Convention, amid vociferous objections from conservatives, the Disciples elected to consolidate the three existing missionary societies, along with six additional organizations, into a single entity designated the United Christian Missionary Society. The UCMS, which officially began in 1920, became the battlefield for the movement’s liberal-conservative conflict. Prior to combining the movement’s three earlier missionary societies into a single organization, supporters could withdraw their funding of an organization if they felt the missionaries were not upholding the traditional views of the movement and redirect that money to another missionary society. With only one organization, however, the option of supporting another missionary society was no longer a possibility.

The first salvo on the UCMS battlefield emerged in the summer of 1920, when Robert E. Elmore (1878-1968), a former member of the executive committee of the Foreign Christian Missionary Society (now merged into the UCMS), contended that the UCMS missionaries in China were practicing open membership. The controversy that ensued surrounding the allegations was subdued when Charles Medbury (1865-1932), minister of the University Church in Des Moines, Iowa, offered the “Medbury Resolution” at the International Convention in St. Louis. Based on an agreement the Foreign Christian Missionary Society had adopted in 1918, the new resolution reiterated the need to follow traditional Restoration Movement practices and called for the “prompt cessation of service” by any who could not conduct themselves thusly. Ultimately, the “Medbury Resolution” failed as it was reinterpreted by the UCMS leadership and it created no mechanism for recalling missionaries who failed to abide by the terms of the resolution.

Amid further accusations and denials from both sides, John T. Brown (1869-1926), a Louisville minister and member of the UCMS’s board of managers, embarked upon a world-wide tour that enabled him to observe the missionaries of China and the Philippines. Upon returning, Brown confirmed Elmore’s accusations as he reported that the missionaries in China and the Philippines were indeed practicing open membership. The executive committee of the UCMS responded by censuring Brown and attempting to discredit him. Zachary T. Sweeney (1849-1926), popular minister of the church in Columbus, Indiana, however, was prompted to author another resolution for the 1922 International Convention requiring missionaries to uphold the traditional beliefs and practices of the movement. Like Medbury’s earlier resolution, however, the “Sweeney Resolution” was reinterpreted when the UCMS leadership offered the “Higdon Interpretation”—named after E. K. Higdon (1887-1961), a missionary to the Philippines who advocated open membership—as their understanding of the resolution. The “Higdon Interpretation” essentially nullified the resolution and it accomplished nothing.

The 1925 International Convention in Oklahoma City was the high-water mark for the conservative effort to halt the practices of liberalism on the mission field. A series of rallies sponsored by the newly formed Christian Restoration Association, along with the continued reporting of Christian Standard, kept the movement informed about both the open membership issues and the UCMS’s adoption of comity agreements (proposals to divide missionary territories along denominational lines). Conservatives turned out en masse for the Oklahoma City convention to uphold the traditional beliefs and practices of the movement.

Only a month before the Oklahoma City convention, a “Peace Commission” appointed after the 1924 convention, assembled five representatives from both sides of the UCMS controversy. The group hammered out a “Peace Resolution” to present at the Oklahoma City convention. The “Peace Resolution” unequivocally stated that “no person” who serves with the UCMS should advocate open membership, and that any violator must “be severed as an employee” of the UCMS. After considerable debate, the convention’s vote on the resolution was overwhelmingly favorable. Once again, however, the UCMS’s board of managers offered a variant interpretation of the resolution and it was never enforced.

In another move, to counter the earlier claims of John T. Brown, the UCMS appointed an Orient Commission in early 1926 to visit and report on the missionary works in the Philippines and China. To no one’s surprise, the commission reported that open membership was not taking place in the missionary churches of the Orient. A further action of the commission was to step into a months-long controversy between missionaries E. K. Higdon and Leslie Wolfe, who were at odds over open membership and a comity agreement that threatened to remove Wolfe from his long-established work in Manila. With the commission’s endorsement, Wolfe was ordered to return to the U.S. and his UCMS funding was terminated on April 30, 1926. Upon hearing this news, however, Christian Standard and the Christian Restoration Association encouraged Wolfe to remain in Manila and advanced him a year’s salary. According to David Filbeck in The First Fifty Years: A History of the Direct-Support Missionary Movement, the “dismissal of Leslie Wolfe” from the UCMS was “the beginning of Direct-Support missions.”

THE ROAD TO MEMPHIS

The “Supplement” to Christian Standard’s October 9, 1926 issue led with the headline, “Memphis or What?”, an expression of uncertainty about how the convention would unfold. In addition to recapping the events of the past few years and reminding readers of the UCMS’s failure to uphold previous resolutions, Christian Standard’s “Supplement” piled on additional news items and charges against the UCMS’s leadership. An editorial in the “Supplement,” entitled, “What Will They Do at Memphis?”, perceptively suggested, “They will do just what they have been doing.”

Prior to the Memphis convention (November 11-17, 1926), the conservative “Committee on Future Action” met at the nearby Pantages Theater November 10-11 to hear Wolfe’s account of his experiences with the UCMS in the Philippines and to plan a course of action for the upcoming convention. Conservatives believed Wolfe’s testimony at the convention would bring additional light on the UCMS situation and force the churches to act upon the problem. Instead, the liberal leadership of the Disciples granted Wolfe only a few minutes before the assembly and spurned his claims as they highlighted the report of the Commission on the Orient. Moreover, those who spoke in support of Wolfe, according to James DeForest Murch (1892-1973), were “insulted and made to appear as fools.” Edwin R. Errett’s (1891-1944) Christian Standard headline described the assembly as “A Convention of Bad Faith.” Many of the disillusioned conservatives, according to Murch, “went home determined that they would never again set foot in such a national gathering.”

Following the success of the Oklahoma City convention, the Committee on Future Action felt cautiously optimistic about what might transpire in Memphis. The disappointing failure they experienced amid political maneuverings and misrepresentations, however, convinced the committee that the only way to stand against Modernism would be to form a new method for missionary accountability that would not serve the interests of the UCMS and create a new convention that would abandon politics and business altogether. The answer for missions was the establishment of direct-support missionaries who were independent of the UCMS (thus identified as “independents,” while supporters of the UCMS were known as “cooperatives”). Then, when the Disciples chose to refrain from holding their International Convention in 1927 because of the extreme tensions of Memphis, the Committee of Future Action responded with the creation of the North American Christian Convention (NACC), as an assembly designed for preaching, teaching, and fellowship. The NACC first met in October 1927 at the Cadle Temple in Indianapolis.

Neither the independent missionary efforts nor the NACC was established to divide the Disciples of Christ. Eventually, however, these developments culminated in the emergence of the Christian Church/Church of Christ fellowship as a distinct body of believers that was no longer connected to the Disciples of Christ.

Author: Rick Cherok

Rick Cherok serves as Managing Editor of Christian Standard, Executive Director of Celtic Christian Mission, and Minister of the Phillips Christian Church in Salem, Ohio.