Sunday, February 5, 2012

Darren Russell: Monikers of our Faith


Darren Russell, is from Tulare, California and is related to Marion Reese, Charles Calvin Smith, and the Morris family. On January 25, 2012, Russell contributed his first guest blog on Early Church History. Today Russell addresses the question of church names. Please come back on Wednesday, February 8 for a continuation of this topic.

* * *

A good name is better than precious ointment.
Ecclesiastes 7:1

When our faith hit these shores the predominant denomination was Congregationalist, but Rhode Island was home to the Baptists, and Pennsylvania to the Quakers. For lack of a better term they called us “Quaker Baptists” of which we were neither. Among ourselves we used the term “The Brethren.”

In the early 1700s there was a group that moved to New Jersey and created their own farming community. No name has ever been learned in which they called themselves, they disdained all creeds except the Bible, they abhorred denominationalism and so never hung a sign on their meeting house, and they hammered upon paid clergy, lawyers and doctors. They also were very upright citizens but opposed to war, especially those with political objectives. As a people they suffered greatly through the Revolution, losing much of their estates, because many suspected them of being treasonous closet Loyalists. 



This set off a migration and many fled to British Canada, Long Island, Western New York and to an area called Redstone which was on the border of Kentucky near Fayette, PA. Some returned to Connecticut from where they had originally moved.

The American Revolution had served a godly purpose of scattering the Faith all over the land reminiscent of God's dealing with the Apostles who refused to leave Jerusalem. They still considered themselves solely “Christian” and refused to organize as a religion.

By the early 1800s we find these different groups referring to themselves as “True Followers of Christ” and “Free Brethren.” It was never conceived of as a name as much as they were describing themselves in ways that communicated to the different sects they wanted no part of them. Bro. Elias Brewer was one such New Englander living in Western New York until 1826 and then moving on to Michigan. In Superior, Michigan he held meetings in his home for the “Free Brethren” and a few years later two members of his congregation, his son, John, and Judge Parkhurst erected a “Free Church” next door to him. He died there in 1870 and is buried in the Free Church Cemetery, which belonged to the church.

New York was also where Brewer baptized Jacob McDonald, where an infernal prophet created and organized a near replica of the Church, and the Brethren first received the name “The Kissers.”

The rising of the Mormons in the same place initiated confusion for the church, they were very similar in doctrine at that time and the followers of Joseph Smith referred to themselves also as “The True Followers of Christ” and “The Church of the First Born”. Smith later had a revelation that changed their name to something similar to what they are known by now, and added temple and priesthood doctrines which stretched the doctrinal differences. Many of the Faith were among the first converts of Mormonism which created much friction in future generations.

McDonald moved to Wisconsin in 1842. There were Brethren in Missouri as well, and one of them in 1850, Johnson Wright deeded his land to “Christ....and to the General Assembly and Church of the First Born”. After the Civil War the Wisconsin group led by McDonald joined those in Missouri. McDonald would move one last time to Smith County, Kansas where he died in 1891.

In the 1870s calling themselves “The True Followers of Christ,” McDonald, Marion Reece, John Annis and others preached the gospel. They were in the newspapers of the day slandered to be Mormons, but usually called “McDonaldites” from their leader, or “Faith Preachers” from their doctrine. These brethren were among the first that took up stakes in Oklahoma Territory in 1889.

In 1906, before Oklahoma was granted statehood, a letter was written from Stillwater, OK to Governor Frantz on whether or not “The Followers of Christ or Church of the First Born” were a State-recognized body and capable of performing their own marriages legally. Stillwater is where Bro. Lawrence Webb was from, and where he returned after Oregon.

In Indiana about the same time, the Church there became known as the “Viners”. This was because of the preaching to the people that they should repent and be baptized into “The True Vine.”

When WWI came about many of the people of the Faith refused to enter the war effort for conscientious reasons. A few were imprisoned and many investigated for draft evasion. The Church was even investigated for harboring German spies! The Draft Board was having issue with the Followers because they lacked an organization, formal creed, permanent building, or even so much as a uniform designation. This led to the Church being denied conscientious objector status for its members.

Two congregations in particular seeking to alleviate the situation filed petitions with the authorities to be recognized as legitimate assemblies for religious exemptions. “The General Assembly and Church of the First Born” of Indianapolis, Indiana and “The Church of the First Born also known as The Followers of Christ” in Homestead, Oklahoma. The story passed down was that both groups sought the designation “True Followers of Christ” but it was rejected by the authorities as either already taken or too vague for the purpose of identification.

When WWII hit most groups opted to fall under the umbrella of Indiana's group, homestead no longer being an active body, for purposes of the impending draft. Most at that time used the expression “Followers of Christ” to denote who they were as a group.

Since then many congregations, seeking tax exempt status, have been incorporating under different variations of these names. Personally it seems a mistake to me, if not sacrilege, to register a church's identity for tax advantage, or to incorporate and treat the “Church of the living God” as if it is merchandise. 

22 comments:

  1. That is all very interesting, but it can't be true. According to the wise ones I've talked to I the FOC, time began when the Oregon city church was established. Then it stopped when Walter White died, the end. Let me be the first to call you a liar. On a serious note, it's refreshing to have someone explain such interesting subject matter. What I used to get was a shrug, at best, and a tongue lashing for asking at worst. They want you to believe that there is NOTHING else outside of the OC church. Have you ever watched the movie "the village" the similarity is striking. Thank you Darren, and Suzi for loaning him this forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It takes a lot of courage to think for yourself when you're in that culture ... Thank you for reading and posting.

      Delete
    2. Funny. Thank you. You probably received the shrugs because many did not know their history. An odd thing for me since some of the families of the FOC in OC and Idaho have been in the same church since the 1870s.

      Delete
  2. thank you darren, i for one believe what you wrote to be an acurate history of the church. thank you suzi for publishing this on your blog. it makes since to me now why the followers of christ church and the mormon church have similar doctroine. I am looking forward to wednesday's entry. thank you thank you. and i for one do not believe this is a lie. i consider this history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sorry but i just dont see any thing similar between the wagon train robbers and killers and the God fearing honest FOC,thank you Darren for your info,and pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what the Mormon church thinks, but it's fascinating to learn of the connection. The liar thing was a preemptive snark at the haters, not serious. Please keep it coming, this info is priceless, it's been lost for a long time in the FOC. I wasted a lot of time questioning the wrong people about the history and heritage of that church. It's really cool to see where it's origins began. What do you think about the changes in the law? Obey it? Or go to jail for your beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are referring to Oregon's changes that affect faith healing based religions, personally I feel the changes are unconstitutional. Ultimately those involved need challenge the law at the next level, move, or acquiesce to it's requirements. If the spirit is in them that was in their fathers then I expect challenges. The Church in general throughout it's history has suffered greatly for religious and human causes.

      But every person must be persuaded in their own mind that they are following God and not a man before they can take a course. Apostle Paul said, "If God be for us, who can be against us?" Gamaliel gave some good advice, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:
      But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

      Now concerning the OC Church it boils down to whether they are following God or a man and his ideals. That will prove itself out eventually either way.

      Delete
    2. I think the issue in OR is over minor children, who cannot make their own decisions, not being taken for medical care. Adults are free to do what they want.

      I can't remember if the age at baptism in the FOC has been mentioned but I got the feeling from Jerry's post that 7 was considered too young and also he felt forced. If in fact, Followers wait to baptize until a person can make their own choice to do so, then shouldn't there be a parallel regarding a decision not to use doctors? Shouldn't a child be given every help to live long enough to make that decision for themselves? If parents can make that decision for their children then why not infant baptism too?

      Delete
    3. I forgot to clarify in my post at 06:50 that I realize the OC church doesn't baptize anymore. I'm asking about the FOC in general.

      Delete
    4. Yes the issues with children involved becomes a different matter for many people. A state which can not compel a group to change it's beliefs will rally support around the concept of protecting children. The community at large feels a greater responsibility to protect children from abuse, and so calls into question the constitutionality of parental rights. Usually the cases revolve around what parental rights are fundamentally protected, and what constitutes abuse?

      At stake for the community is the loss of a quantity or quality of innocent life on one hand and of their own personal constitutional and parental rights on the other. For example, parents who found the Wymans culpable in their daughter's affliction, and applauded the use of the law to send a message to THOSE parents may find themselves one day answering to the same laws and authorities for disciplining their own children. It is a double-edged sword.

      For the OC church the stakes are higher, no one could possibly be more concerned for their own children than themselves, and their injuries and loss of life affect them. Did they make the right choice? Is God pleased? Is he angry? If they give in to the state's demands then will the church survive another generation? (There are more issues than this) If the children are all raised up attending physicians then how do they teach them it's best not to go?

      Concerning baptism on the general body (not OC), it is acceptable at any time a recipient requests it, it is never coerced. I have heard of those being baptized at younger ages, willingly, and lived godly lives. Those I have seen that made that choice at an early age did not fare so well. I guess it depends on the individual. Also whether to use a physician or not is never coerced either way, once again it is a decision only subject to each person's understanding and will. Many parents I know excuse themselves from medical procedures but grant them to their children. Their rationale is that children do not yet have belief one way or the other. I can respect that decision, but don't personally buy into the line of thinking.

      The congregation I attend has several persons on both sides of that arrangement, and we still function. The over-riding concern is the gospel, and I feel that sometimes the medical issues over shadow all the others to a great detriment.

      Delete
    5. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

      This is why I am an atheist. Certain beliefs makes the god of the bible an extremely weak and weak-minded god. If the law tells you to give your child medical care, then by all means, you must submit to the law of the land in which you find yourself. Is not god all-powerful? Then why worry about the "weakness" of a doctor caring for your child? Cannot god intervene, especially considering the law you are living under if you place all of your faith in him?

      Also, when you quote-mine the bible in order to justify a certain belief, you can easily take those quotes out of context. When the bible states to "have faith in the father, and not in man" throughout the bible, it is NEVER referring to medical care! It is supposed to be much deeper than that. The bible is not supposed to be that shallow. It is referring to the spiritual element of man vs god. Not the physical.

      Delete
  5. I guess moving might be an option, as far as children knowing right and wrong, they learn by example. They don't get to do that if they are deceaced before they get the chance to choose for themselves. The omish send their children out among the world when they reach a certain age, then they decide if they want to stay or leave. They hope that they raised them right, so they will choose that life. It's not much of a parallel, but kind of interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is a parallel, except I am not sure of any Amish customs that are perceived as child welfare threats.

      Delete
  6. SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE OC FOC SHOULD NOT OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND? THAT THEY SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL AND LET SOMEONE ELSE RAISE THEIR CHILDREN?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they should obey the laws of the land as long as it does not violate their conscience toward God.

      They should not be going to jail, and should be responsible for the care and upbringing of their own children.

      Delete
    2. Yes. They should go to jail. The First Amendment does not guarantee that certain religious practices that are harmful to another person will be protected. It is why animal and human sacrifice are specifically illegal and considered murder. Anyone can claim a religious exemption for any reason.

      Even the bible holds you to account to obey the laws of the nation in which you live. Having faith in god is not supposed to conflict with what men force you to do, such as giving basic medical care to your kids. And in my Catholic upbringing, never, have I EVER, read anything in the bible regarding medical care. Nowhere in the bible does it specify "thou shalt not give medical care to your children because you need to have faith in my powers."

      Delete
  7. Darren, you said...

    "For example, parents who found the Wymans culpable in their daughter's affliction, and applauded the use of the law to send a message to THOSE parents may find themselves one day answering to the same laws and authorities for disciplining their own children. It is a double-edged sword."

    There is no doubled edged sword here...I would challenge you or anyone else to say this child did not need a doctor...

    http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon_city_news/photo/alayna1jpg-7e5bb9ccc2d6b094.jpg

    When you post statements like you did, you are essentially defending child abuse, so please stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Difficult to know which anon I am responding to, but I was asked my opinion, and I gave it, and no I do not defend child abuse, I just am careful to distinguish what is and is not. We all use different definitions of what constitutes abuse, some include discipline, some include accidents, some consider unintentional actions, I don't, and neither does the law at a national level or in most states.

      I am not saying she did or did not need a doctor. I am saying it was her parent's choice constitutionally, ethically, and scripturally.

      I find that case rather fascinating in that it seems like the family was willing to live by the state's requirements, and still felt the full impact of the authorities. What message does that send to them? to you?

      Delete
    2. I got the impression they were only obeying the laws demands because they were forced to do so. As soon as they were not under threat of punishment they would go back to faith healing.

      Time and again in the OC cases the defense has been that the parents didn't realize the child was near death. But when questioned they admit they wouldn't have used a doctor or called EMTs even if they did know. So their defense wasn't really a defense anyway.

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter what you think, Darren. "Neglect" is abuse. Period. If you do not clothe your children, that is neglect. If you do not feed your children, that is neglect. If you do not medically care for your child, that is neglect. Neglect is a abuse. Child abuse is illegal.

      Delete
  8. It's his opinion, I agree with you on this one, but let the guy speak. Argue if you feel the need, but if you want to understand the FOC, this is how it gets done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am fine with debate, am fairly thick skinned. I believe that dialogue is better for understanding and I do not expect others to agree with me. Suzi has allowed me some liberties to post on here, knowing full well that we do not share in every thought on the subject.

      It is a very understandably touchy subject for both sides.

      Delete

The catchpa has been removed to enable easier commenting. Spam and irrelevant comments will be deleted.