Some Background to the Later Division over Prophecy

        [Dr. Rollman, a professor and historian is working on a very thorough biography of R. H. Boll, whose character and significance he deeply appreciates. In this article he describes, rather than evaluates, events leading up to Brother Boll’s becoming editor of Word and Work in 1916—Alex V. Wilson, 2003)

          Stanford Chambers, the new editor of Word and Work after D. L. Watson, had –like R. H, Boll—been a student of James A. Harding in the Nashville Bible School. He had been disappointed by Church of Christ preacher L. S. White’s performance during the notable debate in 1908 between White and Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Chambers late wrote, “I had no sympathy with Chas. T. Russell’s theory, but I could not find in my Bible all that Brother White taught.” He also said that White contradicted other popular Church of Christ teachers like Harding, Brents, Lard, and Lipscomb.

In the wake of this debate and in order to clarify such prophetic issues, Chambers started in the September 1913 Word and Work a regular “Department of Prophecy.” This became a forum for dispensational thought and the study of the prophecies. H. L. Olmstead used his “Department of First Principles” in the same journal in those pre-war years for the discussion of premillennial topics as well, as did E. L. Jorgenson in his “Department of Work and Worship.” In 1914 Charles M. Neal also wrote a lengthy dispensational series on the kingdom in the Cincinnati-based Christian Leader, a journal published by friends and supporters of Harding. Neal’s articles soon appeared as a book, illustrated with apocalyptic charts and titled Lessons on the Kingdom. This work, advertised vigorously in Word and Work, appears to be the first dispensationalist book published among Churches of Christ.

Olmstead, who headed the department “First Principles” in Word and Work was also editor of the Odessa-based Christian Companion, in which he did not hesitate to reprint without modifications from the Scofield Study Bible an article on the “kingdom.” Later, in 1915, he would also engage, together with Boll, in discussions on apocalyptic themes with the editors of the Gospel Advocate, who opposed premillennial ideas. In 1914 and 1915 Boll, Chambers, and Olmstead also published commentaries on portions of the book of Revelation that followed strikingly similar interpretive principles and traditions. They reveal an acquaintance with the Scofield Study Bible and other premillennial literature as well as their own reading of the text. Some distinctive dispensational beliefs – such as the interpretation of the messages to the seven churches as a preview of the seven ages of church history – are shared by all three writers.

The articles of B. F. Rhodes, another student of Harding, on the Second Coning in the Gospel Herald as well as the discussion by A. M. Morris on the letters to the seven churches in Revelation in Daniel Sommer’s Apostolic Review were to Stanford Chambers indications of a renewed interest in eschatology. In his “Prophetic Department” Chambers rejoiced over the exploding prophetic studies during 1914 and 1915. “We predict the passing of much of the ‘Dark Age’ rubbish, 157 which has beclouded prophetic vision so long,” Chambers wrote, “and the rise of the truth above Dantic and Miltonic traditions.”

With this flurry of dispensational articles in papers of the Churches of Christ, the Gospel Advocate shareholder-editors suspected a church wide “Russellite”! conspiracy and defended their millennial distaste with vigor. This added to the tension and drama and eventually cost Brother Boll his front-page editorial position on the Advocate. This atmosphere was permeated by feelings, on the part of Boll’s friends, that the underlying reasons were personal in character, rooted in preacher jealousies and, possibly, generational differences. Even a contemporary opponent of Boll such as Price Billingsley confided to his diary: I know that the Advocate was justified in severing relations with Brother Boll, and Srygly, Smith et al. were right in the opposition to that young German theorist. Yet much of this opposition to Boll was sounded in their jealousy and suspicion of his ability to think opposite them. Those brethren are in a rut and could not now get out into new fields of thought or use any other expressions or literary forms than those they have used for long years. Boll is a new thinker and a growing man. These brethren resented this capacity in Boll, and they are naturally suspicious of something new. (Unpublished Billingsley diaries, Center for Restoration Studies, ACU)

But there emerged also a new religious identity among those sharing a common futurist premillennialism, including mutual support and reprinting of articles. When defending his prophetic views, Olmstead spoke of “several brethren, including myself,” who espouse such thought and invokes repeatedly the collective “we.” Neal, who later defended the premillennial view in a famous de bate against Foy Wallace Jr., in the introduction to his Lessons on the Kingdom was “fully aware that the views set forth in these articles did not coincide with the fathers’ of seventy-five and one hundred years ago,” but the new truths were nevertheless part of a wider and what he judged to be more profound study of the prophecies and the end-time. Neal also suggested a broad base of support for the new views, when he stated that many had now acquired a more satisfactory eschatology. “Many longing hearts,” he wrote, “that for years have been catching but vistas of glorious truths, have been led by prayerful, careful, study into a fuller and more satisfying revelation of prophetic truth than our fathers enjoyed.”

D. L. Watson, founder of Christian Word and Work, was eventually disfellowshiped by the a cappella brethren in New Orleans, ostensibly because of fraudulent fund-raising practices which had caused 158 public offenses in the brotherhood at home and abroad. Watson, on the other hand, insisted that he had been disfellowshiped for disagreeing with Chambers about prophecy, and the Gospel Advocate took his side of the story. Watson then joined the local Disciples congregation, to which Harris, his former co-editor, had defected before the issue of premillennialism arose. As noted above, Chambers as editor added several new departments, reflecting increased attention to prophetic topics. The journal changed hands again in January 1916, when R. H. Boll became editor-in-chief and publisher, while Chambers, Olmstead, and Jorgenson remained as coeditors. Boll, whose ties with the Gospel Advocate had been severed in 1915, now moved Word and Work to Louisville, Kentucky, where a new stage in its history began. And the present editor told that story, to some extent, in the March issue this year.

* [Note by avw:] In the early 1900s the Jehovah’s Witnesses were called Russellites after their founder, C. T. Russell. Then, as now, they stressed the millennium, but with peculiar views about it: Assisting Christ in His rule over the earth at that time will be 144,000 people, all of them Jehovah’s Witnesses (the most zealous ones) 

As disputes over the premillennial teaching began spreading among Churches of Christ, some who opposed it accused its teachers of being Russellites. After all, both believed in a 1000-year reign! Boll. Especially, was the object of such allegations for decades, despite his repeated denials. Research by Hans Rollman shows that this was particularly ironic. For during Boll’s years on the Gospel Advocate staff, he wrote more articles exposing the Russellites’ errors than any other writer.