Missions and Anti-Missions

Some people will not allow themselves to believe there is a distinction between being for preaching the gospel and starting churches (missions) and being against mission boards and mission societies. This Southern Baptist pastor studied Daniel Parker and recognized the difference. He concluded:

“When Daniel Parker died on December 3, 1844, after ten years in Texas, he had successfully demonstrated that his opposition was directed not against missions but against the mission society.” 

“Daniel Parker: Politician, Baptist, and Anti-Mission Missionary,” Max Lee (Pastor, First BC, Winnsboro, LA). The Journal of Texas Baptist History, Volume VI, 1986, William L. Pitts, Editor. Texas Baptist Historical Society, p. 8

Freely Give: a Book Review of The Dorean Principle

Conley Owens, The Dorean Principle: a Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity. Dublin, CA: FirstLove Publications, 2021. ISBN 9781953151155. 180 pages (xvi, 164). $0.00. This book is available in print from FirstLove Publications (an imprint of FirstLove Ministries) and electronically at The Dorean Principle web page.

Introduction.

The author of this work, Conley Owens, is a Reformed Baptist, a pastor at Silicon Valley Reformed Baptist Church in Sunnyvale, California. He holds an MDiv from The Log College & Seminary (formerly North American Reformed Seminary), and is also a software engineer for Google. He is a husband and father. With Andrew Case and Jon Here, he writes for the web site “Selling Jesus.” Owens states that “The goal of this brief book is to establish ‘the dorean principle,’ a biblical precept that distinguishes ethical ministry fundraising from unethical ministry fundraising” (p. 2). “The Dorean Principle: In the context of gospel proclamation, accepting support as anything other than an act of colabor compromises the sincerity of ministry.”[i] Owens wants us to learn how to discern when religious financial enterprise goes too far, and how to exercise biblical discernment that extends beyond just recognizing “the most egregious infractions” of ministry fundraising and solicitation (p. 1). The author attempts to show that the teaching of Jesus and his disciples impart this dorean principle, and that New Testament church practice accords with this biblical financial theology.

“Our methods matter” and in holy enterprises “the ends do not justify the means.” Biblical methods must rise from and accord with sound theology (“Foreword,” Joseph M. Jacowitz, p. xv). As one who has made some, albeit halting, attempt to “freely give,” to “make the gospel of Christ without charge,” and to teach that the methods we attach to our message really do matter, I find the purpose of this book compelling.

Overview of The Dorean Principle.

The presentation is divided into an introduction, fourteen chapters, and a conclusion – followed by three appendices, a bibliography, as well as both scripture and subject indices. The electronic version also includes an errata page.[ii] 

The first chapter establishes the difference between reciprocity and co-labor, using especially the statements of our Lord to his apostles as recorded in Matthew 10 (freely ye have received, freely give; the workman is worthy of his meat). This distinction may not be immediately apparent to many, but is foundational to understanding the dorean principle set forth by Owens. In brief, it is God the “employer” who “pays” those whom he calls and sends forth to minister to him. The minister does not charge those to whom he ministers the gospel. Ministry is not quid pro quo, “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine,” pay me and I’ll preach the gospel to you.[iii] 

In chapter two, Owens moves from “The Command of Christ” to “The Policy of Paul.” He explains that Paul follows a pattern consistent with the mandate of his Master. He does not receive reciprocal support, but does accept “propempo” support – the support of his co-laborers in sending him forth to minister the gospel.[iv] Chapter three investigates several examples and figures of speech relaying mediated obligation (co-labor support). The meaning of the “burden” of support for Paul is the subject of chapter four. Chapter five suggests ministerial financial policy must fit the steward or servant aspect of the minister, which fits the dorean principle. Chapters six and seven contrast sincere ministry with the insincere ministry of false teachers. “What is the fruit of false teachers? Their greed. In more concrete demonstrations, it is the acceptance of reciprocity, their exchange of ministry for money” (p. 71). This is followed up in chapter eight by looking at Paul’s attitude toward other ministers in Corinth – both the true ministers of God and those “super-apostles” (false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ) who corrupt the word of God.

Chapters 1-8 deal with the “theory” (doctrinal teaching) and establishment of the dorean principle in the scriptures. Beginning at chapter nine, Owens begins to bring the teaching down to practice, walking the reader “through some of the more prominent [biblical] examples we see of colabor” (p. 84). In chapter ten, he pursues evidence of the practice of the principle in church history. If this is a biblical teaching, wouldn’t we expect it to find some Christians practicing this? The author shows up some places we find the dorean principle put into practice. Chapter eleven defines the boundaries of what is and is not gospel ministry. To whom and in what contexts does the dorean principle apply? Owens answers, “any activity that proclaims the gospel or directly attends to its proclamation” (p. 105). The author takes aim at concrete matters of modern situations in chapters twelve and thirteen – parachurch ministries, seminaries, Bible conferences, and copyright law. Owens does not stand against parachurch ministry, rather simply offering suggestions of their support through co-labor rather than reciprocity. Concerning copyrights, the author supports providing Christian teaching freely in the public domain, particularly in our times through the use of “Creative Commons Zero.”[v] He continues in chapter fourteen looking specifically at issues touching Bibles, books, music, and software.[vi]  

Though recognizing “Any restriction on the distribution and use of the Bible potentially harms the church,” the author (in what I feel is inconsistent with the dorean principle) cites Bible verses from (primarily) the English Standard Version and (secondarily) the New American Standard Bible – both Bibles which are copyrighted and whose use is restricted.[vii] It is not as if there are no other options. First and foremost, the King James translation is freely distributed in the United States without any restrictions. Even those who do not prefer the King James Bible have other options. For example, the World English Bible (WEB), though having a trademarked name, has a text that has been placed in the public domain, and may be freely copied both electronically and in print.[viii] Is the Sovereign God, who has preserved his words for millennia, now in modern times dependent on human institutions and legal copyrights to preserve his words? God forbid! To continue to contribute to Big Ĕrus[ix] is to continue down the road we have been far too long traveling.

The “Conclusion” (pp. 139-140) offers a brief “final word about the gospel.” The author believes (correctly, in my opinion) that “The modern church has unintentionally gone astray, blindly following the model of the world.” Clearly Conley Owens believes the dorean principle effectively resolves some apparent difficulties in the Bible’s teaching on ministerial support.[x] He challenges his readers to believe, accept, and apply the dorean principle in modern ministry context. He recognizes that in some areas this will only require smoothing some rough edges, while in others “demands radical transformation.”

The three appendices offer some points for further study (A) and more details about copyright and copyright law (B & C).

Some miscellaneous comments and quibbles.

As to length and writing style, it is a fairly easy read. On the other hand, it is full of depth and requires concentration on the principle and teaching set forth. Properly considered, the book highlights the shocking amount of biblical instruction that is rushed past by those who commercialize Christianity.

I like the book. I like the author’s opposition to the commercialization of Christianity. I do not claim to agree with Conley Owens in every point he makes. I am not sure I understand every point he makes. I intend to further consider and meditate on the texts of scripture from which he derives the dorean principle. Nevertheless, before even reading the book, I held the orthopraxy of a general principle of making the gospel “without charge,” which predisposed me to view it sympathetically. Some reviewers seem to start with a prejudice against this idea.

Were I writing the book, I think I would have come down harder on seminaries and Bible publishers than the author seemed to, bearing down harder in favor of local church ministry. Owens’s use of “colabor” vs. “co-labor” is explained on page 8, in footnote 4. Nevertheless, I found its use distracting. Colabor, to me, just consistently looked like it was and ought to be a different word, no matter how many times I saw it. No doubt this was a personal issue of my literalism, and likely, the young probably do not experience the same level of discomfort!

Consistent with the dorean principle, the book is not copyrighted, and is distributed freely in print and electronic media. Conley Owens exhibits a sincere desire to make what he believes is the truth available “without charge” to all people. He follows through. He practices what he preaches (or in this case, writes).

Recommendation.

The Dorean Principle is well-endorsed by a number of individuals in conspicuous Christian ministry. See the front matter for 17 such recommendations. With these and others, I recommend that you read The Dorean Principle, and, as a “Berean,” search the scriptures whether these things are so. 

Owens has offered his attempt toward recapturing “a biblical ethic of ministry fundraising.” According to the grace of God which is given unto us, let us labor together to inspect, improve, and build on this foundation.

Transparency and Conclusion.

I received a free copy of The Dorean Principle, but not in exchange for anything. All copies are freely distributed. It was not sent for review when I ordered it, neither did I intend to review it when I ordered it. I write the review as a “labourer together with God” because, after reading the book, I believe it offers both timely introspection and needed condemnation of our modern commercial quagmire in Christianity, and that it promotes valid suggestions and resolutions to the problem. Let us not merely bemoan the commercialization of Christianity. Offering Christian material freely puts that material in the hands of those who most often need it freely offered. Offering Christian ministry freely makes the gospel “without charge.” May the Lord help us do so. And more.

Endnotes.

---

[i] From the Greek δωρεάν (dorean), freely, without payment.
[ii] Owens’s more complete MDiv thesis is also available at the site, though not as obviously so.
[iii] Some of the difficulty of understanding may come from the fact that, on a practical level, the “reciprocal” support of the ministry and “colabor” support of the ministry may look basically the same, requiring some understanding of the motivation of a person’s support – obligation to the minister versus obligation to God (pp. 8-9).
[iv] From the Greek προπεμπω (propempo), to send with things necessary for a journey.
[v] I found this chapter especially helpful. I have published hard-copy print material at my own expense and distributed it without charge, while using “copyright” as a manner of protection of the content. For example, my thinking has been that if I write “salvation is by grace alone through faith alone” I do not want someone to have the right or ability to come along and change it to “salvation is by grace, plus baptism, plus good works…” Owens effectively challenges even that kind of use of copyright (pp. 126-127).
[vi] Owens’s comments about the King James Bible are confusing (p. 133). While it is true that the KJV is under restriction in the United Kingdom (in much the same way as copyrighted Bibles in the U.S.), it is indubitably known, historically, legally, and practically that the King James Bible is freely printed and distributed outside the United Kingdom.
[vii] Here is part of how the Crossway and Good News Publishers restrict the use of the ESV:
The ESV text may be quoted (in written or print form) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing that the verses quoted do not amount to more than one-half of any one book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for 25 percent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
Common Uses Include:

• Church bulletin
• Bible studies
• Classroom use
• Writing a book (print format)

Notice of copyright must appear as follows on the title page or copyright page of printed works quoting from the ESV, or in a corresponding location when the ESV is quoted in other media:
“Scripture quotations are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated in whole or in part into any other language.”
Requests Outside Standard Use Guidelines
Permission requests that exceed the above guidelines require written permission. To obtain written permission, complete and submit our Online Form.
[viii] This is not a recommendation of the World English Bible, but simply a recognition that those who wish to use a public domain Bible are not limited to the King James Bible, and therefore cannot use that as an excuse.
[ix] The “Bible Industrial Complex,” or network of organizations that seek to shape, control, and profit from the publication and distribution of the word of God. Ĕrus or Erus is Latin for master, owner, proprietor.
[x] Particularly, things Bible students may think appear contradictory on the surface.

Message and Mission

“The message and mission of the churches of Christ are the same today as nineteen centuries ago. To a present-day church the commission to evangelize the world may seem an impossible task, but those early Christians, and the church they composed, believed the risen Lord could and would empower them sufficiently to do the work to which He had commissioned them. So believing, they simply showed themselves willing to do the Lord’s bidding, and trusted Him to supply the ways and the means to accomplish the work. Without benefit of modern inventions, church houses, extra-scriptural missionary societies, boards, committees, endowments, and guaranteed salaries, they succeeded to such a remarkable degree as to have never been equaled by any church or group of churches since.”

O. H. Griffith, “Foreword” in All the Sermons of Acts: a Study Course of Twenty-Six Expository Lessons, J. W. Griffith, Texarkana, TX: Baptist Sunday School Committee, 1966, p. 5.

The Great Commission

Appendix P from my Acts commentary, looking at the subject of “The Great Commission,” a theme running through the book of Acts.

APPENDIX P – THE GREAT COMMISSION

“The Great Commission” theological terminology subsumes the final commands of Jesus to his disciples as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-23, and Acts 1:8. Bible students often consider Matthew’s account to be the most complete single statement of Jesus’s command. Therefore, teachers usually put it forward as the prime example. 

The four primary views of the extent of this command are:

• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as apostles (therefore only for apostolic times).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as preachers (therefore incumbent upon preachers through the ages).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as individual Christians (therefore incumbent on Christian individuals through the ages). 
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as officers and representatives of the church (therefore incumbent upon the church through the ages).

I have combined the first two views, and consider it under three headings.

To the apostles as either apostles or preachers

Most, if not all, agree that the apostles were present when Jesus gave the commands. Some conclude that only the apostles were present (e.g., Matthew 28:16 – “Then the eleven disciples went...”). Based on the latter understanding, one interpretation is that the “Commission” was given only to the apostles, as apostles – and therefore only for apostolic times.  The apostolic times recorded in Acts disputes this conclusion. While the apostles are in the forefront, other disciples – that is, other than the apostles – preach, baptize, teach, and even perform miracles. A study of the book of Acts should make note of such occasions. 

1. The scope of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men  – “teach all nations.” While the apostles fulfilled this to an extent in their lifetimes, Mark 16 makes it clear that the gospel is for “all the world” and “to every creature.”

2. The time of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men – “alway...until the end of the world.” Jesus does not command just the eleven. There is something bigger than and living beyond the eleven, based on the end of verse 20.

3. The act of baptizing herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. The book of Acts tells of men who were not apostles who performed baptisms (Cf. Acts 8:12-13; 8:36-38; 9:5, 9, 18).

4. The act of teaching herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. Even in the days of the apostles, men who were not apostles evangelized and taught (Cf. Acts 6:9; 8:5, 35; 11:19, 22; 13:1; 18:24-26).

The Luke and Acts passages militate against the “apostles only” position. Luke 24:49 says they will be endued with power from on high, and Acts 1:8 states that they will be witnesses after the Holy Ghost comes upon them. Acts chapter 2 records the fulfillment of this. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, the promise of the Father, came not only upon the apostles, but also upon the entire church (cf. Acts 1:15; 2:1-4; they were all filled). The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. The apostles (representing the church) were given the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost.  Others in Acts took part in preaching and baptizing. Paul’s statement that “Christ sent me not to baptize” (I Corinthians 1:17) is hard to square with an “apostles only” commission or an individual commission.

To the apostles as individual Christians

Other Christians believe that Christ gave the Great Commission to individual Christians. In practical terms, this means any Christian can and should – independently and without any necessary reference to others or to the churches – commence to evangelize, baptize, and teach.

1. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may go independently and without regard to the churches. However, neither the Acts nor the rest of the New Testament endorses “unattached” Christians.

2. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may baptize converts indiscriminately. There is no evidence in the New Testament of such a practice in the early church.

3. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may teach and instruct regardless of their status in or with a church, or with or without recognition by any churches. However, God sets the gift of preaching and teaching in the church, and the church recognizes God’s gift (I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11).

The “individual” answer to this question bypasses the authority of the church and makes individuals authorities unto themselves. Even the individual apostles were set “in the church.” I Corinthians 12:28.

To the apostles as officers and representatives of the church

The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 is a command fulfilled by local assemblies of believers. The task of the commission and the people of the task will last the length of time God promises it to last – “...I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world...”

1. The New Testament examples of fulfilling the commission points toward church authority rather than apostolic or individual authority. Other church representatives who were not apostles engaged in the evangelistic, baptizing, and educational ministries of the church. They were always visibly connected with other baptized believers.

2. The time period of the commission given expects a continuity through the time. The churches of the Lord provide that continuity.

The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. Jesus gave the apostles (representing the church, Matthew 28) the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals; Acts 2) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost. The Lord Jesus Christ testified of his position of power and authority. He delegated authority to the church. The church has the authority to disciple – to preach, baptize, and teach as the Lord’s representatives.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 

• Evangelizing all nations. Acts 17:26-27; 20:26-27
• Baptizing the evangelized. Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:47-48
• Teaching the baptized (to observe all things). Acts 2:42; 18:11; 19:8-10

A collated commission of the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts passages

Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. (And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them) Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 

Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

The anti-missionary missionary

My attention was recently brought to the article about Elder Daniel Parker on Wikipedia. Last year I warned how that “Wikipedia” is now “Woke-ipedia” – propelled by political correctness to expel historical exactness. Nevertheless, the historian in me struggled to ignore and not call attention to this problem concerning Parker, and will hope it is corrected.

Under the section “Religious Leadership” in the Parker article, at least two places need attention and correction. The article states:

“Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent. He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”

1. “Parker believed that the non-white races who were the targets of foreign missions were people who were descended from the wicked seed of the serpent.”

I am skeptical of this claim. It is unsourced. If it comes from a statement by Parker, it needs to be substantiated. Though it may appear that the footnote refers it back to Max Lee’s thesis “Daniel Parker’s Doctrine of the Two Seeds,” I found no such claim in Lee’s work. The practice of the Pilgrim Church belies such a doctrine. The church received non-whites into membership by experience & baptism, by relation, and by letter. The early minutes of the church, during Parker’s lifetime, are still accessible. Here are some examples from the minutes:

“Saturday, June 13th 1840. The Church met and in order proseded to business. 

“1st. A Black man by the name of Thom. Presented a letter to the Church of recommendation from his master Mr. Wm. J. Hamblitt, and informed the Church, That he was receved in to a Baptist Church at Barefeet meeting House, and was Baptised by Elder Luster, in the State of Tennessee, which some of the members of the Church knew, That he took a letter from that Church, and joined a Church in the western district Called Spring Hill Church, from which he took a letter, but from some cause, left his letter, and some of his close behind, with an expectation of getting them, but as yet has failed, The Church being satisfied, Received him into Fellowship, as by Relation, yet claimes the right to his letter should it come to hand Ajorned”

“On Sunday, 23d [August 1840], Received a Black woman by the name of Hannah by Experience, and Baptised her.”

“Friday September 3d 1841...3d. Granted a letter of dismission to Sister Hannah a Black woman living in San Augusteen County”

These examples show the church receiving and dismissing black members, which seems unlikely if the Wiki-page claim is true.

2. “He stated that since ‘God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous.’”

This quote is in error. “God would save His own children, and since the children of Satan were predestined to eternal punishment, any kind of mission plan would seem ridiculous” is a quote from Max Lee’s thesis (p. 13). It is not a quote of a statement made by Parker. This is an assessment of what people said about Parker, or thought about what he believed – “it would seem according to the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views that no mission plan whatsoever was needed.” Lee considered the “the traditional understanding of Parker’s two-seed views” to be deficient.

It is true and correct that Daniel Parker opposed the missionary system devised by the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions. However, he did not oppose the preaching of the gospel. In fact, if one reads the entire thesis without cherry picking, we find that Max Lee concludes that Parker’s views have been misunderstood (for several reasons, some of which were Parkers own fault).[i] On page 85 Lee writes, “Lest these non-elect have an excuse for their unbelief, Parker urged that the gospel be preached to men everywhere, including the non-elect.”

All told, my opinion is that Daniel Parker’s doctrine of the two-seeds is his attempt to explain the existence of evil without making its origin come from God.

Max Lee concludes that “an examination of Parker’s writings reveals, contrary to the traditional view, that Parker was not opposed to missions. Rather, he was opposed to any mission plan which was not under the government and direction of the churches, an example of which was the societal mission plan of the Triennial Convention. Parker’s opposition was against this plan of the Triennial Convention and not against missions proper.”

Where Pilgrim Church meets is a little over an hour’s drive from where I live. I have visited there several times. The church no longer holds the “two-seed” doctrine as taught by Daniel Parker, but identifies itself as and fellowships with Absolute Predestinarian Primitive Baptists.

---

[i] Lee proposes three factors contributing to the misunderstanding: (1) “Parker’s critics ordinarily attacked him instead of his doctrines. As a result, Parker was belittled, while his doctrines remained relatively unknown,” (2) “Parker contributed to his own misunderstanding by resorting to sarcasm and ridicule, particularly in the pages of the Church Advocate,” and (3) “the scarcity and unavailability of his writings, which has forced a reliance on men such as John Mason Peck and R. B. C. Howell, both of whom opposed Parker’s antimissionism.” He further reasons that “the descriptions of Parker and of his antimission motivation presented by Peck and Howell respectively have discouraged further investigation.”

Missions and Anti-missions

This excerpt from the Black Rock Address (1832) seems, in my opinion, to agree with the observations made by Zachariah Rose and Albert Moore on missions and anti-missions.

Previous to stating our objections to the mission plans, we will meet some of the false charges brought against us relative to this subject, by a simple and unequivocal declaration, that we do regard as of the first importance the command given of Christ, primarily to His apostles, and through them to his ministers in every age, to “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” and do feel an earnest desire to be found acting in obedience thereunto, as the providence of God directs our way, and opens a door of utterance for us. We also believe it to be the duty of individuals and churches to contribute according to their abilities, for the support, not only of their pastors, but also of those who go preaching the gospel of Christ among the destitute. But we at the same time contend, that we have no right to depart from the order which the Master himself has seen fit to lay down, relative to the ministration of the word.

No Anti-mission Baptists in Tennessee

A letter to J. R. Graves and The Tennessee Baptist, in 1857.

No Anti-mission Baptists in Tennessee.

            Brother Graves.—In the “Tennessee Baptist” of the 7th March, I notice the following question propounded, viz: “How many anti-missionary Baptists in Tennessee?” Answer—not one. Notwithstanding there are many to whom that cognomen has been applied, I apprehend there are no Baptists, according to their best light and the teaching of the New Testament, that will feel themselves implicated by the unguarded use of the term. But that there exists radical differences amongst the Baptists, about what the true missionary spirit of the New Testament is, no one will deny. The question then will assume another form, viz:

            How many Baptists in Tennessee oppose the affiliation of our membership with the institutions which have been associated with our churches in modern days, and which have been instrumental in corrupting Baptist polity and destroying the peace of Zion? I answer, very many. And as an honest enquirer for truth, I again ask you as a brother in Christ, to define what the Baptists held and taught in the twelfth century, as that is the time you refer to as the age in which purity of faith and practice was held and taught by the Baptists, (see your article in the ‘Baptist.’) I am for union, and desire to see the great Baptist family harmonized again.

                                                             Yours in Christ.

                                                             Z. Rose.[i]

In reaction to Rose’s letter, Albert Moore of Grenada, Mississippi wrote to The Tennessee Baptist, “I am also one of those commonly denominated ‘Anti-missionary Baptists,’ but I repudiate the title as unjust and inapplicable.”[ii]

As one who is “anti-missionary” and “missionary,” I have long thought the terminology is imprecise and even pejorative. In a journal article, Rufus B. Spain made an effort to distinguish between “anti-missionism” and “anti-effortism.”

Anti-missionism, strictly speaking, was opposition to missions on doctrinal grounds. “Anti-effortism” was opposition to missions conducted by any agency other than the local church. Anti-missionary Baptists opposed home missions as well as foreign missions, but for different reasons. After about 1825, anti-missionism declined, but anti-effortism continued to increase.[iii]

That is helpful, at least distinguishing between two distinct approaches. However, even Spain struggled to apply it in his own article. Ultimately, I think Zachariah Rose is correct. There really is very little actual “anti-missionism.”

In the referenced article, Spain explained the “anti-effort” “anti-missionary” position as follows:

Other anti-missionary Baptists [i.e., those who were not “hyper-Calvinistic” or didn’t see missions as an “infringement of the divine prerogative and an insult to the Almighty.” rlv] found three principle objections to missions. First, they objected to mission boards because they tended toward centralization of authority. Self-government by each local church was a cherished principle among all Baptists. Second, anti-missionary Baptists objected to mission societies on the grounds that they were man-made, moneyed institutions and, therefore, without scriptural support. This objection was perhaps the most widely circulated. Their third objection was directed chiefly against home missionaries. Many uneducated and democratic-spirited frontiersmen resented the presence among them of learned ministers who received their support from Eastern missionary societies. They also resented the inference that their frontier communities were inferior to eastern society and consequently that they were in need of evangelization. Some frontier preachers also had the practical reason for objecting to home missionaries. They feared that their congregations would attend the services of the better preachers and leave them without hearers.[iv]

Again, I think this is helpful, as far as it goes. There may be “hyper-Calvinistic” Baptists that do not believe in spreading the gospel. So-called “anti-missions,” for the most part, is an ecclesiological issue rather than a soteriological issue. Even Daniel Parker rooted most, if not all, of his objections to the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions in the Baptist doctrine of the church.

---

[i] The Tennessee Baptist (Nashville, Tennessee), Saturday, May 2, 1857, p. 2.

[ii] The Tennessee Baptist, Saturday, May 23, 1857, p. 2.

[iii] “R. B. C. Howell: Virginia Baptist Tradition Comes to the Old Southwest,” Rufus B. Spain, Tennessee Historical Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 2 (June, 1955), Nashville, TN: Tennessee Historical Society, pp. 99-119 (114).

[iv] Ibid, p. 114.

Two missionary spirits in the world

“Some think that the Baptists were always a missionary people; that the command to ‘go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature,’ proves that fact. To this, in part, we agree; but let us understand things, and not be deceived. The devil is a scriptorian; he tempted Christ in that way, and no doubt tries to deceive the saints by scripture quotations. There is evidently two opposite contending religions in the world. The devil has his ministers appearing as the ministers of righteousness; and Christ has his faithful watchmen, or ministers; and of course there are two missionary spirits in the world, one of God, and the other of the devil, both claiming the Bible on their side, and to be the worshipers of God, and to do good to be their object, with equal apparent zeal. Paul was as zealous when a persecuting Saul, as when a preaching Paul. Now which is of God? The present ‘mission effort spirit,’ reduced to a system unknown to the Bible, as pertaining to the gospel, without church authority, or us, anti to that course of things, who are contending for scriptural ground, church authority, and gospel order, in sending or spreading the gospel.”

Daniel Parker to David Benedict, in A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America by David Benedict, 1848, page 788.

David Lewis: Indian Missionary and Sabine Divisionary

David Lewis: Indian Missionary and Sabine Divisionary

Another pastor of Union Baptist Church, in addition to Elder James L. Bryant (of whom I wrote last Thursday) is David Lewis. Like Bryant, we know little of Lewis, when he was born, when he died, or where he is buried. Unlike Bryant, Lewis steps into a 20-something year window of time, appearing in 1832 and disappearing around 1853. Perhaps more will be discovered later.

The first record I find of David Lewis is his ordination, which occurred in May of 1832. The place of ordination was the McDougal Street Meeting-house in New York.[i]

Ordination of Mr. Lewis

“On Monday evening, May 17th, in the McDougal Street Meeting-house, New York, Mr. David Lewis was set apart to the work of the gospel ministry with special reference to missionary labor among the Indians. The exercises of the evening were unusually solemn and interesting, the congregation large and attentive, and an anxiety awakened for the heathen in the bosoms of many persons who had previously felt little interest in the cause of Missions.

“He is expected to settle among the Choctaws west of the Mississippi, in the employ of the Baptist General Convention, and with his wife and child left New York for the place of destination, May 25th. They will be followed, we trust, by the prayers of christians, that the Lord will make them a great blessing to the aborigines of our country.”[ii]

From information I have been able to gather, the pastor serving at the McDougal Street Church at the time of David Lewis’s ordination was Duncan Dunbar. We know little specifically of Lewis’s theology – beyond a full embrace of the missionary society methods and his views on communion found in the 1845 Sabine Association circular letter. Certainly, David Lewis must have embraced the main tenets common among Baptists. It is possible that Dunbar’s influence stamped Lewis’s theology. While we know little of Lewis’s views, Duncan Dunbar’s faith and practice is easily ascertained in Duncan Dunbar: the Record of an Earnest Ministry. A Sketch of the Life of the Late pastor of the McDougal St. Baptist Church, New York.[iii] The story paints Dunbar firmly in the hard predestinarian camp:

He loved to dwell upon the doctrines of grace...The moral depravity and helplessness of man, and his supreme dependence upon the sovereign grace of God; the eternal election of a peculiar people, who had been given to the Son to be redeemed by his blood and justified by his righteousness, as their covenant-head, the second Adam; the special and irresistible influences of the Holy Spirit in the enlightenment and regeneration of the predestined heirs of glory.[iv]

He was a practical believer in predestination, referring all current events, and all that have come to pass since the foundation of the world, to the eternal purpose of Him who ‘worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will.’[v]

Despite his firm views on eternal election and predestination, he was on the other hand a zealous advocate of the society method of mission work. He was a strong proponent of the American Baptist Missionary Union, as well as a friend and missionary to the Indians.

From the first time that he saw the red men, he never lost his interest in them. From the Mic Macs of New Brunswick and the Penobscots of Maine he labored personally; and, in after years, interested himself greatly for the Cherokees and other tribes under the patronage of our Missionary Union. The name, Indian, was a passport to his heart, and the sorrows and oppressions of this people were to him a source of real grief and anxiety; for he believed that, with regard to them, as well as to the negro, God would call us to account.[vi]

He was an active and liberal supporter of Foreign Missions, and deeply interested in the work of the Missionary Union. His anti-slavery spirit had been sorely tried, during the days of the Triennial Convention, by the union of Northern and Southern churches, but he hoped the day of separation would come; and none rejoiced more than he in the triumph of principle over policy, in the formation of the American Baptist Missionary Union, — a free organization for the spread of a free gospel.[vii]

In connection with this, Dunbar is described as a strong advocate of the support of the ministry,[viii] and a great friend and promoter of young ministers.

Mr. Dunbar felt a special interest in young ministers; and while they shared, as many of them did, his unstinted hospitality, he spread before them richer dainties of free, sovereign, distinguishing grace, the conversation often extending into the night.[ix]

He fed his people on the word of God, and many strong men and gifted women were the fruit of his ministry. The church might well have been called a nursery for Christian workers, as many able teachers and preachers were raised up there.[x]

These factors make Dunbar a likely candidate of influence on David Lewis. We know they agreed on the issues of the missionary society and missions to the Indians. Our first introduction to Lewis is in 1832 American Baptist Magazine, which reports his ordination and plans to work “among the Choctaws west of the Mississippi.” That he had a wife and one child implies he was a younger man, though at this point there is no evidence of his age at the time of his ordination.

David Lewis and family settled in Indian Territory by September 1832, where he and his wife made history as charter members of the first Baptist church organized in what is now the state of Oklahoma.

“The first Baptist church, in what is now Oklahoma, was organized September 9, 1832. Rev. Isaac McCoy, pioneer missionary to the Indians, was present and assisted in the organization. The constituent members were, Rev. David Lewis and wife, missionaries, John Davis, Creek Indian, and Quash, Rob, and Ned, negro slaves of the Creek Indians.”[xi]

Lewis’s tenure as an Indian missionary with the American Baptist Missionary Union was cut short by the death of his wife in the fall of 1833.[xii] Shortly thereafter, he left the field.

“Mr. Lewis, in consequence of the death of his wife, and his own ill health, removed from this station, during the last year. Mr. Davis continued to preach at several different places; and a number of persons were baptized before Mr. Lewis left the station. The church consisted, at the last dates, of about 80.”

While Lewis’s wife died and he did leave the mission, that story is the polite version – and probably one that protected the board from confessing their own mismanagement. Solomon Peck further explains “In the spring of 1834, Mr. Lewis, for misconduct was dismissed from service of the board.”[xiii] Isaac McCoy recounts some of Mr. Lewis’s indiscretions. We shall spread a cloak of charity over the details (which all are free to research), giving enough to disclose some things that could have become problematic if known in Texas later. Practically, McCoy discloses that Lewis “had been exceedingly imprudent in his secular affairs, and had gone in debt beyond his means of paying. He had spent money unnecessarily, and drawn on the board for funds without authority, to pay debts foolishly created.”[xiv] Theologically, McCoy exhorted “Mr. Lewis and Mr. Davis not to admit to fellowship in the Baptist church any who could not give satisfactory evidence of their conversion to God...Notwithstanding all which, I had too much reason to fear that Mr. Lewis indulged this awful error.”[xv]

“Bro. Lewis has left the mission, and removed to Crawford Co., as, doubtless, you will have heard ere this.[xvi]

Several states possess a Crawford County. We might presume that David Lewis went to Crawford County, Arkansas, since it is the closest Crawford County to the Ebenezer Station where he lived in Indian Territory.[xvii] Further, Isaac McCoy wrote “He left the missionary station, and spent some time in the white settlements in the State of Arkansas…”[xviii]

Just when David Lewis arrived in Texas is hard to know. After leaving the Indian mission, McCoy traces some of his movements – Arkansas, Cincinnati, Ohio, and New Orleans, Louisiana. An Elder David Lewis was in the organization of the Baptist Church at Huntington, Indiana, “May 1841, and Elder Lewis was installed as the first preacher…” By November of that year this Elder Lewis had resigned as pastor.[xix] There is not enough information currently available to know whether this is our David Lewis or another. However, the available information could fit into the known timeline.[xx]

Lewis is not mentioned in the organizational minutes of the Sabine Baptist Association in 1843. He is present in 1844 at the meeting at Border Church. He preached on Sunday,[xxi] and was appointed one of the delegates to visit the United Western Baptist Association. He was appointed to write a circular letter for the next associational meeting (1845), as well as to preach the introductory sermon.

In 1845, the circular letter commends and defends restricted communion. Since he was chosen to prepare the letter, the assumption is that the 1845 circular letter is by David Lewis. His introductory sermon came from Psalm 133:1 – Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! He was also appointed to serve on the committee of arrangement.

There are no extant copies of the 1846 Sabine Association minutes. By the time the 1847 session rolled around, David Lewis and his brethren no longer dwelt together in unity! His only mention that year was his highly negative role as the catalyst for a split in the Sabine Association. “The charge of the Union Church, against the Border Church—charged with unchristian like conduct, for receiving David Lewis, an Excommunicated Member from the Mount Zion Church—on charges against him from the Union Church, into full fellowship, when they knew he, the said ‘Lewis,’ was an Excommunicated Member. The case being called up, the Border, the Massidonia, and the Eight Mile Churches, withdrew from the Association, and thereby declared a non fellowship.”[xxii]

Ostensibly, the split in the Sabine Association was over missions. At least that is the way the missionary society partisans tell it. It is likely that this was somewhere in the background. However, the immediate cause of the withdrawal of three churches was the disciplinary action against David Lewis by the Mount Zion Church of which he was a member – on a charge brought against him by the Union Church. Border Church in Harrison County, in violation of common Baptist order, received this excluded member and pulled the hinge pin on fellowship in the Association. Not only did the Border Church receive an excluded member, they called him as their pastor![xxiii]

The action can be traced through the Union Church minutes, though the record still leaves questions as to the exact nature of the difficulty. In December of 1844, the Union Church elected David Lewis to the pastoral care of the church. His service began Saturday before the first Lord’s day in January 1845. He served through the year, when he was once again called to the service of the church in December 1845. Nevertheless, his name does not appear in the minutes after the February 1846 conference. In May 1846, the church appointed a committee to see Lewis “to know the cause why he absents himself from us and fails to attend.” After the committee made a report in June “bro. Lewis was dismissed from the care of the church.”[xxiv]

A skirmish between Lewis and the church continued. Beyond his absenting himself from attending the church as pastor, the minutes give no further clue as to church’s “certain grievances” with Lewis.[xxv] In addition to dissatisfaction with David Lewis, Union Church was dissatisfied with the actions of the Border Church, and apparently communicated that to her.[xxvi] At Union Church on July 3, 1847, “Reference cald for it was moved that the letter from the Border Church be red which was don accordingly. A motion was made to put to the church whether or not is the Union Church hurt with the Border Church in her act for taking David Lewis to the pastoral care of the Border Church knowing he was in a state of exclusion which was declared on the afternoon. A motion was then made to send delegates to the Border Church to let them know their grievences where upon Brothers William Gill, S. F. Sparks, and James Simmons were appointed.”[xxvii] On September 4, 1847, Union Church “Appointed Brothers B. F. Whitaker, S. F. Sparks & A. Caddel, W. S. Gill in case of failure of the others as delegates to the association to convene with Enon Church on Friday before the first Lords day in October next.” Then on October 2, 1847, “An answer from the Border Church was red and the church not Satisfied Resolved that the Union Church communicate her grievance to the association.”[xxviii]

As seen above, the association took the grievance seriously. In January 1848, Union Church called Elder Isaac Reed to the pastoral care of the church. Reed was a leading preacher, who favored evangelistic efforts, but opposed missionary societies. Though Border Church and two other churches siding with it withdrew and formed a new association, the Lewis/Border matter received some attention in the Union Church conferences into 1848. That summer the Border Church sent some type of correspondence to the Union Church, which was not well received by Union. The June 3, 1848 conference minutes state, “A letter presented from the Border Church which was Red and Rejected. A copy of Said letter to be Retained and the original sent Back.”[xxix]

A few sources relate some of David Lewis’s religious work after the split in the Sabine Association. Lewis was one of the ministers involved in forming the Eastern Missionary Baptist Church, which met at Border Church in Harrison County, December 1847, and one of three present at the 1848 association.[xxx] This association was set up in contradiction of and opposition to the Sabine Association. Lewis was chosen to preach the introductory sermon at the 1848 meeting.[xxxi] Lewis organized Enon Church in Upshur County in 1848.[xxxii] Later he worked for a time with Z. N. Morrell at Leona in Leon County, or at least passed through that area.[xxxiii] J. W. D. Creath, in late summer 1850, connects Lewis to a San Pedro Church – probably somewhere in Houston County, where the San Pedro Creek rises and flows into the Neches River.[xxxiv] He was the first pastor of Rocky Spring Church, in Walker County.[xxxv] With elders Baines, Garrett, and Creath, Lewis organized a church in Walker County on March 5, 1854, eight miles from Huntsville.[xxxvi]

According to J. B. Link’s records in the Historical and Biographical Magazine, David Lewis served as a missionary for the Baptist State Convention of Texas, at least from 1850 through 1852. “Rev. David Lewis, in October, 1850 was appointed missionary for the counties of Houston and Anderson. He traveled 645 miles, preached 162 sermons, delivered 7 lectures, organized one church, baptized 5 persons, ordained one deacon, visited 97 families, conferences 14, attended 16 prayer meetings, delivered 7 Sunday-school addresses.” In 1852, he had “aided in constituting two churches” and was continued as a missionary at a salary of $100.[xxxvii]

The Tennessee Baptist describes “Rev. D. Lewis” as “an authorized agent for the ‘Tennessee Baptist’ in the counties of Leon, Walker, and Houston, Texas.”[xxxviii] Later the paper tells us “Rev. David Lewis has removed from Mitchell’s, Walker county, to Huntsville, Texas. Correspondents will please note the change. Bro. Lewis is an authorized agent for the Tennessee Baptist.”[xxxix]

June 23, 1853, Rev. David Lewis affixed his name to a council of ministers’ judgments on the fashionable amusements of the day. Obviously, he was still living at that time. [xl] Subsequent to that, I have found no contemporary accounts of the life and ministry of David Lewis.

The ministry of David Lewis of New York, Indian Territory, and Texas is fraught with difficulty. Though exposed for problems as a missionary to the Muscogee Indians, Lewis went on to minister some ten or so years without Texas Baptist historians uncovering his foibles. None (of whom I am aware) lay the division of the Sabine Association at the feet of David Lewis, though the primary documents focus on him as a major cause behind it. Possibly all historians who have propounded on the split have been pro-missionary-society members of the Southern Baptist Convention. The supporters of this system have submitted the Sabine story as a prop for their purpose of promoting their program and practice. In this version of the story, Isaac Reed becomes the foil – the whipping boy of the “Missionary Baptists” – even though he apparently held a general atonement and was “full of the mission spirit.”[xli] Reed cooperated with his missionary Baptist friend Lemuel Herrin in organizing several churches in East Texas, as well as organizing several more in which Herrin was not involved.[xlii] Reed’s crime? He “was opposed to boards and missionary societies.”

The first telling of the story apparently comes from the splitters themselves, the 1847 minutes of the Eastern Missionary Baptist Association. The record to which I have access does not help a lot. Nevertheless it says, “That it is due to our brethren of the Sabine Baptist Association, to the community at large, and to ourselves, that this Association should state frankly to the world the reasons which induced us to separate from the Sabine Baptist Association, and to organize the Eastern Missionary Baptist Association, viz.: That the Sabine Baptist Association, at its last meeting, refused to sanction the doctrines of the annexed circular, and declared a non-concurrence with its principles.” Z. N. Morrell interprets the circular letter as, and essay that was “in spirit and letter a missionary document.”[xliii]

Next comes Southern Baptist missionary Z. N. Morrell. Morrell was contemporary with Reed and Lewis, and weaves a lively document concerning early Baptist ministry in Texas in his book Flowers and Fruits from the Wilderness. (Everyone interested in Texas Baptist history should read it. More than once!) Morrell knew Reed in Tennessee, but apparently never worked with him in Texas. On the other hand, Lewis spent time with Morrell in Leon County, unveiling his own version of the events. “From him I learned much concerning the troubles that hung around the infant association. The enemies of the mission cause pressed them sorely on every hand…”[xliv] Morrell tells us that “Reed, and those who acted with him, violently opposed all mission organizations,” and lays the division on this.[xlv] He mentions nothing of the disciplinary action against David Lewis.

In 1923, J. M. Carroll called Isaac Reed “mightily mixed, or a decided Omissionary.” J. B. Link (without documentation, of course) throws Reed completely under the bus, wheels a-rolling full speed ahead. According to him, Reed’s “opposition to all benevolent organizations for mission purposes at length created a division in the association.”[xlvi]

Believe what you will about missions, mission boards, and missionary societies. However, let us fairly interpret the available evidence concerning the Sabine Baptist Association. Let David Lewis take his place among the divisionaries. He had problems in Indian Territory. In all likelihood, at least some of those problems traveled with him to Texas. Students will not know the role of Lewis unless they read the primary documents in surviving records in the minutes of the Union Baptist Church and the Sabine Baptist Association.[xlvii]

---

[i] From my understanding, this McDougal Street Meeting-house was in Manhattan. The church at that time was apparently named North Beriah Baptist Church. In 1859, the church assumed the name McDougal Street Baptist Church. Reminiscences of Baptist churches and Baptist leaders in New York city and Vicinity, from 1835-1898, p. 35 (George H. Hansell, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1899).

[ii] The American Baptist Magazine. Vol. XII, Board of Managers of the Baptist General Convention, Boston, MA: Putnam & Damrell, 1832, p. 185.

[iii] Jeremiah Chaplin, Third Edition, New York, NY: Sheldon and Company, 1868.

[iv] Ibid, p. 188.

[v] Ibid, p. 190.

[vi] Ibid, p. 204.

[vii] Ibid, pp. 201-202.

[viii] Ibid, favored a salaried ministry, pp. 112, 195-197.

[ix] Ibid, p. 197.

[x] Reminiscences of Baptist churches and Baptist leaders in New York city and Vicinity, from 1835-1898, George H. Hansell, Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1899, p. 35.

[xi] “Oklahoma Baptists Making History,” I. W. Marks, The Word and Way (Kansas City, Missouri) Thursday, May 16, 1912, p. 4.

[xii] The American Baptist Magazine, Vol. XV (Boston: John Putman, 1835, pp. 35, 217).

[xiii] Peck, “History of the Missions of the Baptist General Convention,” in History of American Missions to the Heathen, from Their Commencement to the Present Time, (Joseph Tracy, et al., Worcester: Spooner & Howland, 1840, p. 548).

[xiv] History of Baptist Indian Missions, by Isaac McCoy, (New York, NY: H. and S. Raynor, 1840, p. 484).

[xv] Ibid, p. 453.

[xvi] Ibid, pp. 226-227.

[xvii] Crawford County, Arkansas was formed on October 18, 1820. Arkansas was still a territory at that time.

[xviii] History of Baptist Indian Missions, Isaac McCoy, p. 484.

[xix] History of Huntington County, Indiana: A Narrative Account of Its Historical Progress, Its People, and Its Principal Interests, Vol. I, (Frank Sumner Bash, editor, Chicago, IL: Lewis Publishing Company, 1914, p. 327).

[xx] Through a letter by William Tryon to The Biblical Recorder, the Elder David Lewis in Texas, who had started a church in San Augustine, is identified as “formerly a missionary among the Indians.” “Progress in Texas,” The Biblical Recorder, Saturday, March 15, 1845, p. 2.

[xxi] From 2 Timothy 2:8.

[xxii] Minutes of the Sabine Baptist Association, October 1847, Held at Enon Church, Rusk County.

[xxiii] First Book of Church Minutes, 1838-1872, Old North Baptist Church, n. d., n. p., p. 25.

[xxiv] Ibid, p. 23.

[xxv] Ibid, p. 23.

[xxvi] One would assume Mount Zion Church was also dissatisfied with the act of Border Church receiving her excluded member, but we have no records to consider.

[xxvii] First Book of Church Minutes, p. 25.

[xxviii] Ibid, p. 26.

[xxix] Ibid, p. 28.

[xxx] Flowers and Fruits from the Wilderness, Z. N. Morrell, pp. 262, 266. At least we assume that Lewis was present in 1847. Morrell implies that but does not clearly say so. Three ministers present in 1848 were Herrin, Lewis, and J. M. Perry.

[xxxi] Ibid, p. 263.

[xxxii] Ibid, p. 267.

[xxxiii] Ibid, p. 264. This is probably circa 1848-1850.

[xxxiv] Letter from J. W. D. Creath to Brother Chambliss, September 25, 1850, in the South Western Baptist (Marion, Alabama), Wednesday, November 6, 1850, p. 2.

[xxxv] Minutes of the Eighteenth Annual Session of the Union Baptist Association, Held at Bethany Church, Grimes County, October 2-5, 1857, p. 14.

[xxxvi] Letter from J. W. D. Creath to the Tennessee Baptist, March 21, 1854, The Tennessee Baptist (Nashville, Tennessee) April 8, 1854, Saturday, page 3. This is probably the Ebenezer Church. The Union Association minutes lists “Daniel Lewis” as one of the organizers of Ebenezer, but this is probably David Lewis. I have not found a Daniel Lewis working in this area at this time, but David Lewis was. Minutes of the Eighteenth Annual Session of the Union Baptist Association, Held at Bethany Church, Grimes County, October 2-5, 1857, p. 14. “Daniel Lewis” is also listed as first pastor of Madisonville Church, Madison County, Texas.

[xxxvii] Historical and Biographical Magazine, Volumes, 1 and 2, The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., Version 1.0, 2005 (electronic data, no pagination).

[xxxviii] The Tennessee Baptist, Saturday, September 13, 1851, p. 3

[xxxix] The Tennessee Baptist, Saturday, February 7, 1852, p. 2.

[xl] South Western Baptist, Friday, July 15, 1853, p. 2.

[xli] Even my friend, mentor, and “not-a-Southern-Baptist” Isaac Reed descendant was carried away with the dissimulation, writing “[Lemuel] Herrin was decidedly promissionary, in contrast with the less missionary minded [Isaac] Reed.” Missionary Baptists in Texas 1820-1998, Oran H. Griffith, Henderson, TX: History & Archives Committee of the Missionary Baptist Association of Texas, 1999, p. 12.

[xlii] By my count at least seven, probably more – Union, Buena Vista, Bethel, Border, Mount Olive, Eight-Mile, and Macedonia. Reed likely was involved in the constitution of several other churches that joined the Sabine Association from 1844-1849, and probably organized churches in Tennessee and Alabama before coming to Texas. He participated in the constitution of at least three associations – Duck River in Tennessee, Mud Creek in Alabama, and Sabine in Texas (perhaps also Elk River in Tennessee, and maybe Mount Moriah).

[xliii] Flowers and Fruits, p. 262-263

[xliv] Ibid, p. 264.

[xlv] Ibid, p. 262.

[xlvi] A History of Texas Baptists, J. M. Carroll, Dallas, TX: Baptist Standard Publishing Company, 1923, p. 115; Historical and Biographical Magazine, Volumes, 1 and 2, The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., Version 1.0, 2005.

[xlvii] So far as I know, the only historian who references David Lewis’s exclusion is A. J. Holt in A Brief History of Union Baptist Church (Old North Church). He misunderstands, however, writing that Lewis “was cited to the church for trial and he sent a defiant reply and was excluded for contempt of the church.” Lewis was excluded from Mount Zion Church rather than Union Church (though Union Church brought charges against him). Neither does Holt put this in context of the problems in Sabine Baptist Association.