|
 James
Wilburn’s ”Hazard of the Die” is the story of Tolbert
Fanning and the Restoration Movement. We quote from pp. 247-250,
and deeply regret that limited space forces us to “cut” so
rigidly. This material deals with Fanning’s attitude toward
the Missionary “society party,” his efforts to maintain
fellowship, and the not surprising conclusion of this struggle.“
***************************
Probably
no controversy in Fanning’s closing years was to have more
far-reaching implications than the questions clustered about the
Missionary Society.... That he conceived of the society
arrangement as an apostasy is obvious. He bent some of his
strongest efforts toward convincing others that they should and
could carry out their work through local churches without such
auxiliaries. He thought he sensed in the supporters of the
societies a failure of commitment to a divine pattern. But the
effect of this on his attitude of fellowship is also
significant...He refused to shut the door of fellowship upon the
society party. It was only when some, like Thomas Munnell and
G.W. Elly, tried to make his approval a test of fellowship,
demanding that he support their efforts, that Fanning rebelled
and branded their demands as tantamount to a new creed....
Back
in the 1850's in Tennessee, when some supported the society and
some did not, Fanning encouraged” consultation meetings.”
While some did not surrender their convictions that the society
was valid, they agreed, for
|
|
unity’s sake, to work without them.
Fanning
continued to hope that this unity might also prevail through
discussion at the national level. While this attitude of
communication and fellowship with the Society party is apparent,
it should not, minimize the tremendous influence which Fanning
exerted in keeping many from being engulfed in the end result.
The commitment to the Societies, regardless of the effect, soon
became apparent. Had it not been for the clear and decisive
influence of Fanning, repeatedly voicing objection to the
societies’ direction, the Restoration Movement after the Civil
War, notably in the South, would have been far
different...Fanning came to realize eventually that the society
was bringing division far more deeply than he at first
suspected. Although he went to his grave still seeking
reconciliation with his alienated brethren, he came to realize
that the possibility was not too likely. His closing comments
betray one who is severely disillusioned (as idealists often
are) and badly broken because of the determined party spirit. He
wrote of the “rule or ruin” attitude which he encountered in
some and concluded. “The cooperation which seems current is
merely the union of parties to build up their particular sect,
or to carry into perfection their pet schemes, adopted in the
wisdom of men, to give place to their originators.” It is
difficult not to sympathize with Fanning’s genuine concern
when one listens to the way in which he was handled by those to
whom he ascribed this party spirit.”
[Previous
Article]
[Next
Article]
|
