|
Actscelerate.com Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Message |
Author |
Dr. Andrew Hudson - Dissertation |
Mat |
The dissertation has been placed back in "Embargoed" - I have been asked to remove the link. I feel it is an important work and hope someday it will be available again. There is concern someone will plagiarize his work before he is able to publish his work.
Mat
Last edited by Mat on 10/9/22 8:06 am; edited 2 times in total |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/24/22 6:56 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Beyond the early accounts .... |
Mat |
Beyond the early accounts of the role of women and persons of colour, I find Dr. Hudson's examination (critique) of Charles Conn's method for writing his first edition (1955) of "Like A Mighty Army remarkable. I'm sure it will not set well with all who read it, but it is well researched and insightful, and his take on how "myth" replaced reality its thought provoking.
Its interesting that the dissertation was "embargoed" for a couple of years until after the 2022 General Assembly of the Church of God. There is much that would reshape thinking on some issues.
Its worth the read, even the footnotes (sometimes especially the footnotes), and that Dr. Hudson was raised COG and is a Lee U. grad is important. As I understand it, one of his most important sources were the transcripts of all the court cases the COG was involved with.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/27/22 8:20 am
|
|
| |
|
|
FLRon |
I have just started reading this work and it promises to be very interesting. Not being “church of God only”, I like that there are alternative, accurate, views on the long accepted dogma that is cog. _________________ “Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater Posts: 787 9/27/22 8:47 am
|
|
| |
|
I think for older COG folks ... |
Mat |
FLRon wrote: | I have just started reading this work and it promises to be very interesting. Not being “church of God only”, I like that there are alternative, accurate, views on the long accepted dogma that is cog. |
I think for older COG folks his work is going to be a little "challenging" to their church identity. As I said, some of the footnotes are as interesting as the body of the dissertation.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/27/22 9:15 am
|
|
| |
|
|
sheepdogandy |
Interesting read.
Thanks for the link. _________________ Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God
www.spwc.church |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 7307 9/27/22 12:55 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Nature Boy Florida |
Thanks for the link.
SO far, from the part I have read, it has been pretty harsh on Conn.
While Conn I am sure wrote his book to put the COG in the best light (I took his class on Church of God History and he admitted as much regarding the first edition) - imho it is a stretch that he wrote it to distance the COG from women and people of color. I believe there was a bias that the dissertation set out to prove - and simply found the material to match that bias - instead of a true history.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. _________________ Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 9/28/22 6:16 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Mat |
Nature Boy Florida wrote: | Thanks for the link.
SO far, from the part I have read, it has been pretty harsh on Conn.
While Conn I am sure wrote his book to put the COG in the best light (I took his class on Church of God History and he admitted as much regarding the first edition) - imho it is a stretch that he wrote it to distance the COG from women and people of color. I believe there was a bias that the dissertation set out to prove - and simply found the material to match that bias - instead of a true history.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. |
I tend to think Conn wrote with a "bias" as well, especially related to his portrayal of A. J. Tomlinson and the circumstance around the 1923 Split. I will point out, as Dr. Hudson noted, Conn's research method/sources were primary within the COG (interviews), as he was new to the denomination. He was writing a hagiography, for an intended audience, and at the time he wrote had little experience or education as an historian (someone told me Dr. Paul Conn said his dad was not a trained historian).
Dr. Hudson, who was raised in the COG, a grad of Lee U, and I think in a COG minister's family had little to gain in publishing his findings, where as Conn's career in the COG was based on his book. Dr. Hudson wrote a dissertation which had to be reviewed and approved by scholars at a university not related or reliant on the COG. (Where did "Dr." Conn earn(?) his doctorate?)
Yes, I have a different perspective, but there are still COG folks who make reference to A. J. Tomlinson as having stolen from the COG. Other writers have taken Conn's position as authentic, and this flows directly from LAMA first edition. So I am welcoming to some academic review of LAMA from outside the COG microcosm of thought.
There is another discussion here on Acts-celerate about how some COG people can/could be so harsh. Could that have flowed from LAMA's pages?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/28/22 9:26 am
|
|
| |
|
Some thoughts about LAMA... |
Aaron Scott |
Certainly, LAMA is a book that seeks to portray the Church of God in a positive light, but not only is that expected (from one writing from within the movement), but it is well-deserved. No, we were not at all perfect, but we certainly were not what some of the revisionists want to paint us as.
Second, Conn had access to first generation players and eyewitnesses--something very few have had since then. What was left behind in writing by that generation may or may not be as insightful as what was SAID by them. That is, few people write in a manner that is as revealing as having a conversation with them.
Historians are nothing if not INTERPRETERS of the past. What one reads and takes one way, another will take a completely different way. Other things also play into this interpretation--e.g., how one feels about the Church of God, how they were raised, whether they are trying to make a name for themselves as a historian (by taking down an earlier historian).
But here's the deal: Do we not believe that the Gospels--written by those who were VERY CLOSE to the events--is superior to someone who comes along and writes about Jesus? Of course!
Further, we know for a fact that those who believe in Jesus are going to see the Gospels in a different light than someone who just sees it as literature.
The fact that the first missionary effort was to the Bahamas should give us some insight into our notions of race. And the fact that it was a black woman who was the first missionary (it had been thought to be R.M. Evans--and, if I understand correctly, they were all working together--but Sis. Barrs arrived there first), ought to tell us something.
Yes, there were societal realities in the South that made things weird. And there were cultural realities that could make things difficult, as well. But as I recently posted on Facebook, my father's family hails from Birchwood, Tennessee. In the 1930s and 1040s, they attended the Grasshopper Church of God. If you visit the cemetery of the church, you will find the name Thomas Goins. He was a black man who was a close friend of the Scotts in those remote reaches. But Tom Goins led the choir at Grasshopper Church of God. In the 1940s!
And the fact that the COGOP has a sizeable number of blacks, and the fact that the COG does also (especially in Florida), should put to rest any notion that we didn't live to any higher standard than many other churches. Some people think we are being racist by having a Cocoa state office (for our black ministries), but I always tell them to ASK those people in Cocoa if they want to merge. I'm pretty sure they don't, since our elections are typically based on name recognition, and most whites would be more aware of white ministers than black ones.
The fact that Conn had a relatively humble academic background is not worth the paper it's written on. I will remind folks that on the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were known as "unlearned men." The fact that Conn could write such a tome--and one that has been a tremendous blessing to the COG--sets the record straight. And the fact that he led Lee College--and that his children have all been such high achievers--makes it clear that this was no ordinary man, for he was strongly self-educated, and his books show that he was particularly gifted in Bible study.
Don't forget: It's INTERPRETATION. And often there is no reason to to take a historian's take over yours.
Last edited by Aaron Scott on 9/29/22 8:05 am; edited 3 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 9/28/22 2:44 pm
|
|
| |
|
Mat... |
Aaron Scott |
While LAMA is indeed "our side of the story," I think in those days that hurt was still significant enough from the division as to cause many to think that AJT had done wrong. I have said that I thing L.L. Llewelyn was a primary force, and I heard from some who had researched the matter (since there is very little about him on the internet) that the court case brought out that he was one of the issues.
Over time, I think we see that both sides were somewhat in the wrong. I can find no reason to think AJT wasn't operating with the best of intentions. I also can understand how his back and forth about standing down or remaining had likely created some fissures.
AJT was, in my opinion, the Apostle of the Church of God (at least the first one). He was able to help organize and propel the organization in a way that others would have been unable to do. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 9/28/22 2:50 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
Mat |
Aaron,
Without a doubt, Llewelyn deserves a much closer examination, as within the decade of the 1923 Split it seems the COG had enough of him.
There are pressure points during the 20 years from the Holiness Church at Camp Creek to the Split in 1923, which should be noted as applying to more individuals than just AJT and his leadership failures. Starting with in 1914 when he was selected as General Overseer for life, as AJT's practice was each year at the assembly there was a time on program when the assembly would vote as to him continuing another year. It was certain individuals who pushed for it, and the assembly that accepted it, so they bare the guilt as well.
I question AJT's overreach in starting developing a publishing house (approved by the assembly), the Bible school during a war and pandemic (approved by the assembly), an orphanage and a new building for the assemblies (approved by the assembly) all with in a less then 10 year period.
The assembly approved the Constitution (which again was discarded like Llewelyn after the Split) and a financial system which brought all the tithes to Cleveland to be redistributed to the pastors on a "productive" basis were disasters.
Perhaps AJT's greatest failure was his "living by faith" mentality, in which he did not draw a clear line concerning money. He was too willing to use money that should have supported his family for ministry and church work. He was naïve to travel, build, publish, establish and fund ministry at the expense of his family and without consideration of his reputation. As the COG grew he should have stopped funding activities out of his own pocket. From his trips to FL (and the Bahamas) to starting the Evangel to the Bible School and Orphanage. Tomlinson's own home was the first used as the first office, publishing center, dormitory for BTS students and much more without consideration to what it cost him.
In discussions with COG folks I often hear the phrase "we don't want another Tomlinson" on issues like term limits - did you know that term limits came in because of another General Overseer's behavior (was it Latimore?). Often when "signs following" is discussed, especially snake handling, it is placed at the feet of Tomlinson, but remember Lee supported "signs following, including snake handling until he died in 1927 (not going to doctors or taking medicine because he believed in signs following).
While the courts cleared Tomlinson of mishandling funds for his own profit, and dismissed the "partial audit" used to take him to court, I have never seen where the COG has apologized or corrected those who continue to promote that AJT was a thief. Was AJT a good financial manager, not at all, and if he was he would have never gotten on those trains, or walked those hundreds of miles to preach and pray.
Here's my take, if AJT was responsible for all the "failures" of the COG, than Conn can be held to the same standards of examination.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/28/22 5:33 pm
|
|
| |
|
Mat... |
Aaron Scott |
I have never heard AJT called a thief, although there were likely people who did call him that. From reading between the lines--and knowing at least a little about corporate behavior--I think that at least part of the issue was the personal ambition of some of his accusers.
I don't mean to say that these men were not men of God, but men of God also can have ambition. And if not ambition for the office, then ambition for the Church of God, in that they felt that his handling of matters had been done poorly. It was misappropriation of funds that was the driver, and, in the strictly legal sense, AJT had taken funds that were to go to pastor and used it instead to prop up the Publishing House.
While it might have indeed been safer to move forward at a more measured pace, it may also be that we would have quickly faded away as a movement without the powerhouse of the Publishing House, etc., to help spread the word, etc. Maybe?
Some of the things that have come down to us (e.g., not drinking softdrinks, etc.) were SPOKEN by AJT, but were not official doctrine. That might have been a sore spot also, since he was using his influence rather than relying on the discussion of the General Council, etc.
Just my take on things.... |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 9/29/22 8:01 am
|
|
| |
|
1923 - 2023 |
Mat |
Aaron,
About four years ago I proposed (submitted a written proposal) for a joint evaluation of the 1923 Split with both the COG and COGOP participating. The main purpose was to encourage research which would help both denominations agree on their common history and forgive their misconceptions of each other. The primary goal was to reconcile, not as a merger but as a time of reconciliation (I think reconciliation is mentioned in the Bible).
Both sides had those who opposed the proposal, as some, not all, on the Church of God Historical Commission did not want to stir-up the past with difficult questions, and some of the Church of God of Prophecy leaders were fearful as well (perhaps of their positions). I knew there would have to be a generational change (via the grave) to move beyond our separate narratives of our history, but it does not look like it will be on the 100th year anniversary of the Split (1923 - 2023).
Both sides grew up singing "the Church of God is right Hallelujah to the Lamb" - and we were both believing it was us. There has been progress on both sides, with important academic work which has moved the "needle" by degrees, but beyond the top leadership having their once in a while "Fraternal Meetings" (and dinners at assemblies), little has changed.
My proposal was not for another meeting at the top, but a collective study of how we are more alike than different. Perhaps I was hoping for a "Memphis Miracle" moment as we saw between the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in Christ, but then they had their moment and when back to their corners. Here we are in our corners, afraid to cross the room and ask the pretty girl to dance - well, I grew up not going to dances (at least that's what my parents thought), but that the metaphor that comes to mind.
To me, weather its research offered by Dr. David Roebuck, or Dr. Harold Hunter, or Wade Phillips, or Dr. Andrew Hudson (and countless others) all are tools we can use to spark study which can draw us closer together, as long as we are not committed to defending our own narrative no matter what.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 9/29/22 8:37 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Nature Boy Florida |
Again, I only speak for Conn regarding what he said in class.
The first edition was biased - he admits it.
And he was very charitable regarding Tomlinson and the others from COGOP - in that Tomlinson simply was responsible for too much regarding the church at that time. His management style (and by decree of the other church leadership) had him (micro) managing everything - all with good intentions - but unintentional cracks did form.
Conn understood it to be a very unfortunate result - that everyone could, and should, have done better. _________________ Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster Posts: 16646 9/29/22 12:56 pm
|
|
| |
|
Mat and NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
Mat, I think it's a splendid idea to have a joint and scholarly study. But I think you have a point: We have to move beyond the generations who are too close to 1923, and so they remember perhaps a lot of negativity.
Personally, I never heard any negativity in my circles (even though I am from Cleveland). But as someone who has "studied" the matter (less than scholars, but certainly more than the typical church member), and being able to read between the lines of LAMA, it is the fact that AJT did not use the money for PERSONAL enrichment, but to keep COG efforts in motion that made it clear to (at least) me that while it was, technically, a misappropriation of funds, this would likely have been easily forgiven had he not been who he was.
The crux of the matter was the fact that the COG, trying to mimic to some degree the early church's method of collecting and then distributing according to need, was seeking to do that with pastors. So these pastors relied strongly upon Cleveland for their living expenses. When it didn't come through for them, it created problems.
As best I can tell, the KEY ISSUES were the fact that AJT took offense that those closest to him would--at least in his eyes--seemingly suspect him of malfeasance, and so he pushed back. The other side of the matter was that, indeed, these men knew AJT, so why didn't they go in quietly and respectfully and deal with the matter, instead of calling in auditors, etc.? Maybe they did, but it seems that there was something more afoot.
I believe that they knew that as long as AJT was alive, he had, for all practical purposes, a lifetime appointment to be the General Overseer. This is not to say that this group of men envied his position, but it is to say that they felt that he was in some ways a problem. It might be that they DID aspire to his position. It may be that they just felt it needed to always be voted on, etc.
I cannot remember clearly, but it seems to me that none (?) of the ones who came against AJT were ever elected General Overseer. I don't know if they were somehow considered "tainted" by all the "recent unpleasantness," or if God intervened, etc. Who knows?
But it seems to me that although our two denominations have evolved in different ways (the COGOP being more mystical, which can lead to all sorts of issues, while the COG has been more measured in some ways), we still have a core of shared beliefs. I think the number one reason we have no merged, though, is because the COGOP will be outnumbered, and that will likely take away any leadership roles they would have had. If we did merge, but agreed that, say, half of all the elected positions would be COGOP, we'd almost certainly get closer to merging. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 10/3/22 8:53 am
|
|
| |
|
NBF... |
Aaron Scott |
I agree that LAMA is written in a way that doesn't do much damage to the Church of God (although there were some things that Conn pointed out that took issue, it seems, with some of our own matters). However, I think the key is this: Is LAMA a suitable interpretation of events?
I certainly think so. Certainly some of our current historians look at the same events and interpret them much more negatively, but the question is not the events themselves (for the most part), but how they are understood. Bro. Conn interpreted them in a way that would have fit in well with our understanding of events at that time. In fact, I think they are a fair interpretation of events at THIS time, also.
Can those things be interpreted differently? Certainly. But in my view, it is just that: An interpretation.
I think that many historians (perhaps even in our own denomination) take an almost revisionist view (interpretatively) of the past. That may be because they were trained that way in their studies or perhaps because they want to break new ground. After all, what is the value of a "revised" history if it is no different from LAMA?
If we do such things with scripture, it is certain that we can--and will--do them with lesser texts.
If the FACTS have not changed (there is, of course, additional information available now), then we are dealing with nothing but interpretation. The fact that Bro. Conn did not have a doctorate is utterly meaningless. The book itself is testament to his scholarship--and could have served as an exceptional dissertation, had he been so inclined to further his academic studies.
But the main thing, for me, is that Conn was of a time and place where he could speak with those that were actually part of the beginning of the COG. We might have new texts to review, but we don't have few (if any) new interviews with first generation participants, eyewitnesses, or other close-to-the-source witnesses.
And that is what makes the difference to me. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology Posts: 6042 10/3/22 9:05 am
|
|
| |
|
Aaron - issues not covered by Conn |
Mat |
Aaron,
My problem with taking Conn on face value, is by his own admission he was writing a book for his constituents.
Race issues - clearly after the Split the COG embraced Jim Crow laws and the COGOP did not. Tomlinson was inclusive, was not in favor of the separation of the races, especially the African American members into a separate organization. As soon as the split occurred Tomlinson reverted to a single organization. Dr. Harold Hunter points out that Tomlinson's group added the KKK to the list of secret societies church members should not join early in the 1920s. Dr. David Roebuck wrote a paper about this separation in "“Unraveling the Cords that Divide: Race Relations in the Church of God.” I see a tension among the various leaders concerning race that was an undercurrent of the 1923 Split and that Conn did not touch on (maybe due to his being from Alabama).
Divorce and re-marriage - it is also clear that AJT maintained the "one man, one woman, for life with no option for divorce and re-marriage" while others did not. You can argue that he was wrong, and most today would call him legalistic, but it was a recurring issue in assemblies before the split.
The audit - which was used to impugn AJT leadership was limited to his office and was carried out by those opposing him (they paid for it, so the auditor worked for them). It was a judge who called it incomplete (a half truth can be called a lie) and through it out as evidence. Remember, AJT was being sued by his those who were against him. I have always wondered what would have happened it AJT had gotten a good lawyer and suited those men, or at least ask for an audit of their offices, as not all finances sent to Cleveland flowed through the office of the General Overseer. I think Dr. Hudson points out that Llewellyn admitted in court he had sold a car (or was it a truck) from his used car business to the church, which in turn he used for his ministry.
Did any of those who opposed AJT become General Overseer? You can point to F. J. Lee as one of them. It is amazing how little attention is given to Lee's personal beliefs and practices by Conn.
Dr. Hudson's dissertation (along with other works) is a sober analyze of a book which shaped COG culture for generations. Some have suggested that LAMA was sacrosanct in the COG and even at Lee U., and no counter opinions were allowed, even in the academic ranks. Also, that this was insured by Paul Conn with his many years as President of Lee.
I would like to see reconciliation, but not at the cost of accepting Conn's work without examination. If it came to the two groups becoming one, it would not be a merger, it would be an absorption. I'm fine with all the COGOP leaders returning to the pastoral ranks, all denominations are in need of pastors, and if they are called for higher leaders positions, they will be selected in the future. If I were to judge on size and strength of a denomination alone when it comes to merging, I'd go with the Assemblies of God, at least they did not take my family to court for decades, or blame them for all the excess of the early years. Just saying, reconciliation is not based on the best deal, and but on the right action.
Mat
Last edited by Mat on 10/4/22 7:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 10/3/22 11:57 am
|
|
| |
|
|
Cojak |
I don't know enough about the subject to have any real input. My dad became associated with the COG in the 1925 time frame. Dad hated to hear of the split, but his forever opinion was Bro. Tomlinson was ah honest man but was over loaded.
As to Bro Conn, I never knew him but sat under his teaching once in a Missouri Camp Meeting for 4 days. He impressed me as being an humble man and a very good teacher.
I do appreciate Mat bringing up this post, it is very interesting. I would like to see a joining together of the two denominations, but I doubt it. To be honest, probably too many human egos.... _________________ Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011 Posts: 24285 10/3/22 6:40 pm
|
|
| |
|
Cojak, reconciliation heals ... |
Mat |
Cojak wrote: | I don't know enough about the subject to have any real input. My dad became associated with the COG in the 1925 time frame. Dad hated to hear of the split, but his forever opinion was Bro. Tomlinson was ah honest man but was over loaded.
As to Bro Conn, I never knew him but sat under his teaching once in a Missouri Camp Meeting for 4 days. He impressed me as being an humble man and a very good teacher.
I do appreciate Mat bringing up this post, it is very interesting. I would like to see a joining together of the two denominations, but I doubt it. To be honest, probably too many human egos.... |
Reconciliation is not about who gets what position in the deal, its about healing the past through forgiveness (on both sides), giving the future generations a better future, and most of all, being a witness of of Christ's love and forgiveness to the world.
So what are we willing to forego in of our "cherished" traditions to be reconciled?
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 10/4/22 7:55 am
|
|
| |
|
Re: Cojak, reconciliation heals ... |
Cojak |
Mat wrote: |
Reconciliation is not about who gets what position in the deal, its about healing the past through forgiveness (on both sides), giving the future generations a better future, and most of all, being a witness of of Christ's love and forgiveness to the world.
So what are we willing to forego in of our "cherished" traditions to be reconciled?
Mat |
I firmly agree with what you wrote, i.e. 'reconciliation' but i am looking here only as a member of the COG. Like it or not MOST denominations have adapted a 'business approach' to the body of Christ. For leaders (it seems) it is up or out! Therefore the human ego gets in the way. I am saying that is how it looks to many of us in the pew....
I am just saying I think this is a good discussion topic. I would love to see a 'reconciliation.' Leaders of both denominations get together and pray earnestly for guidance and HIS Love.
However...........
I really don't see that happening although it would be a GREAT BLESSING to these two bodies... _________________ Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011 Posts: 24285 10/4/22 10:26 pm
|
|
| |
|
LINK REMOVED! |
Mat |
For all those taking part in this discussion, thank you. When I "linked" to the dissertation on the University of Pennsylvania website the dissertation had been moved out of "Embargoed" status to a "For All To Read" status.
However, that status is going to be re-imposed, and after a couple of request I have removed the link here and on a couple of Facebook pages. If you downloaded a copy its yours to read, but the author and the university have chosen to not make it available and I'm asking you do not share with others, as there is a concern about plagiarism.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast Posts: 1994 10/5/22 12:09 pm
|
|
| |
|
|
|