Bishop R.C. Lawson left the Middle West for New York City around 1919. Forthwith, he began to prosper. Days of privation for ministry's sake gave way to years of business and ministry success. Within months of his arrival in Harlem, the city of refuge for southern black migrants, he turned one of Harlem's most vicious blocks on 133rd Street (popularly called Beale Street, after a similarly notorious street in New Orleans) into what became known as Hallelujah Boulevard. Refuge Church of Christ and a host of businesses run by the saints there changed the face of the neighborhood. From there, Lawson's work grew and grew, anticipating the lyrics that have inspired so many to come to the city: "If I can make it there, I can make it anywhere... New York, New York."
Alas, if only those lyrics could be truly said of Lawson. Though he and his ministers successfully set up ministries up and down the Eastern Seaboard, one area would prove particularly problematic: Washington, D.C. Early on, Lawson called the area "a preacher's graveyard." Church planting in Washington, for whatever reasons, was apparently no easy task. Almost 10 years after coming east, Lawson finally found a minister, Smallwood E. Williams, who would successfully plant a mission in the capital district.
Williams had grown up under Lawson's ministry in Columbus, Ohio. He was called to preach at a young age, and in the face of opposition because of his youth, he was licensed to preach at 16, catechized and ordained at 18, and in 1927 was sent to take over a small mission in Washington. He was 20 years old. Over the next 30 years, he established excellent rapport with the Washington community and became one of its most visible men of faith. Moreover, he was a high-ranking officer in the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ and overseer of Maryland and the District of Columbia. His working relationship with Lawson was uniquely productive; he seemed to know his father in the gospel inside out and could cajole him in a way no one else could.
What great irony it was, that after 30 years of faithful service, this same young man, Bishop Williams, would bring the most grievous schism the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ has ever had up to that point or since. What happened? We'll look into the background of the course-changing Bible Way split in the next few articles.
What I would like to do is shed some light on the schism that took place and was orchestrated by the late Bishop Smallwood E. Williams in 1957. So what I am about to say I have not only been told by the individuals but also actual correspondence, newspapers articles, and COOLJC minute books that speak truth to what is said.
ReplyDeleteOne of the saddest things about the split that Bishop Williams caused was the actual lies he told about Bishop Lawson in terms of him being the ONLY Bishop in the COOLJC. There is proof in the COOLJC 1929-1930 Minute Book (of which I have a copy of) where it lists several men with the title of Bishop including S.C. Johnson, Hubert Spencer, Charles Michael and Smallwood E. Williams. Also in the Sunday edition of the New York Age Newspaper dated September 9th, 1933 (available on www.fultonhistory.com) you will clearly see Spencer, Michael and Williams with the title of Bishop. Williams wasn't honest in saying that Bishop Lawson was the always the only Bishop. That is how Bishop S.C. Johnson was able to call himself Bishop. The New York Age got it right in their story where Williams is called Bishop some 24 years before the "split".
Also there were other causes behind the scenes that helped push Williams to this sad display of disrespect to his spiritual father in the Gospel and this display makes you wonder how sincere Williams was in him being led of the Lord to hold his National Pentecostal Ministers Conference in September 1957 (only weeks after the National Convention of the COOLJC)
One of Williams closest friends Elder John Beane was pastoring a church in Petersburg VA. and held the position of National Recording Secretary of COOLJC. On a few different occasions Beane had been accused of sexual misconduct with females in his church. Lawson had been been called to deal with the problem on several occasions. It was decided that Beane would have to be removed from his position as Recording Secretary of COOLJC as and as pastor of the Petersburg church. Williams was vehemently against taking Beane down. The removal of Bean and Williams desire to be leader over his own organization pushed Williams to do what he did.
What is extremely sad is the how Williams went about starting his organization, by using the COOLJC mailing list, that he was privy to as National Executive Secretary, to invite ministers to leave the COOLJC and join his organization. Williams also used his local church newspaper (the Bibleway News Voice) to write Bishop Lawson 10 mistakes which he mailed to many of the Pastors in the COOLJC. The last thing that Smallwood Williams did was he made his attacks personal against Bishop Lawson when he wrote his article Bishop Lawson's 10 mistakes. He attacked Bishop Lawson's choice in wives, and even attacked what Bishop Lawson thought of himself.
After researching the Smallwood Williams split from the COOLJC, one must note 2 things that were ironic in reference to his decision. Bishop Lawson died in July of 1961 less than 4 years after the split. Had Williams remained in his postiion he would have been the leader of COOLJC based on his position as Executive Secretary (the number 2 man). Also several years after the death of Bishop Williams there was a major split within the organization that he organized which was extremely contentious and involved major legal proceedings. The organization is now been legally divided with 2 Chief Apostles heading the 2 organizations.
I truly believe the way in which Williams left the COOLJC, used his influence to convince brothers to leave with him, the secret issues, the public disrespect of Bishop Lawon's leadership and the lies was left as a legacy to the organization that he started. The sad legacy left by Bishop Williams is that men who were once considered brothers in ministry now have no fellowship or dealing in any way because of the spirit of jealousy, envy and outright dislike, that is the legacy of Bishop Smallwood E. Williams Sr.
I agree almost entirely with you. Bible Way, in both incarnations, is reaping the fruit of Williams's desire for position.
ReplyDeleteI had not heard that exact accusation concerning Beane. Bishop Thomas Richardson mentioned that Lawson demoted him because of a resurfaced drinking habit. I don't disbelieve your account, though, having heard similar stories before. If you don't mind sharing, how did you come by this account of Beane's demotion?
I have read the articles about The Late Honorable Bishop Robert Clarence Lawson. I have also read and done research on The Late honorable Bishop Smallwood E. Williams. Whether Smallwood Williams was wrong I cant rightfully say, because I did not follow him in history like that. However, about Bishop Lawson he did young ministers wrong. He was a dictator. He used his power unwisely. He made men look very bad publicly. The things that arer said that Smallwood Williams did to him it came back on him in my position because how he made The Late Honorable Bishop G. T. Haywood suffer. His pulling out of the PA of W. was so heart wrenching to Bishop Haywood. Haywood never recovered. He made Haywood look very bad on the East Coast dealing with the Subject of Marriage and Divorce. He was mentored by Haywood but would publicly disagree with his mentor. Also the way he pulled out. L awson in my opinion knew what he was doing to find young ministers in their teens and early twenties. He did not think they would come against him as he did Haywood at a young age. He found men impressionable and that would follow him with really no issues. However, this fires back at him in his life at diffrent times. The issues with the young Karl Smith was about the divorce issue because at the time the young pastor had couples in his church who had living spouses whom they divorced in the world but were remarried before they were saved and Lawson demanded that the young preacher Smith espouse his doctrine in telling them to return to their former spouses while in the world. Smith was not going to yield to that. So he sought the counsel and advice of Lawson's mentor Bishop Haywood and Haywood advised Lawson not to yield because once one come to Christ and repents, and is baptized in Jesus Name their past is washed in the blood and Judgement begins then at the house of God. Smith was convinced of this advice and he made the famous statement I will not yield. Consequently, he pulls out of Lawson's organization and returns the Church to the P A of W. So once again this is Coming back on Lawson though was a great man, business man, versed in scripture, he did not use wisdom in how he leaves the PA of W he hurts his father in the Gospel. He was a young zealous novice himself. Now it is coming back to him. Bishop Sherrod C. Johnson takes issues and pulls out. Bishop Smallwood E. Williams witnesses how her deals with the young Karl Smith in 1925 and it leaves an indelible impression on the young 18 year old man he does not forget and later becomes an issue along with other issues which forces him out in 1957. This is my opinion only based on my research of this Great man but Power becomes the achillies heel to this man over young men but all do not succumb to it. Please let the readers know that I have respect for the man but all history does not paint him the way most say he was. There was the gray area of Bishop Lawson as well as other great Pioneer men that can be said that becomes their struggle.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment! You bring up valid points. Sorting through fact, opinions,and interpretations of the events has been a long, arduous process, partly because Bishop Lawson was not a perfect man. I don't entirely disagree with your overall take on the situation, but my research reveals that Lawson did not go as far as Williams did to gather a following. He left the PAW, but he did not split it, and he did not carry out a smear campaign against Bishop Haywood. Bishop Lawson may have diminished Haywood influence by leaving in protest, but it was a much more general and widespread aversion to leadership in the East that broke Haywood in the end. Some of these same Eastern leaders would join and then leave Lawson as well, and even he never got over his failure to establish a presence in the District of Columbia.
DeleteIn a way, he did meet the same end Haywood did: Midwestern bishop ascends, then falters, in the East. Retribution, though, as a theme doesn't quite fit the plot. But you have hit on the question driving this series: Why did God allow it? I hope you'll keep reading, and please continue to comment. I have arrived by prayer and research at some interesting conclusions, one of which is that this story is still not over! Blessings!
(Haywood advised Smith not to yield)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete