Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Leaven Leaven
Volume 7 Issue 4 Restoration Themes Article 7
1-1-1999
The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American
Restoration Movement Restoration Movement
Michael W. Casey
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology
and Philosophy of Religion Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Casey, Michael W. (1999) "The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American Restoration Movement," Leaven: Vol. 7 : Iss. 4 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/7
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].
194 Leaven, Fall, 1999
The Ethics of WarPacifism and Militarismin the American Restoration Movement
BY MICHAEL W. CASEY
Pacifists and militarists can be found in all threegroups of the Stone-Campbell tradition. Exceedinglycomplex, issues of war and peace have often taken cen-ter stage in the Restoration movement and defy simplecharacterizations. However, the importance of the ethi-cal question of war and the centrality of the debate overwar in our heritage make the effort to discern some pat-terns worth the risk of oversimplification. I will lay outthe history of pacifism and militarism in three broadperiods, noting the important shifts and arguments acrossthe tradition, and then draw tentative conclusions aboutthe nature of pacifism and pro-war positions in the en-tire Restoration movement.
The Formulation of Positions: From Campbellthrough the Civil War
The discussion over the ethics of war in the Resto-ration movement started with Alexander Campbell. In1823, in the very first issue of the Christian Baptist,Campbell urged that Christ "gives no scope to any ma-lignant passions, and checks every principle that wouldlead to war, oppression or cruelty." With biting satirehe wrote that it was "strange" and inconsistent for a"Christian general" and his "chaplain at his elbow" toencourage "Christian warriors" to go into battle "withthe bible in one hand and the sword in the other" inorder to make "as many widows and orphans as willafford sufficient opportunity for others to manifest thepurity of their religion by taking care of them!'!" ForCampbell, the ethics of the kingdom of God made war
wrong. The central principle of Christ's kingdom waslove: "Philosophy as well as religion teaches us that toconquer enemies is not the work of swords, nor lances,nor bows of steel. To conquer an enemy is to con-vert him into a friend To do this all arms and modesof warfare are impotent, save the arms and munitions ofeverlasting love." Campbell pointed to Christ and theSermon on the Mount: "If he would not have any ofthem render evil for evil, and ifhe pronounced the high-est honor and blessing on the peacemakers, who canimagine that he would be a patron of war!" Campbellargued further that it was wrong for Christians to fightin war, because his kingdom "is not of this world." Healso deplored the horrors of war: "the battle field itself,covered with the gore and scattered limbs of butcheredmyriads ... , the wounded lying upon one another, wel-tering in their blood ... , invoking death as the onlyrespite from excruciating torments ... , the enduringwail of widows and orphans"-they all "say to the Chris-tian, How can you become a soldier? How countenanceand aid this horrible type of work of death?"! Thesebeliefs became the basis for the primitivist pacifism ofthe Churches of Christ.
Despite his belief that Christ's kingdom wasotherworldly, Campbell also accepted the optimisticmodem view that war could be prevented and possiblyeliminated. He was very supportive of the Americanpeace movement and regularly reported efforts ofvari-ous peace societies. He turned to the suggestions of thepeace movement to answer questions on how to settle
1
Casey: The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American Restor
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1999
national conflicts: "Why not have a by-law-establishedUmpire," Campbell asked, "a Congress of Nations anda High Court of Nations for adjudicating and terminat-ing all international misunderstandings and complaints,redressing and remedying all wrongs and grievances?'?Here were the seeds of liberal optimistic pacifism ofthe Disciples of Christ.
Despite his consistent pacifism, Campbell refusedto speak out against the Mexican War when war brokeout in 1846. Instead, he waited until 1848, after the warwas over, to give his famous "Address on War." He ad-mitted that he was "sorry" and "ashamed" that he hadnot spoken out or written an essay earlier on the sub-ject.' Barton Stone, however, a couple of years beforethe war, made his pacifist stance clear: "A nation pro-fessing christianity, yet teaching, learning and practic-ing the arts of war cannot be of the kingdom of'Christ.?'Tolbert Fanning, who was influenced by Campbell andStone, also made his opposition to war explicit duringthe Mexican War.' However, not all Stone-Campbellleaders were pacifists. Debate emerged in some of thejournals over the proper response to war."
When the Civil War broke out, church members andleaders had to decide what stance to take. Many de-cided to fight. In 1861 Colonel James Garfield led anabortive attempt to get the American Christian Mission-ary Society to pass loyalty resolutions for the North. By1863 the loyalists gained control and passed loyalty reso-lutions that affirmed their "sympathies" for Union sol-diers who were "defending" them "from the attempts ofarmed traitors to overthrow" the federal government.'Southerners were enraged over the resolutions, and theGospel Advocate was reestablished to carry on the paci-fist sentiments of Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb.Northern radicals routed moderates who were pacifistsor neutrals in the war and established the Christian Stan-dard to espouse the militarist view.
Divergent Paths: The Post-bellum Period toWorld Warl
David Lipscomb emerged after the Civil War as theprimary advocate of pacifism in the tradition. Lipscombwas familiar with Campbell's pacifism, and Tolbert Fan-ning mentored Lipscomb. Fanning had a very pessimis-tic view of politics and government and believed thatChristians should not participate in government nor evenvote.
Restoration Themes 195
Lipscomb, as a young man, did not agree withFanning's view of politics and apparently was not a paci-fist before the Civil War. In 1855 Lipscomb gave aFourth ofJuly speech to the Franklin College alumni inNashville in which he argued that the United States wasthe first government founded on the principles of Chris-tianity. The government was an extension of Christian-ity: "We would especially have every American free-man approach the ballot box ofhis country as the sacra-mental altar of his God-with bared feet and uncov-ered head, conscious that he treads upon holy ground."Even in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War, Lipscombvoted for John Bell for president. Bell, a Tennessean,was the Constitutional Union Party candidate and wasinterested in preserving the Union from Civil War."
The outbreak of the Civil War caused Lipscomb toreevaluate his ideas. He lamented that with the CivilWar "the spectacle was presented, of disciples of thePrince of Peace, with murderous weapons seeking thelives of their fellowmen." Christians "were found im-bruing their hands in the blood of their own brethren inChrist, making their sisters widows and their sisters'children orphans." He realized that "[ i]t took but littlethought to see that Christians cannot slay one anotheror their fellowmen, at the behest of any earthly ruler, orto establish or maintain any human government."? Heconcluded, agreeing with Tolbert Fanning, that it waswrong for Christians even to vote in political elections.
Lipscomb turned pessimistic toward government.He believed that God had instituted his own govern-ment to govern and control humans. Humans, however,"in the spirit of rebellion against God," established theirown political systems "to conduct the affairs of the earthfree from God's rule and dominion." War, from the be-ginning of human governments, has been its "chief oc-cupation." Also, "all the wars and strifes between tribes,races, nations ... have been the result of man's effortsto govern himself and the world, rather than submit tothe government of God." Because of the rebellious,fallen nature of human governments, Christians shouldnot "make any alliance with, enter into, support, main-tain and defend, or appeal to, or depend upon, thesehuman governments for aid or help." Instead, God's gov-ernment, or the church, was to be "an ark of safety" forChristians. The "kingdom of heaven-the Church ofGod aspires to universal and eternal domination onearth to break into pieces and destroy all earthly
2
Leaven, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 4, Art. 7
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/7
196 Leaven, Fall, 1999
kingdoms and dominions, and fill the whole earth andstand forever ... and to reinstate the authority and ruleof God on earth through his own kingdom."!" The citi-zenship of Christians was ultimately in heaven and not
The church, or kingdom ofGod, was-a peaceablekingdom and stood in starkcontrast to the violence andwar characteristic of humangovernments.
in any earthly kingdom.The church, or kingdom of God, was a peaceable
kingdom and stood in stark contrast to the violence andwar characteristic of human governments. Christianscould not fight in war or kill. The Sermon on the Mountcontained the principles that govern the kingdom of God,which included "that they take no part in civil affairs."Lipscomb recognized that this placed his ideas in thetradition of the Anabaptists who advocated peace and acomplete separation of church and state. II
Through the Gospel Advocate after the Civil War,Lipscomb published pacifist articles. He condemnedthose in the Restoration movement who advocated"Christian patriotism." Colorful J. D. Tant summed upthe Gospel Advocate's pacifist position during the Span-ish-American War: "I would as soon risk my chance ofheaven to die drunk in a bawdy house as to die on thebattlefield, with murder in my heart, trying to kill myfellowman.':"
The war issue exacerbated the growing divisionbetween the Disciples of Christ and the Churches ofChrist. The war resolutions passed by the missionarysociety simply confirmed to Lipscomb the problem ofan extracongregational organization's attempting to dothe work of the local church. Lipscomb and other Ad-vocate writers would quickly point out the times whenDisciples of Christ advocated or supported Americanwar efforts in the years succeeding the Civil War.
Lipscomb did not support the American peace move-ment, saying that he had "no faith in any peace organi-zation." He added that some "of the bitterest war menin the land are leaders of this peace association." In-stead of human societies, even if they were moral soci-eties, the church was the only organization that couldpromote peace. He warned that a Christian "is wastingtime in seeking peace for the world in other institu-tions."!'
Northern Disciples, on the other hand, displayedthe traits that Lipscomb opposed. Most Disciples be-came supporters of the peace movement and the idea ofinternational arbitration to avoid conflict. However, astensions with Spain erupted, the Disciples press becameas bellicose as the secular press. The Disciples quicklyaccepted the standard militarist line."
Different Pacifisms but the Same Militarism:From World War I to the Present
Pacifism had all but disappeared by World War I inthe Disciples. Kirby Page, a Disciple and a leading paci-fist, conceded that before the war he had never "met aninformed and determined pacifist.':" Liberal pacifism,however, soon bore fruit from the seed of the socialgospel that influenced many leading Disciples think-ers. Alva Taylor, professor at Vanderbilt's School of Re-ligion, and Charles Clayton Morrison, editor of theChristian Century, studied at the Disciples DivinityHouse at the University of Chicago under Herbert L.Willett, Shailer Mathews, Edward Scribner Ames, andother liberal professors." Taylor and Morrison pursuedpeace education and pressed pacifist views through thefirst half of the twentieth century. Kirby Page becameone of the leading evangelists for liberal pacifism andwas an especially popular speaker on college campusesduring the 1930s. During the heady days of the 1930s,the high-water mark for liberal pacifism, many Disciplesbelieved that it was possible to eradicate war from hu-manity. Morrison wrote one ofthe leading pacifist tomes,The Outlawry of War. In the fall of 1934, the Disciplesconvention at Des Moines passed a pacifist resolutionby a two-to-one majority. I? On October 18, 1935, afterthe World Convention of Churches of Christ (Disciples)met, the Disciples Peace Fellowship (DPF) was orga-nized in response to concern over the Italian invasionof Ethiopia. IS DPF' s charter took a liberal pacifist stance:
3
Casey: The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American Restor
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1999
"WE DO SOLEMNLYcovenant together ... to promote peaceand to oppose war now and always. We propose to carryout this covenant for the abolition of war by fosteringgood will among nations, races and classes, by oppos-ing military preparations .... "19 In 1936 the Disciplesconvention, like most other mainline Protestant groups,passed a resolution opposing rearmament because "warwas morally and ethically wrong and opposed to theteachings of Jesus Christ." They also naively announcedthat "we will not support future wars.'?"
Conservative Disciples after World War I main-tained the militarist stance that emerged during the CivilWar. Writers in the Christian Standard were openlyhostile to liberal pacifism and argued that DPF was moreof a threat to the United States than to Germany." Thishostility was linked to the conservative Disciples' dis-dain for the social gospel. Most conservatives believedthat individuals needed to be evangelized and that soci-ety would not be transformed by social principles." Thismilitarist ethic has remained, as a recent sociologicalstudy found the Independent Christian Churches to bethe least pacifist of the three major groups of the Stone-Campbell tradition."
Pearl Harbor shattered Disciples' confidence in lib-eral pacifism, as most saw United States involvementin war as ajustifiable means to stop the evils of Nazismand Japanese aggression. Neoorthodoxy began to re-place liberalism as the central theological thrust in main-line Protestantism. DPF supported Disciples conscien-tious objectors of World War II in their alternative ser-vice, but the organization shrank and remains small andon the periphery of the Disciples denomination." Paci-fism also went into decline within the Churches ofChrist. With the extraordinary success of the propagandaof the Committee on Public Information, the UnitedStates was transformed from isolationism to patrioticzeal for World War I. With the support of new surveil-lance tactics by the new Bureau ofInvestigation, xeno-phobic Americans, and the Alien and Sedition Acts, thegovernment was able to effectively suppress dissent tothe war through arrests and intimidation. The pacifistGospel Advocate was under threat oflosing its mailingprivileges and so changed its editorial policy to supportthe war." Cordell Christian College, the largest schoolin the Churches of Christ, was decidedly pacifist. Cordellwas closed by government surveillance, community
Restoration Themes 197
pressure, and local pro-war church members." Manychurch members, seeking a more prestigious role in so-ciety, shed pacifism as an embarrassment." After thewar the mainstream Churches of Christ moved towarda pro-war stance, while various splinter groups (thepremillennial, the non-Sunday school, the one-cup, andthe African American Churches of Christ) dissented andmaintained Lipscomb's countercultural stance. The tinyone-cup Churches of Christ are still on record as a "peacechurch." Some in the mainstream continued to hold topacifist beliefs in the face of increased economic andsocial prosperity. During the 1930s, as the peace move-ment gained prestige, many persons and congregationsin the Churches of Christ became attracted to pacifismagain, and many churches went on record as being op-
During the Great Depres-sion, some preachersbecame concerned with thethreat of Communism andstarted an anti-Communisteffort that reached its heightduring the 1950s and early1960s.
posed to Christians' fighting in war."During the Great Depression, some preachers be-
came concerned with the threat of Communism andstarted an anti-Communist effort that reached its heightduring the 1950s and early 1960s. George Benson tookHarding College, one of the leading colleges that hadsupported conscientious objection, and turned the schoolinto a hotbed of patriotic conservative politics and right-wing anti-Communism. Funded by millions of dollarsfrom conservative businessmen, Harding was ahead ofothers in the transformation of the Churches of Christaway from its pacifism roots."
Pearl Harbor also had a dramatic impact on the gen-erally isolationist membership of the Churches of Christ.
4
Leaven, Vol. 7 [1999], Iss. 4, Art. 7
https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol7/iss4/7
198 Leaven, Fall, 1999
Most preachers and publications came out in support ofthe war, with a vociferous minority protesting thechange." Still, there were 199 men officially from theChurches of Christ in the Civilian Public Service, thealternative service available for conscientious objectorsduring the war, making the Churches of Christ the fourthlargest non-peace group during the war." After the war,pacifism was relegated to status as an individual mat-ter, with churches less willing to discuss the issue proor con. Most members became assimilated into main-stream society as the Churches of Christ enjoyed thepostwar economic boom. The anti-Communist cam-paigns were successful, and by the 1990s most churchmembers were habitual pro-military conservative Re-publicans.
ConclusionThe odd paradox of the Stone-Campbell tradition
is that the extreme theological fringes, the one-cupChurches of Christ on the right and the Disciples PeaceFellowship on the left, have retained the pacifism of thefirst-generation leaders, while the broad "mainstream"of a cappella Churches of Christ, the Independent Chris-tian Churches, and the Disciples of Christ tend to bemilitarist. At first glance the Disciples Peace Fellow-ship and the one-cup Churches of Christ seem to havelittle in common other than being small. However, mostpacifists remain out of step and even opposed to thepredominate values of society. The theological fringes,each in a unique way, stand opposed both to the culturalvalues of American militarism and to the assimilationof most of the Stone-Campbell movement to those val-ues. Both groups remain to ask, What is the Christianresponse to war? and, Should the answer of Americansociety to the first question be the answer of Christ'schurch?
MICHAEL W. CASEY teaches communication atPepperdine University and serves on the Editorial Boardof LEAVEN.
NotesIAll of the quotes from Campbell can be found in Harold
Lunger, The Political Ethics of Alexander Campbell (St. Louis:Bethany, 1954),242-63.
~Lunger, 256-57.-'Lunger, 250.4 Barton Stone, "Lecture on MatI. V. VI. and VII. Chap-
ters," Christian Messenger 14 (July 1844): 65.5Tolbert Fanning, "Peace," Christian Review 3 (March
1846): 65.6David Edwin Harrell Jr., Questfor a Christian America:
The Disciples of Christ and American Society to 1866 (Nash-ville: Disciples of Christ Historical Society, 1966), 142-44.
"Harrell, Questfor a Christian America, 163.8David Lipscomb, "Our Positions," Gospel Advocate (22
August 1912): 954.9David Lipscomb, Civil Government. 1ts Origin, Mis-
sion and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to 1t (Wesson,Miss.: Lynnwood Smith, 1984; org. ed. 1889), iii-iv.
10Lipscomb, Civil Government, 40-41, 10, 12; andLipscomb, "The Blessing Promised to Man-No.5," GospelAdvocate (9 April 1868): 356.
IILipscomb, Civil Government, 134-35.12David E. Harrell Jr., "Disciples of Christ Pacifism in
Nineteenth Century Tennessee," Tennessee Historical Quar-terly 21 (September 1962): 274.
13Ibid., 272-73.14David Edwin Harrell Jr., The Social Sources of Divi-
sion in the Disciples of Christ, 1865-1900: A Social Historyof the Disciples of Christ, vol. 2 (Atlanta: Publishing Sys-tems, 1973),248-49.
15Peter Brock, "Pacifism among the Disciples of Christ:A Denominational Option," in Freedomfrom War: Nonsec-tarian Pacifism 1814-1914 (Toronto: University of TorontoPress, 1991), 151.
16Harrell, Social Sources of Division, 99-100. On Tay-lor, see also James A. Crain, The Development of Social Ideasamong the Disciples Of Christ (St. Louis: Bethany, 1969),81-89.
17Charles Chatfield, For Peace and Justice: Pacifism inAmerica, 1914-1941 (Knoxville: University of TennesseePress, 1971), 126.
18Crain, 129.19Mark A. May, "Disciples Peace Fellowship: Historical
Formation and the First Twenty Years, 1935-1955,"Discipliana 40 (1980): 19-26.
2°Crain, 138.21May, 24.22See Kevin R. Kragenbrink, "Dividing the Disciples:
Social, Cultural and Intellectual Sources of Division in theDisciples of Christ, 1919-1945" (Ph.D. diss., Auburn Uni-versity, 1996), 290-349 for the conservative reaction to thesocial gospel movement and pacifism in the Disciples.
23Laurence C. Keene, Heirs of Stone and Campbell onthe Pacific Slope: A Sociological Approach (Claremont: Dis-ciples Seminary Foundation, 1984),67.
24May, 25-26.25Michael W. Casey and MichaelA. Jordan, "Free Speech
in Time of War: Government Surveillance of the Churches of(Notes continued on pg. 211 )
5
Casey: The Ethics of War: Pacifism and Militarism in the American Restor
Published by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 1999
