Pacifism and Patriotism in the Churches of Christ: An Historical Evaluation

The Churches of Christ began as a pacifistic, anti-establishment collection of believers. Their initial founders, Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone formed this Anabaptist community intending to remove all creeds and doctrines and unite all believers. They sought answers to all of life’s decisions through the Word of God. Their transition from pacifists to right-wing nationalists did not come from the Bible but through propaganda and political pressure from the United States government. This adjustment to their beliefs reveals the power that the American government has over this collection of Christ followers.

In 325, Constantine transformed the life of the church forever. By transitioning the Roman Empire to Christianity, he made the religion political and powerful. Before the Constantinian shift, Christians met in secret. They were arrested, tortured, and martyred. With this shift, Christianity was accepted, supported, and wealthy. The Churches of Christ followed a similar path. They began as “left-wing outsiders” with a “pacifistic anti-establishment rhetoric.” Through the centuries, they abandoned their origins and became an accepted “right-wing establishment” with a nationalistic, militaristic stance.[1]

To grasp this pacifistic, anti-establishment belief, one must look at the founders of the Churches of Christ. Alexander Campbell believed that the New Testament would provide answers to “church doctrine, church polity, and the norms for Christian conduct.”[2] It was from this standard that Churches of Christ built their hermeneutic. Campbell described those who go to war as “licensed murderers” and that it is not the Christian’s task to kill and destroy but to rescue men from evil.[3] He stated that “the weapons of our warfare are not swords or spears, but reason, truth, and persuasion.”[4]

Barton Stone also found justification for pacifism in Scripture. Through the Sermon on the Mount and the call by Jesus to “turn the other cheek,”  Stone rationalized that “a nation professing Christianity, yet teaching, learning and practicing the arts of war cannot be the Kingdom of Christ.”[5] Stone hoped that Christianity would spread across the globe. This was only possible if Christians personified Jesus in every action. He believed that war went against everything that Christ taught.

The early statements by Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone show that the pacifist ideals were strong during the beginnings of the movement. These strong pacifistic ideals would be tested as the Civil War approached. With the tide of war, members and ministers were split on their decisions to be involved. Campbell, Tolbert Fanning, John W. McGarvey, and others held firm to the decision to avoid war. McGarvey stated that he “would rather be killed for refusing to fight than to fall in battle, or to come home victorious with the blood of my brethren on my hands.”[6] Rather than dedicate any time to the war, McGarvey completed his commentary on the book of Acts while the fighting ensued.[7]

Though many held to the pacifistic ideals of Campbell and Stone, others like Elijah Goodwin, James A. Garfield, James H. Garrison, and both of the founder’s children chose to join the fighting. Alexander Campbell, Jr. and Barton W. Stone, Jr served in the Confederate army.[8] Aaron Chatterton, the editor of the Evangelist, was concerned that those declaring pacifism would “bring accusations that Christians were disloyal.”[9] While the initial concern appeared around the Civil War, the Church of Christ was not severely tested on the issue of disloyalty until World War I.

Following in the footsteps of Campbell and Stone, Tolbert Fanning carried the pacifistic message. Fanning did not just believe that Christians should be pacifists, he also felt that Christians should not vote or participate in government in any form.[10] Fanning believed “the church was designed to swallow” all civil government up “by leavening the earth and bringing all powers of the world into subordination.” The Christians “grand purpose” was to “ promote the spiritual empire of the King of Zion.” Like Fanning, many early Christians believed that Christ’s kingdom was more important than an earthly kingdom.

Perhaps the strongest proponent for pacifism came from David Lipscomb, one of Fanning’s followers. Before the Civil War, Lipscomb was not a pacifist. The Civil War changed Lipscomb’s views as he watched “the disciples of the Prince of Peace, with murderous weapons, seeking the lives of their fellow men.”[11] After the war, Lipscomb’s desire was for the “Kingdom of heaven to break into pieces and destroy all earthly kingdoms and dominions, and fill the whole earth and stand forever.” [12] Lipscomb’s message was so persuasive that it created a passion for future generations. J.D. Tant passionately stated, “I would as soon risk my chance of heaven to die drunk in a bawdy house as to die on the battlefield, with murder in my heart, trying to kill my fellow man.”[13]

Lipscomb presented a couple of questions that every generation of Christians must answer. “Would Jesus join the army of the United States to fight another country, or join the army of that country to fight the United States? Would Jesus kill and destroy men?”[14] These questions are at the heart of the issue for all Christians. They must decide if war is justified for any situation or circumstance, or if the road to peace is the road that Jesus would have taken. Lipscomb believed that the struggle for peace stemmed from a government created from man’s original sin.

David Lipscomb moved the Church of Christ to an outsider status through the pacifistic message and a call for a complete dismissal of politics. Lipscomb felt that the reason any country went to war was due to the personal agendas of politicians and the wealthy to make money.[15] He claimed that war was “the rich man’s war but the poor man’s fight.”[16] Since all human governments were corrupt and evil, he felt that Christians should not be involved in any part of the political realm, including voting. Anyone who voted could choose a government that supports a war and that is not Jesus’ desire.[17] During the Civil War, Lipscomb refused to observe any days of Thanksgiving or to sell mules or horses to either side.[18]

Lipscomb was not the only one encouraging the anti-government, pacifist stance. During the Spanish-American War, J.D. Tant chastised the Disciples of Christ as a divisive group that would “go fight Spain; for many of them are political men who vote and hold office.”[19] James A. Harding also agreed with Lipscomb that “human government is an agency of Satan” and therefore, Christians should avoid anything to do with governmental institutions.[20]

It was during the Spanish-American War that the pacifistic differences between the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ were apparent. In Arron Chambers’ master’s thesis, he found that the Christian Standard, the major Disciples journal, consistently supported the military and nationalism.[21] He deduced that this stance may have been a reaction against Lipscomb’s legalistic position. In contrast, one of the Church of Christ journals, the Gospel Advocate provided forms for member congregations to take to the local authorities, proving that they were a “peace church” and therefore, exempt from war.[22] A.J. McCarty with the Firm Foundation, a Church of Christ journal in Texas, said that war was “antagonistic to the whole spirit and tenor of the principles of the religion of Christ.”[23]

Before World War I, the Churches of Christ were predominantly pacifistic outsiders. When World War I began, pacifists quickly realized that their original position would face resistance from the government and society.[24] Their opinions on government, nationalism, and war caused other Christians and society to view them as oddities. This was due to men like H. Leo Boles, president of David Lipscomb College, who encouraged Christians not to join the fight.[25] The editors for each of the major Church of Christ publications encouraged Christians and the United States to stay out of the war. J.C. McQuiddy, the editor of the Gospel Advocate, wrote that Christians did need to follow the government, but they did not need to “give of their means to buy machine guns in order to destroy or kill.”[26]

In 1918, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918. This act covered a wider range of offenses than previous Alien and Sedition Acts. The main addition made speeches and articles of opinion that cast the government or the war effort in a negative light punishable by imprisonment. This Act provided an opportunity for the government to determine a church’s stance on pacifism. The government’s use of the Sedition Act caused many among the Churches of Christ to abandon the anti-establishment opinion. Most members did not return to this position after the war and rather chose a less volatile right-wing, laissez-faire stance.

The government wanted the whole country to get behind the war. To encourage Americans to support the war, they launched an advertising campaign that romanticized the war effort. All the government’s efforts to garner support for the war were meeting resistance from the Churches of Christ. The Gospel Advocate encouraged their readers to resist the war effort and retain their message of peace. To overcome this issue, the government threatened the Gospel Advocate to cease its pacifist articles or lose its mailing privileges.[27] In fact, the Advocate was censored by the Department of Justice from 1917 until the end of the war.[28]

The government did not stop with the publications. They also placed pressure on Cordell Christian College in Oklahoma. The Selective Service demanded the resignation of the president and all faculty members who had pacifistic beliefs. Rather than give in to the government, Cordell Christian College decided to close its doors.[29] Along with the government, several private organizations placed pressure on Christians as well. These included the American Defense Society, the Liberty League, the Anti-Yellow Dog League, and the Boys Spies of America.

World War I was presented as a war for freedom and justice. Government propaganda painted America as a Christian nation battling against an evil Germany. Through time, the lines between religion and politics became blurred to the point that any war America was in became a war supported by God. Casey shows that three concepts emerged during this time. First, God had chosen and blessed America. Second, America was a Christian civilization, therefore, when soldiers died in battle, they died for the country and for God. Finally, patriotism was now an acceptable religion.[30] For the first time in the Churches of Christ, Christianity and America were intertwined.[31] Patriotism was equated with Christianity and true piety.[32]

As the Church of Christ journals ceased the pacifist articles, they began allowing writers to contribute pro-war pieces. One writer wrote that God made America great and “America did not go into battle without the God of hosts.”[33] W. H. Carter claimed that “Every Christian should be patriotic.”[34] Not only did new contributors add to the pro-war message, but some contributors also changed their pacifist stance. McQuiddy, the editor of the Gospel Advocate, wrote that “we cannot hope for the millennium” until the “pharisaic, self-righteous spirit” of German higher criticism “is driven from the whole world.”[35] Austin McGary, the former editor of the Firm Foundation, sarcastically attacked pacifists, calling them, “sanctimonious fanatics that claim their citizenship in heaven.”[36] The pressures of the government and society were guiding pacifists from their original ideas toward a nationalistic, pro-war position.

The debate over pacifism vs. a “Godly justified war” had implications beyond each individual’s opinion. There were eternal consequences to each view. Ultimately, the debate came down to the final destination of the souls of those who died in battle. The pro-war proponents believed that since the war with Germany was now a fight between “good Christian men” and the “evil German Kaiser” those who passed would be saved. J.W. Chism, wrote about his son who was killed in battle, that he was “a faithful citizen who gave his life on the altar, a sacrifice to the cause of righteousness against brutal might.”[37]

The pro-war beliefs presented a challenge for pacifists. If the pacifist’s view was the view of God, and Jesus came to bring an end to war among His followers, then those involved in the war were acting in an unchristian manner. In essence, the pacifists were declaring that soldiers were acting sinfully. This, in turn, called into question their eternal judgment when they faced the Prince of Peace. Michael W. Casey stated that “if the pacifists were right, then many fallen soldiers were ‘damned to hell.’”[38]

Pacifists among the Churches of Christ realized that they could not remain neutral as David Lipscomb had during the Civil War. The government did allow certain groups like the Amish and Mennonites to take a peaceful stance and labeled them “peace churches.” As autonomous entities, the Churches of Christ did not have a central governing body to petition for “peace church” status. Therefore, each congregation needed to submit its own request. The problem was that most did not know how to reach that goal. Preachers realized they needed to find new avenues for the young men of their congregations who would be expected to support the war. Their answer was to guide them to be “conscientious objectors.” During WWI, the Church of Christ had the sixth-largest number of conscientious objectors in the United States.[39] Conscientious objectors worked in medical roles, on roads, or on farms. Those that refused to work in those areas, were imprisoned.

Pacifism became the minority position during World War I, but following the war, the case for peace renewed. At the close of the war, the League of Nations was created to prevent wars and maintain world peace. Ironically enough, Alexander Campbell called for an “umpire” or “High Court of Nations” to judge “all international misunderstandings and complaints” in 1848.[40] M.C. Kurfees, a staff writer for the Gospel Advocate, encouraged readers to support the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations because “it was a long step in the direction” of “the Prince of Peace.”[41]

Between the wars, members of the Church of Christ circled back around to pacifism. Some who abandoned the message due to governmental and societal pressure found the original ideals appealing. H. Leo Boles declared in his book, The New Testament Teaching on War, that the war was anti-Christian.[42] A.B. Lipscomb, nephew of David Lipscomb, encouraged the churches to gain non-combative status since they did not do that during the First World War. Lipscomb did concede that members would serve as “non-combatants and fearlessly serve in any manner that would mitigate the suffering” of war.[43] Even during this time of renewed interest, the church did not return to the original position of anti-government, pacifistic outsiders. The new pacifistic stance was more conforming to society.

The 1920s and 1930s were a time of prosperity for the Churches of Christ. Many churches built bigger buildings, began using multiple cups for communion, and started Sunday school classes.[44] With these additions, churches began to split from the main body. The churches that broke off kept the title, “Church of Christ,” but they gained sub-names like “One-cup” churches, “non-Sunday School” churches, or sometimes “Anti” churches (since they were against the mainline ideas of the Churches of Christ). The mainline opinion among Churches of Christ had become pro-war and nationalistic during World War I.[45] These peripheral churches held strongly to the pacifist ideals and even sent letters to Congress requesting they be recognized as peace churches.

While a pacifistic resurgence occurred between the wars, the attack on Pearl Harbor caused most Christians to abandon any peaceful ideas. World War II presented one of the greatest challenges to pacifists in the Churches of Christ. Casey claims that “in the popular mind, this (WWII) was judged, and continues to be judged as one of the most just wars in human history.”[46] Pearl Harbor caused strong pacifists to change dramatically to pro-war positions because this war was defensive. Men like Foy E. Wallace, editor of the Bible Banner, and George Benson, president of Harding College abandoned their previous claims of pacifism in support of the war efforts.

Pearl Harbor presented the first major attack on United States soil from a foreign foe. Since the United States was a “Christian” nation, the attack was an attack on God’s ordained country. Any retaliation became a justified action against an evil attacker. Christians felt compelled to defend their country from the hands of Adolf Hitler and the powers of evil. Alexander Campbell would argue that there is not a “Christian nation” since all countries are led by humans rather than by God, but the emotions around Pearl Harbor brought out a passion for justice among Christians.

There were still a few contributors to Church of Christ journals that held to the original belief. Ira Rice, Jr encouraged those in the church to continue the “Christian battle of nonparticipation in the war.”[47] J.N. Armstrong encouraged believers not to repay anyone evil for evil. Jimmy Lovell even went so far as to say if any church approved of killing in the war they could take his name off of their church roll.[48] Just like in World War I, these men and others were investigated by the government for their statements.

During World War II the majority of men from the Churches of Christ abandoned the past peaceful beliefs and rushed off to war. Rather than join the fighting, a small minority decided to join the Civilian Public Service. About 200 men chose to join this organization created for conscientious objectors in WWII.[49] The men served in soil conservation, worked in farming, did forestry projects, helped in mental hospitals, or served as medics.

These conscientious objectors faced opposition from everyone. The military grudgingly accepted them into service after they tried to talk them out of their stance. They mocked them, tried them in courts, and had the FBI investigate them.[50] In Canada, objectors appeared before a magistrate who challenged them with a barrage of questions. If they responded to any of the questions in anger, they were denied the CO status. Some of these objectors faced abuse, imprisonment, and torture.[51]

While the government was resistant to their decision, members of the church were CO’s strongest critics. Foy Wallace, Jr., called conscientious objectors, “freak specimens of humanity” and his brother Cled claimed they were spreading a “silly doctrine of an extreme Hindu type pacifism.”[52] Likewise, the pacifists did not accept COs because they helped the war efforts. Hugo McCord claimed that those in the CPS were “giving aid to Hitler” because they were not doing everything, they could for the peace movement.[53] The conscientious objectors who strove to serve the country while serving God were ridiculed and condemned on all sides.

There were also noticeable changes in Churches of Christ in America during the second war. One noticeable adjustment was the introduction of songs like The Star-Spangled Banner, My Country Tis of Thee, and even the Battle Hymn of the Republic. American flags were found hanging in or on church buildings. Veterans were viewed with honor and respect and the church encouraged young men to do their Christian duty and join the war effort.

The conclusion of World War II came about by the dropping of the atomic bomb. The dropping of the bomb caused many who abandoned pacifism to evaluate the government’s decision in a new light. Historian J. Samuel Walker called the decision to drop the atomic bomb, “the most contentious issue in American history.”[54] War proponents claim that thousands of lives were saved by dropping the bomb because it ended the war early. On the other hand, many struggled with the death of so many innocent lives.

The end of World War II brought the fear of communism. This fear caused Christians to look to the government for solutions. The United States entered the Korean War to curb the Communist tide. By this point in the transition from pacifism, Christians supported the war and the government. The Korean War brought a battle with the “godless” communists rather than the “evil” Kaiser of World War II. Of the 51,000 men from Churches of Christ, only around 300 served as Alternative Service Workers, mostly from the non-Sunday School churches.[55]

In the 1960s, the country was focused on the Vietnam War. Many non-Christians took oppositional stances against the government’s involvement in the war. By this point, the Churches of Christ had firmly transitioned to accepted right-wing conservatives and viewed pacifists as social oddities. Articles about pacifism almost completely disappeared from Churches of Christ journals by the 1960s.[56] Pacifism was still considered a “left-wing outsider” position, but members of the Church of Christ were no longer a part of it. In the 1990s, no church articles appeared about the United States’ involvement in the Gulf War. In fact, there were more articles about members of the Churches of Christ being active in military service than those opposing involvement.[57]

Since their departure from the mainstream Churches of Christ, the non-Sunday school/One-Cup churches held firmly to pacifism. They are one of the only branches of the Churches of Christ that did not abandon the original ideals. Following World War II, the One-Cup churches petitioned to be declared as an official peace church. They are still on record as one today.

Aside from the non-Sunday school churches, most Churches of Christ have abandoned the original pacifistic beliefs of Campbell, Stone, and Lipscomb. The transition occurred over one hundred fifty years and multiple wars. There are many questions that must be asked in reference to pacifism. First, is the original opinion the correct position for the church? Campbell and Stone’s goals were to restore the early church and to bring unity to all Christians. Pacifism was a topic they had opinions on, but not their main message. As with every topic they faced, they sought direction from Scripture and offered significant biblical passages to support their opinions.

As the transition from pacifism to pro-war nationalism occurred from outside pressure. The government’s propaganda and pressure on the Churches of Christ altered the church’s stance on pacifism. Today, churches not only support war efforts, but they also are actively involved in government; vote; expect special sermons on Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, and Memorial Day; and encourage and support soldiers within the congregation.

A second question that arises from studying the path of pacifism is: if the church’s stance on pacifism can change from government and societal pressures, what other beliefs can be changed? This is a scary question. As a group of believers who search for answers in God’s word, this is one issue that was influenced more by outside influences than Scripture. In 100 years, what other beliefs will the church change because of outside pressure?

Churches of Christ were originally non-political oddities. They relished that position because they felt it personified the idea of “being in the world, but not of the world.” As the country moved in and out of war, that original position was abandoned and replaced with an accepted right-wing pro-military position. A similar journey occurred in 392 when Constantine brought the church from outcasts to social leaders. Constantine’s actions brought an end to the persecution of Christians, but they also gave Christians a position of authority “in the world.” The Churches of Christ transition is similar. They are no longer pacifistic outsiders. They have joined the rest of the country as accepted patriots.

Source: https://libertarianchristians.com/2024/07/22/pacifism-and-patriotism-in-the-churches-of-christ-an-historical-evaluation/