By Richard J. Cherok
A brief glance at the evolution of political partisanship and its relationship to faith and culture in American history demonstrates a complexity that sometimes seems counterintuitive (antebellum support for slavery by Southern Christians, for example) and a firmness of conviction (Jewish commitment to political liberalism) that defies simplistic explanations. Moreover, the complexity of this relationship between politics, faith, and culture seems to grow ever more multifaceted in American society with each passing election cycle. The Restoration Movement’s historic engagement with political activities has also been quite diverse and not easily explained. While it’s true that there are—and have always been—blocks of voters with similar agendas and patterns of belief that influence their thought with regard to casting ballots or participating in government, the Restoration Movement’s heritage is marked by a vast array of perspectives on how best to engage the politics of the day and a voting pattern that reaches in nearly all directions on the political map. Not only has the Restoration Movement’s umbrella been large enough to include extreme political views on opposing sides, it also has proven itself large enough to include those who question whether Christians should have any political engagement.
POLITICAL AND ANTI-POLITICAL EXTREMES
As one of the earliest leaders of the emerging Restoration Movement, Barton W. Stone (1772–1844) spoke out repeatedly against the Christian’s involvement in politics. Writing in the Christian Messenger in August 1843, Stone claimed to have never seen a person emerge from political involvement “more piously disposed, and religiously inclined and engaged”; Stone asked if “the politics of the day are in opposition to the politics of heaven?” He vehemently concluded that such is indeed the case. Stone insisted that the government of Christians must be the “pure monarchy” of Jesus, and that Jesus’ followers “must cease to support any other government on earth by our counsels, co-operation, and choice.” In a similar manner, David Lipscomb (1831–1917) wrote in his book, Civil Government, that Christians should offer “neither active support or participation, nor active opposition” to any earthly government.
On the opposite extreme, however, are those within the Stone-Campbell Movement who have taken a highly active role in the affairs of civil government. Perhaps no figure in the movement’s history can better represent the counterpoint to the anti-political side of these churches than James A. Garfield (1831–1881). Although he was a respected preacher and educator within the movement, Garfield believed he could better serve Christ and the church through politics. At a Christian assembly in 1859, Garfield declared, “I believe that there is vastly more need of manly men in politics than of preachers.” Garfield went on to serve in both state and national government positions, ultimately being elected the 20th president of the United States (the only preacher to serve as president and the second president to be assassinated in office).Over the years and up to the present day in the Stone-Campbell fellowship of churches, there have been many proponents of both the anti-political perspective and the belief in an active participation in civil government. Both sides offer compelling rationales for their views.
CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL EXTREMES
The perspectives that identify political conservatism and political liberalism are not always easily explained or consistently adhered to by advocates of either standpoint. And just because a person is theologically conservative, doesn’t necessarily mean they will be politically conservative, and vice versa.
Moreover, the concepts of conservative and liberal have reshaped themselves multiple times throughout American history, making their meanings somewhat slippery. A simplistic, though not always accurate, definition of the two standpoints focuses on their notions of government. Among numerous other identifiers, political liberals (mostly Democrats) tend to prefer a larger federal bureaucracy with greater social regulations and taxation in order to provide services to all citizens. Political conservatives (mostly Republicans) generally support a limited federal government with fewer regulations and taxes in order to incentivize the private sector of the economy to develop cost-effective services to all citizens. The Restoration Movement’s adherents have stood at nearly every possible point on the left-right continuum of political thought. Evangelists such as Gerald L.K. Smith (1898–1976) of the Christian Nationalist Crusade, Billy James Hargis (1925–2004) of the Christian Crusade, and Cecil Todd (1931–2024) of Revival Fires Ministry, were far-right conservatives who combined American patriotism with their ministries. No less notable are the left-leaning figures of the movement who represent the opposite side of the political spectrum. Charles Clayton Morrison (1874–1966) was a Restoration Movement minister, the longtime editor of the Christian Century, and one of the most widely recognized and vocal advocates of both theological and political liberalism in American Protestantism. Other political liberals included peace-movement activist Kirby Page (1890–1957), and U.S. Senators James B. “Champ” Clark (1850–1921) and J. William Fulbright (1905–1995).
While the far-right and far-left perspectives have attracted enthusiasts for their stances throughout the Restoration Movement’s history, it would be safe to suggest that the vast majority of the movement’s members tend to line up somewhere between the extremes. And, because the movement has no official mechanism for endorsing candidates or political positions, it would be a mistake to imply that the movement takes an official political position.
THE MODERATE CAMPBELLIAN PERSPECTIVE
Alexander Campbell (1788–1866) immigrated to the United States in 1809 and became an American citizen in 1815. He repeatedly mentioned his appreciation for the American political system in comparison to the European aristocracies. In Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Campbell biographer Dr. Robert Richardson (1806–1876) contended that his friend was very informed about the political issues of his day. While Campbell “always avoided taking any active part in politics,” Richardson wrote, “on all proper occasions, he frankly expressed his views on all public measures,” taking care “to maintain the reserve and dignity belonging to his ministerial office.” Furthermore, Campbell made it clear that the government and the church must be viewed as two differing entities. Jesus “explicitly avowed” to Pontius Pilate, Campbell wrote in 1833, “that his kingdom was not of this world, though he has a kingdom in it.”
While Campbell judged the government of his adopted nation as the best in the world, he explicitly noted in the MIllennial Harbinger (1846 and 1851) that neither God nor the Bible have “prescribed” a singular “form of political government” as the divinely chosen plan of earthly authority. Believing that all governments are divinely appointed, however, Campbell went so far as to refer to political leaders as “God’s ministers” who will be held accountable for their actions (Millennial Harbinger, 1846). “The object of government,” he explained, is “to protect the life, liberty, reputation, and property of every citizen,” and to provide for “the education of youth in literature and morals” (Millennial Harbinger, 1830).
Although some of Campbell’s friends served in prominent government positions—for example, Jeremiah Sullivan Black (1810–1883) served as U.S. attorney general and secretary of state under President James Buchanan— Campbell tended to oppose the Christian’s involvement in political offices. “I know of nothing more antipodal to the gospel than politics,” he wrote in 1839, and “it is about as hard for a Christian man to please unchristian constituents, as it is for any one to serve God and Mammon.” Yet, Campbell viewed the right of suffrage as both a special and somewhat sacred responsibility for American Christians. By voting, Campbell believed, America’s Christian citizens can respond to both the political measures of their society. “In our country and government, every man is responsible for his vote,” Campbell wrote in 1857, and it is each person’s “duty to God” to use that vote for the greatest good or for the prevention of evil. Campbell walked a thin line with regard to his views on politics and government. While he encouraged Christians to refrain from getting too involved with governmental affairs, he also encouraged them to use their available political means to promote Christian values in society. Even in doing this, however, he believed it futile to legislate Christian practices or to attempt to establish a theocratic governmental system. Human governments, he repeatedly insisted in the Millennial Harbinger, cannot be expected to be Christian governments, nor can Christian laws and precepts be imposed upon those who have not subjected themselves to Christ. Overall, Campbell simply wanted a government that granted him the freedom to worship as he pleased, while he awaited the greater reign of King Jesus to commence.
Richard J. Cherok, PhD, serves as managing editor of Christian Standard.
Thanks for this timely article, Rick. Our table on Wednesday reflects differing perspectives on the current political moment. Unity in Christ is a higher call.
Scanned the article! Interesting information. On rare occasions where RM national evangelists are listed, one rarely finds a mention of the Jones-Keister Crusade effort, active in the ’40s – ’60s. Medford Jones was a member of East 38th Street Christian Church in Indianapolis. Grew up with his family there, wife Vinnie, sons Medford Jr., Bob, Terry. When he and Dorothy shut down their traveling evangelistic operation, he went on to the presidency of Pacific Bible Seminary. She settled down at Milligan as wife of its president. Their work seemed to be noteworthy. He was heard to say at a NACC workshop, remember it?, in the ’90s(?) ‘1 in 4 RM church members walked the aisle at our crusades’ … . That seems significant.
Alexander Campbell served as delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention 1829-1830 held in Richmond. — Wikpedia His only formal political service.
Wow, very fair article on the subject. I find the history very interesting, although my personal opinions do differ. I will only note that just like we need Christians in any and all types of industries, we do need them in politics as well. Therefore, I personally wish that other Christians would wish to not participate in politics, criticize us that do. It is a subject matter that I enjoy to follow as someone else might enjoy a different hobby. And as the government and law does affect us everyday, including when and where and how we were allowed to worship during the pandemic, I think it is important to give it some thought. Not fret about it. Not argue with our neighbors over it. But give some attention to it just like we do the care of our car, the people teaching our kids, what is in our food, and the maintenance of our homes. We are to be good stewards of our life, and to those around us. God set out the 10 commandments and the rest of the law bc we are sinful cannot regulate ourselves. We need a minimal government with the best people akin to ourselves bc we are not perfect humans. If we do not elect people that respect our freedoms, we will lose them, including how we educate our children and worship our God. So wherever you land on your politics, I personally believe that politics does matter. And it’s ok for some to be more involved than others. The sin comes in when we are possessed by it and it becomes more important than God and family.
If the government cannot regulate morality, then where do we teach about it? It should come up among discussions between believers and/or church classes and/or even sermon series. Or it will come from the culture. Please stop sweeping it under the rug. Especially when you have unchurched people coming into your congregations. We need to teach them about these hot topics without endorsing a party or candidate. Thanks for reading.
“For the greatest good or the prevention of evil”. I resonate with that completely. I don’t vote so much for the man/woman as I do for the ‘greatest good’ or ‘prevention of evil’. When I see platforms that applaud evil, I know where my duty lies.
Lipscomb’s “Civil Government” may well be the most significant RM contribution to public theology. It relies heavily on Anabaptist public theology stemming from the Schleitheim Confession advocating separation from public life and military service. Ozark’s Paul Butler offered “What the Bible Says About Civil Government” (1990) published by College Press and advocated a more participatory approach for Christians. But outside the RM, these are virtually unknown and not part of the wider conversation about public theology and Christian political theory. Garfield, LBJ and Reagan are the most notable American RM public officeholders. But many others have served in federal and state legisltures and municipal councils. The UK’s Prime Minister David Lloyd George may have been influenced by the RM. A New Zealander Garfield Todd, a RM missionary to Rhodesia, was briefly elected Prime Minister of Rhodesia. Sam Poghisio, educated at LCS, has been a prominent legislator and member of Kenya’s legislature and government. At least two Canadian RM leaders served in Canada’s first House of Commons and Senate. Henry Wise Wood, an American immigrant, founded, organized and led the United Farmers of Alberta to power as the Government of that Canadian province. While serving as minister of Central Church of Christ, Vulcan, AB, Ernest G. Hansell organized and served as Leader of the British Columbia Social Credit Party leading them to become government in the 1950s. As Richard Cherok describes, these have occupied the entire spectrum of political activity.