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.
0 Comments