Category Archives: peace

The Decline of Pacifism in Churches of Christ: Cordell Christian College

8 Replies

Yesterday we looked at government censure of the Gospel Advocate during World War I. This was a serious blow to pacifist thinking within churches of Christ. Another setback was the closing of Cordell Christian College in Oklahoma.

Cordell was headed by a man named J.N. Armstrong. Armstrong held to what Richard Hughes calls “an apocalyptic worldview.” This viewpoint was fairly common in our brotherhood in the late 19th century, putting a strong emphasis on the Kingdom of God vs. the kingdoms of this earth. Among other things, such a view typically leads to a refusal to participate in war.

This apocalyptic thinking became common among the faculty at Cordell Christian, a fact which did not please the pro-war community around them. In particular, the Selective Service board felt that Cordell was not giving sufficient encouragement to its students to enlist in the military. When faculty member S.A. Bell published an anti-war article in the Gospel Herald, that was perceived to be the final straw. The Selective Service board intervened, demanding the resignation of Armstrong, Bell and all faculty members who held to a pacifist viewpoint. Rather than accede to these demands, Cordell Christian College closed its doors.

How could I have forgotten about this incident? (BTW, Bobby V. reminded me in the comments yesterday that there was an entire chapter on this closure in his book Kingdom Come) How could we as a brotherhood have forgotten? I hear people talk about their fear that government might someday tell preachers what they can and can’t preach. We’ve already been there! And we as a brotherhood acquiesced, bowed our heads and quietly muttered, “Hail, Caesar!”

I know that it’s easy to judge what has happened in the past. You really have to have been there to have known what really happened. But I can’t help but see this as one of the low points for our brotherhood. Even if we don’t agree, we should be willing to stand and defend a brother’s right to preach what he sees in Scripture. I pray that history will not repeat itself on this matter.

“And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29)

(Bobby V. was gracious enough to share with me the chapter that he contributed to a book that was published in memory of Mike Casey. Bobby’s article was titled “‘David Lipscomb of Texas’ Vs. David Lipscomb of Nashville: R. L. Whiteside’s Rejection of Lipscomb’s Pacifism”)

The Decline of Pacifism in Churches of Christ

26 Replies

OK, so I was wrong. Wrong with a capital R. I know that surprises no one, but it’s frustrating to me because I wasn’t wrong so much out of ignorance (like normal), but wrong out of forgetfulness.

I forgot about Cordell Christian College. And World War I. OK, maybe I didn’t forget about WWI, but when I said that the churches of Christ were predominantly pacifistic up until WWII, I was forgetting the first world war. (Which wasn’t really the first world war, but they’re not going to change the history books now)

On my shelves, I have the book Decades of Destiny: A History of Churches of Christ from 1900-2000. I’ve read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. So how could I forget that Lynn McMillon’s chapter on 1910-1920 is titled “The End of Pacifism”?

So let’s back up a bit. During the Civil War, the Restoration Movement found itself divided, both geographically and philosophically. Generally speaking, the churches in the North supported the war, while those in the South discouraged their members from fighting. (I’m painting with broad strokes, I know) More than doctrine, this is what led to the split between the Disciples of Christ and the churches of Christ (a scenario which played out in many other religious groups).

Leaders like David Lipscomb took strong stands against Christians joining the military. When the Spanish-American War came, it wasn’t hard for Christians to see through the pretenses behind the war and refuse to get involved. But then came World War I.

By the time World War I arrived, churches of Christ no longer found themselves on the wrong side of the tracks. [You might read Mike Casey’s article “From religious outsiders to insiders: the rise and fall of pacifism in the Churches of Christ.” Not sure how long that link will be valid, but you can read the article there for now.] Now an accepted part of society, they felt a stake in the preservation of that society.

What’s more, the government saw to it to persecute Christians who dared use their influence to discourage others from participating in the war. Two large targets were attacked directly. One was the Gospel Advocate, a publication long known for its pacifist views. During the Spanish-American War, the magazine had republished a letter presented to the governor of Tennessee during the Civil War which declared that the churches of Christ “believe that all Military Service or connexion with Military Service is entirely incompatible with the Spirit and requirements of the Christian religion.” During World War I, Caesar, err, the government threatened to arrest J.C. McQuiddy under the Espionage Act if he didn’t stop publishing pieces promoting pacifism. In July 1917, the Advocate stopped publishing peace articles for the rest of the war. McQuiddy also helped the government persuade preacher Price Billingsley to stop denouncing pro-war Christians.

Tomorrow I’ll do my best to retell the story of Cordell Christian College. Those who know it better than I can be prepared to chime in. And you’re always more than welcome to offer comments and corrections on the story thus far.

Moral legacy of war

11 Replies

There’s an interesting book that’s being written, called “The Moral Legacy of World War II.” It’s being written by Ted Grimsrud, who teaches theology and peace studies at Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. He is posting rough drafts of each chapter on the web. You can see the table of contents here, with links to the chapters that have been made public.

It’s an interesting topic. While the impact of the war on society as a whole is interesting, I’m particularly aware of the impact on the church in the United States. Our fellowship, the churches of Christ, transformed almost overnight from a predominantly pacifistic movement to a movement that broadly supports military involvement.

I overstated my case the other day by saying that this country has basically been at war for the last 70 years. Nick rightly corrected me on this. If you want to get technical, the last declaration of war by the United States Congress was in 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Romania. What may have seemed like wars since then have merely been military actions. What is unquestionable, however, is that the U.S. geared up militarily in the 1940s and never “geared down” after that. We became, and remain, a militarized society. And our churches, the churches of Christ at least, became and remain a militarized religious movement.

So Grimsrud’s study should be interesting. I’ve only read the first chapter. I hope some of you will read his writings and comment on them. His bias is obvious, which can often be helpful. Studies done under a pretense of objectivity can be deceiving. Every story has a slant, and it’s useful to know ahead of time what that slant is going to be.

Consistent Life Ethic

9 Replies

I came across the Consistent Life Ethic a few years ago while doing research for a class I was teaching in the course “Christianity in Culture.” The idea was new to me. I found it to be a surprising take on some important issues, especially because it seemingly cuts across the traditional divisions of left and right, conservative and liberal.

Apparently, this ethic was first articulated by Joseph Bernadin, a cardinal in the Catholic church. He sought to tie together all issues that have at their core the value of human life. He urged people to take a consistent approach to these questions, stating that: “When human life is considered ‘cheap’ or easily expendable in one area, eventually nothing is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy.” In another speech, Bernadin said, “The spectrum of life cuts across the issues of genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the care of the terminally ill.”

The Consistent Life Ethic condemns abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. It opposes the death penalty and economic injustice. Bernadin condemned what he called “unjust war,” but the Consistent Life movement today (which was once called the Seamless Garment Network) has embraced pacifism. The mission statement of Consistent Life expresses:

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a ‘consistent ethic of life’. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.

They go on to describe their purpose as follows:

We serve the anti-violence community by connecting issues, building bridges, and strengthening the case against each kind of socially-approved killing by consistently opposing them all.

I’m not ready to align myself with any movement other than the Kingdom of God, but I find this idea to be very intriguing. What do you think? Can you see some value in seeking consistency on these issues? Or is this approach misguided?

Deadly mirage

13 Replies

It came out in a paper in the U.K. last month. I didn’t see much coverage here, but I thought the news to be rather significant. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from the article:

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.

“Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right,” he said. “They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.”

How many times will history have to repeat itself before we are convinced? When humans go to war, we don’t have all the facts. The citizens, those called upon to lay down their lives, don’t have all the facts. In this case, even those calling for war didn’t have the correct information.

I continue to marvel that people who complain about putting their tax dollars in the hands of the government seem so willing to put the lives of their sons and daughters in the very same hands. We don’t trust them with our money, but we trust them with our children.

Even when time and time again we find out that what we thought we knew about the reasons for fighting turns out to be a mirage. A deadly mirage.

Wars are fought on lies and deceit. I for one want to have no part of it.