CAMPBELL'S PACIFISM AND RELATIONS WITH THE STATE

Watts, Craig M

By the very nature of their convictions, pacifists such as Alexander Campbell were forced to wrestle with the question of the proper relationship of the Christian to the state. For Anabaptists the question had long since been answered: total withdrawal. But for pacifists who did not share their sectarian perspective, the question was very much alive. And even if pacifists wanted to avoid it, they had opponents who repeatedly brought the issue to their attention.

Dr. William Allen, president of Bowdoin College, was among those who would not allow the nineteenth-century peace activists to evade the difficulties entailed in their pacifism. The following questions preoccupied him: Can a person who has rejected as immoral the use of deadly force in international affairs participate in governing a state that continues to employ such force in domestic affairs? Can the domestic work of government be accomplished if all potentially deadly force is renounced? From the perspective of absolute pacifism, are Christianity and government involvement mutually exclusive?1 Such questions received conflicting answers from antebellum American pacifists.

VIOLENT GOVERNMENTS, PEACEFUL CHRISTIANS

Tension over the legitimacy of government and the role of Christians in it existed from the very beginning of the peace movement. Unitarian minister Noah Worcester believed the early church was both nonviolent and respectful of government. Accordingly, in his efforts toward peace reform, he sought to enlist the help of social institutions, rather than call Christians to withdraw from them. Among those he persuaded to join him in forming the Massachusetts Peace Society in 1810 were William Phillips, the governor of the state, who served as president; Joshua P. Blanshard, a wealthy Boston businessman; Abiel Holmes, father of Oliver Wendell Holmes; and William Ellery Charming, one of the most influential and well-known ministers in the nation. The organization and its members had no interest in overthrowing the present order but sought to Christianize it.2

David Low Dodge perceived a greater moral and spiritual distance between the social and political establishment and the will of God than did Worcester and his organization. While the membership of Dodge's New York Peace Society contained many eminent citizens, perfectionist ideals were prevalent. Dodge believed the world to be depraved and its institutions separated from the kingdom of God. He saw Christians as a redeemed minority at odds with the spirit of the age. Peace was possible, not by human efforts to improve institutions but only by the spiritual regeneration of sinful people. The state, in Dodge's view, was used by God to maintain some semblance of order in a rebellious world. Coercive and violent methods were sometimes employed by governing authorities to accomplish necessary ends. Christians, however, were to be a peculiar people who lived not by violence but by love. The work of the government was contrary to the work of Christians and, therefore, held Dodge, Christians should not participate in government, either by serving as elected officials or even by voting.3

This tension continued after the formation of the American Peace Society by George Ladd, perhaps the most prominent leader in the nineteenth-century peace movement. For the most part, the leaders of the Society supported the function of government and urged its members to work through political channels. The Society was a respectable organization which sought to appeal to the social mainstream. It was antiwar but pro-government. Ladd saw no conflict between working for peace and participating in the political process. He had the heart and the methods of a moderate. As a close friend and co-worker remarked, no one "was more thorough on peace, yet he preached no crusade against church or state, nor allow himself to weaken the foundation of either."4 The importance he placed upon government is apparent in the fact that throughout his life Ladd was a tireless advocate for the establishment of a congress of nations which would bring together representatives of the various governments around the world to negotiate and resolve conflicts.5

Likewise Thomas Grimké never suggested that Christians renounce or retreat from the government. A lawyer himself, he never questioned the need for the state. He served in the South Carolina state senate for four years. That a Christian could serve as a magistrate, he took for granted. While acknowledging that some coercion may be necessary in order to govern, he rejected the notion that a Christian, whether as an agent of the state or not, had the right to use deadly force. Grirnke has been called a "moderate absolute" pacifist for his absolute prohibition of deadly force but sanction of moderate coercion for the sake of law and order. He also argued that governing officials should lead the population by adopting nonviolent policies. If the population overwhelmingly resisted those policies, the Christian magistrate should resign.6

Another moderate absolute pacifist who recognized the importance of the state and the need for limited coercion in government was Thomas Upham. He maintained that for Christianity "the doctrine is, that human life, both in its individual and corporate state...is INVIOLABLE; that it cannot be taken away from any purpose whatever... The principle of the gospels are binding upon men in their social capacity" (Upham's emphasis). Still Upham argued that the practice of nonviolence neither undermines the work of civil government nor opposes "the exercise of its authority to control and punish" so long as the inviolability of human life is honored. He introduced a concept that he called "noninjurious force." He wrote, "There are some extreme cases (very few indeed, but still some extreme cases) where resistance and the use of force, so far as is necessary to disarm and confine the assailant are justified and a duty."7

Members of the New England Non-Resistance Society thought otherwise. Being more in the tradition of Dodge, they believed that the state was beyond redemption. All attempts to reform the state from within were misguided, they held. Civil government persistently usurped the government of God, functioning in a manner contrary to the love taught by Jesus Christ. The constitution of the Non-Resistance Society contained the following: "No one who professes to have the spirit of Christ can consistently sue a man at law for redress of injuries, or thrust any evil-doer into prison, or fill any office in which he would come under obligation to execute penal enactment or take any part in military service-or acknowledge allegiance to any human government-or justify any man in fighting in defense of property, liberty, life or religion..."8

William Lloyd Garrison, prominent leader in the Non-Resistance Society, was highly critical of those within the American Peace Society who condemned international wars and yet supported the use of violence in dealing with domestic threats. He derisively remarked, "Surely nothing can be more dangerous than the doctrine that the moral obligations of men change with the latitude and longitude of a place."9 Neither in the scriptures nor from reason did he see any justification for the notion that an invading force should be met nonviolently, while the nation facing the armed force does "not permit any of their number to commit the smallest offense, without subjecting them to pains and penalties."10

Garrison's Non-Resistance Society colleague, the Rev. H. C. Wright, likewise called for Christians to withdraw from the government. He even viewed voting as an expression of support for state-sponsored violence. He explained, "All preparations for war, in this nation, are begun at the ballot-box. Voting is the first step...Every ballot contains a threat of death; and he, who casts it, pledges himself to aid the government to execute it. The ballot-box is the first step, the gallows or battlefield the last; and whoever takes the first, must take the last. There is no consistent or honest stopping place between them."" The Non-Resistance Society did not deny the necessity of government in an unconverted world but insisted that Christians have no role in an institution that enforces order by armed might.

In this spectrum of pacifist attitudes toward government, Alexander Campbell's place was with the moderates and conservatives. He did not echo the Non-Resistance Society's call to renounce human government as contrary to the government of God. On the other hand, he never urged Christians to immerse themselves in political life. In fact, he was quick to offer words of caution. It is probably fair to say with Roland Bainton that Campbell "accorded a somewhat grudging acquiescence" to the state.12 Still, with rare exceptions, he cautiously supported the involvement of Christians in the political process and in the functions of government.

Campbell could not call for complete Christian withdrawal from the government because the world's sin and violence necessitated its existence. He stated in 1830 that "were men truly religious political government would be unnecessary."13 Given the spiritual and moral state of humankind, government is essential to avoid chaos and destruction. Writing in The Christian System, Campbell stated that were it not for the prevalence of injustice and violence "civil government would be wholly unnecessary, and its appendages an excrescence upon society."14 Still later, he wrote, perhaps in view of those with Non-Resistance commitments, "A wise man will not seek to annihilate any institution that the present constitution of the world, and the conditions of human nature, seem to require."15 In the following year, he stated the matter in stronger terms: "He that argues for the abolition of civil government or for the abolition of statutes given to mankind by God himself...shocks all common sense."16

Campbell believed that government was not merely a product of human necessity but also of divine intention. He spoke of "the government of our own, as well as that of the Lord's, creation and ordination" and repeatedly referred to "the Powers that are ordained by God."17 Civil government, Campbell declared, is a "divine appendix" which God has added to "the volumes of religion and morality."18 He went so far as to claim that secular authorities and civil government are "by the grace of God, bestowed upon the world." Without them "neither the church nor the world could exist."19 Campbell listed the state, along with the family and church, as "the three sublimely divine and powerful institutions" which have the "destinies of the world in their hands."20

Given the importance that the protection of citizens plays in Campbell's understanding of the state, it is striking that he said so little about how this is to be accomplished. Except when he spoke of capital punishment, he said virtually nothing about the employment of force necessary to preserve life and keep order in a society. This could be due to optimism absorbed from Enlightenment influences. Campbell did not explicitly bar Christians from participating in the government so long as they neither legislated nor carried out coercive policies, but if they were called to "bear swords" for any reason, they had a responsibility to cease and desist. As Campbell wrote in 1835, "Christians cannot fight with swords of steel. They cannot rejoice in blood. They cannot, therefore, be the sword in the hand of God..." The government can still fulfill its purpose by other means: "When the Lord has a dirty job, there is no want of dirty undertakers."21

Campbell would have no difficulty agreeing with the leading moderate peace activist William Ladd, who declared, "The chief end and purpose of government is, to prevent one person from injuring another, so that one may sit under his own vine and fig-tree, with none to molest or make him afraid.. .and when disputes arise, so far from leaving each individual to take his own cause in his own hands, governments have provided courts of law to decide the controversy."22

SEPARATION OF STATE FROM CHURCH

Campbell did not have a clearly defined or extensive philosophy of church-state relations, but his impressions on the matter arose from late Enlightenment influences and from his understanding of the Bible. In the realms of religion and personal life, Campbell acknowledged the government's responsibility to protect individuals and religious groups from persecution and oppression, but he considered illegitimate any intrusion by the state in religious affairs. Campbell insisted that governments had no ecclesiastical responsibility.

Campbell's views in this area were largely in keeping with John Locke, who also advocated the noninterference in religious matters by governing authorities. Locke defined the commonwealth as "a society of men constituted only for the preserving and the advancing their own civil interest" with no proper function in the religion domain.23 With his belief in tolerance, separation of powers, natural rights, and human dignity, Campbell ' s political thought reflects the dominant political philosophy of antebellum America.

The intense aversion Campbell had to any attempt on the part of the state to exert its power over the church probably went beyond theological or philosophical principles. Much of it doubtless originated from the ordeal of his mother's Protestant French Huguenot family. When Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes, which had granted a degree of religious freedom, the family was forced to flee the country, first to Scotland, then to Ireland.24 It is possible that as he was growing up the young Alexander heard stories about this experience with a religiously oppressive state.

Especially during his earlier years Campbell had little confidence in the benevolence of the state in its relation to the church. He thought that governments favored religion to the extent that it served the ends of the state. In an 1828 debate, he quoted pacifist Soame Jenyns, a member of the English Parliament, who stated that in ancient kingdoms leaders manipulated the populace with the belief in rewards and punishment in the afterlife and used the idea of God to give their laws sanction. The state has been most positive toward religion, Jenyns argued, when it has found religion useful to some political purpose.25

Campbell believed that since the founding of the church, "the governments of this world have either been directly opposed to it, or, at best, pretended friends; and therefore their influence has always been opposed to the true spirit and genius of the Christian institution."26 Christians mistakenly believed that the state would genuinely further their cause. The most that could be reasonably expected from the state was "liberty of conscience and protection from violence...till Jesus take to himself his great power, and hurl all these potentates from their thrones and make his cause triumphant.. ."27

In his 1830 "Oration in Honor of the Fourth of July," Campbell spoke favorably of the government "in this most favored of all lands" because this "government proposes only to guard the temporal and worldly rights of men." Instead of seeking to promote one faith and inhibit others, the government restricted its efforts exclusively to the concerns of this world. "It permits every man to be of no religion, or of any religion he pleases...Here the affairs of another world are left to themselves."28 Campbell commended this approach to government. Neither aid nor obstacles should be placed in the way of any religion or members of any church. Campbell believed the role of government was simply to keep out of all religious matters and insure freedom from persecution.

But he occasionally saw the government inserting itself into religious affairs. In 1843 he was distressed when he learned of the decision of the court in the Commonwealth vs. William Armstrong case in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Despite the protests of her father, Baptist minister William S. Hall had baptized the seventeen-year-old daughter of William Armstrong, who had already been baptized as a Presbyterian. The father threatened the minister with violence. This led to the minister seeking legal protection from the court. Judge Ellis Lewis required William Armstrong to post a bond of five hundred dollars. However, Lewis ruled that Rev. Hall pay that bond because he had circumvented the father's authority.29

Campbell strongly objected to the decision. He declared that the judge's action infringed on the minister's right to proclaim his message and carry out his ministry according to his own convictions. By giving priority to parental authority, the court decision "annihilates personal responsibility, the rights of conscience, and political freedom, at 'one fell swoop.'"30 A year later Campbell was pleased to find that in a similar case an opposite decision was issued by another Pennsylvania judge which, Campbell said, "confirmed, in the main, my Review of Judge Lewis' Decision..."31

Campbell sought to insure that there was no action by the government that would inhibit the church from carrying out its ministry or from proclaiming the message to which it was committed. Sometimes Campbell's vigilance in identifying and protesting any sign that the state was encroaching upon the domain of the church may have seemed excessive. He went so far as to deny that governing authorities had the prerogative to grant religious freedom to churches. "The mere asking for toleration recognizes a right which no civil government possesses, and establishes a principle of calamitous consequences..."32

The government that has the right to extend tolerance to churches, Campbell reasoned, likewise has the right to withhold it if the authorities deem a religious conviction or practice contrary to the majority view or at odds with the aim of the state. Churches, then, would be dependent upon the "intelligence and forbearance" of the government to determine which religions are detrimental to the public interests, and, therefore, should be opposed, and which should be tolerated. Campbell understood freedom of religion to be a natural right. He declared, "Civil rulers have no right to tolerate nor punish men on account of their opinions in matters of religion."33

SEPARATION OF CHURCH FROM STATE

If Campbell was wary of the state exerting power over the church, he was equally suspicious of the church seeking to enlist the government for its purposes. His own experience with state-church relations prior to his immigration to the United States made him especially sensitive to any initiatives on the part of a church or its leaders to use the state for its ends. As Campbell interpreted the history of the church, one of the most spiritually and politically destructive developments was the achievement of political power by the church. He wrote,

In the beginning of the fifth century the Christian religion had been corrupted into a hierarchy-it had become a state engine; it had, therefore, lost its spirit, its purity, its original power over the empire, conquered its conquerors, and was, beyond doubt, the most puissant element of the new compound.34

Campbell wrote in an essay in 1833 that the New Testament assumes Christians will not be in the position to set the course of the state. This is not due merely to the peculiar historical situation of the earliest church, but Campbell believed this to be a result of faithfulness to Christ. A position of dominance in the world-prior to the millennial reign-is contrary to the nature of Christianity. There can be no Christian nation because Christians are not to live by force, but by divine love, yet nations depend on force for their survival. Consequently, it is the nature of Christianity to be in a position of political weakness. "Hence," wrote Campbell, "the New Testament is only written and adapted to Christians in a suffering state-not as triumphant, not as having the reigns of government in their hands."35 When Christianity adopts a strategy of power, it becomes other than Christianity. So, Campbell continued,

The New Testament being only adapted to Christians in a suffering state, it never can mount the throne, nor become a court religion; and, therefore, any religion called Christian, which has been by law established, has been an impudent imposition or base counterfeit, and not the religion of Jesus Christ.36

Christians are spread about in many nations or kingdoms, wrote Campbell, but not one of those nations can rightfully claim to be a Christian nation. Such a claim could be justified only if the nation administered Christ's laws, pledged allegiance to him as the governing authority in all things, and came into being by adopting his constitution.37 But that could never happen before the millennium. Campbell quoted "one well versed in policies of nations, and in the laws of Christian ethics, and all the writing of the Christian teachers" who made clear the magnitude of the problems of a nation attempting to be governed strictly by the pacifist Christianity of the Bible:

No nation can be governed by the New Testament alone, nor by the principles which it inculcates; for were we to take Jesus for our King, the Romans or some unchristian kingdom would come and destroy our country and government; for Jesus would not allow us to have a sword or cannon by which to avenge our wrongs-nay, he would have us turn the other cheek when smitten in the face; and when compelled to go one mile, to make it two.38

Campbell did not flinch. He refused to compromise the demands of Jesus's teaching or deem them irrelevant in view of the supposed needs of the state. In view of the above citation, he wrote,

Grant it all its force; and what follows? That no one kingdom can become a kingdom of Jesus Christ until all kingdoms become his; and then it follows that the New Testament is only adapted to Christians while citizens of other kingdoms, being under the governments of those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son.39

Campbell not only did not believe the church should have its hands on the reigns of government, he held that the Christian religion itself was not adequate for guiding the state in achieving its ends. "The gospel is not a system of morality for the moral improvement of any nation or state."40 Campbell certainly did not intend to suggest that he did not want the Christian faith to influence the values and policies of the nation. However, to institutionalize and mandate Christian standards for people who were spiritually unprepared, he saw as unconstitutional, unbiblical, and useless. "The church," he wrote, "cannot constitutionally undertake to reform the state. The state, so far as it is not in the church, is composed of men in the flesh-men who live in obedience to all the lusts and passions of the animal man."41

Thirteen years later he stated in a similar vein that Christ "never condescends to legislate for the bodies of men, or their goods and chattels, who withhold from him their conscience and their hearts."42 The gospel, Campbell believed, must not be used as an instrument to support external coercion but should be seen as a divine means of persuasion and transformation. Jesus Christ did not make laws for governments.43 But in various ways Christians and religious organizations had sought to enlist the power of the state or impose sectarian views on the nation. Campbell stood firmly against such activity.

Early in his career Campbell condemned the practice among church groups of adopting resolutions which dealt with government policies. This practice seemed to him to be an expression of the church overstepping its bounds, and interfering with the work of the state. When churches take such action, they obviously declare that they have the authority "to pass resolutions disapprobatory of the proceedings of government, when either their temper or the times require it." Campbell considered this practice a manifestation of "sectarian pride, ambition, and avarice" that threatened the very existence of free and useful institutions.44

In the early nineteenth century moral societies became popular as a means for Christians to address social problems. In 1815 the Washington Moral Society was founded by some residents of Washington, Pennsylvania. Its stated purpose was "for the suppression of Immorality." The group directed its members "actively to promote the objects of the Association by giving information against anyone known to be guilty of profane swearing, Sabbath-breaking, intoxication, unlawful gaming, keeping a disorderly house, or any other active immorality punished by the Commonwealth."45 The society started out as a group of informers. They managed to intimidate the citizenry and eventually began to arrest "offenders." Of course they had no legal right to engage in such a practice. In so doing they deprived others of their civil and religious liberties.46

In 1820 Campbell, writing under a pseudonym, began to criticize the moral societies in letters to the Washington Reporter. After reading his statements, some of the moral and religious leadership in the area declared that he was a "friend to immorality."47 Campbell wrote again, arguing that the societies were contrary to the faith, the U.S. Constitution, and rationality. "There is no precept or command in the New Testament to compel by civil law, any man who is not a Christian to pay any regard to the Lord's Day, any more than to any other day."48 He insisted that to coerce people who had no faith into observing Christian practices was at odds with the gospel itself.

Through the years Campbell continued to object to moral societies. In 1837 he explained that "our brethren generally regard the church as the only moral or religious association which they can lawfully patronize because all good works that need to be done can and should be done with and through the church."49 But early in his career he revealed another motive for opposing these societies. In 1823 he called attention to portions of a tract by the National Tract Society that promoted the idea of a national creed or religious establishment which could be especially helpful during a time of war or crisis. Fearing this might lead to a churchstate alliance, he called upon his readers to be wary of these religious leaders and their "Jesuitical schemes."50

CHRISTIAN SELECTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN POLITICS

Campbell's assertion that the "church...cannot constitutionally undertake to reform the state" does not mean that Campbell had no Christian political ethic.51 Rather he believed that it was contrary to the character and purpose of the church for it to function as a political pressure group in relation to the government. The church's reforming influence upon the state was through the power of example and the presence of converted individuals, not by means of institutional cohesion. Like other nineteenth-century pacifists, he believed that when public opinion turned against war, national policy would turn against war also. Yet he recognized that "all human government presupposes disorder, and...the kingdoms of this world generally have arisen out of confusion and war."52

Government and violence are intimately related. Not only do nations arise from deadly conflict, they use force to sustain themselves from internal chaos and collapse. Though Campbell utterly repudiated international violence, in the domestic realm he supported police action. However, he offered no practical guidance nor did he ever expressly discuss police action in relation to his commitment to nonviolence in war and self-defense.

That Campbell had negative things to say about politics, there can be no doubt. This is particularly true after his experience as a representative at the Virginia Constitutional Congress from October 5, 1829 to January 15, 1830. He saw democracy at work, not as an altruistic endeavor, but as a self-serving scramble for power and privilege, without principled regard for the common good.53 In 1831 Campbell darkly mused, "The political affairs of the nations are approaching some momentous crisis. The Lord will ere long avenge the infidelity, ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy of the nations."54 Commenting on politicians' self-centered motivation, Campbell wrote in 1838, "Politics are a moral pestilence. The strife of the forum and the fierce debates about...thirty and miney-are the scorching wind."55 On numerous other occasions he expressed concern over the contaminating presence of pride, ambition, and the desire for profit in political life.56 Reporting on an 1839 visit to Washington, D.C., Campbell conveyed his impression of the capital. He was struck by the "worldly pomp and splendor" that greeted him. The architecture and gardens were splendid but extravagant. More important, he said of the art, "The sculpture and paintings are truly Roman and Pagan, and conspire to prove what little influence the gospel of peace yet exerts over the American people."57 His overall impression of the city was negative. Keeping with his pacifist convictions, he remarked that "our national devise, the American Eagle.. .preaches to the universe that we have more of the spirit of war and of spoil, than of the peaceful Dove in our Constitution."58

Still, despite his occasional displeasure, Campbell did not call for Christian withdrawal from public life. Less than a year after the New England Non-Resistance Society was formed, Campbell received a letter from M. Winans of Jamestown, Ohio, inquiring about "this new doctrine.. .called the doctrine of 'non-resistance.'" He stated that "some honest-hearted well-meaning men amongst us" had concluded that the scriptures forbade Christians from having any role in politics. They could not hold a government office. Even voting was prohibited by the gospel, according to them, wrote Winans. This withdrawal from governments was essential for true Christianity and the integrity of discipleship, its advocates claimed.59

The answer published in the Millennial Harbinger was written by Alexander CampbelFs father, Thomas, but was in harmony with his son's views. He does not directly address the issues of voting and office holding, but he does state that nonresistance "is certainly unscriptural" and that obedience to the biblical message does not interfere with political duties.60 Campbell does not write so much to urge political involvement as to oppose anything that smacks of anarchy. The Bible mandates obedience to governing authorities-except in rare instances of rebellion against God's command. Political engagement is permitted. But here Campbell certainly does not urge doing any more than is necessary to comply with the law.

Alexander Campbell asked in 1840, "Ought Christians to take an active part in politics?" That year the presidential campaign was bitter and Campbell found contention "from the palace to the meanest wigwam." Everywhere people were "agitated by this fierce demon of discord." Campbell could not see enough good in choosing one candidate over another to outweigh the evil of animosity and division that pervaded both the church and the country. In view of the situation, he answered that Christians should not be actively involved in politics. "One of my reasons is, American politics are full of avarice and ambition. They are national and mammoth forms of pride and cupidity; or they are a concentration of selfishness..."61

But Campbell's judgment of the 1840 political scene was not necessarily his assessment of politics at all times and places. When he asked whether Christians ought to be involved in politics, he qualified the question by adding, "in the present politics of this country." He observed, "The present politics of this country are more purely mercenary than any other politics in any other country, or the former politics of our own country."62 He believed that the particular circumstances at that time made it expedient for Christians to temporarily withdraw from the political process.

Campbell saw politicians preoccupied with the passion for selfgain, unscrupulous with the truth and incessantly self-important. And so he declared, "The spirit of politicians and the spirit of God are as antagonistic as flesh and spirit, as hatred and love, as heaven and hell; and he that would faithfully and truly serve the one, must abjure all allegiance to the other."63 He went on to say of Christians, "Would to God that they would set their affections on the politics of heaven, and leave the politics of earth to those who cannot soar above the Allegheny Mountains."64

Some of CampbelPs disparaging remarks about politics were rooted possibly out of disgust at the pride of politicians who had a bloated sense of their vocation.65 But his judgment that the workings of government are of relatively little importance was due in part to the comparatively great importance he saw in the work of God's kingdom. He wrote, "The great capitals of earth-the centers of nations and empires-with all their thrones, their halls legislative, judiciary and executive, are but for the present scaffolding of humanity, while the Christian temple-that building of God's own Son-is in progress of erection."66 Campbell reminded his readers that the realms of this world will pass away but the realm of God is eternal.

Despite Campbell's statement, "I know nothing more antipodal to the gospel than politics," and his antipathy toward the self-centered, antagonistic power struggle between politicians, he does concede that "there have been a few statesmen who have been devoted to religion, and some to Christianity."67 He names several examples through the centuries, being careful to indicate that they were a small minority. The only contemporary on his honor roll of Christian politicians was Soame Jenyns. "Still it is about as hard for a Christian man to please unchristian constituents," Campbell insisted, "as it is for any one to serve God and Mammon. The true politician rises by descending to cater for the lusts and passions of men."68 So in the strictest sense, Campbell did not hold participation in political office to be absolutely wrong, but in most cases ill advised. Few who attempt it, he believed, manage to be good politicians and faithful Christians.

In keeping with his stress upon the unity of the church, Campbell himself avoided partisan politics. When he was asked in 1846 about his political commitments, he answered that parties and politicians had little of his loyalty, but "there were certain principles and policies to which I sometimes gave my suffrage..."69 It was for "principles and policies" rather than partisan interests that led Campbell to be a delegate at the Virginia Constitutional Congress. He believed the formation of a constitution was "one of the most grave and solemn of all political matters, and not like the ordinary affairs of legislation..."70

LESSONS ABOUT AMERICA FROM EUROPE

In 1847 Campbell made a trip to England and Europe during which he had an opportunity to visit Parliament. This occasion seems to have provided a turning point in his attitude toward government. While there he was pleased to hear speeches by several statesmen, including Lord Henry Brougham and the Duke of Wellington. The experience apparently deepened his appreciation for the United States and its political system.

Reflecting on the addresses he heard in Parliament, he wrote, "The whole House of Lords, Bishops, and all...are in no intellectual endowments superior to a Virginia House of Delegates, an Ohio Senate, or any other deliberative body elected by any sovereign State of the American Union."71 Earlier that same year he praised the United States for its numerous positive qualities and celebrated its government as "the most rational, equitable, and free, ever vouchsafed to man."72

After returning to America, Campbell again visited Washington, D.C. His report stands in sharp contrast to the reflections he offered of his tour of the capital eight years earlier. He favorably compared the state buildings to "any capital, parliament, court, or legislative hall in Europe."73 This time he made no complaint of the influence of paganism on the art or architecture. Nor did he rail against the politicians and declare their activity in contradiction to the spirit of the gospel, as he had on earlier occasions. In fact, he declared that some of the elected representatives were equal in statesmanship to political leaders anywhere in the world.74

Campbell's increasingly friendly attitude toward politics actually began even before his trip to England and Europe.75 He became more positive in the mid-1840s. This outlook continued until he again became disillusioned as the Civil War approached. His position is well summarized in his own words: "While I adjure, ex animo, all politicoecclesiastical systems, all combinations of politics and religion, all confederative union of church and state, I nevertheless believe that the excellency of the American system of society and government consists in its nearer approach to Christianity than that of any other national polity in the world."76

Though he did not do so often, Campbell did occasionally make a point of urging Christians to vote on specified policies. In this he stands in sharp contrast to the Non-Resistance Society. He encouraged political support for common school education in an 1841 address, though he made no claim of representing the Christian position on the issue.77 In discussing the tactics of the abolitionists, which he held in disfavor, he suggested that Christians ought to make their will about slavery known with their votes. "The laws sustain it," he wrote, therefore a "Christian may, indeed, seek by his vote to have it annihilated or modified... "78 That same year Campbell reminded his readers that by using their vote they could change the slave laws of the nation.79 Campbell never endorsed the refusal of one's political right to vote to be a spiritual behavior. Though not throwing his support to a particular party or politician, he told his readers, "Vote like Christians."80 Yet he did little to explain what that might mean in practice.

It appears that the one area from which Campbell certainly did advocate withdrawal from public life was the military. Since the purpose of the military was to prepare for, and when called upon to do so, participate in war, Campbell saw no place in it for Christians. But with this exception, his pacifist convictions did not lead him to promote utter disengagement from the affairs of the state. The position he adopted was not greatly unlike that of many moderate pacifists within the American Peace Society.

Why was Campbell negative toward political involvement to such an extent? Was it because of a sectarian impulse to withdraw from society? Was his pacifism but one expression of that impulse? His lack of consistency in his actions and teachings about the state suggest that wholesale withdrawal was not his aim. There must be a better explanation. George Richard Phillips maintains that the reason lies with Campbell's concern for the elimination of ecclesiastical dominance of the state, pace John Locke.81 Very likely that is part of the reason, but not all of it.

Campbell's own less than happy participation in the Virginia Constitutional Congress was probably a factor. This experience led him to view politicians as selfish and failing to pursue the common good. Consequently, he questioned whether politics was a vocation suitable for Christians. Further, his observance of divisive and bitter political campaigns, political rhetoric without practical results, and unscrupulous, self-serving politicians played a role in forming his attitude. In addition to this, Campbell's emphasis on church unity led him to urge Christians to be careful not to engage in divisive political affairs. Campbell was thoroughly convinced that the destiny of the world rested, not with the outcome of national or international politics, but with the faithful practice of the church. Hence, he opposed anything that might hinder the church in its work.

1 Peter Brock, Radical Pacifists in Antebellum America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968), 78.

2 Valarie H. Ziegler, The Advocates of Peace in Antebellum America (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1992), 23.

3 Ibid., 33-34.

4 Brock, 39.

5 Ibid., 41.

6 Ibid., 57-58.

7 Thomas Upham, The Manual of Peace: Exhibiting the Evils and Remedies of War (Boston: American Peace Society, 1842), 267.

8 William Lloyd Garrison, Selections From the Writings and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 1852), 97.

9 Ibid., 93.

10 Garrison, 94.

11 Brock, 184.

12 Roland Bainton, "Alexander Campbell and the Social Order," in The Sage of Bethany, ed. Perry E. Gresham (St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1960), 122.

13 Alexander Campbell, Popular Lectures and Addresses (Philadelphia: James Challen & Son, 1863), 374.

14 Alexander Campbell, The Christian System (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, Co., 1964), 125.

15 Millennial Harbinger (1845): 316.

16 Ibid. (1846): 142-43.

17 Ibid. (1851): 389.

18 Ibid. (1846): 123.

19 Ibid., 124.

20 Ibid. (1845): 316.

21 Millennial Harbinger (1835): 145-46.

22 William Ladd, An Essay on a Congress of Nations (Boston: American Peace Society, 1840), 3.

23 John Locke, Four Letters on Tolerance (London: Alexander Murray, 1820), 5.

24 Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1868), 21.

25 Alexander Campbell and Robert Owen, The Evidences of Christianity: A Debate (Nashville: McQuiddy Publishing Co., 1957), 405.

26 The Christian System, 135.

27 The Christian System, 135.

28 Millennial Harbinger (1830): 305.

29 Ibid. (1843): 98-99.

30 Ibid., 109.

31 Millennial Harbinger (1844): 238.

32 The Christian Baptist, 3:204.

33 Ibid., 205.

34 Alexander Campbell, Popular Lectures and Addresses, 52.

35 Millennial Harbinger (1833): 120 (Campbell's emphasis).

36 Ibid.

37 Millennial Harbinger (1833): 120.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Millennial Harbinger (1845): 238.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., 108.

43 Popular Lectures and Addresses, 361.

44 The Christian Baptist, 2:143.

45 Richardson, 1:517.

46 Harold Lunger, The Political Ethics of Alexander Campbell (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1954), 45.

47 Richardson, 1:523.

48 Ibid.

45 Millennial Harbinger (1837): 271.

50 The Christian Baptist, 3:60-64.

51 Ibld., 36-37.

52 The Christian System, 124.

53 On Campbell's experience at the Virginia Constitutional Convention, see Lunger, 75-104.

54 Millennial Harbinger (1831): 211.

55 Ibid. (1838): 474 (Campbell's emphasis).

56 Ibid.( 1833): 3, 12, 120-21.

57 Ibid. (1839): 7-8.

58 Ibid., 8.

59 Millennial Harbinger (1839): 576.

60 Ibid.

61 Millennial Harbinger (1840): 414.

62 Ibid.

63 Millennial Harbinger ( 1840): 415.

64 Ibid.

65 Millennial Harbinger (1838): 3.

66 Popular Lectures and Addresses, 521.

61 Millennial Harbinger (1845): 316.

68 Millennial Harbinger ( 1845): 316.

69 Millennial Harbinger (1846): 4.

70 Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1868), 319-20.

71 Millennial Harbinger (1847): 378.

72 Ibid., 431-32.

73 Millennial Harbinger (1850): 407.

74 Ibid.

75 Millennial Harbinger (1845): 316.

76 Ibid. (1853): 487-488. This is not a reversal of Campbell's previous thinking nor, as Lunger proposed, a development from a sect type ecclesiology to a denominational ecclesiology. However, there are differences of emphasis in his writing at different points in his career. Still, as early as 1830 he could write, "The light which shines from our political institutions will penetrate even the dungeons of European despots for the genius of our Government is the genius of universal emancipation! Nothing can resist the political influence of a great nation, enjoying our great political advantages if she walks worthy of them" (Popular Lectures and Addresses, 374).

77 Popular Lectures and Addresses, 247-71.

78 Millennial Harbinger (1845): 108-09.

79 Ibid, 194.

80 Ibid. (1857): 174.

81 George Richard Phillips, "The Differences in the Theological and Philosophical Backgrounds of Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone and the Resulting Differences in their Theological Formation" (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1968).

Craig M. Watts

Senior Minister, Royal Palm Christian Church

Coral Springs, Florida

Copyright Christian Theological Seminary Spring 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved