WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY?

         This is a question I had for some time after reading an article on how the churches would ring their bells in German cities to cover the sound of the cattle-car trains full of Jews heading to concentration-kill camps going through each burg.  So, being the nerd I am I got curious.  Additionally, when I say “Christians” they were supposedly led by some scholarly theologian or pastor who used our faith to either be engaged, or be cowards.  Hence, my adoration for the Black Robe Regiment. “Semper Sine Metu” is my “go-to” phrase—meaning, “Always Without Fear.”  Let’s take a look at how American “Christianity” has “morphed” throughout all of the big issues in our history.

         This is what I found in my research.  When Jesus went to the cross, Peter denied Him, the rest of them hid and ran away in fear.  John, the beloved stayed true and strong.  The women stayed resolute, but sadly these “Christian” men who walked with Jesus ran like sissies.  While amidst my general “nerding out” I first found that early Christians in the Roman Empire, during the Antonine Plague (165–180 AD) and the Plague of Cyprian (249–262 AD), cared for the sick and dying, and yes, including pagans Romans, when others within Rome abandoned them.  Kind of reminds me of COVID.  This proactive nursing, often at the risk of their own lives, was what I consider to be a Christian and Jesus-like charitable response to crises.

         But I wanted more from our American history of Christianity and national crisis.  We always read the “What Would Jesus Do” motto, but did Christians always react as Jesus would in certain situations?  So, my even deeper nerd kicked in and I wanted to give historical stances of Christian conduct.  Starting with the settlers of America and on.

         Again, as you well know, being a proud Black Robe Regiment and Odd Fellow, I’m not one to parse my tongue.  I can contend that the Revolutionary War started in the pulpit with clergy seeking freedom of worship instead the sterile required faith of the king of England (probably why the King James Version translation of the Holy Scripture is so inaccurate).  The key from the new-American clergy was analysis and study of the text as applied to moral law being generated from the political leadership.

         Revolutionary War.  American Christianity during the Revolutionary War was absolutely divided.  Clergy provided their input and it translated into the political and military arenas.  There existed the “glorious cause (Black Robe Regiment)” philosophy of a righteous cause for liberty—mainly in religious freedom but also at the tip of the bayonet.  This is the beginning of the catch-phrase “just” or “moral war.”  Loyalist and Anglican clergy maintained the alliance to the king and readily espoused this from the pulpit.  As we well know, the Quakers and Mennonites were completely against any forms of aggression.

         This all stems from a belief that developed that this new America would be the “bright shining city on the hill” and even the “new Jerusalem.”  Both of these are theologically compelling.  Additionally, there was a Romans 13 argument that clearly taught Christians to render respect to governance and to God what is God’s.  Now, get this…it all came down to money.  Taxation without representation and paying for a monarchy that perpetuated the belief that they had of God mattered—much like Martin Luther versus the papacy.  Bottom line, Christianity was torn.

         Famous clergy comments on the Revolution are all supportive of the movement away from English rule.  Reverend Leumuel Haynes said in 1776: "Liberty is a jewel which was handed down to man from the cabinet of Heaven.”  The Reverend Jacob Duche’ (the first Chaplain of the Continental Congress), in a 1775 sermon to Congress, he prayed for the success of the American cause, asking God to "be Thou a sword and buckler to them...and the sword of the Almighty".  (Note: Duché later became a Loyalist—hence the name DOOSHAY—you can figure that name out, but his early prayers are famous for setting a spiritual tone for the Congress).  Always interesting to see someone flip-flopping in allegiance from the pulpit—no different than today, eh?

         On slavery.  This one has always fascinated me Biblically as slavery exists throughout all of the Bible in some way shape or form.  Not so surprisingly slavery was supported by the Christian church in the southern states as a “positive good” and a “patriarchal institution.”  They also were somehow able to tie slavery to the “curse of Ham” which doesn’t explain so many Caucasians who were enslaved.  As we already know, the northern states and Christians saw this as a national sin.

         This schism in Christianity was as severe historically as it was between Rome and Constantinople, Rome and the Anglican Church, and the Anglican Church with the colonial churches of America.  This great schism has led to more wars and conflicts imaginable.  Of course, this was a train wreck waiting to happen fomenting the Civil War.

         The clergy and Christian church had plenty to say on this topic.  Let’s start with the famous Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon who wrote: “I do from my inmost soul detest slavery anywhere and everywhere... and with a slaveholder I have no fellowship of any sort or kind. ...would as soon think of receiving a murderer into my church, or into any sort of friendship, as a manstealer.”  No murderers in the church?  Hmmmmm.  Throughout this time the Catholics and Unitarians were against slavery. However there is indeed a Christian dynamic.

         Let’s look at the opposite end of the spectrum that crosses Christian and Cathloic lines.  Brigham Young (yes, supremely white and inbred) wrote: “I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their masters, because they are not capable of ruling themselves.”  This is clearly a Mormonism view of subjectivity. 

         What about the Christian Baptists in the south?  Let’s look at Richard Furman who pontificated in 1822 that as a leading proponent of slavery in South Carolina who argued that the institution was not only consistent with the "gospel of Jesus Christ" but justified by it, provided slaves are treated with humanity.

         OH!  Let’s go on to the Catholic belief from Saint Augustine of Hippo (yes, the papal seat made him a saint) who wrote, while arguing that slavery was a result of sin and not part of the original natural order, he believed it was a necessary discipline allowed by God, stating, "God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit."  True, God allows for everything, but how can we have slavery in a “loving and not a cruel spirit?”  Its slavery.  That’s nonsensical.

         Civil War.  BOTH sides believed that God was on their side and led equally by very pious, “Christian” military and government leaders.  Clergy on both sides would use Scripture to advance their agenda of continued slavery or abolition.  Let us not forget that England was having the same argument in parliament and instituted great policy in favor of abolition.  Although the Christian clergy were united on freeing the colonies from England during the Revolutionary War, they were torn on this issue of “freedom” and had vast chasms in thought in regard to both spiritual and physical freedoms.  Amazing the power of the clergy on moral issues such as this.  Of note, by pitting the north versus south with this theological concept of a “providential lens” that favored both sides thus heightening the violence, tension, and intensity.  And please remember, we are talking about the role of clergy and leadership throughout this.  I guess it depends on what church you sit in on a Sunday.

         Although, some are not clergy, they still referenced a divine calling for such an endeavor of the Civil War.  Remember, this was a moral tragedy of a divided nation.  While not all were ordained ministers, leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson were deeply religious and used spiritual language to frame the war.  Lincoln in speeches and correspondence often referred to this war as a “divine punishment for the sin of slavery.”

         Famed Baptist pastor Charles Spurgeon referred to the Civil War as “a shameful and abominable slaughter of brothers by brothers.”  Fence sitter?  Hates slavery, but equally detests war?  Where does he land on this effort?  Throughout my analysis I find that it was not just a civil war of politics, religion, national, philosophical beliefs, but truly a vast chasm in Christianity.

         World War I.  We all obviously know that the Serbian Orthodox youth Gavrilo Princip is blamed for kicking this war off, but I would contend that the European wars were kicked off by George Washington and the “Half-Indian King.”  Sounds crazy, but I can walk this back like any known Kevin Bacon relational analysis.

         “Christian” society was once again torn but only by isolation versus a holy campaign to save Christianity in America. Christian realism began as the war continued and so many lives were lost.  Through my research in the writings of so many of the clergy, there was imagined to be some sort of utopia and peace throughout the entire earth if the right side won.  This mirrored what we saw in history between Islam and Christianity through Europe.  Thus, in part, World War I was seen and interpreted as no different than the holy wars—good versus evil.  Guess what…it didn’t end there.

         The Vatican was extremely intense on the rhetoric of World War I with Pope Benedict condemning this war as “senseless slaughter.”  The ultimate themes from the clergy were that this war was a catastrophe filled with sorrow and a spiritual need for peace.  An interesting point in the comparison and contrast of President Woodrow Wilson.

         Wilson was known as a southern Presbyterian whose values strongly shaped his policies.  His “Wilsonianism” shaped his national and international policies as well as his Protestant belief in a providential mission to spread democratic values and "right living" globally.  It can be argued that his faith inspired his idealism, it also fueled a self-righteousness, causing him to view his political goals as God's will and making him resistant to compromise.  Read “Paris 1919” as it is illuminating.

         World War II.  Interestingly American Christianity and the clergy were MUCH more unified against the “axis of evil” and again referred to this war as “justified” and “righteous” against the tyranny of Hitler, Japan, and Italy…it still interests me that such a Catholic nation as Italy would side with the non-Christians.  Yet, this caused yet another schism in religious thought.  This war actually caused a more pluralistic view of Christian thought and one of acceptance of other western faiths.

         Still many American clergy, both Protestants and Catholics linked the survival of Christianity with the survival of the United States, positioning America as a defender of Christian civilization hence the references to “justice” and “righteousness.”  The moral debate still existed between the clergy across America as the requirement is to preach and teach love and peace, but to justify war from the pulpit?

         Just like the clergy in our own Civil War, Europe and America were equally torn on pure Christian issues centering around justification, righteousness—always a hard sell when we are talking Scripture and killing fellow human beings.  The most interesting commentary comes from the German clergy—you will be amazed as a Christian.

         Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German pastor and theologian from the Confessing Church of Germany that openly opposed Hitler wrote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act”…sounds quite a bit like Black Robe Regiment rhetoric.  Martin Niemöller a Lutheran theologian wrote: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Korean Conflict.  This may be the first time American clergy have witnessed and somewhat accepted a cross-pollination of religions and politics.  Undoubtedly a lesson learned from our experience in Japan.  It was a failed experiment in the pacification of Japan to bring them out of Shintoism to Christianity.  Although missionaries and clergy were more profound in South Korea, there was more of a tendency toward tolerance.  In an interview following a visit to a military hospital in Korea in 1952, the famous Billy Graham emphasized the high cost of freedom, referencing the profound, life-altering impact of seeing wounded soldiers.  Historically from the Christian perspective in America there was a justifiable rationale to enter this fray—stop the Godless communists from expansion.

         Vietnam Conflict. A shift occurred after the Korean War and America changed dramatically. There was a rise of “liberation theology” (a socialist political theology) across both the Protestant and Catholic churches but resonated much more across American Catholic theologians than Protestant.  The most famous dissentions came speeches and sermons from Martin Luther King.  Otherwise, it is difficult to find any other Protestant clergy openly speaking out against this conflict.

         Leadership positions of the Catholic clergy were openly against the war from the pulpit and even in actively demonstrating against it.  As the war dragged on, the Protestant church in America began to divide between conservative and liberal views on social policy to include war.  This power from the pulpit in dissent of the war swayed an entire generation on how war was to be viewed from strongly moral position rather than a nationalist patriotic view.