Alexander Campbell, Talbert Fanning, and David Lipscomb had three things in common.
They all lived during the 19th century.
They were all ministers in the Church of Christ denomination.
And they were all vehemently antiwar.
To the historic peace churches must be added, at least for the 19th and early 20th centuries,
The Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, and the Christian churches that came out of
the Restoration Movement of the early 19th century.
One of the largest groups of religious conscientious objectors during World War I was from the
Church of Christ.
Campbell, Fanning, and Lipscomb were three outstanding 19th century opponents of war
and proponents of peace.
All wrote well before the horrors of World War I, with Campbell and Fanning writing their
anti-war works even before the carnage of the so-called Civil War.
My paper explores the connection between the anti-war views of Campbell, Fanning, and Lipscomb,
and modern libertarians, and examines to what extent their overall political, economic,
and Religious Philosophy parallel their libertarian anti-war views.
Campbell was born in Ireland, attended the University of Glasgow and immigrated to America
in 1809 with his family to join his father, a Presbyterian minister who had immigrated
to Pennsylvania two years previously.
The elder Campbell soon left the Presbyterians and formed a Christian society in 1809 and
Church in 1811. The younger Campbell began preaching in 1810 and was ordained in 1812.
He was soon acknowledged as the leader of what became known as the Restoration Movement.
Campbell embarked on preaching tours, engaged in religious debates, and in 1840 founded
Bethany College in what is now Bethany, West Virginia, where he lived until his death.
He also edited and published two journals, The Christian Baptist from 1823 to 1830 and
The Millennial Harbinger from 1830 until his death in 1866.
At the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, Campbell expressed grief and disgust at the
willingness of Christians to slaughter and destroy.
He wrote in The Millennial Harbinger to not only dissuade Christians from participating
in the Civil War, but to condemn the war as a monstrosity that caps the climax of human
folly and gratuitous wickedness.
I shall present Campbell's anti-war views from his famous Address on War that was delivered
in May 1848 in Wheeling, West Virginia, or Virginia at the time, and published in the
Millennial Harbinger in July the same year.
Franklin was born in Tennessee and raised in Tennessee and Alabama.
He began preaching at age 19 and made several preaching tours with Alexander Campbell.
He graduated from Nashville University in 1835, established a school for girls in Franklin,
Tennessee in 1837, and then founded and served as the first president of Franklin College.
He began the Christian Review Magazine in 1844 and the Gospel Advocate in 1855.
Like Campbell, Fanning opposed Christian participation in the Civil War at its outbreak.
I shall present Fanning's anti-war views from his March 1847 article in the Christian
Review titled simply, War.
Lipscomb was born in Tennessee, lived briefly in Illinois and Georgia, and then spent the
rest of his life in Tennessee.
His family was active in the Restoration Movement before he was born.
Lipscomb was baptized by Talbert Fanning in 1845.
He graduated from Franklin College in 1849 and founded the Nashville Bible School in
1891.
The school was named in his honor as Lipscomb University after his death.
Lipscomb began preaching in 1856 and made numerous preaching tours throughout the South.
In 1866, he began again to publish The Gospel Advocate, which was forced to suspend publication
at the start of the Civil War.
He served as the magazine's editor for 50 years.
Like Camblin Fanning, Lipscomb opposed Christian participation in the Civil War and its outbreak.
During the war, he was to Southerners a traitor.
After the war, he was to Northerners a southern sympathizer.
I shall present Lipscomb's antiwar views from his 1889 book, Civil Government, Its
Origin, Mission and Destiny, and The Christian's Relation to It, which was originally published
as a series of articles in the Gospel Abdequate from 1866 to 1867.
Because of time constraints, I will have to abbreviate my remarks on the anti-war views
of this triumvirate in order to present my conclusions.
I first turn to Campbell.
Although he waited until the end of the Mexican War to speak out against it, he says he often
Man reflected with intense interest on the desolations and horrors of war, as indicated
in the sacrifice of human life, the agonies of surviving relatives, the immense expenditures
of a people's wealth, and the inevitable deterioration of public morals.
He concludes that a Christian man can never of right be compelled to do that for the state
in Defense of State Rights, which he cannot have right due for himself in defense of his
own personal rights.
Campbell had some harsh words regarding the soldier, whom he called the professional and
licensed butcher of mankind, who with his vulgar profanity, brutality and debauchery
hires himself to lay waste a country, to pillage, to burn, and destroy the peaceful hamlet,
to the cheerful village or the magnificent city, and to harass, wound, and destroy his fellow man for no other consideration than his paltry wages, his daily rations, and the infernal pleasure of doing it.
Campbell also laments the pernicious influence of the warrior spirit on society.
Women are fascinated with soldiers whose profession it is to make widows and orphans.
Campbell is especially troubled that this delusion is found in the pulpit.
He considers war prayers as desecrating the religion of the Prince of Peace.
He mocks the idea of chaplains on both sides of a conflict, offering up prayers for the
success of rival armies, as if God could hear them both and make each triumphant over the
other, guiding and commissioning swords and bullets to the hearts and heads of their respective
of Enemies. Campbell's antiwar views were grounded in logic and Scripture. Based on
Christ's declaration that his kingdom was not of this world, Campbell reasoned that
if the cause of Christ should not be defended militarily, then surely no lesser cause would
be sufficient for Christians to take up arms. If Christ would not have his servants take
Campbell concludes his address on war with wonder and shame that he has not spoken out
or written his views.
He laments that he might have saved some lives if he had published something two or three
years previously.
Fanning begins by marveling that nations and individuals still settled their difficulties
He's by moral combat, not questioning at all the divine right of slaying their fellows.
He says he writes not for savages or infidels, but for the civilized nations of the earth,
and for such professed Christians as feel authorized of God and their country to take
the life of their brother man.
He then offers nine arguments against war, with the sixth argument itself containing
Fanning doubts whether distinctions can be made among just wars, offensive wars, and
defensive wars.
No one has ever read in history of a people who acknowledge themselves the offending party.
All plead justification on the ground of aggressions from the enemy.
Indeed, says Fanning, there is scarcely in the annals of time an account of an important
war in which both parties did not operate both offensively and defensively.
As soon as war is declared, the technicalities of offense and defensive war are forgotten.
Fanning considered the causes of war to be love of conquest, territory, lust, and plunder.
He lamented the fame of military chieftains that exert a vast influence on the mind of
youth.
Because all the causes of war are fleshly, the idea of holy wars is utterly inadmissible.
In answer to the question of whether the Christian institution permits its subjects to engage
in war, Fanning pointingly says, Christians as a nation, church or individuals have no
No divine authority for engaging in war, offensive or defensive, for fame, plunder, revenge,
or for the benefit of themselves or their enemies.
Last but not least, there's Lipscomb.
Because he's writing on the Christian's relation to government, he focuses on the state as
the instigator of war.
The chief occupation of human governments from the beginning has been war.
Nine-tenths of the taxes paid by the human family have gone to preparing for, carrying on, or paying the expenses of war.
Lipscomb lamented the then-recent Civil War and the spectacle of disciples of the Prince of Peace with murderous weapons seeking the lives of their fellow men.
He considered it abhorrent to the principles of the religion of the Savior, who died that even his enemies might live,
That brethren for whom Christ died were found in brewing their hands in the blood of their own brethren in Christ, making their sisters widows and their sisters children orphans.
Lipscomb thought it immoral to kill on behalf of government.
Christians cannot fight, cannot slay one another or their fellow men at the behest of any earthly ruler or to establish or maintain any human government.
And neither can they vote to make others fight. A man who votes to bring about a war, or that votes for that which logically and necessarily brings about war, is responsible for that war and for all the necessary and usual attendance and results of that war.
Echoing Alexander Campbell, Lipscomb concludes that Christ disavows the earthly character of his kingdom, declaring that it is of a nature so different from all worldly kingdoms that his servants could not fight for his kingdom, and if they could not fight for his kingdom, they could not fight for any kingdom.
My conclusion will focus on politics, war, and the state.
It is impossible to be a libertarian and not be anti-war.
War is not only nothing but state-sponsored terrorism, violence and aggression, it is
also the health of the state.
The connection between the anti-war views of Campbell, Fanning and Lipscomb and modern
libertarians is a strong one.
In fact, because they don't sanitize soldiers or call killing for the state serving the
in the country, they are more consistent than some modern libertarians.
Their shared religious philosophy certainly guided their anti-war views, but cannot be
said to be solely responsible for such views.
There remains to be seen the economic and political views of the members of this anti-war
triumvirate and to what extent their overall philosophy paralleled their libertarian anti-war
views.
Ronald's early education was steep in the tradition of John Locke.
He spoke favorably of Adam Smith and other classical liberals.
He admired Jefferson.
He was a fierce defender of the separation of church and state.
He wrote in The Christian Baptist that the clergy have ever been the greatest tyrants
in every state and at the present they are in every country in Europe on the side of
and the oppressors of the people who tramp on the rights of men.
He defended the importance of private property.
He used at Bethany College the works of Francis Whelan, the great Baptist champion of liberty,
property and peace.
He opposed Christian participation in politics, considering it a moral pestilence.
Campbell considered patriotism to be a pagan virtue that had no special place in the Christian
religion.
Although he believed that the state existed to punish crimes against men, he did not believe in using state power to punish sins against God.
He was very critical of moral societies looking to the state to help stamp out sin.
Were it not for the prevalence of injustice and violence in the world, thought Campbell, civil government would be wholly unnecessary.
With these views on the nature and role of government, I don't see how we can describe
Campbell as anything but a libertarian.
I have only a little information about Fanning's economic and political views.
Lipscomb wrote in a book on Franklin College in 1906 that Fanning never voted or took part
in the political and civil contests of the country.
Money can certainly be classified as at least a classical liberal.
Lipscomb was as fervently anti-state as he was anti-war.
He distinguished human government from the government of God.
He believed that the essential elements of human government were evil.
Echoing Rothbard and Hoppe, Lipscomb described civil government as resting on force as its
foundation.
National power is founded on force, lives by it, and it is its only weapon of offense
or defense.
Government is not benevolent, its rulers oppress their subjects for their own benefit.
Christians should submit to human government when doing so does not directly violate Scripture.
But they should also seek to work its destruction.
This should be accomplished not by violence and the sword, but by spreading the religion
of Christ and so converting men from service to the earthly government to service to the
heavenly one.
Christians should neither participate in government nor vote.
They should not use the civil powers to promote righteousness, morality, or good to humanity.
Even more so than Campbell, we cannot describe Lipscomb as anything but a libertarian.
With examples like these, why is it that the greatest supporters of war in the military
continue to be conservative Christians?
I've given many reasons for this in my many articles and lectures on Christianity and
war.
But now we must add two more, ignorance or rejection of the 19th century anti-war triumvirate
of Alexander Campbell, Talbert Fanning and David Lipscomb.