John Mark Hicks

Below is the last of three articles Fanning wrote for the July 1861 Gospel Advocate where he attempts to persuade his audience (which extends from Virginia to Alabama to Texas) to resist the temptation to enter the fray between the Confederacy and the Union.  Christians, according to Fanning, must not participate in war “against their brethren and others” (“May Not Christians Engage in War Against Their Brethren or Others?” 7.7 [July 1861] 217-219).

Fanning lays much of the problem at the feet of preachers who use their position to promote violence rather than following the Prince of Peace. He is concerned that congregations are divided, brethren are killing each other, and some editors are calling for force rather than dialogue. Who is following Jesus, he asks?

In this article, Fanning clearly articulates his apocalyptic understanding that Christians are citizens of a different nation (the kingdom of God), and they have no role in constructing or remodeling any nation-state. They pay their taxes and respect the form of government under which they find themselves (whether monarchical or democratic or whatever), but they do not fight for it or against it except as kingdom people proclaim righteousness and peace as residents within any nation-state.

God may use the present crisis, Fanning surmises, as a test of Christian loyalty. Which “king” will believers follow? He writes in conclusion,

It may be that God intends to prove his people, and have a registry made of all who are worthy. The war may be the occasion for the test.

The righteous, he says, cannot shed the blood of their brothers or others.

****“May Not Christians Engage in War Against Their Brethren or Others?” Gospel Advocate 7.7 (July 1861) 217-219?****

We have received many enquirtes [sic] in reference to the duty and propriety of Christians voluntarily or otherwise engaging in war; but in our present issue, we are disposed to merely call attention to the position of parties, and add a few thoughts in regard to the character of the kingdom of the Savior.

We have not only been struck with the very hearty manner in which religious denominations of both sections of the country are engaging in the recently enaugurated [sic] war, but it must surprise the thoughtful to witness the conscientious zeal manifested by each in the frightful struggle. Both parties claim the sanction of Heaven, and very earnestly call upon God for help. Both cannot be right.

This is not the worst feature. Preachers and editors are leaders in the strife. We have thought, indeed, that we have heard not of more blood-thirsty exhibitions than have been manifested by preachers to excite the people to deeds of blood. The problem may be of difficult solution to men of the world, who have remained indifferent as to the authority of religion. Members of the same church are in deadly array against each other, all thinking they will render service to god in slaying their brethren, and in some instances their blood relatives. Not only are religionists foremost in the excitement, but are also in the very first ranks of the respective armies. A month ago, we had supposed that editors and preachers among the disciples were not disposed to imbrue their hands in each others blood, but we were mistaken. We notice in some of our exchanges, as The Christian Record for instance, by E. Goodwin, of Indiana,* the exhortation to put down opposition “peaceably if we can, forceably [sic] if we must.” What can, and must be the state of mind in such as write in this manner? Are these blood thirsty men followers of Jesus of Nazareth? Can any one be fully under two antagonistic systems at the same time? Regarding the Christian institution, however, some very honestly entertain the following position, viz: Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, that in order to make his reign triumphant, a bruised reed was not to be disturbed or the smoking flax quenched, that from the moment the Master told Peter to put up his sword, no offensive or defensive weapons, save the sword of the spirit, have ever been authorized for the use of his people. Such men also, generally, conclude that the kingdom of God is superior to the kingdoms and governments of the world—may possibly exist in any of them, or independently of them; and that the subjects of the spiritual kingdom should take no part in constructing or remodling [sic] the institutions of men. Still they are to pay their taxes, and be subject to every ordinance of man, whilst they are permitted to lead quiet, and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. They also hold, that it is their right, if they find any civil government oppressive, to remove to another more favorable to their purposes, and in a word, they believe that Christians should take no part in the governments of the world, either to create them, fight for, or against them, or contribute in the least to their dissolution, unless it should be accomplished by the superior light of the truth, shining upon them. But quite religious men object to this view. Some of the grounds of their objection are the following:

1. They argue that, as Christians are lights in the world, they should have a controlling influence in the governments of men. This is answered by suggesting that possibly, the light of good men may be more successfully shed abroad, by keeping in their own sphere—the church,–in exerting all their influence through it, and that in attempting to control civil governments, they frequently become corrupt and lose all their power as Christians.

2. It is argued that, we cannot obey the powers that be, unless we shoulder our guns and fight for their defence [sic]. The answer of some is, that when the powers of the world require of the saints a course derogatory to the christian religion, it is not improper for them to say, “Whether it be right in the right [sic] of God to obey you, rather than God, judge ye.”

3. It is said unless Christians fight for their homes and families, they should not have the protection of the civil government.

It is answered that when the struggle is between two forms of government, or the administration of the same form by two contending parties, Christians may destroy themselves by interfering. We feel that it is proper in this connection to state our owo [sic] conviction touching the use of our property. It is evident, we accumulate and hold our property under the protection of civil government, and the civil authorities have the right at all times, to appropriate it, as they think best. We are to lay up enduring treasures in heaven.

But we did not introduce the subject of Christians taking the sword, for the purpose of at least for the present of arguing all the questions involved but mainly to call attention to the difficult points. We have looked at the matter calmly, and think we understand it, but we may be mistaken, and we are willing to hear the arguments of any, and of all, on both sides.

We have long been impressed with the belief that Christians should and must exert all their influence for good, through the church, and we are satisfied the time has come for trying our fealty to Christ. It may be the crisis will expose the utter worthlessness of most of the religions of our unhappy country, and enable believers to stand forth in their true colors. It may be that God intends to prove his people, and have a registry made of all who are worthy. The war may be the occasion for the test.

We may have more to say upon these matters as opportunity may offer, and yet we feel not a liberty to close without stating, that whilst all we have is subject to the call of our country, Christians and preachers particularly can perhaps accomplish the greatest amount of good, by employing none but spiritual weapons. If it should appear upon proper examination, that “the wicked are the sword of the Lord,” and that the righteous cannot shed the blood of their fellows with impunity, the sooner the brethren understand the truth the better. Peace must be secured by moral means alone. What influence are Christians exerting for the accomplishment of this earnestly desired end?

*Elijah Goodwin (1807-1881), of Indianapolis, IN, edited The Christian Record (which began in 1843) in 1861 and after the war merged it with the Christian Standard in 1866.

Though the overwhelming sentiment of western and middle Tennessee favored the decision of the state government to join the Confederacy and enter the war against the Union on July 2, 1861, Fanning pleads for Christians to stand apart in three lengthy and significant articles in the July issue of the Gospel Advocate.

His theology for peace is rooted in several fundamental theological convictions. First, he believes Christians are a separate, distinct and “peculiar” people. They are resident aliens–“pilgrims and strangers”–in the world. They must not align themselves with any institutions or nation-states that participate in the bloody conflicts of the age since the people of God have only one allegiance.

A second theological conviction is that the kingdom of God is a kingdom of peace which refuses to use the implements of war on the earth. Such wars are of the earth; they are worldly and belong to the world powers. Jesus came to end bloody conflicts and his followers do not participate in them. He went to a cross rather than to the head of a military parade.

Fanning’s view is succinctly summarized in this brief statement near the end of the article reproduced below: 

 “It occurs to us that the church of Christ is composed of faithful and true men, who bear his cross at all times, and resort not to violence. If we are correct, bloody wars are not Christian, but are of the world, and are worldly. Are indeed the result of wickedness, are waged by wicked men, for wicked purposes, and have not the sanction of God or good men.”

Tolbert Fanning, “Wars of Heaven and Earth,” Gospel Advocate 7 (July 1861) 199-205

“If ‘tis distance lends enchantment to the view,”* we may add, that distant danger has but little terror to men. Even relentless and bloody war, in a foreign clime, conducted by those in whose success we feel but little interest, possess not the power to stir the heart, but when it rages in our own beloved land—comes to our very doors and threatens all of earth we most value, the bravest are disposed to shrink back, and ask its intent. But fearful are the aspects of war when citizens of the same soil, brothers in religion, and brothers in the flesh, lift the sword against each other. The present distressing affairs in our once happy, but now rent and bleeding country, suggest to the thinking the propriety of taking counsel together, with reference to the best means of averting the terrible disasters that threaten the land. Having at an early age deliberately formed our judgment as to war,** and especially amongst an enlightened and Christian people, and to this hour having seen no reason to change our decision, we consider it entirely in keeping with our mission, to offer a few candid thoughts regarding its origin, history and tendencies. We feel more especially interested from the fact, that either we have not studied the Bible to profit, or many sincere brethren whose feelings are quite different from our own have failed to see the beauties of the Christian edifice. We have no advice to give, but it shall be our purpose, if possible, to present the subject of war as represented in the Holy Oracles, and leave all to act upon their convictions.

Whence comes wars into our world?

In answering this question, it would seem requisite, in the first place, to define the term war. After looking over the dictionaries, and critical works, we find nothing entirely satisfactory. Tobesure [sic], Webster says, “War is a contest between Nations or States, carried on by force.” But, if we are not mistaken, this definition accords not fully with the meaning in scripture. Webster had in mind national contests alone, but James asks the question, “From whence come wars and fightings among you?” indicating most clearly that wars and fightings, right or wrong, may exist in a church, in a family or between two individuals. The Apostle adds, “Ye kill, ye fight and war.” Hence we define war as a struggle between individuals, families, churches or nations, with intent to kill and destroy. Of course the purpose of war will vary with the causes that produces [sic] it. Dueling may be regarded as the highest style of war. The combatents [sic] are considered as honorable gentlemen, and their sole purpose is merely to seek each others [sic] life in vindication of honor. National wars are generally preditroy [sic]. Each party generally considers it proper to waste and take all the property of the others, and both strive to do each other the greatest amount of damage. Wars are called aggressive, when one people assail another, and defensive when the object is to repel invasion. It is also called offensive or defensive. But it is remarkable that while most men freely engage in war, either from a general conviction that, there is something wrong in it, or men are insincere, we seldom, if ever, hear of a party avowedly making aggressive or offensive war.

The mere mechanical act of a man’s killing another is neither right nor wrong in itself. It may be done by accident,–or an officer of the law may be required to take away a fellow creatures life. Hence the crime of murder depends neither upon the fact or mode of taking life, but solely upon the state of mind possessed at the time the deed is done. In law, the point is not whether one party killed another, but did he commit the deed, “with malice and forethought.” If then the guilt or innocence of a party depends upon the animus, may we not conclude that one is guilty who merely intends injury? “He that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart.”—Jesus.

This leads us to approach a little nearer to the answer of our question. Possibly, it has been from the fact, that crime universally arises from the intention that, no war originates in heaven, around the throne of the omnipotent. According to the philosophy, poetry and modern theology, of which we have knowledge, war began in heaven, amongst the highest angels. It is said, indeed, that Satan was the tallest son of the Omnipotent,–was next to the Father, aspired to the supremacy, and through ambition enaugurated [sic] a war which, hurled him from heaven. John Milton, in his Paradise lost, said:

“His pride
Had cast him (Satan) out of Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel angels; by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in glory above his peers,
He trusted to have equaled the Most High
If he opposed; and with ambitious aim
Against the throne and monarchy of God
Raise impious war in Heaven, and battle proved
With vain attempt. Him the Almighty proved
Hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky,
With hideous ruin and combustion, down
To bottomless perdition, there to dwell
In adamantine chains and penal fire
Who durst defy the Omnipotent to arms.”

Pollok says,

“That silence which all being held,
When God’s Almighty Son, from off the walls
Of heaven the rebel angels threw, accursed,
So still, that all creation heard their fall
Distinctly, in the lake of burning fire.”

These two quotations constitute the escence [sic] of modern theology regarding the first rebellion, the origin of war, the first battle in heaven, the sentence upon the fallen angels, and Jehovah’s triumph.

Perhaps we may be asked if this is not the doctrine of the Bible? The churches preach it as true, and it is very generally believed. Let us examine briefly the scriptures.

John says, “And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels. Neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the dragon was cast our, that old serpent called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” Rev. xii, 7-9.

He said again, “And the dragon was wroth with the women, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed.” Rev. xii, 17. “He saw a beast rise up out of the sea, and it was given unto him to make war with the saints and to overcome them.” Rev. xii, 7. John said, a “beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit, maketh war against them and shall overcome them and kill them.” Rev. xi, 7. Daniel saw a “Horn make war with the saints and prevail against them.” Dan. vii, 21. Yet he adds, “Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time come that the saints possessed the kingdom.” This was the identical battle which John saw in heaven between Michael and his hosts, and the devil and his party.

Peter speaks, not of war in heaven but of God casting the angels down to hell and delivering them into chains of darkness. 2 Peter ii, 4.

Jude tells us, that “The angles which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Verse 6

But what are the ligitmate [sic] conclusions to be drawn from these scriptures, if Milton, Pollok, and poetical teachers of religion do not justice to the word of God?

The bare admission that there has been, or ever will be disturbance, strife and war in heaven proper, dethrones the Almighty and destroys all hope of a pure clime. We may be asked, “If Satan did not fall from heaven?” The Savior speaking of the power taken from him said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” But this was a fall which occurred in the days of the Lord’s personal ministry.

If we could believe in so desperate a war around the throne of the Eternal as described by these fancy teachers, we could have no desire to attain such an abode. What has occurred might occur again. God’s people seek rest—a peaceful habitation.

The heaven in which this great battle was fought, to say the least, was on this earth. Jesus collected his elect, at the destruction of Jerusalem, “from the uttermost part of heaven.” Mark xii, 27. This was possibly the land of the Jews, as the Gentles were called, in contrast, the earth. “Oh earth,” said the prophet, “hear the word of the Lord.” Christians are said to “sit together in heavenly places, in Christ,” Eph. i, 3, and when John said, “Rejoice over her thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets, for God hath avenged you on her,” he evidently had the church is his mind. Reve. xviii, 20.

We then conclude, that all the wars in heaven with the dragon, the beast; the false prophet—Micahel and the saints were, and will be, in the church. The world power has been assailing the authority of the King of heaven for eighteen hundred years, but the saints will triumph over the beast, and see Satans [sic] empire crumble to pieces. But we are told still, it is war. Tobesure [sic] it is; but the weapons of the Lord’s people are not carnal. John gave a beautiful picture of the war in heaven. “Michael and his angels fought, and the dragon and his angels, and prevailed not. And the dragon was cast out, and his angels into the earth”—that is, driven from all right even to profess the pure religion of the Bible, or occupy a place with Christians. John adds, “And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God and the power (authority) of his Christ, for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accuseth them before God day and night. And they overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of his testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Rev. xii, 7-11. This war is still raging, and is in reference to the authority of Christ and his church. The conflict is between the true and false friends of Christ. The saints will overcome, and it is fondly believed, the date of the triumph in this war is not distant. So much for war in heaven. The angels of whom Peter and Jude spoke, were messengers who left their “first estate,” perhaps turned politicians, or speculatists in some direction and the Lord cast them down from heaven, and they will remain in chains till the judgment.

So far it has been a bloodless conflict, so far as Christians have been concerned; but the conflict between genuine and false Christians has been presented in military and so highly symbolic language, that many have imagined that God and all the hosts of heaven have been or are engaged in deadly conflict. Far be it from truth that Milton, Pollok, and speculative divines have well nigh subverted the light of revelation for the idlest dreams ever penned.

Still war exists and may exist forever, and we would know its origin and meaning.

We have satisfied ourself that all the wars of which we have knowledge, are of earth and are earthy. As to the idea of one next to the Supreme Being apostatizing through ambition, and creating war in heaven and earth, we have endeavored to show is highly preposterous. Still we have no theory in regard to the devil—his origin or history. We are taught in the word of God that there is a devil “going about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour,” and so far as we have learned to the contrary, he was the devil from the beginning, and from his constitution he may be a devil to all eternity. Jesus said of the opposing Jews, “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do: he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.” John viii, 44. It seems from this passage that the devil was a destroyer from the beginning, and yet was the father of men led by passion. The apostle James is still more explicit. In answering the question, “From whence wars and fightings,” he said, “Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members. Ye lust and have not; ye kill and desire to have and ye cannot obtain; ye fight and war.” The idea of James seems to be that men while following passion, are the children of the devil, and hence he exhorts the brethren in the same chapter, to “submit themselves to God.” “Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.” James iv, 1-8.

The doctrine of the Savior, of James, and of all the authors of the Bible, seems to be, that in our very constitution we are subject to two opposing influences. One is called the flesh, and the other the spirit. Some have called these opposing influences the two sides of human nature, one good, the other evil. Speculate on the matter as we please, the fact stares us in the face, that individuals or nations, led by their own impulses, feelings, passions, are always wrong, are but children of the wicked one; whilst those who renounce themselves, and follow heavenly instruction, are holy, harmless, peaceful—the children of God. While following the spirit, we are not in strife, in church or state, but are brethren,–at peace, walking by the faith of one who is invisible, and are always ready to declare that we are “strangers and pilgrims,” have no permanent habitation on earth, but are seeking a city in the skies. A failure to look on high, is a declaration of war against God and all good men. Whosoever is not for the Savior is against him. There is a no neutral ground. All are in the army of the faithful, or of the wicked one.

What then is the origin of war? It arises always from passion—from the love of power, and ambition to domineer over others. Such is the history of all war. When one people suppose themselves stronger, wiser, or richer than another, they are apt to be anxious to rule, and hence strifes and wars arise. Life is but a warfare, a conflict, and hence Paul at the close of his journey said, “I have fought the good fight and kept the faith.”

It will be perceived from the tenor of our remarks, that whether the struggles is in our own heart, between individuals, in churches, states or nations, the weapons are not always identical. Violence and wrong prevail on one side, while on the other, there is merely a resistance of evil.

But the plain and unvarnished question is, has war ever been right? It has been most unquestionably necessary. When the five nations of Canaan become too wicked for endurance, the Almighty ordained his own people Israel to execute his purpose in exterminating them, and when in time the Jews become corrupt God brought “a nation from afar, a nation of fierce countenance,’ a Roman army under Titus Vespasion [sic], against them, and overthrew them. This has been the course of things from the beginning, and may always be the course. We would in conclusion submit a few very respectful inquiries in reference to the bearings of war.

The, Lextalionis,–law of nations—the doctrine of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” preached over all the world till the Savior came and established a new order of things, destined in time to prevail over the whole earth. The prophet saw a little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, that increased till it become a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. Dan. ii. 34, 35.

The Messiah assumed to be a king of a new order, to reach his throne not by wading through the blood of others, but by freely shedding his own blood. He employed no offensive or defensive weapons, but was proclaimed the Prince of Peace.

Was it not his purpose to put an end to war,–to bloodshed and carnage, and has he not been successful in proportion to the progress of his religion in the world? After he told Peter to “put up” his sword, no violence has been employed by him. Jesus cannot take cognizance of them without, till they enlist under his peaceful banner. If, then, the Son of God established a “kingdom of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” and if his subjects were not anciently men of blood, on what authority can they now act differently from his servants of old? It occurs to us that the church of Christ is composed of faithful and true men, who bear his cross at all times, and resort not to violence. If we are correct, bloody wars are not Christian, but are of the world, and are worldly. Are indeed the result of wickedness, are waged by wicked men, for wicked purposes, and have not the sanction of God or good men.

Our conclusion of the whole matter is, that the wars of heaven, are moral conflicts between the church of Christ and the opposing world powers; and the wars of earth are struggles in the world without by men of the world, inaugurated by wicked men for wicked purposes, but which God may overrule for good. The history of the world sustains us in these conclusions, but the church of Christ is composed of “a peculiar people,” separate from others, are not of the world, engage not in its bloody conflicts, and yet the Lord has promised to sustain them to the end.

We have said nothing of the present civil, unnatural, ungodly, cruel, barbarous, unnecessary, meaningless, fruitless and disgraceful American war. It will settle neither the right nor wrong of any question, and though innocent blood has been, and may be liberally shed, better counsels will prevail, and its inhuman originators must ere long bow to a moral force that is struggling to be heard and must sooner or later triumph. God grant that the day may not be far distant. If genuine Christians but buckle on “the whole armor of God,” the hosts of false religionists that originated the conflict, and are leading their countrymen to the slaughter, may soon have cause to lament their treachery to Heaven, and the cause and people of the Most High, may attain the position to which they are entitled. Our confident trust is, that Heaven will vindicate the right, and put to shame and confusion the enemies of our peace.

*From “Pleasures of Hope” (1799) by Scottish poet Thomas Campbell (1777-1844).

**Fanning had earlier written on war and peace in opposition to the Mexican-American War.

On June 8, 1861, Tennesseans voted for secession. On July 2 the state joined the Confederacy and, consequently, entered the war against the Union.

Tolbert Fanning floods the July issue of the Gospel Advocate with three rather lengthy articles on war, peace and “world powers.” The first, “The Kingdom of God Triumphant Over the Kingdoms of the World” [7.7 (July 1861) 193-198], is reproduced below.

After quoting biblical texts from Deuteronomy to Isaiah to Revelation, Fanning summarizes his agenda in five points which I have paraphrased in the following manner:

1. God is sovereign over the nations even to the point of overturning their self-interested acts to God’s divine purposes.

2. God reigns over the saints through the rule of King Jesus who is tasked with the mission to subdue the nations.

3. The kingdom of God, which consists of righteousness, joy and peace,  rules through non-violence.

4. The kingdom of God stands opposed to “world powers” or “principalities” and will ultimately triumph over them.

5. The kingdom of God will triumph through non-violent means as citizens of the kingdom of God, though obedient to human institutions as far as possible, refuse to form alliances with human kingdoms and thus leaven the earth with peace and righteousness.

********Fanning’s article********

From some cause, which should be understood, Christians generally fail to place the reign of the Messiah in its true light before the world. Hence, the almost universal devotion to the institutions of men, and the very small amount of attention to the government of the Most High. We gravely ask, if Heaven has not decreed that the reign of his Son shall be supreme over the whole earth? Do not the times suggest the necessity of the servants of God, carefully examining the claims of the King of kings and Lord of all lords? The kingdoms of the world give demonstrable evidence of frailties and inherent imperfections which threaten their overthrow; and if their [sic] is an institution in existence, which promises permanency, it would seem becoming in Christian men, to present its claims to a discontented, belligerent and almost hopeless generation. The monarchies of the old world, however strongly fortified by armies, are all in commotion, and even our boasted America democracy has recently given woful [sic] evidences that it has finished its destiny, and is almost ready to be numbered with things that were. We already hear the low murmur among the ranks of society, “The last experiment in free government is failing to accomplish what was anticipated.” Even high officials, who boasted a few years ago of the inherent ability of man to construct a perfect government, both civil and religious, are now fleeing from their long adored idol, “this glorious Union,” and are crying alas, alas, our temple is wrecked and our highest hopes are vanishing into thin air. What does all this mean? Is there no stable government on earth? It has long been clear our mind that, the church of Christ is transcendantly [sic] superior to all human institutions, and that it is destined to break them all down and prevail over the whole earth. With the hope of placing the matter in its proper light, we appeal to the word of God as the only authorized test of truth.

What do the prophets teach regarding the kingdom and reign of the Messiah? Jehovah said one thousand four hundred and forty-one years before Christ, “I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, (Moses) and I will put my words into his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require of him.” (Deu. 18, 18, 19.)

It will be remembered that Moses was the mediator to the Jews, but another prophet was to arise as a mediator between God and all who become subjects of the new administration. Our Heavenly Father said by his servant David, “yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion—I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth fer [sic] they possession. Thou shalt dash them to pieces as potters [sic] vessel.” (Psalms 2, 7-9.) In this prediction there is positive evidence the King crowned was to possess the Gentiles, and rule the nations; and a blessing was pronounced upon all who would put their trust in him.

In Isaiah it is said, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; and his name shall be called wonderful, counselor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order and establish it with judgment and justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.” (Isaiah 9, 6, 7.)

“And in the days of these kings the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and shall stand forever.” (Dan. 2, 41.)

“And the kingdom and dominion and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” (Dan. 7, 26.)

The prophet Isaiah also said, “The earth shall be full of the righteousness of the Lord, as the waters cover the deep.” (Isaiah 11, 9.)

This was a kingdom to be established by the Son of God.

John the immerser preached, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” and the Messiah exhorted his disciples to pray, “They kingdom come.” Again he said, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevails against it.”

Jesus Christ and his disciples all preached that this kingdom was at hand, till the day of Pentecost, and no writer in the New Testament after this memorable day ever intimated that a kingdom was to be set up. In Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we hear of an approaching kingdom, and in the 2d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles and last verse, we read, for the first time of persons being added to the church. Solomon’s temple, which prefigured the spiritual edifice by Christ, went up without the sound of a hammer or an iron instrument. The materials were all prepared by measure; and John, Jesus, and his twelve and seventy disciples were actively engaged for some three years in preparing materials for the heavenly building, and no marvel that I should also have been acknowledged on Pentecost by the filling and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Afterwards, as intimated, the writers of the Holy Scriptures, spoke of the church as a reality. Paul said to the faithful Hebrews, “But ye are come to Mount Zion, unto the city of the Living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first born who are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling which speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. * * * Wherefore, we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God, acceptably with reverence and godly fear.” Hebrews 12, 22-28.

The beloved John, of course, was the last inspired writer who dwelt upon the triumphs of the kingdom of the Savior. When the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, John said: “There were great voices in heaven saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever. (Rev. 11, 15.) Again he said, “I saw one called Faithful and True, on a white horse; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war; and the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses clothed in white linen, fine and clean, and out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword that with it he should smite the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. * * * And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out his mouth, and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Rev. 19, 11-21.

Having settled the question as to the authority of these Scriptures, we feel fully authorized to state the following conclusions, viz:

1st. God, our Father, is sovereign over all the world. The nations are in his hands, he has the inalienable right to their homage, and he rules in the kingdoms of men, overturning their unwise designs to his honor and often to the good of his erring creation.

2d. God has given the government of his saints into the hands of his Son Jesus Christ. He crowned him Lord of heaven and earth, when he ascended on high, placed the scepter in his hand, and bade him subdue the nations of the earth. Since the coronation of the Savior, no one has had the right to approach the Father, pray to him, or ask protection from him, but in the name of the Son. Hence, he that rejects Jesus of Nazareth, rejects God, and is indeed considered the enemy of the Father. The Scriptures already recited evidently show that not only was the King crowned on his ascension to heaven from Mount Olivet, but not many days after the newly appointed mediator and Lord of heaven and earth sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all truth, and enable them to perfect the new administration. The laws were finished, the members of the body fitly placed together by joints and bands and the whole machinery of the body perfected in the first century. Consequently we look for no new Gospel, new developments of truth, or a new kingdom in the latter days. The body of Christ is perfect, the laws afford all things that pertain to life and godliness, and a new King is not needed.

3d. The kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The Savior came upon a mission of love and mercy to a rebellious world, and he employed no violence to render triumphant his laws. The success of his reign over pagan Rome and idolatrous world in the early ages of the church is marvelous in our eyes beyond expression. Philosophers, and the great of earth, looked in mute amazement at the greatness of his achievements, by so simple means, and yet the nations have not yielded to his peaceful scepter.

4th. The prophecies indicate most clearly that the Lord’s spiritual empire was to be in conflict, in the language of Hengstenburg [sic],* with “the world power,” or as Paul expresses it, “principalities,” but his cause was to triumph. His kingdom was to break into pieces, consume and crush from the earth the governments of the world. But we are told “it has not yet triumphed.” True, and the end has not yet come. Notwithstanding Christianity was driven from its birthplace-Palestine,–and many sections of Europe, it still lives on both continents,–in all the four corners of the globe,–and so soon as men shall complete their folly in originating and defending their frail institutions of earth, they will gladly admit the sovereignty of the Redeemer.

Daniel says, “The kingdom and dominion under the whole heavens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” John tells us that he heard “great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” Or correctly translated, “The kingdom of the world is our Lords and his Christs.” The government of the world has yet to be placed upon the shoulders of the Savior. This cannot be accomplished without the destruction of the institutions framed by men; still there is nothing which seems more pointed in the word of God, and Christians should not be discouraged at appearances. God works in ways of which we are ignorant, but if we can believe he threw down the walls of Jericho, by a shout of his people, nothing should be regarded as impossible for him.

5th. What means shall be employed for the accomplishment of this grand end?

As early as the fourth century, whenever Christianity become [sic] popular, it was connected with the governments of the world, and corrupted. The nominal professors of this religion of peace, thought the civil power was necessary for its protection, and, hence the sword was employed first by Rome, next by the East, then by England, and since by most of the world, to render victorious an institution that cannot safely form even an alliance with “the powers that be.” But while the nations of the earth are determined to propagate religion at the cannons mouth, “the dispersed” among the nations, “the strangers and pilgrims” ask the aid of no armies or navies to give the ascendency to the cause of the Lord, but confidently look for its final triumph without “the breaking of a bruised reed, or the quenching of the smoking flax.”

Although the Spirit saw proper to employ the military style of the times, the sword with which the King was to triumph over his enemies, though sharp and strong, proceeded out of the mouth of him who sat on the white horse, and his victories were all to be in righteousness. It may be well in this connection to indicate the true position of Christians with reference to the governments of this world. The Christian institution was the first spiritual empire revealed to man, and it will be the last. It was superior to the kingdoms of men; could not from its nature be merged into them, or, as we before stated, form alliances with them. It came not as the friend or enemy of any form of government, could live in a monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, was independent of all, and yet was destined to swallow them all up. This, it seems, was to be accomplished by leavening the earth, and bringing all the powers of the world into subordination. The subjects of this kingdom, so far as we are informed, in the early ages took no part in the creation or administration of worldly powers. They paid their taxes as loyal citizens of every government, in which their labor called them, “respected magistrates, and prayed for kings and all in authority,” that they might lead quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty. The apostles and early Christians took no office from man, and interposed not in the least with the government of the world, unless so oppressed that they could not without open rebellion honor their king. Then they refused not to adhere to their own leader, and for this species of rebellion many lost their lives.

We have seen few, if any Christian men, who gave themselves to the governments of the world, that have not been swallowed up of them, and hence we conclude that our calling is above all earthly callings, and our time, talents, and energies should be given to the Lord. We should pay our taxes, respect governments, not oppressive, wherever we may dwell, and if possible be at peace with all men. Still our grand purpose should be, to promote the spiritual empire of the King of Zion. The instructions on this subject are found in the New Testament.

*******

*Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John (T & T Clark, 1851), refers to the “world-power” 79 times.

After the Confederacy’s seizure of Ft. Sumter in Charleston harbor and Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers in April 1861, Tennessee–scheduled to vote on secession in early June–will be the last state to join the Confederacy.

That same month Tolbert Fanning penned a brief but poignant plea for peace by appealing to the role of kingdom people amidst the wars between nation-states and human strife. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” Jesus said. Pursuing peace is what kingdom people do even when the cultural tide has turned against them.

Fanning calls Christians to prayer, persuasion and peaceful action as subjects of the kingdom of God. He is not, of course, successful.

On June 8, 1861, only 12% in Middle Tennessee voted against secession. Tennessee voted for secession 105,000 to 47,000 (Nashville itself voted 3,033 to 249).

Below is Fanning’s brief article in the June 1861  issue of the Gospel Advocate entitled “The Peace Maker” (pp. 177-178).

The Savior on the Mount said, “Blessed are the peace makers, for they shall be called the children of God,” and we gravely ask the saints if “the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” why we may not contribute to quieting the waters of strife in these once happy but now scattered and torn States? The denominations generally are in arms against each other, also some disciples and from them we have nothing to hope, if we are really representatives of the government of the Prince of Peace, may we not attempt to convince the rulers of this nation that right cannot be settled by the arbitrement* of the sword. War merely about an idea, indicates not even a high degree of civilization, and we ask is there no hope of satisfying the movers of the waters, that they are wrong and their conduct will certainly call down the just retribution of God. Let the whole church call upon the Father of mercies, to pity the follies of his creatures, and let every Christian exert his influence to convince others that it is the duty of all to beat their swords into plowshares and their speers [sic] into pruning hooks. If Christ’s government were understood, nation would not lift up the sword against nation, neither would they study war any more.”

Brethren, let us attempt by some united effort to convince our countrymen that the influence of Messiah’s government will put an end to all their strife.

*Middle English term for arbitration.

For the fourth time the “word of the Lord” comes to Zechariah in response to the question asked by the representatives of Bethel (Zechariah 7:1-3). They had asked whether they should continue their lament fasts. Finally, Zechariah answers their question.

Zechariah, however, did not give them a quick answer. Rather, he took them through their history. The ancestors had acted unjustly and without compassion toward their neighbors—they failed to love their neighbors (7:8-10). As a result their ancestors suffered God’s displeasure as he scattered them among the nations (7:14) where they became objects of cursing (8:13). Nevertheless God loves Zion and will return to the holy mountain (8:2-3). God will renew covenant with Israel (8:8) and they will yet become a blessing to the nations (8:13). The remnant, therefore, is called to act justly and love mercy in response to Yahweh’s great compassion (8:16-17).

Now—in the fourth message—Zechariah answers the original question. He does this with three oracles identified by the phrase “this is what the Lord Almighty says.”

• God has turned their lament fasts into joyful feasts (8:18-19)
• The nations will seek Yahweh and come to Jerusalem (8:20-22)
• Diverse ethnicities will seek Jews to usher them into God’s presence (8:23)

The first oracle answers the original question. Fasting is now over; the fasts which remembered the year of horror–which included the siege of Jerusalem to the breaching of the walls to the destruction of the temple to the assassination of Gedaliah–are complete. God has turned their fasting into feasting; their mourning into dancing. The word Zechariah uses for festival is the same as Leviticus 23 which describes the great feast days of Israel. Such feasting had ceased with the destruction of the Jerusalem (Lamentations 1:4) but has now returned with the rebuilding of the temple. God’s temple presence calls for rejoicing rather than lamentation. Israel now feasts and no longer fasts.

This move from lament fasts to joyous festivals, however, entails covenant responsibility. Israel is called to “love truth and peace.” This is probably a succinct way of restating the previous imperatives of Zechariah 8:16-17 as well as Zechariah 7:9-10. Truth and peace, in this context, primarily refer to social justice.

The second oracle enlarges the earlier word of the Lord in Zechariah 2:10-11. As there, so here, the joy of Jerusalem is not restricted to Israel alone. This rejoicing will envelop the nations as well. Peoples, cities and powerful nations will seek the Lord in Jerusalem. Israel, as a blessing to all the nations, will receive the nations; many peoples (ethnicities) will seek the Lord. This vision is not only rooted in the Abrahamic promise but is also present in earlier prophets such as Isaiah (2:2-4; 49:22-23), Micah (4:1-5) and Jeremiah (4:1-2).

The third oracle is climatic–it is the pinnacle of Zechariah 7-8 and perhaps for the whole first half of the book. “Ten men from all languages and nations,” the Lord declares, “will take firm hold of one Jew.” The number ten probably represents completeness, that is, every nation and language from all over the earth will seek the Lord. We might hear in this a reversal of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) or even anticipation of Pentecost (Acts 2), but even more the eschatological hope of peoples and nations from every language gathered around the throne of God in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 7, 21-22).

Nations will attach themselves to Israel, or as Paul puts it, nations will be grafted into Israel (Romans 11). They will seek this attachment because they recognize and confess that “God is with you.” This is theologically pregnant language.

“God is with you” is the language of the Patriarchical narratives as God was with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph (Genesis 21:22; 25:28; 30:27).

“God is with you” is the language of God’s dwelling with Israel in the wilderness tabernacle and then in the Jerusalem temple.

“God is with you” is the language of the incarnation as Immanuel (Matthew 1:23) comes to dwell in the flesh.

“God is with you” is the language of divine presence in the body of Christ, the church as the Holy Spirit dwells within the temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16,17).

“God is with you” is eschatological language—it is the language that “Now, the dwelling of God is with humanity” (Revelation 20:3) in the New Jerusalem upon the New Earth.

This is the hope of humanity; it is the blessing of Israel among the nations. The nations will share the inheritance of Israel as God dwells among all nations and peoples. Through Israel, all the nations of the earth will be blessed with God’s presence.

Indeed, God is with us. Praise to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen.

Abraham Lincoln was elected President on November 6, 1860. Though the Upper South ( Tennessee, Kentucky and Virginia) voted for the moderate John Bell, the Deep South–many of which did not even have Lincoln on the ballot–was solidly anti-Lincoln.  South Carolina seceded first in December 1860 and was quickly followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas by February 2. Tennesseans, in February 1861, opposed secession.

In the February issue of the Gospel Advocate Tolbert Fanning appealed for peace. His first article on the question in 1861 is entitled “Duty of Christians in Reference to the Political Crisis of 1861” (7.2 [February 1861] 33-37) which is reproduced below.

Fanning asks for rationality rather than excitement which is consistent with his approach to Christianity itself. One comes to faith through rational argument based on the testimony of the New Testament–faith is not based upon some kind of Emerson transcendentalism; it is based upon “logic and truth.” Fanning had staked out this approach in his controversy with Robert Richardson, that is, the Spirit works through rational argument as one presents the truth found in Scripture.

In the same way, war can be avoided if both sides would argue their case and come to a reasonable conclusion. If slavery is an evil, let it be argued. If the South has, in fact, raised the civility of the Africans, let it be argued. His point is conciliatory as he attempts to appeal to both sides so that they might come to the table for discussion, but he has no interest in settling that dispute in this article. Rather, he pushes the point that the sword is no solution. Controversies should be settled by “moral” and “peaceable means.”

He faults the preachers for the present excitement. They have stirred up the emotions and called for war rather than preaching the gospel of peace. They have abdicated their responsibility as ministers of the gospel.

Rather than sitting on the sidelines, Fanning calls for minister of peace to get involved. This is not about political involvement in the sense of participating in the political machinery, but rather functioning as the conscience of the nation. They should testify about the kingdom of peace, calling Christians to peaceful, quiet lives and making the argument that war would resolve nothing. Christians would win the case since “the world is to be conquered and saved by argument, by love divine.” The present crisis must be “quieted by ministers of God” because “politicians can not accomplish the work.”

Fanning wants ministers to make a public rational argument against war. “The controversy is upon us, and the teachers of religion must meet the issues.” In effect, war would accomplish little except destruction and loss of life.

At bottom, however, Fanning’s witness is that Christians should have nothing to do with the sword or war. The kingdom of God is about peace and its King is the “Prince of peace.” Christians are called to be peacemakers rather than warmonger. No matter what the justness of the cause may be (which he does not argue one way or the other), war is forbidden by the gospel of peace.

He still hopes, it appears, that calmer heads will prevail. He even believes that many (“myriads”) Christians in the North have no interest in the sword. If there is a war to be fought, then let it “be conducted under a King that asks not artillery or infantry, big guns or little ones, in his triumphs, and all will be well.”

*****   Fanning’s Article   *****

From the adoption of the “Federal Constitution” September 17th, 1787 to this date, our country has not been called to pass such an ordeal as the present, and at no period in our history, has there been so great necessity for Christians to adopt a more enlightened and prudent line of policy. We are in the midst of a revolution for weal or for woe, which we dare not ignore, and which demands the serious consideration and prompt exertions of all good men. A storm has been raised by unwise and cruel leaders, which they possess not the ability to control. The intelligent of the people are sound at heart, and they should not lose self-control through the influence of factions, in which exists not the fear of God, or glorious of ship of State, may not only be enabled to breast the raging surges, but be brought once more safely into the port of peace and prosperity.

To be sure, we feel not, that it is our province, at present, to make even suggestions to politicians, or enter into the merits of any political controversy; but the church of Christ has, most innocently become involved, and as a feeble member of this compact, we feel free to speak plainly to our brethren. We deeply regret the necessity, but cannot witness the destruction of the Saints without uttering a warning voice. That our purpose may be appreciated, we state it as a fact that Jesus Christ established a religion which can live and prosper under any form of government,–is addressed to the erring in monarchies, aristocracies and the wildest democracies, and bids them cease from strife and live. A Philippian jailor when dreading the decision of tyranny, cried “What shall I do to be saved,” was told to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and he should be secure and his family.” If christianity [sic] was a protection then, why may it not be now? As a basis of all our future conclusions, we wish to remind christians [sic] of the true spiritual character of the church of Christ. Our Lord said, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John xviii. 36.

Why is the kingdom not of this world? Because its Author is different from all other kings and his church was built upon principles not like those on which human fabrics are constructed, the subjects are unlike other people, and the operations of his government, differ across the whole heavens from the governments merely human.

The Author of the Christian religion seven hundred and forty years before his birth, was pronounced “The Prince of peace” and it was further said by the Spirit, that “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.” Isaiah ix.6-7. At the birth of our Lord, it was proclaimed that, “The day spring from on high that visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death; to guide our feet into the way of peace.” Luke i.78-79. The heavenly host that attended the angel sung, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will towards men.” Of him, it was said, “He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking fire shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.” Isaiah xliii.2; Mat. xii.19-20. In reference to the preacher of the Gospel, it is written, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace?” Isaiah lii.7. It is also affirmed that, “The Kingdom of God is not meat nor drink, but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.” The prophet again said, “They shall beat their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning-hooks; nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah ii.4. Where are we to look for the fulfillment of these revelations, but in the church? Were these things spoken in regard to Christ, his kingdom and his people? Has not the world, for eighteen centuries been at peace in exact ratio, of the influence of the Christian religion over men? How has the peace of the world been achieved? By the warlike, beating their swords into plough-shares and their spears into pruning-hooks. Did the Lord ever head a military company, or aid in the organization of hostile armies. He broke not a reed and extinguished not the smoking flax to make his laws victorious. Did the Apostles go forth with swords and staves to reconcile the erring? Jesus wept over the wicked: when buffeted, he threatened not; when he could have called twelve legions of angels, did he not submit quietly and beautifully to wrong? Did not hosts of his disciples yield to a shameful death, rather than take vengeance in their own hands? They submitted to the judgments of a righteous Father, and took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, and cheerfully laid down their lives to establish peace in the earth.

Has christianity [sic] changed? Does the Lord still reign over his people? How then can Christians, north or south, east or west, engage in war, even against their brethren, without a full sacrifice of every principle of the Christian institution? How dare the brethren—the preachers—bring themselves to the fearful conclusion, to plunge their swords into the hearts of their brethren? We enter not into the question of right or wrong, in the present controversy. So far as our present object is concerned, we are not interested either way. Our purpose is to labor to satisfy Christians, that they are not to settle controversies by the sword. The world is to be conquered and saved by argument, by love divine.

Will the saints of God wear the “Blue Cockade,” buckle on their swords, join “Wide-awake clubs” and “Minute-men associations?” We beg them to pause and reflect, before they bring ruin upon the cause of our Master.

We do not deny, that the controversy between the North and South is of an exclusively religious character. Be it so. We as Christians should labor to adjust difficulties by peaceable means. Indeed, we are permitted to employ no weapon but the sword of the Spirit,–the Jerusalem blade. True, extreme men in the North say that holding Africans in slavery “is a damnable sin per se.” What shall we do? Meet the question like men, and Christians. Let us hear their strongest arguments, and if we are committing sins so heinous as to shut us out of the eternal mansion, let us confess and forsake our evil deeds. But if it should appear upon examination, that while we have suffered greatly on account of the slavery that has been entailed upon us by Europe and the North, we have done more in the last eighty years to humanize, civilize, and Christianize the negro race, and enlighten benighted African than all the world besides, has tone to in thousands of years, let the facts be set forth, and let the world see our true position. The controversy is upon us, and the teachers of religion must meet the issues. The storm has been raised mainly by preachers, and it must be quieted by the ministers of God. Mere politicians can not accomplish the work. We must meet the scrupulous on the arena of sound logic and truth, and put them to flight, or yield all that is demanded.

Many engaged in the strife fear not God, and while they are blindly and recklessly plunging us into extremes, it is our duty to say to the troubled waters peace, be still; and to men in their madness, listen to reason and the voice of God. All controversies with the intelligent and sincere may be settled by moral means. Suppose we are forced by our political leaders into desperate and exterminating wars, will they decide the right of parties? If half of our once happy people were slaughtered, would it make the living better friends? Would it establish a better government? Should we have another seven years war, and should our people be slain by the sword, would not our poverty, our deep distress, and our crushing wants, at the end force a truce? The white flag of peace would have to be respected by all, and a permanent peace would have to be secured by treaties, by covenants and by guarantees. Peace measures would have to prevail after the slaughter. Should then, we abandon the cause of the Prince of peace, to settle questions of morality? Questions which must be settled alone by the Bible? Why then employ the fist of wickness [sic]? We profess to be a civilized, enlightened and Christian people. We ought not to Christian men giving their views freely on all questions in their sphere, as Christians, but we enter our most solemn protest against the employment of other than spiritual weapons in the present crisis. “Blessed are the peace makers; for they shall be called the children of God.”

We wish to say in conclusion, that whilst we have clearly seen and deeply deplored, for more than a quarter of a century, the black clouds of death that have been rising under the influence of infidel and higher law teachers such as Theodore Parker, Wendell Philips, Waldo Emerson, Henry Ward Beecher, Orville Dewey, Horace Greely, William H. Seward and others, we now as deeply regret the equally unwise and unchristian course of many of the preachers South. They are attempting to excite the people to meet the fanaticism which is threatening our country, by the sword. Should we be able to exterminate all false teachers, the controversy would not thereby be concluded. There are myriads North sound as to the “The faith once for all delivered to the saints” and ministers of religion owe it to themselves, to their country and their God, to meet error in the spirit of meekness, be it where it may, and to throw light upon the dark waters of strife. Let this war be conducted under a King that asks not artillery or infantry, big guns or little ones, in his triumphs, and all will be well.

Tolbert Fanning (1810-1874) was probably the most influential leader within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the South prior to the Civil War. As an educator, he founded Franklin College (1845); as an author, he edited the Christian Review (1844-1847), started the Gospel Advocate with William Lipscomb (1855-1861) and then rebirthed the Gospel Advocate with David Lipscomb (1866-1867) after the Civil War; and as an evangelist, he preached widely in Middle Tennessee and elsewhere.

Fanning, shaped by evangelists associated with Stone and mentored by Alexander Campbell in two preaching tours, was David Lipscomb’s mentor. Fanning taught Lipscomb Barton W. Stone’s apocalyptic understanding of the kingdom of God as the reign of God that stands over against all human governments and Alexander Campbell’s positivistic hermeneutic focused on restoring the ancient gospel and the ancient order. Fanning was a unique theological combination of Stone and Campbell and this was the legacy he left to many leaders in Middle Tennessee.

Tennessee was a divided state in the 1860 election. John Bell, the moderate and native son, won the state. The state was generally pro-union as it voted against secession in February 1861 by a 4-1 margin. But this changed when Abraham Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers in response to the attack on Ft.Sumter on April 12, 1861. The state voted for secession in a June referendum with the deciding vote coming in Middle Tennessee as the East was unionist while the West was secessionist. Though Middle Tennessee voted 51% against secession in February, it voted 88% for secession in June.

In this climate, Fanning attempted to persuade his readers to choose peace. Over the next few weeks, I will follow Fanning’s argument throughout 1861. His rhetoric is filled with both apocalyptic as well as positivistic language. In Fanning we see a fervent opposition to violence that is rooted in his kingdom theology as well as an adamant stress on the uniqueness of an undenominational church of Christ within the denominational landscape. The latter view would dominate the twentieth century while the former would recede into the background and ultimately excised from the mainstream consciousness of the Churches of Christ.

More to come….

Mark’s travelogue describes the journey of Jesus from Galilee (9:33) to Perea (10:1) to Jericho (10:46) to Bethany (11:1) and finally to Jerusalem (11:11). But this movement is more than geographical. The theme that runs through this journey to death is servanthood (9:35; 10:44-45) and the call to assume the role of the “last” rather than the first (9:35; 10:31, 44). Jesus, through whom the power of the kingdom of God was revealed, will become like a powerless child. The King will become a servant; the first will become last.

The story of the “rich young ruler” (a composite description derived from Mark, Matthew and Luke) is so familiar that it is difficult to hear it afresh. Its power and punch is often lost in that familiarity.

TWe recover it if we hear the story in the context of Mark’s travelogue. More specifically, the narrative places this rich man-Jesus dialogue between themes of “becoming like a little child” and Jesus’ own suffering servanthood. For the sake of the kingdom of God, Jesus becomes a powerless servant. The first became last. He asks the same of the “rich young ruler.” And there’s the rub— him and for us.

It is apparent that the eager young man did not expect such a radical call to discipleship. He runs to Jesus, falls as a supplicant at his knees and shows him great respect as a prominent rabbi, calling him “good teacher.” His life, at least externally and in his own mind, was a model of obedience. He had kept the Torah from his youth. He hoped for some wisdom from Jesus about eternal life and anticipated that he would follow through on whatever Jesus demanded. But he did not expect to hear what he heard.

Jesus’ interaction with the rich man is not manipulative as if he only wants to prove a point with his disciples. Jesus “loved” him. His invitation to “follow” was neither perfunctory nor shallow. Jesus called him to a life of discipleship.

But something is amiss. Perhaps Jesus recognizes this from the start. When the rich man addressed him as “good,” Jesus reminded him that only God is “good.” This is not so much a rejection of a divine appellation or a rebuke of the phrase “good teacher” as it is a recognition that all goodness derives from God rather than from our own efforts. Goodness is a divine gift.

The pious rich man is little different from the rest of us. We often locate goodness in externals, in the commandments, or in our long-term devotion. We often deceive ourselves into thinking that we measure up to some degree even if we recognize that we may yet lack something (as even the rich man believed and consequently came to Jesus seeking whatever that was). We often become religious addicts feeding on our measurable performances and seeking the approval of others, particularly God’s.

Perhaps the rich man, like us, is seeking approval; perhaps he is seeking to measure up and wanted to make sure he had his bases covered. He, like we often are, is a pious seeker. But he is bitterly disappointed—perhaps shocked is a better translation—by Jesus’ demand.

Like most of us, he did not really know himself. He did not know his first love. He thought it was God but he learned that he really loved his wealth more. He could not embrace the call to radical discipleship. He could not become last after having been first for so long. He could not give away his wealth in order to become a servant to the poor. In the words of the previous text (10:15), he could not receive the kingdom from the position of powerlessness like a little child. He wanted to achieve the kingdom from the status of wealth and power. He could not let go (become like a child) in order to enter the kingdom of God, that is, to join the journey of a disciple which led to Jerusalem.

As in so many other circumstances in Mark, Jesus turns to his disciples and uses this heartbreaking situation as a teaching moment. Entering the kingdom of God is difficult; indeed, it is impossible (which is the point of the camel/needle hyperbole—and Jesus so describes it in 10:27). This is not only true of the rich (10:23) but of everyone (10:24).

People don’t move from first to last. The rich man illustrates this and he is not the only one. The disciples themselves find it difficult, if not impossible, to receive the kingdom as a little child, as one of the powerless.

The disciples are shocked. They have every expectation of entering the kingdom. Moreover, they expected to rule within the kingdom as some of the greatest in it. They expected to be first rather than last. Now they hear that even entering the kingdom is dubious since if the rich—those blessed by God—cannot enter then surely their prospects are limited. “Who can be saved?” they ask.

Entering the kingdom is impossible, Jesus responds, but nothing is impossible for God. From a human standpoint, becoming like a little child is difficult but God can empower this. God can save. God can give entrance to the kingdom. God can empower our servanthood.

Peter, as normal in Mark, cannot remain silent. He finds all this quite disturbing. He has turned his world upside down to follow Jesus and now Jesus tells him that entering the kingdom is impossible. We can hear the frustration in Peter’s words, “We have left everything to follow you.” We did what the rich man would not. We chose radical discipleship. And now we hear that entrance into the kingdom is impossible. One can almost hear the hidden question, “Where’s our profit? What’s in it for us?”

Discipleship does profit, but it is not the kind of profit envisioned by Peter or the rich man. Whatever we leave behind we gain. While we may leave mother or father or wife or children or siblings, we gain a hundredfold in the community of disciples. This is what Jesus did. He left his mother, brothers and sisters but gained a family of disciples, a community of kingdom people (Mark 6:34-35). Loss becomes gain in the kingdom of God both in the present and in eternal life.

However, this profit is no bed of roses. Radical discipleship will invite hostility (persecutions), suspicion, and mockers (Mark 13:9-13). It is a journey to a cross. It is to assume a last position, but the last will become first. The cross will become an empty tomb.

We are all the rich man in this story. We don’t know really know our first loves until tested and we are often shocked to learn that we are not as pious as we thought we were.

We are all Peter. We want to know what profit our discipleship yields. We want tangible results. We fear losing everything for nothing.

And Jesus loves us, calls us and encourages us. “Follow me,” he says. Will we? Dare we?

In December 518 representatives from Bethel came to Judah and asked the leaders whether they should continue their lament fasts over the fall of Jerusalem (Zechariah 7:1-3). Zechariah responded with four distinct oracles (identified by the phrase the “word of the Lord came to me/Zechariah” in7:4, 8; 8:1, 18).

He first questioned their motives for fasting (7:4-7) and then reminded them why Jerusalem had fallen in the first place with an implicit rebuke that they were not much different (7:8-14). They continue to practice injustice just as their fathers. Nevertheless, the word of the Lord comes to Zechariah again (8:1). Though questioning their present motives and interests, Yahweh assures Judah that God loves them and will return to Zion.

This section of Zechariah is structured as a series of five brief oracles and two longer (practically sermonic) ones. The author structures the message with seven uses of an introductory formula: “this is what Yahweh says.”

• “I am jealous for Zion” (8:2)
• “I will return to Zion” and dwell in Jerusalem (8:3)
• Jerusalem will experience peace and rest again (8:4-5)
• Nothing is too difficult to God though it may seem impossible to others (8:6)
• They will be the people of God and God their God (8:7)
• Judah and Israel will be a “blessing” among the nations (8:9-13)
• God will “do good again to Jerusalem” (8:14-17).

The movement in this series is from

• God’s jealous love
• to God’s intent to dwell in Jerusalem
• to God’s intent to renew rest in Jerusalem
• to God’s ability to accomplish his intent
• to God’s renewal of relationship
• to the renewal of God’s mission for Judah and Israel among the nations
• to God’s determination to “do good” to Jerusalem.

The prophet’s message is a reassuring one. God is still passionate about Zion (temple), Jerusalem, Judah and even Israel. God has not forsaken his first love—his firstborn among the nations. God will return to Zion and “dwell in Jerusalem.” Zion will again become a “holy mountain.” The result is that the elderly will rest and watch the children play in the streets of the city. And while this remnant thinks this incredible, it is not beyond God’s power and love.

Yahweh is jealous for Jerusalem, so Yahweh will act and save his people from the nations by returning them to Jerusalem. In this God renews covenant with Israel—again they will be his people and he will be their God. This is the promise God made to their fathers (Exodus 6:7), he accomplished through the tabernacle (Leviticus 26:11-12), and now God will renew that promise for the returning exiles.

This answers the fundamental question of the postexilic community—does God still love us? Will God return to dwell among us? Does God still have a purpose for us? Do the promises of Abraham still apply to us? And the answer is yes, yes, yes and yes!

This renewed covenant entails that God still intents to fulfill the promise to Abraham through Judah and Israel. The land inheritance remains intact (8:12) and the divine intent to bless all nations through Abraham also remains intact (8:13). Though they have been an “object of cursing” among the nations, they will yet—through the salvation of God—become a blessing. This is the language of Genesis 12:2.

Yahweh is not finished with Judah and Israel; the divine promise is not yet fully realized. Israel will yet become a blessing to all the nations that had cursed it. God will reverse the fortunes of Abraham’s descendents. They will inherit the land and become a blessing. God is faithful to his promises.

Though in the recent past God brought disaster and showed no pity on those who acted unjustly and showed no mercy to their neighbors, now God has “determined to do good” to Jerusalem. “Doing good” is a metaphor for benevolent acts of mercy and blessing. It is also language that echoes the promise to the Patriarchs (cf. Genesis 32:9, 12; Deuteronomy 30:5). God will faithfully accomplish his purpose for Israel in the world; God will keep his promise to Abraham.

Embedded within this reassuring message, however, are several key imperatives or homiletical exhortations. Jerusalem and Judah are called to respond to the message and act upon it.

1. “let your hand be strong so that the temple may be built” (8:9, 13)
2. “Do not be afraid” (8:13, 15)
3. “Speak truth to each other” (8:16)
4. “Render true and sound judgment in your courts” (8:16)
5. “Do not plot evil against your neighbor” (8:17)
6. “Do not love to swear falsely” (8:17).

Essentially, Zechariah says: (1) don’t be afraid—rebuild the temple because God loves you and will return to dwell among you, and (2) don’t be afraid—live before God the way your fathers failed to do.

The ethical imperatives relate to social and economic injustices. The courts were the place where the rich and powerful would steal land and livelihood from the poor. They would swear false oaths and implement their plots to take what was not theirs. The remnant is called to live as their fathers failed to live (Zechariah 7:9-10).

But it is important to notice where the imperatives fall. The indicatives—the declaration of God’s love for Jerusalem and God’s determination to dwell among the remnant—precede the imperatives. Israel does not evoke God’s love by their good works, fasting and mourning. Rather, God elects Israel. God determines to redeem Israel and Israel called to respond in gratitude with a life that mirrors God’s own compassion, mercy and faithfulness.

Ethical imperatives are grounded in divine indicatives. We love because God first loved us. Our hope, faith and love are rooted in God’s acts which empower our ability to hope, trust and love.

Believers—even in Scripture (Psalms 44, 77, 89, for example, as well as Malachi 1:1-4)—sometimes doubt the love of God due to their circumstances. God’s electing, redeeming love assures us that we are not forgotten and that God is faithful to covenanted promises. God’s indicative acts of mercy, love and compassion—the declaration of God’s love in the cross of Jesus is the climatic act—ground our confidence and hope. In response we offer our lives in grateful obedience and seek to mirror God’s life in our own lives.

Thanks be to God!

This story has some familiar contours. The disciples fail, Jesus rebukes them, and then attempts to transform their thinking. It is like the song, “second verse, same as the first.” This cycle is repeated several times in Mark’s Gospel, particularly in Mark 8-10.

This story functions to center a major theme within the narrative. It falls between the two occasions in Mark when the disciples are arguing about who is the greatest (Mark 9:33-37 and Mark 10:35-45). Both arguments, ironically, follow Jesus’ own prediction of his suffering and death (Mark 9:30-32; 10:32-34). Between these occasions, Jesus advises the disciples on how to receive the kingdom of God.

Of course, the kingdom of God is the fundamental theme of the Gospel of Mark. Jesus has heralded the arrival of the kingdom of God as good news (gospel; Mark 1:14-15). The disciples have anticipated the coming kingdom. Indeed, this is what they argued about—who would be the greatest in the kingdom?

The occasion for this teaching moment is Jesus’ encounter with little children—more “little ones” (cf. Mark 9:33-50). Parents (presumably) were bringing their children to Jesus that he might “touch” them. “Touch” is an important word in Mark. Jesus touched others (like the leper) to heal them (Mark 1:41; 7:33) and others wanted to touch Jesus to be healed (Mark 3:10; 5:27-28, 30-31; 6:56; 8:22). This word is always associated in the Gospel of Mark with healing, just like the laying on of hands which Jesus does as well (Mark 1:31, 41; 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25; 16:18). It seems likely that parents were bringing their children to Jesus for healing.

Astoundingly, the disciples rebuke the parents. This is a strong action. Jesus rebuked the demons (Mark 1:25; 3:12; 9:25), the chaotic winds (Mark 4:39) and Peter on one occasion (Mark 8:33). But the disciples were in the habit of rebuking as well—they rebuked a blind man (Mark 10:48) and even Jesus himself (Mark 8:32). The disciples were not immune to a strong rebut and, on this occasion, they rebuked the parents who were bringing their children for healing. The text is silent about their reason though we may suppose that Jesus was tired, busy or presumed to be uninterested. We may presume the best motive, that is, protecting Jesus’ rest, or we may think of their potentially worst motive, that is,  they were focused on themselves and their own greatness.

But Jesus’ response is equally strong. Jesus was displeased and indignant. Mark uses the same word to describe how the other disciples felt about James and John’s request to sit at the right and left hand of Jesus in the kingdom (Mark 10:41). Jesus was angry and frustrated with his disciples.

The theology embedded in Jesus’ words to the disciples is significant. The children must have access to Jesus because “the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” The kingdom of God is for the little ones; it is for the broken, marginalized and hurting. Children represent the “little ones” for whom the kingdom of God comes. The disciples should not hinder those for whom the kingdom of God was designed.

A further theological point provides the content of the teaching moment for the disciples. Those who would receive (or enter) the kingdom of God must become like little children. Interpreters differs as to what quality children possess that is a means of receiving the kingdom of God. Innocence is a popular one, but this seems extraneous to the context.

Given the location of this story within Mark’s narrative, it seems better to see the quality as one of social location and powerlessness. Children are not “great;” they are usually last rather than first (cf. Mark 9:35). Children are the most powerless group in society and often treated in ancient cultures as the least. They are the “last” of society rather than the “first.”

If the disciples want to “receive” the kingdom of God—if they want to participate in the kingdom of God—then they must become like little children. They must stand with those who are last; they must become servants. The kingdom of God is not populated with the “greatest” but with servants. They must become one of the least of these.

Jesus received the children just as the kingdom of God does. Jesus embodied the kingdom of God by embracing, touching (healing) and blessing these children. The church must do the same. Children are God’s people too.

The kingdom of God receives children, and the kingdom of God is populated by those who become like them—those who assume the last place rather than the first. The greatest are not those who promote themselves but those who place themselves at the end of the line among the last. In this sense they become like little children.