Why Didn’t the Practice of the Love of Christ Preclude the Civil War?

Sharing is caring!

I know it sounds naive to even ask this question, but if America in the early 19th century could be regarded as primarily a “Christian” nation, meaning the Bible was taken seriously by the culture in general, most churches, with some variance, held to historic Christian doctrine, and Christian norms were the assumed standard for conduct, then why didn’t the practice of the love of Christ gradually decimate slavery in the south and cause racial tension to lessen? In other words, why didn’t the love of Christ, which all Christians claim to revere and practice, preclude the Civil War?

We know what happened after the Civil War: many denominations split north and south, with churches in the north generally becoming more liberal, stressing the social gospel and social change through political action, while churches in the south generally remained conservative, stressing the historic doctrines and personal salvation through faith in Christ.

The positive effect of northern liberalism was that it expected society to be different because of the presence of the church within society. The problem with northern liberalism, however, was that it eviscerated the faith, often denying, among other things, the miracles of the Bible, including the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the necessity of inner transformation through a salvation experience.

One tragic example of this attempt to transform society through public policy while ignoring the need for personal salvation and transformation is the effect AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children, a program started in the 30’s and extended to blacks during President Johnson’s “War on Poverty”) had on the black community. It completely decimated the black family by marginalizing black men and making single black mothers and their children virtual wards of the state.

The positive effect of southern conservatism, on the other hand, was that it preserved the core of Christianity, holding fast to the authority of the Word of God and the need for personal salvation. But southern conservatism had its own problem: it viewed Christianity as a status quo religion, as a way to preserve the social order, not dramatically change it.

One sad result of this status quo view of Christianity in the south was that it gave tacit approval to Jim Crow laws that institutionalized racial segregation during Reconstruction. In fact, the church itself continued as a segregated church, with black Christians and white Christians worshiping in different buildings, a blatant practical heresy.

Which brings me back to my original question: why didn’t the practice of the love of Christ by Christians in the early 19th century preclude the Civil War? I believe the answer is that the church didn’t understand completely the radical nature of what it means to practice the love of Christ, with the result that it didn’t live out the love of Christ, nor did it expect the love of Christ to effect social change. Instead, it focused solely on individual salvation.

The lesson to be learned is this: Preserving Christianity’s core doctrines, observing the authority of the Word of God, living out its moral imperatives, and emphasizing the gospel and salvation by grace through faith are absolutely critical. But so is the practical implementation of the love of Christ, a calling that is often contrary to social norms and therefore sometimes extremely difficult.

This post first appeared in NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________

Learn how to form teams of men for every widow, single mom

and fatherless child in your church at NewCommandment.org.

_______________________________________________________________