A Kingdom Divided: Evangelicalism in the American Civil War

February 26, 2024 Pastor Chris Oswald

Thesis The spiritualized neutrality that border-state evangelicals adopted during the Civil War era—dismissing slavery as merely political—represents a morally compromised position that is being replicated today by evangelicals who claim neutrality on contemporary cultural conflicts.

Series

—

Type

Topical

Tone

—

Method

—

What's in this sermon

The shape of the argument

23 units across exposition, application, illustration, theological claim, and conclusion. The pastor's argument is built from these moving parts.

Pastoral correction · unit #18

"Oswald reads Holm's contemporary applications, noting he disagrees with her leftist prescriptions but affirms her diagnosis that neutrality is a privileged position. He distinguishes his own response to BLM as equally political but different in content—calling for repentance rather than claiming neutrality."

Doctrinal loci· 4 surfaced

Ecclesiology · 16 Ethics / Moral Theology · 14 Pastoral Theology · 4 Bibliology · 1

Illustrations· 2

historical example · unit #11 — Oswald offers evidence from pastoral correspondence showing that border-state pastors explicitly calculated their congregational composition when deciding their stance on slavery, revealing the political rather than theological nature of their neutrality.
historical example · unit #20 — Oswald reads the story of Matthew Simpson's transformation from scrupulous political neutrality to vigorous moral engagement following the Fugitive Slave Act. He emphasizes that Simpson's harshest critics were fellow border evangelicals who urged him to maintain neutrality for the church's sake, revealing the pattern of neutral evangelicals opposing moral engagement.

Theological claims· 4

The evangelical reshuffling we're seeing right now is falling along very similar lines to the evangelical reshuffling we saw in the lead-up to the Civil War, where denominational division preceded and predicted national conflict. unit #1
The neutral, spiritualized position was the most unchristian and politically calculated because it prioritized institutional preservation over allowing God's Word to shape life and policy. unit #10
The strategy of political neutrality and spiritualized detachment proved ineffective at preventing division. unit #14
Border evangelicals' neutral position was a privileged stance that valued church unity over justice and mistook the debate for the problem rather than recognizing slavery itself as the evil. unit #15

Quotations· 15

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work. We are in touch to bind up the nation's wounds." — Abraham Lincoln (unit #2)

"both sides read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other" — Abraham Lincoln (unit #3)

"the rupture between the north and the south had come earliest in the great Protestant sects, and there it was the slowest to heal" — C. Van Woodward (unit #5)

"the Southern churches became, for a time, centers of resistance to the invasion of the Northern culture" — C. Van Woodward (unit #5)

"I thank God that I am not responsible for the state of things existing" — Elisha Phelps (unit #13)

"it can hardly be said that we belong to either north or the South" — A Missouri Presbyterian (unit #13)

"Border state evangelicals clung to the hope that political neutrality and spirituality could prevent the division of God's kingdom in the United States. Ultimately, these strategies proved ineffective." — April Holm (unit #14)

"attempting to remain neutral was not only appealing. It also acquired a patina of virtue." — April Holm (unit #15)

"they came to view the debates, instead of slavery itself, as the most pressing problem their churches faced" — April Holm (unit #15)

"when moral principles are the ground of controversy and when the discussion turns upon the great questions of human rights, then no tongue should be dumb, no press should be silent" — Matthew Simpson (unit #19)

"Not only will you be caluminated, slandered, but the whole Methodist church may be drawn into the whirlpool of politics" — An Indiana resident (unit #20)

"the political debate could never make the church one whit more spiritual" — A former student from western Virginia (unit #20)

"My most intimate friend has not heard me express an opinion, even as to my own vote. I am not active in political life." — Matthew Simpson (unit #20)

"leave off the fugitive Slave law from this time henceforth and forever" — A former student from western Virginia (unit #20)

"abide by the fact by the act and allow prudence and a little time to let the controversy come to rest" — Another reader from Indiana, Kentucky Border (unit #20)

Read it

Full transcript

25,835 characters 23 units ~29 min reading time Listen instead →

0 · Oswald introduces the podcast as a discussion of his recent reading about how evangelicals navigated the Civil War, specifically focusing on attempts at spiritualized neutrality

Hello, hello, hello. Welcome to the Providence Podcast. My name is Chris Oswald, senior pastor at Providence Community Church. This is a very short podcast, I think, intended to discuss some reading I've been doing about the Civil War, specifically the way that evangelicals handled the issues of the Civil War, and even more narrowly, how some sought a pathway of spiritualized neutrality that they hoped would allow them to navigate this issue without splitting their churches, and so on and so forth. This is a fascinating book written in 2017 or published in 2017 by April Holm. I believe she's a professor in a Louisiana state school, if I remember correctly. The book is called A Kingdom Divided, Conflicting New Dimensions of the American Civil War. And originally I thought I might read one of the main chapters to you, this is a book that, if you're at all interested in the Civil War, would be maybe the first book to grab because it attempts to navigate a lot of the issues from a theological perspective, which I think many of you would actually find interesting. It's $15 on Kindle, and it's, like, super expensive. It's one of these academic books that are just not published very often or there are very few copies of. So you probably are only going to want to buy this on Kindle.

1 · Oswald establishes the historical parallel between the Civil War era and today, arguing that denominational splits preceded and predicted the Civil War

One of the things I think maybe would be helpful to communicate to you before I read this little section that I've chosen is just to remind you that I think this is pretty relevant for our time. And of course, the reason I'm reading all of this is because I'm seeing some relevance. So the Civil war starts in 1861, about a month and a half from today, in April of 1861. And what I want to draw to your attention, that is an underlooked fact, is that just how influential church Christian culture was at that time. Right. You know that. And how the three main denominations, the three main Protestant denominations which held just overwhelming sway in the culture at that time were the Methodists, the Baptists and the Presbyterians. And well before the Civil War, each one of those denominations split over this issue. Need to qualify that with one thing, but just give me a second. So the Methodists actually split over this issue in 1844, and the Baptist split in 1845. The Presbyterians held out longer, but only because they had already split over some other theological issues that sort of were tangentially related to slavery enough so that they retained some semblance of unity until 1858. The specifics there is they split in 1837 over theological issues which also tended to shuffle the parties in Presbyterianism into pro and anti slavery camps to some degree. And then in 1858, three years before the start of Civil War, even the Presbyterian split. Now what I think is really important to note is that this evangelical reshuffling we're seeing right now is falling along very similar lines to the evangelical reshuffling we saw at that time leading up to the Civil War. And two things to note. One, the church was divided on these things before the country was. Well, the country was divided, but there was no civil war. The church, the denominations were having their own civil wars around 10 years prior to the Civil War breaking out in the United States. And there were many wise senators, both in the north and the south, around the time of these denominational splits that saw that as essentially a death warrant for the Union. Their logic, which seemed pretty sound, was essentially that if these denominations, which hold so much sway over our country and over our people are splitting over this issue, then it's only a matter of time until outright war breaks out. And I think they were correct on that.

2 · Oswald outlines the three positions that emerged during the Civil War era: pro-slavery, abolitionist, and a supposedly neutral 'third way

And so there were three divisions, essentially three positions. And one we could just say was exceedingly pro slavery. And then the other one would be an abolitionist perspective, which was sort of exceedingly anti slavery. And then there was some kind of, typically some kind of a compromise, some kind of a third way position. And it's really the third way position that April Holm considers to be significant and worth considering. Now remember one of the features of the Civil War, it was a geographic war, right north and South. And so you had even just in geography, these border states. And one of the main thesis of her books is that these border states had sort of a built in incentive to attempt a neutral position, which wound up being basically a theologically spiritualized position. So in that day, the border states were the border state pastors. The border state churches were the churches that argued that slavery was a political issue and that the church had no business being in politics. So you would see a very pro slavery position taken amongst ministers in the South, a very anti slavery position taken against many ministers in the north, though not all by any means. And then you would see this sort of third way neutrality sort of attempt that was in my opinion, transparently political. So I think that many times when these hotbed issues arise in a culture, those that are seeking to remain neutral, they're making the most political calculations of everybody. They're really trying to keep a body, an institution, a church together and so on and so forth. So those are some background details. Now let me just Read. She wrote a conclusion at the end of her book, April Holmdid. That, I think would be worth reading to you in its relatively short. Looks like it's probably five or six pages. Okay. The conclusion is titled the right as God gives us to see the right. And she begins by quoting Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural dress in 1865. With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work. We are in touch to bind up the nation's wounds.

3 · Oswald quotes Lincoln's observation that both sides claimed God's support, highlighting the depth of religious division

So Abraham Lincoln charged the nation in his 1865 second inaugural address as he faced the challenge of Reconstruction. Lincoln referenced the divisive potential of religious conflict in his war. He observed both sides read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes his aid against the other. In acknowledging that both Northerners and Southerners claimed God's support for their side, Lincoln was drawing attention to the deeply divergent interpretations of the Civil War that existed in two regions. Lincoln argued that God gives to both north and south this terrible war. Therefore, each side should accept blame, bury their antagonism, and reunite to rebuild the nation. His call for malice toward none reflects the depth of enmity that existed between the sections. Malice, of course, also persisted between the northern and southern branches of the major evangelical Protestant churches in the United States. Sectionalized religious responses to the end of the war suggested that reunion in the churches would not come swiftly. Northerners demanded loyalty to the Union, prompt denominational reunion. Southerners rejected calls to celebrate the reunited nation and assumed their denominations would remain separate along the border. Evangelicals hoped that the end of the war would mean the end of politics in the pulpit.

4 · Oswald reiterates that the ecclesiastical civil war preceded the national war and persisted long after the national conflict ended, emphasizing the durability of church division over the slavery issue

The Civil War in the churches began well before 1861. This is the point I was making at the beginning, that the denominations actually had, you know, had a civil war before the Civil War. The Civil War in the churches began well before 1861 with the Division in major evangelical denominations, and it lasted well beyond Union victory, Reconstruction, and redemption.

5 · Drawing on C

C. Van Woodward observed that the rupture between the north and the south had come earliest in the great Protestant sects, and there it was the slowest to heal. This was because, he argued, the Southern churches became, for a time, centers of resistance to the invasion of the Northern culture. The enduring rift in the major evangelical denominations has largely been ignored in explanations of the failures of Reconstruction and the limitations of reunion. But the Southern churches remain demonstrable strongholds of Southern exceptionalism. The story of division in the churches serves as a Reminder that reunion did not occur evenly and equally across all facets of civil society. Northerners and Southerners may have reunited and experienced reconciliation in some areas, but in other areas, sectional difference and sectionalism persisted. This was particularly true of the churches. They did not reunite after the war and instead they institutionalized sectional division.

6 · Oswald pivots from historical description to contemporary application, noting that significant ecclesiastical division requires sharp disagreements and substantial theological error, and that such divisions do not heal quickly

So I think that if we are witnessing an evangelical civil war right now, I think one thing that take away is that it probably takes a lot to cause that division. Sharp disagreements. And to be clear, in the case of the Civil War, one side was just flat out wrong in a substantial way. I'd say both sides were wrong to some degree, but there was massive theological error taking place in particular in the south because they were not just saying slavery is okay, but it is a biblical good. So this division that occurred, it wasn't going to be quickly healed.

7 · Oswald maps the Civil War's three positions onto contemporary evangelicalism: anti-woke (his own position), pro-woke, and neutral

And as we look at sort of evangelicalism today, I identify essentially three positions. One would be a conservative, almost reactive anti woke position, and that would be the position I hold. And that would be essentially the identification of Marxism and so on as an actual culture that is seeking to seduce the minds of my flock and my neighbor and so on and so forth. And so I've taken a reactive, explicitly anti Marxist position, seeing it as the God of this age in some respects. So there's that position that would be where you would see Moscow, Idaho, Doug Wilson and many others, quite frankly, that don't make the news. So there's that position and then there's essentially a decidedly pro woke position which is rainbow flags out in front of the church. And if not that now, then that soon. And then there's a neutral, a borderlands kind of position that essentially and it seeks the moral high ground by calling both sides over politicized. And so these three positions are pretty well established now. It's worth noting that those three positions have corollaries in the Civil War between the interdenominational Civil War from 1844 to say, 1858, and that those things did not go away after there was a resolution to the Civil War.

8 · Oswald reads Holm's analysis of how post-war Southern evangelicals constructed Lost Cause mythology and denominational narratives of victimization

The Narrative of the Evangelical Churches after the Civil War I'm back to reading now. The narrative of the evangelical churches after the Civil War intersects with two histographic schools. One is the study of the myth of the Lost Cause that took root in post war south. And the other is the study of reconciliation and reunion between the north and the South. Polemical denominational histories demonstrate that post war Southerners depicted dedicated a great deal of energy to constructing a history that legitimized the Confederate cause and glorified Southern culture and virtue. Evangelicals played an important role not just in shaping the Lost Cause narrative in southern civil religion, but also in developing their own internal denomination. Specific myths of causes lost and won. These later myths would persist even as reconciliation occurred elsewhere in southern society. The Methodist conflicts over the plan of separation, Southern Baptist grievances about post war Northern missionaries, and the memories of the wrongs done to the Declaration and testimony synods in the Presbyterian Church all became fodder for this mythology. The persecution of border evangelicals and the response of border moderates became key components in constructing an account of non political southern churches that predated the Civil War.

9 · Oswald reads Holm's argument that secular reunion historiography emphasizes reconciliation at the expense of justice, and that late 19th-century reunion events functioned similarly to evangelical fraternal agreements—not hastening real reunion but prolonging division by acknowledging sectional difference while curtailing overt conflict

Unlike scholars who examined the myth of the Lost Cause, historians of post war reunion focused on the national process through which the north and south were reunited by agreeing on an acceptable version of the past, usually at the expense of civil rights and social justice. Like studies of Lost Cause mythology, however, reunion studies also emphasize the retelling of the past and shaping of public memory. The Civil War Continued division in the major evangelical churches stands in marked contrast to the sort of national reunion that occurred through milestones of reconciliation such as veterans gatherings, tourism, the Spanish American War, the election of Woodrow Wilson. Reunion could only occur because so much sectionalism still existed. The post Reconstruction decades might look different if we viewed late 19th century reunion events as. As secular analogies. I'm sorry, as secular analogs of fraternal relations and comedy agreements in the evangelical churches during the same period. These agreements did not so much hasten real reunion as prolong the process. They served to curtail overt sectional antagonism while protecting and acknowledging sectional difference. By the end of the 19th century, border evangelicals were no longer central to narratives of denominational difference.

10 · Oswald argues that the neutral position proved the most unchristian and politically calculated

So here we. What we're seeing here is that the three positions, the position that became just obviously wrong, obviously perhaps remarkably most unchristian, was the position that was purely apolitical, intentionally neutral. There's an argument to be made that the anti woke and the woke are more theologically aligned in one respect. They expect that the teachings of the gospel would manifest in policy, in life, in the way things go. And so at the end of the Civil War, you had these three positions. You had the border position, which was a neutral, a spiritualized neutrality position. You had the southern position, which was a spiritualized pro slavery position. And then you had the north position, which was everything ranging from abolition, which was really a radical position, to something less than abolition, but was still anti slavery. And by the time the Civil war is over. Really those neutral people are the ones that look, are in some ways it's hard to say this because obviously the pro slavery people were just wrong. But there's an argument to be made in some respects that at least they argued for their position from this expectation of God's Word having an effect in the world. And so did the northerners. But these border folks were really like I said before, in some sense the border folks were playing the most politics. They were trying to keep their churches together.

11 · Oswald offers evidence from pastoral correspondence showing that border-state pastors explicitly calculated their congregational composition when deciding their stance on slavery, revealing the political rather than theological nature of their neutrality

In another chapter there are all these letters presented by April Holm from border state pastors and missionaries, including Kansas and Missouri. And they will just straight overtly in their letters make an inventory of their congregations and say, okay, I have a few people here who own slaves. I have a few other families here who are from slave owning traditions and they're really playing politics in their church because their church is a border church. It's a split congregation on this subject.

12 · Oswald reads Holm's observation that border evangelicals' stories became tools for justifying ongoing division, ironically serving the very sectional separation they had originally opposed

Okay. By the End of Back to Reading by the end of the 19th century, border evangelicals were no longer central to narratives of denominational difference. However, their stories served as the justification for separate sectional faiths after the Civil War, they became part of the history of the southern branches and therefore part of the frequently rehearsed catalog of wartime Yankee abuses. This was an ironic turn, given that it was the border evangelicals themselves who first opposed division over slavery and prioritized the preservation of denominational unity.

13 · Oswald presents examples of border evangelicals articulating their commitment to neutrality, showing how they framed their position as spiritually superior and expressed hope that avoiding politics would preserve unity

In their opposition to division and conflict within the church, border evangelicals embraced a theology of spiritualized Sorry. Border evangelicals embraced a theology of spirituality and political neutrality. I thank God this is a quote. I thank God that I am not responsible for the state of things existing, wrote Elisha Phelps after the Methodist Baltimore Conference lay meeting late in 1860. Both the conference and the nation itself threatened to divide. Despite his own effort to maintain the unity of the church, Phelps feared the politicians in church and state would drive the conference apart. A border Baptist was determined to take a high, neutral stand. Knowing no north or South. A Missouri Presbyterian remarked, it can hardly be said that we belong to either north or the South. Border state evangelicals clung to the hope that political neutrality and spirituality could prevent the division of God's kingdom in the United States.

14 · Oswald emphasizes Holm's verdict that the neutral strategy failed, marking this as the crucial takeaway from the historical analysis

Ultimately, these strategies proved ineffective. That's to me, the key sentence. Border state evangelicals clung to the hope that political neutrality and spirituality could prevent the division of God's kingdom in the United States. Ultimately, these strategies proved ineffective.

15 · Oswald reads Holm's diagnosis of the moral failure of neutrality: border moderates valued institutional peace over justice, came to see debate rather than slavery as the problem, and convinced themselves of moral superiority while failing to recognize that their detachment was a privilege unavailable to those actually suffering under slavery

Remaining neutral in the debates over slavery and succession meant valuing church unity over the freedom of millions of enslaved African Americans. Still, it is not difficult to understand the appeal of neutrality in the face of divisive moral and political conflicts. Border moderates were profoundly disturbed to see debates over slavery and succession break up their churches and denominational institutions. As a result, they came to view the debates, instead of slavery itself, as the most pressing problem their churches faced. Let me say that one again. As a result, they came to view the debates, instead of slavery itself, as the most pressing problem their churches faced. In the polarized landscape of mid-19th century, political arguments could generate explosive conflict. Sound familiar? Within this context, attempting to remain neutral was not only appealing. Oh, this is such a good sentence. It also acquired a patina of virtue. It also acquired a patina of virtue. Thus, moderate white border clergy convinced themselves of their moral superiority to those who engaged in partisan debates. They could not see that the ability to dismiss the slavery debate as purely political was a privilege not available to everyone. African Americans, for example, had no such luxury.

16 · Oswald breaks from reading to directly address contemporary evangelicals claiming neutrality, arguing they are detached from real suffering caused by contemporary ideologies just as border-state pastors were detached from the suffering of slaves

Now I don't want to get too preachy, but these people who are claiming the moral high ground of a spiritualized neutrality are really, they're clueless. They don't live in a world where people are suffering as a result of statism, Marxism, queer theory, and so forth. They simply don't see the people perishing and suffering. It's exactly as it was with the border state neutrality. It is a position that belongs to those who do not live amongst the slaves. It is a position available to those who are enough removed from reality. Often, often professional clergy with very little dirt under their fingernails. Very little redemptive neighbor loving dirt under their fingernails. I'll stop. That's far enough.

17 · Oswald reads Holm's argument that as neutrality became untenable, border evangelicals came to see themselves as victims and migrated to pro-slavery denominations, demonstrating that attempted neutrality ultimately served the pro-slavery cause

Within this context, attempting to remain neutral was not only appealing, it also acquired a patina of virtue. Thus, moderate white border clergy convinced themselves of their moral superiority to those who engaged in partisan debates. They could not see that the ability to dismiss the slavery debate as a purely political matter was a privilege not available to everyone. African Americans, for example, had no such luxury. In fact, as parties on both sides pressured them to declare their loyalties and the possibility of remaining neutral dwindled and disappeared. Neutral evangelicals began to perceive themselves as victims. When the war was over, neutrality about slavery was no longer an option in the northern churches. Border evangelicals who had once affiliated with the north and who had hoped to return to pre emancipation status quo, felt persecuted by their denominations. This sense of persecution led them away from the northern churches. They began to affiliate instead with southern churches which continued to defend slavery even after it had been abolished. Thus, attempts to remain neutral regarding slavery ultimately led to membership in pro slavery denominations.

18 · Oswald reads Holm's contemporary applications, noting he disagrees with her leftist prescriptions but affirms her diagnosis that neutrality is a privileged position

This attempt by moderates to remain neutral in the face of moral disputes reverberates in present day conflicts. No kidding. April, I'm so glad you said that. It reveals why many people turn to moderation or neutrality as a strategy in the face of intensely charged conflicts. And it offers an explanation for why people who attempt to remain neutral come to feel that they occupy the moral high ground. This is the logic that led many Americans to advise to go slow in response to demands for equality during the civil rights movement. This reasoning likewise found voice in the proponents of colorblindness rather than affirmative action. Now, now, this chick's a leftist, so she's going to give prescriptions here that I don't agree with, but I agree there should be prescriptions. I think that's the universal takeaway here is we got to do something now. She's going to be colorblind is bad, affirmative action is good, so on and so forth. In fact, let me read the next sentence. This reasoning likewise found voice in the proponents of colorblindness rather than affirmative action as a solution to structural racism in the late 20th century. Indeed is the logic of those who responded to the Black Lives Matter movement of early 21st century with the Blythe rebuttal, all lives matter. These responses are available only to those who are not themselves victims of segregation and racism. Such responses might seem like Solutions here in 2020 when the when there was such great racial disharmony at play. I was not an All Lives Matter guy in that sense. I was a urban community. Repent of your forsaking, of fathering. Repent of your. Repent of your striving for revenge. You know, I was just as political. I wasn't trying to make the issue go away. I was not trying to just sort of outlast the issues, trying to argue that this is a great moment to take aside and trust in the Lord and so on and so forth.

19 · Oswald introduces Matthew Simpson's declaration that when moral principles and human rights are at stake, silence is not an option—a statement made in response to the Fugitive Slave Act that Oswald identifies with his own journey from neutrality to engagement

So that's enough of that's about the whole chapter. There's one more thing I'll just read that I thought was pretty descriptive of my journey. This is written by a Methodist memory, says Kentucky or Ohio or something like that. In the 1850s, when moral principles are the ground of controversy and when the discussion turns upon the great questions of human rights, then no tongue should be dumb, no press should be silent. This is Matthew Simpson in response to the Fugitive slave Act in 1850.

20 · Oswald reads the story of Matthew Simpson's transformation from scrupulous political neutrality to vigorous moral engagement following the Fugitive Slave Act

Now listen to how Holm describes Simpson's own journey. At 38, Simpson had served as president at two Methodist colleges and had spent two years as the editor of the influential Cincinnati Western Christian Advocate. He had become a leading light within the church. And he had also, in remarkable contrast to his early beliefs, become a vigorous controversialist. Seven years prior, during his tenure as president of Indiana Asbury Simpson scrupulously avoided revealing even a hint of his own political views. My most intimate friend has not heard me express an opinion, even as to my own vote, simpson had avowed in 1843. I am not active in political life. In 1848, Simpson accepted the editorship of a Western Christian Advocate with a pledge to avoid controversy and make the paper strictly a church paper for the defense of the doctrines of the polity of Methodism. This non confrontational ethos was representative of antebellum broader evangelicals. However, the Compromise of 1850 and the passage of the Fugitive Slave act in particular impelled Simpson to take a public stand on a political issue. Simpson, always privately anti slavery, published an editorial in opposition to the act in his newfound political voice. The harshest criticism Simpson received for his editorial came not from southerners, but from fellow broader Methodists. Not only will you be caluminated, slandered, but the whole Methodist church may be drawn into the whirlpool of politics, an Indiana resident cautioned. This correspondent also warned Simpson that he was at risk of being branded as abolitionist. A former student from western Virginia urged Simpson to leave off the fugitive Slave law from this time henceforth and forever, arguing that the political debate could never make the church one whit more spiritual. Another reader from Indiana, Kentucky Border, urged Simpson to abide by the fact by the act and allow prudence and a little time to let the controversy come to rest. But much to the dismay of border moderates, it seemed that prudence and patience had vanished from the formerly sober minds in the north and the South. Simpson was just one of many evangelicals who publicly engaged with the moral and political debates surrounding slavery and westward expansion. During these years, however, border evangelicals often clung stubbornly to the hope that the careful separation of the moral and the political was possible and that moderation could prevent alarming agitation.

21 · Oswald identifies Simpson's journey as representative of his own and others in his 'camp'—a movement from non-controversialist quietism to moral engagement, with the harshest criticism coming from supposedly allied evangelicals urging neutrality

That's pretty representative of, I think, a lot of men that are in my camp. We have a pretty robust history of being non controversialists. And then just there was some moment where there was a recognition of these are moral issues, these are spiritual issues, these are gospel issues, we have to speak into them. And then most of the pushback not coming from the people that are actually. You're actually opposing slaveholders or, you know, whatever, but from people who were supposedly in your camp, essentially telling you to sit down and don't rock the boat.

22 · Oswald closes by acknowledging the length of the episode, expressing hope that the historical context will help listeners understand their current situation despite the controversial nature of the material, and offering a pastoral benediction

So. Okay, well, that went a lot longer than I expected. 31 minutes is a long podcast for me. Thank you so much for listening. I will get out of this, hopefully with only a few controversies raised. Not my intention to be controversial, but boy, I've been reading this and thought this is something I think can really give folks a bit of historical context to understand their current situation. Okay, well, be well. May God bless you and richly keep you. Have a wonderful week. Goodbye.

Where this fits

Recent preaching context

The three sermons immediately preceding this one in the preaching schedule.

Feb 9, 2024

When Friends Become Enemies

When a friend becomes an enemy, the believer must resist the temptation to fight back and instead trust the Lord to vindicate, recognizing that God uses even betrayal to teach us that He alone is perfectly faithful.

Feb 11, 2024

Strengthened by Grace

Christians are strengthened to endure hardship not by minimizing difficulty or by viewing grace as mere forgiveness, but by mental discipline that remembers the cosmic, reigning Christ who secured unlimited grace at infinite cost and now rules with all authority.

Feb 18, 2024

Toward Theological Endurance

Theological endurance—the unwavering commitment to biblical doctrine regardless of cultural pressure or personal cost—is developed by seeking God's approval above human belonging, treating theological ideas with reverent seriousness rather than casual openness, and standing firmly on the foundation of God's Word rather than the shaky ground of human reasoning.

February 26 · This sermon

A Kingdom Divided: Evangelicalism in the American Civil War

The spiritualized neutrality that border-state evangelicals adopted during the Civil War era—dismissing slavery as merely political—represents a morally compromised position that is being replicated today by evangelicals who claim neutrality on contemporary cultural conflicts.

Take it further

Discuss · apply · pray

Small groups

6 discussion questions

Chris described three evangelical positions during the Civil War era: those who engaged prophetically against slavery, those who engaged for…

Daily readings

5-day reading plan

This week we trace how the evangelical church's response to slavery—through division, neutrality, and eventual engagement—illuminates our present moral and ecclesiastical moment.

Prayer

Grace to Speak Truth in a Divided Hour

Father, we come before You acknowledging that You alone are Lord over the nations and that Your Word, not human calculation, must shape how…

Family table

When the Church Stayed Silent

This sermon traced how evangelical churches in the 1800s often chose neutrality on slavery to preserve unity—a choice that looks eerily fami…

Couples

When Silence Becomes a Choice

The sermon showed how evangelicals in the 1800s thought neutrality on slavery protected the church—what convictions or injustices do you sen…

Memorize

Amos 5:24

This verse captures the sermon's central conviction that biblical Christians cannot spiritualize away the call for justice in concrete moral and political matters—a conviction that exposes the 'unchristian' nature of the neutral position adopted by many evangelicals both then and now. It anchors the truth that God's Word must shape not only personal piety but also our engagement with systemic evil and public ethics.

Small-group discussion

6 questions for your group this week

Chris described three evangelical positions during the Civil War era: those who engaged prophetically against slavery, those who engaged for it, and those who claimed neutrality. What made the neutral position seem wise or faithful at the time, and what did its advocates believe they were protecting?

→ Looking back now, what did that neutrality actually accomplish?
The sermon argues that neutrality on slavery was actually 'the most unchristian and politically calculated' stance. Walk us through that logic—how can a position that avoids taking sides be more unchristian than either alternative?

→ What was the underlying assumption that made neutrality feel safe or biblical to those who held it?
Chris suggested that contemporary evangelicalism is reshuffling along strikingly similar lines to the pre-Civil War period. What are the parallels you're observing in your own circles, and what does that pattern suggest about what might be coming?

→ Are there issues today where you notice this same three-way split emerging?
The sermon identifies a 'fallen condition focus'—the tendency to mistake the debate itself for the problem rather than the injustice that sparked the debate. Where do you see that happening today, and what makes it so easy to fall into?
If the gospel of Christ compels us neither toward detachment from the world's suffering nor toward political partisanship, what does it actually compel us toward when we encounter injustice or moral compromise in our society?

→ How would a pastor or church leader discern that calling without defaulting to either neutrality or the world's political categories?
Chris noted that the harshest opposition to pastors who moved from neutrality to engagement came not from the culture but from fellow evangelicals demanding continued silence. What does that tell us about how we tend to police one another in the church, and what would it look like to courageously speak truth while still loving those who call us to be quiet?

Draft · pending review

Daily readings · Monday–Friday

5-day reading plan

This week we trace how the evangelical church's response to slavery—through division, neutrality, and eventual engagement—illuminates our present moral and ecclesiastical moment.

Monday 1 Corinthians 12:12-27

Paul's vision of the church as one body with many members reveals that theological and ethical schism does not merely signal disagreement—it reflects fundamental rupture in our corporate witness. When evangelicals divided denominationally over slavery, they were not merely organizing differently; they were severing the body's capacity to speak and act as one. We cannot claim unity in Christ while fragmenting over justice.

Tuesday Amos 5:21-24

Amos confronts worshippers whose ritual devotion masks their indifference to injustice: 'I hate, I despise your religious festivals… But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.' This was the prophetic rebuke to border evangelicals who sang hymns while protecting slavery. Spiritual retreat from moral clarity is not piety; it is complicity dressed as humility.

Wednesday Proverbs 24:11-12

Scripture asks: 'If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?' Neutrality on slavery was not ignorance but calculation—a choice to preserve institutional comfort over rescuing the perishing. The same logic haunts contemporary evangelicalism: we cannot claim neutrality on injustice without God's Word exposing our hearts as complicit.

Thursday Galatians 2:11-14

Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing fellowship to appease the circumcision faction, saying his hypocrisy threatened the very gospel. Border evangelicals' call for unity and neutrality functioned identically—they treated the *conflict over slavery* as more divisive than *slavery itself*. When we ask prophets to be silent for peace, we make a covenant with injustice.

Friday 2 Timothy 4:1-5

Timothy is charged to 'preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.' The contemporary pastor who abandons neutrality for prophetic clarity will face the same heat Simpson endured—accusations of politicization from those who confuse gospel fidelity with institutional peace. We are called to faithfulness, not comfort.

Draft · pending review

Pray together this week

Grace to Speak Truth in a Divided Hour

Father, we come before You acknowledging that You alone are Lord over the nations and that Your Word, not human calculation, must shape how we live and speak in our time. We confess that we have often chosen the comfort of neutrality over the costly faithfulness of prophetic witness. Like the evangelicals of the Civil War era who spiritualized away the evil of slavery to preserve institutional peace, we too are tempted to retreat from moral clarity, to call complexity what Scripture calls sin, and to mistake institutional survival for faithfulness. Forgive us for the times we have valued church unity more highly than justice, and for the ways we have treated the debate itself as the problem rather than confronting the evil at its heart.

But we rejoice that in the gospel, Christ has broken the power of fear that keeps us silent. He has redeemed us from the tyranny of human approval and seated us in heavenly places with Him, freeing us to speak truth in love without calculating the cost to our comfort or our reputation. In Him, we are not bound by the false choice between prophetic courage and pastoral tenderness; the gospel itself teaches us to hold both. We thank You that the same grace that saved us now empowers us to address injustice with biblical clarity and to refuse the hollow compromise of neutrality.

Grant us wisdom to discern the great moral questions of our day through the lens of Scripture rather than the categories our culture offers. Give us courage to speak when silence would be easier, and give us pastoral hearts that seek the good of our neighbors even when our words bring opposition—especially from those demanding our continued retreat. Strengthen our local churches to be communities where truth is spoken in love, where justice is pursued not as partisan politics but as the overflow of the gospel, and where we stand together in prophetic faithfulness to Your Word. We commit ourselves to You, asking that You would complete the good work You have begun in us, conforming us ever more to the image of Christ, who came not to bring false peace but the truth that sets us free.

Draft · pending review

Sunday-evening family table

When the Church Stayed Silent

For the parent

This sermon traced how evangelical churches in the 1800s often chose neutrality on slavery to preserve unity—a choice that looks eerily familiar today. Use this prompt to help your family see how silence on serious moral questions isn't actually neutral; it's a choice with real consequences.

The sermon mentioned that some church leaders in the 1800s tried to stay 'neutral' on slavery to keep their churches from splitting apart. What do you think happens to a church—and to people who are suffering—when leaders decide a big moral problem is 'too political' to talk about from the pulpit?

works for ages 9+ — younger children can listen and offer simple observations; teens and adults will engage the harder implications

Draft · pending review

Couples · three questions over coffee

When Silence Becomes a Choice

The sermon showed how evangelicals in the 1800s thought neutrality on slavery protected the church—what convictions or injustices do you sense the Spirit might be calling us to speak into, even if it feels safer to stay quiet?
Where might we, as a couple, be tempted toward the comfort of neutrality on issues God's Word addresses clearly, and how could we encourage each other toward courageous, gospel-rooted engagement instead?
What is one area where you need your spouse's prayers and support as you seek to live out biblical conviction—not political calculation—in how we speak and act?

Draft · pending review

Memory verse this week

Amos 5:24

But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

Why this verse: This verse captures the sermon's central conviction that biblical Christians cannot spiritualize away the call for justice in concrete moral and political matters—a conviction that exposes the 'unchristian' nature of the neutral position adopted by many evangelicals both then and now. It anchors the truth that God's Word must shape not only personal piety but also our engagement with systemic evil and public ethics.

Draft · pending review

Where this was preached

About the church

Providence Community Church

Lenexa, KS
Sundays · 10:00 AM
About us · What we believe

Plan a visit →

Crawler & AI-search policy · view robots.txt and llms.txt

This sermon page is intentionally optimized for search engines and AI assistants. We've opted into being crawled by both. The crawler-config files at the domain root:

/robots.txt

User-agent: *
Allow: /

User-agent: GPTBot
Allow: /

User-agent: ClaudeBot
Allow: /

User-agent: Google-Extended
Allow: /

User-agent: PerplexityBot
Allow: /

Sitemap: https://sermonsteward.com/sitemap.xml

/llms.txt

# Providence Community Church

A church preaching expository sermons through the books of the Bible.

## Sermons
- [When Friends Become Enemies (2024-02-09)](/ProvidenceLenexa/sermons/2024/02/when-friends-become-enemies)
- [Strengthened by Grace (2024-02-11)](/ProvidenceLenexa/sermons/2024/02/strengthened-by-grace)
- [Toward Theological Endurance (2024-02-18)](/ProvidenceLenexa/sermons/2024/02/toward-theological-endurance)
- [A Kingdom Divided: Evangelicalism in the American Civil War (2024-02-26)](/ProvidenceLenexa/sermons/2024/02/a-kingdom-divided-evangelicalism-in-the-american-civil-war)

## About
- [About the church](/about)
- [Plan a visit](/visit)

The page itself ships with Schema.org Article + Church markup (with real geo coordinates), Open Graph + Twitter cards for share previews, and a canonical URL. Transcripts are server-rendered HTML — no JS dependency for the readable body.