# 1925 Baptist Faith and Message



## Particular Baptist (May 5, 2010)

Recently, I came across a very interesting figure in Southern Baptist history named Joseph Judson Taylor, who "was a Baptist pastor who was a consistent Southern Baptist pacifist and a man with an impressive resume. He served as vice-president of the Home Mission Board, president of Georgetown College in Kentucky, and pastor of the First Baptist churches of Mobile, Ala., Knoxville, Tenn., and Savannah, Ga. First Baptist Savannah released him from his pastoral duties in 1917 because of his opposition to the First World War. He later served as vice-president of the SBC in 1922. Although not a member of the 1925 BF&M committee, Taylor pressed for an article in the 1925 BF&M on “Peace and War.” " I did a little more reading on the state of Southern Baptist peace stances before, during, and after WWI and found that before the US entered the war, many Southern Baptists were against the US entering into any war. During the war, of course with the propaganda that Wilson's administration threw at the American public, that opinion gave way to war-fever. But, thankfully, the sickness was quelled in the post-war era of the 1920s when Baptists became, quite possibly, the most anti-war they've ever been. This can be seen with the example of Taylor, who because of his pacifist beliefs was forced to resign from his current church during the war and then was elected as VP of the convention at the 1922 meeting. 

When reading the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message and comparing it to the other revisions from the 1960s and 2000, one can see how the pacifist tendencies of the convention came to the fore. This is interesting to note how Calvinistic the SBC was in its statement of faith in 1925, yet how pacific it was at the same time. 

Here's the Peace and War statement from the 1925 B. F&M:



> XIX. Peace and War
> 
> It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.
> 
> ...



Here's the link to the website for comparisonThe Baptist Faith & Message


----------



## Herald (May 5, 2010)

I don't view that section of the 1925 BFM as problematic. Christians, and nations, should oppose everything likely to provoke war. What it does not address is when war has been provoked by others. There seems to be a lot of gray areas in that chapter. How should Christians respond when war, or the threat or likelihood of the same, is brought to them or their nation? I think I can appreciate Taylor's conviction. It's hard to preach the Gospel when you're pointing a gun at someone. I wonder what the SBC's opinion was of pacifism during WW II?


----------



## Particular Baptist (May 5, 2010)

I agree that it is vague, and it's somewhat good that Christians on both sides of this subject could rally around this point. From the small amount of online reading I've done, it seems that before and after WWI, the mood in the SBC and the country at large was very pacific. It seems that as the U.S. under Woodrow Wilson changed their opinion about entering the conflict, so did the Christian community. Taylor stood strong in his conviction probably in part because, like you stated, it is hard to preach the gospel when you're pointing a gun at someone. I'm not sure of the SBC's position during WWII, I would speculate to say that it changed with the ebb of American opinion. 

But, Bill, you do bring up some very interesting questions about why the 1925 BFM doesn't more fully describe how the Christian should react when war has been provoked. Maybe this is a bit off subject, but I would like to see how the Just War tradition can ever justify a war based upon all the components necessary for a Just War. Will all the components ever be there?

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Here's some articles about Joseph Judson Taylor and Baptist pacifism for those interested. 

Presidents of Georgetown College: Joseph Judson Taylor

Baptist attitudes toward war and peace since 1914. | Goliath Business News

Article: Baptist attitudes toward war and peace since 1914. | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

Point of View: BF&M Commentary 24: Peace and War - Florida Baptist Witness -



Joseph Judson Taylor: Baptist Pacifist in a Time of War on EthicsDaily.com


----------



## Herald (May 5, 2010)

Warfare is so much different than it was during WW I, and even most parts of WW II. Less and less do we see armies opposing each other with defined fronts. Combatants are often not uniformed. Terrorism has become a widely used tactic of modern warfare. China recently proved that there is non-traditional weaponry, such as the internet, with wide spread denial of service attacks. There are countless ways to wage war today, whereas the available options were much more limited in decades and centuries past. I bring this up because the provocations that lead to war may not resemble historical representations of warfare. The attacks of 911 saw civilian transport used as weapons. The recent attempted car bombing in Times Square is similar. So, instead of Christians maintaining a non-belligerent status, belligerence is being brought to them. I'm not saying that is cause for every Christian to pick up a weapon. It's simply a statement that current world events are complicated, and what constitutes provocation may be something that, in years past, we may have considered benign. There is no doubt that the church's highest calling is the proclamation of the Gospel. The question is whether that high calling exempts the church from war and threats of war that are thrust upon it?


----------



## Particular Baptist (May 5, 2010)

Warfare has changed much, but I wonder how much it really has changed. Nothing is new under the son and though in the past there have been much more civil ways of waging war (if we can even call it civil), the methods (of blending in with the civilian population, using un-orthodox means and torture) of modern day terrorists are not. 

The problem I've come across, since I'm still on the fence on this issue, is how do we justify violence? Does Christ's command to love our neighbor as ourself have limits? Also, if we are to use the Just War theorgy to justify war, what wars have EVER been fought that can be said to accord with the criteria for a just war. Or, are we simply to take a majority of the criteria? What criteria are more important than the others, if there are inequalities at all?

The criteria for a just war are:

Just Cause
Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations.


Legitimate Authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war.

Right Intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose.

Probability of Success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

Proportionality
The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

Last Resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
Noncombatant Immunity
Civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians.

Proportionality
In the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property.

Right Intention
Even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.


----------

