









































PaPers  55

Racism, the Doctrine of the 
Spirituality of the Church,  
and American Presbyterianism  
in the 19th Century
Michael Farrell, Library Director, Reformed Theological Seminary, Oviedo

ABSTRACT It is commonly argued that mid-19th-century American Pres-
byterians could be easily divided into two distinct groups. The first group 
consisted of Presbyterians who were Southern, pro-slavery, and defended 
the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. The second group consisted 
of Presbyterians who were Northern, anti-slavery, and dismissed the doc-
trine of the spirituality of the church. However, many Presbyterians did not 
fall neatly into one of these two categories, and the issues involved were 
complex. I will take a closer look at the split between Northern and South-
ern Presbyterians and show that the split itself and how it was remembered 
are tied to the way Americans in general viewed the causes of the war. I will 
show parallels between the struggles of Presbyterians during the Ameri-
can Civil War and the struggles of Atla membership as we consider when, 
how, and even whether our organization should be involved with issues of 
social justice and politics.

Within American Presbyterianism, the “Doctrine of the Spirituality of 
the Church” is often associated with racism (Tisby 2019, 85-86; Lucas 
2016). This is generally due to two reasons. First, the most articulate 
defenders of the idea were Southern Presbyterians such as James 
Henley Thornwell and Robert Dabney. These two were ardent sup-
porters of the Confederate States of America and defenders of the in-
stitution of chattel slavery as practiced in the United States; they used 
the Bible to defend the ideas of White supremacy and Black inferior-
ity. Second, the doctrine was used by Southern Presbyterians during 
the Civil Rights Era to justify inaction and silence on Civil Rights. This 
paper will not address the Civil Rights Era, but will instead focus on 

PAPERS



56  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

the relationship between racism and the doctrine of the spirituality 
of the church for American Presbyterians in the 19th century.

Over the years, Atla as an organization has struggled with wheth-
er and how to speak out on current events and social issues facing the 
United States. Often this is framed as a debate between conservative 
and progressive members, both institutional and individual. I will 
end this paper by drawing parallels between the Presbyterian experi-
ence of the 19th century and the Atla experience of the 21st century.

Before continuing it would be useful to address two important 
pieces of background information: the doctrine of the spirituality 
of the church and the causes of the American Civil War. What is the 
doctrine of “the spirituality of the church?” To put it simply, this doc-
trine says that the church should “stay in its lane.” That is the church 
should not try to transform culture, get involved with politics, or 
engage in activities that are not essential to its primary functions as 
described in the Bible. Defenders of the doctrine would say that the 
key activity of the church is corporate worship, especially the preach-
ing of the word, prayer, and the administration of the sacraments. In 
addition, defenders of the doctrine say that the church should not go 
beyond the Bible by making moral pronouncements that other Chris-
tians are bound to follow. Those opposed to the doctrine of the spiri-
tuality of the church would say that the church should be involved 
in trying to transform culture and build a society that conforms to 
Biblical ideals. They say that biblical principles can and must be ap-
plied in a variety of specific ways to the modern context.1

Before continuing we must also understand a little bit about what 
was going on in the nation during the American Civil War. We will do 
this by examining four quotes which capture the complex motives 
of both sides. This will allow for a better understanding of what hap-
pened at the Presbyterian General Assembly of 1861.

The first quote is from Abraham Lincoln. It is from a letter he 
wrote to the influential newspaper publisher of the New York Tribune 

1 H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture is long considered the definitive evalu-
ation of how Christian churches and cultures have interacted historically. 
However, some interpreters of Luther and Augustine believe he misunder-
stood their assessments. Niebuhr would likely place defenders of the doctrine 
of the spirituality of the church within the “Christ and Culture in Paradox” 
paradigm. However, most defenders of the doctrine would not describe their 
view the same way Niebuhr did.



PaPers  57

Horace Greely in 1862.2 Greely had published an open letter to Lin-
coln which he titled, “The Prayer of Twenty Millions.” In this letter, 
Greely, who was prone to doomsday hysterics, leveled three main 
criticisms against Lincoln. First, he thought Lincoln was too accom-
modating to the border slave states that had not seceded. Second, 
he thought Lincoln should enforce the “Second Compensation Act” 
recently passed by Congress, which allowed the federal government 
to free the slaves of Southern slaveholders who had taken part in the 
rebellion. Third, he thought Lincoln failed to recognize that ending 
slavery was key to prosecuting and winning the war. In his reply to 
Greely, Lincoln (1953, 5:388) said, 

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Con-
stitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer 
the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not 
save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not 
agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless 
they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My 
paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either 
to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any 
slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do 
it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would 
also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because 
I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because 
I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I 
shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever 
I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors 
when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall 
appear to be true views.

The date of this letter is interesting. Lincoln wrote it in August of 
1862, two days after Greely’s open letter appeared in the New York 
Tribune. In fact, Lincoln at this time had a preliminary draft of the 
emancipation proclamation sitting in his desk, but he was waiting to 
issue it for a better time militarily and politically. He did not want the 
American public and foreign governments to think that the Eman-
cipation Proclamation was a desperate measure, and so he waited 
until after he could claim a battlefield victory at Antietam to issue it. 
In his reply to Greely, Lincoln ignored the criticisms about the border 
states and not enforcing the Second Compensation Act, but he clearly 
answered Greely’s assertion that settling the issue of slavery was a 

2 The full text of Greely’s letter can be found here: https://www.americananti-
quarian.org/Manuscripts/greeley.html.

https://www.americanantiquarian.org/Manuscripts/greeley.html
https://www.americanantiquarian.org/Manuscripts/greeley.html


58  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

key war aim or even should be a key war aim. According to Lincoln, 
changing the status quo of slavery was not an important objective 
for the federal government.

The second quote is from Alexander Stephens. Alexander Ste-
phens was the vice president of the Confederate States of America, 
and he gave a speech a few weeks before the war began with the con-
federate attack on Fort Sumter. Stephens had only been vice presi-
dent for just over a month when he gave his speech saying:

The prevailing ideas entertained by Thomas Jefferson and most of the lead-
ing statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were 
that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; 
that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil 
they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men 
of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the in-
stitution would be evanescent and pass away. Those ideas, however, were 
fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of 
races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government 
built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.” Our new govern-
ment is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its 
corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the 
white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and 
normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of 
the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. 
Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordi-
nation and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are 
in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation 
of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or 
poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination 
is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that 
condition which he occupies in our system.3

Alexander Stephens was very clear in this speech which came to 
be known as the Cornerstone speech. He said that the Confederate 
States of America was a nation founded upon the ideas of slavery 
and white supremacy.

Contrast these quotes with two later statements from the same in-
dividuals. In his second inaugural address given in March of 1865, Lin-
coln (1953, 9:333) said, “One-eighth of the whole population were col-

3 Stephens would downplay the importance of the speech and claim that he was 
misquoted. The speech was delivered extemporaneously, so the only record is 
from transcriptions made by reporters covering the speech. Most historians 
believe the quote is authentic. A reliable transcript of the speech can be found 
here: https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/history-education-pss-civil-cor-
nerstone-transcription.pdf.

https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/history-education-pss-civil-cornerstone-transcription.pdf
https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/history-education-pss-civil-cornerstone-transcription.pdf


PaPers  59

ored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in 
the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful 
interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.”

The second quote again comes from Alexander Stephens; between 
1868 and 1870 he wrote a two-volume apology of the Confederacy 
entitled A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, 
and in it he wrote:

It is a postulate, with many writers of this day, that the late War was the 
result of two opposing ideas, or principles upon the subject of slavery…. 
Those who assume this postulate, and so theorize upon it, are but super-
ficial observers…. The conflict in principle arose from different and oppos-
ing ideas as to the nature of what is known as the General Government 
(Stephens 1868, 9-10).

Lincoln in 1862 said that the war was not about ending slavery while 
in 1865 he said it was. Alexander Stephens in 1861 said secession—and 
by extension the war—was a fight to preserve slavery and white su-
premacy, while in 1868 he claimed slavery was not a factor. We can 
reconcile these inconsistencies by observing that in 1861, the North was 
primarily fighting to preserve the union and establish the priority of 
the federal government over the state governments. To be sure, some 
fought with other motivations including the abolition of slavery, but 
preserving the union was the paramount goal for the North early in 
the war. This attitude is encapsulated by Lincoln’s 1862 letter to Greely. 
In 1861, the South was also fighting for a variety of reasons, but para-
mount amongst those reasons was the preservation and expansion of 
slavery and the maintenance of white supremacy. This attitude is re-
flected in Alexander Stephens’s 1861 “Cornerstone speech.” Over the 
course of the war the reasons for fighting and the goals for each side 
evolved. Ending slavery became a war aim of the North, and preserving 
slavery became less important to South. Soon after the war, the North 
wanted to remember the war as a crusade fought to end slavery. The 
South wanted to remember the war as a struggle for local control and 
limited centralized power. Both sides wanted to be remembered as the 
defenders of freedom. These new attitudes are captured in Lincoln’s 
Second Inaugural Address and Alexander Stephens’s book.

The “Lost Cause” myth, while rejected by most historians, is still 
the dominant interpretation of the Civil War in some parts of the 
country and assumed by a large portion of the population. While 
we don’t have time to thoroughly debunk it here, it inaccurately 
describes the motivations of those who fought for the South. They 



60  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

fought to preserve and expand slavery at least at the beginning of the 
war and many through to the end of the war. Even those who did not 
own slaves often fought for the idea of slavery and white supremacy 
and out of a fear of what emancipation might bring. They continued 
this fight for White supremacy after the war with opposition to Re-
construction and the establishment of Jim Crow society. The South 
fought for White supremacy, and it could be argued that they won. 
The Lost Cause myth is just that—a myth. However, there is a simi-
lar myth common to Americans outside of the South. This myth says 
that the North fought to end slavery and establish equal rights for 
Black Americans. At least in the beginning of the war, the North did 
not care about the fate of the slaves, only the fate of the nation and 
its continued unity. Ending slavery became a war aim for some later 
in the conflict, and some white Northerners fought with freed slaves 
to establish racial equity and equality during Reconstruction. This 
project was quickly abandoned as the nation slid back into the famil-
iarity and comfort of white supremacy. Neither the lost cause myth 
nor the myth of a moral crusade for racial equality are true and both 
ignore the complexity of shifting motives over the course of the war.

This context is important for us to understand as we consider the 
Presbyterian splits of the 19th century. The main split we will ex-
amine took place in 1861, when the goal for most Northerners was 
preserving the union and establishing the priority of the federal gov-
ernment, while in the South the primary concern was the protection 
and expansion of slavery and White supremacy.

The common interpretation of the 19th-century Presbyterian splits 
goes this way: Presbyterians in America were generally anti-slavery 
early in the nation’s history. As the denomination grew in the South, 
its assessment of slavery became more and more ambivalent. North-
ern liberals believed that slavery was a moral wrong. Further they 
believed it was the duty of the church to try to transform the Ameri-
can culture so that the country would rid itself of this moral stain. In 
addition, they took up other progressive moral causes such as tem-
perance and women’s suffrage. They downplayed the importance of 
doctrine and believed the Bible to be a human book filled with errors. 
Southern Presbyterians, on the other hand, believed that slavery was 
a moral good for society and both races. They also believed that the 
church had no business trying to change the culture even if slavery 
were morally wrong. These Presbyterians were theologically con-
servative, requiring strict subscription to the doctrines set forth in 



PaPers  61

the Westminster Standards and having a fundamentalist view of the 
Bible. Once the Civil War broke out, the two sides could no longer get 
along, and when Northern Presbyterians passed a resolution in sup-
port of the Union, Southern Presbyterians left to form their own de-
nomination (Tisby 2019, 78-80; Smylie 1996, 87; Longfield 2013, 94).4

This interpretation has at least three flaws. First, Presbyterians 
were not universally abolitionist prior to the growth of the denomi-
nation in the South. Second, the reasons behind the 19th-century 
Presbyterian splits were complex and did not revolve around the is-
sue of slavery. Third, many Presbyterians did not neatly fit into one 
of the two categories that I alluded to above and will detail further 
below. The association between the doctrine of the spirituality of the 
church and racism, while understandable, is not necessarily a fair 
one based upon what happened with 19th-century Presbyterians. I 
shall address each of these misconceptions below.

The first misconception is that Presbyterians at the turn of the 
century were anti-slavery and only became ambivalent about it as 
the denomination grew in the South. This misconception comes from 
the fact that in 1818 the Presbyterian General Assembly adopted a 
resolution condemning slavery. I won’t read the entire resolution, 
but it reads in part:

We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by an-
other, as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human 
nature; as utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to 
love our neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable with the spirit 
and principles of the gospel of Christ, which enjoin that “all things whatso-
ever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (General 
Assembly 1847, 692)

This seems like a clear and unambiguous condemnation of the in-
stitution of chattel slavery. However, this was actually a compromise 
position. The same statement goes on to warn against immediate 
emancipation as being harmful for both slave and master. It says that 
slaves were ignorant and vicious and likely to destroy themselves and 
those who enslaved them if they were to be freed. It called on Pres-
byterians to support colonization and the forcible removal of Blacks 
from the proximity of Whites, something that most freed slaves op-
posed (General Assembly 1847, 692-694). In addition, the same 1818 

4 Tisby (2019,78-80) acknowledges that the Old School/New School split was pri-
marily about worship and subscription, but he claims slavery also played an 
important role in the split.



62  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

General Assembly that passed this resolution also upheld the convic-
tion and defrocking of George Bourne, a Presbyterian minister who 
wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Book and Slavery Irreconcilable.” 
Not only did Bourne write this anti-slavery book, but he also barred 
people who owned slaves from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. 
The 1818 General Assembly sent mixed messages. On the one hand it 
condemned slavery, but on the other hand it also condemned those 
who condemned slavery (General Assembly 1847, 676).

The second misconception is that all of the 19th-century splits re-
volved around the issue of slavery. A closer examination of the splits 
reveals a more complex narrative. We don’t have time to describe 
in detail all the differences that led to the split between Old School 
and New School Presbyterians in 1838. However, two things need to 
be pointed out. First, Old School and New School Presbyterians dis-
agreed on things other than slavery. In fact, the heart of the disagree-
ment was really about subscription to the Westminster Standards. 
Other disagreements grew out of that fundamental disagreement. 
Old School and New School Presbyterians disagreed about the role of 
what we would now call parachurch organizations. They disagreed 
about whether and how to cooperate with other denominations. 
They disagreed about how to do evangelism. They disagreed about 
what doctrines should be taught from the pulpit. They disagreed 
about the role and importance of doctrine. They disagreed about 
who should be ordained as elders. They disagreed about the proper 
activities of the church.5 In short, they disagreed about nearly every-
thing that nearly every Presbyterian found important. Moreover, 
there were Old School Presbyterians who were anti-slavery, and 
New School Presbyterians who were pro-slavery. There were New 
School Presbyterians in the South and Old School Presbyterians in 
the North (Muether and Hart 2007, 126-127).

This leads to the third misconception, which is that you could eas-
ily place Presbyterians into one of two categories. The first assumed 
category consisted of Presbyterians who were southern, Old School, 
pro-slavery, theologically and socially conservative, and believed in 
the spirituality of the church, while the second category consisted 

5 Marsden (1970, 99) acknowledges that slavery was an important factor in the 
Old School/New School split, but not the primary cause of the division. Rather 
than a pro-slavery sentiment causing Old School convictions, it is more likely 
that Old School convictions happen to have been held more in the South than 
in the North.



PaPers  63

of those who were northern, New School, anti-slavery, theologically 
and socially progressive and did not believe in the spirituality of the 
church (Fortson 2013, 158-159). To address this misconception, we 
shall consider the Old School Presbyterian Split of 1861.

As previously mentioned, the Old School and New School split 
took place in 1838. The New School split again in 1858 over the issue 
of slavery. It would make sense that those who believed the church 
should make moral judgments on social issues would split if they 
could not agree on the most pressing social issue of the day, which 
was slavery. You then had a very small New School denomination in 
the South that was pro-slavery and a larger New School denomina-
tion in the North that was anti-slavery.

The Old School split took place soon after the Civil War started, 
when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter. A minister from New 
York named Gardiner Spring and his brother Charles put before the 
1861 General Assembly several resolutions about the crisis of South-
ern states seceding from the Union. After much back and forth that 
we can’t detail here, the General Assembly adopted two resolutions.6 
The first was a rather uncontroversial call to prayer and repentance.7 
The second resolution was what really caused the issue; it reads:

Resolved, That this General Assembly, in the spirit of that Christian patrio-
tism which the Scriptures enjoin, and which has always characterized this 
Church, do hereby acknowledge and declare our obligations to promote 
and perpetuate, so far as in us lies, the integrity of these United States, 
and to strengthen, uphold, and encourage the Federal Government in the 
exercise of all its functions under our noble Constitution; and to this Con-
stitution in all its provisions, requirements, and principles, we profess our 
unabated loyalty.8

6 Vander Velde (1932, 42-107) provides a detailed and lucid account of the back 
and forth that occurred in the 1861 General Assembly.

7 The first resolution reads, Resolved, That in view of the present agitated and 
unhappy condition of this country, the first day of July next be hereby set apart 
as a day of prayer throughout our bounds; and that on that day ministers and 
people are called on humbly to confess and bewail our national sins; to offer 
our thanks to the Father of light for his abundant and undeserved goodness 
to us as a nation; to seek his guidance and blessing upon our rulers and their 
counsels, as well as on the Congress of the United States about to assemble; and 
to implore Him, in the name of Jesus Christ, the great High Priest of the Chris-
tian profession, to turn away his anger from us, and speedily restore to us the 
blessings of an honorable peace.

8 The text of both resolutions, as well as the minutes for the General Assembly’s 
discussion of the resolutions, can be found here: https://www.pcahistory.org/
documents/gardinerspring.html

https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/gardinerspring.html
https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/gardinerspring.html


64  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

It is important to note what is and what is not in this resolution. 
This is a resolution calling for the preservation of the union. It is a 
distinctively Northern statement reflecting Northern priorities and 
attitudes at the beginning of the war. It is not an abolitionist resolu-
tion. It is not a resolution to study the sins or merits of chattel slavery 
as it was practiced in the South. It was a resolution calling on Presby-
terians to support the federal government in its efforts to maintain 
the union. It also enjoined Presbyterians to confess loyalty to the 
United States Constitution in a spirit of patriotism.

However, this was not just a nakedly political resolution. These 
were Old School Presbyterians who all ostensibly believed in the 
spirituality of the church. They agreed that the church is essentially 
a spiritual body and should not meddle in the civil government. The 
mission of the church was a spiritual one and not the transformation 
of society. Gardiner Spring and his supporters gave two justifications 
for the resolution. First, they cited Romans 13 as scriptural support. 
This is a passage of Scripture which calls on Christians to submit to 
the governing civic authorities. They saw this as a spiritual crisis 
because Scripture calls on Christians to obey the civil government. 
Second, supporters of the Gardiner Spring Resolutions pointed out 
that the Westminster Confession of Faith did allow for the church to 
speak out on civil matters in what the divines called “cases extraor-
dinary” (Vander Velde 1932, 70-72).

The opposition to the amendment was not led by Southern stal-
warts, Thornwell or Dabney, who are most closely associated with 
both the doctrine of the spirituality of the church as well as racist 
Presbyterianism. It was led by the pro-union, anti-slavery, confes-
sionally and theologically conservative giant of Princeton, Charles 
Hodge.9 Hodge not only led the opposition to the Gardiner Spring 
resolutions; he also offered an alternative resolution calling for 
peace, reconciliation, and prayer, which was not adopted by the 
General Assembly.10

Hodge addressed both the issue of submission to authorities 
and the issue of petitioning the government in extraordinary cases. 
Hodge agreed that Presbyterians were called to submit to our civic 

9 Hodge did not believe slavery itself to be a sin, but the way it was practiced in 
the United States to be a sin. He also argued for gradual emancipation. For more 
on the complexity of Hodge’s beliefs about slavery see Torbett (2006, 55-114).

10 For the full text of “Hodge’s Protest” see https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/
gardinerspring.html#8 For analysis of the protest see Vander Velde (1932, 66-68).

https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/gardinerspring.html#8
https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/gardinerspring.html#8


PaPers  65

authorities, but Northerners and Southerners disagreed on what au-
thority had primacy. Southerners said it was the state government, 
while Northerners said it was the federal government. As Presbyte-
rian ministers, Hodge claimed, we are not qualified to decide issues 
such as the constitutionality of secession or whether the state or fed-
eral government represents the prime authority. What the Gardiner 
Spring Resolution does is decide the issue.

None of this is to suggest that Charles Hodge believed that slav-
ery was not the cause of the war and that it was purely a question 
of states’ rights versus federal rights. In other words, Hodge did not 
accept the Lost Cause interpretation of the Civil War (which didn’t 
even really emerge until after the war). Rather, he was just comment-
ing on the text of the resolution itself as it was proposed, a resolution 
that did say the war was about the nature of federalism, states’ rights, 
and the extent of the power of the federal government—a resolution 
that did not even mention the word slavery.

The second issue Hodge addressed was the idea that the church 
could speak out on civil issues in “extraordinary cases.” This idea 
comes from chapter 31, section four11 of the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, which says:

Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing but that which is 
ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern 
the common wealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordi-
nary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto 
required by the civil magistrate.

Hodge argued that just as the church had declined to issue bind-
ing statements on the consumption of alcohol and the morality of 
slavery, it could not issue a binding statement on the issue of feder-
alism.12 Even if one were to grant that this was an “extraordinary 
case,” I would point out that the Gardner Spring resolution is hardly a 
humble petition or piece of advice required by the civil magistrate.13 

11 This is section 5 of chapter 31 in the original WCF. American Presbyterians ad-
opted a modified version of the Standards because of the different relationship 
between church and state in the American context.

12 Longfield (2013, 107) hypothesizes that Old School Presbyterians were pres-
sured by New School editorials to take up the Gardiner Resolutions and were 
caught up in the fervor of patriotism sweeping the North. See also Vander 
Velde (1932, 50) for how the press may have pressured New School acceptance 
of the resolutions.

13 The United States Government sent mixed messages to the assembly about 
what would be actions Lincoln’s cabinet wanted Presbyterians to take. Attor-



66  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

It was a demand of Presbyterians that they adhere to a certain politi-
cal view on the issue of federalism.

Neatly dividing Presbyterians into one of two camps does not fit 
the historical record. First, the 1861 General Assembly was held in 
Philadelphia. The fact of geography and the difficulty of travel during 
war meant that the General Assembly was dominated by Northern 
commissioners. But even though Southerners were largely absent, 
there was still substantial opposition to the Gardiner Spring resolu-
tions from commissioners that came from both border states and 
Northern states. Second, this was a split of the Old School Presbyte-
rian Church. Both sides held to the doctrine of the spirituality of the 
church. Third, the opposition to the Gardiner Spring resolutions was 
led by Charles Hodge, who was a Northerner, pro-union, anti-slavery, 
and theologically conservative. Hodge, however, did not have the 
support of most of the attending presbyters. The General Assembly 
passed The Gardiner Spring Resolutions on a vote of 156–66.

After learning of the passage of the Gardiner Spring Resolutions, 
the Old School Southerners left and formed a new denomination, 
the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States. Thornwell gave 
two reasons for forming a new denomination when they held their 
first General Assembly in Georgia in December of 1861. First, he ac-
cused the Northern Old School Presbyterian Church of abandoning 
the doctrine of the spirituality of the church with its adoption of the 
Gardiner Spring Resolutions. Second, he argued that Presbyterian 
churches were best organized along national lines, and he believed 
the Confederate States had formed a new nation with secession. 
Regarding slavery, Thornwell said that the issue was a matter for 
the government not the church to decide and advised the church to 
remain silent on the issue. He immediately ignored his own advice, 
however, and went on to affirm what he saw as the benefits of slavery 
for both slave and master (Thornwell 1974, 4:439-445). This inconsis-
tency was consistent with his earlier writings on slavery where he 
would say that the church should remain silent on the issue before 
going on to defend chattel slavery as it was practiced in the South 
(Balmer and Fitzmier 1933, 70-71). The Old School and New School 

ney General Edwin Bates said that it would be best for the Union cause if the 
Presbyterian Church stayed united and abstained from making any statement 
about the crisis, while Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase said that he saw no 
problem with an unequivocal statement in favor of the North (Vander Velde 
1932, 61).



PaPers  67

Presbyterians in the South would merge in 1864 before the close of 
the war and the old and new schools in the North merged in 1869. 
It would take until 1983 for the Northern and Southern denomina-
tions to reunite.

Most Old School Presbyterians in both North and South, while os-
tensibly holding to the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, in 
practice did not adhere to it very well either before or after the war. 
Robert Lewis Dabney, a Southern Presbyterian who was not at the 
1861 General Assembly, argued at the presbytery level in 1867 that 
black men should not be ordained as elders in Presbyterian Church-
es. He further argued that racial intermarriage was sinful and that 
freed slaves should not be allowed to vote. He did not make these 
arguments as a common citizen. Rather he made them as a presby-
ter. His arguments relied not on Scripture or the Westminster Stan-
dards, but on 19th-century pseudo-scientific racial theory (Dabney 
1967, 2: 199-217). When Dabney and Thornwell before him were at 
their racist worst, they were not actually upholding the doctrine of 
the spirituality of the church; rather they were abandoning it. They 
attempted cultural transformation (or preservation) at the expense 
of what they said should be the mission of the church. They tried to 
impose on Christians a moral system not found in the Bible, some-
thing that is a clear violation of the doctrine of the spirituality of the 
church. Old School Northerners also abandoned this doctrine. As the 
war developed into a moral crusade against slavery, Presbyterians fi-
nally adopted an anti-slavery resolution in 1864. They passed further 
resolutions calling for loyalty to the Union government, respect for 
the flag, and support for the war. After the war, the tradition of social 
activism continued with crusades against alcohol and for women’s 
suffrage.14 New School opposition to the doctrine of the spirituality 
of the church triumphed in both the South and the North, which 
provides an explanation for how the Old and New Schools in both 
regions of the country reunited shortly after the 1861 split…while the 
Northern and Southern denominations did not merge until 100 years 
later. New School and Old School Presbyterians in the North were no 
longer divided on the issue of the spirituality of the church because 
neither denomination practiced it. Moreover, they found themselves 
united around moral issues. In the same way, New School and Old 

14 For a summary of some of the resolutions adopted by Northern Old School 
Presbyterians, see Vander Velde (1932 183-279).



68  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

School Presbyterians in the South were no longer divided on the is-
sue of the spirituality of the church because neither denomination 
really practiced it (although Old School Southern Presbyterians con-
tinued to defend the doctrine and brought it out when convenient, as 
seen during the Civil Rights era). Like their Northern counterparts, 
Southern Presbyterians were united on the moral and social issues of 
the day, and that was enough to achieve a reunion. Politics trumped 
doctrinal consistency in both the North and the South.

It was not adherence to the doctrine of the spirituality of the 
church that allowed for white supremacy to flourish within Ameri-
can Presbyterianism. Rather, it was the abandonment of the doctrine 
that allowed for racism to fester. The Southern church certainly used 
the doctrine to prevent the church from speaking out against slavery 
and other social policies, but they then ignored it when making their 
own defense of slavery and White supremacy (Noll 1998, 52). The 
problem for Presbyterians was not the doctrine of the spirituality of 
the church, but racism. Racist attitudes and actions were a problem 
both for those who held to the doctrine and those who did not. The 
doctrine of the spirituality of the church was used to support racism, 
but racism is not a necessary consequence of the doctrine. Moreover, 
the abandonment of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church was 
used to bolster racist attitudes and systems.

If the doctrine of the spirituality of the church is not necessarily 
to be associated with white supremacy and the defense of slavery, 
is it then a good thing? Critics have pointed out that it leads to other 
problems, such as political inaction and silence on important moral 
issues, and it results in churches being on the wrong side of history. 
However, these fears are overblown. Members of a church that holds 
to this doctrine are free to engage in political activities as citizens 
of the kingdom of man. While the church as an institution does not 
engage in politics, its individual members are free to do so without 
fear of condemnation by the church. Further, such freedom leads 
to political diversity within the church as a multitude of political 
beliefs are is freed to focus on its main mission and avoid mission 
creep while its members are free to represented, including libertar-
ians, conservative republicans, and liberal democrats. The church 
engage in political activity or not. This neutrality allows members 
to take political actions that they believe are effective and consistent 
with their values. For instance, members may agree that poverty is 
a problem but disagree about how to address this problem. These 



PaPers  69

members would then be free to vote for policies consistent with their 
different approaches to poverty alleviation without fear of condem-
nation by the institutional church. Critics also argue that the church 
which holds to the spirituality of the church loses political clout, be-
cause as an organization it carries more weight politically than its 
individual members do. However, I don’t believe we saw this in the 
Presbyterian experience of the 19th century. The organizational po-
litical activity of the church was reactive rather than proactive. It is 
difficult to see how political engagement on the part of the church 
as an institution had any impact on the course of the war or on ad-
vancing the freedom of slaves (Marsden 1970, 101). It seems the only 
tangible result was the split of the church and the dilution of its abil-
ity to carry out its mission as a united body. Finally, the doctrine of 
the spirituality of the church protects the church from engaging in 
well-meaning but ultimately foolish political entanglements. Pres-
byterian support for Prohibition is just one of many such examples. 
Dabney’s defense of racist social systems would be another example.

From time to time, Atla members have expressed a desire for Atla 
to become more politically outspoken, much like its larger counter-
part, the American Library Association. However, the mission of 
Atla as expressed by the Board of Directors in 2020 is rather simple. 
It states, “The mission of Atla is to foster the study of theology and 
religion by enhancing the development of theological and religious 
studies libraries and librarianship.” The mission is clarified with a 
series of statements telling why Atla exists. Atla exists so that:

Librarians and information providers in theology and religion 
are connected in a sustainable and diverse global community 
at a cost that demonstrates good stewardship of resources.

This is further defined to include but not limited to the following:

1. Users have access to quality academic and professional 
resources.

1.1 Open access resources and special collections are available 
and discoverable by librarians and information profession-
als.

2. Institutional leaders have an awareness of the trends im-
pacting the religion and theology library ecosystem.

3. Librarians and information providers are growing in their 
competencies and skills.



70  aTLa 2022 PrOCeeDINGs

3.1 Librarians and information providers demonstrate com-
petencies in diversity, inclusion, equity, and antiracism.

3.2 Information professionals are able to successfully navigate 
the changing landscape.

3.3 Librarians and information providers have access to pro-
fessional development in technical and digital skills.

3.4 Information professionals have opportunities to innovate. 
(Atla Board 2020)

Nowhere in the mission statement is Atla as an institution called 
upon to transform society or address issues not related to theologi-
cal librarianship. This is the only reason that Atla can exist with its 
current membership that includes ideologically diverse institutions 
and individuals. It is essential that Atla remain neutral on certain 
things such as politics and doctrine, allowing individual members 
to make their own statements about current events, politics, and the 
moral concerns of the day. Instead of a battle between conservatives 
and liberals within Atla, neutrality would allow for unified efforts in 
those areas we hold in common and are described in the Atla mis-
sion. Atla does not have a spiritual mission like the church. Rather it 
has a library mission, but the principle is the same. If adherence to 
the doctrine of the spirituality of the church could have preserved 
the unity of Presbyterians in the 19th century, then perhaps adher-
ence to the “Libraryness of Atla” can preserve the unity of our insti-
tution even while our members and the entire nation become more 
polarized.

REFERENCES

Atla Board of Directors. 2020. “Mission and Organizational 
Ends.” Atla. https://www.atla.com/about/mission/. Atla Board 
of Directors. 2020. “Mission and Organizational Ends.” Atla. 
https://www.atla.com/about/mission/.

Balmer, Randall and John R. Fitzmier. The Presbyterians. Westport, 
CT: Greenwood Press.

Dabney, Robert L. 1967. Discussions: Evangelical and Theological. 
Vol. 2. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust.

Fortson, S. Donald. 2008. The Presbyterian Creed: A Confessional 
Tradition in America 1729–1870. Milton Keynes, UK: 
Paternoster.

General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
of America. 1847. Minutes of the General Assembly of the 

https://www.atla.com/about/mission/
https://www.atla.com/about/mission/


PaPers  71

Presbyterian Church in the United States of America from its 
Organization A.D. 1789 to A.D. 1820 Inclusive. Philadelphia: 
Presbyterian Board of Publication.

Hart, D. G., and John R. Muether. 2007. Seeking a Better Country: 
300 Years of American Presbyterianism. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R 
Publishing.

Lincoln, Abraham. 1953. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Vols. 
5 and 9. Edited by Roy P. Basler. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 
University Press.

Longfield, Bradley J. 2013. Presbyterians and American Culture. 
Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Lucas, Sean Michael. 2016. “Owning Our Past: The Spirituality of 
the Church in History, Failure, and Hope.” Reformed Faith and 
Practice 1, no.1: 25-38.

Marsden, George M. 1970. The Evangelical Mind and the New 
School Presbyterian Experience: A Case Study of Thought and 
Theology in Nineteenth-Century America. New Haven, CT: Yale 
University Press.

Noll, Mark A. 2006. The Civil War as Theological Crisis. Chapel Hill: 
University of North Carolina Press.

Smylie, James H. 1996. A Brief History of the Presbyterians. 
Louisville: Geneva Press.

Stephens, Alexander. 1868. A Constitutional View of the Late War 
Between the States. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: National Publishing 
Company.

Thornwell, James Henley. 1974. The Collected Writings of James 
Henley Thornwell. Vol. 4. Edited by B. M. Palmer. Edinburgh: 
Banner of Truth Trust.

Tisby, Jemar. 2019. The Color of Compromise. Grand Rapids: 
Zondervan.

Torbett, David. 2006. Theology and Slavery: Charles Hodge and 
Horace Bushnell. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Vander Velde, Lewis G. 1932. The Presbyterian Churches and the 
Federal Union 1861-1869. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press.


