National Reform and the Rights of Conscience
By C. M. S.
The sixth annual session of what the National Reform Association terms its Christian Citizenship Institute was held at Winona Lake, Ind., August 8–19. There were twelve speakers on the program, representing different phases of the work of the National Reform Association. Rev. William Parsons, of Portland, Ore., spoke upon the general theme of the home, the influences affecting it, and the legislation which the association considers essential to the preservation of the home. Rev. J. S. Martin, the general superintendent of the organization, gave a series of eleven addresses upon the general theme of education and character, as interrelated and interdependent. Rev. R. C. Wylie gave a series of ten addresses upon the general theme of the social message of the gospel. Rev. F. F. DeLong spoke twice upon the general topic of Romanism, dwelling upon the power and purposes of Rome, the necessity of an awakening, and whatever the Roman Church is doing to mold to her liking the education given in the public schools. Dr. G. W. Grannis, the secretary of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, addressed the institute twice upon the necessity for stricter Sunday laws together with Elder and Sunday-law enforcement. Dr. S. F. Scovel, the president of the organization, gave three very carefully prepared addresses upon “Christian Citizenship,” “Christian Internationalism,” and “The World-Wide Meaning and Mission of National Reform.” There were other speakers who gave from one to three addresses each, which did not in any material way go into the real principles which the National Reform Association was organized to promulgate. In fact, some of these were not far from the principles which we hold, notably so the address of Dr. J. K. McClurkin on “John Knox and His Banner.” The bold stand of Knox for liberty of belief and the right to teach the gospel unhindered by a religion-and-state government, was ably set forth by this speaker. His example was held up as worthy of the approval of every Christian; but this address seemed strikingly out of place in an institute of this character, whose purpose is the very same as that of the intolerant queen, in spite of whose interdicts Knox preached the gospel to the people of Scotland. What that intolerant ruler demanded was uniformity in religion. The religion which she held was good enough for her realm. A uniform belief was more to her liking than individual independence in matters of faith and conscience; so she proscribed Knox and his religion, and made them outcasts from the realm. Said Dr. S. F. Scovel, in his address on August 19, on “The World-Wide Meaning and Mission of National Reform:”— Uniformity is essential both to peace and progress. The opinion of the majority must be decisive. Even in the matter of men’s consciences a degree of uniformity is necessary. We would allow the greatest amount of individual rights of conscience consistent with the necessary uniformity. It is your duty to take care not to disturb the convenience of your neighbor. In England, when people meet, they turn to the left; but in France they turn to the right. If in England you should turn to the right, or in France you should turn to the left, you might get killed or kill somebody. So the only possible way for you to do is to go to the right when the law ordains it, or to the left when the law ordains that you go to the left. The state must have its opinion and its law, and the church and family must have their opinion and their law, and somehow or other we must come to an agreement. Note the unavoidable conclusion of this teaching: Uniformity is necessary, even in matters of conscience. Whichever way the law ordains for you to go, that way you must go. Then the “agreement” which the doctor says must be between the law of the state and the opinion of the individual is such an agreement as exists between the lion and the lamb when they have lain down together—the one inside the other. There is no longer any discord between the two; uniformity has been achieved. It was this sort of uniformity which the queen of Scotland sought to bring about between herself and John Knox. As that intolerant ruler made John Knox and his religion outcasts from the realm, so does this National Reform organization seek to make outcasts of all who assert their God-ordained right of freedom of conscience, not only from this country but from every country in the world where they shall be able to establish their unchristian régime. Said the Rev. Dr. William Parsons to the writer, while discussing the question of the rights of the individual in matters of conscience:— The only possible way I see out of the difficulty is for you good people to find some spot on the face of this earth where you can carry out your ideas, and then go there and stay there. We replied that we had heard statements previously made by members of that organization to the same effect; but that there was a much better and more Christian solution of the difficulty, and that was to apply the golden rule, and recognize in one another the rights of conscience; that under such a program the seeming difficulty would vanish away. The argument of Dr. Scovel, though polished and plausible, is a veritable apology for every persecution of Christians by heathen in every part of the world, and of every persecution of Christians by so-called Christians since miscalled Christianity went onto an earthly throne in Rome. It is an apology for the brutalities of the Inquisition, the fires of Smithfield, and the disgraceful cruelties of colonial America, practised in the name and to the shame of religion. “The opinion of the majority must be decisive,” says the president of the National Reform Association. So said the heathen of the New Hebrides when they ate the missionaries who came to them with the gospel of peace and salvation; and National Reformism can not consistently reprimand or accuse them for their act. The colonial governments said the same when they whipped and banished and hanged and sold into slavery those who thought it more necessary to follow the leadings of God’s Word as they understood it than to profess to believe what they did not believe—for the sake of uniformity. And the National Reform Association can give no consistent denunciation of those cruel acts, because they were done in the cause of uniformity. The accusation of the Jews against Christ was on the very same basis. They believed in uniformity. The teachings of Jesus were out of joint with theirs. There was not the necessary degree of uniformity; and so14they slew him. What denunciation has National Reform for the crucifixion of our Redeemer?—It has none; for it is wedded to the doctrine of the necessity of uniformity in matters of religious faith and practise. Standing upon that platform, it stands side by side with every persecutor that has ever oppressed a child of God. Standing there, it stands side by side with Rome, both pagan and papal, in her warfare upon the Word of God and upon the liberties of the individual in matters of faith. Uniformity of expression is not the essential in religion, but conformity with the divine Word and will, unhindered by any human intermediary or interloper. There is nothing so essential in the religious life as absolute freedom to follow the leadings of the divine mind. Whosoever comes between another individual and God, in order to make that individual’s religious faith and expression conform to his own, has put himself in the place of God to that individual, and shut out the light of heaven. But that is what the whole National Reform propaganda stands for. It denominates the rights of the individual in matters of faith merely “so-called rights,” or “miscalled rights,” and puts the necessity for uniformity above all such rights. The similarity between the position taken by the National Reform Association and that now being given expression to by Roman Catholicism in European countries, is strikingly apparent. In Spain and Portugal and France and Austria the Roman Church is now, and has been, demanding uniformity. If the National Reform position is right, Roman Catholicism is right. She has refused to allow freedom of religious faith in those countries. To do so would be to admit that uniformity is not essential. Therefore Protestant places of worship must be secluded, and must not display any sign to indicate that they are places of worship. For them to do so might bring in a lack of “the necessary degree of uniformity.” So she has forbidden them; and because she would not yield, the rusty chains on the prison door where she has held the intellect of the people incarcerated for centuries are beginning to break under the heaving strain of prisoners who have a right to be free. The despotism of uniformity was demonstrated through the Dark Ages. It is more than a coincidence that this organization, whose work is to be so influential in causing the people of this world to worship that great antichristian power known in Holy Writ as “the beast,” should be enunciating principles so similar to the principles which that power stood upon throughout the Dark Ages, and still stands upon.