Untitled article by A. DELOS WESTCOTT

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · October 9, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 40

Why not Teach Sectarianism?

By A. DELOS WESTCOTT

SINCE the contest upon the question of religion in the public schools began, people talk about sectarianism as if it were something worse than small-pox or the plague. Notwithstanding this, every one of them teaches his own children sectarianism, if he teaches them any religion at all. All definite religious doctrines are sectarian, because they are not universally received. No doctrines could be formulated that would be adopted by all; and as surely as they were accepted by only a part of the people, so surely they would be sectarian in their character. A division of mankind formed upon the basis of religious doctrines held by them, constitutes a sect, and the doctrines which they hold are sectarian. Christianity is sectarianism, and it is the right kind of sectarianism, too. And as the Bible is distinctly a Christian book, it is likewise sectarian, and cannot be taught without teaching sectarianism.

“But,” says one, “we do not object to such sectarianism as that; we want that in the public schools; but we do not want such sectarianism as is held by the Methodists, the Presbyterians, or the Baptists. We do not want any sectarianism that is narrower than Christianity itself. Of course Christianity is the right kind of sectarianism, and it is that for which we are working.”

Now my friend, I have a question to ask. If all you have said is true, why do you belong to the Methodist Church? Why don’t you leave it and adopt Christianity instead of Methodism? Certainly you should want the best, and if Christianity is the right kind of sectarianism and Methodism the wrong and dangerous kind, why don’t you exchange and get that which is good and safe? Or, if you are a Presbyterian, why do you not exchange your Presbyterianism for Christianity? “Oh, but,” you say, “we as a church believe that Methodism is Christianity. You see Christianity has to be defined, and Methodism, Presbyterianism, etc., etc., are simply so many definitions of Christianity.” Exactly, you have stated the case very plainly. But do you not see that if Christianity should be taught in the public schools, it would have to be defined? And if a definition of Christianity constitutes sectarianism of the dangerous kind, how could Christianity be introduced into the public schools without introducing dangerous sectarianism?

Wherever Christianity goes, some definition of it must go also; and that definition will be just as truly sectarian as is Methodism or any other creed. If it were not sectarian, it would not be worth having. A “non-sectarian Christianity” would be a religion so poorly defined, so loose jointed and wishy-washy, that it could be stretched in any direction to suit the ideas of even the infidel and the pagan, so that all would willingly adopt it as their own. Such a religion would not be Christianity at all, and nobody desires any such thing, or intends to have it. Those who are working for religion in the public schools intend to have something that is definite, and that cannot be stretched to mean anything or nothing at all. They intend to have a new definition of Christianity, which in the very nature of things cannot be accepted by all; and this new definition will be as truly sectarian as any which has preceded it, and all those who accept it will, taken together, constitute a sect.

If sectarianism is a bad thing, then all the denominations had better disband and give up their sectarian definitions of Christianity, and never make any more. But if it is a good thing, they had better keep on instructing their own children in their own sectarianism at their own expense, and in their own way. But whatever they do, let them forever cease trying to force their sectarianism upon the public schools, which are not sectarian. A. DELOS WESTCOTT.