p. 290 | Untitled article

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 18, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 37

Why the Government Should not Employ Chaplains.

SUNDAY, August 24, Rev. J. B. Hawthorne, D. D., the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, Georgia, preached in the First Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. On this occasion, Dr. Hawthorne chose for his text the words of the Saviour: “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” The following paragraphs are from a report of his sermon, published in the Washington Post, of August 25:—

We have the freest and best Government in the world, and yet it is sometimes oppressive, because it steps out of its own sphere to meddle with affairs that belong exclusively to the realm of religion. We boast of having a land where Church and State are completely dissevered, but our boast is not literally and absolutely true. The things that are Cæsar’s are sometimes mixed in with the things that are God’s; and those unlawful and unhallowed complications result from our lack of understanding as to the relations which should ever exist between religion and the State. It is our duty to obey the powers that be, except when the powers that be interfere with the discharge of our obligation to the kingdom of Christ.

The function of the State is simply to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights, and the encouragement thereby, of all good conduct in earthly affairs. All questions of religious duty are above the reach of the State’s control, and should be left to God and his providence, to the Saviour and his people, and to the power of truth and love, acting upon the untrammeled conscience. The State has the right to provide for its own protection and perpetuity. It has the right to remove ignorance by providing for the education of the people; and it has the right to restrain . . . vice, on the ground that ignorance and vice endanger the very existence of the State. But when it goes further than that and attempts to establish or foster any form of religious belief or worship, it steps upon forbidden ground, and violates the very rights of man which it was instituted to protect.

The work of the Church is spiritual. Its legitimate authority is spiritual, and only spiritual. The work of the Church,

is to seek by the agency of divine grace and truth to bring men into right spiritual relation with God and one another, to prepare them thereby for happiness and glory in the life to come.

The authority of the State is secular. It is not in the remotest degree spiritual. The solitary function of the State is to protect men in the exercise of their natural rights. By natural rights, I mean those pertaining to life, liberty and property. This conception of the relations between Church and State is one for which Baptists have battled and suffered through centuries of despotism and persecution. They were the first to champion the cause of liberty, and in the progress of the fight they have held their places in the front rank of Christ’s army and have been the greatest sufferers. . . . I have said the function of the State is limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. If the duty of the State is to protect human life, it follows that the State has the right to enact laws that will prevent the destruction of human life. . . . Now these are statements which no honest man in his right mind will controvert. And when we admit that the State has these rights and ought to exercise them, we commit ourselves to the principle that it is the right and duty of the State to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors except for medicinal and mechanical purposes. Political demagogues have attempted to mislead us by saying that the State, in legislating upon the subject, has trespassed on the domain of religion. They know, as well as we do, that it is doing more to shorten human life than any other cause. They know, as well as we do, that when the State prohibits the traffic it is simply fulfilling its obligation to protect the lives of the people. . . .

We cannot afford to receive help from the State in building our houses of worship. The principle is wrong. The money which the Church appropriates to this purpose is taken partly from the pockets of people who do not believe in the Christian religion. They are thus compelled by civil power to support an institution in which they have no interest, and for which they have no sympathy. It is not only an injustice to them, but an injury inflicted upon us and our cause. Churches that are supported by the State, rather than by the free offerings of the people, lose their spirituality, cease to be aggressive, and degenerate into the deadness of the coldest formalism.

The appointment of chaplains to Congress, to the Army and Navy, and to our State Legislatures, is a custom which strikes at the very first principles of free government. Any man must see that this signifies more than the protection of the Christian religion. It is patronage. These chaplains are appointed by the Government, they are paid by the Government, and they are responsible to the Government for the manner in which they perform their official duties. We are bound to admit that the Government can just as consistently appoint a Mohammedan or a Buddhist to a chaplaincy in the Navy as a Presbyterian or a Baptist. It is a violation of the organic laws of the Republic, and an outrage upon the sacred right of conscience to appoint either. If there is one man more than another who needs the benefit of public worship, it is the average congressman; but it is not the duty of the Government to provide for him this spiritual help. Let members of Congress take money from their own pockets to support the men whom they choose to lead them in the morning devotions, and let the officers and privates of the Army do the same.