p. 1, para. 1 | Untitled article by W. H. M.

Untitled article

W. H. M.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 15, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 36

To those to whom he gave the heritage of eternal life, he said that it was theirs because they had given him food when hungry, water to drink when athirst; had clothed him when naked and cold; visited him when sick and in prison; and, when a stranger they had received him gladly. But as for the others, when he had been hungry, they had not fed him; when he had thirsted, they had not given him drink; they had not clothed him when cold and naked; when he was in prison and sick they had not visited and comforted him; when he came a stranger among them, they had shut the door upon him.

When they both alike disclaimed having done, or having failed to do, all this to him personally, he said to them that as they had done this to the least of his

brethren they had done it to him; and as they had not done these kindly charities to his brethren, so they had failed to do them to him.

Those whom he addressed so tenderly, as the blessed of his Father, and to whom he gave the highest possible gift, had entertained an angel unawares. The others had entertained no angels except those who came to them well accredited, having the insignia of their rank, and carrying properly certified letters of credit showing their financial standing, and so introduced that there might be no mistake as to their social position. The one were the righteous and Christlike; the other were the unrighteous and unchristian.

If this is a Christian Nation,—if it can be a Christian Nation,—which must it be, Christlike, or un-Christlike? If a nation can be Christian, when did this Nation show the most Christlikeness? When it opened its doors to the stranger and received him gladly, offering him, with a full hand, all the good things of the earth? Or when it closed its doors to some and strove to make it more difficult to others to enter? Is it consistent to profess both Christianity and un-Christlikeness in the same testimony? Does not such inconsistency savor of hypocrisy? Is there that difference between the Christianity of Christ and “American Christianity?” Is there a new religion, and is the United States its prophet? Has it forsaken the religion of unselfishness, and does it now profess the religion of selfishness, and has it christened this “American Christianity” and established Sunday observance as its sign manual, obligatory upon the American citizen?

All this bewildering maze of intricate inconsistencies which arise about these questions are significant—of what? That this is not a Christian Nation. That there can be no such thing as a Christian Nation. That the whole idea as now taught is but the figment of a deluded imagination. There can be no such thing as corporate religion. Religion, pure and undefiled, can never be anything but an individual experience. In that representative government whose individual citizens have, in the greatest majority, a personal experience of the religion of Jesus Christ, there civil equity will most abound, and will more and more abound. But in these United States under the hypocritical pretensions of a judicial profession of religion it does, and will, less and less abound.

W. H. M.