p. 78 | Untitled article by L. D. Burdick

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · March 8, 1894

The “Non-Sectarian” Delusion.

By L. D. Burdick

“NON-SECTARIAN” is a much used term. It catches the ear. It is attractive and seductive. It seems to soften down the bitterness of old-time bigotry. It seems to give expression to the idea of religious freedom that many have who are inclined to be liberal-minded. It is also the watchword of religious partisans suspicious of their rivals. It is used in manifold combinations. In short, it is a word to conjure with. But what does it mean? Are the applications of it legitimate, or do they convey more often an impression contrary to the truth?

According to the “International” the word “sect” comes from the Latin secta, from sequa, to follow. It is often confused, says the same authority, with the Latin secare, to cut. A sect is defined as “those following a particular leader, or authority, or attached to a certain opinion.” This definition is illustrated by a reference to the followers of Mahomet as a sect, and by a quotation from the Book of Acts, in which the Christians are spoken of as a sect.

Now in the common use of the word one of the sub-divisions of the people who accept Christ as their leader in religious matters, is called a sect. Two or more of these sub-divisions combined become non-sectarian. It is in this sense the term is used almost exclusively in discussing the schools, public appropriations, and matters pertaining to the government. It matters not how small a percentage of the whole people are represented in the combinations of sectional divisions, if they agree to work together for certain ends, it becomes a non-sectarian movement. What would be wrong for one faction alone to do, becomes right if several factions are united! To use the public schools to teach the particular belief of one part of a sect, is condemned. To use the public schools to teach the particular beliefs that several parts of the same sect can agree upon, is approved. To take a part of the funds of the people to promote the interests of one denomination can not be allowed; to use it for the advancement of several denominations who can agree to work together, is another thing.

What an absurd position! Yet is not this practically the aim of the non-sectarian cry? Do not most of the religious papers stand on this platform? Does the National League seek to go beyond this? They propose a reformation that will cut off appropriations for a Catholic, a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, specifically; but supposing the Catholic, the Baptist, and the Presbyterian agree to use the public institutions to propagate some dogmas on which they unite, what then? That will fill the non-sectarian idea, yet, all of them together are only a part of one of the great sects.

The fallacy of this non-sectarian position is well illustrated in the recent use of the university at Ann Arbor for the revival meetings conducted by Rev. B. Fay Mills, in defiance of the constitution of Michigan, which says the property of the State shall not be used for the benefit of any religious sect. The churches of nine denominations and the Students’ Christian Association united in the meetings. They were largely advertised for weeks beforehand. The use of the university for part of them was clearly to bring to bear the influence and power of a State institution in promoting their success. Not even all the divisions of the Christian sect in the city took part in them. Not all of them were invited to join with them. Four denominations who hold Christ as their leader, the Episcopalian, the Unitarian, the Zion, and the Catholic, were left out, or refused to join with them. The four denominations out of the combination represent more people of the Christian sect in the nation than the nine denominations who were represented in the so-called non-sectarian combine. The Students’ Christian Association, on whose invitation the meetings were taken to the university, is a sectarian institution so strong that no one is admitted to membership unless he belongs to the Christian sect; and no student is allowed to have a share in its government unless he holds to the divinity of the founder of the sect. What a cry would have gone out from the nine denominations if the Catholics had gotten possession of the State university hall and used it to propagate their religious doctrines? What would Rev. Dr. MacArthur say if they should take the bones of Saint Anne, or the relic of Saint Paul into the hall of a State university, instead of a “reformed drunkard and gambler,” as Mr. Mills was advertised, and use the property of the people to make proselytes to their faith?

Too much praise can not be given to the timely, able and unanswerable sermon in condemnation of this use of State property, preached and since published by the pastor of the Unitarian Church, Rev. J. T. Sunderland.

What is wrong in principle can not be made right by a multitude participating in it. Some of the “non-sectarian” movements do not commend themselves. Closely examined they reveal the same limitations to intellectual and spiritual liberty.

The public schools can only be made truly non-sectarian by ceasing to use them for teaching any religious creeds.

L. D. BURDICK.