p. 3 | The Federal Council of Churches

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 14, 1909

The Federal Council of Churches

The committee on week-day instruction in religion made a report from which we quote the following paragraphs:—

Under the American system, religious education in the public school, such as the churches require, can not be given. Nevertheless the right to religious instruction along denominational lines, can not be gainsaid. It is a right, an obligation, that rests primarily upon the parents, upon the family. In practise, however, it rests upon the church, to which in most cases the family has delegated this work. In other cases the church assumes the obligation in the fulfilment of her mission. But in no case does the church ask for the support and assistance of the state.

All that the church asks, is that she shall not be hindered in the fulfilment of her obligations, and practically prevented by the state from exercising her legitimate functions. The church is not an organization of yesterday. She has an individuality which the state is bound to respect. And particularly in the field of public education have her contributions been such as to entitle her to consideration. She asks for no subvention, either of money or of privilege, but she does ask that the state shall not stand in her way, shall not hinder her from doing the work to which she is called in the maintenance of her own existence. Such is undoubtedly the case when the public school's course of study is so arranged as to give the children only a meager opportunity of acquiring education in its highest relations, those of religion and the church of God.

In an effort to apply in a practical way the principles thus laid down, the committee declared:—

1. That there can be no true education without religion; to provide adequate religious instruction for their children is the duty of the churches, a primal and imperative duty.

2. That the hour at Sunday-school, the religious exercises of the public school, and the ethical instruction of the public school do not meet the requirements of “adequate religious instruction.”

3. That to provide religious instruction for their children is not only the duty of the churches, it is their inherited and inherent right, and this right should not be ignored or curtailed by the state in its arrangement of the course of school studies.

4. That whenever and wherever public sentiment warrants such a course, the public schools should be closed on Wednesday, or some other afternoon, for the purpose of allowing the children to attend religious instruction in their own churches. An allotment of eight per cent of school time for religion is not an immoderate allowance.

There was a somewhat prolonged debate upon these declarations, the representatives of the different denominations being divided in their sentiments. Bishops Neely and Cranston, of the Methodist Church, who heartily favored the action of the council in defining the Sabbath to be the first day of the week, and in asking for suitable legislation in its behalf, seemed to regain their clearness of perception concerning the right relations between the church and the state, and opposed any mixing of the functions of the public schools and the church. Accordingly the third paragraph was amended so as to read thus:—

That to provide religious instruction for their children is not only the duty of the churches, it is their inherited and inherent right. But it is the duty of parents to give instruction to their children, and this right should be fully recognized by the state in its arrangement of the course of school studies, which is right also, and calls for more time during the week-day to be given to religious instruction in the homes and churches of our land.

The committee on religion in higher institutions discussed in its report the problem of imparting religious instruction in colleges and universities, attempting to formulate some plan which would seem to recognize the separation of church and state, and at the same time furnish distinctively religious training even in State universities and undenominational institutions. In considering the matter, the committee stated:—

Under the old forms of government the structure of society was made stable by the combined authority of state and church. The church formulated standards for individual belief and conduct, and the state enforced them.

But with the growing trend toward democracy, the situation has changed. The state has surrendered to the individual conscience the control of personal conviction and a large control of individual conduct. The state has entrusted

the security and safety of society to the moral convictions of the individual. This fact necessitates an increased concern on the part of the state for individual morality. Self-preservation compels the state to seek an education system that will train its coming citizens to use their larger liberty in the direction of the state's welfare.

In reading these statements, one can hardly escape the conviction that the committee were inclined to believe that the union of church and state was in some respects desirable, and that the surrender by the state to the individual conscience of the control of personal conviction was a step fraught with considerable peril. It seems a very difficult matter for some thinkers to get away from the idea that the state is responsible for all that pertains to the welfare of its citizens, and to adopt that conception of the functions of the state which makes it an agency merely for the protection of its citizens in the enjoyment of their inherent rights.

Among the recommendations reported by this committee and adopted by the council were these:—

That the Federal Council of Churches recommends that the governing bodies of the several denominations represented in this council establish permanent bureaus, or boards, whose duty it shall be to co-operate with one another and with institutions of higher learning in an organized effort to improve, to systematize, and to maintain religious instruction and training in the educational agencies of our country.

That in view of the delicate and difficult conditions that surround the work of religious training in State universities and undenominational institutions, this federal council expresses its approval of the establishment of local pastorates and halls in such institutions by the various denominations from whom these institutions receive patronage, the special work of which pastorates shall be to provide religious instruction and inspiration to the students coming from their respective churches, and such other students as may choose to place themselves under their care.

If the council had been half as clear in its perception of the proper application of church and state principles to the subject of Sunday legislation as in the perception of the same principles when applied to the public school question, it would never have adopted a resolution demanding legislation in order to enforce the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship. This apparent blindness to true principle when dealing with the Sabbath question is significant, and indicates that while professing to maintain a separation of church and state, the advocates of Sunday legislation may be expected to urge the state to enact and enforce such laws as will compel all citizens to make a distinction between the first day of the week and other days, and that on purely religious grounds.

The great combination known as the Federal Council of Churches seemed to realize in some measure that it was capable of wielding great power, and it apparently felt like trying to apply this power not only to the affairs of state in America, but even to international questions. The committee on international relations, whose chairman was Henry Wade Rogers, LL.D., dean of the Yale University Law School, presented a report of considerable length, in which the responsibility of the churches for war was quite fully discussed, and the attitude of the council was thus set forth:—

1. It declares its conviction that war is evil, and that Christian nations should determine by obligatory arbitration the international differences which can not be settled by diplomacy. For Christian states in the twentieth century to refuse to arbitrate and to insist on war will be to bring reproach on the Christian name.

2. It favors the creation of the International Court of Arbitral Justice proposed by the Second Hague Conference, and hopes that the government of the United States will promote its establishment, and that at the earliest possible day.

3. It is opposed to increase of armaments, and deplores the failure of The Hague Conference to come to an agreement upon this all-important subject.

4. It has learned with much satisfaction that the government of the United States has recently entered into treaties of arbitration with some of the nations, and it trusts that without unnecessary delay other treaties of arbitration may be made with other states. It regrets that it seemed to the contracting powers to be desirable to limit the existence of these treaties to five years, and to restrict the subjects to be arbitrated to the somewhat narrow limits which the treaties define.

While it is very desirable that all international differences should be adjusted without an appeal to the sword, and while the acceptance of the true principles of Christianity would speedily bring to an end all wars of every kind, yet we do not find in the Scriptures any instruction to the church to pass upon the character of treaties made between nations, or to use its influence directly upon the governments in determining the conduct of diplomatic relations. The more the church loses sight of the fact that its great commission is to preach the gospel to individuals, and substitutes for this high calling the work of directing national and international affairs, the more will it lose its power to administer the trust committed to it, and the more it will become a mere adjunct of the state.

We have not attempted to give any complete report of this meeting of the Federal Council of Churches. Commendable ground was taken upon the question of temperance reform and family life, and attention was given to the question of religious instruction through the Sunday-school. We have selected for consideration in this report those actions which seem to be of the greatest significance in determining the general direction in which the influence of this council will be exerted, and which mark in the clearest way progress in the fulfilment of those portions of the prophetic Word which depict the course of events in this country in the near future.

It was the original intent of the leaders of this movement that the council should meet once in four years; but at the close of this first meeting, after a stirring debate over the proposal, it was voted to adjourn to meet at the call of the executive committee. It is thus made possible to have a meeting of this large and influential body whenever the executive committee may deem it advisable. We shall await with interest the results of this first meeting.