“For Such a Time as This”
By Editor
It certainly ought to be more and more clear to all this people that the Head of the church, who knows the end from the beginning, and who foresaw what was coming, directed in the removal of the headquarters of this denomination to Washington, the capital of the nation. Before we are fully settled in our new location, issues have arisen and opportunities for presenting the truth have offered themselves which are of more than local significance, and which have demanded a strong representation of our work here in order to deal with them in a way befitting their importance. In addition to the proposed Sunday laws which have been introduced into Congress, there came first the campaign by the Protestant ministers of this city in behalf of better “Sabbath observance.” This opened the way for the “Open Letter,” and a large amount of other correspondence which has appeared in the daily press, and also created an interest upon the Sabbath question, which warranted the holding of large public meetings to present the plain truths and warnings of this message. As a direct consequence of this movement, there have been circulated already throughout the United States over a quarter of a million copies of the “Open Letter” in tract form, and the campaign is only fairly started. We have heard nothing more of the “Sabbath observance” campaign since the real meaning of “Sabbath observance” has been so fully set before the people, and naturally the local interest in this matter has begun to wane; but just at this time comes another movement of great importance, which calls for the presentation of the principles of the truth, and which must inevitably involve the question of the true and the false sabbath. A full report of this organized effort to introduce religious instruction into the public schools is given in another part of this paper, and it should be distinctly understood that this is more than a local issue. At the first meeting for the consideration of this question the leader of the movement distinctly stated that there was probably as little need for this agitation in Washington as in any other city in the United States, but that it was expected that the influence of this effort would be widely felt. It should also be further stated that the question of the Bible in the public schools is not a part of the issue, except as the principle is involved. The public schools of this city are now opened with reading of the Scriptures, singing of hymns, and the Lord’s prayer, but it is now proposed to introduce specific religious instruction as a part of the course of study. Furthermore, it was especially emphasized in the discussion of this question that moral instruction would not meet the requirements of the situation, but that it must be religious instruction. It will therefore be plain that in opposing this movement we are not opposing the introduction of the Bible into the public schools, neither are we demanding the expulsion of the Bible from the public schools, even though the principle of the entire separation of church and state, when carried to its logical conclusion, might warrant this. This, however, is not the question in the present case, and we do not think it expedient to enter upon a campaign in regard to this matter. We are now trying to let the people see that this present effort is a long step toward the complete union of church and state, and that it is the cloud, much larger than a man’s hand, which foretells the coming storm. There was the very essence of tyranny and persecution in both the manner and the matter of the speech of the leader of the movement when he called the attention of the meeting to the decision of the Supreme Court that this is “a Christian nation,” and declared that adopted citizens must take this country as they find it, and not expect to overthrow Christian principles. Pains and penalties for the violation of religious observances established by law are the logical outcome of this position, and may not be far off.4 As plainly indicating what will be involved in this effort to introduce religious teaching into the secular schools, we will refer to one line of argument employed in the discussion. It was urged, and the statement elicited applause, that the state had no right to punish for the violation of laws against stealing unless it first taught the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” It logically follows at once that the state has no right to punish for the violation of Sunday laws, even if they were justifiable, unless it first teaches the commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” And then to justify Sunday laws the state must teach that this commandment now applies to the first day of the week instead of to the seventh day of the week distinctly mentioned in the commandment. Thus it will at once become necessary for the state to take sides in a religious controversy, and to decide a question concerning which there is a strong and growing difference of belief. That such a result is the inevitable consequence of this movement ought to convince all who are open to conviction that this effort to make the schools, supported by public taxation, an agency for the conveying of religious instruction is an instance of misdirected zeal in behalf of a good cause. “It is a rule, alike of common sense and Christian morality, that no end, however good in itself, should be sought by unlawful and improper means.” It is evident, however, that public sentiment is not all on one side of this question. Some have the discernment to perceive that the proposed method of reforming public morals is not a proper one. In the Washington Post of February 19, the day before the meeting of the ministers, there appeared an editorial in which the proposal of the clergymen was discussed at some length. We quote the following paragraph:— Is it now seriously proposed that the public schools shall take the place of church and Sunday-school? Is it contended that the function of the public school is to be changed, and that it is to become an adjunct of the church? If so, we are approaching dangerous ground. It is difficult to see how the public school can be converted into a more active religious agency, even if the church proposes to abdicate its long-established position.
The situation demands an earnest campaign, both local and general, for the dissemination of the truth. The people at large, and possibly the leaders, do not understand the inspiration which is behind this movement, nor the intent of “the prince of this world” in shaping it. To teach God’s law as having been changed is to belittle the law and to insult the lawgiver. Thus under the ostensible purpose of checking lawlessness the great enemy of God’s law will inculcate the very essence of lawlessness. What ought to be done by those who have light upon this subject, and who revere God’s law? We must labor “with intense earnestness” to enlighten the people and to teach the observance of God’s law just as he gave it. It is now time for one united and determined effort to stir the world with the message for this generation. Awake! Arouse! Arise! Shake off this lethargy! Let us act in harmony with our profession. To the highways and the byways! Sound the warning! Hasten the coming of the King of righteousness!