Reproach to Church

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Mar 23, 1905

Reproach to Church

Religion in Public Schools a Menace to Morals

Address by W. W. Prescott

Seventh-day Adventist Editor and Member of Non-sectarian Committee Vigorously Opposes Mixing Church and State—Strife and Danger to True Religion Would Follow—A Living Issue

The following report of the meeting which was announced in our last issue to be held at the Lafayette Opera House on Sunday evening, March 12, appeared in the Washington Post of March 13. The headlines at the beginning of this article, and the subheads which follow, are just as they appeared in the Post.

Through this medium the principles which lie at the foundation of the true relation between religion and the state have been presented to many thousands of readers, and the interest aroused by the local movement in behalf of religious instruction in the public schools will cause many to give attention to these principles now who otherwise might not take the time to read upon this subject.

Knowing the interest which our readers have in this matter, we reprint the full report of the meeting. The Post said:—

That much interest is being taken in the idea of introducing religious moral training in the public schools of the District of Columbia was demonstrated last night by the large audience of mothers and fathers which gathered at the Lafayette Square Opera House upon the occasion of an address bearing upon the subject by Mr. W. W. Prescott, of this city, editor of the Review and Herald, the official organ of the Seventh-day Adventists. The theater was comfortably filled, and at the conclusion of the address a number of the auditors propounded questions, which Mr. Prescott answered in a manner apparently convincing to those who asked them.

The speaker said he is unalterably opposed to the plan of introducing pronounced religious principles into the curriculum of the school system, and stated that such a plan would lead to a union of the church and state, which, he declared, proved disastrous in the early history of the world. He expressed the opinion that like strife would follow the adoption of the present idea, and was apprehensive that in time one denomination would be recognized, with the result that America would witness a repetition of the conflict between the Italian government and the Catholic Church.

In the course of his remarks the speaker referred to the meeting of the general conference of clergymen and laymen, representing the various church doctrines, to be held next Wednesday, to receive the report of the subcommittee of

fifteen, which has been considering the advisability of the religious education plan. He stated to a reporter of the Post that he, with the representatives of the Hebrew faith, had dissented from the report of the committee, of which he is a member, for the reasons outlined. He announced last night that a meeting under the auspices of the Seventh-day Adventists will be held next Sunday night at the opera house, at which the report of the subcommittee will be discussed in all its phases.

A Great Living Issue

The address of Mr. Prescott, in substance, follows:—

“We are confronted by a vigorous movement to secure the introduction of definite religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia. A large conference has been held, attended by leading clergymen and laymen. Resolutions of a sweeping character were presented to that conference. These resolutions were referred to a committee of fifteen persons representing the various religious denominations. That committee has held three meetings, and will make its report to the conference next Wednesday. It has already been stated in the daily papers that a majority of that committee will recommend religious instruction, including the teaching of the ten commandments, as a part of the regular work of the schools. We, therefore, are considering a living issue of the greatest importance to every citizen, not discussing mere academic theories.

“I speak as a Christian. I deal with this question of the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools as a Christian who loves religion, entertains the highest respect for the church, and desires the peace and prosperity of the nation. Furthermore, I believe in a Christian education, the foundation of which is the Bible, as a revelation from God, a book of divine authority, and the ten commandments as the basis of any morality worthy of the name.

Declared to Be Unchristian

“I deplore the present alarming increase of crime, and would heartily co-operate with any legitimate remedy; but in the interest of a pure religion, an uncorrupted church, and the peace of the state, I must earnestly protest against a movement which adopts an un-Christian method in order to secure a desirable result.

“Seventh-day Adventists hold it as a fundamental doctrine, that the law of God should be taught and practised as it was given from Sinai, and as it was interpreted and practised by Christ, the divine teacher; and they probably emphasize this more than any other religious denomination; but, with the apostle Paul, they declare: ‘We know that the law is spiritual,’ and they recognize it as a divine principle, attested by all history, that only loss and injury result, both to religion and to the state, when the state, ordained of God for things civil, attempts to deal with things spiritual, even though the avowed purpose should be to aid the cause of Christianity.

Teaches Morals in Church and Home

“Crime and lawlessness are increasing. The daily record indicates it. Many sober men admit it. Reliable statistics demonstrate it. There is an emphatic demand for the authoritative inculcation of the principles of the ten commandments,—the principles of righteousness,—but where shall this instruction be given? We hold that it must be in the church, the home, and the private school supported by voluntary contribution, and not in the public schools, supported by compulsory taxation.

“The signers to the call for the original conference upon this question made this declaration: ‘All of us, however, are firmly convinced that the principle of complete separation between church and state is sacred and inviolable, and would advocate nothing that could in any wise compromise it.’ The leader of this movement, however, in a published sermon upon the subject, says: ‘That sound principle [the separation of church and state] has been confused with another very different, that there should never be any connection between religion and the state. . . . The two should be indissolubly united.’

“The real issue may then be put in this form: Is there any actual difference in principle between the union of religion and the state and the union of church and state; and is such a union of religion and the state justifiable as will permit the state to use its machinery to propagate at public expense the principles of religion?

Christ Authority for Separation

“The divine Author of Christianity laid down the principle to be applied in the settlement of this issue, when he was asked whether a Christian should pay tribute to the state. His reply established the Christian principle not only of the entire separation of church and state, but also the equally complete separation between religion and the state. He said: ‘Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’

“A sharp distinction is thus drawn between things spiritual and things civil—between religion and the state. When this principle is followed, religion and government will neither be in union with each other nor in opposition to each other. Both exist by divine appointment, but their spheres are entirely distinct. Neither will dominate the other. That religion will be the purest which seeks no alliance with the state, and that state will be the most stable which refuses even the unwarranted invitation to form a union with religion.

“When our divine Lord was upon the earth, he sought no aid from government in order to propagate the truth which he came to teach. He even asserted the liberty to teach religion contrary to the law of the state, and gave to his disciples a commission which required them to act in direct opposition to Rome’s claim that government and religion ‘should be indissolubly united.’

The Reformation a Protest

“The Reformation of the sixteenth century was a protest against the union of religion and government. Luther and his associates opposed the intrusion of the civil magistrate in matters of faith. ‘Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate.’

“Nearly all the American colonies acted upon the false principle, brought from the practise of England, that religion and the government ought to be united; but when the American nation was founded, it accepted the divine principle of civil government. The demand for the union of religion and the state is an open violation of this principle, and the proposal to teach religion in the public schools is a return to ideas which were discarded at the foundation of this republic. This will inevitably establish a state theology, and involve the compulsory support of religion by taxation, and is a menace to religious freedom. All citizens ought to awaken to the real meaning of this movement, even though the promoters may be sincere in their purpose to do good. The very fact that it is necessary to premise these proposals with a declaration that ‘the principle of complete separation between church and state is sacred and inviolable’ is in itself a danger-signal, and indicates the violation of the principle. Those who are actually keeping the church and state separate feel no necessity for lulling suspicion concerning their course by protesting their belief in the principle.

“The present condition of our country is due to the neglect of the inspired instruction relating to the home and the church. The Lord has said concerning the ten commandments: ‘Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.’

Reproach to the Church

“The divine Author of Christianity committed the teaching of the Christian religion to the members of his body, and not to the state or to any of the paid servants of the state. When Christian believers in the home and the church are true to the responsibilities resting upon them, there will be no suggestion of a demand upon the state to attempt to do a work entirely outside its legitimate province. This effort to lay hold upon the machinery of the state in order to propagate religion is a reproach to the church and a stumbling-block to religion. There is a better way. Let the eternal and unchangeable law of God be taught in the church and in the home. Let the Word of God be restored to its place of undisputed authority in the church and in the home. Let the family altars be erected again in the homes where prayer is neglected. Let the religious life be quickened in the home and in the church, and from these springs of influence let the restraining power of our holy religion flow out to counteract the skepticism, the irreligious teachings, and the outbreaking sins of this degenerate age. This is the proper remedy for the increase of crime, and in this lies the only hope of deliverance.”