“The Commandments of Men”
THE Pharisees professed great respect for the law of God. They made much outward display of their regard for it. They repeatedly charged Jesus with either abolishing it or breaking it. They were apparently very jealous for the commandments of God, but in reality they made them void. By putting their interpretation of the law in place of the law itself, they disregarded the commandments of God, and taught “the commandments of men.” We are facing the same situation now. Many of the prominent religious teachers of this city are urging that the ten commandments should be taught in the public schools, but inasmuch as the fourth commandment states that “in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is,” and plainly declares that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” neither of which statements are accepted as they read, and inasmuch as the Roman Catholic church differs with Protestants as to the application of the second commandment, it is proposed by the leader of this movement that a shorter form of the commandments should be taught. In a published interview he states his plan thus:— All the “religious teaching” asked for may be put into a few lines, to wit:— “Thou shalt have none other gods before me. “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image to adore it. “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. “Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” This is absolutely all that is asked in the way of “religious” instruction, unless the Board sees fit to adopt a brief exposition of the meaning of these four commandments. But these are not the commandments as God gave them. They are simply an adaptation of those commandments to conform to the teachings and practises of men. And this reveals the weakness of the whole movement, which is declared to be an effort to stay the present tide of lawlessness by teaching the principles of morality based upon the ten commandments. Instead of maintaining the authority of God’s law and seeking to bring human conduct into harmony with it, the beliefs and practises of men are accepted as the standard of morality, and an amended form of the commandments is substituted for the original law. Thus the law of God is really set aside, and “the commandments of men” are taught with the pretended sanction of divine authority. Although it may not be done “with malice prepense and aforethought,” this is, in fact, an organized movement to make void the law of God under the appearance of honoring it. When such a misconceived and misdirected effort as this fails, as it surely will fail, to accomplish the desired result, more positive teaching will surely be demanded. In fact, one of the leading promoters of this movement, who assisted in preparing the report adopted by the conference, says in a published interview:— The present movement does not go as far as I believe it should go. . . . This nation is not neutral or atheistic. It is a Christian nation. Here, then, is the program; the commandments changed to suit men’s ideas, the Board of Education at liberty to prescribe an exposition of those changed commandments, and a plain intimation of more to follow. The concluding act of this program, involved in the first act, but not mentioned, will be that, under the pressure of pains and penalties, an effort will be made to compel obedience to “the commandments of men,” which have been substituted for the commandments of God. This is all bound up in the proposal to have the state teach religion under the guidance of the church.