p. 6 | Denominational Loyalty Versus Religious Liberty

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 27, 1916

Denominational Loyalty Versus Religious Liberty

By F. M. W.

Has a denomination a right to require that in its schools and colleges for the education of its youth the Scriptures shall be taught in harmony with the generally accepted views of the denomination? and does this requirement abridge the religious liberty of the teachers employed in the school?

This is a question which the editor of the Word and Way, in that paper for September 16, discusses at some length. He quotes the statement from the editor of the Christian Work to the effect that “the Bible still remains the supreme authority of Protestants, but the moment any man or party or assembly or council or denomination within Protestantism begins to try to impose its interpretations of the Bible on believers, that moment it is going right over to the Roman Catholic teaching and practice.”

These words the editor of the Word and Way believes are inspired by some things which the Presbyterians have done in relation to one of their theological seminaries. He truly says:—

But that same fundamental principle of freedom to think and decide for one’s self and choose one’s own creed, guarantees also to Presbyterians what ought to be their unquestioned right, not only to have and maintain their own creed, but the right to denominational propaganda, and the right to found schools for the propagation of their faith, and the further right to expect and require all who voluntarily take positions in these schools to be believers in, and loyal to, Presbyterianism.

Considering the same question among Baptists, the same principle holds, and the same rights obtain. Baptists do not insist that any living man or woman shall accept their interpretation of the Scripture. They would violate one of their fundamental principles if they were to try to impose their teachings on any one. But Baptists have the absolute right to interpret the Scriptures for themselves, and to demand that everything connected with the propaganda of the Baptist faith shall conform to the Baptist interpretation. Those who come into Baptist churches do so voluntarily. Those who subscribe to the principles of Baptists do so voluntarily. The man who accepts the presidency of a Baptist college or the position of teacher in any Baptist school, does so voluntarily; and whether in the ranks of membership, or in the offices of pastor, or seminary or college president or professor, there is the moral obligation that one’s conduct and beliefs and teachings shall conform to the denominational standard.

If a lay member of a church, or a pastor of a church, or president or professor of a school, comes to feel that he is hampered by the doctrines of his denomination, or is in any way out of sympathy with any or all of these doctrines, he is always at liberty to change his church and denominational relations, and is permitted to go without any anathemas whatsoever.

To argue, therefore, as the learned editor of Christian Work does, that for Presbyterians to insist that schools founded by them shall be loyal to Presbyterianism, and that Baptists who insist that their schools shall not teach anything contrary to, or subversive of, Baptist doctrine, is to repudiate a fundamental principle of Protestantism and go over to Catholic ground, is simply a clever dodge by which the real issue is missed. It is simply an effort to stir up the dust, hide from view the real drift and purpose to carry Christianity bag and baggage over into the camp of the liberalists.

We believe the principles stated above are sound, and that they are sound not only as applied to the teachers in denominational schools, but as applied to the work of the gospel ministry as well. A church school or college does not stand for the principles of one man, but for the principles of the denomination. The one who teaches in a denominational school is there in a representative capacity. He is chosen by his brethren because they believe he will properly represent the principles of their common faith.

The preacher who goes forth bearing credentials from the church, labors in the same representative relationship. He has united with the church of his choice because he fellowships its view of Scriptural truth, its form of church government, its general plans and policies.

If there comes a time in his experience when the teacher or preacher can no longer do this, when he feels that the principles for which the church stands are wrong, and that it has a wrong conception of Bible truth and interpretation, then it becomes his duty to state this frankly to his brethren, and let them determine whether or not he shall continue to act in a representative capacity.

The church has no right to require the stultification of individual conscience. Every teacher of Bible truth, whether as preacher or teacher, has a right to believe and teach whatever he believes the Word of God teaches, but he has no right in his representative capacity to teach views which are contrary to the views of the church which has employed him to act as its representative. If he desires to sever his representative relationship and teach views contrary to those held by his former brethren, this certainly is a right vested in him by his Creator, and a privilege every reasonable being will accord him. But while he professes to represent his brethren and is sent out and supported by the church, let him be true to the trust reposed in him. License is too often confounded with liberty. F. M. W.