The Christian Amendment to the National Constitution
By C. M. S.
On April 11, last, the subcommittee of the judiciary committee of the House of Representatives granted to the representatives of the National Reform Association a hearing on what is popularly known as the “God-in-the-Constitution amendment” to the Constitution of the United States. A bill had been introduced in Congress by Mr. Shepard, of Texas, providing that the national Constitution should be so amended as to begin with the words “In the name of God,” etc. The form of the proposed amendment did not suit the National Reform Association. While not opposing Mr. Shepard’s proposed amendment, they are proposing one of their own which shall, in their own language, “declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral law of the Christian religion, and to indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” It was to advocate such an amendment that the National Reform Association sought the hearing before the subcommittee to which had been referred Mr. Shepard’s proposal for a Constitutional amendment. There was no general announcement made of the hearing, and, so far as we are aware, no one was notified of it save those known to advocate such a measure. The reason for this may be gathered from the attitude of the chairman of the subcommittee, as set forth by himself. He declared at the opening of the hearing, as reported by the general superintendent of the National Reform Association, that no argument was needed in behalf of Mr. Shepard’s proposed amendment, “as he was sure he voiced the sentiment of the entire committee when he said that he had ofttimes wondered why a Christian nation did not have some such acknowledgment in its national Constitution.” Mr. Shepard, who was at the hearing, did not press his own measure, but gave way to the representatives of the National Reform Association, who, he said, wanted to go further than he had proposed to go. He had simply proposed that the nation, in its Constitution, recognize God’s existence, whereas they propose to establish in the nation a religion, which establishment would provoke civil war within the very Constitution itself, which now declares that Congress shall make no law respecting any such enterprise. Attorney William Alexander Brown, of Philadelphia; Rev. J. S. Martin, general superintendent of the National Reform Association; and Rev. T. P. Stevenson, editor of the Christian Statesman, argued before the subcommittee for what they term the “Christian amendment.” The “Christian nation” dictum of the late Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court again “gave aid and comfort” to the enemies of the nation’s great purpose. That dictum, so often and so erroneously termed a “decision” by those who fain would have it so, was brought to the fore by Attorney Brown, in order to give a foundation to his plea for the religious amendment. In spite of the fact that there can be no remodeling of the fundamental law of the nation upon a religious basis without establishing the religion upon whose tenets the remodeling is done, the attorney declared to the committee that they did not “seek the furtherance of any sectarianism or anything that would violate either the letter or the spirit of that portion of the First Amendment to the Constitution which states that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’” How this statement can be made to harmonize with the declared purpose of the National Reform Association, and with the declared purpose of the gentlemen above named in appearing before the subcommittee, is beyond our comprehension. If it were granted for the moment that their purpose was not directly to establish religion, it is proved by the very arguments produced before this committee that the open purpose is to bring about a condition of affairs that is bound to result in an establishment of religion. Said Attorney Brown: “The adoption of this amendment is a bowing of the knee by the American nation to him who is its divine Ruler, an acknowledgment of his almighty sovereignty.” Now, when this nation has, in its corporate capacity, taken an action which can be called, even in outward form, a bowing of the knee in worship to Jesus Christ, it has established Christianity as the religion of the nation. It has, in that act, done that which the Constitution, in its First Amendment, declares the nation shall not do; and to put into the Constitution a provision which makes such a thing possible, is to set the Constitution against itself, and make it the laughing-stock of the world, instead of what Gladstone called it, “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” He who bowed the knee to Baal, did it only after he had established the religion of Baal in his soul. He who to-day bows the knee in the Mosque of Omar or in the temples of Buddha, does so only after and only because he has established Mohammedanism or Buddhism as his religion. And he who does that sincerely excludes all other religions from any recognition or any standing whatsoever in the sanctuary of his soul. Just so must it be with this nation. When by corporate act of its own it bows the knee in worship of Jesus Christ, it establishes the religion of Jesus Christ as its religion, and must exclude every other religion from its sanctuary. What then becomes of our boasted claim as an asylum for the oppressed of every land? What becomes of our claim that in this land every man is free to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience? What becomes of religious liberty and the equality of man before the law? If the nation has a right to establish a religion, then those things were wrong and ought to be abolished. Our “asylum for the oppressed of every land” ought to be turned into a torture chamber for the “heretics” of our own land. Instead of granting freedom to worship God, we should scourge and imprison every one who dares to worship anything other than what the state prescribes. Instead of religious liberty and the equality of men before the law, we should adopt the spiritual tyranny of the Dark Ages and put into the hands of the priesthood the liberties and the lives of the people. Said Attorney Brown: “We appear before you, gentlemen, to present the demand of the Lord Jesus himself that this nation acknowledge his righteous authority.” The attorney did not state where the Lord Jesus ever made, or caused to be recorded, any such demand. If he had sought for any such statement or demand of our Saviour, he would have found something like this: “My kingdom is not of this world;” “Who made me a judge or a divider over you?” “I am among you as one that serveth.” Luke 22:27. The statement of the attorney is striking chiefly for the great authority which it contradicts—that is the Lord Jesus Christ himself, whose spokesman he professes to be. No authority is adduced for his declaration—because there is none to adduce. Equally striking statements were made before the committee by Rev. J. S. Martin, who claimed to represent “an organization of Christian patriots;” and yet this gentleman, with others of the same organization, frankly admits being so completely out of harmony with the principles of the nation that he does not vote, and will not vote until the Constitution of the nation is altered—changed from the principles of the nation’s founders to the principles of the National Reform Association. Such an organization may be Christian, but it has no rightful claim upon the title “patriot.” Dr. Martin’s statements also proved that his organization was in reality seeking to obtain what it professed to be endeavoring to avoid; that is, a union,12of church and state. He said: “The will of God as revealed through Jesus Christ and contained in the Scriptures, in so far as that will relates to nations, is the rule for national conduct.” Who will interpret that will?—Manifestly, the clergy; and who are the clergy but the leaders and spokesmen of the church? Mr. Martin further declared: “In this amendment there is no recognition of the Holy Spirit, for the all-sufficient reason that it is not proposed to acknowledge theological formulas, but the actual facts with which the nation has to do. The nation as such does not sustain any relation to the Holy Spirit.” But is the Holy Spirit merely a theological formula? Our Saviour did not so regard the matter. He said: “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you.” Acts 1:8. Is it possible that the National Reform organization is advocating that “form of godliness” concerning the possessors of which it is said that they are “denying the power thereof”? To set up a form of religion and deny it a connection with the Holy Spirit, is to set up something very different from the religion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. We are willing to admit that the Holy Ghost has no part in the program. We are willing to go farther, and earnestly profess that such an enterprise will have as little connection with the purpose and true work of our Lord as they admit the transformed “Christian nation” would have with the Holy Spirit. One of the most novel propositions advanced by Mr. Martin was a proposition by which the nation would be permitted to do what the Constitution says it shall not do. The Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Mr. Martin, in explaining to the subcommittee how his organization would prevent a union of church and state, said:— This they would do by having the state clearly and explicitly recognize, acknowledge, and practise for itself that religion which is confessedly essential to its welfare, yea, even its perpetuity, and not be in any sense dependent upon the church for it. Let the state for itself, and not through any church, acknowledge its divine Ruler and the moral principles of his law, as revealed both in nature and in Scripture, that apply to its distinctive sphere and functions. This is its own religion. This is national Christianity. What would be the difference between such a system as this and the monstrous church-and-state systems of the past? Simply this: in those systems the state was joined to some particular church. In this proposed system the state would itself become a church, and would tolerate nothing within the walls of its sanctuary (which would be coextensive with its boundary) that did not conform to its creed. State religions have always been productive of two things—martyrs and hypocrites; and such a state as the representatives of the National Reform Association advocated before the sub-judiciary committee would be abundantly equipped for such results. The members of the subcommittee seem to have been favorably impressed with the arguments of the National Reform representatives, but what their report will be to the main committee it is yet too early to say. C. M. S.