At the National Reform Convention by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 14, 1911

At the National Reform Convention

By C. M. S.

The Doctrines of the Association Demonstrate Themselves Un-American and Antichristian

As certainly and as persistently as ever the National Reform Association continues to press forward its campaign of denouncing our nation’s present form of government, and urging in its place a government modeled after Israel of old or the theocracies of the early colonies. The very arguments which the colonists used in defense of their frame of government and of their tyrannical activities under that régime, are being used now by that association in an effort to undermine the pillars of the republic and establish a theocracy upon its ruins.

All the intolerant attitudes assumed by the association and all the efforts made to overturn the present basis of American government are predicated upon the fantastic and unreasonable idea that the state is a moral entity, a moral being, that a moral personality, accountable to God as an individual is accountable, and having a life to lose and a soul to save.

From such an illogical assumption it is perfectly natural to run off from the plain track of reason into all sorts of curious and dangerous notions. For instance, this position was strongly urged by the general superintendent: “The state being a moral personality, accountable to God, it must have a religion of its own, which it must maintain.”

It requires but little thinking to make it plain that if the state must have a religion of its own, a worship of its own, which it must maintain, there is at once an established religion; and the compulsory maintenance of that established religion requires that individuals maintain it by performing the worship prescribed. It is not possible for a state to maintain a system of worship without providing that the worship shall be performed and the established religion be professed and possessed by individuals. Otherwise the state might find itself in the peculiar predicament of being required to have religion without any possible way by which it could express that religion, or of being required to worship, and having no agency through which to perform it.

The National Reform program, therefore, entails an established religion and compulsory worship, and proposes to bring this about in the United States of America. This is an interesting consideration in connection with what the revelator says in reference to the work of the image of the beast.

When the Constitution was so amended as to declare that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it was thought that the nation was forever protected from what had been the bane of every nation in Christendom,—the establishment of a national religion and compulsion in worship. But this most vital of the nation’s guaranties for individual justice is being attacked vehemently and systematically, by institutes, by periodicals, by books, pamphlets, and lectures; and a world congress with that as the basic idea in mind, is expected to accomplish great things in making the idea dominant at home and incidentally abroad.

Said Dr. Martin: “We do not believe in a union of church and state; but that does not signify that there should not be separate religious functions in the state itself.” That means the adoption and practise of religion by the state; and that means the adoption and practise of somebody’s religion; and that means, further, that somebody must practise that religion whether he will or no, in order that the state may surely demonstrate that it has religion and performs worship.

The world-wide influence of this arrangement was not lost sight of. In speaking of the maintenance of chaplaincies in the army and navy and in legislatures and the issuance of Thanksgiving proclamations by governors and presidents, Dr. Martin said: “If it is proper to exercise these [religious] functions thus far, it is proper to exercise them so far that all the world will know that we are a Christian nation.” This purpose to have America lead the world in that particular direction is also significant when considered in connection with the prophecy above alluded to. He continued:—

We felt the necessity of making America Christian before we could have the right influence upon the nations of earth. America has a world-wide influence. She is being looked to as an example. The whole world is waking up, and America is in the lead. These considerations caused us to desire to get missionaries together from all parts of the world, and to do our best to make their influence felt in the line of Christianizing the nations and governments of the earth.

The kind of Christianizing that will be done there is the kind that is being attempted here; and that influence will pave the way for the complete fulfilment of that long-predicted decree of persecution and death foretold in Rev. 13: 15-17.

Throughout the institute it was made plain that the state was the ultimate authority in all things in the earth. Said Dr. Martin: “The state derives its authority direct from God; it is a moral and accountable being; and it can not admit of any imperium in imperio.” That is, its ruling is final for the individual. He can not of right set up his conscience, for that would be acting according to a rule independent of the state — an imperium in imperio, which the state could not admit.

And that idea of government puts us right back in Babylon. Babylon could not admit any imperium in imperio; so when the conscientious Hebrews followed the dictates of their own conscience in the matter of worship, they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. It is significant, however, that the form of a fourth, even the Son of God, was seen in their midst, and that God himself taught Babylon that there could be, in the state, a rule within a rule, a kingdom within a kingdom, an imperium in imperio. That rule is the rule of conscience; and that kingdom is the kingdom of God set up in the heart of his child, even though that child of God is a subject of the state. That lesson which Jehovah taught Nebuchadnezzar through his own fiery furnace, and taught King Darius and his counselors through the den of lions, is just as applicable here and now as it was then, and just as necessary. God holds each individual soul personally accountable to himself, without any regard to what decrees kings or governments may issue.

Throughout the institute this thought was emphasized: “The chief end of the individual is to glorify God. The state being a moral personality, its chief end is to glorify God and labor for the upbuilding of his kingdom in the earth.”

Such an arrangement would put the state directly in the place of the church, and rule out the individual entirely from responsibility in that great work; for if the state assumes the duty of upbuilding the kingdom of God in the earth, its authority being ultimate and absolute, it must exclude from that work all agencies save those which work under its direction. It can not admit of an imperium in imperio. What, then, becomes of the great commission which Christ personally gave to his followers? That would never do. The nation or state must do the work. But we look in vain through all our Saviour’s teaching for any account of his ever having commissioned a state, a nation, or a king to go “into all the world, and preach the gospel” even to one individual “creature.”

In discussing the question of the rights of the individual in matters of conscience, Dr. Martin said:—

The crux of the whole matter is right in this: the state or the nation has rights. It has a life of its own, a character of its own, and it is bound to maintain its own rights. As against the right of the state to maintain its own life and rights and character, no individual, no set of men, can step up and claim rights, because their rights are limited by the right of the state, which is supreme.

If that be true, then every martyr that has died rather than violate his conscience has done wrong in the sight of God, and is guilty of his own death; for in standing true to his own conscience, he was opposing his state in the exercise of its just prerogatives and in the maintenance of its just rights. But to take such a position as that would be to accuse God himself, who stood among the Hebrew worthies and shielded them from harm, who shut the mouths of the lions that they should not harm Daniel, who opened heaven that Stephen, while being stoned to death for his faith, might see his face and the glory of the redeemed, and who comforted and upheld his tortured children through the dark ages.

What a terrible anachronism it is that in this age of progress, of prosperity, of knowledge, of light and liberty, and with all the lessons and warnings of history staring us in the face, those principles which have ruined nations and spilled the blood of the innocent should be soberly advocated, and that, too, in America!

Such a doctrine is essentially anti-christian, and such a political program is dangerously un-American. C. M. S.