The National Reform Institute by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 31, 1911

The National Reform Institute

By C. M. S.

A Change of Policy

The character of the program being carried out at the National Reform Institute this year is decidedly different from those which it has carried out in previous years. It is held at the same place, Winona Lake, Ind., and covers the two weeks beginning August 7. Dr. J. S. Martin, the general superintendent, is in charge; but of the speakers who have been prominent in these institutes in the past none are on the program, save the superintendent.

In past years the burden of the addresses has been what we would term political Christianity,—saving the nation by remodeling the Constitution so as to place Christian laws, rules, and usages on “an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land;” bringing in the kingdom of Christ by political means; setting up a national standard of religion, and bringing all other religions into harmony with it by force of law and penalty; etc.

This year, during the first half of the institute practically nothing has been presented of that nature. The themes dwelt upon have had to do, first, with the problem of receiving and properly assimilating the thousands of immigrants who annually come to our shores, and, second, with the progress of Christianity in heathen lands and the attitude of the nations toward it. The nations represented in these addresses are China, India, Arabia, Turkey, Persia, the Philippines, Japan, and the Greek Catholic countries. The discussion upon both these themes has been interesting, because, in the main, it has been conducted by those who have had to do with the problems they have discussed.

In every address presented by these experienced missionaries, their recitation of experiences and conditions has condemned the principles for which the National Reform Association stands. For instance, in the address of Dr. Charles L. Baer on India, this statement was made: ‘The attitude of the British government to all these religions is the attitude of a Christian government; that is, it is neutral.’ This is strikingly different from the attitude of the National Reform Association toward other religions. Its attitude is this: ‘Let the government simply set up the moral law, and acknowledge God’s authority behind it, and lay its hand on any religion that does not conform to it.’ If the attitude of the British government in India is the attitude of a Christian government, how must we designate the attitude of the National Reform Association, which is the very opposite of that?

Dr. Baer also made this statement, which is strikingly out of harmony with National Reform principles: ‘While the British government has never sought to disguise the fact that it is religious, yet that government has never thought it wise to enforce its religion upon the people.’ That, too, is a Christian attitude; for the moment force is used in religion, that moment the kingdom of darkness begins to masquerade in the garb of the kingdom of light, and the result produced is not Christianity, but baptized paganism. The key-note of paganism is religion by force of compulsion; that of Christianity, religion by the force of conviction. And when National Reformism

is worked out, it will not be upon the lines on which the British government is operating in India, but rather upon the lines on which Roman Catholicism is operating in South America and elsewhere, and Greek Catholicism is operating in Greece and Russia.

Rev. V. Losa, in an address upon ‘Why the Immigrant Is Here,’ stated that he was often asked whether it was worth while to work among those immigrants who already have a type of Christianity when they come here. His reply was that, ‘spiritually, those people are as thoroughly in darkness as the people of China or Africa or any other place; and even Protestants who come from those lands [Austria and Germany] are nothing more than mere formalists, and have to be converted here, and whether they are Lutherans or Reformed. They are mere formalists, with no spiritual knowledge—they have never been converted.’

This is a striking statement, and strikingly illustrates the baleful results of such a policy as that proposed by the National Reform Association. For centuries those countries have had in force just such a régime as that which the National Reform Association proposes to establish here—a union of religion and the state. It led to formalism there, to formal profession without conversion, a form of Christianity without the power, a shell without the substance. It produced ‘Christians’ who needed to come for conversion to a country where there is no union of religion and the state. This ought to demonstrate to the officials of the organization that their movement is one which is bound to produce the same deplorable religious conditions which exist in Bohemia, Galicia, Croatia, and other European provinces where religion and the state are united.

In previous institutes the lecturers have relegated individual work to a second place, and have put the securing of ‘Christian’ legislation in the forefront, and that is the present attitude of the association; but in answer to a question of the superintendent as to how the Christianizing of these foreigners could be brought about, the speaker replied: ‘You must individualize; it is an individual problem.’ That is true. Individual hearts must be touched by the gospel, and each soul must respond individually and for itself. But this is not National Reformism, which proposes to ‘save’ the people by having the nations, as such, make formal recognition of God, and begin to enact laws to control the religious practises of the people.

In the discussion on August 10 over the question of teaching religion in the public schools, the fact was brought to light that in the Netherlands each denomination is permitted to have its religious teachers visit the public schools regularly, and teach the children in the faith to which they belong. Dr. Martin objected to this arrangement for America, as it would, to his mind, be the teaching of sectarianism in the public schools, and set forth thus the attitude of his association upon this question: ‘I am thoroughly persuaded that there is no rational reason why the state or nation itself, in its own institutions, and through its regularly employed instructors, should not impart to its own youth that instruction which is in keeping with its own life, and which is absolutely essential to the maintenance of its own life and character. I would not compel any child to believe; but I would teach what is in accordance with the nature and character of the institution.’

That means, though in very guarded language, the teaching of a national religious creed in the public schools of the country, at the expense of the general taxpayer. It would be a creed that the most powerful religious force or federation of forces in the country would formulate, and the children of all denominations must listen to this creed without regard to the wishes of parents or children. Nothing more un-American or unchristian in policy or result could be proposed as a solution of the question of how to bring the people of this nation to the feet of Christ. To let the preachers of each denomination teach the children belonging to their respective churches would be sectarianism, and could not be tolerated; but for the state to make a creed of its own—to institute another sect, or enforce the creed of some one sect upon all—that would not be sectarianism. Truly, great is logic!

Dr. V. Losa, in his address upon ‘How the Immigrant Is to Become a Safe Citizen,’ emphasized again the pre-eminent importance of individual effort upon the part of the missionary among the immigrants. There was no hint of the possibility of bringing about the desired conditions by legal enactment, and yet the spiritual teaching of that man among his immigrant countrymen was followed by civilization. ‘Their souls have to be opened first,’ said he, ‘and then civilization follows very quickly.’

It was a characteristic of each address given by Dr. Losa, and by the speakers who had labored in foreign countries, that the conditions which they found, the only methods of work which they found effective, and the remedies which they suggested for those conditions, emphatically contradicted the fundamental hypotheses of the National Reform Association. The conditions which it is seeking to bring about here are the very conditions which have made necessary real Christian missionary work among foreign nations and among foreigners in America. The principles which that association advocates for America are the principles whose outworking so seriously handicaps the work of the missionaries of the cross in foreign lands.

The program for the remainder of the institute has in it more of the real National Reform propaganda, and will set forth what it is expected to accomplish at the next World’s Christian Citizenship Conference.

C. M. S.