p. 4 | At the National Reform Convention by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 6, 1906

At the National Reform Convention

By C. M. S.

The address given at the recent National Reform Convention at Winona Lake, Ind., by Rev. John A. Henderson on the subject of Militarism had, perhaps, as much involved in it as any address of the session.

He referred to the international conference at Rio de Janeiro, the meeting of the Interparliamentary Union at London, and the coming peace congress at The Hague, as omens of a great federation of the nations under one executive, and showed how, as the various provisions for maintaining the world's peace proved inadequate, such an international federation was the only solution of the world's peace problem. He showed how all lines of endeavor for the world's peace were converging at The Hague, because of the fact that the nations could not disarm under the present condition of things. They could not trust one another; should they disarm at once, it would unsettle present economic conditions, because of the millions now engaged in the work of supplying the equipments of war. The cry of peace seemed to be a despairing cry when we consider the conflicting elements.

Arbitration would not be the ideal solution, because arbitration was always litigious; each nation would seek to make the most of its case; but in confederation of the nations lay the world's hope of peace. So he said:—

Our theory, as a National Reform Association, is the federation and co-operation of the nations to do away with the military institution. That is the great and the only hope. This would involve a world's congress for peace, laws that are international, a world's judiciary to determine what the international law means, and a world's executive to enforce international law, also an international police system.

The speaker cited, as steps toward that end, the present alliances between certain nations, and continued:—

All the great powers of earth shall join hands, under international law, with an international executive, judiciary, and legislative department. We believe that instead of the litigious arbitration, our hope should be fixed upon a universal federation, the federation of the world.

The readers of the Review can readily see the intimate connection between such a movement and the condition portrayed in Revelation 13, where all the world is arrayed under “one executive,” and that executive enforcing upon the people the forms of worship which he shall prescribe. That such a condition will be brought about is as certain as that the Bible is true, and there is no present reason to doubt that it will be brought about in some such way as that outlined by Dr. Henderson. There are many lines of evidence that are converging in that direction, and the rapid unfolding of these movements is an evidence to us of the hastening of the finishing work.

These earnest, zealous, enthusiastic men are certainly saying “A confederacy,” a confederacy of “the nations that are far off,” as the prophecy (Isa. 8:12) indicates they would do; and while they are doing their utmost to bring it about, they are but a small part of the influences and powers that are working to that end.

Rev. T. P. Stevenson followed Dr. Henderson in an address upon the idea of universal peace, basing his remarks upon Isa. 2:2-4, and predicting that the time would come when the conditions there outlined would obtain throughout the world. After the address, his attention was called to the fact that he had been basing a sermon upon the words of “many people” rather than the words of God; and Joel 3:9-17 was suggested as a good text to study in that connection. He promised to study the matter from that standpoint.

One of the points most strongly emphasized at this convention was the matter of moral, or religious, education in the public schools. A very strong address was given by Dr. Henderson upon this topic. He said some very good things in regard to the worth of education, the value of good morals in the young; but he placed upon the state the responsibility for the education of its growing citizens in the principles of Christian morality. The children must be educated in those essentials; but the state could never turn over to any other institution the education of the young. Therefore, she must teach religion (for that is the moving purpose of the whole plan). The home was insufficient for the task, and the Sunday-schools and churches could not be relied upon to do it, because their teaching force was a volunteer force, and you can not compel attendance at Sunday-schools and churches.

The heart of the whole thing was laid bare in that statement. They want moral and religious instruction made compulsory, and the only way it can be brought about is to have that instruction given

in an institution where attendance is made compulsory. They want religion in all the people; and as God's ordained methods are not bringing that about sufficiently fast to meet their mind, they want to make the nation religious by law.

The argument against the ability of the Sunday-school and church to give the necessary moral and religious instruction, would be just as strong against leaving to the volunteer missionaries the work of evangelizing the world. He said:—

You can not compel attendance at the Sunday-school—you can at the public school. At the Sunday-school you have to take the kind of teachers that will volunteer, while the state gets the best there is.

How would that work in religious matters generally? Jesus took those who volunteered for his work, and he has been calling for volunteers ever since. The world is being evangelized to-day by volunteers. Shall we call them out of the field, and fill their places with state-paid men and women? Did Jesus make a mistake in making his service a service of choice, and raining the pentecostal blessing only upon those who volunteered for his service? If the National Reform idea is right, Jesus was wrong, and the whole plan of gospel promulgation needs revision. I would rather listen one hour to a consecrated Christian Sabbath-school teacher who was teaching from choice than to sit a whole week under the instruction of one who was teaching the same thing by state appointment and for state pay.

That the National Reform Association aims at more than mere moral instruction in the public schools is shown by the following statement by Dr. Henderson:—

It is necessary to have a single standard of morals. We have such a standard—the Bible. The state should therefore establish and maintain instruction in the Bible in all the institutions of public education. (Applause.) The Bible does not belong to the church any more than it does to the nation.

If that be true, the government has as much right to teach religion from the Bible as the church has; and it has as much right to teach religion from the Bible as it has to teach anything else from the Bible. That the National Reformers at heart believe this is shown by Dr. Henderson's emphatic declaration that “what is needed in this country is the schools of God.”

Of course there is no question about the need; but when it comes to the question of supplying that need by the machinery of the state established through the prevalent methods of politics, he who would honor Christ and true religion must demur. C. M. S.