Your ShelfYour Projects

Notes on the National Reform Convention

6%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 23, 1906

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 83, No. 34.

Read the full edition

Notes on the National Reform Convention

By C. M. S.

The principal address in the National Reform institute on August 15 was delivered by the Rev. T. P. Stevenson, of Philadelphia, the general secretary of the National Reform Association, on “The Relation of Nations to the Bible.”
The address was based throughout upon the idea that nations are moral agents, and being such, the revelations of the Word are addressed to nations. Little reference was made by the speaker to the personal relation between individual man and his Maker. The nation was responsible, as a nation, for the sins of the individuals composing it. The nation sinned or was righteous, it was to be punished or rewarded, according to the attitude which it, as a moral agent, assumed toward God.
He said: “Nations do sin; it is impossible that they should not. They are moral beings because they are composed of moral beings. Because the people are imperfect, sinful, therefore the nations they compose are imperfect, sinful. Therefore nations do sin; and God has opened a way whereby nations, as well as individuals, can escape the consequences of their sin. That comes by the special revelation of God to the nation. If there is salvation for the individual, there is salvation for social bodies as well. If the salvation which God provides for man is a complete salvation for him, it must reach the national life and national experience as well as the individual life and experience.”
All this argument, which finds its basis only in human reasoning, and is merely an expedient to an end, was made for the purpose of laying a foundation for placing the laws, rules, and usages of the church in the law code of the land; and in making that transformation in its laws, the nation was represented as doing a work which would atone for its remissness and its sins. Then the nation would become Christian; the laws of God would be the law of the land. He stated that where differences arose in the interpretation of the laws of God, they would have to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. If the people did not like the interpretation of the court in any particular matter, still they must abide by it until they could in some way (which he did not explain) change the complexion of that court and get one that would give the right interpretation. The speaker stated in so many words that the Supreme Court would be the interpreter of the Word of God for the people.
Right here a very pertinent question was raised by one in attendance at the meeting. He asked: “If all this be true, then do we accept the interpretation of the courts as a Catholic accepts the ex cathedra utterances of the pope?”
The reply was interesting for its ingenuity in denying what it did really admit. The speaker said: “The pope claims authority to interpret the Word of God for all the nations as well as for the individual man; that there is no interpreter but himself, the head of the infallible church. Cardinal Manning has declared in reference to this that ‘the pope is the sole and last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.’ Now we maintain the right of every nation to interpret the Bible for itself, and that is freedom, not bondage, as it seems to me.” So the only difference would be that the world would have as many popes as there are national supreme courts. When any nation’s supreme court spoke upon a matter of religion or morals, it would speak ex cathedra, as does the pope for the world, and that utterance would be an infallible one to all intents and purposes, until the people were able to change the complexion of the supreme court and get another ex cathedra, infallible utterance overthrowing the former one.
Dr. John A. Henderson followed Dr. Stevenson in an address upon the importance of the marriage institution in society and government. It contained much that was good. One remark of the speaker was to the effect that the family relation was the only matter that Jesus Christ ever distinctly legislated upon. He was asked if it would not be advisable for Christians to follow the example of Jesus in keeping out of the domain of legislation, but he evaded the question, and would not commit himself.
He made one declaration which is worthy of being quoted, and was particularly interesting to the writer in view of the preceding speaker’s insistence upon the great importance of the state and nation. He said:—
“God is interested continually and only in the individual. The family will pass away; the church will pass away; the state will pass away when it has served its purpose; but the individual will remain. They are all set for the culture and development of the individual.”
The third address of this session was given by Dr. William Parsons, of Philadelphia, and dealt with the various methods of propaganda in reform work. It is the design of the National Reform Association to build up in this country one great federated church organization which shall take hold of all lines of reform work, and throw their combined influence into the work until the reforms demanded by this association are brought about.
On the afternoon of the same day Dr. Parsons spoke again, this time upon the theme of “Crystallizing Public Sentiment into Law.” He discussed the methods of procedure in getting bills through legislatures, and certainly showed himself well versed in the means which politicians take in getting the legislation they want. It would have made very peculiar reading had it been attached to the closing words of our Lord’s great commission to his followers, and still it was set forth by the speaker as one of the most important duties of the Christian citizen. He said:—
“In order to get the legislation we want, we must first make a public demand for it. There is a scientific way of doing that. Legislators are not, to any large extent, natural-born reformers. Many of them are out for graft, and you have got to be rough-and-tumble with them. Many of them are men who have no strong convictions about things in general. They like to be on the sunny side of the political hedge. They are there for what there is in it. First you have to fight such men, then you have to forgive them, and then you have to use them. There are a few of the legislators who are reformers. These you must use also. They are to be your helpers; but you must not leave it for them to work out for you. You must frame your own bill. Then there is the conservative. You must show him the necessity of what you want to get through. That is the way our Dr. Crafts is working constantly. That is the way the American Sabbath Union does its work.”
“Then you have to get after the politician. You have to promise and threaten and wheedle him, and make him thoroughly understand that if he votes against your measure, he won’t be on the sunny side of the hedge any longer.”
“Then you have got to get some one to introduce your measure, and then you must put on the screws, put on the pressure. That work of putting on the pressure must be done. The other fellow does it, and you must.”
There was a great deal more of this nature, but this will suffice to give the reader an idea of this new “Christian” duty in a state that is to have God and his laws recognized in the fundamental laws of the land.
C. M. S.