Referendum in the Grand Rapids Sunday Closing Issue
By K. C. R.
One of the liveliest and most enthusiastic contests on the question of more rigid Sunday laws took place in Grand Rapids, Mich., for a week or more before the election on November 6, at which time the question was decided by use of the referendum. The result of the election was six hundred majority against the question of stricter Sunday laws. The battle there was ostensibly directed against the Sunday theater, which was set forth as a very great menace to the children and youth of that city. It is estimated that the theaters there have an aggregate attendance of about eighteen thousand on Sundays. The opposition waged by the ministers was not against the theater as an institution. A prominent minister in Grand Rapids stated that he considered it a privilege, and his duty at times, to attend the theater. Our Connection with the Issue
October 28, the Sunday previous to our first lecture, a joint debate was held in the Y. M. C. A. building between Prof. J. G. Lamson, of Holly, Mich., and Rev. R. W. McLaughlin, the leader in the movement against the Sunday theater. The usual arguments in favor of the Sunday closing of theaters were made by the Doctor. The following are a few of the points made in reply to the Doctor’s argument by Prof. J. G. Lamson, as was reported in the Grand Rapids Herald bearing date of Nov. 29, 1906:— “I am not a theatergoer myself, and do not believe in theaters, and no pupil in my school can remain in school and attend theaters; and if a theater is immoral on Sunday, it is an immoral institution upon every day of the week, and should be stopped. But a man has a perfect right to decide for himself whether he will go to a theater or not, and no man has a right to pass a law to hinder him from going to the theater unless his going is an uncivil thing.” “Sunday legislation to a certain extent means the union of church and state, and besides is unproductive of good. Many St. Louis editors, who worked hard for Sunday closing of the St. Louis Fair, afterward expressed themselves as sorry that they took that attitude, as Sunday closing only caused people to go to worse places for amusement.” Professor Lamson asked his opponent if theaters open on Sunday would disturb anybody at all who was Christian enough to stay away from them. Mass-Meeting in the Opera-House
Before we entered the theater to speak, we had a very plain understanding with the managers that we were to have the utmost freedom in what we said. We plainly told them that we did not believe in theaters on any day of the week, and that neither we nor our people attended them, but, notwithstanding that,21we admitted the right of every other person to attend a theater on Sunday or any other day of the week. The writer spoke at a mass-meeting held in the Powers’ Opera-house Saturday evening, November 3, to a large audience, setting before them the principles of religious liberty, and the significance of the movement in Grand Rapids. Two of the Grand Rapids daily papers gave excellent and impartial reports of our lecture. From the number and variety of letters published in the daily papers regarding the question, it was evident that the subject was one concerning which the people were thinking and were deeply interested. Sunday, the fourth instant, those in favor of Sunday closing held a mass-meeting in the Second Street Methodist church, and those of the opposition held a mass-meeting in the Majestic Theater. Both were well attended. At the latter place Prof. J. G. Lamson spoke to a large audience, reviewing a document which had been placed in the homes of the citizens of Grand Rapids by the leader of the campaign for Sunday closing of theaters. The Lord blessed Professor Lamson in making clear the principles of religious liberty taught by Christ, and which lie at the foundation of this government. Monday night, the evening before the election, there were mass-meetings held again. Those favoring more rigid Sunday legislation held their meeting in a large auditorium a few blocks from the place where we held our meeting in the interests of religious liberty, and in opposition to all phases of Sunday laws and religious legislation. The occasion was one of much importance in view of the fact that the Sunday question is already becoming the great pivotal point in elections. Large and enthusiastic audiences were in attendance at both places. Avowal of the Underlying Purpose
At the meeting held in the interests of religious liberty, Elder A. G. Haughey, the president of the West Michigan Conference, presided, and after making an appropriate introductory address, he introduced the writer as the first speaker of the evening. We devoted the time to reviewing some of the arguments made by our opponents, illustrating the principles which we desired to emphasize. Among some of the points reviewed were the following: Rev. R. H. Hartley, pastor of the Westminster Presbyterian church, said, “It is absurd to say that the city or national government should keep their hands out of religious matters.” It is unusual for those who are seeking to unite church and state to express themselves so positively on the question, although they indicate in their movements that they do regard as absurd every effort which is being put forth to have the city and national government keep their hands out of religious matters. This statement made by Rev. Hartley is nothing short of an open rebuke to the teachings of Christ, the author of liberty, who said, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” It is also in contradiction to the teachings of the apostles, reformers, and the principles taught by the fathers of our country. James Madison said: “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from government and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious to both.” Spurgeon said: “I am ashamed of some Christians because they have so much dependence on Parliament and the law of the land. Much good may Parliament ever do to true religion, except by mistake! As to getting the law of the land to touch our religion, we earnestly cry, ‘Hands off! Leave us alone!’ Your Sunday bills and all other forms of act-of-Parliament religion seem to me to be all wrong. Give us a fair field and no favor, and our faith has no cause to fear. Christ wants no help from Cæsar.” The high regard in which the theater as an institution is held by some of the ministers of Grand Rapids, Mich., except the Sunday theaters, should be a question of great concern to the real spiritual and consecrated members of the churches there. Consider the effect upon young men and women who have tendencies toward the world and its pleasures to hear their pastor, who is looked upon as their guide and leader in spiritual things, announce that he is not opposed to the theater as an institution, and that he considers it a privilege, and at times his duty, to attend it. Another minister said in an address in which he was opposing the Sunday theater, “I think we ought to make it perfectly clear that this campaign is not an attack upon the theater as a popular amusement, patronized by church-members as well as others.” The spiritual dearth so much lamented by devoted and consecrated ministers and lay members, can be accounted for to some extent by such statements as the foregoing. All can see that we have reached the time predicted by the apostle Paul, when the professed people of God would be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” Among some of the inconsistent arguments presented by a prominent clergyman of Grand Rapids, were the following:— We had repeatedly emphasized the idea that if theaters are right on other days of the week, they are right on Sunday, and in reply to this argument he said: “It is said that if the theater is right on week-days, it is right on Sunday. Now right and wrong are not absolute but relative terms. That is, in most cases, to say the least, whether a thing is right or wrong, helpful or harmful, depends upon the circumstances. For example, it would be right for Johnny to play ball on Saturday, but it would not be right for him to play on Monday, during school hours, because he ought to go to school. It would be right for a man to go to a picnic under ordinary circumstances, but it would not be right for a man to go if his wife was at the point of death and needed his presence. There is no harm in eating cucumbers, but there might be if you ate them after drinking a glass of milk.” In our reply we agreed that it would be wrong for Johnny to engage in playing ball during school hours, and for a man to attend a picnic when his wife was sick at the point of death, or for a man to eat cucumbers if they were injurious to him; but we would not consider it right for Grand Rapids to have an ordinance prohibiting all baseball playing on Monday because Johnny goes to school, and to compel all husbands whose wives are well to remain away from a picnic because Mr. B’s wife is sick, and he should not go; or to compel everybody to refrain from eating cucumbers and milk because such a combination is injurious to some. This is precisely the logic that is being used by those who are seeking to close all places of amusement on Sunday and compel every other person to conform to their particular standard of what is right and wrong. Let all who are endeavoring to enforce their ideas of religion and civility meditate upon the words of Christ when he said, “And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day;” and upon the words of George Washington, who said: “Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” It is reported that since the election in Grand Rapids, which resulted in six hundred majority against the Sunday-closing proposition, the ministers are not satisfied, and have already drafted an ordinance which has doubtless been presented to the city council ere this, with the hope of securing in this way the object they failed to obtain at the election. This method reminds one of some of the West Indian or Central American governments in resorting to other means after they have been defeated in a fair vote of the people. These experiences are but a repetition of what has marked the history of the world in former periods, when the church powers have sought to dominate the state and municipal government.