p. 5 | Misquoted by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 6, 1906

Misquoted

By C. M. S.

It is far from our purpose to injure any man or organization of men by misinterpreting their motives or misquoting their utterances. Nevertheless, we have so long foreseen the result of the National Reform principles, if adopted in this country, that we have actually in one instance put that result in the place of their statement of their aims. We are glad, however, to make correction in this matter.

In the article which appeared in these columns in our issue of September 27, entitled “An Interview on National Reform,” we declared one of the objects of the National Reformers to be that “all the laws, rules, and usages of the church shall be placed on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” The quotation is not correct. Art. 2 of National Reform Constitution reads:—

To secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation’s allegiance to Jesus Christ, and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.

We unintentionally substituted the word “church” for “our government.” To some it may seem that the error is vital, and that the difference between what we said and what they propose is a great and important one; but it is far more in the seeming than in the reality, as we shall show.

What are the “Christian laws, institutions, and usages” referred to?—Manifestly, they are those “laws, institutions, and usages” which are based, in fact or in theory, upon practises existing among, or instituted by, bodies calling themselves Christians, the Christian church. Therefore, when this government places “Christian laws, institutions, and usages” in its fundamental law, it is placing there the “laws, institutions, and usages” of the church. If they were not the “laws, institutions, and usages” of the church, they could not be denominated Christian. If they are “Christian,” they must pertain to the visible body of Christ on earth, the church, otherwise they have no right to be so named.

The question arises, How many “Christian laws, institutions, and usages” would our National Reform friends have “authenticated in our fundamental law”? They reply: Those “of our government.” What limit is set to the number?—None. Whatever the government will permit to be adopted, they would have placed on that “undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law.” The limit to the number of such laws, institutions, and usages which they would have placed in the fundamental law is thus only gauged by their ability to have such laws, institutions, and usages in some way sanctioned or practised by those in government employ.

It is thus perfectly apparent that the gates would be thrown open for constitutionalizing “all the laws, rules, and usages of the church,” just as we unintentionally made them say.

The editor of the Christian Statesman calls our misquotation a “wholly erroneous charge.” We would like to know in what its erroneous nature consists. In spite of the fact that the quotation was not exact, it is certainly a more comprehensive setting forth of the organization’s aims than is the expression which the association has adopted.

And now, when the government adopts the policy and carries out the purpose of that organization, it will adopt the principle of a union of church and state in spite of the declarations of the National Reform leaders that they are against any such union. Every move which the leaders of the organization make to carry out its purposes is a move to direct and supervise the functions of the state, even in its minutest ramifications. The whole purpose of the organization, which is a religious one, is to control in civil affairs—to say who shall be elected and who shall not, what laws shall be enacted, what laws shall be enforced, and what laws shall be abolished; what days of the week men shall work and what day they shall cease from labor. And with every such law a penalty must go. Admit the righteousness of the principle, and we admit the righteousness of everything Rome ever was or ever did in her palmiest days.

In view of the fact that “our government” is a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” and the further fact that it has guaranteed the equality of men within its borders, we ask what right it has to adopt the religious practises of one portion of its inhabitants to the exclusion of the religious practises of other bodies? Again: in view of the fact that Christ himself declared his kingdom was not of this world, we ask what authority Christians have for insisting that “Christian laws, institutions, and usages” shall be the “laws, institutions, and usages” of our government?

And now, when the state has adopted and is carrying on certain “Christian laws, institutions, and usages,” which come to it through

church influence, how can men consistently and truthfully declare that there is no union of church and state? And when Christian men are giving all their time and exerting all their influence to legalize those practises, and to foster the adoption of others, that they also may be legalized, how can they consistently and truthfully declare that they are opposed to a union of church and state? To be sure, they call it by another name — religion and the state — which in its outworking is merely the pseudonym for the same thing.

C. M. S.