Religious Liberty As a Club
By Editor
On the evening of February 4 an address was delivered in the chapel of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, the greater part of which has since been published for general circulation. In an editorial introduction it is stated that “these are the principles that we entertain, and that we hope shall ever prevail, in the sanitarium and all its work and workers.” In view of this statement and of the general character of the address, it seems proper to give the principles presented some consideration in the REVIEW. The title of the published address is “Medical Missionary Religious Liberty,” and at least one aim of it appears to be to make a protest against an alleged “perverse use of the Testimonies,” but the opening part of this very address itself furnishes an example of such a perverse use of the Testimonies that we must enter our protest against it. The speaker first quoted the following statements from a recent Testimony:— I wish to say to every soul, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” In magnifying the Lord, be sure that you do not condemn and make charges against others. While we are to call error, error, and withstand delusive sentiments that will continue to come into our ranks to palsy the faith and assurance of the people of God, we are to make no tirade against men and women. The conclusion drawn from this excellent counsel is put in these words:— Those who have done these unrighteous things have claimed that they were doing them out of loyalty to the Testimonies. Thus the situation illustrates this truth: nobody can be loyal to the Testimonies and go contrary to the Bible. Nobody can disobey the Scriptures and be loyal to the Testimonies in doing it. No man can be loyal to the Testimonies, and put himself on the ground of the Testimonies, and stand for the Testimonies, and in the doing of it violate the plain, every-day words and principles of the Bible. But that is what has been done in this situation, else this Testimony never would have needed to be given. To use the caution given against pursuing a certain course of action as the basis of a charge that that course of action has actually been pursued is, according to the best light we have, a glaringly perverse use of the Testimonies. On this principle of interpretation the counsel recently given to a worthy brother against going to the sanitarium to teach could be used as positive proof that he had already been teaching in the institution. To state the case exactly as it appears to us, we are compelled to say that it seems like an attempt to make the Testimonies responsible for a charge which is based upon assertion rather than upon evidence. In the early part of this address we find this statement:— No person in the world can ever rightly and in loyalty to the Testimonies use them as a club upon any soul on earth. This is not a direct assertion that any one has been using the Testimonies as a club in Battle Creek, but under all the circumstances it may be proper to consider what has been done there. It is, of course, well known that quite a number of very plain Testimonies, dealing both with general principles and with the course of certain individuals, have recently been read in the Tabernacle at Battle Creek. This is no new departure in this denomination. The Testimonies have been read both in the Tabernacle and in the sanitarium for many years. And, further, we distinctly remember that at the General Conference of 1897, held at College View, Neb., nearly half a day was occupied in reading before a very large audience Testimonies which severely reproved the president of the General Conference for the course which he had been pursuing. Now Testimonies have been read which have reproved with the same plainness other men prominent in the denomination, but we heard nothing said then about using the Testimonies as a club, and we do not think they were so used then, or have been so used now. The circumstances have changed, it is true, and it is now the medical work and workers under reproof, but that does not change any principle4concerning the right use of the Testimonies. If there had been any desire on the part of those who have sought to maintain the integrity of this message during the past three years to use the Testimonies as a club, the record of this controversy would have been a very different one. Further on in the address we find this statement:— Every man's faith stands between him and God alone; not between him and any other man or set of men. No man is ever answerable to any man or set of men for his belief on any question whatever, Bible or Testimonies. The position here taken is perfectly sound, and we indorse it heartily. To take any other position on this question would be to indorse the papacy and the Inquisition. When a man teaches doctrines which are contrary to the Scriptures, we of course have a perfect right to point out that fact, and to show wherein he departs from the truth, but he is not answerable to us or any other man for his belief. But while it is always true that “no man is ever answerable to any man or set of men for his belief on any question whatever, Bible or Testimonies,” it is equally true that when a man occupies the position of a teacher or a leader in a denomination, the people have a right to ask and to know whether he believes those doctrines which are held to be fundamental by the body; and if he is sound in the faith, he will not deem it necessary to resent any such desire to know, on the plea that it is an interference with his religious liberty. In the exercise of his religious liberty a man has the privilege of believing or not believing, just as he may choose, but he has no right to use the resources and the agencies of a denomination for promulgating his beliefs when they are destructive of the very life of the denomination, or to complain if the young people of the denomination are not committed to him for their training when he has chosen to believe what the parents do not wish to be taught to their sons and daughters. To insist upon soundness of belief in the teachers and leaders of a denomination is no more a domination of another's faith than the casting of Satan out of heaven for his disloyalty was a domination of his faith. Lucifer justified his rebellion on the ground that his liberty was encroached upon, and other rebellions have since been justified on the same ground. And to raise the issue of religious liberty in order to prevent a denomination from learning concerning the belief of those who wish to instruct in it, is to attempt to use religious liberty as a club. We do not believe in using either the Testimonies or religious liberty as a club. The issue which it is claimed is now at the front for settlement is stated in this paragraph:— Now, that is the question in this family. And not only in this family; that is the question all over the United States, and it is fast reaching to the ends of the earth and all over the world. The question is whether man shall dominate man, whether man shall regulate a man's faith, or whether God shall have his place, and man be free, with God in his own place. We can make a definite application of this principle, and can say that in the recent experience through which we have been passing one prominent issue has been “whether man shall dominate man.” The difficulty began over that very question. The tendency to centralize control reached a point where the integrity of this movement became imperiled, and when the religious liberty of an individual to decide upon his own course for himself was claimed, the imperious spirit of domination which could brook no interference precipitated an open rupture rather than concede such liberty to a collaborer. These are the simple facts of history. And resistance against the denomination to dominate must not be confused with the purpose to dominate. The former sometimes becomes necessary in the interest of truth and righteousness, but the latter is never excusable. We are willing to concede religious liberty to “the other man,” but we are inclined to ask “the other man” to grant us the same privilege. And when the question of domination in this denomination is settled, we think it will be found that the body will claim the right of self-government rather than submit to the domination of anybody. We are sure that the evil principle of domination will not again flourish in this denomination. A new experience has come to the helpers at the Battle Creek Sanitarium. For two or three years they had heard only one side of the story of this controversy. And their faith in the Testimonies had been almost wrecked by a method with which we ourselves are entirely familiar. Recently they have heard the Testimonies for themselves, and a new light has been shed upon the situation. As a result, they could not accept the explanations and interpretations which they had previously assented to, and were unwilling that their views of the present situation should any longer be formulated for them. This exercise of religious liberty led to differences of opinion, and naturally to a different course of action. Then followed charges of insubordination and anarchy. It is, of course, possible that some did not make the wisest use of their liberty, and this may have given occasion for the following rebuke in the course of the address:— There are people in this family who need to learn it [the lesson concerning Peter's solicitude about John's duty]. They have not been doing it lately; they have been watching other people, questioning others on this, that, and the other. But that is not religious liberty,—it is not following Jesus. It is not Christianity; it is not loyalty to the Bible; it is not loyalty to the Testimonies. We may be mistaken in our conclusion, but this sounds much like condemning and making charges against others, although it may be intended as a mere statement of facts. Under all the circumstances, however, it is not surprising that there should be some watching and questioning. A situation had been created by the course of the management which inevitably led to it. The remedy will not be found in raising the cry of religious liberty, but in a change of policy. On the whole, we can not think that the cause of religious liberty has been materially advanced by this address on religious liberty, neither can we think that it will contribute to a settlement, on a right basis, of the difficulties which have arisen among us. It will be necessary to give due consideration to some other instruction in the Testimonies besides the caution not to condemn and make charges against others, before the fundamental causes of the present controversy are removed.