Too Much of Science; Too Little of God
By S. B. Horton
Shall the State Teach Religion?—If So, What Religion Shall It Be?—Can State and Church Adhere to the Same Exalted Standards? In a recent speech, Vice President Marshall protested against “too much science in the so-called educational system, and too little God Almighty.” The Record, of Fort Worth, Texas, speaking of the criticism of a local minister against its comment upon the vice president’s speech, gives some very wholesome counsel to those in America who claim that there should be an organic relationship between the church and the state. The article is quoted very fully, for it is quite apropos: Apart from Civil Government
“We frankly avow sympathy with Dr. Caldwell’s concern about the secularization toward which not only the school but all things seem to be tending, but we insist that this is a concern which the church must exercise in ways entirely apart from legislation or administration or other function of civil government. Dr. Caldwell ventures the opinion that the Record’s writer ‘will tell you that no country is safe that isn’t founded on faith in God; that history is our witness that the first step of dissolution of nations is loss of faith and loss of morals.’ That depends upon what is meant by ‘country.’ If the people, we say Yes; if the government, we say No. The distinction between the government and the people must be clearly maintained, or we will fall into errors, if not into awful tyrannies, as aforetime under church administration of civil affairs.” Not Through the Government, but Through the Church
“‘Loss of faith and loss of morals,’ we verily believe, will undo nations by undoing the people who make the nations; but the remedy is to reach the people, not through the government, but through the church. We have faith in the church—faith that it can accomplish its purpose without the aid of government. On the other hand, we fear government when it exercises any other than civil functions. We fear it especially when it undertakes to teach religion or to exercise religious authority; for there are so many kinds of religion—so many kinds of Christianity—that we are unwilling to have any majority of men to exercise any power over any man’s religious view or practice. We cannot forget history. We cannot ignore the tendency of zealots to proscribe. We have witnessed it, and have felt it, even in this day and in this land of freedom.” “‘The state and the church will be separate as a man and a woman are separate, but they will be one as a husband and wife are one, for the benefit of each other and all dependent upon them,’ says Dr. Caldwell. “That is dangerous doctrine, doctor. What church do you mean? The Christian church? Then shall it be Catholic or Protestant? If Protestant, shall it be Presbyterian or Baptist? Woodrow Wilson’s or Tom Marshall’s? Or shall it be Evangelical or Episcopalian? And shall it be divinely Christian, like yours and ours, or humanly Christian, like former President Taft’s Unitarian Church? And who shall order that it shall be Christian? The Jews believe in Tom Marshall’s God Almighty. Shall the ‘church’ of your ideal marriage with the state be the church of the Hebrew God and the gentile God, or the church of only the gentile’s Christ?” Sound Statesmanship and Good Farming by Atheists
“The state is a process of civil order, as farming is a process of natural science and art. We do not believe that religion is any more a part of civil government than it is a part of agriculture, though our own view is that the order of government and the order of nature both declare God. Still, sound statesmanship and good farming are possible by atheists. “The church is wife to all persons who will accept her teachings; but her relation is to individuals, and not in any wise to organized society. “As to education, let the church educate whom she can and will. The state, though, must educate those who refuse to believe as well as those who do believe. As to the Bible, it may be properly used in the state’s schools as literature, for it is the noblest single book of literature in all the world; but to use it as literature only is to refrain from representing it as inspired, and to disregard its inspiration is to ignore its religious value.” The Higher Standard of the Church
“At the same time that Dr. Caldwell was preaching, another Christian minister was preaching a sermon which will serve to illustrate our view. Dr. John A. Rice reported the resolutions adopted by the Methodist General Conference announcing reforms for which the church must stand. Among them is this: ‘For the protection of the family, by the single standard of purity, uniform divorce laws, proper regulation of marriage, and proper housing.’” “Now the Christian church generally recognizes only moral unworthiness as cause for divorce. Most of the states of the Union recognize many other causes for divorce. The church may properly plead, through the people, for its view of divorce. It cannot enforce its views through the state, for the majority of the people, as indicated by their laws, have another view of the social and domestic welfare. The church holds marriage to be a social and spiritual union which only ministers may perform; the state holds marriage to be a social and civil union which any magistrate may perform. The church, as the wife of the state, would attempt to exercise the dominant influence in such a question as this; the state would resist, and there would arise the irrepressible conflict. “The church’s laws are from God, and are immutable; the state’s laws are from the people, and are subject to the people’s amendment or nullification.” “Thus in the nature of the authority which stands back of divine law and the authority which stands back of civil law, there is an organic separation which utterly forbids even the figurative union which Dr. Caldwell suggests. “Finally, civil government in the American view means complete freedom of religious opinion; and that is impossible in a government which proscribes directly or indirectly any religious faith or lack of faith, or which sets up any standard of conduct derived from inspiration, for the simple reason that there are many people who do not believe in inspiration or revelation. “We fear that ministers of the gospel who look to the state for aid in promoting the work of the Almighty, are lacking in faith in the Almighty’s power, or are impatient of the accomplishment of His high purpose, which we believe He will accomplish in His own good time without the assistance of princes, potentates, or democracies.” The Distinction to Be Recognized
That there was to be a recognized distinction between civil government and religion is evident from the language of the Saviour, who said, “Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Mark 12: 17. This language is mandatory, and provides for the complete separation of church and state. And in our judgment, the mandate to keep them forever separate is of as much importance as the mandate in regard to the marriage103relation, which directs, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Wherever man has deviated from these two precautionary commands, trouble, perplexity, and apostasy has invariably followed. God has decreed that church and state shall be separated. He has also decreed that husband and wife shall be joined together. There is no more logic in asking for a union of what God has separated, than there is in asking for a separation between those whom God has joined together.