BAPTISTS AS NATIONAL REFORMERS.
By G.
At a National Reform Convention held in Lincoln, Neb., last month, Dr. Rowland, a Baptist minister of that city, reiterated the standing National Reform dogma that “the appointment of chaplains for legislative bodies, for prisons, and for the army and navy, and the use of the Bible in connection with the administering of the oath of office, and many other Christian customs, prove this to be a Christian nation.” The speaker seems to have overlooked the fact that the maintaining of an army and navy at all—bodies of men armed with carnal weapons, upon which the government relies for defense—is positive proof that this is not a Christian nation. The Christian’s offensive and defensive weapon is the “sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” The Christian’s weapons are “not carnal,” they are not the weapons of the world, for the reason that “we wrestle not with flesh and blood.” The true Christian is “endued with power from on high,” and the “whole armor of God” is “the breastplate of righteousness,” the “feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace,” the “shield of faith,” the “helmet of salvation,” and the “sword of the Spirit.” How, then, can a nation whose dependence for defense, as well as for aggressive warfare, is in an army and a navy, be a Christian nation? The President of this nation but recently asserted that the Monroe doctrine, which is declared by all political parties and upheld by most of the pulpits, can only be sustained by keeping an army and navy strong enough to enforce it. The Monroe doctrine is a leading principle of the nation, one of the few strenuous measures upon which all parties agree; but is it Christian? How about the Golden Rule? How about the instruction of Christ, “I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”? The continual clamor by the “powers that be” for an increase of the army and especially of the navy, is proof that this nation is being removed farther from the Christian standard as the years roll round. A retired officer of the navy is at this time touring the country advocating an enlarged navy, his purpose being to increase an already widespread sentiment in favor of such a policy. Another speaker at the Nebraska convention was Dr. McAllister, who, being one of the original National Reformers, would, unlike the Baptist minister who preceded him, naturally be expected to take such a position as he is reported to have taken. Believing, as he does, that the church should have a controlling influence in shaping the policy of government, we are not surprised that he should argue that the foundation of civil government (the government of a Christian nation) “must be sufficient to bear up a structure that has power to punish by imprisonment and even by death.” Of course this is true with reference to the legitimate function of civil government. But the National Reform idea is that all “Christian laws and usages” shall be made the law of the land. This fact gives the true indication of the National Reform theory that civil government should have the “power to punish by imprisonment and even by death.” This shows the extent to which the National Reform doctrine leads in the matter of enforcing religious dogmas by civil law. As before stated, we are not surprised to see Dr. McAllister taking such a stand, for other leaders in the cause have openly avowed the death penalty for infidels and other persistent opponents of the Church-and-State scheme. But we have not yet become so used to seeing Baptist ministers standing on the National Reform platform as to take it as a matter of course. We are somewhat assisted in getting used to it, however, by the spectacle of another Baptist minister, Dr. Braislin, of Colorado Springs, who “welcomed” a National Reform Convention to that city, March 17. G.