How It May Be Done by Ellet Joseph Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Nov 19, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 44.

How It May Be Done.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

SAYS the Portland Baptist: "Let our ambition be first to make men Christians, then Baptists." And the Herald of Truth says: "All genuine denominational feeling responds to this, Amen." We confess that we cannot understand such expressions. Is a Baptist more or less than a Christian? Neither of the papers above referred to will claim that a Baptist is more than a Christian. To be a Christian is the highest point to which sanctified ambition can look. Well, then, is a Baptist less than a Christian? If so, why should the good brethren who conduct these papers wish to lower the standard of any who are in such a desirable position? We know that they would not, and therefore we conclude that according to their idea a Baptist is a Christian. We have no disposition to deny this; but if it is so, why do they not say directly that their ambition is to make men Baptists?

There is a spirit which, for want of a better name, might be called "denominational cowardice." It makes men fear to seem to place their own denomination above any other; people afflicted with it are afraid some one will think that they regard the denomination to which they belong as a little better than any other. We confess that we have no sympathy with such a spirit. We like to see people have decided convictions. If a man unites with a certain denomination, it should be because that denomination is, so far as he can learn, more nearly correct than any other; because it has more truth. And if it has more truth than any other, it certainly is better than any other; and if that is so, why should he be afraid to say so? And why should he not strive earnestly to bring into it both worldlings and members of those bodies that have not so much light?

We are strongly of the opinion that the true reason for this "undenominational" talk that is so common, is the underlying belief that there is really no vital difference between different religious bodies, the name being the chief one. The points of divergence are called "non-essentials." Well, then, this shows the weakness of the "National Reform" assertion that their work cannot result in a union of Church and State, because the men who are in the movement are representatives of all denominations, and of course would not single out any one for prominence to the exclusion of the rest. So we say, of course they would not; but, sinking party names and "non-essentials," they would all unite as members of one body, for the enforcement of the "essentials" which they hold in common. And when we inquire for the points held by all denominations in common, and which are regarded as the essentials, we find simply, Natural Immortality and Sunday.

If any one says that a union of Church and State cannot be effected on this basis, and that it is not imminent, he certainly is blind to the things that are taking place all around him. E. J. W.