CHURCH AND STATE IN THE LIGHT OF THE GOLDEN RULE.
By W. N. Glenn
“ALL things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” This expression of the Lord Jesus Christ, in his great sermon on the mount, is popularly called the “Golden Rule.” While but few practically apply this rule to their dealings with their fellow-men, all classes of men admit the correctness of the principle. Those who are the farthest from the practice of this righteous doctrine are often the loudest in proclaiming their belief in it. Even men who openly declare infidelity to the Christian religion will hold up the Golden Rule as their theoretical motto. And professing Christians who hold that the moral law was abrogated by Christ, stultify their argument by claiming the Golden Rule as the standard of practical Christianity. This point is sustained by the declaration of Christ, when he had uttered the words above quoted, that “this is the law and the prophets.” And the sentiment of this blessed principle is again expressed in the language of Christ, in his well-known epitome of the law, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Then to consider any subject or any movement in the light of the Golden Rule is to view it in the light of the law of God. And this is the test to which every work, good or evil, will finally be brought. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. 12: 13, 14. Viewing the principle of Church-and-State government in the light of the Golden Rule, or law of God, we have only to revert to the history of such governments—merely to glance at them—to be convinced of their utter failure to come up to the mark. Nor need we search long to find specimens of such government for consideration, for the history of the world gives us but one that was not reared upon that principle. The only example we have—republican or monarchical—of a government whose fundamental ordinance is founded upon absolute separation of the Church from the State, is that of the United States. So, for the purpose of contrasting the principles of Church-and-State government with those of the Golden Rule, we have abundant material at hand. Aside from our own government we cannot go amiss, and if we come down to the practical workings of this one within the past few years, or to the State governments nominally subject to the national Constitution, we need not go away from home for illustration of the innate intolerance that naturally arises from the commingling of the interests of the Church and of the State. Whether the State control the Church, or the Church dominate the State, the inevitable result is intolerance of religious as well as political opposition. History furnishes us with examples of both these conditions. In fact, the Roman Empire itself gives us both these examples. Under the pagan régime the State controlled the religion of the State. The State was the supreme object of adoration, and all the gods were inferior to it. It was unlawful to establish any religion or to worship any deity not sanctioned by the State. The early Christians were continually subject to legal prosecution, because their God and their religion did not acknowledge the State as supreme in all things. The thousands of martyrs demonstrate the logical results of that system of government and its extreme variance with the Golden Rule. The other feature of the Church-and-State principle of government in this great empire was exemplified under papal rule, when the Church dominated the State. The millions of martyrs who suffered death because they claimed the privilege of the Golden Rule, stand as undeniable evidence that it could find no place in such a government. But if this be not enough, we have only to turn to the Reformation for evidence of the vindictiveness begotten of the Church-and-State principle, even where it was powerless to enforce its decrees. But, lest Rome be deemed an extreme case, and refuge be taken in the boast of advanced civilization, let us come to more modern times. When Protestantism became dominant in Great Britain, the Covenanter Government was no more tolerant of other religions than Catholicism had been. In all the vicissitudes of Church-and-State France, under whatever sway, we see but little, if any, traces of the Golden Rule. In all the so-called Christian governments of the world, to say nothing of those which do not so profess, where is the State Church that is willing to share with other religionists the privileges accorded to it? Is it not clear that the very ambition to be a State Church, the very act of accepting such a position, shows a desire to acquire temporal advantages and, political privileges which will be denied to others? No church ever became a State Church but through political intrigue, through barter and sale of Christian principle for political influence; and the impelling motive ever has been, and ever must be, to secure the power of the government against other and opposing systems of religion. The object of acquiring governmental power as an auxiliary of the church is of course for the purpose of using it. One purpose is to secure its financial support, and this means the support of the whole people, whether believers in the doctrines of the church or not. In such a scheme there is a flagrant violation of the Golden Rule. If the State Church be persistently aggressive, it will be prolific of measures requiring the aid of various functions of the government. Experience proves that such a church is a continual beggar, and one gratification merely whets the appetite for more. The union of Church and State is contrary to the word of the Lord as expressed in the text, “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s;” and also in his declaration to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Therefore, the dependence of the Church upon the State being contrary to the Master’s will, it will consequently be led to ask laws contrary to his law; and those who conscientiously adhere to the law of God will necessarily come in collision with the State law. If such laws are enforced against the conscience of any citizen, what becomes of the Golden Rule? That the Church-and-State principle in government is a product of worldly ambition and indifference to the rights of all who are not directly favorable to the desired object, is manifest even in our own country, where the fundamental law is expressly against such a union. For thirty years a so-called National Reform movement has been steadily growing in the United States. Its “avowed object” is 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. That the advocates of this measure have no idea of applying the Golden Rule to their ideal Church-and-State government, a few utterances of their representative advocates will show. One of them, a Mr. Coleman, said:— To be perfectly plain, I believe that the existence of a Christian Constitution would disfranchise every logically consistent infidel. The Christian Statesman, organ of the National Reform Association, speaking of certain congressmen who traveled on Sunday, said:— Not one of those men who thus violated the sabbath is fit to hold official position in a Christian nation. The Christian Nation, another advocate of National Reform, utters this sentiment:— Let those who will, remember the sabbath to keep it holy from motives of love and obedience; the remnant must be made to do so through fear of the law. Another characteristic utterance, from Dr. McAllister, a leading spirit in the National Reform movement, is as follows:— Those who oppose this movement now will discover, when the religious amendment is made to the Constitution, that, if they do not see fit to fall in with the majority, they must abide the consequences, or seek some more congenial clime. Much more of the same character could be produced, but space forbids. But even that feature of the Church-and-State principle which has surreptitiously gained footing in this government—Sunday legislation—has developed a spirit of intolerance entirely at variance with the Golden Rule. The enforcement of the State Sunday laws has invariably been the outgrowth of flagrant bigotry and bitter hatred and jealousy on the part of those professed Christian people who are always the complainants in such prosecutions; and in nearly every instance they have manifested a disposition to go to greater lengths than even the law would warrant. And in the matter of the failure to carry out the unconstitutional law of Congress providing for the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday, the spirit of vengeance openly encouraged by ministers and prominent laymen of many of the Christian denominations, boded no regard for the rights of other men. They invoked the lightning, the cholera, the army, and the boycott, thus showing what they would aim to do with dissenters if they had control of the government. The religion of Jesus Christ, pure and simple, with no auxiliary union whatever with any of the governments or institutions of the secular world, is the only element in which we may reasonably expect to find the principles of the Golden Rule.