What Is Proposed

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · May 28, 1912

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 39, No. 21.

Do You Wish It?

THE present movements toward a union of Church and State are by no means new. The National Reform movement, now operating especially under the International Christian Citizenship movement, is a half-century old. Its object is to place all "Christian laws and usages" "on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." They believe that they will avoid all the troubles of the past if their object carries. This is what one of their leading propagandists and a vice-president said in the Christian Statesman (the organ of the association) January 13, 1887:

"It is not to have the Government set up some CORRUPT church establishment, and then lay its hand on everything that does not conform to it. This is what caused the persecutions in the Old World. Our remedy for all these malefic influences is to have the Government simply set up the MORAL LAW, and recognize GOD’S AUTHORITY behind it, and LAY ITS HAND ON ANY RELIGION THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO IT. . . . Besides, this is the ONLY WAY human and divine authority can exercise their separate offices in peace. The only way they can be harmonized and kept from conflicting, is to say that GOD KNOWS BEST, AND MAKE HUMAN AUTHORITY SUBORDINATE TO THE DIVINE."

This is not a lone utterance. The object of the Christian Citizenship movement is the same to-day as then. Its utterances of today are equally strong. Somehow, they do not see the logical outworking of their purpose. Let us examine the above.

1. Never a church establishment existed which did not become corrupt connected with civil power. The eminent Dr. Philip Schaff has well said that secular power has proved a satanic gift to the church, and ecclesiastical power has proved an engine of tyranny in the hands of the State.

2. What would the Government set up as "the moral law"? Would it be the Decalogue of the Bible? That has been defined in some of the great church creeds as the moral law. But other great religious bodies, like the Disciples, believe the moral law to be abolished. Therefore upon the Disciples the Government would "lay its hand."

3. Again, the moral law declares that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Would Government enforce its observance? This is not the object of the National Reformers. Their object is to enforce the observance of the first day by law. The Government would therefore find itself obliged to decide a religious controversy, become a legal interpreter of God’s law, put itself between the conscience of the individual and its Maker, and make otherwise good men and citizens criminals for conscience’ sake.

4. For this they would not have God’s Word or law, but human interpretation of that law. They would not have God’s authority behind it, but human authority of law and force, of fine and jail.

5. God has ordained human government to govern humans in human things. It is an utter perversion of Christianity to give any government authority in the things of religion. The nearest to the ideal of what a government ought to be in the light of Christianity is our own national Government, knowing no religious test, having no power to establish any religion or prohibit its free exercise. It does have power to compel civility, man’s conduct toward man. Under that scheme of government, religion has prospered as in no time of the ages. Men have had the privilege, as they have the right, to stand face to face with God.

6. It is best to say that "God knows best," but no human power can compel human authority to submit to the divine. It can compel an outward acquiescence, it may make men act as hypocrites, but it can not change the heart.

7. The result of religio-civil legislation is to make criminals of the best of citizens. In conversation some years ago with an old National Reformer, he admitted that religious laws, in their very nature, would be considered the most sacred of obligations due to a government acting in God’s stead. If officials felt this, it would be important that such laws be enforced. Dissenters would be regarded as working against the highest interests of society and government. If milder penalties failed, severer would follow, till finally the "contumacy" and stubbornness of the conscientious dissenter would be counted treason and punishable with death. A noted archbishop in this country said, "The violator of a Sunday law is the worst of criminals;" and for "the worst of criminals," the punishment is death.

Reader, are you in favor of such a régime?