FEDERATION FOR WHAT? by Alonzo T. Jones

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jan 17, 1906

FEDERATION FOR WHAT?

By Alonzo T. Jones

For the Gospel's Sake.

IN the conference there were plainly two sorts of men, and two distinct lines of thinking with respect to the object of federation. One of these favored and desired federation for purely benevolent and evangelical purposes alone, these purposes to be attained by purely Gospel means. Of these were Dr. Van Dyke, Dr. Hillis, Mr. E. Laidlaw, and Robert E. Spear. No one could listen to these men and not be convinced that the only object of federation that they saw was that there should be concentrated and intensified the evangelical power and influence of the churches in the war against sin; for the winning of men from the power of sin to the love and power of righteousness.

For the Sake of Power.

The others, and these were by far the larger part, favored and desired federation, first of all, or power—power in the public life and civic affairs of the people in the city, county, state, and nation, and even the whole world. With these, that is the one great aim—not, indeed, to the exclusion of other aims; other aims are, of course, included, but as contributory to this. And this to one great purpose over all, in order that the city shall become "the city of God," the nation become a kingdom of God, the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ, and the will of God be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Time and again this was urged as the great practical thing to be accomplished by federation. It cropped out in many ways. Indeed, when there was being presented the "Practical Results of Federation," by one of the organizers and chief workers, the main reason presented for federation beyond the local, in county, state, and national federations, was that thus "pressure" could brought to bear upon county, state, and national authorities, and thus there be reforms secured and things accomplished that could not be if the form of federation be only local.

In the Field of Politics.

Again, this appeared as the purpose of federation in the suggestion, many times and in many forms, of "civic reforms" and "civic righteousness" as a proper field for the employment of the energies of the church. Again, in the observation that "a church having many votes will receive respectful attention." Again, in the instruction that "a Roman priest is not a good adviser in political affairs; Protestant ministers must qualify for this." Again, and especially, in the sounding forth and the magnifying of the many millions of people represented in the conference, and now in federation. At the opening of the conference the number was stated as "seventeen million." This was presently magnified to eighteen million. Shortly, this was magnified to twenty million. And before the close, even this was magnified to "about one-half of the population of the United States." And that the very first thing that the federation, as such—that is the organization that now exists as the accomplishment of the conference—was ever directed to do, was to remind the Congress of the United States of the government’s pledge to the Five Civilized Tribes of the Indian Territory, for the purpose of having Congress respect the reminder and act accordingly, is strictly indicative of the object of the federation, in the minds of the vast majority of the conference.

Thus, by every evidence furnished by the conference itself, it is certain that federation for public power, is, at the very least, one of the great objects of the federation.

However, there is about this a peculiarity that should be observed. They are not—not just now, at any rate—proposing that the public or civil power shall be possessed by them in its actual operation. They do not propose that members of the federation or of the churches shall be the officials in city, county, state, and nation. But they do, plainly and in words, propose to control, by and through this federation, those who are the officials of the governments of city, county, state, and nation.

Union of Church and State—How Viewed.

They insist that they are opposed to any union of church and state. And in the sense in which they mean it, that is true. In their being opposed to any union of church and state, they mean that they are opposed to any union of the Methodist Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or the Baptist Church, or any other particular denominational church, with the state. In that sense there is no room for question that they are opposed to a union of church and state; for it is plain enough that they would never consent that any one denomination should have the exclusive recognition, patronage, and possession of the public or civil power.

Even further than this, in an uncertain and hazy sense, they also mean that there shall not be any union between this federation and the state. Yet at the same time they do mean that the "seventeen million," the "eighteen million," the "twenty million," the "half the population of the United States," church-power and influence that the federation represents, shall, by and through this federation, dictate to the state, shall guide the state, and shall control the state. While professedly holding themselves separate from the state, they do intend, by and through the federation, to dominate the state; they do intend that the state shall conform to the wishes of the church, and shall execute the will of the church, as that will shall be centralized in and expressed by this federation.

And just in this lies the greater danger—to the state and to the people who are not of the federation. However sincerely these men themselves may mean that they mean no union of church and state, they simply can not escape it; for the very worst kind of union of church and state is inherent in the system which they propose. And even if these people themselves should escape it, they could not prevent its coming, in all its far-reaching meaning, by those who shall come after in the working of the federation. The possibilities—yes, the probabilities—of infinite mischief are in the system which they have proposed; and even tho these people themselves mean no mischievous workings or results, they simply can not insure that those who come after will not accomplish these mischievous workings and results, especially when these things are the direct and inevitable logic of the situation that has been created.

A Noble Note of Warning.

Bishop Fowler, in behalf of the liberty of the denominations, struck a true and noble note of warning when he declared that in any and every plan and operation of federation, the perfect liberty of the denominations, from greatest to smallest, however small, must forever be recognized and respected; and when he declared that if this federation should centralize in any way to gather to itself power to control the denominations as such, then there would be despotism, cruelty, and persecution, by Protestants, as in the times before Protestantism arose, and as there has been by Protestants even since; for "human nature has not changed."

What of the State and the Outer-Denomination?

This warning is true, and timely, and good, in behalf of the liberty of the denominations themselves; and this federation was established with this guarantee of the liberty of the denominations. But there is no such guarantee in behalf of the state, nor in behalf of the people who are not of the denominations. Yet Bishop Fowler’s principle is just as true as regards the state and the people who are not of the denominations, as it is regarding the denominations and the people thereof.

It is just as true regarding the state and the people who are not of the denominations, as it is regarding the denominations and their people, that if this federation centralizes the church-power and influence which it represents, in a way to control the civil power in city, county, state, or nation, then there will be despotism, cruelty, and persecution here by Protestants as in times before. The sole difference would be in that the despotism, cruelty, and persecution would fall upon those who are not of the denominations; the principle would be the same, and the practise would be the same.

And to centralize the power and the influence of the churches, and to use that power and influence to control the civil power in city, county, state, and nation, is decidedly one of the great purposes of this federation. It is intended that by and through this federation the ecclesiastical power shall dominate the civil. And in this connection human nature has no more changed than it has with respect to centralized power to control denominations. And since human nature—even ecclesiastical human nature in possession of centralized power—has not changed, the like results must follow that have ever followed the like thing.

Likeness to the Papacy.

And the one thing above all other things that this federation system is most like, is the Papacy. In its proposals and its profession as to church and state, it is the perfect likeness of the Papacy. For who does not know that the Papacy has ever claimed that she is opposed to union of church and state? that "the church has nothing to do with politics or the state"?

She, too, claims that the church must be kept separate from the state. But at the same time she has ever claimed and practised that the church must dictate to the state, must reform the state, and must dominate the state. She, too, recognizes the individuality, the form, the polity, and the "liberty," of the orders and sects of her own pact. But wo to all who are not of her pact! The very existence of such "threatened the safety of the state;" and the state for its own well-being—"for its own safety"—must obey the dictates of the centralized church-power, and must wipe them out.

This federated church-power does not believe in, and does not propose, union of church and state. She does not propose to be the state, nor to be of the state. She does not propose to unite with the state. She proposes only to be superior to the state, to dominate the state, and to use the state as her tool or her toy, for the assertion of her power and the furtherance of her aims. It is therefore plain, on the surface of the situation, that has in this federation been created, that even in the very beginning this federation is, in form, in profession, and in purpose, as relates to the civil power and the public order, in the very likeness of the Papacy in the same relations. And when this is so in its very inception, and in only its announced purposes, what less can it be expected to be when it attains to full operation and active and actual power?

Upon the principle, and as that principle applies in behalf of the state and the people who are not of the denominations, equally as it applies in behalf of the denominations and their people, Bishop Fowler's warning must not be forgotten, "Human nature has not changed." ALONZO T. JONES.