WHEN human law enters the realm of the spiritual life, it becomes an invader instead of a protector—it has left its legitimate domain, it is a trespasser. And yet there is a strong sentiment in this country to place the civil law in that unlawful attitude, by insisting upon the enforcement of religious ordinances by civil law. In view of this fact, we commend to our readers the following terse comments upon the situation from the editor of the Indianapolis News of April 22:
Very many good Christian people think of their religion as a religion simply of negations, and, not only so, but they think of those negations as things which the civil law should enforce. Their idea seems to be that the church should act, not as inspirer, strengthener, guide, and counselor, but as policeman. So we see in this land of religious liberty, strange combinations between church and state, and a disposition on the part of the church to rely more and more on the state. This proves one thing very conclusively, and that is, that the church is not doing its duty, is not training its children in the right way, is not exerting the influence that it should exert. Bad habits are formed because of a lack of home and church influence and discipline, and then we cry out to the state to prevent indulgence in those habits. This is simply to confess a breakdown in the work of the church, to confess that it is not able to do the work which it has been divinely commissioned to perform. Many of our Sunday laws are likewise the result of the church's own weakness. Sunday laws, it is true, rest on a civil as well as a religious basis. But when the church appeals to the state to enact them and enforce them on the ground that the sanctity of Sunday should be observed, the answer is that it is the business of the church so to train its people that they would not think of violating the sanctity of Sunday. Here again is a sad confession of weakness. If the church had wielded the influence that it should have wielded, there would not be need for a single Sunday law—not one. As it is, the church demands that the state shall compel people to observe Sunday, people who have so little regard for it that they would pay no attention to it unless forced to do so under penalty of the law. Have our Christian friends ever looked at these matters in this way, and from this point of view? Confessedly, family life is not what it used to be; confessedly, Sunday is not observed as it once was. Why is it? Can the wrong be righted by putting the state in place of father and mother, and turning over the protection of Sunday to police courts? Hardly, one would think. We must go deeper than this. Action is the fruit of character. If people want to desecrate Sunday, their characters are in no way changed by preventing them from doing these things by law. The desire persists. Only the act is prevented. Men refrain from these things, not because they do not want to do them, but because they dare not do them. There is no virtue [in the matter of character-building] in that. Nor has the church won any victory when it induces the state to legislate on such subjects—rather it has convicted itself of inefficiency. It is well that this should be made plain.
Restrictive laws there must be, and the state must at times interfere to preserve the quality of its citizenship. But this very necessity is of itself proof that Christian people are not doing their duty, are not training their children and themselves in the ways of righteousness, and are not developing in this land a type of character so high as to make many laws regulating habits unnecessary. We need training rather than legislation—tho till we can get the former we may have to rely on the latter—personal and church influence rather than criminal codes. We still say to men that they shall not do certain things; we do not give enough attention to training them so that they will not want to do them.
And another thing is true, too: If the church had always done its duty, had always obeyed Him who is the Head of the church, there would have been no call for Sunday laws by Christians; for Christians would not be keeping Sunday, but the Sabbath established, blessed, and sanctified by Him who is the Head of the church. That apostasy from the true Sabbath has led to this apostasy from the true principle of religious worship. And this has made it seem necessary to many that the church should go forth to fight the battles of the Lord clad in the armor of Saul, and bearing his weapons. Would that they might learn the lesson taught by David when he laid aside the armor and the weapons of the king, and went out in the strength of Jehovah alone. The church that is walking in obedience to the laws of God does not need any of the weapons of the state to enable it to carry on its work, nor any man-made armor to shield it from the weapons of its adversary.
