What Does It Mean? by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Oct 4, 1910

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 37, No. 39.

What Does It Mean?

By Editor

The Christian Citizenship Scheme

In another column will be found an article sent out by the National Reform Bureau, entitled "World's Christian Citizenship Conference." On the face of it it seems a good thing. In its scope and conception it seems a grand thing. Why should not the world be educated in "Christian citizenship"?

That the conference and the movement for which it stands are important, we call attention to the following. We shall be brief now, but shall have much more to say in the future:

1. It has for its purpose and object to unite all churches, missionary societies, young people's religious organizations, and every other association, religious, semi-religious, quasi-religious, and politico-religious. If this can be done, there will be no power on earth to restrain its influence.

2. It is not its object simply to educate or discuss principles and purposes, but to act,—not "merely for discussion, but for action." The object of the conference "looks beyond itself to important practical action." Surely such a movement should enlist the attention of all.

3. Its purposes are "to adopt a Declaration of Principles,—the Christian principles of civil government."

But where shall we learn the Christian principles of civil government? Where but from Him, the Lord Jesus, the Author of Christianity?

The Gospels do not leave us in doubt as to the Master's teachings. Both clear and conclusive they are on the weighty and important subject of the Christian's relation to civil government.

a. Every movement of the Master was watched by jealous, suspicious enemies. Every utterance was weighed with the intent of entrapping Him as an offender against either the religious authorities of the Jews or the political authority of the Romans. It was with both in mind that His critics came to Him on one occasion with a question which to them would impale Him upon one or both horns of the dilemma. "Master," say they, in bland, suave, flattering tones, "we know that Thou art true, and carest for no man: for Thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give?"

If the Master had replied that no true Israelite could be in bondage to others, and therefore they should not pay tribute, His enemies would have immediately turned Him over to the Romans as a malefactor—one guilty of teaching sedition, of fomenting rebellion. Should He say, It is lawful to give tribute, He would prejudice Himself and His work with the great mass of the Jews, who were groaning and chafing under exorbitant, tyrannical tax-gatherers. To remain silent would weaken His influence as a teacher. He replied, and O, the marvelous answer of the Master! Thus the record:

"But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye Me? bring Me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And He saith unto them, WHOSE IS THIS IMAGE AND SUPERSCRIPTION? And they said unto Him, Cæsar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S, AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S. And they marveled at Him." Mark 12: 14-17.

This principle ought to guide the Christian alway. All that bears the stamp of Cæsar belongs to civil government; all that bears the insignia, the superscription, of God should be rendered to Him, not to civil government, nor through civil government to God, but to God alone. Civil government has no part in regulating church service or worship or prescribing to the individual the duties which lie between himself and God. The Sabbath about which they purpose to legislate—does it bear the image and superscription of God, or Cæsar? Of God, certainly; for its origin, genesis, is distinctly religious. With it, then, Cæsar has naught to do. Neither can civil government enforce worship which must be distinctly spiritual. The civil magistrate or legislator has no more to do with Sabbath enforcement than he does with baptism or the Lord's Supper.

b. The teaching of the Master before Pilate is still pertinent. Jesus had been accused to the Roman governor, not alone as his rival, but as a rival to Cæsar, as setting up a kingdom, a civil government for Himself. Pilate in his examination of Jesus met it squarely with the question, "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus replied as frankly for Himself, and for the church, His body, for all time:

"My kingdom is not of this world: if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not from hence." John 18: 36.

The kingdoms, or states, of this world can never come to Jesus Christ through "the gateway of politics," never by force of civil power, and what it implies, law and law-enforcement if necessary, with sword as well as statute, with bullet as with ballot; and to him or to those who would attempt it, the rebuke of Christ comes as it came to His rash, misguided, ambitious servant of old, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matt. 26: 52.

c. It was not the purpose of Christ, or of His church which stands in His place, to coerce or compel belief or acceptance of His tenets, or to punish or condemn the unbeliever. This is a strange statement in view of the purposes of the Christian Citizenship Conference; but we have the word of the Master for it:

"I am come a LIGHT INTO THE WORLD, that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness. And IF ANY MAN HEAR MY WORDS, and BELIEVE NOT, I JUDGE HIM NOT: for I came NOT TO JUDGE the world, but to SAVE the world. He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: THE WORD that I have spoken, the same shall JUDGE HIM IN THE LAST DAY." John 12: 46-48.

To those who would use any other means of dealing with the unbeliever belongs the rebuke which the Master administered to two other zealous reformers who desired summarily to punish the Samaritans who slighted their Lord: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9: 55, 56.

4. The conference proposes certain "Christian principles" "through the operation" of which "all Christian governments in history have arisen." Weigh it well, reader. What are the "Christian" governments of history—that is, the professedly "Christian" governments?—for there is a mighty difference between profession and character. Name one of these Christian governments. There was Rome for a time, notably in the days of Constantine and Justinian. There are Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Geneva under Calvin, England under both Catholic and Protestant régime, and others. Many essentials in these governments and in the conduct of people and rulers, belie the profession according to Christ's standard. Do you wish to see government again founded on the same religio-political principles which have molded these so-called Christian governments?

"But," one asks, "will it not be a good thing to crystallize into law Christian principles, to introduce God in the government?" And we reply, NEVER. First, because in the very nature of the case no civil government can enforce spiritual things; and Christianity is spiritual or nothing. The acceptable practise of its principles pertains to motive and life and spirituality, all of which lie outside the realm of civil power. Civil government may, as regards religious principles, compel through fear or win through emolument or reward; but in so doing it makes slaves on the one hand and hypocrites on the other.

In the second place, it is never the principles of Christianity that are enforced by civil statute or legalized creed, but only men's conceptions of divine truth. Divine truth is infinite in its scope and ramifications. When men attempt to define it and to coerce men into its observance, they unconsciously and unwittingly, we are bound to believe, put themselves in the place of God by assuming to interpret His truth. Well did the Senate of the United States in 1829 say in its adoption of a report involving these very principles:

"Among all the religious prosecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what GOVERNMENT denominated THE LAW OF GOD."

The advocates of this sort of régime get around the idea of persecution by saying that it is the state based on a false religion that persecutes, the one based on the true

never persecutes, but justly punishes. But the fact remains that the victim suffers just the same for his faith; and the government that defines heresy and punishes heretics always believes itself to be true.

5. The United States Senate said another wonderfully yet logically wise thing in the adoption of the report alluded to above. It is this:

"EXTENSIVE RELIGIOUS COMBINATIONS to effect a POLITICAL OBJECT are . . . always dangerous. This first effort of the kind calls for the ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRINCIPLE which, in the opinion of the committee, would LAY THE FOUNDATION for DANGEROUS INNOVATIONS upon the SPIRIT of the CONSTITUTION, and upon the RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS. IF ADMITTED, it may be justly apprehended that the FUTURE MEASURES OF THE GOVERNMENT will be STRONGLY MARKED, if not eventually CONTROLLED, by the SAME INFLUENCE. ALL RELIGIOUS DESPOTISM COMMENCES BY COMBINATION AND INFLUENCE; and WHEN that INFLUENCE begins to OPERATE upon the POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF A COUNTRY, the CIVIL POWER soon BENDS UNDER IT; and the CATASTROPHE OF OTHER NATIONS furnishes an awful WARNING of the CONSEQUENCE."

The truest government to the Christian ideal of right relations of church and state that the world has ever known is the United States of America, that government that sought to separate forever between church and state and leave the soul in its religion and worship alone with God. Its magna charta of liberty, the Declaration of Independence, in its recognition of the equality of human rights and man's right to be free, protested mightily against all rule by king or lord or class; and the Constitution sought forever to establish the separation of church and state, and each man's kingship in religion so far as his fellows are concerned. Every man was left responsible to God, with no intermeddling of the state. Thus acted the new republic. In the words of the great historian George Bancroft:

"VINDICATING the RIGHT of INDIVIDUALITY EVEN IN RELIGION, and in RELIGION ABOVE ALL, the NEW NATION dared to SET THE EXAMPLE of accepting in its RELATION TO GOD the PRINCIPLE FIRST DIVINELY ORDAINED IN JUDEA. It left the management of TEMPORAL THINGS to the TEMPORAL POWER; but the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, in harmony with the people of the several states, WITHHELD FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT the POWER TO INVADE THE HOME OF REASON, the CITADEL of CONSCIENCE, the SANCTUARY of the SOUL; and, NOT from INDIFERENCE, but that the INFINITE SPIRIT of ETERNAL TRUTH might move in its FREEDOM and PURITY and POWER."—"History of the Constitution," book V, chapter 1.

To yield to the principles set forth by the Christian Citizenship Conference promoters is to turn the world back again to the Dark Ages, is to make the state an engine of tyranny for the use of bigots, is to repudiate every principle of civil and religious liberty, and to develop a world of slaves and hypocrites. Christian brother, will you help to do it?