Defense of the State's Duty to Confess Its Allegiance to Christ -NRA

This article has been adapted by the editor from chapter 7 of McAllister's book, Christian Civil Government (Pittsburgh: The National Reform Association, 1927), where the author deals with "Objections to the Movement" of the National Reform Association to amend the United States Constitution to recognize Christ as the Ruler of the nation and His Word as the fundamental law of the nation. In answering objections to these Christian amendments, McAllister provides important arguments in defense of the national confession view of the relationship between church and state.

The Alarm Cry of "Church and State"

Multitudes of those who raise the cry of "union of church and state" do not know what would constitute such a union. A good way to deal with them is to ask them what this union means. Let them explain themselves, and their blundering attempts at explanation will often need no further answer. Any intelligent objector who comprehends what it means will admit that to form such a union there must be the establishment of some ecclesiastical organization, as in England or Germany, where the Erastian principle subjects the church to the state; or on the other hand, the subjection of the civil power to the control of an ecclesiastical pontiff or council as Romanism demands.

The National Reform Association maintains the independence of each. The Bible is the supreme law of each in its own sphere. The church may not usurp civil functions; nor may the state usurp ecclesiastical functions. The state must confine itself to the sphere of maintaining rights and doing justice among men. But to do this it must be guided by the law of the righteous Ruler of nations; and for itself, and not through any church, it must acknowledge its Divine Ruler, and the moral principles of His law that apply to its distinctive sphere and functions. This is national Christianity. And it is the best possible safeguard against the intermingling of civil and ecclesiastical offices and functions, or the union of church and state.

Another practical way of answering this stale objection is by asking, "What church?" Is it the Methodist? or the Protestant Episcopal? or the Baptist? or the Presbyterian? or the Congregationalist? Some church as a visible organization must be in view, if there is to be an actual union with the state. It should be enough to silence any reasonable objector to remind him that members of all the above and many more churches have co-operated most cordially in the National Reform work. They could not thus harmoniously labor if the union of the state with one particular denomination of the Christian church were sought. They do not wish it for their own church, nor apprehend it as to any other. They labor in the cause of national confession not so much as members of a particular church, as in the character of Christian citizens, striving to bring their beloved country to the high standard of the law of the King of kings in the sphere of its own national life. They do not desire to have any church principle or any particular ecclesiastical dogma embodied in the Constitution or wrought into the nation's life. But they do seek to have the politico-moral principles of Christianity made the basis of all our legislation and administration in the affairs of state and nation.

Rights of Conscience

Quite as loud or even louder than the alarm of "union of church and state" is the cry of "infringement of rights of conscience." Here again, it may be well to use the Socratic probe. What are meant by rights of conscience, and what is the infringement of them? Has any citizen a right of conscience to object to the thanksgiving proclamations by our President and State Governors? Has he a right of conscience to object to the employment at government expense of Christian ministers to pray in Congress or State Legislatures? If a certain citizen doesn't believe in these things, must they be abandoned as an infringement of his rights? The name of God in our State Constitutions offends him. Is this an infringement of his rights of conscience? Such questions will scratch and show the secularist Tartar, in which case we shall know again just where the controversy lies.

But if it is conceded, that the above and other similar acknowledgments and acts of the civil power do not constitute infringements of rights of conscience, the ground is swept away from under the objector's feet. He admits, in substance, that the state itself as a moral person has rights no less than the individual. She has a right to her Sabbath laws and her laws against blasphemy. She has her own duty to God and His law, and no plea of right of conscience by infidel or atheist may turn her from her own right and duty.

But suppose this high-sounding claim of rights of conscience were granted--repeal our Sabbath laws; abolish the oath; banish the Bible from all our schools; hush the devout aspirations of prayer in Congress and State Legislatures; discontinue all national and state calls to thanksgiving and prayer--do all this, and more than this, in deference to this plea of rights of conscience;--would the difficulty be ended? Would the problem be solved? Would no individual rights of conscience now be infringed upon?

What about Christian citizens who believe that they have a right to a quiet Sabbath? What about citizens who believe with George Washington that the oath is essential to our courts of justice; that rights of property and character and even life itself demand for their maintenance the solemn appeal of witness and juror and judge to God Himself, as answer shall be made to Him in the judgment of the great day? Are there no rights involved on this side of the question? Is there not a great number of our citizens whose most sacred and precious rights would be wantonly and impiously trampled under foot by a government administered on the basis of the godless political creed of modern secularism?

And whither would this cry lead us? The war power of the National Constitution is opposed to the conscientious convictions of thousands of our best citizens. Shall we disband our small army, scuttle our cruisers, and level our forts to the ground? Shall we reimburse to the tax-payers the vast sums expended by our war and navy departments? The consciences of multitudes are grievously oppressed by capital punishment. Shall we therefore forbid the execution of the murderer? In a word, shall we have the miscalled freedom of the French Revolution, which proves itself to be anarchy, or shall we have the administration of a true Christian government, a government based on the principles of the law of Christ, the Prince of Peace? Just as Christianity gives us the individual man who is most regardful of the rights of others, so Christianity will give us the nation that will, in the maintenance of its own Christian character and institutions, best maintain the rights of all its citizens and subjects. National Christianity is the only true balance of liberty and law.

The State Has Nothing to Do with Religion

This is secularism pure and simple. If by "religion" the objector means the church or church creeds, his objection is really that of "union of church and state." But the above is the sum and substance of the secular theory of the state. This maintains that the state cannot acknowledge or teach any religious idea because it has no religious idea to acknowledge or teach. The utter shallowness of this boasted liberal political philosophy has been demonstrated. But let us follow up the sophistries of secularism a little. What may the state do? That is a practical question for the secularist to answer. The consistent secularist will say: "Nothing that involves a religious idea." And so he would, of course, put the Bible and all mention of God out of state schools, the oath out of courts of justice--in short, he would remorselessly carry out the "Demands of Liberalism." But what may the state still do even under these "Demands?"

May it teach? Secularism says, Yes. But what may it teach? Secularism answers, history, astronomy, physiology, mental science, and all other secular knowledge. But let us see what this involves. Take the history of our own country, for example. It asks and answers such questions as the following: Who were the Pilgrims? Who were the Puritans? Why were they so called? Why did they leave England and Holland? What did they do when they arrived in this country? What were the causes of the Revolutionary War? What was the great cause of the Civil War? Were these wars justifiable or not? Here are a few out of thousands of questions to which American history must furnish an answer, and tell our youth whether certain things were right or wrong. And these are questions of morals which the state must answer according to some moral standard if it undertakes to answer and teach them at all.

Once more, it is asked, "Is the state the institution of right? May it have courts of justice? May it define and punish crime? But this is all in the sphere of morals. Some secularists have been driven to the absurdity of denying this. They strive to make right and justice distinct from morals. For example, a celebrated French philosopher says: ' I am profoundly convinced that the moral necessarily supposes the existence of a Sovereign whose sovereignty is not limited to this world. For me a moral without God is a law without sanction; that is to say, a law that is not a law.' There can be no question of the soundness of this position. It is the desperation of secularism that drives it to the conclusion that right is distinct from duty, and the social order from the moral order. For the only alternative to this dark and cheerless conception of a state without God, is the duty of the state as a being in the moral world to acknowledge the Almighty Sovereign.

By definition of the words 'just,' 'unjust,' 'right,' 'wrong,' with which the state has to do, if it is to have an existence at all, proves that it must have the deepest possible concern with morals. Webster's Dictionary of the English language defines the adjective 'right,' in its moral sense, as that which is, 'conformed to the constitution of man and the will of God.' The same authority defines the word 'law,' in the moral sense, as 'the will of God, as the supreme moral ruler, concerning the character and conduct of all responsible beings; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature; the rules of external conduct which arise from the relations of men to each other in society, and the mutual rights which are founded on these relations.' And now in brief, turning from other kindred moral terms to the word 'God,' the name of Him whose will is 'law,' and to whose will everything must be conformed to be 'right,' we have this definition: 'The Supreme Being, the Eternal and Infinite Spirit, the Creator, and the Sovereign of the universe, Jehovah.' And to illustrate the proper use of the word, we have this verse from the Scriptures: 'God is a spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth' (John 4:24).

Law and justice are deeply religious concepts, and the only true religion is Christianity. The state should, therefore, frankly and honestly acknowledge the true God whose will is the rule of right and ultimate law for all responsible beings, and also acknowledge that the Bible reveals the moral standard which it requires its citizens to conform to.

But no, says the secularist, this would be for the state to have to do with religion! Sadly, Christian leaders (supposed followers of Christ, the King of kings) who hold to the secularist view of government raise the same cry.

What is of the first importance for these Christian ministers is that they should study the Bible to determine the true idea and functions of the state; that they should learn what it may do, ought to do, and must do, if it is to be a blessing to our race; and that they should not continue, like 'blind leaders of the blind,' to help drag our struggling nation, with all the burdens of its tremendous moral problems pressing upon it, down into the hopeless abyss of political atheism.

The Folly of Trying to Make Men Religious by Law

This is a sample of secular unfairness or confusion of thought. To hear this objection solemnly urged, one would think ours a Roman Catholic country with its inquisition. Much of this outcry about compelling men to be religious is ad captandurn vulgum. It is designed to catch the ignorant masses. When have men ever been so free, as under our Christian institutions, to profess any religion or no religion? Our national Christianity, because it is the religion of Protestant freedom, condemns all persecutions whatsoever. Religious liberty is the fruit of Christianity. But religious liberty does not mean licentiousness or immorality.

The state has no right to compel any man to be religious or to be irreligious; but it has a right to say that his outward conduct as a citizen shall be moral and righteous according to the standard of the Christian religion. All good laws in our criminal code are designed to make men religious in this sense, and in no other sense. Laws against impurity, theft, murder, and drunkenness, are all open to the same objection. They are designed, enacted, and enforced to make men moral or religious simply in the sense that their conduct in civil society shall be such as not to trespass on the rights and liberties of others, according to the authoritative moral standard that Christianity requires.

Men may attend church or not; they may pray and read the Bible or not, just as they see fit. They choose for themselves. They may believe in God and in His Word, or they may be infidels, pagans, or atheists. They may profess faith in the Savior or not. These are their own affairs, and no association of men on the face of the earth would protest more promptly or more vigorously against any attempt to coerce them into the performance of any religious act of this kind than the National Reform Association. But the state itself is a moral and religious being. It has the right to take Christ as its acknowledged Lord. It, as a unit, must either be coerced into a religious or an irreligious acknowledgment. It must choose for itself. Its duty, like that of the individual, is freely to acknowledge the supreme obligation of the Divine Law in its own sphere of moral conduct. And in doing this sincerely and consistently, it is making sure that it will have regard to the rights and liberties of all that are under its authority.

God and Religion Need no such Empty Compliments

In the first place, this flippancy betrays a gross misconception and entire want of appreciation of the issue at stake. Is the nation capable of knowing God and honoring Him? Is its avowed adoption of His law for nations as its supreme rule a matter of empty compli-ment? What is so clearly and widely known as the nation's own sovereign utterance, as the Constitution? What can have so profound and extensive an educating power? What can tell so effectually on the whole life of the nation?

Let it be remembered that the church of Christ and the cause of religion cannot be expected to accomplish their noblest results in an irreligious or secular state. The Divine Word teaches us that the glorification of Christ is an essential and necessary condition of the full outpouring of the Holy Ghost (see John 7:39). He, who is King, as well as Prophet and Priest, must have His rightful place accorded Him, as Governor among the nations before the Pentecostal baptism from on high shall bless our land. The glorifying of the Prince of the kings of the earth, by the acknowledgment of His authority over us as a nation, whether in our fundamental law, or in any act based upon it, so far from being an empty formality, will be the sure source of richest national blessing. 'Them that honor me,' says this Lord over all--and His promise includes nations as well as individuals and church--'I will honor.' (1 Sam. 2: 30.)

The National Reform Movement Is Unwise and Unnecessary

This objection is heard in various forms. 'God is already acknowledged ...the Constitution is already Christian ...you are playing into the hands of infidelity;'--these are some of the charges rung on this objection. Not infrequently the same objector who cries 'union of church and state,' and 'infringement of rights of conscience,' faces about and takes up this entirely different ground. Years ago a sermon was preached against the National Reform movement, which may serve to illustrate this inconsistency. First, the movement was denounced as wrong, unjust, oppressive. Next, it was declared to be unnecessary, inasmuch as what it asked had already been done. And what had been done was cordially approved. To crown all, the third point was that this unjust and yet commendable thing which ought not to be done and which nevertheless had already been wisely and fittingly done, could not possibly be done at all. The discourse was a veritable battle of Kilkenny cats. In this internecine struggle of the learned and eloquent preacher's objections not even the tip of the tail of one of them survived.

History affords ample proof that God is and has been acknowledged in our national life; and that the unwritten and real constitution of the nation is Christian. Such facts in our history are far from being ignored by this Association. It does not play into the hands of infidels, as secularist Christians do, by making light of such facts. It does not say of them, as the secularist clergyman, referred to in a former chapter, said of them, 'these vestiges of Christianity are printed on the sand.' It holds them in the highest esteem, and regards them as the salt that saves our political and national life from utter corruption.

But the written Constitution does not acknowledge God and is not Christian. This is the simple statement of fact. The Declaration of Independence and the old Articles of Confederation do acknowledge God. But they are not the nation's fundamental law. They are no part of the written Constitution. They are a part of the vital or historical and providential constitution of the nation, and it was a violation of the very principles of constitutional law to omit from the new written Constitution all expression and authentication of so fundamental a fact in our nation's life as the two older documents, and, indeed, all similar documents before in our colonial history had acknowledged. But the defect is there. And it is to remedy this defect, and thus give to our existing Christian institutions which ministerial secularists are ready to chip out like fossils and set aside as curiosities, an authoritative authentication that will imbed them firm and fast in the rock of our fundamental law.

Before closing a brief space may be given to a few objections that have troubled thoughtful minds not at all unfriendly to the National Reform Movement. It is sometimes asked--

'Doesn't Religion Belong Exclusively to the States?'

When the National Constitution was framed a number of the States did have an ecclesiastical establishment, or union of church and state. It was the intention of the first amendment to the Constitution to forbid Congress doing what it was conceded the States might do in reference to this 'establishment of religion.' Senator Blair's school amendment once before the United States Senate, proposed to prohibit the States from doing what Congress is forbidden to do by this first amendment. But if Senator Blair's amendment were adopted no one would dream that it would prohibit such religious acknowledgments as are now found in the Constitutions and laws of our States. It would simply prohibit ecclesiastical establishments. The second section of the amendment provides for the instruction of the children in our common schools in the principles of the Christian religion, and this in perfect harmony with the prohibition of the first section. In like manner, the prohibition of the first amendment leaves Congress at liberty to perform such Christian acts as calling for national days of prayer, appointing ministers as chaplains to Congress or the military, and giving due acknowledgment to God and the Bible in their official pronouncements.

Still further, if the States need the moral principles of the Christian religion in their narrower spheres of political action, how much more does the national government need them in its sphere? It alone possesses the power of declaring and carrying on war. It alone may treat with other nations--other moral persons of international law. Its example must tell most powerfully for good or evil upon all the commonwealths of which it is composed. If it needs no Divine Lord and Savior, no Almighty God of battles to shield it in the day of war, no God of infinite wisdom to guide it in the days of peace, how can the States be expected to feel their need of such guidance and protection?

'Will Not This Make the State an Interpreter of the Law of Christ?'

Various aspects of this inquiry are presented. It is asked, in substance, Is it the proper function of the state to interpret the law of Christianity? Would it be right for any nation to enforce its interpretation of the law of Christ against the convictions of a large number of even Christian citizens? Is not the proper work of Christianity to labor for the coming of the time when it will not be necessary to have human laws in order to enforce the law of Christ?

Civil government is a necessity of human nature. If man had never fallen, the state would have been needful for the development and highest possible attainments of our race. In the golden age of the Millennium, civil government, with its interpretation and enforcement of law, will still be necessary to human welfare. It is the acceptance and enforcement of the law of Christ by the nations of the earth that will signal the establishment of the Millennium. Parties, majorities, and minorities there will be, until men see as they are seen and know as they are known, in the heavenly world. And the only law of society that will secure the rights of minorities and prevent the triumphant majorities from oppressing their vanquished opponents, is the perfect law of the Prince of peace. This law, given in the politico-moral principles of Christianity for the conduct of a nation's affairs and for the maintenance of the rights of all men, the civil authority should acknowledge, interpret, and enforce.

'Will Not this Movement Damage the Cause of Religion?'

It cannot be too strongly urged that the welfare of the state is the main question here at issue. What will damage the nation? What is essential to its welfare and perpetuity? Can it prosper or survive without those moral and religious principles on which the National Reform Association is based? What is the preservative principle of civil society? Corrupt politicians would gladly shut out religious principle from the state on the plea that religion will be corrupted by politics.

But what will then become of politics? Without the salt of religion, politics will become a stench, and the state itself will rot and perish. Even the heathen saw this truth and were guided by it. To save the state we must found it upon religious, not church, principles.

And let it never be feared that religion will suffer in doing her beneficent work for humanity. She will prosper just in proportion to her fidelity in fulfilling her appointed mission on the earth. Christian ministers who say they have no time to come down from their exalted service of the cause of religion into the sphere of such work as that of the National Reform Association should remember that corrupt civil society causes the loss of multitudes of immortal souls. A godless state will be a curse to every interest of religion. Secularize civil society and you help to secularize all the rest of human life. On the other hand, let the fear of God and obedience to his law for conscience sake reign in the life of the nation, and you create a pure and religious social atmosphere in which the church can do her noblest and most effective work. Let Christ be glorified as our acknowledged Ruler in the nation, and His Holy Spirit be poured out in the fullness of His saving power upon our land (see John 7:39).

Conclusion

The National Reform Association proposes the radical measure of the national acknowledgment, in our fundamental law, of the moral laws of Christ as the supreme standard of governmental action on all moral questions.

Although the concept of a national confession of the authority of Christ and His law is often unpopular, the great principles of the National Reform Association must be stated boldly and openly. Unwillingness to do this can only detract from the efficiency of true reformation work. The Sabbath reform, which takes pains to ignore the moral basis of Sabbath laws, and fails through fear of popular disfavor to appeal to the authority of the Divine Law, can never reach the conscience of the nation.

The National Reform Association puts the moral principles to the front and proposes to keep them there. It has the courage to avow its principles simply because it believes in them as the truth of God. It cannot by silence or in any other way prove untrue to them.

The friends of National Reform are more deeply concerned to know what will honor the Master and secure His blessing than what will please the multitude. They know that the reforms which are so earnestly sought cannot be accomplished until the people become enlightened enough to favor them. But the way to the enlightenment of the people is not by the hiding of the truth. The Lord will not bless the efforts that dishonor His truth and thus dishonor Him. National Reform Association principles must, therefore, be uncompromisingly maintained until they find intelligent and hearty acceptance by the nation, and only in such acceptance can the cause of National Reform triumph.

National Reform Association,

Publishers of The Christian Statesman.
Declaring the Lordship of Christ since 1864
editor Bill Einwechter

A six month subscription to The Christian Statesman is FREE on request. Renewals are FREE on request.
POBox 8741-WP
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15221

Use this form to comment on this site. Use this form to request a FREE introductory six month subscription to The Christian Statesman or to renew your existing subscription.

For a FREE introductory three issue subscription,
send email to Bill Gould with
your name and mailing address.

Defense of the State's Duty to Confess Its Allegiance to Christ

by David McAllister

The State Has Nothing to Do with Religion