Should Adventist Ministers Oppose a Religious Amendment

Dear Editor:

I read with interest R. R. Hegstad's "Down the Road to a Christian Republic" (MINISTRY, December, 1979). There was a point in it, however, that alarmed me. I refer to the use of Ellen G. White's letter 44 to A. T. Jones.

On page 6, column 1, Hegstad quotes fragmentarily from a longer sentence of Letter 44, deleting the beginning word "while" and the last half of the sentence. What he did use reads "I do not see the justice nor right in enforcing by law the bringing of the Bible to be read in the public schools."

I happen to have an entire copy of Letter 44. [See notes—Ed.] This letter shows that while Sister White could personally see "no justice nor right in en forcing by law the bringing of the Bible to be read in the public schools," she nonetheless was shown that it would not be wise to oppose any legislation attempting to do this, not even in "a future crisis. " She also added, "I remember particularly this point: 'That anything that should give the knowledge of God, and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent, should not be obstructed at all.' "

And then the caution: "I want you to be very careful on what ground you tread, for our enemies will make a decided argument against us if we shall give them a semblance of a chance. "

Hegstad's article leaves our Seventh-day Adventist ministry with a very false impression that Sister White approved of opposing the reading of the Bible in the public schools, when actually she cautioned us not to oppose such legislation even in a future crisis. MINISTRY needs to correct this false impression. If you do not do so, you leave many a conscientious minister feeling free to oppose, unwittingly, what he ought not to oppose.

—Jim Umbarger

Elizabethtown, Tennessee

R.R. Hegstad Responds:

Does my article really give a "false impression"? Would it, indeed, be unwise for our ministers to oppose a religious amendment to the Constitution, the issue I was addressing? And does Ellen White generally take a benign attitude toward forced religious observances in public schools—or elsewhere?

Let's answer the last question first, by noting two statements Ellen White has made, the first of which is in the letter to A. T. Jones:

"I do not see the justice nor right in enforcing by law the bringing of the Bible to be read in the public schools."

An article in the Watchman for May 1, 1906, stated: "The present effort of the church to get the state to ... introduce the teaching of Christianity into state schools, is but a revival of the . . . doctrine of force in religious things, and as such it is anti-christian."

There is little ambiguity in Ellen White's appraisal of enforced religious observance. She doesn't stutter when she labels the practice unjust, wrong, and a revival of the doctrine of force in religious matters. She does suggest that in the case of Bible reading in public schools, God will overrule it for good.

But what about her cautions: Opposing Bible reading will "place us in a wrong light," will "work against us," and "in a future crisis" (the developing drive for a religious amendment?) may provoke our enemies?

I think it fair, and necessary, to point out that my article dealt with dangers in a religious amendment and its incompatibility with Biblical and constitutional principles rather than with the public posture we should take concerning Bible reading in public schools. Pastor Umbarger's letter, on the other hand, deals with the latter issue to the exclusion of my concerns about a religious amendment and enforced prayer.

But, for a paragraph, let me speak of my response to the Bible-reading issue, as you can read it in Liberty, beginning with the early 1960's cases.

From the beginning I was moved with appreciation for the public relations problem Ellen White expounds in the letter to A. T. Jones (himself editor in 1893 of the church's religious-liberty magazine, the American Sentinel). My first coverage (Liberty, September-October, 1962) presented editorials for and against the decision and an editorial explaining the court's stand. In a later article I reported on the Supreme Court hearing of two cases, Murray v. Curlett and Abington Township v. Schempp ("The Bible—Holy Book or Tranquilizing Pill?" Liberty, July-August, 1963). My coverage presented both sides of the argument; but my conclusion asked, in the words of Justice Black to the attorney arguing for Bible reading: "Then in an equally emotionally charged voice, Justice Black spoke: . . . 'Have you considered the consequences if we approve?' "

I also discussed the underlying moral issues of enforced religion (see, for ex ample, "Does God Approve the Use of Civil Power to Enforce His Will?" Liberty, November-December, 1962), and explored options that might be more beneficial to the child—evening Bible classes in the church and Scripture selections by students over a local radio station at breakfast time (as was done in Worcester, Massachusetts, and reported in "Worcester's Bible-reading Plan," Liberty, March-April, 1965).

Further, the Religious Liberty Department studied the issues, not excluding Ellen White's comments, with General Conference officials. As a consequence, when hearings were held in Congress, the church presented a paper in opposition to a religious amendment. Among the factors motivating the testimony: (1) Recognition that a religious amendment to the Constitution is quite a different matter from Bible reading in schools per se; (2) Ellen White had called the religious-amendment movement of her day "the plain, direct fulfillment of prophecy" (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 719); and (3) unlike in 1893, twenty-eight major denominations had gone on record before Government committees in opposition to state-en forced religious observances in public schools.

Let's look more closely at three reasons for (1) the church's authorizing testimony before Government committees; (2) my coverage in Liberty; and (3) my opposition to a religious amendment in "Down the Road to a Christian Republic."

First, the Regent's Prayer case, one of the three major cases on religion in public schools of the early 1960's, challenged the state's writing a prayer and forcing students to recite it. The Court concluded: (1) In America, with our concept of separation of church and state, it is not the right of the state to write a prayer and force any segment of our citizens to recite it; and (2) a child may pray in public schools, but he may not expect the aid of the state in that exercise.

Here was quite a different issue from the one Ellen White addressed—Bible reading. Here, in fact, was a twenty-two-word prayer that did not even name the name of Christ (a Lutheran minister called it "blasphemous"), which could not teach anything about the Sabbath, which offered no "ray of light" for "those who are in darkness," and which offered no ' 'knowledge of God and Jesus Christ."

I submit that here is more than adequate reason for Adventists to educate their fellow Americans to the dangers involved in legislation that would restore such a practice to public schools.

Second, statements advising caution in opposing Bible reading do not necessarily apply to a religious amendment. Though amendments differ— literally hundreds have been offered in the past two decades—all would restore to the public schools not only Bible reading but also such abuses as the Regent's Prayer. It is prudent, I believe, to discern danger in a principle and by denying the principle, deny the consequences. One can not always diagram concerns with a period that begins in one place and ends in one place, but rather must do so with a line that had its beginning long ago and could yet terminate at the funeral parlor for American freedoms. More than any other development on the American scene, the drive for a religious amendment seems likely to accelerate the "revival of the . . . doctrine of force in religious matters."

Finally, let us note that today, in contrast to 1893, a Supreme Court decision forbids state-enforced Bible reading. This reality is what may be called "the law of the land." Considering Ellen White's exhortation to do all in our power to avert the coming crisis, can we justify rolling over and playing dead in the face of a move to change this law? (Need I point out further that such a change would open the way also to approval of religious Sunday laws, now prohibited by a 1961 Supreme Court decision?)

I submit that my article does not give a false impression, that our ministers would be wise to oppose a religious amendment, and that the concern of Pastor Umbarger's letter (opposition to Bible reading in schools) was only peripherally referred to in my article.—R.R.H