A Civics Lesson for American Christians: "Church and State in the United States," by Dr. Philip Schaff

Dr. Philip Schaff (d. 1893) was among America's pre-eminent church historians and theologians of the 19^th Century. Together with Dr. John Williamson Nevin (d. 1886), Dr. Schaff assisted in advocating German Reformed theology, a Zwinglian variety of Reformed teaching, contributing to a rise in its prominence that pitted it against the more widely accepted Calvinist theology of Charles Hodge (d. 1878) in a bid for dominance among the Reformed in America. Though this bid was unsuccessful, the Mercersburg Theology, as it was named in honor of the seminary where Nevin and Schaff taught, represented a teaching that was uniquely Christocentric among the Reformed, whose theology typically begins with and centers on the sovereignty of God, rather than the person of Christ.⁰ This factor, in addition to the impeccable academic credentials of these men, no doubt contributed to the use of their research by prominent confessional Lutherans, like C.F.W Walther and C.P. Krauth, both of whom quote favorably from Schaff and Nevin. In fact, Krauth's Conservative Reformation quotes both Nevin and Schaff with great frequency. We at Intrepid Lutherans quote from Dr. Schaff's History of the Christian ChurchClick here for a brief biography of Dr. Philip Schaff, and links to download his public domain works, including his 3 volume Creeds of Christendom and his 7 volume History of the Christian Church quite frequently as well.

In 1887, Dr. Schaff, published a little book entitled, Church and State in the United States: Or the American Idea of Religious Liberty and it Practical Effects; with Official Documents. It is a marvelous little book, an indispensable civics guide for the American Christian. In honor of this important day, November 6, 2012, the day of our national election for the Presidency of the United States, we here publish select sections from this book, from pages 53-56 and pages 69-78.

---

Church and State
in the United States:
or
The American Idea of
Religious Liberty and
its Practical Effect
(excerpts from)

by Dr. Philip Schaff

A.D. 1887

---

THE NATION AND CHRISTIANITY.
(pp. 53-56)

The separation of church and state as it exists in this country is not a separation of the nation from Christianity.

This seems paradoxical and impossible to all who entertain an absolutist or utopian idea of the state, and identify it either with the government, as did Louis XIV (according to his maxim: L'ttat cest moi),¹ or with the realization of the moral idea, as Hegel² and Rothe,³ or with the nation, as Bluntschli,⁴ and Mulford.⁵

The tendency of modern times is to limit the powers of the government, and to raise the liberty of the people. The government is for the people, and not the people for the government. In ancient Greece and Rome the freeman was lost in the citizen, and the majority of the people were slaves. Plato carried this idea to the extent of community of property, wives, and children, in his utopian Republic.⁶ Against this Aristotle protested with his strong realistic sense, and defended in his Politics the rights of property and the dignity of the family. The American ideal of the state is a republic of self-governing freemen who are a law to themselves. "That government is best which governs least."

The state can never be indifferent to the morals of the people; it can never prosper without education and public virtue. Nevertheless its direct and chief concern in our country is with the political, civil, and secular affairs; while the literary, moral, and religious interests are left to the voluntary agency of individuals, societies, and churches, under the protection of the laws. In Europe, the people look to the government for taking the initiative; in America they help themselves and go ahead.

The nation is much broader and deeper than the state, and the deepest thing in the nation's heart is its religion.

If we speak of a Christian nation we must take the word in the qualified sense of the prevailing religious sentiment and profession; for in any nation and under any relation of church and state, there are multitudes of unbelievers, misbelievers, and hypocrites. Moreover, we must not measure the Christian character of a people by outward signs, such as crosses, crucifixes, pictures, processions, clerical coats, and monastic cowls, all of which abound in Roman Catholic countries and in Russia, on the streets and in public places, but are seldom seen in the United States. We must go to the churches and Sunday-schools, visit the houses and family altars, attend the numerous meetings of synods, conferences, conventions, observe the sacred stillness of the Lord's Day, converse with leading men of all professions and grades of culture, study the religious literature and periodical press with its accounts of the daily thoughts, words, and deeds of the people. A foreigner may at first get bewildered by the seeming confusion of ideas, and be repelled by strange novelties or eccentricities; but he will gradually be impressed with the unity and strength of the national sentiment on all vital questions of religion and morals.

With this understanding we may boldly assert that the American nation is as religious and as Christian as any nation on earth, and in some respects even more so, for the very reason that the profession and support of religion are left entirely free. State-churchism is apt to breed hypocrisy and infidelity, while free-churchism favors the growth of religion.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the most philosophic foreign observer of American institutions, says:

There is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth... In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state... Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must, nevertheless, be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country, for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of free institutions. I am certain that the Americans hold religion to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.⁷

This judgment of the celebrated French scholar and statesman is extremely important, and worthy of being seriously considered by all our educators and politicians, in opposition to infidels and anarchists, foreign and domestic, who are zealous in spreading the seed of atheism and irreligion, and are undermining the very foundations of our republic. I fully agree with De Tocqueville. I came to the same conclusion soon after my immigration to America in 1844, and I have been confirmed in it by an experience of forty-three years and a dozen visits to Europe. In Roman Catholic countries and in Russia there is more outward show, in Protestant countries more inward substance, of religion. There the common people are devout and churchy, but ignorant and superstitious; while the educated classes are skeptical or indifferent. In Protestant countries there is more information and intelligent faith, but also a vast amount of rationalism and unbelief. In Great Britain Christianity has a stronger hold on all classes of society than on the Continent, and this is partly due to the fact that it is allowed more freedom.


THE CONNECTING LINKS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.
(pp. 68-79)

A total separation of church and state is an impossibility, unless we cease to be a Christian people.

There are three interests and institutions which belong to both church and state, and must be maintained and regulated by both. These are

1. monogamy in marriage,
2. the weekly day of rest,
3. and the public school

Here the American government and national sentiment have so far decidedly protected the principles and institutions of Christianity as essential elements in our conception of civilized society.

Marriage.
Monogamy, according to the unanimous sentiment of all Christian nations, is the only normal and legitimate form of marriage. It has been maintained by Congress, with the approval of the nation, in its prohibitory legislation against the new Mohammedanism in Utah, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest tribunal of our laws, has sanctioned the prohibition of polygamy as constitutional. The Mormons have to submit, or to emigrate to more congenial climes.

All the States uphold monogamy and punish bigamy. But some of them, unfortunately, are very loose on the subject of divorce, and a reform of legislation in conformity to the law of Christ is highly necessary for the safety and prosperity of the family. It is to the honor of the Roman Catholic Church in our country that she upholds the sanctity of the marriage tie.⁸

Sunday Laws.
The Christian Sabbath or weekly day of rest is likewise protected by legislation, and justly so, because it has a civil as well as a religious side; it is necessary and profitable for the body as well as for the soul; it is of special benefit to the laboring classes, and guards them against the tyranny of capital. The Sabbath, like the family, antedates the Mosaic legislation, and is founded in the original constitution of man, for whose temporal and spiritual benefit it was instituted by the God of creation. The state has nothing to do with the religious aspect of Sunday, but is deeply interested in its civil aspect, which affects the whole domestic and social life of a people.

The Federal Constitution, in deference to the national sentiment, incidentally recognizes Sunday by the clause (Art. I., Sect. 7):

If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it.

Congress never meets on Sunday, except of necessity, at the close of the short term, to complete legislation if the third of March happens to fall on a Sunday. The President is never inaugurated on a Sunday. The Supreme Court and the Federal Courts are closed on that day. And if the Fourth of July falls on a Sunday, the great national festival is put off till Monday. The Revised Statutes of the United States sustain the observance of Sunday in four particulars. They exempt the cadets at West Point and the students of the Naval Academy from study on Sunday; they exclude Sunday, like the Fourth of July and Christmas Day, from computation in certain bankruptcy proceedings; and provide that army chaplains shall hold religious services at least once on each Lord's Day.

During the civil war, when the Sunday rest was very much interrupted by the army movements, the President of the United States issued the following important order:

Executive Mansion, Washington, Nov. 15, 1862.

The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and naval service. The importance, for man and beast, of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine will, demand that Sunday labor in the army and navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity. The discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer, nor the cause they defend be imperilled, by the profanation of the day or name of the Most High. At this time of public distress, adopting the words of Washington, in 1776, "men may find enough to do in the service of God and their country, without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality." The first general order issued by the Father of his Country, after the Declaration of Independence, indicates the spirit in which our institutions were founded and should ever be defended:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier, defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country."

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

The State legislatures, State courts, and State elections follow the example of the general government, or rather preceded it. The States are older than the United States, and Sunday is older than both.

Most of the States protect Sunday by special statutes.

These Sunday laws of the States are not positive and coercive, but negative, defensive, and protective, and as such perfectly constitutional, whatever Sabbath-breaking infidels may say. The state, indeed, has no right to command the religious observance of Sunday, or to punish anybody for not going to church, as was done formerly in some countries of Europe. Such coercive legislation would be unconstitutional and contrary to religious liberty. The private observance and private non-observance is left perfectly free to everybody. But the state is in duty bound to protect the religious community in their right to enjoy the rest of that day, and should forbid such public desecration as interferes with this right.

The Supreme Court of the State of New York, February 4, 1861, decided that the regulation of the Christian Sabbath "as a civil and political institution" is "within the just powers of the civil government," and that the prohibition of theatrical and dramatic performances on that day

rests on the same foundation as a multitude of other laws on our statute-book, such as those against gambling, lotteries, keeping disorderly houses, polygamy, horse-racing, profane cursing and swearing, disturbances of religious meetings, selling of intoxicating liquor on election days within a given distance from the polls, etc. All these and many others do, to some extent, restrain the citizen and deprive him of some of his natural rights; but the legislature have the right to prohibit acts injurious to the public and subversive of government, or which tend to the destruction of the morals of the people, and disturb the peace and good order of society. It is exclusively for the legislature to determine what acts should be prohibited as dangerous to the community.⁹

The Penal Code of New York, as amended in 1882 and 1883, forbids "all labor on Sunday, excepting works of necessity or charity," and declares "Sabbath-breaking a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one dollar and not more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment in a jail not exceeding five days, or by both." Among things expressly prohibited on Sunday, the Penal Code¹⁰ mentions

• "all shooting, hunting, fishing, playing, horse-racing, gaming, or other public sports, exercises, or shows";
• "all trades, manufactures, agricultural or mechanical employments";
• "all manner of public selling or offering for sale of any property" (except articles of food and meals);
• "all service of legal process of any kind whatever";
• "all processions and parades" (except funeral processions and religious processions);
• "the performance of any tragedy, comedy, opera," or any other dramatic performance (which is subjected to an additional penalty of five hundred dollars).¹¹

The opposition to the Sunday laws comes especially from the foreign population, who have grown up under the demoralizing influence of the continental Sunday, and are not yet sufficiently naturalized to appreciate the habits of the land of their adoption. But the more earnest and religious portion of German immigrants are in hearty sympathy with the quiet and order of the American Sunday and have repeatedly expressed it in public meetings in New York and other large cities.¹²

The only class of American citizens who might with justice complain of our Sunday laws and ask protection of the last day of the week instead of the first, are the Jews and the Seventh Day Baptists. But they are a small minority, and must submit to the will of the majority, as the government cannot wisely appoint two weekly days of rest. The Revised Statutes of New York, however, provide that those who keep "the last day of the week, called Saturday, as holy time, and do not labor or work on that day," shall be exempted from the penalties of the statute against labor on Sunday, provided only that their labor do not "interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time." The law of New York exempts also the same persons from military duty and jury duty on Saturday.

The United States present, in respect to Sunday legislation and Sunday observance, a most striking contrast to the Continent of Europe, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, where Sunday is perverted from a holy day of rest and worship into a frivolous holiday of amusement and dissipation,¹³ dedicated to beer gardens, theatres, horse-races, and political elections. Judged by the standard of Sunday observance, America is the most Christian country in the world, with the only exceptions of England and Scotland.

Religion in Public Schools.
The relation of state education to religion is a most important and most difficult problem, which will agitate the country for a long time. It is increased by a difference of views within the religious denominations themselves; while on the questions of monogamy and Sunday they are substantially agreed.

The Roman Catholics, under the dictation of the Vatican, oppose our public schools, which are supported by general taxation, for the reason that their religion is not taught there, and that a "godless" education is worse than none. They are right in the supreme estimate of religion as a factor in education, but they are radically wrong in identifying the Christian religion with the Roman creed, and very unjust in calling our public schools "godless." They must learn to appreciate Protestant Christianity, which has built up this country and made it great, prosperous, and free.¹⁴ Their Church enjoys greater liberty in the United States than in Italy or Spain or Austria or France or Mexico, and for this they should at least be grateful. They will never succeed in overthrowing the public school system, nor in securing a division of the school funds for sectarian purposes. They have a remedy in private and parochial schools, which they can multiply without let or hindrance. There is no compulsory attendance on public schools in any of our States. The only point of reasonable complaint from Catholics is that they are taxed for the support of public schools which they condemn. Strict justice would exempt them from the school tax.¹⁵ But the principal tax-payers are wealthy Protestants, who, for various reasons, prefer to educate their children in private schools at their own expense. The right of minorities should be protected by all means save the destruction of the rights of the majority, which must rule in a republican country. The Roman Catholics would act more wisely and patriotically by uniting with the religious portion of the Protestant community in every effort to improve the moral character of the public schools. They may be sure of a cordial disposition to meet them in every just and reasonable demand. Protestants are just as much concerned for the religious and moral training of their children as they.

The public school is and ever will be an American institution from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It dates from early colonial days in New England, and has always been, next to the church, the chief nursery of popular intelligence, virtue, and piety. The Continental Congress, in the ordinance of 1787 (Article III.), enjoined it upon the territory northwest of the Ohio River, that "schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged," because "religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind."¹⁶ The public school system grows and aims higher every year. It is not satisfied with elementary instruction, but aims at a full college and university education, at least in the West, where large landed endowments come to its aid. The state has the right and the duty to educate its citizens for useful citizenship, and should give the poorest and humblest the benefit of a sufficient training for that purpose. A democratic republic based upon universal suffrage depends for its safety and prosperity upon the intelligence and virtue of the people. But virtue is based on religion, and the obligations of man to man rest upon the obligations of man to his Maker and Preserver. Intellectual training without moral training is dangerous, and moral training without religion lacks the strongest incentive which appeals to the highest motives, and quickens and energizes all the lower motives. Who can measure the influence of the single idea of an omniscient and omnipresent God who reads our thoughts afar off and who will judge all our deeds? The example of Christ is a more effectual teacher and reformer than all the moral philosophies, ancient and modern.

The state recognizes the importance of religion by allowing the reading of the Bible, the singing of a hymn, and the recital of the Lord's Prayer, or some other prayer, as opening exercises of the school. I am informed by competent authority that at least four fifths of the public schools in the United States observe this custom.¹⁷ Most of the school teachers, especially the ladies, are members of evangelical churches, and commend religion by their spirit and example. To call such schools "godless" is simply a slander.

Some schools exclude the Bible to please the Roman Catholics, who oppose every Protestant version, and the Jews and infidels who oppose Christianity in any form. Other schools have found it necessary to reintroduce religious exercises for the maintenance of proper discipline.

The Catholics certainly have a right to demand the Douay version as a substitute for that of King James, and both might be read, the one to the Catholic, the other to the Protestant pupils; but they are at heart opposed to the free and independent atmosphere of thought which prevails in the schools of a Protestant community, and which is dangerous to the principles of authority and absolute obedience to the priesthood. It is vain, therefore, to expect to satisfy them by the exclusion of the Bible from the public school, which is advocated by many Protestants as a peace measure.¹⁸ It is better to hold on to the timehonored custom of holding up before the rising generation day by day a short and suitable lesson from the Book of books, no matter in what version. The Psalms contain the sublimest lyrical poetry; the Lord's Prayer is the best of all prayers: the Sermon on the Mount is more popular and beautiful than any moral essay; and the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians is the most effective sermon on charity. A competent committee of clergymen and laymen of all denominations could make a judicious selection which would satisfy every reasonable demand. With unreason even the gods fight in vain.¹⁹

The reading of brief Bible lessons, with prayer and singing, is a devotional exercise rather than religious instruction, but it is all that can be expected from the state, which dare not intermeddle with the differences of belief. Positive religious instruction is the duty of the family, and the church, which has the commission to teach all nations the way of life. The state cannot be safely intrusted with this duty. It might teach rationalism, as is actually done in many public schools and universities of Germany, Holland, and Switzerland.

But the state may allow the different denominations to monopolize certain school hours in the school building for religious instruction.²⁰ In this way the problem of united secular and separate religious education could be solved, at least to the reasonable satisfaction of the great majority. Possibly the more liberal portion of our Roman Catholic fellow-citizens might agree to such a compromise. In communities which are sufficiently homogeneous, one teacher would answer; in others, two or more might be chosen, and the children divided into classes according to the will of the parents or guardians.

The state is undoubtedly competent to give instruction in all elementary and secular or neutral branches of learning, such as reading and writing, mathematics, languages, geography, chemistry, natural science, logic, rhetoric, medicine, law, etc.²¹ The difficulty begins in history and the moral sciences which deal with character, touch upon religious ground, and enjoin the eternal principles of duty. A history which would ignore God, Christ, the Bible, the Church, the Reformation, and the faith of the first settlers of this country, would be nothing but a ghastly skeleton of dry bones. An education which ignores the greatest characters and events and the most sacred interests in human life must breed religious indifference, infidelity, and immorality.

But the people will not allow this as long as they remain religious and Christian. Parents will not send their children to godless schools. They have the power in their own hands; they appoint the school boards, and through them the teachers.²² This is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Republican institutions are a blessing or a curse according to the character of those who administer them.²³ And so it is with our public schools. All depends at last upon competent and faithful teachers. If the teachers fear God and love righteousness, they will inspire their pupils with the same spirit; if they do not, they will raise an infidel generation, notwithstanding the reading of the Bible and the teaching of the Catechism. It is in the interest of the educational institutions of the several States, and indispensable to their well-being, that they should maintain a friendly relation to the churches and the Christian religion, which is the best educator and civilizer of any people.

Whatever defects there are in our public schools, they can be supplied by the Sunday-schools, which are multiplying and increasing in importance with the growth of the country, by catechetical instruction of the pastor, which ought to be revived as a special preparation for church membership; and by private schools, academies, and denominational colleges and universities. The church is perfectly free and untrammelled in the vast work of education, and this is all she can expect. If she does her full duty, America will soon surpass every other country in general intelligence, knowledge, and culture. Here is an opportunity for every man to become a gentleman, for every woman to become a lady, and for all to become good Christians.²⁴



------------
Endnotes:

0. IL Note: For more details, including the impact of this starting place in Reformed-Calvinist and Lutheran systems of theology, please see our essay, Differences between Reformed and Lutheran Doctrines. (Click here to return)
1. This corresponds to the Roman Catholic idea that the clergy or hierarchy are the church; while the laity are doomed to passive obedience. Pope Pius IX. said during the Vatican Council: "I am the tradition." (Click here to return)
2. Philosophic des Rechts. Hegel calls the state "die Wirklichkeit dcr sittlichen Idee," "die selbstbewusste Verniinftigkeit und Sittlichkeit", and "das System der sittlichen Welt." ("Works," vol. viii. p. 340 sqq.) (Click here to return)
3. Richard Rothe, in his Anfange der christlichen Kirche, (Wittenberg, 1837, pp, 1-138), teaches the ultimate absorption of religion into morals, and of the church into an ideal state, which he identifies with the kingdom of God (the basileia tou' qeou'). But the ultimate state is a theocracy where God shall be all in all. (i Cor. xv. 28) (Click here to return)
4. Lehre vom modernen Staat. Engl. translation: Theory of the Modern State, Oxford, 1885. (Click here to return)
5. The Nation: The Foundations of Civil and Political Life in the United States, Boston, 1870, 9^th edition, 1884. This work grew out of the enthusiasm for the nation enkindled by the civil war for its salvation. It is a profound study of speculative politics, with the main ideas borrowed from Bluntschli and Hegel. Mulford wrote afterwards a theological treatise under the title, The Republic of God, Boston, 9^th ed., 1886. (Click here to return)
6. IL Note: C.F.W. Walther, in his Second Lecture on Communism and Socialism, highlighted this -- Plato's communistic theory of property ownership -- as follows: "Plato, the renowned philosopher, lived 400 years before Christ. He wrote a book treating exclusively of government and the commonwealth. In this book he also says that the most beautiful and most perfect form of a republic is that of communism." (Click here to return)
7. Democracy in America, translated by Henry Reeve, New York, 1838, vol. i. pp. 285, 286 sq. (Click here to return)
8. IL Note: See the following Intrepid Lutheran post for details on the relationship between Gay Marriage and Polygamy: God, Marriage, and The State In Our World Today. Maintaining the integrity of the institution of marriage, as a monogomous lifelong union between one man and one woman, continues to be a critical factor in maintaining a civilized society, which continues to be attacked by "infidels and anarchists ...zealous in spreading the seed of atheism and irreligion." And by all accounts, the Church in America is acquiescing to the enemies of civilization. In the words of Dr. Schaff, above, I must agree, "It is to the honor of the Roman Catholic Church in our country that she upholds the sanctity of the marriage tie." While to their shame, other Christians are absenting themselves from this critical debate. (Click here to return)
9. See the whole decision in Document XI. (Click here to return)
10. See "The Penal Code of New York," Title x. ch. 1, Of Crimes against Religious Liberty and Conscience. (Click here to return)
11. IL Note: Obviously, if such laws were common, and enforced, today, much of what passes for "Worship" these days (especially among congregations infected with the disease of Church Growth) would be outlawed as "the performance of tragedy, comedy... or any other dramatic performance" as a "public desecration [which] interferes with [the] right [of religious observance]". They would also do away with the frustrating interference of sporting events with Christian religious observance. While it is true that many such laws are no longer on the books, there are still many which remain, some of which are still enforced. As a child growing up in Ohio, hunting seasons were closed on Sundays, nor was liquor sold on Sundays. Many states and localities continue to observe such ordinances as healthy for the community. Whether it is the law or not, many Christian business owners continue to observe the "Christian Sabbath" for the sake of conscience anyway. The owner of Discount Tires, for example, being a devout Roman Catholic (so I was told a few years ago by one of his proud long-time employees), closes his stores nationwide on Sunday. Many businesses remain closed on Sunday. One businesses I had owned in the past, a small store, my business partner and I felt compelled to close on Sunday. Many consultants I know and work with -- especially Christians -- refuse to travel on Sunday. These are good practices that are healthy for Christianity, and therefore, healthy for our Christian nation.
    
    But the principle at work here extends beyond the civic recognition of Sunday as the "Christian Sabbath," the protection of which is enjoined for the benefit of society. In my honest opinion, it extends to all public Christian practice, especially protection from state coercion to civic practices that violate Christian doctrine. One such example facing Christians today is the enforcement of health care provisions requiring Christian businessmen and various religious organizations to violate their Christian conscience by providing for the use of abortifacient in the health insurance they offer to employees. Rev. Matthew Harrison, LCMS Synod President, courageously testified before a Congressional hearing against this horrifically anti-Christian practice, and was later joined by WELS Synod President, Rev. Mark Schroeder and other Christians, in a publicly issued declaration denouncing the government's interference with people who act according to religious conscience. In these and in every case, the freedom of Christians to publicly practice their religion according to conscience is tied to the connection of that practice to their doctrine. While advocates of the Church Growth Movement strive at every turn to convince Christians that all practice is completely free, is completely separate from Christian doctrine, and is therefore, totally arbitrary and open to the whim of the individual, they are also sweeping away all grounds on which Christians may claim protection for any public manifestation of their religion: none of the Christian's practice is a matter of religious conviction, it is completely a matter of his arbitrary opinion, having as its foundation any one thing or another, and if it so happens that doctrine is involved in his opinion, it is not necessarily involved, but only incidentally involved. They engage in all forms of verbal thrashing in order to create room enough to justify, not just liberty, but open license to engage in all manner of irreverent worship practice, and in this way unwittingly deny themselves and all those associated with them any foundation for religious liberty in society. (Click here to return)
12. See documents of the New York Sabbath Committee, Nos. xv., xvi., xxvi., xxvii., and the author's essays on the Christian Sabbath, in "Christ and Christianity," New York and London, 1885, pp. 213-275. The most recent German demonstration in protection of the Sunday and Excise laws took place November 1, 1887, at a mass meeting in Cooper Institute, New York, against the "Personal Liberty Party," which would claim the half of Sunday from 2 P.M. till midnight for the special benefit of the liquor trade, while all other trades are prohibited. All the speeches were made in the German language and met with enthusiastic applause. (Click here to return)
13. IL Note: To the shame of American Christians, they have allowed the same to occur here in the United States, since the time Dr. Schaff wrote this treatise. (Click here to return)
14. IL Note: Dr. Schaff may seem to be overreaching here, but he is right. Roman Catholics did not start emigrating to the United States in any significant number until the mid-19^th Century. (Click here to return)
15. IL Note: Note Dr. Schaff's reasoning, here. It is very reasonable and fair. The same applies to any group of Christians, who are forced to condemn a public school system as a godless enemy of Christianity. (Click here to return)
16. IL Note: It is very important to recognize that, in the purpose of education to prepare "citizens for useful citizenship," in order to secure for the future, as much as possible, "good government and the happiness of mankind," "knowledge" was regarded by our Founders as only one of three necessary components. The other two necessary components of education were Religion and Morality. Note also that "training in the performance of manual tasks" was not (and has never been) considered a legitimate aspect of a real education. Education addresses the mind and character of the human. Manual training does not. You can train a monkey, after all; but you can't educate him. We at Intrepid Lutherans have addressed the topic of Education several times. A good place to start is to read the "Nurturing the Fine Arts in the Church" section in our recent post, Confessional Lutheran Evangelism: Confessing Scripture's Message about Advent & Christmas, and follow the links from that post to our other posts on Education. (Click here to return)
17. E, E. White, LL.D., Superintendent of Public Schools in Cincinnati, in his paper read before the National Educational Association in Topeka, Kansas, July 15, 1886, says (p. 10): "The great majority of American schools are religious without being sectarian; and it is high time that this fact were more universally recognized. It is doubtless true that the most impressive forms of presenting religious sanctions to the mind and heart of the young are prayer, silent or spoken, and the reverent reading of the Bible, especially those portions that present human duty in its relations to the Divine Will — forms still permitted and widely used in four fifths of the American schools." (Click here to return)
18. IL Note: Today, of course, the majority of Christians of all stripes, having been effectively schooled on the the subject by the United States Supreme Court in its 1962 and 1963 decisions prohibiting prayer and all activities which "advance or inhibit religion" or "result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion" (with the term "excessive entanglement" now taken to mean "any connection with"), are active advocates for the removal of wholesome Bible reading from the school. Dr. Schaff is correct: it is vain to think that would satisfy anyone, especially those among the "infidels and anarchists ...zealous in spreading the seed of atheism and irreligion" who so boldly attack Christianity in all of its forms. They didn't stop at prayer, they took the Bible, and not satisfied with that, they now wage open war against Christianity while openly embracing and advocating nearly all other forms of "alternative religion," including atheism. American Christians have lost contact with their Christian conscience, either through lack of education and catechesis, or through sufficient bullying from the institutions of government and the liberal church. (Click here to return)
19. IL Note: Notice that Dr. Schaff's defense for wholesome Bible reading in the public schools has nothing whatsoever to do with "nurturing the faith of the reader," but, properly within the sphere of public education, is a Natural Law defense focusing on the aims of education itself: cultivating the intellect and moral character of the individual. (Click here to return)
20. IL Note: When I was a high-school student in a small school district in northwest Wisconsin, not only were teachers prohibited from assigning homework on Wednesdays (the day most commonly set aside by the churches for catechism and mid-week worship), but absences on Wednesdays for day-time catechism and religious instruction were automatically approved. Of course, these activities did not occur in the school building, but this was the next best thing that a largely Christian community could do considering the anti-Christian edicts of the United States Supreme Court. (Click here to return)
21. IL Note: Theoretically, yes, "the state is undoubtedly competent to give instruction..." In actuality, especially following Dewey's Progressivistic "Education Revolution" in the early 20^th Century, which has now been co-opted by post-Modern Epistemological Learning Theories, like Social and Radical Constructivism, we cannot share Dr. Schaff's confidence in the state to provide competent education. As mentioned in footnote 16, please see the "Nurturing the Fine Arts in the Church" section in our recent post, Confessional Lutheran Evangelism: Confessing Scripture's Message about Advent & Christmas, and follow the links from that post to our other posts on Education, for more information. (Click here to return)
22. IL Note: O how many Christian parents have abdicated their involvement in public affairs, especially that of the local school board, to the "infidels and anarchists ...zealous in spreading the seed of atheism and irreligion!" And how American Education and Society has suffered! We are now staring the veritable collapse of Western Civilization square in the eye. And no one would care even if they were equipped to recognize it!. (Click here to return)
23. IL Note: And, hence, the necessity of education to address the character of the individual, which necessarily forces education to come into positive contact with religion. The two cannot be separated. (Click here to return)
24. IL Note: And here, in pointing to the positive civic and social impact of a robust Christian influence in American Society, Dr. Schaff echoes Dr. Walther, who in his First Lecture on Communism and Socialism stated:
    "If, then, there is to be any help for the world, the people must become Christians, as said above. There is no other way. There are, however, many thousands of people who are called Christians, but who are not such... We must admit, that it is even so, that there are many scoundrels among those who bear the Christian name, who are not worthy of the name. But when we speak of Christians we do not mean those who simply have the name, but those who do not only believe in the Bible, but who, in their life, manifest and carry out the principles contained in the Bible. These alone are Christians, and if all were such Christians, we would have heaven on earth, and the cross, which we must expect, would be easy to bear."
    And who also warned in his Fourth Lecture on Communism and Socialism:
    "To this must be added, that where the true Christian religion takes possession of the human heart, there it changes the relation between man and man and actually improves it. It is then that the relation between the rich and poor, between rulers and subjects, between employers and employees, and between the lofty and the low, is really improved. That true faith produces these fruits when it takes possession of the heart, we learned in the last lecture. For when great necessity came upon the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, when the sword hung, as it were, by a hair over the Christian’s head, the Christians had all things common, neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, and all only provided that none might be in want. And such will be men’s relation to each other, where persons have become true Christians, who do not carry their faith at their tongue’s end, but in whose hearts faith dwells."
    The Church, active in Society, had made Western Civilization what it once was. The Church, retreating from active life in Society, has reduced Western Civilization to the convulsing wretch it has become. It is, as it always has been, the Church which must now rebuild the West for the sake of future generations, for the sake of Civilization itself, by once again asserting itself in the society in which God has placed it and maintaining: (a) the Sanctity of Marriage, (b) the protection of Christian Practice in public life, and, (c) because "religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind," the advocacy of a genuine education -- which cultivates the intellect and character of the individual -- for all people (not mere training in manual tasks for the masses), recognizing the necessary connection of this endeavor to the singularly civilizing character of the Christian religion. Indeed, "an education which ignores the greatest characters and events of human history and the most sacred interests in human life must breed religious indifference, infidelity, and immorality;" we know this is true because this is the point at which we have now arrived in America. Therefore, "it is in the interest of the educational institutions of the several States, and indispensable to their well-being, that they should maintain a friendly relation to the churches and the Christian religion, which is the best educator and civilizer of any people." This is where the church in America ought to assert herself. (Click here to return)

Presuppositional Apologetics: Without God, Atheists Can't Argue Anything

From a 1993 university debate recorded on Youtube, an atheist demanded that if God exists He should appear instantly to prove it. The Christian apologist replied that besides the foolishness of man declaring he himself worthy to judge God, for the atheists’ sake, Christ’s return would be the Judgement and then this would cease to be merely an interesting academic debate. 

That particular debate takes a line of reasoning which departs from the usual and important combat of evidences, and it addresses the presuppositions of truth, morality, and logic.   Instead of arguing the plenary examples of how the physical scientific evidence shows a young earth, or the historical evidence of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the logical assertion of presuppositional apologetics is that the absence of God is impossible. The presuppositional argument proves the negative of the atheist argument that ‘there is no God.’  

Inductive Knowledge

As Christians we understand that all knowledge is in God. We accept that as a matter of foundational belief because God says so (Prov. 1:7, Col. 2:3).   Though the atheist rejects this in his own worldview, we can show him that in his own worldview he cannot make any knowledge claim whatsoever!  Even the science and naturalism to which he clings is dependent on God.    Does the atheist hold his breath when he walks down the hall just in case the air at the end of the hall has floated to the top and he'll suffocate?  No, of course not.  He thinks he has reasonable certainty that he can rely on past experience. He thinks the same is true for the usual scientific experiments and observation.  But in an atheist’s random-chance worldview, how did it come to be that any experience or predictive experiment is reliable in the future?   The atheist again may claim probable reliance on past experience to infer a future reliable result, but this results in the problem of induction. It is philosophically unreconcilable. {Footnote: René Descartes asserted his own mind as the beginning of truth claims, “Je pense, donc je suis./ I think therefore I am.” However, this is of course reversible for any thinker and therefore not an absolute, universal truth.} Only the Christian worldview resolves this, knowing that God promises consistency for Creation (Gen 8:22) and to “uphold all things with the Word of His Power” (Heb 1:3).  The atheist assumes uniformity of nature, mathematics and logic, but cannot account for it in his own worldview. He is in the unfortunate untenable position of having to rely on God in order to claim God doesn’t exist.  

Arbitrary Morality

Even if the atheist asserts the Bible is merely a tale of morality, he has a tremendous void to fill.  A common response for substitute morality is, “Whatever brings the most good to the most people.”  It is simple to see that such a claim is arbitrary and relative without the Biblical God to author morality.  Even if a group of people might themselves decide what moral tenets are good for a particular time and place, any one objection nullifies it as arbitrary. As Christians we see the Golden Rule echoed in their claim of “do good to people” but they still cannot answer in their own worldview, if we’re just rearranged pond scum, why submit to any morality rules in the first place?   

Bill Nye famously recently asserted that it’s abusive to teach children Creation. He hits the trifecta of making an ad hominem error and false moral and false knowledge claims all in one sentence.  As Christians we of course reject his premise, but in the bigger picture, in his worldview, why not lie to children?  We —as Christians — know it’s wrong to lie, but again, if Bill Nye thinks we’re just rearranged pond scum it’s probably advantageous to lie and cheat to benefit our personal survival.  In the atheist universe, he has no absolute claim that doing so is wrong.  Only in our worldview — God's worldview — is lying absolutely wrong.  (And if the atheist insists there are no absolutes, ask him if he's absolutely sure!)

Even a naturalist believing the universe is only matter in motion without morality can’t make sense of science, mathematics, or logic.  He may claim that thought is merely following electro-chemical brain impulses, but as arbitrary as those are, why not also follow stomach rumblings or caffeine jitters? He may retreat to his reliability/repeatability claims, but those have already been dispatched. 

God Cannot Deny Himself

Logic is available to us because it reflects God’s thinking. (“If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.” 2 Tim. 2:13) The Law of Non-Contradiction is unyielding in our thinking and experience. If I describe feathered, clucking chickens laying eggs for your breakfast, only a fool would say,  “Come and see my flock of non-chickens in the coop.” Non-contradiction is evident that what an object is, it is.  Not even the atheist can bend that rule. (Ayn Rand was honest enough to say that someone stranded on a desert isle can’t create his own reality and start drinking beach sand.  Her error is holding logic above God and refusing to worship God who authored that logic.) 

Non-contradiction is also our basis for language.  Intrepids have written before about the importance of maintaining  and upholding language construction.  Arbitrarily asserting that words mean different things because an individual happens to desire them to mean something different renders communication unintelligible.  In evidentiary debates with anti-creationists, the most common example of this is their use of the Fallacy of Equivocation, e.g. "We see evolution in wolves breeding into German Shepherds, so why do Bible-clingers deny evolution?"  See the abuse of the word 'evolution?' Christians observe and readily admit to variation within kinds (Gen. 1:25) of dogs,  and for the purposes of discussion, we may even agree to calling such wolf-to-Chihuahua variation 'micro-evolution.'  But it's false to equate words which weigh so differently in meaning. It's an untenable leap within logic for observed variation of kinds to prove that in a big bang nothing turned itself into matter, after stellar evolution to chemical elemental evolution some information spontaneously organized itself and wrote itself into DNA from primordial ooze, eventually (shazam!) becoming a rational human being.  Obviously, anti-creationists don't like being forced to recognize they too have a faith-based worldview. 

1 Corinthians 1:20-21

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Sola Scriptura 

We are all made in the image of God, and the law of God is imprinted on all our hearts.  It’s stunning to realize that there really aren’t any atheists. Every single one of them wants to deny that God exists but unknowingly has to stand on God’s ground in order to defend their sense for justice and morality, their pursuit of truth, their assertion of rationality, or study of the sciences.  They can sit on God’s lap and yank His beard for only so long as by grace He lets them. This presuppositional apologetic uses God’s Word to show them their sin of rejecting their Creator.  With sola scriptura still firmly in our minds from Reformation, we should relish  the opportunity to demonstrate to unbelievers who think they have their God-less world figured all by themselves,  yet they cannot flee from needing God’s Word. 

For further resources, I suggest searching Youtube (with the usual Lutheran cautions) for the debates of the late Greg Bahnsen (Ph.D. - Philosophy; M.Div. & M.Th.).  Current leadership in this apologetic is from Dr. Jason Lisle, an astrophysicist with the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/jason_lisle), the presenter of several Youtube videos and author of The Ultimate Proof of Creation.  Another interesting website is http://www.proofthatGodexists.org, managed by Mr. Sye Ten Bruggencate. He’s a self-professed “dude with a website” and ended his engineering career to develop a pointed Q&A on his website. 

The Lutheran application of this presuppositional apologetic is that it does indeed start with Christ In the Beginning (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1) and holds God's Word as authoritative. It uses God's Law to show the unbeliever his folly and his sin of unbelief, and in every debate the Gospel is proclaimed.  It seems a misconception exists that meeting the unbeliever on the debate field requires an antecedent neutrality and wrongly surrendering the authority of Scripture. Both the unbeliever and the Christian come to the debate with their own worldviews, but neither party can claim to be neutral. (Even the very claim of self-neutrality is itself not neutral.)  In the words of apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen, “The presuppositional argument may not convince the atheist, but it will get him to close his mouth and give the Holy Spirit a Word in edgewise.” 

The Roman Papacy Is The Antichrist Spoken Of In Holy Scripture

"Satan instructs the Anti-Christ" from "Sermon and Deeds of the Antichrist" by Lucas Signorelli, A.D. 1502

The Bible teaches us that all people are either for Christ, or against Christ, hence the terms, “pro” or “anti” Christ. (Mt. 12:30; Mk. 9:40; Lk. 11:23) However, the prefix “anti” can also mean “in place of,” or “seeking/trying to take the place of.” Therefore, an “antichrist” is a person or institution that EITHER openly opposes Jesus Christ and His Gospel, or endeavors to supplement or replace Him and His plan of salvation by grace alone through faith.

Out of all the antichrists in the world, one is referred to specifically in the Bible as THE Antichrist. (1 Jo. 2:18; and 2 Th. 2:1-12) The “marks” or signs by which we can recognize and identify this Antichrist are listed especially the Second Thessalonians passages:

1. The Antichrist causes a rebellion against Biblical truth (verse 3).
2. This rebellion leads to sin and a great “falling away” from the pure Gospel faith (also verse 3).
3. The Antichrist claims divine authority in all earthly affairs (verse 4).
4. The Antichrist sets himself up as supreme in the entire visible church on earth (also verse 4).
5. The Antichrist looks holy and good and seems to be doing God’s work. (still verse 4).

When one looks at both secular and church history, only one institution fits this description – the Roman Papacy. For example, it opposes the pure Gospel of Christ, that is, justification by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ. Canon 9 of the Council of Trent of 1547 states emphatically, “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, let him be damned.” The Papacy also claims to be the sole authority on earth over both church and state. The documents of Vatican II, 1964, proclaim, “In this Church of Christ the Roman Pontiff has been granted by God supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls. He is therefore endowed with the primacy of ordinary power over all churches.” And the Papal pronouncement, “Unam Sanctum” of 1303 says, “The dogma of papal supremacy condemns the assertion by the State of any power over the church. The temporal power of princes does not exempt them from obedience to the head of the Church. The supremacy of the Pope, even in temporal things, is to be at all times enforced.” The Roman Papacy even demands obedience to it for the eternal salvation of any and all persons.

Luther Burns the Papal Bull – the Decree of the Anti-Christ – which "condemned" him.

The same document, “Unam Sanctum” bluntly states, “It is necessary to salvation that every person should submit to the Pope.” And the Office of the Pope claims infallibility in decreeing all articles of faith. One of the main pronouncements of Vatican I in 1870 says, “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ in discharge of the office of Pastor of all Christians, is possessed of infallibility.”

Therefore, the conclusion is clear and inescapable – the institution or office of the Roman Papacy is indeed The Very Antichrist spoken of in the Bible. This does not mean that any particular individual Pope is the Antichrist, or even an antichrist in the wider sense of the term, or that these men cannot also be Christian believers and thus saved and in heaven with God for eternity.

Rev. Steven Spencer

C.F.W Walther and the Two Kingdoms in Action: "No reasonable man, much less a Christian, can or should take part in the efforts of Communists and Socialists" - Part VI ("Lectures on Communism and Socialism," Lecture Four)

COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM

Minutes of
The First German Evangelical Lutheran Congregation, U.A.C.
at
St. Louis, Missouri

A STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF FOUR LECTURES
DELIVERED, AND BY RESOLUTION OF THE CONGREGATION,
FIRST PUBLISHED BY
PROFESSOR C.F.W. WALTHER, D. D.

Translated from the German by Rev. D. Simon and published in
1879 by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis Missouri.

(from the 1947 reprint by The Lutheran Research Society)

---

FOURTH LECTURE

“Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Thus Thy disciples once answered Thy question: “Will Ye also go away?” Thus, all, whoever became Thy true disciples, had to exclaim, and thus we too must exclaim. For to whom else in all the world could we go for the truth which we have found with Thee? To whom in all the world could we go for that grace which cancels our debt of sin and which we have found with Thee? And to whom in all the world could we go for that blessed peace which we have found with Thee?—

0 grant then, that no mock wisdom or mock comfort or feigned joy of this world may occasion as ever to become unfaithful to Thee.

Open Thou also the spiritual eyes of those who have as yet no knowledge of the salvation to be found with Thee, that they may know, that with Thee all things are to be found for which the soul of man longs, that they too may come unto Thee and remain with Thee unto death.

We will then praise and bless Thee for, this before Thy throne forevermore. Amen.

---

We are opposed to the efforts of the socialists:

III. Because the charges of communism against the Church and the Christian religion,
that these rather hinder than promote the material welfare of man, are unfounded and unjust.
There is one point yet which we must consider in our discussion of socialism and communism, if we would proceed with fairness, justice, uprightness and honesty. This is the accusation which socialism and communism make against the Christian religion and the Christian Church.

The first of these accusations is this: “The Church and the Christian religion are in league with capital,” or to say the same thing in other words, “with the rich, the powerful, and consequently also with the oppressors, the tyrants.”

1. the charge that the Church is in league with wealth, oppression and tyranny
“What else compares with the history of the Church,” ask the communists, “than the history of the most atrocious wickedness, of the plundering of the poor, and of bloody persecutions upon those who differed from them?”

And, my brethren, we cannot deny, that in the name and under the covering of the Church and the Christian religion some of the most heinous crimes have been committed, helpless people enslaved, impoverished and plundered, and streams of innocent blood shed. Calling themselves the Christian Church, men have affirmed that, if necessary for the propagation of the Church, fire and the sword should be used. Calling themselves the Christian Church, they claimed that in defense of the Church they had to burn the heretics. Calling themselves the Christian Church, they claimed a full right to demand of the lay members their bodily and earthly treasures brought to them by the Church. Calling themselves the Christian Church, they pretended, that, for the salvation of the world, they had to gain the favor of the wealthy, had to gain riches, honor, respect and power.

That all these abominations were committed by these who call themselves heads of the Christian Church, and that these abominations were committed in league with princes, the great, the powerful, kings and emperors, is a fact which no one can deny. All these things are written on the pages of history in characters of blood, and no one can erase them.

It is not to be denied in this connection either, that even in the so-called Protestant State Church many theologians united with the rich, the honored, the eminent, particularly with the princes, for the purpose of enslaving the common people to rob them as pertains to the body and soul, and to deprive them of all their rights.

But, brethren, what has this to do with the Christian religion and the Christian Church? The dark history of these abominations is not the history of the Christian Church, but rather the history of those TRAITORS AND ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH FOUND IN HER VERY BOSOM.

Or I ask you, when did Christ, or where do the Scriptures command such crimes?

Our Lord Jesus Christ was far from commanding His servants to propagate his kingdom by force with fire and sword as did the lying-prophet Mohammed; on the other hand Christ strictly commanded His disciples: “Go and teach all nations and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned” [Mk. 16:15-16]. Observe then, that Christ did not give the secular sword into His disciples’ hands; His Word is the weapon they were to use, and the means of propagating His kingdom was instruction and conviction; therefore the Lord also told Peter, when he, in his carnal zeal, had drawn his sword in defense of his Lord; “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword” [Mt. 26:47-56].

Our Lord Jesus was also far from requiring of his followers that they should persecute and kill the schismatic and the heretic, but to the contrary He declares that the wheat and the tares shall remain together in the field until the time of harvest [Mt. 13:24-30]. And when those disciples desired that fire should fall from heaven, because the Samaritans would not receive the Lord, the Lord declares unto them: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.” He accordingly testifies: “It is not the spirit of the gospel, to let fire fall from heaven upon the enemies of the Church” [Lu. 9:51-56].

Christ was also far from commanding His servants to conquer the kingdoms of this world for Him, and to seek after riches, honor and power, but on the contrary he publicly and solemnly declared in the presence of Pilate: “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” [Jn. 18:36]. Christ did not, as did the religious leaders of India and Egypt, intend to establish certain castes, as for example the caste of the priesthood and the caste of the laymen: no, the New Testament knows of no privileged priesthood. Christ would have no difference made among the members of His Church. He plainly declares: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you, and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” [Mt. 20:20-28].

Christ did not by any means, either, advise his followers to slight and despise the poor as members of less importance than the rich; but to the contrary, Christ associated mostly with the poor and labored mostly among them. He also says: “The poor have the gospel preached to them” [Mt. 11:2-6], and from among the poor He mostly gathered His Church. Therefore, the holy apostle Paul also says: “Brethren, God hath chosen not many noble after the flesh, but the weak things of the world” [1 Co. 1:18-31].

Christ was also far from requiring His followers to associate particularly with the rich commanding that they should do so because these had the greatest influence; that they should flatter them as those who had been especially preferred of God. There is, to the contrary, no book in all the world that speaks so contemptuously of the rich as the Book of Christ, i.e. the Holy Bible. In our last lecture we already considered the significant words of the Lord: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” [Mt. 19:16-26]. An another place he says: "Blessed be ye poor; for yours is the kingdom of God” [Mt. 5:3]. Again: “But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation” [Lu. 6:24]. And by St. Paul the Holy Spirit warns all Christians: “They that will be rich, fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition; for the love of money is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” [1 Ti. 6:6-11]. James also says in the 5th chapter of his epistle: “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall cat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter” [Ja. 5:1-5]. And what is the apostles’ admonition to the master as to his relation to the servant? He says: “Ye masters do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him” [Ep. 6:9]. Is this flattering the rich? Is this requiring the Christians to associate with the rich, and that because they are rich?

And finally, my brethren, Christ or the Scriptures are far from warning the Christians against losing their respect for tyrants, lest they might fail to have the support of their strong arm; they, to the contrary, inform us that there has been no tyrant who did not come to a dreadful death through the terrible judgments of God. I need only refer you to Pharaoh, to Nebuchadnezzar, to Saul, to Manassa, to Herod. Yes, even more. When Solomon had been led away from the living God by his wives, his fall was also manifest in this, that he fearfully oppressed his people. He repented and died. The people then came to Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam, and demanded of him that he should make the grievous burdens which were oppressing them, lighter. Rehoboam turned a deaf ear, and in his arrogance sent the people away, —and what were the consequences according to the Scriptures? God in his wrath permitted it that ten tribes revolted and thus five-sixths of the kingdom fell away from him.

You see from this, my brethren, that even if men, who are in league with the rich who oppress the poor, who are in league with the tyrants, call themselves Christians and are even found among their number, they are not Christians.

The first accusation of the socialists and communists against the Church and the Christian religion accordingly falls to the ground. For the Christian Church proper is not in league with oppression and tyranny, but is their enemy, and a faithful friend of the poor and oppressed.

2. the charge that the Church is incapable of relieving human suffering.
A second charge which the communists and socialists make against the Church and the Christian religion is this: The Christian Church has proved herself incapable of improving the miserable condition of the poor, incapable of removing the wrong relation which exists between the employer and the employed, and of bringing about such a state of affairs that all men might enjoy themselves in this world.

Brethren, it is even true, that Christianity has in reality not destroyed the old system of oppression. Christianity has not only not destroyed the natural evil of the world, but the world has even continued in her wickedness since Christ came. But could such an effect be expected or required of any religion? Is it not the very object of religion to point out and to bring about the right relation between man and God and to reveal man’s relation to a future life? The Church, by her religion, is to direct our attention to the proper relation which man is to sustain to man, and also to bring about such a relation. But the Church can do this only within her own bounds. Is not the use of physical power in direct conflict with the nature of the Church and the Christian religion? It is therefore a crying injustice to make religion responsible for failing to accomplish what she has no right and power to do.

To this must be added, that where the true Christian religion takes possession of the human heart, there it changes the relation between man and man and actually improves it. It is then that the relation between the rich and poor, between rulers and subjects, between employers and employees, and between the lofty and the low, is really improved. That true faith produces these fruits when it takes possession of the heart, we learned in the last lecture. For when great necessity came upon the Christian congregation at Jerusalem, when the sword hung, as it were, by a hair over the Christian’s head, the Christians had all things common, neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, and all only provided that none might be in want. And such will be men’s relation to each other, where persons have become true Christians, who do not carry their faith at their tongue’s end, but in whose hearts faith dwells.

Furthermore, everyone will admit, that a final judgment of a matter can be given only after a trial. So then, let the socialists and communists give true Christianity a trial, i.e., let them become true Christians: what will be the consequence? They will acknowledge that Christianity is truly a divine, heavenly power for the conversion of man and for the changing of all the relations of men to each other; then they would see, that if Christianity became universal, the sicknesses and weaknesses of this life, failures of crops, accidents, death and other natural evils, would indeed not be put away; and they would see that it would put an end to the tyranny of tyrants and make of them Just rulers, would take away the covetousness of the rich and make them liberal, would take away the selfishness of the employers, so that they would look more to the common interests, and care more for the welfare of the laborer than for their own, would put an end to the envy of the poor and make them contented.

The socialists and communists will no doubt ridicule this; very few will believe it, and will consequently remain in their misanthropy, i.e. enmity to mankind, and will therefore also continue to consider themselves in an unhappy condition. But, my brethren, we believe it. Why! we have experienced it and experience it daily, that Christianity has such power. It does not only make us blessed for the life to come, but it makes us blessed in this world, as it is written in the 128th Psalm: “Blessed is everyone that feareth the Lord; that walketh in his ways. For thou shalt eat the labor of thine hands; happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.” This we do not only read in the Scriptures, but we have also experienced it. Yes, we have also experienced what Asaph says in the 73rd Psalm: “Lord whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. But it is good for me to draw near to God; I have put my trust in the Lord God, that I may declare all thy works.”

Let then every Christian take warning against the agitations of the socialists and communists. Their aim is a Fata Morgana, i.e. a brilliant airy appearance, like a fairy castle. The pilgrim makes one more effort to reach this castle. He finally reaches the place where the bewitching atmospheric appearance was seen. And behold, it is gone, and the deceived wanderer is now surrounded with a darkness and trouble all the more dreary.

Oh then, my brethren, let us aim for some other object – that object which presents to us our heavenly calling in Christ Jesus. This is no Fata Morgana, this is reality, this is truth! There are indeed many who say: “No one has yet come from the other world to us to let us know that there is another life.” But One has come from the other world to us, namely, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has sundered the bands of death and proclaimed to all of us: “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live! and whosoever liveth and believeth in me, shall never die” [Jn. 11:25-27]. Jesus be our guide then, and we will follow Him over mountains and through valleys, through prosperity and misfortune, through darkness and light! Finally, the eternal and blessed light will make its appearance, then all our tears shall be wiped away, our sighings cease, and eternal unchangeable joy shall take possession of our hearts. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has obtained this for us, help that we may secure it. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

<-- C.F.W. Walther: Lectures on Communism and Socialism (THIRD LECTURE)