Teaching Faith in Public School

Should public schools teach religion, or does it undermine both genuine faith and equal rights?

Excerpted from an article by Ellet J. Waggoner, originally published in The American Sentinel, July 1888. Reformatted for the purpose of this piece; some content omitted, but the original wording remains unchanged.

The Gospel and the Principle of Voluntariness

We earnestly wish that every child in the land could be brought directly under the influence of Christian teaching, but we would have it done in a way befitting Christianity. The gospel knows nothing of force. Christ never forced himself upon anybody. When the Gadarenes besought Him to depart out of their coasts, He went immediately.

Why? Was it because He was not as intensely interested in them as in the inhabitants of Galilee? Not at all; but because He recognized their right to reject him and His teachings if they chose. When he sent out His disciples, He gave them instruction to the same effect. If any should refuse to receive them, they were to leave them and allow the day of Judgment to settle with them for their willful rejection of the gospel.

We repeat, the gospel knows nothing of force; its cry is, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." The privilege of every man to freely accept the provisions of God's grace implies the equal privilege of every man to reject them. Religion that is not voluntary is of no value.

Teaching Religion in Public Schools

But when religion is taught in the public schools, it ceases to be a voluntary thing. It gathers all the children into the schools, and then preaches the gospel to them. But under such circumstances it is not the gospel that is received; it is only a semblance of the gospel.

Nothing is pure gospel except that which is truly Christlike, and Christ never forced people to listen to Him. The same power which drove the money-changers in abject terror from the temple could as well have gathered all people regularly into the temple, or the synagogues, and compelled them to listen to His teaching. The fact that the great Author of Christianity employed nothing like force in the introduction of Christianity shows that none of his professed followers have any right to use force in maintaining it.

The disciple is not greater than his Lord. It is right to have zeal for God, and to be anxious that all men should hear the gospel; but that zeal should be according to knowledge. It should not lead to the adoption of methods which Christ condemned. To say that if the State does not use its power to cause people to be instructed in the principles of the Christian religion, it is evidence of indifference as to their eternal welfare, is equivalent to saying that Christ was indifferent, because He did not use His greater power for the same purpose.

Constitutional and Moral Objections

We trust that every reader can see that our opposition to the teaching of the Christian religion in the public schools is not simply on the ground that it is unconstitutional—that it discriminates between the believer and the unbeliever, not allowing the unbeliever equal rights with the believer. We do oppose it on that ground.

To compel the infidel, against his will, to have his children instructed in the principles of the Christian religion, just because his Christian neighbor wants his children to be so instructed, is to say that the infidel has not as much right in this country as the Christian has, and that is to make the rights of citizenship dependent upon one's belief. Surely this is reason enough for opposing it; but we have a higher reason still, and that is that such a course is antichristian as well as un-American.

The Principle Remains the Same

We submit that Christ knew how to propagate Christianity better than any man can. His gentle methods were the best and the only right way. And so it is because of our love for pure Christianity, as well as our love for equal rights to all men, that we oppose the propagation of religion by the State.