Reason Why Covenanters Do Not Vote

Pennsylvania, 1915

Dr. Wylie Presents Some Very Convincing Arguments to Listeners

Believes Reform Will Come in Time

Says Nation Has Not Recognized God in Its Constitution

In an interesting and convincing address given at the Reformed Presbyterian church of this city yesterday morning, Dr. R. C. Wylie, dean of the theological seminary of that church in Pittsburgh, told why members of his sect do not vote.

"War," said Dr. Wylie, "is not always wrong. In the Revolutionary war the Americans were right; in the Civil war the North was right, and in the Spanish-American war, the United States was right. God commanded Joshua to make war on the nations of Canaan because they were corrupt. That war was right.

"The work of Joshua is symbolical of the work of the people of all ages. Christ said, 'Go ye into all the nations of the world and preach the gospel.' He left an unfinished work to be done by the people. "Sometimes God destroys evil powers; sometimes he lets them destroy themselves.

"When he commanded Joshua to tear down, he also told him to build up; and the nation he had conquered was made better by the rule of a good people.

"Today we have many evils to contend with. There is the evil of desecrating the Sabbath, the evil of divorce, and the evil of the saloon. All of these have caused the downfall of man and the ruin of nations. People direct their attack at all this corruption, but what comes of it? Divorces are permitted by the laws of the nation; liquor many be prohibited for a while in some sections, but there is no lasting result.

"There is a great fundamental law underlying the whole thing.

"Take first the case of an individual. His friends wish him to reform. He succeeds in overcoming his taste for certain evils. But if he does not change internally as well as externally, is that reform going to last? Our habits are nothing more nor less than the outward growth of our inward souls.

"As with the individual so it is with the nation. What is a nation's real relation to God? This has been the question of all ages. There have been three great theories built up to try to answer it.

In the Middle Ages we have the Papal theory. The pope was all powerful. He received his authority from God and ruled both church and state.

"In time, however, kings began to tire of being dictated to by the pope. Then, they developed the theory of the Divine Right of Kings. They did not deny the pope received authority from God, but they claimed the authority came as direct to them as to the pope.

"But the people grew discontented at the tyranny of the kings and they developed the 'Social Contact Theory.' All powers were with the people, irrespective of God. American politicians hold to this theory. They know no other and wish to know none.

The kings were right in getting away from the papal theory and the people cannot be censured for breaking away from the kings.

"The harm was in going to the other extreme, and completely exterminating God from their government. Our constitution was framed when this theory was at its height. The name of God is not mentioned in it.

"How can we build up a better nation and cast out these evils if we have no good foundation? It is folly to try to make better laws and a better government so long as the material we build on is defective. Where did the United States get the constitution? From the very beginning of the laws of nations down to the time it was framed. The frame-work is excellent: It is the system that is wrong. Let the frame-work stand, but bring in this: 'We the people of the United States, acknowledging almighty God as the source of all power and authority in good government, the Lord Jesus Christ as the ruler of all nations and His will as the standard for the decision of moral issues in national life, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, to ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.'

"The government of the United States has done some splendid things but the moral system is defective. By so stating the preamble, the constitution is not changed, but it does change the aspect of the people toward God.

"Every nation has a God. We believe in God. Why don't we express it in our constitution? It was a grave mistake not to acknowledge God in making the constitution of a great nation like this.

"People will say we Covenanters do not help by not voting. Did the ancient Christians vote for Christianity? Was their cause not regarded as hopeless? Yet today Christianity rules most of the world. Does it not help to keep this thing before the public? We do not sympathize with the man who does not vote and has no reason for not voting. We do not respect that man who is too indifferent or whose own personal affairs occupy too much of his time to vote. As conscientious Christians we cannot help to support the laws which install immorality in our country.

"The laws are in harmony with the system and the system as it exists allows divorce, desecration of the Sabbath, open saloons and many other evils. Why help support something that is partially good but obstructs the thing that is wholly good. There is sin somewhere and it must be with the people who do not encourage reform

"We would gladly vote could we conscientiously do so. But until the recognition of God comes as an issue before the nation it is impossible. "If we did not have ample reason for our beliefs we would not preach them.

"There are four great reasons why we believe we are right.

"First — is the philosophical argument. A nation has a direct relationship with God. It is inconsistent to accept a system with wrong principles. A good follower of Christ cannot do it.

"Second — Historical facts bear us out. Take Rome for instance. It persecuted the Christians, refused the doctrine, became corrupt and immoral and ruined itself.

"Third — The great Biblical principle is separation of God from evil. In business you do not seek to come in contact with unscrupulous men. Neither should you do so in government.

"Fourth — Our cause is practical. If it were not we would not attempt o advance it. The objection is raised that we do no good; that if every one did as we are doing the country would be ruined in a short time. But my dear friends if every one did as we are doing corruption, vice and immorality would be gone forever. A reformation is not brought about in a day, nor a year, if it were so it would not be a lasting one. But time will tell, although we may not be here to witness the fact."

—New Castle News, New Castle, Pennsylvania, Oct. 4, 1915, p. 2.

Comment: I'm usually pretty tolerant of some of these crazy offshoot groups. This one seems to have the ways of the nitwit down pat, and really rankles me. The guy is so self-righteous and judgmental about everyone else, but then sits back and says if society isn't perfect he's not going to participate, and yet he hopes that somehow everything gets better. Plus, it's not the great biblical principle that God separates himself from evil. Sure, there may be a prooftext that indicates something like 'not looking on evil,' but the entire foundation of the incarnation of Christ says the truth is just the opposite of these Covenanters. And this guy, what would he say of the prophets, that they were somehow against God because they suggested reforms and a more just society in Israel? His argument would be that that was a theocracy, which by his opinions on the Constitution, sounds like what would satisfy him — but one wonders (he would enforce his narrow view by Constitutional amendment, but would probably come to the sad realization that conversion and inward truth is tough to legislate). As for the prophets, they seem to represent a minority point of view in an overall society that was neglectful of the traditions or understandings of tradition as they saw it. No, this guy's argument that it's purity or nothing in society is one I will not respect. I wonder if he kept his own house based on that theology. If it's not absolutely clean I refuse to live in this house! Well, there's micro and there's macro. He needs to be consistent. Plus, just between you and me, I imagine he was just as big a sinner as everyone else out there he so proudly despised. So, what was his name, Wylie? Wylie, take a hike. And as for "time telling," his last statement, it doesn't look like it paid to be overly optimistic without raising a finger and just sitting back as a pure naysayer. So take a hike, bud. We’ll leave you in 1915, although you would have been more comfortable in 1915 B.C.