Reformed Presbyterian Minutes of Synod 1954

REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 157
every man's privilege of believing in God and worshipping Him, or
of believing in no God and worshipping no Higher Power. In matters
of religion the Constitution endeavors to remain neutral.
The success, to date, in the use of the Explanatory Declaration,
lies in the fact that users of the Explanatory Declaration have been
exercising their right of religious freedom, and the United States
government recognizes their right of religious freedom.
This cannot be construed as indicating that the United States
Government agrees with the user of the Explanatory Declaration
in maintaining that supreme allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The United States Government permits the user of the Explanatory
Declaration to declare his supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ, if that
is the way he feels about it. For its part, the United States Government
is maintaning an attitude of neutrality.
If a Mohammedan were to take an oath of allegiance, saying,
"In taking this oath I make no mental reservation. I am a member
of the Khawarij sect of Islam, and I declare that I owe a supreme
allegiance to the Prophet, and in making that declaration I take
Allah as my witness, invoking his assistance to help me to render
due obedience" etc., is there any doubt that the said Mohammedan
would succeed in the use of such an Explanatory Declaration
The Explanatory Declaration is a personal declaration of faith
by an individual exercising his religious liberty. And it has enabled
our people who have used it in the civil sphere and in the armed
forces, to give their declaration of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
and declare that their highest allegiance is to Him.
But the Explanatory Declaration is not, and does not profess
to be, a recognition of the Sovereignty of Jesus Christ by the nation.
Let us bear in mind that our Church's historic position of dissent
has not been based chiefly upon the thought that the oath of
allegiance placed allegiance to government above allegiance to
God. Rather, it has been bsed upon the fact that our nation's
Constitution dishonors Christ by failing to acknowledge Him. And
the use of the Explanatory Declaration does not remve this sin.
In the opinion of your committee, to carry the Explanatory
Declaration into the political field would be tantamount to making
it a substitute for political dissent. It would vitiate our testimony
to the Crown Rights of Christ over the nation, rather than serengthen
our testimony. We would be settling for so much less than we
should be asking for, that it would be the equivalent of lowering
our flag.It would eventuate in the substituting of a few hundred
declarations of personal faith for that declaration of national recognition
of the Sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ which we have
been seeking through the years.
Believing the truth of what Mr. Edward R. Murrow said, in his
broadcast of Dec. 22, 1948, that "Dissent is one of the most essential
rights of a democratic society," it is the opinion of your committee
that—as a Church—we should continue to dissent in political
matters, always making clear the reason for our dissent and protest.