The Federal Council of Churches

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 31, 1908

The Federal Council of Churches

The report of the committee on Sunday observance was rendered by the chairman, Dr. F. D. Power, of Washington, D. C. It first recorded “great concern” at the tendency toward laxness in the observance of the first day of the week, and then gratification “at the action of Congress forbidding the opening of the doors of the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition on Sunday, and at the President’s order that Sunday work in the departments of the government must be restricted to ‘that which is of an emergency character, or which is recognized as being absolutely necessary to the public interest and welfare,’ and the closing of the gates of the League Island Naval Station to the public on Sunday.” It also expressed gratitude to the American Federation of Labor and to the National Drugs Association for actions in favor of Sunday observance.

Apparently feeling the need of giving some interpretation to the fourth commandment which would warrant any reference to it as authority for the observance of the first day of the week contrary to the express declaration of the commandment, the committee made a statement which clearly substitutes the tradition of men for the commandment of God. We quote:—

The first principle involved is the consecration of one seventh of our time to God. We have no objection to reading the commandment: “Remember that you keep holy one day in seven. Consecrate this day unto the Lord as the Lord’s. Let it be unlike other days. Sanctify it.”

Having thus interpreted the commandment in such a way as to make possible an appearance of observing it on the part of those who really disregard it, the committee proceeded to quote Blackstone, who lived and wrote under the church-and-state régime, in order to justify the enforcement of the observance of a day not specified in the original commandment. The great commentator on English law said:—

The keeping of one day in seven as a time of relaxation and refreshment, as well as of public worship, is of admirable service to the state, considered merely as a civil institution.

After citing general reasons for the observance of one day in seven, and either directly asserting or constantly implying that that one day in seven must be Sunday, the report of the committee closed with this paragraph:—

We believe that in every community lovers of the Lord’s day should stand together against the inroads of its enemies. The introduction by immigrants of the Continental conceptions of Sunday; the organization of secular unions and liberty leagues for its destruction; the saloon with its lawlessness; the indifference, neglect, and even open violation on the part of many church people, and determined resistance to Sunday regulations on the part of mistaken religionists, must be met. Nothing less than physical and spiritual health, family and Christian life, national prosperity, and the advancement of the kingdom of God call for such federation of the forces of righteousness to hold this Christian institution inviolate. The Lord’s day is the day of days.

The resolutions submitted by the committee as amended and adopted by the council read as follows:—

It is the sense of the council that a new and stronger emphasis should be given in the pulpit, the Sunday-school, and the home to the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day, the home day, the rest day, for every man, woman, and child.

That all encroachments upon the claims and sanctities of the Lord’s day should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord’s Day Associations and Alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity.

That we rejoice in the prospect of unity of action among the various organizations striving in America for the preservation of the Lord’s day as a day for rest and worship.

During the discussion of this report, the following resolution was introduced by one of the delegates:—

Resolved, That it is not our intention that anything shall be done to interfere with the convictions of those brethren represented with us in this council who conscientiously observe the seventh instead of the first day of the week as a day for rest and worship.

The introduction of this resolution stirred the council as nothing had previously done during the entire meeting. A number of delegates were on their feet at once, demanding recognition from the chair, and the discussion was most spirited. One delegate said:—

Some people do not believe in the Lord’s day, but some other day as the Sabbath. If we do not take a stand upon which day we believe we should observe as a day set apart for the worship of God, and for rest, this will give a wrong impression to the people. Is it the Lord’s day or some other day that we are standing for? If it is the Lord’s day, we should take the resolution by the committee, and nothing more, and I trust that the resolution as proposed will not be accepted. We believe in the Lord’s day, and must stand for it.

In support of the resolution, Dr. Wayland Hoyt (Baptist), of New York, said:—

I hope that this resolution as presented will pass. Let us remember that the brethren of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination are members of this council. If we are going to observe brotherhood and Christian love, we are not going to clash because of the religious and conscientious convictions of brethren associated with us in this council of churches. These brethren (I do not myself sympathize with them in their belief) I respect for their convictions, I respect them for the fact that they are

willing to sacrifice, I respect them for their willingness to stand firm and true to what they believe. While I fully sympathize with the spirit of the resolution already submitted, it does seem to me that we ought never in this council of churches to adopt such a statement as shall even seem to conflict, without due explanation, and I fully believe that our brethren are equally united in this.

This federation of churches will be more and more acknowledged throughout the churches, and it is absolutely necessary that we be thoroughly fair with one another, that we be thoroughly brotherly with each other in all our relations.

I believe that God looks smilingly upon this desire to be absolutely fair and just and brotherly to all represented in this federation of churches. I earnestly hope that this resolution will pass.

At this juncture, Dr. Arthur E. Main, professor of theology in Alfred Theological Seminary, Alfred, N. Y., one of the delegates from the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, made an earnest appeal to the council. He spoke with much fervor:—

We know that we represent the smallest body in this council, and on that account we recognize with gratitude your recognition of us, and your invitation to unite with you, as being evangelical and Christian, believing in God the Father, in Jesus Christ his Son, our Saviour, and having no other hope of salvation except through his atonement. In this, you recognize us as standing together with you in the fundamental principles of salvation. We believe with you in the death and resurrection of Christ, and we have heard with delight the pleas made from the platform for religious liberty.

Shall it be in this council, which has heard these grand pleas made, that the essence of all true liberty is in the practise of the principles of Christianity? Shall it be in this city, where the Continental Congress met, and where a Seventh-day Baptist presided? It was at this Congress that he took an active part, and he would have been one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but two months before he was taken ill and died. Shall it be in this council, composed of professed brethren, that we (I dare say it) take an active part? Shall it be that this council refuses to say that we shall not be interfered with in the exercise of our religious convictions when we have stood with you in all these things?

I believe that it is our duty to stand shoulder to shoulder. This council is not a council of America, but of the churches of America. Let our answer be a federated union in the belief of the principles of Christ, and the world’s Redeemer. Let it be the voice of this council that the eighteen million communicants shall keep step, and the time will come when the forces of sin and Satan will be thwarted and vanquished. And it is the power of the church united that is to break down the power of sin and Satan.

I say again, shall we be divided because of the conscientious convictions of those who believe that the seventh day rather than the first day of the week shall be observed by them as a day of rest and worship, or shall we all be united in the Saviour of the world?

In the face of the pleas for fairness and for consideration of the conscientious convictions of others made by Dr. Hoyt and Dr. Main, the protests against the passage of the resolution continued. One delegate declared:—

The question is whether this council will step back and leave that first day of the week without its due recognition from us as a body? I believe in some sabbath day, and this is the only sabbath day we will be able to get in this country in one hundred fifty years. We are confronted with a condition—not a theory.

There was a call made for the rereading of the resolution before the council, after which another delegate took the floor, and opposed the resolution in these words:—

We are not desiring to interfere with the convictions of any one, but that is not all that is embodied in the resolution. We must remember that with the brethren who have come to sit with us, there are others who hold hostile relations to us and to the principles we believe to be right. There are those who are indifferent, but I say again, there are those who are not only indifferent, but hostile. If we were to accept the resolution, that gives the impression that we acknowledge that there is another day than the first day of the week which is the Lord’s day, the Sabbath, a day of rest and for the worship of God, I say that there are those who will take advantage of any such admission on our part. The Jews will feel a little stronger assurance in their belief. They will say that we acknowledge that there is another day than the first day of the week which is the Lord’s day.

The Seventh-day Adventists will take heart in their antagonism to many of the things which we hold sacred, in addition to their assaults upon the first day of the week as a day for rest and worship.

It is not only a question which concerns these brethren who have united with us in this council, and who have taken a part in our actions, but it is against the forces which are seeking to destroy that day we observe as the Christian sabbath, the Lord’s day, that day we observe as a day of rest and worship.

This resolution should be left alone; it should not come before us. We must take a stand as a body united in the belief that the Lord’s day is a day of rest and worship. Thus we can take our stand before the world. Let us enter into no controversy; let us as a body stand united in the conviction, and therefore not accept the resolution.

During the progress of the discussion, Bishop Thomas B. Neely (Methodist), in opposing the resolution, made these significant utterances:—

We must decide on one day as a sabbath, or the whole purpose goes for naught. If we make a formal consent to another day, how can we hope to bring about proper observance of the first day of the week in our mission fields, and in places where there is little disposition to observe it in our own country?

The proposed amendment of the report was then rejected by a decisive vote, and when the result was announced, the majority gave expression to their feelings of satisfaction by vigorous applause.

The great significance of this action of the federal council in the matter of Sunday observance should not be overlooked. In one of the opening sessions of the council, attention was called to the fact that while the early councils of the church met to decide doctrinal questions, and to establish dogmas, this council was convened for no such purpose, but merely to unite the different denominations in friendly co-operation in actual work. In harmony with this idea, an evident effort was made throughout the meeting of the council to avoid all doctrinal discussion, and yet in their attempt to deal with the question of Sunday observance, although theoretically interpreting the fourth commandment to refer simply to one day in seven, they authoritatively decided by an overwhelming majority that they would recognize no other day as the Sabbath than the first day of the week, and “that all encroachments upon the claims and sanctities of the Lord’s day [now officially defined to be Sunday] should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord’s Day Associations and Alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity.”

Thus the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America has placed itself on record as rejecting the seventh-day Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment, and substituting in its place the first day of the week, and has declared in favor of enforcing the observance of this man-made institution by securing legislation in its favor. The significance of this action, and the results which are likely to flow from it, will be considered in another article.