Misrepresenting Christianity in Heathen Lands by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 28, 1909

Misrepresenting Christianity in Heathen Lands

By Editor

THE current number of the Missionary Review of the World contains an article entitled “Missionary Responsibility for Government Legislation,” written by Dr. W. F. Crafts of this city, to whose name is appended the official designation, “Superintendent of the International Reform Bureau.” This article is one phase of the many-sided effort to educate the public mind and to prepare the people to assent to the demand now made in so many quarters for that sort of an alliance between the state and the church which will mean the furtherance of the aims of the church by political means.

It is well known in the mission fields, especially in the far East, that the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church have put forth the most strenuous efforts to seize upon the political machinery of the country, and by this means to gain special concessions and privileges in behalf of the organization under whose direction they labor. With this object-lesson constantly before them, missionaries of other denominations have been constrained to seek no alliance with the government, and to refrain from any attempt to advance their own interests under the pressure of their home government.

With a desire to bring about a change, Dr. Crafts writes:—

The hesitation to use in mission fields the powers that were ordained of God for Christian ends, is partly due to a reaction against such abuses as drove the Roman Catholics from Japan and prompted the slaughter of missionaries and converts by the Boxers in China. The sequence in China of missionary and consul and conquest and Catholic courts to shield criminals against civil powers, has naturally led Protestants to do less than is really legitimate in the civic field, which is a part of the everywhere where God is, and where religion, therefore, has a right—aye, a duty—to go.

The legitimate work of the missionary in any field is to preach the gospel of Christ to all classes, making the best use of his opportunities for this purpose.

When missionary effort is made the excuse for an interference with properly constituted government, and for wresting from a non-resisting people concessions of a purely political nature, then reproach is brought upon the Christian religion, and a prejudice is justly aroused, which may find vent in a violent uprising.

It is instructive, and we might perhaps say humiliating, to read the views of a non-Christian upon this subject. From an article in the Japan Times of Tokyo, we take the following paragraph:—

I think I may safely say that Japan has rarely been an open opponent of the Christian religion as such. But she knows all too well how that Western powers, under the pretext of “protecting” their missionaries in the East, have sought to advance their own political ends. It is mainly because Christ has been presented as backing a political power, as a warrior seeking conquest, that he has been opposed. No wonder that Eastern peoples find difficulty in reconciling the preaching of the missionary and the Christ whom he presents with the course of “Christian” nations. State religions, whether “Christian” or Mohammedan, are incompatible with the religion of the Prince of Peace. His teachings were spiritual, his ambitions were only to save men from sin. He came not as the champion of any country, not even his own; his religion was world-wide, not national. His followers were to submit to any government under which they might happen to be placed, obeying its rulers and complying with its laws; but they were to become the partizan supporters of none. For three hundred years the church as a whole followed this rule, and from the fourth century till now there have always been many who have done it; but being considered “heretics” by the state religions, their history has been obscured. That this is clearly the spirit of the pure religion as given by its Founder, admits of little question. That it is the only possible principle on which it can be made acceptable to all countries, and be a world-wide religion, is equally apparent.

In marked contrast with this clear statement of right principles, is the recommendation of Dr. Crafts in the latter part of his article. To quote:—

There is an unusually fine opportunity just now to press upon the governments of Japan and China the full adoption of Sunday rest, now enforced by law in every other of the great civilized nations with which Japan and China claim to rank, France having recently adopted a Sunday law after two full trials of the no-Sunday plan. Japan

long since, and China recently, having gone so far as to make Sunday a dies non in public offices and schools, may logically be urged to adopt fully the weekly rest-day for all other workers, save as their work may be that of mercy or necessity. Other Christian institutions of Europe and America having been adopted by both Japan and China, why should they not take to heart that the nations which best observe the Sabbath are the strongest physically, mentally, morally, financially, politically? Let them be shown by a mighty array of facts and testimonies that the physical standard for soldiers, the literacy of the people, the morals, the weekly and annual wage, are all at the highest point where Sunday is protected by law against toil and traffic, including traffic in amusements.

Thus does this apostle of enforced Sunday observance seek to fasten upon non-Christian nations a state-enforced religious observance, for which no sanction can be found in that Book which missionaries present to the heathen as the basis of all authority for the Christian religion. The argument is this: “The nations which best observe the Sabbath are the strongest physically, mentally, morally, financially, politically;” therefore Sabbath-keeping (by which Dr. Crafts means Sunday-keeping) should be enforced by law, even upon those who do not acknowledge the claims of Christianity. It is astonishing that any one can employ seriously such reasoning as this as a ground for the conclusion that missionaries in heathen lands should endeavor to seek to establish Christian observances upon a legal basis. What has already been done in this direction has called out the well-deserved rebuke from a non-Christian which we have already quoted. It is a cause of profound regret that a professed representative of Christianity should urge the use of political means for forcing upon the people an observance which ought to grow out of a personal acknowledgment of God as the Creator and Ruler, and the personal acceptance of Christ as the Saviour. Such methods for the advance of Christianity are a reproach, whether they are adopted in a professedly Christian country or in a heathen land.