The Federal Council of Churches

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 7, 1909

The Federal Council of Churches

In order that we may understand more clearly the full significance of the action taken by the council concerning the observance of Sunday, we call attention again to some features of the discussion upon the subject.

In its printed report to the council, the committee on Sunday observance declared: “We have no objection to reading the [fourth] commandment, ‘Remember that you keep holy one day in seven.’”

In the resolutions on this subject reported to the council, it was urged “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,” and further, “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.”

No one pointed out the contradiction between the interpretation given to the fourth commandment by the committee, “Remember that you keep holy one day in seven,” and the resolutions calling for “the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day,” and for “such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity;” but it did occur to some one that the proposed action would be likely to work hardship for those who, in following the principle laid down by the committee to “keep holy one day in seven,” should decide to observe the day actually mentioned in the fourth commandment, the seventh day of the week, and therefore the following resolution was proposed:—

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 the day of rest and worship.

Here, then, were three propositions before the council: (1) The obligation of the fourth commandment interpreted to mean, “Remember that you keep holy one day in seven;” (2) the demand for “the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day,” and for legislation in its behalf; (3) the disavowal of any intention to interfere with those who observe the seventh instead of the first day of the week. It was evident that one or more of these proposals must be repudiated by the council. It is evident that it would be impossible to interpret the fourth commandment so that it would simply require the observance of “one day in seven,” and at the same time call for “the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day,” with the express purpose of resisting any desecration of that day by “such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity,” and at the same time to state that nothing should be done to interfere with the convictions of those who observe the seventh day of the week.

It became apparent at once that if the influence of this great combination was to be used effectively in behalf of any sabbath, and if pressure was to be brought to bear to secure such legislative enactments as would compel at least an outward regard for that sabbath, one particular day must be officially recognized, and the application of the principle of “one day in seven” must be limited to that particular day. That the real situation was clearly understood is evident from the statements made during the discussion of the resolution proposed. 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 the 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?

The fourth commandment clearly states which day is to be observed as the Sabbath, but the report of the committee set this aside in favor of keeping holy “one day in seven.” Then the same committee reported in favor of “the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day,” and expressed itself in favor of such legislation as might be necessary in order to secure the observance of that day. As between these two contradictory positions, the logic of the situation demanded just what this delegate stated; namely, that the council should select a particular day for the sabbath, and then stand for that day as against any other day.

Another delegate, recognizing the actual situation which was thus presented to the council, put the real issue in these words:—

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.

A Methodist bishop emphasized the far-reaching effect of the action of the council, in this statement:—

We must decide on one day as the sabbath, or the whole purpose goes for naught. If we make a formal consent to another day, how can we hope to bring about the 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?

Thus did these men place themselves on record as perceiving clearly that the practical application of their seventh-part-of-time theory would frustrate all their efforts to require the observance of the first day of the week, and that they must refuse to take any action which would allow that there could be any other Sabbath than the first day of the week, even though such refusal would mean an interference with the conscientious convictions of others.

It remained, however, for one speaker to give expression to other reasons which evidently carried much weight against the adoption of the resolution. To quote his words:—

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.

Thus one of the considerations, and without doubt a leading one, which induced the Federal Council of Churches to take such action as would authoritatively declare the first day of the week to be the Sabbath, and to refuse to acknowledge that “there is another day than the first day of the week which is the Lord’s day, the Sabbath,” was their determination to have nothing in common with the Jews, or even any Christians who observe the day specifically mentioned in the fourth commandment. There was thus manifested a determined purpose not only to urge the observance of the first day of the week, but to repudiate the observance of the seventh day of the week; and in taking this action the council preferred to disregard the rights and convictions of one denomination (the Seventh-day Baptists) who had accepted the invitation to form a part of the council, rather than to give any countenance to the practise of the Jews and of those Christians who have a conscientious regard for the claims of the fourth commandment.

From the facts here stated we are warranted in saying that the Federal Council of Churches has decided:—

That the first day of the week, Sunday, is the Lord’s day, the Sabbath.
That the united influence of this great combination shall be used to secure such legislation as may be deemed necessary for the protection of that day, and for the enforcement of at least an outward regard for it.
That there can be no other Sabbath than the first day of the week.
That the observance of the seventh day of the week can not be regarded as the Scriptural observance of the Sabbath.
That it would be injurious to the cause of Christianity to admit that the Jews observe the true Sabbath.

We are now prepared to understand more clearly the results which are likely to follow from this action of the Federal Council of Churches, and in pointing this out it will be necessary to refer to a former period of church history.

In the early part of the fourth century, steps were taken which led to a complete union of church and state, and the full development of the papacy; and the center around which this whole movement revolved was the question of the Sabbath. First came Constantine’s famous Sunday edict, in A. D. 321, in which he declared: ‘On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.’ Next came the decision of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, requiring that throughout the whole empire Easter should be celebrated on Sunday. In the letter from the council to the church, the decision was communicated in these words:—

We have also gratifying intelligence to communicate to you relative to unity of judgment on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter; for this point also has been happily settled through your prayers; so that all the brethren in the East who have heretofore kept this festival when the Jews did, will henceforth conform to the Romans and to us, and to all who from the earliest time have observed our period of celebrating Easter.

From a letter written by the emperor Constantine to the churches upon this same subject we take the following:—

In the first place, it seemed very suitable in the celebration of this sacred feast that we should follow the custom of the Jews, a people who, having imbued their hands in a most heinous outrage, and thus polluted their souls, are deservedly blind. . . . Let us, then, have nothing in common with this most hostile people, the Jews.

This disposition to exalt Sunday, and to cry out against the observance of the seventh day because it was kept by the Jews, came to a climax in the Council of Laodicea, about 364 A. D., which enacted the following canon:—

Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.

An appeal was made to the civil power to enforce these decisions of the church, and thus the way was opened for that union of the church with the state which effectively established the papacy.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that the Federal Council of Churches is in effect repeating the history of the fourth century; and it is perfectly clear that in their action on the question of the Sabbath, first, in deciding that the first day of the week and not the seventh is the Sabbath, and second, in demanding the enforcement of the day on the part of the civil power, they are taking the steps which will lead directly to the union of church and state. In view of their refusal to adopt the resolution which would permit the observance of the seventh day without interference, it is also plain that their action, when carried into practical effect, must lead to persecution.

It is true that there has been in years past a demand for the passage of Sunday laws, but never before in the history of this country has a combination claiming to represent more than half the population of the United States formally registered such a demand. From such action as this, by such a body as this, the cause of enforced Sunday observance will without doubt receive a tremendous impetus, and we may expect to see results in the near future.