Not Running the Government by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 13, 1906

Not Running the Government

By C. M. S.

The editor of the Christian Statesman, in the November issue of that journal, propounds to the writer a question which we take pleasure in answering. In referring to our position in the article to which he was replying, he says:—

The editor’s difficulty is that he conceives of the Sabbath or the weekly day of rest as an institution of the church, whereas, in our mind, it is an institution designed for man in all his relations. “The Sabbath was made for man.” It belongs to the state and to the family as well as to the church. And we close these comments by submitting a question to our brother. No government can exist for seven days without coming face to face with the day of rest. What would he have our government do—move on ceaselessly in all its departments, or suspend its work one day in seven? What of our nearly three thousand courts and all our higher courts, and all our legislatures, and all government offices with thousands of employees? Shall they have a weekly rest or not? And if they rest, then on what day? The day which the overwhelming majority of the American people believe in as the Lord’s day, or some other day? We do not believe he would ask that all our judges, lawmakers, and other officials, and all government employees should be compelled to labor continuously, and in violation of their conscientious convictions, nor would he ask that in this country while the beliefs of the people remain as they are, Saturday should be appointed as the day for the cessation of labor and business. But if the courts are to suspend their sessions and government offices are to close, it must be by authority of law. And employees in a factory have the same right as have government clerks. That is the purpose of our Sabbath laws—to secure to the whole people the God-given boon of one day’s rest in every seven days from the grinding necessity of toil, and to throw on the side of this reasonable and beneficent institution the example of the nation through its government. But that is not to enthrone the laws and usages of the church in the laws of the nation. It is the state reaching its own decision, in its own sphere, on a matter on which a decision one way or the other can not possibly be avoided. What ought our government to do—have a rest day, or have none?

If the editor will give us his answer to the question we have asked, we will faithfully report it to our readers.

We have no purpose to be critical, or censorious in this matter, nor to give anything but a Christian reply to the fair question raised by the editor of the Statesman. Neither are we willing to allow the seeming dilemma set forth in the questions to cloud the issue. To say, “We are not running the government,” would answer the question, though it might seem a curt way of doing it. If the editor of the Statesman would take that position, however, and hold to it, he would find his dilemma dissipated like the dew before the sun. And, really, what right has any Christian to take any other position? The great commission given us by Him from whom Christianity takes its name contains no authority for any preacher of the gospel to take any other position. It does not contain even a codicil bequeathing to any Christian the authority to supervise the affairs of nations or enter the arena of political strife. To teach and to preach, to make disciples and to baptize and to heal—these constitute the business of the followers of Jesus Christ, by his own specification and by his own limitation.

We are instructed to pray for rulers and those in authority; but we are nowhere instructed to make rulers or unmake them, nor to take part in political wire-pulling, threatening some politicians and wheedling others. All that is outside the field of legitimate Christian endeavor, and has been placed there by the Master himself.

To answer more specifically the questions raised we would say:—

We do not “conceive of the Sabbath as an institution of the church,” but as an institution established by Jehovah himself, binding upon all men everywhere, specifically established upon a definite day,—the seventh day of the week,—and from which he has released us in not so much as a jot or tittle. See our Lord’s own declaration upon this matter in Matt. 5:17, 18. Neither do we need any law of human origin to make the Sabbath more binding. To declare that we do, is to declare that Jehovah’s law is too weak to accomplish his purpose, and must have human support. Uzzah thought that the ark of God (containing that very Sabbath law) needed his support. In the punishment which fell upon him for his presumption God has taught the whole human family that his law does not need a human prop.

The editor of the Statesman asks, “What would he have our government do [about the day of rest]?” It is for the government, not us, to arrange that matter. Our Master has given us no commission along the line of supervising the functions of governments.

Again he asks: “What of our nearly three thousand county courts, and all our legislatures, and all government offices, with thousands of employees? Shall they have a weekly rest or not? . . . But if the courts are to suspend their sessions and government offices are to close, it must be by authority of law.”

According to this, then, all our courts of law, government offices, and legislatures are in session seven days in the week. If not that, then they are illegally idle one day in seven; for the national Sunday law for which the National Reformers pray has not yet been enacted. Surely, the Christian Statesman does not mean to teach that the courts and legislatures and all government offices are running seven days of the week; but that is what the above quotation says. In California, which has no Sunday law, the legislature is closed on Sunday, and the courts of the State suspend business on that day.

Would we compel “our judges, lawmakers, and all government employees to labor continuously, and in violation of their conscientious convictions?”—Certainly not. Neither would we compel them to rest when they did not care to. We are not supervising the government, nor would we wish to interfere with the natural rights of men. There is no power in the United States that can compel any man to violate his conscientious convictions by working seven days in the week. Our government can not compel any man to work seven days in the week. An employer frequently says, “You must work every day, or you can’t. work for me.” The Christian replies, “I rest on the Sabbath.” He “loses his job,” but he maintains his Christian manhood, and he is not compelled to violate his conscientious convictions. If he cares more for “holding his job” than he does for obeying the command of his God, he simply exposes to the view of the world the fact that his Christianity was unworthy the name.

Would we have Saturday “appointed as the day for the cessation of labor and business”? That is not for us to elect. The Creator himself has established that matter. It is for us to obey rather than to “appoint.” “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” We would ask Brother Stevenson if this is not a sufficiently specific appointment of the day in question. We would also ask by what authority Brother Stevenson would substitute another appointment designed to override and crush out this very specific appointment of Jehovah. We say the day is sufficiently “appointed” already; but God has given us no authority to compel any man to observe it.

Every man must choose for himself whether he will keep sabbath or not. It will not be a sufficient excuse for any man in the day of judgment that his employer compelled him to work on the Sabbath. It is not true that liberty of rest demands a law of rest. He who will not keep sabbath unless a law compels him to, does no honor to Jehovah in complying with such a law; and he who, through fear of human law, rests on a day God did not appoint as sabbath, and works upon a day God did appoint, stands charged with the sin of disobedience at the bar of God.

In answer to our question, “Is it right for Christians to bring about a condition of things which must make criminals of other Christians for exercising the rights common to men?” the editor of the Christian Statesman replied, “No, emphatically no, it is not.” That is absolutely true; but now in view of that fact, here arises another dilemma: Canada has recently passed a rigid Sunday law which makes every Seventh-day Baptist and Seventh-day Adventist a lawbreaker—a criminal—for exercising the right to six days of work after one day of rest and worship. The ministers of the gospel who pushed that bill through Parliament, congratulated themselves on having accomplished it without an exemption clause for those Christians who keep the seventh day as the Sabbath. A Methodist convention sent a strongly worded protest to the legislators against an exemption clause. Now, Brother Stevenson, did those Canadian Christians do right in doing what they did? If they did, you must revise your answer to our question as quoted above. Are you willing to see done in the United States what they have done in Canada?

Again: The State of South Carolina is now holding a threat of indictment, imprisonment, and fine over the heads of every Christian minister and layman in that State who keeps the “Sabbath day according to the commandment,” and labors the other six days—a right common to men. Now, Brother Stevenson, is South Carolina right in this? and do you favor the same condition of things in all the other States and Territories? Christians are being made criminals there through the influence of other Christians who secured the adoption of such a law. Is it right?

We have the records of the trials, convictions, and imprisonments of twenty-one such Christians in Arkansas, eight in Tennessee, eleven in Maryland, and four in Georgia (not all there have been by any means). They were God-fearing, peaceable Christian men, even their enemies bearing them witness. Now, if “our sabbath laws do not do that,” then whose sabbath laws are doing it? And are our National Reform friends opposed to these laws that are doing it? C. M. S.