WHAT THE “DISCIPLES” THINK OF A SUNDAY LAW.
The Pacific Christian of September 19 devotes its first page to a symposium on the “Benefits and Difficulties of a Sunday Law.” Five persons send contributions, showing various opinions. One, an Oregonian, thus begins: “Can we do it by legislation? It is with no little reluctance that we are obliged to say, ‘No’—under the present conditions.” He then goes on to say that Oregon has a Sunday law, but it can not be enforced, and then closes thus:— “How excellent would it be if our towns had a few of these fines for the benefit of the common schools! O Christian, we entreat thee to vote for the protection of home and fireside, even as at the family altar you pray for their protection and preservation—and then indeed will we have laws and lawmakers who will see to it that the peace and quiet of our day of rest will be unmolested and undisturbed by acts of debauchery and crime!” When did the “day” ever complain? Laws are for the protection of men, not days. Another, Mr. Edwards, of Gilroy, Cal., thus states the “benefits of a suitable and well-enforced Sunday law”:— “1. The laboring man would have one day’s rest in seven, which history and experience teach is necessary to his physical well-being. “2. It would have a wholesome effect upon the morals of the community. “3. I believe it would be of benefit to the cause of Christianity on account of an increased attendance at the church services, the removal of temptations of various kinds, which tend to lead the young, especially, from the path of duty.” 1. That is, the poor “laboring man” is a slave, compelled to work, compelled to violate conscience. We need another “emancipation proclamation”! But more, we need enough of the Spirit of God’s emancipation proclamation of the Gospel to lead us to do right whatever the world may do. 2. That is, morals are made better by statute law! Civil law may restrain, but it can not make better. 3. That is, the world is in competition with the churches, and the only hope of the churches is to so shape matters that the people will come to the church! It was so anciently. Laws were asked to close the theaters and shows on Sunday so that people would attend church. It is a pity that our Lord and his apostles did not understand such methods! But Mr. Edwards recognizes difficulties, and names five as follows: Greed of individuals and corporations, influence of liquor traffic, corrupt officials, opposition of Seventh-day Adventists, and others who keep Saturday, and an indifferent public sentiment. But if these difficulties were removed, what need of a law? Prof. S. M. Martin, the revivalist, rightly says: “I am opposed to so-called Sunday legislation. The places that I would shut up by law on Sunday, I would shut up all the week by the same law,” tho he does not deny the right of the state to enact such laws. Mr. Hathaway begins by saying: “It is impossible to estimate the beneficial effects upon society of an enforced Sunday law,” and thus closes: “To my mind the Disciples of Christ have more to lose than gain in working for the passage and enforcement of a Sunday law.” That is, what is good for society would be of more loss than gain to Disciples! Mr. J. M. Martin thus squarely puts the question: “A statute compelling men to keep any day as a religious observance, is at variance with the spirit and teaching of the Gospel. (See Gal. 4:10, 11; Col. 2:16, 17.) It would be a step in the direction of absolute intolerance—the destruction of religious liberty.” And this is the simple truth.