The Position of Seventh-Day Adventists
[The following note appeared in the Pacific Christian Advocate of January 25, the Methodist Episcopal organ for the Northwest, and the letter which follows was written to that paper in reply by Mr. Martin. Both note and letter will speak for themselves:] The daily papers report Rev. W. F. Martin, the pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Portland, as being in Salem at the present, working against the bill which is being pushed by some of the other churches for the observance of the Sabbath. This is an incongruity that can hardly be reconciled. Brother Martin is regarded as a strong man and a Christian man, tho how it is defensible that a man should unite forces with the saloon-keepers, the managers of theaters, and other reprehensible characters, in working against the Christian forces, can hardly be understood. The difficulty is either a misapprehension of the influences of the observances of Sunday or of the righteousness of the claims of the Seventh-day Adventists. We have an idea that it is a misapprehension of the teachings of Jesus that causes this representative to the Seventh-day Adventists to endeavor to pull down the cause the rest of us are trying to build up. We shall have to examine carefully into the teachings and claims of the Adventist Church, and this we shall do soon. January 31, 1911.
Editor Christian Advocate,
Portland, Oregon.
Dear Sir: I am a subscriber to your paper, and find many things in it that I enjoy; but I was, to say the least, surprised on looking over the issue of January 25, to find an item relating to myself, couched in language such as is there used. It is true I have been in Salem for some days looking after our church there, and have spent some time at the capitol in the interests of religious liberty. I had not before learned that the other churches had a Sunday bill to be introduced at this session of the legislature, but suspected they would. I am opposed to a Sunday law, not because Sunday is not the Sabbath (however, after a careful study of the question, I am convinced it is not); but for the reason a Sunday law is a religious measure, and is a long step in the direction of a union of Church and State. A matter pertaining to religion is to be rendered to God, and the State should not interfere with it. It may appear to you a small thing to class a man who disagrees with you with saloon-keepers and "other reprehensible characters;" but, my brother, God will judge righteously in His own good time. You have a right to keep Sunday if you wish to do so; but you have no right to compel me, or any other man, to conform to your ideas of religious duty. A man's religion and his manner of discharging it are a matter pertaining alone to him and his God. That is a field that no man should invade. The history of the Dark Ages should be a warning to us not to invoke the arm of the civil law in matters pertaining to religion. Now, my brother, this is my position, and the position of my church. That is a platform on which all can safely stand. Even if all the characters spoken of in your recent editorial should stand there, let us be thankful that they are that near to a conformity to the teachings of the Master. If the "Christian forces" mentioned by yourself were to attend better to their legitimate sphere, that of persuading men to be Christians, and not resort so much to carnal means to attain a reverence for their dogmas, there would be no need of my spending time at the capitol, endeavoring to offset the baneful influences that are sure to arise from a course such as you acknowledge is now being pursued by yourself and colaborers. I may not have a true sense of the fulness of the teachings of the Master, but I do know this: the kingdom of Christ can never be forwarded by force of the civil power. Again, I remember the Master said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." You will pardon me, my brother, if I say plainly to you, in a spirit of love, that this course on which you and your co-workers have launched, that of invoking the civil law to enforce your religious views, is contrary to the principles of the kingdom of God, and if persisted in, and adopted by the Government, will overthrow the grand principles of religious liberty which have placed our Government at the head of the nations of the earth. Persecution of dissenters would follow, and naturally retrogression toward the condition of the Dark Ages. Benjamin Franklin well spoke the truth when he said, "If a religion is good, it will take care of itself." An appeal to the civil law for assistance by a body of religionists is an advertisement of weakness. We invite you to inquire carefully into and examine the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists. With kindest regards, I am,
Very respectfully,
W. F. MARTIN.