A Needless Criticism by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 6, 1879

A Needless Criticism.

By Editor

SEVERAL times we have received complaints because the name of Jesus is omitted from the reports of labor of our ministers. And it is intimated, if not directly expressed in all instances, that it is because we value something more highly than the Saviour. We think this criticism is not only needless, but quite unjust. We know that our ministers value Christ as highly as any class of people in the world, if not more. The high estimate we put upon the holy law of God, is a reason for our highly valuing the Redeemer. Because the law is holy, and just, and good, none but the exalted Son of God can meet its demands in our behalf, and cleanse us from its violation. If the law were not holy, its claims could be easily met, or its demands might be set aside. So much for the intimation.

Now let us briefly compare the writings of our brethren with those of others, and the contents of our paper with those of other religious works. Remember, the fault is every time found only in respect to reports of labor.

The Princeton Review will be accepted as Christian and orthodox. We open the number for September, 1879, and find the opening article by a D. D. whose orthodoxy is unquestioned—Philip Schaff. The subject is suggestive, too—"Christianity in America." It occupies over 43 pages, and yet the name Jesus Christ, occurs but once, and that of Christ, twice more. This, we think, is the sum total. We do not consider the omission a defect, even though "the Chinese" are mentioned many more times! Another article on "Christianity and Morality,"—an excellent theme for the mention of the name of Jesus if it were necessary—by another D. D., 26 pages, and the name of Jesus appears once (quotation, Rom. 3:26), and that of Confucius once! Does that prove that he valued the name of Confucius as highly as that of Jesus?

We take up a large religious weekly, a page of which contains more than a page of our paper, and examine the leading articles, most of them by Doctors of Divinity, and a lengthy one on the subject of foreign missions, and we think the name of Jesus or of Christ does not occur in eight entire pages. We examine two other papers, not only Christian in profession, but carrying the term "Christian" as a part of their titles, and we examine page after page of leading articles, by Christian ministers, in which the sacred name of the Son of God does not occur.

We are far from finding fault with these writers because they do not constantly repeat the name of Jesus when it is not necessary in order to make themselves understood. We approve their judgment and their practice. If they omitted it because they wished to ignore it, or because they did not respect it, we should look upon it in quite another light.

We are willing that all should understand our position in approving the action of our ministers in their reports, because we consider it unnecessary to often repeat the name of the Supreme being in such connection, and, to speak the name of the Deity unnecessarily, we hold to be decidedly wrong. Some consider it a mark of respect to God and his Son, to keep up a constant repetition of their names, but we consider it an act of irreverence. We have often been shocked by hearing ministers in the pulpit make use of the name as given in Rev. 11:17, when it was not at all necessary to make themselves understood. This we look upon as a violation of the third commandment. It is using the sacred name without a reason—it is taking it in vain.

We have also been pained to hear people needlessly and, we think, irreverently, repeat the name of the Father or the Son in their prayers often and habitually. It becomes a habit with some, even to weaving the name, more than once, into each sentence. We do not believe it is pleasing to God to repeat so constantly and unnecessarily the "glorious and fearful name" which should be used only with great reverence and circumspection.

We respect the intention and the feelings of those who thus find fault with us, but we think they have a zeal not according to correct knowledge. In a ministry of over a quarter of a century we have never spoken the title of Deity as expressed in Rev. 11:17, and a few other places, except in directly reading or quoting the texts themselves; and we do not regret the fact.

We hope our correspondents will feel relieved; and if they have at any time thought they could honor the Saviour by frequent repetition of his name without obeying the commandments of his Father, whom he came into the world to honor, we recommend to them a careful study of Matt. 7:21-23.