MAKING US A NAME by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 5, 1860

MAKING US A NAME.

By Editor

We are happy to say that the discussion of this subject is evidently coming to a close with good results. As far as we can learn there is a general feeling that something should be done in the line of legal organization, and those who at first started back at the idea, are seriously pondering the necessity of it. Bro. R. F. C. writes:

DEAR BRO. SMITH: I did not wish to throw any obstacles in the way of the advancement of the truth in saying what I did in regard to a name, insurance, &c. I should be very sorry to wound the cause I love. I have no desire to meet a brother in controversy in the Review. As I said some years ago, I hope that brethren will never enter the lists as combatants in the Review.

But perhaps it will be well for the church to know how I feel in regard to this subject. Perhaps I have had an undue prejudice against church names, as promoting the sectarianism of the present day. I have thought that I never should be willing to acknowledge an unscriptural name, and as the Bible names, such as Christian, Disciples &c. have been appropriated, and have become the names of sects or factions, I had concluded it were better to have no name at all to be known by in the world. I may be wrong in this. If so, I do not want my opinions to be in the way of any.

Again, I had understood it to be the faith of the body, that it was wrong to be incorporated by law. In the work on the Three Messages, pp. 46, 47, it is said, "The United States disclaim a national religion, and yet nearly all her religious bodies are incorporated by the State. Babylon has made all the nations drunken with her wine; it can therefore symbolize nothing less than the universal worldly church." Perhaps this is error. If so, it should be left out of the new edition of the work. If I have spoken wrong, I hope that the right will prevail. But lest any should blame my intentions, I have presented this as an apology.

I still have scruples about being incorporated by law. But I am fully satisfied that measures should be taken to hold the church property legally. I think, with Bro. Andrews, that persons should be selected and qualified by law to hold the property in trust, the object being specified.

I am no lawyer; but I presume that were the church incorporated, donations could be collected back as well as now.

But as to insurance, the more I look at it, the worse it looks. It is a worldly scheme to make money out of the risk of property already acquired, very much as lotteries give a chance to gain property which we have not acquired. There is a shade of difference, but both are very much like a game of chance. A worldly man in Cleveland, O. some years ago said, "I do not bet with insurance companies."

On this point I will bring forth my strong reasons from the word. "He that hateth suretyship is sure." Prov. xi, 15. "I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evildoers; and will not sit with the wicked." Ps. xxvi, 4, 5. "Be separate and touch not the unclean." 2 Cor. vi, 14–18. "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." Ps. cxlvi, 3. "He shall deliver them from the wicked, and save them, because they trust in him." Ps. xxxvii, 39, 40. "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly." Ps. i. "O Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee." Ps. lxxxiv, 12.

The church of the living God is the best insurance company in the world; and, filled with the spirit of discernment and prophecy that was poured out on the day of pentecost, is the best judge, on earth, to decide who "one another" are.

Having done my duty, I submit to the judgment of the church. My prayer is that the Lord will give his servants wisdom; and I believe he will.

Yours in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace. R. F. C.

The extract above quoted from the Three Messages is not in the second edition of the work. Bro. Andrews in revising it last January left it out. We are glad that Bro. R. F. C. agrees, as he says, with J. N. A., which agrees with J. W., which makes us agreed all around.

As for Insurance, we said, [Vol. xv, No. 23], "In regard to insurance we have nothing to plead at this time. We do not get our own buildings insured and if the church agree to trust the Office property without insurance, we shall be suited." Therefore Bro. R. F. C.'s "strong reasons" are one side of the main question under discussion. But we hope that all will carefully consider his proof texts and their connections, and see for themselves the amount of direct testimony against Insurance. Truth will stand.

Our objection to Bro. R. F. C.'s former articles were, first, that he wrote as the matter stood in his mind without giving scriptural reasons against our suggestions; and second, that he did not state a plan on which we as a people can act, as all were requested to do who might object to our suggestions. We feared that some would be prejudiced by his manner of handling the question, and it has proved that our fears were not altogether groundless. We would say to those to whom our remarks on this subject have seemed severe, that we are sorry if we have grieved any unnecessarily. May God and his dear people forgive. And we would humbly suggest that the safest course for those who have labored under feelings of prejudice is, as they may now change their position, to frankly confess their error, and be sure to cast away all feelings of prejudice. J. W.