Signs of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 2. (1/14/1886)

Signs of the Times

Jan 14, 1886

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 14, 1886

General Articles.

By Ellen G. White

Christian Homes.

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

Our time, our strength, and our energies belong to God; and if they are consecrated to his service, our light will shine. It will affect first and most strongly those in our own homes, who are most intimately associated with us; but it will extend beyond the home, even to “the world.” To many it will be a savor of life unto life; but there are some who will refuse to see the light, or to walk in it. They are of that class spoken of by our Saviour, when he said: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Such are in a very dangerous position; but their course does not excuse any of us from letting our light shine.

Suppose that because some ship had disregarded his warning beacon, and gone to pieces on the rocks, the lighthouse-keeper should put out his lights, and say, “I will pay no more attention to the lighthouse;” what would be the consequence? But that is not the way he does. He keeps his lights burning all night, throwing their beams far out into the darkness, for the benefit of every mariner that comes within the dangerous reach of rocks and shoals. Were some ship to be wrecked because the lights went out, it would be telegraphed over the world that on such a night, at such a point, a ship went to pieces on the rocks because there was no light in the tower.

But if some ships are wrecked because they pay no attention to the light, the lighthouse-keeper is guiltless; they were warned, but they paid no heed.

What if the light in the household should go out? Then every one in that house would be in darkness; and the result would be as disastrous as though the light were to go out in the lighthouse tower. Souls are looking at you, fellow-Christians, to see whether you are drunken with the cares of this life, or are preparing for the future, immortal life. They will watch to see what the influence of your life is, and whether you are true missionaries at home, training your children for Heaven.

The Christian's first duty is in the home. Fathers and mothers, yours is a great responsibility. You are preparing your children for life or for death; you are training them for an abiding place here in the earth, for self-gratification in this life, or for the immortal life, to praise God forever. And which shall it be? It should be the burden of your life to have every child that God has committed to your trust receive the divine mould. Your children should be taught to control their tempers and to cultivate a loving, Christlike spirit. So direct them that they will love the service of God, that they will take more pleasure in going to the house of worship than to places of amusement. Teach them that religion is a living principle. Had I been brought up with the idea that religion is a mere feeling, my life would have been a useless one. But I never let feeling come between Heaven and my soul. Whatever my feelings may be, I will seek God at the commencement of the day, at noon, and at night, that I may draw strength from the living Source of power.

Mothers, you have no right to spend time in ruffling, and tucking, and embroidering your children's dresses for display. Has not your time been given you for a higher and nobler purpose? Has it not been given you to be spent in beautifying the minds of your children, and cultivating loveliness of character? Should it not be spent in laying hold of the Mighty One of Heaven, and seeking him for power and wisdom to train your children for a place in his kingdom, to secure for them a life that will endure as long as the throne of Jehovah?

But how many mothers there are who are so far from God that they devote their time to their own gratification, and leave their children to be cared for by unconsecrated hands. Or perhaps the mother sits at her work night after night, while her children go to bed without a prayer or a good-night kiss. She does not bind their tender hearts to her own by the cords of love, for she is “too busy.” And is this as God would have it? No, indeed! Something has taken away the mother's reason, and what is it? Is it not a desire to meet the world's standard and to conform to its customs?

Some may wonder why it is that we say so much about home religion and the children. It is because of the terrible neglect of home duties on the part of so many. As the servants of God, parents, you are responsible for the children committed to your care. Many of them are growing up without reverence, growing up careless and irreligious, unthankful and unholy.

If these children had been properly trained and disciplined, if they had been brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, heavenly angels would be in your homes. If you were true home missionaries, in your daily life exemplifying the teachings of the word of God, you would be preparing yourselves for a wider field of usefulness, and at the same time fitting your children to stand by your side, as efficient workers in the cause of God. What an impression it makes upon society to see a family united in the work and service of the Lord. Such a family is a powerful discourse in favor of the reality of Christianity. Others see that there is an influence at work in the family that affects the children, and that the God of Abraham is with them. And that which has such a powerful influence on the children is felt beyond the home, and affects other lives. If the homes of professed Christians had a right religious mould, they would exert a mighty influence for good. They would indeed be the “light of the world.”

A well-ordered Christian household is an argument that the infidel cannot resist. He finds no place for his cavils. And the children of such a household are prepared to meet the sophistries of infidelity. They have accepted the Bible as the basis of their faith, and they have a firm foundation that cannot be swept away by the in-coming tide of skepticism.

Said Christ, “Ye are the light of the world.” He has committed talents to our keeping. What are we doing with his intrusted gifts? Are we letting our light shine by using them for his glory and the benefit of our fellow-men, or are we using them to advance our own selfish interests? Many are using them selfishly. They do not seem to realize that we are all Judgment-bound, and must soon give an account for the use we have made of our God-given opportunities to do good. But what excuse will they give in that great day for not using in the cause of God their skill, their education, their tact, and their perseverance and zeal?

We need divine help if we would keep our lights burning. But Jesus died to provide that aid. He extends the invitation: “Let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me.” Cling to the arm of Infinite Power; then you will find him precious to your soul, and all Heaven will be at your command. “If we walk in the light, as He is in the light,” we shall have the companionship of holy angels. To “Joshua” it was said, “Thus saith the Lord of hosts: If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge,” “I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.” And who are “these that stand by”? They are the angels of God. Joshua must have a living, confiding trust in God every day; and then angels would walk with him, and the power of God would rest upon him in all his labors.

Then, Christian friends, fathers and mothers, let your light grow dim—no, never! Let your heart grow faint, or your hands weary—no, never! And by and by the portals of the celestial city will be opened to you; and you may present yourselves and your children before the throne, saying, “Here am I, and the children whom thou hath given me.” And what a reward for faithfulness that will be, to see your children crowned with immortal life in the beautiful city of God!

GOD'S PROMISES.

By Advance

LORD, I believe! The cross of care That crowds upon my tired heart, I bring to thee! No other love Could lift the load, relieve the smart. Strength for the day thy promise gives; Because thou art, thy servant lives.

Lord, I believe! The rain of tears That dims the weeping eyes to-night, Can never hide thy rainbow arch, Thy sign of love and life and light! In mystic grandeur, calm and high, It arches o'er my western sky.

Lord, I believe! The Babel sounds That ring upon my weary ear, Drown not the still, small voice that speaks In steadfast accents, true and clear. Lord, here am I! Thy will reveal, As at thy blessed feet I kneel.

Lord, I believe! The cross is hard, The night is dark, and long the road; Can I forget the form that bowed 'Neath sharper cross and heavier load,— The wounded feet that here have trod, And marked with blood the shuddering sod?

Lord, I believe! Mine unbelief, My weakness, and my wrong, forgive! Tried, trembling, troubled, let me touch Thy garment's hem, and I shall live. For, wounded, sinful, though I be, God's promises are all for me. —Advance.

Proxy in Religion.

By Rev. F. Mason North

THE art of getting our duties done by others has come into high favor in recent years. It is practiced with the most ingenious skill everywhere. A man may, from his well-cushioned pew as a center, by the magic touch of a few coins upon the passing contribution-box, reach the whole circuit of his obligations to God's work, and go home to his dinner, his newspaper, and his nap with complacency and a quiet conscience. A mother can get her children off to Sunday-school, and then rest from all further responsibility for their religious instruction. A Sunday-school teacher may make the connection between the mysterious mechanism of the International system and her class on Sunday, and, after turning the crank for the requisite time, content herself that the system has discharged her entire obligation for her. The woman of benevolence—fully posted by the Charities Bureau of Information, with a bundle of soup tickets and the certificates of the "Clear-ing-house for Consolidated Charities" in her hand—can, while entertaining her friends in her drawing-room, "dispose of" every "case" which appeals to her bounty. The devout churchman, who finds his son or his neighbor in spiritual darkness, feels the agreeable meritoriousness of having done his whole duty when he has advised the inquirer for salvation to "consult the minister."

The fact is, we are in an epoch of marvelous inventiveness. The new cotton-picking machine, which, with two men and a mule, can do the work of forty men, is an agricultural instance of what is now going on in the sphere of philanthropy and practical Christianity. Mules and machines have largely taken the place of men; or, to save the statement from unpleasant allusions to a useful though often misunderstood friend of humanity, ecclesiastical contrivances are being widely substituted for the power of the individual. It is not alone in politics that the man is hidden by the machine.

Christians have acquired the habit—and that quite naturally—of "pointing with pride" to the wonderful development of the church. Even her enemies bear witness to her greatness by the ingenuity and force with which they seek to depreciate her. The opportunities and resources of the church have increased incalculably, and her appliances have multiplied a thousand-fold; but in the very midst of this chorus of self-gratulation the question meets us: Is there an increase of force proportional to the increase of facilities? Is there a possibility that the mechanism of Christianity may retard or destroy its power?

It is clearly not enough to prove by figures, either of arithmetic, or of speech, or of geometry—for the demonstration by diagram is now very popular—that there is numerical growth, and that wealth and social influence are increased. Imperial Rome after a time lost force by gaining territory. With a limited water-supply, the more ditches for irrigation a farmer digs, the poorer crops he will gather. Admit the increase in the church; does it mean more territory and more ditches, or more power? Peter Bayne somewhere says, "Some men are ever ready to ride upon the car of civilization while others push." There is an increase in the church. Is it of those who ride or those who push? Is the increment one of weight or of power?

It should certainly be clear to us that the multiplication of facilities—in things religious or things secular—is the multiplication of hindrances, unless there is also a relative gain in the operating force. A scythe is better than a mowing machine to the man who has no horses. With a compound lever a mechanic should be able to lift more than with a simple one; otherwise the very complications of the former prevent the results possible with the latter. Now the gospel's center of force, as far as human instrumentalities are concerned, is the individual soul. It is not learning, not the printing press, not the pulpit, not the church, but the man. The true light is kindled in, and radiates from, personal character. The world sees the way to God by the light of flaming hearts. To shade the light by any medium, however artistically wrought, is to diminish the power of the gospel. Neither social power, nor intellectual power, nor what is called the power of truth, must be substituted for the power of the soul.

Now, in the growth of Christianity, has this power of the individual increased? Are there to-day relatively more or fewer souls who, imbued with holy zeal and flashing forth the divine light, are bringing direct influence to bear upon other souls? Here, for example, is a church of six hundred members. Eloquence is in the pulpit, art in the windows, at the organ, and in the choir stalls; wealth and propriety are in the pews; and the number of souls saved annually can be counted upon the fingers of the hands—perhaps on those of one hand. Of these hundreds, what proportion do their religious work themselves, and what proportion do theirs by proxy? How many of these voices are ever heard in prayer or testimony? How many are watching and praying for unsaved souls, and how many are valiantly serving the Lord by substitute? Unquestionably it must be admitted that the direct personal influence and work of individual Christians are the least used forces that the church has to-day.

Nor is it difficult to perceive how the proxy plan diminishes spiritual power in the individual, and so in the church. For, first, much of the initial force is lost in the necessary friction of so complicated a system as that of Christian work in this age. Heat is indeed developed; but it is the heat of wear, not of power. In many a church more treasures of strength and wisdom are exhausted in supplying oil to protect the bearings than are available for the direct purposes for which the whole machine is contrived.

Secondly, any man—and here we must remember that "whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it"—any man who avoids religious duty and personal contact with the unsaved suffers inevitable loss; the loss of sensibility, then of sympathy, and hence of motive power. Ceasing to work for others, he ceases to care for them, and dwarfs his power to the stunted possibilities of the collection plate, and the worse than fruitless formality of heartless prayer.

And, thirdly, power is gone when the sense of responsibility is gone. There is something horrible in the complacency with which the majority of Christians watch their unsaved fellow-voyagers sink beneath the waves. Multitudes, clearly, are ignorant that in the gospel economy, the conversion of a soul carries with it a commission to work. Responsibility should rest upon the individual; he escapes it, and leaves it upon the church.

The perfection of organization is not that which relieves from personal responsibility, but that which widens the application of personal power. And we may well suspect the genuineness of that growth which enlarges the organization and diminishes the consciousness. It is very probably the growth of disease. If, then, there be a real menace in this tendency to bury the power of the individual beneath the complications of an over-organized system, is there any way of averting such a calamity? There is space for only one or two general suggestions.

And first, let religious teachers and leaders aim directly at the development of spiritual force in the person, rather than at the elaboration of mechanism in the church. Christ's is still the true method. He gave the world not, primarily, an organization, but a group of converted men. Secondly, demand from converted men the active labor of converted men. Every man who reads his pardon at the foot of the cross should there also read his commission. To him to whom the Master says, "Go, work!" the church has no right to say, "Come, pay for your pew, and be idle." Thirdly, let every organization of Christians be founded, not upon the hospital idea, the lecture-bureau idea, the social-club idea, but upon the army idea. Camp followers and sutlers are of little use in battle.

Walk by Faith.

HOW HARD it is for a Christian to realize that walking by faith is not walking by sight. All of us are willing to trust God as far as we can see; but only now and then are we ready to trust God against all appearances. In no one matter is our proneness to distrust the promises of God more likely to show itself than in our treatment of the duty of Christian giving. A struggle at this point perplexes a reader from Northern New York, who writes: "In regard to the privilege of giving, I feel deeply; yet through circumstances too numerous to trouble you with, I cannot decide on it satisfactorily. I hope you can help me. It seems to me that the Bible rule of 'one-tenth' is a safe and sure one; but I have been a little staggered by the remark of a friend, who said, that rule applied to one's income, and not to the wages of a mechanic or to the salary of a teacher. For instance, if a man with a family of two or three persons earns thirteen dollars a week, is it justice to his family to give one-tenth to charity or church work? Should a teacher on three hundred a year, with others besides herself to think of, give thirty dollars away? Suppose, besides this, she has neither time nor strength to do any Christian work except what comes to her in connection with her daily duty, and a Sunday-school class; is it her duty to deny herself the pleasure of systematic giving? Or, do you think that, out of the scanty amount, she should give one-tenth?"

What are wages and a salary, if they are not income? But perhaps that objector who has puzzled our correspondent meant to say, that one-tenth is to be given to the Lord only when it can be spared without feeling it. There is a good deal of that sort of reading the requirements of duty, among Christian people. There are those who honestly do not consider the obligation of the tithe of one's income as binding under the Christian law. But as we read the Scriptures, this obligation, like that of the Sabbath, preceded the Mosaic law, and is recognized also under the Christian dispensation. This being the case, we look upon one-tenth of the believer's income, like one-seventh of his time, as belonging, of right, to the Lord.

It is therefore not a question whether the believer thinks he can afford it or not. He has no more right to keep that one-tenth for his own benefit, than he has to steal a like amount from one of his fellows. And because this is his duty, he will find, as a practical matter, that he can more easily live within nine-tenths of his income than within ten-tenths. Not until a believer has paid to the Lord the one-tenth that belongs absolutely to the Lord, can he begin to give, of his choice, to the Lord. As a practical matter, it is a more common thing for a poor Christian to give one-tenth of his income to the Lord, than for a rich Christian to do it. It didn't look to the widow of Zarephath as if she could really afford to give so large a share of her scanty pittance to the Lord as the Lord's prophet asked for; but she had faith enough to do as she was directed by the Lord to do; and she found that a part was greater than the whole, when the part was used wisely. Whoever, in any part of the world, has a faith like that widow's, will be most likely to have an experience like hers.—S. S. Times.

Every Misery Missed Is a New Mercy

By Izaak Walton

EVERY misery missed is a new mercy.—Izaak Walton.

Christian Trust vs. Ungodly Trust.

TRUST is not always a Christian virtue. To trust one's self to a rotten plank, when a safe footing can properly be obtained elsewhere, may be a folly or a crime, according to the motive which directed the action. This thought is suggested by the recent words of a would-be theological prophet, who, forecasting the creed of the future, announces, as one of the elements of its fourfold belief, faith in the "drift of things." Faith in the drift of things! Alack! that is like enough to be the too common faith of the future; for it has been the commoner faith of the past. No transgressor of God's commandments, no drunkard, no impure person, no deceiver of other men, but has unlimited faith in the drift of things. Every day sees him sink deeper into the mire, every day, perhaps, makes his desire for deliverance more feeble; yet every day sees him cherishing the same old faith that some time things will take a turn, and he will come out all right. We might more safely trust ourselves to the drift above Niagara than to this treacherous "drift of things." This faith in the drift of things is not the faith of the Christian. His is a personal trust in a personal Saviour,—through whose good providence he has faith, not in the drift of things, but in their settled march, according to God's ordering, from evil to good, and from corruption to incorruption.—S. S. Times.

The Belgian Struggle for Education.

By Christian at Work

THE little kingdom of Belgium is a stronghold of Roman Catholicism of the extreme type. Out of a population of 5,000,000, not 50,000 are nominal Protestants. The church has ruled the people with a firm hand, and with a bold affirmation of its divine right so to do. To maintain this hold, it must of necessity have the direction of national education. This it held unquestioned till the Liberal Education act of 1879 wrested the power from its hands. This law was the work of the Liberals of Belgium aided by the Radicals. The former are Catholics, but revolted against a system of church education which kept the masses of the people in dense ignorance of most things except their duties to the church.

From the day when the educational act of 1879 went into force, the priesthood have opposed it by every means which malignant ingenuity could devise. In opposition to the Government secular schools, they set up the parochial institutes. They refused the sacrament to children who attended the public schools, and to their parents as well. It was not that the education law banished religion from the schools, although it discarded church emblems; for an hour each day was allotted to the priest for instruction. This, however, was not the control which the church demanded, and the privilege was refused with scorn. The struggle over the schools was severe in the extreme, and the interest of the nation was roused to a burning heat. At the expiration of three years, the Clerical schools still held a majority of the children; but the superiority of the Government institutions was beginning slowly to tell.

The violence of the Clericals naturally begat violence in return on the part of the Radicals. In a conservative country like Belgium, Radicalism was naturally dreaded. Accordingly, when it happened, a year or more ago, that the Government was driven to temporary alliance with the Radicals, in order to carry some of its measures in Parliament, a reaction began to show itself. In the election of the present year, this reaction ended in the return of a Clerical majority in Parliament, and a revolution in the ministry. Following this triumph, came a revision of the education law, which practically restores the priesthood to all their ancient control of the national education. It is this burning issue which has brought Belgium to the brink of revolution.

The blame of the recent disorders in Brussels and other cities should be placed where it belongs. It does not rest upon the true Liberal party, but upon the impracticable, the petulant Radicals, who know no better arm for combating abuses than violence. Although the duties of a beaten minority are not too fully comprehended in either France or Belgium, it is evident that the Belgian Liberal leaders have the correct idea of them. Following the riotous demonstrations of the middle of September, they posted placards in the public places of Brussels, announcing their policy of peaceful, legal opposition to the obnoxious education statute. The factious and malignant opposition made by the Clericals to the law of 1879 would furnish ample warrant for a less legitimate procedure; but the true Liberals of Belgium are in sober, conscientious earnest, and are unwilling to imperil their sacred cause by using the weapons which they have denounced when wielded by their adversaries. It may be hoped, therefore, that the Belgian school issue will have a peaceable solution, when sober second thought has time to assert itself.

What effect the threatened Encyclical of the pope against the Liberals may have is not certain, but it may be expected to bring more sharply to the front in Belgium the real issue, which there, as in France, underlies the school question—that of the entire separation of church and State. The conflict will be long and severe, and, as in the present contention, the difficulties of the genuine Liberals may be intensified by the factiousness and intolerance of their Radical allies. With Clericalism on the one hand, and Red Republicanism on the other, the sincere friends of liberal institutions have a most perplexing and difficult mission.—Christian at Work.

Brief Reflections and Arguments.

By R. F. Cottrell

MEN refuse to keep the Sabbath of the Lord because the commandment is not repeated in the New Testament; and yet they observe the first day of the week, for which there is no commandment in either the Old or the New. This shows that they are governed by custom, and not by revelation or reason.

Those who would have the moral law of God abolished, close their eyes to two important things: 1. That the presumptive evidence is all in favor of the continuance of the moral code of the all-wise and unchangeable God; and 2. That the Lord Jesus, instead of destroying it, affirmed the perpetuity of every jot and tittle of it, "till Heaven and earth pass." Matt. 5: 17-19.

Those who quote Heb. 4: 3, "For we which have believed do enter into rest," emphasizing do enter to make it appear that the rest referred to "is enjoyed by the believer here in this present life," need to be told that in order to express that idea it should read, "We that have believed have entered into rest." As it stands, it is in perfect harmony with the exhortation of the apostle in the same chapter: "Let us [believers] labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall," or come short of it.

Paul was converted to the Christian religion some years after all the Jewish sabbaths were nailed to the cross, and consequently were no more. If the weekly Sabbath was included with those, there was no Sabbath during his Christian experience and ministry. But the inspired recorder of his travels and labors frequently tells us what Paul did on the Sabbath, without any qualifying term such as old or Jewish. If there was no Sabbath then, this language is well calculated to mislead the reader, but if there was a Sabbath then, there is one now, unless it has been abolished since the apostle's labors were put upon record.

While Paul was at Corinth, it is recorded of him that "he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath." If the first day of the week was the Sabbath at that time, the Jews opened their synagogue every first day of the week, either because they had changed their day of worship to that day, or to accommodate the Christians, who, if tradition be true, had kept the first day during the twenty years that passed between the resurrection of Christ and Paul's labors at Corinth. But if Paul accommodated himself to the Jews, and these meetings were held on the day they ever had been, and still are, in the habit of observing, it follows that the first day of the week was not the Sabbath at that time; for if it were, it would certainly be included in the term "every Sabbath." Now if the first day of the week was not the Sabbath twenty years after the resurrection of Christ, when did it become the Sabbath? R. F. COTTRELL.

A New Bible Word.

By A. A.

WE have to thank the revisers of the New Testament for a new word in relation to the subject of life in and through Christ.

Hebrews 7: 16 reads, concerning Christ as priest after the likeness of Melchisedec, "Who hath been made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the law of an endless life." (Margin, "Greek, indissoluble.") That is, not subject to dissolution; endless, because in its nature it is incapable of being loosed away, or destroyed.

Kata dynamin zoēs akataluton—according to the strength of life indissoluble. The writer to the Hebrews is contrasting the Levitical priests with our High Priest in the Heavens. They were many, "because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death; but he, because he abideth forever, hath a priesthood that doth not pass to another." Margin, R. V., v. 24. He abideth because he "was dead, and is alive forever more." And it is certain that he "dieth no more," because he now liveth by a life that is in its nature indissoluble.

But were the life of all men thus indissoluble, where were the force of the writer's reasoning? He reasons as if the life of the Levitical priests was mortal, and as if they lost their lives, one after another, by death. Such a terminable life as that of mortal man is sharply contrasted with the indissoluble life of the risen Lord, in this very quality of indissolubility, and consequent endlessness.—A. A., in Bible Banner.

Formalism.

As in all armies soldiers are found who enjoy military exercises on the peaceful parade ground, but shrink from the perils of the battle-field, so in the church there are too many who cheerfully participate in the forms of worship, but dislike to contend earnestly against their inward as well as their outward sins. They are disposed to be a little pious, but not to be wholly the Lord's. Such disciples justify this sharp observation by Adam Clarke: "The measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ is seldom seen; the measure of the stature of littleness, dwarfishness, and emptiness is often exhibited." Alas, that men with our rich gospel in their hands should turn from the abundant banqueting table of their Lord's love to feed on the husks of formalism! Surely, it is sweeter living in intimate fellowship with Christ than to "follow him afar off" at the risk of falling into temptation and parting company with him forever.—Zion's Herald.

Christ’s Divinity Essential to Christianity

By Charles Neil

You might just as well take away the luminous ether from the atmosphere, and call the residuum air, and expect to have its original life-sustaining power as to remove the doctrine of Christ's divinity from theology without the actual and complete overthrow of Christianity itself as a consistent and energizing system.—Charles Neil.

Continue reading: The Ostrogoths and the Visigoths