IN HIS May 7 article in Christianity Today, the editor, Harold Lindsell, stressed the need for a return to a more careful and meaningful observance of Sunday. We obviously agree with him when he quotes Jesus' statement that the Sabbath was made for man, and then indicates that "somehow, man today doesn't seem to appreciate this fact."
Referring to studies of productive capacity conducted during World War II demonstrating reduced production when laborers worked seven days a week over an extended period rather than working six days and resting one, Lindsell rightly insists that there is a natural law involved. From the viewpoint of physical well-being alone it makes good sense to keep the Sabbath, for, as the editor puts it, "neither men nor machines can continue indefinitely without rest." We also agree that "the reason Christians should advance to convince unregenerate men to keep the Sabbath is that . . . [men] need it, that it will work for their good, and that their failure to keep it is devastating for men and assures them of disaster."
We feel, however, we must take issue with Christianity Today's editor over two major points. One is his insistence that Sabbath observance must be legislated and the other, as you might expect from Seventh-day Adventists, is his equating of Sunday with the scriptural Sabbath.
It isn't often that we respond negatively to articles in other religious journals. We are particularly appreciative of Christianity Today's consistent publication of helpful articles. We truly desire to be at peace with our brethren, but we feel compelled by love to share with our readers a reply to concepts which, if put into law, will affect the liberties of not only the United States, but the world's citizenry.
Lindsell claims that the only way Sun day observance can be accomplished "is by force of legislative fiat through the duly elected officials of the people." This is a shocking statement. It is our firm conviction that those who are in favor of laws enforcing "the proper use of the Lord's Day" or any other day of religious significance, however sincere and honest they may be, are blinded to the results that would surely follow. The same in tolerance and oppression that have held sway in past ages will again be felt if Sunday legislation is enacted. It is no secret that much of the world's population today is in the crushing grip of despotic power that has robbed people of both civil and religious liberty. Will we, through seemingly innocuous legislation, deprive still others of religious freedom? The uniting of church and state can happen subtly, especially under the guise of, as Lindsell puts it, "effective humanization."
The subject under discussion may seem to be relatively unimportant be cause it affects so few people compared to the vast majority, but herein lies the genius of true liberty. The constitutional provision that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a safeguard that has kept our nation relatively free of intolerance and persecution. To enforce by civil authority any religious practice, even if it be for the general welfare of man, will constitute a flagrant violation of this safeguard.
Lindsell attempts to lift Sunday observance out of the religious domain in his concluding arguments by saying, "The proper use of the Lord's Day, wholly apart from any religious implications, can come about by free choice or it can be legislated." It is almost impossible, if not absolutely impossible in a Christian oriented nation, to properly create or use a secular rest day, "wholly apart from any religious implication." Lindsell him self, in setting forth his beliefs, has failed to show how it can be done. His opening sentence declares that in the United States, Sunday observance is virtually dead. This fact is inseparably related to the religious realm. A major part of his theme is the secularization of Sunday. He offers as one of the reasons the "changing attitude of so many in the church about the written Word of God." His article is punctuated with words such as "theological liberalism," "Sabbathkeeping," "denial of any absolutes," "God's day," "Sabbath observance." These terms and phrases cannot be relegated to the secular.
May we suggest that if one of the major causes of Sunday secularization is located within the church itself, then let the churches, not the state, remedy the situation. It will be a sad day when the churches must seek aid from civil authorities to force their members to keep any day holy. If we can learn anything from history, it is that in countries which have tried to do this, the spiritual quality of nominal church members has been very low.
This brings us to our second issue: the holiness of Sunday. There is no "unbreakable command of God" or "obligation resting on the bald notion of the divine authority," as Lindsell puts it, to honor Sunday. It is unfortunate that the writer and editor should appeal to the authority of Scripture on a subject that has no scriptural authority! Could it be that at least a portion of the theological liberalism and the opening of infidelity's doors is traceable to a general disregard for God's holy law, which unequivocally declares that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord?
We agree completely with Zondervan's New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, under the article, "Sabbath," that "it is clear that Jesus, His disciples, and the Jewish Christians observed the Sabbath" (p. 870). We further agree with the same dictionary that the term, "Lord's Day," found once in the Scriptures (Rev. 1:10), as being Sunday, "is unprovable," and that "no evidence for the equating of Sabbath and Sunday is found before the end of the third century" (p. 940).
Usage does not determine right or wrong when it comes to religious matters. Our only authority is Scripture. Lindsell's equating Sunday with Sabbath, seventh day, and Lord's day, can not be supported by Old or New Testament scriptures.
If people wish to observe Sunday as a rest day, that is their right, and they should be protected from anything that would interfere with their doing so. By the same token, those who conscientiously worship on the seventh-day Sabbath should not be compelled to honor Sunday because someone else reveres it as the Sabbath. Neither should the Sundaykeeper be compelled to keep the seventh-day Sabbath because that day is considered by others to be the Sabbath.
The far-reaching possible results of Lindsell's suggestions for Sunday observance are frightening. If by law all highway travel is stopped on Sunday except for "church attendance or genuine necessities," that means virtually every bus and automobile would grind to a halt. Then if, as suggested, every store, factory, and restaurant are closed, and all frantic searching "for pleasure," whatever that means, is stopped, all you have left to do is either stay home or go to church. Then if a crisis arises, such as nuclear war, or moral anarchy, the next step could easily be a national call to repentance beginning with mandatory attendance at church on Sunday.
Lindsell's closing remark, "Surely we have been sent into the kingdom for such a time as this," is significant. These words are from the book of Esther. What was the issue in Queen Esther's day? A conflict between the right of the state to command worship and that of the individual to choose object and mode of worship. It started because one man, Hainan, demanded of the men around him the deference that Mordecai felt belonged only to God. Haman recognized the basis of Mordecai's objection as a Jew, and his wrath was so aroused that he persuaded the king to try to destroy the whole of Mordecai's people.
Is it possible that even well-intentioned Christian theologians are con fused over the meaning of "such a time as this"? We trust and pray that America's spiritual welfare might not be en trusted to politicians, but will remain the province of dedicated church leaders who do not seek to rely on the strong arm of the state but rather on the mighty arm of God and the authority of His Word.
