THE ESTABLISHMENT of Sunday as a national rest day was advocated in the May 7, 1976, issue of Christianity Today editorial entitled "The Lord's Day and Natural Resources." Editor Harold Lindsell suggested that for the purpose of conserving energy, legislation should be enacted that would close down "all businesses including gasoline stations and restaurants" every Sunday. Such a move, he proposed, would be in accordance with the natural laws that govern man's well-being; and with "the will of God for all men," hopefully many would "follow this pattern because they wish to worship Him." Sensing that people are "highly unlikely" to observe Sunday as a rest day through voluntary action alone, Lindsell saw only one way to accomplish the dual objectives of Sunday observance and the conservation of energy. That would be "by force of legislative fiat through the duly elected officials of the people."
In the July issue of THE MINISTRY we voiced a strong objection to this suggestion, pointing out that if churches seek aid from civil authorities to enforce a rest day with a religious connotation, for whatever reason, the nation will truly have come upon sad times.
A subsequent editorial appearing in the November 5 issue of Christianity Today, "Consider the Case for Quiet Saturdays," presents a startling new approach on the part of the editors of this journal, proposing that Saturday be required of everyone as a rest day. The writer invites "responsible people" to discuss the issue. We accept this invitation in good faith and trust that our answer will be received in the same way.
The first paragraph of the November 5 editorial pointed out that "blue laws," forbidding business operations on Sun day, have been on the statute books of this country for more than 300 years. They have been the subject of much controversy. The editors propose settling this controversy by having legislators set aside "Saturday ... as the day of rest for all people," and conclude with the statement, "Saturday closing could not possibly be construed as a religious ploy," adding that "it would provide no church-state problem." This statement puzzles us. In a nation where several million people consider the seventh-day Sabbath as the true Bible rest day, whether or not they observe it formally, how can political legislation enforcing a Saturday rest day not be construed as having religious overtones? How could such an action as this fail to provoke acute church-state problems?
Seventh-day Adventists would, of course, be happy to have everyone everywhere honor the seventh-day Sabbath, as we believe God commands. We stand ready to help in any educational campaign with this as its goal. But we are no more eager to have civil authorities support the day of worship we hold in common with Jews and with other Sabbathkeeping Christians by legislative enforcement than we are to see Sunday given such support. We appreciate the magnanimous attitude of Christianity Today's editors in declaring that whatever inconvenience Sundaykeepers would suffer from such a move, it would nevertheless "be a token of good will toward a minority whose sensitivities [the editors] . . . respect." Our answer, however, is that regardless of the good will represented in this kind of gesture, as long as it is based on legal compulsion we must reject it, unequivocally and emphatically! No nation can remain a true democracy while it makes laws that bring hardship on any religious group, and the day of worship has always been an especially sensitive issue
Since the editors of Christianity Today have apparently given up pressing for Sunday as a national rest day, and suggest substituting a day which they do not view as having Biblical basis for worship today, perhaps they would not be opposed to the selection of some other day of the week. We would propose Monday. It would be much fairer and more equitable to set aside Monday as a national day of rest. In no way could a law to this effect create a church-state problem, since, so far as we know, there is no religious organization in this country that places any religious connotation on the second day of the week, Monday.
If Monday could be set apart as a conservation-of-energy holiday we would then have a long weekend of three days. The benefits of this plan are self-evident. People of all religions, including the followers of Islam who ob serve Friday as a day of devotion, could not disagree on the choice of Monday from a theological standpoint. Setting aside Monday in this way would accomplish the goals outlined in Christianity Today without interfering with the rights of anyone wishing to observe his preferred religious day.
Such action would mean, of course, an altering of the present pattern of the five-day work week. With the increasingly efficient technology of industry and the acknowledged need to spread employment opportunities to a wider range of people, the four-day week is now being considered seriously by business and labor. Even large automobile manufacturers are discussing this possibility. Some leaders of thought in this country have suggested that having such an extra day would relieve some of the tension people now feel and would enable many people to take better ad vantage of opportunities for study and self-improvement. Thus a national rest day on Monday might go far toward not only conserving energy but also improving the quality of American life.
Small Comfort to Adventists?
Several other points in the Christianity Today editorial merit comment here.
The first of these is the writer's observation regarding Seventh-day Adventists' expectation that the "compulsory religious observance of Sunday will mark the closing days of the age before the second advent of our Lord." He suggests that "it may be small comfort to [Seventh-day Adventists] . . . that Sun day observance is rapidly losing, not gaining, ground." The editorial states our belief correctly, but we feel that in fairness to our readers we need to give a detailed, in-depth Biblical explanation of this Adventist position. We will do so in subsequent issues of this journal. Here we can only point out that reference was made in the first article to "the swing of the pendulum" of social thought, which "has made license of liberty." The potential is still there for a swing back to intolerant and restrictive laws when a populace is under the stress of an "hour of desperation." Only commitment to God's plan, as outlined in the Scriptures, can save a people from extremes in either direction.
The second point in the editorial that we believe deserves a response is the implication that Adventists have a "legalistic attachment to Saturday as the Sabbath." Actually, our attachment to the seventh-day Sabbath is no more legalism than is the fervor of other evangelicals who vigorously denounce stealing, cheating, adultery, or the breaking of any other of the Ten Commandments that define sin. Preachers like Billy Graham are never accused of legalism for defending God's law. Why is it that a minister who advocates obedience to the Ten Commandments is not accused of legalism by most Christians until he sets forth the necessity of obeying the fourth commandment, which specifies the observation of the seventh day, and ties it directly with the Genesis record of Creation? Obedience to any of the Ten Commandments, including the fourth, in order to be pleasing and acceptable to God, must be joyfully rendered as a loving response to a Redeemer who infinitely loved us first. This quality of obedience can only be achieved through the influence and leading of the Holy Spirit. Thus a person will gladly conform not only to the behavior specified by each command but also in harmony with the spirit behind the law. The Sabbath commandment is far-reaching in its implications for social concerns, and to be "bound" by one's dedication to his Creator in accordance with this commandment no more stifles Christian growth than does regard for any of the other ten.
Because Adventists are so often misunderstood on this point, we are publishing in this issue an article by Jorgensen on the theology of the Sabbath. We hope by this means to acquaint our readers with the broad scope of this subject. Some of our readers may have misconceptions concerning Adventists and the seventh-day Sabbath. Therefore we cordially extend this opportunity to study carefully this explanation of our position.
A third point, and one we wish to commend Christianity Today's editors for, is their frank admission that "there is nothing in Scripture that requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day." This fact is evident, of course, to any perceptive student of the Bible. However, many church spokes men find it difficult to admit that what ever precedent there is for Sunday observance must be sought in history and tradition.
We come to our fourth and final point. The writer of the second editorial implied that the fact that our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week requires us to keep Sunday rather than Saturday as a holy day. In the pages of Scripture, however, the only commemorative ordinance we can find that is associated with the resurrection of Christ is baptism. This rite, when performed on the scriptural pattern, beautifully memorializes the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. The fact that our Lord deliberately spent an entire Sabbath "resting" in the tomb when He had the power to take up His life at any moment following His death is a clear testimony to not only His regard for the holy time represented in this day but that from that point on the Sabbath is to be celebrated not only as a memorial of creation but also of redemption. Christ's Sabbath rest following the completion of His work of redemption is to us a more compelling example than is His Sunday rising for the observance of a day of rest in honor of the completion of His atoning work.
The nation's leaders are surely pleased to see a leading publication in the private sector discuss the issues of national urgency in a sober and responsible manner. We commend Christianity Today's staff for coming to grips with the problems of the environment and the quality of American life. We trust that the interchange of thought represented in the editorial columns of our two journals will help to clarify the principal issues. A high quality of life includes the freedom to choose among equally good alternatives as well as among good and bad; and to sacrifice religious freedom in the name of any other "good" can only hurt our nation. As individual Americans learn to value their relationship to God, they will have the motivation to seek the good of the land. If this involves regard for scarce resources, respect for life and nature, and possibly a Monday "rest day" from work, such persons can be counted on to comply in spirit as well as in deed. As proposals for social reforms are advanced we therefore urge responsible leaders to consider these important possibilities.
