Earlier text: THE WORKTo the Fields in 1913
By W. A. S.
THE year just past witnessed the departure of the largest number of missionaries ever sent out in any year in the history of this advent movement. As in former years, we count those going to the mission fields from Europe and the colonies as well as from North America. The older fields abroad are shoulder to shoulder with America in sending on the supplies of men and means to the uttermost parts of the earth. As we run through the list, what a testimony it furnishes, once again, to the fulfilling of the prophecies regarding the carrying of the gospel of the coming kingdom to all lands in this last generation. The work is spreading and increasing every year in a truly wonderful way. Month by month, the roll of departures was as follows:— J. H. Boehm and wife, to Brazil, South America. John Schmidt, to Brazil, South America. A. R. Dennis, to Uruguay, South America. W. R. Howse and wife, from Australia to Tahiti. John Shultz and family, to the West Indies. C. H. Keslake and family, to Jamaica, West Indies. F. H. Loasby and wife, to India. R. Dietrich and family, from Germany to Brazil, South America. Miss Anna Hoffman, to Jamaica, West Indies. Wilbur Nelson and wife, to India. R. T. E. Colthurst and daughter, to Europe. C. E. Boynton and family, to British Guiana, South America. Geo. W. Miller, to St. Thomas, West Indies. J. Van de Groep and wife, from Australia to Singapore. J. A. P. Green and wife, to Mexico. A. J. Haysmer, to West Indian Union Conference. E. W. Thurber and wife, to Mexico. W. E. Hancock, to Europe, for Algeria, North Africa. Wm. Carrott, from England to Burma. R. Joyce and family, to England. Dr. H. C. Menkel and family, reappointed to India. H. R. Salisbury and wife, to India. H. E. Meyer and family, to Mexico. Jas. E. Shultz and family, to China. Jas. H. Smith and family, to the Bahama Islands. Frank Hall and family, to St. Thomas, West Indies. Fred Hutchinson and wife, to Trinidad, West Indies. W. B. White and wife, to South Africa. O. K. Butler and family, to South Africa. Miss Florence White, to Europe, en route to Persia. I. J. Hankins and wife, to South Africa. W. O. Cluff and wife, to Bolivia, South America. Dr. Harry G. Hankins and wife, from England to South Africa. Miss Claire M. Wightman, to Bolivia, South America. Miss Gertrude Johnston, to Chile, South America. R. C. Porter and wife, to China. M. C. Warren and wife, to China. Bernhard Peterson and wife, to China. O. J. Grundset and wife, to China. A. L. Ham and wife, to China. H. J. Doolittle and wife, to China. N. J. Aalborg and family, to Jamaica, West Indies. Mrs. Adah Johnston, to Jamaica, West Indies. 8Geo. F. Furnival and wife, to Jamaica, West Indies. F. Burton Jewell and family, to South Africa. Everhard Henriques, to Trinidad, West Indies. Paul Bridde, from Germany to Turkey. J. A. Bodle and family, to Guatemala, Central America. C. C. Kellar and family, to India. R. P. Morris and family, to India. F. A. Wyman and wife, to India. Miss Rose Boose, to India. Miss Sarah Kinner, to Brazil, South America. Miss Corinne Hoy, to Brazil, South America. Miss Louise V. Wurtz, to Brazil, South America. M. E. Carter and family, to Brazil, South America. J. Van Deusen and wife, to Jamaica, West Indies. Mrs. A. J. Haysmer, to Jamaica, West Indies. Henry Haefft and wife, to Brazil, South America. Carl Reidt and wife, to Brazil, South America. Paul Hennig and wife, to Brazil, South America. Carl C. Specht and wife, to Brazil, South America. Jacob Peters and wife, to Brazil, South America. P. A. Webber and wife, to Japan. Alfonso Anderson and wife, to Japan. Miss Minnie Hansen, to German East Africa. E. L. Maxwell and family, to Peru, South America. A. G. Nelson and wife, to Argentina, for Patagonia, South America. H. F. Taylor and wife, to the Bermuda Islands. L. Aberle, from Germany to German East Africa. D. E. Delhove, from Belgium to British East Africa. H. Erzberger and wife, from Switzerland to Syria. Otto Stanbert and wife, from Europe to Persia. Dr. U. C. Fattebert and wife, to the Philippines. W. E. Lanier and wife, to the Philippines. R. E. Hay and wife, to the Philippines. Robt. Stewart and wife, to the Philippines. J. O. Ryd and wife, to China. F. H. Conway and wife, to the Hawaiian Islands. Mrs. W. E. Hancock, to join her husband in Algiers. D. P. Boersma and son, to Holland. Miss Rosa Kozel, to Cuba. R. P. Robinson and wife, to South Africa. J. I. Robison and family, to South Africa. A. Mountain and wife, from Australia to China. W. C. Connolly, to the West Indies. W. F. Meyer, to Porto Rico. D. N. Wall and family, to Australia. J. T. Thompson and wife, to Uruguay, South America. Altogether, not counting children, the number is 157. We know that this list is incomplete as regards latest departures from Europe and other points abroad; but this is always the case. In 1912 the number in our list was 97, and the year before that 74. The earnest calls at the last General Conference, and the pressure of need, led to the large number of appointments. Such a work is remarkable in missionary history. One of the great missionary societies, with nearly a million people in its constituency and an income of over a million dollars, published as a mark of splendid progress—and so it is—its record of 124 new appointments in three years. Such a growth of our missionary list, with only the small membership that we have, is explainable on only one basis: the believers in the “blessed hope” have a confidence born of God in this work, and true hearts are praying, and sacrificing, and giving, and going. It is the work of God, the fulfilling of his “sure word of prophecy.” He is finishing the work. It is a thrilling sight just to look at this roll of recruits that have gone to the far frontiers. It is a solemn thing, too, to watch this ever-increasing army of gospel workers pushing on to the places of need. It constitutes Heaven’s appeal for yet more earnest and constant praying, and a yet larger flow of consecrated gifts into the missionary cause. May God give to every one of these new workers the joy of winning souls out of the darkness, and make every believer in the churches a true “holder of the ropes” during 1914. To the Christian who is trusting
In the leading of his Lord.
And is walking out in faith upon
The promise of his Word,
Each new day is fresh with blessings,
Like the grass with sparkling dew;
For we're ever in the present,
And the year is always new. Stretching out and reaching onward
Are the few remaining years,
To be filled with heaven's blessings,
Or our doubtings and our fears.
Whatsoe'er we sow we gather,
And the harvest will be true;
Yet we live but in the present,
And the year is always new. Dream not of the distant future,
Mourn not over what may be;
All that God will guarantee you
Is a present victory.
How we use the present moment
Shows us false or shows us true;
'Tis the present God is asking,
And is asking now — of you. Every hour we're drawing nearer
To that great and dreadful day
When the earth shall melt with fire,
And the heavens shall pass away.
Only by the record written
Of our present do we stand;
For the future is not ours,
And the past is in God's hand. Each new day that God may give us
Drops like manna from the skies,
And the burdens that it brings us
Are God's blessings in disguise.
Courage, brother! do not falter
At the task God shapes for you;
For his grace is ever present,
And the year is always new.
C. M. S. Lord’s Day Alliance Aggressive in Canada
By C. M. S.
THE thirteenth annual meeting of the Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada was held in Quebec on December 5. The secretary, Rev. Geo. W. Mingie, reported very material progress in the matter of Sunday enforcement. He reported as their able assistants the Roman Catholic Church and the labor unions. The report states that during the year the Alliance has been busy, “working quietly, but nevertheless surely, toward its aim—a proper observance of the Sabbath.” The Alliance has been earnestly endeavoring, first, to bring about the conviction of the moving-picture men. These have been defending themselves by pleading the unconstitutionality of the Quebec Lord’s Day Act, and it seems that they have been successful up to the present time; and the inability of the Alliance to secure convictions in these cases has naturally tied their hands in the matter of other prosecutions. The Alliance has been advised to bring about the trial of a test case in the higher court, that the question of unconstitutionality might be settled. It selected a skating rink for this purpose, and secured the conviction of the manager in the magistrate’s court. The defendant appealed to the Court of King’s Bench, and the decision of the case is now pending. If the Court of King’s Bench upholds the constitutionality of the Quebec Sunday observance act, the Alliance will begin a regular crusade of arrests for infractions of the Sunday law. In showing how important is the work of the Lord’s Day Alliance in “safeguarding the Sabbath,” the secretary states that “the Lord’s Day Act of Canada is now the sole legal safeguard for the day of rest in this province.” This may not have been so intended, but is, nevertheless, a very exact statement of the only basis the Sunday sabbath has to rest upon—a human law. And that is the only basis that Sunday laws have ever rested upon in any part of the world. If the exponents and promoters of compulsory Sunday idleness could be made to see the great contrast between the basis upon which Sunday enforcement rests and the basis upon which the true Sabbath of Jehovah rests, it does seem as if they would cease to trample upon the Sabbath of Jehovah, and cease trying to make men criminals for performing honest work upon the day which God himself and Jesus Christ consecrated to labor. The Alliance, if it succeeds with the test case now before the Court of King’s Bench, proposes to demonstrate that the Lord’s Day Act applies to all occupation on Sunday, that there shall be “no inroads upon the day of rest.” The inability of the Alliance promoters to see that the trend of their work is toward a union of church and state is demonstrated in the following quotation from the secretary’s report, and the quotation itself proves the converse of what it is aimed to teach:— While we believe an association or the state has no right to impose by its authority any religious ceremonial or duty on the Lord’s Day, we believe a Christian state should encourage and foster religious exercises on the day set apart for it. But even the Alliance ought to be able to see that in enforcing the observance of Sunday, they are enforcing the observance of a religious institution. They are compelling all to do, whether they wish to or not, what a great many believe it is their religious duty to do. Again, if the state encourages and fosters religious exercises “on the day set9 apart” for such exercises, it must choose what religious exercises it will “encourage and foster,” and in doing so, it establishes the religion whose exercises it encourages and fosters, and discriminates against all others. And there is no union of church and state in that? They who claim there is not have no just ground of complaint if their claim is looked upon as an insincere one. With every proper effort to awaken the public conscience to the dangers of the great social evil we are in hearty accord. If parents and all to whom the youth are intrusted for education could have realized long ago the evils resulting from the free and untrammeled association between the sexes, much evil and suffering would have been saved. We are in full accord with every laudable effort which makes for social purity, and which will serve to safeguard our young men and women from the taint of evil associations. We have been led, however, to question the wisdom and propriety of some methods which are being employed by various public teachers at the present time. We do not believe in a false modesty which will taboo the proper discussion of the question of sex hygiene. We do believe, however, that great care should be exercised in the presentation of these subjects. They may be treated in a manner that will make for impurity rather than for purity. And we are not alone in this conviction. Many sensitive souls have been made to recoil with horror at the free and easy manner in which some of these questions have been discussed. In Zion's Herald of Dec. 10, 1913, the editor devotes two columns to a discussion of the manner in which instruction on these subjects should be imparted to the youth. He says:— Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of the present attempt to give greater publicity to what is euphemistically called "sex hygiene," the enterprise is being tremendously overdone. Americans have become hysterical on this subject. Regarding the frankness and openness with which these questions are now discussed, the editor remarks:— Within a few months a remarkable change has come over this country. Children of tender years are now taught to discuss topics which were reserved for the adult years of their parents. The new vocabulary has substituted "frankness" for the old-fashioned word "modesty." A Boston theater is now presenting a play on a theme which has hitherto been handled only in the form of a medical lecture exclusively for one of the sexes. The newspapers now specifically name physical ailments which have hitherto been veiled or ignored by refined men and women. The magazines, especially those of England, are filled with articles which it would have been absolutely impossible so recently as a decade ago to read aloud before a company of decent men and women. An English literary reviewer of the latest novel of a well-known woman writer says: “Readers who cannot extract their money’s worth of illicit love out of this story must be hard to please. It simply reeks with sex. Amazing how this writer can patch her pages with suggested improprieties, and yet say nothing that is not more or less presentable!” While approving of the eugenic movement for the bringing about of better social conditions, the editor feels that the movement “is getting beyond the control of the men and women who were its original promoters. . . . When boys and girls of tender years have reached the degree of sophistication where they glibly discuss sex topics, they are in danger of becoming callous and indifferent to the moral significance of the words.” He inquires:— Will the knowledge acquired in this tumultuous way act as a deterrent? We confess to a growing distrust of the efficacy of the new gospel of publicity. We have been told of a case where a lecture of this kind led three young men to frequent places where they had never been before. We have no means of knowing how beneficial the lecture was in checking the vicious propensities of other auditors; the fact is that in three young men a spirit of defiance was created as the result of turning their thoughts in this direction. He assents to the theory that it is better to impart such information to the young in a proper way than to have such knowledge acquired from evil sources, but he questions as to who are the proper persons to give such information. He does not believe that it is to be imparted in moving-picture scenes or in the newspapers, and doubts very much the propriety of its being given in the public school. The proper teacher is the father or the mother in the privacy of the home. Lacking these, the question at once becomes the problem of a substitute father or mother. We have not yet discovered an adequate substitute. . . . We do not doubt that if this information, properly guarded, could be given by the right persons, it would save sin and suffering among both young and old. We do not object to instruction in sex hygiene per se, but we believe that the movement has now reached the abnormal and the pathological stage, and the time has come to summon men and women to calmer, saner thinking. Concluding, the editor says:— We shall watch with grave solicitude the progress of this new movement. If we discover that it is proving beneficial, we shall gladly bear witness to the truth. In the meantime, while reformers are turning the thoughts of young and old into this new channel, we call attention to an old theory on eugenics which has produced excellent results wherever it has been honestly and sincerely tested: “Whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” The Scriptures of Truth warn against the evils of sin, but present no lurid descriptions of the manner in which these evils are enacted. The apostle Paul admonishes to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” Whatever may be the duty of public-school teachers in dealing with these subjects, there can be no question as to the duty of parents. By precept and example the principles of heart and social purity should be instilled into the minds of the young, and they should be taught that the only power which can save them from sin’s pollution is the abiding righteousness of Christ in the life. We believe that the faithful teaching in the home and in the church of the positive principles of purity of heart and holiness of life will do more than all else to safeguard the young against the evils of the present age. Note and Comment
By Editor
ARE the people of the present day losing their good manners? That they are is evidently the view taken by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. They have recently called attention to this condition in the following statement:— There has been a decay in manners, and men and women have been led astray into accepting the novel because it is exciting, without heeding the fact that it tends to lower respect for self and for others. In a similar strain the Independent recently commented upon this evil tendency:— The present age has acquired the habit and the pose of bad manners. It is brash, brazen, and uncivil, both unconsciously and consciously. As a fact of general observation, we are fresh, impertinent, immodest, and common. We cannot help being fresh, we like being immodest, and we mean to go on being common, on principle. . . . In New England and in Virginia, two or three generations ago, people admired character and family pride, and social intercourse reflected their preferences. . . . In present-day America we admire business success, political sagacity, good ball pitching, heavy batting, Dr. Cook and Harry Thaw.10 This statement of conditions is all too true. True Christian courtesy springs from the heart; it finds its exercise in the home as well as in public life; it is forgetful of self and considerate of others; it is refined, modest, and dignified. “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.” Let us seek to exemplify these principles of deportment in our lives, and not follow the lowering standards of the world’s ethics.