Seventh Day Adventists
p. 20 · Read in the full issue
and Native Customs
Letter to the Editor.
IT is of some interest to read from time to time certain things that Seventh-day Adventists are supposed to teach their con verts both at home and abroad.
It is of more importance, in view of these supposed strange teachings, that facts be presented, otherwise some of your readers may be led to wrong conclusions. In your issue of March 16 a writer, who strangely, yet possibly appropriately, signs himself “Solomaniac,” claims that the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists are becoming a danger to the physical well-being of the native races in the Solomon group, through prohibiting “pork, ’possum, and all meats, as are also fish, tobacco and betel nut.”
Seventh-day Adventists, neither in the Solomons nor elsewhere, prohibit “all meats ... or fish.” There are certain flesh foods, including fish, which we believe are not best fitted for human consumption, and eaten in the native style are unques tionably not conducive to the best health of the people. On the other hand, we have never advised our native converts to re frain from clean meats or clean fish.
Rather have we encouraged them to engage in their fishing. In some centres we have also supplied the natives with cattle and goats for their own consumption.
As to the removal of betel nut and tobacco, we have to refer “Solomaniac” to any competent medical authority for pro per information on the positive harmful ness of these two articles from the angle of both physical health and common hygiene.
It has been my privilege to visit the South Sea groups on numerous occasions.
I have been in the Solomons, and travelled extensively in this field three times. I have visited also among both primitive and
Christianised people in New Guinea, Papua, the New Hebrides, and among the natives of Fiji. From personal observation and contact I am prepared to state that, as a mission board, we would be willing to sub mit our converts to close inspection, con ducted by properly qualified men, at any time and in any centre, provided such in spection were also conducted by the same body of men on an equal number of natives gathered from any centre or community where unclean foods, betel-nut and tobacco are included in the regular diet or custom of the people. On the basis of actual fact, demonstrated in many countries and island groups over many years of mission opera tions, I am able to state that such inspec tion suggested above would be distinctly to the advantage of the Seventh-day Ad ventist mission.
For a man of “Solomaniac’s” seemingly narrow vision, it may be a simple thing to lay untruthful charges. The weakness of them will be clearly seen in the result wit nessed in the Adventist villages, among the men and women and children compris ing them.
As to the foolish charge that our mis sionaries compel the native women to wear bloomers, little need be said. At the time of my writing we have three missionaries in Sydney from the Solomons. I have in terviewed each of them, and they know nothing of any such direction.
The facts are that we compel no native man or woman to wear any clothing of any kind. They are at liberty to attend worship, school, or live in their villages attired as they wish. True, the natives themselves, soon after contact with our mission teachers, desire to cleanse their bodies and to some extent clothe them.
This is their decision. As to the kind of clothing worn they have positive freedom.
If some native woman wishes to wear bloomers, or any other garment, and some trader sells the article to her—or she, copying the white teacher, elects to make and wear these garments—then we find no regulation forbidding her so to do. Com pulsion, or even direction, in the matter “Solomaniac” mentions, is not part of the training given Seventh-day Adventist con verts.
I am, etc.,
W. G. TURNER, Chairman,
Seventh-day Adventist Mission Board.
Wahroonga,