King's Business - 1913-10

The King’s Business

Voi. 4

(^OCTOBER, 1913

No. 10

A Periodical that is Untrue to Its Platform and Its Pledges I N March of thd present year appeared the first number of “The Constructive Q u a r t e r l y The name was timely and attractive. If“ would seem as if there were great need of a quarterly that should prove in actual fact to be constructive. The platform of this quarterly as announced in the Introduction to this first number had a cheering sound. It read “The QUAR­ TERLY. invites the free, living and deliberate statement of actual, operative belief. Twq conditions are imposed: First, that the Faith and Work and Thought of each Communion shall be presented in its absolute integrity in­ cluding and not avoiding differences | and second, that no attack with polemical animus shall be made upon others.” And now comes the first amazing fact: in this very number in which this program is announced, by far the longest article in it is “an attack with polemical animus” upon The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, and other Bible Institutes which are specifically named, and upon such theological seminaries as Princeton, Xenia and the Baptist Seminary at Louisville (which the writer .evidently hardly dared to specifically name lest The Seminary over which he presides himself should suffer by a comparison of scholarly ability, and of numbers, and so his whole argument not only lose all force but become absolutely ludicrous in the eyes of all persons who know the facts in lie case). But this is not all: not only is this article manifestly and opei^ polemical, and thus in direct and flagrant violation of the pledges made by the “Editor,” it also abounds in mean insinuation, gross misrepresentation, and an almost incredible discourtesy toward those with whom the writer differs. It is marked by the spirit and tone of a type of theological controversy that' is happily largely a matter of the past. We will give but a single illustration. The writer, “Shailer Mathews, A. M., D. D., Dean of the Divinity School, The University of Chicago,” says: “The theological thinking, if such it may be called, of the various Bible Institutes which have grown up in Chicago, New York, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other cities is frankly opposed to anything like critical thought. . . . This literalism carried to extremes, has given rise to such movements as that of Dr. Dowie, the ‘Holy Rollers/ the ‘Millennial Dawn,’ ‘the Church of the Nazarenes,’ and various Pre-millenarian groups, many of which tend towards, even if they do not practice, faith healing.” These words need no comment. Any intelligent and fair minded person who is .at all conversant with the matters in question can at once see for himself how untrue these words are in their statement, and how mean they are in their implications. They will also notice their covert and gratuitous insult to all Pre-millenarians. We will not stop to discuss at this time the question of Premillenarianism or Postmillenarianism; but, whether Premil- lenarianism be true or not, every one who has studied this subject knows that many of the ripest scholars in America, England, Scotland, Germany and other lands are avowed Premillenarians. It would seem as if no one who has

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker