January 1929
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
20
the history of the Old Testament. Critics of the Book may talk themselves blue, but one fact is worth a thousand fancies, and two facts will put ten thousand guesses to ridicule. Does it not behoove God’s people to insist that objective data rather than whimsical guesses be used as criteria of criticism, in dealing with the relation of God and man? We may not need scientific data to support our faith, for we have had a personal introduction to our Saviour through the Holy Spirit, and can read with a Spirit-opened eye. But these data are the only means for establishing the historical and geographical facts of the Scripture. What can be the answer of an honest mind, when one finds a mounting mass of supporting evidence, and not a shred of suggestion of Scriptural inaccuracy in the monuments of the past ?
probable, for the burning of brick was made possible by the more abundant wood supply. Of the two cities still earlier we had a mere glimpse in the last few days, by sinking a shaft down to the bed-rock of the hill. The earliest settlers seem to have built largely of wood, for there were no walls in the small area of burned debris examined. A few broken objects of pottery served to establish that the earliest settlement was not later than the 21st century, and probably even 2200 B. C. That takes us back to the time when Abraham’s forebears were still living in Mesopotamia, when only God knew that this was a land destined to belong to His specially chosen people. What are the results and permanent values of the time and money expended in moving stones and dust? Archeology affords the only factual means of evaluating
Uè 'és> a»
The Kind o f a Church We Need B y th e R ev . J ohn W ood
S VERY church member is familiar with the f “What kind of a church would this church be If every member were just like me?” It is a recognition that the church is no better than its individual membership. The important question before the church attendant today is—What kind'of a church do we need in this 20th century to meet the needs of the times in which we live? It should be a church with a dominant note. The story is told of a Roman senator that, at the close of every ad dress he made in the Senate chamber, he would close with the same sentence—“Carthage must be taken.” He was a man of one outstanding idea and dominant note. The result was that the idea percolated into the minds of his fellow legislators and Carthage was taken. The dominant note of the church of the 20th century should be :J|-Sin must be taken and laid captive at the feet of Jesus Christ. The 2nd Chapter of Acts gives us a picture of the kind of a church we need today. It is a picture of the First Christian church as the body of believers in Christ as the Risen Son of God and Saviour—and Redeemer of the world. That early church was the product of a special need and a special power. It was grounded and born in the Pentecostal spirit of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost in spiritual power. Therefore, the church we need today is a Pentecostal church, not the kind of organization that bears that name with its attendant “speaking in tongues” and “holy rolling,” but a church baptized and saturated with the divine spirit manifested in the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. That church of the early day was a broad church, broad !n the sense that it came to meet the needs of all men. It took in all humanity. It reached out to the utter most ends of the earth, “None need perish; all might live, for Christ had died.” I t was broad in its theology, not narrow in its interpretations of salvation, that all might be partakers of the spiritual gifts in Christ Jesus. It was broad in its mission, working for the salvation of the whole man.
A N arrow C hurch N eeded 2nd. That early church was a narrow church; it had only one Master, Jesus Christ. It was narrow in its mem bership; its membership was made up of men and women who believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Master, Saviour and Redeemer. It specialized on “saving souls.” It taught men that they were “citizens of two worlds,” this and another. 3rd. That early church was a generous church, not stingy, close-fisted; but open handed, open hearted, recog nizing the meaning of “Stewardship.” 4th. That early church was a, sympathetic church. There was a “fellow-feeling, wondrous kind,” existing among its members. They remembered the “two bears,” “bear and forbear,” and they lived in sympathetic relation ship with each other. 5th. It was a constant church; “They continued stead fast.” They were constant and consistent. They not only made a beginning but they “held out” ; they were true to the vows they had taken and the obligations they had assumed. 6th. The early church was progressive, wide-awake, aggressive, missionary. The live church is a missionary church. The selfish church, the self-centered church, dies. The old philosophy was: “You keep only what you give.” This is the teaching of Jesus concerning losing one’s life and finding it. It is true of the church. 7th. The early Church was an evangelistic church. It was insistent on a change in the lives of its member ship. The church is more than a club or forum, it is a group of believers who have been “born again,” and this spirit sent them out as evangelists seeking the winning of souls. The early church was a place where o needy sinner could meet a waiting Saviour and find peace and rest. 8th. The early church was a Christian church; Christ was the vital center of its being. The Apostles were the preachers, and they preached “Christ and Him crucified.” 9th. I t was an orthodox church; the believers held to the great verities of the Christian faith. They could declare:—“I believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker