1264 Fromthe Subscriber’s Viewpoint . Sikology A Michigan subscriber w rites as follows: “ I am a back number. I don’t be lieve in Wells’ H istory of the World and I have never hung by th e ta il vto a tree. I am one of those old fashioned fellows th a t believe th e Bible. The church I belong to here is going strong. We have musicals and shows and occasionally a sermon. The sermons are mostly about “ Si-kol-ogy” . In spite of it all I am striving to b etter my knowledge of the Bible, and the reading of your magazine helps me. I am interested in getting it into every home th a t I can.” The Chatham Revival Several months ago we p rin ted the advertisem ent of a revival as it appeared in a Chatham , N. J., paper. The advertisem ent assured th e people th a t the evangelist didn’t preach any hell-fire stuff and th a t no one need expect to hear anything about “ salva tion.” We have since had several le t ters from Chathatm, and some th ink the pastor of th e Methodist Church, where thè meetings were held, should be cleared of all suspicion. He says he did not w rite the ad. I t is thought th a t another pastor co-operating in the meetings may have— bu t no' one seems to dare to ask him. While asking us to clear th e Methodist pastor, one correspondent says, “ I used all the powers I had to have a p ro test come from our pastor or th e official board, but .failed. The pastor thought it best to drop th e m a tte r.” Another w rites: “We are all sure our pastor could not have been guilty of w riting such m atter. We have full faith in his orthodoxy.”
TH E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
This is a strange case. If th e pastor is tru e to th e faith, why should he hesitate to issue a statem en t th a t he reg retted the appearauce of- such blasphemous m atter? Why not come out and tell where he stands? We learn th a t the evangelist was Prof. Hannan, of Drew Seminary. Did he preach the old Gospel? Did th e advertisem ent tru ly describe his message? If he does not preach the tru th , why did the Methodist pastor call him and co’-op- erate w ith him, and why should we clear him of responsibility when all these points-remain shrouded in mystery and when he himself has nothing to say? God give us pastors who will come out in the open. Vigorous P io te st A subscriber w rites: “I raise objec tion to T. C. H orton’s comments on Posdick. I am a B aptist and I feel it is slanderous to call such a False-dick a Baptist. He is no Baptist. If he ever was, he has forsaken th e faith. Now he has gone to th e Presbyterians to try his doctrines on them . I can’t help-defending the Baptists from such a scandal.” (Note: Mr. H orton is a P resbyterian, hence it was n atu ra l th a t he should not w ant to claim Posdick as a Presbyte rian. The w riter is a Baptist. We insist th a t Posdick belongs to th e Presby terians. Now le i’s hear from the P res byterians.—K. L. B.) H ere You Have I t
W riting us from Wisconsin, a m inis ter tells of an annual conference at which the presidihg Bishop ridiculed all fundam entalists and spoke of Dr. W. B. Riley as pastor of a church of cranks, which he said it was no g reat ac complishment to be able to g ath er to gether in a large city like Minneapolis. Two young men in th e ir first-year studies under th e conference arose and repudiated th e “ course of study” be cause of its heterodoxical teaching as WATCH FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF PRIZE
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker