530
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
September 1928
present order of things, and then on the other hand tells us that nothing is stable, that all is just “ in the making,” that old standards must yet be thrown away, that we must still look to the future for any sound basis, will the sup porters o f that theory be pleased to tell us when we may expect to have something that can be relied upon as a foundation on which to build? That a wise Creator should turn loose an atom o f life to roll on through millions of years before it could attain to an aspect of self-conscious existence, and then must face millions o f more years before any fixed standard o f ethical certainty would hold for the guidance of life and the shap ing o f destiny, is, in very fact, the negation of wisdom. I f the wisdom o f such a Creator is to be maintained with any reasonable degree o f intelligent acceptance, we are forced to believe that such a Creator would at a suitable period, introduce into the process an authoritative voice that would be directive. This authoritative voice has been heard and it is the only ground on which belief in the wis dom of the process is justifiable. To throw out a protoplastic atom and expect it, with out self-conscious existence, to finally emerge through in finite processes of experimental hazards, into the floral beauty o f well-ordered intelligence, seems too staggering to ordinary faith. But, given an authoritative voice di rective of the moral and spiritual issues in the case, we have' a foundation for faith in the Eternal Wisdom. If all that we possess of any moral value is but the sublima tion o f infinite processes of hazardous adventure, includ ing the spheres of morality and religion as well as that o f physical science, and the goal of certainty is still infinitely in the future, then the dove o f faith may go out from the windows of the soul and return without finding a resting place. The waters o f doubt and uncertainty are still un abated. “ If the foundations be destroyed what can the right eous do?” (Psa. 11 :3). Loyalties that affect the character o f destiny must find a resting place on which to plume their wings for higher flights and higher beliefs. That such a resting place can be furnished by a theory that allows for the play only of an infinite series o f adventur ous hazard is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. This alone seems possible on the ground o f a divine voice vibrant in the affairs o f men. God has spoken! “ Is there not a great truth there— in the inherent power of, going on humbly, trustfully, with the business that lies to our hand?” asks J. M. Hunter. “ Often in our daily business we are troubled and distressed, and to ease the burden we turn to other things to help us, as the lepers turned to Jesus. No help, however, comes. Disappoint ment is added to our distress; yet as we turn ourselves again to the dull routine of the task at hand, the cure seems to come by itself. Light comes from going on, and we earn the wages o f going on. Was it not in some such way that Christ appeared after the resurrection to the watchers by the tomb ? At once they ran to give their good news to others. That was the obvious thing— the next and kindly thing to do. ‘And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them.’ A s they went. It is just in some such way that we also shall see Jesus, if our work be done in the self-same spirit|s-if we go on, forgetful o f self.” As They Went “ And it came to pass- that, as they went, they were cleansed” (Luke 17:14).
bow down to it in servitude? N o! Thou shalt not blas pheme the name of God?. N o! . Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy? N o! Who will say it should be re garded in any other way? Honor thy father and thy mother? N o! The Sinaitic decalogue, which has more than Shakespearian genius behind it, must stand if the world is to be saved from anarchy and ruin. Let advocates of a new decalogue come forward with a seriously framed document as an expression o f modern sentimentalism, and we feel sure the better-thinking world would say, “ This did not come from a mountain top”— it would fall so far short of man’s fairest intelligence. When framed it might look like this:— Thou shalt not be behind the times. Thou shalt not drive too furiously on the highway. Thou shalt not spit on the sidewalk. Thou shalt not eat with unwashen hands, etc. Where would this thing end ? It would be a multi- logue that would have to fit into all the social amenities o f life; all the jots and tittles o f barter and trade. To master its provisions would take as long as it takes a Chinaman to become acquainted with all the fanciful char acters o f his native language; a feat which few Chinamen live long enough to accomplish. But if the old decalogue with its general principles is set aside as antiquated and unfit to guide the present generation to a rich destiny of moral worth, how is a new decalogue o f such proportions going to meet the requirements o f a new age? What does a “ New Age” mean? In brief, it will be said in many quarters, “ It is a rebellion against old stand ards.” No one trembles at the thought Sof a “ New Age” if it is confined to the establishment o f mathematical certainties in the sciences. No one would be alarmed for the safety o f things if it were announced that a new force had been discovered in the ether world that wbuld enable man to set out on'interstellar excursions. But when we are told that all the old moral standards are being shaken to their foundations, by the caprices of a new age, then we are driven to think of something cataclysmic. W e think o f an age without law enforcement; murderous; lecher ous; covetous; wilful; disobedient to parents; flying all the colors o f Ephesian apostasy; vain janglers; “ desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm,” unwittingly becoming abet tors of the lawless and disobedient, the unholy and pro fane, murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers, whoremongers, defilers of themselves with mankind, men- stealers, liars, and perjurers, and what not, till the world becomes red with the lurid tongues o f hell. Is this the price that a so-called New Age, chafing upon the bit of moral restraint, is willing to pay for another Statue of Liberty ? Are philosophers utterly indifferent to the far-reaching effects o f their utterances upon an age possessed o f a morbid desire to throw off religious re straints? If an evolutionary process for all things is cor rect, then it has cost man thousands of years to plant his feet on a religio-ethical foundation, from which it is pos sible for him to sanely revise all problems that shape his future destiny. Now he is being asked'to throw to the winds what: he had laboriously attained, and stampede to the ethical jungle of his ape ancestors with an endeavor to rewrite his ethical system which may or may not carry with it anything o f value in the way o f religious sanctions. I f the development theory tells us on the one hand, that hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps millions o f years have been thrown into the process that has given us our
Made with FlippingBook Annual report