March 1930
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
126
be done in the Orient which do not fall properly to the foreign missionary to do. Our confirmed opinion is that for missionaries to give themselves primarily to the task of preaching the Gospel, winning souls to Christ, gather ing them into indigenous churches and building them up in Christian faith and practice, is not only the truest ful fillment of Christ’s Great Commission and the thing which is most fruitful of abiding results, but that it is at the same time the soundest and safest missionary policy.' Such indigenous churches, multiplied throughout the land, will in the very nature o f things “ apply” Christianity to every phase and sphere of native life—and they will do it far more safely and effectively than any body of foreign workers can ever do. We cherish the hope that the recent troubles in China, and the ominous changes and particularly the strong na tionalistic trends in other mission fields, may be seen to hold lessons of great value for God’s missionary ser vants, and that they may be the means of clarifying mis sionary vision, and recalling many to policies and methods more closely in harmony with New Testament teaching and example and with the most vital need of the people of every mission land. thought.” No jury would accord them any consideration. No judge would allow them to go before a jury. They are discredited from the start as being “ prejudiced wit nesses.” Have we not read of certain men who, “ professing themselves to be wise, had become” . . . ridiculous? This might without exaggeration have been written of—1 some bishops, even, who ought to know better,—who, we are satisfied, DO know better. It is incredible that' any man of the intelligence and education which a bishop of a great church is presumed to possess, should be so lacking in information, or so ill-informed as to give credence to misinformation so gross. Are we really asked to believe that Bishop Ingram does not know that no literature of the past, whether it be history or biography, is better attested than the four Gospels? That the writings of Herodotus, o f Thucydides, of Livy or of Tacitus, are not so well authenticated? Will he venture to assert that the writings of Virgil, of Sallust, of Horace, are not to be relied upon as substantially genuine and accurate? That “ it seems certain that the sage sayings attributed to Socra tes or Plato or Aristotle, or the orations o f Demosthenes or of Cicero were never uttered by these men at all” ? Were he to do so, would he not justify the suspicion, if not the charge, that “ professing himself to be wise, he had become” . . . ridiculous? Why? Because— First—O f these great secular classics, we have only the most meager “ authorities” in the form of manuscripts or reliable transcriptions. O f originals of either, of course, we have none. Whereas of these four Gospels we have scores of highly attested manuscripts, and literally hun dreds of transcriptions from similar manuscripts, made and preserved with the greatest care by people of great est diversity, in widely separated sections of the world, at different periods centuries apart—YET all in substantial agreement; and (note this well) all containing these same “ statements attributed to our Lord on the subject
social and political fabric was profoundly affected, and the world was remade. If we want fruit we must begin with the root. What a changing world needs, before and above all else, is the redemptive message of the unchanging Christ. It is upon this rock alone that the Church must be built, if that Church is to stand for time and eternity. Christian mis sions are no human undertaking but a divine and super natural enterprise. In carrying on this enterprise we must build upon the foundation of divine revelation, not on that of human presumption and expediency. W ise and U nwise P olicies One word more. Our observation on this recent trip convinced us that the talk which has filled the air about the relation of missionary work to social, industrial and political reconstruction has only tended to breed misun derstanding and suspicion in the minds of the devotees of nationalism in China and other Oriental lands. Such talk has given color to the charge, so false and yet so plausible, that the missionary is in reality the agent of the Western imperialism and capitalism, and is bent on meddling in the affairs of these countries which are none of his business. It is important to remember that there are many things to NDER a similar title The Literary Digest for December 21, 1929, page 23, quotes Bishop Ingram of London as saying, in a sermon in Westminster Cathedral: “ It seems certain that passages in the Gospel of St. Matthew on the subject of future punishment, attributed to our Lord, were not said by our Lord at all!" This from a bishop of a Christian church, in a pulpit known and hon ored the world around as consecrated to the proclamation and the defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God, for human salvation! A bishop himself solemnly consecrated to the same, and as solemnly requiring of his priests upon their ordination at his hands to the priest hood, subscription to a faith in, and a defense of, “ The Holy Scriptures.” Such an assertion, broadcast in this justly celebrated, approved, and influential journal, as also in others of wide circulation, to millions of readers in all parts of the world, seems to call for more than a passing notice. Parenthetically, it may not be out o f place to in quire :— “ What about certain passages of the same import in the Gospels of St. Mark ( 9 :43, 44, 45, 46, 47) and St. Luke (13:27, 28), and parallel “ statements attributed to our Lord” in St. Luke (16:23, 24, 28) ? Be it noted, however, that this is only a pure, bald, assertion of his own individual opinion, unsupported by any proof of any sort whatsoever. Any one can make such a positive, dogmatic assertion upon that, or any other subject, or as regards “ statements attributed” to any other speaker of any period o f the past, as recorded in docu ments the authenticity of which has hitherto enjoyed uni versal acceptance. There is no proof, nor can he adduce any whatever, that these or any other “ sayings attributed to our Lord” on this or any other subject, in the Gospels, “ were not said by our Lord at all.” Such alleged proof as he might bring forward is purely speculative, or drawn from open, avowed, and recognized opponents, even an tagonistic to the Gospels, “ the wish being father to the k-yvA.dvy,
V Drawing the Fires of Hell B y R ev . J ohn .G . R eid , A .M ., P h .D. (Spokane, Washington)
e s c
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter