June 1929
262
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
Hell will be something like this. I mean in respect to the feeling of its occupants toward one another. Imagine, if you can, the arrival in that eternal prison-house of some “great” man who, while upon earth, by his teachings caused hundreds of human souls to be sent to the same place in advance of himself. It is not pleasant to think about. We do not know whether there will be “sardonic laughter” in hell, but we do know there will be the “gnash ing of teeth.” For this we have the word of the Lord. Following the Example of Peter P OPE PIUS X, who died in 1914, once appealed to. the example of the Apostle Peter as a precedent for breaking a custom of the Popes. Pius, who was a sociable sort of person, gave orders that a place at his own table be prepared for his personal secretary. The Vatican Court official protested, saying, “The Holy Father always eats alone.” “Is that so?” re plied thé Pope. “Are you quite certain that St. Peter always ate alone ?” The appeal to St. Peter settled the mat ter, and the Pope ate with his secretary, which is to his credit. If the example of Peter may be taken as authority for breaking this particular Papal custom, students of Church History will wonder why some other more important Papal customs are not abolished upon the same authority. For example: Peter was never called “His Holiness.” Peter never regarded himself as the “Rock” upon which the Church is built (1 Peter 2:6-8). Peter never claimed to be the supreme head of the Church upon earth, but regarded himself as an elder among the other elders (1 Peter 5:1), an apostle among the other apostles. Peter was not a celibate, but was the head of a Christian home (Mark 1:30). Peter never claimed temporal sovereignty for either the church or himself (1 Peter 2:13-14). Peter never heaped curses upon his enemies in his official capac ity as an apostle, as some of the Popes have done, but taught just the opposite (1 Peter 2:21-23). If the Papacy had always followed the example of the Apostle Peter, Christian people would not regard it with suspicion and aversion. And the pages of Church History would be more readable. An Encouraging Sign of the Times T HE signs of the times are not all depressing. The fol lowing notice recently appeared in the always inter esting weekly calendar of the First Brethren Church of Long Beach, California : Put this down in your notebook once and for all—the First Brethren Church of Long Beach stands for the clean, wholesome, separated Christian walk and experience. If you see some mem ber of this church sneaking into a modern movie and delighting himself or herself in the obscene suggestions received there in word and picture; or, if you see them come crawling out of a licentious dance hall wherein lovely womanhood is constantly being debased and the right to fondle sold cheap to the common herd; or, if you see them buying a lascivious magazine from one of these news-stands, the stench from which would make a turkey-buzzard vomit; or, if you hear them reeling off a story reeking with putrid filth; or, if you see them flinging around the recognized pasteboards of every gambler, even though in so- called “highly respectable society,”—just remember that The Brethren Church at Fifth and Cherry stands for none of these things, and as members of this church, they are sailing under false colors. Some of these days, they will either repent and confess their sins, or go out from us, of their own accord or otherwise, and join those “beggarly elements of the world” to which they assuredly belong 1
Best of all, He can control this tremendous force and direct it toward constructitve ends. It will be a better world when He gets through with it. We “look for new heavens and a new earth” (2 Peter 3 :13). The main thing is to be ready. ■ —o—— . The “God” of Pantheism P ROFESSOR EINSTEIN , famous for his relativity theory of the universe, has been accused of atheism by a Roman Catholic Cardinal. This charge is indignantly denied by, a Jewish Rabbi, who claims that the great phys icist believes in God. Einstein’s own version of the matter is that he believes in the god of Spinoza, the noted Jewish philosopher. Now theoretically, the Jewish Rabbi is right. But prac tically the Catholic Cardinal has the best of the argument. For the man who believes in the god of Spinoza might just as well say that he believes in no god. Spinoza was perhaps the most thoroughgoing Pantheist that ever lived; to him nothing existed but God. Therefore, technically speaking, Spinoza was no atheist. But mark well, this god of the philosopher was identical with the world. Actu ally then, from the Christian viewpoint, Spinoza was no better than an atheist. The Pantheist has nothing more than the rankest Materialist. Both the Materialist and the Pantheist start with the same world. Neither of them admits the existence of anything outside or above the world. The only difference between them is that the Materialist looks at the world and calls it “matter,” while the Pantheist looks at the same world and calls it “God.” It is merely a matter of calling the same thing by different names. Two little boys were riding tandem on a broomstick. One of them got tired and said, “It ain’t nothing but a stick of wood.” The other boy, being more of an idealist, replied indignantly, “It is too. It’s a horse.” Here you have in embryo the only essential difference between the Ma terialist and the Pantheist. The one has more imagina tion than the other. But both deal with precisely the same object. The whole controversy between the Materialists and the Pantheists is nothing more than a case of “verbal ism.” The God of the Christian is not Einstein’s “god.” We believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. Our God is in the world as its sustaining power, but He is- also beyond and above the world, distinct from the world. — o — A Preview of Hell AFTER a bitter legal battle, Asa Keyes, former district A attorney of Los Angeles,, has been convicted of brib ery and conspiracy to obstruct the ends of justice, and is sentenced to serve a term in San Quentin prison. When the news of Keyes’ conviction and sentence reached the prison, it is reported that the prisoners laughed long and “sardonically.” The explanation of this sardonic laughter is that some two thousand convicts are in San Quentin because they were prosecuted by Mr. Keyes during his long term as district attorney. The warden at San Quentin plans to put Mr. Keyes in a cell separated from all the other prisoners. He will not be allowed to mingle with them, and for exercise he will be taken into a separate ward. All this special care is for the purpose of keeping the other convicts from killing him.
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker