April 1930
174
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
the spirit of this dead leader. A prominent missionary leader who is thoroughly familiar with the situation in China, writes to the Editor that he is inclined to question the accuracy of this statement. But he adds: “As to officials of government and students of government schools being required regularly to bow in obeisance before Sun Yat Sen’s portrait, I know this to be quite true. It is also true that pressure has been brought upon all missionary institutions of higher learning to conform, by stipulating that schools which do not exclude religious teaching and practice this obeisance to Sun Yat Sen will not be registered and thereby recognized by the govern ment, and their graduate's will not be considered eligible for positions in the government system. Many mission schools refuse this compromise, preferring to forfeit recognition, or, if need be, to close altogether rather than submit. Yet there are schools which conform rather than lose the advantage of gaining government and popular recognition. In doing this they take the ground that the ‘bowing’ implies only respect and not worship.” This demand of the Chinese Government appears to be a repetition of a former similar requirement of bowing before the portrait of Confucius. This order was given at a time when effort was being made to check the growing influence of Christianity and the popularity of mission schools. The movement was short lived and gave place to this new idea of deifying and heroizing Sun Yat Sen. The missionary leader above quoted says further: “The whole thing is a cheap boom and it is a question if it will survive long. For this reason I claim that compromise by missionaries and their schools is poor policy, no less than bad principle and inconsistent Christian practice. Even if it can not be proved conclusively that the ‘bowing’ signifies ‘worship,’ yet it is one of the doubtful things of which Romans 14 treats, and there is ho doubt that many Chinese Christians—the more spiritually minded—regard the matter as compromising and wrong.” A somewhat similar situation in India is described in an English exchange, The Citadel of Truth. Some months ago there appeared in a periodical published by one of the leading’and most popular Christian leaders of India, and one well known in America, the editor’s answer to the following query: “Why do Christians oppose idolatry? Hindus do not worship idols but use them to direct their thoughts toward God.” The answer was in part as fol lows: “It is quite legitimate to use a representation to help orte to think of God—an image showing His love, as a crucifix, would be helpful. . . . If we really only intend the image to help us to think of God, and are opposed to the worship of such images, then we must make sure that no ceremony of consecration ( prana- pratishtha) is performed Upon it. According to the Hindu tradition it is this ceremony which is regarded as making the idol sacred by bringing God into it. Before this cere mony it is only a piece Of wood or stone. . . . The best thing that reformers can do, therefore, is to start a move ment for the abolition of pranapratishtha. If this once isappeared, it would become clear afterward that those who still used idols used them only for the help they gave in directing the thought to God,” Surely this is treading very near the border line of denial of Christ and Christianity, and partnership with idolatry. The editor of The Citadel of Truth very aptly remarks: “The command was, ‘Thou shalt not MAKE unto thee any graven image.’ It was not merely a com mand not to worship.”
This . . . is the religion and the daring program of Humanism—a religion and program concerned with and con fined to the world. No knowledge, no thought, no care of another world and another life, a religion with God left out; a religion with Christ left out; a religion that takes no account of sin; a religion that makes man his own god and his own saviour and the maker of his own happiness; a religion of gloom and darkness; a religion that smothers the fires of hope and mocks the miseries of a miserable world. But why this notice and publicity of this godless, gloomy religion? For the one purpose of calling attention to its existence and pretensions; to its nature and its progress; that our people may know what Christianity is up against; that they may know something of the plans, purposes and programs of its militant foes. The world-situation is tremendously serious. Never was there a time when it was more needful, more imperative that God-lov ing, God-fearing, God-serving, loyal Christian men and women should give earnest heed to the exhortation, “Earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” Neutrality or Definiteness D R. A. Z. CONRAD, well-known pastor of the his toric Park Street Congregational Church, Boston, never sounds an uncertain note. For many years he has proclaimed to conservative New England a constructive message with a positive emphasis, born of deep convic tion. At the heart of American Unitarianism, he has bold ly preached a Gospel that has exalted Christ, the Son of God and the Redeemer of sinful men. Dr. Conrad has been opposed, maligned and persecuted, but has prospered as he has held aloft the banner of the Cross. He has a right to speak with a bit of sarcasm that is without malice con cerning “modern Laodiceans” who are found “bowing assent to, every wind of doctrine in the name of peace.” He would have men believe their beliefs with a certainty that cannot be unsettled, and speak out their convictions with a clearness and definiteness that no amount of oppo sition can tempt them to change. The following para graph, written by Dr. Conrad for The Bible Champion, is worth repeating; A nauseating neutrality is the bane of religion. Only the positive aggressive note makes a successful leadership. The disposition to be all things to all men has its good features, but when dealing with matters of vital importance it simply will not do. Wherever there is positive conviction, well founded, there is sure to be a very, very clear declaration and an unequiv ocal decision. Not one step in human progress has been taken as the result of a soft and unthinking amiability. A senseless suavity never leads to great campaigns. Great ventures in the interests of Kingdom-building have been inaugurated by men with positive belief based on supernatural revelation. Convic tionless men are spineless and ineffective. Truth is truth and should have fearless advocacy. Right is right and demands fervent and zealous support. m ttfiQ u 't 0 Concessions to Heathen ism ^ HE tendency to surrender the claim of Christianity to be the one supreme divine revelation becomes more and more marked. Ethnic religions are held up as exhibitions of God’s revelation, similar to,’ though not perhaps of equal merit or value with, Christianity. The old idea that idolatry has no likeness to Christianity and must be utterly repudiated, has given way to a give-and- take policy. While thus the attitude of professed Chris tianity is becoming more conciliatory, the attitude of heathenism toward Christianity is, on the other hand, very frequently becoming more hostile. Matters are coming to a crisis in some lands,' and notably at present in China. It has been claimed that President Chiang Kai Shek goes daily to the tomb of Sun Yat Sen to commune with
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs