September 1930
413
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
I ed
ßditorial (Somment -Q^> I
!
I
Miracle Myth or Miracle Book—Which? FEW months ago Professor Wooley found at the traditional site of Ur of the Chaldees positive proof that the Biblical story of the flood is founded upon fact. A new confirmation is fur nished by Prof. Stephen Herbert Langdon who has been excavating at the ancient site of Kish, located riot far from Babylon. He discovered a buried city under a mud stratum eighteen inches thick upon which later civilizations had been built. At both Ur and Kish there is conclusive evidence that the pre-flood period had a much higher, grander civilization than that which suc ceeded the catastrophe. Thus again there is verification of the early chapters of Genesis. They certainly contain accurate history which must have been obtained from reliable records. And yet many “modern scholars,” in spite o f these corroborations of Scripture, would have us believe that there was a “ flood myth” carried forward for centuries and even mil lenniums through times of darkness and superstition, and that only a few centuries before the Christian era, after many writers and revisers had been occupied with the task, the story as we have it was completed. That would be a miracle myth indeed. How much easier it is to believe in a miracle Book. — o— What is a Christian School? T HE American Magazine for June published an inter view with Dean Shailer Mathews, of the Chicago School of Theology. In this he is quoted as saying that in their institution they are “ putting religion to the test.” He outlines their program somewhat as follows: Today we do not require Hebrew or Greek for gradu ation. We use no textbook in Theology. The Bible is studied as a rich case-book o f religious experience, but not as an infallible revelation. The life of Jesus is taken as an example of perfect, coordination and cooperation be tween a human being and the personally-responsive forces o f the universe, under conditions of His time. Beyond formal courses in religion, an almost unlimited range of subjects is open to students. They touch most o f the sci ences enough to learn their technique. The Dean goes on to say that they teach mental hy giene in order that students may learn how to deal with people who are troubled by fears, worries, and complexes. They study sociology to discover, among other things, what such “ social factors” as sunlight, housing, divorce, and gangs have to do with making a people good or bad. The approach is experimental. They first seek the facts. Second, they inquire what religion can do. Third, they ask, “ What technique does scientific knowledge suggest?” In such a school they evidently teach that religion is man-made. They study the Bible as a man-made Book which details many varieties of human experience. Their final authority in religion, if they have any, seems to be man-made science. The result, of necessity, will be the
worship of a man-made God. The whole thing rises no higher than human genius and speculation can go. It will never lead the student to the Lord Jesus Christ. It will probably land him either in the lap of Buddha or in the despair of infidelity. It is quite unnecessary to attempt to point Out that such a School of Religion bears no sort of resemblance to a Biblical “ school of the prophets.” It is not, and never has been, unscholarly to believe that God still lives and loves, that He speaks with authority in His Word, and that the well-being of sinful men depends upon their readjustment to His will and plan. A school that ,does not lead souls to a divine Saviour may. be a “ School of Religion,” but it cannot be called Christian. — o — Do Doubters Want to Believe? D R. ROBERT DICK W ILSON deals with critics of the Bible in a very direct and effective way. After teaching for half a century he knows what ails the doubter and is expert in dealing with him. In Christianity Today for June he writes as follows: I have learned that if they give me a student who wants to believe in God and His Word, his objections and doubts as to both will be dissipated by showing him the fal lacies and absurdities that underlie the objections and doubts which he has had; and, on the other hand, his faith will be awakened and strengthened by presenting the evi dence in favor of it and the reasonableness of it in the light o f the divine revelation presented in the Scriptures. Three simple things stand out in this brief statement: First, the student must “want to believe in God and His Word” if he is to be convinced. A modernist may have a “ closed mind,” saying dogmatically, for instance, that he cannot believe in miracles. If he takes such an attitude upon philosophical grounds his case is practically hopeless. The late Dr. R. A. Torrey was asked once how it happened that an old friend of his, once an evangelical preacher, had become a modernist. He replied, “ I do not know how it happened, but I know when he began to drift —when he came in contact with big money as the pastor of a wealthy city church.” That was not the first time that big money or popularity in “ this present world” caused a man to depart from the faith. He wanted to doubt because of present gain. ■Second, it is an easy matter to prove to one who is willing “ to believe in God and His Word” that “ the assured results” of modern criticism are nothing better than wild guesses and speculations. Dr. Wilson would do the church a great favor if he would write a book in which he gave a list of the critical theories concerning the Old Testament during the past fifty years which were once held to be settled facts and are now wholly discarded. Third, the evidence in favor of the Bible is so abundant to the reverent, obedient student that serious doubts can not enter his mind. This is not to say that there is no room for proper scholarly research. It was never more needed than today.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report