December 1929
T h e
569
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
has given dominance to a series of somewhat nebulous philosophical concepts. The liberalist theologian, for bet ter or worse, has been ousted by the philosopher who came into his workshop to serve him. . . . The second result of the modern treatment is found in a lesser emphasis upon several important theological postulates, and in the substitution for these of other forms of thought carrying a lower degree of evangelistic content. The following changes are especially evident: The emphasis upon the Deity of Christ has swung to the acceptance of His per sonal worth. Belief in the necessity of the death of Jesus to expiate human guilt is displaced by emphasis upon the supremacy of His moral influence and the splendor of His spiritual teaching. The supernatural has been in geniously scaled down to the natural, and for the supreme and final authority of the revelation of the Scriptures has been substituted the coordinate authority of Christian consciousness. In the same category is the displacement of the objective value and validity of prayer by an unsatis fying conception of its subjective psychological advan tage.” This new theology need but be stated to show that it has totally changed the evangelical message and lacks the power to lead sinners to seek salvation through Jesus Christ. There can be no sense of grief or shame, such as is aroused in a sinner’s mind when he believes that his sin brought the Saviour to the cross. If the supernatural is ruled out there is no sense of responsibility to God, and conscience becomes seared. Dr. Chown also refers to the effect of modern psy chology upon evangelism. He quotes Professor William James, the eminent psychologist, at length. If, with Dr. James, it is acknowledged that conversion “in its essence is a normal adolescent phenomenon incidental to the passage from the child’s small universe to the wider intel lectual and spiritual life of maturity,” no room is left for the preaching of the old Gospel message in the old way. And, again, when Dr. James declares that “some persons never are, and possibly never under any circumstances could be converted,” he most evidently paralyzes evangel ism. Dr. Chown well says, “If these affirmations be the findings of a true psychologist, then scholarism has dis placed evangelism, and the memory and work of the great evangelistic leaders of the church deserve only oblivion.” Is World Peace Possible? P H IL IP MARSHALL BROWN, Professor of Inter national Law, Princeton University, is recognized as an authority on international affairs. Writing in Current History on “The Main Factors of Disarmament” he pre sents views that give little comfort to the extremist, be he a militarist or a pacifist. To the idealists who “feel that armaments may no longer be employed for national de fense,” he says that such a view “denies the practical experience of daily life . . . and makes no appeal to the common sense of mankind.” To those who count on arbitration as a method to settle all disputes he answers: “The essential interests of a nation may not be safely left in the hand of third parties. It is very- doubtful whether any important arbitration ever averted a war.” The Permanent Court of International Justice is like wise ruled out as an effective agent to bring peace because it deals with legal questions and “purely legal matters rarely ever cause war.” The Kellogg Pact for the Renun ciation of War, valuable as it may be as an expression of
desire to avert war, permits wars of defense, does not demand disarmament, and does not “provide any sanc tions against a nation violating the pact.” Furthermore, there is no final remedy to be fpund through the League of Nations, for it is not a super-state and has no method of dealing with outlaw nations—Russia, for example. Where, then, is the final remedy? Professor Brown frankly admits it remains yet to be found. He would avoid extremes, saying: “If there is a need of intellectual disarmament on the part of those who thinlc militaristi- cally, there is also a need to avoid the intellectual dis armament which would lull us into illusionment and a false sense of security, having disastrous results.” The warning to extremists may well be heeded by Christian leaders. There is unquestionably a duty laid upon the Church to resist by proper means the war-mind- edness which is fostered by militaristic propaganda; some times issued at the expense of the manufacturers of engines of war. But that does not warrant the conclusion that all weapons of war should be scrapped, without con cern for national security. The millennium has not yet arrived. —o— A New Confession of Faith S EVERAL exchanges recently have commented on the increasing popularity of a “Confession of Faith,” written by Professor William G. Ballantine, which is dis placing in church ritual the Apostles’ Creed. As it may be unfamiliar to some readers of T he K ing ’ s B usiness it is reproduced, with apologies: I believe that God loves us like a Father, that He hears prayer, that He gives food to the hungry, strength to the weak, comfort to the sorrowful, light to those in darkness, and for giveness to the penitent. I believe in loving my neighbor as myself, in doing to others as I would be done by, and in helping those in distress even when of a different race or religion. I believe that God looks upon kindness to a'"child as a per sonal favor to Himself. I believe that service to others gives the truest happiness and that service is the measure of greatness. I believe in the forgiveness of injuries. I believe that love and peace will finally prevail on earth and I look for unending life after death. Amen. A comparison between this and the Apostles’ Creed will show to even a careless reader that they have very little in common. The old creed is Biblical, the new might have come out of almost any religious literature. The thoughts of the old are lofty, sublime and mysterious, because filled with divine wisdom; the sentiments of the new are commonplace. The God of the old creed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who “so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son”; the God of the new is a sentimental Being who seems never to have any concern about offenses against His holy law. The heart and center of the old creed is the Lord Jesus Christ portrayed in all the majesty and mystery of His person and wonder of His grace, without whom there could be no Christianity; in the new He is not so much as named. The Church has always believed that the for giveness of sins has been purchased through the redemp tion of Christ; in this new theology the idea of the guilt of sin is wholly absent. The new confession looks for the final establishment of love and peace upon the earth, but it says nothing about the coming of Christ, the Judge of the living and the dead, or of the resurrection of the body.
Made with FlippingBook HTML5