4
THE K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
January, 1940
harmony in relation to everything else. There needs to be not only faith but actually a maximum of faith. This view does not refute the idea of faith that is like a “grain of mustard seed” which is able to remove mountains. Here the minimum does not conquer the maxi mum. But it does infer that if we used our present faith, be it as a grain of seed, its use would solve our greatest problems. Faith is not human in origin. We do not create it, but rather acquire it. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” And thus, if we would have a maximum faith, it will be the result of our consistent contact with the source of all faith—the Bible.
in a crisis, the greatest in our history, by proclaiming the teachings of the Bible and living them. Maximum Life on Minimum Faith It has been said, and wisely so, that many people are exemplifying the trage dy of “trying to lead a maximum life on a minimum faith.” The Scriptures say concerning God!s view of faith, “Without faith it is impossible to please him.” This statement refers not merely to some mystic quality of divine pleas ure but just as much to its normal re action in the quality of human life. The life that is out of step with God is out of step with everything else. The life that is out of tune with God is in dis-
The spirit of Christianity was kept out of the peace conference. The seeds of future wars were sowed in the name of peace. GUESSING G A M E : In approximately six months, the Democratic and Repub lican presidential candidates will have been nominated. For the first time in many campaigns, the identity of the nominees is not reasonably certain at this short time in advance of the con ventions. At least eighteen months before the 1936 conventions, it was known with fair certainty that Governor Landon would oppose President Roosevelt. Two years in advance of the 1932 conventions, it was virtually assured that Governor Roosevelt of New York would oppose President Hoover. Even three years in advance of 1928, it was generally con ceded that if President Coolidge did not “choose” to run, Herbert Hoover would be the likely opponent of Gov ernor Alfred E. Smith. Today, however, all is in a state of complete uncertainty. While Senator Vandenberg and Thomas Dewey seem to have the “inside track” in the Re publican race, there is no conclusive rea son to suppose that either necessarily will be the nominee. If President Roose velt fails to stand for a third term, the Democratic scene will turn into a simi lar scramble. Farley, McNutt, Hull and Garner seem to have the best chance—but there Is no certainty that any one of the four will be the object for the “lightning” to strike. For the first time since 1920, the chances permit of the possibility of two “ dark horses.” But, of course, the chances also permit of the possibility of almost any other conceivable set-up. In Washington, D. C., the “experts” do not even profess to know. One man’s guess is as good—or as poor—as an other’s. Mr. for Rev. Nothing so infuriates a minister named Jones as being called “Reverend Jones.” Reverend is an adjective, not a title. If a parson is not a doctor (D, D. or Ph. D.), he is, like other men, a mister.* Last week the Ministerial As sociation of Lansing, Mich., formally resolved that “in addressing one an other, or in referring to one another in speech or in writing, we discard all titles except that of mister.” Lansing’s rev erend misters hoped that their friends and the press would stop infuriating them.—From Time, November 27, 1939. *In good usage " Reverend‘ is not found with only a last name after it. In correct: Reverend Jones. Correct: the Reverend Dr. Jones; the Reverend J• A , Jones; the Reverend M r. James Aloysius Jones. — Time.
Views and Reviews of Current News By DAN GILBERT Washington, D. C., and San Diego, California
all past ages, dictatorship has found that “religion” which leaves out Christ and the Bible is as deadly a weapon as atheism itself. Dr. Gaebelein, I believe, wrote a book entitled Religion vs, Christianity. The strong points it brings out may well be impressed upon the minds of our peo ple today. Religion, as such, is the en emy of Christianity. And religion, as such, is the enemy of democracy. It is Christianity which is the creator and the conservator of Constitutional lib erty and American democracy. AFTER THE WAR— ? Men do not like to contemplate the horrors that must be ahead in the current war. Hence, they try to look beyond the struggle itself to the peace which, they hope, will come eventually. Both sides are promising a “new Europe,” after the victory. Both sides promise to cre ate a new era of perpetual peace and prosperity, once victory is achieved. There is good ground for not taking solid stock in any of these promises. During the last World War, there were many assurances of “a peace without victory.” There were promises of “ a treaty without vengeance.” Lip service was paid by all to the noble principles and the Christian precepts set forth by Woodrow Wilson in his famous “points.” Once the war was won, however, the forces of greed and vengeance were un leashed. Wilson was rendered helpless. Among the leading powers, only Amer ica refused to accept colonies and repar ations. The other victorious powers for got their promises of “justice tempered by mercy” and gave way to greed and rapacity.
RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY; A dec ade ago, many of our foremost political commentators and social scientists re garded democracy as a m e c h a n i c a l structure, which required no other sup port than an adequate police force and a strongly organized public opinion. To day, many of these same observers are conceding that democracy requires the additional support of articulate religious faith. The experience of the European de mocracies has shown rather clearly that dictatorship is inseparable from a mili tant anti-religious sentiment approach ing outright atheism. As dictatorship is necessarily allied with atheism, so de mocracy cannot exist without the sup port of religion. This is far from a “new” idea. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned that reli gious faith was the bulwark of Ameri canism. Indeed, he went so far as to say that no enemy of religion could claim “ the tribute of patriotism,” since the infidel was engaged in tearing down the foundations of the American re public. In considering the relationship of re ligion to democracy, however, it is need ful to avoid sweeping generalizations. It is well to be specific. Democracy historically has been the flower and fruitage of Christianity. Horace Greeley said, "A Bible-reading and a Bible- believing people is always a free people.” Nations which have “religion” but do not have the. Bible are never free and democratic lands. Bible-less, Christ-less religion provides as effective an ally for tyranny as do atheism and agnosticism. Only in this “scientific” age do we find atheism implementing dictatorship. In
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter