13
THE K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
Friendly Advice to tke Foreign Board Prof. Robert Dick Wilson, D. D., in “The Presbyterian”
if they would themselves take the initiative and resolve to withdraw as far as possible from the vain attempt to unite in harmonious missionary work those who do and those who do not believe in the essential doctrines of our church. The second error of our Board and of its secretaries has been that they have allowed it to be inferred that they are opposed to the missionaries joining the Bible Ujiion. The purpose of this organization is set forth in the following statement: “B eing' c o n v in ced t h a t th e s ta te of b o th th e C h ris tia n a n d n o n -C h ristia n w o rld ¡demands-, u n ity .of purpq.se and- s te a d f a s t n e ss of e ffo rt in p re a c h in g a n d te a c h in g th e fu n d a m e n ta l a n d s a v in g t r u th s re v e a le d in th e B ible, e sp e c ia lly th o se n o w b ein g a s sa ile d , su c h a s th e d e ity of o u r L o rd a n d S a v io u r Je s u s C h rist, h is v irg in b irth , h is a to n in g sacrifice fo r sin a n d h is- b o d ily r e s u r re c tio n fro m th eV d ead ; th e m ira c le s b o th o f th e O ld a n d N ew T e s ta m e n t: th e p e rs o n a lity a n d w o rk of th e H o ly S p irit; th e n e w b ir th of th e in d iv id u al, a n d th e n e c e s sity of th is a s a n e s s e n tia l p re re q u is ite to C h ristia n so c ia l se rv ice. _ “W e re -a fflrm o u r f a ith in th e w h o le B ib le a s th e in sp ire d W o rd of G od a n d th e u ltim a te so u rc e o f a u th o r ity fo r C h ris tia n f a ith a n d p ra c tic e , a n d u n ite d ly s ig n ify o u r p u rp o se to ‘c o n te n d e a rn e s tly fo r th e f a ith once fo r a ll d e liv e re d u n to th e s a in ts .’ ” It will be seen that this statement is almost exactly the same as the “essential doctrines” of the Presbyterian Church as set forth in the deliverances of the General As semblies of 1910, 1916, and 1923. And yet it is the im pression in China that the Board of Foreign Missions and the secretaries of the Board are not in favor of this Union They willingly and repeatedly advise; the: missionaries to unite with all kinds of men who deny one or more of our essentials; but they let it be supposed that they, are against uniting in a union whose purpose is “to preach and teach the fundamental and saving truth revealed in the Bible” and “to contend earnestly for the faith.” Now, I feel sure that the official action of the Board was in favor of the Bible Union; but I am also sure that the im pression in China is that our Board, and especially some of our secretaries, are against it, and the way for our Board to remove the impression is to publish in full the letter which was sent to answer this letter of the Bible Union of Decem ber, 1921. If this answer be favorable to the Bible Union, then the Board and the secretaries would do well to see to it that the erroneous impression among our foreign miss ionaries is removed. For one thing is certain, that the missionaries have the impression that the Board frowns on the Bible Union, and that their representatives advise against joining it. It is due to the missionaries, it is due to the church at home, that the Board clearly define its position'on this matter, and state this position" publicly; and also, that the Board see to it that its secretaries be not allowed to give the impression that they favor union with those holding all kinds of modernist doctrines, at the same time allowing the impression to get abroad that they are against the one great Union of China which is founded upon the basis of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. The Board would rehabilitate itself in the mind of the church and remove the impression of its laxity in carrying out the deliverances of the General Assembly, if its mem bers would themselves subscribe to the “essential doc trines” and require all of its secretaries to do the same. It would be well also to advise at least all its missionaries and teachers on the foreign field to subscribe to them. Lastly, it should require all new missionaries and teachers, women and men, to subscribe to them before receiving a com mission.
AM very sorry to hear that the Board of Foreign Missions is in danger of another deficit, and that at the end of this year the Board may he a million dollars in debt. This is a serious state of affairs, and seems to indicate that either the Board or the mission aries have failed to retain the confidence of the church. Having just returned from a tour of Japan, Korea and China, where I have been lecturing for five months to the students of many of the colleges, seminaries and confer ences, I take pleasure in stating that most of our own miss ionaries whom I met are above suspicion, both as to their life, doctrine and efficiency. I t ,is my belief that the or dained missionaries of our church are as true to the teach ings of the Confession and as loyal to the Word of God as the ministers at home. No nobler body of propagators and defenders of the faith can be found anywhere th&n the hundreds of men and women of blameless and laborious life,who are representing our church in the lands I have just visited. Nevertheless, while believing that it is our duty to give adequate support to the missionaries already on the field who are loyal to the doctrine of the church, I cannot re frain from stating ¿ny conviction that the Board, and es pecially some of our secretaries, have erred grievously in some of their policies with regard to the work entrusted to them by the church. The first of their errors is the en tangling alliances made with bodies of missionaries diff ering from us in doctrine and policy. There is no better reason that I have heard for such unions on the foreign field than there is at home. If a man believes the Bible to be the Word of God, how can he teach in harmony with a man who does not so believe? If some professors teach the Apostles’ Creed and the inspiration of the Scriptures, while others deny them, how can they teach in harmony and what must be the effect on the students? These Chinese students (as well as the Japanese and Koreans) are just as keen at discerning inconsistencies and incongruities in their professors and teachers as our American students are; and what would the students of Princeton Seminary think if the faculty were teaching diverse views on nearly every great question of theology? What would they have, a right to think? Why, that we were sure of nothing, or the big gest lot of cowards and hypocrites they ever laid eyes on. Union in medical or social work, or in religious work with men who agree with our views of the Bible, may be justifi able; but when attempts are made to combine in religious work men of fundamentally different views, these attempts are bound to be disastrous to the more conservative side. Why, then, should our Board force, or even allow, our miss ionaries in China to unite in faculties, some of whose mem bers are radically different from us in their beliefs and teachings? And yet this is what our Board has deliberately done, with the result that there are but a very few union in stitutions in China whose faculties would subscribe to the essential doctrines set forth in the deliverances of our Gen eral Assemblies of 1910, 1916, and .1923. It is my judg ment that the Board of Foreign Missions would do much to relieve the suspicions of the church at home and abroad,
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker