6
January 1930
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
niscience and omnipresence of God is lost, and with it has disappeared reverence and the desire to worship Him. The case for Fundamentalism is taken by Mr. Lipp- mann from Dr. Machen’s book “ Christianity and Lib eralism,” which he praises very highly as “ the best popu lar argument produced by either side in the current con troversy.” He adds: Dr. Machen insists, rightly, I think, that the influence of Christianity has depended upon the belief that an historic drama was enacted in Palestine nineteen hundred years ago . . . The veracity of that story was fundamental to the Christian Church. Dr. Machen goes to the very heart of the matter when he in sists that you have destroyed the popular foundations of re ligion if you make your gospel a symbolic record o f experience, and reject it as an actual record of events. And the Liberals have yet to answer him when he says that the Christian movement was based, not on mere feeling, but on an account of facts . . . Christianity was certainly a way of life. But how was the life to be produced? Not by appealing to the human will, but by telling a story; not by exhortation, but by the narration of an event. Thus Mr. Lippmann counts Dr. Machen’s victory over the Liberals to be complete. His testimony, as an unbe liever, that Liberalism is not Christianity, is most interest ing. — o — Conciliation or Controversy I T may not be easy to determine upon an attitude to ward the Roman Catholic Church which would apply to all conditions in all lands. Rome has always been able to shrewdly adapt her method to her environment. Yet her attitude, at heart, toward Protestantism never changes. In lands where she is in power, politically as well as ecclesiastically, she never hesitates to persecute those who differ with her. What should be the attitude of Protestants under such conditions? Should they avoid such lands altogether, acknowledging that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church giving a satisfac tory message? Or, being there, should the missionary, in the face of persecution, adopt a conciliatory or a contro versial attitude and method? Such questions as the above arose in Buenos Aires on the occasion of the recent visit of Dr. E. Stanley Jones. In a conference with national pastors of all denominations he expressed his opinion frankly that the Protestants had little influence in those lands because they gave themselves up to controversy. He referred to his own attitude toward Hinduism, saying that he combatted Hinduism without naming it. When asked what he would advise these pastors to do if they were attacked by the Romanists, he admitted that they had a right to defend themselves. One of the native pastors above referred to, Rev. Juan C. Varetto, gives a vigorous answer to Stanley Jones, a translation of which is published in The Latin American Evangelist. He declares that Dr. Jones was uninformed and not competent to speak with such assur ance, for he gave expression to his opinions the day after he landed. Further, in reply to the statement that the Protestants were without influence because of their con troversial attitude, he declares the contrary to be the fact, for the most vigorous controversialists have always been the men who had the greatest success. As to the sug gestion that they should follow Dr, Jones’ method with Hinduism—that is, to attack Romanism without naming it—Pastor Varetto rather caustically replies : “W e are not partial to such underhand methods. We do not strike a man in the back treacherously.” Again, with regard to ■the right to defend one’s self when attacked, the answer is
made that the Protestant is always attacked in these lands and must always defend himself. After all, the fact remains* as Pastor Varetto says: It is impossible to preach faithfully the truths of the Bible without coming into open conflict with Romanism . . . . It is only necessary to proclaim that there is “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,’’ to be found attacking Mariolatry and the worship of saints................ Only a Gospel without color and without savor can avoid con flict with the church which calls itself Christian but which has perverted every doctrine o f the Christian faith. . . . We desire to build, but the ground is occupied by a building in ruins which constitutes a real peril for those who inhabit it. We must begin by pulling it down. Without pretending that all Christian workers should be controversialists, we do maintain that our message to Latin America must be a distinctly Protes tant message. Ziopism and a “Mouse Complex” AS an aftermath of the recent disturbances in Palestine Y x there are some evidences of discontent and fear among the Zionists. Dr. Abraham Coralnik, writing re cently in The New Palestine, vigorously attacks certain alarmists who have suddenly sprung up and who counsel retreat. It reminds him of the words of Maimonides written seven hundreds years ago: Like all other forces, energy varies; some people have much, others little. Some will boldly attack a lion, while others will flee at the sight of a mouse. One man will attack an entire army, another is filled with terror at the threat o f a woman. Taking his text from Maimonides, Dr. Coralnik says that it is time to write a new “ Guide for the Perplexed.” He marvels at the sudden loss of courage, but recognizes that it is a characteristic of the Jew to run away from dan ger—that it has become “almost a national sport.” He had hoped for a time, he says, that the Jews “ had learned the art of bold attack.” But in this he is disappointed. “ The Jewish danger complex—the ‘mouse complex,’ if the term be allowed—has reasserted itself. ‘ The Phil istines are upon thee, Samson!’ was the old cry. Today we hear: ‘The Arabs are upon thee, Israel!' ” With biting sarcasm Dr. Coralnik proceeds to pay his respects to those who counsel withdrawal from Palestine and the seeking of a refuge for Jews in some other part of the world— “ a country large enough to accommodate millions of Jews and unattractive enough to discourage any other people from settling there.” Concluding his bitter lament he says: Perhaps we should call in Dr. Freud to analyze this Jewish “mouse complex.” Perhaps he would be able to help us in our dire need. Why consult Dr. Freud? Why not call in the great Jewish prophet, Moses? Jehovah, speaking through him, said: If ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; and if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my command ments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror . . . And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. May it not be a “ sin complex” which troubles the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere? Can Dr. Freud help them? Is not the world’s great tragedy this, that both Jews and Gentiles have a remedy for sin and a deliverance from fear in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, yet He is compelled to say again as He said once before to Jewish leaders, “ Ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life” ?
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker