211
May 1929
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
| R E V I E W A N D C O M M E N T ] L„— B y A lv a J. M cC la in .„J
God. The spiritual perceptions of little children on this point are more trustworthy than the reasonings of experts in educational methods. “I thank Thee,” our Lord once prayed to the Father, “because Thou hast hid these things from t,he wise and the prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes?’ (Matt. 11:25). The situation, from one standpoint, is rather amusing. Certain modern teachers of religion, not accepting the absolute Deity of Christ, nevertheless go on teaching the children about Him. And after a while they discover, to their intense embarrassment, that the children regard Him as God and insist upon praying to H im ! Bless their little hearts. The strangest aspect of the matter is that the above- mentioned author, in dealing with this “problem,”, for sakes her own pedagogical principles of religious educa tion. Over and over in her book she stresses the value of concreteness in dealing with children, and rightfully so. The child “ lives in the realm of the concrete.” And this is precisely why the child prays to Christ. Furthermore, this is one of the great reasons for the Incarnation of the Son of God. He became flesh in order to make the invisible God concrete to the human mind. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only Begotten Son . . . He hath declared Him” (Jn. 1:18). Christ is the “Image of the invisible God” (Col. 1 :15). One would think that, following their own principles of child education, the experts would recognize' the value of the Incarnation of God in Christ and encourage the children to find God in Him. The main difficulty apparently is not with the author’s pedagogy, but rather with her theology. And this leads us to an important observation. The antagonism of ortho dox Christians to the modern program of “religious educa tion” is not so much based upon> opposition to scientific teaching methods as it is to erroneous theological opinions. We wish to use the very best teaching methods, but we do not propose to use these methods to teach error. The religious education expert is always tempted to turn aside here and there for the purpose of teaching theology. For example, the book under discussion con tains a great deal of valuable material, but its value is seriously modified by the author’s amateur excursions into the realm of theology. Scientific principles are very important when we are teaching the most important book in the world—the Bible. But the deity of Christ is more important than educational principles. We can do without the latter, if necessary, but not the former. If the writers on Sunday-school methods feel they must enter the field of Christian doctrine, they should see to it that they have the proper knowledge and training in this field. A psychologist is not necessarily a theologian. -— o — Christ in the Twentieth Century S OME of the opposition to the imminent personal return of our Lord to this earth seems to be based upon a secret fear that He would not “fit” into the twentieth cen tury. Men like to think of Him in the flowing dress of the
It Makes a Difference HAT difference does it make, the “Liberals” ask, what we think about Jesus, just as long as we follow His teachings? The answer is that it makes a world of difference. In the first place, it makes a difference to us. Surely, men will follow the teachings of
Jesus Christ better if they believe that God, not merely a man, is speaking to them. Once men are convinced, as some are today, that He is only a Jewish Rabbi, they, will treat His commands as they would the commands of a Jewish Rabbi; interesting perhaps, but not imperative. But more important, it makes a difference to Jesus Christ Himself, what we think about Him. He was always deeply interested in what men thought about Him. “Whom do men say that I . . . am?” He demands of His disciples. And He is not satisfied until the right an swer comes, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living \God.” The disciples called Him “LORD,” that august name which in their own Scriptures was used to designate the infinite God, Jehovah. And what was His response to this Name? He says, “Ye call Me Lord . . . and ye say well, for so I am.” It makes a difference to Him what we think of Him and how we speak of Him. The confession of Jesus as LORD is no question for mere academic discussion, something we may treat indif ferently as a debatable opinion. It is the very heart of Christianity. Failure to confess Him as Lord, whether out of indifference or antagonism, reveals moral blindness* “The pure in heart shall see God.” And those whose hearts have been cleansed from sin have always seen God in the Face of Jesus Christ. “Helping” the Children A CERTAIN author, writing on “Worship Training,” declares that there is complete confusion in the minds of most Sunday-school children concerning Christ and God. She says: “Most of them make no distinction, using the names interchangeably, but with a preference for the name of Jesus.” And she thinks something should be done about it to clear away this “ fog” and “confusion.” The children even pray to Jesus, she affirms. Now as a matter of fact, this writer is in the fog, not the children. Why shouldn’t they use the names of God and Christ interchangeably? The Bible does. And why shouldn’t they pray to Jesus? Stephen and Paul did, to say nothing of the millions since. And why shouldn’t they “prefer” the name of Jesus? Paul declares that He is to have “the preeminence” in all things, and that in confess ing Him as Lord we are giving glory to God the Father. The reason why little children pray to Christ and dis play a “preference” for His Name is that when they are brought into His presence, they feel at once that they are in the presence of God. And the child, not bothered with adult metaphysical problems, turns to Christ and deals with Him directly. Why look further? Here is
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker