T H E K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S Views and Reviews of Current News By DAN GILBERT Washington, D. C , and San Diego, California
April, 1940
At Biola “Well, how are things going at Biola?” ' This questidn is often asked of us workers here at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, and a similar question is asked with reference to the Church of the Open Door. In reply we are happy to say that things are “going.” By this we mean that the Institute is going on —and not going to the cemetery, as many people have supposed during these past years. To God belongs all the glory for the progress that has been made, but we feel that it is only fair to mention that the human instrument largely used in this connection has been Louis T. Talbot, who entered upon the pastorate of the church in 1932, and who is now also the President of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. ' During the past eight years, 2,473 members have been added to the Church of the Open Door. Of this number, 815 have been received on confession of faith, and of these a great many have made their profession at the Church of the Open Door. Nearly always, at the regular Sunday services, souls are won for the Lord Jesus Christ. The missionary program also has gone forward. In 1932, the full support of twenty-six missionaries was being met by the church. At present there are thirty-four who are being supported. Recently the Executive Committee of the Church of the Open Door, in a spe cial resolution, expressed gratitude to God for the ministry of Dr. Talbot as pastor, and pledged united cooperation with him in the work. We recognize that statistics do not tell all the story, nor are they the most important part. The writer is now in his twentieth consecutive year of service on the faculty of the Bible Institute of Angeles. There have been times when the “going” has been rather rough, and viewed from the human standpoint, it appeared that the Institute could not weather the storm. Surely nothing but the power and grace of God have en abled the Institute to" stand during these years. The encouraging feature is that, in the stormy days, as well as In all other periods, the purpose for which the Institute was founded has continued to be fulfilled: namely, young people have been and still are being trained for and sent out into the service qf the Lord. This realization has been a source of great encouragement and has deep ened the conviction that this work surely must be of God. Another heartening feature is the fine spirit of harmony that prevails throughout the Institute and in its rela tion to the Church of the Open Door. Viewing the "whole situation, we cer tainly have cause, like Paul of old, to “thank God and take courage." We in vite all our readers to join us in this. —John A. Hubbard.
to the democracies would be a “ step in the direction of opr military involve ment.” This "policy was slightly modified by the repeal of the arms embargo. But in that case, it was contended that, since all sales of arms were to be on a strictly cash basis, we were maintaining “iron-clad neutrality,” but selling the arms for our own profit only. Regardless of their stand on the arms embargo, leaders of both sides are real izing the inadequacy and limitations of our present concept of neutrality. They are asking: Is it morally possible.to be completely neutral? Since our sympa thies are with the nations that stand for liberty and democracy, why should we not show those sympathies ? Must we handcuff ourselves because we can not trust our own coolness of judgment ? In this new frame of mind, they find the old argument—“any help extended to democracies at bay is a step in the. direction of war”—losing its potency. They ask, Why can we not take a step or two in the direction of war, and still go no further? One can go from Los Angeles to San' Francisco, without con tinuing on to Vancouver! Why can we not pursue two purposes at the same time? We are determined not to get into war. But why can we not be de-. termined also to help in a substantial way? They used the same argument in an swer to the contention that “if we Sell on credit or give arms to Finland, we soon will be sending boys to follow our planes.” In answer to that, they ask, Why? We may have done that in 1917, but why must we repeat the same mis take ? Cannot America act with freedom and deliberation? Must we refuse to take a course of action merely because we fear that it will lead to some illogi cal and nonsensical conclusion, which can be reached only on the presump tion that we would surrender our com mon sense and be overwhelmed by mass hysteria ? No one knows where the “new think ing” will lead, but it is gaining momen tum and well may carry us far from the prevailing idea of “ironclad isola tionism.” Senator Borah, just before his death, viewed with growing alarm this ground swell for modification of the isolationist position. Deeply disturbed^ he was planning a nation-wide tour to rally public opinion to support of “iron clad isolationism,” in a frantic effort \Continued on Page 156]
BROWN BOLSHEVISM: German Naz ism is approaching the final phase of absorption by international Communism. Brown Hitlerism has blended into Red Communism. While it formerly was felt that Germany’s defeat in the war would result in her going Bolshevik, it is now clear that she already is commencing to make that transition. These conclusions are constrained by the “new Nazi line” laid down by Robert Ley, head of the German Labor Front and key figure in the domestic reorgani zation of the German economy. Dr. Ley frankly declared that the Nazi purpose is now identical with that of interna tional Communism: “ Smash the world wide capitalist system.” The Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels nearly a century^ago, has long been the road map and blue print of revolutionary Communism. It contains the radical keynote phrase: “Workers of all countries, unite!” Pro nouncing himself a follower of Marx, Dr. Ley sounded the slogan, “Workers of all lands, unite to smash the rule 6f En glish capitalism.” It is now clear, from the Nazi stand point, what the war is all about. The poor nations are to rise up and seize the wealth of the richer ones. Urged Dr. Ley: “You young, upward-striving na tions of the earth, combine to anni hilate the old English dragon, who blocks the treasures of the earth and withholds from you the riches of the world.” RETHINKING NEUTRALITY: Ameri can leaders of both parties—those who incline to “internationalism” as well as strict isolationism—are commencing a heavy process of “rethinking” neutral ity. There is substantial agreement on one point: All Americans are agreed that we shall not send troops to engage in European or Asiatic wars. But beyond that one premise, there are all shades of opinion. Coming al ways to the fore is the question: How can we best safeguard our own peace and keep out of military action abroad ? But in addition to that question, an other one has pressed for more and more attention; that is, could we not give real help to the democracies—like Finland— and still keep out of war ? Up until recently, the majority opin ion has been in the negative. It has been contended that any real help extended
Made with FlippingBook Online document