THE PROBLEM OF EVANGELISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23707, 14 January 1939, Page 9

THE PROBLEM OF EVANGELISM

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—lt is not worth continuing any discussion with such a controversialist as “Maran-atha,” who persists in calling everyone who has not his theory of the origin of the Bible, “ enemies of the Bible,” He now disclaims interest in any theory of inspiration, but I showed the utter absurdity of verbal inspiration just because he had declared that the value of the Bible depended on that theory. It was “ Maranatha ” alone who made the fuss about a theory of inspiration. The great mass of Christian believers who do not hold his views resent being clashed as infidels, etc. One is reminded of the minister visiting a new parish; and being informed by one woman member of the church that she and he: husband were the only sound ones in the parish. “But,” she said, “I sometimes have my doubts even about him.' The fact is that the teachers and ministers of the churches, all condemned in the mass as ‘‘such enemies of the Bible,” do believe in revelation and inspiration. In my last letter I mentioned the creed • of the Church of Scotland, and asked “Maran-atha why he had not condemned the Dr Denney, also quoted by Mr Allan. Dr Denney had. I said, the same doctrine of Scripture as Drs Bruce, Dods. and Smith, yet even fundamentalists hailed him as a defender of the faith. Also I referred and quoted from the great defender Dr James Orr, who, in opnosing an extreme school, is yet himself a “ critic." and opposes “ Maranatha’s" views. All that “Maran-atha says positively about the Bible, its necessity and infallibility “to make wise unto salvation,” and “that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work ” is accepted by those he maligns We hold that the purpose of the Bible Is expressed clearly in 1 Timothy m 15, 16. The Robertson Smith already referred to declared, “If I am asked why I receive the Scriptures as the Word of God, and as the only rule of faith and life, I answer, with all the fathers of the Protestant Church, because the Bible is the only record pf the redeeming love of God. because in the Bible alone God draws near to man in Christ Jesus and declares to us in Him His Will for our salvation. And this record I know to be true by the witness of .His spirit in my heart, whereby I am assured that none other than God Himself is able to speak such words unto my soul.” Yet “Maranatha” calls him an infidel, enemy of the Bible, etc. Such condemnation must take in its sweep the archbishops and bishops and bulk of the clergy of the Church of England, the professors and bulk of the clergy of the Church of Scotland, such outstanding defenders and expounders of the faith on the Continent as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner; in fact; the great mass of leaders and clergy of world-wide Protestantism hold the “ critical ” view of the Bible. Now as to “ Maran-atha’s ” quotations regarding Bruce and Dods. Bruce did most certainly frighten Nicoll in the early stages, but later Nicoll was glad to get his contributions for the magazines Nicoll edited. Bruce wrote many books of positive exposition. In one of them, “ The Humiliation of Christ," he has a chapter on “Modern Humanistic Theories of Christ’s Person,” and after weighing them up he concludes, “We therefore decide to remain with the Christ of the creeds, feeling that if there be in Him that which perplexes and confounds our intellect, there is also that which gives unspeakable satisfaction to the heart; a Christ Who came from glory to save the lost, Who humbled Himself to become man and die on the cross; a Chris* in Whom God manifests Himself as e self-sacrificing being, and exhibits te our view the maximum of Graciou? Possibility.” Also the Dods I knew was later than the letters quoted. The book of prayers I mentioned was 10 years later than the first letter. The real man is seen in his beautiful exposition of the Parables and of the Gospel of St. John. When his letters were published many of his ■ friends disputed the taste of his son in including some most private expressions of moods. .Dr Dods was quiet and reserved. and at times inclined temperamentally to melancholia. This gave him “bad days,” but such expressipns do not exhibit his normal Christian life and thought. Indeed the records of the undisputed saints are full of statements akin to those of Dods. Thomas a Kempis in the “ Imitation of Christ” again and again laments^ his prayerlessness, and the “ dryness” of his spiritual life. Also the saintly Alexander Whyte, of St. George’s. Edinburgh, startled a congregation by declaring from the pulpit that he was the greatest sinner in Edinburgh. What great opportunities in these and other saints for “ the carrion crows ” (to use “ Maran-atha’s ” phrase) of fundamentalists. were they only “critics.’ Now, Sir, I am sure that all this arguing backwards and forwards leads nowhere and is detrimental to the cause of religion. Not many are interested in this or that “ critic as Dods, etc. Also there is underlying the whole business a wooliness of thought regarding the terms used. “Critics are dreadful beings specially useful as Aunt Sallies for combative fundamentalists. But what is Biblical Criticism? And what is the true Protestant conception of Revelation and Inspiration as held by the Reformers? Therefore I propose to ignore persons and personalities in a following letter, and for the sake of your readers who may desire enlightenment, have open minds, and are not consumed by the furor theologicus ; deal with these points. Thus something of positive value may come put of this otherwise fruitless discussion.—l am. e t c ., Scots Presbyterian.