SUNDAY READING

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1931, Page 14 (Supplement)

SUNDAY READING

By the late REV.

A. H. COLLINS

“LOVE IN WRATH.” “For the wrath of God is revealed from .Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth-of unrighteousness.” ' —Romans, 1.18. Great changes, have passed over the world of religious ideas. Wo may regret this, but the fact remains. Men do not think about God and the Bible; about Church and Sunday; about sin and salvation, as they used to dm But greater than either. of these is the change about eschatology, or the doctrine of last things. Two hundred years Ago the regnant note of the' English pulpit was “the wrath to. come.” Baxter and Bunyan preached “the wrath of God against all ungodliness,” with re tsults as immediate as they were wonderful. Hardened and. profligate men were converted, whole districts were evangelised, and lukewarm churches were stirTCd to . boiling' earnestness. Wesley and Whitefield repeated the same message ■and witnessed the same results. Their sermons were : full of warning arid appeal expressed in lurid . language and founded on a vivid apprehension of impending doom. It cannot be denied that God honoured these men. They were the regenerators of England, though it may be questioned whether tile same message’iVould produce the same results to-day. In choosing the subject of dooms and terrors as the staple of their ministry, these evangelists'’ unconsciously reflected the spirit of their age. “Salvation by rosewater” was not likely to have much influence over, people whose moral fibre had been coarsened, and hardened, by the gross and degrading pleasures of the period. Men whose sport consisted of cock-fighting, bull-baiting, and pugilism' were not amenable to tender and gentle influence; and we need feel little surprise, and less regret, that with the coming of “purer manners, sweeter laws,” the tone of preaching has changed. THE LANGUAGE OF HIS DAY.

We could no more expect modern preaching to bo pitched to the key of Baxter’s phrase, “Turn or burn,” than we could tolerate the immoralities which prevailed in Baxter’s beloved Kidderminster. The Puritan spoke the language of his day, and we must do the same. It may be the Puritan went too fast and too far in the one direction, and the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. He was too 'hard ; or perhaps we are too soft. We do well to rejoice in the mercy and compassion of God; but we shall do exceeding - ill if we forget that “righteousness and judgment are the pillars of His throne.” We do Well to be thankfukthat the spirit of gentleness and pity is finding expression in our social life, so that prison life is loss rigorous and punishment is more and more reformative and remedial, and loss and less penal and vindictive. . In the same way “mercy” andnot “wrath’’ is the distinctive note of the modern pulpit. It is a blessed change, though the change is not free of danger. No one is more sincerely glad than I am that the glorious doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is preached with freedom and Winsomencss never attempted before; and that the goodness and mercy of God are preached with growing intelligence and conviction; but just because I hail this with delight X am concerned lest the permanent acceptance of these truths should be imperilled by any lack of robustness in our thinking and Our practice. THE ETERNAL DISTINCTION. It is said that one reason why modern preaching is less effective is that the preacher does not dwell sufficiently on God’s delight in well doing, and Ilis intense moral indignation against sin. It is said that tjio cooling of'missionary ardour, the laxity of public morals and the devotion to mammon, are due to the Same cause; and that these evils can only be mastered by a new sense of the eternal distinction between right and wrong. I do not stop to discuss all this in detail. It should not be needful to say that when we speak of God’s love we do not make light of sin. What I want to say is this, that any teaching which represents God as indifferent to moral character; any teaching which obscures the distinction between right and wrong; any teaching that implies that God will deal with all men alike, regardless of the fact that one is a saint and the other a rascal, is not only palpably fatee, it is ruinously mischievous; for it gives hostages to the forces of evil, and stands condemned by the Bible and the universal conscience. “The wrath of God is revealed.” Where is it revealed? In the Bible alone? No.! In the Bible and in history and in conscience. It was revealed in Sodom and Gomorrah, in the overthrow of Jerusalem, in the rioting. of the French Revolution, in the beheading of Charles I. Conscience sees and feels there is, and should be, eternal distinction between things right and wrong. Conscience says that here and now, we are toiling at the looms of life, weaving, always weaving the garments of glory or shame. Conscience says, that to receive, or to reject Jesus Christ must make a difference. ALL RIGHT IN THE END. Now, Of course, I know what it said when thia side of truth is emphasised, jit is said we are trying to frighten men into goodness. Personally, I refuse to father any motive so mean. My whole nature recoils from preaching of that

order. I believe the bitter fruit of it is seen in all the churches. But I who am your sinful brother, waging a desperate conflict with “an evil heart of unbelief, just like yourself, I say you cannot live an ungodly life and come out al ridit in the end; and 1 say this further that it would be disastrous to the world if the Ruler of it were aS undiscerning and indiscriminate as some people seem to suppose He is. 1 Just let me illustrate how our idcaE of God work out in life. If you will turn to Isaiah and read from end to end, you will find the social lite was exceedingly religious , and exceedingly putrid. Men and women were passionate and licentious; drunken carousals and luxurious indolence were the daily delight of ruler and ruled. Yet where life” was most debased, religious worship was carefully observed, the people rioted all day and wont to church at night. From hideous excesses they went to tread the temple courts. Now what kind ot God could their God be, if they supposed that they could spend the day in wicked deeds and worship Him at night! What sort of idea of God could they have?

THINKING OF GOD “AS A FOOL.”

Well, the prophet tells tliem in one of the most terrific and stinging passages ever uttered by this or any other prophet. He says, “You think of God as a fool.” “That is how you would treat a man who is a fool; and your conception of the Almighty, when put into plain speech, means that you are worshipping what is practically a Tool. You think you can appease Him with trifles. You imagine that you can make up for evil living by liberal gifts. You think God has no sense. He asks for a clean heart, and you offer Him a whiff of incense. He demands justice ana mercy and you offer Him a feast! Your God is a fool.” • . It sounds almost blasphemous. But is it? Would you say less of any man who could be taken in its easily as some men think God can? 1 say the God of some men is a fool God, for if God can be duped and wheedled and coaxed; if Ho is blind, and impotent, and effeminate, so that He does nob see moral distinction, He is not; fit to. rule* lb is the enthronement of imbecility.

A LANGUAGE OF ACCOMMODATION

But you may say that to speak of wrath in God is simply an accommodation of human speecJi. It is purely a huniau conception, just as when we speak of God who i*- “spirit'’ as having “eyes,” “hands” and “feet.” Now it must be confessed that ail spell language is an accommodation. You cannot, strictly speaking, apply to God the language that belongs to material things. But the powers and emotions which express themselves in our life do exist in God, or they would not exist in us. When we say that God looketli on the ways of men, we mean that He has knowledge of human affairs; and wuen we speak of His anger we mean that Ho condemns, reprobates, burns, against wrong. But, says someone, anger , and wrath are human infirmities- and cannot: exist in one who is perfect. But is all auger sinful? Is it never justifiable and more than justifiable? Is it not sometimes commendable that a niau should feel angry? Might it not be that the absence of indignation is evidence of wicked weakness? Calm, placid, passionless natures are usually shallow. Such men do not make heroes or. saints. Men who cannot burn with moral wrath, whose eyes never flash, whose words are never flame-tipped are not great men. GOD NOT INDIFFERENT., I am not. speaking of paltry spite or petty jealousy, but the holy and righteous anger that we ought to feel against injustice, cowardice and falsehood. Tho prophets of Israel felt that. Jesus felt that, amt if God were not wrathful against unrighteousness, it would mean that He is not perfect. Our .robust eommousense says if there is not a judgment to come, then there o|iglit to be. For look out on the world,’and when you see injustice unreproved, and selfishness enthroned, tell me is it not good news to know that God is not indifferent ?

These things, however, must be kept in mind. It is no L God whom you have to dread, but sin. Sin always means loss, aye, eternal loss. That is a radical falsehood in theology which teaches that a tardy repentencc will put a man where he would have been if he had never sinned. This makes salvation an irrational and impossible magic. That is what George Macdonald means when he asks, “can one ever make up for wrongdoing? Will not Heaven be an endless repentance?” There is no making up the arrears of duty. The opportunity missed is missed forever, and we shall always be the poorer for having missed it. But I say it is not God who damns, it is sin.

Behind the wrath, there is love, love that yearns to eave. “Our God is a consuming fire,” fire that consumes the ein and cleanses the sinner. If any perish it is not because God wills it, but in spite of His will. He is our Father, and when I think what He has shown us of His heart, by Jesus Christ, His Son and our Brother, I am not afraid of anything that He may do, and I am content to leave the worst of men in His handis. He is Lord of all here and hereafter, and He will do the best that love can devise.