[A very important topic for us to read]
Life On The Highest Plane
The work of the early Church was all-comprehensive. The God-man who inaugurated it knew every need of human life and planned adequately to meet and to satisfy it. Though conditions have changed, the fundamental need of human life does not vary from one century to another. The task of the Church at the very beginning was cast into an age-long mold by Christ Jesus and He has given no indication on down through the centuries of any deviation from His purpose and plan so clearly revealed in Scripture.
But no man can look upon the Church today without seeing that it has departed very far from both the purpose and the plan of God. The leaders of Christendom frankly state that the work of the Church is not to save souls but to salvage society so they have given themselves deliberately to "the purification of Sodom" rather than to "the proclamation of the Saviour." From pulpit and press they declare that "the mission of the Church is to make the world better," and "to interpret to the world the principles of Christ," so that it may win the world into living by His teachings and into following His principles. The supreme question before present day Christendom is not man's relationship to human society; the paramount issue is not God's sovereign reign in righteousness and peace over a world brought into reconciliation with Him through His Son, but it is the equalizing and solidifying of nations, races and classes through foisting upon them for their acceptance the dogma of the Fatherhood of God, whom they do not acknowledge as Father, and the brotherhood of men, whom they do not accept as brothers.
The leaders of Christendom frankly state that they preach such a "social gospel." And any one, who scans the sermon themes for Sunday in the newspaper, or who studies the subjects announced on the church calendar, has no reason to doubt their word on this point. The marvel is that with such special emphasis on social betterment themes "the world" is not more rapidly approaching the desired millennium of righteousness and peace. "The world" at heart really does not want to be "made better" so it is not going to the place where it will be coaxed or coerced into a reformation of its conduct. It will greatly appreciate anything which the Church does to make its life in sin more full of comfort and will even assist in the matter by making liberal contributions to financial drives or "community chests." But "the world" is not overtaxing the seating capacity of the churches which preach the "social gospel." When "the world" seeks entertainment it usually prefers to have it in its native haunts and its natural setting rather than to have it adulterated and spoiled by an admixture of religion. The "social gospel" is NOT filling but rather emptying the churches and many are concerned as to what new attractions can be offered to drag "the world" to church.
Let us honestly face the actual condition of the present day pulpit and pew. God still has His "seven thousand" who have not bowed to the worship of "twentieth century scholarship," who are not devotees at the shrine of "the modern mind' and who will not deify man and humanize God. Praise God that throughout the whole world there are thousands of preachers, evangelists, teachers, and missionaries who still preach the Christ of the Gospel of the Word of God and there are millions of laymen who believe that Gospel and who hold inviolate the whole Word of God.
But on the other hand there is a growing number of preachers, teachers and missionaries who today do not preach or teach the Christ of the Gospel of the Word of God. The Christ they preach is "another" Christ, the gospel is "another" gospel and the Bible is "another" Bible.
The reformation of the whole world which the "social gospel" purposes does not need the Saviour of the Cross, for man is to be his own saviour. To preach the Christ of the Cross and of the throne is to leave the realm of the practical and descend to the plane of the doctrinal, the modern teacher reasons. He declares that the world has outgrown this. But to win the world from its naughty ways and to teach it the right "way of life" he does feel the need of an example to hold up before it and of ethical precepts and principles which it can follow. The preacher of the "social gospel" can find no greater example and no better teacher than "the Jesus of history" so he does make use of Him in this capacity.
The reformation of the world which the modern preacher advocates has no place in it for the Gospel of the Word of God which is a Gospel of salvation from sin through a crucified, risen, ascended, exalted Lord. In fact the "social gospel" decries having any creed. It declares that its emphasis is on love rather than on faith and that the important thing is not what a man believes but what he is. It does not concern itself with the building of a solid foundation but only with the ornamentation of the roof. If the structure has a lovely, attractive roof garden with sweet music, fragrant flowers, captivating eloquence and happy companionship why have any anxiety over the fact that the foundation is made of sand? The "social gospel" ignores the fact so plainly revealed in Scripture that the divine order is invariably faith and then love, and that it is an absolute impossibility to build the superstructure of a spiritual life on anything but the solid foundation of a crucified, risen Saviour. So the "social gospel" is plainly not "the Gospel of Christ.
The reformation of the world which the modern pulpit so earnestly advocates has no place in it for the Scriptures as the Word of God. "The modern mind" finds it impossible to accept the Bible as such. The Bible cannot be rejected altogether for then the modern preacher would on the very face of it have to leave the evangelical pulpit immediately. But "the modern mind" finds a middle ground of compromise which it hopes the evangelical Church will be tolerant and loving enough to accept. It admits that the Bible "contains the Word of God" and modestly claims that it has been ordained by twentieth century scholarship to tell the pew what parts of it are the Word of God and which parts are not.
Such an arrogant assumption makes the true believer who loves the Bible and who believes that from Genesis to Revelation it is "the Word of God," as God Himself says it is, seek to know what this "modern mind" really is and from whence it got the authority to handle the Book of books in any such fashion.
~Ruth Paxson~
(continued with # 6)
No comments:
Post a Comment