Unwilling To Believe
In 1956 James DeForest Murch published Cooperation Without Compromise,
a history of the National Association of Evangelicals. The December 1957 issue of
Earnest Worker, a Sunday School periodical prepared for the Southern Presbyterian
Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Church of America, carries
a belated review.
The reviewer states that the book goes too far when it presents
material on page 45 to show the unbelief of the late Federal and the present National
Council of Churches. Why does the book go too far? Did the author stretch the truth?
Are the facts otherwise than stated? The reviewer does not assert that the author
has falsified the material. But he seems not to want to believe it.
The reviewer, who classifies himself as an evangelical goes on
to say "There are some very disturbing quotations on pages 109 and 110 [of
Murch's book] from so-called liberals. One is startled at the basic error of those
quoted, and he cannot but wonder if this author is not falling into the error of
taking their texts out of their contexts."
One of the quotations, from Dr. George A. Buttrick, is: "Jesus
was not a sinner. He had done nothing to incur God's wrath. And if God dealt with
him as if he were the greatest sinner, then we must say of God (as a cynical Frenchman
did say of these penal theologies), 'Your God is my devil.' "
Now, the reviewer does not assert that Dr. Murch took this out
of context; but he wonders if the author has not done so. Instead of wondering,
could not the reviewer check the quotation and come to a correct decision? Why should
he insinuate that the author has made a mistake, when the fact of the matter can
be so easily determined? It would appear, at least it appears to me, that the reviewer
is unwilling to believe that a minister in good and regular standing could say the
things that Dr. Buttrick has said.
Dr. Murch has not exaggerated the facts. There are worse things
that he could have said. Dr. John S. Bonnell wrote, "With a few exceptions
Presbyterians do not interpret the phrase in the Apostles Creed 'the resurrection
of the body' as meaning the physical body."
And another minister in good and regular standing wrote, "Since
when does orthodoxy, church membership, or anything else require that we believe
the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection, the (of all things!) substitutionary
atonement of Jesus Christ... Personally I have no truck with any of them, Our Presbyterian
church does not require belief in these three things."
Now, these are accurate quotations. They represent the thinking
of the men quoted. They are not slips of the pen. It is unfortunate for the progress
of the gospel if an evangelical, out of the goodness of his heart, finds it difficult
to believe that apostasy is so widespread and so deep. If the unbelief were restricted
to some special doctrine of Calvinism, such as irresistible grace, it would be bad
enough; but when the resurrection of Christ is denied — the only resurrection of
Christ known in the gospels, the resurrection of the physical body from the tomb,
so as to leave the tomb empty — what of Christianity can remain? And if this blatant
apostasy is not recognized for what it is by good hearted evangelicals, what hope
have the present denominations?
G.H.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment