Some months ago Christianity published an article in opposition to "separation." Now it publishes another that avoids meeting the criticism that was made of the first one. In defense of having unbelievers sponsor evangelistic endeavors, Mr. Ferm (Apr. 14 issue) quotes Finney as saying, "My duty is to belong to the church, even if the devil should belong to it." Does this mean that it would be a sin to leave a church if the devil controls it? At any rate, Mr. Ferm's argument, during the course of which he asserts, "If it is compromise, then Finney compromised," requires for its validity the unexpressed premise that Finney could not have compromised. Personally I do not hold such an exalted opinion of Finney. Nor do I think that Jesus' preaching in the temple is comparable with being sponsored by unbelievers. Jesus did not have the sponsorship of the Pharisees.
The writer also appeals to Wesley, and rebukes some misinformed person who cited Wesley as a separatist. But now may we ask, is Mr. Ferm a member of the Anglican or Episcopal church? If separation is a sin, then all the Methodists are great sinners, and should return to their parent body. And all the rest of us, with them, should return to the Roman Catholic church. It is instructive to see that articles against separation, that is, against the purity of the Church, are ordinarily quiet as to the Protestant Reformation. Their arguments proceed on the tacit assumption that there are no apostate churches from which obedience to God requires separation. But such synagogues of Satan do indeed exist.
Gordon H. Clark
Indianapolis, Ind.
No comments:
Post a Comment