Saturday, January 7, 2023

Gordon Clark: Is Christianity a Mere Game? (The Southern Presbyterian Journal)

1958. Is Christianity a Mere Game? The Southern Presbyterian Journal. 3–4. Feb 12

Is Christianity a Mere Game?

Earnest Worker is a Sabbath School periodical prepared for the Southern Presbyterian Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and the Re- formed Church in America. The Northern Presbyterian Church does not participate in this periodical.

In the issue of February 1958 an article by Dr. Roy E. Grace is reprinted from The United Presbyterian. Dr. Grace is here defending the merger of the United Presbyterian Church with the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Such a defense is entirely appropriate in The United Presbyterian. But since the Reformed Church in America, a while back, voted down a merger with the United Presbyterians, and since more recently the Southern Church decisively defeated union with Dr. Grace's two bodies, one wonders why this article should be included in the Earnest Worker. Is it the purpose to use Sabbath School literature to stir up agitation and dissension over again in these other two denominations?

Whatever the ethics of including this article in the Earnest Worker may be, a more important point is the argument Dr. Grace uses for his decision to support the merger. Mainly there are three arguments.

The last one he mentions is his observation of so-called splinter groups in the Philadelphia area. He says, "I do not see them accomplishing anything very outstanding for the Kingdom of God." It is a fact, however, that some of these small groups, relatively near to his own church, are doing tremendous work for missions. Their budgets for missions put most other congregations to shame. But of course it is hard to make a just estimate of how much any group is accomplishing. Missionary budgets do not tell the whole truth, much less do the numbers on the membership rolls. Can it be readily believed that large, fashionable, wealthy churches are accomplishing great things for Christ, if, when you visit the prominent members in their homes of an afternoon, the matron meets you with a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other?

The first two arguments are perhaps but two aspects of one idea. After making it quite clear that the United Presbyterian Church is being abolished by a majority vote of 58l/£ (a clear majority, but less than a two thirds or three fourth vote) Dr. Grace says, "Even children do not like one who will not play unless he can win." Dr. Grace! Do you mean to say that Christianity is a mere game? Is the preaching of the gospel a juvenile contest in which each minister plays to win? Were those who opposed union motivated by a desire to get the better of their fellow contestants?

And is it Christian courtesy to make these insinuations about those whose consciences rebel at a modernistic program?

The next argument is somewhat similar to the preceding. Dr. Grace remarks that when our President, D wight D. Eisenhower, was last elected, the defeated Democrats did not move to Mexico. Quite true; but what is the implication?

Was the difference between Eisenhower and Stevenson of the same nature as the difference between belief and unbelief in the vicarious atonement and the resurrection of Christ?

Even within the sphere of politics Americans do not despise those who fled the governments of Europe to seek freedom here. Were the Pilgrims selfish little children who wouldn't play because they couldn't win? Do we today despise those who are able to escape from communism and come west? And is it not conceivable that communism might so envelop the United States that good people would flee to another country, if they could and if there were a free country to flee to?

But questions of the infallibility of the Bible, of the Virgin Birth, of the substitutionary atonement, of the resurrection of Christ from the grave are far more serious than children's games or even politics.

For the last twenty-five years the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. has not insisted on any of these doctrines. The Auburn Affirmationists declared that all these doctrines were un- essential, and that the first was false. More recently we have seen approval given to a minister who publicly declared that he had no truck with any of these doctrines. Is this accomplishing anything very outstanding for the Kingdom of God?

What can the purpose of a religious organization be, if it does not insist on the atonement and the resurrection? Whatever the purpose is, is there any good reason for co-operating in such a purpose?

To my way of thinking, co-operation in such a purpose is not only a waste of time but a positive service to the forces of darkness. If Christ be not raised, our faith is vain and we are yet in our sins.

— G.H.C.

No comments:

Post a Comment