Poor Comfort by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 10, 1910

Poor Comfort

By C. M. S.

A SUBSCRIBER to the New York Weekly Witness has written a letter to that journal, taking exception to an article which recently appeared in the REVIEW AND HERALD, entitled “Blasting at the Gospel.” He feels that we have misrepresented the situation in stating that a great portion of the modern church has grasped with avidity the two great temptations, Evolution and the Higher Criticism. After stating the substance of our article outlining present conditions in the modern church, the correspondent appeals to the editor as follows in opposition to the statements contained in our article: —

Now, while this [what we had stated concerning Dr. Lyman Abbott’s teaching] may be Dr. Abbott’s view, is it fair to say that a great portion of the churches are doing so? Are there other churches in the city of New York with these same views that Dr. Lyman Abbott has? Wouldn’t it be more Christian for the Adventists to let the churches alone, and preach the only true gospel for the uplifting of humanity than to criticize churches that they have no use for?

The editors of the REVIEW have no desire to criticize churches; and we speak of these faith-destroying teachings with the sole purpose of showing the fulfilment of our Lord’s words concerning these very times. It is not a sign of Christianity in a man that he, seeing another in danger, leaves him where he is; or, having a message to give, refrains from giving it lest his message might startle some one out of his comfortable fancied security. Not to criticize churches, but to warn and save souls, is our business. The correspondent gets little comfort from the editor of his paper. As to our statement concerning the modern church largely accepting Evolution and the Higher Criticism, the editor of the Weekly Witness says: —

There is some ground for believing that to be true. But the Bible teaches Evolution, and therefore a man may not be any less of a Christian for believing in it.

So the correspondent finds in his own church paper the same process working that has come to full fruitage in the teachings of Dr. Abbott concerning creation and the Word of God. The editor of the Weekly Witness is simply saying: It is so, but it won’t hurt us; it is here, but we need not fear it. He takes the position of the Evolutionist in its modified form; but that much admitted, consistency compels the second step also. In addition to that, the editor takes the first step in the course of the Higher Critic when he says, in the same article: “There is a very visible human element in the authorship of the Bible.” The Bible is either God’s book, or it is not. If man is part author, it is not God’s book. Admit the copartnership in authorship, and then it is for man to determine how much is human and how much divine. That is what the Higher Critics are doing to-day, and they started with that same hypothesis concerning the “human element” in the authorship of the Bible.

But we are not glorying that these things are so. It would give us a great deal more satisfaction to feel that all men — especially all professed Christians — believed God’s account of creation and believed God’s Book. They do not, and the popular drift is not that way. The words of Jesus himself are being fulfilled in these very conditions, and these conditions are a certain indication that the time is drawing near “when the Son of man cometh;” for he said, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” There is no comfort for such earnest inquirers as the correspondent above referred to in telling them Evolution is true, and the Bible is part human and therefore fallible. The only true comfort in such a time as this is in knowing what these things mean, and in being assured of acceptance with God. C. M. S.