p. 200 | WAS IT ORTHODOX? by George C. Tenney

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 30, 1888

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 14, No. 13.

"WAS IT ORTHODOX?"

By George C. Tenney

THE communication given below is taken from one of the late religious papers, and the dilemma of the poor, bewildered "Layman" is such that he deserves public sympathy. There are thousands today just as badly bewildered by the class of teaching of which this letter furnishes a sample. People allow themselves to become confused in reference to the Bible by endeavoring to follow the sinuous meanderings of modern pulpitory, instead of using their God-given senses in studying the good Book itself for themselves:—

DEAR EDITOR: I have just returned from preaching services, and am very much worked up on account of some ideas advanced by our pastor. I always supposed I was orthodox, and a Methodist at that; but if the remarks to which I shall refer are orthodox, then I shall conclude I am not. The text was the last four verses of the twenty-first chapter of Revelation. He started by saying that practical Christians never had any revelations; therefore Paul and Peter never had any because they were practical men. But John, because more spiritually minded, received wonderful revelations; hence the book of Revelation. After giving a graphic description of the journey of the Christian, and the beauty of the city which is the end of the journey, he spoke of the entrance in by the gates—on the east three, on the north three, on the west three, on the south three; then said he was glad it was so, and spoke of Calvin, who had a man put to death because he did not believe as he did; but said, if Calvin would not let him go in at the same gate with himself, he could slip around and go in on the other side; and if Christians of one denomination would not let Christians of another denomination in, they could slip around and enter some other gate; also, if Roman Catholics could not enter the same gate as Methodists, they could enter some other side. Now my reason for writing is to know: 1. Was that the object of making the city foursquare? 2. Is it possible for one man to take the life of another because they differ in doctrine and both enter Heaven? 3. Can we deny anyone the right of entering the same gate? I wish to be as charitable as our pastor. I am willing and ready to go hand-in-hand with any Christian of any name or any denomination to any gate. I did not know that I could entertain even a desire to bar any out and enter myself. I always supposed my duty was to get all I could to enter with me, regardless of name, sect, sex, or color. Are the ideas advanced orthodox? A LAYMAN.

It is a question how such teaching should be regarded. If it were intended as a burlesque, it is a success, and we can only deprecate the wicked practice of burlesquing sacred things, which is by far too common. But to consider it as spoken with gravity for sound doctrine, it is astounding. We look with curiosity at the distinction drawn between those apostles which were "practical" Christians and John who was "more spiritually minded." Are practical religion and spiritual religion distinct and separate? It is but too true that many fanatics nowadays become so intensely "spiritual" as to be of no practical value in any sense. They are in their minds elevated away above the law of God, or any other law. But the beloved disciple John was not of that kind. He loved God, and showed it by keeping his commandments. He taught us to love one another, not "in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." This is a very practical kind of religion. And Paul, who wrote the eighth chapter of Romans, certainly did not divorce the spiritual from the practical in the religion which he taught.

But how about the statement that John had wonderful revelations while Paul and Peter had none? A certain apostle named Peter was once on a house-top, and saw a sheet let down from heaven by the four corners, containing all manner of living creatures; and this proved to be a very wonderful revelation to him. He was also present on the mount of transfiguration, which he refers to in his epistle as being a revelation of future glory. Paul's Christian experience opened with a startling revelation, while he was on his way to Damascus, and these revelations became so abundant, that he says, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." Thus the cobweb of human fabrication is swept away by a few words of plain Scripture.

But the imbecility of such teaching becomes comparatively insignificant when compared with the comments given upon the twelve gates of the city, through which, his text declares, "There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." And yet that congregation was comforted (?) with the thought that if any of them were debarred through enmity or heresy from entering on one side, they could "slip around" and find a gate where such characters would be freely admitted. Papists, drunk with the blood of martyrs and saints, would find an entrance into the many-faced city. In short the idea is the different gates imply that they are for the admission of different grades of character, and for the accommodation of those whose earthly animosities will not permit their entering in at the same gate. Ingersoll will find a gate there reserved for him and his class. What a travesty on the truth of God! And the people love to have it so. It speaks of peace, peace, when there is no peace. There are some among the people who are sufficiently reflective to question such perversions, and may God lead them into the clear light of his word. G. C. TENNEY.