Confusion and Unbelief

“Then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent.” —Zephaniah 3:9

IN THESE words the Lord promises that a time will come when the people of all nations shall become so thoroughly acquainted with him and will appreciate his glorious attributes so greatly that they will all call upon him and serve him with one accord. Thus is described a willing, wholehearted service of God, based upon a true knowledge of him and his will. When this promise is fulfilled in the experience of all mankind, there will be no need for laws assuring freedom of religion; for all with common “consent” will, together, be worshiping and serving their Creator.

But, as we all know, this prophecy is not yet fulfilled, and because there is so much divergence of opinion concerning what is right and what is wrong in religion, the most satisfactory arrangement man can make is to grant liberty for all to believe and practice whatever sort of religion they wish. While this is the best arrangement man can make, it will not solve the problems created by divergent religious beliefs; for, contrary to the popular conception, freedom of expression in religious matters does not lead to unity of viewpoint, but rather to increasing the confusion of thought and understanding. It is only the Holy Spirit of God working in the hearts and lives of his consecrated people that leads to unity of understanding. And this will be true also with respect to the fulfillment of the promise made in our text; for of that time the Lord has promised that he will pour out his Spirit “upon all flesh.”—Joel 2:28,29; Acts 2:16-18

It is because the Holy Spirit of God is having less and less influence in the great religious bodies of today that confusion of belief and disbelief is on the increase in their midst. In the past the State Church of England was noted for its solidarity of belief and practice, but how different it is now! And let us not say that we here in America are not interested in what is occurring within the State Church of England. It does concern us, for what is occurring in that Church, and in that once solidly religious country, is indicative of what is taking place throughout the whole world so far as religion is concerned. What is happening to the professed Christian church is having an important bearing on the course present day civilization is taking; and this is a matter that will affect everyone of us in a very material way sooner or later.

So when we report what is occurring within the formerly staid Church of England, we are, in reality, identifying one of the potent causes of world disorder. In that church there is a controversy over the matter of religious liberty. The time was when the State Church of England virtually dictated the civil affairs of the government, but now that has been reversed, and the parliament—the arm of the civil government—tells the church what it can and cannot do.

In late years prominent prelates of the church, noticing that some of its foremost leaders are becoming ultra liberal in their views—liberal to the point of denying the inspiration of the Bible—are trying to get a bill through parliament which will enable them to retire such liberal bishops and thus prevent them from further undermining the faith of church members.

One of the liberal prelates of the Church of England is Dr. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham. Speaking against this proposed bill, and explaining why he thinks liberal minded teachers should be allowed to continue their work within the church, he said:

“Vast numbers of educated people have left the church. Intellectually active young people are repelled by services and sermons in which statements are made which they cannot accept—such as that the world was made in six days.”

Very seldom do the so-called liberals in any church group suggest anything constructive when they tear down what they consider to be superstitious notions of the past. It is quite true that no intelligent mind can accept the idea that the earth was created in six twenty-four hour days. But why doesn’t the Bishop take the trouble to examine the Genesis account of Creation a little more carefully? If he did, he would find that the “days” there mentioned are not twenty-four hour days, but long epochs of time, quite ample in length for the accomplishment of the program outlined in Genesis for each one of them. And when we discover this, we find also that the biblical account of creation is wholly in harmony with science.

Bishop Barnes continues:

“Without theological changes the church will perish. It already shows disquieting signs of decay. A number of clergy and laity are seeking to forge a reasonable faith to convince the world. For instance, that in order to be a Christian you need not believe in Adam and Eve.”

So the Church of England shows disquieting signs of decay! This is a revealing confession, but the proposed remedy is startling; for his proposal is that the church adopt a creed which would leave out belief in Adam and Eve as essential to being a Christian. By doing this, he thinks the world might be convinced and brought into the church. That might be, but would they be Christians, or merely members of a social fraternity?

We can’t help but think that Bishop Barnes appreciates the implications of not believing in Adam and Eve. He must know the New Testament well enough to realize that such a viewpoint of unbelief would discredit the Apostle Paul, and do violence to the whole plan of salvation as it is taught in the Bible, and particularly in the New Testament.

Paul in his writings tells us, for example, that “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:22) This means that if Adam and Eve never existed, there was no necessity for the death of Jesus as man’s Redeemer. Paul speaks of the first Adam, and tells us that Christ is the “last Adam.” (I Cor. 15:45) Bishop Barnes states that intelligent people no longer believe in Adam, but it is well to remember that the Apostle Paul was intellectual, highly educated, and above all, chosen of God, yet he certainly believed in Adam.

Continuing his attack on the proposed bill, Bishop Barnes explains how it could be used to prevent liberal teaching in the church, and then adds:

“You will probably not believe me when I say that all this could happen to a man for expressing disbelief in Jonah’s whale or Noah’s ark. Our unrevised formulas are so out of date that we are expected unfeignedly to believe all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.”

There is one thing for which we must give Dr. Barnes credit, and that is his honesty of expression. He doesn’t believe the Bible, and is very frank to admit it. It’s just a little puzzling, though, why an unbeliever even wants to remain in the church, for there would doubtless be better opportunities for airing his unbelief outside the church than inside of it. As a matter of fact, it is a wrong conception of religious liberty to think we should have freedom within the church to cast doubts into the minds of the members concerning the doctrines of the church. This is true regardless of what denomination may be involved.

A church is not intolerant when it insists that its teachers should be enthusiastic supporters of its doctrines. A church would be intolerant if, in the event one or more of its teachers resigned and began teaching conflicting views independently, it should try to stop them. Usually, however, when religious teachers decide to digress from the teaching of the church with which they are associated, they cry intolerance if they are not permitted to promulgate their changed views within the group. And it is exactly this that Dr. Barnes is doing.

But let us note further what a true unbeliever he is. He indicates his unbelief in Noah and the ark, and also in the Old Testament story of Jonah and the great fish. What does this mean? It means simply that he is willing to discredit the teachings of Jesus himself, the founder of Christianity, for Jesus referred to both Noah and Jonah.

Jesus referred to Noah and the Flood in his answer to the disciples as to what would constitute signs of his return and of the end of the age. He explained that as it was in the days of Noah, so it would be in the days of the Son of man, that is, during the early years of his second presence and the end of the age. (Luke 17:26-30) And what was it like back there? Jesus explained that the people of Noah’s day were completely ignorant of the times in which they were living—that they continued on with their ordinary affairs of life until the very day that Noah entered into the ark.

In other words, according to Jesus the people of Noah’s day refused to believe what Noah told them, and because of their unbelief they were ignorant of the true situation. And that, Jesus prophesied, would also be the situation at this end of the age when the time came for him to return. Sudden destruction came upon the world of Noah’s day, and the Apostle Paul says the same was to be true of the world in the day of the Lord, that is, the day of our Lord’s presence. He says that “they,” the world in general, would be saying peace and safety, and that then sudden destruction would come upon them. (I Thess. 5:1-4) We are even now witnessing the fulfillment of this prophecy.

Thus we see that Jesus was a firm believer in Noah and the ark. How strange that anyone would even claim to be a Christian—a follower of Jesus—yet profess to know more about matters of this kind than Jesus himself knew! And the same is true with respect to Jonah and the whale—or, as the Hebrew text states it, the “great fish.” Bishop Barnes indicates that to his way of thinking it is foolish to believe this story; but Jesus didn’t think so, for he referred to it, and drew from the incident a very important lesson pertaining to the plan of God.

Jesus’ reference to Jonah pertains to a great truth of which we are especially reminded each year at Easter. He said that as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so must the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Here was a wonderful prophecy, a prophecy that was fulfilled by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

We wonder what Dr. Barnes does with a text of this kind when he preaches his Easter sermon. Or, do those who doubt the inspiration of the Bible really believe that Jesus was raised from the dead as the Scriptures teach? One of the strongest proofs of the divine inspiration of Jesus’ prophecies is the remarkable fulfillment of the one which describes the very unbelief that is so prevalent throughout the world today. He said, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) This prophecy is in question form, but it very accurately describes the attitude of unbelief that is found throughout church circles today, not only in England, but in all countries; and not only in the Church of England, but in all churches.

And freedom of religion will not stem this tide of unbelief. The only thing that will give an abiding faith in the Word of God is a knowledge of the truth concerning its teachings. This understanding will be given to all the people in God’s due time, when, in keeping with the words of the prophet, the Lord will turn to the people a pure message. Then the knowledge of God’s glory will fill the whole earth as the waters cover the sea.—Isa. 11:9; Hab. 2:14

The Fight for Human Rights

THE news from week to week lately has varied but little from previous weeks, or even months. Only in details has it changed from what has been taking place throughout the earth these many years, for nearly everything that is occurring has to do, directly or indirectly, with a struggle to attain and maintain human rights. It flares up in the contest between communism and democracy; between communism and religion; between the advocates of civil rights and those who are opposing them. It is seen in the struggle between capital and labor; between minority groups in every land and those who hold tenaciously to their vested rights.

As this great battle continues, governments are changed and often overthrown, and empires disintegrate. Old customs and standards become obsolete; and even in the realm of religion, people sooner or later reach the point where they no longer take for granted that the traditions of the past must necessarily be accepted as dogmas to be slavishly obeyed in order to escape excruciating torment after death.

Of necessity, with such a global struggle as this taking place—sometimes in the form of a “cold war,” sometimes breaking out as a “hot” or shooting war, and nearly all the time as a war of words, frequently sarcastic and bitter, there is certain to be much misrepresentation, much deceptive propaganda, and much of genuine truth that is construed by the “enemy” to be lies. Never has it been more true in the history of the world than now that one cannot believe all that he hears.

The Western world has been shocked by the arrest, trial, and sentencing of Catholic and Protestant Church leaders in countries behind the Iron Curtain. This has been construed to mean that communist directed governments are determined to destroy religion. On the other hand, there are those who claim that this is not true, that there is full religious liberty behind the Iron Curtain. These claim that all the communists are doing is to prevent religionists from exploiting the people.

Still others tell us that what is really occurring behind the Iron Curtain with respect to religion is that the communists are endeavoring to establish the Greek Orthodox Church of Russia as the official church in all communist dominated countries. This would be a sort of church-state system in reverse. In the former church-state systems of Europe, particularly those having been centered in Rome and St. Petersburg, now Leningrad, the church, through its spiritual head and other high prelates, almost completely dominated the affairs of state, going so far as to crown and uncrown kings. But the new style under communism is for the church to be the tool of the state and used to assist in keeping the people in line with the so-called “new democracy.”

The attitude of the communists toward religion has brought forth some very plain talk by highly placed prelates, both Protestant and Catholic. This is good, because it gives the people an opportunity to judge for themselves the meaning of what is occurring, and the enlightened public can usually be depended upon to move in the right direction. Bishop Oxnam, for example, of the Methodist Church, while deprecating assaults against religion anywhere and in any way, said that he would like to see representatives of both Catholics and Protestants get together on the matter of religious liberty, and formulate a plan to promote such liberty everywhere. He has emphasized that there should be religious liberty for Catholics in Hungary, and also for Protestants in Spain and in South America.

A remark of this nature, made by such a highly-placed church official, should not go unheeded. That there is need for religious liberty in Spain has been emphasized by a report published recently in the New York Herald Tribune, written by Homer Bigart, Pulitzer-Prize winner. Mr. Bigart spent a year visiting and reporting from countries back of the Iron Curtain, and subsequently spent a month in Spain. Concerning the position of the Protestants in Spain, he reports, as published in the Herald Tribune:

“A Protestant cannot hold official position in the government, nor can he rise to an officer’s rank in the army unless he conceals his religious beliefs. He is not allowed to practice his faith in public. The chapel he attends must not display any exterior evidence that it is a place of worship. It cannot advertise its existence—not even with a bulletin board. It cannot be listed in the public directories.”

According to Bigart, a Protestant clergyman suffers much the same type of persecution in Spain as the Roman Catholic clergy do in Hungary. It seems that last summer eighteen Protestants were arrested at Medina del Campo for holding a prayer meeting, and each was fined the equivalent of two months’ pay for the average Spanish workman.

Mr. Bigart reports further that marriage and baptism by Protestant clergymen are not given recognition. This makes it very difficult for married workmen; for since they are not considered legally married, they are denied wage supplements for their wives and children. Many times it is also difficult, according to this report, to find places where the Protestants can bury their dead, as they are denied burial in regular church cemeteries. In view of a report of this nature, is it any wonder that Bishop Oxnam suggests that there should be religious liberty in Spain as well as in Hungary?

In this great struggle for human rights, and the confusion of ideas that is associated with it, there comes another interesting report from China, where now the communists are pretty much in the saddle. This report is in the form of a letter published in the Christian Century. It is written by Mr. T.C. Chao, dean of the School of Religion at Yenching University in China. Mr. Chao is one of the six presidents of the World Council of Churches. He is a highly placed figure in the religious world of today, and his report should not be brushed aside lightly. It was written soon after the fall of Peiping, and this is one of his statements:

“At present the whole faculty and student body of Yenching are joyfully facing the reality of their ‘liberation.’ Those who had misgivings were given ample opportunity to leave our university, and they are now safe in other places. We who remain have reason to rejoice in the success of the revolutionary forces, though we are by no means communists ourselves. Some of us are in fact ardent Christians, including most of our Western colleagues.”

Why did Christians like Mr. Chao rejoice over the communist victory in China? Another paragraph from his letter may help us to understand:

“It is not easy to describe the enthusiasm of our community in abstract terms. To be brief, we are glad to see the destruction of feudalism in China. Dynasty after dynasty, the masses of our nation have endured exploitation like dumb driven cattle. When the war with Japan ended, our people thought they could have some peace and some freedom from fear and hunger, and could work in their customary ways without molestation and oppression. Contrary to their expectation, their government chose to wage a bloody civil war against their will. It added disregard of the desire of the people to exploitation, exploitation to oppression, oppression to total corruption, and total corruption to utter callousness and impotence. It therefore lost the sympathy and support of the people.”

Judging from this explanation of why non-communists in China rejoiced over the communist victory, it would seem that conditions were so bad that they thought any sort of change would have to be for the better. Later in his letter, this religious educator expresses fears that the communists may not live up to what they have promised, and that in their flush of victory they may forget the interests of the people generally. And there are, doubtless, good grounds for these fears.

Not only is the struggle for human rights taking place between communism and religion, and between communism and democracy; but closer at home we see it occurring on the racial level. The filibustering in Congress is one of the clashes between the two opposing forces in this great battle. In some places in the South a mockery was made of Brotherhood Week by renewed opposition to colored people.

In Miami Shores, Florida, the pastor of a community church having a membership of over 700, decided to invite a colored pastor to address the congregation on Brotherhood Week Sunday. By a vote of twenty-eight to nine, the church board of trustees confirmed the pastor’s invitation; but there was so much opposition from the membership, that it was thought best to cancel the invitation. The colored pastor involved simply observed that it takes experiences like this to reveal where some people stand.

So the struggle goes on, and while the battle cry of liberty is being heard the world around, there is so much confusion as to what constitutes liberty, and so much of self-interest on the part of those who are fighting for liberty, that the chances for victory often seem very slim. Indeed, many observers claim that the forces of tyranny and oppression are gaining ground. From the standpoint of prophecy, what is being accomplished is the awakening of the world to a sense of its needs. The people are learning that they have been exploited and deprived of their rights; and they are learning about their needs, even though in most cases they are not obtaining the blessings which are so alluringly held before them by their leaders.

But in the divine arrangement the kingdom of Christ will furnish the blessings which the present transition period of the world is preparing the people to receive. A statement issued by the World Council of Churches sums up the situation very well, saying,

“There is a word of God for the world. It is that the world is in the hands of the living God; … and that the end of history will be the triumph of his kingdom, where alone we shall understand how much God has loved the world.”

It would be well to modify the expression “the end of history,” to read, the “end of history under the rulership of selfish man,” for human history is destined to continue being made forever. But how different that history will be under the rulership of Christ! In writing this statement, the World Council of Churches probably had in mind the age-old fallacy that in some unseen manner the churches will still be able to bring in the kingdom of God.

This is the fallacy that has deceived practically the whole world, and is causing many today to lose faith in Christianity. The idea started with the church-state governments of Europe; and while here in America the people know the evils of such a system, the idea still prevails that in some way or other we must depend upon our civil governments to protect the interests of God in the world, even if they have to go to war to do it.

We should be realistic in this matter. We should face the fact that if God is represented in the conflicting and warring factions of churchianity, it will be a long while before the world will pay much attention to him. Let us rather take the view presented in the Bible, which is that the present order of things will perish, and that Christ’s kingdom will be established and take over the rulership of the earth wholly independent of all humanly constituted authority. When the Prophet Isaiah foretold the setting up of this kingdom, and of the spread of its influence to embrace all nations, he added, “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”—Isaiah 9:7

Let us be glad for this assurance—the assurance that the Lord will establish his own kingdom, that the coming of his rulership does not depend upon Catholicism or Protestantism, upon communism or democracy. We can be thankful, nevertheless, that God has permitted present conditions in the world to teach the people their need of his help, and every failure of human efforts is preparing the minds of the people ultimately to accept this fact, and to look to him for deliverance.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |