Newspaper Page Text
expensive scheme !'* "The Church's present
agencies are sufficient and can do the work
best." These are common remarks made by
Chinese leaders.
There is good authority for beliving that the
Chinese pastors in Shanghai do not. favor the
plan. Of their own accord they invited Dr.
Hugh White to address them on the subject.
The Pastors' Association of Soochow does not
favor it : advocates of the Council said that
this was due to foreign influence ; the ministers
hearing this, declared that this was not a fact,
their attitude was due to no outside influence.
The Kiangpeh Prcscbytery does not favor it,
and the Independent Church, one is told, will
have none of it. It is a great mistake to sup
pose that the agitation for a National Council
came from the Chinese Church. Some Chinese
favor it, but it appears to be largely the re
sult of a vigorous foreign propaganda which
has been conducted in China since the Edin
burgh Conference years ago.
It is also significant to note the difference in
the men who take opposite views of this ques
tion. The men who favor the new movement
are not men of long religious experience, nor
are they the ones who have built up the Chi
nese Church- They are mostly young men who
have been educated abroad in "liberal" insti
tutions and hold radical views. The men who
do not favor the movement of whieli the Na
tional Council is a part, are the active pastors
and evangelists who have borne the burden
and heat of the day, and have largely built up
the Chinese Church.
IV. Another reason why the North Kiangsu
Mission does not favor the National Council is
that the affiliations of most of the promoters
are with Modernism. The movement is largely
a modernist movement. While some conserva
tive men are on the various committees, the
majority are men of modernist sympathies.
The Chinese put forward as speakers and lead
ers in the National Conference, with the ex
ception of Dr. Chen Ching I, were mainly of
the same class. The whole general drift of
the movement, both as regards religious be
liefs and administration, is opposed to the con
victions and policies of our Southern Presbyte
rian Church. This movement, like other union
movements, is popular with men who hold radi
cal views, because it practically removes all
religious standards and leaves each one to be
lieve and teach what he pleases, with none to
say him nay. Is not this attitude wholly dif
ferent from that of our beloved Church which
has definite standards and believes that it has
truth of infinite value to witness for f
While the National Conference, under press
ure, was forced to make some statement of doc
trine, that statement was purposely vague and
dodged the vital issue between radicals and
evangelicals; they would not declare that the
whole Scriptures are the Word of God, the
"only infallible rule of faith and practice."
A loophole was left so that each radical could
believe or reject just as much as he pleased of
the Holy Word. The "Fundamentals" were
mentioned, but they were afraid to state what
those fundamentals were! An attempt was
made in the interest of peace and truth to get
some assurance as to what the doctrinal posi
tion of the future National Council would be,
but they refused absolutely to give any such
assurance. The Council which would have such
tremendous influence for good or evil was left
free to believe or disbelieve, as its members
saw fit! Can our Church be expected to en
dorse a plan which leaves things "at loose
ends" like this? Would it be reasonable or
businessilke to do so? And would our Mission
be loyal to its trust if it approved of a Council
formed on such a basis? And if we come un
der such a Council, holding totally divergent
opinions on questions of vital importance to
the management of union institutions, how is
it possible to act harmoniously, with one party
teaching views which the other party knows
to be absolutely destructive of Christian faith?
(Signed)
Henry M. Woods,
Hugh W. White,
S. I. Woodbridge,
Jas. B. Woods,
Delegates of the North Kiangsu Mission to the
National Christian Conference.
(To be continued next week.)
JESUS NOT OUR EXAMPLE.
By Rev. H. H. Leach.
This is true in the sense in which this expres
sion is generally understood and taught. The
teaching that Jesus was a Model to he copied,
an Example to he followed, and came for that
purpose alone, is very widespread. It is the
heart of Unitarianism. The central dogma of
Christian Socialism is the "Imitation of
Christ;'' it makes Him a philanthropist, not a
Saviour. It holds He came as a Teacher. Jesus
considered as an Example is the central idea
in all the humanitarian and latitudinarial
gospels (so called), and this "gospel" is now
like a banyan tree, with many a root in many a
place. Likewise the "Imitatio Christi" is the
chief corner-stone of the "moral influence'*
theory which sets forth the whole work of
Christ as a Teacher and an Exemplar, in phi
lanthrophy, benevolence and kindness. How
plausible, therefore, the cry of the Christian
Scientist (falsely so called), "'You must heal
the sick, cure all diseases, or not be Christian,
for He healed all manner of diseases."
This teaching that Christ's work consisted
in setting us an example has permeated the
denominations till we see Christians every
where who think they can find out every duty
by simply asking, "What would Jesus do?"
Several million copies of a book bearing that
title have been sold in the United States.
So widespread is this view of Christ's work
and of Christian duty, that the writer fears he
will be charged with disloyalty, if not with out
and-out heresy, if he suggests this is not the
correct theory of the Christian religion.
The literal following of Christ in all things
is not the standard of Christian living, the
ideal of Christian conduct. There are too
many difficulties in the way of this interpreta
tion.
1. Historical: All those whose lives dated
"B. C." had no instruction as to their duties
to God and man for such "Example" had not
then been given.
2. Metaphysical : That is, one growing out
of the nature of man and the nature of Christ.
Jesus is a divine human being, a God-man, and
a God-man is not a pattern for man. Prom
the nature of the case, a man cannot be like
and act like a God-man. Here man cannot
"follow copy."
3. Evangelical: According to the Scriptures
Jesus is above all things a Saviour. "The Son
of Man is come to seek and to save that which
was lost." Are His disciples all to imitate Him
in this way and to save men as He saved them f
4. Practical: On this explanation of Christ's
mission no one can be His follower and imi
tator ; for He cannot be born like Him ; he can
not l?e a child like Him ; he cannot be baptized
like He was; he cannot be tempted like Him;
he cannot preach like Him, for He spake as
never man spake ; he cannot perform like
"mighty deeds;" he cannot be a carpenter; he
cannot be a pauper like Him ; he cannot remain
unmarried like He did, else he would wreck
society ; he cannot forgive sins like He did ; he
cannot receive worship like He did; he cannot
answer prayer like He did; he cannot "lay
down his life of himself and take it again," as
He did; he cannot ascend to the right hand of
the Father as He did.
Yet, it cannot be denied that, according to
the Scriptures. Christ is our example. "He
that saith he abideth in Him ought himself
also to walk even as He walked." Christ
likeness is the Scriptural ideal for all disciples.
"Be ye holy; for I am holy." "We shall be
like Him; for we shall see Him as He is." "Be
hold, I have given j-ou an example, that ye
should do as (not what) I have done." "Let
this mind be in you which was also in Christ
Jesus." "He that taketh not up His cross and
folio weth after Me cannot be My disciple."
In what sense, and to what degree are we to
follow Jesus? Precisely in this, and in no
other: Jesus is our example in His obedience
to the moral law. Here then is our duty,
Keep Gods' commandments just as Jesus did.
Herein lies the whole duty of the Christian.
The work that Jesus did as a Saviour of sin
ners is not for imitation. It was never done
before; never will be again. No one but the
God-man can do it; and He needs to perform
it but once.
The "mighty deeds" wrought by Him were
primarily for the purpose of proving He was
the Messiah sent of God. "The works which
the Father hath given Me to accomplish, the
very works that I do, bear witness of me, that
the Father hath sent Me:" "The works that
I do in My Father's name, these bear witness
of me." "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved
of God unto you by mighty works and wonders
and signs which God did by Him in the midst
of you." His Messiaship and appointment of
God as Saviour being duly attested to the
world, and the record of them being preserved
in writing, there is since then, no -call for mir
acles. And he who attempts to work miracles
today in copying Christ's example is therefore
proving himself an impostor.
Jesus, in executing His office as Mediator
between God and sinful men, did two things:
First, He fully satisfied all the penal demands
the law, broken by sinners, had upon them;
and second, He obeyed the moral law with ab
solute perfection ? every precept to the last
"jot and title."
In His suffering the penalty of the law, His
is not, and from the nature of the case, cannot
be our example to follow. It is no believer's
duty to endure the curse.
In His obedience to the moral law Jesus is
our example. The question for the Christian
to raise is not, "What would Jesus dot" but
"What does the law require?" Or, if he de
sires to cling to the question, "What would
Jesus do?" let him always obtain the only cor
rect answer, Jesus would keep God's command
ments.
The law, as summed up in the ten command
ments, outlines the whole duty of the Chris
tian.
Christ in His perfect obedience illustrates
the way the duty is to be performed.
The grace of GRirist's Spirit, working in and
through His Word, is the power by which the
Christian is to "follow Jesus," as He did what
ever the moral law requires.
Swan Quarter, N. C.