Fairness—Golden rule fairness to other religious bodies will restrict our use of public press reports concerning their denominational affairs. Taking the frequently distorted reports of our own conferences or actions,—when written by men unfamiliar with the genius, scope, and motivating spirit of our work,—we have an example of the looseness and departure from fact of much of the secular (and often sensational) press reporting in the religious field. Let us, therefore, in quoting use reports from official church journals. These reflect the spirit and intent, the motive and meaning, of the issuing body. These alone are representative and authoritative. Fair interpretation from such sources is not subject to legitimate repudiation.
Scholasticism!—There develops on the part of some who delve into learning, a supercilious superiority of attitude that is devastating to spiritual life in the soul. There is no necessary nor rightful antagonism between the profoundest piety and the deepest learning. Their harmonious and mutually intensifying reaction upon each other is one of the glories and beauties of truth, and its pursuit. True scholarship is imperative for the church, and the scholarly attitude is ever to be encouraged. But we lift our voice in warning and appeal against that doubting, skeptical, and supposedly "scientific approach" that places most historical evidence in the category of the uncertainties, thus emasculating the certainties of faith, indispensable to a sound Christian experience of faith. That is scholasticism of the destructive type. That is the spirit that breathes throughout higher criticism and Modernism. It is a deadly miasma, blighting everything that it touches. It is foreign to the whole genius of this movement. Beware of it.
Independence!—There is safety in counsel. Likewise there is peril in independent action for any worker in this cause. It is not simply unwise to break rank and dash out of line, unsupported by one's associates; a far larger principle is at stake. Men are not called to fight the battles of the Lord alone. The backing of one's associates is never to be lightly regarded. No man should take, for example, responsibility of independent and private printing of documents purporting to represent denominational teaching. They do not and cannot, unless first subjected to the careful scrutiny of a group of competent associates, appointed as leaders in this movement. Connected with our standard publishing houses are representative committees duly appointed to safeguard against mistakes of judgment, misstatements of fact, or misquotation of authorities. This provision is indispensable for the mutual protection of writer and reader, as well as of the denomination represented through the publishing house. And with all this precaution, mistakes will creep in occasionally. No one has a right thus to involve the denomination by such dissemination of a divergent personal view. Neither is it wise and proper for him to face alone the gunfire of critic or foe. In the counsel of the brethren, with all their shortcomings, there is wisdom.
Enlarge!—It takes neither special insight nor acumen to realize that, in relation to foreign expansion, there are inevitable limits to the "giving possibilities" of our present home-base constituencies, though as yet we scarcely know the demands of real, consuming sacrifice. The surest, most effective, and far-visioned way to enlarge the outflow of means and men to mission lands is greatly to enlarge the home-base constituency through unceasing, intensive evangelism. Our people will give more and do more. And each home-base recruit becomes a permanent, supporting asset through his tithes and offerings, and his personal missionary activities. To enlarge the home-base constituency is the manifest need of the hour.
Unscholarly!—Some, in prophetic interpretation, first adopt a theory, or blindly accept a traditional position, and then comb the tomes of history to find substantiating evidence, gathering a bit from here and a shred from there. So set, at times, is the concept for which supporting evidence is sought that the eye is blinded and the mind closed to facts that would either modify or neutralize the selections chosen, if the setting, context, and full body of testimony were but unbiasedly studied. Under such procedure, evidence of a conflicting character is ignored, or at least much minimized, because of the preconceived conclusion. Such a policy is unsafe, unsound, and unscholarly. Never should it be employed by a teacher of present truth. It is a violation of the basic principle of truth, a contradiction of terms. Every sound and invulnerable position is based on a fair and faithful cognizance of all the facts, hiding, avoiding, or glossing over none that are competent and pertinent. Difficult statements must be reconciled, incompetent testimony disproved and discredited, and harmony established with all known facts. The tragedy is that many assent to these principles theoretically, but in practice consciously or unconsciously violate them.
L. E. F.
