Secularized History Seeks Admittance
When this last-day advent movement was brought forth, nearly a century ago, the religious and educational leadership of the Protestant world about was largely loyal to what, apart from the distinctive features of Adventism, may be denominated the timeless, universal fundamentals of Christianity,—the inspiration and supreme authority of the Bible, the deity and virgin birth of Christ, His atoning death, literal resurrection, and ascension, et cetera. And this was the dominating concept of educators as well as of the clergy. But in the years that have followed there has come about in the learned professions a revolutionary repudiation of these age-old verities, growing more serious and general with each passing decade, until today mankind lives in a radically different world dominated by entirely different concepts, attitudes, relationships, and objectives from those held in the past.
The gradual but relentless ascendancy of religious liberalism—which has broken with the Bible—and the engulfing tide of the evolution hypothesis, have largely stripped the intellectual leadership of the world of its faith. The secular press, for example, has so changed its attitude that the vast bulk of both the "intellectual magazine" utterances and those of the "huge circulation" group are today hostile in sentiment to the religious fundamentals of half a century ago. This shift is so marked in contrast to its former attitude as to be a matter of comment in the press itself.
In no field, however, has the encroachment been more devastating than in the educational world. The great universities and seminaries of a century ago have undergone a change as profound as it is revolutionary in their repudiation of the age-old Christian fundamentals, and the ruinous results are seen in nearly every branch of education. This revolution
in attitude has pronouncedly affected the history departments of the world's great institutions of learning, and has specifically influenced not only the teaching content of the classroom, but the very process of historical research and evaluation of the records of the ages. This affects us all, for it has virtually recast the historical attitude and its principles of appraisal.
A new philosophy of history has come into ascendancy, regulating all evaluations, that leaves God as the controlling factor out of the historic picture and scouts at any authoritative revelation concerning historical certainties as revealed through the Bible. This is the atmosphere that pervades the university history classroom of today, and it is woven inextricably into the texture of the courses offered. It is a wholly secularized viewpoint, an essentially pagan outlook that is now dominant. It is spreading with a wasting blight over the world today. But far more serious than that, it is knocking at our door and seeks entrance among us,
The seriousness of such a contingency warrants most careful study of the situation, as nothing could be more ruinous to the genius of our whole movement and to our commissioned message to mankind—which, through the prophecies, is bound up inextricably with the expounding of history's inner meaning. Once accepted, the secularized historical attitude and conclusions would emasculate our entire witness to the world, In some ways it would be more serious than the actual acceptance of some specific false doctrine. Its possible penetration among us is such as to occasion gravest concern—not that the ultimate conclusions will be received by us, but that the secularized historical attitude and process of evaluation will find some lodgment and blur the clear concepts that must characterize the history approach and emphasis of this movement if we are to remain true to our Heaven-appointed witness.
L. E. F.
Writing for "The Ministry"
Although the Ministry is not a literary journal, it does seek to maintain high literary standards throughout its columns. Therefore it toils and wrestles over many of its contributions in order to bring them up to Ministry standards. Not a few must, in order to be used, be entirely rewritten. This really should not be necessary in a professional journal wherein our reader-contributors are, or should be, constant writers not only for the denominational press, but for the secular as well. This matter of acceptable writing is a field in which -all gospel workers should excel, for the first impressions upon an editor are most important—if an article is to receive favorable consideration. Most editors will not retain poor copy ; or, if they do, it is with great reluctance.
We have therefore arranged to have certain helpful and practical suggestions appear in The Ministry from time to time, bearing upon the form and mechanics of writing —things to do and to avoid, common mistakes, and the like. One such, by the director of the Review and Herald proofroom, appeared in February. Another, prepared by a member of The Ministry staff, is found on page 35 in this issue. More will follow from different writers. We invite you to try out the proffered suggestions in writing for The Ministry, thus improving your composition.
But we would urge that you avoid the plague of rule-consciousness. Let these guiding principles form the subconscious background of your work, as nothing so cramps and spoils a manuscript as to be ostensibly written according to rigid rule. The living, throbbing thought contributed by the writer is the soul and center of all writing, and the thought should flow easily through the written product. Each manuscript should, moreover, pulsate with the distinctive personality of the writer, and not be constricted to some colorless, impersonal, general form. And good editing never dims that individuality. It simply adjusts obvious faults and obscurities, often refraining from changing an expression that is not as strong or effective as another might phrase it, and does not run all copy through one editorial mold.
All truly effective writing is simple and artless—the words becoming but the transparent medium of the thought that lives behind and speaks through these articulate phrases. Words should therefore always reveal, and not conceal. They should ever clarify, not blur or be hard to see through. Involved constructions, confused antecedents, mixed metaphors, overworked adjectives, pointless phrases, and needless repetitions should all be avoided. The resultant product should create in the reader the same clear concepts and impulses that moved the writer as the words poured forth from his mind and heart. And never should an article be largely a group of quotations from the Spirit of prophecy, strung together with a few connecting sentences, and called a contribution, unless it be an ostensible Testimonies study.
To achieve such a desired result, one must live with his product until it becomes the natural and inevitable expression of his own innermost thought and conviction, in form, content, and phrasing. Yet all such vital writing is governed by certain clearly recognized and sharply defined principles. There are certain definite laws of rhetoric and grammar, and rules of composition, of which all should be aware, and by which we, as craftsmen in the writing field, must needs abide. And there are certain accepted outward, mechanical features and forms we all must follow. Some of these indispensables are set forth for your aid as you write for The Ministry or other journals.
L. E. F.
