Your observations are welcome:
I find this in my reading of Church
History that every heresy has had its origin in a desire for something the
Church was not supplying at the hour. Men began to worship the Virgin Mary,
tender and loving, because the Church of the day was altogether dwelling upon
the sterner attributes of God and on the Sovereignty of Christ. Men hungered for
a heart on which they could recline in their trouble, and be soothed to rest.
They wanted, in a word, the knowledge of the compassionate Father that we have
found; but, the Church failing to give that message, men turned wistfully to
the worship of the gentle mother of our Lord. All the terrible perversion of
Christianity which centres in her worship could have been prevented if the
leaders of those days had only asked themselves, “Why are our people turning in
this direction?” They would have found that they possessed a hunger which the
Church teaching of the day was not supplying, though they had the satisfaction
that was meet; and had they begun to emphasise all the tender facts embraced in
the Truth of the Fatherhood of God the worship of the Virgin would have ceased.
Every heresy has arisen in response to a clamant need, and has survived until
the Church has recognised its costly error and amended its teaching. So, as
Newman said, heresy is “the grotesque foreshadow of true statements which are
to come.”
Here, then, are three movements
which are capturing some of our own people and thousands of those who ought to
be with us. In what lies their appeal? Why, for instance, do people flock
to Russellism? In my opinion, chiefly because the teaching of its founder
was so compact of Scripture. His Studies in the Scriptures are masterpieces of
mosaic work in texts, and give the impression to the ordinary reader that that
doctrine must be sound which is textually supported so plentifully. Of course,
texts are misused, torn from their context, treated as of the same value
whether they come from the records of “the times of men's ignorance or from the
New Testament; but there they are, arranged in serried battalions and making a
mighty impression. Russellism gains adherents from Bible-loving folk
because it uses the Bible; uses it in a perverted way, but uses it. We are
losing them because we do not use the Bible. Expository preaching seems to be
one of the lost arts. Topical preaching is the fashion now, and seldom is the
teaching of the pulpit backed home by the Word. Yet the people love the Bible,
and have an ingrained trust in its teaching. Why cannot we put it back in its
own place? Modern thought, we are told, has made the Book a new and more
valuable one than ever. Why cannot the people share in this new appreciation of
its values? The vogue of Russellism calls to us to be once again men
of the Book. When we use it folk will not stray to those who misuse it.
Russellism appeals, again, because it gives a teaching with regard to the Future that is free from the horrors associated with the mediæval idea of hell. It wins and holds men, because they feel that its picture of the Future is more in keeping with our present conception of God than was the old. Our pulpit is silent on the matter. We never hear of hell to-day. Sometimes we hear of the heaven that awaits the good, but never a definite word as to the fate of the sinful. People want that information to-day more than ever. Many of our untimely dead have been lads who have never given a sign of any religious leanings. Their dear ones are troubled about them. Where are they? What is their state? Spiritualism professes to tell them, and to its halls they flock to hear that there is no reason for anxiety. Russellism tells them that there is no need to worry. They are at rest, whatever they were, and will have a second chance, even if they have been grossly wicked. Is it true that most Christian teachers have been driven by their knowledge of men and God to believe that there is hope in the Hereafter for all but the incorrigibly bad-if such there be and that for all others there is the hope of progress to the perfect good at last? If that is so, we never hear a whisper of it from our pulpits, though it is spoken in our homes to people sorrowing over their lost dear ones. If we have the message of comfort, why do we leave it to be declared by the exponents of that destroying superstition, Spiritualism, and by the Russellite teachers, whose message is so infinitely dangerous, because they make sin apparently so harmless?
10 comments:
The clergyman speaks of three movements but only focuses on Russelism. I wonder what the other two are unless I missed something.
An interesting admission that the writings of Russell are “so compact of scripture.” Of course, the writer states the texts are misused, but without examples and counter-arguments, that statement is meaningless. I note that the clergyman believes that some texts used by Russell come from the records of “the times of men’s ignorance” which is hardly an affirmation of Biblical inspiration. And he seems to feel that “there is hope in the Hereafter for all but the incorrigibly bad” - but the church dare not openly say it – and then criticises CTR for doing just that. Of course, the idea that the Church should just soothe people with something vague and woolly, rather than what they should have or what the Bible actually says, typifies the history of much mainstream religion.
Austin,
This is taken from The Opinions of R.H. Brown by Percy Addison Devis. It is available from google books.
"every heresy has had its origin in a desire for something the Church was not supplying at the hour."
Echoed 25 years later by J. K. Van Baalen, when he wrote "The cults are the unpaid bills of the church".
And "the church" seems no closer to supplying those things, or paying those bills, than it was in 1919 or 1944.
Rightly or wrongly, I took the three movements to be Mariolatry, Russellism and Spiritualism.
Regarding the latter, by 1919 the churches had ‘shot themselves in the foot’. In encouraging youths to support the war ‘come what may’, it now faced the problem of memorializing those that didn’t return. Cenotaphs were set up and the churches took the lead each Remembrance Day to recall the courage of those who had fallen and reassure relatives that these men and their names would ‘live forever more’, apparently regardless of whether they believed in Christ or not and, in so doing, acts of personal valour were given a redemptive value seemingly equivalent to Christ’s ransom. This diminished the need for Christ, while the thought that these men continued living elsewhere played right into the hands of spiritualists as relatives and friends sort comfort in mediums and seances. After all, if these did live elsewhere in some spirit realm as most churches insisted, why not contact them?
I had the same observation as Jerome, that the clergyman criticized Second Probation or Second Chance doctrine and in the same breath admitted that it was probably the truth. Perhaps the motivation lies in his last sentence, that the teachings of Russellism "make sin apparently so harmless." It's interesting that in this clergyman's assessment, something can be both true and "infinitely dangerous." Quite a contrast to the 'find out what the Bible says and let the chips fall where they may' approach that tended to be true of the Bible Students.
Thank you Bruce.
Dear Bruce,
Could I ask please a belated question? Who was the clergyman and what is the source of these comments? I ask because I would like to make use of his comment that “every heresy has had its origin in a desire for something the Church was not supplying at the hour”.
With thanks
G
The Opinions of R.H. Brown by Percy Addison Devis
Thank you Bruce!
Post a Comment