The Atlantic Pact.
The Pact, the terms of which were first published last March, originated in America and is, of course, a product of the politicians, being a treaty intended to unify the Western nations, great and small, who have become signatories to it. The Pact reaffirms what is called “the faith” of the parties in the principles of the United Nations Organisation, and their desire to live in peace with all peoples. Statesmen who were outstanding in bringing into being U.N.O. have recently expressed grave doubts as to the expectation that critical international problems can be solved by its means. And no wonder that such a state of affairs has arisen. God has been relegated to the background by U.N.O. from its inception, and now the great Powers of East and West, so recently allies in war, and still all members of U.N.O., are politically, actively and openly divided. Hence the Atlantic Pact on the part of the Western nations. International unity and peace without Christ and the acceptance of the precious precepts of the Gospel of salvation for a sinful world, are impossible. Russia and her satellite countries stand opposite and opposed to this Pact. She cannot be exonerated from a portion of blame in creating the division accentuated by the Pact, which declares a determination “to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Yet, sad to say, there does not appear to be any reference throughout the Preamble and 14 Articles of the Pact, to the name of God or the need of divine blessing and help. It may be argued by some that it is essentially a political document; but if we would search behind the scenes we would find that in Roman Catholic quarters, the Pact is looked upon as a welcome instrument for the defence of their religion on the continent and elsewhere. Be that as it may, it must not be overlooked that there are statesmen who honestly consider that this action by the Western Powers is a most necessary step for the safeguarding of liberties and privileges of Protestants and others as well, among the nations who are signatories. Yet, vain is the help of man, if we enjoy not the favour of the Prince of the Kings of the earth, the Lord Jesus Christ. May Britain be brought, in mercy, to weep over how Christ Jesus has been dishonoured among us and to return to a national recognition of His glory as the exalted Prince and Saviour. Then in our commitments with other nations there would be a regard for the mind of Christ in all matters, an acknowledgment of the need of His guidance and help, and a Christian concern to do what is right in the sight of God.
Juvenile Delinquency.
The Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, called a conference of representatives from the State, the Church and the Law, at the Central Hall, London, on the 2nd of March, 1949, to discuss the serious problem of nation-wide and ever-increasing juvenile delinquency. In 1948, the total found guilty of indictable offences—44,000—is the highest recorded since the Children and Young Persons’ Act, 1933. The Home Secretary said, “In a sense, every child who appears before a juvenile court represents a failure of his parents and of the social and educational system.” A message from the King stated that both the King and Queen agreed that insistence on a right standard of moral values, when based on good influence in the home, was of supreme importance. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York referred to the demoralising effect of some films and football pools, and the drift away from moral laws. Mr. Basil Henriques, chairman of a London juvenile court, said that of 26 cases before him on a certain day, he did not think there were two parents who were living in harmony. They were either divorced or separated, with the result of unhappy children. What can we say to all this? Pages, yea, books could be written on the subject by those competent to do so. It is obvious that moral standards, in plain terms, the ten commandments are coming into great public prominence by reason of the evil effects following transgression of these divine laws by so many juveniles. God’s law cannot be buried out of sight by even modern generations. It will assert itself and make itself felt by the harvest of misery reaped on account of the transgression of it by young and old. Therefore we must be brought back to a national regard for the binding obligation of God’s law upon us. Then many parents appear to be weighted with much guilt and responsibility for the serious measure of juvenile delinquency. No Bible, religion or discipline in the home prepares the way for this national evil. And divorce, becoming so much easier to obtain, plays its own part in breaking up homes and bringing misery and lack of control into the experience of many children. And yet the cry repeatedly to-day is to make divorce easier still. This is indeed what might be called a “vicious circle.” Adults don’t like juvenile delinquency, yet there is a pandering by such to the natural and sinful desires, tastes and ways of the young; and a positive neglect of moral duty towards them as prescribed in Scripture. The disease of national backsliding from God is now breaking out in this painful symptom, juvenile delinquency. Sabbath desecration, neglect of the public worship of God, etc., are older evidences of the disease. “Is there no balm in Gilead?” Yes, God has the remedy. May He pour upon us the Spirit of grace and supplications that we, as a nation, may rend our hearts and not our garments and return penitently to the ways of the Lord.
Uncalled-for Observations by Free Church Monthly.
In the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland for April, a paragraph avers that the Free Presbyterian Magazine printed (a) a sermon which denied the Resurrection of the body, and (b) that in the March (1949) issue it disclaims belief in “Christ’s personal return to this earth.” As to the first of these, an article, not a sermon, appeared in March, 1948, by a minister on “Burial of the dead,” condemning prayers at the grave, a practice in vogue throughout the Free Church for instance. A statement published later by the said minister removed misunderstanding for all fair-minded readers, viz.: “It has been brought to my notice that certain statements in my article . . . have been interpreted otherwise than I intended, and I regret that I inadvertently made an unbalanced statement which I withdraw. I adhere unreservedly to the doctrine of the Confession of Faith on “The State of Men after Death and of the Resurrection of the Dead.” Fair comment we do not wish to repudiate, but if the Free Church penman read the above, as he ought in the circumstances, then there is apparent lack of equity and Christian sincerity in reviving the matter in the manner adopted.
Secondly, we, in a Note and Comment, referred to a statement issued by a congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Canada. Our words were, “We can fully endorse practically all the statement . . . with the exception of the reference to ‘Christ’s personal return to this earth’.” Obviously this meant— We cannot fully endorse the words, “His personal return to this earth.” On this basis we are charged by the Free Church Monthly with disclaiming belief in Christ’s personal return and denying it outright. We, of course, did nothing of the sort. What we did was to exercise caution in how we referred to “His personal return to this earth,” which statement on the Second Advent we were just not prepared to accept without qualification and elucidation, the words appearing to indicate belief in the pre-millennial view involving Christ’s personal reign on this earth, which view we do not agree with. We believe in Christ’s personal and visible coming at the last day. The term “return” is not found in the Confession of Faith on this subject. One Scripture reference only mentions “return,” under chapter xxxiii.—Of the Last Judgment, in the Confession, viz.; ” . . . when he will return from the wedding” (Luke xii, 36). It is His coming we read of respecting the positive event of the Second Advent. In Matthew, chapters xxiv and xxv, His coming is referred to more than twelve times. This has a definite significance. He comes to sit upon the throne of His glory, the judgment seat. He does not return to this throne, He comes to it, as this shall be the only occasion when He shall have acted personally as judge of the whole world. The Free Church Monthly also quotes, “His feet shall stand upon the Mount of Olives” (Zechariah xiv, 4), apparently with the purpose of convincing us that Christ at a future date will actually and literally stand once more on this material earth outside Jerusalem. Yet some of the greatest and soundest commentators refuse to commit themselves to this view, in their cautious handling of a difficult part of Scripture. And caution on our part has provoked observations (under the Free Church heading “Strange Doctrines”) permeated with insincerity, flippancy and a lack of genuine concern for the conserving of truth. And finally, who will believe from the Free Church Monthly, that Free Presbyterians reject both the Resurrection of the Body and the Personal Second Advent of Christ? We leave it at that.