Sacred and Secular Things.
During last July the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Rev. Dr. J. J. Jeffrey, D.D., was given a civic reception in the town of Thurso, Caithness. In his speech on this occasion Dr. Jeffrey said, among other things, “One of the signs of real progress in the world to-day was the laying aside of denominationalism, and the putting away of old-fashioned differences between sacred and secular things.” It would be wise for us to inquire as to the nature of this “progress” in putting away old-fashioned differences between sacred and secular things. Aaron was instructed by the Lord thus, “And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean” (Lev., x, v. 10). Then in the days of Ezekiel the prophet, the Lord declared through him, “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean . . .” (Ezekiel, ch. xxii, v. 26). And later in this book we read, “And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane . . .” Then we read in the New Testament of “the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the Word, and it becometh unfruitful.” Further, the Lord Jesus Himself emphasised in no uncertain manner the difference which was to be retained as between the sacred and the secular, when He drove out of the Temple the money changers and those that bought and sold doves. And what of dances, whist drives, pantomimes and the use of the cinema in connection with Church activities to-day? These are secular indeed, but many in Dr. Jeffrey’s denomination who profess regard for sacred things make no difference between these secular things and what is considered sacred in the life and organised activities of their Church. Is all this a sign of real progress? Certainly not in the light of God’s Word. It is positive and God-dishonouring retrogression of the most evil kind, with ruinous results to the spiritual well-being of precious souls in Scotland as elsewhere. Surely the masses to-day have need of a clear, unmixed and faithful witness to the sacred and holy claims of the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel, and not a flattering pandering to secularism in which the most of this generation are already steeped.
The Church of Scotland’s Gateway Theatre—An Exposure.
We have received a copy of the following letter from the writer himself. The letter had been sent to several daily papers, and Mr. Ramsay is to be commended for exposing this disgusting secularism authorised and supported by the Church of Scotland. Where is Dr. Jeffrey’s creed when the Church of Scotland dare not display God’s Word on the walls of the Gateway Theatre? The difference between the sacred Word of God and a sex-play, etc., is too glaring to permit the Word of God to appear in the same building. Letter:—
Sir,—Through the courtesy of the Press I was able to publish a protest earlier in the year about a “daring” sex-play as well as “Hogmanay—Riotous Extravaganza” that the Church of Scotland had put on at its Gateway Theatre. The Director (Rev. George Candlish) replied that “even where the Church of Scotland plays did not have a religious theme, they had a Christian impact.” Can anyone who experienced the Christian impact of those plays write and say what it felt like? And did anyone feel Christian impact at the Priestley play just staged at the Festival by the Church? It was about some couples who suddenly discover that they are not really married. The critics called it “hilarious fun.” Thank God, they did not suggest that our Saviour had anything to do with it!
Apart from his astounding remark about the impact of Gateway plays (a sublime insult to the intelligence of the public, by the way) the Director side-stepped my challenge issued at that time, viz., that he dare not, without mockery, put up a Bible text proclaiming the Gospel at the Gateway. It is surely a daring effrontery for the Church of Scotland to offer for sale to you and me Bible texts at its bookrooms in Glasgow and Edinburgh, and at the same time to run an establishment upon whose walls it dare not display God’s Word!
Apart from plays at its own theatre the Church has a play (‘Screamingly funny,’ the critics say) in the Assembly Hall, and another in St. Giles’ Cathedral. So far as its activities at the Festival are concerned, God is not even on the agenda of the Church of Scotland.
WM. A. RAMSAY.
Dingwall Councillors in the News.
Major W. S. Dewar was reported in the press, in July, to have asked Dingwall (Ross and Cromarty) Town Council to number a house in Skiach Gardens 12A instead of 13, claiming that many tenants were superstitious. We were not aware that a Councillor’s duty included endeavours to support foolish and childish superstition which would abolish the number 13 on houses in the Dingwall and other areas. We wonder if the tenant in question would refuse thirteen shillings change when spending seven out of a pound. We sorely need the influence of true religion. The members of the Town Council described the request as “nonsense,” and rightly so. Then in September, Councillor James Deas of Dingwall Town Council made a truly miserable plea on behalf of dances held in the hall from which the Council obtains revenue. He is reported to have said, “Only a liquor licence would help attendances at dances and increase the revenue from the hall. We must cater for people the same as private hotels.” He complained, “Only eight couples attended a recent Dingwall dance.” Here we obtain an insight into the world’s activities to-day, even in the North. The dance itself now is not enough to draw the crowd and satisfy the carnal hearts of young men and women. Councillor Deas declares that drink is now necessary in addition to make the letting of the hall pay, as the dancers must have their drink as well. And the results of dancing and drinking—what are they? There are young people in the North of Scotland, as elsewhere, who could tell out of the bitterness of their hearts, if they would. We need the moral law in Dingwall and throughout Scotland.
The Vatican Bans a Priest.
On September 6th the press reported from Boston that the Vatican has reaffirmed its ban on Rev. Leonard Feeney’s St. Benedict’s Centre at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his teaching that all non-Catholics are damned. Archbishop Cushing gave this information. Reverend Feeney and his followers declared three years ago that Roman Catholic colleges were teaching heresy by telling students that there was salvation outside the Church. Let us here comment that the above is just another case of disunity within the Church of Rome, which boasts so much and so persistently of the universal unity prevailing within her borders. In assessing the true character of this controversy at Massachusetts, we must ever remember that Roman policy frequently corresponds to Bunyan’s Mr. Facing Both Ways. We would quote from a Roman Catholic authority* to illustrate this—”Catholics do not believe that Protestants who are baptised, who lead a good life, love God and their neighbour, and are blamelessly (italics not ours) ignorant of the just claims of the Catholic Religion to be the only one true Religion, are excluded from Heaven,” etc. And again, “Our Saviour gave no hope of salvation to the Samaritan woman unless she entered the one true Church of that time, saying to her, destitute of a sure guide: ‘You adore that which you know not; we adore that which we know; for salvation is of the Jews.’ So likewise there is no salvation for anyone who, having by God’s grace come to the knowledge of the truth, obstinately refuses to join the true Church of God.” We must note that “the true Church of God” referred to means, of course, in Roman eyes the Roman Catholic Church. So now readers can sum up for themselves that two views may be held within the R.C. Church, as best suits the situation. But then, why has the priest Feeney been banned in America? The answer seems to be that his rigid adherence to the doctrine that all non-Catholics are damned runs counter to the intensive campaign of the R.C. Church in America to win over non-Catholics to their Church, and thus non-Catholics must be gently handled as to their non-Catholic beliefs. The farce of the ban is that Feeney as a Roman Catholic is doubtless right in his interpretation of Roman theology.
* “Catholic Belief,” by Rev. Joseph Di Bruno.
France Criticised by General Eisenhower.
During last summer General Eisenhower discussed moral and religious questions with a group at the Republican Convention in Chicago. He is reported in the press as saying, that where the French have gone astray is that they have become 50 per cent. agnostic or atheistic, and that it takes no brains to be an agnostic. The French had approached the point where their moral fibre has disintegrated, he said. This is a serious comment by such a responsible person as General Eisenhower. France religiously is, of course, predominantly Roman Catholic, so it appears that the greatly publicised influence of the Roman Church does not apply to France to-day. The fact is that atheistic Communism has made great strides in France in recent years over the heads of prelate and priest. May this not be in part a reaction against the Romish system?
The Duty of Ministers of Religion.
At a Protestant Church convention in New York some time ago the well known American, Governor Thomas E. Dewey, declared that ministers of religion should concentrate on preaching the gospel. He said that when he had been forced to listen to some ministers “discussing intricate problems of economics or government,” he added, “I vowed to stay away from their churches in the future at all costs.” Here we have a sound rebuke administered to those professing ministers of the gospel of Christ who do everything and anything but preach the gospel of salvation to their sinful and needy hearers. There are many such triflers and false prophets in the pulpits of Britain as well as in America. Governor Dewey, a man steeped in the problems of civil government, etc., during week days, sets a good example before others when he refuses to waste his time listening to ministers of religion discussing worldly affairs instead of preaching the glad tidings of the gospel to a lost world. What need there is that the Holy Spirit would come and turn multitudes of men and women, boys and girls from the dead, carnal, useless preaching to which they are accustomed, to seek Christ crucified in the Scriptures and where the pure gospel may be preached.