Page:Southern Presbyterian Journal, Volume 13.djvu/723



A certain denomination, of which I am not a member, sponsored a Christmas service in which part of the worship was (what word shall I use?) performed by a troupe of ballet dancers. When I remarked, upon being pressed for an opinion, that ballet was a bit incongruous with divine worship, one of their ministers replied that any exercise that stimulates love of humanity is appropriate in church. Then I tried to tell him of the Puritan principle and of the law of God from which we should not turn aside, either to the right hand or to the left. And, since this minister expatiated on love versus law, I quoted "if ye love me, keep my commandments." But he concluded the conversation, politely enough, by saying that my viewpoint appeared legalistic to him.

The extreme modernists who introduce dancing into the worship service have strange allies in some fundamentalists who also reject the law of God. With all their insistence on the infallibility of the Scripture and on the necessity of Christ's death on the cross for our redemption—may God bless them abundantly, they are really Christians—this segment of fundamentalism denies that the Ten Commandments are binding in this age of the world's history. We are not under law but under grace, they say; we are free from the law and need pay no attention to it. To do so would be legalism.

Now, the three chapters of Romans where our freedom from the law of sin and death is most emphasized are far from disparaging the law. In addition to the strong insistence on the necessity of a righteous life (Rom. 6:2, 6, 12, 15; 8:1, 4, 13), Paul asserts that the law is holy and good (Rom. 7:12), spiritual (7:14), a delight to the godly man (7:22), and the rule of service (7:25). In most cases where the English translation speaks of being free from the law, the Greek more accurately says justified from the law. That is, we are free from the penalty of the law. It does not mean that we are free to disobey God's commands.

This is not legalism. Legalism, or justification by works, is the unscriptural teaching that man can merit heaven by his own efforts. And it is very strange that modernists, who have rejected the gracious sacrifice of Christ, should accuse anyone of being legalistic. But the meanings of words often get twisted these days, both in religion and in politics.

In opposition to legalism the Scriptures base our redemption solely on the merits of Christ. Yet, as we are redeemed from sin, as we come to Christ in repentance, as we are born to newness of life, we are under the same obligation to keep his laws. "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

The Confession of Faith sums up the whole matter very succinctly. After distinguishing the moral law from the ritual and the national laws, it says, (sections v, vi),

"The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

"Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience."

LIQUOR

SECRETARY DANIELS' OWN STORY OF WHY HE MADE THE NAVY DRY

Soon after Josephus Daniels became Secretary of the Navy during World War I, a father came to his office to plead for the restoration of his son who had been dismissed from the Navy for being drunk and making a shameful public exhibition of himself. A court-martial had recommended the dismissal of this young officer.

This is Secretary Daniels' own story, to quote:

"When I made it plain that the young man must inevitably pay the penalty, this gentleman protested earnestly and with much feeling against what he insisted was the injustice his son had received at the hands of the Navy."

" 'Now that he is the product of your system,' said my visitor, 'you have turned him out in disgrace.' He then went on to tell me the following story of the young man's life.

" 'I am a Friend, a Quaker. I never even had so much as a glass of wine in my home, and when the boy left for Annapolis to enter the Naval Academy he did not know what the taste of liquor was like.

" 'I gave him to the American Navy, purehearted, unsullied, believing absolutely in the oldfashioned ideas in which he had been reared. In the seven years you have had him in the Navy you gave him the wrong ideas about drinking. You taught him that it was all right for a gentleman to have his toddy. You legalized the wine mess. You had a code that made a youth feel that he was narrow-minded if he turned down his glass at the table; but now that my boy has been ruined JANUARY 12, 1955