Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    July 3, 1900

    “More on that ‘Needed Educational Reform’” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 27, pp. 424, 425.

    ON the subject of the “Needed Educational Reform,” we have given, on authority, the process of education in general, to the effect that “doubt is the pedagogue that leads to knowledge,” with the consequence that students “lose their religion while gaining an education.”ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.1

    We have seen that, in the realm of education in theology, the process is still one in which doubt is the means of attaining unto knowledge, and that he makes the most progress who has best learned the art of doubting well; and the admitted consequence is that the one who follows this course, never really knows that he knows anything.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.2

    There is yet one other field that is worthy to be noticed, and that is the field where the children are taught until they become old enough to enter upon a course of education, to be finished, perhaps, in theology. And the statement with respect to this field we have upon the highest authority; that is, the authority of the United States Commissioner of Education, Hon. W. T. Harris. In his annual report for the school year, 1896-97, he says:—ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.3

    The secular school gives positive instruction. It teaches mathematics, natural science, history, and language. Knowledge of the facts can be precise and accurate, and a similar knowledge of the principles can be arrived at. The self-activity of the pupil is before all things demanded by the teacher of the secular school. The pupil must not take things on authority, but, by his own activity, must test and verify what he has been told. He must trace out the mathematical demonstrations, and see their necessity. He must learn the method of investigating facts in the several provinces of science and history. The spirit of the secular school therefore comes to be an enlightening one, although not of the highest order. But its enlightenment tends to make trust in authority more and more difficult for the young mind.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.4

    On the other hand, religion, which gives the net result of the wisdom of the race in the form of authority, omits, and must omit, the long lines of proof which have established it. The experience of thousands of years shrinks to a mere point, and is stated in the dogmas which seem to be immediate spiritual facts resting on external authority, the substructures of thousands of years being almost entirely concealed. Not only are these long periods of experience kept out of sight, but also the vast labors of religious thinkers who have grappled with psychology and philosophy, and assisted in making the religious results systematic and without contradiction. Religious education, it is obvious, in giving the highest results of thought and life to the young, must cling to the form of authority, and not attempt to borrow the methods of mathematics, science, and history from the secular school. Such borrowing will result only in giving the young people an overweening confidence in the finality of their own immature judgments. They will become conceited and shallow-minded. It is well that the child should trust his own intellect in dealing with the multiplication table and the rule of three. It is well that he should learn the rules and all the exceptions in Latin syntax, and verify them in the classic authors; but he must not be permitted to summon before him the dogmas of religion, and form pert conclusions regarding their rationality.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.5

    All this is an excellent reason why religion can not be taught in the public schools.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.6

    To make up for this lack, the Sunday-school has been employed in this field where the children are taught. But instead of the managers of the Sunday-school really employing the true process of religious education, and so holding the children in the field of religion, they actually adopted the methods of the public school, and made them the process in the Sunday-school; they adopted the secular method in religious education. This, with its results, is also well stated by Commissioner Harris:—ARSH July 3, 1900, page 424.7

    With the spectacle of the systematic organization of the secular schools and the improvement of methods of teaching before them, the leaders in the church have endeavored to perfect the methods of the religious instruction of youth. They have met the following dangers which lay in their path; namely, first, the danger of adopting methods of instruction in religion which were fit and proper only for secular instruction; secondly, the selection of religious matter for the course of study which did not lead in a most direct manner toward vital religion, although it would readily take on a pedagogic form.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.1

    Against this danger of sapping or undermining all authority in religion by the introduction of the methods of the secular school, which lay all stress on the self-activity of the child, the Sunday-school has not been sufficiently protected in the more recent years of its history. Large numbers of religious teachers, most intelligent and zealous in their piety, seek a more and more perfect adoption of the secular school methods.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.2

    On the other hand, the topics of religious instruction have been determined largely by the necessities of the secular school method. That method is not adapted to teach mystic truth. It seeks everywhere definite and especially mathematical results. But these results, although they are found everywhere in science and mathematics, are the farthest possible from being like the subject-matter of religion. Hence it has happened that in improving the methods of the Sunday-school, greater and greater attention has been paid to the history and geography of the Old Testament, and less and less to the doctrinal matters of the New Testament.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.3

    And thus the professed Christian church, instead of employing the Christian process in her teaching in the schools designed especially for religious instruction, has adopted and drawn into these schools the secular process. Instead of keeping herself in her own distinct field of religion, and upon her own sure Christian foundation, and teaching religion by a distinctly religious process, the church abandoned all that, and stood only on the worldly foundation, and employed a process in religious instruction which is “the farthest possible” from being like the process in religious instruction. and this being so on the part of the church even in the teaching of the children, it is not by any means to be wondered at that it should be continued through the higher education, even to its culmination in the theological seminaries.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.4

    Since, therefore, it is upon the highest authority made evident that neither in the public school nor in the Sunday-school do the children receive truly religious teaching, it is equally evident that, for the children, and in the field of the education of the children, there is a sorely needed reform, just as certainly as in the higher education, in the theological colleges and seminaries, there is a much-needed reform, in education.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.5

    “Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 27, p. 426.

    IN the Independent, Mr. Albert Gardner Robinson, writing of the present situation in the Philippines, says:—ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.1

    In no other place in the islands are America and American rule so unpopular as in the city of Manila, the place of longest experience.... Personally, the mass of Americans, as individuals, makes no favorable impression on the mass of Filipinos. The same is the case in Porto Rico, in Cuba, and in Hawaii. It is somewhat humiliating, but it is a fact.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.2

    Politically, we have given the Filipinos nothing that was really better than that which they had before. We have promised something unofficially, and offered something—with a string tied to it. The old system of Spanish laws has been continued, with few, if any, modifications; while some, petty but notably objectionable, have been enforced where Spain had allowed them to fall into disuse. The same applies in the matter of taxes and tariffs.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.3

    The United States officials have obtained from an impoverished people a greater sum, by taxation, than was obtained by Spain in their more prosperous days.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.4

    And since this was written, it has been most impressively confirmed, especially as to Cuba, by the exposure of a complicated system of robbery that had been conducted by United States officials in the postal service in that island for more than a year. Of this the Independent says:—ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.5

    We undertook to organize for the Cuban people a complete postal service, in which, as the postmaster-general said only a few weeks ago, there should be a substitution of American integrity for the old corrupt administration.... What are the American people to say to the Cubans who have been told so many times that they should learn from our example the difference between American honesty and Spanish corruption?ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.6

    “Studies in Galatians. The Two Covenants. Galatians 4:21-31” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 27, pp. 425, 426.

    “TELL me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.1

    The scheme invented by Sarai, and agreed to by Abram, which brought forth Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, who was born after the flesh, proved unsatisfactory to the whole company, from the first step taken toward carrying it out.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.2

    “And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived: and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” Genesis 16:3, 4. And although, as the record says, Sarai was the first to propose this plan, and that “Sarai... took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, ... and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife,” yet, as soon as she found herself despised by Hagar, and this because of the success of Sarai’s own plan, she turned in reproach upon Abram, and said: “My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes.” Verse 5.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.3

    “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee.” And Sarai dealt so “hardly with her” that Hagar ran away. And though the Lord told Hagar, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands,” it is evident that all was not peaceful and pleasant afterward.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.4

    Further, as we have seen, when, after Ishmael was born, Abram said to the Lord, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” he was not heard; but Ishmael was plainly set aside, and Abram was told that Sarai his wife should bear him a son indeed, and that he should call his name Isaac; “and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” Genesis 17:18, 19.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.5

    “Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.” “And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Genesis 21:2, 8-12.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.6

    But not yet was the record clear. Abraham had swerved from the clear promise of God, and had put dependence in the flesh; and not only must the bondwoman and her son be cast out, but every item of that whole scheme which had brought in the bondwoman and her son must be utterly renounced and abandoned. Accordingly, the Lord said to Abraham: “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a brunt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” Genesis 22:2.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.7

    Isaac was the child of promise. There was no other promise of a child, there could be no other such promise; and there could be no other child without another promise. And now for Abraham to offer Isaac for a burnt offering was, so far as could be seen, to take away all that had been promised. But when Abraham had looked thus far, he looked yet further, even back to the original promise of God, and trusted and expected that when he should offer Isaac, God would certainly fulfill his promise by raising him from the dead—by bringing him back from the ashes when he should have been burned in sacrifice.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.8

    This call of the Lord, therefore, to Abraham to offer Isaac for a burnt offering, brought Abraham back to the night of the original promise, when God had said to him: “Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him. So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Genesis 15:5, 6.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.9

    Thus Abraham was brought to depend upon and trust in the naked promise of God alone, for all that the promise contained. And if Abraham had stood there from the first and refused Sarai’s suggestion with regard to Hagar, there would have been no such family trouble as came between Sarai and Hagar; Ishmael never would have been born; and Abraham would never have been called to offer Isaac. Had he from the first “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Romans 4:20), but been strong in faith, giving glory to God, fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform, righteousness might have been imputed to him throughout.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.10

    “These are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” The covenant at Sinai was the fruit of the flesh, of distrust and unbelief in God, just as was the plan that introduced Hagar and brought forth Ishmael. And just as Hagar and Ishmael, the bondwoman and her son, had to be cast out, and the whole scheme that brought them in had to be utterly repudiated, so the covenant from Mount Sinai had to be cast out, and all that brought it in had to be utterly repudiated.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.11

    As Abraham and Sarah had to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, and repudiate the whole scheme that had brought them in, and themselves come back to the original promise of God, to depend wholly upon that for all that was in it, so must the covenant from Sinai be cast out, and all that brought it in must be utterly repudiated by Israel and everybody else, and God’s original covenant with Abraham be depended upon and trusted in, wholly and alone, for all that it promises. And so we read:—ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.12

    In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them his power and his mercy, that they might be led to love and trust him. He brought them down to the Red Sea—where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible—that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then he wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God, and with confidence in his power to help them. He had bound them to himself, as their deliverer from temporal bondage.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.13

    But there was still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God; of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts; their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God’s law; and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 425.14

    God brought them to Sinai; he manifested his glory; he gave them his law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ... ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” Exodus 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God’s law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. FEELING THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, they declared, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Exodus 24:7.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.1

    They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken, and NOW, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel THEIR NEED OF THE SAVIOUR REVEALED IN THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, and shadowed forth in the sacrificial offerings. NOW by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. NOW they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of THE NEW COVENANT.—Patriarchs and Prophets, 371, 372.ARSH July 3, 1900, page 426.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents