To the Editor of the "Norra-Cursa Darcy News"
Sm—Your correspondent's recent article on "Wallowing in Blood" has given rise in my mind to great many questions, a few of which T beg to bring forward through the medium of your paper.
Since Christianity is a religion of sacrifice by blood. I infer of course that the writer condemns it equally with Judaism as bloodthirsty and reverting back to savagery. But is that true? Suppose a man were to die a revolting death as the means of rescuing your correspondent? Would, therefore, Mr. SoweRrBY's mind be constantly gloating on the other's pain and agony? I think not. but rather there would be deep thankfulness and gratitude for the sacrifice. So it is with the Christian.
The test of any religion or philosophy is in its fruits. How do Christians come out in this? It would take a greatly distorted imagination to believe that the best Christians are the most blood-thirsty of uncivilized savages! As it is, the life of the average Christian. in contrast, to the average non-Christian, is more gentle. peaceable, and less quarrelsome than his more truculent neighbour. And is not Christianity itself a religion of peace. not war? If Christianity is a reversion to the "barbarism of naked savages." then how is it that those nations which are most Christian have the highest civilization, the benefits of which your correspondent along with us Savages, has been equally a partaker? And were not} these "barbarians" who were follow: ers of Christ the chief founders of such barbaric institutions as hospitals, orphanages. homes for the blind, and practically every other activity for the social good? Tt would be interesting to see in what line of public (and private) good the apostles of "reason" have excelled!
Perhaps Mr. Sowrrsy does not condemn Christianity. but only the ficial element in it But that is begging the question. for the death and resurrection of Christ are the whole foundation\of Christian truth. Christ spoke of His death as a sacrificial one. not a martyr's death. but the death of the Son of God. If He were deluding his followers, why should He give His life for a delusion and a lie? And how came the resurrection into being. the truth of which has been and still is accepted by intellects as great as your correspondent's? Or how did Christ's teaching come into being, from one who. at thirty years of age (when most minds are immature and the deepest convictions not yet, formed) gave religious and ethical teaching: infinitely higher than that of the Jews around Him and infinitely higher than that of aged. mature philosophers both before his time and since?
Or what about the intense purity of His life. for which there is no ex: planation in the reason which Mr.
Sowensy exalts?
The death of Christ is God's provision for a lost, world, and your correspondent surely must be aware that the present condition of the world today is because of sin But "reason" cannot understand it! Well. well. well! So reason is deified! Then we must be getting back to idols of wood, if not of stone! Do logical people think alike in given circumstances? Is reason so free from prejudice, from bias, so perfect in judgment, as to warrant our acceptance of its decisions on life and death matters? I think not.
But the New Testament is explicit on this matter too. with the reminder that "after that in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" And that which the philosopher fails to find by the exercise of his reason and wits is made immediately plain to those who have bern humble enough and "foolish" enough to yield to Chris and His claims. namely. that Christ is "the power of God and the wisdom of God."
R- J. Hassatt Shanghai. May 19.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.