MCINTIRE AND KY—A WICKED ALLIANCE 

Anyone who has read the daily newspapers the last couple of weeks has noted that Dr. Carl McIntire has received publicity in the national press which goes beyond anything he has heretofore received. This publicity is due to the fact that McIntire invited Vice-president Ky from the Saigon government in Viet Nam to attend and speak at his March For Victory Rally scheduled for October 3. 

From the outset it was quite plain that, although McIntire considered this a coup of no mean importance, there were many in this country who were alarmed. All those who are a part of the anti-war war movement were so alarmed that they planned an extensive demonstration in Washington to protest Ky’s presence in this country. But many in the government were also alarmed. The reason for the government’s alarm is not quite clear. Some were alarmed at the fact that the protest demonstration of the anti-war movement would lead to violence. These wanted Ky to stay home ostensibly because this would prevent a dangerous confrontation in Washington. Others, chiefly legislators, were themselves part of the peace movement. Others thought the presence of My would stir up the radicals to renew their vicious protests against the Viet Nam war. Others thought that Ky was too much of a “hawk” and would torpedo Nixon’s plans to take American troops out of Viet Nam. Whatever the reasons may have been, there was a lot of opposition to McIntire’s plan. 

McIntire was very proud of his coup and filled the pages of his Christian Beacon with stories about the importance of this coming event. He told again and again of his own trip to Saigon to be assured that Ky would come even though pressure was being put on him to stay at home. 

The news has just come out that Ky has changed his mind on speaking at McIntire’s rally and has decided that it would be best for him to make himself scarce for the time being. That this decision was forced upon him by high officials in the government is clear enough. 

Newsweek writes:

The decision to urge South Vietnam’s Vice President Ky to cancel his U.S. visit (for speeches at rightwing, win-the-war rallies) came from Richard Nixon. Before Presidential aide Henry Kissinger took off for Paris to see Ky, one Cabinet officer confided to his staff that the South Vietnamese official would not come. How did he know? “The president told me.”

McIntire was quite naturally disappointed and blames it all on the fact that this country is soft on communism and is intent on hushing, even through the use of force, the voices of those who are fighting the good fight against communist aggression. 

All of the politics in these events is not of a great deal of concern to us. What does concern us very much is the fact that McIntire could get involved in a mess such as this. How is it possible for one who claims to be a defender of Scripture and a battler for the truth to ally himself with a man such as Ky? After all, Ky is a man who has a reputation for what is called euphemistically “fast living.” Whatever may be the truth or falsity of any charges of gross sin brought against Ky, there is not one who will attempt to defend the proposition that he is a Christian. He is, as far as his religion is concerned, a Buddhist—although most in the Saigon government are Roman Catholic. He is, as far as his personal morality is concerned, anything but a Christian. And yet, because it suits McIntire’s campaign to win the war, he is willing to join forces with an ungodly man.

This is especially painful and evil because McIntire himself has repeatedly castigated liberals for joining with unbelievers, evangelicals for joining with liberals, and all for refusing to be “separatist”. Especially evangelicals have drawn fire from him, including Billy Graham, for making common cause with ungodly men. But now suddenly McIntire is willing to share his platform with this wicked man because Ky happens to agree with him on the need for total victory in Vietnam. There is a measuring with two measures here which is hypocritical in the extreme and which casts grave suspicions on McIntire’s sincerity in his battle for the right. 

This is, no doubt, the result of McIntire’s constant mixing of religion and politics. We have pointed out in other articles how wrong it is to mix in such an unholy alliance the defense of the faith with political battles and to identify the battle of faith with any earthly struggle between governments. Here is the result of such error. It was against this sin that God warned Jehospaphat when he made alliances with the kings of Israel against foreign invaders. “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the Lord.” These were the words of Jehu to Jehosaphat in II Chron. 19:2. McIntire would do well to read and re-read these words and ponder them carefully. Perhaps it will lead him to divorce himself from his involvement in politics.

JOSHUA’S LONG DAY AGAIN 

Our readers will recall that some time ago we discussed in these columns a paper which was widely distributed by a certain Mr. Harold Hill in which he told of some space scientists who were checking the position of the sun, moon and planets to determine their relative positions in the future. He told of how, in tracing backwards, a missing day was discovered and how the mystery was solved by references to the day in which Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stand still and the backward movement of the sun dial in the days of Hezekiah. This was all presented as proof for the veracity of Scripture. 

At the time we wrote about this, we pointed out that it was just possible that the whole story might prove a hoax; and that, in any event, believers must not base their faith in the veracity of the Scriptures on any scientific proof. 

Although the original article by Mr. Hill was widely circulated and although many Christians hailed it as a vindication of the Scriptures, it now appears that our doubts about the article were well-founded. Some investigation has been done by people who wrote directly to Mr. Hill and by others who contacted the space scientists who were supposed to have made the original discovery. The results of this investigation are as follows: 

1) The space scientists in Baltimore Maryland who were supposed to have been involved have no knowledge of the whole thing and are not acquainted with anyone by the name of Mr. Hill.

2) The story itself is not new. An almost identical story appeared as early as 1936 and was told in a book by Harry Rimmer entitled “The Harmony of Science and Scripture.” Bernard Ramm, in a book he wrote entitled “The Christian View of Science and Scripture” repeats this same story, but specifically repudiates it. 

3) Correspondence addressed to Mr. Hill, and his answers, some of which I have seen, produced no results. Mr. Hill simply spoke of a newspaper article which concerned another matter, documentation which he had mislaid and a personal testimony of his “own experience in meeting God personally a few years ago.” 

All of this leads to the conclusion that Mr. Hill simply repeated a story he had heard and which had no basis in fact. It ought to serve as a warning not to make the truth of God’s Word dependent upon such scientific evidence. The Word of God stands in its own right. Its authority is rooted in its own divine origin. It needs no human props to substantiate its truth. The simple fact remains that the unbeliever will never accept the Scriptures no matter what “proof” is offered in support of it. Unbelief is not a matter of ignorance, is not rooted in lack of sufficient proof, is not to be explained in any other way than a deeply rooted hatred of God. The fault is a spiritual fault. What Abraham told the rich man in hell remains true for all time: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:29, 31. 

As for the people of God, they bow in humble submission before the Scriptures, receiving them as God’s Word. This is sufficient for them.

THE A.A.C.S. AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 

Some time ago we wrote a brief article concerning the position of the A.A.C.S. on Christian Schools. The A.A.C.S. is the Association for the Advancement of Christian Studies. It is the movement, the main strength of which is in Canada, which is attempting to establish a Christian University in Toronto. We have been, in the past, critical of the writings which some of the leaders of this movement have produced; and we criticized their position on Christian Schools as being a denial of parental and covenantal schools, a denial of the office of all believers and a denial of the importance of the church institute.

We were recently happy to read that an editorial inCalvinist-Contract had the same criticism. In a rather lengthy editorial, this newspaper had several pointed criticisms of the A.A.C.S. Among these we read the following:

Take for instance the matter of Christian schools. For years it has been maintained that the Christian schools are parent-controlled, which means not only that the parents own the school-building, but also that they decide on the curriculum. This opinion was based on the conviction that it is the parents’ responsibility that their children are christianly educated, which means that the school is a complement to the home. With all due respect to the teachers, they are in fact assistants to the parents in the execution of their task to educate their children. 

The new reformational movement—in applying the philosophy of the law spheres—differs on this point, in that it maintains that the school belongs to the community of the teachers. Not the school building but the curriculum, the whole forming of the child, the entire education is a responsibility of this community of teachers, who are responsible to God as Christians, but who are not responsible to the parents. 

This point especially has become a bone of contention, and it has become a difficult point for many parents that this view of the community of teachers is being forced upon them. Some are so concerned about it that they foresee the end of the Christian schools in Canada and America if this viewpoint would be generally accepted. 

Another point is that of the instituted church. Among Reformed Christians there always has been agreement (and the confessional standards speak) about the unique character of the instituted church. Its offices were considered as instituted by the Lord, different from any other organization and from any other office. In the church function the means of grace, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as nowhere else. But now we get the impression that by this new reformational movement the church is sometimes criticized in an undue manner. Probably as a result of the philosophy of the law spheres the church is placed on the same level as other organizations, as all branches of the same tree, and other offices are granted the same character as the special offices instituted by the Lord and His apostles. Many fear that such criticism and these theories will undermine the church to a dangerous point.

While the criticism made here is extremely mild, we are happy to hear that there are those who are alarmed by these recent trends in the A.A.C.S. It is somewhat deceptive that the leaders of this movement, both in Canada and in Trinity College, speak of the fact that they are the true warriors against the liberalism rampant in the Church and the humanism which dominates the thinking of the Church; that they are intent upon bringing the Church back to “reformational thinking.” All the while, (and Calvinist-Contact is undoubtedly correct in tracing this back to the influence of Dooyeweerdian philosophy) they are undermining fundamental principles of the Reformed faith. The end result of such work will be the same liberalism and humanism against which these men repeatedly inveigh.