Biblical Separation Defended - Far Eastern Bible College

To distract a messenger seems to be the aim of some, in spite ofthe fact that the effectiveness of his ministry cannot be denied inthe presence of multitudes of witnesses around the world. 4It is difficult to determine whether Dr. Ferm is here referring to thecriticism concerning the sponsorship of Dr. Graham’s meetings as thedistracting element, or if he means that the actual determining who areand who are not proper sponsors would be the distracting element. Healso may mean that the distraction would be the resultant reduction ofliberal participation in the meetings, which would result in fewer of theliberal’s adherents coming under the sound of the message of theevangelist. Thus a distraction of opportunity would be meant.If he means the first, that the criticism is the distraction, then hemisjudges the motives of the critics who are concerned greatly overGod’s Word, God’s commands, the aid given to the rise of the liberals byhis policies, and the welfare of Christ’s little ones who are directed intothe liberal churches. He then also misjudged the gravity of the issue, thedivision which cooperative evangelism has caused among conservatives,and the weight of the evidence which shows Christ at enmity with allthat is false and untrue.If he means the second, that it would be a distraction for theevangelist to occupy his time with sponsorship tests, then he errs onseveral counts, for (1) the question depends on whether or not theScriptures reveal it as something which is necessary to be done, and noton what seems to be the wisest use of the evangelist’s time as on amatter of option; (2) a sponsorship test in the form of a creedal statementto be signed would not take much of the evangelist’s time; and (3) heminimizes the results which would be or would have been accomplishedby time so spent, for it would unite conservatives, rebuke themodernists, and protect Christ’s little ones.If the third alternative is intended, which looks upon thesponsorship issue as one which could reduce the numbers of liberalswho come under the hearing of the Word, then again it must be affirmedthat (1) the question is not what is expedient in man’s sight, but what isright in God’s sight; (2) whatever loss in liberal adherents that wouldoccur could very well be compensated for by the gain of the estranged88