This morning we consider the
fundamentalist controversy, which threatens to divide American churches. A
scene, suggestive for our thought, is depicted in the fifth chapter of the Book
of the Acts, where the Jewish leaders hale before them Peter and other of the
apostles because they had been preaching Jesus as the Messiah. Jewish leaders
propose to slay them, when in opposition Gamaliel speaks “Refrain from these
men and let them alone; for if this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but
if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them.”
All of us must have heard about
the people who call themselves the Fundamentalists. Their apparent intention is
to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions. There
are no two denominations more affected by them than the Baptists and the
Presbyterians. We should not identify the Fundamentalists with the
conservatives. All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives
are Fundamentalists. The best conservatives can often give lessons to the
liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is
essentially illiberal and intolerant.
This is nothing new. It has
happened again and again in history, as, for example, when the stationary earth
suddenly began to move and the universe that had been centered in this planet
was centered in the sun around which the planets whirled. Whenever such a
situation has arisen, there has been only one way out—the new knowledge and the
old faith had to be blended in a new combination. Now, the people in this
generation who are trying to do this are the liberals, and the Fundamentalists
are out on a campaign to shut against them the doors of the Christian
fellowship. Shall they be allowed to succeed?
It is interesting to note where
the Fundamentalists insist that we must all believe in the historicity of
certain special miracles, preeminently the virgin birth of our Lord; that we
must believe in a special theory of inspiration—that the original documents of
the Scripture, which of course we no longer possess, were inerrantly dictated
to men a good deal as a man might dictate to a stenographer; that we must
believe in a special theory of the Atonement—that the blood of our Lord, shed
in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible
welcome for the returning sinner; and that we must believe in the second coming
of our Lord upon the clouds of heaven to set up a millennium here, as the only
way in which God can bring history to a worthy denouement. Such are some of the
stakes which are being driven to mark a deadline of doctrine around the church.
This is a free country. Anybody
has a right to hold these opinions or any others if he is sincerely convinced
of them. But, has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who
differ with him on such points? The Fundamentalists say, “Yes.” They have
actually endeavored to put on the statute books binding laws against teaching modern
biology.
I would, if I could reach their
ears, say to the Fundamentalists about the liberals what Gamaliel said to the
Jews, “Refrain from these men and let them alone; for if this counsel be of
men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow
them.”
Too often we preachers have
failed to talk frankly enough about the differences of opinion which exist
among Christians. Let us face this morning some of the differences of opinion
with which we must deal.
We may well begin with the vexed
and mooted question of the virgin birth of our Lord. I know people in the
Christian churches, ministers, missionaries, laymen, devoted lovers of the Lord
and servants of the Gospel, who, alike as they are in their personal devotion
to the Master, hold quite different points of view about a matter like the
virgin birth. There is one point of view that the virgin birth is accepted as historical
fact. That is one point of view, and many are the gracious and beautiful souls
who hold it. But side by side with them in the evangelical churches is a group
of equally loyal and reverent people who would say that the virgin birth is not
to be accepted as an historic fact.
These Christians remember that
the two men who contributed most to the Church’s thought of the divine meaning
of the Christ were Paul and John, who never even distantly allude to the virgin
birth.
Is not the Church large enough to
hold within her hospitable fellowship people who differ on points like this and
agree to differ until the fuller truth be manifested? The Fundamentalists say
not. They say the liberals must go. Well, if the Fundamentalists should
succeed, then out of the Christian Church would go multitudes of men and women,
devout and reverent Christians, who need the church and whom the church needs.
Consider another matter on which
there is a difference of opinion between evangelical Christians: the
inspiration of the Bible. One point of view is that the Scripture was
inerrantly dictated by God to men; that everything there, scientific opinions,
medical theories, historical judgments, as well as spiritual insight, is
infallible.
But there are multitudes of
people who never think about the Bible in that way. Indeed, that static and
mechanical theory of inspiration seems to them a positive peril to the
spiritual life.
In the Church today are these two
groups. Shall one of them drive the other out? Do we think the cause of Jesus
Christ will be furthered by that? If He should walk through the ranks of his
congregation this morning, can we imagine Him claiming as His own those who
hold one idea of inspiration and sending from Him into outer darkness those who
hold another? In the Midwest the Fundamentalists have had their way in some
communities and a Christian minister tells us the consequences. He says that
the educated people are looking for their religion outside the churches.
Consider another matter upon which
there is a difference of opinion between evangelical Christians: the second
coming of our Lord.
One is that Christ is literally
coming on the clouds of heaven, to set up His kingdom here. I never heard that
teaching in my youth. It has always had a resurrection when desperate
circumstances came and man’s only hope seemed to lie in divine intervention. It
is not strange, then, that during these chaotic, catastrophic years there has
been a fresh rebirth of this old phrasing of expectancy. “Christ is coming!”
Side by side with these to whom
the second coming is a literal expectation, another group exists. They too,
say, “Christ is coming!” They say it with all their hearts; but they are not
thinking of an external arrival on the clouds. These Christians, when they say
that Christ is coming, mean that, slowly it may be, but surely, His will and
principles will be worked out by God’s grace in human life and institutions,
until “He shall see of the travail of His soul and shall be satisfied.”
These two groups exist in churches
and the question raised by the Fundamentalists is—Shall one of them drive the
other out?
I do not believe for one moment
that the Fundamentalists are going to succeed. Nobody’s intolerance can
contribute anything to a solution. If, then, the Fundamentalists have no
solution of the problem, where may we expect to find it? In two concluding
comments let us consider our reply to that inquiry.
The first element necessary is a
spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty. When will the world learn that
intolerance solves no problems? This is not a lesson which the Fundamentalists
alone need to learn; the liberals also need to learn it. Speaking, as I do,
from the viewpoint of liberals, let me say that if some young, fresh mind here
this morning is holding new ideas and is tempted to be intolerant about old opinions,
he may well remember that people who held those old opinions have given the
world some of the noblest character and the most memorable service that it ever
has been blessed with, and that we of the younger generation will prove our
case best, not by controversial intolerance, but by producing, with our new
opinions, something of the depth and strength, nobility and beauty of character
that in other times were associated with other thoughts.
Nevertheless, it is true the
Fundamentalists are giving us one of the worst exhibitions of bitter
intolerance that the churches of this country have ever seen. Remember the
remark of General Armstrong of the Hampton Institute, “Cantankerousness is
worse than orthodoxy.” There are many opinions of modern controversy concerning
which I am not sure whether they are right or wrong, but there is one thing I
am sure of: courtesy, kindliness, tolerance, humility and fairness are right.
Opinions may be mistaken; love never is.
As I plead for an intellectually
hospitable, tolerant, liberty-loving church, I am thinking about this new
generation. We have boys and girls growing up in our homes and schools, and
because we love them we may well wonder about the church which will be waiting
to receive them. Now, the worst kind of church that can possibly be offered to
the allegiance of the new generation is an intolerant church. Ministers often
bewail the fact that young people turn from religion to science for the
regulative ideas of their lives. But this is easily explicable.
Science treats a young man’s mind
as though it were really important. A scientist says to a young man, “Here is
the universe challenging our investigation. Here are the truths which we have
seen, so far. Come, study with us! See what we already have seen and then look
further to see more, for science is an intellectual adventure for the truth.”
Can you imagine any man or woman
who is worthwhile, turning from that call to the church if the church says,
“Come, and we will feed you opinions from a spoon. No thinking is allowed here
except such as brings you to certain specified, predetermined conclusions.
These prescribed opinions we will give you in advance of your thinking.”
My friends, nothing in all the
world is so much worth thinking of as God, Christ, the Bible, sin and
salvation, the divine purposes for humankind, life everlasting. But you cannot
challenge the dedicated thinking of this generation to these sublime themes
upon any such terms as are laid down by an intolerant church.
When from the terrific questions
of this generation one is called away by the noise of the Fundamentalists, it is
almost unforgivable that Christians should quarrel over them when the world is
perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy,
and faith.
The present world situation
smells to heaven! And now, in the presence of colossal problems, which must be
solved in Christ’s name and for Christ’s sake, the Fundamentalists propose to
drive from the Christian churches all the consecrated souls who do not agree
with their theory of inspiration. What immeasurable folly!
Well, they’re not going to do it.
Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us
always so; intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair,
tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference, as though we did not care
about the faith, but because always our emphasis is upon the weightier matters.
AMEN
