The crisis in church and college

Preface

Tuer manuscript for this volume was read by Rev. W. M. Griffith Thomas, D.D., of Wycliffe College, Toronto, and the revision was carefully made on the basis of his valuable suggestions. The author is indebted to this distinguished biblical scholar for his criticisms of the text. He is also indebted to a number of able students (both among the clergy and laity in his home city) for valuable assistance in the revision of a number of chapters.

As an aid to the preparation of this volume many of the best known books of the modern critical school have been studied; and from some of these have been taken the excerpts that make up one of the chapters. This chapter tells its own remarkable story, and shows the character of many of the text-books and reference books used in our modern religious education. This volume is the first of its kind, and it will, doubtless, present to the Christian world a valuable revelation.

In connection with this book, the companion volume: the second edition of The Modern Conflict Over The-Bible (350 pages—cloth) should be read. As a study of fundamental Christian Truth the latter is far more complete than this present

ee ;

vi PREFACE volume. The enlarged edition is now coming from the press. The first edition of 25.000 copies was issued in March, 1918, more than half of which was donated to students and pastors.

If the reader believes that this literature should have a wide reading he is invited to furnish names to whom he would like to have it sent and a gift to cover the cost. It is hoped that some friends will provide for the sending of large numbers of these books to the professors and students in our institutions, and to others.

One of the largest book publishers in America desired to introduce to the Christian public this volume, and its companion volume, The Modern Conflict Over The Bible; but in order to make sure that these books will reach the source of our problem—the educational institutions—the Author decided to be his own publisher.

G. W. McPHERSsoN.

Foreword

Tue extracts which compose a part of this volume may serve as a background, suggesting the imperative need for such a message as this. In taking the excerpts found in Chapter I, from a number of volumes that are representative of the New Theology and the radical criticism of the Bible, care has been taken not to do violence to the thought or injustice to the authors.

Doubtless there are many thoughtful persons to-day who could not be persuaded to accept the content of these extracts were they to hear it given from a public platform. With a desire to be just and charitable, those persons would say: ‘‘T am sorry but the speaker is exaggerating the whole situation. It surely cannot be as serious as he has represented. Some of these men I know personally; I heard them teach or preach, and entertained them in my home, and know that they are noble Christians, and could not write or teach such things about the Bible.’’

It is natural that personal friendship should play its part in hiding from many earnest people the situation in our institutions of learning. When some noted laymen, (not a few men and women of social and financial standing in New

vu

Vill FOREWORD

York City) read The Modern Conflict Over the Bible, they said: ‘‘I cannot believe all this against those noble men in our institutions. This is a cheap harangue.’’? Some were so shocked at the startling revelations that they indignantly declared ‘‘the author to be a_ sensationalist seeking notoriety, and not to be taken seriously, and may not be an authority on the matters of which he wrote. No, I do not believe his statements as to the teachings in our colleges, seminaries and churches.”’

It is because of the foregoing that these extracts are presented, in order that these readers and others may not rely upon the writer’s statements, but get the facts from the critics’ own works. Here then is the proof of our contention, which, when carefully read, will, doubtless, bring with it the needed vision. These are facts from the original sources and which cannot be gainsaid. It is the purpose, therefore, to indulge not in unproven charges, but to restrict the discussion in part to what the teachers of Modernism or the New Theology have to say about the Bible.

It is also not the purpose to impugn the motives, assail the characters, question the sincerity, or decry the scholarship of the advocates of the radical criticism, and the New Theology. It is believed that the scholarship of these men is, in some respects, equal to the scholarship of the conservative orthodox school. It is presumed that many of the critics are sincere in their work, and

FOREWORD ix are éndeavoring to do, what they understand to be, the will of God. While this is true, nevertheless, they are the victims of a false education, and of a great religious delusion, of which they themselves are unconscious.

The departure of the school of modern criticism from the fact of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and from the belief in the Deity and eternal Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ, is the result of the acceptance of a certain philosophy of the universe, in which they think they have found a new hypothesis or method of interpretation of the Bible. The objection to this.method is, in part, that the critic exalts it above the thing he seeks to interpret. It should be made clear at the outset that this is one of our problems, namely: to convince the critic of his error in this regard, and thus induce him to renounce his false philosophy by which he attempts to interpret the Bible.

In opening a discussion of this nature it will be necessary to deal with those institutions where Modernism, or the New Theology is taught, the colleges and theological seminaries, and study the problem at its source. Numerous indictments have been made against our educational institutions. They have, in some cases, been charged with being anti-Christian, anti-Bible, anti-Church, and practically pagan. The atmosphere to-day is vibrant with these declarations. Conservatives have declared that in our schools there is ram-

Xx FOREWORD pant a subtle menace to Christianity. And so we must take up this statement, and, in the light of all the facts, see whether it is really true. This is the momentous question which we shall discuss in these pages.

That a vigorous denial is made by the advocates and friends of Modernism, the radical critics and their followers, is to be expected. These will probably reject the contention of this book; some of them mildly; while others will affirm that ‘‘our education is, on the whole, sane and healthful, pursues the true scientific method, and is not anti- Christian.’’

The question, therefore, to be decided is, which of these opposing parties is correct? It may not be too much to believe that this volume will help the reader to arrive at a reasonable and correct decision. It is patent that the forces of evangelical religion in America are rapidly losing faith in the value of the religious teachings in our universities. But on the other hand, we have it from Professor Harry Emerson Fosdick of Union Seminary, New York, in his article in The Atlantic Monthly of January, 1919, that ‘‘The inteilectual classes, trying to think real thoughts about live issues, have gradually drifted away, until Christianity faces to-day, in the deflection of the universities, not from religion, but from the churches, a crisis of the first magnitude.’’ Professor Fosdick may be taken to represent the radical school of critics of the Bible; and he says,

| FOREWORD xi the universities are being alienated from the churches because the latter are not thinking real thoughts on live issues, such, for example, as the newspapers and the magazines are doing. While, on the other hand, we find the most intelligent among the Christian people are declaring that the churches are being deflected away from the universities; not because they would muzzle the true teacher; but, rather, because the modern university has become a decidedly anti-Bible, anti- Christian institution.

Thus we have the problem squarely before us. Surely it is high time that this burning question, which is threatening to work serious divisions in the various Evangelical Bodies in America, be cleared up; that all the facts be made known, in order that the churches may be saved from needless and wicked disintegration and strife; and that the educational institutions that are doing helpful constructive work may be ably supported.

It is believed that the facts presented in the following pages will convince the honest seeker after truth that the claim of the churches, as against the religious teaching in many of our schools, is entirely justifiable. It may be assumed that these authors from whose books the excerpts are taken would hesitate to put in their publications all that they freely teach in classroom. It Should also be stated that these volumes are typical of a large and rapidly increasing family of similar publications which are flooding the xii FOREWORD book market to-day; and that these are used as text-books and reference books in our institutions; and are viewed by many of our modern teachers as works of merit and authority.

The hope is cherished that this message will come to the modern teacher and advocate of the New Theology, whether he is in the pulpit, or pew, or university, as an honest, sincere, and helpful friend. Jt is in the spirit of the utmost good-will that rt 1s sent forth.

This religious crisis of our time calls for sanity of judgment, painstaking investigation, and a decision of character to stand loyally for the Truth. But equally as important as these is that spirit of love to God and to men which alone can prepare the heart to form a charitable and correct judgment; and thus win, in this process, those who have lost the true vision of the Greatest of all teachers. God is Wisdom, Light, Love and Truth. Let us earnestly desire that these elements and powers may take possession of us as we study this message. If we lose God in our study, all is lost.

THe AUTHOR.

CHAPTER

4 II.

Contents

Excerpts From Text-pooxs. . . . . 1 CORRESPONDENCE WITH PRESIDENTS OF OUR

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS . . . . 21

st MLODERNISM IN (AMERICA) 20/04.) he On) UN es

Chapter I Excerpts From Text Books And Reference Books Used In Our Institutions

1. Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, by Gerald Birney Smith, Professor of Christian Theology in The Divinity School, Chicago University.

2. New Testament History, a study of the beginnings of Christianity, by Harris Franklin Rall, President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Denver University, Denver, Colorado.

3. The Problems of Religion, by Durant Drake, Professor in Vassar.

4. The Old Testament in the Inght of To-day, by William Frederick Bade, Professor of Old Testament Literature and the Semitic Language in the Pacific Theological Seminary.

5. Evolution and Christianity, by Lyman Abbott.

6. The History of Religion, by BE. Washburn Hopkins, Professor in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology, Yale University.

7. The Religion of Israel, by George A. Barton, Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Language in Bryn Mawr College.

8. Protestant Thought, by Arthur Cushman McGiffert, President, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

9. The Ethics of Jesus and Social Progress, by B. Gardner.

10. The History of Religion, by Allen Menzies. 11. Theology of the Old Testament, by A. B. Davidson. .

12. The Environment of Early Christiamty, by S. Angus. .

13. The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Minasterial Efficiency, by George Burman Foster, Professor of The Philosophy of Religion, University of Chicago, published in A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion.

14. The Shorter Bible, by Professor Charles Foster Kent, Yale University.

Extracts from Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, by Gerald Birney Smith, Professor Christian Theology, in the Divinity School, Chicago University.

(Numbers on the margin indicate the pages from which extracts have been taken.)

We have inherited the conception of Christianity as a perfect revelation of truth [as given in the Bible] which abides substantially unchanged from age to age. The theologian from this point of view, is not searching for truth, as are men who deal with mere human science. His truth is given to him by revelation [in the Bible] and has only to be effectively expounded and interpreted [that is, applied to human life in each generation.} But he [the present-day theologian] as all his predecessors, would be expected to find the content of Christian truth already given in the Bible.

But what does the history of religious thinking reveal? Has the content of Christianity actually remained constant? For example, do we take seriously to-day the biblical doctrine of demons? The fact that Christian theology has actually been developing and changing throughout its history comes into conflict with the theory of divinely authorized and unchangeable content of doctrine.

Many thinkers of our time feel that this inherited system [the Bible] does not do justice to the demands of living faith. There is a rapidly increasing number of loyal Christians, who insist that religious beliefs must be large enough to include the truth of modern discovery as well as the truth of ancient Scripture.

We, like every generation, have inherited doctrines and ideals, but we have our own peculiar problems to face, and we must use our inheritance [the Bible] and, where necessary, modify it, [the Bible] so as to meet these problems. In so far as our life differs from those of former generations our beliefs must differ.

When one has come to abandon animism, a theology [or teaching] which proclaims the necessity of dealing with spirits and devils is impossible. [Animism is defined by the Standard Dictionary as: ‘‘The belief in the existence of spirit or soul as distinct from matter and of a spiritual world as distinguished from a material world.’’}

Originally it was expected that all followers of Jesus would

_ live until he returned. It was only when death overtook some that the resurrection was discussed. ‘To the query as to whether those who had died were to lose their rights in the Kingdom the answer was given that the dead should have their bodies restored to them at the time of the great consummation [the Second Coming of Christ] so that they might participate in the great joys of the Kingdom. As time went on and the expected catastrophe [the resurrection and the Coming of Christ] did not take place, Christianity gradually developed the idea of heaven.

Extracts from New Testament History, A Study of the Beginnings of Christianity, by Harris Franklin Rall, President, and Professor of Systematic Theology, Denver University, Denver, Colorado.

We do not know much of these [mystery] religions [that are supposed to have come into the Roman Empire from Persia]. Of these mystery religions there were many kinds. ... They were usually founded upon some story, the mystery, the tale of some god and of his life and death and coming to life again. . . These religions were marked by ceremonies and sacraments. ... The great thought was that of redemption. The great end was deliverance from evil, especially death, by means of union with the god. ... Here are societies like the churches with sacraments of supper and baptism and the story of a dying and risen god. .. . [Nore: While the author disclaims these religions as being Christian, yet the inference is that possibly Christianity borrowed some of their ideas.]

It is always to be remembered, however, that it is the character and life of Jesus which led us to believe in the virgin birth, and not the virgin birth which led us to believe in Jesus.

Such cases of demoniac healing were an undoubted part of Jesus’ work. We cannot, of course be sure of all details. As to Jesus’ own conception [of these miracles] we cannot tell. So far as ordinary knowledge is concerned we find him elsewhere sharing the opinions of his time.

Jesus did not take from the Old Testament indifferently; he discriminated and chose... .. There were large portions which he left wholly to one side. He set scripture against scripture. ... He did not argue against the old. He simply let it slough off.

Neither the Old Testament nor the teachers of Jesus’ day knew anything of a suffering Messiah.

Paul began his work on his own account. The mother church at Jerusalem gave him no credentials.

With the exception of Peter, it seemed that they [the leaders of the Church] were content to remain at Jerusalem, praying and waiting for the heavens to open again and Christ to return.

Extracts from Problems of Religion, by Durant Drake, a text book that has been used in a certain Church college, reinstatement of which the senior class petitioned.

As later, in the case of Christ, legends of miraculous birth and many wonders grew up around his [Buddha’s] memory and were devoutly believed. Indeed, the similarity between the lives of these two, the world’s greatest teachers, and between the beliefs of subsequent ages about them, is in many ways striking. ... Both inheriting the conceptions by means of which they taught. ... Both holding out to men a way of salvation and peace, found that way in its fundamental aspects identical. . . . Both were in essence the message of a better way of life, but little affected by speculation and involving allegiance to no creed. The Way of both teachers was the Way of love and purity and self-surrender. Both teachers inspired great personal loyalty and soon came to be thought of as semi-divine; as coming from heaven to save men; of both were many miracles and marvels told; and with the teaching of both was incorporated a mass of contemporary and subsequent speculation.

63:

As for Jehovah, he was, it seems, originally a storm-god of Mount Sinai. . . .Various Biblical allusions show us that his home was long thought to be in the South. [Note: No references are given.]

The conception of Jehovah became ennobled until he grew from just such a capricious and at times bloodthirsty tyrant.

But it [John’s Gospel] is of little value in helping us to get an idea of the real Jesus as he lived and taught on earth. The Book was probably not intended to be taken as a literal record of events, but as a dramatic picture illustrating and explaining the author’s conception of Jesus as the Loges or earthly Manifestation of God. The literary device by which speeches and acts are attributed to Christ in accordance with what the author conceived that he might have said and done, was not uncommon or considered illegitimate in those days.

Nore 3: The birth and infancy-stories with which the first and third Gospels are now prefaced are later than the bulk of those Gospels; together with the resurrection-stories at the end, they are called by scholars ‘* The Outer Envelope.”

It is possible that Jesus expected when he went to Jerusalem, at the time of the feast of the Passover, that Jehovah would intervene there dramatically to vindicate him by investing him with the Messianic powers.

Become skeptical, probably, of Jesus’ pretensions, and with that, of course, angry at his presumption . . . Judas betrayed his secret claim to the Messiahship to the Priests.

We can guess the bitter doubt that found utterance in the despairing cry, from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me.” But he conquered his weakness, bowed to the divine plan, and met his death serenely, a martyr to his faith in his own destiny.

That Jesus should have shared this delusion, and especially that he should heve believed himself the One destined by God to play the role of Messiah, may seem strange to us.

Norte 4: The stories at the end of our Gospels are so late in origin, so confused and mutually contradictory, so out of line with Paul’s allusions and with all inherent plausibility, that they must be pretty completely discounted. Paul shows no knowledge of an empty tomb; Christ’s resurrection in his thought is an emergence of his spirit from the region of the dead—a, spiritual resurrection such as he expected for all the faithful, not a reanimation of the body and rising from the grave; indeed, the whole discussion in I Cor. xv, is aimed against those who understood the resurrection to mean a raising of the dead body. ... Jesus himself never predicted the emergence of his body from the grave.

Paul was not really a great thinker.

The traditional conception of Christendom has been that it is the only true faith and all others are false. ... Such a judgment we have now come to see, was a presumptuous and narrow conceit.

Jesus shared the ignorance of men, not only in his boyhood, but throughout his life. He knew presumably no science, knew little of the life and history of the world, shared the local contemporary beliefs and hopes of his fellows, was possessed in the last months or years of his life by a passionate conviction which in its literal form can only be called a pathetic delusion.

Not merely inconsistent with one another, however, but obviously untrue are many of the Biblical statements.

In the Buddhist Scriptures are many passages more truly inspired than the less inspired parts of our Bible.

285 287

The familiar assertion attributed to the evangelist Moody, among others, that the Bible is “‘the Word of God from cover to cover,” is one calculated to blur our perception of religious values and do incalculable mischief.

No single case of what would be clearly a miracle has ever been vouched for by such careful scientific observation as to leave no room for doubt of the facts.

The reign of the Bible miracles is doomed. .. .

But as certainly we must, in the present state of evidence, render a verdict of ‘‘Not proven.” ... From being a prop of faith, they [the miracles] have become a stumbling block in the way of faith.

Extracts from Wm. Frederick Bade’s The Old Testament in the Light of To-day.

A reference book to be read in a Church college by Professor. . . Class in Bible, notes to be taken and given teacher.

Needless to say, the conception of revelation that underlies this study regards it as an Ulumination from within, not as a communication from without; as an educative, not as an instructional process.

The moral criticism applied to the Old Testament by Jesus implies our right to employ textual, historical and philosophical criticism.

Again and again it will be found that the thing represented as an event or phenomenon in the natural world was really in its origin an inner fact of consciousness externalized and interpreted as a fact of the phenomenal world—an inevitable concession to primitive modes of thought and to the unconscious demand for concreteness during the earlier stages of religion. The voice in the garden, the divine visitors at Mamre, the burning bush, the physical manifestations and thunderous deliverances on Mount Sinai, the tables of stone themselves, belong to the poetry, to the religious psychology of Israel’s religion, not to the historical facts of its history.

Yet the editors selected, expurgated, and harmonized these traditions into a superficial unity, but there remain these telltale chips from blocks of primitive tradition rejected by compilers. It was a compiler who identified the Noah of the Flood with the Noah of Viticulture. In the original traditions they were undoubtedly two persons. The story of Cain and Abel is only a torso.

As additional instances might be mentioned two legends, in one of which Jahveh wrestles with Jacob at the ford of the Jabbok, and in the other attempts to slay Moses at a lodging place on his way to Egypt. In both stories Jahveh has undoubtedly taken the place of local night-demons.

In order to find a mate for Adam he [God] first engaged in a futile experiment with animals. [The author interprets scripture as saying this.]

To a modern mind such acts of caprice are unthinkable in connection with God. ... But the writers of J and E [documents] did not hesitate to endow Jahveh with their own passionate natures.

Thus it happens through ignorance of the facts of Israel’s moral development on the one hand, and a false view of revelation on the other, that deplorably crude and immoral ideas about God are still imparted as “the Word of God.” The corrective lies in realizing that fact, that the prophets naively attributed to God their own feelings and sentiments which naturally did not rise at all points superior to the moral and aesthetic limitations of their age.

It is not the institution but the repudiation of sacrifice that distinguishes the religion of Israel.

In the face of such evidence the assertion that ‘‘the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatements in their moral and spiritual teachings and record of historical facts, is to create that serious situation in which faith and truth part company.

From Lyman Abbott’s Evolution and Cristianity.

The following extracts are from chapter ‘‘The Evolution of The Bible,’’ also required to be read by classes in Bible in a certain college, notes taken, ete.:

He reads the story of the Fall with its tree, the fruit of which was to make man immortal . . . its weedless garden and its talking serpent and its death following sin. He learns again from science that death has existed in the world from the beginning, and must have existed, that the immortality of man’s body is an impossible conception, and that all science tends more and more to the conclusion that man as an animal has been developed by gradual processes from a lower animal condition.

An infallible book is an impossible conception, and to-day no one really believes that our present Bible is such a book.

The History of Religion, by E. Washburn Hopkins, Professor in Sanskrit and Comparative Philology in Yale University.

The following extracts are taken from only two chapters XX and XXIV in a book of more than

600 pages. In the twentieth chapter alone the author, in speaking of matters of the gravest import, used thirty odd times the following terms: ““perhaps,’’ ‘‘inferable,’’? ‘‘probably,’’ ‘‘possibly,’? ‘‘we may suppose,’’ ‘‘may have been,’’ ‘*it seems,’’ ‘‘Adam may have,’’ ‘‘and probably heritage,’’ ‘‘were probably,’’ ‘‘is supposed,”’ ‘‘appear to have,’’ ‘‘supposedly,’’ ete., ete.:

The god of the Israelites was Yahweh [Jehovah], a spirit possibly belonging to many Semitic groups, more especially to the Midianites. He was the god of this people and came from Hareh, the country of the Midianites.

Some think that the notion of unclean animals was brought from Egypt with the rite of circumcision. This rite was probably part of a tribal initiation ceremony.

It seems historically reasonable to believe that Moses, like Mohammed, united various tribes and made real an ideal not wholly unknown before, in that he gave Israel its jealous protecting national divinity.

Their religious value remain the same whether they ever existed or not.

We may imagine Abraham to have been a parallel to the heroes of cultur-myths found in other religions or a local god; yet the Patriarch, who is said to have come to Palestine via Haran, may have existed, though it was historically likely that he was an idolized hero.

The religion of Christ stands to Christianity somewhat as that of Buddha to Buddhism. In each, interpretation begotten of speculation embraced alien thought and bore hybrid descendants, some harking back to original features, others far removed from any likeness to the founder. In other regards also the two religions are similar. As Buddha has been resolved into a sun-myth so Jesus Christ has been explained as cosmic truth in legendary form, a Gilgamesh or other divine hero. . . . Finally, the life, temptation, miracles, parables, and even the disciples of Jesus have been derived directly from Buddhism. [This is an illustration of the modern apostasy in its most brazen attempt to falsify history. ]

His birth [Jesus’] . . . is not spoken of as a supernatural event by ... Jesus himself; nor by any of his disciples in their conversation is it referred to as a proof of his divinity. [Note: We wonder how the author knows all this. Does he assume that we have a complete record of all the conversations of Jesus’ disciples, and of our Lord’s own words? It is unfair to argue from the silence of this or that book against the Deity of Jesus Christ. Moreover, his disciples do testify to His deity in their writings.]

Paul, before whose death, 63 a.p., the new religion had spread over the Roman empire, was the founder of Christianity in distinction from the religion of Jesus.

Converted by a Christophany, he [Paul] saw Christ ever above the earth.

The Religion of Israel, by George A. Barton, Prof. of Biblical Literature and Semitic Language in Bryn Mawr College.

During all the early history the Hebrews continued to hold | this belief that every rock, tree, spring, or other natural object was believed to be animated by spirits although the pre-eminence of Yahweh and his jealousy tended to push the consciousness of other spirits into the background.

Apart from spirits ... we hear of Cherubim (Gen. 3:24) who were, perhaps, the personified winds. While the seraphim appear to have been composite figures, it is probable that they were really winged serpents (Isa. 6:1-7) for in Numbers 21:6 fiery seraphim are really fiery serpents.

It thus appears that before the exile the Hebrews did not entertain a belief in demons in the ordinary sense of the term. The innumerable spirits who were, they thought, the attendants of Yahweh were non-ethical in character. They might be sent by him on any sort of a mission. If the task assigned one of them was helpful to man, the spirit was good; if harmful to man, he was evil. The prophet Amos, for example, was so thorough a monotheist that he had no room in his theology for a Satan. He believed that Yahweh did all that was done, whether good or bad.