About a half century ago the churches in the United States began to feel the effects of the evolutionary denial of special creation, the destructive criticism of the Bible, and the rise of Modernism. At first it was the seminaries that succumbed to German rationalism, and later their graduates quietly put over a substitute gospel on the laity.
Recognizing the trend, a group of conservative leaders, some of whom were very competent scholars, contributed articles in 1912 to form a set of twelve booklets called The Fundamentals. By choosing this title and by distributing three million copies, they brought into existence and popularized the term "Fundamentalism". Since 1912 nearly all those writers have died; other leaders have taken their places, and Fundamentalism has come to include a wide variety of religious groups. It is popularly regarded as a single religious movement because all who claim the name accept the Bible as authoritative. Whenever the late Dr. J. Gresham Machen was confronted with the opposition between Modernism and Fundamentalism, he always made it clear that he was a Fundamentalist. The term, he believed, was not sufficiently specific, but the disjunction was clear-cut and his stand was unambiguous, He was a Bible-believing Christian.
The Fundamentalists differ widely, however, in their interpretation of the Bible. At the time of his death (I believe), a nonchristian paid Dr. Machen the tribute of pointing out that the difference in Fundamentalism between Machen and Aimee Semple McPherson was about as great as the difference in medicine between the Mayo brothers and Lydia E. Pinkham. That wide differences among Fundamentalists exist, both in doctrine and in policy, must be kept in mind as one examines the history of the movement.
For a few years after 1912, Fundamentalism may seem to have made headway, but shortly the war directed people's attention to other matters. After the World War 'had taken its toll of religious belief and morality, the well-known radical and pacifist, Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, published a sermon entitled "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" Since then two decades have passed, Modernism has swept the country, and we are in the midst of a still more terrible war. When this horrible carnage is over and the chaos is calmed down, will there be any Fundamentalists remaining?
First of all, let us look at fundamentalist performance in the last twenty years. As Modernism made inroads in the large denominations, small groups of Fundamentalists here and there became disgusted and, rather than take up the disagreeable task of fighting for the purity of their denominations, quietly withdrew to form independent Bible churches. Some, not willing even to withdraw, Simply closed their eyes to the denominational situation and quietly went to sleep in the false security of their local congregations.
Both courses of action injured the cause of Christ, and in several ways. The withdrawal of Bible-believing Christians from the denominations made the progress of Modernism all the easier, so that when some noble men, like Dr. Machen, attempted to resist infidelity in the church, not only were false charges brought against them, but also they were tried and condemned in the ecclesiastical courts without being given the simple justice of a hearing - without being permitted to present their defense.1
In the second place, the formation of independent churches effectively prevented these Bible-believing Christians from forming a compact body for the united and aggressive extension of the gospel. They became the disorganized remnants of a once-great army, powerless before organized unbelief. After twenty years of work, or at least of existence, the independent leaders of Fundamentalism have not accomplished the task set for them by the men of 1912.
Nor can these leaders point with pride to the quality of the Christianity they have fostered - if quality is to be substituted for quantity. That real Christians are proportionally fewer today than twenty years ago is not a fact lightly to be laughed off; but some comfort could have been generated if there had been an improving quality to compensate. But at this point, too, these leaders have surrendered to the enemy and have betrayed their people.
So eager were these men at first to preserve the very fundamentals of Christianity that in large numbers they spurned whatever they thought was not fundamental. Each independent group was persuaded to adopt a statement of faith containing six, eight, or ten doctrines - all fundamental, no doubt - and to discard a score or more other doctrines. These others may not have been logically fundamental, but by the authority of God's Word they are all essential. The independent leaders and Bible teachers had overlooked the fact that a house needs a roof as well as a foundation. To be sure, they said they believed the whole Bible - and so they did in a way; but they did not preach the whole Bible. Thus their belief in the inerrancy of Holy Scripture was rendered impotent by their neglect of so much of its contents.
The result of such leadership is that many of these independent churches today can hardly be called truly fundamental. It is not that their people have become Modernists. Far from it. They still accept the authority of the Bible. But because for the last twenty years they have never heard of many of the very important doctrines, these good people have been raised from childhood in ignorance of blessed and profound truths that God has revealed to us for our edification. Because their ministers have neglected to instruct them in the whole counsel of God, they are blown about, not by every wind of doctrine, but at least by many winds. In some places the doctrine of grace is vitiated by assigning a part of salvation to man's efforts, so that irresistible grace is replaced by the doctrine of free will as taught in the Romish church. Furthermore, some Fundamentalists are preaching that there are several ways of salvation, one way for this age and other ways for other ages. Since each church is independent of every other, each minister does that which is right in his own eyes. There are no checks on fancy or perversity. One minister claims that repentance is unnecessary; another that baptism is for another dispensation; a third refuses to use the Lord's Prayer; and quite a number have repudiated the Ten Commandments.
In the meantime, the secularization of society grows apace. The reading of the Bible in the public schools of some states is prohibited by law, though the doctrine of creation is attacked from the second grade on. Not only is true piety considered impolite in good society, but profanity is found on the pages of the most reputable magazines. While Americans vaunt their moral superiority over Gestapo sadism and Japanese barbarity, brutal labor racketeers are encouraged to prey on honest workingmen. The freedom of religion is imperiled not only by governmental units but also by those who, advocating church union, aim at a united Protestant church devoted to evolution while giving a patronizing acknowledgment to what they call Hebrew mythology.
Let us not ask what American pagans need; they need a disquieting sense of sin, repentance, a return to God through Jesus Christ. But let us rather ask what Bible-believing Christians need.
First of all, the scattered, independent congregations of devout and humble Christians need ministers who have renewed their grip on the fundamentals. Both ministers and people should take Charles Hodge off the shelf and learn what the deity of Christ, the atonement, the person and work pf the Holy Ghost, really mean. Next the minister should lead the way beyond the fundamentals to the essentials: total depravity and its implications, unconditional election, and irresistible grace. In short, he should possess himself of all the doctrines of the original Reformers. A close study of Calvin's Institutes and the confessions of the Reformed churches would be a long step toward the recovery of a lost heritage. Then when faithful preaching gives the people a fair understanding of these divine truths, the prospects of the church of Christ will look bright indeed.
Finally, these leaders should cease their defeatist independentism and get back to the Scriptural principles of cohesion among congregations. The apostolic churches were united and sent delegates to a general council in Jerusalem. America can well do without one big antichristian Protestant church, but it desperately needs well-organized, aggressive denominations true to the whole counsel of God. Dis organized, independent congregations with abbreviated creeds stand in pitiful contrast with the appalling situation of the day.
And if the present leaders of independent Fundamentalism are unable or unwilling to follow the principles of the Scriptures they acknowledge, the common people themselves must seek a better leadership in a sound, aggressive denomination that not only acknowledges the Bible but also preaches it in its entirety.
In very plain words, we invite you to unite with us, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
1 By all means read The Presbyterian Conflict, by Edwin H. Rian. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940.
No comments:
Post a Comment