OVERCOMING MODERNISM—By Jack P. Lewis
OVERCOMING MODERNISM---By Jack P. Lewis OVERCOMING MODERNISM
Jack P. Lewis
About a hundred and fifty years ago there arose in this country the idea that men in the modern age could go back behind the passing centuries to the first century and pattern their lives and worship, not on the accumulated creeds and traditions of the ages, but upon the New Testament, itself, without addition or subtraction. Said Thomas Campbell, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak, where it is silent, we are silent.” On this basis our brethren have challenged all comers to suggest the points at which our teaching and practice either falls short of that which is Biblical or where we have gone beyond that which is written. The truth has nothing to lose by investigation. If it is not the truth, we want none of it!
It is obvious that this movement rests upon certain fundamental attitudes toward the Bible: (1) The Bible is the revealed will of God—“Men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2) The authority of Christ passed on undiminished to the apostles. They were guided into “all truth.” (3) The example of the early church, when approved by an apostle, is authoritative. (4) The New Testament imposes a definite doctrinal program for the church in all subsequent ages. In other words, we deal with faith “once delivered to the saints.”
We should not hesitate to submit these attributes to continuous investigation. If any man, whether scholar, skeptic, reprobate, or anyone else, should be able to demonstrate by any sound method, that any one of them or all of them is fallacious, we owe to him a lasting debt of gratitude, for because of them, as is said of Ishmael, our hand has been against every man and every man’s hand against us. We should be as ready to submit these attitudes to investigation as we have been any item of practice that might be settled by citation of a Biblical verse.
You are not aware that a movement began in Europe in the last century and then spread to this country through the universities, which looks at the Bible in altogether a different fashion. It is a movement of which it might be said, “its word doth eat as a gangrene and overthrows the faith of some.” Liberalism examines primarily the foundation of our thought, raising the question—not whether a practice is Biblical or not—but whether modern man can base his religious life upon the Bible at all. When its conclusions are accepted, we face a definite challenge. In the past fifty years this method of dealing with the Bible has made alarming gains in this country. It now holds an almost undisputed sway in most of the better known theological schools. It is expounded in the books coming each month from the leading publishing houses; it is set forth in the popular encyclopaedias; it is gaining favor in many denomina-tions not formerly labeled as liberal; and is rapidly filtering down into the texts used in the secondary schools. It aims at world domination. Those who have espoused its conclusions are confident of ultimate victory and certain that any sort of conservatism has been driven from the field in confusion except in a few cases where people are too uninformed to know what is going on. Since these things are matters of published record, encountered in the press week after week, “modernism” is not in any sense something “done in a corner.”
It is impossible to adequately treat the whole problem in a year—not to mention in one hour. There is no set of doctrines that we can discuss, refute, and say “no that is that.” It is not safe to assume that a combination of all the things we shall talk about are believed by any one person. The modernist movement by its nature is fluid. What is set forth tomorrow will be different from that set forth today. It is an attitude and not a fixed belief. As defined by its exponents, it is an effort to bring religious knowledge into conformity with current scientific knowledge. Science is “classified knowledge.” We have no quarrel to pick with it. But this movement has not been content to deal with the unproved assumptions cur-rently set forth as “science.” It is, therefore, a com-promise in which one attempts to serve two masters, and in doing so, we believe, has sold out to the enemy.
Modernism rests upon two basic pillars: (1) the critical analysis of the Bible; (2) An attempt to integrate life around some focal point other than the Bible. I beg your permission to limit our consideration chiefly to some aspects of New Testament study as they affect our movement. I choose the New Testament, for I believe it has received less publicity in our circles than that connected with the Old Testament and also, because here the issues are most clear. Should you be curious about the current status of Old Testament studies, a summary is to be found in H. H. Rowley, The Old Testament and Modern Study or J. Coppens, The Old Testament and the Critics, or in a brief popular treatment in H. F. D. Sparks, The Old Testament in the Christian Church.
It is inevitable that with the great progress that has been made in the physical sciences, the rise of the science of history, and the widspread popularity of the evolutionary hypothesis, and the rise of the study of comparative religions, as well as that of behaviourists psychology, that men should apply like techniques to the study of the Bible and also ask how the new studies are to be harmonized with the views set forth in the Bible. The questions they begin to ask are legitimate questions: When was this book written? Who is its author? What was his purpose in writing? What style did he use? What sources of information did he have? Did he use oral or written sources? Did he make any mistakes? What is the relation of this system to other religious currents of the time? These questions are to be answered by what can be found in the book and what can be learned from other sources of the period from whence it came. The application of critical methods to the New Testament goes back to Richard Simon, a French Catholic theologian of the 18th century (c. 1712), who also dealt with the Old Testament. H. S. Rei- maurus (1694-1768) attributed the rise of the Christian movement to a deliberate deception on the part of Jesus and his apostles, who had stolen away his body from the tomb. H. E. G. Paulus (1761-1851), on the other hand, attempted to explain all the unusual in the New Testament as natural phenomena, (e. g., walking on the seashore). J. P. Strauss (1808-1874) considered that everything in the gospels except the fact that a rabbi, Jesus, lived and gathered disciples, to be legendary and mythical. No reputable scholar would defend the original position of these men today. There are many names that might be mentioned, but we shall pass on to the Tubingen school founded by F. C. v. Baur (1792-1860). Baur drew a sharp distinction between the Petrine and Pauline parties in the early church. This thesis and antithesis, in his opinion, finally ended in the synthesis of the Catholic church. He regarded the acts of apostles as unhistorical, and considered only Galatians , 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Romans to be genuine epistles of Paul. The gospels were productions of the second century, with the fourth gospel at the latest. Baur attracted many followers at the time, though no one would accept his conclusions today without great modification. We shall avoid following the various alleys into which the investigation has led. Many critical positions have been mutually self-destructive and the more recent trends have been toward milder positions, though the radicals have by no means completely disappeared. In considering the relation of the Synoptic Gospels to each other, around the turn of the century the two- document hypothesis was being set forth by the critics. Mark, considered to be the earliest gospel, was supposed to have been used by Matthew and Luke (though in a more primitive form than the present book—called Ur-Markus) in writing their books. The material they have in common not found in Mark was assumed to have come from a second source called “Q” (from German, Quelle, which means “source”). “Q” was assumed to be made up chiefly of sayings of Jesus. B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels) demonstrated the two-document theory inadequate and proposed a four-document hypothesis in which each Matthew and Luke had separate source in addition to Mark and “Q”. He proposed that these four sources represented the traditions about Jesus which had survived in the four cities: Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Caesarea. The case, arguing that one writer borrowed from the other, is built on likenesses in material, order of episodes, and likenesses in Greek wording. Mark is to be dated 70-85 A.D.; Matthew in 95, and Luke also near the end of the first century. The allusion to the fall of Jerusalem is considered to be written after the event rather than being a prediction of it. Some consider that a final revision and editing may have taken place in the first half of the second century. You see here the assumption that oral tradition preserved a memory of the words and deeds of Jesus for about a half a century. During this time it was used for the purpose of instructing converts. Finally some traditions were written down, and then in turn, these accounts were used in writing our present books after the apostles had died. A more recent development is “Form Criticism” which can be traced to Martin Dibelius and Rudolph Bultmann. The form critic assumes that the gospels are artificial collections of isolated materials. He feels that he is able to classify the material they contain according to form: (1) Short stories about sayings of Jesus, e. g., Blessing the little children (Mark 10); (2) Miracle stories, e. g., Jairus’ daughter; (3) Sayings of Jesus, further divided into parables, prophetic words, church words; (4) Stories about Jesus, e. g., Transfiguration. The critic next assumes that the material has been changed in transmission, especially the links (topographical and chronological details, as well as persons and scenes) which have made a connected story, have been added. He then conjures up situations in the early church that he thinks explains why this material was remembered. The fact that things may have been preserved because they were true does not seem to worry him much. This system to many students, is an unreal and inadequate explanation of the Christian faith, and is not widely accepted in this country. The gospel of John has suffered badly at the hands of critical study. The German school dated the book in the second century and attributed it to John the Elder in Ephesus (mentioned by Papias, Eusebias, H. E., Ill, 39). Others pointed to an unknown Christian of Asia, while others to a disciple of the Apostle John. There are few critics who would defend direct apostolic authorship, but the tendency is to date it at the end of the first century, and to grant that it may have more historical worth than was once thought. The majority opinion grants the Epistles of John to the same hand that wrote the gospel C. H. Dodd, as well as some Germans, have challenged the argument, but unsuccessfully. On the other hand, opinion is divided over Revelation. Few grant it apostolic au-thorship. In interpreting it, current opinion is that John spoke of events in the first century—“Things that must shortly come to pass.” The number 666 stands for Nero, while pagan Rome is the enemy of the church. Her fall is thought to be near. This method of interpretation assumes that the seer was in error. His visions did not come to pass as he saw them. The important truth, says the critical student, is that he saw God in control of the world and right eventually triumphing over wrong. The older view made a sharp cleavage between Paul and the thought of the original apostles. He was charged with taking a human Jesus and making a supernatural Christ out of him. Wrede denied that Jesus ever thought of himself as the Messiah. The issue was sharply drawn between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith—Jesus or Paul, the founder of Christianity? It is now granted that no such chasm exists. Paul was not essentially different in message from other early teachers. The questions of the genuineness of his Epistles have narrowed themselves down to Ephesians and the Pastorals. The doubts over the latter center around the fact that (1) there is no place for them within the history of Paul as related up to the end of Acts. One has to assume that there was a release and a second imprisonment. (2) The church organization they reveal does not fit the critic’s idea of the development of the church; (3) The style and vocabulary is different from that found in the other letters. Some suppose that notes of Paul fell into a later teacher’s hand and that he composed the present books. The Epistle of James is considered a Jewish ethical treatise which has been retouched here and there to adapt it for Christian use. It is thought certainly not to be by the Lord’s brother, but perhaps by an otherwise unknown James. 2 Peter is considered to be pseudo-epigraphical and to have been written as late as 128-178 A. D. Its author is thought to have borrowed from Jude. His allusion to the Epistles of Paul as scripture is considered evidence of lateness. The Tubingen school dated Acts in the middle of the 2nd century and declared that the author wrote to try to gloss over the division between the party of Peter and the party of Paul in the early church. It was of little value for history. Ramsay and Harnack helped correct this view, swinging back to the view of Luke as the author, and tended to reestablish faith in his historical ability. It is supposed that the purpose of writing was to tell how Christianity spread from Jerusalem to Rome, vVith a secondary purpose to show that the new religion was not politically dangerous. It is not to be supposed that the critics are willing to take the story as given, in particular the miraculous. It is still a favorite parlor past time of some to attempt to array Acts against the Epistles of Paul. The present trend is a return to relatively conservative conclusions or matters of composition and date, and an increased readiness to accept the historical reliability of the documents. This is not to say that there is a return to acceptance of the infallibility of the scriptures. Such is not the case, rather modem man comes to the religious problem with the conviction of a discredited book. The present situation is a compromise. Unable to maintain its human creeds before the advance of science, Protestantism has not only yielded its position, but also the Book. And this leads us to the second pillar on the modern scene— the effort to integrate life around some other focal point. The modern mind is not willing to give up religion altogether, nor is it willing to throw over the Bible all together. It might be compared to a child who has dismantled a toy and suddenly realized that he did not want it apart after all. And so a most strange state of mind has developed in which one claims to be a Christian—a believer—and loyal to Christ, while at the same time he is willing to openly allege that any number of details of the Bible may be in error.
There is a willingness to sing the praises of the Bible, claim it is inspired, and to devote a lifetime to its study, while at the same time contending that its books were written by other men than those which they claim to be. Its characters may misquote earlier writings; it may contain historical errors and inner contradictions. It may make predictions that never came to pass nor ever shall; some of those which did come to pass are descriptions made after the event and are placed back in the mouth of earlier characters. The supernatural is exaggerated. Many of its narratives are claimed to be legendary. The student talks about a deep underlying unity of the Bible, while it is contradictory at many points on the surface.
How then can such a book be of any value? Modern man fancies himself able to distinguish between form and substance—that is, between a story as given and the abiding spiritual lesson which he sees back of 'it. The bodily resurrection he feels he can’t accept, but the lasting reality is survival after death. The expectation of the return of Christ is too much to take, but the victory of God’s purnose on earth—“Thy will be done”—is desirable. That there was ever demon possession is too much to accept, but the idea may symbolize the reality of sin and evil. Angels also have trouble, but they may convey the concept of the nearness and friendship of the divine Spirit. The judgment day? This was confronting Christ as he came into the world, sifting men for good or evil. And so on it goes. And now to the crucial point—How is a man to know when he is dealing with truth and when with an outworn shell? Bach man is “guided in the last resort by his own conviction of truth” (See Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, p. 26). By others this faculty is spoken of as the “religious consciousness” of the church. Implicit in this idea is a sort of continuous or progressive revelation. Some would quote “Guide you into all truth” (Jno. 16:13), and apply it to a continual direction of the church. Perhaps it is in this light that the strange statement in the Methodist Discipline for 1940 is to be taken:
“We have, therefore, expected that the discipline would be administered, not merely as a legal document, but as a revelation of the Holy Spirit working in and through our people” (p. 2). In this connection is to be taken all the vague, nebulous statements one encounters where “Christ” as the authority is contrasted to a dependence on the book. It is true that the authority of the book depends on Christ. But let someone explain, if he can, how he can know anything about Christ apart from the book. Theological schools never grow tired of assuring incoming students that their faith cannot be destroyed. Little wonder! By faith is meant this sort of mystical experience which leads to or results from religious consciousness. The experience 'itself is its own verification. It needs no other evidence.
Long before we have reached this point I am sure that you have been aware that we are no longer dealing with a “faith once delivered to the saints.” Gone is the concept of a man who was led to write as we thought of the prophets of old being led to speak. In fact, if inspiration can be held to at all, it is only in the form of God directing a general movement—a sort of infallibility of a movement—or inspiration as a modern man may be stirred to compose a song. It does not take a wise man to see that with these conclusions one can hardly talk of being governed by the Bible. The Book, to the critic, is as fallible as those other men produce. Said Loisy, “A book absolutely true for all time is no more possible than a square triangle.” The early church was in a fluid state and could not be considered normative for anyone. In-stead of a plan of organization being revealed for all time, the allusions to organization come late after the organization had already developed. Instead of there being a departure from the faith, there has been a gradual unfolding and development. It is denied that the New Testament presents any code for the work and worship of the church. Here then is the challenge to our movement. No question has been raised that any Christian should hesitate to face four-square. The appeal of Modernism is to a man’s pride, to his interest in that which is novel and up to date, and to his loyalty to “scientific knowledge.” It claims to offer a new freedom from the intellectual restraints of the past. There is no limit to the skill and persuasiveness with which its advocates are able to present its case. In an evaluation of this challenge, several courses are open. We might point out all the points at which the critic has been in error and has been forced to yield ground, and by doing so close every mind to a fair evaluation of the position. However, we do not feel at all called upon to defend the errors that have been put forward in the name of Christianity, nor does the critic feel compelled to defend abandoned errors. The fact that Edison tried eight hundred things in error before he found a filament for the electric light does not negate the blessings we now enjoy. Trial is the process of science. It is only when error is repeated knowingly that it becomes contemptible. We must deal with present conclusions and not with abandoned positions. We might recall that the critical movement has been at times under the influence of rationalists, but that does not really meet the issue of the hold it has on minds today. We might launch a tirade on the moral defects of some scholars—but I recall some of my brethren who have broken the moral code—and for that we bow our heads in shame—but this does not in any way negate the plea for New Testament Christianity. No, this is not the answer. The question must be viewed as an effort on the part of honest, learned men to describe events in the first century as they see them, using all the tools at their command. We could call names, but we are dealing with an attitude 'which is not frightened at epithets or bound in loyalty to old phraseology. That is to say, if one assumes the attitude as Machen has done in the book Christianity and Liberalism, that the movement is unchristian, he is correct, but the liberal merely draws a larger circle, and redefines the term ‘‘Christian” to include his views and goes on his way. Calling names is valuable at times, but it convinces only those who have already determined their loyalty. There is no doubt that a new definition of the term “Christian” is involved. Wellhausen resigned his professorship, realizing that he had abandoned the foundations of Evangelical Christianity. C. A. Briggs, in this country, was accused of heresy by the Presbyterians. There are other examples. The liberal's reply to all of these things is “Your Christianity is based on a narrow definition.” “We have captured the real spirit.” The liberal is thoroughly convinced that he has the truth and has discovered the true way to use the Bible. This, of course, is no guarantee that it is so.
There is another alternative open. One may well ask, Is the system true? Now there is no error but that contains some truth. Men in the critical move-
ment (paradoxical as it may seem) have made some contributions to Biblical study which we need not hesitate to admit. In the first place, the ground has been cleared of a lot of erroneous ideas which have accumulated through the years. In illustration: Just a few years ago at a mid-week service, meeting in the chapel of one of the colleges, a well-educated brother stated that the Holy Spirit spoke a special language, being particularly fond of involved sentences. A related form of opinion of the “special character” of New Testament Greek was common a few generations ago. Now if Deissmann, Moulton, and others are able to prove that New Testament Greek is “Koine”—that spoken in the streets of ancient cities, rather than a special language of the Spirit—they have done us a favor. Again, the New Testament calls Luke a physician. Jerome said he used medical language, though the New Testament does not claim this feature. Hobart in the last century, claimed that there were 400 medical terms in his writings. Harnak reduced the number, but repeated the argument. Now if a man by the name of Cadbury can prove that most of these words are to be found in non-medical writings, such as the LXX, even if he carries his side of the argu-ment too far, we are benefactors. There is no objection to the testing of positions. Those that endure are the more secure for having undergone successfully the test. “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.”
But not only has there been a negative contribution, the critic has lent encouragement to the historical approach to the Bible. He did not originate it. It is older than Modernism. And the critic has not been content to stop with history.
One encounters all too frequently a reconstruction of events based on “historical imagination,” as it is called. In common language this means “sheer guessing.” One can conjecture anything. Guessing is not history. There can be no question that an historical approach to Biblical studies is a sound one. I have not the slightest intention to abandon it or to denounce it when it is sanely used, though I do not accept the contention that history is the total picture. I do not for a moment suppose that the church and the Bible are solely accounted for by the social, political, and religious currents of their day. But the Bible is correctly interpreted when we first ask what the writer meant to say to his original readers in the situation in which they were. One needs only to compare the results we gain by such a method with the excesses set forth by the exegetes of the middle ages and their predecessors who used the allegorical and textual method, to appreciate it. A third very valuable contribution has been made by helping to make available tools for Bible study. Land and sea have been encompassed to discover every word, every stone, and custom which might cast light, on some Biblical fact. As a result the student today has at his disposal the dictionaries, the critical texts of ancient works, a knowledge of language, life and times of the Biblical world never before available to any generation. These are not an unmixed blessing. Even the standard books must be used with extreme caution. The popularity enjoyed by rash conjecture is such that one can never be certain that he is dealing with facts except in those cases where he is competent to check the results himself. One may take a Bible translation as an example. When translators issue a translation, a goodly portion of wnich is based on textual emendation, then it becomes a safe tool only in the hands of Hebrew and Greek scholars who are able to recognize the emenda tions. One who has that sort of campetency does not particularly need the translation anyway. The liberal would be glad to claim credit for whatever advancement has been made in Biblical study. He may often intimate that all the contributions have been made by liberals. This just is not so.
Now the heart of the matter is—because we accept some benefits of critical study, must we accept its methods and conclusions in toto? To the average modern student that one would do otherwise is most contemptible. But we recall a simple illustration once used by Phillips Brooks. When I invite you to my house for fish dinner, it does not imply that you must devour all that is served. No, you carefully separate the fish from the bones. Rat what is palatable. Has not the critic done mst that in building up this system? In fact the assumption that one can distinguish between form and substance of Biblical material is such a process gone to seed. Why should one feel compelled to accept critical conclusions of today, when even the critic admits they may be different tomorrow? But to repeat the former question—Is the modernistic system really scientific? We shall examine the pillar upon which it rests first. The effort to integrate life around some point other than the Bible. We will not be led astray by all the talk of “religious consciousness.” The old infallibility of the Roman church has just changed its clothes to become the infallibility of all religious men. Or to put it in other terms, the age old Vox populi, vox dei raises its head again—this time, the voice of religious men is the voice of God. Though it has on grandmother’s cap and is in grandmother’s bed, the big eyes, the sharp teeth, and the long ears are the same. Despite the numbers, the education, and the sincerity of those who advocate it, Little Red Riding Hood need not be deceived. It is the wolf!
“Each man guided by his own conviction of truth” —this is a system that can offer no solution to the ills of the world. It has no power to lift man up out of the mire of sin. There is no upsetting of the money— changer’s tables. Instead of demanding that men change, it changes the demands made on men. Religious practices become really matters of taste. There is no authority on the basis of which any practice can be condemned. Liberalism is a parasite. As long as it is able to recruit from believing people it continues its public ceremonies just because people love to hold on to traditional ways—but one who has not that background may well decide that something else is just as valuable. There is no church as dead as a liberal church. Its people are in a status where they do not know the Bible and have no motivation to care. At the best, it can deal with social issues and try to get a good attendance Easter. Steinmueller has well put the problem by stating that Protestantism has moved from Luther’s “faith without works” to the modern “works without faith.”
One recalls another period in history when people followed their “own conviction of truth.” Its chaos is characterized in the last verses of Judges: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” This is complete chaos. It has no message to offer even to a heathen world. In fact, the liberal in many cases has abandoned the claim that Christianity is unique. He feels a great kinship to the brethren. He feels that the founders of the non-Christian religions also enjoyed a measure of divine revelation. T. S. Kepler expresses himself as looking forward to a time when there will be ecumenical conferences between the great religions of the world. Why not if every man is to be “guided by his own conviction of truth”? Alas! They have forsaken me the fountain of living waters and have hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2:13).
But turning to the first pillar—the critical analysis of the Bible. When I was a child I played with building blocks and constructed large towers. It was never necessary to take them apart block by block, but just pull a block or so from the bottom and the whole tumbled. Let us take soundings on a block or so of this great structure.
It i3 admitted by all that the critical movement has proceeded on the assumptions of the evolutionary hypothesis. George F. Moore expresses the spirit in his book The Birth and Groioth of Religion. One of the chapters is entitled “The Emergence of the Gods.” That is, man finally developed to the point that he postulated gods. It is necessary to remind ourselves that evolution, after all these years, is still only a hypothesis? The Piltdown man has evaporated into thin air. It was all a hoax. I have no competence in this field, but Wm. Langer of Harvard in his Ency. of World History, p. 9, states that it is questionable that any of the so-called “pre-historic men” are the ancestors of modern man. If not, then why all the agitation? Why all the exhibits of stages of development in the museums? Why all the picture stories in Life and like periodicals? What do these discoveries prove if they are not ancestors of modern man? Nothing at all! The emergence of the gods—Indeed! Has any people been found so backward that it has no gods? Has any evidence come to light in that direction? Never! It is all a guess. Now the real question is, could a system which has never been proved furnish a stable basis upon which to interpret Christianity? It is in the application of this idea to the story of the New Testament that our principles run head-on into modern theories. The historical school refuses to consider a “faith once delivered” to which all ages must conform. Belief in an unchangeable standard is the chief item to which the liberal objects. The one item he is dogmatically certain about is that the Bible is not a standard for modern man. No, all must be growth and development. Truth must be relative. It cannot be absolute. Such a position is riot a question of historical evidence, but of philosophical pre-suppositions. How one looks at the universe and the processes of history determines how one comes out.
Let’s tap on another block of this building. The acceptance of miracle is more in vogue today than formerly. But from the beginning this has been one of the chief objectionable features of the Bible. The critic must reject them. At the present many feel they can accept some and reject others. Few, if any, are willing to accept all. Miracle does not fall in the realm with which science is qualified to deal. All history can do is report that people believed in a miracle at such and such a time. It can neither prove it happened nor disprove it. Here then we again come to a philosophical presupposition. What is your connection with God? Is he a God sweating like a laborer to overcome difficulties too great for him—as Brightman speaks? Is he caught in his own system so that he must conform to it? Or can he who said, “Let there be light and there was light,” work with his chosen to confirm the word with the signs they follow? Take just one: the resurrection of Jesus. It is not difficult to get anyone—even the unbeliever—to admit that Jesus was a smart, great man. He taught some fine things. But 0 the stumbling block of the cross! If God raised him from the dead, then the rest is not difficult to believe. As to the spirit of accepting some of the miraculous, while rejecting the rest, we recall that the same sources tell of the two. This is sorely a subjective judgment. In the Interpreter’s Bible in discussing Enoch, the commentator cites with approval a writer who suggests that Enoch’s place, one day, was vacant and people drew their own conclusion that he had gone with the Lord. This sort of exegesis, examples of which may be multiplied, merits only one remark—with apologies to the comedian—“Was you dar, Charlie?” But let’s examine again: The assumption that the Bible has been demonstrated by recent discoveries to be so full of errors and inconsistencies that no informed man could think of following it. What are some of these? We shall not list them. Take any introduction or read any book dealing with Biblical problems and you will find them. You will also find that there are only a few of these things that could be said to be new. A good portion of the charges made by the heretics and skeptics from the time of Celsus and Pophyry on down will be set forth and accepted as being true. In their own day they are met and rejected. Now they are baptized and accepted into full communion of saints. Now it is admitted that they were partly right and that they laid the foundation for modern attitudes. Swinburne in his “Hymn to Persephone” has the line “Thou hast conquered, 0 pale Galilean.” Were the skeptics able to arise from the dead and read some modern treatments of the Bible by those within the churches, they might well say, “We have conquered, 0 pale Galilean.” The skeptic made the argument to try to destroy. Moderns make them to try to compromise and suppose that they build up, but in reality have capitulated to the opposition. A good portion of the questions have been dealt with in the handbooks on Biblical difficulties. I leave it to you to decide wheth-er the solutions there proposed are convincing. But let us not suppose because they have been dealt with we are through with them. You will find them repeated with new vigor in the Interpreter's Bible, now being issued by Abingdon-Cokesbury, and also elsewhere. Most Bible believers do not have much trouble accepting the things the scientist is actually able to demonstrate. But when compromisers want to throw over the Book in favor of theories unproved and unprovable, regardless of whether they come from anthropology, sociology, psychology, geology, or what not—then we rebel. It is loudly proclaimed by some that the manuscript tradition of the Bible is so varied that the question of inspiration becomes entirely theoretical. This problem Norvel Young has dealt with in reply to the Look magazine article a year or so ago. Our Bible by the faculty of this college also bears on it, as do some of the older books.
While it is true that in the several thousand New Testament manuscripts there are 200,000 variant readings, most of them are insignificant as far as the meaning of passages are concerned. It is said that only 200 affect the meaning of passage, and only 15 of them are of major importance. They neither add to nor detract from a single duty of man. A fourth block of the building we shall look at— Objectivity. Actually no small part of the objection to critical conclusions about the Bible is their subjective nature. After all the cry of “Let’s look at the Bible objectively,” I still believe one can be prejudiced “against” as easily as “for.” Where one comes out depends to a degree on what pre-suppositions he has when he starts. The scissor and paste method of exegesis does not enjoy the popularity it once did, but it has by no means been abandoned. Can any system be sound when built up by selecting certain portions of evidence and by declaring all opposing facts to be interpolation? Is it really sound to form an opinion of what a man’s thought was, judge his writings by it and declare ungenuine whatever is found there not fitting the pattern? The problem of the Pastorals may be taken as an example. One of the arguments against Pauline au-thorship is that they reveal an organization of the church which was later than Paul’s day. That is, one has decided from 2nd century writings when he thinks the office of bishop arose. He then judges both Acts and the Pastorals. The mention in Acts of appointing of elders becomes a sort of anachronism on the part of Luke—the reading backward the system of his own day. The Pastorals become written after the historian’s imagined date of development of the office. Now is it not true that dealing with the evidence in this way anything on the face of the earth could be proved? We are not unfamiliar witl^ methods by which people who look convince themselves that they have found strange things in the Bible. That does not mean the Bible teaches them. The Paedo-baptist thinks he finds ample ground to justify him to sprinkle babies; the premillennialist can find his system set forth on most every page— not that he can convince others that it is really there. The Mormon finds Mormonism in the clearest terms.
Are we to be surprised that other systems, after forming a hypothesis, and searching could convince themselves that they have found evidence to establish their hypothesis? Many times when one looks over the method by which critical study proceeds, it seems that it only take two “probablys” to make a “certainly.” Three “certainlys” make an “undoubtedly.” Two “undoubtedlys” make “all schol- lars agree.” And then you have “It is no longer questioned.” And yet the whole structure may be one unproved hypothesis leaned against another until people forget they are unproved. It is built up of conjecture and reading between the lines. If the desired outcome is not found, one amends and rearranges until he gets it. Take the question of “Q” as an example. Now no student the critic considers worth his salt would operate in the gospels without “Q”, and yet listen to H. J. Cadbury (and surely no one would question whether he knows or not) A very popular hypothesis, which, although not provable, is not disproved, is that they both used another earlier written Greek source, called by the scholars “Q”, which differed from Mark in that it collected primarily sayings (The Interpreter's Bible, VII, 37). This takes us to the heart of the matter. A spirit has arisen in which men are willing to formulate guesses and consider that they are properly handling the book by doing so. Bible study becomes a sort of “Anagrams” in which people vie for the most astute guesses and combinations. Then others act upon the guesses as though they were proven facts merely because no one arises to disprove. This is modernism and a few, but by no means all, of its shortcomings.
It would be completely dishonest to leave the im-pression that there are no unsolved questions in Biblical study. I am not aware that anyone ever supposed such a thing. From my earliest remembrances there have been larger areas of ignorance than of knowledge, and it is still so. Criticism does not answer the problems. In hundreds of instances the critic willingly admits that he does not have the material to deal with a problem he had raised. In fact, there are plenty of students who wonder if there are not more of that type when he gets through than there were when he started. It is his method to raise questions. Perhaps you have been on the witness stand in court and had the attorney cross examine you on something you saw, firing questions and cross-questions until you were not really certain whether the event happened as you saw it or not— and yet you were actually there. This can easily happen to a man in Biblical studies. To the formulation of hypothesis there is perhaps no objection. When these begin to be treated as facts, we need not be led astray. To what extent this spirit has pervaded the church I am not prepared to say, but perhaps far more than any of us realize. Once it has become a settled conviction with a man, there are few reasons why he should continue with us. He might love his position and stifle his convictions. It is often said about certain denominational men—if their people really understood what they stand for they would throw them out. But this is a serious charge. He might consider himself a Moses to lead his brethren out of bondage. In such a case, he might recall that the children of Israel have not yet called unto the Lord because of the bitterness of the bondage, and until such time arrives, he is likely to meet with “Who made you a prince and a judge over us?” It is also possible that a man’s convictions have changed without his realizing their implications. There are a few signs which in my opinion are the danger signs: (1) A man has questions fired at him along with unproved assertions, until he becomes confused. But instead of being humbled by it, he becomes proud. (2) A man becomes one of the intellegentsia. He has been enlightened and has attained a freedom not enjoyed by others; (3) The brethren in his estimation become woefully behind the times and uninformed. None of them have ever fairly investigated the new portions. Whether men must obey the clear commands of the Bible becomes doubtful in his mind. It does not take much confusion of this sort to paralyze a man as a force for good. On the other hand there is with him, an unlimited praise for those who whittle away at the things we have always stood for. (4) He becomes a Moses to enlighten others. (5) Having failed, and receiving in return the same sort of criticism he has dealt to others, he becomes greatly misunderstood and persecuted. People are about to force him out of the church. (6) Finally, some, as we all know, have sought other company.
What, then, can the church do to satisfactorily meet the present attitude?
(1) Preach the Word. The gospel is the seed of the kingdom—The gospel and not some particular theory about it. The gospel preached in the first century did not require years of schooling to understand. The common people heard the Lord gladly. To leave the great task of preaching the word to go chase after the phantoms of the minds of men would be equal in stupidity to the mistake of the bugler in the army who awoke one night to find the camp on fire. He shouted himself hoarse yelling “fire,” while at his side all the time was his bugle, a few blasts upon which would have aroused the whole camp. The sword of the spirit is the word of God. Opponents, from skeptics on through men of the denominations, for ages have thought they saw the church tottering on the verge of its demise. Time has revealed that it was a chimera of their own eye. The church is growing faster and is stronger numerically than it ever was. “Preach the word. Be urgent in season and out of season.”
(2) Defense. The Apostle also says “I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Php_1:17). “Being ready to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). Let us not underestimate the strength of the opposition. It boasts of the wealth and the learning of the world as its backing. The battle lines are being drawn for a great conflict. The basic principle of modern war is to hit the strongest point of the enemy with all you have. Border skirmishes here and there will never bring total victory. It is doubtless necessary to deal here and there with how many cups were required for 5,000 people in Jerusalem, how long is “long”; whether a lesson must be oral or written, and like topics—but friends, the authority of the Book is the real issue of the hour. It has been obvious for a long time that denominational lines are yielding. The Modernistic spirit explains part of it. It does not make much of an impression to argue immersion to a man who has been convinced that his religious consciousness is his standard. Why not have instrumental music if the Book does not furnish a pattern? If the trend of the past fifty years continues unchecked and unchanged, the day is fast coming when the common man in the church will need to be equipped to meet these issues as he has been to handle the usual denominational errors. The problem we face requires men equipped to discuss thoroughly and intelligently any issue that may be raised. Some of our young men are saying, we would like more equipment, but in view of what has happened to the faith of some others, we are afraid. There is no reason why men in the church cannot know as much about Greek and the Semitic languages, as well as history and the other disciples, as anyone in the world. By superior scholarship the opposition can be driven from the field. There is a need for printed expositions of the points at issue. The old books—even reprinted—are fine, but we will not be able to meet a movement which produces hundreds of books yearly with reprints alone. We are likely to feel that an argument once dealt with needs no further attention. But the modern spirit, once met, will wash its face, put on a new dress, and restate the case. It might be compared to the dragon in mythol-ogy, who when Hercules cut off one of its heads grew two more in its place. We are in constant need of new books which meet the issues of this day as the older men met those in their day. Though some brethren have written on these problems, we have not yet produced adequate refutations that may be used for texts in classes and in private study. This is a task in which every person can participate. In science, psychology, history, philosophy, as well as the Biblical field, the student must be trained to distinguish between the things that are only conjecture and those which are true.
Let there be a renewed effort to safeguard our thought from any fallacies, and from all fallacious arguments that may creep in unawares. These give the enemy great cause to blaspheme. Let our consideration of the problem be that of the intellectual system rather than attacks on character, lest the student upon further investigation, discover admirable traits in the individuals involved and become confused. A teacher should not be content merely to ridicule a few peripheral errors he sees. Rather, one should attempt to give the student an understanding of the spirit at the heart of the attitudes that lives on even though it be forced to yield any number of individual points, and then having done this, relentlessly expose its shortcomings. In this conflict the churches of Christ must bear the brunt of the attack. Although the Catholic dhurch has expressed itself in opposition to modern theories, and in the decree “Lamentabili” (1907) specified a number of objections to modern trends, its own position is too vulnerable for it to be of value in this struggle. It is exhibit “A” of the sort of development of which the critic speaks. The old line denominations are shot through with these theories; and also because of their creeds, live in glass houses. The Holiness groups who claim to believe the Bible are really based on emotion and not on intellectual conviction. The New Testament church alone offers and is prepared to defend a faith “once delivered"
(3) Student Guidance: We can build a bulwark of faith and fellowship upon which those yet to come can lean. There is a great need to develop strong congregations in the centers of learning whose fellowship can offset the spirit of loneliness that modern education can bring to a man. There is a need for capable, experienced men in the leadership of such congregations who understand the spirit of the hour and counsel the student who encounters difficulties— a leadership that will command the respect of all men; a leadership who knows more about the questions than the critics do.
(4) Investigation: I am not impressed by the insin-uations, subtle or open, of the opposition and also sometimes heard from brethren newly drunk on learning that Bible believers are afraid of investigation. I believe just the contrary to be true in most cases. Give us the facts. Investigation is the only lasting solution to any problem. One day John, in prison, sent disciples to Jesus with the preplexing question, “Are you he that cometh or look we for another?” Jesus could have said, “Now, John, you are getting on dangerous ground. You are worrying about things too great for you. Stifle your doubts”—and the like. But no! He performed some wonders and said, “Go tell John the things which you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear; the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them; and blessed is he who does not find occasion of stumbling in me” (Matt. 11:8-5). That is, as it were to say, “Here is the evidence. Make up your mind on the basis of it.” Here, then is the real method of overcoming “modernism.” Get the facts. Be sure they are fact. Distinguish between the true and the conjecture. Never pre-judge. Never close your mind. If the dearest position will not stand investigation, it is not worth living by, and certainly not dying by.
Having made that sort of investigation, one will be able to say with deeper understanding, The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul:
The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart:
The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever:
The ordinances of Jehovah are true and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold; yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of the honeycomb.
Moreover by them is thy servant warned:
In keeping them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)