Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume 2.1 by Maranatha Baptist University

SPRI NG 2012路 VOLUME2,NUMBER 1

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Maranatha Baptist Bible College Maranatha Baptist Seminary

Volume 2, Number 1

SPRING 2012

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal www.mbbc.edu/TheStudy ISSN 2160-1623

Published semi-annually by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary 745 W. Main Street Watertown, Wisconsin 53094 920.261.9300 www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary Marty Marriott, President Editor: Larry R. Oats

Communication and books for review should be addressed to the Editor: seminary@mbbc.edu, or Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal 745 W. Main Street Watertown, WI 53094 The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is published two times a year (spring and fall). The Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is a ministry of Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. Copyright ÂŠ 2012 by Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary. All rights reserved. Materials in this publication may not be reproduced without the permission of the Editor, except for reproduction for classroom use by students or professors.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Volume Two, Number One

INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ 1 THE LANDMARK CONTROVERSY: A STUDY IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND POLITY ______________________ 3 FUNDAMENTALISM AND SOCIAL INVOLVEMENT ________________ 29 THE PRIORITIES OF THE FUNDAMENTALS ______________________ 65 PRAYER AND GOD’S OMNISCIENCE ___________________________ 91 BOOK REVIEWS __________________________________________ 115

Introduction The purpose of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal is to provide for our constituency, and for others who may be interested, articles from a Baptist, dispensational, and conservative theological position. Articles will be academic and practical, biblical and theological, focused on the needs of the pastor and church leader, and, above all, faithful to Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Word. The education of a person in ministry, whether he or she is serving in vocational ministry or as a volunteer, is a continuing process. For that reason, Maranatha publishes the Theological Journal to assist individuals in their ongoing education. Through the Journal, Sunesis, and other venues, Maranatha Baptist Seminary and Maranatha Baptist Bible College seek to assist Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s servants in whatever ways we are able. Our faculty are available to speak in churches and conferences on the topics on which they write, as well as in other areas of their expertise. We trust that you will be blessed and challenged as you read this issue of the Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal. Marty Marriott President Maranatha Baptist Bible College and Seminary Larry R. Oats Editor www.mbbc.edu www.mbbc.edu/seminary www.mbbc.edu/TheStudy

MBTJ 2/1: 3-28

The Landmark Controversy: A Study in Baptist History and Polity Fred Moritz1

In the nineteenth century a series of controversies rocked Baptist life and threatened the peace and survival of Baptist churches in the United States. The three controversies were sequentially related. The Campbellite controversy, with its linkage of regeneration to baptism, was the first great disruptive battle. James R. Graves developed his Landmark theory of Baptist succession, and that controversy became the middle battle of those three conflicts. William Heth Whitsitt originally identified himself with Graves, but later reacted against that position. He adopted what was then the new theory that Baptists â&#x20AC;&#x2022;rediscoveredâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; immersion in the middle of the seventeenth century. This third controversy eventually cost him his position as president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. The purpose of this article is to trace the origins of the Landmark controversy and to see its ramifications for ecclesiology and local church polity. It will be necessary to briefly examine the preceding Campbellite controversy in order to set the stage for it. The later Whitsitt controversy will not be discussed in this article, for that is worthy of a study all its own.

1 Dr. Fred Moritz is Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal The Campbellite Movement

The Campbellite heresy brought great disruption to churches. ―By far the most important schism suffered by the Baptist body in the United States was that of which Alexander Campbell was the occasion and one of the chief agents.‖2 Thomas Campbell (1763–1854), father of Alexander (1788–1866), was a Presbyterian pastor in Scotland who came to Pennsylvania in 1807.3 He pastored a Presbyterian church, but stressed unity among Christians of various denominations. In 1809 the Christian Association of Washington (Pennsylvania) was formed in an effort to bring unity across denominational lines.4 In 1811 they ―transformed this gathering into the Brush Run Church so they could observe the Lord‘s Supper.‖5 Alexander was ordained in 1812. Having become persuaded of the truth of baptism by immersion, he was baptized on June 12, 1812, by Matthew Luce, a neighboring Baptist pastor.6 The following year the Brush Run Church united with the Redstone Baptist Association.7 Campbell preached in Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and Tennessee and was identified with the Baptists until 1830.8 In that year he and his followers formed a new denomination known as the Disciples of Christ. 2 A.H. Newman, A History of the Baptist Churches in the United States (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1898), 487. 3 Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists (Watertown, WI: Maranatha Baptist Press, 1976 reprint of 1890 edition), 2:735. 4 H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), 377. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., 378. 7 Newman, 488. 8 James Leo Garrett, Baptist Theology—A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 249.

The Landmark Controversy

Campbell‘s Motivation Alexander Campbell seems to have been driven by a passion to reform Christendom. He held that the ―ancient gospel‖ had been obscured by ―human traditions,‖ and thus he sought to return the churches to the practices of the New Testament.9 He stood against a paid clergy, all human institutions for propagating the gospel, and the use of creeds or doctrinal statements. ―The professed object was to return to the simplicity of the New Testament faith and practice.‖10 Campbell‘s Doctrine11 Campbell adopted several aberrant doctrinal views. His first error, and one of the most critical, dealt with the nature of saving faith. Campbell had studied at the University of Glasgow before coming to the United States. There he had absorbed the teaching of Robert Sandeman, which effectively reduced saving faith to ―head belief‖ or ―mental assent.‖12 Sandemanianism refers primarily to an aspect of theology regarding the nature of faith promoted by Robert Sandeman (1718–1781), from which it derives its name, and his father-in-law John Glas (1695–1773) in Scotland and England during the mid-eighteenth century. To the Sandemanians, the nature of saving faith reduces to mere intellectual assent to a fact or proposition. This is illustrated rather clearly in the following quote. ―In a series of letters to James Hervey, Newman, 489. Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists (Valley Forge: Judson, 1907), 342. 11 In this section I am following the analysis of McBeth, 378– 380. Newman (488–490), Garrett (249–251), and Armitage (2:735– 736) give similar analyses. 12 McBeth, 378. 9

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal the author of Theron and Aspasia, he [Sandeman] maintained that justifying faith is a simple assent to the divine testimony concerning Jesus Christ, differing in no way in its character from belief in any ordinary testimony.‖13

Following this, ―Campbell taught that baptism by immersion completes the process of salvation.‖14 Campbell is quoted as saying: We have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name‘s sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion:—that in, and by, the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our former, or ―old sins,‖ are washed away, provided only that we are true believers.15

The effect of Campbellism also greatly minimized the work of the Holy Spirit. McBeth cites minutes of the Franklin Association in Kentucky affirming that the Campbellites held ―that there is no direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the mind prior to baptism—that baptism procures the remission of sins.‖16 ―Campbell‘s view of Scripture differed from that of most Baptists. The essence of Campbell‘s controversial ‗Sermon on the Law‘ in 1816 was a rejection of the binding authority of the Old Testament upon Christians.‖17 While dispensationalists would agree with his view of the authority of the Old Testament on a New Testament believer, Campbell used this position as an argument to ―restore‖ church order to ―Sandemanianism,‖ http://www.theopedia.com/Sandemanianism. 14 McBeth, 378. 15 Alexander Campbell, Christian Baptist (1827), 5:416, cited in McBeth, 379. 16 McBeth, 379. 17 Ibid. 13

The Landmark Controversy

only those practices that have New Testament precedent. ―Campbell embraced a stark literalism which required that all church practices have precept or precedent in Scripture. By that hermeneutic, he rejected missionary societies, instrumental music in worship, the use of written confessions, regular salaries for ministers, the use of ministerial titles, and many other practices.‖18 Campbell‘s Divisiveness Campbell‘s doctrine devastated Baptist churches across the South. ―Historians estimate, for example, that fully half the Baptist churches of Kentucky switched to the new Disciples movement.‖19 The historical records tell of local Baptist associations being split, some churches dividing, and other churches defecting to the new doctrine. The story of the Buffalo Ridge Baptist Church in Gray, Tennessee, is an example of the havoc Campbellism wreaked on local churches. This church was founded in 1779 and is the oldest Baptist church in Tennessee. Today it is a thriving church with more than five hundred attending on Sunday mornings. In the 1820s its attendance averaged 250–300, which was large for that day. When the Campbellite heresy invaded, however, the assembly was left nearly extinct, with only twenty-five to thirty attending.20 The Stage Set for the Landmark Movement It was in this context and against this backdrop that James R. Graves developed his movement known as Landmarkism. In combating the Campbellite heresies of their supposed ―reformation,‖ Graves sought to establish an authenticity for church succession. It is a classic example of overreaction. Ibid. Ibid., 377. 20 Personal interview with Gene Lasley, Pastor Emeritus of Buffalo Ridge Baptist Church, 21 February, 2012. 18 19

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Historians have debated the inevitability of the rise of a movement like Landmarkism. Alan Lefever, the director of the Texas Baptist Historical Collection, argues that the Landmark movement was: a direct response to Alexander Campbell, who taught baptismal regeneration and trumpeted the desire to restore the New Testament church. Campbell, a former Baptist, founded the movement out of which the modern-day Disciples of Christ denomination and the Churches of Christ—a loose grouping of conservative, independent congregations—developed. ―Landmarkism was a reaction to the Campbellite movement. It was like a vaccine to inoculate Baptists against Campbellite influence,‖ [Lefever] said, pointing out that it contained ―just enough of the disease‖ to provide supposed protection. ―If Alexander Campbell had never come along, we‘d never have had Landmarkism. There never would have been a need,‖ Lefever insisted. 21

In contrast to Campbell, who claimed to be restoring biblical Christianity, Graves argued that Baptists have always represented biblical Christianity. Lefever explained: ―A so-called Campbellite might say, ‗We have restored the New Testament church.‘ But a Landmark Baptist could respond, ‗We are the New Testament church.‘‖22 The Birth of the Landmark Movement James R. Graves (1820–1893)23 is one of the most controversial personalities in the history of Baptists in America. Graves was a dynamic preacher and popular Ken Camp, ―Historians Debate Reasons for Rise of Landmarkism in 19th Century,‖ Associated Baptist Press (9 January 2009), http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/3765 /53/. 22 Ibid. 23 www.reformedreader.org/rbb/graves/gindex.htm. 21

The Landmark Controversy

editor and enjoyed a wide following. He was editor of The Baptist (later The Tennessee Baptist) from 1848–1889.24 Preacher, publisher, author, and editor. He influenced Southern Baptist life of the 19th century in more ways, and probably to a greater degree, than any other person. As an agitator and controversialist of the first magnitude, he kept his denomination in almost continual and often bitter controversy for about 30 years. He also engaged in frequent and prolonged debates and controversies with outstanding representatives of other denominations. Being magnetic and dynamic, he won the enthusiastic and loyal support of thousands; but being acrimonious in his disputations and attacks, he made many determined enemies. . . . Graves led in the Landmark movement from its beginning in 1851 and sought to make its ideology dominant in Southern Baptist life. During 1854-58, when Amos Cooper Dayton [a second Landmark leader] was corresponding secretary of the Southern Baptist Convention Bible Board (Nashville, 1851-62), Landmarkers were in control. Dayton resigned under pressure in Apr., 1858. Growing out of the conflict that developed, the Southern Baptist Convention in 1859 appointed no Landmarkers from Nashville to serve on the Bible Board.25

James Madison Pendleton was a third leader in the movement. ―His opinions were less extreme than those of Graves and Dayton and constituted a moderating influence.‖26 Pendleton is perhaps best known for his book Christian Doctrines, first published in 1878. The book remains in print.

Ibid. Ibid. 26 Keith E. Eitel, ―James Madison Pendleton‖ in Baptist Theologians, eds. Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 193. 24 25

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

In February 1852 Pendleton invited Graves to preach a revival meeting for him in Bowling Green, Kentucky.27 The two men discussed issues of ecclesiology during this time. Pendleton never completely agreed with Graves, but his ecclesiology formed a basis for Graves‘ position. The Impetus for the Landmark Theory Graves‘ primary concerns had to do with practices he observed in Baptist churches and how those churches related to other denominations. He was concerned that the Baptist testimony had been greatly wounded by the Campbellite controversy some years earlier. He was also concerned by the growth and strength of the Methodists across the South.28 He was troubled by the fact that Baptist churches received alien immersion, exchanged pulpits with nonBaptist churches, and cooperated in union Sunday schools and union church meetings. He held that these practices ―departed from primitive Baptist principles and undermined Baptist distinctives. . . . He sought to underscore an individuality that belonged uniquely to Baptists.‖29 Alien Immersion ―Alien immersion‖ is the practice of a Baptist church receiving members who have been immersed upon their profession of faith in Christ, but that immersion would have been administered by a Presbyterian, Methodist, or clergy from some other non-Baptist denomination. The reasoning for rejecting ―alien immersion‖ is that a pedobaptist church is not, by New Testament standards, a true church. His questions dated to 1832. Ibid. Harold S. Smith, ―J. R. Graves‖ in Baptist Theologians, eds. Timothy George and David S. Dockery (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 229. 29 Ibid. 27 28

The Landmark Controversy

He had seen a pedobaptist minister who at one service immersed several converts (including Graves‘s mother and sister), poured upon another who knelt in the stream, and sprinkled others who stood on the bank. How could these different acts constitute the ―one baptism‖ of the New Testament? Can an unbaptized person perform valid baptism? Troubled by these questions, Graves concluded that only Baptist immersion constitutes valid baptism [emphasis mine].30

Controversy in Nashville Graves was a controversialist by nature. He engaged in a bitter dispute with Robert Boyte Crawford Howell, who was his pastor at First Baptist Church of Nashville.31 This controversy occurred when Graves published an accusation that Howell had slandered him. The controversy extended over two years, 1858–1859, and resulted in Graves leaving the church. The church investigated the matter and began a procedure of discipline against Graves. He apparently raised a parliamentary objection, and with that procedural move he led a group to leave and form a new church.32 Forty-six of his followers were excluded from the church over the next year.33 Wills reports that this division ―polarized the denomination in the South.‖34

McBeth, 453–54. Smith, 226. 32 Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859–2009 (Oxford: University Press, 2009), 98. 33 McBeth, 456. By all accounts Howell was a godly pastor and respected Southern Baptist leader. He served First Baptist Nashville as its pastor at two different times and was elected president of the convention. He authored two classic books: The Terms of Communion at the Lord‘s Table (1846) and The Evils of Infant Baptism (1852). 34 Wills, 98. 30 31

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Controversy in the Convention Campbell also engaged in controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention, and that agitation centered on the Foreign Mission Board. At the 1859 SBC meeting in Richmond, he moved ―to take from the Foreign Mission Board its power to examine, choose, support, and direct its missionaries, on the ground that these were the rights of churches and associations, or groups of churches that might wish to work together.‖35 The messengers refused to ―dismantle‖ the FMB.36 ―The gospel mission movement that developed among a few Southern Baptist missionaries in China (1886-93), and the Landmark Baptist conventions in Arkansas and Texas, organized about 1905, were logical developments of the views Graves sought to implement at Richmond in 1859.‖37 T.P. Crawford was a missionary in China and led the ―the gospel mission movement,‖ which advocated that missionaries should be appointed by churches, not boards. Crawford attacked the SBC and its mission boards and was dismissed from the SBC in 1892.38 Controversy with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Graves not only led in opposition to the Foreign Mission Board, but also against Southern Seminary in Louisville and several other Southern Baptist organizations. His contentions with the seminary centered on a personal animosity against president and founder James Petigru Boyce and differences over the terms of communion and alien immersion.39 www.reformedreader.org/rbb/graves/gindex.htm. McBeth, 457. 37 www.reformedreader.org/rbb/graves/gindex.htm. 38 McBeth, 457. 39 Wills, 98. Wills (98–107) gives a detailed account of Graves‘ attacks on Southern Seminary. 35 36

The Landmark Controversy

The Civil War (1861–1865) disrupted Graves‘ printing ministry, which took heavy losses as a result of the Union occupation of Nashville after 1862. He did not publish his paper again until 1867. After the war, Graves relocated to Memphis, and on February 1, 1867, he published the first post-war issue of The Baptist.40 He suffered a stroke in 1884, took a debilitating fall in 1890 (after which he never walked), and died June 26, 1893.41 The Tenets of the Landmark Theory Several unique doctrinal Landmark movement.

traits

characterize

the

―Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.‖42 Those who hold the Landmark position argue that only Baptist churches exhibit all the marks of a true church as taught in the New Testament; therefore, they are the only true churches. ―It follows that they have the only true ministers, ordinances, and preaching.‖43 ―The true church is a local, visible institution.‖44 Landmark Baptists vehemently deny the existence of a church of which all regenerated people in this age are a part. This is an issue that is debated among Baptist theologians. It is rightly a discussion for Ecclesiology in Systematic Theology or Baptist Polity.45 Not all who hold Smith, 227. Ibid. 42 McBeth, 450. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Baptists have held varying views concerning this issue. This author holds, on the basis of Ephesians 5:25–27 and Hebrews 12:22–24, that the New Testament teaches that there is a prospective church, comprised of all regenerate people from this age, that will meet in heaven. Since some of these believers are in 40 41

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

this view espouse the Landmark position, but all Landmarkers today hold it. Pendleton, however, did not hold to a ―local church only‖ position. Citing Ephesians 5:25–27 he states: ―In these places and in several others it would be absurd to define the term ‗church‘ as meaning a particular congregation of Christians meeting in one place for the worship of God.‖46 Those who hold the Landmark position labor mightily against this idea of a church made up of all believers, yet in the end they must admit that the New Testament reveals truth concerning such a church. In treating passages like Hebrews 12:22–24 and Ephesians 5:25–27, most of these brethren acknowledge that a church made up of all the redeemed from this age is in prospect. B.H. Carroll, who decried the use of the term ―universal church,‖ states: But while nearly all of the 113 instances of the use of ecclesia belong to the particular class, there are some instances, as Heb. 12:23 and Eph. 5:25–27, where the reference seems to be to the general assembly of Christ. But in every such case the ecclesia is prospective, not actual. That is to say, there is not now but there will be a general assembly of Christ‘s people. That general assembly will be composed of all the redeemed of all time.47 [Emphasis mine]

Heaven, others of us are on earth now, and yet others are unborn, that church cannot now meet. It will meet in a festive gathering with Christ in Glory (Heb 12:23). I use the term ―prospective church‖ to describe this entity. The terms ―universal church‖ and ―invisible church‖ carry theological implications that are not biblical. 46 James M. Pendleton, Christian Doctrines—A Compendium of Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1997), 329. 47 B.H. Carroll, Ecclesia, The Church (Ashland, KY: The Baptist Examiner, n.d.), 6.

The Landmark Controversy

Even though Carroll stoutly denies the use of the term ―universal,‖ and though he holds that the church made up of all believers is prospective, he cannot deny that at least two passages in the New Testament speak of a church which is composed of all believers. Please notice also that Carroll, revealing the influence of Covenant Theology, believes that the universal church, the general assembly, will be composed ―of all the redeemed of all time‖ rather than all the redeemed from this age. S.E. Anderson is another Baptist who has been vociferous in his protestations against the idea of a ―universal‖ church. He comes to the same conclusion as Carroll. Commenting on Hebrews 12:23, he says: Since we are not yet made perfect, these verses are evidently a prophecy of that future time when all the saved on earth shall be gathered together in heaven. Then we shall be one great universal church, all together, local and visible and general. This passage, plus Ephesians 5:27, tells of the ―church in prospect‖ when we shall all be ―without spot or wrinkle or any such thing.‖ Glorious prospect!48 [Emphasis Mine]

These two quotations show that even the strongest Landmark Baptists state that there is New Testament teaching about a church made up of all believers from this age. Carroll states that it is prospective in the sense that it does not now exist but will come into existence in heaven. We agree with him at least in recognizing that it will not be complete until all believers from this age meet in Heaven with Christ. We must acknowledge that Ephesians 2:16, 21 indicate that it is now being built and will be completed when all believers from this age are gathered with Christ in Heaven. By illustration (which Paul uses), a building under construction, yet to be completed, is still a building. 48 S.E. Anderson, Real Churches or A Fog (Texarkana, TX: Bogard Press, 1975), 97, 98.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

―The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.‖49 ―This is one of the most distinctive doctrines of Landmarkism.‖50 It may be the most overlooked distinguishing mark of the movement. Graves held that ―[t]he kingdom embraced the first church, and it now embraces all the churches.‖51 This left him open to the charge that only Baptists could be saved, which he denied.52 He viewed Matthew 16:18 as a fulfillment of Daniel 2:44.53 ―The kingdom of Christ, of God, of heaven, is constituted of the sum total of all his true visible churches as constituents, which churches are the sole judges and executives of the laws and ordinances of the kingdom.‖54 This certainly reflects a faulty view of the kingdom. The previously cited statements from Graves and Carroll reflect the influence of Covenant Theology that places the church in the Old Testament. G.H. Orchard also reveals the influence of Covenant Theology on his thinking. He says: Predictions held forth, that the Jews should be without their privileges many days, Hos. iii.4. And that God would break the covenant with all the people, Zech. xi.10. John the Baptist told the Jews that the axe was laid to their national privileges, and consequently, McBeth, 450. Ibid. 51 J.R. Graves, Old Landmarkism: What is It? 38, quoted in McBeth, 451. 52 McBeth, 451. 53 Smith, 239. Graves describes his position in some detail in his ―Introductory Essay,‖ in G.H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists From the Time of Christ Their Founder to the 18 th Century (Lexington, KY: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1956 reprint), iv. This book was first published in the United States in 1855. 54 J.R. Graves, Intercommunion Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and Productive of Evil (Memphis: Baptist Books, 1881), 134 cited in Smith, 239. 49 50

The Landmark Controversy

refused to admit them to gospel privileges, from relative considerations. These features of God's intentions were repeated by Christ, John xv.2. The synod at Jerusalem had declared the covenant with Abram void, and circumcision nothing. But while the Jews could assemble in the temple, a rivalship on their part was maintained, and a disposition constantly evinced to persecute the followers of the Lamb. The violent conduct of the Jews, engaged the emperor's attention, and required all Nero's cruel policy to manage.55 [Emphasis mine.]

It is important to note the flaws in Orchard‘s reasoning. The Jerusalem council gathered to consider the false teaching of the Judaizers that circumcision was necessary to salvation (Acts 15:1). That was a challenge to the gospel of God‘s grace (v. 11). In that context the apostolic decision was that circumcision and the works of the law were not required for salvation (v. 19, 20). Nowhere in this passage is there any indication that the Jerusalem council ―declared the covenant with Abraham void.‖ How can man void a covenant which God made? Moreover, James‘ statements at Jerusalem affirm the ongoing and eternal nature of the Davidic Covenant (v. 16) and the legitimacy of Moses‘ biblical writings (v. 21). Orchard is an example of most faulty reasoning. ―There must be no ‗pulpit affiliation‘ with non-Baptists.‖56 This included participation with these churches in union revival meetings, ordinations, pastoral installation services, or exchanging pulpits with ministers of other denominations on special occasions. 55 G.H. Orchard, A Concise History of Baptists From The Time of Christ Their Founder to the 18th Century (Lexington, KY: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1956 republication of 1855 edition), 11. 56 McBeth, 451.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

―Only a church can do churchly acts.‖57 Scripture clearly teaches that baptism and the Lord‘s Supper are ordinances committed to the local church. Baptism is the ―initiatory rite‖ into church fellowship (Acts 2:41). The local church was to observe the Lord‘s Supper in a corporate assembly (1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33). It seems that Graves took this biblical truth to a biblically unwarranted conclusion. ―Out of this doctrine grew the Landmark advocacy of closed communion and opposition to ‗alien immersion‘ and mission boards.‖58 Landmarkism involves the authenticity of a church as an organization, the administration and administrator of baptism, and the ordination of ministers. It is asserted that a church is unscriptural, baptism is invalid, and ministers are not duly ordained unless there is proper church authority for them. This is Landmarkism‘s ―chief cornerstone.‖59

―Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.‖60 ―Since it is unthinkable that the kingdom of God could ever go out of existence, even for a short time, and that kingdom is composed of Baptist churches, then it follows that there must always have been Baptist churches. Landmarkers acknowledge that these churches may not always have been called by the name Baptist but insist they had all the essential marks of a gospel (i.e., Baptist) church.‖61

Ibid., 452. Ibid. 59 Bob L. Ross, Old Landmarkism and the Baptists (Pasadena, TX: Pilgrim, 1979), 9. 60 McBeth, 453. 61 Ibid. 57 58

The Landmark Controversy

Landmarkism ―further involves the perpetuity, succession, or continuity of Baptist churches through which authority has descended through the ages and will continue.‖62 Therefore, the true and scriptural organization of a church, the valid administration of baptism, and the proper ordination of a gospel minister must all be enacted upon the authority of a sound and true, scriptural church—namely, a church that was born through the authority of a ―mother‖ church continuing in like manner back to the original apostolic church of Matthew 28 where church authority first began. 63

Graves stated his position: After some years‘ reading, and making extracts from authors, on the subject of my investigation, I resolved on throwing my materials into chronological order, to exhibit the feature of a connected history. This done, I became fully satisfied; and established the proof of what Robinson conjectured, that the English Baptists, contending for the sufficiency of Scripture, and for Christian liberty to judge of its meaning, can be traced back, in authentic documents, to the first 64 Nonconformists and to the Apostles.

An Evaluation of the Landmark Theory Marks of the New Testament Church Scripture clearly describes marks of a true New Testament church, and we do well to begin our analysis of the Landmark movement by briefly reviewing them.

Ross, 10. Ibid. 64 Graves, ―Introductory Essay,‖ xiii. Graves is citing an extended quotation from Orchard. 62 63

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

In Acts 2 Luke described the events surrounding the formation of the first local church in the New Testament. Peter preached the gospel (Acts 2:14–40). Those who professed faith in Christ were baptized (v. 41). From the very beginning Scripture establishes the principle of believer‘s baptism. Those who professed faith in Christ and were immersed were added to the body of believers (v. 41). On that very first day and in that very first local church, the Bible establishes the principle of regenerate church membership. The first church established a routine of its corporate life (v. 42)—this included ―breaking of bread,‖ which is synonymous with the Lord‘s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 10:16; 11:20–24). Two ordinances are thus established. Apostolic sign gifts were exercised (v. 43), and the early church established a routine of corporate care for its members (Acts 2:44–46). It was characterized by a Godgiven unity (v. 46), and evangelism was a daily activity (v. 47). The rest of Acts and the epistles flesh out other details concerning local church officers, discipline, government, worship, and doctrine. We must build our doctrine, including our ecclesiology, on the Word of God. That will distinguish us at some critical points from true Christian brothers and sisters who are part of other communions. Insisting on building our church doctrine and practice solely on Scripture is really the feature that distinguishes us as Baptists. In the last century Chester Tulga clearly stated this point: ―The basic tenet of the historic Baptist faith is that the Bible is the Word of God and the sole authority of faith and practice.‖65 British Baptist pastor Jack Hoad similarly stated: ―It is the Biblical doctrine of the church, with an unqualified submission to scripture as the Word of God, which becomes the test of what is a Baptist church.‖66 65 Chester E. Tulga, ―What Baptists Believe About Soul Liberty,‖ The Baptist Challenge (October 1997), 21. 66 Jack Hoad, The Baptist (London: Grace Publications Trust, 1986), 7.

The Landmark Controversy

David Saxon reinforces the point: ―What we really mean is the NT is the sole authority for our ecclesiology. That is, Baptists insist that the NT alone reveals what the church is and how it should be administered.‖67 A Faulty Theology Landmarkism subtly combines true marks of a New Testament church with the faulty assumption that the churches and the kingdom of God are synonymous terms. Thus, it builds on a faulty biblical and theological base. We have noted Graves‘ statements and his use of Daniel 2:44. Orchard also builds his ecclesiological theory on Old Testament passages, alluding to Psalm 73:19 and to Hosea 3:4.68 As was previously noted, he argued that in Acts 15 the council at Jerusalem ―by divine direction, put an end to the covenant which God had made with Abraham and his posterity; annulling federal holiness, national distinctions and privileges; securing a glorious liberty to believers of all nations. This decision cancelled the seal, circumcision, and left the Jewish people without a covenant or a promise.‖69 Orchard draws conclusions from the Acts 15 passage that the passage simply does not justify. His conclusion contradicts two of James‘ statements in the passage, and it flies in the face of other New Testament Scripture (Rom 11:2). Contrary to Orchard, man could not annul the Abrahamic Covenant, and God has never terminated it.

David Saxon, ―Why Being Baptist is Biblical‖ (Unpublished notes, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, n.d.), 1. 68 Hoad, 7, 11. 69 Orchard, 11. 67

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

―The Landmark view of Baptist history is based upon an assumption, not upon the evidence of historical research.‖70 Beyond that, we must understand that these presuppositions (or assumptions as McBeth calls them) cannot be established from Scripture. There is no biblical promise of an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches. Neither can the succession premise be proven from history. We can identify groups of ―back-to-the-Bible‖ people throughout church history. We can identify several of the beliefs and practices that we call ―Baptist‖ distinctives among them. But to prove the ―unbroken, historical succession‖71 is impossible. In point of fact, history seems to demonstrate the opposite. We cannot divert this discussion into a study of Baptist history, but it is noteworthy that around the world many Baptists have come into existence as believers read the Word of God and came to Baptist convictions apart from other influences. We can briefly point to the testimony of the Separate Baptists in the United States. Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall were converts under Whitefield‘s ministry during the Great Awakening. Though they were brothers-in-law, they came to Baptist convictions independent of each other, through reading the Scriptures. They had a good ministry in Virginia and later removed to North Carolina where a great revival ensued. Johann Gerhard Oncken was a German who was saved in England. Later, in Hamburg he became convicted of the truth of believer‘s baptism. After waiting for someone to immerse him, he, his wife, and five others were baptized by Barnas Sears under cover of darkness. God used him to establish a Baptist testimony in Germany, and he was the

70 71

McBeth, 459. Ibid., 453.

The Landmark Controversy

driving force of missionary outreach into Russia, Hungary, and several of the Scandinavian countries. Gustavas Schroeder was a Swedish sea captain who was saved in a Methodist revival meeting in New Orleans. 72 He came to Baptist convictions by reading the Bible and was used of God to plant churches in the United States (including Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco) and in Scandinavia. These stories can be repeated countless times. The Landmark Baptists face the horns of a dilemma when deciding if these godly leaders, and others like them, are true Baptists. How does their coming to biblical convictions apart from any influence but Scripture â&#x20AC;&#x2022;squareâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; with the Landmark theory of historical succession? Scripture does not require an unbroken line of succession for ecclesiastical validity. Scripture nowhere teaches such a succession. New Testament churches depend upon the authority of Scripture for their authority and validity. The early churches depended upon the teaching of the apostles (Acts 2:41). The New Testament churches received the written words of the apostles, which now comprise our New Testament (2 Thes 2:15; 3:14, 15; 2 Pet 3:1, 2; Jude 3). The validity of a church and its authority is determined by its conformity to Scripture. The strongest, and indeed the only valid argument for the Baptist position, is the following. If suddenly today all religious traditions were somehow to vanish from the earth and all that were left was a New Testament, tomorrow there would be Baptists. Gustavus W. Schroeder, History of the Swedish Baptists in Sweden and America, Being an Account of the Origin, Progress and Results of That Missionary Work During the Last Half of the Nineteenth Century (New York: Published by the author, 1898), 92. 72

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Succession of New Testament doctrine is the only true apostolic succession.73

The claim of succession is similar to Roman Catholic teaching. Rome depends upon apostolic succession; Landmarkism depends upon a historical succession. Both are in error. This issue is important because it affects our approach to Baptist history and because the Landmark theory has not disappeared. It is prevalent in some Southern Baptist circles and in several independent Baptist frames of reference. We must understand that these presuppositions cannot be established from Scripture. Neither can the succession premise be proven from history. We specifically reject the Landmark Baptist position that holds that there is a visible, unbroken, historical line of succession between the New Testament believers of previous centuries and Bible-believing Baptists today. People who held Baptist convictions have lived in every period of church history, but to prove a line of succession between them is impossible. Our validity rests not in a Rome-like succession, but in the authority of the Word of God that gave our Baptist forebears their convictions. That Word is also the source of our Baptist convictions. Lessons for Today We have examined the origins of the Landmark controversy. It is important to note its ramifications for ecclesiology, local church polity, and ministry today. Several lessons become apparent. First, a word about immersion is in order. A reading of Baptist history and current Baptist literature seems to indicate that Baptists are united in refusing an unbiblical 73 David Potter, â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Baptist History Course Notes,â&#x20AC;&#x2013; unpublished course notes.

The Landmark Controversy

baptism, whether it is a mode other than immersion, or even immersion from religious bodies that preach an aberrant gospel such as cults or Churches of Christ. But Baptists have historically been divided about whether they would receive a member who was immersed in a gospelpreaching, but non-Baptist communion. The question revolves around the propriety of receiving members into a local church who have been saved and immersed in a church of another denomination—a Bible church or in a Baptist church that is viewed as not properly constituted. Some hold that because these churches are out of order with the New Testament pattern, they are not true churches and their baptism should be rejected even though it is immersion. They would require a person to be baptized again, though he had been immersed after his confession of faith in Christ. Others, the great Baptist author Hiscox included, hold that believers in pedobaptist churches may be ―truly converted and properly baptized.‖74 Ross offers his opinion, stating: ―The truth about an ‗alien immersion,‘ if the term is justifiable—‗unscriptural‘ would be better, in my opinion—is that it is only alien when it is the symbol of an alien gospel, is for an alien purpose, or is administered to an alien subject (unbeliever).‖75 This is an issue that will never be finally settled with uniformity among Baptists. It can only be left to the deliberation and decision of each autonomous church. Without doubt there are true believers in pedobaptist and non-Baptist churches. A second lesson to learn concerns a challenge to Christian character. It is sad to note the divisiveness of Graves‘ personality. No doubt he was grieved at the devastating effects of the Campbellite movement on Baptist life. In fact, he raised some legitimate issues. But vituperative language and unsubstantiated charges against his pastor Edward T. Hiscox, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel, n.d.), 453. 75 Ross, 76. 74

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

brought discord to a local church. He was responsible for attacks upon a good pastor and for a split in a good church. His contentious spirit seemed to permeate his writing, and it caused unnecessary disruption in Baptist life throughout the South for several decades. Scripture often admonishes us concerning our use of words. We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15) and to speak what will not be destructive, but rather what will build up believers (Eph 4:29). Preachers are instructed to ―reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine‖ (2 Tim 4:2). We will differ with other believers on matters of faith and practice, but even those differences must be stated in a godly way. Graves‘ life is a sad commentary and warning to us concerning destructive divisiveness. Third, the relationship between faith and practice is clear here. Bad theology breeds bad polity. The Landmark position rests on a faulty understanding of the relationship between the Old Testament and the New. Whether one sees the Church in the Old Testament (as Carroll did) or commits the egregious error of Orchard in wiping out the Abrahamic Covenant, making the church and the kingdom coterminous laid the foundation for the faulty successionism that Graves and others embraced. This position stands in defiance of repeated biblical statements that God has an eternal purpose for Israel (e.g. Isa 54:8-10; 66:22; Jer 31:35-37; Rom 11:1, 2). Fourth, there is no biblical promise of an unbroken line of historical successionism. We are given the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, but there is no promise of the type of historical successionism the Landmark proponents claim. Fifth, the visible, unbroken line of succession between New Testament churches cannot be proven from history. The evidence simply does not exist. Richard Weeks taught Bible, theology, Baptist history, and Baptist polity at Maranatha for the school‘s first twenty years. He described the succession theory as ―the impossible task of trying to

The Landmark Controversy

maintain an unnecessary chain-link approach to Baptist history.‖ Dr. Weeks did affirm the ―continuity of Baptist principles throughout all ages in fulfillment of Matthew xvi, 18 and Ephesians iii, 21.‖76 Finally, this proposed succession is unnecessary. The New Testament is the authority for New Testament polity. Baptists who are committed to Scripture seek to pattern their ecclesiology and church polity after the New Testament. This has been the historic Baptist pattern.

76 Richard C. Weeks, ―Foreword‖ in Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists (Watertown, WI: Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1886; 2003).

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

MBTJ 2/1: 29-64

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement Preston Mayes1

Carl Henryâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism occupies a surprisingly influential place in the history of both Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism considering its length (eighty-seven pages). That influence can probably be traced, however, to two factors. First, its publication occurred at a critical juncture in twentieth century church history. It was something of a call for reform from within a Fundamentalism that included elements that were starting to desire an increased influence in society in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II. Furthermore, this call was eventually both heeded and rejected with equal fervency on both sides of the issue. Second, Henry lucidly articulated the major issues that eventually came to divide theologically conservative Christianity into two of its larger present-day factions. Though Henry did not exhaustively lay out his conclusions in his brief work, he did discuss all of the issues on which the two camps disagreed. One of the more important issues for Henry was Fundamentalismâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s lack of influence in social and political issues. He felt that though the time for bringing such influence to bear on the pressing issues of the day was optimal, Fundamentalism was ignoring its responsibilities to society at large. He states,

Preston Mayes is Associate Professor of Old Testament at Maranatha Baptist Seminary and a PhD candidate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal During the past two generations, creative ethical thinking was done by those whose ideology was divorced from New Testament supernaturalism. . . . Nothing is clearer today than that the Fundamentalist was dismissed with an almost perverted lightness, when he warned that the non-evangelicals were not delving deeply enough into the nature and destiny of man to prevent a dark disillusionment. After all, the judgment of two world wars stands now with the appraisal of the Fundamentalist. The troubled conscience of the modern liberal, growing out of his superficial optimism, is a deep thing in modern times. But so is the uneasy conscience of the modern Fundamentalist, that no voice is speaking today as Paul would, either at the United Nations sessions, or at labor-management disputes, or in strategic university classrooms whether in Japan or Germany or America.2

Henry concluded that Fundamentalism had abdicated this role in society due to a desire to avoid confusing biblical Christianity with the liberal social gospel.3 Though Henry was a premillennialist, the largely dispensational Fundamentalism from which he eventually broke was supposedly encouraged toward a disinterest in political and social involvement, because it looked for a future kingdom and not a present one. This characterization of Evangelicalism as interested in these issues while Fundamentalism was disinterested in them persists to a degree even now. Reichley, in his assessment of the reemergence of Evangelicalism in the political arena, noted, â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Not all Evangelicals have been swept up by the religious new right. Many Fundamentalist preachers in the separatist tradition continue to rail against the blasphemy

Carl F.H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 34. 3 Henry, 51â&#x20AC;&#x201C;52. 2

Modern

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

of mingling religion with politics.‖4 During the 1980 presidential campaign, Bob Jones III described Jerry Falwell as ―the most dangerous man in America so far as Biblical Christianity is concerned.‖5 That these characterizations persist is understandable. Henry‘s work has now influenced four generations of believers, and at the time he was probably quite correct about the lack of involvement in such social issues. This paper will argue, however, that Fundamentalism does indeed demonstrate evidence of profound interest and involvement in social and political questions. In fact, Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism have essentially paralleled each other in their level of interest in political and social concerns. For some time following Henry‘s work, the interest of both in such issues waned only to see it renewed in the 1970s due to a number of factors. Why then does the characterization of the two movements persist? Several reasons suggest themselves. First, the interests of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals played themselves out in practice in different ways that are consistent with the variations within them. Fundamentalism does have an interest in helping the less fortunate become the more fortunate, but it does so on its own terms. Since its approach is markedly different from the culture at large and probably even different to a degree from Evangelicalism, its interest easily may be misconstrued as either a lack of interest or as simply supporting the status quo. In this case then, the debate needs to shift from questions of who is or is not interested in social and

A. James Reichley, ―The Evangelical and Fundamentalist Revolt,‖ in Piety and Politics: Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Confront the World, ed. Richard John Neuhaus and Michael Cromartie (Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1987), 89. 4

Ibid.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

political questions to whose methodology is most in line with what God expects. Second, Fundamentalism devoted most of its effort toward issues that were most important to its own constituency. For example, during the 1970s Fundamentalists devoted a great deal of attention to securing the right to run their own Christian day schools. Public education was also a topic of national concern during this period, but for different reasons (such as, declining student performance and forced busing). Fundamentalists suggested that such problems were traceable to the breakdown of the family, the secularization of the educational process in the United States, and permissiveness on the part of parents. Unfortunately, their concerns were largely ignored, and society must bear the blame for their actions in this regard. On the other hand, however, Fundamentalists probably were guilty of addressing the issues without fully understanding their complexity. To the extent that they were guilty, they should have corrected the flaw. In any case, though they were involved in the political process in educational issues, their choice of specific issues gave the impression that they did not care about the plight of the disadvantaged in society when it came to education. Finally, Fundamentalists are, admittedly, more concerned about maintaining theological purity than they are with helping to sustain a moral culture. This caused a reaction on the part of Fundamentalists as soon as they felt that Evangelicals were giving up certain conservative theological distinctives in order to gain cultural influence. Methodologically, Fundamentalists were unwilling to use strategies that some Evangelicals were adopting. The reaction to these strategies produced the impression in the minds of rank and file Fundamentalists that political activism is wrong. Furthermore, such reaction was viewed to be consistent with the long held belief that Evangelicals are much more interested in political influence. Positions on such complicated issues need to be carefully nuanced,

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

and in the process many may misunderstand what the position really is. Methodology First, a brief historical survey of the attitudes toward political and social involvement will be conducted. Due to the nature of the issue and the space constraints of this article, secondary sources will provide the basis of this summary. For the purposes of this article, political involvement is considered to be any attempt to influence government policy whether through lobbying efforts, legal action, or election campaigning. Social involvement is considered to be any attempt to help poor or disenfranchised elements in society. Though the two will often overlap, they are not always necessarily involved in addressing an issue. For example, government antitrust legislation would be an example of political action designed to have the social function of protecting the average citizen by ensuring fair competition; rescue missions in inner cities would be an example of attempting to address a social problem without using a political approach. Second, a survey of a Fundamentalist approach to political and social involvement will be undertaken. This survey will use articles from the magazine FAITH for the Family, published from 1973â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1986 by Bob Jones University, to assess such attitudes.6 The magazine was targeted to a general church audience, so it was not restricted to academic or pastoral concerns. Furthermore, it was published during the period of Evangelical resurgence in politics and the founding of the Moral Majority. Finally, it was published by an institution that has a long history of It should be noted that Bob Jones Jr. was the editor for the entire thirteen years of the magazine. In the interest of full disclosure, the author of this article was a student at Bob Jones University from 1984â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1990 and holds two degrees from the institution. 6

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

influence within some segments of Fundamentalism on a national level. The survey will begin with a discussion of articles taking a position on the level of political involvement that Christians should have. Next, it will look at selected social issues of national importance that the magazine chose to address. Finally, it will discuss the reaction of Fundamentalism to methods employed by Evangelicals and former Fundamentalists as they re-emerged in the political arena during the 1970s and 1980s. Attitudes toward Social and Political Involvement, 1925–85 Conservative Christianity in the United States has enjoyed a long tradition of involvement and influence in political and social concerns. During the nineteenth century it ―took the lead in social ministry,‖7 as believers sought to live out the practical implications of their Christianity. This practical involvement found expression both in acts of care for the destitute and in a desire to influence public policy, a desire which continued into the first quarter of the twentieth century.8 During the 1930s and ‘40s, however, the Fundamentalist coalition showed a marked decline in interest in social and political concerns. This decline can be traced to two overriding factors.

7 Robert D. Linder, ―The Resurgence of Evangelical Social Concern (1925–75),‖ in The Evangelicals: What They Believe, Who They Are, Where They Are Changing, ed. David Wells and John Woodbridge (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 197. 8 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 80–84, discusses the specific benevolence ministries that were conducted by conservative Protestants with dispensationalist and Keswick tendencies.

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

Factors in the Decline In the area of social concern (ministries focused on meeting the needs of individuals), the declining interest stemmed, at least in part, from a backlash over the theological controversies with liberal church leaders. The liberal leaders, while retaining an emphasis on social benevolence, substituted a liberal theological stance toward sin and the supernatural nature of the Bible for the traditional conservative emphasis on these topics. This particular theological/social conjunction came to be known as the Social Gospel. The ensuing Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy was primarily theological in nature, but it generally produced a greater hesitancy within conservative camps to engage in social ministry because of its newly acquired association with liberalism. By the time of World War I, ―social Christianity‖ was becoming thoroughly identified with liberalism and was viewed with great suspicion. . . . When fundamentalists began using their heavy artillery against liberal theology, the Social Gospel was among the prime targets. In the barrage against the Social Gospel it was perhaps inevitable that the vestiges of their own progressive social attitudes would also become casualties. 9

So in this case, Fundamentalism allowed the liberal wing of the church to mold its agenda in a direction that it had not previously gone. The national upheaval produced by the Depression and World War II also probably tended to

Marsden, 91. Carl Henry, writing in 1976, noted traces of the same concerns in his own day. He states, ―Renewed evangelical commitment to social engagement has been somewhat fogged by ecumenical depiction of this phenomenon as a belated endorsement of the ‗social gospel‘ that a generation ago provoked the fundamentalist withdrawal from ecumenical socio-cultural commitments.‖ Carl F.H. Henry, Evangelicals in Search of Identity (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1976), 62. 9

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

divert peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s attention from social ministry due to the overwhelming scope of the problems. In the area of political concerns, Fundamentalism was similarly maneuvered out of its earlier interest in influencing public policy by an unfortunate series of events. During the early twentieth century, Fundamentalist political involvement focused on â&#x20AC;&#x2022;three relatively distinct issues: antievolutionism, Prohibition, and anti10 Catholicism.â&#x20AC;&#x2013; Concern over the growing Catholic presence in the United States abated to a degree after immigration quotas were established in 1924 and the candidacy of Catholic Democrat Al Smith ended in defeat in 1928.11 The experience of the Fundamentalist coalition regarding the other two issues, however, unfolded quite differently (which is to say, unsuccessfully). The defeats in these areas exert a heavy influence over conservative Christianity even to this point in history. Prohibition initially seemed to have succeeded. A coalition of groups of varying theological persuasions supported the temperance movement that culminated in

James Davison Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 117. 11 Hunter, 118. The lack of concern over this issue generally, though certainly not universally, persists today. This is probably because the Catholic Church is not viewed as a threat to society as it was in the early twentieth century. During the Papacy of John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Church was often an ally in the fight to maintain a high standard of personal morality (e.g. it opposed abortion and supported the idea of marital fidelity). At the same time, its inability to hold on to an increasing percentage of its membership in the North American Church means that it really does not exert a significant amount of control over their lives and decision making processes. Many Catholics are nominal, so the prevailing feeling is that the Catholic Church may contribute to social stability without making evangelistic activity in the United States overly difficult by dominating the lives of its adherents. 10

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment. Euphoria over the creation of a ―dry‖ country quickly faded, however. The problems that Prohibition created are well known: the illegal manufacturing and sale of liquor were widespread. Discontent with this legislation quickly surfaced even among those who had been its major supporters. By the end of the 1920‘s, the Fundamentalists were essentially alone in their attempts to maintain the legitimacy of the Temperance movement and Prohibition.12

So, this eventual defeat emphasized the distinction between conservative Christianity and the rest of the country. Fundamentalists felt that if public sentiment could turn against them so quickly in an arena where they had previously enjoyed their greatest success, then their prospects for continuing to influence the direction of public policy were probably very dim. Conservative attempts to squelch the teaching of evolution suffered a similar ―win the battle, lose the war‖ outcome. Statutes prohibiting the teaching of evolution were approved in several states, but the aftermath of the Scopes‘ trial, which was technically won by the conservatives, again dampened enthusiasm for involvement in social causes. A hostile media took advantage of the trial as an opportunity to caricature the Fundamentalists as backward and unsophisticated.13 In similar fashion to Prohibition, what seemed to be an ability to influence public policy quickly became a failure and a liability. Hunter, 119. See David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850 (Greenville: Unusual Publications, 1986), 219–22, and Marsden, 184–89. Marsden notes that in the aftermath of the trial Fundamentalists became very vocal in their opposition to evolution. Unfortunately, some of their actions lent a degree of credibility to the caricature that was developing in the popular arena (188–89). 12 13

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Resurgence in Political Involvement

Though Evangelicalism has typically been portrayed as more politically involved than Fundamentalism, neither was particularly active from the period of the Depression through the 1960s. To be sure, Evangelical leaders such as Carl Henry, Harold Ockenga, and Billy Graham campaigned for such an agenda, but ―neither Graham nor the right-wing preachers had much success during the 1950s or 1960s in stirring the Evangelicals to political action.‖14 Though a few Fundamentalist leaders continued to address political issues (Billy Sunday in the early 1930s and Carl McIntire in the 1950s are two prominent examples), the movement was generally inactive as well. The one exception to this inactivity was a growing concern with the spread of Communism in the aftermath of World War II. Events during the 1960s and 1970s, however, reenergized the interest of both groups in political, and to a lesser extent, social issues. This time, the interest was encouraged by a growing number of televangelists who emphasized the threat of national moral collapse due to a growing secularization of American culture and a series of Supreme Court rulings hostile to generally accepted Christian principles.15 Evangelicals and Fundamentalists alike emerged from relative inactivity to engage at much higher levels in public policy debate and legislation.16 For example, both groups were enthusiastic supporters of the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980 and 1984. One cannot conclude, however, that such involvement took the same form in both groups. Generally, Reichley, 74. Ibid., 74–77. 16 For a discussion of Evangelical political engagement, see Hunter, 125–30. For a discussion of Fundamentalist political views, see Nancy Tatom Ammerman, Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 198–203. 14 15

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

each engaged in politics in a way that was consistent with its own theological moorings. For both, however, that was encouraged and engagement did generally take place. In summary then, both Fundamentalists and Evangelicals have tended to maintain an attitude of acceptance toward involvement in the political and social arenas. Though the original New Evangelicals spoke of creating a conservative coalition that would do this, their actual success was quite limited. Fundamentalists were very similar in their desire to influence public policy, even if they were less convinced that anything would actually be accomplished by it. The Fundamentalist and Government The following survey of articles regarding the Christian and his government in FAITH for the Family provides a good representation of how Fundamentalists in the orbit of Bob Jones University approached such issues. Articles on this topic are sprinkled throughout the entire thirteen-year run of the magazine. Ironically, Norman Pyle addressed the topic in the very first article of the inaugural issue. He began by noting that the believerâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s first duty is to obey God, an approach he supported by reference to Peterâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s statement in Acts 5:29 that believers should obey God rather than men. He was also careful to point out, however, that this command must not be abused to support an agenda, and that proper channels must be used in order to effect the desired changes. In so doing, he distanced his position from some of the more radical tactics that were used during the demonstrations of the 1960s and early 1970s. The Christian must be certain that a clear command of God has been breached and not merely his personal preferences violated. It ill behooves Christians to follow the lead of the civil rights radicals in personally choosing which laws they deem just and fair and obeying only those laws.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal In this country, we still have opportunity to influence government policy through the ballot, free assembly, and the right to petition government and appeal our grievances. It is true that these measures at times appear to be useless. However, this is often because good people are indifferent to their use. As Dr. Bob Jones, Jr., has said, ―Every nation gets the kind of government it deserves.‖ Perhaps this godless, materialistic, pleasure-loving generation deserves the problems it has created. However, every Fundamental Christian has the responsibility to aid his country in being what it ought to be and promoting righteousness in every area of life. This of course includes the right of protest. The Apostle Paul, when beaten and jailed without cause or trial (Acts 16), refused to ignore it and slip out of town quietly, but demanded public apology from the authorities. In Acts 25, concerning a different matter, he made direct appeal to the highest government authority, Caesar himself. He was proud of his Roman citizenship. He did not consider himself a sanctified ―doormat,‖ and did not simply say, ―all we can do is pray,‖ when he was mistreated by civil government.17

Pyle continues the article by laying out in very general terms an agenda of issues which should be of concern to Christians, because they either threatened the ability of believers to worship freely in the United States or had the potential to greatly undermine public morality. He discussed the issues of fair and equal access to radio and television air time, IRS harassment of religious institutions under the guise of racism, the advisability of making tax dollars available to private as well as public schools, government involvement in lotteries, government sanitization of the liquor industry by taxing it to support programs, and the growing approval of the pornography 17 Norman Pyle, ―The Christian and Government,‖ FAITH for the Family (March/April 1973), 3. All subsequent references to the magazine use the abbreviation FAITH.

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

industry by government officials.18 He concluded with another call for Christians to become involved in political issues. Jesus said, ―Ye are the salt of the earth,‖ but if the salt has lost is power to preserve and flavor, then it is worthless. May we continue to seek by prayer, protest, and positive action to preserve what God-given principles still exist in our country, and flavor our moral atmosphere with the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.19

A three part series by Richard Hand entitled ―The Christian and his Government‖ appeared in three consecutive issues in 1984, toward the end of the magazine‘s publication. Part two began with a summary of scriptural principles regarding how a Christian is to relate himself to his government. The goal of the article was to encourage every believer to make a concerted effort to submit to the authorities placed over him. The author also asserted that if a believer must choose to disobey human government, it must be because he has chosen to obey God instead. The article seems most interested, however, with how a Christian might go about addressing a grievance through proper government channels. Hand stated, ―Knowing and living by these biblical principles will help the Christian or his ministry avoid unnecessary confrontation with civil government. Yet confrontation may arise. Must the Christian be a doormat for any government agency or official to walk on? No.‖20 Hand continued by explaining the separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government in the United States. There is a legislative branch to make laws, an executive branch to Ibid., 14–15, 21. Ibid., 21. 20 Richard Hand, ―The Christian and His Government, FAITH (October 1984), 8. 18 19

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

carry out laws, and a judicial branch to execute justice once such laws have been violated. Such separation was instituted in order to protect citizens from unjust officials. Our nation‘s founders openly confessed the sinful nature of man. They declared that governments are needed to restrain men, but that the men in government must themselves be restrained. This belief caused them to conclude that power must not reside in one man, nor in any one group of men. . . . If any branch violates its prerogatives, there are checks and balances that can be asserted against it. . . . Thus a Christian ministry under fire by a particular agency or branch of government may gain victory by resorting to another branch that can check the power of the first. At times Satan‘s influence in one branch may be greater than in another. As Christians we must not surrender our freedoms without a diligent and respectful battle in their defense.21

Hand‘s intent was to lay out a philosophy of how Christians might go through proper government channels in order to redress their legitimate grievances and receive justice. In a fashion which echoed Pyle‘s sentiments from 1973, Hand concluded, Just as the apostle Paul properly asserted his procedural rights as a Roman citizen, we may do so today as citizens of the government under which we live. Recent signs suggest these rights are slipping away. Perhaps that is because too few Christians understand them, and fewer still defend them with tactful perseverance.22

Several other articles reach similar conclusions. Robert G. Bearce suggested that Christians should ―participate in civic affairs. Attend public forums and open meetings of the 21 22

Ibid., 8–9. Ibid., 9.

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

city council. . . . Display the American flag, even when there is no holiday. Vote in local, state, and national elections.‖ 23 In a 1928 article adapted and reprinted in 1977, E.Y. Mullins objected strongly to the idea that preachers should not be involved in politics. He noted, In addition to the politicians, some preachers and religious people themselves seem to have accepted the urging that preachers keep silent on politics and confine themselves to the ―simple gospel.‖ They are in worse conflict with their Bibles than are the politicians with the Constitution. . . . [If preachers do not preach on these topics] the ―simple gospel‖ would have to be modified and preachers would have to preach in the interest of every kind of righteousness except civic and political righteousness.24

Though they are less explicit in their statements than those cited above, two additional articles published in conjunction with the national celebration of the Bicentennial of the United States extol the virtue of a Christian being involved in his government.25 Finally, two related articles appeared in 1983. The first was a short biography of Presbyterian missionary Francis

23 Robert G. Bearce, ―Patriotism in Perspective,‖ FAITH (July/August 1975), 11. 24 E.Y. Mullins, ―Preachers and Politics,‖ FAITH (November 1977), 9. The heading for the article humorously suggests that objections to preachers‘ involvement in politics are often motivated by purely partisan concerns. It notes, ―North Carolina Senator Zebulon Vance, when asked if he did not think it very bad for preachers to meddle in politics, answered with a twinkle in his eyes, ‗Well, it all depends on which side they meddle in.‘‖ 25 Pete Steveson, ―What is Patriotism?‖ FAITH (July/August 1976), 27–28, and Horace F. Dean, ―The Christian‘s Responsibility to His Government,‖ FAITH (November/December 1976), 4–5.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Makemie.26 Makemie was sent to the New World as a missionary in 1681. He preached with a fair degree of success in America and was basically unhindered in his efforts until the Church of England was made the official Church in Virginia and Maryland in 1692. He was eventually put on trial for preaching without a license in both Virginia and New York. His refusal to allow the government to impede the progress of the gospel was one of a number of events that would eventually secure religious freedom for all citizens of the United States. Overall, the article was used to portray a positive example of a Christian who used the existing legal channels when important religious rights were threatened. The second related article outlined the steps that should be taken when one writes a letter to a congressman.27 Among other suggestions, it advised the writer to be well informed of the issue, to the point, respectful, clear, and grammatically correct. The goal of this article was to encourage people to actually get involved in the political process at this level by outlining the appropriate steps to take. Advocacy Issues among Fundamentalists The previous section demonstrated that the charge that Fundamentalists were completely aloof from the political process is false. Their genuine goal was to try to influence the process as much as possible, providing that they did so in a way that would not violate any biblical command or principle. Yet, the stereotype of the premillennial Fundamentalist who entirely withdrew from the process persisted. Why was this the case? The likely reason for this stereotype is due to the types of issues that they chose to David O. Beale and Terry Kane, ―Francis Makemie: Champion of Religious Liberty,‖ FAITH (May/June 1983), 4–5, 12. 27 Judy Groff, ―Writing for your Rights,‖ FAITH (July/August 1983), 15–16. 26

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

address, coupled with the theological perspective from which they addressed them. The brief survey below will conclude that even as Fundamentalists were seeking to gain freedoms that were important to them (the right to run Christian schools, for example), they opposed some of the proposed solutions to the pressing social issues of the day as they were understood by the national consciousness (the Equal Rights Amendment and race relations are two prominent examples). Their particular positions on these issues were misinterpreted in one of two ways: they were portrayed as against legislation which would alleviate the plight of the poor and for the status quo, or they were portrayed as uninterested in the political process altogether. Christian and Public School Legislation FAITH devoted more articles to the subject of education than to any other topic with social or political implications. The articles may be broadly divided into two categories. First, some advocated involvement of Christians in public schools or chronicled the struggles of individuals trying to influence public school policies in morally conservative directions. One investigative report assessed the textbook war that broke out in central West Virginia in the mid1970s. In this case, the local school board had voted to adopt textbooks in spite of the fact that ―80 percent of the parents . . . [were] up in arms over the profanity, blasphemy, anti-American sentiment, and anti-Christian philosophy contained in [them].‖28 By the time the report ran in FAITH, the school board had bowed to public pressure and adopted a very conservative set of guidelines for choosing textbooks. Even in this investigative article, however, Rumminger offered the following advice:

28 Elmer L. Rumminger, ―W. Va. Textbook War,‖ FAITH (January/February 1975), 6.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Lest the reader think the end of the battle is at hand, let me sound a word of warning. There may be a few token concessions in attempts to cool the protests. The liberal forces may even concede the West Virginia skirmish. If they do, watch for redoubled efforts to smear the good people of the Mountain State as ―ignorant‖ and to discredit their leaders as ―extremists.‖ The whole idea is to discourage concerned Americans in other states from taking action for fear of ridicule and slander. This is not a time for fear.29

Additional articles objected to the extension of maternity benefits to unwed teachers, the liberal advocacy platforms of the National Education Association, and the humanistic goals of the public education system.30 In each case the conclusion was the same: Christians should educate themselves on the issues and get involved in the educational process to promote public morality in accordance with their rights and responsibilities as citizens. No fewer than twelve articles were dedicated to addressing the threat to Christian education from various government agencies. Specific court cases involving Christian schools in the following states were addressed in separate articles: California, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia. Other articles supported the right of Christian educational institutions to continue to maintain their status as tax exempt organizations. One article praised United States Representative John Ashbrook‘s opposition to the adoption of a racial quota system by the IRS for private institutions. He objected to the ―procedure, which would be used to determine the taxexempt status of private and parochial schools, because it

Ibid., 10. See Raamie Barker, ―Back to School, Back to Court,‖ FAITH (September 1978), 6; Carleton Agee, ―The NEA: Agent for Social Change,‖ FAITH (October 1984), 3, 10–11; and John Steinbacker, ―Education: Public,‖ FAITH (March 1979), 1. 29 30

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

would lead to federal control of such institutions.‖31 A 1982 article argued on the basis of a 1970 United States Supreme Court decision that tax exemption of religious schools should not be considered a federal subsidy, and should therefore not be treated as an issue of government supporting religion.32 Finally, eight pages of the July/August 1983 issue were devoted to a discussion of the ramifications of Bob Jones University‘s loss of its taxexempt status in a Supreme Court case. The discussion of educational issues demonstrated that Fundamentalists were indeed interested in influencing public policy regarding education and in working to safeguard their rights. Two of the most pressing debates regarding education that received national attention during the 1970s were the measured drop in student achievement from previous decades and the lagging progress in the performance of minority students. The latter issue, which led to forced busing of students, was particularly volatile. There were no articles devoted exclusively to either of these topics in FAITH, though a number of articles on the demise of public morality and secularization of the United States were certainly relevant to the performance issue. At a time when public education was becoming more and more hostile to Christian principles, the response of most Fundamentalists was to withdraw from it and begin their own Christian schools. To be fair, it should be noted that the public sector was certainly not receptive to the solutions that Fundamentalists would have proposed. In a sense, Fundamentalists had already lost the battle and knew that large segments of the educational establishment did not want their input. That subtle fact was insufficient, however, to insulate Fundamentalism from the charge that they were disinterested in the plight of the less fortunate in matters of education. ―In Defense of Liberty,‖ FAITH (December 1978), 11. John Stophel, ―Is Tax Exemption a Subsidy?‖ FAITH (May/June 1982), 10–11. 31 32

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Impoverished or Oppressed People Groups

FAITH ran a number of articles discussing the plight of oppressed people groups. Most prominent were a number of articles on the Middle East and/or Israel and on the Irish pastor/politician Ian R.K. Paisley. A lesser number of articles addressing the situations of people in Taiwan (political conflict with mainland China), Korea (religious persecution), and Ethiopia (famine) were also published. So, the magazine was definitely concerned about the issues surrounding these people. Due to space constraints, this section will focus on articles dealing with the Middle East and Ethiopia. The articles on the Middle East suggest that while Fundamentalist leaders were very concerned with these issues, the majority of individual Fundamentalists were not acting on the message (probably due to a lack of understanding of the depth of the needs). The article on Ethiopia suggested a viewpoint on the topic that would be at odds with anyone who favored socialistic or communistic solutions to problems. Since in this case Fundamentalists were not approaching the topic in the same way as some of the dominant voices of the day, they again became susceptible to the charge that they were disinterested in such issues. The Middle East The articles addressing the situation in the Middle East give evidence of trying to handle the issue in a fair and balanced manner. Bob Jones began one such article as follows. A fair and impartial discussion of the Middle East situation will satisfy neither the Arabs nor the Israelis because such discussion will involve some criticism of both parties. . . . A man who criticizes Arab terrorism, for example, is accused of being pro-Israel; and one who has a critical word about Israeli policy or methods is immediately charged with anti-Semitism. The biased proIsraeli Christian should remember, however, that it was

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

the Jewish prophet Isaiah speaking under divine inspiration who said, ―Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil‖ (Isaiah 5:20). Therefore, if one is to examine the current situation in the Middle East in a biblical fashion, he must be neither pro-Israel nor proArab but, rather, pro-righteousness.33

This type of analysis again appeared in two articles addressing the 1982 attacks on Lebanon by Israel. The attacks were launched by Israel to eliminate the ongoing threat of Palestinian Liberation Organization military action from bases located within Lebanon. In his own assessment of the situation, Jones again showed both familiarity with the complexities of the situation and sensitivity to the suffering of the civilian population of Lebanon. Israel‘s intrusion into Lebanon as far north as Beirut and her indiscriminate bombing and shelling of that city are vicious and reprehensible. It might be understandable that the officials of the Jewish state felt it incumbent upon them to destroy or remove the PLO fortresses and encampments in southern Lebanon from which rockets and shells were being launched on upper Galilee and northern Israel, generally; but when this was accomplished, the Israeli blitzkrieg should have come to a halt.34

The January 1983 issue carried an article by Victor Sadaka, pastor of a Fundamental Baptist church in Beirut, Lebanon. He chronicled the struggles of people of the city and critiqued the actions of Israel, the PLO, and even Christians.

Bob Jones, ―Palestine in Perspective,‖ FAITH (January 1979), 5. 34 Bob Jones, ―Middle East Aflame,‖ FAITH (September 1982), 10. 33

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal My shame and embarrassment when asked about the so-called fundamental, Bible believers‘ unconditional support of Israeli cruelty, exploitation, and aggression is hard to describe. . . . Bible believers for the most part have done little or nothing to help the Lebanese people, while liberal groups have been quick to help. For example, the much-criticized UNICEF has worked around the clock digging wells, and the WCC has sent medical teams and supplies. Mother Theresa, the 72year-old Catholic nun . . . also came to Beirut and helped rescue orphans buried under the rubble of their orphanage. Several had already starved to death, but she carried a number to safety in East Beirut. Therefore, the second priority of our ministry is to help needy people, many of whom will have no income for many months. 35

The article ended with an editor‘s note giving a plea for relief funds and an address where they could be sent. It again shows why Fundamentalists might have been portrayed as disinterested in the poor. In their zeal to support the persecuted Israel, many Christians overlooked the sins of Israel itself. Of course, the very presence of the article suggests that the leadership of Bob Jones University was concerned about the lack of a proper Christian response to the issue, both in terms of how to view Israel and how to respond to the human crisis. That was their purpose in running the article, and overall it shows a desire to understand the issues involved so that the testimony of the church would not be harmed. Ethiopia A 1984 famine brought widespread starvation to Ethiopia. The famine was initially blamed on drought by the U.S. news media and on colonial-style agriculture by the

35 Victor Sadaka, ―Serving under Siege,‖ FAITH (January 1983), 5, 14.

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

Soviet Union.36 The article quoted both Time and Newsweek magazines, however, and placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Ethiopian government. The government had apparently spent forty-six percent of its gross national product to purchase weapons from the Soviet Union while neglecting more pressing needs. When relief supplies started to flood the country from abroad, ―the Ethiopian army diverted food for its own use while refusing food shipments to provinces where rebels are active.‖37 The report summarizes its conclusions as follows: Christians have been moved with compassion to help the needy Ethiopians. But in light of the problems caused by Ethiopia‘s Communist government, many Christians have been reluctant to send money to relief organizations, and rightfully so. Besides, ―there is reason to believe that relief shipments, though necessary, only aggravate the fundamental problems,‖ Time reports. Earthscan, a London-based environmental news service, agrees: ―Food aid saves lives but can also undermine long-term local self-sufficiency.‖38

So, while supporting the notion that Christian aid would be appropriate in this case, the article suggested that the real problem was the oppressive government under which the people lived. Such a suggestion could be construed as a lack of concern, especially on the part of those who are hostile toward Christian principles. In reality, however, it was simply a suggestion for a solution that addressed the problem on a more foundational level.

Staff Report, ―The Tragedy of Ethiopia: Who‘s to Blame?‖ FAITH (April 1985), 7. Blaming the tragedy on colonialism is a typical example of Soviet propaganda. As the article notes, ―Although Ethiopia was occupied by Italian troops from 1935– 1941, it was never a colony.‖ 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 36

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Minority Groups in the United States

Two groups were particularly vocal in their demands for civil rights during the 1970s: women and African Americans.39 FAITH ran several articles addressing both. In both cases authors addressed the issues in accordance with their own theological positions, but such an approach was bound to get them labeled as unconcerned with the plight of minorities by numerous individuals who opposed their positions. Women The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), proposed in the 1970s as an amendment to the United States Constitution, ostensibly sought to secure equal rights for women. In general, those who addressed the topic supported the notion of equality for women, but objected to elements of the amendment which would also erode social mores and weaken the family unit. Teresa Hicks Bunetta wrote: Realities with which fair-minded people would not argue are woven throughout the fallacious arguments on which the womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s movement rests. It is important to face those realities in order to recognize the fallacies. Injustice to women has occurred: employers have denied women equal pay for equal work; women have frequently been portrayed as less intelligent and somewhat less significant than men; educational opportunities . . . have often been given to men rather than to equally qualified or better qualified women; the list goes on. The questions are these: are injustices to women the driving force behind the womenâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s liberation movement? Does job discrimination necessitate the push for ratification of the

That women should be considered a minority group seems somewhat strange given the fact that they make up more than half of the population. Since they have historically not held leadership positions in society, however, the label does fit from a sociological point of view. 39

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

Equal Rights Amendment? I believe that the answer to both of these questions is no. Specific legislation has proved to be the best means of assuring women of their constitutional rights without at the same time destroying the very traditions and institutions which preserve our society. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Subchapter VI: Equal Employment Opportunities (42 U.S. code 2000e-2) guaranteed equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Opportunities Act of 1972 (Public Law 92261) forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment. . . . If any woman is discriminated against in employment, she is entitled to file a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which will pay the costs of processing the claim and filing suit for back pay.40

Through the rest of the article, Bunetta objected to the ERA because it would have formalized abortion rights, probably would have led to the legalization of homosexual marriages (she cited one U.S. Senator and a Michigan Law School professor in support), and would have undercut a biblical view of marriage. She stated: ―Most women view marriage as a 50-50 proposition and shudder at the notion of the wife‘s obedience to her husband. They have never learned and probably have never seen the beauty and harmony which exist in a Christian home in which the husband is in submission to the will of Christ and the wife is in submission to her husband.‖41 Overall, Bunetta nuances her position to account for the biblical data while still allowing a legitimate role for women in the workplace. Her statements reject the agenda of the more vocal elements in the feminist movement, however, and could 40 Teresa Hicks Bunetta, ―Feminist Folly,‖ FAITH (May/June 1978), 3. For a similar assessment of the movement, see Beneth Jones, ―The Mini-Amendment with Maxi-Consequences,‖ FAITH (July/August 1974), 17–18. 41 Bunetta, 4.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

probably be used by them to support the notion that Fundamentalists do not really believe in equal rights. The truth is that they do, as long as an inerrant Bible is allowed to dictate the roles that the equal genders will play. But the recognition of any role difference was and still is unacceptable to most proponents of the feminist movement. African Americans Two articles addressed topics of interest to African Americans. The first discussed the enactment of legislation to make the birth of Martin Luther King Jr. a national holiday. The article did not actually discuss the situation of African Americans in the United States, but it did come out very strongly against the notion of honoring Dr. King, because his liberal theology and especially his Communist ideology were violent, subversive, and ultimately unhelpful for the black community. In December 1964, after having resigned as Attorney General, Robert Kennedy was interviewed by Anthony Lewis, liberal columnist of the New York Times. In the interview he defended J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI against accusations of being anti-civil rights. When questioned about Hoover‘s statement that King was a ―notorious liar,‖ Kennedy responded that King was in a very vulnerable position due to his associations with known Communists and his private life (immorality). These had been substantiated by the wiretaps. King‘s private life and the full extent of his Communist connections have been sealed up in the National Archives for 50 years, beginning in 1977. How else can you protect a ―hero‖ who happens to be a traitor and a fornicator. . . ? Should he be honored for the benefit of the black people of this country? No, for in the words of Julia Brown, an undercover agent for the FBI who happened

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

to be black, ―Mr. [sic] King was one of the worst enemies my people ever had.‖42

The second article outlined the political tensions that existed in the nation of South Africa during the 1980s. Though the article addressed an international issue as opposed to the domestic situation, it is helpful as a reflection of the attitudes of Fundamentalists toward a similar issue in another country. Bob Jones argued that skin color was not the primary problem and that the strategy of various world governments to address the situation was foolish. Politicians both in America and in Europe, seeking to present themselves as broad-minded, without prejudice, and opposed to any type of discrimination, are making fools of themselves by their eagerness to involve themselves in a problem they neither understand nor have the intelligence to solve. The problem South Africa faces is not solely or even primarily a color problem. It is a problem of civilization versus savagery, of European culture versus tribal superstitions and manner of life. There are some, indeed many, blacks in South Africa who have received a good education and are qualified for positions requiring skill and leadership qualities, as are many blacks in this country. Some are from families who have been settled in the country for generations. To integrate them into a hitherto white-dominated society would present no insoluble problem, but many of the blacks in . . . South Africa are not more than one generation or two generations from savagery and cannibalism. They are deeply divided by tribal, religious, and political loyalties, and these various groups are sometimes hostile to each

42 Norman Pyle, ―The Real Martin Luther King Jr.,‖ FAITH (March 1984), 7.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal other, reacting on the basis of these loyalties—not on the basis of what is best for the country. 43

His analysis also attempted to understand the position of the white government while not ignoring the minorities. All men of tender heart and good will feel a sympathy for the blacks of South Africa as well as for the coloreds and the Indians who make up a large part of its population. It seems to me, however, that it is time more people felt and expressed sympathy for the South African whites and their government also. This writer certainly would not want to be in the place of the government of the Republic of South Africa—attacked from all points of the compass except the South Pole for trying to maintain law and order in the face of a dangerous situation.44

On the whole, the article recognized that blacks in South Africa were as capable as anyone else, provided that they have adequate education, to occupy leadership positions in government. Though it is an argument from silence, one can assume that Jones would reach similar conclusions regarding African Americans. Taken together, these two articles provide unique insight into why the Fundamentalist movement might have acquired its reputation for being much less involved than the Evangelical movement. First, the articles both date well into the 1980s. The magazine did not address the issue of race relations in any major article during the 1970s. Given the national attention focused on the topic in the late 1960s and even the early 1970s, one would have expected an article on it at some point articulating a Fundamentalist position. One can only speculate on why this was the case. That the University would not have been afraid to state its position even if it would be unpopular is undeniably true (it Bob Jones, ―The (December 1985), 9. 44 Ibid., 10. 43

Problem

South

Africa,‖

FAITH

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

clung tenaciously to its policy of no interracial dating throughout the duration of its court case with the IRS). In any case, the failure to address the issue would have almost certainly given the impression that Fundamentalism was unconcerned about the minority issues. Second, the types of solutions that Fundamentalists proposed, as well as the tendency to assign blame for problems even to the oppressed minority, were rejected by many advocacy groups in the United States. Former Fundamentalist Jerry Falwell had visited South Africa and made statements similar to those of Jones regarding the situation only to retract them when confronted with opposition. Jones himself argued, In the main, Dr. Jerry Falwellâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s estimate of the situation . . . was fair and accurate, even to his statement about Bishop Tutu; we can only regret that under pressure from Liberals, Dr. Falwell apologized for having stated a pretty obvious truth. Few sincere and honest men . . . won a Nobel Peace Prize in recent years. A recent South African immigrant to the U. S. commented, â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Bishop Tutu is so red that if he stood next to a fire engine, it would blush. He was never heard of until he got his Nobel prize.â&#x20AC;&#x2013;45

In a very real sense, liberal politicians in the United States had made the situation in South Africa an extension of the racial tensions at home. Jones may or may not have erred on the side of kindness in his assessment of the white minority South African government, but even if his assessments were completely accurate, his message was at odds with a major domestic agenda that was aggressively supported by its proponents in the United States. It would therefore be labeled as racist and contribute to the idea that Fundamentalism was not at all concerned with social issues.

Ibid., 10.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Conflict with Evangelicalism over Social Engagement As argued in the previous section, Fundamentalism as represented by Bob Jones University did address social issues. It did so, however, from within a worldview that was not shared by society. Since the voice was discordant with much popular sentiment, it was unfairly misconstrued as a lack of involvement. One might disagree with the methods Fundamentalism employed or with the issues they chose to address, but one cannot deny that they tried to address them. At the same time, however, Fundamentalism was definitely more concerned with maintaining its doctrinal purity, standards of personal morality, and evangelistic emphasis. They saw the greatest threat to these distinctives emanating from the New Evangelical movement. Evangelicalism had also reentered the political arena during the 1970s, and Fundamentalists felt that Evangelicals had started to soften their theological positions in order to attain both religious and political influence.46 Some Evangelicals justified their program by recourse to the so-

46 Note, for example, the following editorial by Bob Jones that appeared in the March/April 1975 issue of FAITH: ―We are sometimes referred to as ‗fighting Fundamentalists,‘ but the adjective is unnecessary. If a man is a Fundamentalist he is a contender for the Faith. If he is not contending, he is not a Fundamentalist. The Bible commands us to ‗put on the whole armour of God.‘ You do not put on armour to go to bed and sleep—it would make mighty uncomfortable pajamas. Armour is worn in battle, and we are in the midst of a warfare. ―Those who give aid and comfort to the enemy are traitors. The ‗New Evangelical‘ is guilty of treason. He consorts with the enemy, embraces the enemy, flatters the enemy, and sides with the enemy in attacking those who love the Bible and know it is important to obey the Bible and defend it. The ‗New Evangelicals‘ have a great deal to say about love, but they show very little love for those who are Fundamentalists. They do, however, have a great deal of love to pour out upon infidels and blasphemers of God‘s truth.‖

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

called ―Cultural Mandate.‖ G. Archer Weniger articulated his understanding of this mandate as a devised social-political-religious concept that redeemed mankind has two commissions to discharge: first—the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) to evangelize individuals in every nation; and second—the responsibility to Christianize the culture and structures of society and, by effort, to bring the world under the sovereignty of God. 47

By this time the Fundamentalist movement had become almost exclusively premillennial. In this case, premillennialism did not eradicate all desire to be politically involved, but it did interject an element of realism regarding what Fundamentalists might be legitimately expected to accomplish. Two basic weaknesses of the ―New Evangelical‖ approach are the unscriptural idea that man can change unregenerate society [otherwise called the cultural mandate] and the false concept that evangelicals can reverse the apostate trend of ecumenical denominations by ―infiltrating‖ them. . . . The cultural mandate . . . attempts to make the social gospel (which, by Biblical definition, is another gospel) the second half of a balanced message. 48

It must be admitted that this particular article appears to give up any hope for Christians influencing society through political channels, and perhaps this particular author would have agreed with that assessment. Later articles, however, clearly establish that the main concern was the theological compromise in which the Evangelical movement was willing to engage in order to be involved. In G. Archer Weniger, ―The Deadly Menace of the Cultural Mandate,‖ FAITH (May/June 1974), 7. 48 Ibid., 7–8. 47

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

terms of priorities, Fundamentalists would not sacrifice their main goal of evangelism of their society in order to be politically involved within their society. They felt that morality and theology were tied together, and the latter can never be sacrificed in the interests of the former, because where theology goes morality will eventually follow. The program of the Moral Majority, founded by Jerry Falwell, provided the impetus for much of the writing on this topic.49 Falwell‘s group sought to band together people of various faiths, but similar morality, in common cause to promote morality in the United States. The basic position of Bob Jones University was first articulated in a 1980 article. ―Everybody is for the Moral Majority except Bob Jones, and they don‘t like me anyway,‖ spoke Dr. Jerry Falwell in a chapel service at his college last spring. Neither part of that statement is true. Everybody does not like the Moral Majority, and Bob Jones does like Jerry Falwell as a person. However, that does not blind our eyes to some of his basic wrongs which include the Moral Majority. Basic principles of scriptural separation are the issues. All personalities aside, the issues must be faced for what they are so that we might stand with the Lord and His Word, even when we have to stand on the opposite side from people whose personalities are attractive. . . . When theologically differing religious leaders get together to promote moral reformation, they are engaged in an ecumenical activity. Since our morals spring from our theology, the implication is that members of the Moral Majority are in theological agreement. Every Christian is bound to agree on certain matters of morality with Catholics, Mormons, etc., and when we fight together for these areas of common belief, we imply a basic . . . commonality in all areas of belief. . . . Technically, Falwell still considered himself a Fundamentalist. At this point, however, Bob Jones University had broken with him and identified him with the Evangelical movement because of the methods he employed in his political campaigns. 49

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

Most pastors I know would not call up the local priest and invite him to lunch to persuade him that their congregations should be merged into a united effort opposing abortion in the city. However, if there were a secular organization in their city opposing abortion, a godly pastor would feel no hesitancy offering his congregation‘s assistance to a cause they agreed with. A Catholic priest might do the same thing with his people. If such happened, they would find themselves ―riding the same train‖ to get to a common destination. There is no compromise in that. But for the pastor and priest to pool their resources to ―own a railroad‖ is something else altogether. . . . Furthermore, cleaning up America‘s morals is not the church‘s mission. Preaching Christ is our mission. . . . It has long been the mission of liberal Protestantism to make men feel respectable by trying to help them clean up their bad habits, restructure their misdirected lives, and become more productive and useful citizens. That only makes them more ―respectable‖ sinners. Hell will still be their eternal home. . . . It has sought to make them feel less guilty and more saintly and, thus, makes them further from the reach of Christ, Who said, ―I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance‖ (Luke 5:32). What this nation needs is to feel more sinful, not less.50

Three basic themes emerged in the article. First, a Christian‘s first duty is to spread the gospel; nothing should detract from that primary duty. Second, however, a Christian may and perhaps even should be engaged in the political process. Finally, a Christian‘s political involvement must never create theological confusion or erosion. These

50 Bob Jones III, ―The Moral Majority,‖ FAITH (September 1980), 3, 27.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

themes continue to be articulated from various angles throughout the remainder of the magazine‘s history.51 Taken as a whole, the articles again illustrated why the perception that Fundamentalism was uninvolved persisted. Clearly, they supported the position that a Christian has a legitimate role to play in society and that he should play it. The authors uniformly tempered their involvement, however, by asserting that theological purity is more important and by arguing that sinful people probably will not want the morality that Christians espouse. By comparison, these theological restrictions on a political agenda make Fundamentalism appear less involved in politics than Evangelicals. Evangelicals (and former Fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell) certainly appeared more involved because they had a public presence in the form of various ecumenical organizations. Furthermore, the Fundamentalist position could be rightly characterized as walking on a ―theological razor blade‖ as it tried to grapple with the tensions involved in being both heavenly and earthly citizens. Whenever the tension required that theological concerns outweigh political involvement, Fundamentalists chose in favor of the theological, and it may appear that they were rejecting any presence in the political arena. In 51 See Frank Bumpus, ―Guidelines for Political Involvement,‖ FAITH (October 1980), 4–5; Collins Glenn, ―Enforced Morality Does Not Produce Revival,‖ FAITH (July/August 1982), 12–13, 21; Bob Jones, ―Editorial,‖ FAITH (November 1984), 2; Staff Report, ―New Religious/Political Group Formed,‖ FAITH (November 1984), 7; Frank Bumpus, ―Ecumenical Politics: Joining with Cults in Political Causes Leads to Spiritual Compromise,‖ FAITH (March 1985), 6–7; Bob Jones III, ―The Ultimate Ecumenism,‖ FAITH (September 1985), 3, 9–10; and Victor Sadaka, ―The Authority of Scripture and the Mission of the Church,‖ FAITH (October 1985), 12–14. The heavy concentration of articles on the topic is instructive. They are clustered around the 1984 presidential campaign. By this time, segments of Fundamentalism were concerned that new-found political clout would lead to a new round of theological compromise.

Fundamentalism and Social Involvement

reality, however, they were simply going about it in accordance with their own predetermined guidelines. Conclusion The longstanding charge that Fundamentalism is disinterested in political and social involvement in society cannot be sustained, at least in regard to Fundamentalism as represented by Bob Jones University from 1973 to 1986. Fundamentalist leaders encouraged people to get involved in the political process so that a Christian voice could be heard on the issues. To be certain, they did not expect that their goals would always be realized, but they felt that the attempt should be made nonetheless. The ongoing caricature of Fundamentalism as uninvolved is probably due to two factors. First, they addressed issues which were most pressing to them in a manner consistent with their own theology. It is probably true that at times they discussed those issues from an outsider perspective, and that such attempts are bound to misrepresent the interests of those involved. Yet it should also be admitted that advocacy groups tend to be blind to their own part in their problems and often assign blame on anyone but themselves. That is a basic flaw of fallen human nature that knows no racial or economic barriers. Conservative Christians, whether Fundamentalist or Evangelical, provide an easy target when they suggest a solution to any public problem that is consistent with either good morality or conservative orthodoxy. Both can become victims of â&#x20AC;&#x2022;straw manâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; argumentation, the defamation of an argument by the misrepresentation of it. Second, Fundamentalism has continued to labor under the charge that it has abdicated any role in society because of its continuing disagreements with Evangelicalism. Due to theological concerns, Fundamentalists will not engage in certain activities (specifically forming organizations with other Christian groups) in which Evangelicals have typically been involved. In addition, Fundamentalists have spoken

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

out strongly against Evangelicals who do form political groups with other religions. It is not difficult to see how the Fundamentalist dictum, ―Christians should not be involved in organic union with unbelievers for political causes,‖ can be confused in popular or even academic thinking to become ―Christians should not be involved in political causes.‖ That confusion is buttressed by the parallel histories of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism as both developed during the twentieth century. Given the stated positions of Bob Jones University, however, it seems warranted to conclude that the dividing line between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism did not involve political and social involvement.

MBTJ 2/1: 65-89

The Priorities of The Fundamentals Larry R. Oats1 In 1909, as Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism battled in the denominations, two Christian brothers purposed to publish a series of books which would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Lyman Stewart had helped to found the Hardison and Stewart Oil Company, which later became Union Oil Company of California, with Stewart as Vice President and later President. He attended one of the Bible Conferences at Niagara-on-the-Lake and became interested in publishing literature encouraging the Christian faith. He had grown up in a godly Presbyterian family and remained a member of the Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Los Angeles. His giving, however, was increasingly directed outside the Presbyterian denomination, perhaps because of his increasing interest in and support for dispensationalism and his concern over the increasing liberalism in Presbyterianism.2 In August of 1909, Stewart attended a service at the Baptist Temple in Los Angeles, where A.C. Dixon, pastor of Moody Church, was preaching. He believed he had found the man who could help fulfill his desire. When Dixon returned to Chicago, he established the Testimony Publishing Company, which then published the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals from 1910 to 1915. Each volume contained about 125 pages of articles written by 1

Dr. Larry R. Oats is the Dean and Professor of Systematic Theology at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. 2 Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1930 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 193. Sandeen gives one of the most thorough discussions of The Fundamentals, and this author acknowledges his dependence on his information.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

many of the leading conservatives in America, Canada, and Great Britain. Lyman and his brother Milton each contributed about $150,000 to the project.3 A committee of men oversaw the work, although there is no evidence of the procedure they undertook to invite men to write, decide what articles would be included, or evaluate submissions. This committee originally consisted of three laymen (Henry P. Crowell, Thomas S. Smith, and D.W. Potter) and three clergymen (R.A. Torrey, Louis Meyer, and Elmore Harris, who died in 1911). Several others were eventually added to the committee. Torrey had recently left Moody Bible Institute for full-time evangelism; Meyer was working for the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions; and Harris was a Baptist pastor from Ontario and was serving as president of the Toronto Bible Training School.4 In addition to the committee was the editor (actually called the Executive Secretary), who initially was A.C. Dixon (volumes 1–5). When he left to pastor the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, Dr. Louis Meyer (a Jewish Christian evangelist) assumed the work of the Executive Secretary and oversaw the next five volumes. Upon his death in 1913, R.A. Torrey assumed editorship and produced the last two volumes. There was nothing said about who the editors or the committee members were until the final volume. Three volumes appeared in 1910, three more in 1911, three more in 1912, and the final three volumes appeared between 1913 and 1915.

3 On the cover of each volume was the statement, ―Compliments of Two Christian Laymen.‖ The Stewart brothers were uninterested in publicity or public accolades for their work. The closest thing to a biography on these men appears to be ―The Stewarts as Christian Stewards, the Story of Milton and Lyman Stewart,‖ Missionary Review of the World 47 (August 1924): 595– 602. Their personal papers were donated to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. 4 Sandeen, 196.

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

The first volume was mailed to about 175,000 people in various areas of Christian ministry. The number of the second volume increased significantly. The third volume was sent to about 300,000 ministers. The number of copies of later volumes was reduced to 250,000 copies. By the time all twelve volumes were completed, a total of 3,000,000 copies had been printed and distributed free of charge. The Fundamentals are currently available in a fourvolume set, published first by The Bible Institute of Los Angeles5 in 1917 and since republished by several publishers.6 The four-volume set reordered the articles, organizing them into broad categories. In one way, this is helpful, enabling the reader to read through similar articles easily. In another, it disturbs the original ―feel‖ of The Fundamentals. For instance, the personal testimonies are all found in volume four of the new edition; in the original set, they were scattered throughout the writings. Sixty-four authors wrote for The Fundamentals. The majority were dispensational and millenarian, but not all. The most thorough discussion of The Fundamentals is found in Ernest Sandeen‘s The Roots of Fundamentalism.7 One way to establish the ―Priorities of the Fundamentals‖ is by simply identifying how many articles 5 Lyman Stewart was a co-founder of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles. 6 A.C. Dixon, Louis Meyer, R.A. Torrey, eds., The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). References to articles will be from the four-volume set, since few individuals have access to the original twelve-volume set. The articles are also available online at several websites, and most of these are based on the four-volume set as well. See the Appendix for a comparison of which articles appeared in the various volumes. 7 Sandeen, 188–207. The basic premise of Sandeen‘s work has been negated by those who followed him, but the data presented is still valuable.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

were dedicated to specific topics. Sandeen likens the series of articles to a wheel, ―its central hub composed of articles related to the Bible, surrounded by general doctrinal articles arranged like spokes leading to the rim where the more practical or peripheral concerns were handled.‖8 Every volume had articles devoted to the Scriptures. Seven were written in praise of the Scriptures; two others discussed archeological confirmation of the facts of Scripture. Fifteen more either directly attacked higher criticism or contested the critics‘ interpretation of particular passages or concepts. Five articles dealt with the doctrine of inspiration. The articles written by George Bishop, A.T. Pierson and William Moorehead were presented at a biblical inspiration conference held by Pierson in Philadelphia in 1887 and reproduced in The Fundamentals. Those by James Gray and Leander Munhall were written specifically for The Fundamentals. The bibliographic sources for these last two articles are significant. Gray quoted from or alluded to Princeton professors Francis L. Patton, Charles Hodge, and John DeWitt, and millenarians such as Louis Gaussen, Nathaniel West, and James H. Brookes. Munhall quoted extensively from B.B. Warfield and also referred to Louis Gaussen, Princetonian A.A. Hodge, and British scholars B.F. Westcott and John Burgon. Gray and Munhall also made reference to the 1893 Presbyterian General Assembly statement which endorsed the Princetonian position on inspiration, although there was not the dependence on external authority in The Fundamentals that there had been in the Presbyterian statement.9 Liberal theology had attacked the deity of Christ, the reality of the biblical concept of the Godhead, and numerous other areas of traditionally accepted theology. Numerous articles, therefore, centered on these specific issues. The priorities of The Fundamentals were, first the 8 9

Ibid., 204. Ibid., 205.

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

Bible, then key doctrines (particularly Christology) that were under attack by the liberals of the day, and finally the practical outworking of those doctrines. The Bible One important focal point of The Fundamentals was ―the defense of the orthodox view of Scripture.‖10 Seven articles focused on positive biblical topics: inspiration of the Scripture, unity of the Scriptures, and prophecy. Eighteen articles were written to defend Scripture from the attacks of higher criticism. Inspiration, Inerrancy, Authority. James Gray wrote a positive, definitive article on inspiration, distinguishing it from revelation, illumination, and human genius. He identified the books, not the writers, as the objects of inspiration.11 He was insistent that the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record . . . and not any particular translation or translations of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.12 He adopted the 1893 Presbyterian Church of America statement on inspiration: ―The Bible as we now have it, in

David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity (Greenville: Bob Jones, 1986), 40. 11 James Gray, ―The Inspiration of the Bible—Definition, Extent and Proof,‖ 2:9–11. All references to articles in The Fundamentals will refer to the four-volume set, since this set is more available than the twelve-volume set. Refer to the Appendix for a comparison of the volumes in which the articles originally appeared. 12 Ibid., 2:12. 10

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

its various translations and revisions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of translators, copyists and printers, (is) the very Word of God, and consequently wholly without error.‖13 George Bishop agreed. He stated, ―We take the ground that on the original parchment—the membrane—every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God.‖ And he added that while the parchment may be destroyed by man or time, the words written there remain.14 Arguments for the inspiration of Scripture were varied. Bishop argued from internal evidence.15 A.T. Pierson argued from the unity of the Bible.16 Arno Gaebelein used fulfilled prophecy as the basis for his argument for inspiration.17 Philip Mauro, a lawyer, wrote a strong article on the authority of Scripture in the life of the believer.18 James Gray answered the objection of those who would declare the inerrancy of the originals to be moot since we only possess copies which are not absolutely exact representations. First, those who reject inerrancy fail to see that the ―character and perfection of the Godhead are involved in that inerrancy.‖19 Second, Gray compared the perfection of Jesus with the perfection of Scripture. The character of Jesus should not be considered imperfect merely because it has never been perfectly reproduced; Ibid., 2:43. L.W. Munhall also adopted this definition in his article, ―Inspiration,‖ 2:45. 14 George S. Bishop, ―The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves,‖ 2:92–93. 15 Ibid., 2:80–96. 16 Arthur T. Pierson, ―The Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to its Inspiration,‖ 2:97–111. 17 Arno C. Gaebelein, ―Fulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible,‖ 2:112–143. 18 Philip Mauro, ―Life in the Word,‖ 2:144–208. 19 Gray, ―Inspiration,‖ 2:13. 13

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

neither, then, should the character of the Bible.20 His third answer focused on textual criticism. If there was not an absolute original standard, then the work of textual criticism would be without value; therefore, the very desire and goal of textual criticism argued for an inerrant original.21 He was confident that the attainment of that goal was not very far off. ―Do not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text?‖22 James Orr rejected an infallible Church, but argued for an infallible Bible. Thus, he anticipated the recently proposed argument among one segment of Fundamentalism that the Bible gains its identify and authority from the Church. He was critical of Higher Criticism not because it was criticism, but because of the wrong basis and arbitrary methods which led to ―demonstrably false results.‖23 Marsden notes that the belief in inspiration was so strong that some of the writers tended toward dictation. He identifies specifically Gray‘s and Bishop‘s articles.24 Gray had declared by ―miraculous control‖ the Bible was an ―absolute transcript‖ of God‘s mind. Marsden misreads Gray, however, for Gray also stated, ―And as to degrading the writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found when one considers the result? . . . But we are insisting upon no theory . . . if it

Ibid. Ibid. 22 Ibid., 2:14. 23 James Orr, ―Holy Scripture and Modern Negation,‖ 1:97. 24 George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870–1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 120. 20 21

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

altogether excludes the human element in the transmission of the sacred word.‖25 Bishop spoke of a ―dictated inspiration,‖ ―a Book dropped out of heaven.‖ However, Bishop also stated that each writer of Scripture was an organ, ―although not an unconscious, or unwilling, unspontaneous organ.‖26 In addition, Dixon says of the Bible, ―There are many writers, but one Author. These writers were not automatons. Each one shows his own style and personality which the Holy Spirit uses.‖27 It is clear that, while the writers of The Fundamentals believed that every word of the Bible was God‘s Word, they rejected the mechanical dictation theory and held to the verbal-plenary view of inspiration. Science. Science was addressed in only a few articles, all of which centered on creation and evolution. In this area one writer of The Fundamentals capitulated. While an anonymous layman flatly denied Darwinianism,28 James Orr was willing to accept certain points of evolution. He stated, The Bible was never given us in order to anticipate or forestall the discoveries of modern twentieth century science. The Bible, as every sensible interpreter of Scripture has always held, takes the world as it is, not as it is seen through the eyes of twentieth century specialists, but as it lies spread out before the eyes of original men, and uses the popular every-day language appropriate to this standpoint. 29

Orr allowed for the six days of creation to be longer than solar days. He argued that it is difficult to see ―how they 25 26 27 28 29

Gray, ―Inspiration,‖ 2:16. Bishop, ―Testimony of the Scriptures,‖ 2:94. A.C. Dixon, ―The Scriptures,‖ 4:267. ―Evolution in the Pulpit,‖ 4:88–96. James Orr, ―The Early Narratives of Genesis,‖ 1:237.

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

[the six days] should be so measured [as twenty-four hour days] when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day.‖30 In a different article, he declared: ―There is no violence done to the narrative [of Genesis 1] in substituting in thought ‗aeonic‘ days—vast cosmic periods—for ‗days‘ on our narrower, sun-measured scales.‖31 He rejected Darwinianism, but then stated, ―Evolution is not to be identified offhand with Darwinianism. Later evolutionary theory may rather be described as a revolt against Darwinianism.‖32 He apparently accepted a theistic-evolutionary concept. ―‗Evolution,‘ in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for ‗creation,‘ only that the creative power now works from within, instead of, as in the old conception, in an external, plastic fashion.‖33 Henry Beach disagreed. In a scientifically oriented article, he argued that Darwinism was scientifically illegitimate.34 Dyson Hague also disagreed. ―Man was created, not evolved. . . . [T]he Bible does stand plainly against that garish theory that all species, vegetable and animal, have originated through evolution from lower forms through long natural processes. . . . [E]ven the theisticsupernaturalistic theory is opposed to the Bible and to science.‖35 Higher Criticism. Marsden viewed the crucial issue ―to have been perceived as that of the authority of God in Scripture in relation to the authority of modern science, particularly science in the form of higher criticism of Ibid., 1:237. James Orr, ―Science and Christian Faith,‖ 1:344. 32 Orr, ―The Early Narratives,‖ 1:239. 33 Orr, ―Science and Christian Faith,‖ 1:346. 34 Henry H. Beach, ―Decadence of Darwinism,‖ 4:59–71. 35 Dyson Hague, ―The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis,‖ 1:280. 30 31

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Scripture itself.‖36 The writers did not reject higher criticism completely, but they did argue against the improper use of higher criticism. True criticism enters into its inquiries with an open mind, while false criticism was controlled by speculative thinking. There was common agreement among the writers that modernists were routinely prejudiced against the supernatural and miraculous. There were articles on specific higher critical issues. One technical article on the authorship of Isaiah was written by George L. Robinson.37 Another less technical article by Joseph Wilson was a thorough defense of the book of Daniel.38 Both of these articles gave a fair representation of the higher critical views, but also presented solid biblical and linguistic arguments to support the biblical position. Andrew Robinson wrote a brief article defending the Pentateuch against the Graf-Wellhausen theory of its composition.39 J.J. Reeve gave his personal testimony and argued that Higher Criticism was a result of accepting evolution and carrying evolutionary concepts into the development, or the ―evolution,‖ of the Bible.40 Other articles dealt with higher criticism in a broader perspective. Hague identified liberal higher criticism with ―unbelief,‖ ―subjective conclusions,‖ ―German fancies,‖ and ―anti-supernaturalism.‖41 He argued that higher criticism discredits the Bible and that the theory of inspiration would have to be rejected or modified to a position very different Marsden, 120. George L. Robinson, ―One Isaiah,‖ 1:241–258. 38 Joseph D. Wilson, ―The Book of Daniel,‖ 1:259–271. 39 Andrew Craig Robinson, ―Three Peculiarities of the Pentateuch Which are Incompatible with the Graf-Wellhausen Theories of its Composition,‖ 1:288–292. 40 J.J. Reeve, ―My Personal Experience with the Higher Criticism,‖ 1:349–50. 41 Dyson Hague, ―The History of the Higher Criticism,‖ 1:10– 13. 36 37

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

from the commonly understood position.42 The result was the elimination of the authority of the Bible and of Christ.43 Franklin Johnson, after listing eight fallacies, concluded that there is ―intellectual consistency in the lofty church doctrine of inspiration‖ and that there is no possible way to position oneself between belief in inspiration and belief in higher criticism; they are mutually incompatible.44 Interestingly enough, in spite of routine attacks on German higher criticism, an article by the German writer F. Bettex and translated for The Fundamentals listed a string of biblical arguments in opposition to higher criticism.45 Archaeology. George Frederick Wright46 and M.G. Kyle47 used archaeological evidence to show the truth of scriptural statements. While there was some overlap in material, the articles used recent archeological discoveries to verify various historical references in Scripture. These articles were a positive corroboration of historical statements in Scripture designed to counteract higher critical attacks on the veracity of the Bible. Theology The second priority was theology, particularly the defense of the Godhead and the importance of salvation. Beale sees the most valuable contribution to be these articles which ―supported particular doctrines that liberals

Ibid., 1:29. Ibid., 1:33–34. 44 Franklin Johnson, ―Fallacies of Higher Criticism,‖ 1:75. 45 F. Bettex, ―The Bible and Modern Criticism,‖ 1:76–93. 46 George Frederick Wright, ―The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures,‖ 1:293–314. 47 M.G. Kyle, ―The Recent Testimony of Archeology to the Scriptures,‖ 1:315–333. 42 43

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

disputed, as the deity of Christ, the atonement, and future retribution.‖48 There were four general apologetics for Christianity, two articles argued for the existence of God, and seven articles concerned themselves with issues surrounding the deity and life of Christ. These thirteen articles ―rank among the most judicious and well argued in the entire collection.‖49 Only one article dealt with the church, and that was by Anglican low-church bishop J.C. Ryle. His article dealt with the universal church and had no reference to the local church at all.50 Two articles focused on the Holy Spirit and reflected some of the popular Keswick thought of the time. William G. Moorehead focused on the deity of Jesus. He argued for the sinlessness of Christ and his omnipotence and omniscience; he also rejected the spurious gospels which denigrated Christ‘s character or work.51 B.B. Warfield also argued for the deity of Christ.52 In his article, he recognized the dual roles of evidence and experience: We believe in God and freedom and immortality on good grounds, though we may not be able satisfactorily to analyse these grounds. . . . The Christian‘s conviction of the deity of his Lord does not depend for its soundness on the Christian‘s ability convincingly to state the grounds of his conviction.53

He believed that the greatest argument for the deity of Christ was the existence of Christianity.54 John Stock argued for the deity of Christ based almost entirely on the Beale, 40. Sandeen, 205. 50 Bishop Ryle, ―The True Church,‖ 3:313–319. 51 William G. Moorehead‘s ―The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof of Inspiration,‖ 2:61–79. 52 Benjamin B. Warfield, ―The Deity of Christ,‖ 2:239–260. 53 Ibid., 2:240–41. 54 Ibid., 2:244. 48 49

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

declarations of Christ himself.55 James Orr based his belief on the virgin birth of Christ on scriptural testimony, from both the Old and New Testaments.56 Torrey argued for a literal, physical resurrection of Christ from the dead.57 Thomas Whitelaw argued for the existence of God, in opposition to atheists (―There is no God‖), agnostics (―I cannot tell whether there is a God or not‖), and materialists (―I do not need a God; I can run the universe without one‖).58 A more significant article, in light of the modernist/fundamentalist controversy, was one by Robert Speer on the Fatherhood of God.59 His approach was a comparison of the ―moral inadequacy of a mere belief in God‖ and ―the moral and spiritual adequacy of a recognition of God as Father exposed in Christ as God.‖60 The article was not as much a condemnation of the modernist concept of God as the Father of all mankind, as it was a positive explication of the biblical concept of the Fatherhood of God, as shown by Christ‘s relationship to God as his Father. The personality and deity of the Holy Spirit were argued by Torrey.61 He used the attributes of personality, his activity, and the comparison of the Holy Spirit with Christ as ―another Comforter.‖ This was the only article that discussed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The modernist concept of sin as a mere taint in man‘s existence or some type of weakness of character or even a John Stock, ―The God-Man,‖ 2:261–281. James Orr, ―The Virgin Birth of Christ,‖ 2:247–260. 57 Reuben A. Torrey, ―The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead,‖ 2:298–322. 58 Thomas Whitelaw, ―Is There a God?‖ 2:209–223. 59 Robert E. Speer, ―God in Christ the only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God,‖ 2:224–238. 60 Ibid., 2:224. 61 R.A. Torrey, ―The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit,‖ 2:323–337. 55 56

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

figment of a theologically perverted imagination was clearly rejected. Whitelaw defined sin in clear, biblical terms, describing its nature, origin and ultimate outcome.62 A more technical article on sin, dealing with the biblical words and their meanings, was presented by Charles Williams.63 A third article by Robert Anderson showed the ultimate results of sin—the judgment of God on mankind.64 In opposition to modernist hopes of a universal salvation, Anderson declared mankind a failure, without excuse, hopelessly depraved, and lost. He also spoke briefly of modernism as ―Neo-Christianism,‖ having no real connection to genuine Christianity.65 Two articles on the Atonement emphasized the only hope for salvation from the judgment of sin. Franklin Johnson rejected the moral influence theory as insufficient, with only the substitutional atonement as adequate to remove the penalty of sin.66 Dyson Hague‘s article was a combination of biblical theology and historical theology, showing that the consensus of Scripture and the Church in history was in support of a substitutional atonement.67 Thomas Boston argued against a number of modernist beliefs; he demonstrated that the church cannot save, that good education is not regeneration, and that an external change is not necessarily an indicator of salvation. Instead, salvation is an internal change wrought by the work of the

Thomas Whitelaw, ―The Biblical Conception of Sin,‖ 3:9–

24. Charles B. Williams, ―Paul‘s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin,‖ 3:25–39. 64 Robert Anderson, ―Sin and Judgment to Come,‖ 3:40–52. 65 Ibid., 3:46. 66 Franklin Johnson, ―The Atonement,‖ 3:64–77. 67 Dyson Hague, ―At-One-Ment by Propitiation,‖ 3:78–97. 63

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

Holy Spirit.68 Faith was declared to be the only basis for justification.69 Practical Theology While there were numerous academic articles dealing with higher criticism, doctrine, etc., there was a later emphasis on more popular themes, particularly beginning with Volume 7. The emphasis on the authority of Scripture was overriding and therefore came first in order; then followed the emphasis on the validity of experience and practicality. Experience, when divorced from doctrine, is dangerous; experience, when tied to the Scriptures, is strengthening. E.Y. Mullins, for instance, based his proof of Christianity almost exclusively on experience and the practical, noting that this brought Christianity into contact with the new philosophy of Pragmatism.70 The practical articles included five personal testimonies (appearing as the last article in each of the first five volumes, after which A.C. Dixon left), several articles attacking the ―isms‖ of the day,71 appeals for missions and evangelism,72 discussions of the relationship between science and Christianity, and several miscellaneous pieces (including articles on prayer, the Lord‘s Day, and money). The practical articles and the personal testimonies showed the importance of evangelism, personal spirituality, and prayer; there was little emphasis on ethical issues or issues of personal separation.

Thomas Boston, ―The Nature of Regeneration,‖ 3:128–132. H.C.G. Moule, ―Justification by Faith,‖ 3:141–154. 70 E.Y. Mullins, ―The Testimony of Christian Experience,‖ 4:314–323. 71 Millennial Dawnism, Mormonism, Eddyism (Christian Science), Spiritualism, Romanism, and Socialism. 72 All the articles of the last volume of the original twelve focused on evangelism. See the Appendix. 68 69

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

There was a strong emphasis on evangelism, especially in the later volumes. L.W. Munhall delineated the basic doctrines which underlay evangelism.73 Genuine evangelism must be based upon discipleship; the evangelist must know experientially the power and joy of the gospel. Power from the Holy Spirit and faith in God are necessary as well. The field of evangelism is the world. The message is to be preached, proclaiming the message given by God. The preacher is also to be a martus, a martyr or witness to the faith he is proclaiming. The message is that sin is universal and produces eternal consequences, redemption comes through Jesus‘ blood, Jesus rose from the dead, and justification comes only through the grace of God. While thankful for the mass evangelism of Whitefield, Moody and Sankey, Spurgeon, and others, John Stone argued that the foremost means of evangelism was that employed by Christ himself, winning men one-by-one.74 He warned of trying to focus on one specific method of evangelism: ―When God‘s Spirit leads, we are responsive to all kinds of openings and ways.‖75 Revival meetings provided a means for the unsaved to express an interest in salvation. Christians should be trained how to visit their neighbors and co-workers, in order to develop a friendship from which there can develop opportunities of evangelism.76 Charles Trumbull emphasized the role of the Sunday School in evangelizing the lost.77 Three articles emphasized

L.W. Munhall, ―The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism,‖ 3:155–167. 74 John Timothy Stone, ―Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One,‖ 3:178–198. 75 Ibid., 3:190. 76 Ibid., 3:190ff. 77 Charles Gallaudet Trumbull, ―The Sunday School‘s True Evangelism,‖ 3:199–217. 73

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

the necessity of missions.78 Robert Speer argued that missions was a natural outworking of the nature of the Christianity, the character of God, and the purpose of the Church. In reaction to the social gospel, he argued that evangelism was the only way to save the world ―from want and disease and injustice and inequality and impurity and lust and hopelessness and fear, because individual men need to be saved from sin and death, and only Christ can save them.‖79 Henry Frost identified the motives of missions as Christ‘s atoning work on Calvary, Christ‘s compassion for the lost, and Christ‘s return for his own.80 Conclusion Sandeen probably rightly concludes that the authors were not viewing themselves as taking the initial shots in the war with modernism, but rather that they were simply standing up for truth. The issues for the most part were a reaction to the current theological and religious scene; for instance, the doctrines of the Father and Christ were dealt with extensively, while the Holy Spirit was all but ignored. The theological articles were part of the fundamentalist/ modernist controversy and dealt with those issues which were seen as significant threats to orthodoxy in the early twentieth century. The articles, for the most part, were not strident. The style, instead, was moderate. Millennial thought was in the background. Only two articles that were specifically premillennial were included, and the only overtly dispensational article was C.I. Scofield‘s on grace.81 78 Robert Speer, ―Foreign Missions, or World-Wide Evangelism,‖ 3:229–249. A similar article was Charles A. Bowen, ―A Message from Missions,‖ 3:250–265. 79 Ibid., 3:238. 80 Henry W. Frost, ―What Missionary Motives Should Prevail?‖ 3:266–277. 81 C.I. Scofield, ―The Grace of God,‖ 3:98–109.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Sandeen attributes this to the irenicism of A.C. Dixon. 82 Keswick doctrine is present but not emphasized. Sandeen concludes that the The Fundamentals reflected a ―millenarian-conservative alliance dedicated at all costs to the defense of the cardinal doctrines of nineteenth-century American evangelicalism.‖83 The articles reflected the situation of the time. They were interdenominational in character, the writers coming from a variety of backgrounds. The later distinction between inerrancy and infallibility was not found in The Fundamentals. The writers were united in their view of an inerrant and infallible Bible, issuing from God, given through human writers, and preserved in the mass of the manuscripts. Issues divisive to fundamentalism as a movement were avoided; an example is the single article on the church, which avoided any reference to the local church or to church polity or distinctiveness. There was a common core of doctrine, identified in the articles on Scripture, God, Christ, and the practical issues; there was a willingness to disagree on other issues. There was a confident spirit in The Fundamentals. Perhaps in light of a dependence on the validity of Baconian Common Sense philosophy, the writers exhibited an attitude that a declaration of truth, with clear and apparently convincing arguments, would be sufficient to win the day. It was not. The Fundamentals strengthened their own, but did little or nothing to convince the modernists of their day. On the positive side, however, Marsden believes The Fundamentals ―had a long-term effect of greater importance than its immediate impact or the lack thereof.‖84 Today‘s Fundamentalist may learn much from The Fundamentals. Confidence in truth cannot be underrated. 82 83 84

Sandeen, 205. Ibid., 207. Marsden, 119.

The Priorities of The Fundamentals

The acknowledgement of the legitimacy of soul liberty is critical. The willingness to stand for truth, no matter what the world may think, cannot be abandoned. The insistence on a biblical basis for that truth is an absolute necessity.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Appendix Articles in The Fundamentals Author Hague, Dyson Kelly, Howard A. Morgan, G. Campbell Orr, James Pierson, Arthur T. Torrey, Rueben A. Warfield, B.B. Anderson, Robert Anonymous Johnson, Franklin Kyle, Melvin Grove Mauro, Philip Moule, Handley C.G. Wright, George Frederick

Vol. No. in 12-Vol. Set

Vol. No. in 4-Vol. Set

The History of the Higher Criticism

A Personal Testimony

The Deity of Christ

Christ and Criticism

Modern Philosophy

Justification by Faith

The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures

Article

The Purposes of the Incarnation The Virgin Birth of Christ The Proof of the Living God, as Found in the Prayer Life of George M端ller, of Bristol The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit

Tributes to Christ and the Bible by Brainy Men not Known as Active Christians Fallacies of the Higher Criticism The Recent Testimony of Archaeology to the Scriptures

The Priorities of The Fundamentals Gray, James M. Moorehead, William G. Mullins, Edgar Y. Reeve, James Josiah

The Inspiration of the Bibleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Definition, Extent and Proof The Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof of Inspiration The Testimony of Christian Experience

85 3

A Personal Testimony

Science and Christian Faith

Dixon, Amzi C.

The Scriptures

Lyttelton, George

Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul

Mauro, Philip

Life in the Word

Torrey, Rueben A.

The Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead

WebbPeploe, H.W.

A Personal Testimony

Speer, Robert E. Studd, Charles T. Whitelaw, Thomas Bettex, Frederic Caven, William Heagle, David Mauro, Philip Orr, James

My Personal Experience with the Higher Criticism God in Christ the Only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God The Personal Testimony of Charles T. Studd Christianity, No Fable The Bible and Modern Criticism The Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: Did it Exist?

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Anderson, Robert Johnson, Franklin McNicol, John Nuelsen, John L. Orr, James Pierson, Arthur T. Stock, John Whitelaw, Thomas Bishop, George S. Moorehead, William G. Munhall, Leander W. Pierson, Arthur T. Robinson, Andrew Craig Robinson, George L. Wilson, Joseph D. Wright, George Frederick Anonymous Beach, Henry H.

Sin and Judgment to Come

The Atonement

The Hope of the Church

Inspiration

Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to Its Inspiration

Three Peculiarities of the Pentateuch

One Isaiah

The Book of Daniel

The Passing of Evolution

Evolution in the Pulpit

The Decadence of Darwinism

The Person and Work of Jesus Christ The Early Narratives of Genesis The Testimony of Foreign Missions to the Superintending Providence of God The God-Man Is There a God? The Testimony of the Scriptures to Themselves Millennial Dawn: A Counterfeit Christianity

The Priorities of The Fundamentals Burrell, David James Crosby, Howard Hague, Dyson McNiece, R.G. Sydenstrick er, H.M. Thomas, W.H. Griffith Williams, Charles B. Orr, James Pierson, Arthur T. Pitzer, A.W. Proctor, William C. Ryle, John Charles Spurgeon, Thomas Wilson, Maurice Emery Wright, George Frederick Boston, Thomas Erdman, W.J. Frost, Henry W.

The Knowledge of God

Preach the Word

The Science of Conversion

Old Testament Criticism and New Testament Christianity

Paulâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin

Holy Scripture and Modern Negations

Divine Efficacy of Prayer

The Wisdom of this World What Christ Teaches Concerning Future Retribution

The True Church

Salvation by Grace

Eddyism: Commonly Called Christian Science

The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

The Nature of Regeneration

The Holy Spirit and the Sons of God

Consecration

The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Lasher, George W. Martin, Daniel Hoffman Penn-Lewis, Mrs. Jessie Pentecost, George F. Pierson, Arthur T. Pollock, Algernon J. Stobo, E.J., Jr. Torrey, Rueben A. Troop, G. Osborne Bowen, Charles A. Erdman, Charles R. Foster, John McGaw Gaebelein, Arno C. Hague, Dyson Medhurst, T.W. Scofield, Cyrus I. Whitelaw, Thomas Erdman, Charles R.

Regeneration, Conversion, Reformation

Why Save the Lord‘s Day?

Satan and his Kingdom

A Message from Missions

The Coming of Christ

Rome, the Antagonist of the Nation

Fulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible

At-One-Ment, by Propitiation

Is Romanism Christianity?

The Grace of God

The Biblical Conception of Sin

The Church and Socialism

What the Bible Contains for the Believer Our Lord‘s Teaching About Money Modern Spiritualism Briefly Tested by Scripture The Apologetic Value of Paul‘s Epistles The Place of Prayer in Evangelism Internal Evidence of the Fourth Gospel

The Priorities of The Fundamentals Frost, Henry W. Munhall, Leander W. Speer, Robert E. Stone, John Timothy Trumbull, Charles Gallaudet

What Missionary Motives Should Prevail? The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism Foreign Missions or WorldWide Evangelism Pastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One The Sunday Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s True Evangelism

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

MBTJ 2/1: 91-114

Prayer and God’s Omniscience Geoffrey Stertz1 Does God hear and answer the prayers of his saints? Is prayer for the sake of the saint or of God or both? Does God change his plans on account of the believer‘s prayer? Can God, who is immutable, change at all? Is it possible to consider him to be consistently loving in regards to answering prayer when his will has already been established? Since God already knows what is going to take place, is there any valid reason to pray? There is one other significant question. How does prayer relate theologically to God‘s omniscience? The purpose of this article is to examine this question and attempt to determine how prayer relates to the omniscience of God. The article will expand on the question of this relationship, trace the topic briefly through both the Old and New Testaments, and investigate how it has been handled throughout church history. Finally, the author will present a theological and practical conclusion on the matter. How Prayer Relates to the Omniscience of God Certainly as one explores any infinite attribute of God, he is left with gaps in his theology due to the finiteness of his understanding. One should be cautious in adopting a theology of God that does not recognize the depth of God‘s being. Such attempts at theology have led some to veer toward ungrounded philosophy rather than biblically-based theology. These gaps, if come to correctly, should not frustrate the Bible student but rather deepen his 1

Geoffrey Stertz is a student at Maranatha Baptist Seminary. The editor plans to include one article from a college or seminary student in each issue of the Journal as examples of the research and writing capabilities of our students.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

appreciation for the fact that God is great and his greatness can forever be explored. However, rather than simply come to an understanding that gaps exist, the goal of the theologian should be to further define where the gaps exist. Prayer is not only personal and regular for the believer, but it also defines the believer‘s relationship to God to some extent. If a believer views prayer simply as a duty, his prayer life may be consistent, but it also might be consistently dull and shallow. If another views prayer as a means merely to achieve his desired goals, he may view it similarly to this author: ―What counts is knowing who you want to be and asking for it. Through a simple, believing prayer, you can change your future. You can change what happens one minute from now.‖2 It does not take long to realize how important it is for the believer to have a proper understanding of how his prayer relates to God. A specific aspect of this understanding is how one views his prayer in relation to God‘s omniscience. Christ states in Matthew 6:8 that God knows the things the believer needs before he asks God for them. In 6:32, Christ similarly says that the believer need not be anxious about his needs because God knows them before the believer even asks. Not only does this raise the question as to the point of asking God for one‘s needs (since he already knows), but it also questions the reason to anticipate getting what one asks for (since God‘s foreknowledge already establishes the future). Without a proper understanding of how prayer relates to God‘s omniscience, a believer may come to the conclusion that his relationship to God is of little meaning because what he prays for is not going to make a difference. Commenting on the teachings of Augustine, R.C. Sproul summarizes the dilemma in these two sentences: ―If God is sovereign over the actions and intents of men, why pray at 2

Bruce Wilkinson and David Kopp, The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through to the Blessed Life (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2000).

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

all? A secondary concern revolves around the question, ‗Does prayer really change anything?‘‖3 A Biblical Discussion of the Relationship Between Prayer and God’s Omniscience When coming to the Bible to answer this question, the primary goal of the believer should not be to search for relevance in his prayer life with God. Instead, one should first search for a biblical understanding of prayer and then determine how God‘s people have related to him through prayer. Old Testament After the Fall, Scripture records very little of man praying to God until the time of the patriarchs. Cain cried out to God for mercy to be delivered from his situation and God answered his prayer (Gen 4:13–15, 24–25). Besides this, however, little exists regarding prayer before the flood. L. Paul Moore gives the example of Noah: It is noticeable, in the matter of prayer or intercession, that after the Lord had revealed to Noah His purpose of destroying the whole earth with a flood, Noah does not attempt to plead with God, or to intercede for the ungodly. We are well aware that he was ―a preacher of righteousness‖ (2 Pet 2:5) and that his preparing an ark was in itself a bold testimony to the revelation he had received from God. But Noah attempted no intercession God-ward!4

When Abraham is introduced, however, the communion between God and man is much different. Moore says, ―With

3 R.C. Sproul. Does Prayer Change Things? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2009), 8. 4 L. Paul Moore Jr., ―Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 98 (July 1941): 335.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Abraham . . . begins this intimate converse, this free response of an obedient heart.‖5 With the rest of the patriarchs, this type of communion is similar. In Gen 25:21 Isaac prays for Rebekah to have a child and the text says, ―The LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.‖ Bruce Waltke explains the use of the niphal verb for the entreating of Yahweh: The tolerative Niphal often involves the element of efficacy: what the subject allows to happen can indeed be carried through. Thus Paul Joüon glosses vr;d>nI as ―‗to let oneself be questioned,‘ and that efficaciously so that it practically means ‗to answer‘ (when speaking of God); , ‗to let oneself be warned‘ and that efficaciously and

rh;z>nI

so practically ‗to bear in mind the warning‘;

rs;An, ‗to let

rT;[.nI

oneself be corrected, to be corrected‘; , ‗to let oneself be entreated (efficaciously), to grant.‘‖ The tolerative is often used of the deity. 6

Jacob, even with his scheming, prayed to the Lord for a blessing as well as deliverance from his brother Esau and received both. It appears, at least from the surface, that God graciously answered the prayers of the patriarchs. The manner in which the patriarchs spoke to God is notable as well. Moore notes that the tone of communion between God and man in the Pentateuch in general is quite remarkable: As one reads the opening books of the Old Testament, he is profoundly struck with the seeming ease with which God, the Holy One, approaches man, either to command him or to converse with him. One is just as profoundly struck with the freedom, sometimes 5

Ibid., 334.

6 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O‘Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 385– 90.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

verging even upon impudence, with which man replies to God. And, in fact, it is the very freedom of intercourse which, for the reader of Scripture, makes it sometimes difficult to distinguish prayer from intimate conversation.7

Moses certainly exemplifies this type of communion from his first conversation at the burning bush to his speaking to God face to face in the tabernacle. Particularly interesting in Moses‘ prayers is his intercession for Israel. While Abraham had an intercessory role with Sodom, Moses even more clearly stood in the way of God‘s wrath to plead for his mercy on Israel. Victor Hamilton writes: ―In language almost without equal for boldness in the Old or New Testaments, he urges God not to follow through on his intentions to wipe out his people (32:12).‖8 Interestingly, within the same story, Moses records that God ―repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people‖ (Ex 32:14). Hamilton investigates the idea of God‘s repentance: The Old Testament uses the verb nāham (repent? relent? change one‘s mind?) thirty-four times with God as subject. Two texts (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29) teach that God, unlike human beings, never needs to repent of sin. And he never repents of his choice of David (Ps. 110:4). But in the other thirty-plus passages that speak of God repenting/relenting, many times God is said to repent of ―evil‖ (not sin!), which in a version such as the NIV is rendered as ―calamity‖ or ―disaster.‖ . . . In ch. 32 God‘s words to Moses about Israel‘s future are couched more in the form of threatened judgment than decree, and as such they invite and stimulate a prophetic 7 8

Moore, ―Prayer in the Pentateuch Part 1,‖ 334.

Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal intercessory response from Moses. Thus what God does in Exodus 32 is best characterized by mercy, than by change of mind.9

Moving from the Pentateuch into the monarchy, one observes similarly that God‘s plans do not change. In 1 Sam 15:29, Samuel told Saul that God ―will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret." Yet, only six verses later, 1 Samuel recorded that God ―regretted that he had made Saul over Israel.‖ The regret or seeming change in God‘s mind exists as somewhat of a mystery, but Robert Chisholm Jr. asserts that ―not all statements of [God‘s] intention are the same.‖10 Chisholm contrasts ―divine decrees‖ with ―announcements‖ or ―conditional statements‖ and concludes: If He has decreed a certain course of action or outcome, then He will not retract a statement or relent from a declared course of action. . . . Statements about God not changing His mind serve to mark specific declarations as decrees. They should not be used as proof texts of God‘s immutability, nor should they be applied generally to every divine forward-looking statement. If God has not decreed a course of action, then He may very well retract an announcement of blessing or judgment. In these cases the human response to His announcement determines what He will do. Passages declaring that God typically changes His mind as an expression of His love and mercy demonstrate that statements describing God as relenting should not be dismissed as anthropomorphic.11

A parallel passage to the request made by Isaac in Gen 25:23 is found in 2 Chron 33:13, where Manasseh humbled 9

Ibid.

10 Robert B. Chisholm Jr., ―Does God ‗Change His Mind‘?‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (October 1995): 389. 11

Ibid., 399.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

himself before Yahweh after he had been captured by the Assyrians. In Manasseh‘s prayer to Yahweh, the same tolerative niphal was used as in Gen 25:23. In both cases (Genesis and 2 Chronicles), the character prays, God ―is intreated‖ (ESV ―moved by his entreaty‖), and God positively answers the prayer. Most of the remaining notable passages in the Old Testament dealing with God‘s omniscience and prayer deal more with the extent of his understanding rather than his response to prayer. Two passages in Psalm show the limitlessness of God‘s knowledge. In Psalm 139 David declares that God knows everything about him—specifically connecting God‘s omniscience to man. In vs. 4 especially, David makes a remarkable statement regarding God‘s knowledge. S. Edward Tesh translates the verse, ―Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O Lord.‖12 He goes on to say, ―This is the height of God‘s omniscience as it relates to the human being. God is able to read the very thoughts of an individual before those thoughts can be expressed in audible words ( , millāh, ‗word‘).‖13 After declaring that God has a name for every star, the psalmist states in Psalm 147:5 that God is great and of great power and then asserts: ―his understanding is infinite.‖ As an example of his infinite knowledge, God chose and named Cyrus to be his instrument in Isaiah 45 more than a century before his birth. A final Old Testament passage which is especially instructive regarding prayer and God‘s response to it is Daniel‘s prayer in Daniel 10. In this chapter, Daniel received a burdensome message that set his heart to pray. Three weeks later, after being in spiritual and physical 12 S. Edward Tesh and Walter D. Zorn, Psalms (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2004), 479. 13

Ibid.

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

distress, an angel came and spoke with Daniel and told him that his words were heard three weeks earlier. However, due to ―the prince of the kingdom of Persia,‖ the messenger was not able to come. Nevertheless, what the angel told Daniel was that he came because of (NAS – ―in response to‖) Daniel‘s words. Roger Peterson comments about this story: This should be a lesson to all who pray. When a child of God has humbled his heart and prayed, his prayer has been heard, even though the answer may be delayed. So one should be encouraged by Daniel‘s experience to keep on praying until the answer comes and the victory is won. Persistence in prayer pays.14

New Testament The New Testament provides many additional instructions and insights regarding God‘s knowledge and man‘s prayer. However, many of the passages have at least some correlation to an already revealed truth in the Old Testament. In the gospels, Christ states in both Matthew 12 and Luke 6 that God already knows what the believer needs before he asks for it. The believer is to seek the kingdom of God. The question raised here is, ―If God already knows what a believer needs, what is the point in asking?‖ This question will be addressed later. Also, in Matthew 11:21 when Jesus is pronouncing the ―woes‖ on the unrepentant cities where he had done his mightiest works, he says that if Tyre and Sidon would have seen the works which he did in Chorazin and Bethsaida, they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes. This statement demonstrates not only that God knows what will

Roger L. Peterson, ―A Study of Daniel‘s Prayer Life in the Book of Daniel,‖ Central Bible Quarterly 21 (Spring 1978): 30.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

happen, but the possibilities of what could have happened or would have happened based on different contingencies. Finally in Matthew, Jesus makes an astounding statement in his teaching to the disciples about the withered fig tree. He told his disciples in 21:22 that whatever they ask in prayer they would receive if they have faith. Larry Chouinard remarks: It follows that Jesus is not suggesting that faith guarantees the reception of anything one may desire. The promise necessarily assumes a commitment to the will of God, and a willingness to forgo individual rights for the sake of the purposes of God. Jesus is the paradigm par excellence of what it means to ―have faith and not doubt.‖15

In John 21:17, Peter responds similarly to David‘s statements in Psalm 139. After Christ repeatedly asks Peter if he really loves him, Peter says, ―Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.‖ Paul declared in Romans 8:26 that the Holy Spirit provides intercessory help for the believers in their weakness. Paul‘s reason is that the believer does not know what to pray for as he should. It is interesting to think the Holy Spirit ―cleans up‖ the prayers of the saints so that they are appropriate requests before God. Douglas Moo writes: ―The wording of the clause indicates that it is not the manner, or style, of prayer that Paul has in view but the content, or object, of prayer – what we are to pray for.‖16 He continues: This inability to know what to pray for cannot be overcome in this life, for it is part of ―our weakness,‖ the 15 Larry Chouinard, Matthew (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 373. 16 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 523.

100

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal inescapable condition imposed on us by our place in salvation history. Therefore, Paul does not command us to eradicate this ignorance by diligent searching for God‘s will or by special revelation. Instead, Paul points us to the Spirit of God, who overcomes this weakness by his own intercession. 17

Both Hebrews 4:12–13 and 1 John 3:20 indicate that God knows the thoughts of man‘s heart. Of all the New Testament books that stress the importance of prayer on the part of man, however, James is probably the most explicit. In the beginning of his letter, James urges the scattered saints to ask God for wisdom as they deal with their trials. However, he instructs them in 1:6 to ask in faith ―with no doubting‖ and says that the person who doubts should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Basically, if the believer does not expect that his prayer can be answered, he should not expect to have his prayer answered. Peter Davids writes: The author, then, concludes his description of this doubter with a strong condemnation: his divided mind, when it comes to trusting God, indicates a basic disloyalty toward God. Rather than being a singleminded lover of God, he is one whose character and conduct is unstable, even hypocritical. No wonder he should expect nothing from God! He is not in the posture of the trusting child at all. For James there is no middle ground between faith and no faith; such a one, he will later argue (4:8), needs to repent. 18

Later James says in 4:2–3 that the believer does not get the things he wants either because he does not ask for them, or because he asks for selfish reasons. Certainly God 17 18

Ibid., 524.

Peter Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 75.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

101

will not answer such prayers. James instead instructs the believer to humble himself; he goes on to promise that if the believer draws near to God, then God will draw near to him. From this passage it appears that God is ready and eager to respond and meet the believer‘s needs, but chooses not to when the believer either does not ask or asks with selfish reasons. Lastly, James focuses on prayer again in chapter 5, by addressing the problem of what to do when a believer is sick.19 After he instructs his readers to have the elders to pray over and anoint the sick individual with oil in the Lord‘s name, he says that ―the prayer of faith shall save‖ him and then ―the Lord shall raise him up.‖ These phrases together are remarkable in that one says that the prayer saves the sick and the other says that the Lord saves the sick. This demonstrates a compatibilistic understanding of how God relates to the believer, specifically in prayer. John MacArthur calls the prayers ―a channel for God‘s power.‖20 Throughout this passage, the focus seems to be on the prayer of faith that is effective. Certainly the glory goes to God, but the language used here puts a great amount of weight on the prayer.

19 Whether the individual is physically sick or spiritually sick is debatable. See John MacArthur, James (Chicago: Moody, 1998), 276–79. 20

Ibid., 278.

102

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal Discussions of Prayer and God’s Omniscience Throughout Church History

While the topic of prayer and God‘s omniscience can be found throughout church history, much of what has been written regarding prayer is more on the devotional or pastoral level. Nonetheless, notable men in church history provide valuable insight into the discussion and also show how their theology of God‘s sovereignty works itself out practically in the matter of prayer. Augustine recognized the seeming contradiction of praying for something of which God already knows we have the need. He writes: What is the use of prayer at all, if ―our Father knoweth‖ already ―what things we have need of‖? . . . If so, Lord, why should I so much as pray at all? Thou wouldest not that I should use long prayers, yea rather Thou dost even bid me to use near none at all. . . . He would have thee ask that thou mayest receive, and seek that thou mayest find, and knock that thou mayest enter in. Seeing then that our Father knoweth already what is needful for us, how and why do we ask? why seek? why knock? why weary ourselves in asking, and seeking, and knocking, to instruct Him who knoweth already? 21

Augustine obviously acknowledged to some extent the omniscience of God, especially as it relates to prayer. However, he left these questions unresolved. Using the imagery of the door on which the believer knocks, he wrote that the believer may not always get what he asks for. This he attributes to the benevolent sovereignty of God toward the one praying: For this cause is it closed, not to shut thee out, but to exercise thee. Therefore, brethren, ought we to exhort

21 Augustine, Sermon XXX, On the words of the Gospel, Matt. xvii. 19, "Why could not we cast it out"? etc., and on prayer.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

103

to prayer, both ourselves and you. For other hope have we none amid the manifold evils of this present world, than to knock in prayer, to believe and to maintain the belief firm in the heart, that thy Father only doth not give thee what He knoweth is not expedient for thee. For thou knowest what thou dost desire; He knoweth what is good for thee. . . . Do not then hesitate to ask; ask, hesitate not; but if thou receive not, do not take it to heart. 22

However, Augustine did not simply view prayer as an exercise without any effect. He concluded in a sermon on Matthew 17:19: ―Whilst we live pour out our groans before the Lord our God, and endure the evils, that we may attain to the things that are good.‖23 Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, has much to say about prayer. He writes: To prayer, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his word was not in vain.24

Calvin, while without a doubt believing in the absolute sovereignty of God, did not see a conflict between God‘s sovereignty and the ability of man to have a meaningful part in God‘s plans. He even said that believers, through prayer,

Ibid.

John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), 524.

104

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal invoke the presence of his [God‘s] providence to watch over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest himself to us in all his perfections.25

However, Calvin also raised the question about the use of prayer since God is omniscient. He wrote: But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest, so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by the sound of our voice?26

Calvin responded to this by stating that prayer is not so much for the sake of God as it is for the sake of man. He said that asking God is beneficial for the believer because (1) it causes him to seek God passionately, (2) it keeps him seeking the right things, and (3) it prepares his heart to receive God‘s benefits with thanksgiving.27 He then concludes that once the believer receives the request for which he petitioned the Lord, his faith is strengthened and he is incited all the more ―to long more earnestly for his [God‘s] favour.‖ He concluded: It is very absurd, therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine Providence . . . is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is ―nigh unto all that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth‖ (Ps. 145:18). No better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous to pray for things which the 25

Ibid., 525.

Ibid., 524

Ibid., 524–25.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

105

Lord is ready of his own accord to bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the psalms to which many others corresponds: ―The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,‖ (Ps. 34:15).28

Commenting on the effectiveness of prayer as displayed in James 5, Calvin writes: ―Again, since God so often declares that he will give to every man according to his faith he intimates that we cannot obtain any thing without faith. In short, it is faith which obtains every thing that is granted to prayer.‖29 In summary, while Calvin believes that prayer is primarily for the believer, he certainly does not assert that prayer does not in any way move God to respond. Glenn Kreider surveyed Jonathan Edward‘s theology of prayer. He shows that Edwards believed in the effectiveness of prayer both in his theology and in his practice, and that Edwards made prayer an integral part of his revivalistic work. After surveying his theology and practice of prayer, Kreider concludes: Jonathan Edwards was convinced that God hears and answers prayer. He prayed as if he believed God would answer. He encouraged others to pray as if human prayers impacted the Sovereign of the universe. The reason for this practice seems clearly to be that Edwards‘ view of God‘s providence was that prayer was an

Ibid., 525.

Ibid., 531.

106

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal essential means by which accomplished in this world.30

God‘s

purposes

are

Augustus Strong observed various leaders throughout recent church history and commented as to their views of the effectiveness of prayer. ―Prayer presupposes a God who hears and answers. It will not be offered, unless it is believed to accomplish objective as well as subjective results.‖31 He was critical of those who treat prayer like ―mere spiritual gymnastics,‖ because they do not expect God to hear and answer. He remarked that ―Horace Bushnell called this perversion of prayer a ‗mere dumb-bell exercise.‘‖32 He also commented on William Hyde who wrote: ―Prayer is not the reflex action of my will upon itself, but rather the communion of two wills, in which the finite comes into connection with the Infinite, and, like the trolley, appropriates its purpose and power.‖33 He said that liberals like Harnack and Schleiermacher limited prayer to ―general petitions which receive only a subjective answer.‖34 As for Strong himself, he especially investigated how or if prayer fits into the natural laws of the universe. He concluded: When we remember that there is no true prayer which God does not inspire; that every true prayer is part of the plan of the universe linked in with all the rest and provided for at the beginning; that God is in nature and in mind, supervising all their movements and making all fulfill his will and reveal his personal care; 30 Glenn R. Kreider, ―Jonathan Edwards‘ Theology of Prayer,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (July 1941): 454. 31 Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson, 1963), 216. 32

Ibid.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

107

that God can adjust the forces of nature to each other far more skilfully than can man when man produces effects which nature of herself could never accomplish; that God is not confined to nature or her forces, but can work by his creative and omnipotent will where other means are not sufficient,—we need have no fear, either that natural law will bar God‘s answers to prayer, or that these answers will cause a shock or jar in the system of the universe.35

Overall, Strong views the universe as designed by a moral God for moral creatures and finds no problem with God changing the laws of nature to answer the request of His own. He, like Calvin, sees the tension between God‘s sovereignty and man‘s prayer but does not find them incompatible. Prayer, for Strong, does not lose its genuine relational quality simply because God knows what the believer needs. Current Issues Pertaining to Prayer and God’s Omniscience The major issue currently relating to prayer and God‘s omniscience is open theism. C. Fred Smith says that the basic idea of open theism is that ―God‘s being is analogous to that of humans, and so God experiences reality in ways similar to the experiences of human beings.‖36 How that relates to prayer concerns God‘s ability to know and, consequently, affect the future. As well, the open theist denies the immutability of God believing that in order for God to respond to humans, he must change in some way.

Ibid., 217.

36 C. Fred Smith, ―Does Classical Theism Deny God‘s Immanence?‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 23.

108

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Clark Pinnock states that ―the very concept of an act involves change.‖37 Part of the discussion, then, centers on one‘s definition of ―change‖ as it relates to God. Some go so far to say that God does not truly have emotions because emotion causes some sort of change within God. It also might suggest that God is somehow persuaded by the things men do because he has an emotional experience from them. Thus, some on the classical side have shied away from the idea of God emoting altogether. When it comes to prayer, open theism argues that God, in the classical theistic view, cannot truly respond to the believer‘s prayer because this, again, would cause God to change. This would also mean that he is ignoring his omniscience when he answers the prayer, because in order to truly ―respond‖ he could not foreknow his response. Thus, Richard Rice (an open theist) concludes that classical theists ―have truncated the understanding of God‘s love and have given the world a concept of God that makes prayer incoherent and that stifles the possibility of a rich and dynamic relationship with God.‖38 Rice‘s understanding, along with other open theists, does not correspond with classical theists, however. ―Classical orthodox theology has always recognized that transcendence and immanence are both aspects of God‘s being and of His relationship to creation.‖39 Believers can have a real, dynamic relationship with God, even with his transcendence. Part of this relationship is God responding to human beings, including answering their prayers.40 37

Clark H. Pinnock and John Sanders, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994), 36. 38

Smith, ―Does Classical Theism Deny God‘s Immanence?‖

Ibid.

Ibid., 33.

25.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

109

A Theology of Prayer and God’s Omniscience From Scripture it is quite clear that God has no limit to his knowledge, including his knowledge of the future. In Isaiah 46:10, after declaring that there is none like him, God says that he is the One who declares ―the end from the beginning, from ancient times things that are not yet done.‖ He is able to predict the future and bring specific things to pass. However, as to how man relates to God through prayer, the believer must have some sense of understanding as to how his petitions and supplications are received by God. Does his prayer matter if God knows all and will bring it to pass? Does prayer affect God at all? Some would argue that prayer is strictly for the one who is praying. Scripture is clear that God does not need the assistance of man as if he has some sort of deficiency of ability or opportunity. He is the I AM who self-exists. Thus, to some, the idea of God acting on the basis of a person‘s prayer is inconsistent with his omniscience and selfsufficiency. John D. Hannah concludes in his discussion exploring prayer and God‘s sovereignty: Thus prayer is understood as primarily a means of grace, a vehicle of progressive sanctification. Prayer is essentially an act of worship wherein homage is given to God alone through praise, adoration, confession, or request. The purpose of prayer, while it points alone to God as the source of all benevolences, is a help for the saint to strengthen Christian experience.41

Yet, to boil prayer down to simply an exercise of dependence for the believer does not reconcile with the overall teaching of Scripture. Nor does prayer appear to be simply a means to put one in a position of blessing. Rather,

41 John D. Hannah, ―Prayer and the Sovereignty of God,‖ Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 352.

110

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Scripture presents prayer as a means of relationship with God. God is certainly a God of relationships. Abraham is called a ―friend of God‖ (James 2:23). Because he is thus, he desires the communion of his children. Proverbs 15:8 says that ―the prayer of the upright is his delight.‖ Not only this, but Scripture demonstrates God responding to prayer, at times as though the prayer ―caused‖ or ―allowed‖ God to act. Yet, when God acts, it is never against his will. James presents the fervent prayers of Elijah as the reason for the drought and the rain in his day. He even boldly asserts in 5:15 that ―the prayer of faith shall save the sick.‖ As discussed above, God ―changed‖ his plans for Israel as Moses interceded on their behalf. Hannah writes that prayer is a means (though not the only means) appointed by God for attaining one‘s ends.42 One might add to that the ends of others as well as the ends of God, since the believer is called to pray for others and to pray that God‘s will be done. Pascal wrote, ―God instituted prayer to lend his creatures the dignity of causality.‖43 God sometimes accomplishes His sovereign purpose through the prayers of His people (Eze 36:36, 37; Jas 5:17, 18). Often what God does when a believer prays is bring that person into conformity with his will.44 To say, therefore, that prayer changes the one who prays to God is obvious. One would learn to trust in him to supply his needs. It is certainly true that the one praying experiences a change in his mindset and, perhaps, actions. However, that does not necessarily mean that the One being prayed to does not change his disposition. Is it possible that when one uses the word ―change‖ in relation to human thinking that he attaches with it the idea 42

Ibid.

43 Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 223. 44 D. Edmond Hiebert, Working With God Through Intercessory Prayer (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones, 1992), 1–3.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

111

of development? Suppose a ruler was implored to act on behalf of one of his subjects or a father to respond to one of his children. One might think that if the ruler or father decides to act after being implored that something was added to his thinking that was not there before that caused him to act. That is, his thinking changed because he understood further the situation or was persuaded to act because further understanding was brought to light, influencing him to act. This implies that his thinking developed, thus changing his actions. This type of change is more along the lines in which open theists think. However, this development is not necessarily the case in every situation. Suppose a child asks his benevolent father for nourishment and the father desires for his child to say ―please‖ before the child receives it. The father‘s desire is to give the child nourishment regardless of his asking or saying ―please,‖ yet this is the father‘s modus operandi. The father has chosen not to give to the child until he asks for it. Once the child says ―please,‖ the father changes his actions toward the child and gives him what he asks. This type of change is not based on a development in thinking, nor does it require the father‘s nature to change. He is perfectly consistent throughout the exchange. This is very similar to Christ‘s parable of the unjust judge, yet in a negative sense. Nothing that the woman said convinced the unjust judge to act, nor did the unjust judge develop in his thinking or nature. Rather, it was simply the persistent asking that caused the judge to act. It is important to bear in mind that the believer‘s prayers do not ―control‖ or ―manipulate‖ God. It is often the cry of the Reformed scholars that belief in the ―power‖ of prayer or the ―effectiveness‖ of prayer will lead one to think that God is on puppet strings and a believer can pull his strings to get what he wants. In light of Scripture, understanding God this way is certainly an erroneous view of the sovereign God. ―To desire that God would answer all

112

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

our prayers is to desire omnipotence without omniscience.‖45 Believing that God responds to the prayers of his saints not only does not violate his sovereignty, but it is also directly in line with Scripture. Prayer does not only involve petitions and intercessions but also confessions and praises. John promises that if the believer confesses his sins, God is ―faithful and just to forgive‖ him and ―cleanse him from all unrighteousness‖ (1 John 1:9). One would not argue that God‘s granting forgiveness upon the believer‘s confession is his manipulating God. Rather, God has so chosen to condescend to men in this manner. Similarly, Proverbs 15:8 declares that God‘s delight is in the prayer of the righteous. This is not manipulation or ―string pulling‖ to bring God delight through our prayers. While the thought of one‘s prayers making the holy and immutable God happy seems impossible, it, nonetheless, is the way in which Scripture presents God operating. As another scriptural example which often involves prayer, James promises that if believers ―draw nigh to God,‖ he will ―draw nigh‖ to them. This promise does not mean that one is pulling God‘s strings when one‘s actions ―cause‖ God to draw near to himself. Rather, God has chosen to operate within the promises and conditions that he has given. Conclusion The tension seems to be of an unlimited God who limits himself. He is not limited by time and space, but when he became a man, he limited himself to these parameters for the sake of man. When he condescends to hear and answer one‘s prayers, he is not limited by the content of our prayers nor by the time in which we pray them; he chooses, rather, to operate to some extent on these grounds for the good of man and ultimately for his own glory. 45

Strong, Systematic Theology, 216.

Prayer and God‘s Omniscience

113

None of these, however, demands essential change in the Divine. Instead, he is unchanging in essence and character but chooses at points of time and in various ways to interact with limited creatures. Christ made himself in the likeness of men for the sake of men. It is not, as the open theist would like to claim, that God is somehow essentially like that of humans, because the whole revelation of God proclaims otherwise. However, he, at times, operates on what seems to humanity to be a finite level as he interacts with finite beings. Leaders throughout church history have recognized the sovereignty of God in relation to prayer, but have equally recognized that prayer consists of a real relationship between God and man. God does not need man. However, man needs God. Thus, men pray. God affords the believer the privilege of seeing him respond to those requests he makes in time of need. The Lord, indeed, is nigh unto all that call upon him. It is important that as one develops his theology of prayer that he does so based on both the precepts as well as the examples of Scripture. Attempting to develop a theology of prayer beginning from one‘s theological framework and then moving to Scripture will not allow one to see prayer in a truly biblical light. Since theological battles exist relating to the topic, one must be sensitive to allow Scripture to shape his thinking. Some have strayed to one side or the other as they have tried to protect God‘s sovereignty or defend man‘s relationship with God. However, Scripture presents a balance and does not see either as incompatible. Overall, it is a comfort to know that the omniscient and omnipotent God relates to man in an intimate way, as a good father does his child. As Mary exclaimed in Luke 1:48, God regards the ―low estate‖ of his servants. Because of this blessed attention God gives to man, the believer can be confident that his prayers matter to God, that God‘s Spirit helps the believer in his requests to God, and that God, in

114

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

his time and in his way, will respond to those requests in love.

Book Reviews Rosalie Hall Hunt. Bless God and Take Courage—The Judson History and Legacy. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 2005. 403 pages. Reviewed by Fred Moritz. The story of Adoniram Judson, his wives, and his ministry in Burma stirs us every time we read it. Although the standard work on Judson‘s life has been Courtney Anderson‘s To the Golden Shore, this more recent work is worthy of consideration. The reader is constantly moved by the accounts of Judson‘s sacrifice, hardship, suffering, and personal grief in the service of Christ. Rosalie Hall Hunt grew up in China as a daughter of missionaries. She served in eight Asian countries. She spent six years researching the Judson history in the Unites States and Myanmar (Burma) as she prepared to write this book. Hunt is apparently an American Baptist, and Judson Press, the publishing arm of the American Baptist Churches, published the book. This reviewer expected a ―liberal spin‖ of Judson‘s life. Early in the book this skepticism was allayed, but later in the book it was renewed. Hunt divides the book into two divisions. Part One contains the first twenty-two chapters and is labeled ―The Biography.‖ These chapters recount the story of Judson‘s life. Hunt tells the story accurately and graphically. Three things are impressive in this part of the book. First, the author tells the story of Judson‘s conversion and of the conversions of Burmese people with accuracy. She uses biblical language and seems to convey a real understanding of the new birth. Her forthrightness is commendable. Second, this book tells the story of Judson‘s imprisonment at Aungbinle in graphic detail. Third, Hunt poignantly and tenderly tells the story of the three Judson wives. Emily is sometimes lost in the shadow of the end of Judson‘s life in other biographies. Hunt describes her godliness and her

116

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

motherly efforts to keep the Judson children together after his death. Part Two of the book is named ―The Legacy.‖ In this section Hunt traces the places of importance in the United States and Burma. She identifies the location of monuments that commemorate the Judsons. She also recounts the sad story of most of the Judson children. Near the end of the book, Hunt writes three tender chapters on Adoniram‘s three wives, Ann, Sarah, and Emily respectively. The story of the six Judson children is a conundrum. Sarah Boardman‘s son George pastored the First Baptist Church in Philadelphia for thirty years, apparently with great success. Judson‘s youngest surviving son Edward was also a pastor, though he lectured at the University of Chicago and Union Theological Seminary. Hunt never says, but this reviewer conjectures that Edward, unlike George Boardman, was not a Bible believer. Abby Ann Judson dabbled in spiritism. Adoniram Brown Judson became a medical doctor. Elnathan was placed in a mental hospital, perhaps suffering from the effects of sunstroke. Little is known of Henry. There is no doubt that the effects of separation from parents at a young age had a profound effect on the children. It would be easy to pass judgment on the Judsons for sending their children back to America at such young ages, but they knew from sad experience that death would likely claim them if they kept them in Burma. We ask ourselves what we would do, and that question is hard to answer. It was disappointing to this reviewer, but not surprising, to read Hunt‘s treatment of the remnants of Judson‘s work today. She speaks in glowing terms of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Yangon. This reviewer was shocked to see three crucifixes hanging in that building. The pastor is a prominent spokesman for the World Council of Churches in Asia. Hunt treats this part of the legacy with

Book Reviews

117

the same positive note she treated the earlier accounts of conversions under Judsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s ministry. The reader will learn things not revealed by Courtney Andersonâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s book. Be advised, however, that you will need to read it with discernment.

118

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

Fred G. Zaspel. The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010. Reviewed by David Saxon. In the ninety years since the death of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, his influence has hardly waned. Of course, that influence is greatest among those closest to his basic theological stance: Reformed confessionalism. Among conservative Presbyterians, the ―Lion of Princeton‖ continues to be regarded as a leading defender of Westminster orthodoxy. But Warfield‘s appeal has always been broader than to one constituency. His writings on Christology and, especially, the inspiration of Scripture remain magisterial for all English-speaking theological conservatives, including mainstream Fundamentalists. Nevertheless, Warfield is somewhat inaccessible. Those who have labored through the various collections of his writings, such as Inspiration and Authority of Scripture or Selected Shorter Writings, find a dictionary indispensable. Indeed, reading Warfield expands the vocabulary of anyone but the most erudite. Furthermore, his thinking is often intricate, nuanced, and, therefore, challenging. The Theology of B.B. Warfield, from the pen of Fred Zaspel, is then a welcome addition to all who wish to better understand Warfield. Zaspel pored through the thousands of pages of Warfield material to produce what Warfield himself never attempted: a systematic theology that reflects the contours and emphases of Warfield‘s long teaching and writing ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary (1886– 1921). Zaspel is not a Presbyterian but a Reformed Baptist, and he is best known as a proponent of New Covenant Theology. That such a person would devote such immense energy to systematizing Warfield‘s theology is surprising, because Warfield ardently affirmed infant baptism and stood in the center of the historic Reformed position. For

Book Reviews

119

the most part, however, Zaspel skillfully hides behind his subject by allowing Warfield to speak and not intruding his own theological opinions. Zaspel does occasionally critique Warfield‘s position, but he does so only on the basis of what he perceives as the weakness of a particular Warfield argument, never from the platform of an opposing theological system. This restraint on Zaspel‘s part is admirable and makes the volume useful to readers from a variety of perspectives. In the 600-page tome, Zaspel attempts to devote space in his book proportionate to Warfield‘s output. Not surprisingly, then, the longest chapter deals with soteriology. Warfield was, of course, a thorough-going Calvinist, and his rebuttals of the various liberal soteriologies that were afloat in his lifetime begin by affirming supernaturalism and end by arguing that supernatural soteriology is ultimately simply Calvinism. Readers of various persuasions may very well demur at this line of Warfield thinking, but the best tendencies of Calvinism—to emphasize man‘s utter dependence and God‘s supreme glory—are so evident throughout the chapter that one‘s heart is warmed even if one does not accept all the conclusions to which this reasoning led Warfield. Warfield‘s critique of the various versions of perfectionism that arose in Germany, Britain, and America in the nineteenth century is devastating and still extremely relevant. Anyone interacting with Keswick or higher life teachings can still benefit from Warfield‘s trenchant argumentation. Warfield is best known to conservatives for his writings in bibliology, and Zaspel does a fine job of collecting his best insights and arguments into a coherent chapter. This reviewer doubts that anyone has ever made the case for concursis—the mysterious work by which Scripture is simultaneously 100% human and 100% divine—more effectively than Warfield. His goal was to reaffirm with

120

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

power and conviction the absolute authority of Scripture, and that is a subject dear to the hearts of Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists would do well to revisit Warfield‘s careful explanations of this crucial doctrine. Perhaps the most interesting discussion in the book is Zaspel‘s treatment of Warfield‘s apologetics. It has become a commonplace in conservative apologetics to characterize Warfield as the premier evidential apologist, dominated by common-sense categories and unable to comprehend the subtleties of presuppositionalism. Zaspel argues that this portrait should be far more nuanced than it usually is (he goes so far as to criticize Cornelius Van Til for misunderstanding Warfield at this point, page 77). Warfield had a robust doctrine of total depravity; on that basis, he recognized the noetic effects of sin. Zaspel effectively counteracts the common stereotype (each quotation is from Warfield): ―Though ‗pure reason‘ be sufficient for the religion of pure nature, what warrants the assumption that its sufficiency is unimpaired when nature is no longer pure?‖ Moreover, faith ―is a moral act and not merely an intellectual assent. It is the response of the whole being to its appropriate object.‖ This necessarily implies a renewal. The fall and sin have left man with an ―intellectual imbecility‖ that only God can overcome, thus restoring a ―right reason.‖ Warfield further states that ―the condition of right thinking . . . is, therefore, that the Christian man should look upon the seething thought of the world from the safe standpoint of the sure Word of God.‖ He even goes so far as to criticize that ―concessive‖ attitude of some Christian men that leads them ―to accept the tenets which have originated elsewhere than in the Scriptures.‖ His point is clearly that Scripture alone can shape ―right thinking‖ (page 78).

As far as this goes, it is remarkably presuppositional. It was clear in the book that Warfield did utilize a form of

Book Reviews

121

evidentialism, for instance, in his methodology for establishing the trustworthiness of Scripture, but Zaspel‘s discussion certainly merits careful consideration. Warfield was apparently not as blind to presuppositions and as dominated by common-sense categories as is sometimes asserted. The last two chapters—on ecclesiology and eschatology—are rather remarkable. Throughout the rest of the book, even when one disagrees with Warfield‘s conclusions, the logical power and precision with which he makes his arguments poses a daunting challenge if one wishes to dissent from him. In contrast, his discussions of infant baptism and postmillennialism strikingly lose this potency. Perhaps, as a Baptist, Zaspel makes a weaker case in these areas, but he seems to be showing the same fidelity to Warfield that is evident throughout the book. Relative to infant baptism, Warfield argues strongly that faith must always precede baptism—an affirmation dear to the hearts of Baptists. Nevertheless, he argues that we must presume, based almost entirely on Acts 2:39 and tradition, that God gives faith to infants in covenant contexts (pages 518–522). As a Baptist this reviewer found this argumentation exceedingly fragile. Somehow, Warfield retained his postmillennialism through the First World War, but Zaspel criticizes his extremely eccentric interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6 (page 542) and notes that Warfield expressed interest in eschatology solely for ethical purposes. Every theologian is shaped by the historical context in which he works, and Warfield‘s eschatology shows signs of being assumed rather than carefully derived from Scripture. Zaspel includes a thorough bibliography, an index, and a Scripture index. He has designed the work to be eminently usable. This excellent work by Dr. Zaspel faithfully summarizes and clearly communicates the theology of B.B. Warfield. Although that theology sought to lie squarely in the center

122

Maranatha Baptist Theological Journal

of historic, Reformed confessionalism, this reviewerâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; though a Baptist dispensationalistâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;was greatly blessed by his defense of Scripture, his exaltation of Jesus Christ, and his pervasive desire to glorify God in all things.