VIII Conclusion
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSION
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him.
1 KINGS xviii. 21
But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the law or written in the prophets.
ACTS xxiv. 14, RSV
OUR argument is done, and it only remains to draw the threads together. Let us sum up what we have tried to say.
We have traced the history and meaning of the word 'Fundamentalism', and concluded that, because of its prejudicial character, and associations, it is not a useful title for Evangelicals today.
We have expounded the biblical doctrine of biblical authority, and shown that the belief and behaviour of Christian men must be controlled and directed throughout by the teaching of Scripture. To rest content with the guidance of unreformed Church tradition, or uncriticized private opinion, not tested by the written Word, is theologically illegitimate, and Scripture warns us against lapses of this sort.
We have examined the Biblical concept of Scripture, and found that the Bible asks to be regarded as a God-given, error-free, self-interpreting unity, true and trustworthy in all that it teaches. We have seen, too, that the factor which is decisive in the creating of faith in Scripture is not the witness of any one theologian or group of theologians, nor even of the whole historic Church, but the witness of the Holy Spirit, its divine Author, who teaches Christians both to trust it as the Word of God and to understand its meaning.
We have studied the relation of reason to faith, and shown that the proper role of reason is to express faith by receiving, applying and transmitting revealed truth. We have seen that faith and reason only come into conflict when reason defies God's authority, refuses to be a servant of faith, and reverts to some sort of unbelief; and we have observed that the much-vaunted 'freedom' which reason thus gains is actually perfect slavery.
We have applied all this to Liberalism, both in its older form and in its modern dress ('Biblical Theology'), and shown that this approach to the Scriptures is not merely unscientific and uncritical, but sinful and self-contradictory too.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CONTROVERSY
Our argument has shown the real nature of the choice with which this debate confronts us. It is not a choice between obscurantism and scholarship, nor between crudeness and sensitivity in biblical exposition. It concerns quite a different issue, and a far deeper one, although critics of Evangelicalism rarely seem to see it, or if they do, are shy of discussing it. The fact is that here we are faced in principle with a choice between two versions of Christianity. It is a choice between historic Evangelicalism and modern Subjectivism; between a Christianity that is consistent with itself and one that is not; in effect, between one that is wholly God-given and one that is partly man-made. We have to choose whether to bow to the authority claimed by the Son of God, or whether on our own authority to discount and contravene a part of His teaching; whether to rest content with Christianity according to Christ, or whether to go hankering after a Christianity according to the spirit of our age; whether to behave as Christ's disciples, or as His tutors. We have to choose whether we will accept the biblical doctrine of Scripture as it stands, or permit ourselves to re-fashion it according to our fancy. We have to choose whether to embrace the delusion that human creatures are competent to judge and find fault with the words of their Creator, or whether to recognize this idea for the blasphemy that it is and drop it. We have to decide whether we are going to carry through our repentance on the intellectual level, or whether we shall still cherish our sinful craving for a thought-life free from the rule of God. We have to decide whether it is right to make such an idol of nineteenth-century biblical criticism that not even God is allowed to touch it. We have to decide whether to say that we believe the Bible and mean it, or to look for ways whereby we can say it without having to accept all the consequences. We have to choose whether to allow the sovereign Spirit to teach us faith in Scripture as such, or whether to appeal to historians to delimit the area of scriptural assertion within which faith is permissible. We have to choose whether, in presenting Christianity to others, we are going to rely on the demonstration of the Spirit to commend it, or on our own ability to make it masquerade as the fulfilment of secular thought. Evangelicals have made their choice on all these issues. What their critics are really asking them to do is to reverse it: to enter into a marriage of convenience with Subjectivism. But Evangelicals cannot in conscience consent to being thus mis-mated.
Evangelicals, indeed, are bound to oppose Subjectivism as vigorously as they can. They must do so, in the first place, because subjectivist principles, if consistently worked out, would totally destroy supernatural Christianity. If the human mind is set up as the measure and test of truth, it will quickly substitute for man's incomprehensible Creator a comprehensible idol fashioned in man's own image; man wants a god he can manage and feel comfortable with, and will inevitably invent one if allowed.1 He will forget (because he cannot understand) the infinite gulf that separates the Creator from His creatures, and will picture to himself a god wholly involved in this world and wholly comprehensible (in principle, at any rate) by the speculative intellect. It was no accident, but a natural development, that made the liberal theology of the last century so strongly pantheistic. Once men reverse the proper relation between Scripture and their own thinking and start judging biblical statements about God by their private ideas of God, instead of vice versa, their knowledge of the Creator is in imminent danger of perishing, and with it the whole idea of supernatural redemption. If they were consistent, it would perish; if in fact they remain Christians, this is despite their principles, not because of them. The preservation of the Christian knowledge of God therefore requires that all forms of Subjectivism be relentlessly opposed—including Liberalism, both ancient and modern. It is true that 'Biblical Theology' speaks as if it hopes to climb out of the subjectivist sea, but the 'critical' approach to the Bible is like a millstone round its neck, and seems likely to pull it back in. Until 'Biblical Theology' convincingly disavows Subjectivism, Evangelicals cannot regard it as a friend; and Subjectivism itself must be regarded as an enemy, wherever and in whatever guise it is found.
Then, in the second place, even when it stops short of destroying Christianity altogether, Subjectivism perverts the nature of it as a religion of grace. It is one aspect of a twofold movement which has created conflict in the Church since its beginning. The basic cause of this conflict is that sinful man would like to change the character of Christianity. Christianity is a religion of divine grace—one, that is, which declares that it is God's sovereign prerogative to give, and that man's part is only to receive. Salvation, with all that it involves, comes to man by faith; and faith is no more than an activity of reception, contributing nothing to that which it receives. Nor is there need for man to contribute to the saving gifts of God; for they are perfect in themselves, and are all that man requires. But to admit the truth of this is humbling, for it leaves man nothing to do for which he can claim credit; and sinners are proud. Hence professed Christians are tempted to pander to their pride by trying to find a way in which, after all, they can contribute something to their own salvation. These attempts are made along two main avenues; that of works, for securing acceptance with God, and that of ideas, for explicating and qualifying God's revealed truth. Both tendencies were manifested in New Testament times; Paul wrote his Epistle to the Galatians against a Judaizing Christianity which was a form of the first, and that to the Colossians against a Gnostic Christianity which was a form of the second.
The Reformers, confronted by the first tendency as it appeared in the mediæval system of meritorious works and priestly sacrifices, saw how to combat it: they condemned the system because it obscured the unique glory of Christ's perfect priesthood and sacrifice, and set men to do for themselves what Christ had done for them already. Today, the heirs of the Reformers must oppose the second tendency, as it appears in the liberal approach to revelation, on precisely similar grounds. Liberalism, as we saw, sets us the task of sorting out the divine utterances from the total mass of Scripture by the exercise of our own wits, guided in part by extra-biblical principles of judgment. But in this, again, we are being told to do for ourselves what Christ has done for us already. Christ located the utterance of God for us once and for all; it is Scripture, as such. That being so, it is not for us to pick and choose within Scripture, or to bring speculative principles to bear on Scripture, any more than we should go about to establish our own righteousness; instead, we should bow before God's written revelation without more ado, just as we should submit forthwith to the righteousness of God in the gospel. Our part is simply to receive what God graciously gives—a perfect righteousness in the one case, a perfect revelation in the other. Liberalism, like all Subjectivism, discounts the perfection and truth of Scripture in order to make room for man to contribute his own ideas to his knowledge of God, just as Mediævalism discounted the perfection of Christ's merits in order to make room for man to contribute his own merits to his acceptance with God. But Christ's merits do not need to be augmented by human works; and God's revealed truth does not need to be edited, cut, corrected and improved by the cleverness of man. To attempt either task is to insult God (by denying the perfection of His gifts) and to flatter ourselves (by supposing that we can improve on them). The only right attitude for us is to confess that our works are vile and our wisdom foolishness, and to receive with thankfulness the flawless righteousness and the perfect Scriptures which God in mercy gives us. Anything else is a conceited affront to divine grace. And evangelical theology is bound to oppose the attitude which under-values the gift of Scripture and presumes to correct the inerrant Word of God, just as it will oppose all misguided endeavours to supplement by human merit the perfect righteousness of Christ.
It is evident, in the light of all this, that the allegation that Evangelicalism is sectarian, schismatic and un-catholic in its outlook is wide of the mark. Hebert, not seeing the doctrinal issues underlying its controversy with the rest of Christendom, equates the evangelical attitude (by innuendo, at any rate) with the party-spirit fomented by the personality-cult at Corinth.1 But in fact Evangelicalism is the truest Catholicism; and the controversy which it maintains against Subjectivism (and Traditionalism too) is the clearest proof of this. After all, there is no other standard of catholicity save Christ Himself; and the dimensions of catholicity are first theological and then historical, and not numerical at all. The catholicity of Evangelicalism appears, first, in its uncompromising submission to the teaching of Christ and of Scripture on authority, as on all other matters, and, second, in its oneness with all those who down the ages have taken this same position, bowing to the authority of Scripture, glorying in the biblical gospel of free grace, and contending earnestly for the apostolic faith. Those who are conscious of standing with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Baxter, Owen, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards; with the Reformers, Huguenots, Puritans, Covenanters; with the Evangelicals of the eighteenth century and the architects of the world missionary movement in the nineteenth—to mention no more—such need not fear for their catholicity. Evangelicals may seem no more than a dissentient minority in the present-day Church, but this is no new state of affairs; Luther once seemed to be in a minority of one; so did Elijah, and Jeremiah, and Paul. Indeed, there are comparatively few periods in history when Evangelicals have been more than a dissentient minority within a larger group, meeting indifference, if not unfriendliness, from fellow-members of their churches. But true catholicism is not a matter of being in the biggest party. Numerically, the unreformed Church of Rome is the biggest party; but many anti-fundamentalists would no doubt agree with four centuries of Protestant theology that the self-styled 'Catholic Church' is in fact the biggest schismatic group in Christendom. It is often said that one with God is a majority, however many stand against him; and it is no less true that one with Christ is a catholic Christian, however many deny his right to the title.
THE LESSONS OF THIS CONTROVERSY
What should Evangelicals do in face of the current criticisms ? We would mention three things.
First, we must humbly and honestly examine ourselves in the light of the strictures that have been passed on our practice. What they suggest is that we have not in fact lived under the authority of Scripture as conscientiously as we should have done. We may quote here from a review of Hebert's book by an evangelical writer :
'As a display of certain evangelical prejudices and idiosyncrasies, the book might well make many loyal Evangelicals sit up and do some salutary thinking. There is a place for repentance in the Christian life, both for moral waywardness and intellectual stubbornness . . .
'. . . There is more than one shrewd blow against the ultra-subjective nature of much evangelical preaching, devotion and living. In places, evangelical life is superficial and rootless, lacking the stability which a historical tradition can give'—although, he adds, 'if Evangelicals lack a sense of their glorious heritage, that is not because the heritage does not exist…
'Then we readily admit that much evangelical worship is slipshod, and sometimes even downright irreverent. This may be partly due to our excessive preoccupation with children's work. Many never move on to the richness and depth of adult Christianity… The majesty and glory of "gospel worship" (as our forefathers termed it) is often missing … The answer is . . . the recovery of the dignity of the evangelical message itself—the greatness of the gospel which the minister preaches, the hymns enshrine, and the prayers dwell upon in adoration, thanksgiving and petition…'1
There is no doubt that we need to put our house in order. And if the current spate of criticism moves us to do so, then the 'Fundamentalism controversy' will have done immense good in invigorating the evangelical cause.
Second, we must keep before us the real issues in this debate, and try to keep discussion centred upon them. As we saw, the critics of Evangelicalism are anxious to give the impression that serious doctrinal issues are not involved at all; but we have shown that this is the very reverse of the truth. We have seen what the real issues are : the authority of Christ and of Scripture; the relation between the Bible and reason; the method of theology, and the meaning of repentance; the choice between Evangelicalism and Subjectivism. Until agreement is reached on these matters, it is profitless to start discussing the other subjects—the doctrine of the Church, for instance, or the nature of the atonement—which have come up in the course of the controversy. First principles must be first dealt with. Evangelicals should not let themselves be intimidated by the shower of explosive words—'Fundamentalist', 'obscurantist', 'literalist' and the rest—that is regularly poured out upon them. They should request a reasoned statement of the accusations preferred against them, and offer a reasoned defence of their position in terms of their own first principles. That defence, no doubt, will involve some kind of criticism of the position of their accusers—as it has done in this book. But this is as it should be. For Evangelicals are bound, as servants of God and disciples of Christ, to oppose Subjectivism wherever they find it. Defending truth, and exposing error, are two aspects of the same task.
Third, we ought to take courage. When Evangelicalism can be ignored, it is weak; when it is no longer possible to ignore it, it is certainly growing stronger. The fact that the present controversy is in progress at all is a testimony to renewed vitality in evangelical circles. For it is the nature of the gospel to create controversy; and the vigour with which the gospel is spoken against is an index of the faithfulness and power with which it is being preached. And so we would end this book by quoting and applying to the present situation some words written by Machen a generation ago, at an earlier stage in this conflict:
'Let us not fear the opposition of men : every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt, will cause disputing; and if it does not cause disputing and arouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed. As for me, I believe that a great opportunity has been opened to Christian people by the "controversy" that is so much decried. Conventions have been broken down; men are trying to penetrate beneath pious words to the thing that these words designate; it is becoming increasingly necessary for a man to choose whether he will stand with Christ or against Him. Such a condition, I for my part believe, has been brought about by the Spirit of God; already there has been genuine spiritual advance . . . And God grant that His fire be not quenched! God save us from any smoothing over of these questions in the interests of a hollow pleasantness; God grant that great questions of principle may never rest until they are settled right! It is out of such times of questioning that great revivals come. God grant that it may be so today! Controversy of the right sort is good; for out of such controversy, as Church history and Scripture alike teach, there comes the salvation of souls.'1
F.—12