T H E K I N G ’S B U S I N E S S
463
all of these g reat questions. He says specifically in th e sermon th a t he is “ speaking from the viewpoint of lib eral opinion.” His whole sermon, in fact, was a caricature, on one Side, of those who hold to th e orthodox Christian faith, and, on th e other, a most adroit and insidious appeal for th e radical and revolutionary views which today are underm ining th e faith of multitudes, leading many young men to leave the m inistry, hindering th e m issionary cause, and doing irrep arab le damage to th e Kingdom of God a t every vital point. Is it to be wondered at, therefore, th a t th e Ed ito r of THE PRESBYTE RIAN, in commenting upon th e amazing shiftiness of Dr. Fosdick, said in a re cent searching editorial: “Dr. Fosdick takes th e same view of th e au tho rity of th e Bible and of th e essential doctrines ta u g h t in It and accepted by th e church, as did Colonel Robert Ingersoli. They both reject th e Old Testament, and rehearse its m istakes. They accept th e New Testam ent in its social teachings of Christ, b u t reject all of its g reat fun damentals. Both Dr. Fosdick and Col onel Ingersoli were brought up in th e church. The difference between the two is this: When Colonel Ingersoli knew his beliefs were antagonistic to th e church, he w ithdrew and carried on his propaganda independently, ac cepting th e responsibility and mainte nance of th e same himself. Dr. Fos dick is determ ined to rem ain inside the church and fight h er by the boring process w ithin h er own walls, and com pel th e church to m aintain him and be responsible for him and his propa ganda. R ath er th an w ithdraw and follow his own course in his own way and w ith his own support, he means to stay in th e church, and by a b itter fight compel th e church to endorse him or exclude him and his followers. How
meaning is desired. The statem ent th a t God created th e heavens and the earth becomes in th is way an affirma tion of evolution: th e Virgin B irth af firms th e reality of Christ’s hum an n a tu re ; and th e Resurrection of th e Flesh affirms th e Imm ortality of th e Soul. Perform ed w ith skill, th is dia lectical legerdemain is very soothing to a no t unduly intelligent congrega tion, and prevents any breach in th e apparen t continuity of the Church’s be lief. It also prevents any undue ac rimoniousness of theological debate, for debate is difficult if words may he in terp reted to mean th e opposite of th e ir historical significance.” Dr. Fosdick Hedging Dr. H arry Emerson Fosdick, a Bap tis t preacher pastoring a P resbyterian Church, which in itself is a little ano malous, preached some tim e ago a ser mon against fhe F undam entalists. In th is sermon Dr. Fosdick repudiated th e V irgin B irth of Christ, th e tru e In sp ira tion of th e Scriptures, and th e Second Coming of our Lord, and also gave evi dence of lack of faith in th e Vicarious A tonement. Quite a storm of protest has been raised by these utterances, and now Dr. Fosdick, in a le tte r to the Ed ito r of one of th e Southern religious papers, seeks to create the impression th a t th e radical utterances in th a t sermon were not tru ly representative of his own convictions. He says in his. le tte r th a t the purpose behind his utterances was “ not to sta te my own point of view bu t to sta te two opposite points of view, which ought to be al lowed in th e Christian church.” This is an amazing statem en t from Dr. Fosdick, because, in his sermon, copy of which I have before me as I w rite, while he does sta te two opposing points of view about th e virgin birth, the inspiration of th e Scripture, th e second coming of our Lord, etc., he nevertheless explicitly champions th e radical and sceptical point of view upon
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker