A FreeThinker on the Fundamentalists one didn't like it one stayed away. There was no deception about my goods. ilut Dr. --, and the many hundreds like him in all the churches, were pal– tering with words in a double sense. And the first mission of the Fundamen– talist movement was to insist upon men·s saying exactly what they meant and meaning what they said. The old dogmas were to be applied as tests. The Bible was the Word of God. Tnis and liberalists in the churches. He meant that every word of it was trne, says: and divinely revealed. Christ was Goe. SOCIETY of British rational- ists publishes each year an "annual" containing essays on Free Thought. This year's Is– m
sue contains a most significant article on "The Fundamentalist Movement in American Protestantism/' written by a Chicago free-thinker, one H. J. Bridges, of the Chicago Ethical Society. Our readers will be interested to know what such a person thinks of fundamentalists "There are several features a~ou t this movement which should render it welcome to those who believe in free– dom of thought and desire extinction of superstition. For one thing, it brings into clear focus an issue which has vexed the consciences of thoughtful men for many years, but which has hitherto been utterly ignored by the mass of the public. I mean the ques– tion of intellectual honesty in church and pulpit. In a recent conference of re– Egious liberals in the Middle West, after I had expounded the standpoint of the Ethical Society and expressed the con– viction that religious reconstruction on the basis of any theological creed what– soever is impossible, I was followed by a distinguished teacher in the Divinity School of a great university, who gave one of the cleverest exhibitions of the art of riding two horses at once that I have ever witnessed. He paid hi• com– pliments in clear enough terms to the 'Fundamentalists,' but expressed his own views about God, Christ, the Dible, and the Church, in language of masterly vagueness and ambiguity. "The next speaker was a 'Fundamen– talist,' and with him the fun began. To me he was exceedingly polite. My lan– guage had at least been plain. I did not claim the Christian name, or pre– tend to be preaching the old doctrines. One knew exactly where I stood, and if
made man, born of a virgin, who died to save men from an eternal fire, into which they would certainly go if they Tefused Him. No preacher was to be tolerated who would not positively, ex anin10, profess and teach these things. No more talking about them in a Pick– wickian sense. No more calling the Bible inspired and meaning that it is no otherwise inspired than Plato or Shakespeare. No more mouthing about 'the divinity of our Lord' and meaning that He was only a rather more enlight– ened and helpful teacfier than Buddha and Mohammed. No more blather about miracles, and meaning that the thin!( either didn't happen or was per– fectly natural. No more saying, 'Con– ceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,' and meaning, 'Conceived of the carpenter Joseph and born of his wife.' No more using the word 'I be– lieve in the Resurrection of the Body' (or 'the flesh'-if that's any different) and meaning, 'I have a vague idea that, although the body is done for, the spirit may possibly survive.' In short, no more pulpit lying, no more 'economy'; commnn honesty and truthfulness in the pulpit. The preacher must say what he really believes, like a man. If his con– gregation agree with him, they will re– tain him, and droo their old creed and their old denominational name. If not, they will retain these things and eend
WHEN? (See Page 886)
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs