An Open Letter to a Modernist In Reply to an Open Letter to a Fundamentalist Who Had No Comeback
American Missionary” is a e-honored Congregational ;an representing m issionary jrests of th e denom ination.
and your knowledge of every other phase of life in an o th er compartment, totally unrelated to th e first. But I know you can do it and I suspect th a t many another good man has done it be fore you. On this basis of theological uniform ity we shall never be able to g ef to gether. But does th a t m a tte r much? May we not judge one ano ther by our fruits, as Jesus told his disciples to judge men? P au l’s list of these frq its of th e Spirit is, as you remember, com prehensive and awakening. Finding these in you, I don’t much care what your creed may be; and if you find these fru its in me, can’t you accept me, even if you can’t accept my conclusions? If we have the Spirit of Christ, then we both belong to him and nothing should be perm itted to separate us. “We be brethren, sons of our F ath e r.” Isn ’t th a t true? Then h ere’s my hand in brotherly accord. The Rev. B. W. Burleigh, Congrega tional pastor a t Dunlap, Iowa, replied to the above le tte r under the caption: “Aii Open L etter to a Modernist.” Of course the editor declined to publish it, saying: “ Our magazine is no place for contro versial letters representing either one side or the other of any school of theo logical opinion,”— and this in the face of the fact th a t th e open le tte r to the Fundam entalist is a blow a t everything for which the Congregational Church has stood, a most one-sided affair from sta rt to finish, putting a question mark as ,to the thinking capacity of anyone standing for th e evangelical faith. It requires an answer, and we have gotten hold of Mr. Burleigh’s reply, which is em inently fair and considerate.
On th e first inside page of the November number the magazine carried “An open le tte r to a Fundam en talist,” as follows: My dear B rother: You are a “F und am en talist.” I am not. You1consider certain theological views, which were thoroughly acceptable to a form er generation, bu t which many professed Christians have now either modified or abandoned, essential to real Christianity. I, on the o th er hand, am quite willing th a t theology should change w ith men’s changing knowledge. Indeed, r deem it a laudable thing th a t we should endeavor to fit together in ordered symmetry the tru th we read in God’s lib rary of N ature and th a t which appears in his library we call the Bible, and th a t which is to be found in the new books which he is ever w riting in men’s new experiences. But I am not inditing th is epistle in order to question your views or to de fend my own. As a m a tte r of fact, I remember th a t my fa th e r’s ideas were very much like yours and th a t I myself, and many of the so-called liberal Chris tians of my acquaintance, were brought up on them . The question I want to put before you is this: Are not you and I both tempted to lay too much stress on theology and no t enough on the possession of an active Christian purpose? From the standpoint of dogma and doctrine, I fear I must, look p retty black to you, and from my standpoint it is hard to see how you can perform the difficult feat of keeping your religious ideas in one compartment of your mind
Made with FlippingBook Online document