reformed blogging.

A few nights ago I had a difficult time falling asleep, I don’t know why but Harry Emerson Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” was on my mind. I had only heard mention of it through various biographies and in relation to Old Princeton and especially J. Gresham Machen, but never actually read it so I decided to do just that.

In reading Fosdick’s message I was surprised to find how pertinent it is to today. One would not be surprised to hear the main thrust of his message echoed in many of today’s emerging churches. Some have even commented on this movement saying that it is the old Liberalism in new clothes. The connection between today’s emerging Church and yesterday’s Liberalism quickly becomes apparent in reading through Fodick’s message. Though Fosdick denies a good number of Fundamental doctrines (included in this is the historicity of certain miracles, the virgin birth, the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, a “special theory” of the atonement) the main point of his message is built on a supposed tension between doctrine and unity within the Church. To him, of course, Christianity is not about doctrines but about furthering the “cause of Jesus Christ” (how one can distinguish the two is beyond me) and any controversy over “uncertain” doctrines will be no help to such a cause. The problem, however, is that once you do away with all these supposedly “uncertain” doctrines, you have no Christianity left.

Rather than point out Fosdick’s error regarding each of these fundamental doctrines, I think we will find some value in considering Fosdick’s assertion of what we ought to do instead since his exhortation is not uncommon today. Quickly, here is the context of the Fundemenalist controvery: the Fundamentalists wanted Liberal or Modernists within the Church who were denying what all of what Christianity consists of, namely doctrines to stop calling themselves Christians. The presupposition of the Liberals was that Christianity is more about following an example, showing “Christian love” to one another rather than a religion based on doctrines (hence they had no difficulty doing away with the historicity of events described in Scripture). While it is certainly true that we ought to follow Christ’s example, this is not the core of Christianity. To reduce Christianity to mere doing, to an imperative while neglecting the great indicative is to revert back to works based righteousness, or to become like every other religion. Christianity is a religion that is founded upon belief in historical events. This is because it is not about what we did or what we do, but about what God did, namely sending His Son. All our obedience, then, is based on this indicative. Any obedience that is not from faith in what Christ has done is disobedience. That is why mere moralism will never get anyone into heaven, because it is not from faith, but is still based on man motivated works.]

Fosdick’s passage was based on Acts 5 (which shows that one can preach from the Bible without actually preaching its message). He appealed to Gamaliel’s counsel to the Sanhedrin, namely, to leave the Christians alone since God would get rid of them if they were not truly from Him. The problem with such an application of this passage is manifold:

1. The rest of Scripture is ignored. I’m thinking mainly of the Epistles wherein constant warning is given to purge the Church of false teachers and to beware of unorthodox doctrine. (See Romans - Revelation).
2. Gameliel was not a Christian, he was a Jew, the Sanhedrin was not the Church, they were Jewish religious leaders.
3. On one side there were the non-Christian Jews and the other side were the Christians. Gamaliel is advising the Sanhedrin to allow the Christians to exist and to do what they’re doing. This has nothing to do with the Church. The Fundamentalists weren’t persecuting the Liberals (as the Jews were doing to the early Church), they just wanted them to have integrity. Christians are not to persecute others for their beliefs, yet when such beliefs enter the Church it is to be done away with in order to protect the Church. A better example would probably be Paul’s relation to the Christian Judaizers. They were within the Church but preached no true gospel and thus Paul desired to expel them from the Church. However, Christians never went out of their way to the Jews to kick them out of the world. Likewise, Fundamentalists simply wanted a Church free from soul-destroying moralism. They wanted to keep the gospel pure and unadulterated.

Fosdick sets up the intolerant Fundamentalists up against the “tolerant” Liberals. We see a similar antithesis between those in the Church today who would maintain historic Christian doctrines and those who would rather “be like Christ.” The problem with the latter group is that to be like Christ on any foundation other than the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, ends up being sheer legalism. In seeking the “weightier matters of the Law” Fosdick forgets the gospel of Christ entirely and Liberalism becomes just another type of Pharisaic legalism.

Fosdick concludes:

If, during the war, when the nations were wrestling upon the very brink of hell and at times all seemed lost, you chanced to hear two men in an altercation about some minor matter of sectarian denominationalism, could you restrain your indignation? You said, “What can you do with folks like this who, in the face of colossal issues, play with the tiddledywinks and peccadillos of religion?” So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith. . . .

Where is salvation for man but in the gospel of Christ? And what is the gospel but a historical account of what God has done, a proposition that needs to be believed. In the great battle for the doctrines of Christianity the Fundamentalists did not strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, rather they sought to maintain the very foundation of that which is necessary if anyone is to be saved. Such a battle continues to be waged today and we must lose no ground to those who argue for a “Christ-like” love while seeking to sneak in a false gospel through the back door.