The Menace Of Modernism
There are many problems that confront every Christian. The cohorts of Satan are attacking on every front and by every means possible. Worldliness, indifference, and false teaching are universal; they are not confined to the limits of the world, but gradually they have seeped through the bulwarks of the church until it is almost impossible to find a congregation where one or all of these evils do not exist. As one observes congregations throughout the country, he must honestly conclude that there are few Philippian churches to be found and far too many which have much in common with the one at Corinth. Too often we have closed our ears to the militant shouts of false teachers. If the church is to be pure, every individual Christian must at all times stand against every evil, be it even a trend or danger. One of the present evils which the church must combat is modernism. The church is not only menaced by it from without, but already it is making its bids to strangle from within.
Modernism Defined Webster defines the word modernism: "A current movement in the Protestant churches arising mainly from the application of modern critical methods to the study of the Bible and the history of dogma, and resulting in less emphasis on historic dogmas and creeds." This definition, in the broad sense, defines modernism as an approach rather than a stipulated denial of certain teachings of the Bible. Modernism is not limited to an open denial of the virgin birth of Christ and his miracles which would strip him of his garments of divinity and place him in the category of any human being. This is one form of modernism, but there are other forms and degrees which occupy their places as tendencies or trends and they are more menacing because they are not as easily detected. Funk and Wagnall define the word "modernism" as "The humanistic tendency in religious thought to supplement doctrine with philosophical learning." The essence of modernism is a philosophical and scientific approach which attempts to adapt Bible teaching to its conclusions instead of attempting to conform man's thinking to the conclusions laid down in the Bible.
The Basis of Modernism Charles Harris, author of "Creeds Or No Creeds" is quoted as saying, "By general consent the main philosophical basis of modernism is the Kantian doctrine of imminence or the relativity of human knowledge." (Bible Vs. Modernism, Trice and Roberson, p.104). Immanuel Kant was a noted philosopher of the eighteenth century, who maintained that the human mind could not know anything in the absolute but that it could only know "its own thoughts and subjective categories of thinking." This idea is featured by Lieutenant Colonel W. H. Turton in his book, "The Truth of Christianity." On page 505 Mr. Turton says, "This, then, is our final conclusion, that the truth of the Christian religion is extremely probable italics mine), because, to put it shortly, through the difficulties of accepting Christianity are great, the difficulties of rejecting it are far greater." Imagine this! Christianity, the system of Christ's teaching, presents great difficulties for men to accept it! But it so happens that this book was used as a textbook by Ralph G. Wilburn while he was a teacher in George Pepperdine College and the above statement quoted from the book was commended by him. While a few of us were disgusted and aroused to "righteous indignation" with the modernistic teachings of Ralph Wilburn, certain young men were swayed by them and succumbed to his influence. This pin-points the origin of some modernism in the church now, especially where the "protgs" of Ralph Wilburn have been and are.
The Apostle Paul says, "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col. 2:8). Paul did not deal in the realm of probabilities. He had a positive message and he spoke with assurance. Space will not permit me to make mention of the number of times that he used the word "know." Paul knew some things. This writer will string along with Paul whom he believes knew more about what he was talking about than the "modern thinker" who deals is generalities, probabilities, and obscure and meaningless phrases.
Characteristics of Modernism Having noticed briefly some of the philosophical basis of modernism, we are prepared to consider some of its present day characteristics. The modernists are constantly calling attention to "the new age" in which we are now living. They would have us to believe that unless Christianity is reconstructed and readjusted so as to be made acceptable to "the modern mind" it will lose its hold on the coming generation.
Modernism substitutes purely subjective knowledge in the place of objective knowledge. It is mysticism which according to Webster's definition is "the doctrine or belief that direct knowledge of God, of spiritual truth, etc., is attainable through immediate intuition or insight and in a way differing from ordinary sense perception . . . " As is plainly seen, modernism seeks the knowledge of God through vague speculation.
Dr. A. C. McGiffert, for many years the noted liberal president of Union Theological Seminary, in his book, "A History of Christian Thought," arrays Paul against Jesus, a characteristic of most modernists. On page 21 of this book he says, "In spite of all the differences between Paul and Jesus, in this one fundamental matter they were one — a fact of the greatest historical moment." Differences between Paul and Jesus! Where did he learn this? Certainly not from the Bible. These "brilliant" men do not know that Paul represented Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) and preached Christ (I Cor. 15:1-5; I Cor. 1:17, 23; Gal. 1:6,7; etc.) McGiffert also comments on Paul's speaking in tongues in a footnote on this same page by saying: "Speaking with tongue,' meant the utterance, under the stress of overwhelming religious emotion, of unintelligible sounds supposed of be prompted by the Spirit and to reveal his presence. The phenomenon was not confined to primitive Christianity, and is psychologically easily explicable." (Emphasis mine). Modernism is too mild a term for such teaching; it is rank infidelity! But he not only aligns Paul against Jesus but he further attempts to make the teaching of John and Paul contradictory. On page 32 he says, "On the other hand, though John, as has been seen, agreed with Paul in many matters there were great and significant differences between them. For one thing John did not accept Paul's view of the Christian's relation to law. Though he agreed with him in recognizing that salvation is a present reality and that the Christian life is divine and sinless his doctrine of Christian liberty he rejected altogether." The disgust and contempt that any true believer in God's word has for that statement is indescribable. The analysis of John and Paul as given by most modernists is that John was a "legalist" and Paul was "the preacher of grace." Naturally these "modern thinkers" who seek knowledge through vague speculation would give no consideration that Paul teaches strict obedience to the law of God. (See Rom. 6:17; 7:25).
Closely associated with modernism is transcendentalism, the doctrines of Kant, Fichte, Hegel etc. Hegel the pantheist, perhaps influenced this trend of thinking by his philosophical system more than any other man in Europe during this time. These men by their mysticism which has already been mentioned, seek to circumscribe themselves in the presence of God through the aesthetic or the love of the beautiful. The advocacy of images in buildings of worship, artistic sculpture, and stained glass windows with Bible scenes is the product of transcendentalism.
The seed-beds or trends of modernism and even the menace in its full-grown being can be detected by expressions used in speech and writings of certain ones among us. When the emphatic truths of the gospel are fearlessly proclaimed and then branded by some as "dogmatism," that we cannot be sure of our stand, when rationalization is resorted to instead of a "thus saith the Lord," book, chapter, and verse for all things that pertain to the life, work, identity, and worship of the church, and when brethren refer to "beautiful" sermons and "beautiful" worship, the earmarks of modernism are apprehended. We must remember that modernism is not the stipulated denial of certain Bible teaching such as the virgin birth, the atonement, etc., it is rather to be regarded as a philosophy, an attitude, an approach on Bible matters. When this truth is realized, the cloak of disguise now being worn by the sinister evil of modernism is quickly removed.
Results of Modernism It deals in the realm of the improbable with no definite solution to the problems with which people in this distressing age are concerned. Young men whose feet are not planted firmly in the soil of faith and whose minds are unable to detect the venomous poison of the modernist thinker become confused mentally; they become victims of a shaken faith and quite often even a lost faith. The doubts and aspersions cast upon the book which is God's revelation to man lead these students who have become "wrapped up" in the philosophical learning of these "brilliant" modern thinkers, to maintain few convictions. They dupe congregations where they preach with the same injections which they have received in the classroom. A few preachers I am afraid read more Harry Emerson Fosdick and and E. Stanley Jones than they do the Bible and it does not take one long in listening to these men speak to know where they have obtained their thoughts. Such expressions as "Christian experience" and "theological depth" are outgrowths of reading matter prepared by modernist writers. Although some of these preachers among us whose true affinities are with the denominations have taken their stand with those bodies of error, Ralph G. Wilburn, James Warren, Carl Etter, W. P. Reedy to mention a few, there remain still others who continue to work within, such as C. Wayland James of the Uptown Church of Christ in Long Beach, California, and author of the article "John Asked For His Own Funeral," which was brought to the attention of brethren in a recent issue of this paper.
How long such men will remain within our ranks before they announce their change to the denominations we do not know, but as long as they promote their modernistic views their pernicious influence will be a menace to the generations that are to follow. Whether these men stay in or get out, the damage is done and the problem they have created is more than a threat, it is a deadly tentacle that has already fastened itself upon the church of our Lord and the loyal Christian now finds himself in combat with an evil which I presume only twenty-five years ago would have been expected to be found only among the most liberal ranks of the denominations. This rapid development should jar brethren who are complacently gazing upon all issues facing the church today. It should make them realize that trends, dangers, and tendencies soon take the shape of realities.
Issues are before us now, some are old, some are new, but as long as there are gospel preachers, young and old, together with all faithful Christians standing firmly together for the absolute authority of the New Testament, and boldly standing against every movement for which there is no scriptural authority, there will be faithful, sound and loyal congregations of the Lord's church where we, can worship, and not only us but our children and their children in the generations that are to follow, if the world continues.