A Rebuke to Liberalism

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 9, 1908

A Rebuke to Liberalism

AMONG the few men in orthodox religious circles who stand for primitive Christianity in opposition both to the “New Theology” and to the spirit of compromise with liberalism, is Dr. Arthur T. Pierson, the editor-in-chief of The Missionary Review of the World. While Dr. Pierson writes in a careful way, yet he deals plainly with the present tendencies in the religious world, and is a positive advocate of the old-fashioned religion. In the April number of the Missionary Review there appears an article from his pen entitled, “What Are the Limits of Christian Toleration?” the opening sentence of which is this: “One of the conspicuous signs of the times is the new attitude of tolerance toward those who differ, especially in matters pertaining to religion.” Later on he says: “A religious ‘Tribunal of The Hague’ seems already in sight, where all conflict and controversies are to be settled by compromise; and whether this is on the whole to be welcomed as an unmixed good, is what, perhaps, it becomes us to consider.”

From Dr. Pierson’s discussion of this subject we make some extracts:—

For the first three centuries the world and the church were arrayed against each other with mutual hostility. It was believed that they were so essentially at war that their opposing principles and tendencies were irreconcilable: those who belonged to Christ expected to be hated of all men for his name’s sake. Under Constantine the world and the church were wedded in a state church, with the emperor at its head. The via crucis [way of the cross] became the via lucis [way of light], self-denial was displaced by self-indulgence; the confession of Christ became the signal, not for the cross, but for the crown, and many thought the millennium had dawned. The church won the world, and disarmed opposition; but, meanwhile, the world captured the church, and leavened it with secularism. The world became more churchly, but the church vastly more worldly. . . .

The bearing of this matter upon mission work, and in fact upon the whole conflict of Christianity with heathenism and skepticism, is of immense importance. Some of us can not avoid a profound misgiving that there is a peril in union that may be worse than in separation, and that some peace may be bought at the price of purity—a daubing of a falling wall with untempered mortar, a yielding of what is vital, a sacrifice of truth.

Dr. Pierson then refers to “two marked manifestations of this tendency toward toleration”—a willingness to compromise with heathenism by extolling “the qualities of Oriental consciousness,” and “their potential value for the higher interpretation of the Christian religion;” and “the elimination of dogma from Christianity, and the substitution of unselfish ministry to all who have need, in its place.” Of this latter movement he says:—

The “League” which is to take the place of the worn-out and virtually defunct church, is not to be called a church, nor to have creeds, forms, or subscriptions. Its law is to be freedom; its condition, service. It is to unite all who love humanity in the common service of humanity. It is to be a society of equals. It will worship Christ, but neither as God nor man; rather as a living presence in all men, making all men divine.

This last paragraph would serve fairly well as a characterization of the apostasy with which we have been compelled to deal in our own ranks during recent years.

The closing paragraphs of this article deal with the principles involved in the substitution of human philosophy for the old gospel, and suggests the effective remedy for the present condition of things in the religious world:—

To count it a matter of indifference what one believes, provided he is sincere, is to make it no longer worth while either to search after truth or to obey it when found. Right and truth, and wrong and error, are eternally allied, and no human policy can reverse these relations. It can never be a matter of no moment what a man holds to be true. We are to “hold fast the form of sound words, . . . in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” Such lectures as we have instanced, addressed to the heathen, make inconsistent a gospel message that makes salvation to depend on the acceptance of Jesus Christ. Such a “League of Service,” however noble as a philanthropic measure, can never take the place of the church which its Founder declared built upon the confession of himself as Christ the Son of the living God. While the New Testament remains our guide, our love for all men must not blind us to their doctrinal errors, nor to the danger they involve. Salvation prepares for service. Men need first of all to be saved from both their errors of unbelief and their iniquities of life; then, built upon Christ as the Saviour, the Son of God, the Lord of life, faith in him makes ready for a service in his name that is not the product of a capricious impulse or a transient sentiment, but a principle of life as unchanging as God himself.

If, as Mr. Dawson contends, the church has failed, possibly the remedy lies not in substituting for it a League of Service, but in a return toward the primitive beliefs and practises that made the apostolic church the greatest league of service the world has ever seen. If the idols could be put away—the idolatry of music, architecture, oratory, and estheticism generally; if money and culture and rank could be less the standards which attract homage and foster caste; if selfishness, with its love of ease and its love of novelty, could be displaced by a Christlike self-denial and devotion to eternal truth; if prayer were more cherished as the great motive power in holiness and service; if, in a word, the Spirit of the living, loving God could have in his own house more liberty to work unhindered, so that he could do his mighty works—it is quite possible that the lost dynamic of the pulpit might be restored, and the lost hold of the church on the common people be regained. While we are looking about for a substitute for God’s imperial institution, it may be well to inquire whether, by proper repentance and retracement of steps, we might not find in the way of new conformity to his pattern also new endowment with his power.

These are weighty words which we do well to ponder seriously. While on the one hand they justify the church in separating from its membership those who have departed from the truth, even though they may be engaged in a worthy philanthropic enterprise, yet they also faithfully point out the things which

hinder the efficient work of the church. A zeal for orthodoxy can not be substituted for the power of the Holy Spirit, and we greatly need a more marked manifestation of apostolic success in winning souls for the truth. When we “present as earnest supplications from broken, contrite, believing hearts as did the apostles, then the same proportion of success will attend” our labors. While conserving apostolic truth, we should reveal apostolic experience in our work.