Modern Biblical Criticism and Missions
By Arthur T. Pierson
LET us, from a higher point of view, and surveying a wider horizon, calmly but candidly consider whether the departures from the faith once delivered to the saints are already so radical as not only to upset the traditional notions that have gathered about Christianity, but to endanger its essentials, and practically to weaken, or even undermine, its noblest evangelistic enterprises. It was but twenty-five years ago, when, in 1881, the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland deposed the professor of Hebrew in the Church College at Aberdeen, Wm. Robertson Smith, because of his “higher criticism” of the Old Testament Scriptures. The novelty and freedom of his criticisms called forth strong animadversion, and, despite his eminent learning and ability as an Arabic scholar and Biblical teacher, he was removed from his chair, by a vote so emphatic as to leave no doubt that his divergence from orthodoxy was considered by the vast majority of free churchmen as destructive of evangelical faith. Yet the fact is astounding, whatever be its significance, that if, to-day, Robertson Smith were living, and held as conservative views as at that time, he would not only be left undisturbed in his chair, but would be ranked as a leader among the conservative and orthodox party! Since his day, the assault on the supernatural element in the Bible has rapidly grown bolder, and now is, in some cases, recklessly arrogant and defiant. As the whole history of this critical movement is reviewed, we note several marked steps and stages in its progress:— - Disputing the Mosaic origin and authenticity of the Pentateuch.
- Advancing the post-exilic theory of the Levitical system.
- Discrediting the historical narrative and inventing the mythical theory.
- Questioning the existence of any properly predictive element.
- Advocating rationalistic views of Old Testament inspiration.
- Attacking the authenticity and authority of the fourth Gospel.
- Denying New Testament unity of doctrine, and favoring schools—as Pauline, Petrine, Johannean.
- Modifying the previous views of the office and objects of Scripture.
- Advancing the Kenosis theory of the self-emptying of Christ; and hence,—
- Impugning his omniscience, infallibility, and essential Deity.
- Doubting, if not denying his miraculous incarnation and resurrection.
- Eliminating all that is distinctly supernatural in prophecy and miracle.
Thus, step by step, “criticism” has advanced, from the outposts to the very center of the Christian system, as though satanic malice were behind the whole movement, deliberately planning to wreck all faith of disciples in the Bible as a divine book and the final arbiter of truth and duty. Now as to the possible bearing of these doctrinal changes upon mission work, Dr. Alexander Duff’s famous motto, “The church that is no longer evangelistic will soon cease to be evangelical,” inverted, will be equally true: that the church which ceases to be evangelical will soon cease to be truly evangelistic. At the time of the Chicago Congress of Religions, in 1893, a veteran missionary, himself one of a great family that has given four generations to the mission work, distinctly predicted that such a congress would deal a more serious blow at missions than had been dealt in a century. He felt that to admit to that congress representatives of the false faiths of the world, on a platform of equality; to allow them to present their systems in their most seductive aspects without liberty of discussion, or even exposure of misstatements, falsehoods, and fallacies, would create a prepossession in favor of these antichristian religions and a corresponding prejudice against mission work from which the cause would at best slowly recover. He argued that it would be utterly incongruous to welcome these Brahman, Buddhist, Shintoist, Confucianist, and Mohammedan delegates to a common platform with Christians, as searchers after divine light and life, and thus accord to them an equal standing as representatives of truth and ethics; and then turn around and send to them Christian missionaries as refuters of their errors, antagonists of their teachings, and heralds of a gospel which declares Christ to be the one and only way of salvation. This forecast has not proved a mistaken one. The congress had scarcely closed before seductive speakers from India began courses of lectures in leading cities, setting forth the beauty of Brahmanism; and Moslem apostles began actually to organize followers of their cult in our land; and the period of joss-houses, Hindu temples and mosques began on American soil. A more serious result is that secret or open opposers of missions have developed in the churches themselves, whose plausible argument is that it is needless if not impertinent to send missionaries to proselyte Brahmans and Buddhists and Confucianists, whose systems in some respects rival if they do not surpass Christianity itself! And now the current of opposition to missions, or at least the stagnation of apathy, confronts the work from another and subtler source—the virtual if not actual denial on the part of Christian scholars of the distinctive facts and teachings of Christianity. First, hostile faiths get toleration as part of the process of evolution toward the final goal of perfection; and then the unique claims of Christianity are practically given up by not a few of its former advocates! One can not help asking: Whereunto will this thing grow? “If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” Of course if these novel modern positions are sound and true, let us have truth at all costs. No rational disciple wishes to hug fast a delusion or take refuge in what Cyprian called “the antiquity of error.” But it may be worth while to stop and seriously consider whether there has not been undue haste in rushing to unwarranted conclusions, and lifting up the ax against the carved work of the sanctuary. It enters into the very marrow of our convictions that there has been a carelessness and hurry, akin to madness, in accepting positions which have a very suspicious origin in French infidelity and German neology. It is a grave evil to follow so-called “scholars” unintelligently and blindly. Hundreds of men who have conducted no original investigation bow to the dictum of a few leaders, whose utterances are ex cathedra, and who are supposed to know, their followers fearing to appear ignorant and not up to date if they venture upon dissent. For ourselves, we dare boldly to dispute the soundness of the major part of the conclusions so hastily adopted by modern higher critics, suspicious that the game found so quickly is more veal than venison. Dr. Orr’s late book on “The Problem of the Old Testament” marks possibly the beginning, not only of a decided reaction from those extreme and destructive views, but of an open and bold protest against them. Calmly and courteously, but with a sharp blade and a master hand, he dissects this whole critical system; and the candid reader closes his volume with the feeling that he has shown so many unsound and unsafe positions, as held by modern Bible critics, as to create a presumption against the whole body of their teaching; since one fundamental fallacy may turn a whole argument into sophistry. For example, one of the most dangerous modern assaults is that upon the reality of our Lord’s resurrection, which Paul himself admits is vital to the Christian system. 1 Cor. 15: 1-20. It has been plausibly argued that the resurrection is a myth, easily accounted for on four grounds:— - The expectation of the apostles that he would rise.
- The hallucination naturally born of such confidence.
- The honest persuasion of those who thought they saw him.
- The ready acceptance of such testimony as accordant with previous expectancy.
This sounds fair and possible, but at every point it contradicts the fact. Nothing is plainer than that the very apostles themselves did not expect Christ to rise. When he died, they buried not only his body, but their hopes, in Joseph’s tomb. They wound his body tightly in many yards of linen, nearly doubling its weight with the hundred pounds of spices; they made it humanly impossible for him to move, had he awakened from his death sleep, and came after the Sabbath to complete his embalmment. Even when he rose and showed himself alive,11they were incredulous. They could not believe the testimony of eye witnesses, or even ear witnesses, and distrusted their own senses. There is, in fact, no argument for the verity of his resurrection so conclusive as that it was an event so wholly without precedent and so incredible that one nailed to the cross, pierced to the heart, and giving up his very blood, and so wrapped as to be stifled had he yet been living, should, on the third day, rise to die no more, that, notwithstanding his own prophecy, they had no real thought of its being possible. It took forty days of contact, during which he showed himself to their vision, addressed their hearing, exposed himself to their touch, ate and drank with them, and appealed to their minds by the most unique teaching they had ever heard, even from his own lips, thus to make them certain that he had risen. And it was such facts as these that compelled the skeptics, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton, when they were investigating the New Testament with a view to its refutation, to confess that no historic event is better accredited than the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is only one specimen of this plausible, but utterly fallacious and false reasoning, yet which, being hastily adopted even by professed believers, discredits the central fact and truth around which the whole gospel of salvation crystallizes—to destroy which is to make “faith vain” and “preaching vain,” and leave us hopeless in our sins. For a crucified Saviour, if not also a risen and glorified Saviour, can not save at all. If he could not deliver himself from the bondage of death, he could not destroy him who had the power of death—that is, the devil—and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Hebrews 2. If evangelical faith declines, missions will either decline, or the basis of the whole work be laid anew, in a mere philanthropic purpose to carry whatever is helpful, improving, and uplifting in occidental civilization, to the less favored and enlightened peoples of the Orient. What is called the gospel will at best degenerate into the good news of a better way to educate and develop the individual, the family, and the state. We shall be “expurgating” the Bible as a famous missionary to China already advises, and then circulating its “safe” portions for whatever good they can confer, on the same principle as we encourage the introduction of modern inventions. It is worth while to stop and solemnly ask whether we are prepared to surrender the unique claims of Christianity, with its sacred Book and its divine Person, and substitute for them a purely humanitarian impulse and appeal—admitting all foreign faiths and cults to a common place with Christianity in the process of religious evolution, and encouraging a vague and shadowy “eternal hope” that out of all the chaos of human errors and evils somehow will at last be evolved a moral cosmos, a city of God, a commonwealth of man! If we surrender the stronghold of Christianity, its one and only divine Saviour and salvation, it may involve not only the world, but the church, in a disaster which is beyond repair. If the sayings of Christ are true, it is worth while to dig deep, get beyond the shifting quicksand of human opinion, and strike bed-rock; for there is a terrible ordeal ahead of us, and in that day if our mission work falls because its foundations were wrong, great will be the fall of it. For ourselves we choose to hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints, and at risk of seeming both antiquated and illiberal, preach the one Name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.—Dr. Arthur T. Pierson, in The Missionary Review of the World for November.