OUR LONDON LETTER by M. Ellsworth Olsen

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · May 25, 1904

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 30, No. 21.

OUR LONDON LETTER.

By M. Ellsworth Olsen

Canon Hensley Henson on the Future of the Bible.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

Hardly have the echoes of the enthusiastic Albert Hall meeting of the British and Foreign Bible Society died away, before an article appears in one of the leading English reviews (The Contemporary Review, April, ’04), giving a radically different view of the whole matter at issue. The writer, Rev. H. Hensley Henson, is Canon of Westminster, and Rector of St. Margarets; he is, moreover, a man of no mean ability, whose sermons are widely quoted, and whose influence upon London religious thought is perhaps second to none.

It is, therefore, no ordinary attack upon the Bible that we have to deal with; in fact we can hardly call it an attack; it seems more in the nature of a frank statement of the light in which the Holy Scriptures are viewed by the generality of professing Christians of to-day and a tentative inquiry into the position which they will occupy in the near future.

The author says that the Albert Hall meeting was a most impressive and remarkable demonstration, and that any celebration which can combine so many religious interests has “obvious claims to the attentive study of thoughtful observers of contemporary life.”

But, while yielding due admiration to the greatness of the undertaking and the actual results which the society has achieved, he has his misgivings, and thinks that now, with the celebration itself in the past, the question may properly be asked, “What will be the place of the Bible in the future?” To this question he gives a partial answer in the words: “It can not for one moment be questioned that many causes have conduced to work something like a revolution in educated Christian thought with respect to the sacred writings of Christianity.”

Then follows some further strictures on the Bible, more especially what he calls the older Scriptures, which he considers contain “absurdities and moral crudities,” to which the Christian conscience must take exception. But the reader will understand the real animus of the article best by a quotation. Referring to the work of the higher critics and the demand for a general revision of belief on various points, he says: “Teachers of the young are continually clamoring for some escape from the difficulties in which they find themselves placed when they handle the Old Testament, and some praiseworthy attempts are being made to satisfy the new and ever-growing demand. A well-known head master has just published an Old Testament history for schools, which provides an interesting example of the attitude toward the Scriptures which now obtains. It is hardly too much to say that Dr. Fry systematically and effectually strips the narrative of its supernatural element. He does not anywhere in so many words deny the Biblical miracles, but he invariably adopts a mode of speech which suggests that the miracles did not happen. Thus we are continually told that such and such were the beliefs which the Israelites had about themselves and their history. Whether the beliefs are true is not stated, and yet sometimes the beliefs in question might almost be called the cornerstones of dogmatic fabrics, which it is hard to banish from the Christian sphere.”

In order that his readers may have a clear understanding of the kind of teaching which this “praiseworthy” book contains, the canon quotes the following paragraph, describing the giving of the law from Sinai:—

“When they came to Sinai, Moses went up into the mount to speak with Jehovah; and when he came down, the people were kept from touching the sacred mountain, lest they should perish or gaze upon God; for this was what ancient people thought possible. And Jehovah, the God of the Storm Clouds, came down amidst thunderings and lightnings; but only Moses and Aaron were suffered to go up onto the mount. It was believed that Jehovah Himself at Sinai gave Moses the Law. We read of a visit to the Holy Mount paid by Moses, Aaron, and Abihu, with seventy elders. These, the story says, actually saw God, and suffered not. These are very primitive thoughts.”

Such is the teaching which a high official in the Church of England says is the spiritual milk provided for babes in orthodox seminaries of to-day, and for which he asks public recognition. Could we have a more striking fulfilment of those solemn, prophetic words, “When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth”? Truly it is a sad commentary on the popular religious life of the day when such statements from the highest sources go entirely unchallenged.

It is hardly necessary to quote further from the article in question, which occupies six closely-printed pages, and deals with various phases of the subject. The author says that for its literary beauties, the Bible will always retain a hold on the people. It is also the best corrective of ecclesiastical corruption, and as a manual of practical morality. But as to the divine revelation to man of his duties in this life and the glories of the life to come, this accredited minister of the Gospel has not one word to say. In fact, he scouts the idea entirely. The Bible is to him evidently a mere human collection of books, some of which contain great literary beauties. There is crying need, he urges, of a thorough-going revision of the lectionary. Portions of Scripture are now read in the church service which are utterly unsuitable, according to the author, who is pleased to characterize some portions of the Bible as “a pack of lies too gross for toleration.” The present indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures in public, he would have us believe, is “an extremely perilous proceeding.” On the other hand, he advocates the reading of other religious works in the pulpit as affording a pleasing variety and calculated to make the service more spiritually helpful.

These are, in brief, the canon’s views, and, while they have been widely quoted and referred to, there has been but little comment on them. This goes to show that the article voices the sentiment of a large class of church-going people, and is therefore a striking revelation of the utter want of living faith which is characteristic of the professed Christianity of to-day.

M. ELLSWORTH OLSEN.

London, Eng., Apr. 29, ’04.