A strange situation presents itself in Presbyterian ranks, with a public controversy on between two Presbyterian church papers. That being possible under their form of organization and their concept of a church organ, the significant point is that it is another internecine clash between Fundamentalism and Modernism, which issue is rocking all the leading denominations. Dr. Edmund B. Chaffee, Modernist, and editor of the Presbyterian Tribune, with twelve other Presbyterian churchmen, contesting Catholic Cardinal Hayes's use of Scripture in his famous antibirth-control sermon, made the following amazing statement:
"The longest argument in the cardinal's sermon and the one upon which he ultimately bases his case, is found in the statement that birth control is contrary to the commandment of the Deity. This is true if by the Deity we mean the God that is found in ancient myth and legend. This is not true, however, if by the Deity we mean the god who is revealed in the endless sweep of evolution and whose majestic message is being slowly translated by science into the accents of the human tongue. The lower down we go in the scale of evolution, the less limitation we find imposed upon the spawning process. The higher we rise, the more restriction and restraint is placed, we discover, upon the powers of reproduction. In other words, instead of violating the law of nature and nature's God through birth control, we are merely giving sight and intelligence to what in nature is a blind and groping impulse. If the cardinal chooses to accept the literal interpretation of Old Testament statements as infallible doctrine, we register no complaint, nor should he complain if we choose instead to base our faith upon the evidence, the knowledge, and the experience available in our own time."
This drew the fire of the Fundamentalist Presbyterian, with an uncomfortable series of analytical questions, the full significance of which should not be lost upon us. Be it remembered that this is Fundamentalism's analysis of Modernism's bold and anti-Christian platform. Note it:
"At the beginning of Doctor Chaffee's career as an ordained Presbyterian minister, he declared before God, in the presence of presbytery, that he 'believed the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.' Now he writes the above statement. Quite seriously and with entire friendliness we ask Doctor Chaffee; 'How, sir, do you reconcile those two statements?'
"We believe this very practical item of public testimony from a Presbyterian minister brings out in a rather striking way some of the great fissures which divide our whole church from end to end.
"Is the God of Sinai a Deity of myth and legend'? "Is God revealed in 'the endless sweep of evolution' and not in the Old Testament?
"Is revelation something that 'is being slowly translated by science into the accents of the human tongue' as contrasted with the 'Thus saith the Lord' of Holy Writ?
'Does man have to 'give sight and intelligence to what in nature is a blind and groping impulse,' and thus be god to the 'god of endless evolution,' otherwise impotent, incoherent, and ignorant? Is the Roman Catholic cardinal to be humored in his choice of 'accepting the literal interpretation of the Old Testament statements as infallible doctrine,' while he must permit his emancipated correspondents, 'if we choose, instead, to base our faith upon the evidence, the knowledge and the experience available in our own time?' "
Rebuttal by the Editorial Council of twenty, of the Modernist Tribune, complains in a very revealing way against the Fundamentalist attack as follows:
"Doctor Chaffee is attacked because the letter of the thirteen ministers asserts that not every statement in the Old Testament must be regarded as final truth. The attack on him implies that Presbyterian ministers are under obligation to hold Cardinal Hayes's views that all that is found in the Old Testament is infallible doctrine.
"The issue here presented is that of Scriptural inerrancy. In the Presbyterian Church there are hundreds of ministers who receive the Bible, Old Testament and New, as containing the revelation of God culminating in Christ ; who regard the Bible as inspired by God ; who preach from the Bible and teach its truth ; who find in the Bible their spiritual home, who would be lost for their own lives and for their ministry without the Bible; and who yet do not consider themselves obliged to accept every statement in the Bible as 'without error,' They make no secret of their views. They hold that their views are not inconsistent with their assent to the church's constitutional question regarding the Scriptures. They take the words, 'only infallible rule of faith and practice,' to mean that the Bible infallibly guides to saving faith and right practice, not to mean that every statement in it regarding astronomy or geology or history is factually accurate. They think that by mentioning 'the Old and New Testaments' the constitutional question brings to attention the advance in knowledge of God from the Old Testament to Christ in the New. These ministers hold that while so believing and teaching they have a right to be ministers of the Presbyterian Church ; and they would be supported in their right by multitudes of lay people of the church."
Then, in a final rejoinder, the Fundamentalist Presbyterian summarizes the issue thus:
"The issue we raised, the council says, is 'scriptural inerrancy.' So it is, but it is an issue raised, not by us, but by the standards of our church, and endorsed by every ordained officer who subscribes to this formula, viz., 'Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of Got, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?' The position taken by the Editorial Council, on the contrary, is that the Bible 'contains' the word of God. What view of Scripture Cardinal Hayes takes is not before us. nor are we asking any Presbyterian minister to find and adopt it. All we ask is, How can a minister sign a paragraph like that quoted from the letter to Cardinal Hayes, and make it go along with our Presbyterian position?
"That many hold the position voiced in the statement of the Editorial Council of the Tribune, we know to be true. There are so many, in fact, that we believe we were right in saying it brought out 'some of the great fissures which divide our whole church.' "
Thus we have before us another current illustration of the sad issues that wrack the great Protestant bodies. The fundamental issue is indeed "Scriptural inerrancy,"—whether the Bible is, or merely contains, the word of God. And this basic issue constitutes one of the great "fissures which divide our whole [Presbyterian] church," and the other great bodies of Christendom. On this, we as Adventists stand as a Fundamentalist unit. We must indeed know our ground thoroughly, for this is one of the great dividing lines of Christendom, underlying all other issues. And on this and similar departures, we are bound before God to lift our voices in exposure and warning. We are raised up as witnesses to truth and light in a world gone apostate, and plunging on into ever-increasing darkness.
L. E. F.