The first time I read through this sermon, I found myself taking in every word with great delight, but then I read it through again and I found myself completely shocked at how different my response was. It is very easy to read or hear something once, and not truly understand what is being addressed, or what is meant. There are many different words that can “dress up” the main points so that they will be overlooked. I definitely did not overlook the points being made when I read it the second time.
These two quotes at the beginning of the sermon stand out to me: 1- “Their apparent intention is to drive out of the evangelical churches men and women of liberal opinions.” 2- “The Fundamentalist program is essentially illiberal and intolerant.”
He is not explaining very well how the Fundamentalists are exactly “out on a campaign to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship.” He explains that the conservative Christians are having difficulty keeping this new scientific knowledge in one compartment and their Christian faith in the other, but I am not seeing where he explains Fundamentalists breaking a part the fellowship Christians have with other Christians. How is clinging to the Word, breaking a part fellowship?
I question how he uses the word “insist” when describing what the Fundamentalists want us to believe. I am sorry, but if we cannot trust the entire bible, why trust it at all? It seems pointless to me to even call myself a Christian if I cannot declare the Bible to be inerrant. If liberal Protestants deny the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles, and claim that Jesus’ death was not “subsitutionary,” then how can they believe in anything Jesus’ claimed or did? In my opinion, that turns the Bible into a fascinating work of literature instead of God’s true word.
In response to his question “Has anybody a right to deny the Christian name to those who differ with him on such points and to shut against them the doors of the Christian fellowship?” I would have to argue yes. You cannot claim to be a true Christian if you deny the central truths about Jesus Christ. You cannot be a selective Christian where you pick and choose verses. If I cannot claim validity on everything I read within the Bible, then I can’t truly believe in it.
I understand that he states that if we argue over too many things that we will lose valuable people who work hard to keep a church going. But if we are not united in Spirit and if we do not believe the same truths about the Bible, then how can we be united as a body of believers? I think he focuses way too much on tolerance and fellowship and not enough on what the Bible really says. Of course there are many topics of controversy raised about the interpretation of some verses in the Bible (such as with infant baptism, and the second coming of our Lord), but to deny those things, which are explicitly stated within the Scriptures, is simply foolishness.
Although the majority of this article I strongly disagreed with, I found that I was able to agree to a certain extent with his argument regarding the second coming of our Lord. There have been many Christians (many of whom I know very well) who respond to the world’s troubles with, “well I know Jesus is coming back soon,” or “I just wish Jesus would come back soon so that all of this would be over.” We cannot sit around, hoping, waiting, and praying for Christ to come back, while we do nothing to aid with the troubles of this world. We simply cannot do that if we are following the example Christ set forth while he lived on this earth.
What does he mean when he says: “Fundamentalists” have no solution to the problem? He does not validate this claim with any examples or proof.
I am sorry, but I simply cannot agree with him saying that those loyal to the heart of what the Bible are clinging to “old opinions.” And what does he mean by producing “our new opinions?” If every new generation has a new opinion about something related to scripture, how long will it take before everything we have ever believed about it goes up in flames? We cannot be continually progressive about Jesus Christ if we are to call ourselves Christians. Just what is a Christian? It is someone who believes in, has faith in, and follows Jesus Christ. It is not someone who simply says that the Bible is a great book of wisdom and that Jesus is my best friend. It is someone who is whole-heartedly dedicated to living their lives wholly dedicated to the word of the gospel.
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I think that Fosdick too generally throws the term tolerance out there. To tolerate something means that we are willing to let others be the way they are, while acceptance means we actually agree and condone the actions of others. Fosdick goes on to say that “opinions may be mistaken; love never is.” While that statement may be true in essence, we must ask this question in response: “are the issues he brought up really opinions or are they a part of what is believed to be true?” We can have opinions on so many different things, but if we differ on central Biblical truths about Christ’s divinity and origin, then we lose sight of what defines the Christians.
I think when it comes the Bible we have to be rigid on certain things. If we let ourselves be shaped by new philosophical and scientific ideas that are formed merely on the basis of limited worldly observation, then we dilute the power the Scripture has over us. It becomes weak and defined by what we see around us. We cannot take our own formulated ideas that we get from the world around us and then try to make them fit into what the Bible says. We need to take what the Bible says and see how what the world says fits into that. If it doesn’t match up, then I would count the “knowledge” worthless.
