The fundamentalist modernist controversy : a stage in Presbyterian doctrinal development

Abstract

Were the years of the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy (1890-1936) in the Presbyterian Church in the USA years of doctrinal development? This dissertation argues that the answer to this question is both "yes" and ''no." This dissertation, in exploring this particular era of modem American church history, takes its structure from well-known Catholic theologian, John Courtney Murray, and his contribution to the discussion of doctrinal development as it applied to the years of the Arian Controversy culminating in the Council of Nicaea. Murray identified three factions in that struggle: the Futurists, the Archaists, and the Centrists. The Futurists, represented by Arius and his followers, sought to identify Christianity with the prevailing philosophies of the day, thereby reinterpreting and altering certain affirmations of the faith. The Archaists, as seen in the person of Eusebius of Caesarea, reacted strongly to the Arians' proposals by not admitting any doctrinal formulation not couched in the 'sacred words' of Scripture. The Centrists, representing more balanced judgment, as seen in St. Athanasius, prevailed in the end. He saw that doctrinal development, which is herein defined to mean further definition, clarification, and application of existing truths, does indeed take place but not at the expense of denying the historic affirmations of the faith. After investigating development, tradition (the results of doctrinal development over time) and historicism (the theory that doctrine develops out of the historical process itself), Murray's structure is then applied to the struggles in the Presbyterian Church in the early twentieth century. Beginning with Charles Briggs of Union Seminary in New York and his avocation of historical criticism as applied to the Scriptures, the Presbyterian Church in the USA was thrown progressively into turmoil regarding just what constituted the historic affirmations of the faith. Briggs and those who followed, the Liberals or Futurists, wanted to jettison or remold a sizeable portion of the historic Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal heritage of Presbyterianism. Further events, such as the confessional revision of 1903 and the Cumberland reunion of 1906, helped to propel the entire church in a Futurist direction. Opposition from the beginning came primarily from Princeton Seminary. Princeton's professors sought to maintain the historic, confessional stance of the church. In this endeavor they were at times Archaists, Centrists, and even Futurists. The efforts of those who would preserve the traditional, confessional stance of Presbyterianism, however, were doomed to failure as the church moved steadily in a Futurist direction. After some brief insights into the more prominent Futurist personalities and the rise of Fundamentalist opposition, the remainder of the dissertation is taken up with the exploits of J. Gresham Machen and his expulsion from an increasingly Futurist church. Machen was viewed as a trouble maker for opposing this trend. Those of more moderate sentiments often sided with the Liberals/Futurists over against Machen. After much anguish and a lengthy trial, Machen was deposed from the office of minister in the Presbyterian Church in the USA. He immediately proceeded to found a new Presbyterian denomination. Into this new church came both Archaist and Centrist alike, who had previously formed an uneasy alliance in opposition to the Futurism in the mother church. The coalition, however, did not last, and after a short time fragmented into smaller constituencies. Although things did not change all at once in the Presbyterian Church in the USA, Liberalism/Futurism became the norm and remains so until this day. This dissertation argues that the confessional revision of 1903 and the work of J. Gresham Machen can be classified as doctrinal development and, thus, Centrist endeavors. All of the other events of significance that characterize the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy were either Archaist in character or Futurist endeavors more concerned with changing the historic affirmations of the faith than developing them.