Fundamentalism vs Libertas - Essay Example

FUNDAMENTALISM VS LIBERALISM “Of one man’s orthodoxy is another man’s heresy!” Dr. George Boeree Introduction It is a given that it is disagreements and discourse, not consensus and acquiescence, that fuel the dynamics of human development and growth. In this discussion, two opposing views anchored on the Christian faith will be discerned: traditional Christianity as envisioned by J. Gresham Machen (1923), and liberal Christianity, as advocated by Harry Emerson Fosdick (1922). It will be noted that the issues to be discussed here draw their context in time as of the early 1920s, at the time when the world was recovering from a world war, new wealth fuelled the stock market in the United States, and technical innovations were taking off. There are things new and exciting to some, strange and threatening to others, that have accelerated changes in our way of life. These two schools of thought, apparently in reaction to the changing socio-technical landscape, appear to hurtle headlong into each other. However, as in all discourses, this paper shall seek a reconciliation in principle between them in the context of present-day life. It will be noted that Fosdick used the term “fundamentalist” to describe the group of people whom we refer to here as “traditionalist,” for purposes of avoiding the negativity of recent connotations conveyed by the term “fundamentalist”. On Religion Basically, both authors contend on the ground of Christian congregationalism. They express their adherence to the Christian faith, except that they have varying views on what the Christian faith should encompass. The traditionalist view elaborated by Machen holds the Christian faith as defined by institutions, and teachings that have been handed down with the wisdom of the generations must remain essentially intact. Incorporation of beliefs that run counter to this body of beliefs essentially negate the Christian faith and erode its moral ascendancy over non-Christians until nothing differentiates one from the other. On the other hand, the liberal view discussed by Fosdick admits of new truths, and new ways of understanding old truths, and that such new knowledge enhances and deepens understanding of the Faith. Under this view, people could, despite differences of opinion, co-exist in one church, and the Christian label should not be denied anybody. As a point of observation, it is evident that Machen is not so much against change as he is for preserving definitive core beliefs against this change, while the liberal view welcomes changes as part of a gradual, shifting development. The traditionalist is for continuity, which the liberal is for continuum. On Science The views of both groups both recognize that scientific discoveries and innovations inevitably and permanently alter the way people live. The difference lies in the perception of each author as to the type of changes technological progress induces in human behaviour. For Machen, modern science creates a tendency for the erosion of long-held convictions, subjecting established truths to the test of recently-developed criteria that are invalid for being out of context. Fosdick, on the other hand, wrote that “Science treats a young man’s mind as though it were really important. It is an intellectual adventure for the truth.” By that, he is of the opinion that science aids in inquiry into all things present and past that could possibly cast new light on conventionally held truths. Corollary to the perception of science is the attitude towards new knowledge. New knowledge changes the way people think; this much both persuasions agree to. The differ in their beliefs on how new knowledge should be combined with existing knowledge and beliefs. Machen is of the view that new knowledge should not tarnish or contaminate the principles that historically Christian Faith had defined. For Fosdick, new knowledge should be reconciled with the Christian faith, as it had been done through the ages, in the process of development, and citing events throughout history to prove that reconciliation is unavoidable. Criticisms Levelled at Each Other, and Cornerstone Beliefs It is probably symptomatic of mutual suspicion rather than borne of moral conviction that both authors point to attempts by the other side to sway legislation to advance their interests. For instance, Machen stated that the liberals have caused the passage of state laws making the attendance of public school compulsory. Fosdick, for his part, alleged that “fundamentalists” sought to pass state laws prohibiting the teaching of modern biology. These arguments, however, are more reactionary than anything else, and in the grand scheme of principled debate does not hold much weight – more in the way of nitpicking, actually. There are other, more salient points that each side raises against the other. Machen sees modern liberal religion as rooted in “innaturalism,” or “the denial of any entrance of the creative power of God (as distinguished from the ordinary course of nature) in connection with the origin of Christianity.” Machen uses the concept of naturalism in a different sense here as he himself describes as the “degradation” of “liberal religion”. It can probably be interpreted as the subjecting the concept of the Divine to the natural, the subject of study of science. Machen believes that the Divine truth transcends natural or scientific investigation, because God is not limited by natural law. Fosdick, on the other hand, believes that “[fundamentalists] think in ancient terms that leave ideas of progress out.” It is his view that they foster a spirit of intolerance and stagnation, and teach that doctrine should only be accepted, not questioned, thought out or intellectually understood. Fosdick’s position is that even doctrine should be subject to inquiry, or at least understood in a manner consistent with prevailing knowledge, because it is through understanding that the Christian commitment is validated. For Fosdick two essential cornerstones must be present in the Christian community: (1) the spirit of tolerance and Christian liberty, and (2) clear insight into the essentials of modern Christianity “and a sense of penitent shame that the Christian Church should be quarrelling over little matters” concerning denomination. Conclusion As mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the essays compared were written during the first quarter of the last century. With the benefit of hindsight and the perspective gathered almost a century after, there is truly little discord between the so-called liberal and traditional views. Nine decades of accelerated scientific discovery and revolutionary social changes, the likes of which neither Machen nor Fosdick could have even imagined, have not diminished the essential Christian Church, nor have long-held traditional beliefs been abandoned as a consequence thereof. Neither one side nor the other had been completely right nor completely wrong, nor has either side’s dire predictions materialized. Despite new practices and modes of human conduct, and in the face of development and innovation, the wisdom from 2,000 years ago still continues to stand as the cornerstone of Christian belief, with the faithful of various persuasions gathered within the house of God. Fosdick’s quote of the Book of Acts is most apropos here, though not in the way he intended. In the biblical passage, Gamaliel speaks “Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God.” . . . Through all our bickering like little children, in the end it is still God’s will that prevails. References: Fosdick, Harry Emerson. “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” (1922). Retrieved 8 November 2009 from http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5070/ Machen, J. Gresham. “Christianity & Liberalism, Chapter I.” (1923). Retrieved 8 November 2009 from http://www.reformed.org/books/chr_and_lib/. Read More