Liberalism Remembered: Recalling Classic Liberalism's Most Famous Sermon

    On June 10, 1922, amidst the swirling tornado sweeping through the Church of Jesus Christ, the noted voice of Baptist minister, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Pastor of the historic First Presbyterian Church in New York, delivered what came to be perhaps the most famous sermon of Liberalism:  "Shall The Fundamentalists Win?" 

While Fosdick is seen by some to be a martyr for preaching this sermon since it cost him his pulpit, he became the poster boy for modern Liberalism as the thrust of the Liberal movement set itself against the Fundamentalists with whom, by the way, Southern Baptists were theologically sympathetic.
 
The controversy at the turn of the twentieth century--dubbed the Fundamentalist/Modernist Controversy--concerned, among other idealogical issues, science and the Bible, the most visible challenge about which took place in a small east Tennessee town in 1925.  It became known as the Monkey Trial over which a test case had been staged by the ACLU to defend a local teacher for considering evolution in the classroom.  Professor Edward Larson, an historian at the University of Georgia, penned an informative, scholarly look at the entire fiasco--a book I would highly recommend.

What the Monkey Trial was to culture outside the Church, Fosdick's sermon became inside the Church.  In it he repeatedly called for an open-minded, "tolerant Christian Fellowship" in contrast to a closed, intolerant Church. 

Below are some interesting quotes from Fosdick's message, "Shall The Fundamentalists Win?":

• "We should not identify the Fundamentalists with the conservatives. All Fundamentalists are conservatives, but not all conservatives are Fundamentalists. The best conservatives can often give lessons to the liberals in true liberality of spirit, but the Fundamentalist program is essentially illiberal and intolerant."

• "If they had their way, within the church, they would set up in Protestantism a doctrinal tribunal more rigid than the pope’s."

• "Here in the Christian churches are these two groups of people and the question which the Fundamentalists raise is this—Shall one of them throw the other out? Has intolerance any contribution to make to this situation? Will it persuade anybody of anything? Is not the Christian Church large enough to hold within her hospitable fellowship people who differ on points like this and agree to differ until the fuller truth be manifested?"

• "I do not believe for one moment that the Fundamentalists are going to succeed. Nobody’s intolerance can contribute anything to the solution of the situation which we have described."

• "Nevertheless, it is true that just now the Fundamentalists are giving us one of the worst exhibitions of bitter intolerance that the churches of this country have ever seen."

• "As I plead thus for an intellectually hospitable, tolerant, liberty-loving church, I am, of course, thinking primarily about this new generation... Now, the worst kind of church that can possibly be offered to the allegiance of the new generation is an intolerant church."

• "My friends, nothing in all the world is so much worth thinking of as God, Christ, the Bible, sin and salvation, the divine purposes for humankind, life everlasting. But you cannot challenge the dedicated thinking of this generation to these sublime themes upon any such terms as are laid down by an intolerant church."

• "The second element which is needed if we are to reach a happy solution of this problem is a clear insight into the main issues of modern Christianity and a sense of penitent shame that the Christian Church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs... So, now, when from the terrific questions of this generation one is called away by the noise of this Fundamentalist controversy, he thinks it almost unforgivable that men should tithe mint and anise and cummin, and quarrel over them, when the world is perishing for the lack of the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith..."

• "Well, [the Fundamentalists] are not going to do it; certainly not in this vicinity. I do not even know in this congregation whether anybody has been tempted to be a Fundamentalist. Never in this church have I caught one accent of intolerance. God keep us always so and ever increasing areas of the Christian fellowship; intellectually hospitable, open-minded, liberty-loving, fair, tolerant, not with the tolerance of indifference, as though we did not care about the faith, but because always our major emphasis is upon the weightier matters of the law."

The extraordinarily clear lines Fosdick penciled in around Conservative Christianity remains obvious:  the "Fundamentalists" were intolerant, anti-education bigots who would, if they could, set themselves up as Pope and deny any freedom whatsoever to other Christians to differ with them in the slightest even on the most insignificant doctrinal matters.   

However, history has kindly judged to the Conservative's favor that neither abandoning Biblical inerrancy, affirming evolutionary philosophy nor adopting anti-supernaturalism could rightly be categorized "little matters" as Fosdick so confidently asserted.

As we are recalling Fosdick, the poster-boy of Modern Liberalism, and the sharpest blade by far on his deadly belt--the charge of an intolerable Church--know that same knife is drawn once again against the many in the Southern Baptist Convention who possess the audacity to actually expect that the distinctives we know as Southern Baptists should be embraced by those who wish to serve our Convention.

Many Southern Baptists are tarred as narrow, intolerant, Pharisaical and unkind for simply embracing mainstream Baptist heritage.  When they insist on believer's Baptism by immersion being an Ordinance of Christ  assigned specifically to the local Church to dispense, they are called Landmark.

Similarly, while they offer absolutely no corrective or theological broadside to their brothers and sisters in Christ who gladly embrace the sign charismata in Pentecostal fellowships, when they insist that Churches our Southern Baptist missionaries plant both home and abroad be distinctively Southern Baptist Churches and not Pentecostal-Baptist Churches, some in the Convention began to fly the old flag of Fosdick's Liberalism--intolerance.

Again, when Southern Baptists have definitively spoken about embracing gender Complementarianism as the theological lens through which we view specific gender issues such as family, sexuality and ecclesiological leadership as well as the theological guide our leaders consider in denominational employment, we have ceaseless waters flowing from some in the convention that these are "little matters" over which there should be displayed tolerance: 

"Women ministering in the church (complementarianism vs. egalitarianism) is also a tertiary issue in my opinion..."

Unfortunately for their view, while that was the decided position of those with whom the Conservative Resurgence contended, and with whom some in the Convention today oddly still sympathize, that question is really a moot point.  The answer as to precisely why it is continually squeezed for more juice may be best answered by a single word--divisiveness. 

Whatever we answer, surely we could not describe it as openness.  At least, so far as openness to the Conservative point of view of traditional Southern Baptists is concerned.

Grace.  With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[Chris]

Peter,
Thanks for introducing your readers to Fosdick. I think the quote shed much neede light of history to some who don't know him. Praise God men stood in his da. May we stand in ours!

[peter lumpkins]

Chris,

Thanks, Chris. What is really frustrating for me is, my relationships with those believers outside my own Baptist heritage would surely be a bit strained were they a part of this conversation.

I have always been able to embrace my Baptist distinctives while working well together with other evangelicals on what cooperative projects we could without losing my Baptist identity.

Nor would I in ten thousand years expect them to sacrifice their own distinctives to satisfy me. Where we could not work together, we simply said so and moved on.

The continued call from some Baptists--among whom Enid leads the way hardly any would dispute--to some sort of quasi-evangelicalism with barely a Baptist-like identity, will ultimately pay its high toll, I think.

From my view, they are attempting to remold us into an interdenominational-like fellowship. Southern Baptists may soon have enough.

Grace, Chris. With that, I am...

Peter

[Robin Foster]

Peter

Outstanding! The tricks and schemes of the past continue against those who would stand on biblical doctrines. Thanks for pointing this out.

Robin

[peter lumpkins]

Robin,

Thanks, Robin. trust your Lord's Day enriching. With that, I am...

Peter

[Big Daddy Weave]

Wade Burleson is leading Southern Baptists down the road of "quasi-evangelicalism." Huh?

What exactly isn't "evangelical" about Burleson's theology?

When evangelicalism can include everyone from Ron Sider & the NAE to James Dobson and half of Colorado Springs, how can you argue that "Enid" receives shade from only a portion of the VERY LARGE umbrella that is American evangelicalism?

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

I haven't the slightest hint of what you are asking in the first statement or the third.

As for the question "What is exactly not evangelical about Mr. Burleson's theology?" it misses the entire point of the post: the constant charge of intolerance was the bread and butter accusation against the Old Fundamentalists by Liberals like Fosdick.

It now is served up as the main dish toward traditional Baptists who attempt to embrace mainstream Baptist heritage.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Strider]

Peter, in your verbage to make your point I feel you overstepped in one place:

when they insist that Churches our Southern Baptist missionaries plant both home and abroad be distinctively Southern Baptist Churches and not Pentecostal-Baptist Churches

It makes it sound as if there were opposition to this. There is not and never has been. The ppl controversy had nothing to do with Church Planting because there were already rules in place to prevent such from happening. Any IMB employee who ever tried to start a Pentecostal-Baptist Church was fired under the old rules. The ppl controversy was not about conservative vs. liberal it was about trying to embarrass Dr. Rankin. To say anything else is to cast suspicion on myself and my fellow SB M's and I wont let it go unchecked. We are not Pentacostal. We do not teach people to speak in tongues. We are Southern Baptist raised and discipled in SB churches.

[Les Puryear]

I disagree that women pastors are a tertiary issue. BFM2K addresses the issue of women pastors. Also, in the preamble of BFM2K, we told that this is a statement of the "essentials" of our beliefs.

It's quite clear that BFM2K contains the essentials of SBC faith. To deny the essential beliefs which have clearly been adopted as a general consensus of the SBC, is to, at the very best be ignorant of this fact and, at the very worst, to be actively working against the general consensus of the SBC.

[Ron P.]

Strider,

To say that there is not some pentecostal IMB m's is not correct. I made the following comment on Bart's blog this past week:

But something just interesting happened to me. I just finished a conversation with someone who was on an overseas mission trip last year. This person and the entire group that went, interacted with IMB missionaries as part of their trip. At a church service where both a local pastor and an IMB missionary preached, the IMB missionary spoke in tongues! This was NOT the local language. This was NOT any known language to anyone there. This was like what you would expect to see on TBN: gibberish. There was no interpreter of the tongues. The IMB missionary also led in a healing service.

Just because there are many of us who are concerned with charismatic pentecostalism creeping into the SBC, it does not imply that all m's are looked at suspiciously. However, we most certainly do have reason to be concerned!

Ron P.

[Big Daddy Weave]

Peter,

I didn't miss your point.

I'm addressing a DIFFERENT point that apparently you have no interest in discussing. But, I'll try one last time.

You wrote:

"The continued call from some Baptists--among whom Enid leads the way hardly any would dispute--to some sort of quasi-evangelicalism"

Clearly Enid is a reference to Wade Burleson. Thus, what is this "quasi-evangelicalism" that "Enid" is clamoring for? Define quasi-evangelicalism.

With your above quote, you are clearly stating that the theology "Enid" theology is "some sort of quasi evangelicalism" (or a form theology that isn't thoroughly evangelical). Based on your words, perhaps after elaborating on what you mean by "quasi evangelicalism," you'll take a moment to defend your words and explain in what way "Enid" isn't thoroughly evangelical?

But to specifically address your comment:

So what if Burleson shares something in common with Fosdick? Liberals don't have a copyright on speaking out against intolerance. I'm glad you've chosen to embrace the word "mainstream" to describe your Baptist heritage. Although, I'm not sure there is much "mainstream" (defined as the prevailing current of thought) when it comes to some in your Convention on the Fundamentalist Right and some in my Fellowship on the Liberal Left. We all can't be mainstream Baptists who embrace a mainstream Baptist heritage.

[Strider]

RonP- under the old rules this M should be disciplined and if he does not repent he should be fired.
Anecdotal evidence does not prove these new guideines necessary.

[Strider]

RonP- you said that:

However, we most certainly do have reason to be concerned!

But how will you show this concern? If you can show that M's are being taught to speak in tongues during their IMB orientation then by all means go after the IMB. But if that is not the case then where should the battle be fought? How about in the Churches who are supposedly discipling these? The SBC is made up of independant churches. If we have a creeping 'Pentacostal' problem then the battle should be fought there. So far, fighting the battle overseas has been less painful for the local SB church and very harmful to the work of the Kingdom overseas.

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

You write: '"I didn't miss your point. I'm addressing a DIFFERENT point that apparently you have no interest in discussing.' You would be correct.

As for the other, read the note I penned to Chris.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Strider,

Welcome. Of course, I have no interest nor desire in calling into suspicion all Missionaries. In fact, though there may be some, I am not referring at all to resistance from M's themselves. I am especially noting Enid's insistence on questioning our mainstream Baptist distinctives in planting Churches.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Ron P.]

Strider,

You missed my point. You made a blanket statement regarding all m's: "We are not Pentacostal." There are indeed some m's that apparently are pentecostal (at least one that I now personally know of). I was not speaking to the old or new guidelines.

BTW, I have spoken (personally or via email) with several IMB Trustees that strongly disagree that the point of the PPL guideline was to embarrass Dr. Rankin.

[Ron P.]

Sorry, I left off my signature on the above comment to Strider.

Ron P.

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I have to disagree with your assertion that Wade Burleson is leading the way to "some sort of quasi-evangelicalism with barely a Baptist-like identity". I cannot speak for him, but from reading his site (which I admit I have read less than yours), I simply am unable to see the evidence you suggest. That is not to say I agree with everything he writes. But to suggest that the end result of his efforts will produce something less than evangelical and almost unrecognizable from a Baptist viewpoint seems a bit of a stretch, IMHO.

Let me step back a bit, and try to explain where I am coming from on this. I am only marginally SBC at this point, perhaps even just marginally Baptist. The only reason I am SBC right now is because I happen to belong to an SBC church where God would have me serve for the time being, and truth be told, our primary concern is not our SBC identity or function within that denomination. And the next church I join most likely will not be an SBC church, and this despite my license and ordination credentials within the SBC. I harbor no ill will towards my SBC brothers and sisters in the Lord, but because of my theological positions and my personal view that denominations are man-made anyway being far less in importance than our identity in Christ, it simply does not concern me to remain in the SBC. Truthfully, I feel the Lord leading me out of it, or at the very least, to correct my priorities and put Christ first above whatever name tag I happen to wear or what words the sign has out in front. I can better serve Christ when He is my singular focus, and not when I am constantly spending time defending myself and my views in a battle that I believe the Lord has not given me, unlike perhaps some.

I have said all that to say this. You and Mr. Wade Burleson have two different ideas of what Baptist should be, and that is fine with me. I believe the SBC is narrowing its parameters and unintentionally losing its focus on Christ to instead focus on whatever its decreed Baptist distinctives happen to be for the current generation. To me that is truly sad. And I do not oppose the "liberal" label should someone impose that upon me for saying this, or believing the way I do. Personally, the labels do not matter. What matters is fidelity to Scripture, fidelity to Christ, and living righteously by faith in a world which hates Christianity and opposes it, at best politely, and at worst, with persecution as we see in many places on Earth.

Why should we care what man-made labels we happen to wear, what religious denomination we happen to belong to, when our ultimate loyalty belongs to Christ who has purchased and redeemed us with His own blood? Where does it end? And when do we exalt Christ and recognize His supreme worth with glory and honor?

Is not Christ more important?

[Big Daddy Weave]

Thanks for your response, Peter. Your silence demonstrates that either you're not capable of defending your own words or you just don't have the courage to do so.

If you don't have the courage to defend your words, don't write them. That's a simple concept to grasp.

Enjoy your continued obsession with "Enid"

[peter lumpkins]

BDW,

Whether or not I am neither capable of "defending" my words on the one hand nor possess the courage to do so on the other, I will leave for you and others to decide. I would hope, in the two (-+) years I've been blogging, there is enough evidence demonstrating my innocence of both.

As for your suggestion I write only that which meets your standard, BDW, my encouragement to you is, if you do not like my garden, find another place to sow your own corn.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Byron,

Thanks for the post. I appreciate your straightforward position. If I could, allow me to briefly respond.

First, if you do not grasp Enid & Company whittling away at Baptist distinctives, I can accept that. Many feel precisely as do you.

From my view, however, I think it glaringly evident from Mr. Burleson's site this is the case. At least three posts I can presently recall where Baptist is defined without so much as a hint of distinction. Indeed, one post was so broadly Christian, I think, that Catholics may have slipped in under the doctrinal radar.

In addition, the most recent "ANC" coalition was broad enough to include those who baptize infants, if I remember correctly. There is no lack of evidence for this if one will simply look.

I must be honest, Byron, and say, it does not surprise me that you have not detected such. Your self-confessed disinterest in such "denominational" matters would give that away easily.

Also, Byron, I got the feeling from your comment that the questions pertaining to distinctives stand virtually irrelevant to you personally. Honestly, I do not think you mean that.

You possess your own set of theological parameters over which you will not step. For example, I have no fear you'd join a fellowship which embraced an Arminian leaning understanding of salvation. Baptists may draw their circles in different places than do you but you still draw your circles.

Again, I got the sense that just because many of us are attempting to defend our Baptist heritage, we are somehow making that heritage more important than either Christ or evangelism. I assure you, neither I nor any I know, even comes close to such.

Finally, I think it interesting you write so passionately against "labels" and even make the suggestion they are moot--"Liberal", for example.

Yet only a short time ago, you and I were having an extended dialog about the absolute necessity of making sure we did not employ "HyperCalvinist" incorrectly. Is this a slip? A change of mind?

Grace, Byron. I ever enjoy your company. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ron,

Always enjoy you logging on. Of course, you ever get a sniper when you do ;^)

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

You are rigorously logical and very perceptive.

You are right that I do not mean to imply that questions concerning distinctives are irrelevant. I believe that the importance of doctrine is paramount, and I understand and agree that matters of fellowship are primarily based on doctrine. My personal opinion distinguishes between certain Baptist distinctives and others, in that I find some doctrinally justifiable and some fall into the category I believe to be mere ecclesiastical tradition. I cannot prove my distinctions at this time. However, I nonetheless hold to them, and attempt to justify them scripturally. And you are right that I do indeed draw my circles of fellowship and abide by them. I aim to eventually be guilty of some sort of Scriptural consistency which I hope arrives sooner than later. :)

I am not really sure what you mean by "join a fellowship which embraced an Arminian leaning understanding of salvation." If you mean by this keeping personal fellowship with Arminian (or Arminian leaning) believers (if I understand you correctly this would be a subset of your non-Calvinist category), then it really depends on the individuals. I do not mind fellowshipping with many kinds of believers, but there are some non-Calvinists as well as even Calvinists, and or course Hyper-Calvinists (the vast majority of) I will not fellowship with. I believe personally that there are true believers in even the most unlikely places, who have a head full of bad doctrine but possess a truly regenerate heart born of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, this is invisible to mortal eyes such as mine, so I cannot know for sure. But in some way I have fellowship with any true believer I come in contact with, but such fellowship is spiritual rather than denominational. The Holy Spirit produces it and brings this about.

If you mean by "join a fellowship" to officially become an ecclesiastic member of a denominational body, then yes you are right in most circumstances, but it depends on the church body involved (I'm not ruling out joining another SBC church if I leave the one I'm in, for example). However, I think that the Baptist conception of church membership is not a spiritual requirement from the Lord. As Acts 2:47b (ESV) says, "And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved." They did not have or need membership rolls, and I believe the same is true of us as believers in Christ. The Lord does the adding, and the addition is spiritual. Our bureaucratic paperwork does not guarantee anything in the spiritual realm.

As for heritage becoming more important than Christ or evangelism, that is why I used the word "unintentionally." When distinctives are based upon ecclesiastical tradition rather than scriptural truth (in my opinion!), then a loss of proper focus is the inevitable result, as I have been unknowingly guilty of in times past. I believe that any time a believer knowingly or even unknowingly adopts a doctrine which is biblically extraneous, then they are focusing away from Christ and evangelism without intending for this to be the case. However, please understand I have the highest regard for your stated motives. But we all operate at different levels of spiritual knowledge and maturity, and we are in a sanctification process of becoming more Christ-like, and there are many things none of us understand like we should. I know I can personally emphasize that.

The Hyper-Calvinist "label" is a slightly different issue with me. You accurately define in a technical sense a similar term but with a lowercase "h". I have no problem with your term inherently, as long as you give an explanation of its origin and purpose as a disclaimer of use. But your term is qualitatively distinct from the historically defined term with the capitalized H, and without the disclaimer, your term could be confused with it. In fact, in my opinion, it is conducive to causing confusion in this matter despite its cleverness. I also oppose any form of this term, including yours, because in my personal experience the term has been used without any regard to theological accuracy. That is, it has been abused, and intentionally so at times, I suspect. And without trying to reopen that debate but simply draw to a close my main objections, your term I believe does not fit the inherent meanings of each root part of the term which essentially means to go over or beyond a theological system known as Calvinism, which is an organized system of beliefs, not behavior. However, I acknowledge I have been too sensitive in this matter, so all I ask is, if someone uses this label (in either form) against another, give that other a chance for objective defense. If I was as Christlike as I should be, the label, even in its negative historic sense, would not matter to me personally, but would simply offer me an opportunity for defense and explanation with courtesy and grace. And you can imagine that I am nowhere near that as of yet.

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Thanks for stopping by. You are ever welcome. I do not understand the continued push from Enid about gender egalitarianism. Who knows?

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

Actually, you got me to thinking about labels. I am not consistent on this issue. Therefore, I withdraw my objection against "hyper-Calvinism". And you are right.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: I think you do understand the push for not making women in ministry a major issue. But I will give it to you in 2 words, Sheri Klouda. I won't go into the misrepresentations and hyperbole you make in your post, I'm sure you are well aware of what they are without me spending time going over it.

Les: I knew you disagreed. That answers a lot. Thank you.

[Strider]

Dude, I was going to vote for you over at SBC Voices until you called me a sniper. After all, Ron was the one who attacked my comment not I his.

[peter lumpkins]

Strider,

Hope your day of ministry has been fulfilling. As for calling you a sniper, understand: you were miles from my mind when I pecked out the little six letter word.

Somewhere, somehow, some way, at some point, we've got to get to a place when we do not read comments in personally intended terms.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter, what's a sniper in blog-language? I know what a sniper is with a gun. Is a sniper someone with a laptop? selahV :)

[Jimmy]

I agree, we need to learn not to take every word as personally intended.

Jimmy Sarratt
sniping from Fishformen's laptop.

[Chris]

I agree with Jimmy.
SelahV- I quess your right about snipe hunting, uh I mean sniper.
Chris

[selahV]

I think I just got sniped. :) selahV