Attitude of the Church Towards Science and The Higher Criticism

1904

By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church

The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.

She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.

At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.

The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.

If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."

The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.

—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.