9. Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven, 1972), pp. 896–98, based on Eldon Ernst, “The Interchurch World Movement,” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1967. The Baptist wing of the movement was called the New World Movement. The Presbyterian wing was called the New Era Movement. These struggled on with inadequate support.
10. Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church (Philadelphia, 1957), p. 101.
11. See C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 107–34, for a good account of Massee’s role in Baptist fundamentalism.
12. Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York, 1931), p. 77.
13. Ronald Nelson, “Fundamentalism and the Northern Baptist Convention,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1964, pp. 271–72; cf. Watchman-Examiner IX (August 4, 1921), pp. 974–75, on “Politics at Des Moines.”
14. Sandeen, Roots, pp. 249–50. Loetscher, Broadening Church, p. 104, says that within three years the Bible Union claimed some 2,200 members.
15. E.g., ed., “The Conflict of Christianity and Modernism,” Presbyterian XC (January 1, 1920), p. 3.
16. Loetscher, Broadening Church, pp. 104–8.
17. Obadiah Holmes, “The Threat of Millennialism,” Christian Century XXXVIII (April 28, 1921), pp. 10–13.
18. Editorial “We are on the March,” The Baptist II (July 9, 1921), p. 717.
19. For this creed see Willard B. Gatewood, Jr., ed., Controversy in the Twenties Nashville, 1969), pp. 74–75.
20. Editorial “The Baptist on the Rampage,” Watchman-Examiner IX (August 4, 1921), pp. 973–74.
21. Lloyd C. Douglas, “Mr. Bryan’s New Crusade,” Christian Century XXXVII (Nov. 25, 1920), pp. 11–13; Ferenc Morton Szasz, “Three Fundamentalist Leaders,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1969, p. 176.
22. Bryan, “The Origin of Man,” In His Image (New York, 1922), pp. 86–135, quotations from pp. 93, 94, 125, 122.
23. E.g., editorial “The Evils of Evolution,” Presbyterian XCII (March 30,1922), p. 3, “The conflict between Rationalism and Christianity grows in intensity. Just now it centers in evolution.” But see the following note on the Baptists.
24. Norman Maring, “Conservative But Progressive,” What God Hath Wrought: Eastern’s First Thirty-Five Years, Gilbert L. Guffin, ed. (Chicago, 1960), p. 24, observes that among Northern Baptists the more militant and largely premillennial Baptist Bible Union (see below) took up anti-evolution, while the moderates such as Laws paid it little attention. Nelson, “Fundamentalism,” pp. 310–21, shows interests of The Watchman-Examiner and other moderates not favoring the stand Bryan in 1925.
25. Szasz, “Three Fundamentalist Leaders,” p. 180. Szasz says that in the WCFA “the evolution issue had risen to the forefront by 1923,” p. 199.
26. Szasz, “Three Fundamentalist Leaders,” pp. 184–85. The King’s Business, for instance, was promoting efforts to secure Bryan’s leadership for a “Laymen’s League” during this period. Bryan expressed sympathy for such efforts, and spoke for WCFA events, but declined an official role in the organization.
27. Ferenc Szasz, “William Jennings Bryan, Evolution, and the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy,” Nebraska History LVI (1975), pp. 159–278, makes a similar point, but then attributes the change almost entirely to the entrance of WJB into the fundamentalist movement. So he argues that Bryan was far from typical of fundamentalists and “by no means their main leader,” p. 259. This conclusion, however, is misleading in the light of the strong tendencies for fundamentalists to be moving in the direction of anti-evolution before Bryan came on the scene.
28. The wider extent of the interest is suggested by the fact that in 1922 the other leading book on anti-evolution, beside Bryan’s In His Image, was God—Or Gorilla How the Monkey Theory of Evolution Exposes Its Own Methods, Refutes Its Own Principle, Denies Its own Inferences, Disproves Its Own Case (New York, 1922), by Alfred W. McCann, a Roman Catholic.
XIX. Would the Liberals Be Driven from the Denominations? 1922–1923
1. Comparing various citations, it seems to have appeared in at least the following: The Christian Century, June 8, 1922; The Baptist, June 10, 1922; Christian Work, June 10, 1922; and in pamphlet form as, “The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith” (New York, 1922).
2. E.g. editorial “The Capitalists and the Premillenarians,” Christian Century XXXVIII (April 14, 1921), p. 3; editorial “Fundamentalism and 100 Per Centism,” XXXIX (Nov. 2, 1922), 1117–18.
3. These points follow the description in the Christian Century XXXIX, editorial “New Denominational Alignments” (April 20, 1922), p. 486. The “five points of fundamentalism,” in the classic form they were given in Stewart Cole’s history (see above, Chapter XIII, note 30) seem to appear first in the Christian Century XL (August 16, 1923), p. 1040. The classic five points, then, appear to have been formulated by liberals, while fundamentalists’ own lists varied in number and content.
4. Ferenc M. Szasz, “Three Fundamentalist Leaders,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1969, p. 179.
5. Reprinted from Christian Work CXII (June 10, 1922), pp. 716–22 in William R. Hutchison, ed., American Protestant Thought: The Liberal Era (New York, 1968), pp. 170–82.
6. Norman Maring, “Conservative But Progressive,” What God Hath Wrought, Gilbert L. Guffin, ed. (Chicago, 1960), pp. 32–33; Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven, 1954), pp. 112–13.
7. Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism (Chicago, 1970), p. 264.
8. Maring, “Conservative But Progressive,” pp. 15–49, sympathetically describes this wing of Baptist fundamentalism and its sequel. Sandeen, Roots, p. 263, points out that this division “did not occur between millenarians and non-millenarians, but between moderates and radicals of both camps.” However, the tendency was for dispensationalists to be more radical and for moderates to be non-dispensationalist.
9. E.g., editorial Presbyterian LXXXIX (Feb. 20, 1919), p. 6. This was a response to an attack on traditional teaching on the part of Fosdick.
10. Clarence E. Macartney, “Shall Unbelief Win? An Answer to Dr. Fosdick,” The Presbyterian XCII (July 13, 1922), p. 8. Here, as was often the case among militant conservative Presbyterians, Macartney hesitated to apply “fundamentalist” to himself, because of its premillennialist associations, e.g. p. 9. During the next few years, however, “fundamentalist” became the most commonly accepted designation for the party.
11. The factual information in the following account can be found in a number of places. Some of the best are Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church (Philadelphia, 1957); the chapters on Macartney and Machen in C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism (Philadelphia, 1976); and the very helpful and detailed thesis by Delwin G. Nykamp, “A Presbyterian Power Struggle: A Critical History of Communication Strategies Employed in the Struggle for Control of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., 1922–1926,” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1974.
12. A Bryan proposal on this theme was adopted only in a very weak form by this Assembly, Loetscher, Broadening Church, p. 111.
13. He also declined to write on evolution, “New York Times” file, May and June 1925, Machen papers, Westminster Theological Seminary.
14. Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (New York, 1923). pp. 2, 7, 5, 47, 7, and 10–15. On Machen’s political connections see Russell, Voices, pp. 146–50.
15. Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 8, 160.
16. Glenn Frank, “Liberalizing the Fundamentalist Movement,” Christian Century XL (August, 1923), pp. 637–40.
17. The Nation, Dec. 26, 1923, p. 729. The New Republic XXXVII (Jan. 9, 1924), pp. 161–62, reprinted in Eldred C. Vanderlaan, ed., Fundamentalism versus Modernism (New York, 1925), pp. 353–59.
18. Editorial “Fundamentalism and Modernism: Two Religions,” Christian Century XL (Jan. 2, 1924), pp. 5–6.
XX. The Offensive Sta
lled and Breaking Apart: 1924–1925
1. William E. Leuchtenburg, The Perils of Prosperity, 1914–32 (Chicago, 1958), p. 153. The date of Mencken’s remark is not clear.
2. Eldred C. Vanderlaan’s excellent collection, Fundamentalism versus Modernism (New York, 1925), contains numerous defenses of the modernist position, largely from 1924. Virtually all of the sentiments found in Mathews (below) could be duplicated in these essays. Another especially important defense of the modernist position in 1924 was Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible (New York).
3. Mathews, The Faith of Modernism (New York, 1924), p. 18.
4. Ibid., pp. 35, 51, 61, 102.
5. Ibid., pp. 16, 22.
6. Ibid., pp. 12, 32.
7. Ibid., pp. 9, 34, 124, 180, 80.
8. James Brownlee North, “The Fundamentalist Controversy Among the Disciples of Christ, 1890–1930,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1973; Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York, 1931), pp. 132–62; Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven, 1954), pp. 170–76.
9. Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, pp. 162–69; cf. Cole, History, pp. 193–225.
10. Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, pp. 148–55; Cole, History, pp. 163–92.
11. Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, pp. 156–61.
12. This is evident, for instance, in the work of the leading Southern Methodist conservative, Bishop Warren A. Candler. See, for instance, his Great Revivals and the Great Republic (Nashville, 1904), which strongly ties evangelical and nationalistic interests. Bob Jones, Sr. likewise related fundamentalism to Southern political conservatism, including racial segregation.
John Lee Eighmy, Churches in Cultural Captivity: A History of the Social Attitudes of Southern Baptists (Knoxville, Tenn., 1972), relates fundamentalism to attacks on the Social Gospel. Probably the best general account of the relationship of fundamentalism to other cultural issues in the South is found in Kenneth K. Bailey, Southern White Protestantism in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1964).
13. Robert E. Wenger, “Social Thought in American Fundamentalism,” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nebraska, e.g., p. 72, shows by a number of tests that originally fundamentalism was not based substantially in the South.
14. Furniss, Fundamentalist Controversy, pp. 119–26, 142–47; Bailey, Southern White Protestantism, pp. 44–71. Of the major Southern denominations, the Southern Baptists have had the greatest affinities to fundamentalism. Nevertheless, their Southernness had often kept them from close contacts with any Northern evangelicalism. In the 1920s and since, moderates have prevented strong fundamentalist measures, so separatists such as J. Frank Norris have flourished in opposition to the Convention. Southern Presbyterians took steps to ensure doctrinal conservatism during the fundamentalist era, but subsequently (in 1944) also condemned dispensationalism. Ernest Trice Thompson, Presbyterians in the South: Vol. III: 1890–1972 (Richmond, 1973), p. 488.
15. Robert T. Handy, A History of the Churches in the United States and Canada (New York, 1977), pp. 354–76; 389–90. On the Canadian Baptist splits the best account is Walter Ellis, “Social and Religious Factors in the Fundamentalist-Modernist Schisms among Baptists in North America, 1895–1934,” pp. 1–3, 14–17, 132–78, 211–34. On Shields see, C. Allyn Russell, “Thomas Todhunter Shields, Canadian Fundamentalist,” Ontario History (December, 1978), pp. 263–79.
16. “AN AFFIRMATION: Designed to safeguard the unity and liberty of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America,” reprinted in The Presbyterian XCIV (January 17, 1924), pp. 6–7. Cf. Charles E. Quirk, “Origins of the Auburn Affirmation,” Journal of Presbyterian History LIII (Summer, 1975), pp. 120–42.
17. Quirk, “Auburn Affirmation,” p. 132.
18. Delwin G. Nykamp, “A Presbyterian Power Struggle,” Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1974, and Quirk “Auburn Affirmation,” use this inclusivist/exclusivist terminology.
19. Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church (Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 121–24.
20. George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, S.C., 1973), p. 157.
21. Ronald Nelson, “Fundamentalism and the Northern Baptist Convention,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1964, pp. 285–92.
22. Cole, History, p. 72.
23. Nelson, “Fundamentalism,” pp. 300–302.
24. T. T. Shields, Gospel Witness, May 27, 1926, quoted in Nelson, “Fundamentalism,” p. 304.
25. Quoted in Cole, History, p. 81.
26. “Dr. Machen Replies to Dr. Erdman, The Presbyterian XCV (Feb. 5, 1925), p. 20, quoted in Nykamp, “Power Struggle,” p. 346. Nykamp’s detailed analysis of this episode includes helpful observations regarding Machen’s personality. Machen was by this time encouraging a movemental spirit especially among his student followers. To those who were on his side he seemed to be the warmest and most gentlemanly of friends. To opponents he appeared cold and aloof. See pp. 487–93. See also Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: A Biographical Memoir (Grand Rapids, 1954).
27. Machen, “The Present Situation in the Presbyterian Church,” The Presbyterian XCV (May 14, 1925), p. 6. Billy Sunday at the time wrote to Machen about Erdman’s alleged modernism since he had “always counted him with the orthodox folk.” Machen’s explanation brought the agreement from Sunday that “I think the fact that we have been tolerant is the reason the weed has already grown so noxious.” Machen papers, Westminster Theological Seminary, Sunday file, May 14, 16, 23, and 29, 1925.
28. Nykamp, “Power Struggle,” pp. 390–407; Loetscher, Broadening Church, pp. 125–28.
XXI. Epilogue: Dislocation, Relocation, and Resurgence: 1925–1940
1. Mathews, The Faith of Modernism (New York, 1924), p. 18.
2. The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes: Complete Stenographic Report…(New York, 1971 [Cincinnati, 1925]), p. 199.
3. Ibid., p. 287.
4. Ibid., p. 299.
5. Mencken, Prejudices: Fifth Series (New York, 1926), in Henry May, ed., The Discontent of the Intellectuals: A Problem of the Twenties (Chicago, 1963), pp. 25–30. In Robert S. and Helen Merrell Lynd’s study of Muncie, Indiana, conducted in 1924 and 1925, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York, 1929), it is clear that the majority held a very traditional American evangelical belief in the Bible and Christianity. Although conscious identification with fundamentalism does not seem to have been a large issue, a number of respondents did mention the importance of holding to “the fundamentals” when questioned about religious change, p. 328.
6. This is especially true regarding premillennialism. Obadiah Holmes, “The Threat of Millennialism,” Christian Century XXXVIII (April 28, 1921), p. 11; editorial “The Capitalists and the Premillenarians,” ibid. (April 14, 1921), p. 3. Editorial “Fundamentalism and 100 Per Centism,” Christian Century XXXIX (Nov. 2, 1922), p. 3, ties “reactionary theology to reactionary politics.” Kirsopp Lake, The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow (London, 1925), p. 161, identifies fundamentalism with industrial interests and “anti-revolutionary” politics.
7. Lewis, Elmer Gantry, American Library edition (New York, 1970 [1927]), pp. 374–75.
8. Shipley, The War on Modern Science: A Short History of Fundamentalist Attacks on Evolution and Modernism (New York, 1927), pp. 3–4. Shipley estimated the anti-science “fundamentalist” forces in America as “more than twenty-five millions,” p. 3.
9. Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918–1931 (New Haven, 1954), pp. 42–43, 57–70.
10. Furniss, Controversy, pp. 83–95, summarizes anti-evolution efforts, concluding that by 1928 nine states had adopted some sort of measure. Willard B. Gatewood ed., Controversy in the Twenties (Nashville, 1969), p. 36, says that between 1921 and 1929 thirty-seven anti-evolution measures were introduced in twenty state legislatures. Of these, five won approval (Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee,
Mississippi, Arkansas). In California, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Texas, less binding anti-evolution rulings were enacted at least for a time. See also Gate-wood, Preachers, Pedagogues and Politicians: The Evolution Controversy in North Carolina, 1920–1927 (Chapel Hill, 1966).
11. Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays (New York, 1963).
12. “The Bible Crusaders’ Challenge,” The Crusaders’ Champion I (Feb., 5, 1926), pp. 12–13, reprinted in Gatewood, ed., Controversy, pp. 243–47. Cf. Furniss, Controversy, pp. 56–75, for similar concerns.
13. This account is based on C. Allyn Russell, Voices of American Fundamentalism (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 20–46. Cf. George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America (Greenville, S.C., 1973), pp. 122–34.
14. Dollar, History, pp. 169–71, 110–11; cf. Stewart G. Cole, The History of Fundamentalism (New York, 1931), pp. 292–93; cf. Furniss, Controversy, pp. 107–8.
15. Lippmann, A Preface to Morals (New York, 1929), pp. 31–32.
16. Editorial “Vanishing Fundamentalism,” Christian Century XLIII (June 24, 1926), p. 799.
17. Lefferts A. Loetscher, The Broadening Church (Philadelphia, 1957), pp. 130–36.
18. The Presbyterian Guardian II (June 22, 1936), p. 110.
19. Edwin H. Rian, The Presbyterian Conflict (Grand Rapids, 1940), provides a responsible, although highly partisan, sympathetic account of the Orthodox Presbyterian movement. Cf. Loetscher, Broadening Church, pp. 148–55, and Russell, Voices, pp. 135–61, 190–211. After Machen’s death, Carl McIntire led a schism from the new group to found the Bible Presbyterian Church. See George Marsden, “Perspective on the Division of 1937,” Presbyterian Guardian XXXIII (January to April, 1963).
20. On Massee see Russell, Voices, pp. 107–34. See also Norman H. Maring, “Conservative But Progressive,” in Gilbert L. Guffin, ed., What God Hath Wrought, Eastern’s First Thirty-Five Years (Chicago, 1960?), on the foundation of Eastern Theological Seminary by moderate conservative Baptists in 1925.
Fundamentalism and American Culture Page 46