FUNDAMENTALISM AND MODERNISM. Funda mentalism is the name given to a religious movement which, ap pearing independently in different denominations in the United States immediately after the World War, steadily gathered mo mentum until in 1925 it became a subject of national, as distinct from denominational, interest through the trial and conviction of John T. Scopes, teacher of science in Rhea high school, Dayton, Tenn., on a charge of violating the Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the State public schools.
The trial began on July Io, 1925, and was concluded on July 21, 1925, by the conviction of the defendant and his sentence to pay a fine of $loo. The immediate issue was as to whether the defendant had or had not violated the provisions of the State law as to the subjects to be taught in public schools, but the wider issue was as to the extent to which the State, in its control of pub lic education, may determine the nature of the religious instruc tion given to the students in its schools. The trial itself was the culmination of a movement which had been going on for some years. Alarmed by the steady growth of liberal tendencies, the conservatives of the different churches had banded themselves to gether to stay what seemed to them the rising tide of negation. The form of the movement differed in the different communions according to the particular issue which was in question at the time, but common to all the Fundamentalist groups was, first, the ac ceptance of a view of the supernatural which insists that God manifests His presence in nature and history through exceptional and extraordinary activities, transcending the laws of nature; and, secondly, the determination to use this conception of religion as a test to limit the freedom of teaching hitherto enjoyed by the ministers of the denomination. In all this there is nothing new. In every age conservatives and liberals have carried on their con flict over some form of this issue. What is new is the widespread character of the movement, the missionary enthusiasm which has been brought to it by its advocates and the consciousness on their part of interests transcending denominational lines and calling for a new alignment, with the Fundamentalists of all denominations on one side and the liberals on the other.
In the Presbyterian Church the controversy centred about the case of Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, a Baptist clergyman who had been invited to act as stated supply for the First Presbyterian church in New York city. Dr. Fosdick, who was also a professor in Union theological seminary of that city and a man of moderate liberal tendencies, made it his condi tion of accepting the call that he should be allowed to retain his membership in the Baptist Church. A sermon preached in May, 1922, entitled "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" was the occasion of an attack upon his theology by conservative Presbyterians, which led the General Assembly of 1923 to direct the Presbytery of New York to take such action as would require the preaching in the First Presbyterian church to conform with the Confession of Faith. The Presbytery, after full conference with Dr. Fosdick and the church, reported that such was now the case, whereupon the Assembly of 1924, without passing any judgment on Dr. Fosdick's theological views, expressed the opinion that if he were to remain longer in the pulpit of the church, he should accept the standards of doctrine required of other ministers. On this issue Dr. Fosdick withdrew, declaring that "Creedal subscription to ancient confessions of faith is a practice dangerous to the welfare of the church and to the integrity of the individual conscience." In connection with this controversy the General Assembly in 1923 reasserted the so-called "Five Points," a declaration origi nally made in 191o, setting forth as essential doctrines of the Christian faith, the Virgin Birth, the physical Resurrection, the inerrancy of Scripture, the substitutionary Atonement and belief in the Miracles. In reliance upon this statement the judicial com mission of the Assembly, in May 1925, declared that the Presby tery of New York had erred in licensing a student who refused to affirm the Virgin Birth. The liberals attacked this procedure as an unconstitutional limitation of the liberty of interpretation ac corded to every minister by the terms of subscription, and to the presbyteries by the historic precedents of the church. (Cf. Auburn Affirmation of May 1924, signed by 1,283 members.) In view of these differing interpretations, the General Assembly of 1925 appointed a commission of 15 "to study the present spir itual condition of the Church and the causes making for unrest." This commission, which was continued by the Assembly of 1926, has done much to reconcile the contending factions and to vindi cate the right of liberals, as well as conservatives in the church. The chief opponent of this mediating policy, until his death in 1936 was Prof. J. Gresham Machen, of Princeton theological seminary, who was himself under attack by the more moderate alumni of his own institution. At their request a committee of the General Assembly investigated Princeton theological seminary and recommended certain changes in its government to make possible more unified control.
In the Baptist Church the controversy has taken the form of an effort on the part of the conservatives to secure the adoption by the annual conference of a creed which should be used as a test of ministerial fellowship. This attempt failed at repeated conferences, but the conservatives, defeated at this point, have sought to secure their ends by instructions given to their board of home missions as to the conditions to be ob served in the administration of their funds. One large bequest was actually accepted by the board on conditions which seemed to some of its critics unduly to limit its freedom. A parallel effort to secure control over the teaching of the seminaries has thus far failed of success.
Not the least important feature in the Fundamentalist move ment is its bearing upon foreign missions. In general the policy of the different missionary boards has been to put the respon sibility for determining the doctrinal qualifications of candidates upon the home church ; and in the work on the foreign field con servatives and liberals have co-operated successfully in various union enterprises. Fundamentalists have challenged this arrange ment and attacked the theology of liberal missionaries. On the whole this attack has been unsuccessful, and the unity won on the field has thus far been maintained; but the battle is by no means over. A case in point is the action of the general convention of the Disciples at Oklahoma City, Okla., on Oct. 6, 1925, in reaffirm ing the principle of close communion which has been departed from by some of their missionaries in the interest of wider co-operation.
In the Episcopal Church the contro versy has centred about the literal observance of the creeds. On Oct. 5, 1923, Bishop Lawrence of Massachusetts made an address (afterwards published in pamphlet form) entitled Fifty Years, in which he pleaded for a liberal interpretation of the creeds. On Nov. 14, 1923 at Dallas, Tex., the bishops of the Episcopal Church met this challenge by issuing a pastoral insisting upon literal ac ceptance of the creeds and questioning the good faith of those ministers who gave their historic statements a symbolic interpre tation. This pastoral was attacked by the liberals of the church who were organized in a body known as the Modern Churchman's Union. Sermons were preached by leading liberals, like Dr. Leigh ton Parks, of St. Bartholomew's church of New York, and Dr. William Russell Bowie, of Grace church of the same city, and manifestoes were issued by theologians like the volume of essays entitled Creeds and Loyalty by seven members of the faculty of the Episcopal theological school of Cambridge, Mass. (1924). As a result of this agitation a trial for heresy begun against the Rev. Lee W. Heaton for denying the Virgin Birth was abandoned, and for the moment a truce was declared.
One of the main sources of popular conservative propaganda is the so-called Bible institutes, of which the most important are the Moody Bible institute in Chicago and the Bible institute of Los Angeles. These schools, interdenomina tional in character, recruiting their students from young people without college, and many of them without high school education, insist upon the inerrancy of the Scriptures, which they interpret commonly in the pre-millenarian sense. They are carrying on an extensive propaganda partly through periodicals of interdenomina tional character and partly through conventions (the so-called prophetic conferences), which bring together large numbers of people. While these institutes are not designed primarily as theo logical seminaries, many of their pupils are finding their way into the churches and are reinforcing the conservative elements which are already there.
It is against the background of these influences that one must interpret the Tennessee trial. Under the leadership of William Jennings Bryan, the conservatives had been carrying on an active campaign throughout the country, attacking the views of liberal Christians as fundamentally irreligious and unchristian and insist ing not only upon rigid measures on the part of the individual churches, but also upon such a stiffening of the laws of the States as to prevent what they regard as the insidious propaganda of modernism in the schools. The storm-centre of the debate was the doctrine of evolution which, as interpreted by Mr. Bryan, involves a denial of the Biblical doctrine of creation and the surrender on the part of the teacher to an all-devouring materialism.
As a result of his agitation, legislation similar to that of Ten nessee has been attempted in a number of different States, but the only State which has adopted such legislation is Mississippi. Dur ing 1927, the following States rejected anti-evolution legislation : West Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Arkansas, Delaware and Minnesota. Both in Mississippi and Tennessee the law is now practically a dead letter.
In the State of Texas, the State text-book commission is given authority to prohibit the use of any text-book which the commis sion deems objectionable, a power which was intended to be used and has been used, for the prevention of the teaching of evolution in the schools of the State. (W. A. BR.) BIBLIOGRAPHY.-J. W. Johnson, Fundamentalism versus Modernism Bibliography.-J. W. Johnson, Fundamentalism versus Modernism (1925) ; W. Lippmann, American Inquisitors (1928) ; A. W. Robinson, New Learning and the Old Faith (1928) .
