Fundamentalism and American Culture

by Marsden, George M. ;

  At the Divinity School of the University of Chicago patriotism seemed unrestrained, especially in its treatment of premillennialism. Shailer Mathews, Dean of the Divinity School, launched the attack in 1917 in a widely distributed pamphlet, “Will Jesus Come Again?” castigating premillennialism on theological, Biblical, and historical grounds.26 Shirley Jackson Case, Professor of Early Church History, soon followed suit with a more extensive study, The Millennial Hope: A Phase of War Time Thinking, published in January of 1918. As the title implied, Case explained millennialism—in fact tried to dismiss it—on historicist grounds, showing how such thinking often became popular in times of crisis. He also noted, by way of introduction, that the current upsurge of premillennialism was especially dangerous, as it “strikes at the very heart of all democratic ideals” by denying human responsibility for the reform and betterment of society.27

  Case told the press that his motive for publishing was his growing concern about the spread of premiliennial ideas, about which the Divinity School received “many communications” every week. Case was convinced that the immediate cause of the millennialists’ rise was a sinister conspiracy. “Two-thousand dollars a week is being spent to spread the doctrine,” he told reporters. “Where the money comes from is unknown, but there is a strong suspicion that it emanates from German sources. In my belief the fund would be a profitable field for governmental investigation.”28

  These sensational charges were not offhand or unrepresentative remarks, but were just what they now seem to be—outright expressions of wartime paranoia. This becomes clear from a survey of Shailer Mathew’s journal. The Biblical World. In 1918 this scholarly publication might just as well have been called The Biblical War, filled as it was with the idealism of the crusade. On the home front the premillennialists were the chief enemy. During 1918 and 1919 most issues of the journal contained at least one major feature attacking premillennialism.29 The editor even seemed willing to use unfounded charges and innuendo in order to cast the premillennialists in the worst light. An essay in May 1918 was prefaced by a reproduction of a letter from a Liberty Loan speaker who complained that premillennial evangelists were undermining enthusiasm for the war. The writer suggested that perhaps this movement, like the I. W. W., was financed by German money. The letter, said the editor, speaks for itself.30

  Shirley Jackson Case repeated these accusations and added some of his own in the most hysterical attack of the series, “The Premillennial Menace,” published in June. “The principles of premillennialism,” he said, “lend themselves to the purposes of I.W.W. propaganda…. When one regards the present world as irremediably bad, it is only a short step to the typical I.W.W. tirade against existing institutions.” But the burden of his message was that premillennialism threatened both the American war cause and the fundamental premise of modernist theology. “The American nation,” said Case, “is engaged in a gigantic effort to make the world safe for democracy.” Hence, “it would be almost traitorous negligence to ignore the detrimental character of premillennial propaganda.” This posed an inestimable danger to both religion and culture because, “In the name of religion we are told that the world cannot appreciably be improved by human efforts.” Mathews prefaced this contribution with similarly extreme remarks about the dangers of premillennialism to both religion and patriotism, adding (in an apparent effort to associate evangelical premillennialists with Russellites) a newspaper report “that several of the leaders of one of these movements have been found guilty of disloyal utterances and sentenced to imprisonment.”31

  Such acrimony indicated the extent to which the war fanned the smoldering coals of theological debate. For premillennialists and other doctrinal militants, of course, it did not take much provocation to unleash fierce controversy. The liberals had been traditionally the party of peace, tolerance and comprehensiveness. During and immediately after the war, however. liberals seemed openly ready to seek a showdown. The Christian Century, for instance, was as active as The Biblical World in attacking the premillennialists, running a twenty-one article series on the subject during the war.32

  The premillennialists uniformly responded by denying any disloyalty and be reiterating their case for the Biblical source of their views; yet the liberal attacks had also opened the way for an important line of counterattack. The liberals had insinuated that premillennialism might be tainted by German gold. The King’s Business responded: “While the charge that the money for premillennial propaganda ‘emanates from German sources’ is ridiculous, the charge that the destructive criticism that rules in Chicago University ‘emanates from German sources’ is undeniable.”33 This quickly became one of the most effective and widely-repeated accusations among opponents of liberal theology. Probably the most forceful statement of this idea came from W. H. Griffith Thomas, British premillennial scholar and Professor of Old Testament at Wycliffe College in Toronto since 1910. A loyal citizen of the British Empire, Thomas had been decrying the evil connection between German theology and German militarism since early in the European war.34 In a particularly vitriolic essay written just as the war was ending, he dealt with the subject of “German Moral Abnormality.” After ten pages of atrocity anecdotes (which by then were commonplace in American propaganda) he spent another half-dozen pages quoting patriotic sentiments taken from German sermons. He pointed out the self-evident incredibility of these sentiments in the light of the atrocities. How could one explain “these (let us put it mildly) aberrations”? Corrupt German Biblical scholarship was at the root of the astounding moral collapse of German civilization.35

  The radical dispensationalist journal Our Hope likewise attributed German militarism directly to German theology. “Every word of this is true,” remarked Arno C. Gaebelein in reference to a suggestion that if the churches in other countries had “‘entered the conflict against German rationalism fifty years ago, as loyalty to Christ demanded, this most destructive and hideous of wars could never have occurred.’” This observation had important implications for the home front as well. “‘The new theology has led Germany into barbarism, and it will lead any nation into the same demoralization.’”36 The conservatives at Princeton Seminary, who had long been lonely voices in warning against the dangers of German “rationalism,” saw a similar meaning in the demise-of-civilization motif. William B. Greene, at the seminary opening in the fall of 1918, described “the Present Crisis in Ethics,” particularly as evinced in Germany’s conduct of the war, as related to (among other things) rationalism, evolutionary naturalism, and the philosophy of Nietzsche.37 Premillennialist Howard W. Kellogg stressed these same themes in a less restrained address given at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles during the same summer. “Loud are the cries against German Kultur…,” he declaimed. “Let this now be identified with Evolution, and the truth begins to be told.” The truth, he suggested, was that this philosophy was responsible for “a monster plotting world domination, the wreck of civilization and the destruction of Christianity itself.”38

  These ideas, and the cultural crisis that bred them, revolutionized funda-mentalism. More precisely, they created it (although certainly not ex nihilo) in its classic form. Until World War I various components of the movement were present, yet collectively they were not sufficient to constitute a full-fledged “fundamentalist” movement. The cultural issue suddenly gave the movement a new dimension, as well as a greater sense of urgency. During the 1920s the point was constantly reiterated that the argument between fundamentalists and modernists was not merely a theological debate (theological debate would not have created much fervor among Americans). The contention was that the whole moral course of civilization was involved. Evolution became a symbol. Without the new cultural dimension it is unlikely that the debate over Darwinism could have been revived in the spectacular way it was or that fundamentalism itself would have gained wide support. Americans had just fought a war that could be justified only as a war between civilization and barbarism. German barbarism could be explaine
d as the result of an evolutionary “might is right” superman philosophy.39 The argument was clear—the same thing could happen in America.

  This insight transformed the premillennialist movement in a dramatic way. Before World War I many premillennialists had stayed aloof from cultural concerns and all were skeptical of any plans concerned merely with the future of civilization. By the end of the war their strongest line of attack on modernism committed them to a position which put forward the survival of civilization as a principal concern. This position accentuated the longstanding paradox in the thinking of American premillennialists. As premillennialists they had to say that there was no hope for culture, but at the same time they were traditional American evangelicals who urged a return to Christian principles as the only cultural hope.40

  The latter emphasis, which had been largely (though never entirely) suppressed among premillennialists, re-emerged in full strength during the summer of 1918. This transformation of a group that had included many pacifists can be understood only in view of the extreme pressure of propaganda and public opinion toward patriotic excess. Liberals and conservatives alike found the force of popular sentiment irresistible. Even that staunch journal of peace. The Christian Herald, had by 1918 (though at the same time temporarily embracing premillennialism) succumbed to the characteristic American patriotism of that year, going so far as to praise Lutheran schools for giving up the teaching of German.41

  Some of the most adamant premillennial advocates of political non-involvement likewise succumbed. Our Hope provides the most striking example. It should be recalled that this ardently premillennialist journal had shown little interest in the war prior to American involvement and in September of 1917 had answered “no” to the question “should a Christian go to war?” By April 1918 the war was becoming a godly cause. Citing the American government’s claim that this was a defensive war provoked by a scheming, dishonest Germany, Our Hope concluded: “These are unanswerable arguments. There is an element of righteousness which any right thinking man cannot fail to see and which is, we believe, in harmony with the righteous government of God.”42 By July the wartime rhetoric and call to arms was fully developed. Wrote Arnold Gaebelein:

  If we had not done so the German warships would probably be bombarding our coast by this time and the hellish program of murder, pillage, and rapine would soon be carried out on our soil.… And now it is the solemn duty of everyone to do all and to give all in this cause and stand by the government, so the hosts of evil may be speedily defeated.43

  James M. Gray and his Christian Workers Magazine of Moody Bible Institute did not have to travel as far to arrive at the same patriotic destination. In 1917 Gray attempted to maintain a balanced position and had published articles on both sides of the question whether Christians might participate in war. He himself favored dutiful support of the war on the grounds that magistrates were ordained by God.44 He insisted, however, that Christians’ attitude toward the Germans should be “malice toward none.”45 But with the revelations in the spring of 1918 concerning German war aims and alleged atrocities Gray also came to see America’s war effort as a totally righteous cause:

  Hitherto we have felt it to be the Christian’s duty to serve his government in this conflict even to the taking up of arms, but now this secondary obligation, strong as it is, fades out of sight in the thought of our responsibility to God as the executioners of His avenging justice.”46

  The King’s Business, which of all the standard premillennial journals had campaigned most vigorously against military preparedness, had a more difficult struggle with the war issue; but in 1918 it too came to the same conclusion. In 1917 the California-based journal had warned against the disastrous and demoralizing effects of war, and urged Christians to “love our enemies,” even if they were Germans.47 By early 1918, however, the editors were beginning to believe that the Kaiser’s capacity for evil rivaled that of the most notorious precursors of the anti-Christ, and that he might even be in some sort of league with both the Pope and the Mohammedans.48 By May 1918 they got to the point of relating the Kaiser directly to the devil. Ignoring the traditional premillenial condemnation of the Constantinian ideal of church and state united in Christian culture against the infidels, The King’s Business quoted with unqualified approval:

  “The Kaiser boldly threw down the gage of battle—infidel Germany against the believing world—Kultur against Christianity—the Gospel of Hate against the Gospel of Love. Thus is Satan personified—‘Myself and God.’… Never did Crusader lift battle-ax in holier war against the Saracen than is waged by our soldiers of the cross against the German.”49

  The editors of The King’s Business used a traditional Puritan and evangelical theme to justify this apparent reversal of their views. During 1917 the editors had made the point (useful for evangelism) that no nation was righteous and none could receive God’s blessing without repentance.50 In 1918 this principle provided an opportunity to abandon, more or less gracefully, earlier misgivings about the war. Woodrow Wilson called for a day of prayer and fasting on Decoration Day, May 30, 1918. The editors saw this as America’s only hope.51 Americans responded to this call, the editors believed, in a most laudable fashion. Now the editors were convinced that they had simply been wrong about the demoralizing effects of war. The war had brought out courage and dedication that they had never thought possible.52 But the key had been repentance. In a Thanksgiving editorial written before the war ended, The King’s Business attributed the success of the American war effort primarily to the Decoration Day of prayer and fasting:

  This day was very widely observed, far more widely and earnestly we admit than we thought it would be, and God heard the prayers that went up on that day, heard them in a way that has made the whole world wonder.

  In fact the day of fasting had coincided remarkably with the beginning of the effective American contribution to the war (Château-Thierry was June 4) and the dramatic reversal of the German offensive. So now these premillen-nialists sounded as convinced as mid-nineteenth-century evangelicals that God was on the side of America. “God has done wonderful things for this nation.”53

  Only at the official prophetic gatherings was the tradition of staying clear of politics still in evidence. Thus, at the two major prophetic conferences held in 1918, patriotic themes were kept in the background. Instead, the most engrossing political topic was the capture of Jerusalem by the British General Allenby. To a student of prophecy this was immensely more important than anything else that the allies did, since it cleared the path for the fulfillment of the predicted return of the Jews to Palestine.54

  Significantly, however, the one speaker at either of these conferences to consider at any length the more general social and political questions was William B. Riley. Riley, as we have seen, exemplified the primary tension in premillennial cultural attitudes. Since early in his career he had been wrestling with the political implications of social issues. During his long Minneapolis pastorate, begun in 1897, he championed some progressive reforms and defended the right of ministers to deal with “secular” subjects. He also had been a vocal opponent of the Spanish American War. But when World War I broke out, he defended it on the basis of the Christian’s “dual citizenship.” Americans should be loyal both to the “heavenlies” and to the United States, the latter loyalty entailing an obligation to defend civilization against barbarism.55

  Nevertheless, at the Philadelphia Prophecy Conference of 1918, even though Riley had two sons in the war he still was able to qualify the implications of patriotism. He spoke eloquently for charity toward the poor, but he warned that the self-sacrifice and heroism of the war should not create any illusions concerning human nature or any hopes for salvation of society without Christ. Similarly, while clearly supporting the American cause, he warned against allowing patriotism to revive unqualified confidence in American idealism. “‘Make the world safe for democracy,’” he said, is a sentiment with which “we have no controversy.” “But,�
� he immediately added, “who will rise, and when will he come to make democracy safe for the world?” Only “the blood of the Son of God” could change human nature sufficiently for that. Preachers should not allow “the modern voices to lead them to substitute democracy for a divinely appointed plan of divine REDEMPTION.…”

  Although pointing to modern tendencies that might be dangerously strengthened by the war, Riley, along with other premillennialists, saw in the war a central lesson about the welfare of society. For the past fifty years the trend had been toward the exaltation of man. Darwinism, not simply as a biological theory, but as a progressive evolutionary philosophy, was the best evidence of this trend. German “Kultur,” where the doctrine of evolution had bred the twin evils of modernism and militarism, showed the inevitable result of such doctrines.56 Riley, it seems, had long been searching for a way in which to show how Christianity involved concern for society as well as for individuals.57 Now the war focused and clarified the issues and showed where the battle to save American civilization must be met.

  World War I saw the rise of William B. Riley to leadership in the fundamentalist movement—a fact doubtless related to his ability to articulate the urgency of the cultural crisis. In 1919 he was the chief organizer of the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, the principal organization of the premillennial wing of the fundamentalist movement. Unlike any of the premillennialist organizations immediately preceding it, this new fundamentalist body expressed strong concern for the condition of American society. As in conservative-evangelical anti-German war-time rhetoric, evolution and modernism were tied together and seen as a cultural as well as a specifically religious threat. Out of these concerns, to which anti-communism was soon added, fundamentalist super-patriotism began to grow.58 Thus a movement that had characteristically claimed that loyalty was not owed to kings and nations, and had been sufficiently apolitical in 1917 to be suspected of disloyalty, became sufficiently patriotic to make the defense of Christian civilization in America one of its major goals.