Apostasy in Our Colleges
R. C. Foster

THE WRITER: R.. C. Foster, at the time of writing, was professor of Greek and New Testament in the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, after having received his formal training from Transylvania and College of the Bible, as well as the Universities of Yale and Harvard.  He was qualified to write concerning ministerial education and had personal knowledge concerning the school to which Mr. Corey drew attention, the College of the Bible. 
Volume I --  Number  1
October, 1954
pp. 15-33
(C)opyright 1954
All Rights Reserved
The Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary

    FIFTY years is a good round number, but we should remember that man's apostasy began in the Garden of Eden.  The word, "apostasy," is derived from the Greek verb, "aphistemi," which means "to stand against, to oppose."  The word, "apostate," means one who has abandoned what he formerly professed.  In the New Testament it means one who formerly was a Christian, who now scorns, derides, and assails Christ and the Gospel.  One of the early Christian writers accurately describes apostates as: "godless, impenitent leaders of heresy."1

    As a rough generalization, fifty years is a fairly accurate estimate of the critical period of apostasy in our colleges.  It was in the final decade of the last century that the fierce duel arose between J. W. McGarvey of the College of the Bible and Herbert L. Willett of Chicago University.  The precursor of the Campbell Institute was formed by a group of five students at Yale University in 1892.2  It became formally organized at Springfield, Illinois in 1896 with 14 members.  Thus the secret organization of unbelievers banded together to infiltrate the colleges, missionary organizations, and key pulpits, like a poisonous serpent hiding in caverns by day and slipping out unawares by night to overpower and destroy, came into action before the close
of the last century.

    The year 1909 is usually named as the key date in the apostasy of the restoration movement.  Here is another round number: 100 years had passed since the publication of the Declaration and Address by Thomas and Alexander Campbell.  But there is more than a rough estimate here: the Centennial Convention in Pittsburgh in 1909 suddenly revealed to the brotherhood the presence and power of the unbelievers who were already capturing the places of power in the rapidly developing denominational hierarchy.  But the apostasy had been in process since the last decade of the preceding century.

    It was keen strategy for the radicals to strike first at the colleges to capture the source of supply for the pulpits.  Churches which have no means of training future leadership, are doomed.  The downfall of the colleges is a pathetic record.  Swift and terrifying was the change that swept the colleges into the hands of infidels.  It was all accomplished practically within the first two decades of this century.  Trusting brethren were easy victims of the practiced deceit of the modernists.  The old ruse of the Trojan horse was worked again with ridiculous ease: shining doctors of philosophy suddenly appeared without the college walls and were promptly hauled in by unsuspecting brethren who did not realize the German rationalism on the inside or the fearful carnage that would ensue with the fall of darkness.

    The military tactic of destroying the spiritual leadership before the people discover what is transpiring, is ancient and universal.  Jezebel and Ahab executed this "massive envelopment" with swift and ruthless precision. Before the idolatrous fires of Baal could be lighted on a thousand hill-tops in Israel, the prophets of the Lord had to be slaughtered.  Shock troops, the imported prophets of Baal, quickly hunted down and destroyed the prophets of the Lord.  Ahab and Jezebel did not bother to send out their state secretaries to bring law suits in the civil courts to frighten all opposition into silence and to take over the real estate.  They killed and took possession.  And yet when Ahab finally came face to face with Elijah in the suburbs of Jezreel, he bitterly accused the prophet of "Three Years of Attack and Controversy!"  "Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?  And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou and thy father's house in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim."3

    The informed reader who still holds to the faith once for all delivered unto the saints, whose life-span covers the last half-century, and whose personal experience affords factual knowledge of the people and events in question, closes Stephen J. Corey's Fifty Years of Attack and Controversy, with an air of bewilderment.  Is this supposed to be history?  As one quickly takes up the volume again to reread, he begins to muse aloud: "And did Mr. Corey charge that The Christian Standard also caused the French Revolution?  inspired the German Rationalists? gave Kark Marx his start?  Oh - you say he did not charge that?  Well, how strange!  But where is that page - it certainly should be somewhere in the volume - the page where Mr. Corey charges that The Christian Standard organized the Campbell Institute in order to have something to attack?  But - you say he did not charge that either?  Hum!  How could he have failed to think of that one?"

    The Corey diatribe is adorned with a touch of unconscious humor.  He quotes 4 lines from an editorial of The Christian Standard of March 4, 1950.4  The title of the editorial is: "Be Sure To Read the Fine Print."  The editor of The Christian Standard must have had premonitions!  It is remarkable that Mr. Corey did not insert an addendum of his own to make the editorial read: "Be Sure To Read the Fine Print (if you can!)."  Even with all its prevarications, perversions, and omissions, the volume is self-destructive; for the contents of the arsenal are so horrible, even a glimpse through a crack in the door should suffice.  The diatribe of Mr. Corey's was obviously written for a clientelle unsuspecting and gullible, unwilling to attempt or unable to achieve critical analysis.  Were the lawsuits which the U.C.M.S. forces brought, especially the libel suit against R. E. Elmore in Des Moines, so timed as to frighten all opposition into silence in order that Mr. Corey's volume might go unchallenged?  If so, the plot met a double defeat in the court room and the public forum.

    The apostasy in our colleges naturally holds primacy in such a survey both as to time and importance.  Mr. Corey rightly concentrates upon the Campbell Institute and upon the fall of the College of the Bible.5  In the one case, the citadel of the radicals was secretly constructed; in the other, the citadel of New Testament teaching in our colleges, fell.  It is amazing that Mr. Corey should feel it is still worth his time to indulge in repeated, furious denials of the infidel character of the Campbell Institute and of the proved fact that it was and is a political machine geared for underground action in capturing by stealth the key places in our colleges, missionary organizations, and larger pulpits.6  Mr. Corey makes a back-handed admission of the secret character of the Campbell Institute when he says that President McGarvey and The Christian Standard "discovered" that there was such an organization as the Campbell Institute in existence.7  "Discovered"?  What brave soldiers of infidelity are they who must hold their meetings in secret, work in underground organizations, and wait to be "discovered".  Again he inadvertently admits the secret character of the organization when he tells that The Christian Standard managed to secure the names of the members of the Campbell Institute and published them.8  He repeatedly claims that The Christian Standard was merely yielding to an ignorant obsession when it charged that the Campbell Institute was a secret, radical organization which was infiltrating the important positions in colleges and missionary organizations.9  The critical omission of Mr. Corey's argument at this point is that the editor of The Christian Standard who was most relentless in his exposures of the radical coterie was George P. Rutledge.  For some years Mr. Rutledge was an unbeliever and a member of the radical clan.  He had shared their infidelity and their plots in the secret mid-night sessions in smoke filled hotel rooms during the conventions.  He knew at first-hand from the inside exactly what he was fighting.  The death of his wife brought George Rutledge down into the valley of the shadow where he found Jesus Christ again.  He came back to his Christian faith.  He then arose in the pulpit of the Broad Street Christian Church, Columbus, Ohio, and made frank confession of his previous infidelity, announced his withdrawal from the radical clan, and dedicated his life to fight the forces of unbelief.  The Christian Standard had nothing to do with this return of George Rutledge to Christian faith, but it became immediately interested in his declarations and writings.  From 1917-1922, Mr. Rutledge was editor of The Christian Standard.  Is it any wonder that he burned up the pages of the journal with his denunciations of the radical clique?  When George Rutledge met in combat members of the Campbell Institute at missionary conventions or in the pages of The Christian Standard, it was like Whittaker Chambers nailing to the post the brazen denials of Alger Hiss.

    Another member of the editorial staff of The Christian Standard who had been one of the most brilliant young members of the radical wing, was Frederick J. Gielow.  Faced by an avalanche of infidelity when he enrolled as a young student in the College of the Bible and unaware of the treacherous nature of his surroundings, F. J. Gielow was swept away to extreme unbelief.  Later on, he thought himself out of the morass and was converted back to the Christian religion.  He then published, in 1925, a ringing article in The Christian Standard describing his experiences: "The Conversion of a Modernist."10  Mr. Gielow served on the editorial staff of the Standard Publishing Company from 1927 to 1941.

    At the North American Christian Convention held in Indianapolis in Oct. 9-13, 1940, "the powers that be" had attempted to see that there was no controversy, that radical and conservative should have loving fellowship together without any discussion.11  But F. J. Gielow refused to wear a muzzle.  He created a sensation by delivering in this, the greatest address of his career, a trenchant, scintillating attack upon the radical clique.12  He spoke in a very critical hour.  The Commission on Restudy after the first seven years of secret parley and palaver had come forth with the proposition that the North American Convention was a divisive thing which should be put out of existence and that all should be brought back into the International Convention with the U.C.M.S.  Leading conservative members of the Restudy Commission pledged their strongest efforts to prevent any North American Convention from being held in 1942.  Their published report declares: "The commission seemed to be all but unanimous in the opinion that more than one convention was not conducive to unity; that a unitary convention can make place for varieties of opinions and yet preserve and enjoy fellowship among us all."13  But the members of the Restudy Commission who were on the Continuation Committee of the North American Convention, failed in their attempt to prevent the holding of any more such conventions.  The most which the radicals were able to salvage out of this maneuver was the move to shut off any controversy in the North American Convention.  In such a maze of shameful compromise as this, Frederick J. Gielow thrust the sharp sword of his penetrating logic and appeal.  Any study of the apostasy of our colleges must offer a high place to F. J. Gielow, both because of the inside information which he possessed by reason of his early, tragic unbelief, and because of his years of heroic service on the battle-front for the Christian Gospel.  It is very shrewd of Mr. Corey to omit any mention whatsover of Frederick J. Gielow.

    On May 10, 1923 at the Congress held at Georgetown, Kentucky for the purpose of launching the McGarvey Bible College, I delivered the educational address which set forth the need for such a college and issued the call for its immediate establishment.14  From the College of the Bible Commencement program of June, 1922, and extremely radical topics of B.D. theses were cited, and a challenge was given to the Lexington radicals: to offer for public inspection the B.D. theses whose radical topics instantly revealed the entire infidel character of the College of the Bible or else to cease from any further hypocritical denials of their infidelity.  The daily newspapers of Lexington took up the challenge and associated press dispatches carried it across America, but the faculty of the College of the Bible remained as silent and as immobile as death.  The only action they took was to refrain from publishing any more thesis topics on their commencement programs for a number of years.

    Shortly before Mr. Gielow's untimely death in December, 1941, I found in my files the copy of the commencement program I had used in this address in 1923.  While meditating again upon such thesis topics as, The Contribution of Heretics to the Formation of the Canon, Sun Worship and its Relation to Judaism and Christianity, and Factors Involved in The Evolution of the Concept of Deity, I suddenly became aware that the author of this last thesis was F. J. Gielow.  I was overwhelmed.  On May 10, 1923, that name had only meant to me another tragedy of some young student done to death in the darkness of the classrooms of the College of the Bible.  But now - F. J. Gielow was one of the dearest friends I had on earth.  In the Standard editorial offices, I put the faded copy of the commencement program in Mr. Gielow's hands and said: "Now, what I want to know is:  Did I tell the truth at Georgetown, Ky., on May 10, 1923? Was your thesis actually as radical as its topic indicates?"  Mr. Gielow shook his head sadly and said: "It was terrible. It was extremely radical."  Stephen J. Corey's feeble attempts to claim that the editorial force of The Christian Standard were merely yielding to an ignorant obsession in assailing the Campbell Institute, crumble to pieces upon examination.

    Mr. Corey attempts to create the impression that all those who have led in the opposition to the modernists in our colleges and missionary organizations are ignorant, untrained, bitterly prejudiced, and incited by some sort of vicious motives.15  It is inevitable that this proposition should bring him into instant combat with J. W. McGarvey whose stature, scholarship, and Godly life block access to such a ridiculous contention.16  Desperately Mr. Corey assails J. W. McGarvey's scholarly reputation.  He tries to make out that his classes were inferior in quality and that McGarvey was unacquainted with the new graduate methods of study.17  The claim that no careful graduate study was being done at Transylvania University and the College of the Bible in McGarvey's time, is false.18  Graduate students were few, but very thorough graduate study was available. For example, one M.A. thesis written at Transylvania in the life-time of J. W. McGarvey won honors in competition at two Eastern universities.  It is true that the methods of teaching used by J. W. McGarvey were undergraduate.  He was a wise man: he was teaching undergraduate students.  Graduate study requires graduate students.  During the last years of his teaching career, the years upon which Mr. Corey bases his attack, J. W. McGarvey's classes were made up largely of freshmen.  He offered no graduate courses in this period.  It was the obvious purpose to allow each incoming class to study under McGarvey and to get a glimpse of what he had been like in his zenith.

    Just how absurd is the claim that J. W. McGarvey did not know and did not favor the wide, intensive research of graduate study, can immediately be seen by turning the pages of his master-work, Evidences of Christianity.  Its pages overflow with footnotes of quotations and citations of a wide variety of works ancient and modern, radical and conservative.  Any student who had Evidences of Christianity in his hands, and who complains in later life that McGarvey did not sufficiently stir him to wide reading, either reveals the kind of a student he was or how
vicious his prejudice is against that great scholar.19

    In 1905 at the age of 17, I enrolled in the College of the Bible and took O.T.I (Genesis to Judges) under J. W. McGarvey.  It was one of the most thrilling and soul-satisfying experiences of my life.  Not even as "an invitation to learning" would I trade that course under J. W. McGarvey for any course of graduate study I have ever had in any university or theological school.  His class lectures and the exciting discussions which he promoted, covered a wide range of information.  I have never known but one other scholar who could compare with his encyclopedic knowledge; that was Professor G. F. Moore of Havard University.  When Mr. Corey charges that J. W. McGarvey merely tried to get out of the class the set answers to his own questions, his charge is false.20

    The great objective of McGarvey was to inspire students to master the contents of the Bible and to seek its true meaning.  I have never known any one who could so inspire his students to such fierce endeavor to memorize the Scripture.  Those who claim that J. W. McGarvey has been a mill-stone about the neck of the restoration movement preventing the development of graduate study, cannot hope to make any impression upon informed people, until they, themselves, produce some work of intensive critical research and brilliant analysis comparable to The Evidences of Christianity, The Authorship of Deuteronomy, The Lands of the Bible.

    The argument is made by Mr. Corey that the individuality and the new methods of the new professors in the College of the Bible immediately after the death of McGarvey, would not permit them to use the text-books of McGarvey.21  What he omits is that they could not use these text-books and hope to teach their unbelief because they found J. W. McGarvey with drawn sword facing them on every page of his text-books and cutting their infidel theories to pieces.
The unbelievers who captured the College of the Bible after the death of McGarvey are defended by Mr. Corey under flattering generalities of "modern scholarship", "the conclusions of historical criticism advanced by modern scholars."22  He claims that these teachers assign much reading on all sides of a question to their students.23  Mr. Corey's screed, which he labels history, is sufficient evidence as to how much credence should be given to this claim.  His presidency of the College of the Bible from 1938-1945 makes him a fair representative of their methods.  How much reading does Mr. Corey allow in his volume of the evidence against the radicals, even if one can borrow a microscope?  Does Mr. Corey allow the professors of the College of the Bible to declare their infidelity in their own words?  He shouts with horror because the Committee of 1000 put out some literature dating from the year 1920, but the white-wash statements Mr. Corey prints giving blanket endorsement to the new professors in the College of the Bible, date from 1917.  Why did not Mr. Corey print some of the attacks upon Christ and the Bible made by these professors?  He professes profound indignation that the Committee of 1000 should have quoted statements made by Professor Snoddy and Dr. Fortune who are now dead?24  It is not without reason that he carefully omits even the slightest reference to the indictments I brought against these radical teachers in 1920 and the years following.  The men in question were very much alive.  The Broadway Christian Church in Lexington held rallies where men were given the opportunity to present the evidence against these unbelievers almost on the doorstep of the College of the Bible.  I presented first-hand evidence from their own teaching and writing.  The radical teachers were unable to reply.  Mr. Corey finds it unwise to allow his readers to find out these facts.

    Mr. Corey wraps up in one package all the colleges under the Board of Higher Education by declaring that they all hold the same position as the College of the Bible.  He says: "Today, what the faculty of the College of the Bible stood for so valiantly has become mainly the conviction and the working principle of the faculties in all our schools holding membership in the Board of Higher Education of Disciples of Christ."25  Mr. Corey feels therefore it is unnecessary to discuss any of the other schools, since the entire issue finds its complete and most dramatic presentation in the history of the College of the Bible.  To this conclusion and this plan of discussion, there should be no objection.  But in the discussion of the College of the Bible, why did not Mr. Corey present what the radical teachers actually said, instead of hurriedly drawing the curtain?  He uses 306 pages in his discussion of the 50 years.  Was this not enough for him to give Dr. Fortune an opportunity to make some of his notorious attacks upon Christ?  Why did he not quote the declarations of Dr. Fortune that made Jesus a sinner in His youth, such as "They would have the friends of the school believe that I emphasize the mistakes of Jesus"?  And again, "I have no doubt but that Jesus made his mistakes when he was a boy, just as other boys do"?26  Why did he not quote Dr. Fortune's attacks upon the resurrection which set forth that the disciples had an experience which was just as satisfactory as if Jesus had been raised from the dead?  "Their courage was born out of a new experience which was as real to them as was that experience on Calvary which had banished their hope."27

    Although he gives space to the efforts of men who had only second-hand evidence against these radical teachers,28 Mr. Corey passes over in silence all the volume of first-hand evidence which I submitted and which the radicals dared not face.  He quotes the blanket denial of the modernistic faculty of the College of the Bible in 1917, when they declared: "We take occasion to affirm our fidelity to the fundamental truth of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and to the historic principles of the Disciples of Christ,"29 but he omits any quotations from their published, radical attacks upon Christ and the Bible which make their sweeping denial absurd.

    At the same time that Mr. Corey's volume was coming from the press, a companion volume was being issued by the faculty of the College of the Bible in honor of retiring Dean C. L. Pyatt:
To Do and To Teach.  This latter volume shows an amazing alignment between the ultra-radical College of the Bible and the atheistic Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati.30   Dr. Samuel S.
Cohon of the Hebrew Union College in his article offering tribute to Dr. Pyatt, quotes the following declaration of Dr. Pyatt: "I feel closer to liberal Jews than to the fundamentalists of my own denomination."31  Dr. Abraham Cronbach, retired professor of the Hebrew Union College, has just published a volume, Judaism For Today, to explain to the public the beliefs of the liberal Jew.  He frankly admits that the majority of liberal Jews maintain that heaven is just wishful thinking,32 and hell the imaginary product of the desire for revenge,33 and thus deny any life after death. God is reduced to an ideal.34  That the liberal Jew is filled with the most violent enmity against the Christian Gospel is a fact so well known as to need no further proof.
Thus while Mr. Corey deludes his unenlightened and unsuspecting patrons with antique denials from the infidel faculty of the College of the Bible in 1917,35 the present faculty issues their bold declaration of affinity with the extreme sceptics of our time and the bitterest enemies of the Christian religion.  The statement of 1917 prates of "our fidelity to the fundamental truth of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and to the historic principles of the Disciples of Christ."  The 1953 declaration of unbelief from the College of the Bible faculty says openly: "I feel closer to liberal Jews than to the fundamentalists of my own denomination."31  Incidentally, it should be asked: "Where can one find a 'fundamentalist' in the 'Disciples Denomination'?
What humble, informed follower of Christ would exchange the divine name for a human title such as 'fundamentalist'? or would accept denominational status, especially in a denomination under infidel leadership?"

    Contrast this statement with which Mr. Corey sums up the case for the College of the Bible, with the declaration printed in The Christian Evangelist by Professor Short: "No doubt Jesus' body went the way of all flesh in due season."36  When questioned recently concerning this infidelity by a preacher before a Kentucy congregation, President Montgomery of the College of the Bible blandly assured his audience: "President McGarvey was a great scholar who believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus: Professor Short is a great scholar who believes in the spiritual resurrection of Jesus."  The contradiction, however, is not between H. E. Short and J. W. McGarvey, but between H. E. Short and Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Jude, and all the eyewitnesses whose testimony they adduce.  And just what does this language mean: "the spiritual resurrection of Jesus?"  It means that there are some people who profess to remember and love Jesus so that He is resurrected and lives in their recollections and thoughts.  Before one of his classes in the College of the Bible, Professor Short led his students in a discussion that any one who holds to the bodily resurrection of Jesus makes himself ridiculous by affirming that the body of Jesus is now in heaven.  Evidently the new methods of graduate study in vogue at Lexington do not allow time for any study of the Bible or Professor Short would have heard of the translation of Enoch and Elijah.  Of course, these must be denied along with the existence of angels who were translated into an earthly and back into a heavenly body in their appearances recorded in both the Old and the New Testament.37  It is a strange thing how the denial of any life after death always becomes entangled with the denial of the existence of angels The Sadducees of old set the pattern for their modern successors. The devil shows only slight originality.

    Beating a retreat past many battle-fields where he might have halted for action in defence of the Campbell Institute - U.C.M.S. cabal on such issues as the virgin birth or the resurrection, Mr. Corey finally appears ready to draw up his forces for a stand on the last, possible field of battle: the issue of atheism.  He charges that we define a modernist as a "humanist."  This is, of course, the modern, polite name for an atheist. He says: "Apparently, the paper would define modernism as, 'God is an idea in the human heart.'  That is, humanism over against any supernatural conception of religion or any acceptance of Jesus as the divine Son of God."38  He offers no proof of this assertion.  Furthermore he continues his flight after having drawn himself up for battle on the field of atheism: even here he fails to quote the pertinent, published declarations of his comrades in the Campbell Institute and to defend them.

    The two places where Mr. Corey comes out with the boldest declarations of his own unbelief concern specifically the elemental position which the restoration movement has held from the beginning.  He quotes Professor T. H. Bowen of the College of the Bible: "Furthermore, later scholarship discredited the idea of a fixed New Testament Church pattern and maintained that the early church was a development under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the light of changing inward and outward conditions.  The 'Ancient Order' thus turned out to be like a river with its main stream and many tributaries, and not an architectural blueprint completed at Pentecost."39  In this declaration we see that the theory of evolution is used to deny that the church came by revelation, just as it is used to deny that the universe came by creation.  The predictions of the Old Testament concerning the eternal kingdom of Christ would set up, the historic declarations of Christ and His apostles are flatly denied as it is held that there is no New Testament Church to be restored.40  The radicals use the term, "The Holy Spirit" in the same deceitful manner in which they mouth the words, "The Son of God."  They hold the Holy Spirit to be a figure of speech.41  It would be hard to find a more complete contradiction than (1) Mr. Corey's citation of the statement that the faculty of the College of the Bible is true "to the fundamental truth of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and to the historic principles of the Disciples of Christ," and (2) this last citation from Professor Bowen: "Later scholarship discredited the idea of a fixed New Testament Church pattern."  This "later scholarship" was in the hands of the Bible faculty in 1917 and was also used by them to deny that there is any such thing as a New Testament Church pattern.42  This is tantamount to saying there is no New Testament and no revelation from God.  If God has not spoken to man, what sort of a God is He?  Does He lack the wisdom and power or does He have no love for man?  The term, "modernist", is not to be defined as an atheist, but the modernists of Lexington, Kentucky, certainly head straight in that direction when they attack the Scripture.

    It is in the closing sentences of Mr. Corey's volume that there is most clearly revealed the abomination of desolation.  He undertakes to amend the celebrated slogan of the pioneers so that it will be in harmony with what he considers the best modern thought and the conclusions of historical criticism advanced by modern scholars.43  In discussing "How Do We Differ?", he
talks of Christian Unity, Interchurch Cooperation, Church Organization and Work, Church Membership, Ministerial Education.44  But one looks in vain for a discussion of the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the eternality of Christ, His atoning death, the miraculous inspiration of the Scriptures and their divine authority, and such elements of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

    The slogan of the pioneers declared: "In faith, unity; in opinion, liberty; in all things, charity (or love)".  This he changes to read: "In the things on which we agree, unity; In the things on which we disagree, liberty; In all things, the will to be one."46  Thus is God swept from His throne and the inner conscience of man to be deified.  That word, "faith," summoned all men to render humble obedience to God; it declared: "This is my beloved Son, hear ye him;" it said: "The Bible and the Bible alone;"  "The New Testament is our only rule of faith and practice."  The words, "We agree," summons all men to Indianapolis where in the palace of the pontifs the mathematical wizards figure out the least common denominator of the latest apostate denials and attacks.  See how the pronouns of the first person have taken possession; the self-worship of the modernist is everywhere in evidence: "We agree;" "We disagree;" "We;" "We are the people and wisdom will die with us."47  Where is the divine revelation and the divine authority?  Where is any solid rock upon which any one can stand?  There is nothing but the shifting sand of so-called "modern scholarship."

    One needs to turn for light on this new slogan in Mr. Corey's volume to the final report of the Commission on Restudy with its contradictory confusion as it affirms first "our differences deal with matters of basic importance," and then turns about-face and declares: "The differences touch only the periphery of the Christian life, but the agreements are at its center."48  The statement says:

"We are forced to recognize in the analyses of 1946 and 1947, that our differences deal with matters of basic importance. The differences lie in the realm of history, or theology, of application of principles to the problems of the church, of methods of labor and cooperation. The agreements are in the area of fact, of faith, and of doctrine. The differences touch only the periphery of the Christian life, but the agreements are at its center.

"We hold that the divisive differences are obstacles to be overcome, while our agreements are foundations on which to build. These agreements speak of the person of Jesus Christ, confession of whom as Son of God, Lord and Savior, is the sole affirmation of faith necessary to the fellowship of Christians. . "49

    Looking over the names of members of the Commission one finds that Edward Scribner Ames heads the list. Dr. Ames with his famous analogy between God and "Uncle Sam" or "Alma Mater"50 introduces into this group only a matter of merest opinion out on "the periphery": the question as to whether there is or is not a God.  The report declares: "These agreements speak of the person of Jesus Christ."  Speak?  Speak what?  A babel of confusion is spoken in the so-called "agreement".  Again the report declares: "Confession of whom as Son of God, Lord and Saviour, is the sole affirmation of faith necessary to fellowship of Christians."  What a travesty is this statement in the hands of those who use weasel words to deny the plain declarations of the New Testament.  They could not even put the definite article "the" Son of God into this statement.  What sort of "agreements" may be reached with tongue-in-cheek modernists whose peverted thinking rests upon the slogan:  "Don't let them find out what you believe until it is safe for it to be known"?

    What sort of liberty is offered to the man of faith who is deluded into surrender to the U.C.M.S. hierarchy?  The liberty of serfdom; he becomes a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for the unbelievers; he helps to raise funds to support them in their campaigns against Christ and the Gospel.  "In the things on which we do not agree, liberty."  What liberty?  Let the court trials brought by the U.C.M.S. forces, give answer.  This word, "liberty," is being given new meanings of persecution, threats, suppression, violence.  If the local congregation by majority vote of democratic assembly decides to support some faithful missionary instead of sending its money to the unbelieving super-organization in Indianapolis, then the congregation is sued in the civil courts, and the effort is made to throw the preacher, the elders, deacons, and the overwhelming majority of the congregation, out into the street, while the hierarchy takes possession of the little church building by the side of the road.  And this is "liberty!"  After the same manner their so-called confession of Jesus as "Son of God" is a denial that He is anything more than a mere man.

    Notable is the omission of any mention of charity or love in Mr. Corey's slogan.  Long ago, faith was removed from the slogan by the modernists.  Now it is time for them to be frank and stop the pious chant about their great "love".  Would it not have sounded strange in the court rooms of Des Moines, Salem, Eldora, and other places where the U.C.M.S. forces brought lawsuits, to have heard them quote this pioneer slogan: "In all things, charity (or love)"?  Is it any wonder that in the midst of their new, violent campaign, they revamp the slogan to read:  "In all things, the will to be one."  Determination with a big stick, supersedes the invitation of love.
"The will to be one" is the determination of the hierarchy to herd everybody into the one great super-organization.  But the Christian will continue to urge that all should be one in Christ.  "On Christ the solid Rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand."51  "How long go ye limping between the two sides?  If Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."52  "Choose you this day whom ye will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah."53  "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things which we saw and heard"54


l.  Apostolical Constitutions VI. 18.2, quoted in B. F. Westcott, Commentary on The Epistle to the Hebrews (Third edition; London: MacMillian and Company, 1920), p.149.
2.  E. S. Ames, "History of the Campbell Institute", in Progress (Anniversary Volume of the Campbell Institute); (Chicago, The Christian Century Press, 1917), p. 35.
3.  1 Kings 18: 18, 19
4.  See Stephen J. Corey, Fifty Years of Attack and Controversy (Second
edition; St. Louis: Christian Board of Publication, 1953), p. 5.
5.  See Ibid., pp. 16-19, 175-177.
6.  See Ibid., pp.17-19, 63, 175-177.  See also Ellsworth Faris, "The Campbell
Institute: Questions and Answers", Progress, pp. 50-52. See also E. S. Ames, Editorial, "The Quarterly Bulletin of the Campell Institute", July 1, 1904, No.4. See also ibid., July, 1906, No.4., Vol.3.  See also Ibid., Jan. 1, 1906, p. 1.  See also Ibid., "Notes", July, 1904, No. 4.
7.  See S. J. Corey, op. cit., p.17
8.  See Ibid., p.18
9.  See Ibid., pp. 17-19, 63, 171-177.
l0.  See F. J. Gielow, "The Conversion of a Modernist", The Christian Standard, March 14, 1925, p. 3.
11.  See "Elijah Comes to Indianapolis", Editorial, The Christian Standard, Sept.28, 1940, p. 3. See also Herbert L. Minard, "North American Assembly has Large Attendance", The Christian Evangelist, Oct.17, 1940, p.1128.
12.  See F. J. Gielow, "Liberty in the Church", The Christian Standard, Jan. 18, 1941, No.3 and Jan. 25, p.15.
13.  See "Report of Commission of Restudy of the Disciples of Christ", 1941 Year Book, Disciples Of Christ, p. 148.
14.  See R. C. Foster, "Destructive Criticism in our Colleges", in The Watch Tower, (Kentucky Issue) June 20, 1923 (Robersonville, NC. Robersonville Publishing Company) pp.1-7
l5.  See Ibid., pp. 7, 9, 19, 36, 39, 45-46, 70-72, 109, 112, 115- 116, 194-195, 212-214, 220-222.
l6.  See Ibid., pp.5, 16-18, 21, 47-48, 53, 149.
l7.  See Ibid., pp.16-l8, 46-50.
l8.  See Ibid., pp. 47-53.
19.  See Ibid., pp.48-49.
20.  See Ibid., p. 49.
21.  See Ibid., pp. 49, 53.
22.  See Ibid., pp.49-50.
23.  See Ibid., p. 49.
24.  See Ibid., p.211.
25.  See Ibid., p.55.
26.  See A. W. Fortune, "The College of the Bible and Its Critics" in The College of the Bible Quarterly Bulletin, January, 1918, pp.4-5. See also R. C. Foster "New Theology at the College of the Bible" in The Christian Standard., June 26, 1920, pp. 3-6. "New Theology in the College of the Bible", The Christian Standard, Dec. 11, 1920. p. 14.
27.  See A. W. Fortune, op. Cit., p. 6.
28.  See S. J. Corey, op. Cit., p.46-47.
29.  See Ibid., pp. 50-51.
30.  Three professors of Hebrew Union College have contributed chapters in this volume. Roscoe M. Pierson, editor, To Do And To Teach (Lexington Kentucky, The Keystone Printery, 1953), pp.1-13; 27-38; 179-180.
31.  S. S. Cohon, Ibid., p.179
32.  See Abraham Cronbach, Judaism For Today (New York: Bookman Associates, 1953) p. 121.
33.  See Ibid., pp.122-123.
34.  See Ibid., pp.21-30.
35.  See S. J. Corey, op. cit., p.51.
36.  H. E. Short, "Through Death to Life", The Christian Evangelist, March 14, 1951, p. 260.
37.  See W. C. Bower, The Living Bible, (New York; Harper Brothers Publishing Company, 1946) p. 176.  Also see D. C. Troxel, "College of the Bible Quarterly," January, 1958, p.14.
38.  S.J. Corey, op. cit., p.251.
39.  See Ibid., p.195.
40.  See R. C. Foster, "Whence the Church - By Evolution or By Revelation?" in The Everlasting Gospel (Cincinnati The Standard Publishing Company, Second Edition, 1946), pp.110-119.  See also the discussion on the church and the Bible in the chapter "The Canon of the Cospels", Introduction to the Life of Christ (Cincinnati: Standard Pub. Company, 1938) pp.202-225.
41.  See C. T. Craig, quoted by Joseph T. Bayly, Jr., "Notes on Open Letters" in "The Sunday School Times"; see R. C. Foster, The Revised Standard Version: An Appraisal, (Pittsburgh: The Evangelical Fellowship, Inc., 1947), p. 15.
42.  See W. C. Bower, op. cit., pp.5, 6-12, 46, 47, 117 and 116, 174. Christ and Christian Education, (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Publishing Company, 1943), pp. 80, 90-95, 98. See also D. E. Stevenson, Bethany Bible Teacher, (St. Louis: The Christian Board of Publication, June 1938) pp 619-620.  See also A. W. Fortune, Adventuring with Disciple Pioneers, (St Louis: Christian Board of Publication), 1942, p. 39.  See also W. C. Bower, "What's Right With the Disciples", in The Christian Evangelist, November 29, 1944, 9.1150.
43.  See S. J. Corey, op. cit., pp.280; 50.
44.  See Ibid., pp.276-280.
46.  Ibid., p.200.
47.  Job 12:2.
48.  S. J. Corey, op. cit., p.231.
49.  1948 Year Book, Disciples of Christ, pp.120 ff., quoted in S J. Corey, op. cit., p.231 _ _
50.  E. S. Ames quoted in W. S. Noble "Salvation in the Theology of Edward Scribner Ames," "The Scroll" Jan.-Feb., 1947, p.25.
51.  E. Mote, "The Solid Rock," Christian Hymns, (New York, The North River Press, 1945), p. 159.
52.  I Kings 18:21.
53.  Joshua 24: 15.
54.  Acts 4: 19, 20.

Scanned:  Michael Riggs
Proofread:  Shelley Wozniak