Fundamentalism`s Noble Forebear: Curtis Lee Laws
By Curtis W Freeman
[Dr. Curtis Freeman is Associate Professor of Christianity and Philosophy at Houston Baptist University.]
Fundamentalism today is committed to ecclesiastical establlishmentarianism in the American educational system through such things as state-sponsored prayer, tuition tax credits, and vouchers. We think our readers will be surprised and encouraged to discover that the forebear of fundamentalism was a true Baptist guided by historic convictions. This piece by Laws (and forty-nine others) is included in Baptist Roots: A Reader in the Theology of a Christian People by Curtis W. Freeman, James Win. McClendon, Jr., and Rosalee Velosso. It is due to be published by Judson Press in April 1999. We encourage readers of Christian Ethics Today to get a copy and be like the wise kingdom scribe who brings out of the kingdom`s storehouse things new and old (Mt. 13:52).
Curtis Lee Laws
Born in Loudoun County, Virginia and educated at Crozer Theological Seminary, Curtis Lee Laws (1868-1946) was a pastor, editor, and denominational leader. He served two prominent pastorates: the First Baptist Church of Baltimore, Maryland (1893-1908) where he became famous for his widely distributed sermon "The Fiery Furnace and Soul Liberty" and the Greene Avenue Baptist Church of Brooklyn, New York (1908-13). In that sermon preached in 1904, Laws commended the civil disobedience of English Baptists (conservatives and liberals) who suffered together for their resistance against the use of tax revenues to promote sectarian teaching. When Laws became the editor of the Watchman Examiner in 1913 (a position he held until 1938), it enjoyed the largest circulation of any Baptist periodical in the North and established him as a trusted voice of historic Baptist principles. Concerned about the advance of liberalism in seminaries and churches, Laws and others issued a call for a conference on the fundamentals of New Testament faith just prior to the 1920 meeting of the Northern Baptist Convention in Buffalo, New York. In his reporting of the "side lights" of that convention, Laws coined the term fundamentalist for those "who still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal" for the faith. Yet he was far from the spirit of fundamentalism that E.J. Carnell later described as orthodoxy grown cultic. Laws` definition of fundamentalism was deliberately broad, not divisively narrow. It required neither inerrancy nor dispensationalism-the growing shibboleths of anti-modernists. Fundamentalism, for Laws, was essentially an attempt to reaffirm theological orthodoxy and promote biblical Christianity. These aims were not unlike those of Pope Pius X in his condemnation of modernism. But in contrast to the more factious voices in the fundamentalist movement of W.B. Riley, T.T. Shields, and J. Frank Norris, Laws was ever a denominational loyalist who believed that "Baptists ought to be big enough and wise enough and Christ-like enough to discuss all their differences in the fear of God and in the spirit of Christ."
The Fiery Furnace and Soul Liberty
To celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and his victory over the nation of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, set up a golden image in the plain outside the city. Its immensity and grandeur were designed to display the power and dominion of Babylon and its god. When all the Babylonian officials had assembled for the dedication of this colossus, a herald proclaimed that, by edict of the king, all the people should bow down and worship this image at the sound of the music. But the three friends and associates of Daniel could not be cajoled or coerced into obedience to this command of the king. As in the days of the apostles, these Jewish heroes hesitated not an instant between obedience to the law of God and to the command of the king. They courteously but courageously said to the tyrannical king: "0 king, we have no need to answer thee in this matter. If you fulfill your threat, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thy hands, 0 king. But if not, be it known unto thee, 0 king, that we will not serve thy god, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up (Dan. 3:16-18). This is a bold and heroic declaration of soul liberty. They were dealing with an unenlightened heathen king. In his wrath he threw them into the fiery furnace. They were willing to suffer for their convictions, but they were not willing to live contrary to their convictions. Their God delivered them from their peril, and so our God, who is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb. 13:8), will, in His own good time and by methods of His own choosing, deliver His people who are willing to suffer rather than to abandon the truth. . . . [Laws then traces the heritage of religious liberty from the days of the Anabaptists forward.]
Religious Liberty Imperiled
A fortnight ago, in a sermon preached from this pulpit, I IX incidentally referred to the combined efforts of the English Parliament and the Church of England to crush out the free churches of England and Wales, and I called upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, now visiting in this country, to enlighten our people upon this return to medieval barbarism upon the part of the great religious body of which he is the head. My exact words were these:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, as the primate of all England and the head of the establishment, is largely responsible for the sectarian education law, and being in this country he has a good opportunity to teach us his authority for the adoption of a system which is contrary to all laws of justice and contrary to the will of God-a system which seeks to control the individual conscience. Thank God for the non-conformists, and that there are thousands in England today who would die at the stake rather than be forced to submit to the dictation of the established Church, of the king and of the Parliament when their deliverances are contrary to the plain teaching of God`s word. It is generally thought that religious liberty has been attained in all countries of high civilization, and the Archbishop of Canterbury will find little sympathy among the American ministers and laymen of the Protestant Episcopal Church for a law which is a disgrace to the great Christian body of which he is the head.
I meant no personal discourtesy to the Archbishop, who once was a low churchman, and who, before his elevation to his present high office, extended many courtesies to non-conformists. But he represents an institution, he is the head of the established Church. The established Church is responsible for the law. The Archbishop must be willing to bear this responsibility, and I am sure that he is.
To my great surprise, distinguished Protestant Episcopal ministers here in Baltimore have taken exception to my words. I had not supposed that there was a well-informed and patriotic man in America who would endorse the cunning effort of the English establishment to enforce the teachings of Episcopacy upon the children of other denominations in the schools supported by the state. I am confident that the ministers who are apologizing for their distinguished visitor would not have the public schools of Baltimore run in the interests of Episcopacy. The friendly discussion which has followed the publication of this brief and incidental reference to the present religious and educational controversy in Great Britain proves, first, that many people among us desire more information upon this important question, and second, that there may be some people among us (very few, let us hope) who are not enthusiastic supporters of the doctrine of soul liberty, not withstanding the deliverances of the Constitution of the United States, under the protection of which they live and prosper. . . . [Laws continues explaining the sectarian school act passed by Parliament in 1902-3 and giving a brief history of education law in England.]
Passive Resistance and How It Has Worked
The free churches determined not to receive state aid for the support of their own schools, and they were equally determined not to pay the school rate for the support of other sectarian schools. They were quite prepared to suffer any inconvenience or indignity or outrage for the sake of their conscientious convictions. They might have refused to resist the law and fled before their persecutors, as did the Pilgrim Fathers of the long ago. But these men love their country, which they have helped to make, and they do not propose to be driven out of it. They might have stultified their consciences and paid the rate, becoming peace-at-any-price men. They might have followed in the footsteps of their fathers, who in 1688 united in a revolution against ecclesiastical tyranny. We may rejoice that, instead, our brethren have simply refused to pay the rate, courteously but courageously declaring that in good conscience they cannot pay to have false and pernicious doctrines taught in the schools. Since the days of John Bunyan passive resistance has been the weapon by which non-conformists have won most of their victories. The immortal tinker expressed himself in these quaint words: "I told him the law has provided two ways of obeying-the one to do that which I let my conscience believe I am bound to actively, and when I cannot obey actively, then I am willing to lie down and suffer what they shall do to me…
When the non-conformists declared that they were willing to suffer for their consciences, they knew what was facing them. They were ridiculed by the Church papers for saying that the education act might end in the imprisonment of free church ministers and laymen throughout the country. The prophecy has come true. In the Daily News of London Dr. John Clifford, the leader of the movement, has recently given the history of the first year of "passive resistance." The bright side of the picture is that many noble-hearted Church of England people have joined the movement and are standing with the non-conformists, and that Roman Catholics have also expressed their purpose to share the fortunes of the persecuted. Dr. Clifford declares that it is more than a religious revolt of the free churches; that it is "essentially a citizens revolt against the intrusion of Parliament, led by the Bishops, into the realm of conscience, and the distinctive fact is that these citizens are undeniably amongst the best assets of the nation." The weak-kneed are becoming more courageous, the people are enlisting, the Church is awakening to the fact that the movement is growing with alarming rapidity. But there is a dark side to the picture. During the year there have been 21,871 summons issued to coerce men and women into paying the school tax. Nine hundred and seventy-one sales of property, representing many thousands of individual owners, have taken place. Twenty-two of the freemen of one of the most highly civilized nations of the world have been thrust into prison, to sleep on prison beds and to eat prison fare, that the Church of England may use the schools supported by the state for proselytizing to her own communion the children of nonconformist parents. At this time nearly 2000 arrests are being made each week. Several Baptists have been imprisoned, and I glory in their heroism.
Another Baptist preacher was imprisoned long ago by the same authority, but we had all felt that the established Church had become civilized since the days of John Bunyan. Thank God for the passive resisters who refuse to be coerced by a priest-ridden government, who refuse to sit calmly down and have their liberties stolen from them. These are the men whom the Archbishop of Canterbury has had the effrontery to call "anarchists." They include in their ranks such men as John Clifford, Alexander Maclaren, Principal Fairbairn, Reginald J. Campbell, Thomas Spurgeon, G. Campbell Morgan, Frederick B. Meyer, W.J. Dawson, J. Monroe Gibson, Bendel Harris, Silvester Home, Henry S. Lunn, W Robertson Nicoll, J.H. Shakespeare, Mark Guy Pearce and many more of equal note, and thousands more of equal nobility of character-clergymen, ministers, journalists, teachers, manufacturers, merchants, jurists and statesmen.
The Duty and Privilege of Americans
Without popular government in the truest sense, our co-religionists in England and Wales are at the mercy of a Parliament dominated by the Bishops of the Church of England. The establishment is boldly striking at the life of non-conformity. The policy of both government and Church savors of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. The non-conformists are too strong and too determined to flee the persecution as did the Pilgrims and Puritans. They will stand their ground and die if necessary for religious freedom. This is a battle in which the whole civilized world should be interested. The like of it has never been known before. For England to swing out of line in the onward march of civilization and return to the ideals of the sixteenth century is pitiable, but that her noblest sons and daughters should be humiliated and persecuted for conscience`s sake in this age is diabolical. As American citizens it is our duty to protest when one of the most cherished principles of our own civilization is being tramped under the feet of a nation which rejoices in our friendship. If the American press would agitate this matter, speaking its mind upon this reversal of the twentieth-century ideals, from purely political motives the English government would give instant attention.
As members of the same churches and denominational bodies, many of us have a special privilege. Our brethren over the sea profoundly appreciate the interest which we are taking in their struggle, and they rejoice in every expression of sympathy and affection which reaches them from our country. They are not posing as martyrs, nor pleading for sympathy, but they would be either more or less than human if they were not strengthened by the knowledge that the English-speaking world is wishing them God-speed.
The Protestant Episcopal Church of America is facing a splendid opportunity and at the same time an awful responsibility. In their hearts the broad-minded and Christlike ministers and laymen of American Episcopacy can have no sympathy with the motives and methods of the Church of England as expressed in this educational act. It is mere subterfuge to lay the guilt of this matter at the door of Parliament. Now, if our Episcopal brethren will be true to their own convictions and speak as they feel, their protest in this matter will shake the English establishment from center to circumference..
At such a time as this we shall all feel inclined to smile and to forgive our Episcopal brethren the presumption of calling themselves the American National Church, and we shall rejoice if conditions here are improved by the Archbishop`s visit. But we do devoutly pray that The Churchman may be right as to the Archbishop`s own enlightenment. He needs it, or, at least, his Church needs it, and the need is pressing and imperative. Again I say, I rejoice in the opportunity which God has placed before our Episcopal brethren. The two Churches have no organic connection, and yet their relations are such that the mother Church will be glad to listen to her more enlightened daughter, and let us hope that the daughter will do her full duty.
Before the Archbishop of Canterbury leaves this country he ought to know how Americans feel about religious liberty. He would hardly dare call us "anarchists," as he calls the passive resisters among our co-religionists in England. The Archbishop, a good and great man, deserves to be treated with every courtesy, but if our religious leaders do their duty, he will hear many a ringing protest against the tyranny of the Church of which he is the head. His policy ought to receive no sympathy. In this land of the free no guest can be treated with discourtesy. In this land of the brave no man among us will be a coward when the liberties of our brethren are threatened. May our God sustain and strengthen His children in their time of trial. May they be patient and gentle and forgiving like the Master. May they be saved from using the weapons of this world in their battle for soul liberty. The victory will surely come, and with it other and grander victories for the truth.
New occasions teach new duties;
Time makes ancient good uncouth.
We must upward still and onward|
Who would keep abreast of Truth.
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires;
We ourselves must pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower and steer boldly
Through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the future`s portal
With the past`s blood-rusted key..
Ten Things to Light Your Fire
