Madison Avenue Church, New York City, had in its pulpit some years ago a gifted speaker and voluminous writer who was elected president of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. In 1935, his book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, was published, and immediately it brought shock and widespread opposition throughout the church and Protestantism generally in the United States. He offered a perfect exhibit of one who rejected the historic Christian faith and specific doctrines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith concerning which he had taken the most solemn ordination vows, declaring that Confession to contain the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and that he believed the Bible to be the only infallible rule of faith and practice. It was obvious that he believed nothing of the kind and that he was in clear violation of his ordination vows.

He offers an excellent example of bold, blatant liberalism of thirty years ago and furnishes us at this juncture in our discussion—and especially as we look back through the history of the change that has taken place in the church from the trial of Charles Briggs to the final triumph of these modernist concepts in the Confession of 1967—with a perfect illustration.

Since this came to the fore in the church at the time of the trials of the members of The Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions, which we shall discuss in a later chapter, I took it upon myself to prepare formal charges and specifications required by the Book of Discipline to place a clergyman on trial. I filed these with the Presbytery of New York in July, 1940. On July 23, 1940, I sent these charges to Dr. William B. Pugh, stated clerk of the General Assembly and author of the General Assembly’s Mandate of 1934 which I shall discuss in Chapter 18. I wrote

Dear Dr. Pugh:

I am enclosing a copy of charges and specifications which we have filed with the Presbytery of New York for their consideration and action. These are prepared against Dr. George A. Buttrick, a member of the Presbytery of New York, and also now the president of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America.

Dr. Buttrick openly and specifically denies many essentials of the Christian faith. Do you not believe that he should be brought to trial for his unbelief?

In 1935 Dr. H. McAllister Griffiths and I talked with you on our return from Columbus, Ohio, you remember, and you said that you desired to prepare the church for the great doctrinal controversy which was ahead. We, of course, said that the doctrinal controversy was then being fought.

These charges and specifications have been prepared with those words in view which were used by the church in the suspension of Dr. Charles A. Briggs, of New York Presbytery.

I know of nothing in the constitution of the Presbyterian Church which prohibits any Christian from bringing to the attention of a judicatory facts of the Gospel unsoundness of any of its members.

In view of the very unmistakable denial of the Word of God contained in Dr. Buttrick’s book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, we certainly do believe this entire matter should be brought to the attention of the proper authorities.

That any minister should deny or question essentials of the Christian faith is a matter of deep sorrow.

We shall watch with interest the disposition of the matter.

Dr. Pugh replied, August 1, 1940: My dear Mr. McIntire:

This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of July 23rd with a copy of charges and specifications which have been filed with the Presbytery of New York for their consideration and action. May I express my appreciation for these.

For the record and history, and as evidence of this leaven of unbelief leavening the whole lump, this document should be recorded now. It follows:

CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS AGAINST THE

REV. GEORGE A. BUTTRICK, D.D.

CHARGE I

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that errors may have existed in the original text of the Holy Scriptures as it came from its authors, contrary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and in the standards of the said church that the Holy Scripture is the Word of God, written and inspired as the rule of faith and practice.

Specification 1. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, written by Dr. George A. Buttrick, published by Charles Scribner’s Sons in 1935, and which is on sale at the Presbyterian Book Stores in Philadelphia and New York City, and which has been extensively circulated with the knowledge and approval of the said Dr. George A. Buttrick, there occurs the following statement on pages 160 and 161: “The second besetment was the discovery of contradictions in the Bible. These need not be pursued from Dan to Beersheba. If only one self-refutation is found, the doctrine of literal infallibility is slain, and pursuit is needless. There are two accounts of the creation, and they do not agree. Similarly there are two accounts of the Flood: in one the Divine command is that two animals of each kind, one male and one female, shall be taken into the ark; in the other the threat of pandemonium is even more alarming, for seven male and seven female of every `clean’ beast must be invited. There are two accounts of David’s census-taking: in the Book of Samuel we are told that God instructed him to number the people, and in the Chronicles that Satan `moved’ him. (Of Church statistics, as of national, the Chronicler was right.) More serious, because more central, are the discrepancies between the two accounts of the birth of Jesus; or between the four accounts of the resurrection; or between the lists of resurrection-appearances given in the respective gospels, in Acts, and by Paul. In certain instances these divergences can be reasonably explained; in others the explanations which purport to `reconcile’ the discord are much more ingenious than convincing. If the Bible is God’s explicit word, does He contradict Himself or offer to mankind mixed counsel?

“It is no use our evading or trying to hide Bible inconsistencies.”

Specification 2. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 168: “But the accompanying legacy of an `infallible’ theory of Scripture was no great gain. Inevitably Jesus joined issue with the letter of the Law. How could God, so radiant and vital in His own life, be imprisoned in the past? And what is this doctrine of an inerrant Book but the assertion that God spoke then and cannot speak now, the avowal that the Everlasting is the captive of antiquity? How Jesus thundered His protest:-‘ Ye have heard that it was said of old time . . . but I say unto you.’ He claimed to supersede His Bible-with what consternation among the listeners! Nay, He straightly charged the dogmatists with stifling truth: ‘Ye have made void the word of God because of your traditions.’ Yet we revive the wrong against which He lifted His brave banner, and perpetuate the dogmatism that nailed Him to a cross.”

These declarations on these two specifications are contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. See Zechariah 7:12; Mark 7:13; Romans 3:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Galatians 3:8; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16.

These declarations on these two specifications are contrary to the Standards. See Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Sections I, II, IV, VI, VIII.

CHARGE II

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that the Bible in its original text is not the infallible Word of God, which is contrary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and the standards of the said church.

Specification 1. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 170: “Having dethroned an allegedly infallible Church, men dared not make venture with `the Beyond that is within.’ Craving external supports, they raised an infallible Book to the vacant throne. From that false move and its tyranny we now break free-but with what throes of spirit and what strife of tongues!”

Specification 2. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 167: “In retrospect it seems incredible that the theory of literal inspiration could ever have been held. The Bible itself makes no claim to be infallible, save in one passage whose meaning is open to dispute. Doctor C. H. Dodd affirms, and need fear no refutation: . . . `some of its greatest writers contemplate the possibility that they may be mistaken . . . .’ He marshals instances in convincing array.”

Specification 3. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on pages 162, 163: “Literal infallibility of Scripture is a fortress impossible to defend: there is treason in the camp. Probably few people who claim to `believe every word of the Bible’ really mean it. That avowal held to its last logic would risk a trip to the insane asylum . . . . Meanwhile we should frankly admit the bankruptcy of `literal infallibility,’ and, under guidance of the facts, set out on the long hard quest for truth. If the Church is not soon forthright in honesty about the Bible, worthy men and women will betake themselves to science, where, even if they are more remote from the central shrine, they need at least harbor no evasions.”

Specification 4. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 181: “This swift survey of the Bible as reverent scholarship has revealed it confirms our contention that literal infallibility is an untenable dogma which we should frankly disavow. If the Book were inerrant revelation we would still fall short of certainty; for the pure light, passing through the broken prism of our life, would emerge clouded and distorted; and there are no supernatural spectacles.” Quotation from page 157, 158: “But our forefathers were sure that the Bible had as little human adulteration. Its writers were `not so much the “pen-men” as the “pen” of the Holy Spirit.’ Every verse equally with every other was God’s perfect utterance. If any word seemed obscure the fault was in man’s beclouded mind. Strictly speaking there was then no theology, but only the comparison of verse with verse to determine the Divine self-revealing; and no ethics, the study of right conduct, but only obedience to God’s plain commands. Some of us remember those boxes of texts, such text printed on a tiny roll, which at every major or minor crisis were consulted by the faithful. Fortunately the texts gave general, not specific, counsel: what uproar and chaos had each roll contained an excerpt of Levitical law or a verse from the imprecatory psalms! That all the verses chosen for the box were solving and enkindling words indicates a profounder theory of inspiration than was professed. Even so, how marvelously the text fitted the case: there is a matter to be pondered. It is a far cry nowadays to that unhesitating faith. Something has happened to the Bible, as everybody knows.”

These declarations on these four specifications are contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. See Zechariah 7:12; Mark 7:13; Romans 3:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Galatians 3:8;2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16.

These declarations on these four specifications are contrary to the Standards. See Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Sections I, II, IV, VI, VIII.

CHARGE III

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, for teaching that an evolution of human thought accounts for the view of God set forth in Scripture, which is contrary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and the standards of the said church.

Specification 1. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 175: “But to Israel was given a strange, rigorous, redeeming sense of God. That consciousness was at the first primitive and vague. It grew, for evolution is the pattern of our life. Its early record was a mythology. The Scriptures of Israel to this day bear traces of a time when, so men thought, `the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.’ God did not grow: God abides as heart, purpose, and power of all growth.”

Specification 2. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on pages 175, 176: “But Israel’s thought of Him grew. To them He was many. Then He was One. Then He was power (‘thunders His chariot, and lightnings His sword’), then stern holiness (‘his angels he chargeth with folly’), and then He was love (`In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them’). If the Old Testament books are arranged chronologically this progressive conception of God is in clear view.”

These declarations on these two specifications are contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. See Zechariah 7:12; Mark 7:13; Romans 3:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Galatians 3:8; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 3:16.

These declarations on these two specifications are contrary to the Standards. See Confession of Faith, Chapter I, Sections I, II, IV, VI, VIII.

CHARGE IV

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a. minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that the Book of Genesis is a collection of myths and legends, which is contrary to the essential doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and the standards of the said church.

Specification 1. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 176: “The Old Testament is a collection of their religious writings. In Genesis are their myths and legends—more rich and deep by far than those of Greece or the Norseland. A myth is not a fabrication, despite our misuse of the word. At its best it is the reverent attempt of a primitive mind to explain in story-form the encompassing and indwelling Mystery. Whence came different languages? Impious men built a tower, intending to reach heaven and dispute the throne with God; so He broke their tower, and for penalty laid on them confusion of tongues. Only a dull mind could try to find history or science in that story, but only a dead mind could miss its moral and spiritual truth.”

CHARGE V

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a

minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that Isaiah is not the author of all the book that bears his name, which is contrary to the direct statement of quoted Scripture and the essential doctrine of the said church.

Specification I. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt …. there occurs the following statement on page 165: “The rapture of Isaiah’s prophecy suffered darkly from the critic’s shears: verse was clipped from verse, and each impaled upon its little colored pin to prove its separate authorship. But the pedants were few, and the true critics were many; and they have made of a closed Book God’s open treasure. They studied the text in its original tongues—despite the curate who declared that the Authorized Version was good enough for Paul, and therefore good enough for him. They compared manuscript with manuscript. They scrutinized each book for ‘internal evidence’ of authorship and date, and canvassed parallel sources to confirm their findings.” 

CHARGE VI

The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America charges the Rev. George A. Buttrick, D.D., being a minister of the said church and a member of the Presbytery of New York, with teaching that a God who permitted Adam’s sin was responsible, and that a God who would curse men physically, spiritually, and eternally for Adam’s sin was worthy of being called a finite God, not sovereign, and that such a teachng would make that God a devil, all of which is contrary to the Scripture and the Standards of the church.

Specification 1. In a book, The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, . . . there occurs the following statement on page 173: “Recently we heard a sermon from `the word of God’ on the text, `Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.’ Its primary thesis was that we are all cursed in Adam’s sin. It was a thesis unequivocally expounded: ‘We are cursed under the law; a minor infraction is as heinous as a murder.’ We had four children with us in the pew, one of whom had recently lost her mother by death. Should we stay through the sermon? We owed it to the evident sincerity of the minister, and to the worship of the congregation. We stayed. But the curse grew more virulent as the preacher warmed to his task. `We are trebly cursed from birth. We are cursed physically, spiritually, and eternally. There would have been no physical death but for the curse resting on us from Adam.’ Should we stay? We were shaken in our resolve. Then the seven-year-old at our elbow made his comment: `Did God do that to me? My Bible doesn’t say God is like that.’ We determined we had no right to cloud a child’s mind. We left the church. We fear no curse for the crime. Later, we returned to apologize to the preacher and to explain. It was of little use: `I take my stand on the whole word of God. It is written in the Book.’ But, we inquired, had the preacher any children, and would he trebly curse them from birth? His answer: `God did not curse us. God saved us from the curse. It was Adam’s sin. And it is written in the Book. Of course you are tainted with modernism.’ We retorted, as gently as a fast-ebbing patience would permit, that though it might have been Adam’s sin, it was God’s responsibility, who has so ordered His world that all the children of history should be trebly cursed for the wrong of one man, thousands of years ago, whose name perchance they had not heard. Such a God, we suggested, had earned the verdict of the French skeptic: `Your God is my Devil.”‘

The stated clerk of the Presbytery of New York, Maitland Bartlett, wrote me November 8, 1940, “I have had no time to go into them or give them any consideration.”

Buttrick’s name, of course, continues to appear in active promotion of the ecumenical causes. He is the general editor of the Interpreter’s Bible and the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, and is now professor of preaching at Garrett Theological Seminary, Evanston, Illinois. June 13-17, 1966, he was featured as one of the special conference speakers along with two Southern Baptist professors in the New Orleans Baptist Theological Pastors’ Conference. Such leaders are always presented as preachers, scholars, authorities, and as the molders of opinion for the new day-a perfect role for a self-evident, twentieth century heretic. But the real reflection is against the denomination that provides him ministerial standing, and the council of churches that elected him president.

Since the title of the book is The Christian Fact and Modern Doubt, this choice statement about Christ’s resurrection must end all doubts about Buttrick’s blindness and unbelief. On page 284 he wrote:

The future is hidden. We must be faithful to our ignorance. Our deep instinct, our conscience, our love, our sense of God, all point to a future life. Jesus apparently conquered death: no man need covet an assignment to prove that He is dead. His disciples turned our world upside down in conviction of His deathlessness; and we ourselves strangely and compellingly sense His presence. These are the grounds of hope.

But we do not know—except by an invincible surmise. Why pretend we do? Some of us, being so constituted that we are happy on our ‘wild lone,’ do not wish to know. We suspect that life might be desperately prosaic, if we knew.