Categories
Controversy

Are only the intolerant free? Hart, Machen & Controversy 4

The previous episodes (1,2,3) don’t have a lot to do with this post: but the first one does give the full title of this worthwhile book.
There are some deeply interesting comments on the relation of intolerance to freedom and peace. It seems that we have largely forgotten that tolerance may be the enemy of liberty: and organizational tolerance can promote conflict.

womanintolerance.jpg

Hart summarizes Machen’s views about this on pp.113,114

Machen also pointed out that liberal pleas for broadness were actually quite narrow. Narrowmindedness, he explained, did not consist in an individual’s devotion to or rejection of certain ideas. Instead, a narrow person rejected another’s convictions �without first endeavoring to understand them.� This was exactly what liberals had done, according to Machen. They blithely called for peace and harmony without ever considering the significant differences that divided liberals and conservatives. Liberals thought doctrine unimportant and so could coexist with conservatives in the denomination. Conservatives, in contrast, believed doctrine was of utmost importance and so could not come to terms with liberals. The two parties could not be more different. Liberals were not necessarily narrow for rejecting traditional dogma, but it was �very narrow and very absurd� to suppose that conservatives and liberals were essentially united in their aims. Such a position was akin to Protestants telling Catholics that both groups could unite for common religious purposes because the mass and church membership �are of course matters of secondary importance.� Liberal Protestant proposals for unity did not involve compromise but rather a �complete relinquishment� of everything that conservatives held dear. Machen received support on this point from Walter Lippmann, who said that the liberal plea for tolerance and goodwill was tantamount to telling conservatives to �smile and commit suicide.�
The solution that Machen advocated followed directly from his understanding of the church. A separation of the two parties was the �crying need of the hour.� Nothing engendered strife so much as a �forced unity within the same organization� of those who disagreed fundamentally in aim. The denomination had to reaffirm the �absolute exclusiveness of the Christian religion.� Then it would no longer be attractive to prospective ministers and established clergy of liberal convictions. But Machen also warned that if liberals gained control of the church, conservatives would be forced to withdraw. By the end of the 1920s, however, a conservative withdrawal looked far more likely than a liberal exodus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *