B.B. Warfield and "Christless Christianity": A Rorschach Test of Faith

In October of 1912, Princeton Theologian B.B. Warfield penned an important treatise he entitled "Christless Christianity" in which Warfield essentially took to task two groups he believed pose a legitimate threat to the true Christian faith.  The first group, which Warfield characterizes as “the dissidents from Christianity of the most incongruous types,” are summarily rejected for their “philosophy of the unconsciousness.”[1]  The second group, which emerge are the primary target of Warfield’s essay, are the more liberal-minded Christians, who Warfield claims “assert…that Christianity is separate from Jesus” and historical criticism “seriously shatter[s] the very foundations of Christianity.”[2]   

               

This ongoing tug-o-war of theology vs. history; the mystical vs. the palpable; Christianity vs. science, is nothing new.  For centuries scholars and theologians of all stripes have attempted to reconcile (or expose) what appear to be incompatible discrepancies between the historical record and the assertions of scripture.   For Christians devoted to the inerrancy of the Bible and a fundamentalist mindset determined to defend the faith against all enemies, the arrows and sword wounds delivered by the hands of the non-believer are to be expected.  But when the arrows and swords are in the hands of a professing Christian, whose faith and conviction are built upon a desire to bridge the chasm dividing historical data and pious discipleship, the fundamentalist believer might esteem his brother as his foe. 

               

Such is the case with B.B. Warfield.  In his extremely valiant effort to defend Christian orthodoxy as he sees it, the great Princeton theologian sacrifices those who ask sincere questions regarding legitimate historical issues upon the altar of heresy.  He does so, knowing that the world around him is changing.  As science, Darwinism, and other factors threaten to tear down the walls that had sustained orthodox Christianity for centuries, Warfield believed that doubling down on the Christian message would be the correct prescription to help remedy what he believed was an infected Body of Christ. 

And though certainly noble in his intentions, Warfield overstates the crisis at hand by applying European examples of heresy to an American problem.  A quick glance over the footnotes of Warfield's essay reveals that the overwhelming majority of the sources cited to expose liberal Christian theology are German authors.  Rarely does he provide any modern American source material to support his argument.  This does not mean that some liberal American theologians were not thinking in the same light as their German brethren.  However, Warfield does ignore many of the specific and unique differences between Christianity as manifested in Europe (particularly Germany) and in the United States.  Though some similarities existed, and are certainly worthy of note, the differences are equally important to mention.  As historian Susanne Calhoun points out in her article, "Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History:

Christian Fundamentalism is a distinctly American innovation...The Great Awakenings were perceived as the prelude to God’s millennial kingdom on earth, stirring expectations of Christ’s imminent second coming  New then explores how liberal Christians threatened this worldview through the spread of biblical criticism and the secularization of public education. Millennial thought was defended and furthered by three conservative movements: Millerism (William Miller, 1782-1849), Princeton theology (Charles Hodge, 1797-1878; A.A. Hodge, 1823-86; and B.B. Warfield, 1851-1921), and Dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby, 1800-82). These movements encouraged a literal interpretation of Scripture and fanned the flame of America’s fascination with the Bible’s end-time prophecies.[3]  

In addition to Calhoun’s accurate assessment, American religious historian George Marsden offers a concurring opinion on how Fundamentalist movement had unique American origins that made the American religious experience different from other places on earth.  He writes, “To understand fundamentalism we must also see it as a distinct version of evangelical Christianity uniquely shaped by circumstances of America.”[4]

               

To be certain, the changes to Christianity taking place in Germany were, to some degree, present in the United States as well.  Warfield is to be commended for his desire to protect Jesus the Christ from simply becoming Jesus the historical man from Nazareth.  Or as Warfield himself put it, “It is greater nonsense…to pretend to retain Christ when the historical Jesus has been set aside by science, and faith in Christ has no further personal interest…abandoning the one and retaining the other is nothing but a miserable product of opportunism.”[5]  Yet this quest to safeguard traditional orthodox Christianity cannot dismiss the fact that not all of America was infected with the stain of liberal Christianity.  Historian Sydney Ahlstrom points to this fact when he writes, “The resultant Fundamentalist controversy occurred to a degree in all churches, though it was minor where liberalism was weak or nonexistent…In some denominations the intellectual life had been so neglected by conservatives that the need for a new apologetic was very tardily recognized.”  [6]

               

Keeping Ahlstrom’s comments in mind, B.B. Warfield’s impassioned attack on liberal Christianity is also a reflection of the fact that traditional orthodox Christianity was in desperate need of better arguments to defend the faith, especially in the emerging 20^th century.  Ultimately this is where the divide between Warfield and his fellow conservative Christians differed from their more liberal brethren, and this division has persisted (if not grown) all the way to the current age. 

---

[1] Warfield, Benjamin B. "Christless Christianity." The Harvard Theological Review 5, no. 4 (1912): 423-73. Accessed April 28, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/1507229.  Pp. 423

[2] Ibid, 424, 431.

[3] Susanne Calhoun.  “Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History.”  The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 65(3): Pp. 706-708.

[4] George Marsden, Fundamentalism in American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press: 2006).  Pp. 3.

[5] Warfield, “Christless Christianity,” Pp. 440.

[6] Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (London: Yale University Press, 2004).  Pp. 813. 

My Great-Great Grandmother: Mary Ethel Jones

I have long been a fan of genealogy, so when I saw this assignment for week #6, I was extremely excited to say the least.  And since we are currently living in a pandemic, I thought the following story would be more than appropriate. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the surface, the life of Mary Jones probably seems insignificant.  She wasn’t born into money or prestige, and her tragic early death at the age of 25, due to sickness caused by the Spanish Influenza, made her just another lonely statistic of a time long forgotten.  Mary Jones’ life and story probably would not matter to most people, but it matters a great deal to me for one particularly important reason: she is my great-great grandmother. 

As a child, I recall spending time at my grandmother’s house, which was always full of unique keepsakes (my grandmother was a bit of a hoarder).  One of the many items that caught my attentions was an old grave marker which read “Mary Jones Looney.”  I remember asking my grandmother why she kept a gravestone in her home, to which she replied, “It is my grandmother’s, and one day I plan to place it on her grave.”  Apparently, a typo had been made on the grave marker, which is why the marker had never been placed on the grave itself.  My grandma told me of her plan to one day travel to Mary Jones’ grave where she could have an appropriate gravestone placed where her grandmother laid. 

Years went by and eventually my grandmother, who lived a long and wonderful life, passed away. While going through her home, my mother found a box containing the only remaining possessions of my great-great grandmother.  Inside the box were several old post cards from 1907, a handkerchief, a book collecting notes from family and friends, and a small Bible.  Knowing that I was interested in genealogy, my mother elected to give the box and its contents to me, which I consider to be a treasure.  I have spent a great deal of time trying to piece together Mary Jones’ life story. Thankfully I have been able to piece together the major events of her life through genealogical records and family histories. 

Born July 5, 1893 in Fort Morgan, Colorado, Mary Ethel Jones was the 9^th of 11 children.  Her parents, John and Alice Jones, had moved to Colorado from Canada in the hopes of finding better prospects for their family.  Based on family stories, I have learned that Mary’s father (John) was probably a railroad man which would make sense, since Fort Morgan (where they settled) was an important stop at that time for the Union Pacific Railroad. 

Mary Jones’ life was, unfortunately, short and full of tragedy.  Her older brother, Bert (born just 17 months before Mary) died in 1914.  Her Father, John, passed away just two years later, on Christmas Day, 1918.  Family history reports that the family was unable to bury their father for several months, due to the ground being hard and cold. As a result, John’s body was kept in a barn until the spring. 

Death was not the only tragedy to beset Mary Jones.  Her marriage to Lloyd Looney in 1910 proved to be a disaster.  Unbeknownst to Mary, Lloyd was married to another woman in a neighboring city.  When she discovered the betrayal, Mary immediately packed up her two young children (ages 6 and 2) and returned to Colorado, where shortly thereafter Mary contracted Spanish Flu.  Family history tells of how Mary’s oldest child, Ivonne, remembered her mother being removed from the home due to her illness.  Mary grabbed hold of the door frame as the men tried to forcibly escort from the home.  Her nail marks remained in that door frame for several years. It was shortly thereafter that Mary Looney succumbed to the flu and died at the age of 25, on December 18, 2018. 

Unfortunately, my grandmother was unable to fulfill her wish of placing a marker on Mary Jones’ lonely grave.  For 100 years, Mary’s grave remained vacant of any marker or stone and appeared as just a patch of lonely grass in the Brush, Colorado Cemetery. 

Just a couple years ago, I had the unique opportunity of fulfilling a promise made by my   On the 100^th anniversary of her passing, I traveled the two-hour distance to Brush, Colorado where we placed a marker on Mary Jones’ grave.  I marked the occasion by bringing with me the small box of Mary Jones’ possessions I had been given by my mother.  Inside her little Bible, given to her by her Sunday School teacher, I found a handwritten message to Mary which read:

grandmother, to her grandmother.

This is a good book to play by:

to work by:

to live by,

and to die by.

In addition, I found the following note, written to Mary by her mother, Alice, in 1907:

God grant you many and happy years

Till when the last has crowned you

The dawn of endless day appears

And Heaven is opened to you.

Though her life was short and seemingly insignificant, the history of Mary Jones matters not just because she was my great-great grandmother, but because God has given all lives value.  Mary Jones may have endured a great deal of tragedy, sadness and betrayal in her short 25 years on this earth, but as her mother’s wise words remind us all, “the dawn of endless day appears, and heaven is open” to all.  The life of Mary Jones is a powerful reminder to all who wish to study, research and teach history.  All lives, even those which seem insignificant and uneventful, have value and deserve our sincere attention and best effort.  As historians, this should be our commission.  Never forget the "little people" of the past.    

Girard v. Vidal and the Christian Nation Debate

Was the United States established to be a “Christian Nation?”  This question, perhaps more than any other, has been at the center of America’s ongoing culture war, as devout Christian believers and skeptical doubters battle in a seemingly never-ending tug-o-war over the legacy of this nation’s founding.  Both camps in this battle feel armed to the teeth with various quotes, sources and documents from the past, which they believe supports their respective conclusions. 

One of the most popular forms of evidence cited by both believers and skeptics has been Supreme Court cases of the past.  Since many of these rulings, by our nation’s highest court, serve to set a legal precedent, any ruling for or against the “Christian Nation” thesis would carry a great deal of weight.  One of these cases, I believe, illustrates both the complexity of the Christian nation question, along with how both camps tend to misjudge the strength of their respective positions. 

The day after Christmas of 1831, Stephen Girard, a French immigrant who resided in Philadelphia, passed away at the age of 81.  Girard was a banker and philanthropist who had amassed an incredible fortune that made him the richest man at that time in the United States.  Girard was also a widower who had no children.  As a result, Girard elected to leave a large portion of his fortune to the City of Philadelphia.[1]  In his will, Girard wished for the City of Philadelphia to establish an orphanage/college for "poor male white orphans." In addition, Girard's will contained a clause which called for the complete ban on the Bible and Bible readings in said orphanage, along with a ban on every type of religious minister: 

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.[2]

On the surface Girard's request for a ban on religion and the Bible itself seems incredibly judgmental.  This is an understandable conclusion, especially when we discover that Girard was somewhat hostile to religion throughout his life.  Before passing judgement, however, there is some important historical context we should consider.

The 19th century was a period of extreme growth in the United States.  The swell of Irish Catholics, during the 19th century, sparked a fire of anti-Catholic sentiment that consumed large segments of the American populace to include Philadelphia.   During the first decades of the 19th century, Catholic churches and clergy grew at an exponential rate. Protestants reacted by inciting discord within their ranks.  Catholics responded to this growing disapproval of their faith by mounting an attack of their own.  The strife that ensued divided American Christians over fundamental Christian doctrines.  In addition, this division caused both Protestant and Catholic adherents to double down on their faith. 

This Protestant/Catholic battle eventually found its way into America's schools.  In Philadelphia these schools were controlled by the Protestant majority, who insisted that their religious views take center stage as part of the regular school curriculum.  Catholics tried to respond to this action by establishing schools of their own, where Catholic beliefs could be taught and practiced without opposition.^[3] 

In the wake of what became known as the Philadelphia Bible Riots, we can better understand why Mr. Girard was so vehemently opposed to religion in his schools.  Again, from his will: 

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.[4]

As is the case with most who leave a large fortune, the extended relatives of Girard, some still residing in France, wanted a piece of the pie.  The argument became intense enough that eventually the Supreme Court chose to deal with the matter.  The Girard family hired attorney Daniel Webster, former Senator and Secretary of State to Presidents Harrison and Tyler, while Horace Binney represented the City of Philadelphia.

The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual?  The second issue dealt with whether Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college.  In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?

Daniel Webster focused most of his energies on this second issue.  In his mind, Girard's will did violate Pennsylvania law and common law because it suggested that sectarian differences within Christianity meant the entire Christian institution was a waste.  Webster stated:

[T]his objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine authority of the New Testament...And cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies?  Most certainly they can.[5]

Binney's rebuttal was to predictably point out that the differences between denominations were there for a reason.  It would be utter foolishness to assume that representatives of these different sects would not favor their own beliefs:

If any clergyman was to be admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two sects would agree. Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible. See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible as a school-book.[6]

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Girard (or better put, the City of Philadelphia).  The Supreme Court stated that a corporation could in fact receive real property willed to its trust and effectively execute the terms of a will as easily as a private individual.  On the issue of Girard's will violating Pennsylvania and common law, Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, stated:

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that state…Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety of religious opinion could scarcely be used; and it must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels. 

[...]

Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity?...It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania. (my emphasis).[7]

In short, the court ruled that though Girard's will specifically forbade ministers of all denominations from teaching or even visiting the orphanage/college, it did not attack or persecute the Christian religion.  In other words, the court recognized that the wall of separation between church and state was not some absolute, impenetrable barrier but instead resembled a semi-permeable membrane, like that of a human cell. 

The court was quick to point out that Christianity was not only a part of American heritage but was also a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.  At the same time, the court was just as quick to defend Girard's will on the grounds that no Christian discrimination had been made by his ban on Christian ministers. 

It should come as no surprise to those familiar with the arguments of both the Christian Nation apologists and their secularist opponents why this case would resonate with their respective opinions. Christian Nation advocates are quick to site Joseph Story’s reference to a “Christian Country” while skeptics love to remind everyone that the court ultimately sided with Girard.  But in their quest to out-quote the opposition both sides reveal the fundamental flaws of their respective positions. 

The truth of the matter is Supreme Court decisions don't happen in a vacuum.  There are many influences that determine the outcome of a case.  Even though the court ultiamtely upheld Girard, they did not establish a precedent that outlawed religion entirely.  Instead the court discriminate on what it would allow to cross the semi-permeable church/state wall.  As one scholar put it, "Vidal was the Supreme Court's very first case dealing with the role of religion in pubic schools, and it laid the foundation for an accommodationist view of the religion clause."[8] 

---

[1] Stephen Girard, The Will of the Late Stephen Girard.  (1831).  Taken from Binney, Horace, Philadelphia, and United States. Supreme Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment of the Supreme Court, U.S.: in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and appellants, versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia, the executors of S. Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January Term, 1844 : to which is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, printer, 1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db. Pp. 283.

[2] Ibid, 298.

[3] Lannie, Vincent P., and Bernard C. Diethorn. “For the Honor and Glory of God: The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1840.” History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1968): 44–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/366986.

[4] Girard, 299.

[5] Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster's speech in defense of the Christian ministry, and in favor of the religious instruction of the young. Feb. 10, 1844.  Pp. 10-11.  https://archive.org/stream/mrwebstersspeech00web#page/10/mode/2up

[6] Binney, Horace, Françoise Fénelon Vidal, John Sergeant, Philadelphia, and United States. Supreme Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment of the Supreme Court, U.S. : in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and appellants, versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia, the executors of S. Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January Term, 1844 : to which is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, printer, 1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed April 14, 2020). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db.

[7] Joseph Story.  Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 127.  Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 27, 1844). Taken from Court Listener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/86272/vidal-v-girards-executors/

[8] Jay Allen Sekulow and Jeremy Tedesco.  “The Story Behind Vidal v. Girard's Executors: Joseph Story, The Philadelphia Bible Riots, and Religious Liberty.” Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 32, num. 3.  (April 20, 2005).  https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1248&context=plr