jonathan root - bethel college€¦ · web viewsecond, the covenant church adopted the bible as...
Post on 14-Jul-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
WILLIAM C. DOUGHTY AND CREEDALISM: THE FUNDAMENTALIST-MODERNIST DEBATES IN THE EVANGELICAL COVENANT CHURCH
by
Jonathan B. Root
A Research PaperPresented to the
Department of HistoryBethel College
In partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the course
Social Science Seminar, History 481Mark Jantzen and Penelope Moon, Advisors
North Newton, KansasApril 2006
CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Origins of the Evangelical Covenant Church 5
2. Modernist and Fundamentalist movements 12
3. Gustaf F. Johnson and the Two Types of Christianity 14
4. Nils Lund: The Authority of Scripture 17
5. William Doughty and “A Cause for Concern in the Covenant” 23
6. What Does Freedom Mean? The Committee on Freedom and Theology 32
7. Does Having a Creed Really Matter? The Trial of Rev. David Swing 35
8. The Meaning of Freedom 37
Bibliography 41
Root 2
One evening while listening to Percy Crawford’s radio show, William C. Doughty felt
led to dedicate his life to Christ. After the experience, Doughty started attending church with his
mother but in the months following his conversion Doughty suffered a spiritual crisis. Doughty
felt disabled in his prayer life so he met with the pastor of the church in order to find a solution.
The pastor, sensing Doughty’s despair, offered to pray with him. “I don’t know what he prayed
and I can’t recall what I prayed either, but he must have had me pray the right thing, because the
Lord really led,” Doughty remembered. “And I arose from my knees and left that study a
changed person, a transformed individual.”1 Doughty’s religious experience led him to pursue a
career as a minister in the Evangelical Covenant Church. The nineteen-year-old Doughty who
experienced a dramatic religious awakening would later lead the attack against modernism in the
Evangelical Covenant Church.
In April 1957, Doughty distributed “A Cause for Concern in the Covenant” in which he
attacked the Covenant for allowing modernity to enter its ranks. Similarly, in 1874, Francis
Patton, a Presbyterian minister charged David Swing, also a Presbyterian minister with heresy.
The “mechanism” used by both denominations created major differences in the way they handled
the debates.
The Covenant Church came out of the free-church tradition, which rejected the use of
creeds to define doctrine, while the Presbyterian Church had a creed in the form of the
Westminister Confession. The Westminister Confession gave the Presbyterian Church a
mechanism in which to try theologians for heresy. The Covenant Church, lacking such a
mechanism, was not prepared to handle doctrinal disputes in a non-juridical manner. The
1 William Doughty, “William C. Doughty: One Man’s Cause for Concern in the Covenant,” interview by Donald T. Robinson, Unpublished, Doughty Series number: 6/1/2/1 Box 8 Folder 4 (hereafter: 6/1/2/1 8/4), The F.M. Johnson Archives and Special Collections, North Park University Library, Chicago (hereafter: F.M. Johnson Archives), 3.
Root 3
existence of a creed fundamentally shaped the way a denomination responded to the
fundamentalist-modernist controversies.
Interpretations of freedom within Christian testimony also contributed to the debates in
both denominations. The most important question over freedom in the denominations was: What
limits, if any, should be placed on one’s doctrinal interpretations? In the Covenant, Doughty
believed that there could be freedom when it came to minor doctrines, as long as disagreement
did not get in the way of Christian unity, but the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith were not
open to interpretation. Lund, on the other hand, had a wider interpretation of freedom that
allowed for open exploration of one’s faith.
This paper compares the ways the Evangelical Covenant and Presbyterian churches
handled the fundamentalist-modernist debates. Since the Covenant is a relatively obscure
denomination compared to the Presbyterian Church, a short history of the Covenant is necessary.
This section will look at the origins of the Covenant and why freedom was an important concept
for its founders. During the 1920s and 30s, Gustaf F. Johnson emerged as the voice of
fundamentalism in the Covenant and challenged the notion of freedom. Nils W. Lund, one of the
main figures in this paper, offered Johnson plenty of ammunition in which Johnson could base
his attacks against modernism. The main focus of the paper will be William C. Doughty and his
attacks against modernism in the Covenant. The Doughty controversy prompted the Covenant to
define what it meant by freedom, resulting in the formation of The Committee on Freedom and
Theology. The heresy trial of Swing in the Presbyterian Church also tested the limits of
freedom. A lot has already been written on the Presbyterian Church so my analysis of the
fundamentalist-modernist debates will not focus primarily on the situation between Swing and
Root 4
Patton.2 The paper ends with an explanation of the argument over freedom in the Covenant and
Presbyterian churches.
Origins of the Evangelical Covenant Church
The Evangelical Covenant Church has its roots in the Swedish Lutheran tradition. In
“The Swedish Mission Friends in America,” Alex Mellander, professor at the Covenant’s largest
university, North Park wrote, “Historically, the Mission Friends belong to the Lutheran division
of the Church, for they grew up in that church. In doctrine, they generally stand on Lutheran
ground to the means of grace.”3 In Covenant Affirmations, Donald Frisk wrote that the Covenant
Church followed Luther’s teaching that grace is the work of God and that it is “through grace
that we are saved.”4 The Evangelical Covenant Church believed they represented the “right
evangelical order” as proposed by Martin Luther because they allowed only born again
Christians into their congregations.
One of the first major problems for the Mission Friends, so-called because of their
emphasis on mission work, was a law passed by the Swedish government that made it mandatory
for all citizens to participate in communion.5 “It placed born-again Swedes into a dilemma,”
Frederick Hale wrote. “Mission Friends had either to participate shoulder-to-shoulder with the
ungodly in a ritual in which they regarded as too inclusive to be the Lord’s Supper or risk legal
action by refusing to commune.”6 They had three possible plans of action: remain members of
the church, but have communion in small groups without clergy; form communion societies with 2 For more on the Presbyterian Church see William R. Hutchins, The Modernist Impulse in American
Protestantism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976) and George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980),
3 Alex Mellander, “The Swedish Mission Friends in America” in Covenant Roots, ed. Glenn P. Anderson (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1999), 72.
4 Donald C. Frisk, Covenant Affirmations: This We Believe (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 2003), 113.5 For more on other influences on the formation of the Covenant Church such as politics, economics, and
pietism see Scott E. Erickson, “David Nyvall and the Shape of an Immigrant Church,” (Ph.D diss., Uppsula University, 1996), 38-44.
6 Frederick Hale, Trans-Atlantic Conservative Protestantism in the Evangelical Free and Mission Covenant Traditions (New York: Arno Press, 1979), 138.
Root 5
the help of sympathetic state ministers; or become a separatist organization and split from the
church.7
Pietist theology influenced the doctrine of the Mission Friends by offering a clear
example of the correct evangelical faith. During the sixteenth-century, pietism emerged because
doctrine had replaced Christ as the focus of Christian faith.8 The Mission Friends felt a
connection to the early pietist movement because they threatened by the participation of
unbelievers in communion and a spiritually weak clergy. The Mission Friends sought a revival
that would restore the “true evangelical faith.”
Since the Mission Friends felt so strongly about the spiritual situation surrounding them,
it became important for them to define what faith meant to them. P.P. Waldenström, one of the
most influential founders of the Covenant Church and an editor of the periodical, The Pietist
highlighted some misunderstandings of faith in God’s Eternal Plan of Salvation. Waldenström
highlighted five main misunderstandings, 1) Faith in Christ and faith in the Bible are not the
same, 2) Faith is not the same as having a correct doctrine about Christ, there must be faith in
Christ, 3) Believing in the forgiveness of sins is not the same as having faith in Christ, 4) Faith
does not require a particular view of the atonement, and 5) Faith in Christ is not the same as faith
that one is saved.9 An inner trust that Christ is the Lord and Savior and a deep trust in God’s
saving grace were the attributes of faith for the Mission Friends. Faith, for the Mission Friends,
had to be experienced and also offered humanity the means for salvation.10
The Mission Friends concerns went beyond keeping a pure congregation. In “Our
Original Principles,” Otto Hogfeldt, editor of the Covenant publication, Missions-Vannen and
7 Ibid., 139.8 Frisk, Covenant Affirmations, 8.9 Ibid., 10.10 This is a very general look at the influence of Pietism on the Evangelical Covenant Church. For a more
in-depth look see Karl Olsson, By One Spirit, 7-121.
Root 6
secretary of the Covenant, wrote that, “To our original principles, in the second place, belonged a
sharp delineation of the borders between the righteous and the unrighteous, between those who
had been born again and those who had not, between the light and darkness, life and spiritual
death.” 11 Thirdly, their stance on Scripture distinguished the Mission Friends from other
denominations. Instead of a creed, the Mission Friends made the Bible their final authority on
questions of faith.
In 1872, Waldenström published his sermon on the atonement titled “Sermon for the
Twentieth Sunday after Trinity” which caused controversy in Sweden. Waldenström’s sermon
also emphasized the central role played by Scripture amongst the Mission Friends. In his
sermon, Waldenström rejected the satisfaction theory which was advocated by most evangelicals
at the time. The satisfaction theory of the atonement taught that God’s wrath required the death
of Jesus so God could be reconciled to humanity.
While investigating the atonement, Waldenström found that the expression “God
reconciled in Christ” was not in the New Testament.12 The theory of the atonement proposed by
Waldenström argued that sinfulness created a separation between humanity and God. Instead of
God being reconciled to humanity, Waldenström argued that humanity had to reconciled to God.
“For when he gave his Son, it was not in order that he might find a person on whom he could
stake his anger, in order to be able to love the world,” Waldenström wrote, “but in order to find a
person through whom he could save man, his fallen child, whom he still loved.”13
Waldenström’s sermon received harsh criticism from other Swedish clergy who accused
Waldenström of destroying the Gospel and denying the Augsburg Confession. According to
Hale, “Waldenström was not impressed by his opponents’ appeal to historic creeds, which he 11 Otto Hogfeldt, “Our Original Principles” in Covenant Roots, 89.12 Olsson, By One Spirit, 110.13 P.P. Waldenström, “Sermon for the Twentieth Sunday after Trinity” in Covenant Roots, 108. Originally
published in July 1872 but was never formally preached.
Root 7
regarded as dubious touchstones of doctrine.” In response, Waldenström pointed out
inconsistencies between the Latin and German translations of the Augsburg Confession and
accused his critics of betraying the Lutheran principle that Scripture was the final authority in
spiritual matters.14
Up until the 1870s, many of the Missions Friends did not want to separate from the state
church. Some of the state church’s policies regarding issues like communion troubled the
Mission Friends, but they were not ready to separate and hoped to bring about change from the
inside. The state had previously ruled that communion had to be served in one of the state-
owned churches in order for it to be considered legitimate. During the “Uppsala Communion
Case,” in 1876, some members of the Mission Friends held communion in a chapel that was not
owned by the state. After hearing the news, the Swedish government charged the Mission
Friends with violating the law. After this incident, the Mission Friends decided to define their
ecclesiology15
Defining its ecclesiology proved to be difficult for the Mission Friends because two of its
most prominent leaders, Waldenström and E.J. Ekman, did not agree on issues like baptism and
whether the Mission Friends should separate from the state church.16 In August 1878, a
compromise was finally reached at the Third Ministerial Conference among Mission Friends
which led to the establishment of the Swedish Mission Covenant.
That same year, Waldenström and some others met in order to write a statement of their
ecclesiology, which stated that the church was a communion of saints and a local gathering of
believing Christians. The Covenant came to a compromise on the issue of baptism and accepted
14 Quote and paraphrase from Hale, Trans-Atlantic Conservatism, 152.15 Erickson, “David Nyvall and the Shape of an Immigrant Church,” 143.16 Ibid., 143. Ekman believed that adult baptism was the right doctrine to form a church while
Waldenström supported infant baptism. On the issue of separation, Ekman wanted to break with the state church and Waldenström wanted to form what Erickson called a “double ecclesiology.”
Root 8
members who had been baptized as either infants or adults.17 In America, in 1885, Swedish
immigrants who were members of the Mission Friends decided to follow suit and formed the
American Covenant based on “theological and structural freedom, a representative form of
church governance, and biblical primacy, among other issues.”18
Out of these controversies there were three important factors that helped define the
Covenant Church. First, the Covenant did not adopt any creeds as conditions of membership.
“In the context of accepting this New Testament and ideal church principle,” C.V. Bowman,
president of the Covenant from 1927 to 1932 wrote, “there naturally followed the surrender of
any established confessions (creeds) as conditions for membership in the churches.”19 As
Waldenström said in defense of his theory of the atonement, creeds were dubious points of
doctrine and the Bible needed to be the final authority.
Second, the Covenant Church adopted the Bible as its only doctrinal authority. The
American Covenant Constitution, passed in 1885, read, “This Covenant confesses the word of
God, the Holy Scriptures, the Old and the New Testament, as the only perfect rule of faith,
doctrine, and conduct.”20 The Bible became the sole authority for issues of faith in the Covenant.
However, freedom did not mean that one could openly contradict the teachings of the Bible.
Thirdly, the Covenant Church also faced the question of whom to allow into the church.
Should they be so inclusive that non-believers could join or should they adopt a confession of
faith and become totally exclusive? The Covenant Church wanted to allow freedom in doctrine,
but did not want such an open congregation that non-believers were granted membership.
Bowman said, that the local church shall be exclusive in allowing only believers to become
17 Hale, Trans-Atlantic Conservative Protestantism in the Evangelical Free and Mission Covenant Traditions, 143.
18 Erickson, 145.19 C.V. Bowman, “About the Principles of the Mission Friends,” 81.20 Mellander, “The Swedish Mission Friends in America,” in Covenant Roots, 69.
Root 9
members, but not so exclusive that members cannot disagree on controversial doctrines.21 This
made the Covenant inclusive and exclusive; inclusive in the way it allowed for a wide variety of
interpretations to enter the church, but exclusive in that only true believers were granted
membership. “This concept is the fundamental principle” David Nyvall, one of the most
influential members of the early Covenant articulated. “[T]hat the Christian church is a voluntary
fellowship of spiritually alive people on the foundation of a common faith in Jesus, love, and
mutual confidence; and that this fellowship shall be open to all who believe in Jesus and
evidence this in a Christian life, independent of their doctrinal views as long as these do not
contain a denial of the word and authority of the Holy Scriptures.”22
The Covenant also used its Swedish heritage as a way to separate itself from other
American denominations. When Swedish immigrants arrived in the United States, they faced the
common problem of culture shock experienced by foreign immigrants, so they sought ways in
which they could keep their Swedish heritage alive. The American Covenant was “formed in
order to give a religious identity to this group among Swedes in America…The Mission Friends
sought their own Swedish-American religious identity and culture within the diverse American
environment.”23
Swedish ethnicity not only played an important role in the formation of the American
Covenant, but it also influential the formation of a free church. In America, Swedish immigrants
encountered the idea of an independent church. Scott E. Erickson wrote, “The Mission Friends
did not adopt confessionalism by remaining tied to the Augustana Synod, nor did they join the
Baptists, Methodists or Free. Their free-church heritage provided the basis for the founding of
21 Bowman, Ibid., 80.22 David Nyvall, “Statements of the Covenant’s Doctrinal Heritage,” in Covenant Roots, 137.23 Erickson, “David Nyvall,” 73.
Root 10
an ethnic denomination.”24 In 1889, the Congregational Church tested the Covenant’s desire for
ethnic purity by asking the Covenant to join its denomination.
In its early years, the American Covenant depended on Congregationalists’ money, which
helped fund a Swedish-speaking Bible professor to train its pastors in the United States. In 1889,
the Congregationalists formally asked the Covenant to join its denomination and become a
permanent member of the American Congregational Church. According to Erickson, this would
have meant the loss of the Covenant’s independence to unify around a federation of local
churches.25 The Congregationalists promised that it would grant the Covenant full freedom but
Nyvall worried that “such a freedom was impossible in that the Covenant itself would cease to
exist if it did not maintain its Swedish-American mission purposes.”26
The denominational structure the Covenant established was that of congregational polity
where the local congregation was allowed to run its own business. Even though the
congregations had “full freedom,” there was still some structure to the denomination, Scott E.
Erickson called this harmony in the midst of diversity.27 28 Church business was carried out at
the annual meeting where each church in the denomination sent two delegates. In order to give
more structure to the denomination, it was decided that the churches should divide themselves
into district conferences, out of which came ten different districts. The strength of Covenant
freedom and its denominational structure was put to the test with the emergence of the modernist
and fundamentalist movements in the 1920s.
Modernist and Fundamentalist Movements
24 Erickson, “David Nyvall and the Shape of an Immigrant Church,” 98 and for more on the Swedish free-church heritage see, 43-52.
25 Ibid., 156.26 Ibid.27 Ibid., 163.28 Mellander, “The Swedish Mission Friends,” in Covenant Roots, 71.
Root 11
In Fundamentalism and American Culture, George Marsden wrote that modernism is
“the adaptation of religious ideas to modern culture.”29 This carried itself out in several ways
including Biblical criticism. Modern culture was rapidly changing and some modern theologians
sought ways to reconcile their Christian faith with the drastic changes. Some changes occurred
in scientific thinking which influenced the emergence of biblical criticism. Biblical criticism
challenged many of the popular views of scripture including its inerrancy.
Besides biblical criticism modernists also reinterpreted their theology to mesh with new
cultural developments. They believed that God revealed himself in cultural developments was
prevalent among modernists which became one of the ways modernists distinguished themselves
from the fundamentalists. Modernists believed that as human society progressed, it moved
toward the culmination of the Kingdom of God.
The Social Gospel emerged out of the new modernist theology and became one of the
most popular movements among modernists. In Social Gospel theology, good works were given
priority over evangelism, however, proponents of the Social Gospel did not totally rule out
salvation. Walter Rauschenbusch, the most prominent advocate of the Social Gospel, said that
he struggled with how to combine “old Christianity,” which he claimed only covered part of the
Christian faith, with a concern for social advocacy.30 “And then the Kingdom of God offered
itself as the real solution for that problem. Here was a religious concept that embraced it all,”
Rauschenbusch wrote. “The powers of the kingdom of God well up in the individual soul; that is
where they are born, and that is where the starting point necessarily must be.”31 Rauschenbusch
believed that the Kingdom of God not only answered the personal side of salvation, but it also
29 George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 146.
30 Walter Rauschenbusch, “The Kingdom of God,” in The Social Gospel in America, ed. Robert T. Handy (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1966), 266-267.
31 Ibid., 267.
Root 12
fulfilled the God’s will on earth. Despite the belief in salvation found in Rauschenbusch’s
theology, fundamentalists felt that “the Social Gospel emphasized social concern in an
exclusivist way which seemed to undercut the relevance of the message of eternal salvation
through trust in Christ’s atoning work.”32
As modernism continued to grow and reject important evangelical doctrines like the
inerrancy of the Bible, missionary work, and salvation in Christ alone, some evangelicals were
concerned. This coalition of concerned evangelicals eventually formed the fundamentalist
movement. Fundamentalism was an evangelical movement but it “was a loose, diverse, and
changing federation of co-belligerents united by their fierce opposition to modernist attempts to
bring Christianity into line with modern thought.”33
Fundamentalists were not only defined by their actions, but they also had deeply- rooted
theological beliefs. These included the defense of the inerrancy of the Bible, virgin birth of
Jesus, the resurrection, the miracles of Jesus, and Jesus’ subsutionary atonement.34 In order to be
a fundamentalist, one had to believe in these “fundamentals” of the faith.
In a 1922 letter to Reuben Torrey, a leading fundamentalist, Alex Mellander asked
Torrey about his view on the substitutionary atonement. In a speech at Moody Bible Institute in
January 1922, Torrey proclaimed that anyone who denied the substitutionary atonement of Christ
served the Antichrist instead of God.35 Mellander explained to Torrey that the majority of
pastors in the Covenant had adopted Waldenström’s theory of the atonement and wanted to know
if the Covenant, by accepting this theory, were following the Antichrist. Torrey responded that
although Waldenström and other members of the Covenant were good Christians they believed
32 Ibid., 92.33 Ibid., 4.34 Ibid., 180.35 Prof. Alex Mellander to R.A. Torrey, Forbunets Veckoblad, March 7, 1922. The F.M. Johnson Archives.
Root 13
falsely about the atonement. Torrey wrote, “the doctrine of the substitutionary death of Jesus
Christ is so fundamental that there can be no union between those who believe in it as it is taught
in the Word of God and those who deny it.”36 This correspondence between the two theologians
is important because it shows that the fundamentalists did not leave room for dissenting doctrine.
For the Covenant, anti-substitutionary atonement also symbolized its break with creedalism. The
Covenant did not advocate for one particular theory of the atonement, although many of its
members believed in Waldenström’s interpretation, it allowed its members to search the Bible
for their own answer. The break with the substitutionary atonement and the acceptance of
Waldenström’s theory showed that the Covenant accepted doctrinal interpretations that stood
outside of the famous Christian creeds
Gustaf F. Johnson and the Two Types of Christianity
In the fundamentalist-modernist debates that would emerge in the Covenant Karl Olsson,
the most prominent Covenant historian, saw two different sides of the conflict. In By One Spirit,
he wrote that the so-called modernists, he refused to call them modernists or liberals were
opposed by the Right whom he had no problem labeling as fundamentalists. Olsson wrote, “The
difference between them [the Left] and their opponents [the Right], as will become clear, was
that they [the Left] represented a dynamic conservatism whereas the right represented a static
conservatism.”37 According to Olsson, the Left believed that Covenant freedom allowed an open
exploration of the truth while the Right felt that Covenant piety made open exploration
unnecessary. During the 1920s, the rise of Gustaf F. Johnson brought the fundamentalist
movement to the Covenant.
36 Ibid. 37 Olsson, 535.
Root 14
According to Olsson, in 1915, when Johnson arrived in Minneapolis to assume his
position as a pastor in the Covenant, “something in the church was changing: there was a lack of
fervor, a loss of first love, an increasing worldliness,” Olsson wrote. “This was concurrent with
the growth of liberalism, the advocacy of the social gospel, and the flowering of optimism about
the state of the world.”38 Like the other fundamentalists in the larger movement, Johnson wanted
to drive any sign of modernism out of the Covenant and bring the Covenant toward theological
definition.39
In 1934, Johnson published “Comments” in the Covenant publication Missions-Vannen
in which he addressed the two types of divergent Christianities he saw in the Covenant. Johnson
drew a line between what he called revival Christianity and educational Christianity. He saw
that the times were changing, as more members of the Covenant were better educated than
previous generations. “It had become evident that knowledge,” Johnson argued, “even
knowledge of the Scriptures, could exist without the slightest knowledge of life in God. It had
also been experienced that clear understanding of God and spiritual experiences could exist
where learning and culture were weak.”40 According to Johnson, a life in God did not require an
education, but simply the experience of a new birth. For Johnson, the proliferation of university-
trained pastors offered enough evidence that the Covenant promoted modernism and that an
education did not guarantee spiritual stability. The new ministers might have been able to
deliver eloquent sermons, but if they could not win souls for Christ than their work was futile.41
38 Ibid., 533.39 Ibid., 532. Olsson used the phrase theological definition. I did not find any evidence in Johnson’s
writings that would indicate he wanted a creed so it may simply mean that he wanted the Covenant to explain what it meant by its stance on Scripture.
40 Gustaf F. Johnson, “Comments,” in Missions-Wannen April 24, 1934, Series number: 1510 Box 3 Folder 3 The F.M. Johnson Archives and Special Collections, North Park University Library, Chicago, 1.
41 Ibid., 2.
Root 15
Johnson also saw a problem with the rise of biblical criticism which, according to
Johnson, questioned the old-time understanding of the Bible. The “old-time” understanding of
the Bible did not require an education because one could know the truths of the Bible without
any education. If the Covenant decided to adopt biblical criticism as the norm then it could
expect its path to be filled with darkness.42 Johnson believed that choosing “educational
Christianity” was too risky because one could not be sure whether an educated minister could
win souls for Christ. Johnson admitted that an educated minister could be spiritually strong but
it was not guaranteed.
In 1927, Johnson and other like-minded individuals joined together during the Annual
Meeting of the Northwest Mission Association. The men who met at the meeting were
concerned that the Covenant was becoming too indifferent about spiritual matters. They sought
to create a revival within the denomination that would save it from its downhill descent. The
causes observed by Johnson and the others were, “a shaken faith in the infallible authority of the
Bible, in the lust for pleasure, in avarice, and in fraternization with the world.”43 The committee
decided that if the Covenant rejected a revival then it could expect to become victims of
worldliness. This discussion did not leave room for middle ground; the Covenant could either
experience a revival and save itself or die.
Johnson and the other fundamentalists in the Covenant Church focused some of their
attention on North Park. Their attacks centered on the reading material and class lectures.44
Observing book lists would have been an easy task, but investigating what lectures presented
interesting challenges because none of the fundamentalists were students at the seminary.
According to Olsson, in 1927 Axel B. Öst, one of the leading fundamentalists in the Covenant,
42 Ibid.43 Olsson, By One Spirit, 536.44 Olsson, By One Spirit, 537.
Root 16
secretly interviewed seminary students in order to find out what the professors were teaching.45
The testimony of the students gave the fundamentalists a stepping-stone on which to base their
attacks against North Park. Nils W. Lund became the target for many of the fundamentalist’s
attacks.
Nils Lund: The Authority of Scripture
The questionable methods used by the fundamentalists in their attacks against North Park
did not sit well with North Park Seminary professor and dean, Nils W. Lund. The president of
North Park, Algoth Ohlson, wrote a public letter harshly criticizing Öst and the other
fundamentalists.46 Lund justified Ohlson’s letter because he did not approve of the tactics used
by Öst and Johnson which he felt pushed Ohlson into a defensive position. “In the first place,”
Lund argued, “Öst had rushed into print with a criticism which every known standard of
brotherly Christianity conduct demanded that he should have brought privately to the attention of
President Ohlson. In the second place he set aside every rule of procedure which governs such
complaints within the Covenant.”47
Lund also had to defend the attacks that the curriculum at North Park led to the demise of
the spiritual well-being of North Park students. “People may say what they will about our
school,” Lund said, “but they cannot truthfully accuse [us] of neglecting the spiritual welfare of
our students.”48 According to Lund, the only students who were losing their faith were those
who did not take advantage of the eagerness of North Park professors to privately discuss matters
of faith.
45 Ibid.46 Ibid. 47 Nils Lund to Rev. Arvid Nygren, 11 March 1929, Lund Series number: 6/1/2/1/18a Box 20 Folder 1
(hereafter: 6/1/2/1/18a 20/1) The F.M. Johnson Archives, 1.48 Ibid., 2.
Root 17
Lund expected his students to think critically and this training, according to Lund,
inevitably led to spiritual challenges. “Now, do not misunderstand me,” Lund explained, “I am
not saying this by way of criticism. In fact, I do not see how the mental attitude of the student
can be otherwise, for he would not be a student in any true sense of the word, unless he in some
measure at least has these experiences at school.”49 North Park’s spiritual life was far from
perfect, but Lund believed that he and the other professors were doing their best to nurture the
spiritual lives of the students.
Lund continued his commitment to the importance of critical thinking at the Annual
Meeting of the Covenant in June 1928, where he delivered a lecture titled, “The Authority of
Holy Scriptures.” As Karl Olsson noted, “A great deal of tension had preceded the meeting, and
the assembled delegates sensed that crucial decisions were in the offing.”50 Lund was in the
middle of the fundamentalist-modernist debates over the authority of Scripture during the 1920s.
He wrote, “In recent years the conflict between fundamentalists and modernists has once more
made it necessary to clarify what one really means when one speaks of the inspiration of the
Bible and the authority of the Bible.”51
The atmosphere in the Covenant surrounding the meeting in 1928 can be seen in the
controversy surrounding Lund’s remarks about the resurrection of Christ. In a series of articles
in Förbundets Veckotidning, Gustaf Johnson claimed to have overheard a conversation of Lund’s
where he questioned the bodily resurrection of Christ.52 In May 1928, as a result of these
accusations, Lund, Johnson, and the Executive and School Boards met in order to discuss Lund’s
views on the resurrection.
49 Ibid., 3.50 Olsson, By One Spirit, 539.51 Nils W. Lund, “The Authority of the Holy Scriptures,” trans. Eric G. Hawkinson, Covenant Quarterly,
Nov. 1972 vol. 30 no. 4, 5.52 Olsson, By One Spirit, 539.
Root 18
Considering the seriousness of the charges, the board felt that an investigation was
absolutely necessary. The results of the investigation, which included interviews with seminary
students and the meeting between Lund and Johnson, were that Lund fully believed in the
resurrection and that in he taught it as fact. “We deplore that this and other similar utterances
have been made publicly without first being shared with the board of directors of the school,” the
board concluded in a statement that would later become crucial in the William Doughty
controversy.53 The board regretted that the accusations brought against Lund were false and that
as a result of the charges, Lund’s reputation in the Covenant had suffered.
Lund believed that the 1928 Annual Meeting was crucial because it could determine the
educational policy of the Covenant, “The practical task for the Covenant annual meeting will be
to determine whether they shall continue their educational enterprise along the lines of a liberal
education, or whether they shall confine it to a Bible Institute.”54 The Bible institute perpetuated
a sense of anti-intellectualism which Lund found very threatening.55
Despite the possible consequences, Lund decided to publicly announce his position on
Scripture. Lund felt that the educational well-being of North Park faced serious consequences if
he remained silent. Lund also said, “It is at this point that I hope [both my] lectures will serve to
clear a lot of fog which these brethren [the fundamentalists] have spread over the landscape
during the last few years.”56
The Covenant Church claimed that the Bible was the “only perfect rule for faith, doctrine,
and conduct” and depending on how one reads the Bible this affirmation of faith can be
interpreted many different ways. On one side were the fundamentalists led by Johnson and Öst
who argued that the Bible was inerrant. They were opposed by people like Lund, who believed in 53 Ibid., 774.54 Nils Lund to Paul Lindquist, Feb. 11, 1928, 6/1/2/1/18a 3/16, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 2.55 Marsden, 129.56 Nils Lund to Paul Lindquist, Feb. 11, 1928, 2.
Root 19
the authority of Scripture, but did not believe that the Bible was inerrant. The fundamentalists
wanted the Covenant to adopt the inerrant stance on Scripture as its doctrine but the modernists
wanted there to be room for all interpretations of Scripture. In “The Authority of Holy
Scriptures,” Lund wrote, “When we now hold firmly that the Scriptures shall be the norm for the
message, it does not imply that research is forbidden or that a more intimate and deeper
experience is repudiated. It means only that I am willing to test by the Scriptures the discoveries
that I bring home from my own journeys in thought.”57 Lund believed that the Bible was useful
as a guide for one’s religious life, but drew the line when it came to the belief that Scripture was
inerrant.
Lund saw two different ways people approached the Bible. First, there were those who
read it for personal edification.58 “For them the Bible is a large and glorious house with many
differing rooms, some more inviting than others,” Lund wrote, “In this house they visit a few
rooms often, others less frequently, and some never.”59 They did not trouble themselves with
questions of the historicity of the Bible, nor did they deal with difficult questions of authority
because the mere existence of the Bible was enough.
On the other side, Lund said there were those who read the Bible not only for personal
edification, but they were also interested in the historical and scientific questions raised by the
Bible. Lund said that an alert reader of the Bible would notice its inconsistencies and would try
to understand them.60 Lund believed that the inerrancy approach to scripture offered the most
problems. “If he holds fast to the theory of verbal inspiration,” Lund said, “he has no way out
but to assume a different inspiration of the Spirit upon different authors.”61 For Lund, this view
57 Lund, “The Authority of the Holy Scriptures”, 4.58 Ibid., 5.59 Ibid.60 Ibid., 6.61 Ibid., 7.
Root 20
of Scripture was too impersonal because it did not take into account personal experience. He
believed that Scripture in the inspiration of scripture, but that the Spirit worked through personal
experience: “No, he illumined their understanding and sanctified their wills through a divine
inspiration which was in the deepest sense united with all the shifting experiences of human
life.”62
The inconsistencies that Lund saw in the inerrancy argument were heightened by the
historical context of the biblical writers. He saw this in the different ways modern humans view
the universe. Ancient astronomy taught that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around
the earth, but through modern astronomy learned that the earth is round and that the earth
revolves around the sun. The cultural context of the biblical writers also offered more
complexities for Lund. In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul wrote that women should not be allowed to
teach, but Lund argued that most modern Christian churches had abandoned this ancient
worldview. He wrote, “Modern man’s conception of the world is so completely different from
that which people had when the holy authors wrote the books of the Bible…It is their conception
of the world which appears in Scripture, not ours.”63
Lund saw a sharp distinction between the biblical message and the form. The form, the
actual written text, was only temporal and could not stand on its own due to factors like the
differences in the Gospels, but the message within biblical text remained true. Lund was afraid
that people would become slaves to the form. Instead, he encouraged Christians to look for the
message within the text. “In the reading of these texts,” Lund explained, “the reader of the Bible
separates the principle imbedded in each text from its more or less limited temporal form and
62 Ibid., 8.63 Ibid.
Root 21
makes it available for the Christian life as a whole.”64 Lund believed that to reject such an
approach to Scripture would make most of the Bible irrelevant for the modern reader.
At the end of his speech, Lund addressed the fundamentalist-modernist debates that were
dividing the Covenant Church at the time. Lund argued that the fundamentalist approach to
Scripture created a spiritless orthodoxy that was sterile and legalistic. According to Lund,
fundamentalists were too worried about the form and not focused enough on the message of
Scripture. If the fundamentalists were allowed to take over, then Lund believed that, “The Bible
will be used as ammunition in theological conflicts but not as food for the spiritual life. With
this displacement of the essential in Christianity, which is neither doctrine nor cult but the hidden
life with Christ in God, even brotherly love will weaken.”65 It took over twenty years for a
prominent and powerful voice to emerge that challenged Lund’s opinion on Scriptural authority.
William Doughty and “A Cause for Concern in the Covenant”
On May 17, 1949, William Doughty, a senior at North Park Theological Seminary
delivered a farewell sermon at graduation. Throughout his speech Doughty spoke of the
importance of the Covenant Church remaining unified even through doctrinal disputes. “They
seem to forget the word of the Lord to Paul as he cried out,” Lund said, “Saul, Saul, why
persecutest thou me?” and that our Lord Jesus Christ regarded every attack upon one of his loved
ones as a personal attack on himself.”66
“There is a separatist sentiment which exists in some areas of the Covenant,” Doughty
observed, “And I say if a man can’t get along with the majority of the men in the Covenant, then
I don’t think he can get along in any group.”67 Doughty did not see any reason for division in the
64 Ibid., 13.65 Ibid., 22. There is very little information on the resolution of Johnson conflict. Olsson in By One Spirit,
544 did mention how Johnson was censured but only devoted one sentence to the matter.66 ? William Doughty, “Farewell Sermon,” (sermon preached at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago on May 17, 1949), 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives.67 ? Ibid.
Root 22
Covenant because it granted its members freedom in regard to minor doctrines like communion,
baptism, speaking in tongues, and millennialism.68 Disputes over minor doctrine were
unnecessary because they only served to divide the Church’s unity in Christ.
Before joining the Covenant Church, Doughty had been affiliated with the Presbyterian
Church where he first encountered the harmful effects of the fundamentalist-modernist debates.
“And although I did not understand fully the issues involved at that time,” Doughty explained,
“one thing I did know as a babe in Christ, that the bitter spirit of such controversy was
unbecoming a representative of Jesus Christ. As a result I withdrew my membership in 1937.”69
It is not exactly clear why Doughty decided to leave the Presbyterian Church because in
an interview from 1978 he gave another reason. Doughty said that in 1937 the Lord called him
to attend the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago where his eyes were opened to the liberal leanings
of the Presbyterian Church. His education in the fundamentals of the Christian faith showed
him, “I was a member of an evangelical church, was under the control of the philosophy known
as modern religious liberalism or modernism. I did not feel that I wanted to be affiliated with a
group that was under the control of this philosophy, feeling that it was false and wrong.”70
Following his ordination in the Covenant, Doughty assumed the role of pastor at Bethany
Covenant Church in Mount Vernon, Washington in 1953.
The addition of Dr. Earl Dahlstrom and Henry Gustafson to the North Park Seminary
Staff in 1954 raised important questions for Doughty and his congregation. The theology of the
two candidates raised questions during the Bethany Covenant quarterly business meeting the
congregation sent a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Education, Harold Anderson. “The
68 ? Ibid.69 ? Ibid.70 ? William Doughty, “William C. Doughty: One Man’s Cause for Concern in the Covenant,” interview by Donald T. Robinson, Unpublished, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 3.
Root 23
members of our congregation,” the letter read, “were interested to know where these men stand
relative to the historic evangelical position of the Covenant.”71
The questions presented a wide variety of issues that ranged from creation, Jesus’ birth
and resurrection, and millennialism. Doughty and the congregation were looking to see where
the two candidates stood in regards to the “fundamentals.” The questions lined up with the five
essential doctrines passed by the Presbyterian General Assembly in 1910, “(1) the inerrancy of
Scripture, (2) the Virgin Birth of Christ, (3) his substitutionary atonement, (4) his bodily
resurrection, and (5) the authenticity of miracles.”72
The first eight questions were formulated as such that there was a right and a wrong
answer. For example, one question asked, “With regard to the creation of living creatures in the
Genesis account do they believe that God created finished products within each species, or do
they hold to some form of evolutionary development?”73 The candidates could accept what
Doughty believed to be the historical evangelical position of the Covenant and answer that God
created finished products or they could answer in favor of evolution. The ninth question asked
about Dahlstrom’s and Gustafson’s views on the millennium. “With regard to a specific aspect of
eschatology do they hold to a post-millennial, pre-millennial, or a-millennial position?”74 During
his farewell sermon, Doughy listed millennialism as a minor doctrine that was open to
interpretation. Doughty’s first real attack against modernism came in 1955 with the release of a
pamphlet from the Youth Department of the Covenant.
The Youth Department released a pamphlet titled, “The Exile and Restoration of a
Nation” that suggested the book of Isaiah may have been written by two different authors.
Doughty responded negatively to the article by writing a letter to Rev. Aaron Markuson, the head 71 ? William Doughty to Harold Anderson, 8 June 1954, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 1.72 ? Marsden, 117.73 ? William Doughty to Harold Anderson, 8 June 1954, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 1.74 ? Ibid., 2.
Root 24
of the Youth Department. “Since the Composite Authorship Theory had its origin in liberal
theology and this theory is far from conclusive in its facts and evidences,” Doughty argued, “and
since the traditional evangelical view of the Covenant has been that of Isaiahian authorship, I
would think that we should uphold the unity of the book.”75
In his response to Doughty, Markuson said that the Youth Department had no official
stance on the authorship of Isaiah and wanted to allow their writers to display their own
convictions, as long as the writers did not “conflict with what we consider basic Christian beliefs
and practices.”76 According to Markuson, the authorship of Isaiah fell into this category.
Markuson said that he did not see any reason to edit the article because the author did not deny
God’s inspiration on the Isaiahan authors.
Doughty took objection to Markuson’s statement that belief in the authorship of Isaiah
was not central to the Christian faith. “When, in the course of Christian instruction,” Doughty
argued, “the issue of the authorship of Isaiah arises it becomes an issue basic to the Christian
faith and effects the Christian’s relation to the Holy Spirit and the blessing and power of God
upon his life.”77 Doughty said that when the authors of the New Testament quote from the book
of Isaiah they give credit to one author. If the Covenant wanted to remain consistent in its belief
that the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the New Testament then it must deny the dual
authorship theory. According to Doughty, if there were two authors of Isaiah then it would have
been mentioned in Scripture.78 “It is an issue of faith itself,” Doughty demanded, “Faith in the
Holy Spirit’s inspiration of, and instruction through, the N.T. There is no neutral ground here. A
75 ? William Doughty to Aaron Markuson, 6 Dec. 1955, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives.76 ? Aaron Markuson to William Doughty, 4 Jan. 1956, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives.77 ? William Doughty to Aaron Markuson, 17 Jan. 1956, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives. 78 ? Ibid.
Root 25
man and a Dept. must take a stand either for or against the Holy Spirit in this matter. It is a
matter of faith or unbelief.”79
In 1956, Doughty perceived that unbelief had made its way all the way to the North Park
University campus. One of the main activities hosted by North Park was “Tuesday Evenings at
North Park,” where guest speakers were invited to speak on campus. The university offered the
students a wide variety of speakers so they could grow intellectually. Doughty objected to one
of the guest speakers that hailed from Union Theological Seminary. “Union Theological
Seminary is well known as a stronghold of religious modernism,” Doughty wrote to North Park
president Clarence Nelson. “It does not engender confidence in our school when our people learn
that our college invites and fellowships with a representative of this type of seminary. It
certainly does not enhance the evangelical standing of our school to entertain a speaker from a
heretical institution.”80
Nelson gave two reasons why the college invited a wide variety of speakers. First, the
university wanted to expose the students to a wide variety of opinions. Secondly, the college did
not claim to endorse everything a speaker said by simply inviting them to speak on campus.81
Nelson stated that regardless of the speakers it invited, the Covenant maintained its evangelical
identity. “So long as we stand in the framework of our historic faith in an fellowship with
Christ,” Nelson wrote, “we know that we cannot escape being criticized and misunderstood, but
that may well be one of the radiant hallmarks of a living school.”82
The policy stated by Nelson was “legitimate for a secular educational institution but not
for an evangelical Christian institution claiming to stand within the framework of the historical
79 ? Ibid.80 ? William Doughty to Dr. Clarence Nelson, 26 Dec. 1956, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson.81 ? Clarence A. Nelson to William Doughty, 9 Jan. 1957, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 2.
82 Ibid.
Root 26
faith presented in the New Testament.”83 If the college wanted to expose its students to
modernism, according to Doughty, than it must be taught by the professors so they could
uncover its deceitfulness
In addition to his duties as pastor of the Bethany Covenant Church, Doughty was also
editor of the regional publication, The Conference News. As editor Doughty wrote an article
titled, “The Covenant and the Middle Way,” which explained the dangers of taking a neutral
position between liberalism and fundamentalism. There was nothing wrong with a true middle
of the road position because the Covenant Church could “demonstrate to the American scene the
possibility and reality of men of divergent views on minor doctrines, but who hold strongly to
the fundamental doctrines of historic Christianity, working in close harmony within the family of
a denomination.”84
The middle of the road position adopted by the Covenant, according to Doughty, enabled
a move to the left of center. Doughty argued that any move to the life inevitably led to
theological inclusivism. “Such inclusivism eventually leads to compromise, compromise leads
to capitulation, and capitulation leads to captivity. This kind of an undefined middle of the road
position with a drift to the left ultimately brings about a vitiating of the positive presentation of
the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.”85
The publication Covenant Weekly also came under Doughty’s attack. The article that
Doughty took issue with was titled, “People I Have Known: Fighter for Free Speech, Nils W.
Lund.” In the article, the author spoke highly of Lund and wrote that in his 1928 speech in
Omaha, Nebraska, Lund could not accept the theory of verbal inspiration.86 Doughty articulated
83 ? William Doughty to Clarence A. Nelson, 12 Feb, 1957, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives.84 ? William Doughty, “The Covenant and the Middle Way” The Conference News (Sept. 1957): 6, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives.85 ? Ibid.
86 William Doughty to Carl P. Anderson, 15 Feb. 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 1.
Root 27
that verbal inspiration was not just a theory and that it was the teaching of Scripture. “The
uniform testimony of the Bible,” Lund argued, “concerning itself is to the effect that Holy Spirit
inspiration included not only the thinking process of the writers but also descended to their
words spoken and written.”87
The editor of the Covenant Weekly, Carl Anderson, replied that Doughty missed the
point of the article. The author did not intend to refute the theory of verbal inspiration but
simply wanted to highlight Lund’s intellectual contribution to the Covenant. Covenant freedom,
Anderson wrote, left room for all theories of inspiration as long as Covenanters shared a
common faith in Jesus Christ. Anderson argued that importance of the controversies surrounding
Lund’s 1928 speech was not his view on inspiration but the recognition that “there is room
within the Covenant for diverse points of view when men share a common faith in Jesus Christ
and are willing to grant each other freedom of thought and expression.”88
Doughty’s attempts to remove modernism from the Covenant culminated in, “A Cause
for Concern.” “The purpose of this present paper,” Doughty explained, “is to bring before our
people facts which will show why such statements have been made and to reveal to our people
that there is a real cause for concern within the Covenant.”89 Doughty exposed five programs in
the Covenant that he believed had abandoned the evangelical tradition of the denomination.
Doughty argued that the denominational paper, The Covenant Weekly, used its influence
as a propaganda machine in order to spread liberalism. First, the publication openly supported
the National and World Council of Churches, both of which were deemed liberal by Doughty.90
Secondly, the Covenant Weekly allowed liberal theologians to contribute articles to the paper.
Doughty described one of the contributing authors as a liberal that did “not accept any of the 87 Ibid. The speech referred to was most likely “The Authority of the Holy Scriptures.”88 Carl P. Anderson to William Doughty, 5 March 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 2.
89 ? William Doughty, “A Cause for Concern,” 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 1.90 ? Ibid., 1.
Root 28
doctrines which were listed as they have been understood in the conservative and fundamental
wing of the church.”91 Doughty asserted the Covenant Weekly condoned liberal theology by
allowing liberal thinkers to contribute to the publication.
Doughty also went after the Covenant Press for selling liberal and conservative books
alongside each other without making any theological distinctions. One such work was
Understanding the Christian Faith by Georgia Harkness in which she denied the deity of Christ.
Doughty judged the press guilty by association, “This inclusivistic policy is a denial of and a
disobedience to the scriptural teaching and doctrine that a true child of God is not to honor or
help to spread the unbelief and false doctrine of false teachers but rather to rebuke them as
“anathema” and to be reproved and rebuked.”92
In “A Cause for Concern,” Doughty also expanded his attacks against the Youth
Department. This time Doughty took issue with articles that denied the literal story of creation
found in Genesis. The particular article Doughty singled-out denied the belief that the fall of
Adam had an effect on history. The article argued that each human being loses its moral stature
by poor decisions and that humanity needs to see itself in the story of Adam instead of taking the
story literally and blaming Adam for humanity’s downfall. Doughty perceived the publication of
this article as a direct assault on the well-being of the youth in the Covenant.93
The final Covenant institution attacked by Doughty was North Park seminary. The
professors at North Park were known for challenging their students by presenting them with a
number of theological opinions but Doughty wanted the seminary professors to expose their
students to the heresies of liberalism. “The greatest weakness and failure in our Seminary,”
Doughty asserted, “is the lack of a strong moral directive against the heresies of liberalism and
91 ? Ibid., 2.92 ? Ibid., 3.93 ? Ibid., 4.
Root 29
neo-orthodoxy and the lack of an equally strong moral directive in favor of fundamental and
historic Christianity.”94
Like Öst and the early fundamentalists in the Covenant, Doughty faced the problem of
finding evidence to prove that North Park seminary was indeed liberal. The North Pacific
Ministerial Associates Board confronted Doughty about the class notes he used in “A Cause for
Concern.”95 Doughty admitted that a student had provided him with the class notes but refused
to give a name.
Doughty chose theology professor Donald Frisk as his main target from North Park
Seminary. A major problem for Doughty was Frisks’ stance or lack thereof, on the revelation of
Scripture. “Well, I think that the problem is still before us,” Frisk told the class, “I don’t pretend
to have given any answer but if we have sharpened up the issues it is of value, and above all, I
hope that we have found that we have difficulty with verbal inspiration as it has been
understood.”96 Not only did Doughty believe that Frisk’s conclusion on revelation was wrong,
but it also lacked moral directive for the students.97
In June 1958, the president and secretary of the Covenant sent a letter to all the Covenant
churches informing them that Doughty had been requested to remain silent until his grievances
could be evaluated at the Board of Ministerial Standing in Miami. When Doughty saw that the
letter accused him of going over the heads of the ministerial board he responded that it “would
be true only if history and experience showed that procedure through channels could bring basic
corrections to grievances. But this they do not show.”98 The ministerial board, upset with
94 ? Ibid., 8.95 ? Transcription of minutes of Board of North Pacific Ministerial Associates Meeting, April 17, 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 3.96 ? Doughty, “A Cause for Concern,” 12.97 ? Ibid., 12. In “A Cause for Concern” Doughty also reiterated his frustrations with North Park University for inviting liberal speakers, like Dr. Pauck, to speak on campus.
98 Donald T. Robinson, “William C. Doughty: One Man’s Cause for Concern in the Covenant (unpublished, Covenant Archives), quoted in Karl Olsson, Into One Body…by the Cross vol. 2 (Chicago: Covenant Press: 1986),
Root 30
Doughty’s non-compliance, censured him for acting in an “unchristian manner.”99 He lost his
ministerial license for one year with the hope of reconciliation, but on February 19, 1958,
Doughty submitted his resignation from the Covenant Ministerium.100
In response to the decision of the Board to censure Doughty, delegates from Bethany
Covenant wrote a letter of protest. The letter addressed a wide variety of issues, including
whether or not the Board truly asked Doughty not to send out “A Cause for Concern” until there
could a full evaluation.101 For this study, the most important issues addressed in the letter dealt
with the handling of the content in “A Cause for Concern.” According to letter-writers, the
Board censured Doughty because he exposed the encroachment of modernism in the Covenant.
The delegates felt that the charges of behaving in an unchristian manner were false. Doughty’s
supporters also argued that the issues exposed by Doughty in “A Cause for Concern went largely
unacknowledged in the public by the leadership in the Covenant.102 “We hear thru [sic] him the
pure and unchanging word of God, preached in all humility of spirit,” the delegates wrote about
Doughty. “What the Covenant Board of Ministerial Standing has done and is doing to our Pastor
does not change his status with us. We are praying for a continued revival of the Holy Spirit to
fall upon our church as well as upon our Covenant that we may be found faithful when our
Savior comes for us.”103
What Does Freedom Mean? The Committee on Freedom and Theology
350.99 Karl Olsson, Into the Body…by the Cross vol. 2 (Chicago: Covenant Press, 1986), 351.100 William Doughty to the Covenant Ministerial Board 19 Feb. 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson. In his
letter of resignation Doughty quit because of additions to the Covenant constitution. He did not specify what was added to the constitution that caused him to resign. Olsson also never mentioned the addition.
101 Robert Elde and Eva Collinson to fellow Covenanters, 21 Oct. 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives, 2.
102 Ibid., 3.103 Ibid., 3.
Root 31
The outcome of the Doughty controversy showed that the Covenant was ill-prepared to
handle major doctrinal disputes. First, prior to 1958, “there was no procedure for the board to
deal directly with an erring minister.”104 Also, the Covenant did not have a clear procedure
detailing on what grounds one could be censured. Doughty had been accused of airing his
criticisms without going through the proper channels, but this meant that anyone who criticized
the Covenant without “going through the proper channels” could possibly be censured.
The most important issue to emerge out of the Doughty controversy dealt with the
meaning of Covenant freedom. In order to deal with this issue the Committee on Freedom and
Theology was formed to study “problems which have been with us for a long time: first of all,
the nature and scope of our freedom which we look upon as a unique part of our tradition; and
second, our theological position related to our biblical heritage and to historical Christianity.”105
The task of the Committee on Freedom and Theology was twofold. First, it had to deal with the
authority of Scripture and second, freedom within authority. The committee decided that the
Bible was authoritative because it revealed God’s redemptive work in Christ. The test of the
validity of the Bible was not human reason, but the inward working of the Holy Spirit. “Because
the Bible is the Word of God,” the opening statement read, “the church is obliged to treasure its
message, guarding it against every temptation to obscure its plain teaching or evade its truth, and
humbly submitting itself to responsive obedience in the Holy Spirit.”106
The committee not only affirmed in what sense the Bible was authoritative, but it also
clarified what was meant by the constitutional statement that the Scriptures “are the only perfect
rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct.” Olsson read three meanings in this affirmation of
Scripture. The first affirmed that the Covenant was bound to the Bible because it was the way
104 Olsson, By One Spirit, 619.105 Yearbook, 1958, 242, quoted in Karl Olsson, By One Spirit, 620.106 Olsson, Into One Body…by the Cross vol. 2, 357.
Root 32
God revealed himself to humanity. The second affirmed that the Bible set out judgment on our
sins, but also revealed the means to grace. Finally, the Bible was necessary for a faith community
if it expected to remain spiritually healthy.107
When deciding what the Covenant meant by freedom within authority, the Committee
focused its attention on intellectual freedom. The Church had just experienced Doughty’s
attacks which had centered on academic freedom. The Committee came to the conclusion that
there could be intellectual freedom as long as it was done within the limits of Christian
testimony.108 The connection between faith and intellectual freedom can be seen in the different
ways that Lund and Doughty interpreted Covenant freedom.
According to Olsson, the faith of Lund and Doughty were actually very similar; he
maintained that they both “had the same faith in the Bible, in essential Christology, in sin and
grace, in the centrality of the new life in Christ, in the resurrection, and the life to come, but they
sometimes talked about these things differently, and they differed in details.”109 The theological
separation between the two can be seen in the vastly different ways that they approached the
Bible. Both strongly believed that the Bible was the main source of authority for any Christian,
but disagreed on whether or not it was inerrant. Their disagreement over how to read the Bible
also influenced their views on freedom.
Doughty did not want to leave room for one to question the inerrancy of Scripture, while
Lund advocated using modern methods to explore the Bible and questioned the validity of the
inerrancy argument. Both thought that their view of the Bible was the norm and that it deserved
a place in the Covenant Church. The dispute could have been solved by a creed, but adopting a
107 Ibid., 357.108 Ibid., 358.109 Olsson, By One Spirit, 544. For some more insight into Lund’s theology see his sermons titled “The
Abiding Glory of Jesus,” “The Ideal Life,” and “Our Full Joy,” 6/1/2/1/18a 2/2, The F.M. Johnson Archives.
Root 33
creed did not necessarily mean that the Covenant would have avoided doctrinal disputes. The
same disagreements over theology occurred in denominations that had a creed.
Does Having a Creed Really Matter? The Trial of Rev. David Swing
In 1873, Francis Patton accused David Swing of violating the Presbyterian Confession of
Faith.110 Patton claimed Swing denied the truths of the Gospel and betrayed the Westminister
Confession. More specifically, Patton accused Swing of denying the Trinity, the total depravity
of humanity, predestination, and the inerrancy of the Bible.111 William R. Hutchinson in The
Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism argued that the fight between Patton and Swing
came down to a disagreement over the legitimacy of the Presbyterian creed. It also highlighted
the ways that the existence of a creed shaped a denomination’s response to the fundamentalist-
modernist controversy.
“That the constitution, as is well known,” Patton argued, “expressly requires of all
candidates for admission a solemn declaration that they sincerely receive and adopt the
confession of faith of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy
Scriptures.”112 If the jury acquitted Swing of his charges, then the creed was irrelevant and the
Presbyterian Church may as well abandon its confession of faith, Patton argued.
When Swing took his ordination vows he promised to uphold the Westiminister
Confession of Faith, but according to Patton, Swing repeatedly broke his promise. If Swing had
denied the Westminister Confession when he was taking his ordination vows, then he would not
have been named a minister of the Presbyterian Church because “doctrinal truth is of great
110 William R Hutchinson, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976), 60. For more on the Presbyterian Confession of Faith see the Presbyterian Church in America’s website at: http://www.pcanet.org/general/cof_preface.htm.
111 For a complete list of the charges and specifications see The World’s Edition of the Great Presbyterian Conflict (Chicago: Geo. MacDonald & Co., 1874), 107-132.
112 The World’s Edition of the Great Presbyterian Conflict, 115.
Root 34
importance.”113 Swing admitted that some of his doctrinal views rejected the Presbyterian creed,
but the problem was not with his theology but the creed.
While defending himself, Swing said that creeds should be abandoned because they were
only human expressions and therefore imperfect.114 He said that creeds held back inevitable
human progress because any new idea could be perceived as a threat. According to Swing, one’s
cultural context played the biggest role in influencing one’s theology. “The prosecutor had
expounded the confession of faith and declared that he had a standard,” Swing said. “But
unfortunately the whole religious world are not Presbyterians, and unfortunately these
Presbyterians who are here to-day, do not understand it alike.”115
The jury acquitted Swing after a month of testimonies.116 “In rendering the judgment we
by no means indorse [sic] all the expressions and sentiments of Mr. Swing,” the jury decided, “or
assume the responsibility of defending his particular style of preaching. We would be
understood as simply pronouncing our judgment on the points involved in the indictment,
according to the evidence that has come before our minds in the progress of this distressing
trial.”117 Shortly after the trial, Swing left his position as a Presbyterian pastor in order to lead a
non-creedal church.
After Swing left the Presbyterian Church, he delivered a sermon titled “The Reasons for a
Central Church.” The language Swing used would have sounded very familiar to the proponents
of freedom in the Covenant Church. “I desire and fully intend to preach the religion of Christ,”
Swing preached, “but in a liberty of thought not accorded to me in my former relations…We do
113 Ibid., 114.114 Hutchinson, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, 63.115 The World’s Edition of the Great Presbyterian Conflict, 140.116 Ibid., 163-167.117 Ibid., 167.
Root 35
not ask for a church broad enough to permit us to be atheists.”118 This membership policy was
very similar to the one adopted by the Covenant.
The Meaning of Freedom
The meaning of freedom played a central role in both denominations during the conflicts.
Patton limited to one’s individual preaching style, but the confession of faith strictly limited what
one could preach.119 Patton believed that the confession of faith taught the Word of God and one
should be held responsible if one broke from the Presbyterian confession of faith. “When he
subsequently comes forward for ordination and is about to assume a pastoral charge,” Patton said
in regards to ministers, “he is called upon to answer another series of questions, by which he
promises to preach and maintain these doctrines and the Confession of Faith.”120
In opposition to Patton, Swing argued that creeds hampered human progress and
individual freedom. In “The Reasons for a Central Church,” Swing said that any church that has
a creed enslaves the thoughts of its members.121 Swing said that the “church actual” was
different from the “church historical” and that this meant certain beliefs in the Westminister
Confession should be abandoned. He argued that the Presbyterian Church had evolved and that
some ministers no longer preached some of the essentials in the creed or they disagreed over the
details.
Even after the Committee on Freedom and Theology made its conclusion, the idea of
“freedom” within the Covenant still seemed vague. Did freedom allow for one to raise serious
questions about the Bible, as seen in the theology of Lund? Did allowing intellectual freedom
permit the Covenant Weekly or North Park Seminary to invite theologians that might be labeled
118 David Swing, “The Reasons for a Central Church,” from David Swing: A Memorial Volume, Helen Swing Starring, ed. (Chicago: F. Tennyson Neely, date), 383.
119 The World’s Edition of the Great Presbyterian Conflict, 132.120 Ibid., 117.121 Swing, “The Reasons for a Central Church,” 383.
Root 36
liberal or neo-orthodox to publish articles or speak at the Seminary? While both Lund and
Doughty cringed at the thought of the Covenant adopting a creed, they both approached the issue
of doctrinal freedom from different perspectives.
Even though Doughty was deeply concerned about the problems he believed were ruining
the Covenant Church, he never demanded the adoption of a creed. In 1949, during his
graduation address, he praised the Covenant for allowing its members to seek the truth freely.122
Doughty believed that there could be a true “middle of the road” position but that it had to be
done within the framework of evangelical Christianity.123
“There are groups which are conservative, congregational, evangelical,” Doughty
explained, “but the groups are far and few between of an evangelical, conservative nature which
are willing to subordinate the minor doctrines – Lord’s Supper, baptism, eternal security,
millennialism, speaking in tongues, prophecy – for the sake of the unity of the spirited effort of
the church.”124 Some disagreement was allowed in regards to minor doctrine but Doughty drew
the line at the “fundamentals” of the faith.125
According to Doughty, the Christian faith did not allow one to question scripture.
Scripture, for Doughty was inerrant beyond a reasonable doubt and any belief otherwise was
nothing less than unbelief. “This is not an issue that falls within the scope of “Covenant
freedom” and “differences of interpretation,” Doughty said. “It is an issue of faith itself. Faith in
the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of, and instruction through, the N.T. There is no neutral ground
here.”126
122 Doughty, “Farewell sermon,” 2.123 Doughty, “The Covenant and the Middle Way.”124 Doughty, “Farewell Sermon,” 2.125 Doughty, “The Covenant and the Middle Way” 126 William Doughty to Aaron Markuson, 17 Jan. 1956, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives. The same
interpretation of freedom can also be seen in the letter written in protest of Doughty’s censure. Robert Elde and Eva Collinson, 21 Oct. 1958, 6/1/2/1 8/4, The F.M. Johnson Archives
Root 37
Doughty did not believe that Covenant freedom allowed what he called, “theological
inclusivism” and that any fellowship with Christians must be limited to other conservative
evangelicals. Any fellowship with liberals was a “clearcut disobedience to the expressed word
and revealed will of God. This practice is what is known as theological inclusivism,” Doughty
said and he could not support it.127 Like Doughty, Lund did not want the Covenant to adopt a
creed but Lund’s view of freedom allowed for one to openly explore the Bible as seen in his
speech, “The Authority of the Holy Scriptures.”
According to Lund, the only advantage of a creed was that it made definitive statements
on difficult faith issues. He went on to list six disadvantages to a creed: (1) the historical
precedence set by the Mission Friends, (2) the situation in the church was too complex to allow
for a written creed, (3) the problem of finding authors and what interests would be represented,
(4) who decides when someone has deviated from the creed, (5) a creed would prove to be too
divisive, and (6) denominations that have creeds have not avoided doctrinal disputes.128
Debates over doctrine like those seen in the Covenant and Presbyterian denominations
are important because they reveal the complexities of evangelical Christianity. Every person
involved in the disputes believed that they were the representatives of true Christianity. Swing
saw traditional Christianity through the lens of progress. Patton believed it was tied to the
Presbyterian Confession of Faith. Doughty viewed traditional Christianity through a literal
reading of the Bible. Their beliefs were so strong that they were willing to go to great lengths in
order to defend their faith. Doughty believed so strongly that the Covenant Church was
promoting modernism that he overstepped his power in order to spread his message. Lund,
127 William Doughty, “A Cause for Concern,” 2.128 Nils W. Lund to President Theodore Anderson, 2 Aug. 1940, 6/1/2/1/18a 20/3, The F.M. Johnson
Archives.
Root 38
knowing that his stance on scripture in “The Authority of the Holy Scriptures” would raise
eyebrows articulated his beliefs anyway.
The controversies also raised the question of Christian freedom. Should a church adopt a
creed or allow its members to interpret doctrine for themselves? Lund and Swing wanted to
grant Christians doctrinal but they also wanted to remain exclusive enough so that only believing
Christians were members. For Patton, there was no reason to look beyond the Presbyterian
Creed because it revealed God’s Word. Somewhere in the middle was Doughty who believed
that a Christian could have freedom when it came to the minor doctrines, but denied the right to
reject the fundamentals of the faith.
The debates between fundamentalists and modernists are still alive today. One of the
issues that has recently resurfaced as a popular topic of debate is the place of evolution in public
schools. Many Christians are divided on the issue and to make the issue more complicated, both
sides claim to represent the true biblical interpretation on the origins of the earth. As long as
people are allowed to read the Bible for themselves this is an issue that will probably never be
resolved. Some may interpret debates among Christians as a negative, but arguments over
doctrine reveal the richness of the American evangelical tradition. Through examining these
doctrinal debates we can see that the evangelical tradition is far from static and is very much
alive.
Root 39
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Anderson, Glenn P., ed. Covenant Roots: Sources and Affirmations. Chicago: Covenant
Publications, 1999.
The F.M. Johnson Archives and Special Collections at North Park University. (The F.M
Johnson Archives.
Doughty series number: 6/1/2/1
Lund series number: 6/1/2/1/18a
Johnson series number: 1510
Handy, Robert T, ed. The Social Gospel in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Swing, David. The World’s Edition of the Great Presbyterian Conflict. Chicago: Geo.
MacDonald & Co., 1874.
Swing, Helen, ed. David Swing: A Memorial Volume. Chicago: F. Tennyson Neely.
Secondary Sources
Erickson, Scott E. “David Nyvall and the Shape of an Immigrant Church.” Ph.D. diss., Uppsula
University, 1996.
Frisk, Donald C. Covenant Affirmations: This We Believe. Chicago: Covenant Publications,
2003.
Hale, Frederick. Trans-Atlantic Conservative Protestantism in the Evangelical Free and Mission
Covenant Traditions. New York: Arno Press, 1979.
Hutchinson, William R. The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1976.
Root 40
Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-
Century Evangelicalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.
Olsson, Karl. By One Spirit. Chicago: Covenant Publications, 2002.
__________. Into One Body…By the Cross, vol. 2. Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1986.
Root 41
top related