“MARAN-ATHA” AND PROFESSOR ALLAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23672, 2 December 1938, Page 5

“MARAN-ATHA” AND PROFESSOR ALLAN

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —I always read, though often, 1 admit, rather cursorily, the numerous letters of “ Maran-atha ” to your columns. They interest me as illuminating examples of the length that self-confident dogmatism and . the odium theologium, working in unholy combination, will carry one who evidently regards himself as a genuine Christian, and indeed one of the few such in Dunedin. Manifestly, the writer has never taken the trouble to acquaint himself with either the mental attitude or the arguments which have compelled so many earnest truthloving students of the Bible to give up that view of its nature and authority which “ Maran-atha ” identifies with Christianity itself. The older among them have been driven to their present position by an ever-accumu-lating weight of evidence, against their inclination and in spite of potent inherent prejudices identical with “ Maran-atha’s ” own—e.g.. the late Dr George Salmon, provost of Trinity College, Dublin, from 1888 to 1902. Dr Salmon was an evangelical theologian and a biblical scholar of the first rank and not, like “Maran-atha’s” two examples, amateurs on such questions, however eminent in their own spheres.

In his last two short notes “Maranatha ” surpasses himself. In the former, instead of meeting fairly and squarely Professor Allan’s statement of his position, he tells us airily that criticism means fault finding, and rails at all who cannot see eye to eye with him as finding fault with God’s inerrant Word, without any attempt to prove either that there is any such inerrant Word or that Professor Allan finds fault with the Bible. Of course, criticism means no such thing. As ordinarily used with reference not only to the Bible, but to all literary compositions. it means the attempt to determine the origin, authorship, date, purpose, and literary characteristics of the writings studied by scholarly examination of the writings themselves and all other relevant sources of information open to us. In other words, it means the application to the biblical writings of the apostolic precept, “ Prove all things: hold fast that which is good.” The opinions about the Bible which “ Maran-atha ” and the everdiminishing number who agree with him regard as sacrosanct, are themselves the result of a critical process differing from that employed by modern biblical scholars only as having been carried through in ancient days (though always considerably later than the time when the writings concerned

came into being), as having been less thorough, and as based on a far smaller range of knowledge. “ Maran-atha’s ” own views are the “ Higher Criticism ” of about 200 B.C, to 350 A.D.

In his second letter the incapacity of “ Maran-atha ” to deal fairly with the questions at issue is even more apparent, He has two pet aversions—what he calls “ Modernism ” and the Roman Catholic Church—and he Is equally ignorant about both. He thinks that the letter signed “Presbyter ” was written by a Roman Catholic priest. I would say that it was manifestly written by a well-informed Presbyterian minister, though I know nothing more about its actual authorship than “Maran-atha” does. But for him the letter signed “Presbyter” is a wicked and deceitful thing, and so it must have a wicked and deceitful source. If “ Maran-atha ” had any intelligent knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church he would know that it is the only one -of the larger Chris-, tian churches which still holds something like his own view of biblical inspiration and authority. I say “ something like his view,” for that church has always had great biblical scholars, and no trained biblical scholar can any longer hold “ Maran-atha’s ” views without material qualification. He would know, too, that the Roman Catholic Church always minds its own business, and never intervenes •in any controversy among non-Catholics unless itself attacked either explicitly 9 r by implication. There is much that ] s good and Christian that “Maranatha” might learn from the Roman Catholic Church if his mind is not altogether closed

Just one word in conclusion. Does “Maran-atha” realise that his view of biblical inspiration and authority, and not any form of “ Modernism,” is the main source of popular “ free thought ” in our day? Does he know what made Charles Bradlaugh the most forceful leader of anti-Christian propaganda 50 years ago? Does he ever look through anti-religious pamphlets and see how largely their stock in trade consists of a stringing together of biblical “discrepancies ’’ and the forced and unnatural attempts of such-as he.is to explain them? The two most prominant “ Free-thinkers ” in New Zealand—men of character and ability and in some respects of highly beneficial influence—both became antagonised to Christian teaching because they were brought up in a narrow school of irrationalism, and taught positions as fundamental to Christianity which their growing knowledge and intelligence corppelled them to repudiate as untrue, with results that we all deplore. It is the students who come from such a background as “Maran-atha’s” that either revolt against Christianity altogether or lapse into “ Ultra-Modernism ” unless they simply close their minds to all progressive knowledge and culture, as some few of them do. —I am, etc.. Presbyter Secundus. December 1.