Pensees: Riley: A Fundamentalist

Riley to me was one of the more curious of the first-generation fundamentalists. He seemed to have found a somewhat unique working solution for how to battle the modernists, certain aspects of which are loved by today’s fundamentalists while others would be absolutely hated. Had he lived long enough, it would have been quite interesting to see how Riley would have reacted when the New Evangelicalism began to take shape.

As to his never leaving the NBC I seem to recall that Riley, while on his death bed, sent a letter to the NBC informing them of his withdrawal from the convention. They had to reject it, however, since the NBC didn’t have individuals as members, only churches. (Then again, I could be wrong. My memory isn’t what it used to be.)

Bob:

I think the term “stay-inner” is not quite accurate in reference to Riley. I don’t know that he ever wrote a letter leaving, but I have read a sermon or statement of his, written after 1920 and the Buffalo meeting, in which he stated that separation would be necessary if the convention could not be turned around.

Those men faced a dilemma. They did not have a Northern Convention until 1910. Shailer Matthews was the architect of it and the convention was controlled by modernists. Northern and Eastern seminaries were formed before 1920 as alternatives to Chicago, Rochester, and other liberal Baptist schools. The fundamentalists tried to wrest control of the convention from the liberals and had effectively lost that battle by 1922.

It is true that Riley never did leave the convention. I don’t think he was a moderate in the sense of Goodchild and his ilk.

Bob,
In my 1967 M.Div. Thesis from Central Seminary I quote (p. 58) a note from the Information Bulletin of the Conservative Baptist Fellowship, April 1947. “Riley wrote, “I shall not attend the convention again, in any capacity, since I can no further fellowship it….I should be ashamed to die in a fellowship that seemed to me un-Biblical, and consequently un-Baptistic.’” Riley wrote this just prior to the NBC convention in May of 1947 which was held in Atlantic City. At that convention the conservatives made their last stand and then formed the CBA of A. Riley died six months later.

Drs. Moritz and Carlson,

Thanks for the clarifications and corrections. My point was not to emphasize that he was a stay-inner as much as to bring to mind the fact that he died sixty years ago.

If anything, would you not say that the story of his life and the subsequent history of the NBC would be good anecdotal evidence for separation sooner rather than later?

Whatever the case, he illustrates the fact that the early fundamentalists were not uniform in how they practiced separation, but each did according to how the Spirit and his conscience led him, some sooner and others later. And some too late.

Nonetheless, in my estimation he was a great man. Your generation remembers that. My generation has forgotten him.

Bob,

I’m glad that someone from your generation is paying attention to the past. Kudos to you. It is also good that guys like Fred and I have learned to listen and learn from your techno generation. Sometimes we can guide, or correct, discussions because we know the real facts about past events.

Of course the issue in the 40s between Bob Ketchum and the early GARBC come-outers, and the R.V. Clearwaters/Chester Tulga’s of the CBF, was exactly the “sooner or later” question. The GARB had already been formed. However, it was young men, like my dad, who were not even in seminary yet during the early 30s, (when the GARB was formed) who pushed the ultimate separation that formed the CBA. I was a young boy at the time and I remember my dad’s older colleagues who didn’t want to rock the boats of retirement or established pastorates to take the step of separation.

Young guys today do not understand how brutal and pernicious the liberals were in those days. The convention bureaucracies were completely controlled by the liberals in both the NBC and the SBC. Remember too, these were the days of the Depression and WWII. Young pastors could be literally starved out by threats of lawsuits and lost pastorates.

Separation was very costly and a principled decision. But also, personalities like Riley, R.S. Beal, etc., hated to give up any hope of reclaiming the denominational machinery that could literally rescue hundreds of church congregations and buildings from people who were determined to stamp out people who believed things like the virgin birth.

I remember, as a boy, my dad going off to testify at two court cases in Waupaca, WI and Normal. IL to help churches keep their buildings. One was successful and the other not. Separation was not a judgmental and legalistic spirit. It was a painful and principled decision.

I was fascinated by your article on David Hesselgrave. I’m not surprised that these elder statesmen of the evangelical movement are troubled by what is happening theologically. The long-time president of the Free Church, Tom McDill, and the president of TEDS, Ken Meyer, were both my in-laws pastors. I knew them both personally before they ascended to national leadership roles. They were both Godly men, who were wonderful pastors. However, they contributed to a climate that has brought some of the fruits of today’s theological climate. The attitude toward separation was a key element in that influence.

Riley, Ketchum, Machen, and others were ultimately separatists, whereas Ockenga, Graham, Henry, and others were “stay-in” ‘ers. The blurry lines and conditions in evangelical theology today are not there because of the practice of separation. Voices like David Wells and others have become absolutely essential to bring some modicum of theological discernment to what is tolerated in big tent evangelicalism today.