THE BISHOP OF
Bolsheviks and Atheists
The Rt. Rev. William Montgomery Brown, D.D.
Member House of Bishops
Protestant Episcopal
Church, U. S. A.
THEODORE SCHROEDER
of the New York Bar
14 West 12th St.
N. Y. City
Republished from the
New York Call and The Truth Seeker
May 28, 1922 June 24, July 1
NEW YORK CITY
1922
BIBLIOGRAPHIES OF SCHROEDERIANA
1913
Partial bibliography of the writings of Theodore
Schroeder dealing largely with problems of religion,
of sex, and of freedom of speech. Free speech
league. (New York) April 1913, 8p., 84 titles.
1919
Authorship of the book of Mormon. Psychologic tests
of W. F. Prince, critically reviewed by Theodore
Schroeder * * * to which is now added a bibli-
ography of Schroeder on Mormonism. . Reprint [ex-
cept bibliography]. American Journal of Psychol-
ogy. (Worcester, Mass.) XXX pp. 66-72. January,
1919. 18p.
Bibliography pp. Io-18, lists 65 titles, some of which
duplicate material as by revision, republication or transla-
tion.
Sankey-Jones, Nancy Eleanor, 1862–
Theodore Schroeder on free speech, a bibliography
by Nancy E. Sankey-Jones. (New York.) Free
speech league. 1919. 24p.
Lists 149 titles, some of which duplicate material by
republication or translation.
1920-2
Sankey-Jones, Nancy Eleanor, 1862– -
Theodore Schroeder's use of the psychologic ap-
proach to problems of religion, law, criminology and
philosophy. A bibliography by Nancy E. Sankey-
Jones. (Cos Cob, Conn.) 1920. 16p.
Revised ed., Jan. I922. 18p.
Lists 92 titles, some of which duplicate material
because of revisions, republications or translations.
1922
Sankey-Jones, Nancy Eleanor, 1862–
A unique heathen, to which is now added: Theo-
dore Schroeder on the erotogenesis of religion. a bib-
liography “. * * republishing in combination two es-
says from : The Freethinker, London, Eng. Apr. 17,
1921; The Truth-seeker, New York, N. Y. Jan. 7,
1922. Cos Cob, Conn. January 1922. 13+14pp.
Lists 50 titles, mostly selected from the last list.
130 Periodicals (in 4 languages) have each published
some of Mr. Schroeder's literary product, part of
which is listed in the above bibliographies. N.E.S.-J.
3% ºf::::::::::..
GO-Zº-º-º- 2 2- /927.
THE BISHOP OF
BOLSHEVIKS AND ATHEISTS
BY THEODORE ScHROEDER.
A heresy trial is about to add to the gayety of
nations. The man who is being accused of heresy
and blasphemy is the Right Reverend William
Montgomery Brown, D.D., the (retired) fifth
Bishop of Arkansas of the Episcopal Church in
America. The court, it is expected, will be the
American House of Bishops. The time will proba-
bly be at the general convention of 1922. His of—
fense is a book which bears this extraordinary title
page: “Communism and Christianism, Analyzed
and Contrasted from the Marxian and Darwinian
Points of View by William Montgomery Brown.
Banish the Gods from the Skies and Capitalists
from the Earth and make the World safe for Indus-
trial Communism. Bradford-Brown Educational
Company, Inc., Publishers, Galion, Ohio. Seventy-
ºr fifth thousand.”
A resolution of the Jubilee Council of the Epis-
copal Diocese of Arkansas has just demanded that
Bishop Brown be deposed and excommunicated for
his “most pernicious propaganda against the church
and her teachings, and doctrines” (Arkansas Gaz-
ette, Little Rock, Ark., Jan. 27, 1922). Several
church magazines and an organization of Episcopa-
lian laymen have made similar demands. In a score
of important cities the daily newspapers have had
sensational feature stories concerning the book, or
* Have given equally sensational criticisms from An-
glican churchmen. Perhaps the time has come to
inquire in more sober fashion what kind of man
it is who has been threatened by angry mobs of his
home town, and whom some Episcopal bishops,
wishing to be charitable, have pronounced insane.
3
How, except through insanity, could such a book
ever come from among the very elect, of the most
aristocratic church of America? That is the ques-
tion I put to myself. I propose to give an answer
to that question by means of an impressionistic pen-
picture of this Bishop, portraying a few of the more
potent influences of his life—just enough to show
the few high-tension experiences which I think de-
termined the career and shaped the destiny of this
unusual man. I hope to suggest a moving picture
of the main current of his emotional development,
Selecting those incidents of his career that best ex-
hibit the controlling impulses of his life. Incident-
ally, the House of Bishops may learn some lesson as
to how it can in the future avoid a repetition of such
disillusionment as has been experienced both by
Bishop Brown and, in a different way, by his fel-
low bishops.
ENSLAVED AS A BOY.
William Montgomery Brown was born at Orr-
ville, Ohio, in 1855. His parents were of the pioneer
crew. His father was killed while fighting to end
Negro slavery. Under hard economic conditions
the mother was compelled to turn the boy over to a
German farmer, named Jonas Yoder, who would
feed him for what work he could get out of the lad.
This man was a super-pious Dunkard, who loved
God so much that he had no love left for his young
ward, whom he exploited without mercy. The father
had died that Negro slavery might end, and had
thus enslaved his own son. The Dunkard's shame-
less exploitation of little Willy Brown became a
matter of such great neighborhood scandal that the
public authorities took the boy away from the pious
Dunkard, apparently intending to place him in the
poorhouse.
No propaganda for a radical social remedy is
ever effective except in those who are prepared to
4
feel the wrongness of things as they are. It was the
emotional preparedness, created by the pious, cal-
loused exploitation of this “Pennsylvania-Dutch”
farmer, which, I believe, determined all of young
Brown's future career. Here in deep and abiding
accents was impressed that sympathy for the under-
dog, that was the driving power which predisposed
him for the ministry, determined his “eccentric”
conduct (which I will describe) during his activity
as a bishop of the Episcopal Church in America, and
then in disillusionment drove him to Communism
and Atheism. That is the development which I in-
tend to portray. The lesson is that if we would de-
stroy the efficiency of radical propaganda, we must
first destroy the evils against which its unpleasant
methods are directed.
Pending some other disposition to be made of
young Brown, he was kept at the home of James
Bodine, one of the Wayne County officials. Here
the young man was taken sick with typhoid fever.
Once, when just recovering consciousness, he heard
the doctor and the family discussing the improba-
bility of his recovery. He wanted to live. Life
held its high hopes in spite of hard experiences; or
was it because of them? In desperate circumstances
we grab at straws, and extract solace and hope even
from the phantasmal powers of the air. So then,
in desperation, even the Dunkard's God might be
useful. Young Brown wished to believe in a help-
ful God, and the “will-to-believe” amounted to con-
viction. In spite of the pious Dunkard, a young
woman Sunday school teacher in the Amish church
kept his faith alive. Subsequently he sought to
bribe God into giving needed help, as children often
do. Secretly, the patient, therefore, promised that
he would become a preacher if God permitted him
to live.
On their way to the poor-farm the officers and
J
their ward stopped for dinner at Jacob Gardner's.
Jacob's wife asked the sturdy youngster his name.
“Bill Brown” came the answer. From further ques-
tioning it developed that little Willy Brown had
been born on that very farm, where his parents had
lived before the war as part of “the help.” Jacob's
wife knew Bill's mother. Mrs. Gardner had often
rocked Willy's cradle when his mother was too busy
to look after him. Mrs. Gardner proposed to keep.
Bill Brown right there. The officers approved, and
Bill Brown was “bound out” until coming of age.
Incidentally, she also resolved to make a good Meth-
odist out of him.
A DIFFICULT CONVERSION.
Having regained his health, young Brown found
difficulty in living up to his promise. He attended
some revival meetings—went to the mourners’
bench—prayed for the manifestations of the Lord's. '
presence, and for the inspiration for preaching.
Nothing happened, and he almost gave up in des–
pair. Under the coercive influence of Jacob's wife,
and of his own death-bed promise to God, he did get
up in meeting and bear a halting and equivocak
testimony for God. Long after this, a minister Sug-
gested that perhaps he had been sufficiently con-
verted at the time of his sickness and of his promise:
to God. Anyway, Jacob's wife was a good, kind
woman and a good Christian. Instead of thinking.
of these qualities as both being the effect of her
special kind of temperament, he thought that mere
Methodist doctrines were the potent cause, and her
lovable qualities the inevitable effect.
He had seldom seen his own mother since she was
obliged to put him away. Later, she married again
and, with the coming of more offspring and new re-
sponsibilities, she naturally drifted into relative.
unconcern for our future Bishop. Under these cir-
cumstances, Jacob's wife became Bill's new and
idealized mother, and Methodism the means to be—
6
come as fine a person as Mrs. Gardner. If only he
could “get religion” in the good, sure enough, ortho-
dox Methodist fashion, then he would fulfill his
promise to become a preacher. Also, he had seen
in Mrs. Gardner's life that which was a fine way
to express sympathy for the unfortunate ones.
Since all her lovable qualities were explained in
terms of Christianity, he was very, very certain that
He must become a parson if ever his passion for
helping the underdog was to express itself.
William Brown was approaching maturity, the
age of his legal emancipation, when he could leave
his guardian, and must paddle his own canoe. He
Had saved $75. With this he went to Omaha and
took a job as coachman with Judge Clinton Briggs.
The Judge had seen enough of tragedy to soften
His heart. In his generosity he made it possible for
young Brown to go to school. His education had
been so neglected that, at 21 years of age, he could
only enter the fourth grade. Somehow, by hard
work, he secured a high-school education, and even
went to business college. Always the impetus to the
task of studying was the shame of ignorance which
prevented him from living up to his promise to God
to become a minister. But also there was the half-
conscious driving power, unintentionally implanted
by Jonas Yoder, the heartless, exploiting farmer,
that the unfortunates of the earth must be helped.
Since he was evidently temperamentally disqualified
from “getting religion” by the Methodist fashion of
Mrs. Gardner, I suspect he had a little difficulty
in seeing these two ambitions as being really the
same. In consequence of this internal conflict, I am
sure that he had some secret hope that God would
excuse him from becoming a Methodist soul-saver.
Later he became a teacher, and attended a Metho-
list school at Mt. Union, Ohio. He soon left college,
lowever, because he could not support himself there.
7
BECOMES AN EPISCOPAL MINISTER.
After that we find Bill Brown in Cleveland. Old
Jacob Gardner's son, John, had become rich, as
riches were then counted, and he lived in Cleveland.
They met, of course, and talked over the matter of
making a clergyman out of the young man. John
Gardner knew a wealthy woman who had already
shown her interest in educating young men for the
ministry. So John Gardner brought about a meet-
ing between William Brown and Mrs. Mary Scran-
ton Bradford. She took the young man to the Rev.
John Wesley Brown, the rector of the Episcopal
church and an ex-Methodist. Now John Wesley
Brown made it plain to William Brown that a
Methodist revival conversion was not at all neces-
sary to enter the only true ministry that could claim
an apostolic succession, and the church of which
even John Wesley remained a member. This was a
matter of great relief to the young man, now about
25 years of age. Mrs. Bradford thereupon agreed
to finance young Brown's education for the minis-
try. He was delighted, for now he could fulfill his
promise to God, and so, through the church, realize
his hope of helping the unfortunates of the world
who might be the victims of tyranny and exploita-
tion such as he had been subjected to by that cruel,
“heretical” Dunkard, Jonas Yoder. It had never
yet dawned upon young Brown that there was any
help for unfortunate humans except through God
and his church. Economics and industrial democ-
racy were not yet serious problems in the West of
those days. So he naturally spent his years in
studying Greek, Latin and Hebrew, rather than
sociology or economics.
In due time he was ordained a clergyman in the
Episcopal church. He entered upon his duties with
high hopes of making this world a better place in
which to live, and a feeling that THE church was
the only sure means to that end. I am certain that
8
the experience with that pious German farmer still
precluded him from wholly neglecting the physical
life of humans upon this earth, for the sake of their
als and of heaven. Dear Mrs. Gardner and Mrs.
Bradford had indelibly impressed him with what
the Christian spirit might do practically, here and
now, to make this life more worth while. That al-
ways remained with him as the very essence of
practical religion. It is evident that he never knew
what mystical religion is like. The church probably
stood in his feelings as the cooperation of many
Mrs. Gardners and Mrs. Bradfords to promote only
very practical ends in this life. Later the young
clergyman married Mrs. Bradford's daughter.
He put great zeal into his church work. How-
ever, I suspect that a searching self-examination
would have shown that he was less interested in the
preparation of souls for heavenly rest than to make
humanity unlike that very pious, very theological
and very cruel exploiter, Jonas Yoder, the Dunkard
farmer. The Rev. William Brown was doubtless
more concerned to make humanity as kind, as loving
and generous, as Mrs. Gardner and Mrs. Bradford
had been to him. The only way that he then knew
of to accomplish this was through the church. At
first, this zeal exhibited itself in the forty-nine
churches that were newly organized or revived by
him, and in the fact that he always gave to his
church more money than the salary he received from
the church. Later the Bishop's same zeal for hu-
manity produced consternation in those who could
not see much of suffering humanity because of the
blinding brilliancy of an imaginary celestial glory.
Next we come to the “eccentricities” to which his
fellow-bishops now point as the premonitory signs
of his present “insanity.”
BISHOPRIC WON BY A BOOK.
Full of the zeal of a young convert, the young
archdeacon wrote a missionary book: “The Church
9
for Americans.” It repeated unquestioningly, and
defended thoroughly all the stock arguments in
favor of the Episcopal church. The popularity of
this book was so great that it really made William
Montgomery Brown a bishop. This was before he
was conscious of doing any independent thinking,
and yet a psychologist can see even in that book the
influence of Jonas Yoder's exploitation. In one
chapter, Archdeacon Brown is answering the
charge of Methodists that the Episcopalians “lack
vital religion.” Here quite unconsciously he makes
it plain that he does not know what the Christian
mystics mean by “vital religion.” He sees only
the contrast between “pious profession” and “good
works.” Mrs. Gardner and Mrs. Bradford had de-
cided this issue for him in favor of “works” as
against “fervent piety” such as Jonas Yoder had in
abundance. He boasted of Episcopalian philan-
thropy and never even mentions “spiritual regen-
eration,” probably because, for his unmystical,
matter-of-fact soul, the words had no meaning.
In harmony with such a temperamental attitude,
he concludes a lengthy exposition of the intellectual
hospitality of his church with these unusual words:
“It appears, then, that almost any person, no mat-
ter what his peculiarity of belief, can find room
enough in this church, providing only that he sin-
cerely accepts the cardinal doctrines of the catholic
creeds. . . . [These are limited by Bishop
Brown to catholicity, the fatherhood of God and the
brotherhood of man.] If a man can make up his
mind to live and to let live, he can ride into the Epis-
copal church on almost any hobby, and remain
mounted without fear of molestation during the re-
mainder of his life. Hobbyists are never excluded
from a truly comprehensive and catholic church
such as ours. They often exclude themselves be-
cause they are too narrow, intolerant and self-
10
willed to remain where others, as well as they, have
liberty” (p. 391, 18th edition).
Because of such a temperamental attitude, thus
expressed for the solicitation of converts; the
House of Bishops elevated William Montgomery
Brown to their own rank. Now that he is acting
as if he honestly believed what he then wrote with
their approval, they may depose him. Will the
House of Bishops thus convict itself of hypocrisy
and false pretenses in the solicitation of members?
THE NEGRO PROBLEM ENTERS,
Soon the Bishop's missionary zeal brought him
into intimate contact with the Negro problem. As a
Northern man, but Bishop of Arkansas, his work
among Negroes made him many enemies. Soon he
discovered that if he would help the Negro he must
himself become “Southernized.” This predisposi-
tion produced the development of a new internal
conflict. On the one hand, the Negro, the “under-
dog,” must be helped; and this he felt could be
done only through religion. On the other hand,
he cannot be thus developed without the aid of the
whites, and this aid cannot be had in congregations
of mixed races. So, for the sake of the Negro,
our Bishop had to become a “Southernized North-
erner.” His emotional disturbance about his posi-
tion in this matter shows itself in frequent intensi-
ties and extravagances of expression when he is
insisting upon the necessity of drawing the color
1ine. (See his: “The Crucial Race Question.”)
The intensity of his urge toward helping the Negro
is shown by the extent of his compromise and the
very intensity of his insistence upon drawing the
color line. He quite out-Heroded the Southern
Herod of color-line distinction. But evidently he
did all this because of the need of compromise
as the only way to help the Negro.
As is usually the case in such matters, the com-
promise offended many and pleased none. The
11
Northerners were offended because he insisted upon
drawing a more rigid color line than had ever been
before drawn in the church. The Southerners were
offended because he proposed establishing an “Au-
tonomous Afro-American Episcopate,” in which
the Negroes should have their own independent
House of Afro-American Bishops of equal inde-
pendence and recognized rank with that of the ex-
isting church. Some Negroes were offended be-
cause the Bishop, in seeking to make his plan ac-
ceptable to whites, had over-stressed the difference
in cultural and moral status between whites and
Negroes. Some high-churchmen were doubtless
offended by his practical and predominant insistence
upon the concerns of this world. “If religion is
what it ought to be, it is social and political,” he
said, and not metaphysical. The traditionalist grew
white-hot because our Bishop said: “I . . . do
not regard the General Convention . . . as be-
ing of divine institution or as absolutely necessary
to the existence of our American brand of the
catholic and apostolic church.” Again, he offended
all the mystics, who stress “Grace,” “Regenera-
tion” and “Faith” as the important things in re-
ligion, by saying: “We are living in an age of
Science, and therefore he who advances theories and
offers recommendations, in order to secure a re-
spectful consideration for them, must make certain
that they have a sufficiently broad and firm scien-
tific foundation.” Some must have felt the menace
implied in that statement, and now can say: “I told
you so.” Many hissed him at the general con-
vention of his church. Now that he has carried
this doctrine and temperament to its natural fruition
in “Communism and Christianism,” more are join-
ing this cry for crucifixion. Now, also, some im-
potent frenzy vents itself by pointing to these facts,
as is now being often done, as evidence that his
12
apostasy is due to insanity. Some visions are so
cramped that only insanity or satanic possession can
explain such conduct. Therefore, it is really an
effort to be kind when they call him insane. They
cannot conceive of just healthy, human sympathies
and growing intelligence producing disagreement
with their own little omniscience.
In that discussion of the race question, our Bish-
op made a very exhaustive and efficient special plea.
However, when he forgets the necessities of his
argument and exhibits the real impulse behind the
argument, we can see clearly the work of that sym-
pathy for the “underdog” which was jammed into
little Willy Brown by that pious, cruel Dunkard,
the exploiting farmer of his childhood. Bishop
Brown said of the Negroes: “The present condition
and future prospects are so pitiable and pathetic
as to excite in me a deeper commiseration than is
felt for any other people in the whole history of
mankind” (p. 9). The feeling necessity for helping
the Negro was so strong in the Bishop that for the
sake of realizing his helpful ambition he was com-
pelled to defend all race prejudices, as a means to
his benevolent purposes. He defended his new
method by insistence upon “the complete and hope-
less failure of old methods for his [the Negro's]
moralization” and so he seemed to insult those
whom he most wished to help. He insisted upon
recognizing and defending the white prejudice
against Negro aspirations to immediate equality and
rivalry. But the dominant sympathy of his life
made this a merely obvious means to a different end.
This appears, I think, from such statements as the
following: The “Anglo-American churchmen should
give the Afro-American churchmen an autonomous
branch of the catholic church and thereby put them
into a position to work out. their own salvation by
the only self-government which it is possible for
13
them to exercise under present conditions” (p. 125).
Again: “Things being as they are, it is only
through such a church that he [the Negro] can learn
the all important, indispensable art of self-govern-
ment, and make progress in the upward way of
civilization” (p. 140). Let me quote one more
statement to the same effect: “Self-government is
necessary to the development of any people. The
Afro-American, while he remains with us, can
never have a chance at civil government. There-
fore, religion is the oply all-inclusive realm in which
he can govern himself, and the Episcopal church
should give him a chance to do so. . . . One
of his [the Negro's] great defects is his lack of race
pride. This defect must be corrected. . . . But
this cannot be accomplished without self-govern-
ment” (p. 145-6). Thus, to help the Negro to at-
tain a more efficient humanism, the Bishop was
impelled to defend almost any Southern prejudice.
I am not now insisting that this was the wisest man-
ner of working out his sympathy for the “under-
dog.” I am only trying to show how such sym-
pathy as was instilled by that Dunkard farmer
supplied the ruling passion of our Bishop's life,
and determined all his attitudes, even toward his
church.
HIS PLAN FOR CHURCH UNION.
Our Bishop obviously acted always as though hu-
manity was of more importance than mere doctrines
about the superhuman. This was again illustrated
in his next book: “The Level Plan for Church
Union.” If the churches are of any use to human-
ity, then why not unite them into a more efficient
single organization? In his own church the great-
est obstacle came from those who talk of “the pro-
, phetic office of the Christian priesthood and [who]
would close the doors of pulpits against all who
have not received ordination to the ministry by a
wº. 14
representative of the Historic Episcopate” (p. 4).
“According to [this], the sacerdotal theory, a true
Christian ministry is dependent upon a devolution-
ary transmission of authority and power by an un-
broken series of ordinations from the Lord Jesus
through the original eleven faithful apostles, or from
Paul. Sacerdotalists, who regard ordination by apos-
tolic succession as transmitting the commission nec-
essary to a valid Christian ministry are either Epis-
copalians or Presbyterians. There is a very large
and influential school in all the national churches
that constitute the Anglican Communion, which
holds that the official acts of a Christian minister
are invalid unless he has been ordained by a bishop.
of the Apostolic Succession” (pp. 11-12).
All this he answered without hesitation or equivo-
cation: “I am fully persuaded that they are wrong
in limiting the right to preach to the historic or to
any official ministry. I have come firmly to believe
that there are real prophets, inspired prophets, who
are not Christians in the ordinary sense of the word;
and that there are real Christian prophets, inspired
prophets, in ministries which have never had any
connection with the Historic Episcopate, or which
have broken off that connection; and that there are
real prophets, inspired prophets, among Christian
laymen and laywomen who have never occupied a
pulpit, and whose congregation is limited to a Sun-
day-school class.” He wrote a large volume de-
signed to promote interchurch union on that basis.
This is an “eccentricity” which is at present ac-
cepted as evidence of his impending insanity. Then
they called him “Episcopos in partibus infidelium”
(Bishop of the Atheists). When he became a Com-
munist they added “Episcopos in partibus Bolshe-
vikium.” Now he accepts both titles: Bishop of alf
Bolsheviks and all Atheists.
Let us revert once more to Bishop Brown's plan
15
for Interchurch Union. If we look beyond the
words of his argument, to discover the impulses
of the man, we can readily see that he was saved
from the “spiritual pride” of those who say “I am
holier than thou” by his sympathy for the “down
and outer.” Again he is defending the “under-
dog”—the spiritual “underdog” this time. Here we
see once more the dominating influence of the pious,
brutal German farmer who exploited him in his
childhood, and that supplementary influence of Mrs.
Gardner and Mrs. Bradford. Next came his res-
ignation from the active charge of his office. Now,
for the first time in his busy life, he had leisure in
which to study sociology, biology and general
science. Now he developed the tendencies, so clearly
marked for the observing eye, in every important
act of his busy career.
TEIE WORLD WAR.
This brings us to the beginning of the war in
1914. Now let us remember that he himself had
suffered as a civil war orphan, and for and through
that terrible German farmer. When some were agi-
tating for our participation in the bloody struggle,
he implored his fellow-bishops to emphasize the
message of brotherly love, which was consecrated
by the “Prince of Peace,” and to use their influence
to keep us out of the war. Much to his surprise,
they were practically all against peace. Between
the lines of many letters, it seemed as if some of
them wanted the laymen to shed their blood for
maintaining the supremacy of the “Spiritual Lords”
of the Anglican Communion in Great Britain. This
disappointment seemed to thwart all of the very
strong impulses which had driven him into the
church. Now he coordinated his disappointment to
his recent studies in the field of economic and nat-
ural science, and all, combined with the sympathy
engendered by that same old exploiting farmer, com-
16
pelled the writing of “Communism and Christian-
ism.” Accordingly, he has bidden farewell to all
the old supernaturalistic interpretations of the arti-
cles of faith, of the Prayerbook and of Holy Writ.
Now they are going to expel him from their holy
fraternity—and for what? For having too much
sympathy for the “underdog” in our economic wolf
hunt. Of course they will shout “heretic” and
“blasphemer” at him, but let us always remember
that whatever he is called, or whatever he became or
is, it is always because of a dominating sympathy
for the oppressed of humanity—those who are
weary and heavy-laden—that he went into the
church, and for that he will be thrust out of the
church.
The practical lesson which the House of Bishops
may learn from their relations with Bishop Brown
can be easily formulated. No one must be ordained
to the priesthood who has ever been able to give any
sympathetic understanding to the victims of things
as they aré. Anything more than a disposition to
Support professional philanthropists, of the “hard-
boiled” type, is dangerous, because it leads to efforts,
that promote the democratization of welfare. If the
radical’s “boring from within” is to be avoided,
no person must ever be ordained to the priesthood
who is able to understand why phantasmal streets
paved with gold are not an adequate compensation
for relative poverty here and now.
WHY THE BISHOP DOES NOT RESIGN.
Here is another “eccentricity.” Bishop Brown re-
fuses to resign, although he knows they can and
probably will put him out. I asked him “Why?”
“There are many pleasant associations and memo-
ries connected with my church career. Church
ceremonials and sacraments have become a habit
with me, a bad habit, I admit, but one that I can-
not easily eliminate. Besides, I don’t see why I
17
should get out of the church. I can accept all their
formulations, if they will allow me to give them a
naturalistic and humanistic interpretation.” This re-
minded me of a clipping that I have in my desk,
which tells of 400 Methodist preachers who in the
New York Conference, March 6, 1899, are reported
to have resolved: “That the inerrancy and infalli-
bility of the Bible are no longer possible of belief
among reasonable men.”
“There are three different points of view from
which the articles of Faith, Bible, etc., can be inter-
preted,” claims the Bishop. “There has never yet
been any authoritative decision by the House of
Bishops, favoring any one of these modes of inter-
pretation to the exclusion of the others. My case .
will give the House of Bishops a chance to make
such a precedent, and to put itself on record. I
wish to make these issues clearer than before, so
that all their implications will be understood, and
so that the public can better classify the church's
intellectual rating.”
I asked him to make clear to me these issues be-
tween the three different approaches to the problem
of interpretation. The effort produces a lengthy
discourse, which I must unduly abbreviate if I am.
to remain reasonably brief. But here it is as it
filtered through my brain and then condensed. The
words are largely mine, but the sentiments ex-
pressed will, I hope, do no serious injustice to
Bishop Brown's views.
I. “The primitive man projected his own mode
of thought and behavior into the universe. He there-
fore believed that the first man was made, even as
our children make mud pies and dolls. By reading
into nature our childish conception of design and
method, primitive humans produced the story of
Genesis and much more of “Holy Writ.” One sec-
tion of the church, sometimes called literalists and
18
traditionalists, still contend that all this miraculous
and mythical stuff must be believed to be literally
true just as it is written. If the House of Bishops
upholds this literal interpretation, as the only con-
dition of membership, then I will be put out. By
Such a decision it will, in effect, say that no intel-
ligent man can remain in the church.
II. “The second mode of interpretation is the
mystic's way. The Christian mystics are an influ-
ential section of the Anglican communion. They sel-
dom accept the miraculous s.ories of the Bible in
their materialistic literalness. So far, these are
quite in harmony with modern science. For them
the Articles of Faith and the Bible symbolize or
interpret only their own “spiritual' or so-called mys-
tical experiences. Many clergymen of this group
frankly declare that the historicity of Jesus is of
no consequence. The only thing that counts is ‘the
inner Christ of personal experience.’” Recently a
group of Anglican clergy at Cambridge solemnly
denied the Incarnation as a literal fact.
“If I am put out for my theologic heresy in repu-
diating literalism, then the mystics of the Anglican
church must also be put out, for they also deny
literalism. On the other hand, if I am put out for
my economic views, and my theologic heresies are
but used as a false pretense to conceal the real
motive, then I shall be put out and the mystic
heretic will be allowed to remain and will help to
expel me.
“On the other hand, if only the mystical inter-
pretation of the Articles of Faith, Bible, etc., are
orthodox, then I should be put out because I am not
a mystic. Furthermore, then the literalist should
also be put out unless, indeed, my economic views
are again the real heresy and the church desires to
conceal its capitalist creed. The modern psycholo-
gists who specialize on these mystical experiences
which are the foundation for the mystical interpre-
19
tation are all but agreed that these mystic ecstasies
are symptoms of abnormal psychology. If the
church shall decide that none are eligible to mem-
bership but the mystics, then they will be in effect
saying that none are welcome except certain morbid
types and their sympathetic following.
III. “I belong to the third class, which adheres
to another method of interpretation. The progress
of Science has been made effective by the giving of
new meanings to old words. Thus the verbalism
of Science changes its intellectual content with our
enlarging understanding. I will give the House of
Bishops a chance to apply the same methods to our
theologic formulae. Thus we will read into the Bible
all our best understanding of nature and of human
relations. I can accept all the church's authorita-
tive creedal declarations if I am allowed to treat the
words as symbols which express in figurative lan-
guage all that I know of modern science and of
common sense in human relations.
“Of course, I no longer believe in a God who sits
upon a literal throne in a firmament above the earth.
Now I express my gratitude only to nature and to
the working men who in conjunction produce all I
consume and by whose grace I live, move and have
my being. That is why I am a Communist. If the
Anglican creed is not elastic enough to permit one
to read into it all that one believes to be the result
of modern intellectual progress, then perhaps I
ought to be put out. However, I consider that in
excommunicating me under such conditions, the An-
glican communion is in effect saying that it is in-
capable of progress and does not want intelligent
membership.”
So it appears that it is not Bishop Brown alone
who is on trial. He is evidently intent upon putting
the church on trial at the bar of an intelligent public
opinion. What judgment will the Episcopal church
pass upon itself?
20