New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-21
CHRISTTIN LIBERALISM

I'm his letter to The Tribune the other day the
Rev. Dr. w. r. Huntington OF Grace Church,
takes exception to the use OF the phrase broad
Church party. on the ground that there Is no
such party i'm the Episcopal Church. There are
mon whose mental attitude toward ecclesiastical
dogma NAV be described as broad; but just be-
cause they are broad in the sense OF holding
themselves ready to accept truth wherever
found they refuse to be ranged under the ban
ncr of any party organization. Indeed, II we
understand Dr. Huntington Alright, man VINO
holds High Church views or Low Church views
may be properly regarded as Broad Church
man If al the same time he holds himself bound
10 follow what he conceives to be the trlth'
even though il conflicts with the beliefs Of his
party
This view Of the case is undoubtedly correct
The liberals in the Anglican and Episcopal
churches have never been able TO build up ii
coherent party: of, TO speak more correctly 'hpy
have never tried to 10 So individually. uiey
have stood for certain ideas and represented
certain attitudes Of thought; but in the develop
ment Of those ideas and the expression OF those
phases Of thought they have never fotind II pos
sbe to agree And this because at bottom
what we may call Broad Churchism rests upon
the right Of each individual to interpret MS
faith for himself There are, or course, HILLS
10 Interpretation which even the most ridic''i
Broad Churchman would hold himself Dou"'
not To ovcrpass: but within these limits ne can
not recognize the authority of any party ieadcr
or party shibbolch 10 cocrce his belief or muZ-
zle his views That is one reason why there
can be no Broad Church party in the strict
sense Of the word. Another reason lies III Inc
fact that a man who holds broad Views OF
Church doctrine and pohty must be ready III al
times To- modify or change his views on most
questions that arise for discussion. He Is con-
tinllally shifting his position as new lighI, OF
what he concciycs 10 be new light. Is thrown
on the doctrines and dogmas Of the Church IL
is impossible for such Il man to range hiinseit
under a party banner: Cor the essence OF party
Il unswcryinc LOYALTY 10 certain principles which
have hrcn once for Ill clearly defined and
promulgated
This inability To- form party organization
Is ai once the strength and the weakness
Of Broad Churchi>m In Christianity; Tor IL
* a mistake 10 limit Broad ChurchSm To
the Anglican Communion: II is N work to-day
In all the Christian denominations. not even
excluding the Roman Catholic Church. On the
one side its indiyidualism has been Il source OF
strength 10 IT, 10y attracting To il brilliant and
original thinkers who have UNNECESSARILY broad
cncd The horizon Of Christian thought and be-
lief Such men, the Stanlcys. the kingslcys. the
Mauricrs. the Arnolds and the RobcrtSons, Of
English Christianity, and tn Bushnells IN"
Phillips Rrooksr, aud he BriggScs. Of Ameri-
can Christianity. represent an aspect Of chris
tan thinking that cannot be- dsrcgarlcd by
those who would take account Of modern Chris
tianity. While they have challenged the Wig
orous opposition ~ conservatives. they have
kept Christianity In line with modern life and
thought by opposing the tendency 10 dwell cx-
clusivrly in the dead past, which Is so strong
in all the Churches.
on the other hand, the refusal Of liberalism
to crystalline in party has been a source OF
weakness To H. In Church synods and convcn-
tions II constantly finds itself outgcncrallcd and
outvotcd 10y lis compactly organized opponents.
even when II may be- In a numerical majority.
Broad Churchmcn cannot ordinarily hope 10
carry an election: ana therefore their real
strength cannot be- measured by the showing
they make in the ecclesiastical politics Of the
Church IL Is 10 be- found rather in the influ-
cree they exercise in leading the whole Church
in spite ~ party watchwords to prove all
things and hold fast that which is good