Central Canadian Baptists and the role of cultural factors in the fundamentalist-modernist Schism of 1927: "Culture wars" are not a new phenomenon. In the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, Canadian Baptists were engaged in an ongoing debate over values and lifestyle.

Fundamentalists argued that Baptists should reject socio-cultural integration and preserve the purity of the faith by separating from an emerging modern and secular culture. Theologically, these Baptists were absolutists and purists who sought to maintain and strengthen the traditional Baptist position on inspiration and inerrancy.

In contrast, many liberal evangelicals, a good number of whom were wealthy and powerful businessmen, and modernists, who were often the "intellectual-priests" for the liberal evangelicals, pursued integration and took a more accommodating view of the Baptist relationship to modernity and an increasingly secularized culture. Liberal evangelicals retained some traditional Baptist beliefs, but in accordance with their cultural perspective, they maintained an openness to new theological approaches and ideas. As Clark Pinnock has noted, "the modernist impulse in theology could be characterized as a new hermeneutic" which sought "to re-interpret the traditional belief structure in light of the post-enlightenment understanding of reality." (1)

For what George Rawlyk called the "evangelical mainstream" or "conservative evangelicals" who comprised "the vast majority of Baptists," the increasing ideological polarization within the denomination after the First World War proved both disturbing and difficult. (2) Conservatives generally remained committed to theological orthodoxy, but many did not understand the complexities of Higher Criticism or the subtleties of modern theological debate. For these Baptists, the search for a resolution between the warring parties eventually became a primary objective.

To date, scholars have focused almost exclusively on the theological issues and debates leading up to the schism of 1927. Like many other Canadian religious historians, Canadian Baptist historians have been preoccupied with a few personalities, institutions, and ideas. (3) Little attention has been given to disagreements over cultural issues in the sixty years preceding the events of 1927. This paper argues that for many pastors and lay people differences in how Canadian Baptists viewed their culture played an important role in the 1927 denominational schism. As we shall see, the roots of cultural division ran as deep as those for theological division. Similarly, one's view of culture became a definitive way of distinguishing between friend and foe. Finally, disagreements over proper morality and what constituted worldliness helped to harden positions and promote feelings of distrust. Lifestyle issues were used by both fundamentalists and modernists to confirm their mutual suspicions and give legs to their negative feelings. Consequently, such issues became a key factor in the split of 1927.

The Roots of Cultural Division, 1867-1908

Contrasting perspectives on culture had their roots in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century. Canada. With the increasing pace of industrialization, urbanization, and commercialization after confederation in 1867, and the corresponding growth of materialism and consumerism, Canadian Baptists faced the demands of what William Westfall and David Marshall called "a powerful new social ethic ... which regarded economic development and material progress, rather than religion, as the foundation for a stable social order." (4) The debates of the 1920s over the proper Baptist response to such significant social and cultural change had their roots in a worldview that had at its heart three beliefs: the sanctification of the believer, separation from the world, and personal stewardship.

According to nineteenth-century Baptist theology, once individuals had experienced salvation through faith in Christ, they entered the next stage of their spiritual development, the process of sanctification. The definition of sanctification offered in "The Declaration of Faith" of the First Baptist Church, Brantford, Ontario, was typical of those held by many Baptist churches in the late nineteenth century: "We believe that Sanctification is the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of his holiness." (5) For Baptists, in contrast to many Methodists, sanctification was a lifelong process of spiritual growth.

However, Baptists generally acknowledged that the process of sanctification could be interrupted or compromised by giving in to the temptation to pursue a selfish, carnal, and "worldly" lifestyle. The threat of worldly contamination prompted Baptists to encourage separation from "the world." According to nineteenth-century orthodox Baptist teaching, the world consisted not only of "the sphere of present existence, or the people by who[m] we are surrounded" but also of "the world which `lieth in wickedness,' that world of which Satan is god, and of which it is said that if any man love it, 'the love of the Father is not in him.'" (6)

Warnings against taking a worldly path remained a staple theme in Canadian Baptist pulpits, periodicals, and personal letters throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. For example, in a letter to his close friend, James Hogg, in the 1870s, Pastor Joshua Denovan of Montreal complained about the worldliness and complacency of the local churches:

      The number of schemes and contrivances that are in operation here for
   the purpose of catching and holding congregations is simply lamentable and
   humiliating. In competition with one another, especially in their effort to
   decoy and attract the young, the churches scruple at nothing. Witty
   speeches, solos on the violin and with the voice of hired singers, readings
   from Shakespeare and Dickens, farces and comic scenes terminating generally
   with the "benediction" is the weekly fare of the religious public of
   Montreal. Congregationalists, Methodists, Episcopalians and Baptists vie
   with each other to give the raciest entertainment.... To treat these
   ministers as ministers of Christ while they are doing everything in their
   power to accommodate the Church to the world and making the ruin of the
   coming generation as sure as they can, is nearly beyond my power.... Even
   the Methodists have had on the revival pot, but it won't boil. That's
   perhaps a good sign-the churches are becoming so intensely worldly that
   they are as well satisfied without the periodical revival. (7)

Such complaints were common enough to prompt numerous calls for a recommitment to separation. For example, in a sermon entitled "The Surrendered Life, or the Cross of Separation" that appeared in the August 10, 1911, issue of The Canadian Baptist, Pastor A. J. Brown of Blenhiem, Ontario, used Romans 12:2 as the basis for the following exhortations:

      How often does the world come to the believer, and to the church as a
   body of believers, clothed as an angel of light, and we must be careful to
   remember that he is our enemy and not our friend.... If we could see the
   world as it really is, and how its sole object is to destroy our souls, we
   would shun its allurements and flee from its entanglements.... While many
   abhor that which is outrageously evil, they see no harm in mingling with
   the worldlings and pleasure-seekers, who have no communion with Christ, or
   indeed any knowledge of His salvation. To such the word comes today, "Come
   out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
   unclean thing, and I will receive you ..." (2 Cor. 6:17). The world hates
   the Christian to make a clear cut separation. (8)

But a "clear cut separation" was expected of every Baptist. Still, separation did not mean isolation. Baptists were expected to be "in the world, but not of the world." In the words of H. Richard Niebuhr, many Baptists promoted Christ as "the transformer of culture." (9) Writing to his fellow Baptists in, 1899, John Alexander, for example, argued that "the Gospel alone is the power of God for the saving of the individual and for the regeneration of society." (10) As we shall see, by the 1920s the debate over how to Christianize the culture without adopting its beliefs and values had become an intensely divisive issue. At the center of the debate and subsequent divisions was the concept of separation and the practical issues associated with maintaining strict morality and stewardship.

For Baptists in central Canada, separation meant adherence to a strict biblical morality that was to act as a barrier to worldliness. The Baptist press and pulpit continually stressed the need for vigilance in maintaining moral purity in every aspect of life. Participation in "popular amusements" (dancing, card-playing, gambling and theater-going), brought forth the strongest of warnings and condemnations. "The grand difficulty with most of them," observed one Baptist writer in the August 25, 1870, issue of The Canadian Baptist, is that "the devil controls them." (11) In a similar vein, a circular letter to the Toronto Baptist Association in June 1878 issued a series of warnings concerning amusements:

      Beware of any amusement that gives a distaste for home.... Beware of any
   amusement that leads to bad company.... Beware of amusements that may be a
   snare to others.... Beware of amusements that make large and improper
   demands on your time.

The letter went on to assure its readers that avoiding such amusements would lead to the "enjoyment" of a "purified soul." (12)

Another litmus test for separation was how one managed money and material possessions. Throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, Canadian Baptists remained steadfast in their professed commitment to the Old Calvinistic idea of stewardship. Every Baptist was expected to be a steward; "one who acts for another; who is bound to dispose of what has been entrusted to him for the advantage of his master, and in accordance with his master's wishes." (13) In practical terms, stewardship meant giving the "first fruits" of one's income "regularly" and "systematically" to God. (14) Many Baptists considered a tithe of ten percent to be the minimum amount that one should donate. Baptists were also encouraged to give sacrificially of their energy, time, possessions, and money to help those in need and to further the interests of "Christ's kingdom" in the world. (15) Stewardship, then, was another means by which spirituality could be measured. Few Baptists could avoid its demands and implications.

For nineteenth-century Baptists, sanctification, separation, and stewardship lay at the heart of their worldview. For the spiritual dimension of life to remain a Baptist's first priority, one had to guard against a lifestyle characterized by carnality and compromise. In the modern culture that developed in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, with its spirit of "liberality" and "openness" in both theology and lifestyle, Baptist commitment to a common worldview was put to its severest test. The results would have profound implications for succeeding generations of Canadian Baptists.

Signs of Cultural Division in Individuals and Churches, 1908-21

Portents of cultural division at the denominational level began to surface before World War I. Both individuals and churches struggled to come to terms with the moral and doctrinal challenges associated with the arrival of modernity. What emerged were three distinct responses: a liberal/modernist view that welcomed and encouraged modernity; fundamentalists who rejected or resisted the encroachments of modernity and fought to preserve the beliefs and practices of the past; and a few liberal and many conservative evangelicals who wanted to maintain a foot in both camps and above all preserve "peace" and "harmony" in the denomination. These Baptists welcomed some aspects of modernity and rejected or remained cautious about other aspects. Foremost among the issues which revealed cultural divisions were disagreements over worldliness.

In his presidential address to the Convention of Ontario and Quebec in 1913, Albert A. Ayer of Montreal, who was the owner of one of the largest dairy produce operations in the world, spoke on the subject of "The Church and the World." After noting that "during these first years of this century greater progress in material things has been made in Canada than in the precious 100 years," Ayer went on to note:

      The wealth that has come to many as a result of these changed conditions
   has led to idleness and pleasure, to lavish and useless expenditure of
   money, and to a worldliness which is careless of morality and neglectful of
   religion. Where today is the dividing line? ... Is the Church leading the
   world, or is the world leading the church? (16)

Many Baptists agreed with Ayer's analysis. Wealth and worldliness posed serious threats to the Baptist witness.

While there were many attitudes and activities that could be classified as "worldly," no lifestyle issue generated more discussion, debate, and division in the central Canadian Baptist community in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries than popular amusements. In 1888, for example, E. W. Dadson, a former editor of The Canadian Baptist and by then a pastor in Woodstock, Ontario, expressed the concern of many conservative Baptists over the growing popularity and morally corrosive influence of amusements, and he called for a return to a separated lifestyle:

      No Christian wisely circumspect would dream of giving his countenance to
   worldly amusements, or his presence to questionable places. ... But do not
   Christians countenance the theatre? Do they not dance? and play cards? and
   occasionally are they not seen in bar-rooms and on the race-course? Oh,
   yes! but foolishly circumspect are such Christians They look around them,
   it is true, but not for the purpose of hastening the kingdom, or of warding
   off that which may make toward the poverty of the soul. Purpose for God is
   their great lack.

      We unhesitatingly advocate a return to the Puritanical idea of
   circumspection. Dancing, betting, drinking and theatre going Christians are
   a sad damage to the cause of whose[sic] name they bear. (17)

Dadson's call for return to the strict morality of the past represented a conservative, legalistic, and communal response to the problem of amusements. In contrast, more liberal Baptists argued for liberty of conscience, and they adopted a more individualistic and tolerant position on the question of participation in amusements. In an 1892 article entitled "The Question of Amusements," Canadian Baptist editor, James Edward Wells, articulated the view of those Baptists who favored liberty:

      We are often asked for an editorial opinion as to whether this, or that,
   or the other amusement, recreation, or practice is consistent with a
   Christian profession It is, of course, out of the question that a Baptist
   Editor, or any other Baptist or body of Baptists, should be able to draw up
   a Baptist Index Expurgatorious of books which may not be read, or a
   catalogue of amusements which may or may not be indulged in. Even were we
   wise enough, as we are sure we are not, to do so with an approximation of
   infallibility, we are quite sure that the possession of such a set of
   arbitrary rules would be highly injurious, rather than beneficial, to the
   individual Christian, young or old, who should make it his guide. The
   effect would be, so far as it went, to lift from his or her shoulders a
   responsibility which they alone should bear, and in doing so take away a
   most valuable means of Christian exercise and growth. There is no moral and
   certainly no spiritual development in following fixed rules of conduct,
   prescribed by any external authority. (18)

Here the call of late-nineteenth century conservative Baptists for acceptance of a legalistic communal asceticism was firmly rejected in favor of individual liberty. The conflicting perspectives given in the pages of The Canadian Baptist in the late-nineteenth century reflected the growing division among Baptists over how they should respond to the prevailing culture. The lack of a clear consensus on the question of amusements left the door open for Baptists to adjust their practice as they saw fit. The potential for abuse that such a perspective created was not lost on many Baptists.

By the early-twentieth century, disagreements over how to handle the amusement issue had grown sufficiently contentious that some fundamentalist churches felt obliged to record their position on the subject. In 1909, for example, the deacons of Herkimer (later Stanley Avenue) Baptist Church, Hamilton, expressed "sympathy with the position taken by the Pastor [Hugh McDiarmid] on the subject of worldly amusement and questionable practices indulged in by certain professing Christians." Furthermore, the deacons noted "that such indulgence is not only harmful to the Christian-,life of the individual, but it retards the progress of God's Kingdom through the church...." The deacons even went so far as to "specify certain practices" because "it has come to our attention that some members of our church through indulgence in these have brought dishonor on the name of Christ." Included in the list were "the practice of card playing, theatre going, dancing, betting, tippling and participation in the demoralizing influences connected with attendance upon the roller rink." (19)

Herkimer was certainly not the only church troubled by the amusement issue. Perhaps the most noteworthy example is found in the experience of Jarvis Street Baptist Church, Toronto. After hearing a message on the subject of amusements from prominent Toronto businessman, Samuel J. Moore, in which he challenged pastors to lead their people to reject "the spirit of worldliness that finds expression in questionable amusements," Pastor T. T. Shields of Jarvis Street, arguably Canada's leading fundamentalist, resolved "to preach on the subject of worldly amusements." (20) On February 13, 1921, Shields preached his now famous sermon entitled "The Christian Attitude Toward Amusements." After arguing that "vast numbers of professed Christians are now being carried away by an ever-growing love of pleasure," Shields challenged his listeners to renounce worldly pleasures and "put Christ first." His challenge to the deacons, most of whom were wealthy and prominent Toronto businessmen, was particularly direct:

      If there be a deacon of this church who thinks more of an evening at the
   theatre, of the diversion of a game of cards, or of the pleasures of the
   dance, than of the interests of a soul for whom Christ died, he is unworthy
   of his office; and he ought immediately to resign either his pleasure or
   his office. (21)

The responses to Shields's exhortations were diverse. Many responded positively by publicly answering his call to "put Christ first." Others, most notably some of the businessmen on the deacon board, were embarrassed and offended. One deacon's wife rose at the invitation given in Shields's sermon to show her resolve to do away with amusements, but her husband remained seated. When she later asked her husband why he did not rise, he replied, "How could I when I had tickets for tomorrow night at the theatre in my pocket at the time." (22)

Even more revealing was the response of deacon Quartus B. Henderson, president of the Davis and Henderson printing firm in Toronto. The day after his sermon on amusements, Shields read a social column in The Globe which reported that "The Toronto Dancing Club had another enjoyable dinner at the King Edward [Hotel] on Saturday evening, among those present being ... Mr. and Mrs. Quartus B. Henderson." (23) The next day Shields received a letter of resignation from Henderson dated February 14, 1921: "Yesterday the pastor asked for the resignation of every deacon who did certain things which he considered should not be done," Henderson stated, "and I hereby tender my resignation, to take effect immediately." (24)

Shields's sermon effectively brought to the surface the deep-seated cultural divisions in the Jarvis Street congregation. The actions of Quartus B. Henderson revealed his rejection of what had become the traditional Baptist definition of separation. As a cultural liberal, Henderson, and many of his fellow businessmen at Jarvis Street, felt free to engage in activities that fundamentalists like Shields considered worldly. For laymen like Henderson, separation from the world had become an antiquated practice which called for a counter-cultural asceticism that they no longer believed was necessary or relevant.

Eventually, in 1921, a running battle between cultural liberals and T. T. Shields and his supporters resulted in a church split. Approximately 350 church members, mostly from business families, left the church and formed their own congregation. This schism had a profound effect on the events that followed in the denomination. The struggles over cultural issues between some individuals and in a few local churches now moved to a new level. Soon the whole denomination would experience firsthand the effects of cultural division.

Differing Cultural Views and Their Contribution to Denominational Schism, 1921-27

Like Jarvis Street, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec experienced a serious schism in 1927. Division in the denomination had its roots in a variety of theological, cultural, and personal issues, and a series of confrontations between a loose-knit coalition of fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals and a corresponding coalition of a few conservative evangelicals, many liberal evangelicals and almost all of the modernists. Much of the controversy focused on decisions at McMaster University to hire professors who held modernist theological views. The appointment of L. H. Marshall to the Chair of Pastoral Theology in 1925 proved particularly controversial. (25) Other scholars have discussed, debated, and analyzed the theological aspects of the 1927 split in detail. (26) Their findings have greatly enhanced our knowledge of the controversy, but many questions about the role of cultural factors remain largely unexplained. What role did differing cultural perspectives play in the schism of 1927? Does evidence suggest that the cultural factors present in the 1921 split at Jarvis Street were the same as those that promoted the 1927 denominational schism? What follows is a first step in providing an answer to these questions.

No doubt differing cultural perspectives played an important role in the schism of 1927. While the public debate focused primarily on the theology and the personalities involved, a strong undercurrent of suspicion and disagreement over what constituted a proper cultural and moral perspective is apparent in the many confrontations and comments before and during the institutionalization of the schism. On the practical and specific levels, statements concerning popular amusements and denominational peace were especially revealing.

In the years leading up to the spilt, 1921-27, battles between fundamentalists and modernists over cultural and lifestyle issues grew more intense. Disagreements broke out over a variety of issues. The debate even touched on the delicate subject of how to conduct a Sunday School class. For example, during the convention of 1922 at a meeting of the Ontario Religious Education Council, a rather heated discussion concerning ;'the place and function of the adult Bible class in the life of the Church and the community" was held in a Sunday school room at Bloor Street Baptist Church. Strong disagreement quickly became apparent when Frank Yeigh of Toronto argued that "the Bible class should not be allowed to develop too largely into a debating society." Reverend E W. K. Morris of London countered that "the more opportunity given for discussion of either religious or secular subjects the better." Another delegate retorted that "the spirituality of such a class might suffer as the result of the introduction of too many secular subjects and discussions." Morris "protested against such an attitude," and he argued that the "`function of the Church is to make people contented. I know of a lot of people who would be discontented if they found a roll of cloth in their butter,'" Morris noted, "`I teach my people to make good butter.'"

With this statement, this particular debate ended, but comments about the toll taken by modern culture on Baptist practice continued. E. W. Moyle of Langstaff complained that "`Joy-riding, picnics and visiting by automobile have, Sunday after Sunday, depleted the ranks of churchgoers in the rural community with which I am acquainted. That is a sad example to give to growing children.'" (27) The debate between Yeigh and Morris and the comments of Moyle reveal how contentious the question of the proper Baptist response to the culture had become. Their views were some of the many expressed in the 1920s in a variety of contexts. (28) Clearly, debates over cultural issues were dividing Baptists.

Further evidence that cultural and lifestyle issues were becoming more important is found in particular responses of churches and individuals. After T. T. Shields used the pages of The Gospel Witness on October 12, 1922, to recommend that Pastor W. A. Cameron of Bloor Street Baptist Church be allowed to "retire" from the McMaster Board of Governors because he was "unfit for position requiring discriminative judgement," (29) the church crafted a detailed response to the charge which included a section on the character and lifestyle of their pastor:

      Whereas in a recent pamphlet Rev. Dr. Shields has challenged the fitness
   of our pastor, Rev. W. A. Cameron, to serve on the Board of Governors of
   McMaster University, ... BE IT RESOLVED ... 4. That in his life he adorns
   the gospel he preaches, and that by his gracious spirit of Christian love
   and his winsome ministrations in our homes and in the larger community of
   the city, he has bound us together in a happy and harmonious body of
   Christian believers.... (30)

The fact that this liberal congregation thought it necessary to defend the life and character of their pastor is indicative of the importance placed

Paul Wilson is director of general education studies, Heritage Baptist College and Theological Seminary, Cambridge, Ontario.