M'MASTER'S APPROVAL OF
DR. FAUNCE'S INFIDELITY

AN ADDRESS BY DR. T. T. SHIELDS

(Continued from March 21, 1924.)

Who Was Mr. Hayden?

First of all, I must inquire, Who was this Mr. Hayden? Mr. Hayden had been a member of the Walmer Road Church

for about 15 years, and until about a year before the Wal-Dr. J. Frank Norris, mer Road Convention, when he left it to return to Jarvis Fort Worth, Texas. Street, where he had been a member for many years be fore. What was Mr. Hayden's record in Walmer Road Church? Was he a thoughtless, irresponsible man, or one who enjoyed the confidence of those who had known him? The answer to that is that at the annual meeting of the Walmer Road Church of 1921 he was elected to the diaconate of that church after having been earnestly solicited by the pastor, according to his report to me, to allow his name to stand.

And at that same meeting. if I am, his own department which was un-1

much.

Full exposure of documentary evidence that Modernism is entrenched in the faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville, Kentucky. It is enough to make angels weep and devils laugh. But the time has come for the full light to be turned on. A copy will be sent to every pastor in America. An opportunity has been extended to the members of the faculty in question to reply in THE SEARCHLIGHT.

being denounced as Puritanical; and the fallacy that a certain theme is in itself "artistic" has helped to reward mediocre work with attention, and often with good receipts at the box-office.

"Craig's Wife," by George Kelly, now running in New York, with Miss Chrystal Herne in the leading rôle and a most capable company in support, is an admirable example of a first-rate play in which the dramatist has not taken a theme beyond his ability. It might possibly be called a great play about a little theme. That would not be altogether correct, since the subject is a woman's selfishness, its effect upon her husband and their friends, and its final almost. tragic result. Mrs. Craig's selfishness is manifested throughout the first part of the play by amusing illustrations of the fact that the spotlessness of her house is of more importance to her than the comfort of any one in it. She is one of the fanatical housewives, familiar to all of us, who would prefer "to see her husband smoke in hell than in the drawing-room,' who sends the indignant houskeeper into the garden to dust the leaves of the trees. So hateful does she make her own love for extreme cleanliness that one man remarked as he left the theater: "This play is going to be a great source of comfort to all the flickers of cigarette ash on rugs, and to all those who leave socks and collars lying on the floor and in odd. corners."

If Mrs. Craig had carried her peculiarities no farther than this, the play would have been merely a light farce,

and she might have retained one or two of her more angelic servants, as well as other persons of greater importance in her household. But her passion was for her house, and she was quite ready to sacrifice everything and everybody to that structure. While the play is to be classified as a comedy, it is a thoughtful comedy, with a central character percomedy, with a central character perfectly developed by the playwright and most effectively presented by the ac

tress.

Mr. Kelly has given the actors possible characters to enact, and put speeches into their mouths which sound as if they into their mouths which sound as if they really might have been uttered by men and women in America to-day. It may be doubted whether any actress on the American stage this season will have the opportunity to speak lines which sound so genuine as those given to Mrs. Frazier in her account of her annual visits to her daughter in Dayton, Ohio, "where her husband has a splendid position with the National Cash Register Company." And no one could possibly speak those lines better than does Miss Josephine Hull.

ما

Master whom they both profess to follow. On the one hand is the persecutor, who offers to tan the skin of his fellowclergyman; on the other hand is the persecuted, who until his endurance was exhausted continued without reviling to do his duty as he saw it.

Is the story a record of another triumph for Christianity?

Two years ago the Rev. Lee W. Heaton, an obscure Episcopal minister of Fort Worth, Texas, was formally charged with heresy upon the allegation that he had denied the Virgin Birth of Christ. His case became Nationally famous when Dr. Leighton Parks, rector of St. Bartholomew's Church in New York City, declared from his pulpit that the ecclesiastical authorities were persecuting a helpless clergyman in a remote outpost of the Church for holding the same views as several bishops and important ministers in the East. Dr. Parks invited discipline for himself in asking the Church to start from the top if they wished to try a man for preaching what is taught in the leading seminaries.

Mr. Heaton's case became first-page newspaper copy throughout the country. It is still referred to repeatedly by the British press in discussing modern American heresy hunts. Pages of our American secular and religious papers were devoted to the exposure of every detail of Mr. Heaton's troubles in Fort Worth. Investigators found that the charges were based on statements in which Mr. Heaton did not deny belief in. the Virgin Birth, but said that he considered the

doctrine of how Christ came into the world as a relatively unimportant one. Mr. Heaton told the reporters that he did believe in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. They found him to be a mystic, a user of High Church ritual, and extremely effective in furthering the spiritual life among his parishioners. They labeled him a "Liberal Catholic."

If his parish had been in an Eastern city, nothing novel or startling would have been seen in his statement. But it so happened that he was a lone voice in a Texan territory dominated by the Rev. Frank Norris, leader of the extreme Baptist Fundamentalists. Dr. Norris is known in that region as the "Texas Bear Cat" and as "Two-Gun Norris, who gets his man." His powerful Fundamentalist paper, "The Searchlight," opened fire on Mr. Heaton. He printed full warning that he would not tolerate Modernist ministers in Fort Worth. His pronouncement was

Notice is hereby served that any man who occupies any pulpit in this city of any denomination, and any teacher or professor who holds a position of trust in any school-if said teacher or minister openly advocates the evolution theory or any phase of modern infidelity, he may just as well prepare to go to the tannery that operates 365 days in the year at the First Baptist Church. We have no apology in the world to offer for the defense of the Gospel and for hanging the hides of the first cousins and defenders of the orang-outang on the topmost telephone poles in the city.

Dr. Norris boasted that Heaton would be driven out of Texas in six months. Reports from the battle-front indicated that the "Texas Bear Cat" had enlisted the sympathetic aid of the Episcopal diocesan bishop and of an element in Heaton's parish which wished to gain control of that parish for purposes not entirely spiritual. The bishop indorsed the charge of heresy with the statement that he believed Heaton guilty, but, "inasmuch as similar interpretations are held by those belonging to a higher order of ministry," the question of trial would be held pending. This left Heaton in the position of one condemned as guilty and not given the opportunity to prove himself innocent, but still left in charge of an important parish of the Episcopal Church. Another church of the same communion was started just up the street and efforts were made to draw away Heaton's congregation and financial support. Much to the Texans' surprise, Mr. Heaton's flock showed their loyalty and

appreciation of his ministry by raising funds for the erection of a larger church for him. The widespread publicity of the methods employed by those who wished to "ride Heaton out on a rail" created a sentiment in his favor.

Four months, and it seemed as if the mild and meek Lee Heaton had won over his powerful adversary, "Two-Gun Norris." Possibly distressed by the failure of his frontal attack, Dr. Norris attempted a feint. He wrote Heaton in the strictest privacy urging him, in effect, to leave the Episcopal Church and become a Baptist. Heaton decided to remain an Episcopalian. But Dr. Norris was mindful of the latter portion of his nickname, "He gets his man"! His reputation of having the power to break any

T

man in the South whom he wishes was at stake. But he kept everlastingly at it. He used both his guns. Heaton's congregation remained loyal, but their minister was far removed from his sympathetic brothers in the clergy. The attacks wore him down in his loneliness. His bishop continued in his refusal to submit the case to an ecclesiastical court, but left Heaton-condemned as a heretic, ostracized by his diocese, with the most powerful interests in the State aligned against him-to carry on his struggle in an important parish. Last month Heaton capitulated. He could not stick it out any longer. He is now selling prepared-food products in Boston, Massachusetts.

"Two-Gun Norris" got his man.

HERE has just been held in New York a convention of those interested in "schools of journalism." I did not attend any of the meetings because I am a little skeptical of the practical value of these modern institutions whose avowed purpose is to make out of newspaper writers a special professional class. What the newspaper writer needs, male or female, daily or weekly, is a sound liberal education, a broad and discriminating knowledge of the history of literature, first of his own country, and then such as he has time to get of other times and other countries, topped off with a familiarity with the simple technique of the newspaper office. The liberal education he can best find at a good college or university; the technique will be furnished to him freely and bluntly by his city editor if he is lucky enough to get a job as a reporter, a position which is as useful to the would-be journalist as the position of an intern in a great city hospital is to the would-be physician. There is much that is disagreeable and even repellent about the work of the conscientious intern or rework of the conscientious intern or reporter, but it is educational in the highest degree.

It may be that some of the young graduates of our "schools of journalism" are going to be the great editors of the future, but it is certain that the great editors of the past were not trained in special technical schools. I suppose that

all experienced American newspaper men would agree that the ablest, or, at any rate, the most brilliant, writing editor in the history of American daily journalism was Charles A. Dana. He died nearly thirty years ago, before such a thing as a school of journalism was thought of, but I can imagine the kind of ironic editorial that he would have written if anybody had proposed to him a plan of a special school which should supply him with the reporters and writers of his staff. He would have said, and correctly, that the New York "Sun" under his management was the greatest school of journalism that this country has ever seen. He himself got his liberal education at Harvard and at Brook Farm, his newspaper technique with George Ripley and Horace Greeley on the New York "Tribune," and his political experience as Assistant Secretary of War in the first Administration of Abraham Lincoln. But his work as a newspaper editor and proprietor was done in the days when a daily newspaper was regarded primarily as a vehicle of information and interpretation, and not essentially as a commercial and manufacturing enterprise.

It is amusing if not significant that the founders of the two great modern "schools of journalism" in the Englishspeaking world, Joseph Pulitzer in the United States and Lord Northcliffe in England, were the great protagonists of

the doctrine that a newspaper is to be judged by its success as a commercial enterprise. The modern newspaper, when it wants to win the plaudits of its readers, publishes statistics, not of its achievements in the gathering and literary presentation of the news, but of the volume of its circulation and advertising. A journalistic "scoop" used to mean that you had beaten your competitors in giving your readers complete and accurate information about some important event; it now means that you have printed in a given period of time more National, financial, or department-store advertising than any other newspaper in your vicinity. Some years ago a clever but cynical New York editor, John Keller by name, defined this commercial view of journalism in an address before the New York Press Club as well as I have ever seen or heard it done. His definition was something like this: "Publishing a newspaper is simply a manufacturing proposition. You buy a raw material called paper at two cents a pound, treat it with a chemical called printers' ink, run it through a machine called a printing-press, and sell it at ten cents a pound." These figures would hardly fit the costs or size of present-day newspapers, but the principle which John Keller enunciated is still sometimes applicable.

This article, however, was not begun with the intention of furnishing a critique on the modern newspaper. My purpose was to ask whether the new professors of journalism are considering with their

W

pupils what is likely to be the effect of pupils what is likely to be the effect of the American newspaper upon literature in America. Are we not turning out annually more printed matter and less permanent literature than any other civilized country since Gutenberg invented the printed press? I do not assert this; I merely ask the question. But how can it be otherwise? Even to write a weekly article is sometimes to work under distressing pressure. What must it be to have to write a daily editorial, or a daily book review, or a daily financial article, or a daily column of persiflage? What must be the effect upon a man's views of politics, or literature, or economics, or wit and humor, when the printer's devil is standing at his elbow calling for more copy?

Dr. Johnson in one of his essays in "The Rambler" claims that one reason why the Greek writers are immortal is because they had no newspapers. "There were in those days no weekly or diurnal writers," he says, and adds that "one of the most pernicious effects of haste is obscurity." He refers to "the blotted manuscripts of Milton" as a proof that great literature is only born at the end of hard labor. He quotes Dryden to show that facile poetry is usually frail and fleeting:

No blood from bitten nails those poems drew;

But churn'd, like spittle, from the lips. they flew.

There are some examples of periodical literature which have a permanent value,

but they are few, I think. The only instance in this country that comes to my mind is Oliver Wendell Holmes's "The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table," which appeared as a monthly serial in the "Atlantic" when James Russell Lowell was its editor. Still, even if Dr. Holmes wrote these delightful and lasting papers as rapidly as they were published it must be said that a month's time will give a man of genius sufficient opportunity for brooding and polishing. There are some striking examples of fine literature produced under the pressure of weekly journalism, but none in this country, as far as I know. In France the essays of Sainte-Beuve, "Causeries du lundi," were contributed every Monday to a daily newspaper of Paris, the "Constitutionnel," and they fill fifteen volumes. More permanent still are those charming and ever modern stories and sketches of Alphonse Daudet, "Lettres de mon Moulin" and "Contes du lundi," which were written and published periodically in the newspapers. Perhaps the most outstanding instance of classic literature which has been created under periodic pressure are the essays of Joseph AddiSir Roger de Coverley is an immortal

son.

at least as immortal as the English language-although he was born in a daily paper. Whether there would be room for a similar accouchement in a column of reading matter alongside of advertising in the New York "Times" or "World" or "Tribune" or "Sun" is open to question.

The Outlook's Editor in Europe

E have just witnessed two crises the Greco-Bulgar and the Anglo-Turk. The League of Nations Council acted regarding both. With the first it averted war; will it with the second?

The primal thing to bring about was not peace, but justice. That was aimed at in both awards.

N the Greco-Bulgar affair the invasion

IN

fied.

of Bulgarian territory was unjustiHence reparation was due, the

Council held, even if, at the time of the occurrence, those provoking it believed it justified. The Greek Government was therefore directed to pay to the Bulgarian Government reparation for material and moral damages done. Athens agreed, and both Governments accepted the Council's military recommendations to prevent future frontier incidents.

T IIE more complex Mosul problem was harder to settle. Irak, the old Mesopotamia, before the war a Turkish

dependency, is now under mandate to Great Britain, as supervisor.

Turkey claimed the northern vilayet, or province, of Mosul for the following

reasons:

1. Mosul inhabitants are mostly Kurds, racially nearer, the Turks claim, to them than are the Arabs of Irak.

2. Mosul inhabitants are surely more in sympathy with a strong Turkey than with a weak Irak.

3. But were Irak strong enough to

grant the Kurds local self-government and the official use of their language in schools, courts, and administrative bureaus, the Turkish Government

would have to face greater discontent among the minorities in Turkey proper.

4. The region's wealth has been and is an integral economic part of Turkey.

5. In Turkish opinion, Great Britain is mandating Irak, not for Irak's good, but for Britain's.

6. England, Turkey claims, did not occupy the town of Mosul and its environs before the Armistice.

7. Finally, the Turks regard Mosul as a symbol. Great Britain fears the awakening of the Orient. She wants to diminish and humiliate Turkey, the head of the Oriental movement.

Now as to Great Britain. She claims the vilayet for Irak because

1. It has always been a part of that country.

2. Without it, having no strategic frontier, Irak would be defenseless and unstable.

3. The Kurds, having known Turkish oppression, turn towards Irak as promising them local self-government.

4. The Christian inhabitants, having known still greater Turkish oppression, turn towards Irak for salvation.

5. The region's economic trend is down the valleys to Bagdad, and not over the mountains towards Turkey.

6. Great Britain wants, first of all, to fulfill a mandatory's obligations to Irak; it has never enjoyed such government as under the mandate.

7. But she also wishes to protect the land route to India.

8. Finally, she desires to assure to her navy and people a proper proportion of the potential Mosul petroleum.

The Lausanne Conference did not settle the dispute. Both sides then agreed that if, within a certain period, they could not reach a solution by direct negotiation, they would leave the decision to the League Council.

The disputants did not agree, and the Council took up the matter. It finally succeeded in making the two parties admit its right to determine a frontier line showing the limit of territory to be administered by each until the final frontier between Turkey and Irak should be established. The Council then drew the provisory Brussels line, so called because the Council met in that city. The two parties pledged themselves not to undertake any military or other movement of a nature to change the condition of the territories under discussion. In addition, Fethi Bey, the Turkish representative, declared an acceptance of the Council's ultimate decision as to the vilayet.

The Council then despatched a Com

tember, 1924, on a plea that a Turkish governor had been ambushed, the Turks had chased away several thousand Nestorian Christians from the mountains

north of Amadia, and just a year later, from a territory to the west, other thousands of Chaldean Catholics. As to the manner of deportation, I quote from a page of the report:

Bajo is a village of two thousand homes. The Turks surrounded the village, demanded the forty prettiest women, and murdered their husbands. A week later deportation followed, with the massacre of the old men, the sick, and the helpless children, incapable of following.

When one of the League Councilors read the report, he exclaimed: "This is no longer a Turko-Greek dispute. It is an issue between barbarity and civilization."

Given the Turkish attitude towards subject races and the probability of more atrocities, perhaps on a larger scale, the Council was determined to prevent, if possible, another Armenian tragedy. To hand the vilayet back to the Turk would make the Council responsible for the fate of at least eighty thousand Christians, not to mention thousands of Kurds and other Irak inhabitants.

Turkish denials of deportations persisted until the close of the Council's December meeting, when the second officer in the Government at Angora was reported as saying that, if there had been any deportations, they were acts of legitimate defense in the face of populations armed by British agents.

'URKEY'S case presented two points

TURKE

one of law, one of fact. The first was her statement that at Lausanne Lord Curzon had promised her a vote on the question in the League Council (of course, no pleader is allowed to judge his own case). The second was the fact that the Mosul people's sympathies are divided: most favor Turkey, the Turks claim; most favor Irak, the British claim, and so does the Commission--so long as the British mandate, assuring order, is continued.

"We are prepared for a solution by agreement," the Turks announced on coming to Geneva. They added: "But we shall refuse to yield to superior force. Our army is fully prepared. We have 150,000 soldiers on war footing, and we can mobilize every Turk, young or old, for the country's defense."

This intimidation did not scare the Council.

Tits September meeting I heard Ruchdy Bey, Turkish Foreign Minister, present the Turkish case. At the December meeting Ruchdy, though he had come to Geneva, was silent, and instead I heard the case presented by a supposedly superior Turkish jurist, Munir Bey, Turkish Minister in Bern.

For a couple of hours I listened to Munir's low, even, droning voice and plaintive tone (in contrast to the sprightly terseness of Mr. Amery, the British representative) define, with wearisome repetitions, the Turks' point of view. First, they had never expected an arbitral decision-I was at Lausanne, and the talk I heard was of nothing else. Second, they anticipated only a decision of conciliation, and their delegation's powers did not extend beyond a simple mediation. Finally, they rejected the Council's competence to render a proper arbitral decision, even when supported by the World Court's ruling-and the

ruling had been that Turkey was bound to accept the Council's unanimous decision. "We will not submit to the World Court's ruling if it goes contrary to our opinions," the Turks had already announced.

They had refused to send representatives to the Court. Yet I, amazed, was now listening to Munir's argument, contesting the Court's ruling, not only because it went contrary to Turkish opinion, but because the Turks had not been on hand at The Hague!

As a matter of fact, the Turks were not "prepared for a solution by agreement." Even when summoned to meet with others in attempts to secure results by their own methods of conciliation, the Turks refused to appear. Yet the tones of League Councilor Unden seemed to me peculiarly pleading as he told the Turks the very first day that the Council would scrupulously conform to its duty of conciliation.

eign rights over all the Mosul vilayet remain entire."

The decision followed, categorical and unanimous. It awarded to Irak nearly all of the vilayet, namely, the territory south of the Brussels line, a boundary considerably to the south of the strategic mountain frontier claimed by Great Britain.

The decision is not to become definitive until the Council has been notified of the London Parliament's approval of a continuation of the British mandate over Irak for twenty-five years, or until such time as Irak shall have sufficiently developed independence to be admitted into the League. Great Britain has six months to prepare a new treaty with Irak, to come into force on the expiry of her present mandate in 1928. The award also comprises guaranties, first, of local administration, including the full use of the Kurdish tongue, and then of free commercial intercourse between Turkey and Irak. "At any rate," a Turk rue

said to a friend of mine at parting, “We intend to be friendly with England."

This flatly belies the Turkish militarist attitude reflected in Constantinople press comment-of a sincerer accent, just the same, than in certain artificial English attacks on the London Government. "Henceforth we are the declared enemies of everything English," says the “Djumhuriet;" "the whole mandatory system is nothing but a farce, destined to legitimize tyranny, slavery, and usurpation. ... We will save Mosul as we have saved Smyrna, Adana, and Brusa." "The redeeming feature of the decision," adds the "Aksham," "lies in its exposure of Europe's imperialist mentality. Otherwise the decision has no value. Turkey will herself solve the problem."

Council's decision had perforce to take an obligatory arbitral character.

The Turkish delegation was not present at the opening of the meeting. A moment of impressive silence followed. President Scialoja's invitation to the Turks to take their places at the Council table. The only Turkish official in the room was the Consul. He did not stir. Then a letter was read from Ruchdy, declining to appear and declaring: "As a state's sovereign rights over a territory cannot come to an end save by that state's consent, Turkey's sover

T

of our proposals, that of equal commercial opportunity."

The two parties to the dispute have now the means of coming to friendly arrangements, above all, in commerce and finance. Strong in her legal position, Great Britain can afford to be generous in all possible compensatory concessions. For instance, Turkey is poor and needs a loan. Direct arrangements with London would assure many immediate advantages impossible to be obtained by Turkey through war, even victorious. Perhaps Ruchdy remembered this when he

ILITARISTS declare that this means, if not an invasion of all Irak, at least the immediate occupation of northern territory, including the town of Mosul.

The Turks will find there the English, who have been in possession of the vilayet up to the Brussels line. A Turkish movement nearer Constantinople could precipitate an English occupation of that city.

If British mandatory authority be too far resisted, the League can enforce economic and financial and then military sanctions. Thus the Turks may face, not England alone, but the collectivity of League nations. Even Russian Bolshevism, inciting Turkey, as it does, might then think_twice.

Paris, December 22, 1925.

HOSE who are addicted to excessive concern lest the younger generation be demoralized by extreme frivolity, on the one hand, or extreme radicalism, on the other hand, may find some ground for reassurance in recent developments among college students. The World Court Conference at Princeton, initiated and carried through, as it was, by students and backed by a student-directed campaign of education, should serve to disarm that rather large group of youth critics who have insisted that college opinion on world peace was dictated by impractical extremists. And now, at Evanston, another group of college students-nearly one thousand of them from two hundred colleges and representative of twenty-five denomina

By STANLEY HIGH

THIS correspondence from

the Evanston Conference holds high promise that the younger generation will see clearly the essentials of religious unity.

tions have undertaken an appraisal of the Christian Church as a channel through which young people can work.

Evanston, it must be pointed out, was not a superficially generated conference with students out for a frolic at the expense of their tolerant elders. The two young men who came from western South Dakota on a freight train and the

rather considerable number of others who rode by night in the day coaches because Pullman fare was lacking typify the spirit that characterized the entire group. The most general contact with college campuses of the present day will serve to indicate the widespread interest that prevails in regard to the problems with which the Church is organized to concern itself. Evanston was a reflection of this interest and more than any other development brought it to a definite focus.

It should be said also that Evanston was a starting-point-not an ending. At the first day's session student discussion revealed a widespread hostility toward resolutions and expressions of abstract opinion. When it came to appointing committees to consider the issues raised,