Storm of Words: Science, Religion, and Evolution in the Civil War Era

Conclusion

Conclusion The South­ern Presbyterian evolution controversy was an attempt by both pro-­ and anti-­ Woodrow polemicists to define the south­ ern-­ biblicist heritage in the face of a new challenge. This interpretation of the controversy calls for some explanation of the different hermeneutic approaches taken by those who opposed Woodrow’s teachings and those who supported him. If both sides equally sought to uphold south­ern-­biblicist orthodoxy, if the controversy were indeed a battle over the meaning of biblical orthodoxy within south­ ern culture , then why did Woodrow and his proponents exhibit a more flexible view of scripture? They expressed this greater openness to exegetical possibilities most explicitly perhaps in their response to Girardeau’s insistence that adhering to the Bible and the standards necessarily meant adhering to South­ ern Presbyterians’ “prevailing and recognised views” of these documents. This insistence did not arise from obscurantism or any willful ignorance of extrabiblical materials. Like Dabney, Girardeau seriously engaged contemporary thinkers in such highly cerebral works as his Discussions of Philosophical Questions . Instead, this conviction derived from Girardeau’s belief that the spirit of his age was increasingly flippant about doctrine. Since Girardeau believed that South­ ern Presbyterians now stood virtually alone in their hermeneutic trustworthiness, he considered their interpretations of scripture and their interpretation of the standards practically immutable. After all, nominal Presbyterians , such as those of New School sensibilities, had long illustrated the possibility of simultaneously affirming the standards in theory and diverging from their plain sense in practice. “The Standards are our impregnable rampart against error,” Girardeau exclaimed to the Synod of South Carolina, “Let that go down, and truth as we hold it will go down with it.” This was why the church’s “prevailing and recognised views” of the standards were so crucial. “One thing leads on to another,” Girardeau warned. “If one excep- Conclusion 239 tion to the Standards be allowed in an official teacher, another and another may be. Where shall the line be drawn—the limit fixed?”1 James Woodrow, on the other hand, thought Girardeau’s “prevailing and recognised views” amounted to little more than privileging “preconceived notions ” over honest, open-­ ended study.2 Consideration of new exegetical possibilities did not, Woodrow maintained, amount to departing from the word of God, but only potentially from traditional interpretations thereof. In his own speech before the Synod of South Carolina, Woodrow noted that when he had first begun teaching geology, the prevailing view of several South­ ern Presbyterian dignitaries was that the earth was only six thousand years old. Indeed, their number had included his own college president at Oglethorpe University, Dr. Talmage, as well as the illustrious Thornwell and the senior professors at Union Theological Seminary. Had his divergence from their views then rendered him a heretic? “Because these good and learned men believed thus, and I didn’t, was I disbelieving the truth of the Scriptures?” he asked. “Their judgment, great, good, and learned as they were and are,” he insisted, “couldn’t affect the opinion of any one who looked into the subject for himself.”3 William Flinn reminded readers that this right candidly to investigate the relations of the Bible to contemporary notions had also been part of the South­ern Presbyterian heritage. South­ern Presbyterian ministers, all of whom affirmed their loyalty to the scriptures and the standards, for example, had long held differing but nonheretical opinions about predestination and metaphysics. Girardeau had already disclaimed any attempt to saddle Woodrow with the label of heretic. Noting this fact and alluding to Girardeau’s veneration of traditional interpretations, Flinn declared, “It is our received interpretation and practice to allow discussion and free teaching on non-­ heretical theories against popu­ lar notions and the first impulses and judgments of the popu­ lar mind.”4 That this willingness to investigate freshly many of the questions bearing on scriptural subjects characterized the approach of Woodrow’s advocates more than his opponents is clear. Explaining this divergence is more challenging . No doubt in­ di­ vidual temperaments played a role. As seen in earlier chapters, by the 1880s some South­ ern Presbyterians believed Dabney’s positions resulted from his “crotchets.” Such idiosyncrasies could exert a significant influence on one’s posture toward inquiry and pedagogy. Unfortunately , such factors do not readily submit to sweeping generalizations. It was possibly just such a dispositional factor, however, that spawned in James Woodrow a higher reverence for nature—a desire to linger longer before its oracle—than was...