James Haire, 1926, Belfast Presbyterian College

James Haire

Haire was Professor of Systematic Theology at Belfast Presbyterian College. His accuser, James Hunter of Knock, was a member of the General Assembly’s College Committee. 

In the background was a growing reaction against critical approaches to scripture in Presbyterianism, albeit a century after its shoots had first sprouted in Germany. Haire was accused of fermenting schism by the conservative Presbyterian Bible Standards League (Wiki). The college was a particular focus of the League: “There have for some time past been murmurings in regard to the teaching in the Assembly's College”. (The Lurgan Mail Saturday 22 May 1926 p3 col1).

Rev. James Hunter, Haire’s accuser, sat squarely in the conservative camp. Eighteen months earlier he had resigned his church stating “that there was a fearful evil eating away the life of their Church all over Christendom. It started in Germany, and nothing had been done in dear old Ulster to combat the evil. He felt that it had been laid upon him by God to something in this warfare.” (Northern Whig Friday 4 June 1926, p8 col3)

Accusation

In mid-April 1926 the College and the Belfast Presbytery was informed that a printed circular bearing the name of the Rev. James Hunter was being widely distributed to members and ministers of the church. It contained serious charges concerning the teaching of Professor Haire: that

“Professor Haire strives to have his students believe that the Bible is not infallible, and that the Lord Jesus Christ was not infallible.” No proof was offered except extracts from a text book used in the class.

“Professor Haire denies the infallibility of Jesus.” (Belfast News-Letter, 4 June 1926, p7 col6.)

Part of the problem seems to have been Haire’s socratic approach to education. He posed questions to his students and challenged them to respond; Hunter then read into the questions Haire’s beliefs. Hunter appears to think that some questions just cannot be asked.

Belfast Presbyterian College, Belfast News Letter

Having published his accusations against Professor Haire, Hunter then went to ground. He was a member of the General Assembly’s College Committee but failed to appear at three meetings called to consider the matter, nor did he attend the Presbytery of which he and all the college Professors were members. Thus the stage was set for the most one-sided of heresy investigations.

Responsibility lay with the College Committee. It met on April 30, 1926, and invited the principals to attend. Professor Haire waited nearby but there was no sign of Mr Hunter. Nor did he appear at any of three subsequent meetings.

Inquiry
In the absence of the accuser the College could have simply dismissed the accusation. Instead it saw an opportunity to demonstrate that it took its theological responsibilities seriously, that it accepted critical approaches to scripture and therefore that it took the more liberal side in the growing divide within Ulster Presbyterianism.

At their May meeting the College Committee decided that they would hold “a thorough and detailed investigation of the whole case” (Belfast Telegraph, Monday 17 May, 1926, p.3 col 5). This was not because the committee had doubts as to Haire’s orthodoxy but to demonstrate publicly that they didn’t.

Hunter was not impressed and had no intention of participating. “... according to the newspapers,” he said he “did not believe in the fairness of the College Committee: that he would not be fairly and justly treated; and that they would not be sincere and honest men and look into the charges in an honest way.” (Northern Whig, Tuesday 25 May 1926 p9 col 6).

Accusation, evidence and examination
In Hunter’s absence, the College authorities formulated two charges from the pamphlet Hunter had circulated:

1. “Professor Haire strives to have his students believe that the Bible is not infallible, and that the Lord Jesus Christ was not infallible.” He offered no proof beyond extracts from a text book used in the class.
2. “Professor Haire denies the infallibility of Jesus.”  (Belfast News-Letter 4 June 1926, p.7.col.6)

The committee sought to establish the facts. Professor Haire handed the committee all his lectures and teaching notes. “They read them and found nothing but that they entirely substantiated Prof Haire’s denial of the charges; that there was nothing in the lectures at variance with the truth of the Scriptures.” They contacted students who had left the college the previous year and seven of them were interviewed, separately, and handed over their notes of Haire’s classes.(Northern Whig, Tuesday 25 May 1926, p.9 col.6).

They found nothing incriminating.

Judgement

1) Infallibility of Jesus:

“Professor Haire stated to us that not only did he not “impress this teaching upon his students,” but took pains to controvert it. As in duty bound, he discussed with his students difficulties raised by textual and other criticism, but he clearly and definitely affirmed that “the Word of God as set forth in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the infallible rule of faith and practice.” ... He “... dealt with the difficulties that arise in connection with the doctrine of verbal inspiration of the Scriptures.” Therefore, after careful scrutiny of his teaching, “We are of the opinion that it does not contravene the teaching of the Confession which does not include a theory of the nature and range of inspiration.”

2) Deity of Christ:

“Professor Haire firmly holds and unambiguously teaches the Deity of our Lord.” He denied that he taught that Christ made mistakes in his teaching. In becoming human Christ accepted certain limitations: felt emotions, joy and sorrow; Prayer was a necessity for him and some things he did not know. “But whatever limitations His human life involved He was God manifest in the flesh.” (Belfast News-Letter, 4 June 1926, p7 col.6)

3) further issues

Two further accusations seemed to have stemmed from examination questions that Haire had set his students. From

• How do you account for the absence from Jesus’ own thought of the idea of the Spirit? and
• How far is the doctrine of the Trinity implied in the New Testament?

Hunter “seems to infer” that Haire denied the trustworthiness of the fourth Gospel, and that he held doubtfully to the doctrine of the Trinity." 

Haire replied that there was no essential difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels. He also affirmed that he “unreservedly accepts and teaches the Doctrine of the Trinity.” ibid.

On the evidence before them the committee unanimously concluded that Professor Haire was exonerated of all charges against him.

They added that the aim of education at the college was

“to train students that they will be able to distinguish between truth and error, and, exposed to all the currents of human thought, will choose and hold to their course with the steadfastness of personal conviction.” ibid.

and that they were not going to investigate any further.


Conclusion

I am sure Hunter sought to be and remain a true Christian in the way he experienced and articulated faith. He seems to have found it hard to accept that anyone else could be a faithful Christian and presbyterian, who did not understand and express faith in the way that he did. And, as an inner defensive ring, he refused to address questions which might lead to answers he had a priori rejected.

His avoidance of responsibility extended to the process he had initiated. Hunter lit the blue touch paper and then stood back. The consequence was that his firework fizzled out and he merely reinforced those he had challenged. The committee concluded that “... we are unanimously of the opinion that the charges made by M. Hunter are without foundation, and that professor Haire has taught nothing inconsistent with the standards of the Church.” (Northern Whig and Belfast Post, 4 June 1926, p.7 col.4)

Hunter and his church seceded from the main Presbyterian body and Stranmillis Church remains independent to this day.