1895
The Man of Letters Heeds Them More Than Does the Orthodox Religionist.
It is quite extraordinary how callous even the most religious persons in the past have often been to the miseries of their fellow creatures, both in this world and the next. They have indeed expressed their gratitude for being safe and sound themselves, but not without a feeling of complacency that others are not so fortunate. It is this callousness, writes James Payn, in the Cornhill Magazine, which has rendered the man of letters — impulsive and sensitive, soft hearted, yet easily moved to indignation and charitable even toward the sins he is not inclined to — unorthodox and something more. There may be in him a want of submissiveness to the divine will and certainly of that unquestioning faith which is the comfort of so many souls, but there is no lack of human love and sympathy, and the man who loves his fellows, we are told, is very near to loving his Creator.
At all events, the feeling I have described seems to me to have more or less pervaded the minds of almost all men of letters with whom I have conversed upon spiritual things. Because literary men are not, as a rule, churchgoers they are often considered irreligious or as complete Gallios in the matter, but this is not at all my experience of them, and I have lived in their midst for nearly half a century.
A very distinguished member of the clergy used to say, with those half shut eyes that always showed when his vein of humor was touched and which caused it to be said of him that he "never saw a happy moment," "What strikes one as so queer is that belief in their particular dogma is made the essential point of all sects, all of which, save one — and perhaps even that — must be wrong."
Who damns every creed but his own
Must look for a limited heaven
And is like a man laying long odds
When the long odds to him should be given.
It never seems to strike a theologian that his calculation is contrary to the doctrine of chances.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Business and Religion
1900
The People's Forum
Do business and religion go together? — JAMES CRAIG, Starkville, Colo.
Why not? Is religion merely for dress parade on the Sabbath? Is it possible for a Christian man not to carry his religion with him into his business, professional or social life? If religion transforms a man thoroughly he would no sooner think of dealing unjustly with his fellows than he would of committing highway robbery. That a Christian business man is beset by many temptations and surrounded with pitfalls we are all candid enough to admit. Keen competition on the part of rivals, who are less scrupulous than he, threatens oftentimes to destroy both income and capital. Many have gone down to financial ruin in such extremity, but their Christian light sustained them and made them shining examples of Christian heroism. The majority of failures are not among Christian men, but rather among those who temporized, falsified statements and finally buried their good name with the financial wreck. In extremity the true Christian business man always has an enormous leverage in his hold upon public opinion where his non-Christian rival has not. Therefore, considered from any point of view we say religion and business do go together to uplift humanity and place all transactions on a higher level. Mr. Moody once said to J. V. Farwell, "Don't you see anything more in business than these boxes and goods?" The inquiry was characteristic of him, and through it he reached a great merchant's heart. It made transactions which footed up yearly into millions sink into insignificance compared with a conscience void of offence toward God and man, the blessings of a Christian life and the salvation of men.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
The People's Forum
Do business and religion go together? — JAMES CRAIG, Starkville, Colo.
Why not? Is religion merely for dress parade on the Sabbath? Is it possible for a Christian man not to carry his religion with him into his business, professional or social life? If religion transforms a man thoroughly he would no sooner think of dealing unjustly with his fellows than he would of committing highway robbery. That a Christian business man is beset by many temptations and surrounded with pitfalls we are all candid enough to admit. Keen competition on the part of rivals, who are less scrupulous than he, threatens oftentimes to destroy both income and capital. Many have gone down to financial ruin in such extremity, but their Christian light sustained them and made them shining examples of Christian heroism. The majority of failures are not among Christian men, but rather among those who temporized, falsified statements and finally buried their good name with the financial wreck. In extremity the true Christian business man always has an enormous leverage in his hold upon public opinion where his non-Christian rival has not. Therefore, considered from any point of view we say religion and business do go together to uplift humanity and place all transactions on a higher level. Mr. Moody once said to J. V. Farwell, "Don't you see anything more in business than these boxes and goods?" The inquiry was characteristic of him, and through it he reached a great merchant's heart. It made transactions which footed up yearly into millions sink into insignificance compared with a conscience void of offence toward God and man, the blessings of a Christian life and the salvation of men.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
The Funeral of a Saloonkeeper
1900
The People's Forum
How can a minister of the Gospel best perform his duty when asked to conduct the funeral of a saloonkeeper? — (Rev.) DAVID JONES, Wash.
As we answer this question there lies before us a ten-page letter from another minister who has just preached such a sermon, and he is bewailing the fact that it has brought about dissensions in his church which cut his financial support by half. His wife and children are in danger of going without proper food and clothes, and he is threatened with tar and feathers. "What did he say?" you ask. Well, here is a selection from his sermon, which will give you an idea of its general tenor:
"Good people, you have come here today, not only in honor of your dead, but in honor of our social, civil and religious institutions. You have asked the church and clergy for burial services, and while it is against the laws and constitutions of some churches to give burial services to those outside of their membership, I want to say for the benefit of our own members, who have objected to using the church on this occasion, on account of the business of the deceased, that it is not for us to deny funeral or burial services to any, but we are to serve all willingly, reserving the right to make them an occasion of benefit to the congregation and comfort to the mourners.
"If you think the business of this man is wrong, I want to show you that he had the highest authority within the gift of this country to justify and defend him in the prosecution thereof. He had the silent if not the open consent and endorsement of nearly every business, professional and official man in the city, besides a large lucrative patronage among the common people of the community. Therefore if he was wrong then you are wrong also, and if you think he alone will perish for the wrong, in the language of the text, I tell you nay; but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish."
The minister who speaks plainly at a funeral will always be criticized. There are many, therefore, who would refuse to conduct such a funeral service, especially over a man who has lived a notoriously sinful life. They would reserve the lessons which might be drawn for a more appropriate occasion. There is no fixed law of propriety in such matters. Circumstances must always be taken into consideration. A minister should be guided by the best religious sentiment in his church and by his heartfelt convictions after earnest prayer for guidance.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
The People's Forum
How can a minister of the Gospel best perform his duty when asked to conduct the funeral of a saloonkeeper? — (Rev.) DAVID JONES, Wash.
As we answer this question there lies before us a ten-page letter from another minister who has just preached such a sermon, and he is bewailing the fact that it has brought about dissensions in his church which cut his financial support by half. His wife and children are in danger of going without proper food and clothes, and he is threatened with tar and feathers. "What did he say?" you ask. Well, here is a selection from his sermon, which will give you an idea of its general tenor:
"Good people, you have come here today, not only in honor of your dead, but in honor of our social, civil and religious institutions. You have asked the church and clergy for burial services, and while it is against the laws and constitutions of some churches to give burial services to those outside of their membership, I want to say for the benefit of our own members, who have objected to using the church on this occasion, on account of the business of the deceased, that it is not for us to deny funeral or burial services to any, but we are to serve all willingly, reserving the right to make them an occasion of benefit to the congregation and comfort to the mourners.
"If you think the business of this man is wrong, I want to show you that he had the highest authority within the gift of this country to justify and defend him in the prosecution thereof. He had the silent if not the open consent and endorsement of nearly every business, professional and official man in the city, besides a large lucrative patronage among the common people of the community. Therefore if he was wrong then you are wrong also, and if you think he alone will perish for the wrong, in the language of the text, I tell you nay; but except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish."
The minister who speaks plainly at a funeral will always be criticized. There are many, therefore, who would refuse to conduct such a funeral service, especially over a man who has lived a notoriously sinful life. They would reserve the lessons which might be drawn for a more appropriate occasion. There is no fixed law of propriety in such matters. Circumstances must always be taken into consideration. A minister should be guided by the best religious sentiment in his church and by his heartfelt convictions after earnest prayer for guidance.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
Christians and Life Insurance
1900
The People's Forum
Do you think it is wrong, from a Christian point of view, to carry a life insurance policy? — L. B. J., Peterson, Minn.
To answer such a question depends entirely on the point of view. If a person sits down and figures on life insurance purely as a lottery game and considers that he is betting on his length of life with a life insurance company, then life insurance to him is nothing more than a Monte Carlo. If, however, he looks at it from the standpoint of mutual helpfulness, is willing to share with others the care of widows and orphans, then it becomes a Christian duty. The world has small pity for the man who, for the sake of a few dollars which may benefit him, neglects to join others for mutual protection of his wife and children when he is taken away. Many times the widow goes to an untimely grave in seeking to support her little ones, and the children are thrown upon society to live stunted lives. Or the aged father or mother, depending on the strong arm of the son or daughter, is driven to the poorhouse to be given grudging support by the state. Many excellent people we know refuse to have anything to do with life insurance, because they look upon it as a lottery. To the others, and the number is growing, life insurance is a privilege and a Christian duty.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
The People's Forum
Do you think it is wrong, from a Christian point of view, to carry a life insurance policy? — L. B. J., Peterson, Minn.
To answer such a question depends entirely on the point of view. If a person sits down and figures on life insurance purely as a lottery game and considers that he is betting on his length of life with a life insurance company, then life insurance to him is nothing more than a Monte Carlo. If, however, he looks at it from the standpoint of mutual helpfulness, is willing to share with others the care of widows and orphans, then it becomes a Christian duty. The world has small pity for the man who, for the sake of a few dollars which may benefit him, neglects to join others for mutual protection of his wife and children when he is taken away. Many times the widow goes to an untimely grave in seeking to support her little ones, and the children are thrown upon society to live stunted lives. Or the aged father or mother, depending on the strong arm of the son or daughter, is driven to the poorhouse to be given grudging support by the state. Many excellent people we know refuse to have anything to do with life insurance, because they look upon it as a lottery. To the others, and the number is growing, life insurance is a privilege and a Christian duty.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
Moody and Sinless Perfection
1900
The People's Forum
Did Mr. Moody teach the doctrine of "sinless perfection" or "perfect love," or did he believe and teach that a Christian is "a sinner saved by grace"? — (Rev.) THOS. F. MARSHALL, Ironton, Mo.
Mr. Moody was never a perfectionist. He believed emphatically in God's power to save even to the uttermost, but so far as our knowledge extends he never advocated such an idea as "sinless perfection" or "perfect love" in this world.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
The People's Forum
Did Mr. Moody teach the doctrine of "sinless perfection" or "perfect love," or did he believe and teach that a Christian is "a sinner saved by grace"? — (Rev.) THOS. F. MARSHALL, Ironton, Mo.
Mr. Moody was never a perfectionist. He believed emphatically in God's power to save even to the uttermost, but so far as our knowledge extends he never advocated such an idea as "sinless perfection" or "perfect love" in this world.
—The Ram's Horn, March 17, 1900, p. 8.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Dr. Eliot Offers a New Religion
1914
Future Church Will Rob Death of Terror
Spurns Biblical Stories and Rejects Miracles as Impossible
Boston, Mass., Jan. 5. — A new interpretation of the Divine Being has been advanced by President Emeritus Charles W. Eliot of Harvard in a continuation of his predictions on the religion of the future.
Dr Eliot would bar the word "God" and substitute "Our Father." Nothing so radical as his ideas on the appellation of the Divine Being has been advanced for many years. This statement has been published by the American Unitarian association. This twentieth century Christianity of Dr. Eliot does not believe in the Garden of Eden. The serpent tempting Eve and then tempting Adam he turns over to the rubbish heap. He says God did not make man out of the dust of the ground; God did not turn stonemason and give into the hands of Moses the ten commandments; neither did the sun stand still for Joshua; neither did Jonah go through his thrilling experience in the closed quarters of the whale.
These and other stories Dr. Eliot would designate pleasant reading, but not for belief. There will be nothing like dogmas or creed in this twentieth century religion. No miracle will be found in it.
"Men of science," Dr. Eliot says, "have no faith in magic or miracle."
Dr. Eliot's religion will stop speculation in theology. It puts a damper on future schools of theology, like that which has been the outgrowth of the nineteenth century in Germany. The church of the future will have more reverence for the personality of Jesus, will prefer liberty to authority, will rob death of its terror.
"No thinking person now accepts as anything but primitive myths of fanciful poetry the story of the Garden of Eden," Dr. Eliot says, "or the portrait of God in the second chapter of Genesis as a being who worked man out of the dust of the ground, as a child fashions an image of snow or clay.
"The creator is for modern men a sleepless, active energy, and will, which yesterday, today and forever actuates all things as the human spirit actuates its own body, so small, and yet so inconceivably complex.
"By savage man the gods were recognized chiefly in the irresistible catastrophes of nature — in the lightning, the earthquake, the flood, and the drought, the volcano, and the mighty wind.
"Twentieth century people recognize God chiefly in the wonderful energies of sound, light and electricity; in the vital processes or plants and animals, in human loves and aspirations, and in the evolution of human society."
Future Church Will Rob Death of Terror
Spurns Biblical Stories and Rejects Miracles as Impossible
Boston, Mass., Jan. 5. — A new interpretation of the Divine Being has been advanced by President Emeritus Charles W. Eliot of Harvard in a continuation of his predictions on the religion of the future.
Dr Eliot would bar the word "God" and substitute "Our Father." Nothing so radical as his ideas on the appellation of the Divine Being has been advanced for many years. This statement has been published by the American Unitarian association. This twentieth century Christianity of Dr. Eliot does not believe in the Garden of Eden. The serpent tempting Eve and then tempting Adam he turns over to the rubbish heap. He says God did not make man out of the dust of the ground; God did not turn stonemason and give into the hands of Moses the ten commandments; neither did the sun stand still for Joshua; neither did Jonah go through his thrilling experience in the closed quarters of the whale.
These and other stories Dr. Eliot would designate pleasant reading, but not for belief. There will be nothing like dogmas or creed in this twentieth century religion. No miracle will be found in it.
"Men of science," Dr. Eliot says, "have no faith in magic or miracle."
Dr. Eliot's religion will stop speculation in theology. It puts a damper on future schools of theology, like that which has been the outgrowth of the nineteenth century in Germany. The church of the future will have more reverence for the personality of Jesus, will prefer liberty to authority, will rob death of its terror.
"No thinking person now accepts as anything but primitive myths of fanciful poetry the story of the Garden of Eden," Dr. Eliot says, "or the portrait of God in the second chapter of Genesis as a being who worked man out of the dust of the ground, as a child fashions an image of snow or clay.
"The creator is for modern men a sleepless, active energy, and will, which yesterday, today and forever actuates all things as the human spirit actuates its own body, so small, and yet so inconceivably complex.
"By savage man the gods were recognized chiefly in the irresistible catastrophes of nature — in the lightning, the earthquake, the flood, and the drought, the volcano, and the mighty wind.
"Twentieth century people recognize God chiefly in the wonderful energies of sound, light and electricity; in the vital processes or plants and animals, in human loves and aspirations, and in the evolution of human society."
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
No Gabriel's Horn — The Passing of Apocalypticism
1910
The Earth Will Not End Up With a Big Fire
Old Mother Earth is here to stay. The final earthquake, the lake of fire and other Biblical terrors anent the end of the world are feeble myths, discredited and scorned by the professors of the University of Chicago Divinity School.
The university experts come forth with assurances of this old world's permanency in an editorial entitled, "The Passing of Apocalypticism," in the current issue of the Biblical World, published by the university press. The "last day" is all a fairy tale, say the theological experts, and the timorous may cheer up.
The Angel Gabriel will have no chance to blow his horn, nor will the tumults and processions of the judgment day take place as advertised, according to the view taken by the divinity experts. For, say the professors, the cosmic cataclysm which has been the cause of nervous tension for centuries, positively will not occur. Historical criticism has quashed the Biblical bug-a-boo.
As for the annihilation of the sinners and the reorganization of society on a different basis, the Biblical World dismisses them without honorable mention. The horrors of the Revelations and the fiery prophecies of the Gospels are declared to be misinterpreted when applied to a convulsion such as has been predicted.
The author of the article, who shields his identity under the authority of the 13 editors of the Biblical World, intimates that the writers of the New Testament were not above inserting scary passages in the Scriptures simply to boost their own misguided opinions. Christ's saying are distorted and falsely attributed, it is alleged.
"Our hope is set not on a kingdom of God to be ushered in by a personal, visible coming of the king in the clouds, an overthrowing of all human institutions, and the establishing of new heavens and a new earth, but on the over larger and fuller development of the kingdom of God that is now on earth," says the editorial writer. "We are preaching the gospel not till, the witness having been born, the nations shall be destroyed and the handful of the redeemed shall become the nucleus of a new era, but in the confident hope that little by little the leaven may leaven the whole lump and the nations of the earth become the kingdom of God and of His Christ.
"The inspiration of victorious Christianity lies not in the hope of rescuing one's self and others from an impending cataclysm, but in the joyful devotion of one's self to the task of helping to create for today and for the future an order of things in which God's will shall be supreme and mutual love shall govern in all human relations.
"Instead of waking for the day of the Lord as an event which is to come 'out of the clouds,' Christians increasingly find inspiration to strenuous endeavor in the thought that working with God in an age-long process, they may not only achieve something for their own day, but make some contribution, be it ever so small, toward the realization of that ultimate ideal toward which God is continually guiding the race."
—The News, Frederick, MD, Sept, 20, 1910, p. 4.
The Earth Will Not End Up With a Big Fire
Old Mother Earth is here to stay. The final earthquake, the lake of fire and other Biblical terrors anent the end of the world are feeble myths, discredited and scorned by the professors of the University of Chicago Divinity School.
The university experts come forth with assurances of this old world's permanency in an editorial entitled, "The Passing of Apocalypticism," in the current issue of the Biblical World, published by the university press. The "last day" is all a fairy tale, say the theological experts, and the timorous may cheer up.
The Angel Gabriel will have no chance to blow his horn, nor will the tumults and processions of the judgment day take place as advertised, according to the view taken by the divinity experts. For, say the professors, the cosmic cataclysm which has been the cause of nervous tension for centuries, positively will not occur. Historical criticism has quashed the Biblical bug-a-boo.
As for the annihilation of the sinners and the reorganization of society on a different basis, the Biblical World dismisses them without honorable mention. The horrors of the Revelations and the fiery prophecies of the Gospels are declared to be misinterpreted when applied to a convulsion such as has been predicted.
The author of the article, who shields his identity under the authority of the 13 editors of the Biblical World, intimates that the writers of the New Testament were not above inserting scary passages in the Scriptures simply to boost their own misguided opinions. Christ's saying are distorted and falsely attributed, it is alleged.
"Our hope is set not on a kingdom of God to be ushered in by a personal, visible coming of the king in the clouds, an overthrowing of all human institutions, and the establishing of new heavens and a new earth, but on the over larger and fuller development of the kingdom of God that is now on earth," says the editorial writer. "We are preaching the gospel not till, the witness having been born, the nations shall be destroyed and the handful of the redeemed shall become the nucleus of a new era, but in the confident hope that little by little the leaven may leaven the whole lump and the nations of the earth become the kingdom of God and of His Christ.
"The inspiration of victorious Christianity lies not in the hope of rescuing one's self and others from an impending cataclysm, but in the joyful devotion of one's self to the task of helping to create for today and for the future an order of things in which God's will shall be supreme and mutual love shall govern in all human relations.
"Instead of waking for the day of the Lord as an event which is to come 'out of the clouds,' Christians increasingly find inspiration to strenuous endeavor in the thought that working with God in an age-long process, they may not only achieve something for their own day, but make some contribution, be it ever so small, toward the realization of that ultimate ideal toward which God is continually guiding the race."
—The News, Frederick, MD, Sept, 20, 1910, p. 4.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Views of Universalists on the "New Hell"
1904
This forceful and original designation is taken from The Boston Transcript. Certain of these eastern papers have a "religious editor," usually a retired clergyman of some sort, who prepared the short articles which appear now and then on ecclesiastical themes. What they say is worth reading. Not that the reader will always agree with it. He may dissent with vehemence, but then he may agree with fervor and be taken with the clear, clean cut way in which the truth is told. Some of the best elucidations of the drift of modern thought in religion are found in such papers as The Boston Transcript and The New York Sun. To one of them I call attention.
The editorial has the above words for its caption. It begins by referring to an article in The North American Review by Professor Knight, of Tufts college, a Universalist institution. The Transcript goes on to say, "The significance of the article is that the Universalist teaching of theology takes to task the liberal orthodox for the flaccidity of their preachments concerning the future life. He believes that in the church at large there are many excellent spirits who have so vigorously reacted against the excesses of past theology as to lose sight of the truth there was in it. When, therefore, with a holy zeal derived from their spiritual ancestry they preach a new dominating principle of love towards sinners even in hell they weaken their cause by understanding or even quite overlooking the fact of the severity of God as manifested in what we know from experience of his moral government."
The "new hell" of the orthodox as designated by the editor and depicted by Professor Knight is apparent. We, too, alas, are familiar with that kind of "preachment" also, there is an abundance of it all around: Love, love, love everlasting, irreversible and resistless love, is the supreme element in the divine character according to a deal of modern preaching. Holiness takes a secondary place, notwithstanding the lesson taught us by the ascription of the angels. Because of this supposed everlasting, irreversible and resistless love God will keep at it. He makes one failure in this world, but He will try again in the next world, and again and again — probation after probation — until He gets them all in, or is obliged to give up a few incorrigible ones in despair. But that is not all of the "new hell" that one can hear about in Boston in "orthodox pulpits." Hell is only a condition — a state of mind. Quoting from Dr. Dale, "the eminent English congregationalist," the editor says, "the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God." Then again, there is no infliction in hell — sin merely punishes itself. There is merely a relation of cause and effect, nothing more, and this, too, in the face of such events as the flood and the fire from heaven on Sodom.
We are quite prepared now for the sarcastic utterance of Professor Knight and the editor of The Transcript. Again I quote "The consequence of not a little of liberal orthodox preaching with respect to those who have transgressed in this life, Professor Knight thinks, has been to make sin even more attractive to the sinner, thus, if it be held as it was by Dr. Dale, the eminent congregationalist, that the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God, that, says Professor Knight is what sinners would like most of all. They prefer to be left alone by God. They find the new hell so pleasant that they choose it as a place of residence. As described by many spiritual guides now, emigrations will surely set that way whenever the character of the church shall become generally known. This incident compounded of exhortations and reproof is one significant of that reaction from liberalism to conservatism which always comes. From being a radical Professor Knight is now a conservative, preaching to men, who, in turn, are liberals reacting from conservatives." So much for what the editor says.
Is not this a startling disclosure? Universalism and orthodoxy changing places! The orthodox wandering from their way until they out-liberalize the liberals and are being rebuked by the latter for their laxity and flaccidity. Is it any wonder that the doctrine of divine retribution is ceasing to be operative as a restraining force, and that there is such general complaint of increasing lawlessness in the land? As the editor again remarks, "It is one thing to hope for or be sure of ultimate salvation for all men, and quite another to preach a soft-gospel calculated to make men indifferent to sin here and now."
The Transcript concludes with the mention of what Lowell said in a letter to Leslie Stephens. A Universalist who did not believe in future punishment changed his mind during the war, and gave as a reason that from what he saw in camp and on the battle field, "Hell was a military necessity." It is not a minister now who is saying anything like that, but an old Boston editor, a man noted for his erudition, his acumen and his hard horse sense. His opinions are negotiable here about.
Taken altogether and taken with what another, a prominent Unitarian minister, asked in a public address not long ago, "Is conviction passing?" referring to that same feebleness of doctrinal assertiveness, our own ministers ought to see in it a mighty call to preach the old truth about sin and God's anger at sin. The land is suffering for lack of it.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
This forceful and original designation is taken from The Boston Transcript. Certain of these eastern papers have a "religious editor," usually a retired clergyman of some sort, who prepared the short articles which appear now and then on ecclesiastical themes. What they say is worth reading. Not that the reader will always agree with it. He may dissent with vehemence, but then he may agree with fervor and be taken with the clear, clean cut way in which the truth is told. Some of the best elucidations of the drift of modern thought in religion are found in such papers as The Boston Transcript and The New York Sun. To one of them I call attention.
The editorial has the above words for its caption. It begins by referring to an article in The North American Review by Professor Knight, of Tufts college, a Universalist institution. The Transcript goes on to say, "The significance of the article is that the Universalist teaching of theology takes to task the liberal orthodox for the flaccidity of their preachments concerning the future life. He believes that in the church at large there are many excellent spirits who have so vigorously reacted against the excesses of past theology as to lose sight of the truth there was in it. When, therefore, with a holy zeal derived from their spiritual ancestry they preach a new dominating principle of love towards sinners even in hell they weaken their cause by understanding or even quite overlooking the fact of the severity of God as manifested in what we know from experience of his moral government."
The "new hell" of the orthodox as designated by the editor and depicted by Professor Knight is apparent. We, too, alas, are familiar with that kind of "preachment" also, there is an abundance of it all around: Love, love, love everlasting, irreversible and resistless love, is the supreme element in the divine character according to a deal of modern preaching. Holiness takes a secondary place, notwithstanding the lesson taught us by the ascription of the angels. Because of this supposed everlasting, irreversible and resistless love God will keep at it. He makes one failure in this world, but He will try again in the next world, and again and again — probation after probation — until He gets them all in, or is obliged to give up a few incorrigible ones in despair. But that is not all of the "new hell" that one can hear about in Boston in "orthodox pulpits." Hell is only a condition — a state of mind. Quoting from Dr. Dale, "the eminent English congregationalist," the editor says, "the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God." Then again, there is no infliction in hell — sin merely punishes itself. There is merely a relation of cause and effect, nothing more, and this, too, in the face of such events as the flood and the fire from heaven on Sodom.
We are quite prepared now for the sarcastic utterance of Professor Knight and the editor of The Transcript. Again I quote "The consequence of not a little of liberal orthodox preaching with respect to those who have transgressed in this life, Professor Knight thinks, has been to make sin even more attractive to the sinner, thus, if it be held as it was by Dr. Dale, the eminent congregationalist, that the supreme penalty of sin is the loss of our original and ideal relation to God, that, says Professor Knight is what sinners would like most of all. They prefer to be left alone by God. They find the new hell so pleasant that they choose it as a place of residence. As described by many spiritual guides now, emigrations will surely set that way whenever the character of the church shall become generally known. This incident compounded of exhortations and reproof is one significant of that reaction from liberalism to conservatism which always comes. From being a radical Professor Knight is now a conservative, preaching to men, who, in turn, are liberals reacting from conservatives." So much for what the editor says.
Is not this a startling disclosure? Universalism and orthodoxy changing places! The orthodox wandering from their way until they out-liberalize the liberals and are being rebuked by the latter for their laxity and flaccidity. Is it any wonder that the doctrine of divine retribution is ceasing to be operative as a restraining force, and that there is such general complaint of increasing lawlessness in the land? As the editor again remarks, "It is one thing to hope for or be sure of ultimate salvation for all men, and quite another to preach a soft-gospel calculated to make men indifferent to sin here and now."
The Transcript concludes with the mention of what Lowell said in a letter to Leslie Stephens. A Universalist who did not believe in future punishment changed his mind during the war, and gave as a reason that from what he saw in camp and on the battle field, "Hell was a military necessity." It is not a minister now who is saying anything like that, but an old Boston editor, a man noted for his erudition, his acumen and his hard horse sense. His opinions are negotiable here about.
Taken altogether and taken with what another, a prominent Unitarian minister, asked in a public address not long ago, "Is conviction passing?" referring to that same feebleness of doctrinal assertiveness, our own ministers ought to see in it a mighty call to preach the old truth about sin and God's anger at sin. The land is suffering for lack of it.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
Attitude of the Church Towards Science and The Higher Criticism
1904
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church
The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.
She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.
At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.
The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.
If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."
The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.
—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.
Universalist Preacher Takes up the Origin of Religion
Cedar Rapids, IA, 1897
OF ITS ORIGIN
Rev. Pratt's Splendid Sermon at Universalist Church.
Takes up the Origin of Religion and Pleases a Large Audience of Former Parishioners and Old Friends by His Strong Philosophy — The Evening Service.
The services at the Universalist church yesterday morning were exceptionally interesting, the parishioners and old friends of Rev. Pratt assembling in large numbers of hear their former pastor. The church was beautifully and tastefully decorated with flowers and the greeting accorded the speaker was cordial and sincere. Rev. Pratt spoke extemporaneously for forty minutes, holding his audience attentively. The following is a brief synopsis of the address:
REV. PRATT'S SERMON.
"Where Did Religion Come From?" was the question considered by Mr. Pratt. Paul's words, "The spirit beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God," was used as a text. There is a system of interpretation which limits the application of the text to those who are members of the visible church on earth; those who have accepted, "using the language common in the religious world," Christ and his salvation. They only have the witness of the spirit.
The same rule of interpretation is applied to that magnificent outburst of Paul wherein he speaks of the enduring nature of the Divine Love.
"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
This it is said applies only to those who are members of the visible church. Nor can any others claim the promise or assurance "We know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God, an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens."
Did Paul mean to thus limit the divine love and that dearest of all hopes, the hope of immortality? One can hardly think it, when it is remembered that Paul was the apostle who gave to Christianity its universalistic trend, saving it from degenerating into a narrow Judaism which would surely have been its fate, had Peter's influence and spirit molded it and given to it a final form.
If the apostle did thus limit the divine love and the immortal hone we cannot follow him for we know that all men are children of a common father, and heirs of a glorious immortality.
Strike the religious history of the world where you will and you will find evidence of the religious sentiment.
The crude form and right of savage tribes, the temples now in ruins in the civilizations that greet us at the dawn of history, the mystic's dream, the Quakers' silent devotion, the worship and practical benevolence of the nineteenth century all declare that religion is an imperishable sentiment, and that man has ever had a dim realization of the relation he sustained to the eternal power that makes for righteousness.
Facts unmistakable unite to affirm that man has ever been a child of God and believing as we do that the aegis of his protective love is over all worlds it is the language of faith to declare that man will be forever a child of God and the object of his mercy.
Where did this universal religious sentiment come from? An answer quite commonly given the question would be something like this: "Religion is in the world." Religion is in the world because the church is in the world. Religion is in the world because there is a sacrificing priesthood ordained of heaven and the critics of Lyman Abbott would declare that religion is in the world because God has given us a revelation and confirmed it by such wonderful marvels as the swallowing of Jonah by the whale. We are told that we must believe that or we cannot believe the Old Testament. If we cannot accept the Old Testament we cannot accept the New. If we do not believe the New Testament we do not believe in Christ and if we cannot believe in Him we cannot believe in anything.
Upon the acceptance of Jonah's experience as literal history, Christ's law of love ultimately rests and religion stands on the divine foundations.
Foolishness can go no further. Lyman Abbott's critics seem to need some kindergarten lessons in common sense. Religion is not in the world because of the Bible, the church, or the priesthood. Say rather that these are in the world because man is a religious being and they are the outward expression of his religious nature and life.
Where did religion come from? Max Muller and his school would answer, "It was born in the nature myths so common in the childhood of the world." Man gave to nature's forces a personality, the nature myth became the hero myth, and in a later development was given a moral significance. Thus religion was born.
Where did religion come from? It was born, says Darwin and Lubbock, in superstition. It came with ancestor worship out of the belief of early tribes in ghosts and spirits. In this field you search will be rewarded if you seek to find where religion originated.
These theories are all inadequate. Religion is in the world because man is a child of God. It is the development of his spiritual nature.
Growth and change then are its law and method. Like all life, philosophy, and science it comes under the sway of the law of evolution. There is a fiction current in some organizations of Christendom that the church possesses a fixed theology. The only way to have a fixed theology is to deprive man of the power of thought. The century that makes the assertion of a fixed theology furnishes the refutation of the claim. Consider it only on the dogmatic side.
What a softening down of religious dogmas there has been in the past one hundred years. What has become of the good old doctrine of election? Oliver Wendell Holmes says that when he was a boy it was preached in New England that only one in two thousand were to be saved, and that a serious dispute arose in the town of Medford, which had at that time about 2,000 inhabitants, as to whether the deacon or the minister stood the best chance of receiving at last the favor of heaven.
The Calvinists seem to realize now that to ask men to enter upon the Christian life and be loyal to high ideals, when it is ordained from all eternity as a decree of high heaven that they shall go the other way, is as Father Taylor once said, "A good deal like inviting the gravestones home to dinner; it is impossible for them to come." Realizing this, Calvinism has quietly taken a position on Arminian or Methodist ground, and declares that "whosoever will may come." The change which has come over the spirit and dream of theology is evidenced by the changed nature of the hymns in modern worship. What lurid hymns our fathers sung:
"My thoughts on awful subjects roll,
Damnation and the dead;
What horrors seize the guilty soul
Upon the dying bed."
Or again:
"And are we sinners yet alive;
And do we yet rebel?
'Tis wondrous, 'Tis amazing grace,
That we are out of hell."
In the place of these lurid hymns of the olden time we sing:
"Yes for me, for me, he careth,
With a Father's tender care;
Yes with me, with me, he shareth,
Every burden, every fear."
Mr. Pratt then traced at length the development of religion through Animism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Cosmic Theism, to the final thought of the fatherhood of God, and asked the question whether it would pass away.
Evolution to him but established more firmly the fact of the imperishable nature of religion. Religion had nothing to fear from it, but it sounded the death knell of the old Latin theology.
It abolished the line that had been drawn between the natural and the supernatural, so that in this beautiful world we now had a vision of the "fullness of the Godhead bodily." The universe was not dirt. All matter was resolvable into force and will, and force and will are spiritual.
The final words were unity and love. "And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love." He closed with relating an incident in the life of Gounod, the composer, which illustrated the noble unselfishness of the man, an unselfishness and kindness that made him even more worthy of admiration than his art. This love illustrated in his life and in all who mediate the divine love to humanity is the grandest, greatest thing in this world or any world. It is the power that holds society together and if all were obedient to its law, our earth would become more beautiful than that mythological Eden with which it is affirmed that man began his terrestrial journey. Love is the golden ladder by which man ascends the heavenly heights.
—The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, May 24, 1897, p. 5.
OF ITS ORIGIN
Rev. Pratt's Splendid Sermon at Universalist Church.
Takes up the Origin of Religion and Pleases a Large Audience of Former Parishioners and Old Friends by His Strong Philosophy — The Evening Service.
The services at the Universalist church yesterday morning were exceptionally interesting, the parishioners and old friends of Rev. Pratt assembling in large numbers of hear their former pastor. The church was beautifully and tastefully decorated with flowers and the greeting accorded the speaker was cordial and sincere. Rev. Pratt spoke extemporaneously for forty minutes, holding his audience attentively. The following is a brief synopsis of the address:
REV. PRATT'S SERMON.
"Where Did Religion Come From?" was the question considered by Mr. Pratt. Paul's words, "The spirit beareth witness with our spirits that we are the children of God," was used as a text. There is a system of interpretation which limits the application of the text to those who are members of the visible church on earth; those who have accepted, "using the language common in the religious world," Christ and his salvation. They only have the witness of the spirit.
The same rule of interpretation is applied to that magnificent outburst of Paul wherein he speaks of the enduring nature of the Divine Love.
"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
This it is said applies only to those who are members of the visible church. Nor can any others claim the promise or assurance "We know that if the earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved we have a building of God, an house not made with hands eternal in the heavens."
Did Paul mean to thus limit the divine love and that dearest of all hopes, the hope of immortality? One can hardly think it, when it is remembered that Paul was the apostle who gave to Christianity its universalistic trend, saving it from degenerating into a narrow Judaism which would surely have been its fate, had Peter's influence and spirit molded it and given to it a final form.
If the apostle did thus limit the divine love and the immortal hone we cannot follow him for we know that all men are children of a common father, and heirs of a glorious immortality.
Strike the religious history of the world where you will and you will find evidence of the religious sentiment.
The crude form and right of savage tribes, the temples now in ruins in the civilizations that greet us at the dawn of history, the mystic's dream, the Quakers' silent devotion, the worship and practical benevolence of the nineteenth century all declare that religion is an imperishable sentiment, and that man has ever had a dim realization of the relation he sustained to the eternal power that makes for righteousness.
Facts unmistakable unite to affirm that man has ever been a child of God and believing as we do that the aegis of his protective love is over all worlds it is the language of faith to declare that man will be forever a child of God and the object of his mercy.
Where did this universal religious sentiment come from? An answer quite commonly given the question would be something like this: "Religion is in the world." Religion is in the world because the church is in the world. Religion is in the world because there is a sacrificing priesthood ordained of heaven and the critics of Lyman Abbott would declare that religion is in the world because God has given us a revelation and confirmed it by such wonderful marvels as the swallowing of Jonah by the whale. We are told that we must believe that or we cannot believe the Old Testament. If we cannot accept the Old Testament we cannot accept the New. If we do not believe the New Testament we do not believe in Christ and if we cannot believe in Him we cannot believe in anything.
Upon the acceptance of Jonah's experience as literal history, Christ's law of love ultimately rests and religion stands on the divine foundations.
Foolishness can go no further. Lyman Abbott's critics seem to need some kindergarten lessons in common sense. Religion is not in the world because of the Bible, the church, or the priesthood. Say rather that these are in the world because man is a religious being and they are the outward expression of his religious nature and life.
Where did religion come from? Max Muller and his school would answer, "It was born in the nature myths so common in the childhood of the world." Man gave to nature's forces a personality, the nature myth became the hero myth, and in a later development was given a moral significance. Thus religion was born.
Where did religion come from? It was born, says Darwin and Lubbock, in superstition. It came with ancestor worship out of the belief of early tribes in ghosts and spirits. In this field you search will be rewarded if you seek to find where religion originated.
These theories are all inadequate. Religion is in the world because man is a child of God. It is the development of his spiritual nature.
Growth and change then are its law and method. Like all life, philosophy, and science it comes under the sway of the law of evolution. There is a fiction current in some organizations of Christendom that the church possesses a fixed theology. The only way to have a fixed theology is to deprive man of the power of thought. The century that makes the assertion of a fixed theology furnishes the refutation of the claim. Consider it only on the dogmatic side.
What a softening down of religious dogmas there has been in the past one hundred years. What has become of the good old doctrine of election? Oliver Wendell Holmes says that when he was a boy it was preached in New England that only one in two thousand were to be saved, and that a serious dispute arose in the town of Medford, which had at that time about 2,000 inhabitants, as to whether the deacon or the minister stood the best chance of receiving at last the favor of heaven.
The Calvinists seem to realize now that to ask men to enter upon the Christian life and be loyal to high ideals, when it is ordained from all eternity as a decree of high heaven that they shall go the other way, is as Father Taylor once said, "A good deal like inviting the gravestones home to dinner; it is impossible for them to come." Realizing this, Calvinism has quietly taken a position on Arminian or Methodist ground, and declares that "whosoever will may come." The change which has come over the spirit and dream of theology is evidenced by the changed nature of the hymns in modern worship. What lurid hymns our fathers sung:
"My thoughts on awful subjects roll,
Damnation and the dead;
What horrors seize the guilty soul
Upon the dying bed."
Or again:
"And are we sinners yet alive;
And do we yet rebel?
'Tis wondrous, 'Tis amazing grace,
That we are out of hell."
In the place of these lurid hymns of the olden time we sing:
"Yes for me, for me, he careth,
With a Father's tender care;
Yes with me, with me, he shareth,
Every burden, every fear."
Mr. Pratt then traced at length the development of religion through Animism, Polytheism, Monotheism, Cosmic Theism, to the final thought of the fatherhood of God, and asked the question whether it would pass away.
Evolution to him but established more firmly the fact of the imperishable nature of religion. Religion had nothing to fear from it, but it sounded the death knell of the old Latin theology.
It abolished the line that had been drawn between the natural and the supernatural, so that in this beautiful world we now had a vision of the "fullness of the Godhead bodily." The universe was not dirt. All matter was resolvable into force and will, and force and will are spiritual.
The final words were unity and love. "And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three, but the greatest of these is love." He closed with relating an incident in the life of Gounod, the composer, which illustrated the noble unselfishness of the man, an unselfishness and kindness that made him even more worthy of admiration than his art. This love illustrated in his life and in all who mediate the divine love to humanity is the grandest, greatest thing in this world or any world. It is the power that holds society together and if all were obedient to its law, our earth would become more beautiful than that mythological Eden with which it is affirmed that man began his terrestrial journey. Love is the golden ladder by which man ascends the heavenly heights.
—The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, May 24, 1897, p. 5.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Suffering Savior — Isaiah's Servant Songs
1929
The Suffering Savior
TEXT: ISAIAH 53:1-12
BY WM. E. GILROY, D. D.
The problem of suffering is one of the deepest problems of life. Sooner or later it affects every individual, but it also becomes emphasized in the community and national life and in the experience of humanity as a whole.
Why do the righteous suffer? Why are communities thru some catastrophe swept away, often without warning? Why do nations rise and fall, with what seems like historic disaster taking place upon a large scale?
These were the questions that were early faced by the religious leaders in Israel and that became particularly emphasized at the time out of which the prophecies that we are studying arose. The Kingdom of Israel had been destroyed and the Kingdom of Judah had suffered temporary overthrow with the exile of its people to Babylon. Where were the promises that were cherished by Israel, that in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth should be blessed. How could these promises be fulfilled with the children of Abraham dispersed and scattered and their national life disrupted and broken?
A WRONG SOLUTION
The first solution proposed for this problem was that suffering is simply the result of conduct, that the good prosper while those who have done wrong bear the brunt of their own wrong doing. But such a philosophy of life could not long survive the tests of reality. Thoughtful men saw that this explanation did not accord with the real facts. The sacred writer saw the wicked flourishing and "spreading himself like a green bay tree," while, on the other hand, he saw people of earnest and saintly character suffering acutely. It was this problem that was faced in the book of Job.
Even, however, when a better view of the matter had arisen in personal experiences, there was still a tendency to explain all larger events and provinces, and national experiences of welfare and of calamity, upon this basis. It is, in fact, a philosophy from which it seems difficult for the world to get far away. When some community is seriously stricken by catastrophe today, there is a tendency for many people to regard it as "a judgment of God."
Jesus protested against this view of things in his reference to those upon whom the Tower of Siloam fell. He refused to believe that those who were killed in that disaster were sinners above all others in Israel and were on that account singled out for punishment.
Possibly one of the reasons why this philosophy that relates sufferings to punishments and penalties is so persistent is found in the fact that in a crude, rough way there is some truth in that philosophy. Sin does bring results of pain and penalty to individuals and to nations. But the mistake is in trying to make a philosophy that is partially true an explanation of all the facts.
The prophets, whose writings we are studying, were faced with this situation, that at a time when Israel was in exile and suffering there was probably a more earnest and genuine interest in religion than there had been for years. Out of all this situation they developed the idea which was later strongly fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, that there is such a thing as people suffering for others and that the good who suffer are often in that suffering fulfilling the highest purposes of God.
Here is this noble and moving picture in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah of a suffering servant whose life seems the reverse of all that man might wish his life to be. He is despised and rejected by his fellow men. He is a man of sorrows, contemned even by those whom he is seeking to serve. Yet all this suffering is borne for others. His life, in spite of its woes, is tuned to unselfishness and service, and in his very sufferings he is fulfilling the mission of a savior of his fellow men.
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS
Some scholars claim that this suffering servant, here described, typifies the people of Israel in their experiences of trial and bitterness fulfilling under God's purpose the mission that they had long supposed that they were to fulfill thru ease, prosperity, and comfort. Others see in this suffering servant the personification not of the whole of Israel, but of the faithful remnant of the people, while still others have seen in this suffering servant an individual, an early prototype of Jesus of Nazareth.
We who view the prophecies from the vantage ground of the New Testament and the story of the earthly life of Jesus can see that in him these conceptions found their true fulfillment. It was in the spirit of this suffering servant that he came and lived and died. It is in him that we see the good suffering with and for the guilty, and that we behold the regenerative power of the cross.
—The Lima News, Lima, Ohio, April 27, 1929, p. 4.
My review (2007): This is a really good article. Very clear and concise, steps through the subject in a thoughtful, reasonable way. The author had a great style.
The Suffering Savior
TEXT: ISAIAH 53:1-12
BY WM. E. GILROY, D. D.
The problem of suffering is one of the deepest problems of life. Sooner or later it affects every individual, but it also becomes emphasized in the community and national life and in the experience of humanity as a whole.
Why do the righteous suffer? Why are communities thru some catastrophe swept away, often without warning? Why do nations rise and fall, with what seems like historic disaster taking place upon a large scale?
These were the questions that were early faced by the religious leaders in Israel and that became particularly emphasized at the time out of which the prophecies that we are studying arose. The Kingdom of Israel had been destroyed and the Kingdom of Judah had suffered temporary overthrow with the exile of its people to Babylon. Where were the promises that were cherished by Israel, that in the seed of Abraham all the nations of the earth should be blessed. How could these promises be fulfilled with the children of Abraham dispersed and scattered and their national life disrupted and broken?
A WRONG SOLUTION
The first solution proposed for this problem was that suffering is simply the result of conduct, that the good prosper while those who have done wrong bear the brunt of their own wrong doing. But such a philosophy of life could not long survive the tests of reality. Thoughtful men saw that this explanation did not accord with the real facts. The sacred writer saw the wicked flourishing and "spreading himself like a green bay tree," while, on the other hand, he saw people of earnest and saintly character suffering acutely. It was this problem that was faced in the book of Job.
Even, however, when a better view of the matter had arisen in personal experiences, there was still a tendency to explain all larger events and provinces, and national experiences of welfare and of calamity, upon this basis. It is, in fact, a philosophy from which it seems difficult for the world to get far away. When some community is seriously stricken by catastrophe today, there is a tendency for many people to regard it as "a judgment of God."
Jesus protested against this view of things in his reference to those upon whom the Tower of Siloam fell. He refused to believe that those who were killed in that disaster were sinners above all others in Israel and were on that account singled out for punishment.
Possibly one of the reasons why this philosophy that relates sufferings to punishments and penalties is so persistent is found in the fact that in a crude, rough way there is some truth in that philosophy. Sin does bring results of pain and penalty to individuals and to nations. But the mistake is in trying to make a philosophy that is partially true an explanation of all the facts.
The prophets, whose writings we are studying, were faced with this situation, that at a time when Israel was in exile and suffering there was probably a more earnest and genuine interest in religion than there had been for years. Out of all this situation they developed the idea which was later strongly fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, that there is such a thing as people suffering for others and that the good who suffer are often in that suffering fulfilling the highest purposes of God.
Here is this noble and moving picture in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah of a suffering servant whose life seems the reverse of all that man might wish his life to be. He is despised and rejected by his fellow men. He is a man of sorrows, contemned even by those whom he is seeking to serve. Yet all this suffering is borne for others. His life, in spite of its woes, is tuned to unselfishness and service, and in his very sufferings he is fulfilling the mission of a savior of his fellow men.
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS
Some scholars claim that this suffering servant, here described, typifies the people of Israel in their experiences of trial and bitterness fulfilling under God's purpose the mission that they had long supposed that they were to fulfill thru ease, prosperity, and comfort. Others see in this suffering servant the personification not of the whole of Israel, but of the faithful remnant of the people, while still others have seen in this suffering servant an individual, an early prototype of Jesus of Nazareth.
We who view the prophecies from the vantage ground of the New Testament and the story of the earthly life of Jesus can see that in him these conceptions found their true fulfillment. It was in the spirit of this suffering servant that he came and lived and died. It is in him that we see the good suffering with and for the guilty, and that we behold the regenerative power of the cross.
—The Lima News, Lima, Ohio, April 27, 1929, p. 4.
My review (2007): This is a really good article. Very clear and concise, steps through the subject in a thoughtful, reasonable way. The author had a great style.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Pastor Offers Sermon Series on "Historic Johns in Church and State"
Oakland, CA, 1907
Rev. Homer J. Vosburgh of First Baptist to Give Series of Evening Sermons.
Rev. Homer J. Vosburgh, of the First Baptist church, will preach a series of Sunday evening sermons on "Historic Johns In Church and State: a Study of Men Who Have Brought Things to Pass," with subjects and dates as follows: January 6—John Wycliffe; the Morning-Star of the Reformation (1324-1384). January 13, John Calvin; the Aristotle of Protestantism (1509-1564). January 20, John Knox; The Light of Scotland (1505-1572). January 27, John Milton; the Poet-Prophet of the New Era (1608-1674). February 3, John Bunyan; the Immortal Dreamer (1628-1683). February 10, John Wesley; the Brightest Name of the Eighteenth Century (1703-1791).
The work of rebuilding the auditorium of this church, which was so badly injured by the earthquake, is proceeding rapidly. The work is being done in the most substantial manner. As soon as the walls are rebuilt the auditorium will be completed.
—Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, Jan. 6, 1907, page 20.
Rev. Homer J. Vosburgh of First Baptist to Give Series of Evening Sermons.
Rev. Homer J. Vosburgh, of the First Baptist church, will preach a series of Sunday evening sermons on "Historic Johns In Church and State: a Study of Men Who Have Brought Things to Pass," with subjects and dates as follows: January 6—John Wycliffe; the Morning-Star of the Reformation (1324-1384). January 13, John Calvin; the Aristotle of Protestantism (1509-1564). January 20, John Knox; The Light of Scotland (1505-1572). January 27, John Milton; the Poet-Prophet of the New Era (1608-1674). February 3, John Bunyan; the Immortal Dreamer (1628-1683). February 10, John Wesley; the Brightest Name of the Eighteenth Century (1703-1791).
The work of rebuilding the auditorium of this church, which was so badly injured by the earthquake, is proceeding rapidly. The work is being done in the most substantial manner. As soon as the walls are rebuilt the auditorium will be completed.
—Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, Jan. 6, 1907, page 20.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Northern and Southern Baptists Meet in the Middle
1922
TWO CHURCH GROUPS ALMOST IN ACCORD
No Substantial Theological Differences of Opinion Between the Northern and Southern Baptist Denominations.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., June 16. — No substantial theological differences of opinion exist between northern Baptist and southern Baptists, F. W. Freeman of Denver, Colo., chairman of the Laymen's council of the northern Baptist convention, declared today before the fifteenth annual convention of that denomination.
"There are far more points of agreement and accord between the two groups of Baptists than has recently been assumed to exist," Mr. Freeman states in his report on the recent Columbia conference, at which representative Baptists of northern and southern groups, deliberated on denominational issues.
"The differences are in the realm of ecclesiology rather than theology, and from this point can be traced all things that differentiate between the two groups, so far as there can be said to be a basis of differentiation between them.
"The difference is that, broadly speaking, the southern group holds the stricter view as to the new testament 'church,' believing that in the new testament terminology and teaching the word 'church' holds reference to a local particular body, meeting at a particular time and place, organized around the ordinances, as indicated in the new testament and rejecting the idea of a universal, invisible and spiritual church, in which all believers are members at this time. They believe that a universal and spiritual church, which will include in its members all believers of all ages and all communions, is an institution in the making, and can only find its completion after judgments and not before. Northern Baptists have been less particular in their view on this matter, and, in general the idea of a present general or universal church has a more common acceptance."
The gathering of northern and southern Baptists at the Columbia conference came to certain personal and unofficial conclusions, Mr. Freeman reported, among which were: The importance of stewardship and tithing campaigns; the necessity of solving the educational problems of the denomination; the danger of turning to inter-denominational and non-denominational institutions for pastoral leadership; the importance of encouraging Baptist publications.
The conference placed itself on record, he stated, "as heartily approving the spirit and doctrine of co-operation set out in the new testament, and as opposed to what is known as organic church union." It also went on record as believing that a statement of Baptist doctrine and polity setting forth the fundamentals of the faith that the presidents of the northern and southern Baptist conventions place the matter before their respective conventions, with the suggestion that a combined committee of twenty prepare a statement of faith, embodying the basic and fundamental principles of the faith and practice of Baptists.
—The Nebraska State Journal, Lincoln, Nebraska, June 17, 1922, page 2.
TWO CHURCH GROUPS ALMOST IN ACCORD
No Substantial Theological Differences of Opinion Between the Northern and Southern Baptist Denominations.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., June 16. — No substantial theological differences of opinion exist between northern Baptist and southern Baptists, F. W. Freeman of Denver, Colo., chairman of the Laymen's council of the northern Baptist convention, declared today before the fifteenth annual convention of that denomination.
"There are far more points of agreement and accord between the two groups of Baptists than has recently been assumed to exist," Mr. Freeman states in his report on the recent Columbia conference, at which representative Baptists of northern and southern groups, deliberated on denominational issues.
"The differences are in the realm of ecclesiology rather than theology, and from this point can be traced all things that differentiate between the two groups, so far as there can be said to be a basis of differentiation between them.
"The difference is that, broadly speaking, the southern group holds the stricter view as to the new testament 'church,' believing that in the new testament terminology and teaching the word 'church' holds reference to a local particular body, meeting at a particular time and place, organized around the ordinances, as indicated in the new testament and rejecting the idea of a universal, invisible and spiritual church, in which all believers are members at this time. They believe that a universal and spiritual church, which will include in its members all believers of all ages and all communions, is an institution in the making, and can only find its completion after judgments and not before. Northern Baptists have been less particular in their view on this matter, and, in general the idea of a present general or universal church has a more common acceptance."
The gathering of northern and southern Baptists at the Columbia conference came to certain personal and unofficial conclusions, Mr. Freeman reported, among which were: The importance of stewardship and tithing campaigns; the necessity of solving the educational problems of the denomination; the danger of turning to inter-denominational and non-denominational institutions for pastoral leadership; the importance of encouraging Baptist publications.
The conference placed itself on record, he stated, "as heartily approving the spirit and doctrine of co-operation set out in the new testament, and as opposed to what is known as organic church union." It also went on record as believing that a statement of Baptist doctrine and polity setting forth the fundamentals of the faith that the presidents of the northern and southern Baptist conventions place the matter before their respective conventions, with the suggestion that a combined committee of twenty prepare a statement of faith, embodying the basic and fundamental principles of the faith and practice of Baptists.
—The Nebraska State Journal, Lincoln, Nebraska, June 17, 1922, page 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
