The Verification of Christianity

Front matter

* slenway 2)

oh

GM.

Foreword

The title and sub-title prefixed to these pages exactly describe their contents as the author understands and interprets them. The book consists of a group of closely related studies converging upon a single point, the verification of the Christian religion as the true and divine interpretation of human life and as the fulfilment of human destiny.

It must be clearly understood that the writer has not essayed a scientific or systematic treatise on Apologetics. In his judgment, the time for such an undertaking has not yet arrived nor is it the pressing need of the hour. In any case, this book is not an attempt to perform this larger task. It is strictly introductory. In the final analysis, the verification of Christianity is every man’s task for himself. One can do no more for another than to point out the path along which his own thought has travelled toward conviction. Having done this he can but wish the traveller, faring forth, God-speed on the King’s Highway which leads, level and straight, through that which

8 Foreword otherwise would be a weary and trackless wilderness. The author is indebted to the Editor of the Biblical Review for permission to make use of articles already published.

New York, May 1919.

Contents

Tue TAsK OF THE MopERN APOLOGIST .

PsycHoLocicaL Factors IN THE STRUC- TURE OF THE BIBLE TPES EE es Der a

Tue Process oF VERIFICATION. . . CHRISTIANITY AS A PsyCHOLOGICAL Fact

Chapter I The Task Of The Modern Apologist

N undertaking of a character so serious and responsible as the advocacy and recommendation of the Christian religion to the rational consideration of mankind demands a whole-hearted and unequivocal dedication to the service of righteousness and truth. The advocacy of Christianity on the part of one who is not unreservedly committed to the Christian position, historically defined, is, of course, an absurdity. The advocacy of Christianity, even by one sincerely persuaded of its truth and permanent value to the world, by the ex parte methods of the hired attorney or special pleader, is an impiety the deep disgrace of which is only increased by the sacredness of the subject.

The Christian apologist, in view of the fact 13 that his undertaking is justifiable only on the ground of sincerity of conviction, is pledged in detail to a flawless, corresponding sincerity of utterance throughout. Nothing less than this high dedication to the service of truth is worthy of so great and noble an enterprise. In laying such stress upon sincerity as a demand of the new Christian defence, we do not intend to cast a slur upon the apologetics of the past nor to suggest that previous defences of Christianity have been lacking either in sincerity of conviction or candor of utterance. We do not believe this to be true. In fact, we believe that the easy condemnation of all apologetic writing as special] pleading is the outcome of a peculiarly subtle and dangerous tendency of our day, to identify the modern and scientific method with a given set of results and to arrogate to denial and radicalism a monopoly of the spirit of free and genuine research. We simply wish to remind our readers that the advocacy of Christianity as true is a task undertaken in the interest of truth. Christians, surely, do not need more than a reminder that it is the truth which makes us free.

The danger is that the most sincere advocate may forget, in the intensity of his conviction, to look at intellectual issues broadly, and, in the enforcement of what he sincerely believes to be true, may lose his perspective and do violence to the balance and harmony of truth. All that we have to say in this chapter as to the work of the defender of Christianity in our day is really the expansion and application of this text: If Christianity is true, then ex necessitate it is in full harmony with all else that is true. The task of the Christian, apologist is simply to exhibit and expound this primary and comprehensive fact. There need be no uneasiness as to the possibility of discovering and exhibiting the broad and basic truthfulness of the Christian system, historically, psychologically, and philosophically.

I. The Christian apologist of to-day must believe in the capacity of the human mind to receive and interpret the revelation of God.

Apologetics is an address to the human intelligence on behalf of Christianity. ‘The undertaking itself implies a conviction that Christianity is true; that is, it is a rational system capable of rational interpretation and vindication. Such a belief involves, as its logical prius, a deep-seated conviction of the essential worth and constructive power of human reason. A belief in Christianity as a divine revelation, given through supernatural acts and recorded through inspiration, implies a thoroughgoing confidence in human reason as being capable of receiving and interpreting a revelation from above, of recognizing supernatural acts, of being inbreathed of God and brought to a knowledge of Him. To minify the human factor in this divine-human process is to discredit the process itself. The age-long historic movement whereby God has unveiled Himself as the Lord and Redeemer of men is articulated throughout with the corresponding human experience to which and through which God has thus spoken. The higher aspect of this interlocking process depends upon the integrity of the lower. The logical result of discrediting or depreciating human reason is agnosticism, which is a state of mind wherein the power of evidence is lost because of a fixed belief in the infirmity of the human mind as the organ of divine knowledge. The false and artificial antithesis which has often been established between reason and revelation spells ruin to the task of the apologist. Reason becomes a blind faculty which tells us nothing about God. Revelation becomes a sphere of extra-rational beliefs indistinguishable from superstition. Faith becomes an asylum for the feeble-minded. Christianity becomes a mode of interpreting the unknown, the truth of which it is impossible to establish on any recognizable rational grounds. On the other hand, it is essential that the Christian apologist should understand the normal workings of the human reason and the clearly defined boundary within which it works. In the region of religion, as elsewhere, reason is conditioned by objective facts, and cannot construct the world without these facts. Reason, apart from facts as disclosed in experience, cannot construct an atom or an amoeba, much less a solar system, a universe or the being of God. When Hegel says that there are no mysteries in the absolute which reason cannot penetrate, he makes a statement which would be false and absurd if he were speaking of so trivial an object as a tea biscuit. Such arrogant and measureless claims for reason are absurd and suicidal.

The rational task of the apologist for Christianity is just the natural task of the advocate and exponent of any great generalization of science, to vindicate it, on the basis of evidence, as the most reasonable hypothesis to explain undoubted facts. Were are the facts: The world, human nature and human history, religion, the Hebrews, the New Testament, Jesus, the Christian church, Christian experience. How are these facts to be explained? If the universe is intelligible, then these facts are capable of a rational explanation. If Christianity is true, it is this sought for rational explanation. Christian apologetics is the explication of the fact that the Chris.

tian religion explains the world, man, and human history more comprehensively and more satisfactorily than any other explanation which can be devised. This is our task and the whole of it. To be sure, it is a great undertaking, but is quite intelligible and quite within the bounds of reason. But, let it never be forgotten, that for Christians and for disbelievers in Christianity alike agnosticism destroys the foundations upon which we stand. Discussion of Christianity or any other subject which touches upon fundamental realities upon the terms of agnosticism is an interchange of views as to the world of reality on the part of lunatics or imbeciles. How else could one possibly interpret these words from the pen of Herbert Spencer? ‘Respecting the origin of the Universe three verbally intelligible suppositions may be made. We may assert that it is self-existent, or that it is self-created, or that it is created by an external agency. Which of these suppositions is most credible it is not needful here to inquire. The deeper question, into which this finally merges, is, whether any one of them is even conceivable in the true sense of the word’ (First Principles, p. 36).

The Christian apologist must untiringly wage war upon such a belittling conception of human reason. He affirms revelation, inspiration, authority, but on the basis of an implied affirmation that human reason can receive, interpret, and establish truth which is from above. The faith that men may know God and recognize and interpret truth he must never betray. Religious affirmation, in all ages, has borne the brunt of attack on the part of skepticism. Christian apologists have had to meet not only doubts as to the truth of Christianity, but doubts as to the possibility of any valid knowledge whatever which passes beyond the range of empirical observation. The epistemological burden of the Christian apologist has been so great that twice, at least, within a single recent century, the courage of the advocates of Christian faith has broken down and they have ingloriously thrown their shields away, making a pitiful and ineffectual attempt to advocate Christianity on the premises of a philosophic skepticism. . We do not so read our charter nor so interpret our task. We stand for the rights of reason and the integrity and validity of our intellectual processes. We assert with all confidence, making due allowance for the fact that reason is conditioned by objective and concrete experience, and that man is a being who learns through trial, failure, and trying again, falling but to rise, that human. reason when brought into contact with the facts can know the truth.

II. The Christian apologist must cultivate the, habit of looking at both sides of controverted questions, including the most fundamental and sacred truths of the Christian faith.

A man may be an able and effective preacher of the Gospel, who neither knows nor cares much about unbelief. Such a preacher, provided he has a genuine prophetic insight into the truth, a knowledge of the human heart, and an intense sincerity and earnestness, may have a message even for unbelievers all the more searching that it does not and cannot deal with the intellectual problems of unbelief. But the task of the apologist is quite different from this. His work is to meet organized and articulate unbelief which is buttressed by argument and supported by alleged facts presented in the name of reason, and which, on historical, scientific or philosophical grounds, assails the truth of Christianity. To meet such assaults with the naive assumption that nothing in the way of effective objections can be urged against Christianity, or, still worse, with the dogmatic judgment that all unbelief is impiety to be met with anathema, is to surrender a great battle without a blow.

The Christian apologist must know what men have thought and said against Christianity and must allow himself to feel the whole force of these a objections. He must do far more than meet specific objections. He must develop the intuitive sense of an intellectual climate in which such objections flourish. He must argue the case against his own convictions with all the severity, and more, of the most relentless opponent. He must remember that his chance really to win in this great controversy, unlike that of the lawyer or the debater on the hustings, depends not upon his intellectual finesse or his cleverness of cut and thrust, but absolutely upon his having the better

‘case. Unless he believes with all his soul that more can be said for Christianity than can possibly be urged with fairness against it, no man has heard the authentic call to be a defender of the faith. The apologist, therefore, is compelled to the attitude of one who holds himself ready to discuss with every comer the grounds of his most fundamental and sacred convictions. In order to do this he must have met, in the solitude of his own inner thought, in that arena of dialogue and debate where the voices of Assent and Denial answer each to each within his own soul, the unbeliever with whom he is openly to discuss the grounds of belief. He must know thoroughly and sympathetically the mind of the unbeliever and the psychology of unbelief. He must know not only how to meet an objection, but how that objection arose. He must reach behind the argument to the mind which formulates the argument and graduate the mental trend to which the argument appeals. His task is to remove the difficulties which certain types of mind, or certain groups of men, feel with respect to the principles and doctrines of the Christian religion.

The one necessary element of training for this task is that the apologist shall establish the rational ground of his own convictions. He must understand the psychology of his own belief. He must have subjected his attitude toward belief, pro and con, to the severest possible rational test. He must thrust mercilessly through question to the assurance which lies beyond doubt. He must spare no labor in the task of deepening his religious experience and grounding his beliefs on the basal facts of human life and history.

III. The Christian apologist must obtain and present the results of genuine and thorough research.

He must maintain the convincing attitude of the searcher for truth. The primary postulate of his undertaking, as we have said already and cannot say too often, is that the facts are on the side of Christianity. This being so, the apologist’s task resolves itself into the prosaic and laborious undertaking of digging up facts. Patient delving for hidden treasure is the only method of effective service in this field. The great apologetic achievements of the past have, invariably, been due to the work of scholars who have dug beneath the feet of attackers upon Christianity and, on the basis of deeper and more thorough scholarship, have met and refuted assaults made upon it.

Mention may here be made of Origen’s reply to Celsus. The original work of Celsus, the earliest and the keenest of the pagan controversialists who attacked Christianity, has been lost, primarily because Origen refuted him so completely that even the opponents of Christianity did not care to keep alive their champion’s work. But Origen dealt so comprehensively and minutely with the work of Celsus that we are able to reconstruct it practically in its entirety. We are, therefore, able to see that the refutation is achieved not by brilliancy of argument nor superficial cleverness in debate, but by the solidity of the statement built up, fortified, and buttressed by facts. Origen has the better case. Celsus is infinitely clever but superficial—the facts are against him. Truth wins the debate—not Origen—which in the interests of mankind is the only victory worth having.

Another illustration of the same truth is to be found in the case of Supernatural Religion. Some time ago there appeared anonymously in England an elaborate attack upon Christianity, entitled Supernatural Religion. The treatise was detailed and extensive and the various phases of the attack were supported by an appearance of learning which gave the work an extensive vogue, and promised for it, at first, a widespread and lasting influence. The work came under the eye of Bishop Lightfoot, who at once detected the fact that the citations, which were numerous and apparently cogent, were inaccurate. The writer who had amassed a great body of references was not an accurate scholar, nor, to say the least of it, did he make a fair and proper use of his materials. The scholarly bishop proceeded, in the finest spirit of courteous debate but with merciless effectiveness, to expose the monumental inaccuracies of this unknown assailant of Christianity. One who follows the course of the discussion will be convinced that Lightfoot broke the force of a powerful and dangerous attack upon Christianity simply through the force of superior scholarship. He knew more than his opponent and won his monumental victory, not by virtue of a superior cleverness, but because the facts were on his side, and he knew the facts.

Another striking illustration of the point we are endeavoring to enforce is to be found in the treatment of himself by Professor J. George Romanes. When Romanes was a young man he published (under the pseudonym of Physicus) an essay entitled: A Candid Examination of Theism. In his discussion he examined the arguments usually advanced on behalf of the theistic view of the world and reluctantly but definitely abandoned them all and, with them, belief in a personal God. When Professor Romanes died, in 1894, he was a communicant of the church and left behind him, in the form of incomplete notes, a review of his own former work which, of course, involved a discussion of the whole religious question. The importance of this discussion for our present purpose lies in the fact that Romanes’ change of view was due to his going over the same ground as in the former treatise, with the plough-share set deeper. Repeatedly he uses the formula: “I did not sufhciently consider,” or “‘I failed to notice,” etc. In other words, he corrected himself by deeper thought and fuller knowledge in the interests of faith.

One more striking instance of the value for Christian faith of this delving for facts is to be found in the case of Professor Sir W. M. Ramsay. In 1892 Professor Ramsay delivered his Mansfield Lectures: The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 A.D., in which he gave to the world the first results of his archeological investigation into the origins of Christianity. Incidentally it signalized the beginning of Professor Ramsay’s break with the prevailing radical school of New Testament criticism. This schism grew more and more pronounced as Professor Ramsay’s researches advanced until it became quite clear that criticism could no longer afford to ignore his studies and that it must either refute his arguments for the early date and general historical trustworthiness of the New Testiment writers, particularly Luke, or admit their force. The results of this new movement, in one aspect of it, at any rate, appear in the famous series of New Testament studies published by Professor Adolf Harnack, beginning with Luke the Physician, published in 1907 (Lukas der Arzt, 1906). While in this work scant reference is made to Ramsay (see preface to the English translation), nevertheless the gauge thrown down by Ramsay fourteen years before is taken up by the Berlin professor—not as a dissentient, but as a fellowchallenger to current scholarship. Here is what Harnack says:

“The genuine Epistles of St. Paul, the writings of St. Luke, and the history of Eusebius are the pillars of primitive Christian history. This fact has not yet been sufficiently recognized in the case of the Lukan writings; partly because critics are convinced that these writings are not to be assigned to St. Luke. And yet, even if they were right in their supposition, the importance of The Acts of the Apostles at least still remains fundamental. However I hope to have shown in the following pages that critics have gone astray in this question, and that the traditional view holds good.” ‘The Lukan writings then recover their own excelling value [einen ganz eigenartigen Werth] as historical authorities; for they are written by a Greek who was a fellow worker of St. Paul, and accompanied with Mark, Silas, Philip, and James the brother of the Lord” (Preface, dated Berlin, May 17, 1906, and translated by J. R. Wilkinson. Italics mine).

In general, the entire critical situation with respect to the New Testament changed between the publication of Ramsay’s Mansfield Lectures and Harnack’s Lukas der Arzt. How was this revolution brought about? Two things are to be noted.

First, Professor Ramsay was a genuine investigator, committed to nothing at all in the way of results but only to the consistent application of a scientific method. His challenge to current criticism was made on that basis; and on that basis alone. Incidentally we wish to emphasize, in this immediate connection, that really powerful attacks upon the historical bases of Christianity can be met only by the rigid use of a scientific method which has no regard for results or partisan advantage. No true investigator can guarantee that his results shall be orthodox—he can only promise to be diligent and accurate in the use of a correct method. Orthodoxy must take care of itself. If it is true it need have no fear. In the long run truth, which is mighty, shall prevail. Here is Professor Ramsay’s challenge as issued with his first great work - —a challenge which became more insistent and commanding as he went on with his investigations:

“The books of the New Testament are treated here simply as authorities for history; and their credit is estimated on the same principles as that of other historical documents. If I reach conclusions very different from those of the School of Criticism, whose originators and chief exponents are German, it is not that I differ from their methods. I fully accept their principle, that the sense of these documents can be ascertained only by resolute criticism; but I think that they have often carried out their principle badly and that their criticism often offends against critical method” (The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, p. VIII. The entire paragraph should be carefully read).

Second, the facts were on the side of the traditional view. As Professor Harnack says: “The traditional view holds.’ The scholarly diligence and candor of Professor Ramsay, dealing with the facts and controlled by them as his studies uncovered them, brought this noted scholar from a somewhat slavish adherence to current critical views to the defense of a view of early Christianity and its sources which is more in accord with the historic tradition and faith of the church. This is the only kind of intellectual defense of Christianity which we need or can possibly use. It is based upon facts and consists in the exposition of those facts. We must remember that any defender of the faith is necessarily a critic and is compelled to use the method of criticism. Criticism is not an occult diabolism for the destruction of truth—but simply a perfectly ordinary and, in itself, innocuous instrument for the ascertainment and expression of truth. The misuse of a method condemns not the method but those who misuse it. Professor Ramsay’s invaluable contributions to the truth were the outcome of investigations carried out primarily not to prove anything nor to disprove anything, but simply to ascertain the facts. All Christian history indicates that Christianity has everything to gain and nothing to lose by investigations of this character.

The loss which has resulted to the cause of Christianity through neglect of opportunities on the part of recent leaders of Christian thought to do an underground work of this sort is incalculable. In three instances at least the results of this neglect are apparent. Until very lately the field of Old Testament investigation has been left almost entirely to the more radical schools of criticism, with the result that these writers and teachers have gained control of the instruments of dissemination to such an extent that it is somewhat difficult for more conservative views even to get a hearing. Evidence is now beginning to come in that this surrender of the critical field is not due to lack of facts, which can reasonably be urged on behalf of the Bible, but to a lack of Ramsay’s scholarly work in the gathering and preservation of these facts. The case has been allowed to go by default.

Again Christian thinkers and leaders have failed to occupy, with sufficient energy and effectiveness, the important field of religious psychology. To such an extent the pioneer work in this department received a powerful anti-Christian and even anti-religious impress. Professor Leuba’s recent book shows that a larger percentage of psychologists are anti-Christian or un- Christian than of any other class of intellectual leaders—and that in spite of the fact that these teachers are dealing directly with religious thought and experience. This result is the more inexcusable in view of the wealth of material which is at our disposal. Christian teachers are just beginning at this late day to appreciate what the profound and scientific study of Christian experience can do on behalf of our faith.

Once again we cannot but feel that recent leaders of Christian thought have failed to keep abreast of the needs of the day in the matter of Christian origins, and particularly the pagan surroundings of nascent Christianity. There are workers in this field, but many more are needed, for the wealth of material still unused is great. In short, one of the most crying needs of the hour is a vast increase of scholarly activity on the part of those who believe in the truth and finality of the Christian religion. Why is it that so few who really believe thus in Christianity are willing to give themselves with unstinted devotion to the work of amassing such a treasure of Christian scholarship as shall present with some adequate degree of fulness the Christian case to the scholarly world? We have much to do. The work must be organized. The field must be subdivided. Adequate means of distribution must be provided. A definite program for a great and worthy propaganda must be prepared and carried out. The cross of a new crusade of Christian scholarship must be lifted and carried forward. But we must remember that the basis of this ambitious undertaking, and the one condition of its success, is the recognition of the fact that the Christian apologist is the Christian scholar—a discoverer and interpreter of facts. We have had too many rhetoricians and stump speakers in this undertaking. We need a new generation of consecrated, tireless Christian scholars.

IV. The Christian apologist of to-day must be a genuinely catholic Christian.

We are of course using the word catholic in its legitimate etymological sense. There is a place and a work in the world for the provincial type of sectarian or partisan Christian—but neither his place nor his work is in the field of apologetics. The first task of the apologist is the difficult one of self-emancipation from views of truth which are exclusively individual or narrowly partisan. It is necessary to remember that the apologist faces an unbroken solidarity of negation. However much those who disbelieve may differ among themselves, they are one in their opposition to Christianity. And this opposition to Christianity is directed against the system in limine and as a whole. In such discussions the essence of Christianity is at issue and that alone. The unbelieving world has no interest in the minutiae of interpretation within the system of historic Christianity as it presents itself to the world without. Christianity and anti-Christian world views face each other at the center. It is imperative that the advocates and interpreters of Christianity present a united front and sink minor differences in devotion to those essential principles which we hold in common, and which, for that very reason, are of vital importance to the world. Voltaire once said that Christians were fiercely debating whether Christ had one will or two, while the Saracens held possession of the Holy Sepulcher.

All debate on minor points of interpretation or emphasis are fundamentally frivolous in the view of the world’s great need and its searching elementary questions. Why should Christians debate the inscrutable relations between the divine will and human freedom, when men are asking whether God is or not? Why should we divide as to the time or manner or program of the last things in the world’s history, when men are asking whether Christ is coming at all or not, nay, whether He rose from the dead—even more, whether He ever came or not?

The apologist has no interest in questions which divide Christians from each other, but only in those deeper and more vital issues which divide all Christians from the non-Christian world. A former missionary in Japan used to tell this incident in its bearing upon his life and thought. He was sailing one glorious starlight night on a river in Japan, in company with certain intelligent and thoughtful Japanese. They had been talking about the cosmic system—the greatness, the exactness, the splendor of it all. Suddenly one of the Japanese gentlemen turned to the missionary with this query: ‘““You have come here to tell us that the Maker of all this [with a sweeping gesture] was born of a woman,.at a given moment in the world’s history, in a given spot of the earth’s surface! How dare you preach such a doctrine?’ The missionary said that in that very moment all interest in any question that could reasonably divide Christians was burned out of his soul forever.

Any man who has come into authentic communication with the mind of the unbeliever necessarily recognizes the vital necessity of concentrating the defense of Christianity upon vital and essential points. It is Christianity itself which is at stake. It is Christianity, therefore, in the broad, essential, historic sense which we are to defend.

The very carrying out of such a task, which visualizes an unbelieving world reaching out groping hands after God, will broaden the mind to the compass of a world-wide, comprehensive Christianity and emancipate it from narrow and provincial views of Christianity. ‘The defender of the faith will need and desire to have the essen- ‘tial system at his back and all genuine believers at his side.