Our first congress

Contents

PAGE

Preface 7

Introductory Address 11

I. Our First Congress

I.

Cbe Value of ZhcoXosy.

THERE is great diversity of opinion as to the value of theology. Very extreme statements, both for and against it, might be quoted from prominent religious leaders. Such a tabulated list of opposing views, however, would afford little real help to a man who seeks to give the subject earnest consideration. There is scarcely any topic upon which similar difference of opinion does not exist, but that does not hinder us from having opinions, — from being republicans or democrats, imperialists or antiexpansionists, realists or idealists. There is no resting place in any matters of human interest for the man who tries to settle important problems by asking simply for a catalogue of the names on either side. The questions of consequence always challenge the thoughtful man to an investigation of the case upon its own merit. This is true of the question as to whether theology has any value. The fact that men differ 2 17 about it is no sufficient excuse for dismissing it without a hearing. Rather is it a reason why each man should think it over for himself with candor and carefulness. Every one who is awake to the movements in present-day thought is brought face to face in some way with the new interest in theology. Instead of being utterly banished from the world, it is seeking to clothe itself anew in the language of the times, and sooner or later will urge its claims for recognition. Neither are the advocates of a new theology a feeble folk. They are among the scholars of all countries. To show what weight of learning and influence is cast on the side of this science to-day, one has but to make clear the meaning of the work of such men as Principal Fairbairn and Canon Gore in England, Sabatier in France, Pfleiderer in Germany, George A. Gordon and Henry Van Dyke in America. It is noticeable that pastors and practical religious workers are giving prominence to these problems. There is a seriousness, even an anxiety, betrayed in the writings which indicate that for them the situation seems to involve the very foundations of religion. The feeling is clearly expressed that the old statements are already exploded, and practically discarded. With Calvinism dead and many times buried, these who have survived it may well inquire whether theology itself has also perished or whether another mighty system is likely to arise. The whole Christian world can not but be vitally concerned with this alternative. Under these circumstances the fundamental question is, What is the value of theology? The question is not what is the value of this or that system, but what is the value of any system whatsoever? It is analogous to the inquiry whether science in general, not this or that science, has any value. In other words, it is conceivable that a man should be dissatisfied with all the particular theories of physics with which he is acquainted, and yet be convinced that physical science is a possible and important field of knowledge.

Theology may be defined as the science of God and of divine things. It attempts to think out clearly and to put into systematic form the knowledge which man possesses of the Divine Being and his relation to the world. It includes, therefore, such subjects as the relation of God to nature and to human life. The doctrines of sin and of the atonement, of miracles and revelation, of a future life and its rewards and punishments, — these and related subjects constitute the material with which the science of theology deals. The special departments of theology need not be considered here except to point out the relation of Biblical and S3^stematic theology. Biblical theology investigates the Scriptures in order to set forth in an orderlj^ way the teaching of the different writers upon the various subjects considered, care being taken to interpret each writer in terms of his time and circumstance. Sj'stematic theology, on the other hand, builds upon these results, and seeks to translate Biblical truth into the language and experience of the present age. Systematic theology includes among its materials, therefore, not only the revelation of God in the Bible, but also that revelation which he makes of himself in nature and in the progressive development of history. The physical sciences, social institutions and various world religions, — all the forms and products of human activity are made contributors to the final view, under the conviction that, in some way or other, every department of human life reveals the nature of God and of his wonderful ways. Systematic theology, therefore, sets for itself no less a task than that of bringing to bear the whole field of modern knowledge and experience in the interpretation of the idea of God and his relation to humanity.

It is important to note the relation in which theology stands to religion. They are neither identical nor entirely separate, but may be thought of as related in the same way that theory is related to practice or science to art. Science is the knowing and art is the doing, and in point of time, art is much older than science.

THE VALUE OF THEOIvOGY. 21

For example, ethics is the science of conduct, bat human conduct had been going on for centuries before a definite science of ethics arose. Like^Yise men did not have to wait until a system of logic was devised before they could think, and think correctly. As Locke says, it is a mistake of the scholastics to suppose that God made a two-legged animal and left it to Aristotle to make him rational. In the same way religion is as old at least as the historic age of man, while theology as a science is relatively a modern affair. Religion is the active attitude in which the individual worships, propitiates or serves the deity. It is the communion of the individual with the universal Being. Theology, on the other hand, inquires into the existence, nature and attributes of the object of religious adoration, and into the methods of mediation and redemption. There is thus sought a translation of the immediate experience into concepts, into scientific knowledge. The same relation may be illustrated in terms of theory and practice. The theory is a statement in clear, logical form of the processes, laws and worth of the practice.

Theology as a science or theory does not arise by accident, but is the natural and necessary product of man's intellectual activity. Man is by nature a thinking being. The image in which he is created is characterized by infinite wisdom and knowledge. The normal individual, whatever the stage of his development, reflects more or less upon the meaning of life and its infinite source. The di:fference between the Hottentot and the sage of civilization is not that one theorizes and the other does not. The difference is in the extent and consistency of their theories. It is almost a commonplace now-a-days to say that it is not a question as to whether one shall have a philosophy of life or not, but the only question is whether or not one's philosophy is good or bad. The same applies equally to theology. The only thing of interest is as to the kind of theology, — is it a cheap, second-hand edition, picked up at random and perhaps unconsciously, from among the vagaries of men? Or is it a theology bought at first hand by careful study and thoroughly scientific investigation? Some one may reply to this that he is certain of his theology, for he gets it out of the Bible itself. It would be just as much in point and just as true for such an one to say that he knows the sky is blue because he just looks at it and sees that it is so. Of course the sky looks blue, but it is blue for a seeing eye, and if the eye is color blind, or if one wears colored glasses, then the sky may not be blue. In any case, the condition of the organ determines vision.

The same is true in reading the Bible. It means more to one than another, and something different to all. The advocates of the most diverse views have appealed to it for support. Royalist and democrat, slaveholder and abolitionist, prohibitionist and moderate drinker, woman suffragist and anti-woman suffragist, Calvinist and Arminian — the opponents on every great moral and religious question have sincerely appealed to the one Book as their authority. And as we look back upon such controversies, the particular texts and passages are recalled which seemed to lend support to each contestant. It is possible for the historian to see these warring parties in the perspective of centuries, and to explain it all by the different points of view which they occu> pied, that is, by the different interpretations to which they were naturally led. This process of reflection goes on more or less clearly and consciously in every man and in every denomination to-day. Some wish to cut the knot by prohibiting men from thinking in matters of religion, but that is obviously impossible. The only alternative is to do more and better thinking, to frankly confess that we all have our theology in some form or other, and then proceed to develop and correct it to the best of our ability. Any view which tries to separate religion from theology, as though they were two distinct and absolutely separate things, presents the appearance of a man who tries to lift himself off the earth by his own boot-straps. That is, he proposes to abolish all theological theory by a specific theory, which he tries to think is no theory at all. He unconsciously brings in at the back door what he has just dismissed by the front door. This phenomenon of a theology gotten up for the express purpose of discarding theology altogether may furnish much instruction, and even amusement, to the man who reads history with his eyes open.

It is important to notice here that although there is some sort of theology wherever there is a spiritual religion, yet the two are not identical. The intellectual system of doctrines is only a statement of the meaning of the religion, and it is not the religion itself. The value of such a system of doctrines is to be understood in terms of the relation of science and art. The science draws out in definite form the principles upon which the art proceeds. Theology seeks to explain the central facts of religion, and to emphasize their relative importance. Its value may be summarized by saying that it helps religion to understand itself, to distinguish the essentials from the incidentals, to free historical religion from its excrescences. For instance, religion was at one time apparently in danger from the scientific theory that the earth is not flat but spherical, and that this planet is not the center of the solar system.

Many people to-day seem to be very anxious for their religion, when science tells us that whales' throats are not large enough to admit Jonah, or that it is not likely that men ever lived to be hundreds of years of age, or that the human race itself, like all other forms of life on the globe, has come into existence through the process of evolution. We all have a profound conviction that none of these things can really endanger permanently the foundations of religion, but we also have a natural and justifiable desire to understand how the well-attested results of science are to be fitted into a view of the world which will also give due recognition to the facts of the Christian religion. Even more than this is demanded by the religious consciousness. It is demanded that the new views of nature which science brings us, shall, when they are established, reinforce and deepen our spiritual lives, and make it possible, in the light of all the facts, to say openly and with conviction, like the psalmist of old, but with even greater significance, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork." Any less thorough-going attitude thau this weakens and narrows the religious nature. Men cannot long be whole-souled and enthusiastic about a religion which trembles every time it looks into the eye of an anthropoid ape, or which feels compelled to assert that religion is only a matter of feeling, and hence has no interest in the new heavens and the new earth which science has discovered in this century. Nor are such problems entirely peculiar to the present time. Every age in the Christian era has had its Newtons and its Galileos. In fact we claim it is the glory of Christianity that it cultivates such fine types of men. Every age has accordingly been compelled to some degree to restate its theology, and thus to enable the religious spirit of man to feel itself at home in the midst of a changing and growing world. In general, then, it may be said that the value of theology consists in the progressive restatement of the nature of God and his relation to the world, in terms not only of a better knowledge of the Bible, but also in terms of a better understanding of physical nature and the course of human history.

This belief in the necessity and importance of theology is not entirely new in the history of the Disciples of Christ. It is commonly understood that the Disciples have given little attention to theology, and it is sometimes claimed that they have none. Some might even contend that their distinctive characteristic is that they discard speculation altogether, and simply take the Scriptures, especially the New Testament, as their statement of religious truth. Nothing but a thorough history of doctrine among the Disciples can adequately determine these matters.

THE VALUK OF THEOLOGY. 27

but even a superficial view reveals many interesting things in connection with the topic under discussion. It is true that the leaders of thought have violently opposed much of the theology current in popular thought. Particular doctrines were denounced on every possible occasion. Human speculations were apparently held in contempt, but yet there is danger of a misunderstanding concerning these things. Is it not true that their denunciations were hurled at theological systems, not in themselves, but as bonds of fellowship? They were contending for individual liberty in the interpretation of the Bible, and hence were thoroughly incensed at the practice then common of imposing creeds upon individuals by church authority as terms of salvation. Not creeds as such, but creeds as bonds of union ; not theological systems in themselves, but as conditions of church membership, were the objects of attack. Theology, in their judgment, was a matter of mere opinion, and hence belonged to the individual. So long as it was held as one's private view, and not made a condition of fellowship or an occasion of strife, there was no objection. In fact, Alexander Campbell boasted that the ground upon which he stood was so catholic that men of all persuasions and of all denominations and prejudice, were united with him in one community, upon the simple confession of faith in Christ. Among

28 OUR FIRST CONGRKSS.

them he says are found those who had been Eomanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Restorationists, Quakers, Arians. Unitarians, et cetera. ''And these persons," he continues, "of so many and so contradictory opinions, meet weekly around the Lord's table."

Mr. Campbell had his own doctrinal convictions, which he did not hesitate to set forth at length in his publications, and he by no means restricted himself to the phraseology of the Bible in doing so. Thus he discussed freely the doctrines of inspiration, in connection with which he held that God taught man directly, vive voce, how to talk, and that the Holy Spirit gave the writers of the Scriptures the very words as well as the ideas. He held the view that the only notion men ever had of God was first revealed through the Hebrew Scriptures, and that all the ideas of the Deity found among other peoples were more or less true reproductions of that given to the chosen race. In like manner his views of the operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion, of the nature of the Godhead and the relation of the three persons in the Trinity, of a future life, of the ordinances, church organization, — all of the usual problems of religion are freely considered. His theology is easily recognized as modified Calvinism, and he himself understood it to be such, although he pre-

THE VAIvUE OF THEOLOGY. 29

ferred not to have it labeled. It was the name rather than the substance of Calvinism which he he rejected. At one time he declared his convictions in the customary form of the formula of the confessions of faith. Among these articles are the following: "1 believe in one God as manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are therefore one in power, nature and volition. I believe that every human being participates in all the consequences of the fall of Adam, and is born into the world frail and depraved in all his moral powers and capacities. So that without faith in Christ it is impossible for him, while in that state, to please God. I believe in the right and duty of exercising our own judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures." It was only when such statements were misused that he objected to them. Mr. Campbell indicates in many passages that he favors the freest theological speculation so long as it is held as a merely individual matter. His attitude is well expressed in these words: "Let men think as the}^ like on any matters of human opinion and upon doctrines of religion, provided only they hold the Head Christ and keep his commandments." (Mem. 2-519). That he himself was fond of such speculations is evident to even the casual reader. In a lecture to one of his classes in Bethany College upon the subject of theology, he said, "Theology, in its proper amplitude and significance, is the most ineffably sublime of all the sciences of earth or heaven. It presents to us Grod in everything and every thing in God."

The same general standpoint is maintained by Isaac Errett. In his tract entitled "Our Position," he presents the particulars in which we agree with, and those in which we differ from our religious neighbors. This is nothing more nor less than a popular summary of the theology which is characteristic of the brotherhood. It is intended as a concise presentation of the main doctrines generally held among the Disciples. But it is not a creed in the sense of an authoritative document, since it ne^^r received any official indorsement. In fact there was no official body who could sanction it in a way to make it correspond in that respect to the creeds of other denominations. Yet the real significance of this famous tract is that it is a statement of the accepted theology. It defines our position, presents our plea, and throughout uses synonyms for the usual phraseology of such publications. It is only a very superficial view which cannot discover that in reality it is our theological position, our doctrinal plea, and our specific theology which is here set forth. If one examines the teaching in detail, he finds that it is practically a restatement of the theology current among evangelical churches at the time, with such modifica-

THE VALUE OF THEOIvOGY. 31

tions as are necessary to show the particular features upon which the Disciples of Christ place distinctive emphasis, or hold unique doctrines.

One reason why the Disciples have been able to appear less theological than some other denominations is because they have accepted, for the most part, views which are common to all evangelical Christians. Theological controversy, on this account, has had a narrow range and has been occupied with questions such as the ordinances, which could be treated mainly from the linguistic or historical sides. The fundamental theological problem concerning the nature of God has never been brought into serious, or at least original, consideration. It was quietly accepted under the traditional forms. There were only relatively minor principles which the brotherhood ever had to consider in anything like an independent manner. These concerned the interpretation of the authority of the Scriptures with reference to polity and liturgies. The controversy over the missionary societies and instrumental music was sufficiently intense to mark a distinct epoch in the historical development, and to effect, to all intents and purposes, a division of the forces into progressives and conservatives, according as the spirit or the letter of the Bible was made the rule of conduct. At the present time the division of sentiment upon this line is only felt as a sort of inertia in the whole body, while the conservative party no longer is able to sustain any vital or life-like contention.

From these few references to the history of the Disciples it is evident that the value of theology appears in a practical and half-conscious way. But in reality every doctrinal statement, such as Errett's "Our Position," and every debate of Alexander Campbell's, is a confession that there is great importance in a clearly formulated and well defended statement in propositional form of what are considered tne essential doctrines concerning the fundamental facts of the Christian religion.

The form in which theology presents itself in the history of the Disciples brings out with striking clearness the relation in which the reflective activity, particular doctrines, and creeds stand to each other. The speculative process arises out of the inquiring, questioning nature w4iich belongs to all men. It shows itself in the development of all orderly, systematic knowledge of science and philosophy. It is inevitable that this same reflective tendency should show itself in reference to the facts and experiences of religion. The products or results of this speculative process are presented in the form of the particular doctrines of individual thinkers. Accordingly the history of doctrine presents the various typical systems of theology which different men have worked out. These systems are known usually by the names of their authors, as those of Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin or Arminius. The creed arises when a council or synod or other representative body accepts a particular set of doctrines as an expression of divine truth. The individual doctrines thus officially proclaimed are called dogmas. With reference to the speculative process it has been shown that it is universal and necessary to all thinking men, but Christendom is divided into two parties over the further question as to whether individual men shall be left free to think out conclusions for themselves or whether they shall be obliged to reach certain definite conclusions in their thought. Protestantism holds to the former, Catholicism to the latter. The fundamental principle of Protestantism is that the individual should be absolutely free in his reflection upon religion and all other subjects. The only conditions which anyone expects him to fulfill are those of all scientific inquiry, namely, adherence to fact and to the laws of thought. But he is not even held to these by any ecclesiastical authority. Catholicism tends to require that all speculation shall issue in support of the dogmas of the church. The Roman Catholic Church practically calls upon the individual to relinquish his particular views in deference to the

conclusions of councils and popes. And this is 3 not an inconsistent position from the standpoint of the Eoman Church. The church claims that the voice of council and of pope is the voice of God, and that therefore the decrees thus announced have divine authority.

The Protestant, on the other hand, denies theoretically that the Church has any right to identify its dogmas with the will of God, and exalts, in opposition to the ecclesiasticism, the Word of God as contained in the Bible, and interpreted by the individual. The fact that Protestantism has not been true to its lofty principle, and has often fallen into the Catholic error of exalting the authority of an ecclesiastical body into the place of the Bible, does not lessen the significance of the principle itself. It is true that since the days of Luther, Protestants have often lost sight of their guiding star, but they have steadily moved toward the goal of "the Bible and the Bible alone," in the words of Chillingworth, as their only rule of faith and conduct. As to what the specific teaching of the Scriptures is, they allow evrey man to judge for himself. From this standpoint, therefore, the Protestant churches cannot consistently promulgate creeds in the sense of completed and perfect systems of divine truth. They can at most endorse certain doctrines as setting forth the most acceptable interpretation of the religious experience thus far obtained. But the very

THE VALUE OE THEOLOGY. 35

genius of Protestaatism favors a continual development of theology in order to gain a more and more adequate statement of religion in terms of the thought of each age. It favors the constant exercise of thought, of inquiry, of further elaboration of the content of the Christian faith. It recognizes the transient character of all specific doctrines as theoretical statements, and constantly revises them in the light of new knowledge and experience. For the true spirit of Protestantism, truth lies open like the spreading lines of an angle. Religious faith here presents itself as an inexhaustible field, which the mind of man may progressively interpret, ever with new meaning, but never with perfect completeness. This transformation and enrichment of theology may be seen as a vital process both in its historic development and in contemporaneous thought. The doctrine of the atonement furnishes a typical example. This fundamental fact of the Christian religion is set forth from time to time in terms of various social conditions. Anselm reflected upon the atonement in terms of commercial relations. Man owed a debt greater than he could pay, and Christ pays it for him. Anselm proceeds from the standpoint of the laws of his time governing indebtedness, and is also influenced by the prevalent ideas of chivalry. Abelard advances the moral theory of the atonement, which, in contrast to the commercial view, makes the atonement such a manifestation of Christ's infinite love as breaks down the heart of the sinner and leads him to repentance. Judicial theories are presented in the covenant theology and also in the system of Grrotius, who was himself an eminent jurist. It is evident that all these views get their distinctive form chiefly from the social or political conditions of the time, or from the molds of thought into which their authors have been cast by their daily occupations. While no one view is an adequate statement of the great fact of Christ's death, yet each contributes some helpful factor to a many-sided and therefore truer doctrine of the atonement.

All the other facts of religion undergo changing explanations as time goes on. Sabatier, in a most suggestive little volume on the "Vitality of Dogma," likens the growth in doctrines to the growth of language. Words have a life of their own quite analogous to that of animals or plants. Each dialect, so long as it is spoken, is in motion, and it may be said that the intensity of its life is identical with this power of evolution. "It is the same with the dogmas of a church, which form likewise a living organism, and which are, if rightly considered, only a kind of theological language by which the consciuosness of the Church or the piety of its members reveals itself outwardly, and grows stronger by this self-revelation. . . . It is only in the compilations which go by the name of books of Symbolics, that we find dogmas in their state of fixity, in a form of irreproachable and frozen orthodoxy. But watch them in the daily practice of individual or public piety; listen to the prayers which rise from hearts moved by feeling; note what each believer finds in them or adds on his own account to these venerable and customary expressions of religion; catch them in their flight, so to say, in popular sermons, in the teaching of the young in daily practical applications, and you will be quite surprised to find these apparently hieratical formulas so easy, so undulating, so rich in meaning and in shade, so susceptible of so many interpretations."

If this freedom of thought, which is the pride of Protestantism, is justifiable, then theology is at the same time established as the natural and necessary result. Theology simply means the results of thorough-going and systematic thinking upon divine things. It is distinguished from the every-day thought of the plain man in degree, not in kind. Like all scientific thinking, it seeks to take account of the whole range of facts, and to attain consistency and clearness in the midst of a great wealth of details. Its value as an interpreter of religion will depend altogether upon the success with which it explains the facts of religion in relation to the facts of the whole life. In the very nature of the case, then, there will be no ultimate and absolute unity of theological doctrines among Protestants. Any system will have wide acceptance and endure to the extent to which it commends itself to the thought and religious spirit of individual men. Different systems will continue to exist side by side, commending themselves to the differing culture and experience of different classes. It is essentially the spirit of Catholicism, as already stated, to form a sect upon every particular system of theology. And just so far as Protestantism has expressed itself in mutually exclusive denominations, just to that extent it has been untrue to its historic principle and has returned to the standpoint of Catholicism. It is possible, and indeed, let it be hoped, the prevailing conviction is, that the different evangelical bodies of Christians so far as they are really separate at all, are so only in the sense of different schools of theology, each attracting to itself those whose convictions present religion to them under that particular doctrinal form. In fact, any individual who belongs to a given denomination for any other than doctrinal reasons would evidently just as well belong to any other denomination, if. social and practical consideration permitted.