Doctrine and life; a study of some of the principal truths of the Christian religion in their relation to Christian experience

Front matter

wm

■L

I j mm

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. The Relation of Doctrine to Life i

II. "The Soul Naturally Christian v 17

Preface

The aim of this volume is to present the principal doctrines of Christianity in their correlation with the Christian life. These doctrines have therefore been approached from the point of view of the Christian consciousness rather than from that of philosophy or criticism. Our main question in this study is not, How might the Christian philosopher justify the belief under review ? nor, How might the biblical scholar elaborate and defend it ? but, What is the adaptation of the given doctrine to the needs of the soul, and its use in the Christian life ? How is its truth attested in experience ?

It will thus be seen that, while the volume deals with the subject-matter of theology, it differs considerably in its aim from theoretical treatises on Christian doctrine. Although I have often referred to the grounds on which Christian doctrines are held, and to some of the ways in which they may be defended, my purpose has not been chiefly apologetic. It has rather been my effort to illustrate the value of certain fundamental doctrines for Christian thought, life, and character. This practical value of the doctrines I have endeavored to exhibit by suggestion rather than by elaborate analysis and discussion. I have aimed so to present these doctrines as to suggest and justify their

VI PREFACE

practical religious significance and value. The purpose of the work is more fully illustrated, and its method more fully explained, in the first chapter.

I have written in the firm conviction that the Christian religion involves certain great doctrinal truths which represent the deepest realities of the universe and of human life. While insisting upon the inability of the mind fully to comprehend and define these realities, I have also insisted that we need not, and, indeed, cannot, refuse to think about them, and that serious and reverent thought upon them is useful and rewarding. I have written in the belief that the truths of Christianity are a great treasure for the mind and heart, as well as a guide for the regulation of conduct. I hold that the Christian religion includes all our life in the largest sense of that word. It does not consist merely in a certain method of outward action, or in the performance of certain duties technically called religious ; far more fundamentally does it consist in an inner spiritual life, quickening into new power, and equipping for its highest exercise and use, every faculty of the soul. With this conception of religion it is easy to show that doctrine is inseparable from life, since reflection and thought are themselves important parts of life.

If, now, it be true, as I believe it is, that Christianity is the absolute religion, and that its truths represent eternal realities and universal principles and laws, then is our discussion really a study of the leading factors and forces which are concerned in producing and fostering the life of the Spirit in man.

g. b. s.

Yale University, March i, 1895.

Chapter I

What is the relation of doctrine to life ; of theology to religion ? To this question we hear, in our time, the most diverse answers. One of the commonest statements is, that Christianity is not a dogma, but a life. On the other hand, we find that most churches expect of their members some manner of assent to certain doctrines, and that special tests are applied to those who are to assume the functions of teaching and government. The strifes of sects and the disputes of theological parties have proceeded upon the idea of the importance of correct doctrine. The Christian church still remains divided into a multitude of independent organizations, not, as a rule, because the members of any one of these doubt the Christian character of the members of the others, but because they differ from them in one or more points of theory or belief. These differences, however, have not commonly been regarded as merely intellectual or theoretic, but as having some important relation to Christian life and character.

The Roman Catholic, for example, does not deny the

Christian character of sincere Protestants. He admits the saving value of the faith which is exercised by them, and of the ordinances which are administered in Protestant communions. He does not deny the final salvation of true believers in Christ wheresoever found. He does, however, assert that the whole Protestant conception of the church is false. He affirms that God has committed to the church certain divine graces and benefits to bestow upon her children, and that the Protestant, by remaining outside the church (as he conceives of it), necessarily forfeits those benefits, and suffers in his life and character in consequence. The Roman Catholic Church thus regards its views of the organization and authority of the church, and of the nature and administration of its ordinances, as having important bearings upon the spiritual life. Its whole attitude toward Protestant organizations thus assumes that the differences between it and them have important relations to religious character and welfare.

On the other side, intelligent Protestants do not deny the Christian character and acceptability to God of sincere and devout Catholics. But they hold, in contrast to Catholic belief, that the direct access of all souls to God, through the one only Priest, Jesus Christ, the doctrine of salvation by divine grace alone on condition of faith, and the right of free thought and of private judgment in theology and in Biblical interpretation, are truths of vital importance for the encouragement of Christian thinking and scholarship, and for the development of Christian character. Thus the Protestant dissent from Roman Catholic doctrines assumes that its characteristic positions are practically important ; that it makes a wide difference in all one's life and thinking, whether he accepts the Catholic or the Protestant view of the church and its sacraments, of the Pope and his authority, of the priesthood and its functions, of the Bible, its use and interpretation, and of many related points of divergence.

In like manner, it would be easy to show that the differences among Protestants have been commonly assumed to involve important practical consequences. The Calvinist charges upon the Arminian a restriction of the absolute sovereignty of God, and a denial of the sole efficiency of God in salvation, which imperils the believer's assurance and security. In turn, the Arminian affirms that Calvinism makes God an arbitrary despot, and virtually excludes, by its doctrine of unconditional election, the freedom and responsibility of man in respect to his destiny. Both these systems maintain that important religious consequences are involved in their respective philosophies. In like manner, the various divergences among sects and parties have arisen and have been perpetuated, because they were believed to involve matters of principle, and to be of practical importance in their relation to the religious life and character.

And yet we discern under all this diversity of opinion and practice, a fundamental unity. Christian life and character are essentially the same in Catholic and Protestant, in High Churchman and Dissenter, in Calvinist and Arminian. It is certain that if their differences are important, they are, at most, only relatively so ; they do not essentially involve the presence or absence of genuine religious character, sincere Christian living. Those who insist upon a certain church order as of special value and importance would find it difficult to prove that the favor of Heaven has not been granted as abundantly to those who do not possess this advantage as to themselves. If the presence and power of divine grace are to be judged by the actual development of Christian character and the actual fruits of Christian living, no monopoly of this grace can reasonably be claimed by the representatives of any particular church or creed as against all others. What we find, then, when we look abroad upon the Christian world, is a very general insistence upon doctrines and practices as being important to the Christian life, and, at the same time, a real development of that life under many diverse forms of doctrinal belief and of ecclesiastical organization and usage. In view of these facts of Christian history the question recurs : What is the real relation of doctrine to life ?

We may observe at the outset that the reality and importance of this relation cannot, in general, be denied, unless we are prepared to maintain the entire separateness of theory from practice, of thought from conduct. That no such general separation can be justified becomes almost self-evident when a case in point is presented. Who can doubt, for example, that it makes a great difference with a man's life whether he believes in a personal God in whose moral likeness he is made, or only in a blind, unknowable force of which he is a product ? Such beliefs as the belief in God touch the very core of character ; they involve, beyond question, our whole conception of life's meaning, value, and destiny. Similar in respect to its importance for all thought and action is the question, what kind of a being God is. Whether God is a Moloch or a gracious Father makes an incalculable difference to the religious life. The same may be said respecting belief in such a fundamental doctrine as that of revelation. Who would maintain that it is a matter of moral indifference whether or not one believes that God has revealed to man his will and nature ? that the well-being of the world is in no way involved in the question, whether the Bible really represents a divine revelation, or is the mere product of man's own thinking upon religion ? Whether Christ was a divine Being, or only a wise and good man ? whether he was what he claimed to be, or a pretender ? whether man is sinful and guilty, or only unfortunate and imperfect ? whether his continuance in sin is attended with moral peril or not ? All these are questions which bear powerfully upon life.

We must, then, in general, admit and maintain the importance of doctrine in its bearing upon life. Not all doctrines, however, are equally important in this relation. They are important in proportion as they concern what is central and essential in Christian thinking and living. The importance of various doctrines, when judged by this test, will, of course, be differently estimated by different men. I shall make no effort to determine precisely the relative importance of the various doctrines which I am to review. I shall, however, assume, on the basis of the general consensus of the Christian world, that there is a set of doctrines which hold a close relation to the religious life and character. Of these doctrines I shall review those which seem to me to be most essential in Christianity, and shall aim to indicate their bearing upon the religious life. I shall dwell mainly upon that nucleus of doctrine which the great mass of Christians in all ages and churches have commonly considered to be closely correlated to the Christian life, and whose importance may therefore be presumed to have been attested by centuries of Christian thought and experience.

Bearing in mind this general distinction between opinions which can be shown vitally to involve Christian living, and those which are, at most, but remotely related thereto, and fixing attention on the former only, let us now consider the nature of the relation between them and the actual life of religion. Let it be remembered that I am here speaking of such fundamental doctrines as that of God, of revelation, of Christ, of sin, and of salvation.

The doctrines of Christian theology represent the efforts of the human mind to define the content of revelation, and to describe the principles and processes of the religious life. Christian doctrine has always to take account of these two great facts, — divine revelation and Christian experience. The question as to the relations of these two facts in theology is warmly debated in our time. Into that discussion it is aside from my present purpose to enter. I shall take up the truths which are commonly believed by Christians to constitute the essential subject-matter of revelation, and shall dwell upon their relations to the Christian consciousness, — to Christian thought, experience, and life. Looked at from this side, theology is an effort to construe the facts of religious experience. It is the approximate intellectual equivalent of the forces and

THE RELATION OF DOCTRINE TO LIFE i

processes which are operative in the religious life. The doctrine of God, for example, is an effort to define the knowledge of God which is involved in the Christian life. The doctrine will naturally have in it certain ideal elements ; that is, it will be an endeavor to define the highest conceivable Christian conception of God ; it will surpass the idea of God actually cherished by most persons ; it will aim to embody that notion of God which corresponds best to the full content of revelation, and which is best adapted to minister to progress in actual Christian living and thinking.

It will thus be seen that theology and religion are related to each other as theory to fact or reality. It involves no disparagement of theology to say that it is theory. In all human life theory and practice are inseparably conjoined, and react powerfully upon each other. That a vicious theory may be harmful is evident, since it may suggest or involve motives and methods of action. All theory is a product of thought, and thought is most closely related to conduct. There may, indeed, be theories which are so remote from all actual human interests as to involve no practical consequences, but this cannot be said of those which concern the more essential truths of religion. Moreover, the view so commonly advanced, that a certain theory may be inherently right, but that the opposite of it may be justified in practice, is a sophism which no sound philosophy can justify. It is important to adopt in theology and morals the soundest and most adequate theories which are attainable. In our time indifference to doctrine seems to be thought by many to be the mark of supreme devotion to truth. But indifference to doctrine is indifference to thought on the themes of religion, and religious thought can never be wisely disparaged in the supposed interest of religious life. I grant that it is important to recognize the limits beyond which we cannot go in our efforts to describe the nature and action of God and the mysteries of our own being. But these limitations do not preclude all thought about those realities. If we know anything about them, we must have theology. If we know nothing about them, how can we have even religion ?

The relation of theology to religion may be compared to that of psychology to the facts of mental life. The science which we call psychology is an effort to describe and interpret the methods and laws of the mind's actual working. The two are not to be confounded, but neither are they to be separated. It would also be vain to disparage psychology as being purely speculative and useless. Some sort of psychology must always exist where men are intelligent and thoughtful enough to turn their attention in upon the phenomena of their own mental life. All the objections which are made to theological doctrine can be made, and quite as plausibly, to mental philosophy and to metaphysics in general. The limitations of our knowledge, the variations in theory, and the indefiniteness of the results, may all be urged as objections, and quite as cogently in the one case as in the other. It is vain to urge, in a comparison of the two sciences, that, because theology attempts to deal with God, and with a world of transcendent realities, while psychology deals with facts which are directly known in consciousness, psychology may be defended, while theology must be discarded; for religion also has it subjective side, and its facts, even with this limitation, challenge the effort to describe and interpret them. Theology cannot be wholly banished, unless the religious nature of man is utterly denied or ignored, as psychology cannot be wholly discredited, unless it can be shown that man can know nothing about himself.

As long as man remains a religious being, and a thinking being, there will be theology of some sort. But a special occasion and incentive to theological thought must arise when one adopts any specifically Christian ideas concerning God and man and duty. It is true, as we have said, that theology is theory, and that religion is life ; that theology is the intellectual construction of the realities which in religion are known and experienced. But so long as the life and experience which we call religion remain, and so long as the mind thinks about them, there will be theology or doctrine. It is also true that religion is primary and theology secondary ; that the actual religious life and character are of first importance, and that the definition or description of the realities which they involve is less essential. The main concern of the Bible, for example, is religion rather than theology. But it would have been utterly impossible for the Bible to accomplish its end except by the teaching of much theological doctrine. The teaching of Jesus concerning the fatherhood of God, and that of John concerning God as love, have an immediately practical or religious aim, but they are not, on that account, less truly theological. All these teachings — the most practical of them — involve some view of what God is, of what God does, and of why God does it. It is utterly impossible to teach religion without teaching, at least, the elements of theology, as it is utterly impossible to live the life of religion without believing, and more or less fully defining to one's self, some doctrines. The most unreflecting believer has some idea about God, some conception of what kind of a Being he is, and of what he has done in revealing his goodness and love ; some idea about his own relations to God, and the duties which spring out of those relations. Those ideas, however crudely conceived or inaccurately defined, are theological. I can conceive of a man having a theology without personal religion, but not a religion without theology.

The objections which are so commonly heard in our time against doctrinal theology are really aimed, in most cases, at that over-subtlety and over-confidence in theological thought which have certainly been quite too common. When, for example, theology attempts to explore the interior nature of God, and to make a psychology of the divine mind, it is natural that the effort should provoke dissent. Doctrinal theology has often exposed itself thus to the charge of presumption. It has sometimes attempted to construct a fully rounded system of thought concerning God's nature and action, involving a complete philosophy of the universe. It has sometimes assumed to solve well-nigh every mystery, and to give an answer to almost every question which human curiosity might suggest. Of course, nothing of this sort can be done. To so ambitious a task the powers of the human mind are quite inadequate. It is proper and necessary that the limitations of theological thought should be recognized and even insisted upon ; but the recognition of these limitations is something very different from a repudiation of theology altogether, or from a general attitude of indifference toward it.

I cannot help thinking that expressions of indifference to theology from teachers of religion, and made apparently in the supposed interests of religion, are very ill-considered. We may wisely seek to shun all untenable theology, whether untenable by reason of its denials, or by reasons of its excessive affirmations and over-confidence ; but we should shun this sort of theology, not in the spirit of protest against all theology, but in the interest of more rational and defensible doctrine. There has been a great deal of objectionable theology in the world — objectionable, in some cases, on account of its lack of evidence, in others, on account of its conflict with evidence or with the best instincts and intuitions of the human heart. But so also has there been a great deal of objectionable moral philosophy in the world ; yet this fact could hardly be urged as a valid reason for declining altogether to search for the grounds of the right and the good, or for refusing to study the nature and scope of human obligations. The existence of false and pernicious systems of ethics might more properly be urged as a reason for the effort to construct the best and most salutary philosophy of the subject. That theology is always imperfect, often untrue, and sometimes even pernicious in its teaching, is no reason for renouncing its pursuit, but rather a reason for cautious but persevering zeal in its study and elaboration. If much of the thinking concerning God and man and their relations has been unsatisfactory, then there is the greater occasion for those who believe in the value and necessity of religion to define, as accurately and helpfully as possible within the limits of human knowledge, these great realities with which religion is concerned.

In the light of these considerations, I believe it will appear that doctrine and life bear very much the same relation to each other in religion as thought bears to experience in any sphere of human interest and action. What we do cannot be uninfluenced by what we think. Especially true is this of religious opinions and beliefs ; since they pertain to a realm to which belong, to so great an extent, the motives and principles of action. Even if men do not often fully embody their religious beliefs in conduct, it is nevertheless true that such beliefs exert a powerful influence upon character. Nor do the virtuous lives of some men, who are reputed to be without a religious belief, prove the contrary. The number of men who are destitute of religious belief is not so great as is commonly supposed, and in many cases the practical fruitage in life and character of inherited and traditional belief is still seen in lives which give no sign of positive attachment to them. In many such cases, however, it is easy to see that the power of ancestral faiths still persists, even though they are no longer consciously cherished.

Thus far I have spoken of doctrine and life as if they were generically different. I have considered " life " more in its outward aspect, as conduct or action. Even upon this method of regarding the subject, a close relation between doctrine and life may be established. It appears to me, however, that when we inquire more closely into what " life " fairly includes, the relation appears to be even more intimate ; in fact, that life necessarily includes the formation of doctrines or beliefs, because life includes our thoughts and our convictions. The action of the intellect, to which we more directly attribute our opinions or beliefs, cannot, in actual fact, be separated from the motives and springs of action in the emotions and the will. Indifference to doctrine in the supposed interests of life rests upon a very narrow conception of what life is, that is, upon a very superficial analysis of human nature. Thought is a part of life, and a very significant part of it. If, as Matthew Arnold insists, conduct is three-fourths of life, thought is, at least, its other fourth. But to me Mr. Arnold's dictum seems to exaggerate the proportions of conduct as a part of life, unless conduct be made to include, not only behavior or action, but also that whole play of thought and feeling, of motive and aspiration, within man, in which action has its main source and spring. Life must not be narrowed to the limits of external conduct. The religious life is an affair of the heart, an affair of the inner man, before it becomes an affair of outward action or conduct. The inner life rules the outer life ; the issues of life in action are from the heart of motive and desire. What a man does is rooted in what he is, in what he thinks and feels.

We may, therefore, justly claim that in the relation of doctrine to life something more is involved than the influence of Christian truth upon conduct. The relation of this truth to the inner life is even closer and more important than its relation to action. Our present subject, therefore, includes the adaptation of Christian truth to the wants of man's mind and conscience, and its bearings upon the depth and quality of character. Religious beliefs — at least, some of them — bear an essential relation to the life of thought, feeling, and motive, and through these affect the issues of life in action. It is this close relation of truth to life, of doctrinal belief to experience, which I have intended to suggest in the alternative title of this volume. In this title it is implied that both doctrine and life are involved in religion ; that religion may be contemplated more on its intellectual side as involving the acceptance of certain truths, or more on its practical side as involving a certain spirit or temper, and certain modes and principles of action. Religion is many-sided, and should not be too narrowly defined. It should not, for example, be defined as consisting merely in the belief of certain truths, although it necessarily involves such belief. Nor does it consist exclusively in conduct, although it essentially involves conduct. It will thus appear that a study of the leading doctrines of Christianity, especially when they are continually regarded from the standpoint of Christian experience, may properly be called a study of the Christian religion.

The tenets of Christianity may be studied from various points of view. They may be presented with reference to showing their inherent reasonableness — this would be the method of philosophical theology. They may be considered with reference to the support which they find in the Bible — biblical theology pursues this plan. They may be approached more, as we shall seek to approach them, in the light of the constant inquiry, How is the doctrine in question correlated to practical Christian thinking and life ; not to the thinking of the philosopher merely, nor to that of the biblical scholar, but to that of the average Christian man ? This inquiry involves to some extent, no doubt, a consideration of the grounds on which Christian beliefs rest ; but it directly and primarily involves the question as to their value and use in forming a helpful working conception of Christian life and duty. The effort will, therefore, be constantly made to present those aspects of Christian doctrine which stand in the most vital relation to the best development of the Christian consciousness and character. By applying, even if only imperfectly, this principle of limitation, we shall avoid, to a great extent, the realm of religious controversy. Most of the disputes among Christians have related to points and theories which, as the facts of Christian history prove, have not necessarily involved, to any great extent, the interests of healthy religious thought and life ; since, in most such cases, men of diverse views concerning them have been equally earnest in teaching the great facts which underlie the various theories, and equally successful in conforming their own lives to the requirements of the gospel. Under various theories of the origin of sin, for example, men have held with equal strength of conviction to the doctrine that sin is universal and guilty, and should be repented of and forsaken. A recognition of the fact of sin, and a clear conviction concerning its guilt and power, bear very important relations to practical Christian thought and life. But whether one believes, with the type of orthodoxy which has been most widely prevalent since Augustine, that all men actually and personally sinned in Adam, because all were seminally present in him as the head of the race ; or holds, with a later theory, that Adam stood forth as the representative of the race, and that all men sinned putatively in him, since he stood or fell for all his descendants, involves no interest of evangelical faith or of Christian character and conduct. One may withhold assent from both these theories and adopt some other, or may believe that no theory on the subject is feasible, without loss to sound and sincere Christian living or thinking.

With all the emphasis which we justly lay upon Christianity as the religion of a good life, we are not to forget the value of its truths as incentives to reflection and thought. In our busy age we may lay so great stress upon the outward acts and services of religion, as to obscure the importance of clear, wellconsidered thinking upon the nature, the elements, and the demands of our faith. Christianity offers its truths to us for our contemplation, for the invigoration of our minds, and the uplifting of our spirits, through the consideration of the highest themes which can engage our attention. The deeds and services which we perform in the world will be in no small degree dependent for their effectiveness and power upon the maturity of religious thought, the depth of the inner life, and the richness of the spiritual experience out of which they spring.

Chapter II " The Soul Naturally Christian "

In the very first chapter of the Bible we read that man was made in the image of God (Gen. i. 27). The terms "image" and "likeness " which are here used, imply that man's nature is kindred to that of God from whom he came. This kinship of man to God includes, at least, two great points of likeness : (1) man is a personal being, as God is ; and (2) man is, like his Maker, a moral being. Let us briefly consider the significance of each of these points.