King's Business - 1915-04



tian and for the Church to re-exam­ ine its foundations, and reach, if pos­ sible, that minimum of Divine Truth which the semi-sceptic, the partially- agnostic, and the more or less ration­ alistic layman and cleric will agree to, in order that everything may be re­ moved that is distasteful to the masses. (Campbell’s New Theology, p. 225.) They seem to say: We have 'a Bible inspired, a Christ Divine, a creed apostolic; but what do you object to: how much of it can you not agree with: what portion of it causes offense; which are the parts you would like us to cut out? We know you are of the age. You must, therefore, be philosophic. We know you are sensitively conscious of be­ ing modern. You must, therefore, be scientific. So here we stand, with ACCOMMODATION written all over us. We will explain away any­ thing, restate anything, abandon anything, in order to accommodate you. WHY MAKE TERMS?' But what is there either in the Bible or in the history of Christian experience to warrant the assumption either that religion must make terms with philosophy, or that the making of such terms will conciliate the philo­ sophic? According to the New Tes­ tament, the very opposite is the case. The cleverness of the especially clever, and the scholarliness of the specially scholarly, did not qualify them, ac­ cording to St. Paul, for reception of the truth, for the psychical man can­ not receive the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 2:4-14); and as to science and philosophy, he utters his earnest appeal that no one victimize us by the imposition of phil­ osophy (Col. 2:8) and that we guard the entrusted deposit of the faith res­ olutely avoiding the fallacies, scoffings and disputations of the pseudonymous gnosis (an inspired description of

dress it up in a little philosophic verbiage and call it> scientific evidence and modern research, and our critical Anglican scholars—about whom, ac­ cording to Sanday, “Nothing is wan­ ton, nothing supercilious, nothing cyn­ ical,” but with whom apparently a whisper from Loofs or Harnack is louder than a shout from St. Paul or St. John—fall into line, and, pro­ fessing with the utmost conviction their regard for the central realities of the faith, parade in a very philo­ sophic and approved style all sorts of anti-supernaturalistic conclusions. THE GREAT MISTAKE. But perhaps the strongest cause is the mistaken idea that the upholders of the faith are bound, as they never were before, to recognize the Zeit­ geist of the Twentieth century, ana do everything that is possible to con­ ciliate the man on the street—espe­ cially the man on College street. They start apparently with two amazing theorems. The first is that religion must make terms with philosophy (Foundations, p. 426). The second, that the more the supernatural is ex­ plained away or repudiated, the more the modern mind will become sin­ cerely and humbly Christian. They assume that the only religion that the world Of to-day will accept is one in harmony with science, philosophy, and scholarship. But tjie science, philos-- ophy, and scholarship of to-day, if not confessedly monistic, according to Professor James, who states that the old-fashioned Bible Christianity has tended to disappear in the British and American universities, is certainly ra­ tionalistic, and all who know any­ thing about the supremacy of Ger­ many in these domains, know full well that their science, philosophy, and scholarship is avowedly anti- Christian. Therefore, this seems to argue it is necessary for the Chris-'

Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker