From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion : An Intellectual Biography of George Burman Foster, 1857-1918 [1 ed.] 9781443850179, 9781443848534

Citation preview

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion: An Intellectual Biography of George Burman Foster, 1857-1918

By

W. Creighton Peden

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion: An Intellectual Biography of George Burman Foster, 1857-1918, by W. Creighton Peden This book first published 2013 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2013 by W. Creighton Peden All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-4853-0, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4853-4

On behalf of your late Grandmother, “Frissy” McKnight Peden, We welcome you to the world. Keaton Taylor York September 28, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... ix Historical Sketch ........................................................................................ 1 The Finality of the Christian Religion Introduction .................................................................................................... 7 Historical Review ......................................................................................... 10 The Foundation of Authority Religion ......................................................... 12 Dissolution of Authority Religion ................................................................ 14 The Changing View of the World and Christian Life ................................... 21 The Naturalistic and the Religious View of the World ................................. 26 Mystery in Religion ...................................................................................... 28 The Naturalistic Negation of Dependence and Teleology ............................ 29 The Essence of the Christian Religion: The Problem of Method ................. 34 The Essence of the Christian Religion: Sources of the Life of Jesus ............ 38 The Essence of the Christian Religion: Jesus ............................................... 41 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 47

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence ....................... 51 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 59

Heresy Trial .............................................................................................. 63 Conclusion.................................................................................................... 77

Christianity in Its Modern Expression First Treatise: The Dogmatics of the Christian Religion Introductory ......... 79 The Foundation of Christian Dogmatics....................................................... 80 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 104

Friedrich Nietzsche ................................................................................. 109 Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings of G. B. Foster Philosophy of Feminism ............................................................................. 113 Pragmatism and Knowledge ....................................................................... 115 The Theological Training for the Times ..................................................... 117 The Status and Vocation of Our Colored People ........................................ 118

viii

Contents Recent Theological Literature: Some Modern Estimates of Jesus .............. 120 Can Pragmatism Furnish a Philosophical Basis for Theology .................... 122 How Far Can Truths of Christianity be Stated in Terms of Naturalism? .... 124 The Ethics of Wage .................................................................................... 126 Remarks at 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress ........................... 127 The Function of Death in Human Experience ............................................ 129 Do Human Beings Have Free Will? ........................................................... 131 Suggestions for the Questions of a Sunday-School Catechism .................. 137 The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency ............ 138 Concerning Immortality ............................................................................. 141 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 143

Summation.............................................................................................. 147 Notes....................................................................................................... 153 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 161 Index ....................................................................................................... 163

PREFACE

My writings for the past fifty years have explored the empirical tradition in American Liberal Religious Thought. The first part of this tradition was centered in the Free Religious Association, which was formed in 1867. It was composed of thinkers who had accepted Darwin’s findings and were committed to the scientific method in all areas of their exploration. Free Religion meant freedom from all religious traditions, holy books, and superstitions. The second phase of the empirical tradition focuses on those philosophers and theologians who composed the early Chicago School. A key figure in the early Chicago School was George Burman Foster. If you will explore the Table of Contents, you will note that we first consider the development of Foster’s thought presented in his major publications. Next, we will consider his thought in a selection of his diverse shorter writings. A conclusion follows each major publication and the shorter writings. Finally, there will be a “Summation.” Members of the Baptist ministry in the Chicago area considered Foster to be a radical. We will devote a chapter to the mock heresy trial held by these Baptist ministers. It was a mock trial because Baptists do not allow for a church court above the local congregation. If there was to be a heresy trial, it had to be by the congregation that ordained the minister. Since the congregation that ordained Foster was no longer in existence, no trial was possible. The mock trial called for the University of Chicago to fire Foster, but the University made it clear that Foster would not be fired. I am indebted to Jerome A. Stone, a friend since our student days at the University of Chicago for serving as an external critic for the book. He provided detailed suggestions, for which I would like to express my appreciation. I am also indebted to Ann and Lewis Doggett for their historical research. I want to thank John N. Gaston, a close friend and fellow graduate of Davidson College, for his computer assistance, as I am more than technological challenged. I would also like to express my appreciation to the University of Chicago Libraries, Meadville Theological School’s library, and to Hudson Library in Highlands, North Carolina. —W. Creighton Peden, 2013

HISTORICAL SKETCH

On April 2, 1857, George Burman Foster was born at Wolf Creek, Monroe, West Virginia to Louisa Ann Bobbitt Foster and Oliver Harrison Foster. Young Foster was a grandson of Gibson and Permilla Bobbitt, who in 1853 had founded the Baptist Church in Monroe in which Louisa and Oliver were married in 1856. Oliver’s parents were James and Mary Pownell Foster. Foster was born at a very difficult time in the history of America as the Civil War was on the verge of commencing. When he was five years old in 1862, Louisa Ann Foster died. About the same time, Oliver Foster was called to the Civil War in a regiment from Tennessee, leaving his son to be raised by grandparents. Following the War, Oliver Foster returned and after some years married Mary Barton. Oliver and Mary had several children during the 1870s and 80s that provided for George Foster a family situation for the remainder of his childhood. Even as a young boy, George Foster was recognized as being very bright. In a retrospective article, Mrs. L. G. Hoover, Foster’s sister, described the emotional religiousness of his nature as “perhaps his most outstanding characteristic. He was free from Puritanic severity, or disagreeable sanctimony.”1 J. V. Nash offered an interesting physical description of Foster: “Almost as an apparition, he came. He was a large man with something Lincolnesque in his tall, ungainly figure and the broad, stooping shoulders. For so massive a frame, he had—or so it seemed—very small feet, and touched them so lightly upon the floor that he made scarcely any sound as he walked along the corridor or entered the room. His figure was indeed an unusual one. His head would have attracted attention anywhere; it dominated and threw into the background, as it were, all else. There was a reminiscence of Cardinal Newman in that esthetic face, with its forward thrust, the prominent nose, the forehead with its crown of gray hair, the beetling eyebrows, and the eyes with that faraway look, peering one might fancy, into another world. His clothing was gray, like the locks thrown carelessly back from the sloping forehead, gray, indeed, was the habitual tone of his external make-up. Gray, the gray of eternity and infinity, it seemed naturally associated with him.”2 Foster started college work at Shelton College and completed his course as an honors student at the University of West Virginia, receiving

2

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

the A.B. in 1883 and the A.M. in 1884. While as a student, Foster fell in love with Mary Lyon and they were married. Her father was president of the University of West Virginia. Foster later graduated from the Baptist Theological Seminary in Rochester, New York. Having previously been ordained, he undertook his first pastorate at First Baptist Church in Saratoga Springs, New York, from 1887–91. McMasters University had suggested that Foster spend a year studying at Gottingen and Berlin. A member of the congregation was John D. Rockefeller, who became an ardent supporter of Foster and paid for his studies in Germany. It is probably in Europe that Foster became interested in Friedrich Nietzsche, which led him to write his book on Nietzsche. Upon returning from Germany, Foster joined the philosophy department at McMaster University in Canada. He left McMaster in 1895 to become associate professor of systematic theology, and in 1897 professor of theology in the Divinity School of the University of Chicago. While at Chicago, he published two acclaimed books: The Finality of the Christian Religion based on lectures at Yale University, and The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence, based on lectures at Berkeley. The publication of Finality and The Function of Religion served as the foundation for a concerted attack in 1906 and 1909 on Foster as a Baptist minister by the Baptist Ministerial Association of Chicago, which we shall consider later. In 1905, Foster asked to be transferred from The Divinity School to the department of Comparative Religion, as professor of Philosophy of Religion, which made him a member of the faculty of Arts and Literature. Although he was no longer in the Divinity School, his classes were generally filled with Divinity students. Foster’s Friedrich Nietzsche was published posthumously. He also published studies of Norwegian playwrights Henrik Ibsen, Bjørnson and the Belgian poet Maurice Maeterlinck.3 Foster’s best friend was Clarence Darrow, the lawyer. They did public debates on topics such as “Do Human Beings Have Free Will.” The debates were popular and added to Foster and Darrow’s public awareness. Darrow also delivered Foster’s funeral oration. Although Foster was strongly influenced throughout his life by evangelical Christianity based on his Baptist heritage, he was always testing his faith by his increasingly liberal or radical theological views. G. B. Foster and his family were very much involved in the Hyde Park Baptist Church upon moving to Chicago. William Rainey Harper, president of the University of Chicago, was also a member, as were many members of the faculty. One of Harper’s first concerns was in building a new facility for the Hyde Park Church. By 1894, the new Church building

Historical Sketch

3

was underway, with the Church being closer to the University of Chicago. It took ten years for this process to be completed. The Chapel was dedicated on February 9, 1896, which was a year after the Fosters moved to Chicago and joined the Hyde Park Church. Although the Foster family was involved in the Church, Foster was most often preaching at various Unitarian Churches within the great Chicago area and beyond.4 Foster’s home life was dominated by afflictions, death, and heavy financial burdens. He wrote a desperate letter in 1900 to President William R. Harper seeking a raise in pay of at least $500, citing his wife’s constant invalidism. Mary Lyon Foster suffered from neurasthenia (which today is described as “chronic fatigue syndrome”), and she bore five frail children. Death claimed their eldest son, Raymond by drowning in Lake Marie, Illinois, on July 10, 1901, just before he was to begin college. As Foster noted, Raymond was the apple of his eye, was very bright, and in who Foster had built his hope. Mary was Foster’s favorite, who died the day before her wedding. Harrison, their youngest son, died from pneumonia while serving at a Texas army camp in 1918. Death captured another son and another daughter, which at that time was described as the mind dying while the body lives. In 1918, influenza swept the country with deadly force. In November of 1918, President Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin succumbed. Foster was invited to perform the funeral service. Although Foster was having chills and not at all feeling well, he accepted the invitation. His lodging in Wisconsin was not adequately heated, and he returned to Chicago with an even harsher chill. On Thanksgiving Day, with the weather warmer, he played a little golf, his favorite outdoor recreation. Soon after his condition worsened, with his being taken to St. Luke’s Hospital. Fatal complications developed, with the cause of Foster’s death attributed to abscess of the spleen. He died on December 22, 1918. Mary Lyon Foster took her husband’s remains for burial in West Virginia. She did not live long after his death. A memorial service was held on Jan. 12, 1919, for G. B. Foster at the Garrick Theater. This was the Theater where Clarence Darrow and Foster had debated. The memorial address was delivered by Darrow. He noted that in this Theater the two had discussed the problems of life and death: “But the answer is that George Burman Foster is dead and that his brain, today, is less potent than the puny babe’s; that all that was stored within during a long and useful life, is dead.”5 Darrow noted that many had called Foster a religious man, and he replied, “If religion means creeds and dogmas, he was not a religious man. If it means specific belief in a supreme being, he was not. If it means a firm conviction of immortal life,

4

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

he still was not; but if it means infinite love, gentleness, charity and kindness to all living things, George Burman Foster was the most religious man I ever knew!”6 Darrow later said of Foster, “Of course, he believed in no personal god. But, if there is no personal god, there is no god; and if there is no personal immortality, there is no immortality.”7 Darrow said in his personal testimony: “George Burman Foster was one of the rarest men I ever knew. He was tolerant to all who lived… He had no use for any of the creeds that bind, and fetter man. He believed in freedom. He believed that the greatest thing was to be an individual and to live your own life unafraid… He would a man lived free and wrong, than to be bound to the right… He believed that men should make their own mistakes and blunders, and that their bodies and souls should be left unchained… He had a way of balancing one thing against another and trying to find out which after all was best and how far the mind could go before it reached the end of human knowledge.”8 A service in memory of G. B. Foster was held in Leon Mandel Assembly Hall, the University of Chicago, on January 29, 1919. Addresses were delivered by J. M. Powis Smith, William Wallace Fenn and James Hayden Tufts. Powis Smith noted, “He had no patience with opportunism in any sphere, and gave it short shift. He saw clearly the desired goal and made straight for it. Such undeviating directness naturally brought friction… few of those who denounced him ever really knew him. No one could come into close contact with him… without yielding to the charm of his personality. He was endowed not merely with brilliancy of mind, but even more generously with the warmth of heart. He gathered up people into the glow of his affections which speedily melted all traces of suspicion and hostility.” William Wallace Fenn, Dean of the Harvard Divinity School spoke on “Professor Foster as a Theologian.” Dean Fenn postulated, “…that he was the most profoundly, purely, genuinely, religious man that I ever knew… Religion was not a side of his nature; it was his nature, in its wholeness… as a systematic theologian, for breadth and depth of learning, for keenness, vigor, and originality of mind, he had not a peer in the world, unless perhaps it be Troeltsch… With the mighty mind was associated the heart of a child… It was his way to take a current tendency, follow it relentlessly to its logical conclusion, and then seek to estimate its consequences for the life of the spirit… With him, there was no finality. There were but stages in the pilgrim’s progress.” Professor James Hayden Tufts, head of the department of philosophy at Chicago, said: “His peculiar power and widespread influence were due

Historical Sketch

5

largely to the intimate interaction between the world of thought and the life of feeling, between pursuit of truth and the pressure of humanity’s needs… He studied therefore: (1) religion as a type of experience, (2) the views of the world and of man which religion implies, and then (3) more definitely the question whether Christianity can be regarded as the ultimate religion—a question which involved in turn the question ‘What is Christianity?’ …Religion was for him in part an attitude of personal companionship… with the morally ideal person… He stood for his convictions with absolutely unfaltering courage; he met misunderstanding and opposition unflinchingly; more he met even severer tests of successive bereavements, and kept gentleness, sweetness, and serenity of spirit. His was a soul that had overcome the world.”

THE FINALITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

Introduction Foster discusses his approach to the topic under consideration, while noting that other approaches would differ according to historical circumstances.9 Orthodoxy of Catholics or Protestants rests upon speculative ideas and a method of argumentation concerning the passage of the divine to the human. These ideas and methods are currently discredited in the modern world by our “convictions of immanence and growth.” Employing the word perfectibility, one assumes that Christianity is constantly being modified and developing. Absoluteness signifies that Christianity in comparison to other religions is essentially religion in its perfect form. This position is evident in modern evolutionism and especially in Hegelian philosophy, but it fails to deal with the historical development and the resulting relativity of Christianity. Applying “finality” to Christianity includes “(1) the horizon of universal religious history; (2) the recognition of all non-Christian religions as relative truths; and (3) the appreciation of Christianity as that form of religion which rounds out these relative truths to the ‘absolute’.”10 Foster used the word “finality” not as the last but as the perfect. Foster employed also the religio-historical method, which views Christianity in relation to other religions, from which it has borrowed ideas and values. Such interaction negates the supposed singularity of Christianity. Since Christianity claims its existence upon the finality of Jesus, it is difficult to support this claim of an ideal religion for advancing humans based on a historically relative figure. Modern philosophy contends that there is nothing fixed or final as all things are constantly becoming, which means it is the very nature of the absolute to grow. No message can be claimed the same for all times. Foster sought the reasons for claiming Christianity to be the ultimate religion. He noted that Christianity is revealed in two historic forms— either an authority religion or a religion of the spirit which involves humans’ moral consciousness. “Our first duty is to trace the rise, development, and disintegration of Christianity as authority religion; our

8

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

second is to define Christianity as religion of the spirit, with a view to determining whether the highest spirit of the modern world can and will in the long run call itself Christianity.”11 His method will be destructive concerning supernaturalism and naturalism and then constructive based on scientific judgment instead of faith. By this approach he does not primarily consider what is passing and what is permanent in Christianity but contends with whether there is anything permanent—“whether the finality of the essential nature of Christianity can be maintained.”12 A significant issue is the notion that Christianity rests on the contention that it has the perfect knowledge of God through Jesus Christ. According to Bernard Hermann, Jesus stands over against humanity, not as the climax of religious evolution but as Redeemer over against the redeemed. Foster suggested that his consideration of these issues must deal with the reality that the scientific impulse so dominates that we feel the obligation to search for the truth “without regard to conventions, fears, or prejudices, to make everything an object of investigation which can be an object of human knowledge.”13 Employing sciences will contribute to an adequate theological conscience that will insist upon honest dealings even with difficult or dangerous questions. If we seek scientific proof of the finality of the Christian religion, we soon realize that all forms of scientific investigation, including the theological, are limited. Science cannot penetrate the mystery of religion, with Christianity being no exception. Foster contended that theologians and ministers must face “the scientific doubt as to the finality and indispensableness of our Christian Faith.”14 Christianity as authority religion, based on the old static view of reality, is negated by a process of immanent criticism, which makes possible a return to the religion of Jesus, a religion of the spirit. Jesus did not base his ministry on external authority. Rather, he based his faith on a moral orientation. Jesus’s attitude toward authority supports our modern concern regarding the autonomy of the human spirit. If we hold to the guarantees associated with authority religion, we must confront the destructive work of criticism. Foster’s consideration of authority religion is devoted to logical criticism that focuses on inner consistency and truth from the modern perspective. By establishing this approach, “my task precludes an expression of the veneration and valuation which I accord to the system of religious control, with its pedagogic urgency upon life.”15 He also noted that he had neither criticized fully authority religion nor intended to disturb anyone’s faith. However, he suggested that now having an unsettled faith was not evil because one’s interior attitude to reality is more important than one’s creedal perspective. Foster opined, “Religion in

The Finality of the Christian Religion

9

the peculiar sense of the word is a state of the human subject. The objective historical doctrinal traditions and institutions are not primarily cause, but effect; are never ends in themselves, but only means to the end of expressing and arousing subjective religious life in the soul. An objective historical religion lives only so long as it finds confessors.”16 Foster rejected naturalism because it only allows for demonstrable knowledge and omits personal convictions. Both naturalism and materialism fail to include the spirit of the thinking subject and its drive for constructing a world-view. However, he supported naturalism’s view that Christianity and all religions are the focus of religio-historical study. “In a word, naturalism, clinging too closely to natural science and mathematics in its study of the human, fails to do justice to the whole of the human, and hence to the Christianly human.”17 Naturalism fails to consider the meta-historical character experienced as revelation in Christianity and other religions. Foster illustrated this perspective by pointing to the traditional claim that Jesus was perfect or he would have been unable to mediate between God and humans. Naturalism correctly indicates that we have inadequate data on Jesus’s actions and inner life by which to make this judgment. It can neither support nor negate the claim of Jesus being without sin.

10

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Historical Review The issue remains the perfectibility of revealed religion. Support for this position viewed the New Testament as perfecting the revelation in the Old Testament. If the Old required the New to perfect its revelation, does the New Testament need to be supplemented by new revelations? From one perspective, no progress in revelation is possible because the Godhead dwelt in Jesus. From another, progress in revelation is possible, according to the Gospel of John, because Jesus taught further development of his teachings as the disciples matured and through the new truth to be set forth by the Paraklete. Montanus maintained that the rule of Faith was incapable of improvement, with further development being essentially disciplinary. This further development was possible because God sent the Paraklete to advance the foundation of righteousness known through the law and the Gospel. Foster noted that this theory put in jeopardy the theory of Scripture being sufficient. The Catholic doctrine rejected further revelation while contending that the Holy Spirit works through the Church in the development of doctrines and institutions. By the Middle Ages, the Catholic form of Christianity developed diverse religious orders. Joachim by 1260 postulated the age of the Spirit in which the Spirit will replace the New Testament’s Gospels with the eternal Gospel. In the eternal Gospel the truth of the Old and New Testaments are revealed by the Holy Spirit independently and transcending the written word of God. The Protestant Reformers thought that there was no reason for further revelation because the Scriptures were complete in doctrine and in the way of the Christian life as imitating Christ. By the seventeenth century, there emerged a new fountain, in opposition to orthodoxy, which was the “human spirit’s own self-reflection, selfexploration.”18 In many ways, the human spirit transcended the biblical writers because their writings were dependent upon their secular knowledge. The eighteenth century bought new development by renewed interest in philology and historical criticism. Gotthold E. Lessing followed the Montanistic stages of revelation related to the stages of human life. The Old Testament contained the wisdom that a parent tries to convey to a child. He held the New Testament to be a better book than the Old but of the same kind, with the additions of the doctrine of immortality and future retribution as incentives to righteousness. The time of consummation will bring the eternal Gospel. Then humans will be convinced of a better future in which they will do what is considered good because it is good.

The Finality of the Christian Religion

11

The German philosopher Wilhelm T. Krug also supported the notion that Christianity required further development by means of human reflection. He contended that “the concept of the absolute perfectibility of revealed religion contains a contradiction in itself; a knowledge communicated at a given point of time cannot be absolutely perfect.”19 Krug viewed the apostles to have increased in knowledge based on the Holy Spirit, which suggested that the Scriptures required criticism. He did not think that Jesus provided a final and unchangeable religion because God had sent him only to reveal the first impulse to the human spirit. Christoph Friedrich von Ammon, a German theologian, considered the perfectibility of Christianity by it developing into a world religion. Even in its Protestant form, Christianity is not the same as the Christianity of Christ. All changes in Christian development, Ammon considered, brought great progress and freedom. He perceived the task of the time to require the elevation of the idea in Christianity above the empirical. Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher shifts from the finality of Christianity to the perfection of Jesus. Foster suggested that Schleiermacher’s Christology was the last important effort “to make the ecclesiastical Christ acceptable to the spirit of the modern world.”20 Schleiermacher argued that the God-consciousness of Christ was unsurpassable. However, like Hegel, he considered the popular forms of Christ’s teachings and life should be surpassed in order to retain its original unsurpassableness. He further affirmed the sinlessness of Jesus because Jesus actualized the pure ideality of humankind. By viewing Jesus as a full and real human being, he rationally considered the Church’s Christ and supported those characteristics necessary for Jesus to continue as our redeemer and archetype. Foster considered Schleiermacher’s Christ to be no more a real human than the Christ of the Church.

12

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Foundation of Authority Religion Every religion shares the conviction that it is based on revelation from God. These religions viewed revelation from the perspective of a traditionalist, a rationalist, and a mystic. The traditionalists are the ecclesiastical, which defined Christianity as authority religion. Revelation came to pious men, which is expressed in the Bible. Foster first considered Paul’s doctrine of revelation expressed in the old Greek Church. For John of Damascus, God revelation is endowed in all humans. Justin Martyr considered the Logos to be in all persons who live rationally, with Jesus being the whole Logos. Thus, all who live according to reason are Christians. Quintus Tertullian viewed the witness of the soul to be the essential values of the Christian faith, with the Church founded in order “that men may be the more easily and surely saved.”21 Foster considered the making of divine revelation into ordinary revelation and the doctrine of human depravity to be wedges in the development of the church. Augustine held that external revelation was necessary, along with the Holy Spirit to enable the revelation to be effective. Of course, the church became the keeper of both revelation and Spirit, turning Christianity into an absolute supernaturalism. For Saint Augustine, revelation was external but blunted by sin. Thomas Aquinas held that the truths based on reason are validated by revelation. The Formula of Concord postulated that since the Fall humans had a natural feeling of God, but this natural revelation was inadequate. Huldrych Zwingli held a similar view, with feeling only of the existence of God but not of God’s nature. The Socinians denied hereditary sin and the possibility of natural religion, but stressed the necessity of special revelation. By the seventh century, orthodox theologians distinguished between God’s revelation in the Bible and natural revelation. If one has not received revelation in the Bible, one was damned. “The Book is thus the basis of authority religion… revelation is a supernatural communication of doctrines guaranteed to be divine by the miraculous mode of their origins.”22 The authority religion claimed proof of revelation based on miracles, prophecy, the moral character of the prophets, and beneficent doctrines. Augustine viewed miracles as relative and subjective. The Scholastics defined a miracle as phenomenon with no known cause, which was also the view of Protestants or dissenting groups. A basic issue was preserving the revelation. The church had canonized and interpreted them, relying on churches founded by the apostles to be in cooperation with the Holy Spirit. The ecclesiastical extra-canonical

The Finality of the Christian Religion

13

tradition was not contained in the Scriptures. “The canon of Scripture was the Word of God.”23 Councils claimed guidance by the Holy Spirit, which in modern times was expressed as their infallibility and later as the infallibility of the Pope. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures was supported by the contention that God had inspired the writers of the Old and New Testaments. However, some Fathers claimed degrees of inspiration in the Scriptures. Martin Luther found limited inspiration to parts of the Old and New Testaments, which introduced subjectivity as a disturbing factor. John Calvin claimed all scriptures to be the Word of God. “No limits can be set in the process of valuation.”24 However, Catholics relied on the primacy of the Church and not the Scriptures. The Orthodox Church doctrine was that the sacred writers were directed by divine impulse and command, whether or not they understood what they wrote. There remained the issue whether the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was relative in depending on human weakness. The issue remained whether the Scriptures were inspired. Calvin warned of building faith on divine words interpreted by human reason. The Protestants rejected the Catholic position of the divinity of the Church. Calvin held that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to all forms of human reason. This same Spirit conveys to humans the feeling that the divine word is true. The rationalists sought guarantees that the feeling in humans is the work of the divine Spirit. Even if the Scriptures are divinely inspired, how can we be saved by them? We understand, and are saved by, an interpretation of the Scriptures that is either ecclesiastical or scientific. When the Scriptures were culturally based, the allegorical or pneumatic method was employed. It was by this method that all extra-scriptural doctrines were imported into the Scriptures and secured divine authority for the developing authority religion. However, this method brought problems to an authority religion. At first, the Reformers rejected the allegorical method but returned to it in a limited degree. The Arminians held that because the meaning of Scripture is doubtful, one should prefer the meaning that did not contradict sound reason. Benedict de Spinoza, in his rationalistic way, noted unethical elements in the principle of accommodation. “Conscious accommodation was transformed into unconscious accommodation. Instead of the writers adaptations to their times, they shared in the ideas of their time.”25 For authority religion, biblical revelation is revitalized by interpretation or it returns to an infallible book infallibly interpreted and appropriated.

14

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Dissolution of Authority Religion Protestants held to a rigid doctrine of inspiration that was supported by the mechanical view of the world in the seventeenth century. In this doctrine, the Scriptures were identified as the Word of God. The Protestant principle was that no human authority should come between God and man. Since the Scriptures are the sole source of the knowledge of salvation, they must be considered as divine. Protestants relied on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit for establishing the supernatural divinity of the Scriptures. The question arose: “How is the inner to be recognized as divine and infallible?”26 Since Jews and Mohammedans also claim the same inner witness, it appears that these share a common prepossession based on the sacred book. Foster noted that this supernatural witness of the Holy Spirit for modern theologians is viewed as the spiritual energizing of one’s true nature. Authority religion, as discussed, affirms the inerrancy of Scriptures based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that the Scriptures are expressed by human authors in a particular context, making it difficult to support their inerrancy. However, faith in the divinity of the Bible was affirmed by Socinians and Arminians who contended that the divinity of the Scriptures was proved by their genuineness. God would not have allowed Jesus to teach untruth, which was also true of the apostles. “In a word, the contention with which we have now to do in this form of the argument is that the evidence proves historicity, and that historicity proves the supernatural divinity of the Book.”27 Upon this new perspective, the supernatural divinity of the bookreligion was established. Gotthold E. Lessing influenced the development of this view by distinguishing between historical belief and religious faith. He said, “Accidental truths of history can never become proof of necessary truths of reason.”28 Lessing held that one’s belief in the resurrection does not prove that Jesus was the Son of God. One should not jump from historical truths to a different class of truths. For Lessing, the biblical books could never provide the certainty that faith requires. From this perspective, verbal inspiration as well as prophecy, history, and doctrine were attacked and only conceded to Sacred Scriptures. Spinoza held that doctrine arose in “natural light” aided by the divine Spirit. The new supernaturalism resulted based on “the divine impulse to write.”29 God was still considered the primary author of the Scriptures in the sense that all good comes from God. George Hegel broke the confidence of this position by noting that the first expression of a religion is of less value than the last expression, based on the premise that reality is

The Finality of the Christian Religion

15

a process that is always becoming. Hegel’s view rejected Friedrich Schleiermacher’s contention that the “beginnings” are the most perfect because they are by the immediate Disciples of Christ. David F. Strauss, who moved the discussion to modern Philosophy of Religion, contended that the error was equating the Christian spirit with the absolute spirit. The dogma of infallibility was considered historically untrue and psychologically impossible. For the Protestants only, the biblical tradition was the “Word of God.” Foster focused on whether canon and “Word of God” are of a similar nature. From the dogmatic-theological approach, the “Word of God” in its fullness is not equal to the canon. Marcion could not accept the Old Testament’s God to be the same as God in the New Testament and contended that the Old Testament was the revelation of a Demiurge. The Antochian School, which turned from allegorical to grammatical exegesis, doubted the holiness of some biblical books. Baruch Spinoza limited the book to be the Word of God only to those parts that were revealed religion’s fundamental truths. Martin Luther rejected the canon as “Word of God” because it was a return to Catholicism. He held this position from a dogmatic rather than historical criticism. George Calixtus limited the divine to that which was primarily redemptive. Foster considered these shifts epoch-making for it shifted the focus from its roots to its fruits. “The criterion of miraculous supernaturalism according to authority religion yields to the criterion of serviceability.”30 Lessing met these attacks on the Bible and Christianity by noting that the Bible is not religion but only contains religion. Schleiermacher led the transition from dogmatic to historical criticism. Spinoza, the founder of biblical criticism, limited his doubts to the Old Testament. He necessitated for the modern world critical investigations of each book in the Bible anew. The English and French freethinkers followed his criticism. Richard Simon, a German, considered the Old Testament books later extractions from Israel’s historical records. The followers of Spinoza did not limit biblical criticism to the Old Testament, but also applied it to the three synoptic Gospels, which are related to the fourth Gospel. The Gospel of John had greater appeal, as John was considered a reliable historian, with less interest in the synoptic. Romanticism, early in the nineteenth century, continued to lessen the historical and attempted reconciliation between the old and new views. Foster opined, “But the thing for which I care in this connection is the inevitable result of the development to the point reached above, viz., that the fides divina in the Scriptures of modern supernaturalism has come thus to be founded upon the fides humana in the Sacred Scriptures.”31

16

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The thesis that the entire Bible is “Word of God” was supported by the contention that the Bible also expressed the value of the word of God. Matthew Tindal pointed out that Cicero had established the doctrine of human duties, which the Scriptures had treated indefinitely. To interpret the Scriptures by themselves would lead to dangerous errors. These are the reasons why the canon cannot provide adequate authority, especially when it is understood how knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is required. Lessing added to his contention that the Bible is not religion, that the letter is not the Spirit. Although we depend on the Scriptures, the entire truth of religion is not dependent upon them. Lessing noted that Luther had freed us from tradition, but questioned who would free us from the yoke of the letter. For the Quakers, especially Robert Barclay, the Scriptures were based on an inner revelation to great individuals. Thus, the Scriptures are not the source of revelation but are from the source. It is the inner revelation of the Spirit that makes one spiritual. Spinoza held a similar view. God’s word was not spoken to a single people, for it is an eternally speaking Word. This view was held by rationalists and mystics who rejected tradition as an external authority, which is the foundation of authority religion. Modern theologians have mainly altered this view by including sacred history into the flow of history. They also applied the rejection of miraculous supernaturalism to the canon, which further contributed to the rejection of authority religion. Foster contended that the origin of the New Testament was a historical question. The New Testament presupposes the Old Testament, from which it often quotes. Gentile Christians, employing the method of interpretation, were able to claim a Christianized Old Testament as their own. Modern Christians sought to rescue the words, deeds, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus from the oral tradition. The message and life of Jesus, depending on the Gospels, was the center of a New Faith. The Gospels contained the words of Jesus and were sacred. The apostles in time were included as holy men because they had composed the Gospels. The canon of the New Testament had been established by the Catholic Church, which had emerged in opposition to heresy under the label of Gnosticism. It became necessary for the Catholic Church to establish the characteristics of a Christian as opposed to a heretic. “A Christian was one who: (a) confessed faith in Father, Son, and Spirit, according to the rule of faith, regula fidei, handed down by the apostles; (b) acknowledged the Scriptures originated or handed down by the apostles, and read those Scriptures in the light of the rule of faith; (c) held to bishops ordained by the apostles, or inducted into office by the apostles—bishops and their

The Finality of the Christian Religion

17

congregations; in short, held to the Catholic church. The very instant these three criteria were consciously employed, the Catholic Church was, in principle, completed…”32 It was in adopting the Catholics’ canon that Foster suggested was the Achilles of Protestantism. In summation, Foster noted the results of his review of authority religion: (a) the Bible was the result of divine miracles; and (b) today, we must establish another approach to secure the meaning and value of the Bible. The allegorical method was employed to interpret prophecy, but the method was discredited. Early Protestants attempted to harmonize the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament by emphasizing the local meaning of passages. The Socinians and Armenians held that passages from the Old Testament did not predict events in the New Testament. The German rationalists contended that the Old Testament contained no predictions of Jesus Christ. However, the new religion followed the Catholic canon and was under pressure to find proof from the Old Testament regarding the life and mission of Jesus. The importance of miracles to authority religion remains even in modern times. Luther rejected nature miracles but supported Spirit miracles. Calvin emphasized the proof from miracles. G. W. Leibnitz (Leibniz) conceived angels to be responsible for miracles. Spinoza considered God and nature to be one, with nature being the self-realization of God. He valued the biblical tradition not because of miracles but for its historical and psychological role, which replaced authority religion by the religion of personality. David Hume attacked miracles by noting the inadequacy of human testimony. He also noted that miracles are violations of the laws of nature and support for the truth of miraculous events is inadequate. Immanuel Kant concluded his criticism of miracles by discussing redemptive faith being based on Jesus’s moral will. Miracles as an outward sign do not belong in moral faith. When a miracle-faith focuses on redemption, redemption sacrifices its religious importance. In reality, for Kant there is no experience of miracles. “Theistic miracle annuls the possibility of a theistic idea, and therewith itself as well. But in that case theistic miracle can no longer be distinguished from demonic, since the criterion of evaluation is gone.”33 Because miracles are violations of natural law, Kant opposed them for religious as well as scientific reasons. Schelling and Hegel supported the possibility of miracles based on the relation of Spirit to nature. What is willed in the spirit of truth reflects the Spirit of God. Strauss considered the Divine Will as supporting the laws of nature. Hegel held that nature offered no opposition to the will of the Spirit. Christ was free from the limitations of nature. However, Strauss suggested this all leads to absurdities, if one’s view is based on judging

18

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

facts from something as indefinite as the power of the Spirit over nature. Hegel’s view of miracles was not based on miraculous accounts. He viewed the Spirit as functioning in nature as natural laws based on formative impulses. Kant’s denial of the possibility of knowing miracles was re-examined by rationalists and naturalists with their result offering nothing new. The Catholic views of miracles were so incredible that Protestants limited miracles to the apostolic age. Friedrich Paulus, Spinoza and others abandoned miraculous supernaturalism, leaving them with two alternatives: “(1) explanation by insertion of the natural causes— rationalism; or (2), since this was difficult with regard to so distant a past, the mythical and legendary hypothesis.”34 They held the miraculous accounts to be an expression of faith. Myths were not claimed to be historical reality but are neither illusion nor superstition. Myths, viewed disengaged from temporal form into a process, became the essential view of every religion. Lessing, rejecting miracles as proof of a divine religion offered in his famous statement: “The accidental truths of history can never prove the eternal truths of reason.”35 Faith was self-authenticating rendering other proofs as unnecessary. For Lessing, one can believe in miracles as the natural powers of a higher order, which effectively denied miracles as an effect in nature caused by a supernatural divine power. Jacques Loeb viewed the virgin birth as a form of parthenogenesis similar to the development of earlier forms of life. This means that the virgin is both mother and father of the child, but this notion was in conflict with the Holy Spirit being the father of Jesus. Foster noted that a naturalistic view of miracles destroys their value for authority religion. Protestants soon arrived at the point that miracles played no part in their lives, for the time of miracles belonged to a past age. Hume confronted orthodoxy by contending that miraculous supernatural events in the Bible are reported by persons who lacked adequate knowledge of the relations and laws of nature. Foster suggested that a person who affirms faith in such stories lacked intellectual honesty. The idea of testimony, as well as the idea of God and of nature, is imperfect. Spinoza was right that God cannot be both natural and supernatural for the natural law is the will of God. The help of God is sought when we think that nature cannot meet our needs. The miraculous faith in God is sought when we cannot reach our goals. Foster suggested this is an illusion because faith from an earlier time cannot apply to all times. A human Christ, who only interprets God’s revelation in human nature, leads us to his supernatural Sonship, which is no more adequate than the superhuman Catholic Church. Although many modern persons do

The Finality of the Christian Religion

19

not believe in miracles, they do believe that God acts above and around us. It remains difficult for Christians not to believe in miracles because the doctrine of Jesus’s bodily resurrection lacks adequate evidence. Foster opined, “The bodily resurrection is a fact which can or cannot be maintained by historical science… If the Fact is not proved—and not convincingly proved—to the scientific intellect and conscience, religion can never make it a duty to let that pass as proved which has not been in truth proved; can never make it a duty to proceed less critically, less conscientiously, in so cardinal a matter. In other words, the acknowledgment of a single historical fact is a thing of knowledge and not of faith. Faith—let this not be forgotten—is directed only to that which is of a timeless character, which can disclose itself as immediately present to anyone anywhere.”36 With faith in the divine truth of Christianity not founded on the resurrection, the focus shifts to the world of love and grace. Foster indicated that an affirmation of historical faith is really an affirmation of unfaith in the spiritual and divine life at the expense of a religion of Spirit and personality. In the eighteenth century, local criticism was in favor. Orthodox super naturalistic apologetics held to the old worldview that the intellect is primary in human nature, as knowledge is in religion. It affirmed that humans were endowed with a perfect knowledge of God, which was lost in the Fall, but the original impulse toward God remained. Humans remain in need of help from superhuman divine power exempt from human fallibility and weakness: “the gist of the argument for this finality on the part of orthodox supernaturalism is the use it makes of the category of causality. Christianity is directly due to the miraculous causality of God, and nothing else is. Hence: revelation by direct and exclusive supernatural communication of ideas, and the Bible by exclusive miraculous inspiration, and conversion by ‘miracle of grace’.”37 There remains the issue how one knows that events are the result of miraculous divine causality. The current issues of rationalism are duplicated by historical science, which excludes the finality of the Christian religion. “Thus it would seem that modern history was the end of any dogmatic formation which hypostasizes its naïve claim to validity by the use of the concept ‘revelation’.”38 From the perspective of developmental history, all is in the process of becoming. The human story becomes a general view of becoming humanity. Christians are viewed as being in history but not of or through history. The old view of secular history included sin and error, with ecclesiastical history being “absolutely true” and “miraculously authenticated” by divine communication.

20

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Modern historical science joined rationalism in its attack upon orthodox supernaturalism. Christianity became involved in the attack which relatives all that is historical. Foster questioned whether any conception of Christian finality is possible due to universal historical relativity. Both orthodox Catholics and Protestants relied upon a miracle interjected by God in human history, which leads to conversion or regeneration and authenticated their faith. By subordinating the outer to the inner miracle, supernatural authentication now rests on immanent psychological factors. God’s miraculous revelation now authenticated itself in the Bible. The historical problem with miracles applied to the new position. If God is the direct cause of historical reality, which includes error and evil, the ecclesial tradition has relativized Christianity. This is demonstrated in the separation of pre-biblical order, extra-biblical and psychological science’s analysis of conversion. The new faith was thought to provide a more healthy religious development of focusing on order instead of miracles. Foster reminded his readers “that the dignity of things, even Christian things, is disclosed, not in their cause, but in their end… Not in their structure, but in their function; not in their credentials, but in their service…”39 The new world has shifted from Thomas Aquinas to Immanuel Kant and Charles Darwin, leaving no room for the theory of Christian supernaturalism since the divide between human and divine has been overcome, “and all is human and all is divine at one and the same time.”40

The Finality of the Christian Religion

21

The Changing View of the World and Christian Life On February 17, 1900, a great crowd gathered in Rome to honor Giordano Bruno, who three centuries before had been burned at the stake for leading a crusade for a free humanity. Bruno’s attitude of spirit toward nature was appreciated at the close of the century. Italy, with its connection with antiquity, was the birthplace of modern human and modern thought. The modern person sought “the realization of his endowment, and his right in the development of his energies.”41 By refocusing on antiquity, humans’ intellectual life in the Renaissance, apart from the Catholic Church, demonstrated it could establish its own laws and determine the criteria of truth. Foster returned to Scholasticism for its assistance in the transition to the modern era. Dun Scotus affirmed individual liberty, which led to freedom of religious conscience and to the negation of the ecclesiastical and biblical traditions. Occam’s nominalism lessened the relationship between faith and science. The great insight of the Middle Ages, based on its concern with the soul, “held that the eternal fate of personality was determined by the events of the inner life.”42 However, the Middle Ages were unable to move beyond an essential dualism in all things. With the Catholic interpretation of Aristotle, new thought was judged by whether it agreed with church doctrine. The Renaissance brought a rebirth of Greek thought and life-style that revealed a weak unity between humans and nature. Eventually this led to a wide gap between flesh and spirit, which resulted in a strict spiritualism. Christians were to have no inner interest in and limited involvement with the State, which was considered an expression of satanic power. From this perspective, they expected an imminent return of Christ to establish the messianic Kingdom on earth, replacing the dominion of the devil on earth. Since it was impossible for Christians to transform society, care for one’s soul became one’s chief concern. The emphasis on a moral society negated the essential moral worth of society. The Catholic Church focused on a supernatural city of God in opposition to and beyond common society. At the end of the Middle Ages, a humanistic perspective arose seeking to reclaim the beauty of nature and of humanity. The focus was on the natural endowment and force of humans who seek goodness and truth by contact with history and nature. Foster proclaimed this focus to be Humanism. However, this humanism was defective as it failed to focus on the whole power, which should include one’s conscience. This humanism increased knowledge of the outer world, but it was the Reformation that included the focus on one’s inner self. By the middle of the fifteenth

22

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

century the dominance of the Catholic Church began to disappear, which led to the replacement of Catholic priests by persons with feelings, thoughts and purposes. This shift was occurring while the New World and new weapons were being discovered. The earth was being viewed as a globe, but retained was the notion that the earth was the center around which everything revolved. The new science cast off the yoke of every authority in seeking freedom of the spirit. Of all the modern discoveries, Foster suggested that the Copernican theory was the most influential, as it marked the beginning of the modern world—of the modern principle of divine immanency. Luther, Calvin, John Owen, and John Wesley regarded the theory as tending to infidelity. The division between permanence and change remained the key to understanding human history. “Men become dissatisfied and differentiated according to these two great factors, the conservative or fossilized and the progressive.”43 The Humanistic movement transformed the scientific view of nature. Humans now viewed the boundless universe and sought knowledge based on critical reason. The metaphysical consequences of this possible infinite world contradicted the church’s view of a finite world. The Aristotelianmedieval view of the world was replaced with the impact of modern natural science. Every perspective is determined by the place of the observer, replacing the absolute distinction between the heavens and earth. The God-idea was also affected by this impact, enabling the idea of monotheism to reach its fruition. The new concept overcame the externality of the divine by the immanence principle of the unity of all reality. Creation is no longer viewed as an act of an external creator. It has been replaced by a beginningless and endless process. Foster opined, “Revelation is no longer to be conceived as an external, visible act between heaven and earth, but as a spiritual process in the heart of man; no longer as the miraculous communication of divine instruction, of a legal and statutory character at that, but as an immanent divine self-expression and self-realization.”44 Heaven and hell are no longer places but ideals. This refuted the account of Jesus descending into hell and ascending to heaven. In essence, the new cosmology negated the medieval structure of the church. Now the transcendent lives in humans, yielding a new perspective of the depths of human feelings. Now the focus is not on what a person has become but shifts to what a person is endowed to become— an infinity of becoming. “The release of the cosmos from its fixity and finitude was the first step to the freedom of the human spirit from the stability of opinion and convention in religion, and to the unsealing of new fountains of life and power.”45 Previously the concept of time was in terms

The Finality of the Christian Religion

23

of moments following moments with the final judgment soon to be at hand. The new view supported a moving world, with the relativity of time being added to the relativity of cause and space. This critical mode of thought brought profound change in the view of history. Historical criticism suggested that the New Testament presented fundamentally different pictures of Jesus. Rudolf Eucken contended that “the important thing is not whether criticism should turn out to be positive or negative, but that it should be thought that the tradition requires scientific criticism at all in order to its trustworthiness.”46 A truth is now understood not to be forever. It is replaced by focusing on what is right until a possible better presents itself. The suggestion that evolution is the law of history limits all spiritual activity, relativizes truth, and negates all static finalities or absolutes. The issue becomes whether the Divine can function in the flux and change of time, for the God outside the universe is dead. Modern persons no longer believe in the Trinitarian God which is closer to neoPlatonic thought than the Sermon on the Mount. Yet, they still believe in a living God of the Gospels who is an omnipresent principle of the order of nature. The new philosophy also provided a new view of nature and later a new view of history. Now the focus becomes human inner nature, which lies at the foundation of religion. The deity is now uplifted to a moral ideal, with human psyche elevated as the fundamental standard controlling all reality. The old view focused on the uninterrupted relation between humans and the world. However, the modern view rejected this perspective as surreptitious, impossible, and focused on the shift from environment to humans’ consciousness. To win back the estranged soul required a world force, which the new view claimed was thinking. It was thought that enabled humans to be reunited with the world. Life no longer relies on immediate impressions of the server or on historic authenticities. The age of reason begins with thought controlling and directing human activity. This resulted in a dislocation between sense and spirit, with the primary focus now on the human spirit. The sensible being is now treated as a process of thought. By this perspective, the spiritual was freed from the sensible. It was the Reformation where the spiritual became freer, based on conduct and personal conviction replacing central doctrines. This shift caused intense problems for Catholics and all ecclesiastical Christianity; for what the old conception conceived as essentially religious, the new view considered as mythology. Foster explained: “There was a warfare of man against that which had hitherto been valued as his deepest essence, but which now was degraded to a lower stage and a most painful hindrance.”47

24

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

When thought is separated from the soul, thought becomes self-activity in process. Foster noted that process becomes the key word for the modern period. Theology is no longer a science of God-substance, for God is no longer Being but Becoming. The old soul, the old God, the old world was gone! Process, laws, methods took their place. With God as a process of becoming and the soul as progressive synthesis of experience, a conception of religion as communication between God and humans has to be abandoned. The result of this abandonment began in driving the soullife from nature, which ends in driving the soul-life from humans. The old view treated matter, soul and God as a static substance that is final, absolute. The finality of the Christian religion, as well as rationalism, could be established in the world of static absolutes. The religion of authority had to yield to a religion of the moral consciousness of humans. Now the issue was whether Christianity, no longer a religion of authority in a world of static entities, can be absolute as a religion of ideals in a world of evolution and immanence. Of course, there is no problem if there are no ideals or personalities holding ideals. This led to a shift in Hegelianism from the essence of spirit as thought to the essence of being as will, with the concept of personality being tied to evolution. Now will is to be the final fact in human nature, with actions being more basic than thinking. It is the “will” that determines its goals. Even the impulse to knowledge is awakened and guided by practical motives. “Thus the essence of us is forward-striving to a goal which the will itself wills.”48 With intellect primary, knowledge is the chief good. Sin is based on defeated knowledge. Revelation occurs when our knowledge is corrected by knowledge of better, which leads to a correction of the will. It is persons who save persons, not by ideas but by ideals. Jesus himself was the revelation, not doctrines. For new-Platonists, the end is the means to the end, which is the scientific method. For Kant and Darwin, faith is the end sought based on the will. Faith creates a world of values based on what is true to the individual. Foster noted that today willing and doing the good is the chief good. However, truth based on the individual’s perspective led to a split morality, with a person as isolated being and on the other from being a member of society. Thus, the ideal of life was being a member of society, with the secondary ideal being the practical, which the old world actualized by law but the new world life seeks to move others to goodness. The old view considers the finality of Christianity dependent upon its doctrines being miraculous divine; the new view based the finality on its ideals.

The Finality of the Christian Religion

25

Foster noted two other matters, with the first being the revolution in method in both science and religion. This new method was observation that was obedient to facts of experience; it was a shift from the deductive to the inductive method that broke the old identification of faith and knowledge. For both Luther and Francis Bacon, action precedes knowledge. However, this new religious movement became sidetracked into a new scholasticism. The second matter was the difference between the people of the North (Germany, Britain, and America) and the South (Italy, Spain, France) in providing spiritual leadership for modern humanity. The North people showed a greater capacity for adaptability and a tougher energy. “For the old southern genius all is stable, for the northern all is flux; for the southern everything has become, for the northern all is becoming.”49 Previously knowledge preceded conduct in salvation, but now conduct precedes knowledge. The North focused on a principle of freedom and authority, while the South continued the ecclesiastical view of reality. The power of Christianity for the North was the duty—feeling or the duty—consciousness. Thus, faith is obedience to duty with the Gospel being regnant in humans through the power of conscience.

26

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Naturalistic and the Religious View of the World Foster understood that the autonomy of reason is rapidly becoming a fact in the modern world, with the truth of any claimed revelation being tested by humans’ moral and spiritual reason. Humans reserve the right to examine everything. That a person is bound only by its reason and conscience is the Magna Charta of Protestantism. To deny one’s reason and conscience is the denial of the omnipresence of God in the life of humanity. Foster contended that the interest of science and the moral and religious interest destroyed the Catholic and Protestant orthodox principle of absolutism. Foster suggested that naturalism is the positivism of science without philosophy, which relates to the other position of external authority. In breaking from religious dogmatism, we are confronted with the “slavery of the naturalistic dogmatism of the present.”50 The real conflict is not between science and religion but between science and supernaturalism. Foster suggested his thesis to be religion without supernaturalism and religion without the mathematico-mechanical system of naturalism. If nature is understood from the perspective of empiricism, naturalism essentially negates all religion. Naturalism, like orthodox and rationalism, concludes that religious ideas are illusory and not valid for science and do not serve the spiritual life of humans. This error rests on the assumption that the scope of religion is the religious idea that has no purpose at all. However, for twenty-five centuries, naturalism has emerged when humans form thoughts concerning their encompassing reality in opposition to supernaturalism. Naturalism supports the human impulse to explain and comprehend based on ordinary causes. In this fashion, it defies law and rejects a Deity. Foster suggested that the problem is finding some means of synthesizing the truth in naturalism and in religion. The religious world-view involved teleology, mystery, and dependence. Naturalism arose in opposition to this view with its strength being in harmony with humans’ knowledge of process and explained the unknown by focusing on the familiar. Isaac Newton’s mechanical laws led many to claim that God was banished from the universe. Darwin’s evolution explained the emergence of humans by a struggle in which the fit survive. The law of the conservation of energy and Darwin’s nebular hypothesis seemed to eliminate mystery, dependence and teleology. Thus, the universe can be explained without faith. All things can be accounted for by natural causes. When naturalism is combined with agnosticism, all apart from science is unknown or unknowable. Both naturalism and supernaturalism are wrong

The Finality of the Christian Religion

27

in thinking that Darwinian naturalism necessitates the fall of religion, since the demand of religion is for dependence, mystery, and teleology. For Foster, the most defensible philosophy may be called spiritualistic evolutionism. “In other words, to defend against supernaturalism the ideal of understanding and explaining reality which science requires, and against naturalism the ideal of meaning and worth which are the kernel of the religious interest—this is at once the task and salvation of the modern man.”51 Both supernaturalism and naturalism have failed. Therefore, modern thinkers have the responsibility of separating religion from supernaturalism and science from naturalism.

28

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Mystery in Religion The mystery of religion is unexplainable to science. The Catholics made mystery a central feature of religion, but Protestants attempted to rationalize religion. In the Newtonian world, the cosmic character seemed to be resolved, but modern theologians felt that mystery was a foreign substance in need of being resolved. In this effort, religion becomes subordinated to science, and the moral and religious reduced to the psychical and so on to the mechanical view of reality. It was through this reduction process that superstitions would be negated. However, superstitions began to return and with them the cry for exact scientific proof of miracles. Rational theology sought to understand all mystery and all knowledge, but as Foster indicated, it was a religion without love. This approach also for some included an ethical emphasis. The rational-ethical religion became a problem for educated Protestants who held that religion cannot and need not be investigated by science because religion is a historical reality that is to be studied in its history. Naturalism denied mystery in the world of reality but religion needed it. Piety, which involved adoration, sought the depth in things. However, adoration is the experience of mystery, so these efforts clashed with naturalism. Foster explained: “Naturalism, with its materialistic supplementation of natural-science investigation, would rob piety of its freedom and right and air and light; naturalism, with its ideal of the penetration and clarification of the whole world, would not leave even a cloud or two of moisture and of mystery to shield the sensitive, easily wounded feelings of the human heart from the dry, harsh light of an absolute intellectuality.”52 Naturalism could not explain the capacity of the human soul, which is more than intellect, and knowledge of laws. The mystery of religion is an immanent and constant mystery. The error of Ritschlianism was to allow the religious to be dominated by naturalism, which resulted in reducing naturalism to materialism. However, nature with its laws remained mysterious, for naturalism attempts to explain all by nothing. What is required is the discovery and exposition of laws, which leads to the idea of necessity. Now we remain confronted by the mystery of things and their natural laws. As we seek a causal explanation, natural science becomes naturalism. Naturalism reaches a point where description and understanding are the same, but descriptions for science are not knowledge. Explaining the internal by the external, spontaneity by mechanical law, explains everything by nothing.

The Finality of the Christian Religion

29

The Naturalistic Negation of Dependence and Teleology Foster indicated that the creation-faith of Christianity could not be explained by a scientific explanation. However, this faith is demanded by piety. The key of this creation-faith is the primacy of spirit. Human finitude is presented as according to God’s will and purpose. Faith requires human development to be the actualization of creative divine ends that serve God’s purpose, which is incompatible with naturalistic evolutionism. Naturalism views the cosmos as self-dependent and purposeless, based on inferences from natural science. Modern investigation suggests that the traditional form of religion is untenable. For Christianity, the turning point in world history is the fall and restoration of humans. The scientific doctrine of evolution reversed humans’ relation to nature. With the Copernican revolution, the beyond of time and space was gone, with the hypothesis of God being superfluous. The vital inner structure of nature was replaced by natural laws belonging to the nature of things. From this perspective, miracles become a burden to faith as do all church doctrines. Evolution demonstrates that living beings emerged through a bloody struggle for existence. The last region of nature is conquered with humans being encompassed in nature. “Thus all intrinsically valid and eternal truth, the ethical apprehension of existence, yields to a biological conception which knows nothing absolute, nothing woeful in itself.”53 The new science does not mean the disintegration of all religion unless natural science reveals all that is known of reality. By presenting total and ultimate reality void a creation of spiritual labor, Foster suggested that the scientific view negates religion. The Christian view has the world developed by human effort. Matter is a product of the labor of human thought. Foster considered this position compatible with the natural sciences but not with naturalism, for naturalism omits the thinking spirit and its activity. The individual shares in a collective life through which the individual rises above self-preservation as it strives for truth. Becoming a personality is the goal of development, which has a glimpse of the divine event. From this perspective, nature does not signify the whole of reality, for the world is more than nature when considered from the standpoint of spirit. This meant that neither natural causation nor a philosophical cosmos exclude the possibility and right of religious convictions. The human spirit intellectually needs the revelation of a Good and Great Being who works with all things for the good. Even science needs to participate in a religious conviction of what is good.

30

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

We are now confronted with the question of teleology. If the world is God’s world, then it must be pervaded by eternal ideas and be the object of divine providence and guidance which natural science is not competent to judge. The religious conviction is not concerned with ends and ideas unless we feel and acknowledge worth, meaning, and significance of things. Teleology focuses on the beginning and the fundamental factors of the world itself. R. H. Lotze does justice to science and religion’s interest: “How absolutely universal is the extent, and at the same time how completely subordinate the significance, of the mission which mechanism has to fulfill in the structure of the world.”54 The problem with natural selection was how to account for the variations or mutations as the probable basis of new or improved species. Gregor Mendel showed that heredity is important and supports the spontaneity of organism in relation to their environment. In all organic evolution there is a principle of spontaneity—new beginnings, as well as a principle of habit or order or mechanical equivalence. It is the emphasis upon activity and initiative in development that supports Foster’s contention that evolution has moved beyond Darwin’s original understanding. The freedom of humans is the principle of things that exist everywhere. Kaftan suggested the doctrine of evolution might not support the idea of the beginning of Christian history. The question was whether the Christian view of the world is hostile to evolution. Traditional apologetics assumed that the view of God as Creator and Lord was excluded by the theory of evolution. In opposition, creation is no longer viewed as instantaneous and finished and is viewed as God’s constant relation to the world. The Christian faith is not interested in when or how the world was made but only the stipulation that the world is a revelation of God’s goodness. When natural science moves beyond its limited perspective, it cannot explain whether the factors of development are given as a fact of the system or whether it is a rational plan. History is the actualization of a divine end, with evolution being a progressive if a rational thought. Each actualization of divine thought is a stage of the divine plan of the world. Foster warned against faith committing to any principle since science is constantly expanding. However, he insists that Christian faith must give science a free hand. A pressing issue was what attitude the Christian faith should take with the animal derivation of humans. Religiously it is held that humans are made in the image of God, which is at odds with humans’ derivation from animal antecedents. Thus, man is an earthly image of God. The kernel of truth in the ecclesiastical perspective of humans can coexist with science investigating the emergence of peoples. Humans sprang from nature but

The Finality of the Christian Religion

31

they are not nature-beings. They are filled with a personal life in which higher thought is actualized. Foster contended the worth of a person is not dependent on the way it came to be but what the person is and does. Foster wondered whether the theory of descent validated the power of sin and hereditary sin. Sin is the moment when one’s personal decision with its freedom acts contrary to its heritage. Humans have to make great decisions. Events do not occur by themselves but are due to God’s supernatural wisdom and goodness. It is in the tradition that we find the truth, not in reason. Now everything has changed into an endless becoming in which human history is but a few records of disillusionment. We no longer know what to believe or what to do. With the defeat of Christian metaphysics, the defeat of Christian ethics follows. With Jesus expecting the end of the world and final judgment to occur soon, his moral principles are no longer for all times of becoming. In time a socialistic movement emerged which sought Christianity to resolve the social condition. However, Jesus’s ethics of helping the poor did not fit the needs of socialism, with its ethic of class conflict. The crisis of Christian morality was joined by naturalistic crises of general morality, which Foster designated as naturalistic monism. This crisis was followed by the doctrine of evolution, which implied that morality is relative. Eventually humans had to develop rules for living together, a social morality which soon became a morality of custom which was sanctioned by religion and law. Thus, morality was and remains becoming, but now it is becoming as a human product. The moral law is relative to the becoming process in which nothing is absolutely determined. In becoming, humans are a product of their environment and relations, especially economic relations. The drama of the old faith has been replaced by history as a puppet show set in motion via the mechanism of nature. In place of morals, passions and power become the key words. The mechanical principle excludes the principle of spontaneity. There is nothing distinctive about humans in the mechanical view. However, Foster indicated that humans are different from other animals in that we reflectively experience the process. Based on historical science we learn that humans transcend time and through our human activity effect our social becoming. Foster contended that this process could not adequately extricate the spiritual aspect from the temporal. For Foster eternity again becomes the standard for life and for getting at the truth and the good. The good is different from the useful, for it involves the conviction that the good is not judged by time. In this fashion, we have a super-history within history based again on the principle of spontaneity and new beginnings.

32

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Eternal truth or goodness is not a gift but is something we must discover within ourselves by establishing the eternal and by constantly being open to reconstructing the eternal. It is by deepening our spiritual lives that we discover the eternal truth upon which our religion is based. By this process, we win an ethical character. Foster’s position rests on the assumption that historical reality is more complex than the categories of law and cause but requires the use of the mechanistic principle. By the ego being relative to tradition, the modern conflict over revelation is established. What is required is employing both tradition and nature, as we become a person. Foster indicated that this becoming is required by both morality and religion. In this fashion, according to Friedrich Paulsen, one puts meaning into life which gives one’s life direction to something that is not yet but can become through one’s will. The life of a human is embedded in the universal process of nature which gives one’s life direction to something that is not yet but can become through one’s will. The life of a human is embedded in the universal process of nature, which we believe reveals a steady progress in a self-realizing meaning in history. Since our human life is but a small sample of the universal life of nature, we are led to faith in meaning in nature and one’s own life. For Christianity meaning in the human spirit rests on the historical development that culminates in Jesus. A Christian also considers events of disorder and degeneration to be the effect of sin and folly. For Christianity, the individual is of essential worth whose destiny rests upon Christian faith in an eternal kingdom of personal spirits. It is evident that Christianity requires a philosophy of history based on development in which a person is eternally judged. Owing to this developmental philosophy, there is a problem in viewing Jesus as a visitor in history, which can only be viewed as an impenetrable mystery. The inner consciousness of Jesus cannot be explained by factors external to him. The decisive factor lies within Jesus—within his active and creative consciousness. Jesus’s revelation is found in the content of his spiritual life, which radiated from him. The judgment of faith is that Jesus elevated himself above the evolutionary process and has conquered all relative inconsistencies with the promise of heaven. Foster presents the view again based on the principles of spontaneity, self-activity, and new beginnings. It should be noted that Foster conceded the empirical inexplicability of Jesus. However, he considered it possible that an eternal God had previously designated particular events to occur within the time series. It is these supremely wrathful events that drive the life of the spirit in new directions. Foster maintained that nothing in fact or rational theory indicate why this may not be so. However, a cry arose for more

The Finality of the Christian Religion

33

personality and freedom from the mechanical, conventional, and artificial. There also remained the need to reserve one’s soul from the relativities of naturalism to the eternal. Auguste Comte’s religion of humanity and Ludwig Feuerbach’s naturalistic socialism serve as an example of attempts to elevate humans to the empty throne of God, when the real human mission is to become a personality with freedom as its essence. Kant pointed out that such personalities are only possible when others are treated as self-ends. The more one seeks the personal, the more one seeks society in its own essence, which promotes the growth of personality. By separating becoming from naturalism, we discover the possibility of truth and goodness through becoming which reveals an eternal and absolute moment. In this fashion, we have eternal values without supernaturalism and development without naturalism.

34

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Essence of the Christian Religion: The Problem of Method In seeking to determine the essence of Christianity, a decision as to method presupposes an essence. The question of essence arose with the development of Protestant theology, as reformers confronted evolutionism and the historico-critical science of history, especially since historical experience does not support the Pope giving an infallible expression of the apostolic tradition. The Pope cannot guarantee that his view of Christianity is genuine Christianity. For Protestants, the clearness of the Scriptures was justification for their independence. However, the Protestant principle of autonomy failed in light of the need for scholarly language and other requirements for an adequate consideration of the Bible. It also failed because of the absence of a unitary view of the Scriptures and because they contain different religious ideas which cannot be reduced to a common denominator. A higher norm was required for scriptural interpretation, which for Protestants was the doctrine of the justification of faith undergirded by biblical revelation at its highest development. However, as Protestantism developed there was a divergence of opinion regarding what was historically conditioned and what was perfect revelation. There was no escape from subjectivism. Another approach was to focus on the “saving truths” experienced by early Christians. Foster noted that it was necessary to distinguish between truth and essence. A Christian is convinced that genuine Christianity is the complete truth. In seeking the essence of Christianity, an objective norm is required which also could apply to any religion. This norm constitutes the historical beginning of Christianity seen in the teachings of Jesus, which are taken as correct. This view avoids inspiration dogma and individualistic subjectivism and yields to an empirical and inductive method making Christianity a subject for the historico-critical approach. Unfortunately, there was not a unanimous agreement to what Jesus had said. If the teachings were of the essence of Christianity, it becomes a book-religion. As Adolf Harnack noted, it is impossible to determine what a Christian is if one is restricted alone to Jesus’s teachings. If religion is life and not ideas, religious teachings cannot alone determine the emotional and volitional aspects of being a Christian. If Christianity is a process and not a static substance, the speculative-metaphysical approach must be replaced by a historical-psychological inquiry. However, others rejected this approach and relied on the Bible alone. Alfred F. Loisy held that the unchangeable essence of Christianity is found in the totality of the living

The Finality of the Christian Religion

35

church. Foster focused on Harnack because of his conclusion that the essence of Christianity involves difficult and unsolved problems. As previously noted, the necessity of considering the issue of method is because of the new conception of historical relativism. In the old view of static supernaturalism, the innate ideas of right, morality, and religion are not bound to the progression of time. These ideas existed with God before the process of time. It was historical relativism that necessitated the unchanging in Christianity to no longer be exempt from the process of time. For example, the Jewish notion of a Messiah was transferred to Christ, who over the blood of his foes would establish God’s kingdom on earth. A century later, the Greek influence negated the bloody Messiah for the Logos—the word of God which took a human form. In time, the Greek Christ is replaced by the Byzantine Christ, which was replaced by a Christ they could touch by eating his body and drinking his blood. In the Middle Ages theological warfare reigns with the Christ figure becoming a theological scholar. By the French Revolution, historical criticism has emerged with a new Christ or art gallery of pictures of Christ who takes the form of the romantic Christ, the socialistic Christ, the rationalistic Christ, the prophetic Christ, the mystic Christ, and the idyllic Christ. It becomes evident that the diverse views of Jesus are historically conditioned. This historical diversity caused doubt to arise concerning which of these views is true. Ernst Troeltsch writes of the essence of Christianity being a spiritual unity that had developed in Christian history and requires the historical method for understanding this development. Foster opined that this essence of Christianity was “the organizing and productive principle of the fullness of that phenomenon of life which we call Christian.”55 Thus, the essence is not just an idea or principle but is the spirit that takes different forms in different periods of history. The essence is found in the process and not in the particular historical picture. This essence of Christianity included several important presuppositions. With miracles no longer accepted as a means for knowing this essence, there was free criticism of ecclesiastical dogma. A second approach was to view Christianity from the perspective of natural religion or a universal conception of religion. When this failed, the perspective shifted to a self-developing spiritual principle in its historical development. In this way, dogmatism was rejected. Another focus was on the creative and spontaneous personality’s contribution to historical development. This perspective included an emphasis on the rapid rate of progress. These developments of orthodox Christianity were considered as causally and theologically necessary. Protestantism rejected the whole of

36

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Catholicism as theologically necessary and this rejection include the organic evolutionary theory. Now the historical approach was becoming dominant, while at the same time scholars were disagreeing over what constituted the historical method. By including human value judgments, there is a shift beyond the ethical to religious appreciation. The issue became whether the historical method was teleological from the perspective of value judgments. This relation between the universal and the particular is noted as a fundamental fact of all scientific thought. The language employed is controlled by its law of form, which remains the same through all mutations. At the same time, the special language is only a single phenomenon in humanity’s logistic history. Now the facts of human experience became the historical starting point, with the difference between investigation and history becoming “the problem of utilization of facts for the purpose of knowledge.”56 The goal is to establish the true from the past, from all the historical data in order to discover the legal necessities that control all process in timeless exchangeability. An issue became the inner worth of knowledge, whether knowledge of laws is more important than knowledge of events. The knowledge of facts and laws are only important when we can learn from them. Arthur Schopenhauer rejected historical science because it focused only on the particular and never on the universal. The increased focus on concept and law sacrificed the individual. Foster maintained that the historical focus failed to include the psychic life adequately. Leibniz pointed out that there remained individual freedom, which is often incomprehensible based on an individual’s historical experiences. Another approach focused only on the universal, with the individual being understood by sympathetically attempting to view reality from the individual’s perspective. Since the days of Polybius, historians have sought historical parallels in support of particular conclusions. In this fashion, an exclusive monism and an exclusive pluralism are viewed as inadequate. An understanding of generalizations from history is essential to the human pilgrimage. An empirical-inductive history includes psychological-causal necessity, not a logical-ethical necessity in seeking the relation of an event to a motive. Foster raised the question of how far the historical approach serves to determine the essence of Christianity. By focusing on facts, this method helps to distinguish the important from the unimportant. The historical science assists in reconstructing and relating original facts, which requires constructive imagination. The approach is indicative of a definite view that all historical understanding is based on cause and effect, which involves novelty and originality in every event. The task now became how to

The Finality of the Christian Religion

37

transition from empirical-inductive history to a philosophy of history. It should be kept in mind that this approach cannot compare the worth of Christianity to other religions. However, Christianity must be compared to other religions in order to prepare for what Troeltsch designated as the “divinatory abstraction.” Another problem: since religion is personal, we still need to explain the mystery of personality since only persons can interpret persons. It is only because of the quality of the ethico-religious personality that a partial but objective essence is possible. Since the personal is historically conditioned, the task is moral as well as scientific. Focusing on the personal reveals that humans must be free.

38

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Essence of the Christian Religion: Sources of the Life of Jesus Foster indicated that the oldest records do not provide a biography of Jesus. Rather, Jesus’s Gospel is presented in a few fragments about his life. He further suggested that the Gospels afford different portraits of “an apocalyptic picture pointed in glowing oriental colors—a creation of Jewish longing, perhaps?”57 All we appear to have are scraps of information about Jesus that are not artistically related. A. Kalthoff, a contemporary German theologian, postulated that Jesus represented the ideal construction of a particular social group—the repressed of humanity. The worth of Jesus is to be found in his effect upon his followers. That Jesus lived is based on faith—not on scientific investigation. “Religious certainty has its roots in the will and conscience rather than in theoretical understanding…”58 Traditions about Jesus are diverse and do not adequately convey the development of his life and thoughts. The problem with the Gospel sources is complicated by the same particular being handed down in different variations. Yet, the greatness of Jesus lies in his Godlikeness, the human quality of his inner life, and the clarity and energy of his moral perspective. In turning to the Gospels, Foster noted that there appears to be a variety of sources and traditions behind the four Gospels. The different sources are reflected in the synoptic Gospels, with Mark being a primary source as well as an unknown source, which in contemporary study is referred to as the Q source. The synoptic Gospels are also influenced by the Pauline Gospel. The Gospel of John provides a different perspective than the synoptic, by its focus on the authority of tradition. However, we have no idea who are the witnesses declaring the testimony to be true. From the four Gospels we have two pictures of Jesus, with the material of the synoptics and John having scant in common. This is especially evident in their chronology. In the synoptics, Jesus participates in one Passover feast, but John mentions three Passovers. For John, Jesus ministry lasted three years but scarcely one in the synoptic. Also in the two, the date for Jesus’s death is different. In the synoptic Jesus’s ministry primarily occurred in Galilee but in John Jerusalem is the center of Jesus’s teachings. It is in comparing the beginning and end of the two sources that indicate their greatest diversity. The synoptic contain parables, while John does not. The great picture of the future in God’s kingdom and God’s will remains the synoptic focus in Jesus’s preaching. John does not focus on the coming kingdom of God but commands belief in the Son of God who comes from heaven. “Jesus himself is the content of all his discourses.”59

The Finality of the Christian Religion

39

Instead of good and evil, the focus is between believing and unbelieving. Faith is presupposed for disciples of Jesus. Another key difference is seen in Jesus’s attitude toward people. In the synoptic, Jesus dealt with a diversity of people, from the Pharisees and Scribes to sinners and the multitude. In the synoptic Gospels, Jesus focuses on morality, love and humanness. However, in John the focus is faith opposed to unbelief. Foster indicated that effort had been made to harmonizing the synoptic with John. Although the synoptic contain some material that relates to John, it seems more probable that John is a supplement to the synoptic. Regardless, all harmonizing efforts fail, when the focus in on the preaching of Jesus. His preaching focused on either doing the will of God in order to enter the Kingdom of God or that all depend on faith in Jesus as the Messiah. There is no way to harmonize these two perspectives. Between the synoptic and John, Paul preaches his Gospel, which asserts that salvation only comes through faith in the Son of God. With Paul, we have shifted to Greek culture. Foster indicated that the prologue focused on the Logos, the divine reason, which was in Jesus the Christ, the incarnate reason. The deity of Christ in John is also Greek, manifest in calling all to honor Jesus as they honor God the Father. However, the main difference is its evangelical picture, which “rests on an overmastering personal impression of the redeeming power of Jesus himself.”60 Thus, the historical Jesus in John becomes the resurrected true life. One can either live without Jesus or live as his follower and know God. Luther and Schleiermacher subordinated the synoptic to John because they spoke of demons and miracles. However, if John is subordinated, the synoptic stresses that God the Father is central. It is doing God’s will that enables one to enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus was fully human, was tempted, but led all to bow before God. Certainly, Jesus felt the threat and pain of dying, but he was faithful to the Father to the end. The difference between the two traditions focuses on what is primary in the sight of God. In John, the answer is to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Foster now focused more definitely on the synoptic problem, which is the reciprocal relation of these documents since they disagree on so many points, especially related to Jesus’s birth and childhood, the resurrection accounts, and the witnesses to his death. Foster concluded there was agreement on three points: (1) Mark is the source of Matthew and Luke, (2) in addition to Mark, there is another Greek source for Matthew and Luke, and (3) Matthew and Luke each draw on separate traditions. What these have in common is confessing faith in Jesus and defending this faith. Foster suggested that the last problem of the synoptic concerns Jesus’s

40

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

resurrection. Paul had his vision of Jesus, but he knew nothing about an empty grave. Mark reports of the appearance of Jesus in Galilee and how three women discovered the empty tomb. In Matthew, the disciples discover the empty grave, with Jesus appearing in Nazareth. The accounts the synoptic share in common are arranged differently but indicate they relied on a common source. The closest to this source is found in Matthew, with Mark and Luke changing the content in light of their gentile Christian readers. It is the reciprocity of relations in Matthew and Luke that confirm that they share a common source besides Mark. In our attempt to determine “who was Jesus,” Foster considered Mark to have greater value, although Matthew provided a simpler exposition. It is in John that we find a Gospel related to Pauline theology. Despite the differences, additions, and changes, Mark provides more highly historical worth. The final difficulty is to determine with adequate clearness what Jesus actually did and willed. We have different traditions as sources about the life and teachings of Jesus, but traditions are open to possible corruption and transformation. In reality, what we can gain from these traditions is the faith of the early Christians. It is in the flux and flow of this primitive community that we find our greatest difficulty in establishing Jesus himself. The traditions do tell us the effect of faith generated by Jesus, a faith that relies on the accounts of the words and life of Jesus. Thus, it is faith in Jesus the Messiah that separated Christians from non-Christians and founded the church. Foster opined, “The closer we get to Jesus in the tradition, the more does everything dogmatic and theological recede. We see a man who, through his clear word, helps us rightly to understand ourselves, the world, above all else God; and who goes with us in the extremities and conflicts of the present, as a most faithful friend and leader upon whom we may confidently rely.”61

The Finality of the Christian Religion

41

The Essence of the Christian Religion: Jesus Everything we know about Jesus is mediated by others, which is a significant fact that should not be forgotten. Foster suggested that after the crucifixion the disciples worshipped him as a divine being. With the spiritualization of Jesus, it was natural that Jesus’s earlier life be reinterpreted and reconstructed. However, these reconstructions and interpretations can never provide the certainty that science requires. To reach the real Jesus, his messianic trappings must be removed. Critical historians are contending that the messianic message was greatly influence by other religions. With civilizations becoming interrelated, a world religion was struggling to emerge. Hermann Gunkle considered it an age of religious syncretism moving from folk-religion toward individualism in religion. Judaism, as well as Christianity, was affected by this syncretism. Jesus was a person of his time. From a naturalistic perspective, Jesus’s spontaneity and originality was denied. Another problem was that the Gospels developed for the purpose of edification and evangelism. Certainly the Gospels sought to awaken faith, but a full understanding of the Gospels requires taking into account the ends sought by the authors. Still another problem with the Gospels is that the original texts have been altered, with important changes made in the second century. The Gospels required translation and in that process, may have lost some of their original intent. Especially the Gospels translated into Greek gained culturally a different perspective, which affected the original content. Foster suggested that we are forced to conclude that we cannot be sure that the words of Jesus are authentic in a foreign language. In addition, there is the difficulty that Paul, who never knew Jesus, followed Jesus as the dominant Christian voice, with the result that the Gospels for most Christians are filtered through Pauline theology. However, for those who believe in the inspiration of the Gospels, in the orthodox sense, certainty of Jesus’s words is proclaimed. Yet, those holding the view do not realize that the assumption of the text being inspired has been irretrievably destroyed. Foster suggested that we are coming to see the value of criticism as it exposes the content of religious faith, which we know by obedience and not by science. The great values of the Christian faith cannot be known by criticism. Wilhelm Bousset opined, “It is very little that we know of Jesus if we approach the source to attempt to write a life of Jesus, or, as it is now called, a history of Jesus in its development and in its pragmatic connection. Almost everywhere we are in the midst of uncertainties and guesses.”62

42

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Granted that we have limited historical facts about Jesus, the task remaining is to gain an understanding of Jesus’s disposition and thoughts, as well as his purpose and feelings. Previously church doctrines, dogmas, and creeds rested upon the personality of Jesus. However, the world today rejects the miracles and magical fantasies of the early church. Foster suggested that the historical picture of Jesus in the synoptic is not as foreign to modern thought. In this picture Jesus is a child of his time, born into a three-story universe with the earth at its center. Heaven, God’s home, is above and the world of the dead is below the earth. “He held the antique psychology according to which an alien spirit could enter and inhabit a human body.”63 Although he believed in miracles, he understood his mission not to be doing miracles. Jesus believed in demons possessing a person at the direction of Satan who represented the Kingdom of Sin. That Jesus held views current in his time is not a valid reason for rejecting his message. Ernest Rena cautioned; “Let us not impose our petty and bourgeois programmes (sic) on these extraordinary movements that are so far above our ordinary conceptions…”64 Foster indicated that biblical scholarship in general supported the contention that Jesus and primitive Christians expected soon the end of the world and the advent of the Kingdom of God. In preparation for the coming Kingdom, all are called to repent their sins. Jesus expected the Messiah to come. There is no way from our modern perspective that we can know that the Messiah did or does exist. Messianic views are too antiquated for our perspectives, but we have learned that faith does not rely on opinions. Still we cannot confess to believe what another person believes, including Jesus himself. The disciples shared Jesus’s expectations for the coming Kingdom, as well as his ethics, which were based on this expectancy. Putting aside the miraculous supernaturalism of Jesus’s time, Foster suggested that we can value Jesus for the high human qualities he endorsed, as well as for the victorious hope he provided which depended on the actions of humans’ souls. Many modern persons find hope with the notion that all is in God’s hands and unfolds according to God’s plan. Thus, the meaning of things is good and our hope is justified by the nearness of God. Modern persons are not sure that Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah for two reasons. First, we would expect Jesus to have been more modest about the mystery of his persons. “But the main cause is the difficulty of distinguishing between what was the faith and conviction of the primitive community, and what was Jesus’s own opinion.”65 We cannot be sure whether the view of Jesus in the Gospels is original or is born of the faith and enthusiasm of his followers. All we know for sure is

The Finality of the Christian Religion

43

that the idea of a Messiah was part of Jewish heritage. We cannot be sure that Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah, especially since many respected scholars contend that Jesus never desired to be held as the Messiah. The inevitability of the death of Jesus has been effectively presented by Julius Kaftan, noting, “The prophets of God were persecuted and killed in the name of God.”66 Whether Jesus considered himself the Messiah is supported by the account of the event at Caesarea Philippi where Jesus asked his disciples who they thought him to be, with the reply from Peter that he is the Christ. Both Bousset and Otto Pfleiderer have contended that this narrative could not have been invented by a later community. Foster contended, “…that this character of the scene at Caesarea Philippi, so paradoxical to the faith of the community, guarantees its historicity.”67 It appears to be an indisputable fact that the early community believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but this view is repudiated by many modern thinkers on the basis that science cannot support this supernatural position and hence they consider it a myth. This mythology was based on the contention that divine values are inherent in the natural and historical order; that they belong to substance and soil of reality. Foster opined, “That this is true is the contention of this book, and the grounds of its defense of the finality of the Christian religion.”68 If Jesus was the Messiah, what type of Messiah was Jesus? He was not to be the ideal of a theocratic king. The other alternative was his being a spiritual being coming from heaven at the end of time. Instead, Jesus humanized the Messianic ideal. Jesus was personally viewed as a sufferer sent by God—as a Savior who functioned as a homeless prophet and servant of common people, according to the Gospels. Still, we cannot be sure that Jesus appropriated the Messiah title—as many believe—based on the stereotypical way the synoptic applied the title to him. As Jesus is viewed more as a myth, “Jesus-ism must take the place of messianism.”69 The purpose of Foster’s book now shifted to whether the character of Jesus was abridged by his employing the messianic title. Foster suggested that the mind of Jesus was not focused on the messianic idea but rather in his power to overcome evil and danger. The real values of life for Jesus were human, not messianic. Thus, it is the human that is divine in us. If we are influenced by Jesus, we will move from being a natural to a spirited person. Another contemporary issue is whether Jesus’s moral view is consistent with modern ethical principles. That he willed to die for the sake of truth appeals to contemporary scientists. However, the things Jesus valued are not the same as modern values, especially regarding human possessions. Jesus called for us to choose between eternal and earthly

44

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

good, for earthly treasures tend to keep us from serving God. Foster considered that a lack of clearness on this issue fosters our crippling Christianity, for to imitate Jesus would be the downfall of modern culture. The Catholic Church attempted to solve the moral problem by designating two classes of Christians—one which acquired possessions and power, with the other obeying Jesus’s teachings. In this stance Catholics evade the moral problem. Luther held that one’s lot must be the will of God, giving primacy to humans’ secular needs. Luther was not aware that his new principle excluded the possibility of full discipleship of Jesus. In taking this position, Luther was following the Catholic model by drawing a veil between Jesus’s teachings and life in the new world. The result was that Protestantism divided itself into two orientations—pietism and secularism. The Reformers stressed that the natural duties of vocation and society were the will of God, for which no foundation is found in the Gospels but was a conviction of early Protestantism. We are indebted to the historicoscientific method for an appreciation that Jesus knew nothing of contemporary moral problems, as he considered that society had no future due to the coming Kingdom of God. We are separated from Jesus’s historical situation and precepts, but we are bound to Jesus as we seek to be obedient to the eternal good in him. However, this good we seek must be generated by the tendency of our wills, out of our selves. We are to live a moral life based on God’s love, which we discover in personal relations. This love must be extended to our enemies because if we set limits to our love, our personal relationships, we are not free. It belongs to the nature of love to set a person free to undertake greater responsibilities. We must be willing to sacrifice all for the sake of love, for this is the self-denial that Jesus requires. Spiritual discipline is required, which subordinates the sensual for the spiritual. We repent when our disposition is changed by Jesus’s moral love. It is difficult for modern persons to be obedient to Jesus’s precepts, especially his precepts that involve the morality of our social tasks. We fail in our personal relations when we treat Jesus’s words as laws which must be related to all situations. We really become a follower of Jesus when we seek the path to God from our situation and our limitations. Modern persons are often mistaken in thinking they must share in Jesus’s eschatological perspective, which is impossible because our worldview differs greatly for Jesus’s worldview. In seeking to follow Jesus’s ethical thoughts, we learn that the cares of everyday life are only relative values, with absolute value only found in other persons. Redemption occurs only when our moral knowledge is elevated above the mundane glories of modern life, which is made possible when our powers are energized by the

The Finality of the Christian Religion

45

power that was in Jesus. Jesus’s moral precepts are neither new nor universally valid, but Jesus was new and his power to make others new was based on his disposition and self-consciousness. “Faith in the infinite worth of the human personality in the sight of God—if there was something new in the thought of Jesus, it was this.”70 Foster concluded by focusing on Jesus’s God and his attitude of mind toward this God. The reality of Jesus’s living God was a certainty to him based on his practical experiences. His God was not a nationalistic God but a living reality that transcended all else and ruled over all things and peoples, as a spiritual and personal reality. Jesus employed two words to describe his God—King and Father. On the one hand, Jesus’s conception of God as holy is based on the Jewish scriptures. His view of God as Father of all peoples appears to be more metaphysical than moral. However, there is no passage in the synoptic Gospels that clearly indicates that God is the Father of all humanity. Foster considered that Jesus’s view of God was of no more intrinsic truth than that of other noted thinkers, but Jesus’s view differed from theirs in the religious energy he brought to proclaiming his God for all peoples. Jesus experienced the humanness of God and thought that the divine in himself shared in the divine God. If his God would allow no sparrow to fall, God also is Lord over the cruel struggle for existence. Jesus considered the devil responsible for moral evil, with God having the ultimate power over the devil. “The violent paradox of calling this God an all-good Father is the greatest, the most daring thing the human spirit has ever ventured.”71 Jesus experienced God in suffering and considered redemption to be based on experiencing God in pain. Alfred Tennyson reminded us that the process moves on with love instead of hate being its ideal and goal. The accounts of the crucifixion proclaim that truth and righteousness are the lasting interests of humanity. To believe in Jesus is not just to rise above our visible world but to cast ourselves upon God and hold his hand. To be certain that we belong to the divine Kingdom, with our sins forgiven, Foster called “the innermost, blessedest (sic) mystery of faith.”72 Jesus’s worship of God was based on his conception of God in his religious relations with God. His concept of God as Father is more in line with the philosophical idea of immanence rather than transcendence. God is purely a spiritual reality for Jesus with whom he was spiritually and personally in communion. We are reminded of the tragic history of orthodoxy, especially as it attempted to balance Jesus’s unchangeable ideas and our human responsibility to others. The Catholic solution was a division of labor between monks and laypersons. Foster contended that Christianity does

46

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

not allow for division of classes because to do so would involve unethical and dangerous distinctions between duty and merit. Protestantism arose to protect the rights of free conscience as expressed in primitive Christianity. The secular life is to be nurtured, but the Reformers failed to face adequately the implications of Jesus’s ideals and the expectations of primitive Christianity for our contemporary relation to culture and life. Foster contended that an attempt to return to primitive Christianity was impossible for contemporary persons who seek not a book-religion but an experience-religion.

The Finality of the Christian Religion

47

Conclusion Foster employed the word “finality” not as the last but as the perfect. He noted that Christianity has taken two forms: an authority religion which then evolved into a religion of the spirit that involves humans’ moral consciousness. The issue was not what is passing or permanent in Christianity, but whether there is anything permanent in Christianity. Foster also held that science could not penetrate the mystery of any religion. As indicated previously, Foster considered that the Bible reveals Jesus’s ministry of proclaiming the coming Kingdom of God. He did not base his ministry on an external authority. Rather, Jesus based his faith on a moral orientation of showing love and compassion to those in need. Jesus considered the devil responsible for moral evil, with God having the ultimate power over the devil. Jesus’s worship of God was based on his conception of God in his religious relations with God. His concept of God as Father is more in line with the philosophical idea of immanence rather than transcendence. God is purely a spiritual reality for Jesus with whom he was spiritually and personally in communion. The Bible became the basis of Christianity as an authority religion. For the Catholic Church, revelation was a supernatural communication of doctrines, with these doctrines being divine because of their miraculous mode of origin. The writers of the Book were directed by divine impulse and command, even if they did not understand what they wrote. Thus, authority religion affirmed the inerrancy of Scriptures based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The authority religion also established a canon of Scriptures that were considered the Word of God. The result of Foster’s review of authority religion was that the Bible was the result of divine revelation. However, today we must establish another approach in determining the meaning and value of the Bible than the allegorical method used by the Orthodox Church. With the rise of the Reformation, the shift began to a form of Christianity that abandoned miraculous supernaturalism. This shift left two alternatives. One was rationalism, which based its explanation by insertion of natural causes. The other approach recognized that early Christianity was in a very distinct past, which only allowed for Christianity a mythical and legendary hypothesis. Myths were not claimed to be historical reality but neither were they held to be illusion or superstition. In this fashion, they held the miraculous accounts in the New Testament to be an expression of faith.

48

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Spinoza was correct in the contention that God cannot be both natural and supernatural, for the natural law is the will of God. From the perspective of developmental history, all is process of becoming. The story of humans is the account of becoming humanity. Foster questioned whether any conception of Christian finality is possible due to universal historical relativity. Humans grow and develop in relation to other humans as they seek to become their own personhood. The end of the Middle Ages saw the rise of a humanistic perspective that focused on the beauty of nature and of humanity. Taking into account humans’ natural endowment and their desire for goodness and truth in relation to history and nature, Foster proclaimed this to be Humanism. The Humanist movement transformed the scientific view of nature, leaving humans in a boundless universe seeking knowledge based on critical reason. This conception overcame the externality of the divine by the immanence principle of the unity of all reality. The external creator was replaced by a beginning and endless process. Heaven and hell are no longer places but ideals or dystopia. The transcendent now lives in humans as they seek to become persons that are endowed to become—an infinite becoming. The issue became whether the Divine can function in the flux and change of time, since the God outside the universe is dead. Now the focus is on humans’ inner nature, with the deity becoming a moral ideal. Foster noted that “process” became the key word for the modern period. Theology was no longer considered a science of God-substance, for God is no longer Being but Becoming. The old God and old world were replaced by process, laws, and methods. Now the authority religion had to yield to a religion of the moral consciousness of humans—a spirit religion. Revelation occurs only when our knowledge is corrected by knowledge of something better, which leads to a correction of the will. It is persons who save persons, not by ideas but by ideals. Foster postulated that the Magna Charta of Protestantism was that a person is bound only by its reason and conscience. He recognized that the conflict is not between science and religion but between science and supernaturalism. Foster proposed spiritualistic evolutionism as the most defensible philosophy for separating religion from supernaturalism and science from naturalism. The doctrine of evolution reversed the human relationship to nature. The God beyond space and time was negated by the Copernican revolution. The inner working of nature was now explained by natural laws, which left no room for miracles. The individuals share in a collective life, where becoming a personality is the goal. Foster contended that humans sprang from nature but they are not nature-beings, because they are filled with the possibility of higher

The Finality of the Christian Religion

49

thought. Thus, the worth of a person depends upon what the person is and does. Jesus’s moral principles are no longer for all times. What has been considered eternal truths must be discovered within the individual’s spiritual life. All attempts to harmonize the Synoptic Gospels with John’s Gospel fail. We are left with such sketchy information about the life of Jesus and what he is reported to have said that all we have is a Jesusmythology. All accounts tied to a supernatural revelation are myths, based on the premise that all values are inherent in nature and the historical order. If modern persons were to give all they have to the poor, it would cripple all modern economic approaches. Keeping in mind that the Christianity associated with Jesus is mythological, what was new in Jesus was faith in the infinite worth of human personality. Such a faith is a modern expression of humanism.

THE FUNCTION OF RELIGION IN MAN’S STRUGGLE OF EXISTENCE

The Philosophic Union of the State University of California at Berkeley had used Foster’s book, The Finality of the Christian Religion, as the basis of their study. Having been stimulated by this book, the Union invited Foster to give the annual address before the Union on August 29, 1908. Based on their reception to his lecture, Foster decided to publish the lecture, upon which we now focus. Foster suggested that this work would be of the most value to those who had outgrown church-faith and no longer participated in its worship services and other activities. He further suggested that he understood the Christian world to be at a critical period. In brooding over the history of thought, Foster noted that the psychology of any era was based on the natural science of that period. This foundation resulted in the conception of God in a particular period being formulated in light of the doctrine of the soul accepted by the psychologists. He noted that in the history of the doctrine of the soul and of God, there have been three dominant epochs. The first epoch was the form of knowledge in late antiquity, which conceived of physical reality in terms of substance and manifestation. The soul, fixed and an inexhaustible substance, manifests itself in various phenomenal ways without negating the integrity and the sameness of the substance. Foster opined, “The point is that substance was the word that expressed at once the final category of reality and judgment of value. Nature was substance. The soul was substance. God was substance. Moreover, salvation was the sacramental mediation of the God-substance to the soul-substance. Religion was supernatural materialism.”73 Indicating that no progress was made in psychology between Aristotle and Hobbes, Foster noted that crucial change occurred in the sixteenth century with the focus of modern science on material phenomena via the mathematico-mechanical method of manipulating phenomena. Universal validity of the physical was based on cause-and-effect. In this way natural science became the example for psychology, which eventually led the orthodox and the rationalistic theology to accept the method and categories of the new psychology. The soul was viewed from this perspective as a system of ideas with nature viewed as a system of atoms.

52

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

In the sixteenth century religion was also viewed as a system of ideas either in the Bible or inborn in our human spirit. The psychic was subject to cause and effect, with freedom viewed as the absence of compulsion. Foster explained: “The life of experience was thought to be made of fixed realities of knowledge and modeled after that knowledge. The fixed idea made the life, not life the idea. The super-naturalness of the ideas, it was supposed, would guarantee the super-naturalness of life for those who held the ideas to be true in their intellectual adherence and obedience to them. Thus, if in the former period religion was conceived to be the sacramental and materialistic mediation of the divine substance to the human, it was in this period a system of divine truth from the mind of God, authoritatively communicated to the mind of man.”74 In time, people grew tired of the mechanical play of ideas both psychic and theological, because if this is all there is it does not make much difference and leaves living a dreary thing. The pre-Kantian emphasis on theoretical reason came under question, with a shift to the willing and feeling life being of more significance than idea-tional life. They affirmed our idiomatic nature over the mechanism of ideas, understanding humans as willing and feeling beings. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the biological science emerged with its focus on the question of development, with psychology following this approach. Foster noted “…theology is beginning to think of religion and of God after the analogy of the thought of consciousness and of the soul as cherished by the psychologist.”75 The issue concerned the value of religion individually and social. However, he noted that an organism had become “a system directed to its own development and preservation.”76 This led to a ceaseless fight over the conflict of the organism with its outside world as well as the conflict of organ with organ. The purpose of this warfare was to defeat what is injurious to the organism and to enhance what is beneficial to it. In seeking to fulfill this task, the organism functions to preserve itself. In this fashion, the organism effectuates itself. The organism does not come to be thought of as being naturalistically and fatalistically determined from without; it is not a passive organism directed by alien agencies. The point Foster is making “is that the organism is self-creative, self-expressive; it is what it is and does…”77 Organisms function to fulfill themselves in functional behavior and not to influence the environment. He makes it clear that there is an organic predisposition to its formation, which is self-creative, selfexpressive of its own life and process as it seeks self-preservation. Foster contended that reference to organism also refers to the soul. The soul, for Benedict de Spinoza, is a system seeking its own self-

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence

53

preservation based on its inward experiences of formations and functions. Under the influence of Charles Darwin, the soul was viewed not as a static entity with attitudes and properties. The soul is not a free agent, independent of the body, nor is it a system of ideas like atoms. Modern psychologists consider the soul a psycho-physiological organism. The soul should not be considered as separate from the body. Foster affirmed the point “that the immanence of a free or unfree soul-entity in a body is quite unintelligible to psychology as the immanence of a free or unfree Godentity in the cosmos is unintelligible to philosophical reflection.”78 Foster reminds us that a person or organism requires orientation to its world. He suggested that the organism, for the sake of self-preservation and its self-consummation, has the soul generate organs and functions, illustrated by our sensations of the outer-world being mediated by sense organs. The organism finds that sensations are inadequate for dealing with the outside world. The soul generates ideas, which enable the organism to function beyond the present, such as pleasure, and pain, which enables the organism to determine if it is in a positive or negative situation. Foster postulated that one’s essence is forward striving guided by one’s will. The will is “but the impulse grown anticipatory.”79 By a process of selection and limitation, the soul selects the material that will enhance our forward striving. In addition, our employing abstractions release the soul from excess toil so that it can get its work done. Through abstractions, the soul discovers order and law, which enables it to form an ordered system of things. The function of language enables the soul to control its thought over things. As we move into higher abstractness, we discover an abundance of vicarious thought. Language enables us to designate particular things, but we discover that different persons have different ideas associated with shared words. Foster stressed that the function of morality in our struggle to survive requires extending our thoughts beyond the psycho-physiological organism to the social environment. Humans are not born free, for freedom is an achievement not an endowment. Humans differ because they have different natural endowments and capacities. However, preserving their society requires shared rules of conduct for its members. The social organism maintains its unity and trust from within. Eventually this unity and trust leads to the ideal of humanity, in which the individual is free within a common fellowship. Foster turned from psychology to history to illustrate there is nothing new for the individual or collective that has not been tried in our struggle for survival. In the catholic Middle Ages, the idea of a human was thought of as an angel, without a homeland. With the rise of humanism, humans

54

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

began to reject this ecclesiastical supernatural humanity. Humanism supported the cult of life instead of the cult of death by rejecting the revelation mediated by the church. In place of this revelation, humanism relied upon the truth found in nature and in human life. If one tried to live outside the human community, one became an outcast of humanity. When the notion of “original sin” was emphasized, human nature was limited in developing the organs and functions necessary for preservation and perfection. Humanism led to the eighteenth century concern with humanity as a practical matter. Humans were no longer conceived in a Greek or Roman fashion, for now the focus is on all persons, regardless of their rank or position in society. One could not be limited by one’s race or creed, for all persons are created free and equal. This was not just a rejection of the limited perspective of the church, but excluded all the alien authorities that repress humanity. However, the concept of humanity lacked clarity, which could only be overcome when the focus is on the empirical person. Although the rationalists claim that all persons are rational, reason for many appears to be undeveloped. However, even these undeveloped people share in our common humanity. The emphasis now shifts to humans as natural creatures who are in their process of becoming in ordering and forming the personal and the social. We are born not fully human, but our vocation is to become fully human. Foster explained: “This means the development of the inchoate into organic life, personal and social. It means the humanization of all animal impulses and passions, the ennoblement of all that is rude and vulgar, the culture of all that is raw. To be a man is not to possess by donation the alien goods of thought, but to develop from within a function of thinking of one’s own.”80 In this fashion, the organism generates sensations as well as perceptions and memory, imagination and reason. One could say that the individual creates its own environment in which it strives for equilibration internally and in community. Foster concluded by contending that he is not treating our best values as only means to an end, for means and ends belong to the becoming organism. In focusing on the place of religion in experience, Foster noted that morality represents a major achievement of the soul. The soul functions to bring control over a larger reality, which includes knowledge of the structure and behavior of things. This claim to knowledge opens the soul to attacks from science. Primitive humans were open to dangers which they were unable to understand. These persons faced the darkness of the future and the hostile powers by which they were confronted. Out of the need to cope with their situation, religion was born. “Man made the gods

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence

55

to do for him what he could not do for himself.”81 The soul created ideas to aid humans in facing the future. Humans develop and become part of the great whole. In this process, humans are predetermined to seek becoming free personalities and members of a society. Early primitive humans believed in the double-ness of their beings, having a body and a soul. In their dreams, they came to think of the two being independent. The ancestors came to be thought of as divine. Death has moved the ancestors into an invisible and unknown realm, but they were still able to maintain the tribal precepts. Primitive humans were engaged in the psychification of all reality, which they viewed as being composed of demons and spirits. Foster postulated that the problem faced by humans is that their God is no longer theirs. We inherited this God from tradition, but what we require is a God that is original to us. Humans are religious through their capacity to postulate God, which has its foundation in religious sentiments. The view of the spirits considered as gods was a working hypothesis for our ancestors, helping them to deal with the practical issues of living. Foster indicated two perspectives concerning the origin of belief in the gods. One view was social, based on worship of the ancestors. The other view held that the individual created the gods to meet the emergencies facing all persons. Thus, faith makes the religion. In human evolution, religion became based on our needs; it was not artificially created. In ancient religions thou opposed I. They considered the gods after the pattern of their actions and passions based on imagination. In this fashion, “they humanized the world; this humanization of nature gave them their gods.”82 At the beginning of the nineteenth century, truth and poesy did not go together, for poesy excluded truth. However, a hundred years later poesy was considered to convey profound truth. Fantasy undergirds our first impressions which give our senses contact with the world. Sensations are not given to us but are created by us. Without imagination, there would be no sensations. Still we are confronted with the problems of living which cause in us great fear and anxiety. Those who disagreed with this view contend that if religion is created by our psyches, it is an illusion. Certainly, there is the possibility of illusion based on hereditary, but the key is that we have made God in our image. Another objection is that religion was miraculous created by divine initiative. The authority of the Bible rested on it being revealed by God and therefore being true. This was the general position of the Baptist, who sought to recover the independence of the soul. The Baptist contended not only should the scriptures be heard, but also they should be recognized as

56

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

true. Foster noted that this approach led to an appalling definition of faith as believing something to be true which one does not in fact hold as true. “What is fatal to orthodoxy today is that in sticking to its ‘truths’ it has lost its truthfulness.”83 Johann G. J. Hermann considered sinful requiring someone to assent to the truth of the Scriptures. People today are being injured by the religious necessity of holding that to be religiously true which has become scientifically false. Independents had protested against early Protestantism’s theory of external authority. The Independents held that the authority of religion was internal, making them the true forerunners of modern persons. Catholics, Protestants, and Independents considered their religion to be based on knowledge of God, the validity of which was assured by its divine source. However, the Independents held that religious truths are independent of experience but inwardly necessary for the believer. Thus, one becomes a Christian based on human endowments and not human accomplishments. Theologians spoke of intuitive knowledge of God not gained by experience. Immanuel Kant supported a priori knowledge not of God but of moral conduct. Frederick Schleiermacher considered God a necessary idea of thought, which resulted in humans feeling dependent upon God. Foster suggested that these views of the knowledge of God have resulted in the experimental character of all knowledge becoming evident. He claimed that these sources of religious knowledge had been modified by the theory of evolution thoroughly applied. The result of this modification was that a priori authority must be the result of experience before it can become the cause of experience. In this fashion, supernaturalism has been negated, and has been replaced by experience creating its own forms based on the idea of development. This evolutionary perspective is supported by observations of human life, which reveal that humans create necessary concepts and principles that enhance themselves as masters of their environment. Foster indicated that a final super-experimental source supporting religious certainty has been sought through science. Since scientific proof only deals with things that condition other things, and are being conditioned by those things, it cannot provide proof for the existence of God, of religion, or the human soul. The danger of theism is that it turns religion into a system of beliefs. Foster noted that from this perspective orthodoxy and rationalism are essentially the same in religion as primarily a set of ideas, with both discredited by the psychology of experience which demonstrated that the idea is not primary but is derivative—not cause but effect. Thus, the main thing in religion is not the God-idea but is our inner motives and feelings that create the God-idea. “In short, the

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence

57

‘proofs’ of the existence of God, un-flecked by the stains of concrete experience, are only sterile survivals of the old supernaturalism.”84 Humans in tune with science have come to understand that religion, which requires assent, cannot be supported by proofs. Humans are made so that they make gods, and replace old gods by new gods. However, religion is not an illusion because illusions have not functioned in human experience. This fear of illusion is generated by speculation, not of life, but of life lived religiously. Foster defined religion as “the warm, intimate life of individuals as they give expression in a heartfelt way to the profounder impulses within them. It is the purposeful will in action, hungering after the infinitely good, true, and beautiful.”85 The orthodox consider the remains of religion to be religion itself. With the focus on human instincts, we are led to religion by our instinct for love and to commune with another Love. The only way to nurture religion is to leave it alone, but modern persons fail to follow this advice and impose artificial ideas to the primary elements of religion. If religion is not primarily about the life and spirit of humanity, its sense of unreality will become a sense of illusion. Foster noted three kinds of faith: faith based on sense perception, authority faith, and faith generated from our deepest needs. The faith of humans is determined by the deepest intentions of our needs. Based on these needs the soul creates the convictions that undergird faith. Faith emerges from the needs of the individual and the group. Foster considered the insights of William James in Psychology regarding the social self and its development. When one moves beyond the impact of family and communal traditions, one sacrifices its social self in hope for a better social self. One is driven to establish this improved or ideal social self in order to be related to the supreme judging companion, assuming there is such a companion. Prayer becomes an issue that is resolved by the understanding that we pray because we cannot help but pray. This impulse to pray is driven by our desire to be the ideal social sort in an ideal world. From this perspective, we ultimately recognize that our authority is self-authority and our obedience is self-obedience. If our ideas and ideals are deemed invalid, then nothing human is valid or valuable. However, James sought more from religion than proofs of truth and suggested we should understand that a basic function of religion is its usefulness. Foster has been speaking in the language of comfort based on the contention that experience demonstrates our expectation of comfort. However, there is inadequate evidence that our values are equally dear to God. A trans-valuation of values is often required if we are not to be left

58

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

comfortless. He noted that when self-consolation is our ultimate goal, our piety becomes egotism. Modern humans express their ideal-achieving capacity deeply rooted in reality. Foster stressed “the content of our Godfaith is the conviction that in spite of much that is dark and inharmonious in the world, reality is on the side of the achievement of ideals such as ours.”86 Based on experience, we understand that the nature of reality is such that ideals may be realized, if our deepest feeling involves our highest trust and love. In essence, God is a symbol of the ideal-achieving capacity of the universe, but the idea of a personal God has only symbolic value. With personality as our highest idea, it is natural that we conceive of God as a person or personality. Humans’ vocation is to achieve our highest ideals, being convinced that our goals are achievable within the world of which we are a part. Shifting to a biological perspective, religion is considered a mode by which humans establish their inner and outer equilibrium. Religion is also the psychological support of the soul’s strength to combat evils. We have evolved from our ancestors’ stories, which convey no real belief in spirit to the religion of the spirit and truth expressed by the noblest modern church. This religion affirms that our convictions are achievability through a cosmic deity who provides humans satisfactions through our individual personalities.

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence

59

Conclusion Foster anticipated these ideas to be more valuable to those who had outgrown their church-faith and no longer worshipped. He noted that the conception of God in a particular period was dependent upon the doctrine of the soul accepted by psychologists. The development of the soul and God has been through three dominant epochs. The first epoch was the form of knowledge in late antiquity, which focused on physical reality in terms of substance and manifestation. Nature, God, and the soul were substances, with salvation being the sacramental mediation of the God substance to the soul-substance. This religion was a form of supernatural materialism. In the second epoch, a crucial change in the sixteen century was due to modern science’s emphasis on material phenomena via the mathematicomechanical method of manipulating phenomena. From this perspective emerged the new psychology that viewed the soul as a system of ideas and nature as a system of atoms. Divine truth was considered a communication from God to the mind of humans. In the third epoch, humans are willing and feeling beings who find life more significant than ideational life. With the emergence of biological science, the focus was on humans’ development, with the organism becoming a system directing its own development and preservation. Foster’s point was that the organisms are self-creative and self-expressive and function to fulfill themselves and not to influence the environment. Modern psychologists consider the soul a psychological-physiological organism that is not separated from one’s body. No longer is soul-entity considered free or unfree in a body. Instead, the soul functions to generate ideas that enable the organism to determine whether it is in a positive or negative situation. Foster conceived the essence of humans to be forward striving guided by the individual’s will which is impulse grown anticipatory. The soul through abstractions conceives of law and order which enables it to conceive of an ordered system of things. Language enables the soul to control its thought over things. In our struggle to survive, the function of morality forces us to extend our thought beyond the psycho-physiological organism to our social environment. As humans, we are not born free. Foster emphasized that freedom is not an endowment but an achievement. Humans differ by having different endowments and capacities. Societies require shared rules in order to maintain unity and trust, which eventually leads to the ideal of humanity. Now humans are free within a common social environment.

60

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

In the Middle Ages, humans were conceived as angels without a homeland. With the rise of humanism, this conception of humans was rejected. Humanism focused on the fullness of human life and relied upon the truth found in nature and in human life. One truth was that humans needed to live in community, for if one lives outside the community one becomes an outcast. In the eighteen century humanism led to a concern with humanity as a practical matter. This concept of humanity was not clearly established and humanism could only overcome this limitation when the focus was on the empirical person. The soul generates organs and the functions that enable us to confront the external world via our sense organs. In time, the emphasis shifts to humans as natural creatures who are in the process of becoming. At birth, we are not fully human and our vocation is to become fully human. This means that the individual is responsible for developing a personal function of thinking that enables it to raise above all animal impulses and passions. In this fashion, the individual creates its own environment in which it strives for equilibration internally and in community. Morality is a key achievement of the soul, as the soul functions to bring control over a large reality, which involves insights into the structure and behavior of things. Foster claimed that humans made the gods to accomplish what they could not. The soul aids humans in developing and becoming part of the greater whole, which predetermines humans to seek becoming free persons in a society. Foster suggested that humans’ problem in the becoming process is because their God is not really theirs. This God has been inherited from tradition, but what we require is a God original to us. We are humans through our capacity to postulate God, which is based on our religious sentiments. Some gods were local and social, based on worship of the ancestors. Another perspective held that the individual created god or gods to aid in confronting life’s emergencies. In this fashion, faith makes the religion. The authority of the Bible rests on it being revealed by God and is true. Foster noted that this was the general position of Baptists who sought to reestablish the independence of the soul. The Baptist contended that the Scriptures should be heard and recognized as true. Foster suggested that this approach led to defining faith as believing something to be true which one knows to be false. For Independents, one becomes a Christian based on human endowments and not on accomplishments. He further suggested that these views of knowledge of God have established the experimental character of all knowledge. Foster also noted that the theory of evolution thoroughly applied has modified the sources of religious knowledge. This

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence

61

modification required that a priori authority be the result of experience prior to becoming the cause of experience. Thus, supernaturalism was negated, replaced by experience creating forms based on the idea of development. Science cannot prove the existence of God, religion, or the human soul. Foster suggested that the danger of theism is that it turns religion into a system of beliefs. The main thing in religion is not the Godidea but our inner motives and feelings, which lead us to create the Godidea. Humans make their gods and replace old gods with new gods. The only God not affected by human experience is the old supernaturalism. Foster suggested that religion is the intimate life of the individual expressing the profounder impulses within the person. These impulses result in the will of the individual seeking the infinitely good, true, and beautiful. Religion can only be nurtured by leaving it alone, which modern persons fail to do by imposing artificial ideas to the essential elements of religion. Foster claimed that if religion is not primarily about humanity’s life and spirit, its sense of unreality shows it to be an illusion. Foster postulated three kinds of faith that are based on sense perception, authority faith, and faith generated from our inmost needs. Humans’ faith is based on our genuine needs. The soul, based on these needs, creates principles which undergird faith. Prayer becomes an issue resolved when we understand that we pray because we cannot help doing so. The impulse to pray is driven by our desire to be the ideal sort in an ideal world. Foster suggested that from this perspective, we understand that our authority is self-authority and our obedience is self-obedience. Foster claimed that a basic function of religion is its usefulness. He stressed that our God-faith is based on the conviction that in spite of our inharmonious world the nature of reality is such that ideals may be realized. Thus, God is a symbol of the ideal-achieving capability of the universe. However, the ideal of a personal God only has symbolic value. We have come to realize that our vocation is to accomplish our highest ideals. From a biological perspective, religion enables humans to establish an inner and outer equilibrium. Religion also supports our soul in combating evil. Thus, religion for the noblest modern church affirms the religion of the spirit and truth. This religion affirms that a cosmic deity provides humans satisfactions through their individual personalities.

HERESY TRIAL

LEARNED CRITIC RIPS THEOLOGY On February 2, 1906, the attacks on Foster related to The Finality of the Christian Religion began. The Chicago Tribune published LEARNED CRITIC RIPS THEOLOGY. Foster was assailed for negating the fundamental principles of orthodoxy of the Christian religion, “including the belief in miracles, prophecies, verbal inspiration of the Bible, and its historical basis…” The book’s main purpose is to examine the question whether Christianity is to be regarded as the permanent religion of humankind. It is noted that Professor Foster has already been accused by southern Baptist of heresy, which have also requested that Foster be removed for the University of Chicago’s faculty. Foster is accused of believing “that a multitude of thoughtful men and women are passing through an experience similar to his own and that a greater multitude will travel, with bleeding feet, the same via dolorosa tomorrow and the day after.” Foster was also accused of supplanting the real Jesus. As he stated in the preface: “The church’s theological Christ still supplants the real Jesus of history, whose spirit alone is the life of the spirit; sacraments instead of the fellowship of Christian persons are set up to the mediation of salvation, and an external religion of historical occurrences is substituted for the invisible impression made by persons.” It is further noted that Foster considered “that Christianity is a religion of historical facts. It is not a religion of facts, but of values, and values are timeless.” Foster also upset many by his views on the canon of the scriptures. Foster suggested that the Bible demonstrates that it was written by humans. “From a history of the origin and fixation of the canon, it is clear that the apriori declaration of the coincidence of canonicalness and immediate divineness has no historical support.” Foster was also charged with the denial of miracles by claiming that “…by science a miracle cannot be admitted.” Miraculous narratives are presented as having no scientific importance. Foster suggested that an

64

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

intelligent person who affirms faith in miracles “can hardly know what intellectual honesty means.” A final charge was that Foster provided meager proof of the resurrection. Foster wrote, “The importance attached to the bodily resurrection is out of all proportion to the evidence therefor. The narratives yield a fluctuating image which eludes all assured evaluation. Shall we base our highest and holiest religious life on an occurrence of which no one can make a perfectly distinct picture? And is it, indeed, necessary that we build our salvation on this occurrence?” On February 6, 1906, the Chicago News included a brief statement that “Foster of the University of Chicago Assails canons of the Bible” and inquired whether Christianity can be regarded as a permanent religion of humankind. Also on February 6, 1906, The Chicago Post ran an article entitled NEW CRITIC OF THEOLOGY in which it charged that Foster assails the principles of orthodoxy. These principles include “belief in miracles, verbal inspiration and the historical basis of the Bible.” In referring to the theory of bodily resurrection, Foster wrote, “The importance attached to the bodily resurrection is out of all proportion to the evidence therefor.” In 1906, the controversy that Foster faced in the newspapers had to do with an article on immorality in Biblical World in which Foster had denied the possibility of personal immortality “and declared that the moral code is not dependent on the hope of a future life.” On February 10, 1906, the Chicago Tribune published an article entitled SOME BACK FOSTER’S VIEW. The lines were drawn between those against his position who considered it heretical and agnostic. Others considered Foster’s position as entirely in line with modern thought. Harvey Arnold, in God Before You and Behind You, noted on page 155 that “the conservative members of the Faculty voted against Foster in the Minister’s Conference.” The Reverend Johnston Meyers, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church, accused Foster of being unscriptural and unchristian. He also claimed that Foster had been asked to resign from the Divinity School, with his being moved, according to Meyers, to the philosophy department. [Author’s note: Foster was never asked to resign. It was at his request that he was transferred from The Divinity School to the Department of Comparative Religion in the University College as Professor of Philosophy of Religion.] Dr. Austen K. Blols, pastor of First Baptist Church, who claimed a personal relation with Dr. Foster, declared Foster to be a person who is sincere and true to his convictions. However, he suggested that in his views he goes a great deal farther than most Christian churches would be

Heresy Trial

65

willing to follow. Blols felt that Foster had been spending too much time on metaphysics and need to focus on the practical sides of life, which he contended would change Foster’s views radically. Pastor William A. Quale of St. James Methodist Church said that he had not read Dr. Foster. However, he indicated that if what they say about Foster’s ideas is true, they are old instead of being new. Rev. Jenkin L. Jones, pastor of All Souls Independent Church, indicated his unqualified support for Dr. Foster. He indicated that Foster’s attitude was that of any rational scholar influenced by the spirit and method of science. The notion of immortality tied to morals means that you can do anything as long as you escape the fires of hell. Jones proclaimed “…immortality you can’t prove isn’t worth much.” Dr. Emil G. Hirsch, Rabbi of Sinai congregation, approved of Dr. Foster’s views, indicating he had been preaching these ideas for the past twenty-five years. M. M. Mangasrian, a lecturer at the Sinai congregation, agreed with Foster. His only wish was that Dr. Foster would be more outspoken and more consistent in following his views to their logical conclusion. Dr. E. Scribner Ames, of the Philosophy department at the University of Chicago, was also minister of Disciples of Christ Church. Ames noted that in recent years there has been a strong tendency to base Christian faith and ethics upon principles that are unrelated to the issue of immortality. Ames held that there was no proof for immortality. He further suggested there was nothing unreasonable in this perspective. Rev. J. L. Jackson was pastor of Hyde Park Baptist Church, which was the home church for the Foster family. He suggested that Foster had perhaps approached the question of immortality from a different perspective, as he is an advanced thinker and belongs to the new school of theologians. Dean Hulbert of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago refused to discuss the issue of Dr. Foster’s view of immortality. The article on February 11, 1906, was entitled WANT FOSTER TO RESIGN. The demand was made that Professor Foster resign from the Divinity School and the University. It was noted that Baptist ministers and churches had supported the formation of the Divinity School, but they were upset because Foster was teaching false ideas against Christian principles which have stood through the ages. Pastor Stanton said; “I shall make an answer to Prof. Foster’s attacks on the Christian faith in my sermon tomorrow and I shall do so in the strongest possible language. I believe that I am not only justified in doing so, but that I would be remiss in my duty if I did not do so. So long as the

66

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

University of Chicago is a Baptist institution and is partly sustained by the Baptist church it should not tolerate anti-Christian teachings.” (The claim that the University of Chicago is a Baptist institution was based on President W. R. Harper having invited a small Baptist seminar near Chicago to merge with the Universities’ Divinity School, which they did.) On February 13, 1906, an article appeared entitled DEFIES CRITICS OF FOSTER: UNIVERSITY NOT TO OUST PROFESSOR ON MINISTERS’ PLEA. Dr. Thomas W. Goodspeed, speaking for the University, declared that Dr. Foster would keep his position, based on the University’s stand for liberty of thought, even though his Finality of the Christian Religion had upset many persons. Goodspeed indicated that Foster, in his new book, “will go far to reconstruct the evidences of Christianity and to establish the Gospel on what he considers to be impregnable defenses.” He further suggested that those critical of Foster should be patient and wait on the full development of Foster’s thoughts. Dr. Foster replied to his critics, suggesting they have been too hasty in their judgment. “This furore (sic) began among men who had not read the book, and there are numbers of them as yet who have not had time to digest it… When they have had time, they will find that they are in pretty general agreement with it. I do not care to make any comments on my book until the ministers have had time to digest it, but I feel sure that most of them will look at it as I do. I wish to state that in my articles on ‘Immortality” in the biblical world I do not deny immortality, but, on the contrary, I affirm it.” On February 20, 1906, the Chicago Tribune ran a story entitled BIG SHIELD FOR FOSTER. The shield was based on a policy of the late President William Rainey Harper’s, “that any attempt to control the opinion of the faculty on any subject would be detrimental to the usefulness of the institution’s influence.” A debate was held on The Finality of the Christian Religion, with more than 800 persons seated and many more standing. Rev. John R. Straton spoke: “We are told that Jonah swallowed the whale and coughed up the whale, but if the university swallows Prof. Foster and this book and keeps them on its stomach without producing a case of dyspepsia (sic) that will destroy it, then it will have performed a greater miracle than that engaged by Jonah and the whale in the long ago.” Rev. W. X. Bryce proclaimed that Dr. Foster should never again be allowed to preach. Rev. Gilbert Frederick said, “We know what Dr. Foster means. He seeks to destroy the supernatural in the bible. It is better to know a few things that are true than to know a great many things that are not true.” Prof. Gerald B. Smith, head of the theology department in the divinity school, said: “There have been palpable misrepresentations in regards to the content of this book. I trust

Heresy Trial

67

that you will respect yourself enough not to condemn this book until you ascertain its contents.” However, Rev. M Tuller said, “There is a place for such a book as Dr. Foster has written. Men who believe in free thought and free speech cannot limit the work of their investigators.” On June 1, 1909, The Chicago Tribune published an article, FAVORS THEOLOGY OF PROF. FOSTER. The article was based on a meeting of the Theological Club at the University of Chicago in which Foster’s The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence was considered. Mild criticism was directed at some features of the book, but the general spirit was one of approval. Foster was prepared to defend the book but this was unnecessary. The strongest approval came from Prof. A. W. Moore of the philosophy department. Moore considered “Dr. Foster’s book as a sign of the times. It came at the psychological moment and in a volume distinctly worthwhile and a credit to the author. It is a work such as is needed these days when there is so much irreligiousness prevalent.” Foster spoke to the Divinity Faculty and thanked them for their critical thoughts, which he declared, would be an aid to him. He suggested that he did not expect his work to appeal to older persons whose opinions have already been formed. “What I am aiming at is to win over the common people and I am determined that they shall be won over.” It is to the rising generations that his future efforts will be directed. Foster claimed that it was the churchmen who sought to keep the common people from learning the truth. “It is they to whom we should look for the toleration of freedom of belief, and if they would do it we should have a better and saner religion.” On June 8, 1909, BAPTIST CLERGY CENSURE FOSTER was a lead article in the Chicago Tribune. At a called meeting of the Chicago Baptist ministers’ conference, the Rev. Johnston Meyers proposed that it demand that Foster resign from the Baptist denomination, the Baptist ministers’ conference, the University of Chicago, and give up his ordination papers as a Baptist minister. Meyers reasoned that Foster had long since functioned as a true Baptist minister. He concluded his proposal saying: “He has given the Baptist ministers a slap in the face that cannot be overlooked. He should be taught good English, good rhetoric, and good Christianity.” As required by Conference rules, the motion lay on the table for one week. That evening, upon learning of Meyers’ motion, Foster opined: “I am afraid the ministers have forgotten what constitutes a Baptist… I think I am a typical, loyal, old fashioned Baptist. If I am not at home in a Baptist church, and if they choose to turn me out, I shall stay out in the wide, wide world. If I am not a Baptist, then I am nothing.” Foster had also been

68

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

attacked for not preaching in Baptist churches but preaching in Unitarian churches. He responded: “Certainly I preach in a Unitarian church. I would preach in a Roman Catholic Church if they would let me. I fight along the same lines, be it in one church or another. As for my not preaching as a Baptist, what was my sermon on Sunday in Mandel hall at the University of Chicago?” At the ministers’ conference, Foster’s The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence was assailed. Dr. Mathews, a local Baptist minister, spoke of having been in Foster’s first class at the University of Chicago and said, “I regard him, however, as an undesirable Baptist for his utterance in his book and recent statements, and believe it for our interest and the interest of Christianity and the Baptist church that he withdraws from us.” Mathews continued: “Prof. Foster allows his doubts too much freedom and his logic is not conclusive, leading him into trouble that could be avoided. He says scholars know what Christ really did through writers of the bible. I would ask Prof. Foster. How do you know this?” In referring to The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence, Mathews said; “Chapter 6 of the book is a tirade affecting the clergy, and chapter 7, the last chapter, is false entirely. The book is a review of Judaism and a careful attempt to evolve a new religion from raw and old material.” On June 10, 1909, an article appeared in the Chicago Tribune entitled FOSTER CASE LINES DRAWN that detailed the charges brought by Johnston Meyers. “In the first resolution Prof. Foster’s heterodoxy is based on his denial of the divinity of Christ and the statement, made in one of his books, that man made God, not God man. Because the author and theologian hold to these doctrines, Dr. Meyers called him an atheist and an infidel.” In urging the second and third resolutions, Meyers attacked Foster for not being a Baptist minister because he preached in Unitarian churches and teaches Unitarian doctrines. Meyers suggested that the resolution requesting Foster to resign from Hyde Park Baptist Church and the ministry “would do much practical good.” Foster replied to the resolutions. “I shall make no defense, because I cannot see that one is necessary. I am not much bothered about the talk by Dr. Meyers. I believe the majority of the members of the ministers’ conference will see my views in the proper way and will not take exception to my retaining them. The idea that I am militant is ridiculous and the ministers’ conference is a place for harmony, not for squabbles…. I am a Baptist and a true one. I am not sailing under false colors…. I intend to keep on preaching and teaching the same doctrine I have been

Heresy Trial

69

advocating. I have convinced the most advanced thinkers that I am still a Baptist that is all I seek to do. Foster went on to say he would preach at any church that invited him. On June 12, 1909, another article appeared in the Chicago Tribune entitled STUDENTS STAND BY FOSTER. Foster’s graduate students in his course on “Philosophy of Religion” adopted a testimonial indorsing his teaching and his new book. Of the fifty students in the class, all but one signed the testimonial. The text of the testimonial said: “Out of respect for your teachings in the course entitled “Philosophy of Religion” and our high personal regard for you as an instructor… our appreciation, of the service you have rendered us in our relations to some of the greatest and most vital problems in human life. We have found in you not only an able instructor and a man of great depth and breadth of mind, but also a deeply and sincerely religious man. You have given us in the course just finished a deeper and broader meaning of life, of reality as a whole, and through your personality and instruction a broader outlook upon existence in all that religion in its historical, psychological and ethical content can mean in a modern world and to modern thought. It must be a gratification to you to know that we are of one accord in the expression of our highest regard for your broad, democratic, thoroughly religious views and teachings both in the classroom and in your recent book, The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. Those of us who have made a critical study of the book… believe this to be one of the greatest books of modern thought…” The article in Tribune on June 13, 1909, was entitled CALLS FOSTER A PLAGIARIST. Dr. Johnston Meyers charged that, in a former book [The Finality of the Christian Religion] Foster “deliberately reproduced in his book five pages from the work of a German rationalist named Otto, and failed to give credit.” Dr. Meyers further claimed that the testimony in support of Foster by his students was organized by Foster’s son. Prof. Foster admitted the error of not footnoting the material by Otto in his heavily footnoted work of over 500 pages. Foster also said, “Dr. Meyers is wrong in many of his assertions. My son is not in the university, and neither he nor I had anything to do with the testimonial from the students. Their action was not inspired, and I knew nothing about their plans until they had given their testimonial.” On June 15, 1909, the Tribune published an article entitled FOSTER ESCAPES EXPULSION VOTE. There was a bitter fight over Meyers’ charge of heresy. Foster’s supporters carried on a filibuster and various parliamentary procedures that frustrated Myer’s supporters. The final vote was 60 .

70

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

against the resolution and 21 in favor. Foster attempted to answer the charges before the conference, when he was asked to respond to several questions. The first question was did Foster believe in the deity of Christ. He responded: “I do, and I have never uttered or written any statement, publicity or privately, which would intimate that I do not so believe.” The second question was whether Foster had ever ridiculed religion or any forms of the church. Foster replied, “I have never ridiculed religion, and on the contrary have always had the deepest respect for all forms of worship, believing as a good Baptist that the most freedom in worship is the right of the individual. I have no criticism whatever for the devout Catholic in this respect.” The third question was whether Foster thought of himself as a Unitarian, since he preached primarily in Unitarian churches. Foster replied, “On the contrary, I consider myself a Baptist, and when I accept temporary charge of the pulpit of Third Unitarian church, I do so with the complete understanding that I will teach Baptist doctrines, which was eminently satisfactory to the members of this congregation.” Foster’s answers served to reignite the fight over the heresy charge. An attempt at reconciliation occurred with a motion to send the matter to a committee for resolution. Others suggested that for Baptist there was no such thing as a heresy trial, because it would require establishing an ecclesiastical court, which would negate one of the dearest tenets of all true Baptist. Still others again tried to secure a positive vote on the charges. Finally, young Dr. Donald MacLaurin, pastor of Second Church, gave a dramatic plea to the conference for its support of the broadest democracy in the Baptist Church. It was plain to Dr. Meyers that his resolution on that day had lost. However, he proclaimed to all that he would bring up the charges at future meetings of the conference. Dr. Meyers did announce his resignation as president and superintendent of the Baptist executive council of Chicago. As the meeting was about to close, a member asked how many ministers had read Dr. Foster’s The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. Eleven of over 80 Baptist ministers attending the conference had read the book that was the basis of the charge of heresy. On June 17, 1909, the Tribune contained an article entitled FOSTER’S CRITICS TO RENEW ATTACKS at the meeting of the conference in two weeks. A noted Baptist minister claimed that the majority of Baptist ministers favor such actions. It was further claimed that the reason Foster was not expelled from the conference was the faulty manner in which a young minister had drawn the resolution. However, Foster declared the vote of the ministers was a victory for him, postulating, “Whether or not they agree with my views they recognize me as a Baptist. I have always

Heresy Trial

71

claimed I was… I believe in freedom of thought and expression, which is one of the first principles of the Baptist faith. The fact that the ministers have retained me as a member means that they consider me a Baptist and not an infidel or an atheist.” Foster’s enemies not only planned to seek a vote on ejecting him from the Baptist ministers’ conference; they also planned for many ministers to preach sermons attacking Foster prior to the next conference meeting. The Rev. Dr. A. C. Dixon of Moody Church and the Rev. John A. Earl planned to preach on the topic of “Heresy” two days before the conference gathering. The Rev. Dr. Dixon had written John D. Rockefeller, a benefactor to the University of Chicago, requesting that he use his influence in repudiating the teachings of Foster and having him removed from the faculty. Dr. Dixon reported that he had received a reply from Mr. Rockefeller’s secretary saying Mr. Rockefeller was away but “that he knew Mr. Rockefeller’s views well enough to reply that he would not interfere in any university matters, but trusted to the discretion of the trustees to take any needed action.” On June 18, 1909, the Tribune published an article entitled MOVE ON FOSTER’S UNIVERSITY JOB. The Rev. Johnston Meyers next move was to try to have Foster removed from his position as Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Chicago. “Dr. Meyers thinks that he can get the Baptist conference, which meets again next Monday, to adopt a resolution asking President Harry Pratt Judson of the University of Chicago to relieve Prof. Foster from his duties as a teacher.” Meyers claimed that Foster’s supporters had manipulated the meeting, which was the reason that he was not expelled for heresy. Meyers further claimed that Foster’s supporters would fail this time in their manipulating efforts. It was noted that due to the publicity concerning the charge of heresy, Prof. Foster’s The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence was sold out at all the Chicago area bookstores. Due to the demand being so great for the book, an additional printing was required. Rev. John A. Earl of Belden Avenue church said at a meeting of the executive committee of the conference: “Judging from the results obtained it seem that we Baptist ought to turn everything over to our wives. Take our Baptist conference meetings, for instance. It seem to me that the members of this association might do better if they would leave Prof. Foster alone and discuss the hospital we have been fighting for. You ought to be at one of these sessions. All you have to do is to mention Foster and at once you have great excitement.” June 19, 1909 brought another article in the Tribune entitled WILL TRY AGAIN TO OUST FOSTER. Dr. Dixon announced that at the Baptist Ministers

72

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

conference on the next Monday would again vote on excluding Foster. Having resigned from the executive committee of the conference, Dr. Myer was not involved in the coming vote, although he remained committed to rid the conference of Prof. Foster. Myer said, “I am unwilling to remain president and superintendent of a body of Baptists that commends the theology of a Unitarian… If the ministers’ conference turns down the resolutions against Prof. Foster there are other ways of getting this man out of our way.” Meyers concluded by announcing his intention to request President Judson and the trustees of the University of Chicago to remove Prof. Foster from the faculty. On June 20, 1909, the article in the Tribune entitled TWENTY-FIVE AIM SHOTS AT FOSTER with a subtitle “Foes of Theologian to Fire Quarter of a Hundred Resolutions—Lively Fray Expected.” The Rev. A. C. Dixon was to speak that evening on “Heresy and the Proper Attitude Toward Heretics.” The Rev. John A. Earle and the Rev. Smith T. Ford also preached on “Heresy.” Foster was preaching that day at the Third Unitarian Church on “Ethics of Doctrinal Reform.” Dixon question Foster’s intention in his sermons because “he is an atheist… and denies the fundamentals of all evangelical Christians.” The next related article in the Tribune was on June 21, 1909, entitled READY TO RENEW FIGHT ON FOSTER. As noted in the previous article, many Baptist preached sermons attacking Foster and The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. The thrust of these sermons proclaimed Foster to be an infidel and a deicide who was clearly immoral. With this third attempt to expel Foster from the conference, he “calmly reaffirmed publicly all the utterances that created the storm.” The article on June 24, 1909, was ASSERTS JUDSON OPPOSES FOSTER. By this time, Dr. Myer admitted that he was almost alone in his fight to get Prof. Foster removed from the conference and fired from the University of Chicago. He asserted, “…that the reason he was encouraged was that President Harry Pratt Judson was with him.” However, Meyers admitted that Judson had not pledged himself in so many words to remove Foster, but said, “I can tell from the tone of the letter written to me that he is strongly opposed to Foster’s views.” Dr. Meyers decline to produce Judson’s letter claiming it to be confidential but went on to say, “President Judson told me that he was decidedly against Dr. Foster, and would bring his case before the trustees. He referred, of course, to Foster’s religious opinions. He did not mention how he stood with regard to the professor remaining on the teaching force.”

Heresy Trial

73

Dr. T. W. Goodspeed of the Board of Trustees commented: “The Board will undoubtedly discuss the case, but the outcome can be predicted right now. There is not the slightest bit of objection to Dr. Foster’s remaining on the teaching force.” Judge Jesse A. Baldwin, a trustee of the University of Chicago, also commented on the situation. “The university draws its students from all denominations,” he insisted. “Dr. Meyers is wrong in thinking that we depend on Baptist students. The heads of the institution want it known primarily as a university of broad, unbiased teaching. They do not wish to repress anyone’s ideas.” Baldwin went on to say that should President Judson write to the Board on this matter, I am sure it will be a different letter than anticipated by Dr. Meyers. On June 24, 1909, The Roman Catholic Bishop entered the fray over Prof. Foster’s works, in an article entitled MCFAUL TAKES NOTHING BACK. The article focused on Bishop James A. McFaul’s commencement comments in which he said that Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were “undermining faith and teaching immorality.” The Bishop went on to say, “I would forbid young Catholics to go institutions, such as I believe these to be, where they will get no moral training; where they will associate with skeptics and agnostics; and where, in the faculties, there is a strong inclination to find faults in and attach Christianity. …I don’t believe in turning them loose to make their own selections. I do believe in presenting all sides of a question as we do it in Catholic institutions. We teach the right principle and then make up opposing ones and refute them.” The Bishop also addressed Dr. Foster’s books for teaching that God is a myth, that humans have made God in their image, and that we are not fallen angels but developed animals. “The trouble is these universities teach no definite, sound philosophy.” The Tribune’s article on June 24, 1909 contended that U. OF C. MALIGNED, EDUCATOR ASSERTS—Dr. Goodspeed Says Dr. Meyers and Bishop McFaul’s Charges Are False—FOSTER’S PLACE SECURE. Faculty members at the U. of C. proclaimed that Dr. Meyers’ charges were “slanderous” and “false.” Trustees F. A. Smith and E. B. Felsenthal claimed that Foster’s position on the faculty was not in danger and never had been. Professor Foster denied the implications in charges by Meyers and McFaul and suggested they were false. He said, “I never have destroyed any student’s faith. I have overwhelming testimony to the contrary. My purpose in giving my course is not to create religious conviction but to study religious phenomena. It is a source of sorrow to me that my position is misunderstood. My appeal is to the man who says that in this age we

74

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

must surrender religion. I would assure him that he does not have to do so. Why should I, who am working my hardest against atheism, be branded an atheist? I confess I do not understand Mr. Meyers at all. He seems to me to be losing his reason.” Dr. Goodspeed replied to Dr. Meyers, who was on the board of trustees of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. He said that Dr. Meyers’ charges were untrue, that the University’s enrollment continued to grow, and that the other professors Dr. Meyers mentioned were no longer with the University. PASTORS DISCUSS FOSTER’S RELIGION was the title of the Tribune’s article on June 28, 1909. Foster’s The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence was of interest beyond the Baptist, as several Congregational ministers in the area devoted consideration of it with their congregations. The Rev. William T. McElveen of Evanston devoted the morning service and an afternoon to consideration of Foster’s book. McElveen praised some of Foster’s ideas and rejected others. He said, “Prof. Foster is and out and out evolutionist. He believes mankind is progressing—that man is becoming. On page 177 of the book, he says; ‘We cannot well escape conceiving of God as becoming and being. It belongs to the very nature of the Absolute to grow.’” McElveen was not impressed with Foster’s book as a literary work. “Prof. Foster writes without cant or evasion, but he is often verbose and disconnected…He overemphasizes the human; he underestimates the divine element in religion… Prof. Foster is not an atheist. To him God is not the God of the past only, but he is the God of the present, and will be the God of the future. So when he writes of the God of a people, or of an individual being retired… he does not mean the elimination of God, he means the casting aside of a poorer for a richer conception of God. He means there has been constant progress in the idea of God. We know how true that is.” The Rev. W. A. Bartlett of the First Congregational Church preached a sermon on “The Orthodox Belief” in which he said: “The great evangelical church body… holds first to the person of Christ as redeemer, and second person of the trinity. Prof. Foster says ‘modern experience would not create the trinity God of the church.’ His whole argument is based on what he calls evolutionary psychology: That is, that the belief of man is based entirely upon his inner consciousness rather than from any external or historic authority.” “He flatly contradicts the bible statement concerning creation and denies that the ‘scriptures should be held to be true,’ and would make God

Heresy Trial

75

not the majestic omnipresent personality but the creature of man’s imagination.” “His book would be interesting if it were (sic) new, but his positions lead squarely to those of Ingersoll, to whom he alludes.” The Rev. Frederick E. Hopkins of Pilgrim Congregational Church noted that it is doubtful if any benefit results from expelling an erring member from a church or ministry. “All the same, there is encouragement in some of the signs that evangelical Christians are getting tired of being attacked.” On June 29, 1909, the Tribune’s article focused on RIFT IN BAPTIST CONFERENCE. The attack on Prof. Foster and the University of Chicago by some Baptist ministers was now joined by Methodist and Congregational ministers. This continuing attempt to have Foster fired and excluded from the Baptist Ministers’ conference so upset the Rev. Donald D. MacLaurin, pastor of Second Baptist church, that he resigned membership in the Baptist Ministers’ Conference. MacLaurin said, “I strongly feel that our action last Monday was unconstitutional, contrary to the spirit of our Master’s teachings concerning the proper course in all disciplinary work; that a ministers’ conference should always be confined to ministers, and not be, as ours is, open to anyone who may choose to attend, and that only those matters should come before us which are within the definition of our object as stated in article II of our constitution. The more I reflect upon our last two meeting the more full I am of chagrin, humiliation, and sorry.” The article suggested, “Dr. MacLaurin’s resignation probably saved the University of Chicago from an investigation at the hands of the Baptist clergy.” The Rev. Johnston Meyers proposed a committee of three to “inquire into the character of the teachings of the authorities of the University of Chicago.” This committee was to be restricted from looking into possible heresies or any other religious controversy. The Rev. John A. Earl suggested that no benefits would result from such an investigation. He proposed “…instead a commission to make a canvas of the Baptist ministers in the country with a view to compiling articles of faith which might be used later for the guidance of the university.” Dr. Meyers withdrew his resolution in favor of John Earl’s proposal. As the meeting closed, the Rev. A. C. Dixon of Moody’s church said, “Prof. Foster knew that the Baptist ministers were about to investigate him and that would be the best advertising he could get, and so he turned out the volume in thirty days in order to get that advertisement.”

76

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The article concludes with the announcement that Prof. Foster was expected to reply to the numerous attacks in an address that evening on “Freedom in Religion” before the Haeckel fellowship at the Palmer house. The concluding article in the Tribune concerning Prof. Foster’s saga was on June 30, 1909, entitled FOSTER EXPLAINS VIEWS OF CREEDS—He Asks for Freedom. The atmosphere was decidedly different from the sessions of the Baptist Ministers conference, with the audience breaking into applause at different time during Foster’s address. This congenial atmosphere was interrupted by Dr. J. C. Crow, who said, “Prof. Foster has declared that God is a symbol. Again, he calls it an appreciation. Then he turns around and tells us what God desires, as if he were a personal God. This seems to be an inconsistency.” Foster replied, “I am willing to take another word for God. I should be glad if we could do away with such a word as religion as well. As I understand it the idea of God is an ideal-tendency toward things.” Foster’s reply was not well received by the audience, which became evident when the Rev. W. Hanson Pusford said, “Prof. Foster has defined God as well as anybody can. But we in this society are outside of the confounded question of trying to define God. Our substitute for God, as for religion and for truth, is life. We are on earth to live in the highest sense of that term.” Dr. Foster continued his attack on those he termed narrow Baptist. He said, “I don’t ask them to subscribe to my views. I only ask that they, out of the kindness of their hearts, not force me to accept theirs. That’s all that I want—the truth as it appeals to me. I want freedom of thought and grant the same privilege to others.” Prof. Foster was asked for his thoughts regarding the letter claimed by Mr. Myer from President Judson, which Myer claimed, indicated that Judson supported Prof. Foster being removed from teaching. As the reader may recall, Mr. Myer refused to show any one the letter, claiming it was confidential. Prof. Soares denied that the contents of the letter described by Mr. Myer were not true. Soares suggested that President Judson had “made it clear that the character of the university imposes no restrictions of the brand of religion adopted by members of the faculty.

Heresy Trial

77

Conclusion For those less acquainted with the Baptist denomination, it is important to understand that each church body is independent and can hire or dismiss a minister. If one was to be tried for failure in ministry, with the result being expulsion or being defrocked from the ministry, the church responsible for the original ordination is the deciding body on such charges. Since the church which ordained Foster was no longer in existence, this posed a real problem for those Baptist ministers seeking to have Foster fired from the University of Chicago and excluded from the Chicago Baptist Ministers’ Association. A third problem, for those seeking to have Foster defrocked for heresy, is that the Baptist denomination leaves no room for ecclesiastical courts in which a person could be tried for heresy. One cannot be convicted for heresy by a Baptist ministerial body. A final problem was the failure of these Baptist ministers to understand that their charges against Foster would not lead the University of Chicago to remove a faculty member because of that person’s beliefs. In general, Foster was charged with spending too much time on metaphysics, which resulted in his failing to focus on the practical sides of life. He was also charged with being an evolutionist who believed that reality is a process of becoming for humans and for God, which means that humans and God are in a process of growth. Foster based his position on evolutionary psychology, which led to the charge that humans are basically progressive based entirely on their inner consciousness rather than from any external or historic reality. Some of the Baptist ministers where upset with Foster’s claim that humans made god and not God making humans. Foster was also charged with overemphasizing the human while underestimating the divine element in religion. It was also noted that Foster did not mean the elimination of God. Rather, his concern was to cast aside poorer for richer conceptions of God, indicating that there has been constant progress in the idea of God. Foster upset some by his contentions that the Bible’s account of creation is a myth and that modern persons would not create the Trinitarian God of the historical church. The fact that only a few of the Baptist ministers had read The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence and even fewer had read any part of The Finality of the Christian Religion was an important factor at the Baptist Ministers Association. If they had, they would have been upset by Foster’s claim that, because we have such inadequate information about Jesus’s life and ministry, we are only left with a mythological Jesus and a mythological religion. In The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of

78

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Existence, Foster noted that the Baptist held that religion was miraculous created by divine initiative, with the authority of Bible established by it being revealed by God and is therefore true. He explained that this was the general position of Baptist as they sought to restore the independence of the soul. In essence, the Baptists held that the Scriptures be heard and recognized as true. Foster noted that this approach led to an appalling definition of faith as believing something to be true which one does not in fact hold as true. Any evangelical Baptist minister should have been upset with a mythological Jesus and a mythological religion, as well as by the charge that the Baptist definition of faith led to the view that something is believed to be true which one does not in fact hold to be true.

CHRISTIANITY IN ITS MODERN EXPRESSION

[Christianity in Its Modern Expression was not intended or written to be published. Rather, it was written by Foster, with no corrections made to the numerous typing errors, as lecture notes for a course on Dogmatics. It was published posthumously by Foster’s students with permission of Mrs. Foster.]

First Treatise: The Dogmatics of the Christian Religion Introductory 1. The Problem of the Scientific Treatment of the Dogmatics of the Christian Religion. In seeking a scientific exposition of the Christian faith, a world is postulated which faith affirms to be reality. The problem is how the invisible spiritual reality affirmed by faith can be scientifically investigated and exposed. It is necessary to keep in mind that Christian dogmatics is not identical with biblical theology, which yields no universally valid truth. Dogmatics attempts to set forth what is universally valid and preachable. Dogmatics should not be confused with the philosophy of religion. George Hegel considered Christian truth in a symbolic or pictorial manner, with these truths considered concepts in philosophy of religion. Dogmatics seeks religious truth in the form of symbols, which is more preachable. Whereas biblical theology is concerned with facts, dogmatics seeks Christian truth to which modern humans can relate. It seeks a doctrine of religion, which is included in a science of religion. Whether faith’s doctrine of God is adequate or an illusion is not included within dogmatics. Dogmatics attempts to expose the content of the faith and its intellectual foundations. Philosophy does not appear relevant to practical concerns but ultimately it is the only practicable approach, for “progress is the progressive appropriation of philosophical ideals.”87 Christian dogmatics—a normative discipline—seeks the validity of ecclesiastical doctrine; whether the doctrine is “truth” and is considered so universally. Dogmatic claims are valid for faith but not for science.

80

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Foundation of Christian Dogmatics With the Focus on the Essence of Christianity as a Religion Faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord undergirds a self-dependent Christian community. However, Messiah is an idea or concept, which it is doubtful Jesus claimed. Beyond Palestine, Messiah was replaced by Logos. Certainly, Jesus supported the divine will being accomplished, but he viewed Messianism as seeking to fulfill the divine will in history and the individual. Religion puts humans in relation with a supermundane power. Science attempts to understand humans in their natural environment. The problem between science and religion is that science seeks dependableness and system, which could not be attained with the religious object. Therefore, it sought to eliminate the religious object. Morality also seeks removal of the supermundane object and replaces it with the moral ideal. However, the moral and religious functions are different. The moral function is concerned with producing values or goods, while religion views values being made possible by the structure and function of the universe. Religion does not always have a personal God. For example, Buddha replaced a God with the moral order of the world. Cults are formed as humans seek to be in harmony with the religious object. The Christian cult today is suffering an eclipse due to the passing of the old idea of redemption. Whether God is a person or not was an issue, especially as God was increasingly stripped of personality. Foster suggested that God must retain personality as God’s highest category. Religion is a feeling of dependence on the powers that impact human existence and the need to be in harmony with these powers. Foster postulated that acts of worship are organic and the proper way of expressing our religious emotions. The theory of the origin of religion developed as follows: “When in the course of evolution there appeared an individual reflective enough, after feeling the power of the inherited altruistic animal instinct leading into recognized danger and suffering, to raise the question, why do we do this? Why must the individual sacrifice itself? ...There must be someone who wills that we act in this manner.”88 God was conceived as being friendly to humans but also requiring the law of self-sacrificing morality for them. Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution initially caused problems for Christians, Foster postulated that the evolutionary hypothesis provides the most adequate defense for contemporary Christianity. From this perspective, he explored the stages of religious development. Religions are distinguished by revelation, which serve as their basic norm. There are two forms of redemptive religion based on a redeeming

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

81

disclosure of the deity. One is pessimistic redemption religion, with Buddhism representing this form. Christian redemption religion is the other form, with the two forms having distinguishing characteristics. “Christianity by virtue of its inner character acknowledges Jesus Christ not only as prophet and supreme model, but as redeeming Savior and Lord, and as abiding ground and immediate object of personal faith. Another distinction is the kind and content of the salvation expected from Jesus Christ.”89 The religio-historical movement in Germany accepted the absolute relativity of all historical life, including Jesus’s life. This approach held that a distinction between God and the world is an abstraction and only an abstraction. Focusing on the essential and permanent in Christianity, Foster suggested that the objective content of Christianity is the love of God the Father. Subjectively, the Christian life consists in a trustful surrender to Jesus as the Christ. Seeking to be like Christ, one becomes truly human because God is as good as Jesus is. If God is responsible for the will of Jesus, to depart from this realization is to depart from the Christian religion. The problem with making the Gospel relevant to modern persons lies in it having first been preached based on a dualistic conception, which is evident in God the Father being in heaven while humans are on earth. Foster suggested that a more adequate conception of God would be the moral order of the world. Christianity, in distinction from law religions, is a spirit religion. Unlike Christianity, other redemptive religions lack a clear and definite history. They also rely on a static metaphysics. The spirit religion of Christianity has God entering human history. It is the nature of spirit to externalize itself by entering into process and development. There are no theoretical proofs of the objects of faith. New forms of proofs relapse into metaphysical presuppositions. Christianity is based on a holy and gracious God who redeems and educates those blessed to be in heaven. The Scriptures are considered divine because of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Foster postulated that modern Christianity is confronted by the modern view of the world and two practical proofs. One such proof reminds us that our faith supports our innermost life. The other reminds us of the evidences in which God’s redeeming pedagogic love convinces the heart. Traditional proofs fail because the content of the Christian religion is will. In the modern worldview, the problem is not between faith and science but is between faiths against faiths. Personality can only be propagated by will and personality. Thus, the Christian lives on faith in the redeeming and

82

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

loving God. In this way, a Christian experiences an insight of the supermundane eternal life in communion with God. The reason monism is not theoretically clear is because it has never been practically tested in society. That practical monism must precede theoretical monism in affirming the divine element to be present in our impulses, instincts, and appetites, as well as in our goals and ideals. The goal of the Christian is to rely on a content of life that enables each person to attain a balance in suppressing our natural instincts. Foster noted that the forgiveness of sin and guilt is seldom a focus of a sermon and that the notion of redemption from death is mainly omitted from preaching. The idea of eternal life also receives less focus. The Christian faith is of value in supporting human fellowship. Eternity is also worthful as it provides an essential continuity of values. Foster rejected the notion of the resurrection of the body as belonging to the old Judaic eschatology and no longer of significance. Historical arguments will not prove the validity of Christianity, for it must be tested in the becoming process of each individual’s life. A personal spiritual life exposes all spiritual activities as unitary, fundamental activity, which acknowledges an unconditioned ought. However, the moral life requires a religious view of God and the world, which is in perfect harmony with the perfect moral law. The result brings to completion “the tendency of a true spiritualization of personality.”90 This result fits the structural condition of humans, as both the individual and society strive for a progressive spiritualization that undergirds all human cultural development. From this perspective, the question arises whether there is an unconditioned norm and goal of development. This possibility leads to our questioning whether our view of God is totally subjective. Foster rejected the Ritschlian approach, which found value-judgment in the account of Jesus’s resurrection by ignoring the psychological basis of value-judgments. The question arose whether God’s love was disclosed to humans in such a manner as to conquer the human perspective. Jesus was certain that his life consisted of an inner experience in communion with God. Jesus called upon all to trust in him and to develop a disciplined sanctified life by constant re-evaluations. Jesus was the central revelation. From this perspective of revelation, the disclosures of God revealed by Jesus are, in the final analysis, the basis of faith. This basis of faith was attacked in two objections. The first suggests that our knowledge of Jesus is too uncertain for a basis of faith. Instead, we should rely on our own experience of Jesus’s redemptive power. The second objection is that Jesus, as a person in history, could not reveal the

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

83

absolute divine life of love and truth. Foster noted that the second objection generally refers to either pantheism or a scientific view of evolution. He further noted that unless the Absolute can be found in history, the Christian religion would be greatly limited, if not negated. Naturalism explains Jesus as being a construction of environmental and social forces. There is a moment of spontaneity for every personality and this was the case with Jesus. Based on faith one can claim that Jesus was restrained by the process of evolution, which science cannot prove or disprove. The perfection of the individual and of all humanity is the primary value in the Christian faith. Foster was struck with how Jesus “falls in line with humanism.”91 He also postulated that modern Christianity is Christian humanism. Jesus’s humanity must be retained. The old view was that Jesus was great in spite of his humanity, but the new view is that Jesus was great through his humanity. The Christian concept of revelation is supported by proof of the given revelation and it differs sharply from ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The orthodox conception has declined under the criticism of rationalism. Rationalism viewed revelation based on the person Jesus Christ, who had disclosed the personal life in which God could be known and experienced. Foster opined, “Revelation is the consummation or the perfecting of human nature for its eternal destiny and vocation. Thus, revelation signifies the entrance, not unmediated, of a truly supramundane life, and of the spirit of the world… Revelation is an historical phenomenon which is yet super-historical in content and kind, i.e., transcends the temporal, finite… Thus understood, the concept of revelation designates Jesus Christ not only as starting-point of the Christian religion, but as permanent center of the personal religious life.”92 The value of rationalism was its subjectivity or inwardness of revelation. However, we are left with an inner necessity of focusing on a center of faith in the New Testament witness, which provides the historical Christ. This center serves as the basis for understanding the narrative of Jesus as the Christ. This center is based on the supramundane substance within Jesus, which ends with his death and resurrection. Yet, this substance continues, understood as the Holy Spirit, in our experience of the revelation of God in Jesus. In this fashion, we have faith and trust in Jesus as our savior, although this faith is not scientifically established. From the perspective of this faith, the Jewish scriptures are considered an introduction to the coming Christ. Foster suggested that the work of scientific dogmatics differs from one’s personal faith in terms of “methodically prosecuted reflection.”93 Christian dogmatics seeks a distinctive exposition of the grounds of faith

84

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

from theoretical knowledge of the world. Dogmatics is not meant as the basis of preaching. Preaching should be one’s clear testimony to the efficacy of faith in Christ for contemporary persons. Faith affirms teleology while science affirms causality, with philosophy as the mediator between the two orientations. To understand one’s historical faith requires an understanding of its history, but the task remains of working out one’s redemption in light of current scientific knowledge. Shifting to the doctrine of inspiration, Foster noted that Christian faith and knowledge is based on the revelation of God in Jesus based on the God-inspired writers of the Sacred Scriptures. The question arises as to the sources and quality of these writings. The orthodox position is that these Scriptures are inerrant because they originated from God’s inspiration, which essentially is based on the doctrine of the “inner witness of the Holy Spirit.” The orthodox position has been changed several times and “marks the beginning of the downfall of orthodoxy.”94 However, the question arose whether the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is adequate, whether it covers all Scriptures, and whether the witness of the Spirit conforms to the Scriptures. Foster postulated that this doctrine of inspiration only provides the appearance of conforming to the Scriptures and actually does violence to them. The formation of the New Testament canon was of fundamental importance to Christianity. It provided continuity concerning the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ and the origin of the Scriptures. The Gospels have served to influence all rejuvenation of the Church. The Old Testament served as the historical foundation of the New Testament, with the origin of the Old Testament being religiously explained for the most part. The Christian judgment of faith is self-dependent and independent of scientific inquiry, but it remains dependent on the mediation of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Taken as a whole, the New Testament provides the conviction and experience of faith, but not all its parts are of equal value. Still, the Spirit of God has provided the inspiration of these writers of the New Testament, which has served the inner necessity for our ancestors and for contemporary persons of believing in and surrendering to the revelation of God in the Scriptures. The question arose whether this Jesus Christ of the Scriptures is an object in which we can place our certainty and obedience for providing a revelation of God’s salvation message. One approach is to test the message of Jesus by his words, deeds, and life. In essence, the issue is whether an adequate understanding of the person of Jesus is conveyed in the Scriptures. How adequately does the Scriptures present what was believed

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

85

by Jesus’s followers and is this to be considered universally valid for all times? Paul’s message was the cosmic Messiah, since he did not know the historic Jesus. It was St. Paul’s message by which the early church won converts and rapidly expanded. His message had special appeal to the poor and downtrodden. With development of Christianity in the Roman Catholic Church, the adequacy of the Scriptures for salvation was questioned by whether supplemental material was required. The Catholic Church based its faith in being guided by an infallible divine source. Christians have the task of gaining an understanding of the revelation of the Scriptures, “that faith derives its guidance to the understanding and to the practical appropriation of the revelation of God.”95 For evangelical Christians, the Reformation was of essential importance in developing the life of the Church, based on the sin-forgiving grace bestowed upon Jesus by God. Each individual was to appropriate this faith because it provided a life in the spirit of Jesus as the Christ. This marks the beginning of individual moral autonomy under God’s guidance, which led to independent interpretations of the Scriptures without any legal restrictions. The Protestants claimed that the scriptural message was binding for all times. Evangelicals valued confessional writings as historical guides for the doctrinal development of Christianity and for practical evangelical knowledge gained by faith. However, there were distinctions made between the kernel and the shell in historical confession, as well as in Scripture. The one common article of confessional churches was forgiveness of sin and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ. In practical terms, the confessions provided the correct revelation-knowledge and the possibility of further development of faith-knowledge. It is important to note that the orthodox position held to the dogmatics of Christian experience and especially sought to be considered Scripturedogmatics. Science-knowledge is radically different from faith-knowledge, which provides faith-truths, which were miraculously communicated. However, science would treat these “truths” as objects of theoretical knowledge. Foster focused on modern dogmatics, which fell apart under the criticism of rationalism. In modern times, the emphasis is on the development by the Christian conscious of the experience of regeneration. The danger of this approach is an overemphasis on subjectivity and the turning of faith-knowledge into gnosis, as well as its failure to apply the full import of revelation. The value of this approach is the emphasis on rationality and the inner unity of the Christian faith. Both the confessional and Biblical approaches are limited by their unhistorical misreading of

86

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Scripture. The consequence of these approaches was the mediating theology, which sought a higher unity of these methods, but it never attained this goal. For Albrecht Ritschl revelation of the words and deeds of Jesus become the central issue. Other theologians emphasized the selfrevelation of God in the total Biblical Christ, instead of focusing on an earthly Jesus. In this way, the religio-historical movement deemphasized particularity in Christ. The attitude one took regarding the divinity of Christ depended upon one’s philosophical perspective. For the Ritschlians the value of Jesus was the indications he provided for the kind of God that sent him. Those against the Ritschlians supported employing the whole revelation of God in the witnesses of the New Testament community. Modern dogmatics is based on the assumption that the content of faith does not necessarily contradict the results of modern science. Foster proposed to examine the three parts of dogmatics. In considering “God and the World,” Jesus presupposed that his hearers have a conviction of the existence of God and correct views about God’s nature and character. In the Old Testament Yahweh reveals itself in blessing and judgment upon the people, who are redeemed by God’s covenant with Israel. Jesus knew that he did not preach a new God whom he called Father, but he emphasized the full redemption possible by obeying God’s covenant commandments. Jesus’s disciples were committed to Jesus as a whole person for revealing to them the divine counsel. The orthodox tradition moved beyond the Biblical tradition of God toward a systematic development; this exposed the essence of God that is accessible by humans’ knowledge of God. Trusting Jesus as revealer of God enabled the conviction of faith that the Kingdom of God is the goal of the divine will. The Kingdom of God is supramundane and transcendent and enables us to be in relation to a reality which lies beyond the empirical world. In our highest moments, humans search beyond the empirical world for the divine end of the world. The end of the world will usher in the coming Kingdom of God. The concept of the Kingdom of God is the comprehensive definition of Christian salvation. With this understanding of salvation, the Christian God-idea is elevated to the sphere of the supramundane by its purely ethical focus. Historically in Christianity, God has been understood in relation to humans, by revelation and by sacrament. Foster defined “sacrament as an external communication of the divine substance to man.”96 We encounter God in sacraments through our senses. It is interesting to note that Jesus did not participate in sacraments and, in essence, he destroyed the sacraments. From the human perspective, prayer and offering correlates with revelation and sacrament. All one can give to God is one’s will.

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

87

When the Lord’s Supper and baptism were seen as having redemptive value, they replaced revelation and prayer. Now one receives a blessing in communion with others and not through sacraments. From the old psychology and world-view, humans could easily recognize God’s redeeming work in Jesus. The psychological perspective had difficulty in explaining the mystic presence of Christ being conscious in humans, as well as, how Jesus as a man could become universal and omnipresent. Foster postulated having an extra-historical being entering humanity is mythology, as are the conceptions of Trinity and Divinity of Christ. In faith, we recognize that Jesus Christ set in motion the actualization of the end of the world by redeeming all who are to enter the supramundane kingdom of God. Jesus also led his disciples, in spite of human suffering, to recognize God as the Lord of all reality. It is by faith that we know that God enables all things to work together for the good, as Paul noted. In the New Testament God as love is present in the love of Jesus Christ. The goal of humans experiencing this divine love is to be our spiritual and moral best in order that we may eternally be in communion with God. God’s love is exalted above human’s love. The concept of “Father” indicates that God is the source of the eternal Kingdom and of eternal life for the redeemed. When we speak of God as heavenly father, we attribute absoluteness to God. The concept of absoluteness is a logical abstraction of God being unconditioned. However, the absoluteness of God is in conflict with the divine personality. It leaves us with either lowering God to the finite or making God incomprehensible in our religious life. Still, our ordinary descriptions of God are functionally adequate, especially with the aid of symbols and hints. It is through the knowledge and experience of faith that we gain insight into God’s eternal being. We are able to gain insights into the processes of nature and life as actualization of the Divine. Foster postulated that these forms of expression have only a parabolic character as to God’s efforts but they designate the nature of God revealed in Jesus. He also noted that the concept of regeneration in modern thought is replaced by emphasizing the concept of growth. The doctrine of the trinity follows from our basic definition of the nature of God. In the Reformation the empirical knowledge of revelation was interpreted based on the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. However, the Trinity was based on a single saying in the Scriptures artificially woven into a speculative whole. This limitation is also true of the Holy Spirit. Faith now has to incorporate doctrines that are not intelligible in the religious life, which has been a permanent weakness in Protestantism.

88

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Speculative attempts do not conform to evangelical faith. Foster opined; “The vital essence of Trinitarianism is the idea of world-upholding holy love, with its self-revelation in history and its self-communication to the individual… but the doctrine of three persons in one Godhead is mythology.”97 The natural world, according to early Christianity, was included in their faith by viewing the world as a creature and instrument of God. The doctrine of preservation is an extension of the creation-concept applied to the present condition of the world. In this fashion, natural and spiritual creation is based on the thesis that God made the world, from its foundation, for Christ and the church. The laws of this world are not ultimate, but absolute reality is God and God’s kingdom. All of reality is determined by God’s purpose, in the past, present, and future. Jesus Christ represents God as the spiritual new creation and as ruler over the Church. This creation-faith is not limited by scientific explanation, for it is divinely appointed for instructing our conduct and for enhancing the kingdom of God. Foster postulated that the Christian creation-faith is opposed in principle to the evolutionary view of reality. However, faith only requires the development of itself in service to the absolute will of God. Foster also noted that a decisive problem for contemporary theology is relating evolutionary monism to traditional revelation-faith. The biblical view of God’s providential rule is in accord with the doctrines of creation and conservation. It is expressed in the Scriptures as providence-faith and referred to the morally-ordered providential rule of God in the development of Israel. In the New Testament God’s providential rule, expressed by faith in Jesus, extends beyond Israel to include the natural world, as well as the world of humans. In this way, God is brought nearer to us. It is the combination of providence-faith and creation-faith, which constitutes the Christian world-view. The Reformation found these doctrines helpful against all sorts of perversions. A Christian should be free of chance, fate, and all superstition. It remains difficult to distinguish between this conviction and superstition, but conviction has greater moral worth. Foster suggested that the religious attitude that considers itself to be of cognitive value in relation to nature, history, or God is superstition. He also noted that the only way to determine whether religious faith is true is in finding the good in life. Miracles are signs in a religious sense of God’s personal care. They are more fully understandable in a teleological redemptive perspective. Angelfaith developed in the Old Testament as an essential picture of the world, was carried into the New Testament as serviceable in the new Gospel of

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

89

Jesus Christ. Modern theologians interpret miracles in the sense of poetic illustration. The attributes of God are to be seen in its effects in relation to the finite world as God’s creature and instrument. The attributes are eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, goodness and wisdom. God’s eternity signifies God’s steadfast and unchangeable purpose and that time for God is not limited by our finite conception of time. God’s omnipotence affirms that God saves and perfects God’s kingdom. God’s omniscience stresses that nothing is concealed from God’s love. God’s wisdom designates the perfect teleology of creation and providence. The wisdom of God also has a pedagogic function in connection with human sin. Christ, as the first true image of God, appeared on earth to perfect the human essence. Our divine destiny is to grow through faith in Christ, which applies to the individual as well as to the community. From this application, Foster questioned whether the image of God could be totally present in this combination. However, in this application the Christian view of humans is basically moral. “The only important thing for faith is that the initial stage of man shall be held to be such as that a normal further development towards the highest goal of his destiny shall be possible. But this last thesis is a conclusion from the Christian view of sin.”98 The Christian view of sin is based on the concept of original sin or human depravity, which requires a “fall” by humans from Divine Grace. Thus, natural humans are unable to reach the perfect good as their goal; especially taking into account that sin continues and builds from generation to generation. Foster postulated that the concept of a hereditary guilt is untenable. Sin is considered anti-ethical and anti-divine. The two tasks that face each individual are overcoming one’s animal nature and regard for one’s neighbor. Humans must overcome the sinful condition of their people, as well as the individual. Our natural capacities may limit our support of the ethical life, but it is our responsibility to keep our sinful passions from ruling our lives. The problem is that our decision of will creates a tendency to repetition, which bends us toward sin. Sin is not limited to the individual, for there is a system of sin in human society that includes a hereditary burden. This burden affirmed the universality of sin. Sins are tendencies of will and arise from the activity of the will. Sin is guilt as far as one contradicts the will of God. There is a shared guilt in humanity, as we are all enmeshed in sin through the guilt and sin of others. Foster indicated that this communal guilt replaced the inadequate doctrine of hereditary guilt.

90

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The notion of evil being embedded in sin is tied to the conception of punishment. The evil in sin is manifest in separating us from communion with God and exclusion from eternal life. The enjoyment of our filial rights with God is dependent upon religio-ethical conditions. Punishment is applicable when one abrogates the right of divine sonship. Such punishment protects the order of right and also has the effect of leading the transgressor back to humans’ divine destiny. Evil also has a subjective element that is dependent upon one’s moral and religious attitude. When an individual suffers, it is considered divine punishment. Those who push beyond the community for the right are usually rejected and even killed, but they enrich the community that destroys them. God has ordained and placed us in this suffering, finite world, because it was in this world that humanity must be educated from falling into sin. Satan, which forms a part of angelology, became the imaginary cause of all sin and evil. The concept of Satan serves three ends. It expresses the great conflict between God and Satan over whose kingdom was to dominate humanity. It strengthens faith in overcoming these anti-spiritual powers. It also prodded believers in Christ to earnest conflict and watchfulness. One should only employ the Satan-idea in relation to the kingdom of sin and its mysterious powers. Modern persons have rejected the notion of Satan but not the Satan content. The reformers, employing the doctrine of predestination, considered sin as partly God’s arrangement but affirmed the guilt of humans. John Calvin emphasized sin as God’s arrangement, while the Arminian position affirmed human guilt. Still, sin remained resisting to God’s will. However, God’s historical order of the world was not juridical but ethical. Thus, education is required to indicate that our punishment serves either individual emancipation from sin or the consummation of the Kingdom of God. God’s relation to the ethical world-order is revealed in attributive concepts. A series of attributes are based on God’s holy love and God’s rejection of sinful reality. In the New Testament God’s energy is directed to the sanctification of the community. Another attitude, expressed as the wrath of God in the New Testament, is an expression of God’s unitary holy love, which cannot be fully realized until the close of human development. In addition, another attribute is that God’s love is against sin. Foster noted that this confrontational love serves as redeeming and pedagogic love in order to overcome human weakness and mortality. The concept of God’s faithfulness is expressed in God’s persistent redemptive purpose for the individual and the community. In the Old Testament, God’s righteousness destroys the enemies of God’s people. In the New

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

91

Testament God’s righteousness refers to the justification of believing sinners and to God’s support for the entire ethical order of the world. Christology and the doctrine of grace are combined in the New Testament. It is through the personality of Jesus that we determine the Christian view of God. The self-witness of Jesus demonstrates his full humanity as well as his divine Messianic role. Although it is not perfectly established, Foster thinks Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah, but notes that he evidently was not the Messiah the people sought. Jesus’s filial relation to God was the root of his Messianic consciousness. Jesus as a human is also divine, which led to the question whether we can keep the human Jesus and eliminate the Messianic in Jesus. The New Testament writers were conditioned by the stage of culture in which they lived. Their Christological view was also determined by their world-view. The question has arisen whether a revaluation of Jesus is necessary to make him relevant to modern humans. In the New Testament, we have a witness of faith by a primitive community with two common elements. One is that Jesus is the Christ, which rested on the certainty of the resurrection and his ascending to heavenly glory. Two is the character of these enthusiastic witnesses, who often presented their witness in a figurative and picturesque fashion. Orthodoxy included the Messianic concept in the essence of the Christian religion, but in modern thought, this conception is replaced by ideas of immanence and evolution. God is the natural object of religious faith, but Jesus also becomes an object of faith. This is the seminal point of the Christian religion. We are left with diverse individual thoughts concerning Jesus. However, from these diverse sources we gain confidence in God, which purifies our heart, and leave us yearning in our humility. The church was founded on faith in Jesus. Orthodox Christology was divided into the nature of Christ, the work of Christ, and the doctrine of the persona Chisti. The latter developed the proposition that Christ is very God and very man in one person. There was the attempt to harmonize dogmatic Christology with an evangelical picture of Jesus. The problem was how to present the divine efficiency of Jesus as man and how to provide assurance that one should have faith in him. The affirmation of Christian faith is that God is as good as Jesus. Jesus died because God loves humans. Christology in the Latin Church was a progressive ethicization, which in time also ethicized the doctrine of atonement. With the development of rationalistic criticism in Socinianism, Jesus was considered not a real and original object of faith but was indirectly of religious importance. When Christianity spread into the Greek world, it was molded by Greek philosophy. Foster wondered what modern

92

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Christianity would do when it rediscovered the historic Jesus. Lelio Socinus held Jesus to be important as a teacher and model, but faith in him does not belong in the content of Christianity. In speculative German philosophy, it was the moral or metaphysical against the ecclesiastical or historical that was the only saving power. Immanuel Kant and other rationalists transformed the Christological substance into an ideal Christ. However, the ideal Christ is but a construction of religious consciousness, with the idea embodied in all of humanity. The church considered God one historic person, but modern liberalism proclaims God to be in all. In viewing religion from a functional perspective, religion is a necessary and universal aspect of life in the human spirit. Foster suggested “…religion may be described as a device by means of which the power of an organism in reaction with its environment is made equal to its needs and purpose by means of an alliance of the organism with higher powers.”99 However, the primary object of faith is still the person Jesus, through whom we know God. There remains the larger problem of the relation between the eternal and the historical. Friedrich Schleiermacher had a profound insight into the essence of piety, into the historical foundation of religion and especially the Christian religion, and to the importance of fellowship to the Christian life, which led to the importance of the Christian Church. The form of religion he proposed was the feeling of absolute dependence by the temporal to the eternal. He further proposed as the minimum that Jesus was fully a human and serves as the archetype for our lives. Schleiermacher and Baruch Spinoza both emphasized causality but excluded teleology. Foster suggested that in modern theology, regarding Christology, the divine and redemptive are joined in Jesus. In rejecting the notion that Christianity is the only true religion, Foster proposed four ways of considering the being and work of Jesus. These are the empirical, historical, ethical, and religious approach. The four approaches are related, but the religious approach is fundamental to Christianity. Historical Biblical evaluation cannot destroy one’s faith, for faith is directed to that which is timeless and of eternal content. Biblical faith should not wait on scientific investigation but should be based on our inner certainty. Foster explained the difference between knowledge and religious faith: “Knowledge is a conviction of the reality and connection of things, grounded on experience of the senses and on the laws of thought. But religious faith is a conviction that there is a meaning in things, and that the meaning is good. There is nothing in time which cannot be in all time which can be the true object of faith.”100

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

93

All persons live in a stream of historical, organic life through which we receive our values. Our parents, teachers, and friends mediate these values to us. It is through other persons that the channels of divine grace are revealed to us, for life is the source of life. Through others, we share a religion of love and grace. Foster postulated that Christianity is not a religion of historical facts but is a religion of personality. Our task as moral persons is to discover and create values. Foster indicated that if our work produces values, the end of the world is revealed. Our ethical judgments are based on the inner worth of Jesus’s personality, which determine our calling in life and which can only be maintained by religious judgment. Ideas like the fidelity and sinlessness of Jesus can only be based on religious judgment. The old Socinian position considered the only value of Jesus to be his humanity. Jesus and modern persons were very different. However, Foster contended that it is the deep binding of modern persons to Jesus, which saves modern humans. An interesting proposition is that Jesus was sinless. Jesus’s call to repentance does not prove his sinlessness. Foster noted that the word sinless is a negative term, which can only be claimed based on one’s inner experience. Our religious judgment confirms the efficacy of Jesus regarding the salvation of humans, as Jesus confronted and awakened our sense of guilt. Our human vocation is to become a personality, for it is through personalities that we are saved. Foster focused on the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Three-fold Office of Christ, which relate to the office of prophet, priest, and king. These offices are combined in the Messianic concept. Based on this doctrine a comparison is made between what Jesus brought to Christianity with the Old Testament. Aspects of Jesus’s life and ministry cannot be fitted into one of these offices. In addition, the three offices cannot be combined, but together they reflect Jesus as prophet, priest, and king. The notion of God being in Jesus affirms God being efficiently present in the interior of Jesus’s life. The essence of the Christian life is that God dwelt in the personal life of Jesus. If Jesus is not viewed as a real person, there can be no content to Christology. Foster considered whether the Christian life would be impoverished by returning to the teachings of Jesus apart from interpretations of his teachings. He noted that humans seek not Jesus but the living and accessible God, but they can only interpret God in terms of Jesus. By God being in Jesus, we can expect a divine life like Jesus for those of faith. Religion cannot be taught but must be experienced by our religious endowment and by reciprocity with religious persons. Jesus’s life and work is of an ethical and historical character. What is new with Jesus is not his teaching but his life with its unique God-

94

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

consciousness. In this fashion, Jesus was convinced of the infinite worth of a human personality to God. Jesus freely surrendered himself to the will of God and in so doing affirmed that the divine life in Jesus is actualized and may be for all persons. It is in the confrontation, which Jesus as the Christ experienced that we gain a believer’s knowledge of the redeeming God. In order to explain why Jesus had to suffer and die, church doctrine developed the doctrine of penal satisfaction. In this doctrine, the second person in the Trinity is sacrificed to appease another part of the Trinity. It is the death of Jesus that is required for divine blessedness. The obedience of Christ to eternal death provides an ideal example, which humans must imitate. However, the problem is that Jesus did not die an eternal death nor did Jesus’s death cancel our sins before God’s final judgment. Foster claimed that this doctrine was rooted in law-religion as opposed to morality-religion. “It is a regress on the part of the Christian religion back to legalism, back to Judaism, and so it stands in an inner principiant contradiction to the specifically Christian problem of atonement, which sought, but did not find, its solution in law-religion.”101 Based on historical-critical studies of the death of Christ, we can say that Jesus displayed no idea that his death fulfilled God’s requirement for the redemption of humans. In Jesus’s teachings regarding repentance the theory of substitutionary satisfaction is never mentioned or implied. Instead, in the synoptic accounts, the cross is what Jesus hoped to avoid. However, this does not mean that Jesus’s death did not overcome the sin of individuals and the race. The task for modern persons is to replace this mythological doctrine with an understanding of the immanence of God. Foster suggested that the only way to retain the myth of Messianism is by moral insincerity. How can Jesus’s suffering and death be understood within the doctrine of the divine immanence of God? In his suffering, Jesus confronted in his outer self a contradiction with his inner perspective of his person and work. However, his faith was established by holding fast to God even though his own feelings differed. Jesus did not take upon himself our guilt but was sympathetic with humans’ guilt and the power of sin. It was as the crucified Christ that our religio-ethical destiny was established. Thus, the death of Jesus was spiritual and pleasing to God. The crucifixion reveals God’s love toward sinful humanity. God’s earnest love forgives guilt but affirms the seriousness of sin, which is broken by God’s love. This love overcomes the sins of the world and leads us to commit to God’s will. Thus, God’s love establishes a new covenant that redeems humans from sin and guilt. The new covenant establishes a fellowship between God and humanity. Foster opined, “The bearer of the

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

95

ideal falls into the ground and dies, but in and through this perishing bearer of the ideal, the ideal moves on apace. The perishing of the bearers is an indispensable condition of the triumph and fruition, of the further development and power, of the ideal themselves.”102 Assuming that God is immanent and there is purpose in everything, Foster questioned the significance of Jesus’s death. He also affirmed his belief that the death of Jesus had cosmic significance, as death is an essential part of the cosmic process from its inception. Things are always dying in order that others may live. At the same time, Foster postulated that nothing essential would have been different if Jesus had not been born and crucified. It is the nature of humans’ minds to take important historic examples and make of them symbolic significance. The error of orthodoxy was to view Jesus’s death as being necessary for our redemption, which ignores the functioning of God’s love and holiness and ignores the inner character of salvation as ethically determined. In this perspective, God required satisfaction before God’s love can pardon, which contradicts Christians’ claimed knowledge of God and the teleological necessity of Jesus’s death or its historical unavoidability. Jesus had presented a supramundane Kingdom, which required a kingdom on earth of moral righteousness. The result of Jesus’s death was the destruction of the old covenant and the extension of God’s blessings to all people. Jesus’s death was necessary for the transition from the old to the new covenant. All humans suffer with an intense feeling of guilt, which the Scriptures described as eternal or spiritual death. Of course, Jesus, being sinless, did not have guilt-feelings, but Jesus did suffer spiritually by conveying God’s love as a teleological necessity in a sinful world. Thus, the death of Jesus actualized Christian salvation. “Salvation is the inner ethicization of the personal and social life which leads to filial communion with God and brotherly fellowship with men.”103 The death of Christ is required by God for human salvation, with the resurrection serving to call the Christian community to come into existence. God effects humans’ atonement by God’s own requirement that righteousness be satisfied. Jesus’s life and death was necessary for God to convey to sinners the faith in the holy God. In modern thought, divine exigency is not of necessity the means to the end but is replaced by the moral constitution of humans. Foster considered this shift, from the legal to the ethical, to deepen the doctrine of atonement. The death of Christ was not required as punishment but as a means of education of the moral order. Modern thinkers with this altered perspective continued to view the death of Christ as a necessity for God. Foster next focused on Christian ethics in which God is viewed as an actual existing being and in our social and personal life seeking self-

96

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

effectuation. Christian ethics studies life in which the ideal of Christ is actualized by believers. Foster suggested the problem included whether an ethic, religiously conditioned, can be autonomous, as required by philosophy. He noted this criticism to be important to Christian ethics, which is required to establish, exhibit, and study the meaning of the Christian ideal. The peculiarity of Christian ethics is its consideration of morals in connection with religion and an ethical life is founded in faith. In seeking the peculiarity of humans’ moral life, we must focus on the high examples of the moral object to be analyzed. As humans, we are conscious of the “I ought” as a rule of conduct. This rule is clearest where what is morally required is contrary to conduct. Failure to conform to the moral law results in our inner unworthiness and inner self-depreciation. Positive social customs regulate our outer human relations. The moral, based on an inner authority, has an inner penalty of disesteem and pain. Moral judgments are value judgments. Moral judgments have to confront the question: “In what relation does the will of the agent stand to a requirement acknowledged to be unconditional.”104 In the Christian tradition, moral freedom of the will is united with the moral “ought”. Freedom of will is to be understood to mean the capacity to follow the law in spite of our impulses and inclinations. Moral freedom is also to be distinguished from intellectual or psychical freedom. Psychical freedom is essential for clear reflection of the moral requirements. Unfortunately, the ideas of the moral law and of freedom often lack clarity and purpose. After an act our consciences either condemns or supports the action. We also have a warning conscience, often clothed is religious language, which tells us not to take an action. Thus, we can affirm an innate law-giving conscience in all persons, while also recognizing a wide diversity between individuals concerning the content of conscience. Foster explained that the ideas of “good” and “evil” are only arbitrary conventions of society. When we understand the social genesis and growth of the moral and the conscience, it loses its power over us. The social-utilitarian morality is an expression of human natural altruistic impulses. This suggests that moral laws reflect the natural law of human development. The altruistic impulse is the expression of natural sympathies based on endowment or heredity. The evolutionistic ethic establishes the law of human development or growth. In Christian ethics, the conscience is God’s voice to humans, with the moral law being God’s command. Conscience is characterized as becoming or growth, which raised the question whether God is becoming. With this question, we are back in metaphysics. In confronting the issue of the truth of the moral law, we must consider the worth of an individual person. Do we function because of an

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

97

involuntary conscience or is the moral law a norm conceived by us? Foster contended that our indirect support for the moral law comes from our experience of not being obedient to an unconditioned “ought” which results in our inner division. From this perspective, he concluded that a person seeks unity and freedom as the inner content of its life, but this is not possible unless it is based on an unconditioned “ought.” The issue of freedom raised the question of determinism, recognizing there are different forms of determinism: religious, anthropological, theological, and two philosophical forms (materialistic and idealistic). Foster indicated that if motive and conduct are under cause and effect, this is the essence of determinism. Philosophical determinism seeks support from considerations related to epistemology, psychology, and the social sciences. The causal law only provides a postulate of knowledge concerning a regularity of what happens. The psychological establishes that every conscious act is determined by motives. The social sciences observe that social life yields a hereditary predisposition and the influence of society. Foster opined, “But the main point in this connection is that whether this consciousness of freedom be true or false, empirical psychological investigation cannot determine, and for this reason the appeal to psychology in support of determinism is defective.”105 Freedom can be described as an individual’s struggle with anti-ethical impulses and outer influences upon one’s conscience. The ideas of moral freedom of the will and the natural law are based on the spiritual role and destiny of humans. The core of our willing is based on the presence of the divine in such a fashion that the human retains its freedom. It is only by participating in the whole that our freedom is actualized. Foster shifted focus to the validity of Christian morals. He postulated that science, art and religion presupposed the existence of an original spiritual endowment. This endowment reflects the endeavor to order our life and will grounded in the basic tendency of the human spirit. Customs and rights develop in history and serve as unconditioned norms by which humans may evaluate themselves. The moral idea complements the Christian notions of humans made in the image of God and of the power of sin, based on a divine education of sinful humanity. Still, how does the ideal’s absoluteness harmonize with humans’ growth capacity? Foster suggested that important ethical ideals have emerged at different stages of our history. He listed these as the political ideal of the welfare of the state and society, the ideal of the self-adequate wise person, the ascetic ideal of world-negation, the utilitarian ideal of the economic welfare of the society, the modern aesthetic ideal of the energetic individual, and the

98

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

utilitarian ideal welfare state. He claimed that all these ideals are opposed to the Christian ideal of a fellowship of moral persons united by the principle of self-denying love. Humans’ spiritual life is only validated when the unconditioned “ought” is joined with the content of the moral law of Christianity. Foster postulated, “This revelation in Jesus Christ establishes the confident certainty both of the absolute truth of the Christian idea of morality as the God-given destiny and vocation of man, and of the necessity of the victory of this Christian moral ideal over the entire world and the resistance of the evil of the world. Therewith the Christian moral life receives it unique motivation.”106 The superstructure of Christian ethics, which parallels Christian dogmatics, must be based on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as presented in the Scriptures. The idea of the kingdom of God as the chief good is central in Christian ethics and is promised as a reward for following God’s commandments, especially of self-denying love. Foster raised, as a topic for investigation, the question whether Jesus’s promise of the reward of the kingdom of God is ethical. The Roman Catholics contended that obedience to Jesus is necessary as well as the secular life, but that the same person cannot perform both roles. Therefore, the Catholics divided Christians into two classes to perform these two roles. Foster considered the Roman Catholic Church to be a great political institution but worthless in solving moral problems. He agreed with Luther and the Reformers that our natural duties as persons are the will of God. Jesus had presented a religio-ethical law of life in direct relation to the Old Testament law, but he had changed the character of the old law into the new law of freedom. In Jesus, we have been confronted with the commandment of unlimited love of God as well as love to our neighbor. By loving our neighbor, we join in fellowship with the neighbor in the kingdom of God. Thus, the end of love is fellowship. In these two commandments, of love to God and to one’s neighbor, we discover the basis for the Christian ideal of life, which also serves to regulate all aspects of human life. Jesus serves as a model that is intensively perfect and all embracing. Foster considered whether the goal of the Christian life is attainable, and if so, how. Humans are endowed with a concrete moral and religious orientation, which is formed under the influence of culture. Our conscience is religiously determined. Being so determined establishes a connecting point for recognizing the Christian ideal of life. However, we recognize our inability to attain a real inner love of God and neighbor as we experience the power of sin and temptation in our society. Thus, sin is a social reality as well as an individual reality. In the idea of the kingdom

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

99

of sin there is no religious determinism transforming sin into a determinateness of nature or spirit. However, there is the conviction of the universality of sin. If we are to attain the Christian life, we need an ethical power, the Holy Spirit, which overcomes and annuls the power of guilt and sin. It is this spirit of God, which produces the ethico-religious life in us by exercising our motivation. God’s Spirit or God communicates itself to us. The Reformers held the basic conviction that good works grow from faith. After a generation, the Reformers defined faith not as trust, but as assent to doctrine based on proof or authority. In this fashion, faith was made the necessary precondition of good works. The unity to these thoughts is trust in Jesus, which awakens in us our own guilt and neediness. Our Christ-awakened faith provides forgiveness and justification, which enables us to enter into fellowship with God, having moved from nature-beings to spiritual beings. Our faith is verified through our good works, which is a new form of the problem of the relation between religion and morality. In the renewal of our personal life in Christ, we confront the idea of conversion or repentance. These two ideas indicate a transition in a person’s life, which is oriented to God. “The idea of regeneration designates the transition from the point of view of the creative divine causation or efficiency. The idea of conversion designates the transition from the point of view of changed human relations.”107 In its new form the verification of faith by good works is stated as the problem of the relation of religion and morality. In conversion one turns from the negative, antidivine side toward God. It is only faith in the Crucified Jesus Christ that can awaken in us repentance. In the New Testament and later Protestant thought, the idea of Christian Perfection was a problem. For the Reformers, true perfection was accorded to those applying faith and love in daily activities. Foster noted that perfection is ever incomplete in the sense of a goal not yet reached. Our task is to examine the tendencies of our Christian life by careful selfevaluation in the presence of God. Becoming a Christian is not a simple gift but is our task. Foster suggested that “growth” is essentially the meaning of sanctification. Christian ethics has always undergirded the Christian life by concepts of duty and virtue. Christians recognize that they are subject to the unconditioned “ought” of God’s will as they struggle with sin. Duty is the obligation to fulfill an unconditioned law. In so doing, one demonstrates one’s freedom by virtuous self-dependence on the divine will.

100

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The idea of vocation grows out of the concept of duty. The task of humans is to designate a selection of duties to be done as our vocation. However, these duties must center on service, which strengthens our commitment to God’s order. Of course, humans face many duties, but our life-calling occurs when one duty-group is elevated as our real task in life. Our vocation has social worth towards actualizing a moral fellowship in preparation of the coming kingdom of God. In this fashion, we attempt to fulfill our eternal vocation. In establishing a vocation, one must be sure that it is not harmful to society or to the individual but strengthens the common weal. Often the individual must decide alone its duty. However, this individual responsibility must be executed based on one’s commitment to Jesus Christ. The problem is that we are engaged in various moral duties, which at times collide. In such situations, we must often decide which human relation to support. In addition, we must decide which action best supports one’s calling and provides the most fruitful service to one’s associates. Foster rejected the notion of works of supererogation, which developed within Catholic thought by applying legal concepts that distinguish between what is required and what is advised. Evangelicals rejected this view of the law and of super-dutiful deeds and replaced it with the law of freedom. We are confronted with duty-judgments, which must be made based on our natural impulses. However, duty-judgments are often encircled by inviolable limits. Employing religious rites provided an important end, being religiously and morally obligatory. Foster suggested that what is missing in modern churches is the animated expression of religious life rather than ritual. Current preaching has replaced the religious with the moral and practical. If preaches would deliver religious sermons, perhaps religious worship would be energized. “Is not the neglect of the religious in the interests of the moral, the substitution of the moral and the practical for the religious, a part of the cause of the immorality in our American life?”108 In addition to the idea of duty, virtue applied to the Christian life. In early time, virtue demonstrated the essential character of will in making the primary decision of the will to follow Christ’s commandments. In modern ethics, virtue equals character, but there are many types of character. The goal of the kingdom of God is to give direction to the diverse content in expressing the life of the spirit. Foster attempted to designate the primary features of the Christian religious character. He noted that our trust in Jesus Christ grows, because of our experiences, into certainty through our initial experience of Jesus’s redemptive effect. Christian character does not fear death based on

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

101

confidence that even death cannot separate us from the love of God. The moral character of the Christian is demonstrated in love to neighbor, which springs from love to God and represents a personally clear moral judgment. It is also necessary that we apply our critical capacity to foreign moral views and to our sensitivity of moral feeling. Foster maintained that the religio-ethical character, in light of sin, could only develop through the interconnection between education and self-education. The main problem with community-based education is that it fails to awaken in us religio-ethical self-dependence and our capacity for self-education. Christian character develops in practical communal living and enhances establishing a resolute religious and moral life. Christian life in vocational work includes religio-ethical character building that can result in the ideal being actualized. The negative side of the Christian life, in connection with temptation, results in our sinful wills being awaken from within. Character can only be developed as we struggle with temptation and our sinful resistance. As our Christian character develops our guilt-feeling increases as we become conscious of our own actions against God, which separate us from God. However, Jesus has granted us the forgiveness of sin and admission to full fellowship with God in spite of our continuing guilt. It is through these experiences that we move toward the goal of certitude of our faith. It is because of God’s forgiveness of sin that we attain our full dignity and absolute worth. Our dignity and honor is regulated by God’s judgment. The Christian view is that eternal life is an achievement, with its enjoyment being our blessedness. Jesus achieved blessedness as he struggled with temptation and sorrow. We achieve our blessedness through conflict, guilt, and receiving forgiveness in faith. The goal is the steadfast enjoyment of being with God. Foster suggested that the cosmic process functioned in order to produce ethical personalities, and noted that his personal hope and conviction is because the “cosmical process tends to produce ethical personalities.”109 The becoming Christian person combines duty and virtue in order to establish common inner and outer relations of life developed upon the Christian norm of life. Virtues are revealed in our acts of duty, which serve the development of corresponding virtues. “Therefore there is no fulfillment of duty and no formation of virtue which does not aim at the ethicization of the material world and of our own personal life.”110 It is a Christian’s responsibility or duty to develop these forms of life, for in so doing we emphasize the virtues of character. Our wisdom and sagacity is based on our inner truthfulness. In relating the will to the religio-ethical

102

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

conscience, virtue, duty of consciousness, and faithfulness are combined with inner sincerity. Love to God is based on trust rooted by faith in the sin-forgiving God. Thus, faith is a religious virtue that involves the duty to exercise and confess that faith. Love to God also includes reverence for God, manifested though our deeds and words. Humility is connected to reverence towards God. Humility is possible because of awareness of God’s omnipotent holy love, as well as by our filial acceptance of God’s grace. It is only based on faith and love that our love for our neighbor can be actualized. Love of neighbor involves esteem for one’s neighbor, which includes a neighbor’s rights as a social person and respect of the neighbor as a moral person. Civilization or culture involves those human activities that seek an ideal control of nature. In these activities, humans are exalted to a spiritualized fellowship. Through the activities of science and art, the natural fellowship of humans is consummated. Although religion and culture seek the supramundane, they stand opposed to each other, as religion seeks the absolute good while secular culture focuses on relative goods. Jesus did not emphasize relative moral good but focused on the absolute worth of the kingdom of God. As Christianity spread into the Greco-Roman culture, the church looked with suspicion upon cultural works not tied to the necessities of life. The Reformation prepared for the possibility of a Christian appreciation of secular culture, with humans finding a useful vocation. The individual discovers in cultural communion with other persons its useful vocation. The family and marriage are not products of Christianity but are based on the functional relationship between man and woman. The form of marriage has gone through historical development, with this union becoming deeply involved with religious and ethical perspectives. Foster claimed that the religious value of marriage first developed on Christian principles. In the Reformation, marriage was valued above celibacy. Marriage was actualized by a primary emphasis on the fellowship of mutual love and fidelity that resulted in the ethicization of the union. Man as head of the household was justified as divinely ordered, with the household acknowledged to be of moral worth. It was a duty to marry, with the Reformers contending that marriage should be ecclesiastically consummated. Divorce for Christians was due to sin of sexual intercourse outside of marriage, which was condemned for Christian men and women who were equal in terms of morality and religion. The children were

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

103

subordinated to their parents and their natural love for the children. The Christian home should be in miniature a school of Christian neighbor-love. The economic order regulated labor and capital. Foster indicated that in his day there were many evil conditions in different vocations that must be ameliorated and avoided. Of special concern is the contradiction between economic dependence and the status of freedom and equality. These problems can only be resolved in political life. Paul had emphasized the rejection of external possessions. The early church had sanctioned as the Christian view the ascetic view of property. There were requirements for the economic life, which were developed from Gospel-norms and the conditions in society. The ethical principles of the kingdom of God were being supported only when the social order promoted righteousness and the public welfare. These ethical requirements are alleviated when the economic order provides an ordered external life. The developed social ethical demands cannot be accomplished by good intentions but only by social politics, when the social politics provides the most adequate means of actualizing the goal. Social movements are part of the process of historical and natural development. However, it is understood that the best social order cannot alleviates the conditions for the development of moral character. The role of the church does not dependent on the requirements in the Gospel. Instead, it must be guided by the social spirit.

104

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Conclusion Foster’s focus was on Christian dogmatics, which is not identical with biblical theology because it fails to produce universally valid truth. Dogmatics attempts to expose the intellectual foundations and the content of faith by establishing what is universally valid and preachable. The essence of Christianity as a religion is faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord. It is this faith that undergirds a self-dependent Christian community and puts humans in relation with a supramundane power. Whether God was a person was not an issue. However, Foster contended that God must retain personality as a highest classification. Religion is a feeling of dependence on the powers that condition our experiences, with which we need to be in harmony. While God was viewed as friendly to our ancestors, God also required of them the law of self-sacrificing morality. In seeking the essential and permanent in Christianity, Foster postulated love of God the Father as the objective content of Christianity. Subjectively, the Christian life requires a trustful commitment to Jesus as the Christ. The problem in making Christianity relevant to modern persons lies in the difficulty of preaching based on a dualistic conception of God. Foster suggested that a more adequate concept of God was as the moral order of the world, similar to Buddhism. In Christianity as a spirit religion, God enters human history. Foster noted that the nature of spirit is to externalize itself by entering into the reality of process and development. Christianity’s God redeems and educates those destined to be in heaven. The Scriptures were considered divine based on the witness of the Holy Spirit. In the modern world, the problem is not between faith and science but is between faiths against faiths. Christians’ faith in the redeeming and loving God provides an insight of the supermundane eternal life with God. Christians rely on the content of life for maintaining a balance that suppresses our natural instincts. Foster rejected the resurrection of the body as being a rehash of old Jewish eschatology. However, historical arguments cannot establish the validity of Christianity, for each individual must test it in its process of becoming. Thus, the basis of faith is that God is disclosed in the revelation of Jesus as the Christ. Foster also suggested that unless the Absolute is disclosed in history, the Christian religion is limited and must confront being negated. Foster was struck with how well the teachings attributed to Jesus fit humanism. He also claimed that modern Christianity is Christian humanism.

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

105

The purpose of Jesus’s revelation was to perfect human nature for its eternal destiny of a truly supramundane life. Revelation is a historical phenomenon, which is super-historical in its content and kind. From this perspective, Jesus is the perfect example of the personal religious life. We have faith and trust in Jesus as our savior, but this cannot be established scientifically. The question arose whether the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is adequate and covers all Scriptures. Also raised was whether the witness of the Holy Spirit conforms to the Scriptures. Do the Scriptures accurately report what Jesus’s followers believed and is it relevant for all time? In modern times the focus is on the experience of regeneration, but the danger of this approach is an over emphasis on subjectivity which turns faith into gnosis. Foster noted the value of this approach is its emphasis on rationality and the inner unity of the Christian faith. Trusting Jesus led to the conviction that the Kingdom of God is God’s will. The transcendent and the supramundane Kingdom of God enables humans to be in relation to a reality that is beyond the empirical world. Humans search beyond the empirical world for the divine end of the world, which will begin the coming Kingdom of God. Foster suggested that having an extra-historical being entering humanity is mythology, as well as conceptions of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. Through our knowledge and experience of faith, we gain insights in to God’s eternal being and into the processes of nature and life as actualization of the Divine. Foster indicated that these forms of expression have only a parabolic character of God’s efforts but do designated God’s nature as revealed in Jesus. In modern thought, regeneration is replaced by an emphasis on the concept of growth. He also noted that the Christian creation-faith is opposed to the evolutionary view of reality. Foster claimed that the religious attitude, which considers itself to be of cognitive value in relation to nature, history, and God, is superstition. The only way of determining the truth of religious faith is in finding the good in life. Christ appeared to perfect human essence. The divine destiny for humans is to grow through faith in Christ, which applies to both the individual and the community. Humans must overcome their individual as well as collective sin in order to overcome their animal nature and lack of regard for their neighbors. A problem is that our decisions often create a tendency to repetition, which orients us to sin. Humans have a shared guilt, which is compounded by the guilt and sin of others. God has placed us in this suffering and finite existence, because it is in this world that humans must be educated from engaging in sin.

106

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

An issue was whether a reevaluation of Jesus is necessary for him to be relevant to modern humans. The Messianic role for the Orthodox was the essence of Christianity. However, the Messianic conception in modern thought has been replaced by ideas of immanence and evolution. Still, Jesus as the primary object of faith is the source through which we know God. A larger problem remains between the eternal and the historical. Foster rejected Christianity as the only true religion based on four ways of considering the being and work of Jesus. The four approaches are the empirical, historical, ethical, and religious. Knowledge, based on the senses, is a conviction of the reality and connection of things. However, the conviction of religious faith is that there is meaning in things, which is good. It is through other persons that divine grace is revealed, for life is the source of life. Foster postulated that Christianity is not a religion of historical facts but a religion of personality. The efficacy of Jesus regarding humans’ salvation is confirmed by our religious judgment. That God dwelt in the personal life of Jesus is the essence of the Christian life. This religion cannot be taught but must be experienced based on our religious endowment and our communal fellowship. The new element in Jesus’s life was its God-consciousness, which enabled him to focus on the infinite worth of a human personality to God. In order to explain why Jesus had to die, the church developed the doctrine of penal satisfaction. In this doctrine, the second person of the Trinity had to sacrifice his life to appease God, the dominant figure of the Trinity. Jesus had to die in order for us to receive the blessings of God. Foster noted that Jesus conveyed no idea that his death was required in order that humans might receive the blessings of God. In order to deal with the doctrine of penal satisfaction, modern persons must replace this mythology with an understanding of the immanence of God. Foster noted that the only way to support the myth of Messianism is by moral insincerity. Foster suggested that nothing essential would have changed if Jesus had not lived and been crucified. He postulated that the nature of our minds is to take important historical figures and turn them into symbolic significance. The error of orthodoxy was to conceive of Jesus’s death being necessary for our salvation. It was an error because it failed to emphasize the functioning of God’s love and disregarded the inner character of salvation as being ethically determined. Freedom of will was understood to mean to abide by the law in spite of our impulses and inclinations. The category of moral freedom is distinguished from intellectual and psychical freedom. For clear

Christianity in Its Modern Expression

107

perspective of moral requirements, psychical freedom is critical. Foster noted that that our ideas of good and evil are social conventions. When we grasp the social genesis and growth of the moral and the conscience, it dissipates its influence upon us. Human growth and development was established by evolution regarding the law of human development or growth. If one seeks unity and freedom as the core of life, it is only possible because of an unconditioned “ought.” The issue of freedom raised the question of determinism. Foster claimed that when motive and conduct are subject to cause and effect, this is the core of determinism. Freedom reflects the human struggle with antiethical impulses and outer influences. Foster postulated that humans’ spiritual life is only validated when the unconditioned “ought” is fused with the moral law of Christianity. Jesus confronts us with the commandment of unlimited love of God as well as our neighbor. By loving our neighbor, we also participate with the fellowship of our neighbor in the kingdom of God. Thus, fellowship and love are joined. In this fashion, our conscience is religiously oriented to the Christian ideal of life. However, we recognize our inability to realize love of God and neighbor due to the power and sin in our society. Foster, suggested that sin is a social and individual reality. The Reformers contended that good works grow from faith. The second generation of Reformers defined faith not as trust but as assent to doctrines established based on proof or authority. In this manner, faith became a necessary precondition of good works. Duty and virtue have always been the foundation of Christian ethics. All are subject to the unconditioned “ought” of God, with humans also obligated to abide by the unconditioned law. In selecting a vocation, one should be sure that it strengthens the community. Christians do not fear death due to the conviction that even death cannot separate us from the love of God. One demonstrates moral character by showing love to one’s neighbor. Due to sin, the religio-ethical character requires an interconnection between education and self-education. However, as Foster noted, current educational programs fail to awaken religio-ethical self-dependency in their students. Christians view eternal life as an achievement that humans achieve through conflict and guilt being forgiven by God. We love and trust God by faith in the sin-forgiving God. Faith also includes the duty to exercise and confess that faith. Faith and love are necessary in order that our love for our neighbor can be actualized. Religion and culture seek the supramundane, but they oppose each other as religion seeks the absolute while culture focuses on relative

108

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

goods. The Reformers allowed for a Christian appreciation of secular culture, with humans in need of a useful vocation. The individual discovers its useful vocation in cultural communion with other persons. The ethical principles of the kingdom of God were realized only when the social order promoted righteousness and the public welfare. When the economic conditions provide an ordered external life, ethical requirements are eased.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE

Our purpose in this chapter is to present a summary of Foster’s book on Nietzsche. Nietzsche was born in 1894 in the Prussian province of Saxony. His father was a pastor, and those before him were ecclesiastics. Since the death of his father when Nietzsche was only five years old, his permanent companions were women. Foster noted several curious facts about Nietzsche’s life and thoughts. From the stories of his ancestors, he developed an aristocratic perspective of his tradition and of himself. One curious fact was that the name of this champion of aristocratic radicalism literally means “the humble man.” A second fact was that this apostle of the Anti-Christ was born in a parsonage and descended from parsons. A third curiosity was that this anti-feminist was reared by women. Before Nietzsche at fourteen entered Pforta, a private academy, he had acquired certain characteristics that continued throughout his life. These were his value of the “good form” which characterized the best society, as well as his love for solitude, poetry, and music. He wrote music and poetry from the age of ten, as well as keeping a diary after he entered Pforta. In this diary is revealed his moving away from the creeds of his ancestors to a world of doubt. At the age of twenty, he entered the University of Bonn as a student in philology and theology, but he dropped theology after the first term. For a while, he lived the beer-drinking life of his fellow students, but soon he withdrew to his studies and to music, his favorite recreation. More and more he turned from Christian beliefs and at home in 1865, he refused to take Communion. He wrote to Elizabeth, his sister, who was concerned about him: “If you desire peace of soul and happiness, believe! If you want to be a disciple of truth, search!”111 Nietzsche’s favorite professor was Albrecht Ritschl, a German theologian, whom he followed to Leipzig University. There he picked up Arthur Schopenhauer’s most noted work, Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. This book revolutionized his perspective and led to his complete rejection of Christianity. In 1867, he was drafted for a year in the Prussian army and he became an adequate soldier. However, after a few months he sustained a leg injury that terminated his military service. He returned to his studies under Professor Ritschl and soon came under the influence of Richard

110

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Wagner and his music. Foster noted another curious fact in that such an independent spirit became for a while the disciples of two masters— Schopenhauer and Wagner. In 1869, Ritschl recommended Nietzsche for a position in “classical philology” at the Swiss University at Bale. His inaugural lecture was entitled “Homer and Classical Philology.” In the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, Nietzsche served as a volunteer nurse and requested being sent to the front lines. It is curious that one who became the enemy of nationalism volunteered for the front lines. When he returned from the war he was very ill, but within two months, his health was restored. In 1871, Nietzsche published, at his own expense, The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music. The keynote of the book is found in two contentions. One was that “existence and the world appear justified as an aesthetic phenomenon,” and the other was that “Art supplies man with the necessary veil of illusion which is required for action, for the true knowledge as to the awfulness and absurdity of existence kills action.”112 In this work, he opposed Greek culture before and after Socrates. The book was not well received by philologists and, for a time, had a negative effect on his career. Between 1873 and 1876, Nietzsche published four lengthy essays: David Strauss, Confessor or Writer; The Use and Abuse of History; Schopenhauer as Educator; and Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. He called these works “Thoughts Out of Season.” He rejected Strauss as a shallow optimist. The second book was an attack on those who elevated historical learning as an idol. The third book focused on Schopenhauer as the model philosophical type of the future, while state-paid philosophers were servile. The final book was a eulogy on Wagner. This was noted as the end of Nietzsche’s first period. In his second period, Nietzsche put aside Schopenhauer, Wagner, art and metaphysics and placed his trust in science and research. In the next five years, he wrote Human, all-too-Human, The Moment of Crisis (1871– 1880), The Dawn of Day (1881), and Joyful Wisdom (1882). Toward the end of 1875, Nietzsche had serious health problems but recovered during a vacation. While recovering, he fell in love with a Dutch lady, but she refused to marry him. This rejection was followed by more health problems lasting a year. Nietzsche was influenced by Ree, a friend, toward determinism and was introduced by him to the English school of philosophy. Nietzsche continued to have health problems, which resulted in his resigning his professorship. Henceforth he moved from place to place, leading a very frugal life. He would take long walks, jotting notes on ideas

Friedrich Nietzsche

111

for developing his own philosophy. At this stage, he attempted to view nature as having no purpose or finality. It was on these walks that the thought of the Eternal Recurrence came to him and depressed him. It was in 1882 that he wrote his brightest work Joyful Wisdom, in which the concept of the Superman began to emerge. In his third period, Nietzsche fell in love again; and again was rejected. Nietzsche concentrated on developing Zarathustra, which Foster considered “the first creed in modern literature.”113 The Superman was presented as the meaning of the earth in opposition to super-earthly hopes. Zarathustra was written during 1883–84. Few persons even noticed the book, which had no sales. In 1878, he was in Nice, where he met George Brandes and Hippolyte-Adolphe Taine, who both applauded Zarathustra. Zarathustra was followed by Beyond Good and Evil in 1886 and in 1887 The Genealogy of Morals. The positive responses by Brandes and Taine lifted Nietzsche’s spirits and enabled him to write between 1886–1888 Will to Power, The Case of Wagner, The Twilight of the Idols, and Antichrist. These works were increasingly well received, which ignited his fame. However, Nietzsche was unable to appreciate the positive responses to his personal philosophy, due to his mental death in 1889. Nietzsche, reading Schopenhauer, led to his discovery of the spirit, including its ugliness and suffering. He viewed living with this black view of reality to be a return to primitive Christianity. This was reflected in The Birth of Tragedy (1871), Thoughts Out of Season (1872–73) and Schopenhauer as Educator (1873-76). Soon however, he shifted his focus from the life of an artist to the life of a scientist. From this perspective, he wrote The Wanderer and his Shadow (1876–79) and The Dawn of Day (1880–81). He had replaced Schopenhauer’s pessimistic and nihilistic metaphysics by a sober empirical orientation. Still in his third period, Nietzsche retained the optimism of his second period and returned to Schopenhauer’s voluntaristic doctrine of the will. He now relied on an optimistic Schopenhauer. From this perspective he developed his own philosophy expressed in Joyful Wisdom (1882), Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–85), Beyond Good and Evil (1885–86), The Genealogy of Morals (1887), The Twilight of the Idols (1888), and The Anti-Christ (1888). Nietzsche proposed that the basic question of life is determining one’s code to follow in seeking the highest values. He accepted Schopenhauer’s basic view of the godless and chaotic world, but he turns his pessimism to an unusual optimism. The shift to optimism involved Nietzsche’s influence by Charles Darwin. Foster noted that Nietzscheanism now becomes Schopenhauerism plus Darwinism. Nietzsche agreed; it was “the

112

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

eternally unsatisfied will” that is the basis of human misery and suffering. This tragic perspective required deep thought and high goals, in opposition to the incurable optimism of David Strauss. Nietzsche was drawn to Wagner and his music. In coming to know Wagner, he discovered a person of envy and egoism. From Socrates he learned that the tragic person is the true teacher, which resulted in his view that Schopenhauer was the best educator. Nietzsche was at home in classical antiquity, favoring its humanism instead of Christian medievalism. Being disillusioned by Wagner, he jumped into the world of science. He now placed objectivity over subjectivity and experience and observation replaced the metaphysics, pessimism and nihilism of Schopenhauer. He now consistently replaced pessimism and the metaphysics of the will for a sober empiricism. Another factor in his shift to science was an appreciation of historical things and their evolution. In his third period, Nietzsche returns to Schopenhauer’s voluntarism, enriched by his experience in science. He conceived of himself as “the crucified one” in his letters, who has become redeemed through the Will to Power, with all creatures sharing in this basic impulse. Now he views life as power and the practice of power. Of course different Wills to Power conflict, often in a fight to the death. Instead of this view causing him to be pessimistic, Nietzsche considered it the principle of cultural development. In the process of cultural development, Nietzsche expressed a hatred of moralism, socialism, democracy, feminism, intellectualism, pessimism, and his view of Christianity. He considered these seven positions as the foes of cultural development. From Darwin, he focused on culture as the struggle for existence in which the powerful triumph. Nature rejects the weak for the strong—a pitiless position which Nietzsche viewed as sublime and ennobling.

SELECTION OF DIVERSE SHORTER WRITINGS OF G. B. FOSTER

Philosophy of Feminism In sermons, debates, and short essays, Foster addressed significant issues in social philosophy. One area of concern was the need for an adequate philosophy of feminism. He suggested it was due to the encouragement of women that humans move the human life style from the hunter-gathering stage to a rudimentary agriculture. This shift arose from the hidden depths of being a woman based on her nature as a woman, which is the destiny to bear and rear children. “Mothers’ rights were the first human rights.”114 Work replaced the big stick as the motor to our civilization. The attitude toward women of Christianity became an important issue in Foster’s time. One certainly could not discover an answer to women’s rights in the mere words of Jesus. Jesus was so consumed by his postulation of the coming Kingdom of God that he provided no conclusions on any problem. It was somewhat different for Paul, who stood for the ideals of sexual asceticism and virginity. In the early church, the ideal woman was the image of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Due to the affections of the people, Mary was eventually elevated to Queen of Heaven and became for the people more significant than the Triune God. By the Middle Ages, the spiritual dignity of womankind was acknowledged in Mary. This dignity was filled with contradictions with marriage exalted and motherhood honored by virginity. These contradictions led to the ideal woman being a nun, “who sundered herself from the natural that she might serve the supernatural, form the secular that she might serve the sacred, from man that she might save the heavenly virgin. The nun was ‘emancipated’.”115 In time, the woman as woman revolted against the nun as the ideal. Women began to complain, contending that motherhood is more important than celibacy or virginity. The revolt against ecclesiastical chastity marked the beginning of the women’s movement in the modern Protestant world. Luther took the radical position of his day that the natural destiny for a woman is marriage. Women were to be freed from canonical law and sanctified authority. However, the domestic idea of the Hausfrau is not the last word on

114

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

women’s rights. The Hausfrau “is not a being for herself, but a being for home and society.”116 The modern woman seeks to include yet transcend the previous limited rights and roles for women by seeking a new kind of right: “Very simply, but, as it seems to me, very profoundly, she is seeking to be a self—and to be for herself. In past ideals—secular, servile, esthetic, angelic, domestic—she has not been a self, and she has not been for herself. She has been roaming, or working, or beauty, or other worldliness, or the home, but not for herself. The new, wonderful, final step which woman must take is to enter upon the freed unfolding of her personality as an end in herself. It is the most necessary thing—the arrival at free selfhood. The free devotement of independent personality—that is the big new thing of the day.”117 The crucial issue is whether any members of society are to be dependent upon others—whether women are to be economically, physically, and spiritually free. To be free is primary. How she uses the freedom is another question. The basic function in the social organism is to be a self. This function is as true for a woman as for a man, for “the aim of civilization is to invoke a free personality, not an institution, for institution is but a name for a trend among persons.”118 Foster proclaimed the movement toward being a true self, a free personality, as the foundation for our evolving future. To enhance our social future, we must trust the creative forces of nature and make available to individual men and women the best sciences of the age. The wonderful machinery of modern civilization must be used for enlightening and not for exploiting. In this evolving future, there can be no sort of disqualification or disability that is contrary to selfhood. “This, then, is woman’s primary right—full majority and selfaccountability; full freedom to test her strength as a woman and to bring her feminine individuality to supreme and perfect unfolding…The new path of woman is the path of freedom and independence. This path does not lead back into the cloister, nor back into the home necessarily, not necessarily into marriage even—but into the heart, into the deep of the human spirit, from which all that is good and great for the woman in every situation of life is born.”119

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

115

Pragmatism and Knowledge There had been a division of labor between science and religion, with science knowing one set of things and religion another. This led to science denying the availability of religious knowledge in its sphere. Religious ideas only had symbolic significance, which expressed the feeling of a subject. In this fashion, cognitive capacity is denied to the existence of ideas. Foster indicated that religion required affirmation of human cognitive capacities. “But the interesting point in the present situation is that science, which once urged, then allowed, finally denied, the cognitive function of religious ideas, now disclaims such function for her own ideas and concepts and formulae.”120 Formula and law are used to manipulate phenomena, as well as the achievement of practical results, such as orienting the self in the world of phenomena but not for intellectual apprehension of reality. According to this viewpoint since scientific facts and laws are artificial, science can teach no sort of truth. However, science can serve as instruments for guiding our conduct. Foster claimed that science must be forced to assume a cognitive function, or religion must abdicate its cognitive function. In the Middle Ages, this philosophic theory was known as Nominalism, with its main feature being its anti-intellectualism. Reality was limited to changing and fleeting impressions that change when touched. The understanding is impotent and is replaced by feeling, instinct, or faith. The weak point of a consistent Nominalism is that it exhausted its energy in negation and an ejaculation of ecstasy. Humans have other powers and functions than understanding. The intellect is indispensable to philosophizing, limiting the possibility of a really anti-intellectual philosophy. Foster opined, “Science is only a rule of action, a device for getting results for life—this is Pragmatism. We are not capable of knowing anything, and yet we are implicated in life; we establish rules of action; the totality of these rules we call science.”121 By limiting science to designating rules of action, we know that results follow. That the results are not always what is expected, which established that science is imperfect. Progress is slow but steady, which is at least something. He indicated that science’s errors are supposed to be explained by changes in the method and conclusion of science. If science is not competent to forecast, it is worthless as a rule of action. If it is able to forecast in a competent manner more or less, it is not worthless as knowledge. From functional psychology, we gain the impression that the mind is an organism in which nothing is merely means and not an end. This

116

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

knowledge function must be accorded value and dignity. “Pragmatism may not be allowed to substitute its new Absolute of Utility for the old Absolute of Knowledge. We must have democracy within the psychic as well as with the social. Unlike either Absolute, pluralism must be confraternal.”122 However, pragmatism holds that raw facts are not scientific or are outside of science. Science establishes fact out of raw fact, being limited by the properties of the material under consideration. If a functional psychologist, who disbelieves in God’s existence, tries to act upon the idea of God, no action will follow because the psychologist lacks the required ontological reference. Foster suggested that if one speaks of the Whole Reality, this might indicate the poverty and weakness of one’s approach.

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

117

The Theological Training for the Times A theological student must be a good person in order to be a good minister. A good minister should combine an absence of insincerity with tenderness and strength and believe in his message. Doubt is good and the student must doubt before entering the kingdom of truth. However, “he fears that he may be casting aside ideas essential to his moral and spiritual life.”123 Foster postulated that the fundamental characteristic of the age was Emancipation. Many fear the emancipation of religion from religion. The theological task of all western Christianity is to complete Luther’s Reformation, as we must accept the dangers and responsibilities of freedom. We seek freedom from false principles of authority in order that we may proclaim Christ my Lord!

118

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Status and Vocation of Our Colored People In ancient times, the ideal for people was the angel. The earth was evil, so the true humanness for humans was sought elsewhere. In the Occident, this idea was replaced by the humanism of classic Greece and Rome. Those with the ability and time for contemplation and learning were the true humans, with all others being second-class persons. Christianity interjected its own standard of a breach between people in terms of the saved and the damned. A new ideal of humanity was projected in the rationalistic 18th century, making humans something noble, great, and lofty. However, “humanity” was presented in vague and universal terms, instead of taking into account that people lived in a concrete, real situation. By focusing on universal humanity, the period of the rationalists was able to support the system of black slavery based on an alleged humanistic proof that Negroes had no soul. Foster understood that the scientific era of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries provided a new view of being human, which transcended the abstract and lofty “humanity” of the rationalists. The new view was based on the philosophy of the becoming of an organism. One does not begin as a person; one becomes a person. The vocation of the human organism is to become a person. All the pre-scientific views of humanity designate people as the gift of some external power. Becoming a culture-person is not a gift; it is a task to be achieved. This means the forming and ordering, the development of the inchoate into organic life, personal and social. This means “…the humanization of all animal impulses and passions, the ennoblement of all that is rude and vulgar, the culture of all that is crude and wild and raw. To be ‘a man’ is not to possess by donation the alien goods of thought, but to develop from within a function of thinking of one’s own.”124 The fulfillment of this task cannot be based on an easy gift from without; rather, it must be an evolution and creation from within. Freedom from slavery was essentially a gift for Negroes. “The next emancipation is inner emancipation, and this he must achieve for himself. He must earn and create the true values for himself.”125 However, the development of the inner self requires the acquisition of material goods, for it is fulfilling one’s outer needs that the virtues of industry, frugality, sound judgment and self-control are increased. The spirit of humanity must guide race relations in our evolving culture. It is the duty of all not to block or impede the becoming of the person. Rather, social duty requires all to cooperate in each other’s selfachievement and self-consummation. Pains must be taken to see that the

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

119

door of opportunity is open to all in any direction. This duty must be fulfilled even if done for selfish reasons. Foster pointed out that “in the long run and in the main we cannot be up if he is down, we cannot be cultured if he is barbarous, we cannot be healthy if he is diseased, nay, we cannot be good if he is bad.”126 The life of the Negro is now becoming. While blacks must make it themselves, we must all work together and assist their cultural becoming. Foster speculated on what will be the distinctive contribution of the Negro race and opined, “Perhaps he is too new in the making for us to say. I think it will be a marvelous combination of realism and idealism, of verity and vision, of earth and sky. But especially will they soften and lighten our harsh and gloomy Anglo-Saxon nature and life, warm our cold intellectualism, water our emotional aridity with the poetry and art and song and oratory of his distinctive genius. His sensuousness, in the good sense of that word, will supplement and rectify our spirituality, which is not always a good condition. Flesh helps soul, not less than soul, flesh. We must not forget that the flesh can sin against the spirit as well as the spirit against the flesh. I believe that the Negro is going to contribute much to the solution of the difficult problem of the ideal relation between sensuousness and spirituality.”127

120

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Recent Theological Literature: Some Modern Estimates of Jesus In 1902–3, Von Heinrich Weinel delivered six lectures, in which he explored scientific and religious views of Jesus. In Lecture One, Weinel, from the perspective of historical criticism, traces the destruction of the traditional portrait of Christ. The local press attacked Weinel as if he was responsible for this destruction. In the second lecture, he considered Jesus, from the liberal perspective, as Reformer of ethics and cultus. Lecture Three was devoted to a consideration of Jesus in light of the social question. In lecture four, Weinel focused on Jesus in light of the Kultur problem “as preacher of a Buddhist self-redemption.”128 In these considerations, Jesus is presented as a heroic figure, full of kindness, veraciousness, and courage, based on a triumphant faith in God. In the final lecture, the focus is on the religious question in the present, in which Weinel’s own view becomes evident. In Foster’s words, Weinel was contending, “that no dogmatic affirmations concerning Jesus can be made, consistent with the Gospels, which are inconsistent with Jesus’s real and full human nature.”129 Foster claimed this to be the correct position because otherwise we have no sure valuation of Jesus. Based on the modern conception of immanence and personality as the principle of world evolution, Foster suggested that there remains “room for the possibility of both the ontological and ethical incomparableness of Jesus in Actuality.”130 Professor James Denny, in The British Weekly, reviewed Weinel’s work. Denny suggested that if Weinel’s position were correct, we would have to confess that Christianity has gone astray from its original conception. He further suggested that, if Christianity were to have a place in the world of nature, it would require a radical change. Foster agreed that the historical picture of Jesus has been repainted by each generation’s faith and adoration. To suppose that the Jesus-of-history can be distinguished from the Christ-of-faith, enabling us to see and hear Jesus-in-himself, requires our failing to acknowledge universally accepted truths of epistemology. Denny contended also that Christ’s confession of faith is the kernel of Christianity. Foster rejected this view for two decisive reasons, one psychological and the other moral. Since each person is unique, each person’s faith is unique. The adequacy of one’ confession does prove the adequacy of another person’s confession. Foster rejected Denny’s position as legalistic in reference to the Jesus of history. Foster claimed: “What the Gospel that saves requires is that I confess not Jesus’s confession, but my

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

121

own with Jesus-like pains, courage, sincerity, and in the use of all the material at my disposal, of which he is chief, that will enable me to make a goodly confession.”131 Over the centuries, the confessions have been diverse. Jesus was first confessed to be the Jewish Messiah, which was replaced by the Greek Logos. During the Middle Ages, the Greek Christ failed to speak to the people who needed a God they could see or touch. By the time of the Reformation, the mediaeval Christ became the Doctor of Theology. With the rise of historical criticism, a gallery of new Christs emerged. Foster concluded that “if being a Christian consists in thinking about Jesus as he thought about himself, then Jesus is the only Christian that there is… There is no Jesus in himself that you can get at to see; say what you will, he is no bare datum, but construct as well… Religion is grounded throughout upon its inner power and truth, not upon ‘historical arguments’.”132

122

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Can Pragmatism Furnish a Philosophical Basis for Theology Response by G. B. Foster to Papers Relating Pragmatism and Theology presented at the 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress. Foster agreed that there was faint literature relating pragmatism to theology because theology, with its speculations, has been historically alien to pragmatism. He indicated pragmatism had been interested in religion and quite skeptical as to the justification of theology. Foster noted a recent article in the Hibbert Journal by John Dewey entitled “Is Nature Good?” Dewey warned the pragmatists “that if they took a certain tack, pragmatism would go the way of theology, he said, meaning by that, that long journey into the bourne whence no traveler returns.”133 Foster noted that thinkers have never agreed whether there can be theology. Psychology and history of religions have explained the historical experience and the science of religion had presented the morphology and physiology of religion. The philosophy of religion determines the validity of the religious idea and the value of the religious motive. After these processes have provided their insights, Foster wonder what was left for theology to do, since “there was no subject-matter and no method of which theology has peculiar and exclusive use.”134 The justification of theology must be found in its practical religious use. Based on this perspective, apologetics is concerned with the adequacy or validity of our religious ideas, while dogmatics is concerned with the content of our religious faith. Christian ethics considers the same content from a practical perspective. Foster contended that for pragmatism to have any concern with theology, it must be with apologetic theology. Pragmatism is a test of truth or a search for a basis of truth. Foster looked at pragmatism in the religion of Gautama Buddha, who was a pragmatist. Buddha fought against the absolutism and idealism of speculative Brahmanism, for his mission was not to provide metaphysical information concerning speculative ideas, such as the essence of being. Rather, Buddha was concerned with escaping from the pain of existence. As a reformer, he made progress by focusing only on what had value for experience. Foster opined, “It was a reduction of the conceptional burden of life in the interests of practical experiences of redemption and consummation of life as he countered redemption and consummation.”135 Unfortunately, Buddha’s life ended in a system of rules controlling experience, which raises the question whether the emphasis on practice will lead to ecclesiastical control of the capacity to live more abundantly.

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

123

Foster claimed that pragmatism is really neo-positivism, which is an extension of Darwin’s theory of human development from the struggle for existence to the realm of the spirit. Previously there had been a mechanical explanation of the teleology of organism, but pragmatism provides a teleological explanation of the apparatus of organism. In psychology, pragmatism is voluntarism that provides voluntaristic humanization of reality. Scientific psychology postulates “a moment of intellection, of emotion, and of volition in every pulse of human consciousness.”136 None can be eliminated, although at different times one may dominate. Foster claimed this perspective to be a major accomplishment by revealing that the willing moment in humans is primary, resulting in humanizing reality voluntaristically. He also noted that pragmatism has improved by intellectualizing and emotionalizing reality. As we interpret existence from our perspective, we personize existence. Humans are the outcome of the cosmic process and may be the Principle of that process or just a line in the cosmic drama. “Some hopeful answer to this question is required if there is to be a theology at all, such as our churches can live upon and work with.”137 Foster noted that pragmatism draws the relative consequences from the evolutionary theory. Supreme theoretical and practical principles for pragmatism are based on the adaptation of humans to the conditions of life faced by the individual and the race. This view is not a truth objectively determined, but is based on humans seeking to fulfill themselves in their situation. Pragmatism has negated the old theoretical concept of truth of bringing ideas into harmony with reality. Based on the pragmatic hypothesis, ideas are true which empirically demonstrate their usefulness and effectiveness in human conduct. Foster opined, “If, accordingly, the basis of the universe is personal, of course we can then have a theology founded upon pragmatism. Even if the universe was not personal in this sense, but personality-producing, we could still have a pragmatic theology. This is about my own position at present.”138

124

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

How Far Can Truths of Christianity be Stated in Terms of Naturalism? With Regard to “The Gospel History.” Foster began with the question “What is Naturalism?” He noted that naturalism belongs to the realm of theory and not of fact. Foster suggested that real question is, “To what extent does Christianity admit of naturalistic explanation?”139 Naturalism is distinguished from materialism and from supernaturalism. He rejected materialistic naturalism, only as the form of the new evolutionistic as against the old atomistic materialism. Foster believed that there is meaning in things, which is good. He proposed replacing the purposeless of mechanical causality of materialism with spiritual causality. It is spiritual causality, with its purposefulness, that distinguishes naturalism from materialism, as Foster used the terms. Natural investigation has come to recognize only cause and effect in legal connection. Thus, the principle of causation, with its demand for reality, places its emphasis on facts. Foster claimed that empirical causality does not encompass all reality. Since materialism is defective, the Truths of Christianity cannot be stated in its terms. Foster agreed that materialism affirms causation and evolution, “naturalism posits behind all and in all as the causal and evolving power, universal spiritual reason.”140 In this way, naturalism invites attempts to express Christian truth, which is becoming all things to all persons. Foster addressed the distinction between naturalism and traditional supernaturalism. The term traditionally is employed to mean before supernaturalism was corrupted by elements of naturalism. He noted that supernaturalism belongs to the realm of theory and not fact. In an unadulterated supernaturalism, revelation was not from within but from without based on lawless extra-mundane communication. The purpose of revelation is the guidance of the will; it is, “an effect of God through which He evokes in the soul of man the impression of Himself as influencing its life in the world, and leading it, by power over the world, to its goal.”141 This method of revelation presupposes the old cosmology. Foster noted that the Bible thinks geocentrically, but modern science thinks heliocentrically. The Bible denotes cause in free miraculous acts of the divine, while modern science rests on cause as a process of selfdeveloping nature. Foster asked what has become of the notions of “above” and “below” when earth is understood as a rolling planet. A distinction was important in sacred history, for it rests on a history from Paradise to Jesus’s

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

125

ascension to the coming of the Holy Spirit. He suggested that it does not follow that the conception of revelation must change in relation to a changed cosmology, for both are theories involved in interpretations of fact. Scholastic absolute supernaturalism held that due to humans’ sin it was necessary for revelation to be anti-rational. Relative supernaturalism held that revelation is super-rational and not entirely anti-rational. With absolute rationalism displacing supernaturalism, “revelation is a mere product of the human phantasy, without any objective truth.”142 Naturalism stood between supernaturalism and absolute rationalism. Naturalism may at first impact our religious feelings, but Foster conceded that naturalism is more in accord with the methodic principle of modern historical and natural science. If life is viewed as development via cause and effect, it follows the principle of science. Evolutionistic naturalism holds this principle of science to apply in nature and in history. Foster opined, “But, in respect to naturalism, it is quite possible that the purer and deeper and more living conception of revelation may be that it is an emergence from within and not an importation from without, that through the imminent causation of the Great Spirit it has gradually arisen and culminated in human history according to order and inviolable psychological and historical process.”143 Foster looked at the Gospel history in light of the naturalistic philosophy and science. He suggested that it was not necessary for the literary origin of the Gospel documents to be miraculous produced. Biblical science attempts to establish the causal connections under which the Gospels developed. Otto Pfleiderer points out “that the doctrine evolution excludes miracles in every sense of the word—not merely the nature miracle, but also just as much the spirit miracle…”144 Foster suggested that he was not upset by Pfleiderer’s reasoning for two reasons. One reason was that biblical literary criticism affirms the historical character of many so-called miraculous accounts. The second reason was Foster’s view that Pfleiderer’s definition of miracle is that it violates the law. Foster contended that a miracle does not contradict the laws of nature. He affirmed that miracles serve as witness to God redemptive work. Thus, if the modern Christians extend God’s redemptive causality to all history, all nature affirms that God is the God of the whole and not of a part. Foster noted that if “the Great Spirit is free universal causation, somehow harmonious, nobody knows how, with our particular causation.”145 Foster concluded that the very point of Christianity is that God is as good as Jesus.

126

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Ethics of Wage Foster viewed the “wage war” as a genuine sign of the time that revealed the divine life of humanity. No longer was there a discussion of whether wages should be expected for work. The issue now is the scale of wages—how much a person should be paid for labor. The core of this issue is freedom, “for freedom suggests and supports the idea that the laborer is worthy of his hire.”146 Many within the labor force contended that the freedom of the wage earners was an illusion because hunger was a whip that forced them on. While Foster agreed that there was need for just recompense, he rejected the notion that the modern worker was no better off than former enslaved humanity. The thoughts of Karl Marx were much in discussion at the time and Foster agreed that, “…something of the man himself passes into his work, something which can never be restored to him.”147 By consuming the efforts of the worker, society actually uses and consumes a significant part of the life of the worker. However, a person is more than a machine; we are thinking, willing, and feeling beings. “Being more than a machine, he introduces values into his work which cannot be appraised according to natural law, and therefore cannot count as wages or be paid in wages. There is something in all work, even in the very least, which cannot be priced, and therefore cannot be paid. That something is the inner life, the feeling and conscience of the man himself, the very beating of whose heart and pulse is in the work itself, and gives itself to us in and through the work.”148 The task before modern society is to strengthen the inner life of the person in order that human life can complete its course with dignity and joy. Government interference is required to discover the true facts varying upon the wage problem and to set matters right. “The basic need of the hour is unconditional recognition of the great principle that man is not made for business, but business for man. It is the laborer who must devise measures which will secure a just recompense for toil—recompense that nurtures the mental and bodily health the sacred duty and inalienable rights of society to demand that none of its members shall implicate her in blood-guiltlessness, that under no circumstances shall a wage fall below the normal expenditure of energy spent in doing the work. That is the minimum wage-earner, under any circumstances, should receive.”149

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

127

Remarks at 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress At a meeting of the Baptist Congress a speaker did not appear which led Dr. Foster being asked to address the Congress. He was reluctant to speak because he had been active in other aspects of the program and because “after all I am a modest man.”150 Foster began by wondering whether the addresses presented “set forth that which is actual and dynamically real and useful in your own experiences today… whether these excellent addresses are not the expression of a waning rather than a rising conviction among us. “Is it the dying wave or is the rising tide; is the vitality; is the nourishment of life; actually exhibited to us in this discussion of the subject?”151 He also wondered whether a great change was coming. Foster noted that historical and philosophical criticism has led us to view the work of Christ as an unhistorical construction, resulting in the disintegration of the person and doctrine of Christ. He designated the messianic drama being from the birth of Jesus through his death, resurrection, and ascension. Foster questioned whether there was actually a Messiah, based on philosophical and historical criticism. Science allows for no messianic irruption into the order of the world, leaving us only with the Jesus of history. Foster opined on the Jesus of history. “Owing to the heterogeneity of his life and situation with our modern life and situation, to the scantiness of our information concerning him, to our ignorance of his own conviction as to his death, to the vitality of the sacrificial idea being incident to blood-covered alters which are alien to our experience— owing to all these things it seems as if the time had come when we force ourselves to retain these ideas in our consciousness, rather than that they were vital sources and fountains of strength to our experiences today. We forcibly keep the ideas rather than that they keep us!”152 Foster offered his personal view on possible advantage to be gained from the mediation of Jesus. He suggested that Jesus was a supreme example of a universal law of solidarity and the law of dying to live. Through these laws we have an organic relationship with Jesus expressed as our redemptive experience. Foster explained: “In other words, instead of the isolation and aloofness of Jesus as the valuable point about it all, it is rather the membership of Jesus with the rest of us; it is rather that he shared experiences which is intelligible to all of us, and which is indispensable in the redemptive process of life—it is this that is the stirring thing.”153 If his position is adequate, it should enable modern persons to incorporate this view harmoniously in our general view of life. In ancient

128

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

times, the mediation between God and humans was ecclesiastically developed, but in our time, the emphasis is on the immanence of God. It is through our emphasis on God’s immanence that the cross becomes a constant in our life. Foster contended that this is a more dynamic perspective that looking back on the ancient history of Israel for strength. “Thus God and Christ and cross and redemption are before us as well as behind us.”154

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

129

The Function of Death in Human Experience Seven months before his untimely death, George Burman Foster preached at the University of Chicago on “the function of death in human experience.” His topic referred to Paul’s comment that “the last enemy that shall be abolished is death.” (I Cor. 15:26) Foster noted that through the efforts of those involved in scientific medicine, many diseases and disasters have been averted. Death remains, although many people seek to abolish death based on an old religion. Others are drawn to Henri-Louis Bergson’s picture of humanity as an army struggling to survive by defeating every obstacle, possibly even death. The hope is that death can be postponed by lengthening our life span, but death still “springs upon us like a wild beast.”155 Others console themselves with the idea that death makes possible the virtues and values of life. However, for many, death remains a consuming evil, which they confront with stoical resignation. The strong of will do not focus on death but seek to focus on solving the issues of the day. Foster rejected this perspective because “death cannot be abolished by forgetting.”156 By refusing to appreciate the reality of death, we have become slaves to the fear of death. Foster suggested that one could not understand life unless one understands death. We sacrifice our happiness—the will to live—if we pretend that this dark shadow does not await us. The old account in Genesis reminds us that humans have dominion of the earth, but not over death. Others continue to fear death as punishment for what they believe, but Foster contended there was no reason to support such a view unless one has received an “absolute and immediate revelation.”157 For others, death is a door through which they must pass in reaching eternal bliss. They often desire to pass through this door to be with Christ. In effect, they seek to forfeit their happiness in life for a transcendent bliss. “The belief that death itself would bring eternal life created an anxiety and fear about life which constantly endangered the outlook for eternal happiness; and the servility of such fear ultimately deceived the soul that was hungering for happiness as to what that happiness really was.”158 Many persons today reject the view of death bringing punishment for sins and conceive of death as their friend. They desire to enjoy existence fully by holding to the dream that death can be abolished. Foster contended that death is “nature’s everlasting alternation of origination and decay, death is the great rejuvenator… a life in which death signified only a contingency, would be life without growth, at bottom would be no life at all, but would itself be death.”159 It is death that establishes the boundaries of our existence. The reality and seriousness of death binds our moments

130

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

together and can enable us to redeem and improve our opportunities. “Thus it is the background of death that gives life its depth, its urgency, its seriousness.” Death belongs to life. Therefore, when we realize that death is our friend, we have won the victory over death. Just as we could not endure the day without night, death provides the background that offers meaning to our lives. We acknowledge that the events of our suffering cannot be erased from our lives. Foster opined, “…there is only one redemption for all this death, and that is death itself.”160 Confronting the stresses and storms of life is possible if we understand death as the cure for the ills of our lives. Foster noted that death is not only life’s friend and benefactor but also its interpreter. Many have faced the real possibility of an immediate death and through this experience have discovered more fully the meaning of life. Most of us have at least confronted the reality of death with the loss of a loved one. In this experience, often our souls have become open to the meaning of life. The struggles of life could not establish their worth without the reality of death. In the hour of death, we more fully realize the duties of love and faithfulness. “Of all the genuine laws of life, love is the supreme and all-controlling one.”161 Foster also suggested that death is a strong witness to the truth of the Gospel—to the higher order of love, loyalty, truth and goodness. With this understanding, we can face death unafraid. If someone has found in your living a more adequate vision of God, then you have realized happiness in your life. Foster also addressed the afterlife, indicating that science cannot establish that “the death of the brain involves of necessity the death of the mind.”162 He contended that this limitation of science gives us hope. As we face the moment of becoming dust, we realize that we are more than just dust. He opined, “Thus it is not death, but life, that has the last word in God’s world. Death is not the last; it is only a form of the development of life, not the annihilation of life. This is the proposition upon which everything depends.”163 In many cultures, there have been persons who did not believe in the finality of death and have postulated a life beyond the grave. For Christians, Jesus Christ has abolished death and our corruption and affirmed a world-transcending life. Death has not been abolished by faith in the living God. “If we have no God I do not know we would escape the dominion of death.”164 Foster concluded with a prayer to God, giving thanks that God has provided consistency and meaning to our lives. “We think of death, and rejoice that the death of our Lord has made him the lord of death.”165

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

131

Do Human Beings Have Free Will? An interesting feature of Foster’s life was his close friendship with Clarence Darrow and the public debates they held. To indicate the working of Foster’s thoughts from a different perspective, we focus on their debate “Do Human Beings Have Free Will?” It is thought that the debate occurred in 1916, possibly at a theater in Chicago or at the University of Chicago, with it being published in 1917. The debate began by Foster questioning whether the topic was unimportant. He indicated one reason that this might be the case is the realization that “whether you are determinists or libertarians all of you act pretty much the same way.”166 However, he noted that the problem remained because “we do not live simply by answers, we live by solutions, we live by problems.”167 Foster contended this to be the case because questions, which do not stay solved, are essential in maturing the human spirit. Foster proposed that his focus would be “What the question meant and the import of the controversy.” He had reservations with the way the question was stated because it implied that one could isolate and detach a bit of a human, like the will, and discuss whether it is free or not. The will is not some kind of independent substance that functions apart from relationships. Freedom is not a property of the will, as Foster contended that freedom and will are the same. Therefore, if one denies freedom of the will, one denies will. He suggested that the real issue is whether the mind is free, with the will being the activity of the mind—whether the Self is Free; “For, if man is not free, what worth is it to have a free society…”168 Foster further sought to explore the contention that freedom is not an extension of matter. He suggested that if he is correct, freedom is not an endowment but an achievement. “Instead of its being something with which we started, it is the human task—it is man’s deepest, most important task in the midst of the world, and the social structure in which he is implicated, to achieve, for himself, his self-dependence, his selfdirection and his self-guidance.”169 The old theological tradition contended that for something to be free it must be uncaused—a type of creation that is unrelated to any potential influence. Foster indicated that the old theologians took their position because they wanted humans to be able to repent easily. Foster proposed a second notion of freedom: “It is action which is determined not simply by environment, heredity and character and by impulses, but action determined by reason and conscience.”170 Selfdetermination was the key to his view of freedom. Once again, Foster attempted to frame the question: “Freedom is the assertion that possibility

132

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

is in excess of actuality, in the life of the human spirit. This is the gist of this debate, my friends.”171 One feels free when one takes deliberate action. Foster indicated that he would have to justify this feeling of freedom, but Mr. Darrow would contend that this feeling is humbug—an illusion. Negative: Darrow indicated a willingness to focus on whether a person is free. He limited the will to being one’s state of mind before action. For Darrow, the question should be whether one is free to will as one will. He indicated that the theologian was concerned with whether one knew the right from the wrong and does the wrong while knowing what was right. A just God could condemn one for this action. A lawyer would find that doing wrong was when you knew the right was justification for sending one to jail. Darrow asserted that freedom is an illusion, among the many illusions that humans have. Our feeling of choice is an illusion. He postulated that the decision to sit or rise from a chair “takes some impulse that comes from outside you and then you act, not through any intellectual process of any sort. You cannot have an intellectual process without impulse. It comes from somewhere.”172 Darrow challenged Foster’s notion that action is determined by reason and conscience. He suggested that to take this position, Foster needed to explain the source of reason and conscience. For Darrow, all we know about reason is that it is tied to memory, with our reflecting from memory. The question remained, from where did the brain come? Darrow agreed that one’s reason might be affected by the size and quality of one’s brain, as well as one’s impressions. He argued that no two brains reason alike because they are not made alike and do not select the same things about which to reason. Turning to the issue of conscience, Darrow argued that one’s conscience depends almost entirely upon the culture into which one was born. Some cultures allow things that other cultures oppose, but “everybody’s conscience permits them to lie when it is necessary.”173 We have inherited our conscience, as we have out taste. For Darrow, the problem arises from humans taking themselves too seriously. He reminded Foster that in a previous debate he had claimed to be captain of his soul. Darrow suggested that this meant one could guide one’s soul where one will—that one is the creator of one’s fortune or misfortune. He rejected this notion, convinced that one cannot control one’s own conduct. All great events in one’s life are beyond one’s control. Darrow explained: “He is born without his own volition and he generally dies before he gets ready. He has no faculty of saying, no chance to say whether he will be born or not, or whether he will die or not.”174

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

133

Darrow contended that our lives would not be a problem if the theologians had not developed the idea of a soul that lives forever either in relation to God or the Devil. “If man is like all the rest of the universe, and controlled by the same laws and causes, I fail to see how there could be any question if there is free will in the universe.”175 If things were not fixed by law and had free will, Darrow suggested, they might chose to do the opposite of following the laws of nature. Each thing must follow the laws as they apply to the particular thing. Are humans different from other animals? Darrow recognized that this question always leads to a theological problem. He suggested that, if humans are different from the animals according to the theologians, it is because humans are involved with God. This involvement is due to God being the creator or consciousness, which rules the universe. Darrow contended that even if this were the case, “there would be no free will because it would be God’s will instead of the individual’s will.”176 Darrow suggested that Biology informs us that all life shares a common origin of being born from a single cell, with each different animal coming from a different pattern of the cell. The animals will have nothing to do with it. No animal can change the pattern from which it grows, including humans. You cannot make a blacksmith from the pattern of a poet. Of course, we are born and not made, but born of the pattern established in the original egg and sperm. “It is perfectly plain that in the big things of life he has nothing to say.”177 Whether one is wise or foolish has been decided for each of us. Darrow asserted that heredity and environment are beyond one’s control, although we continue to send people to jail over their heredity and environment. He indicated that Foster thought that one’s character was formed from one’s environment. Since humans are creatures of our heredity and environment, what does it mean to say that humans act according to their reason? “Does the mind weigh one reason against another, with the heavier side being selected?” The problem is that we have no way of determining that the scales weigh correctly. Darrow contended that our reasons depend upon our experiences in life and the character and nature of our brains. No two persons will have the same reasons based on the same experiences. “Man can only act according to what seems to him to preserve life, and to bring happiness. In other words, man is purely a selfish creature.”178 Each person acts upon the same motive to satisfy oneself according to the law of self-preservation. Darrow contended that no one believes in free will because society and all life are formed on a consciousness that denies free will in the universe. Society functions on the assumption that through education one might lead

134

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

humans to choose the right over the wrong based on free will. Darrow insisted: that if there is free will, there is nothing certain in life, for a thing may well not conform to the pattern that it bore. Affirmative: Foster began his second speech chiding Darrow for presenting nonsense, which has the advantage over sense because one cannot refute it. He also chided Darrow for using humor in order to sugar coat the nonsense pill he offered, noting that humor is to be enjoyed but not refuted. Instead of dealing with the Darrow’s argument, Foster proposed to treat these details as a class in order to address the main issue. Foster suggested that Darrow offered a form of determinism that combined God’s Fore-ordination with Fate as the “fixing” forces behind things. Considering William James’ view of hard and soft determinism, Foster concluded that determinism comes from some form of Monism. He explained: “What is; is by virtue of the antecedent and not at all by virtue of the influence of anticipated consequences. What is; is by impact of some past, and not by the inducement of some future.”179 Foster noted that even Darrow realized that Determinism eventuates in Pessimism, which leads to an ethics of hedonism with an undue emphasis on pleasure. Foster stood in opposition to monism and supported pluralism. “I hold that plurality, diversity, multiplicity are as original in the universe as unity is. There would not be any unity if there was not something to unify.”180 Foster contended that, while Darrow’s monism leads to determinism, pluralism yields freedom. He affirmed relative independence to things that exist separately, which provides for creativity and novelty. Foster granted that we are all determined in part, but he contended that the real issue was whether we are simply determined by a past or whether we are determined by a future and its temptation “because of an achievement that we are competent of making in regard to that future.”181 Foster argued that freedom leads us to an ethics of idealism, based on the understanding that humans do not always act according to the pleasure-pain motive. Humans have an altruistic instinct of which love is the inner force. Foster projected that the real issue, which concerns the destiny of humans and the fate of the world, depends on our rejecting the pleasure-pain model and devoting ourselves to our intuitive sense of duty. “And let no man mutilate and dishonor the sacred words duty and ought and conscience.”182 He used America’s wars to illustrate that freedom requires duty as we seek “a pluralistic democratic universe!”183 Foster suggested that the crucial issue in the debate was whether we can achieve freedom. He indicated that Darrow’s position leaves humans without a choice, as we are pushed from one thing to another until we are

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

135

pushed out of life. What Foster wanted to know was; if in all this pushing and being pushed, “there is something I do without being pushed?”184 He contended that sometime he felt that he could have done something else, which caused him at times to blame himself. Foster indicated, based on this sense of blame, that he had a bad and a good conscience, which provided a sense of guilt and a sense of innocence. For Foster, our social living involves us all in a process of praise and blame. All of humanity shares a universal conviction of a sense of guilt because of their involvement in praise and blame, in approval and disapproval. In debate style, he indicated that this conviction did not require his proof but required Darrow to disprove it. Then it is Foster’s task to refute Darrow’s point. Darrow’s first point was the triviality and transitoriness of humans. Darrow had supported his point by claiming that humans are animals. Foster insisted that humans are a different type of animal and rejected Darrow’s “old trick to lower the dignity of man by exalting the dignity of animals.”185 Darrow further made humans and all animals into a class of things in nature, which Foster claimed was making humans more trivial by putting them into a class along with nature. Foster noted that Darrow’s second point was the old argument from causation—“that is, the universality and inviolability of cause.”186 He suggested that Darrow limited humans to being the only creatures that lacks causal efficiency. He realized that a reply to his claim was that humans, being a cause of effects is itself caused, and not by themselves. “To which I reply a thing is not what it comes from; a thing is what it is. A thing is not what is done to it; a thing is also what it does.”187 Foster addressed the issue of causation. “The real problem of freedom, you understand, is whether there is an excess of possibilities over actualities, or whether along with the actuality-world there is also a possibility-world.”188 Determinism holds that all that could possibly happen has happened, with what happens in the future being determined by what happened in the past. Foster was agnostic on this contention by determinism and contended that all others are also agnostic on this point, whether they realize it or not. Determinism’s position is beyond the competency of science, because science deals with the actuality-world and can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the possibility-world. Foster argued “…our living requires the assumption of a possibility-world.”189 Science is limited to facts that are non-values. In opposition to science is either faith or an estimate of values. Foster rejected faith as “the assertion of an unfounded conviction for no other reason than the value of the conviction in the higher and holy business of human living.”190

136

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Foster contended that beyond the propositions of science are propositions of life, which are “convictions that are un-demonstrable from the point of view of coercive proof.”191 Freedom is an example of such convictions, which are based on an estimate of value. He rejected Darrow’s appeal to cause and law as naïve because it failed to include cause out of the future, which is personal, moral, purposive causation. Human dignity is measured by whether one is determined by an idea instead of from a past force. “In a word, mechanical causation does not exhaust the human notion of causation.”192 Law is symbol, not an ontological dogma. Science is a technique of directed action that is proof of human freedom. Foster also rejected Darrow’s notion that humans are not free “because choice is determined by the strongest motive.”193 Motives are not independent of the person who chooses the motive. “So to be determined by the strongest motive is still to be self-determined, which is freedom.”194 Foster dismissed Darrow’s contention about heredity and environment, noting that these are the raw materials out of which humans develop their character. Human dignity is not submission to the environment or heredity but is demonstrated in our making these servants of our becoming. The key for Foster was that we live in an open and malleable universe to which we bring worth through the ideas for which we live. Humans do not live in vain, for “we can transform the world and make it more congenial to the heart and hope of man.”195 If we accept Darrow’s view of the world as a mindless machine, human life is limited to instinct. Darrow’s final reply stressed that science is not sure and has not found the ultimate. However, he noted that lack of proof is not an adequate reason why something should not be accepted as true. Darrow also rejected faith without some foundation of fact, contending that the human mind requires evidence for belief. He further rejected Foster’s postulations about duty, for one’s life can be ruined by a foolish sense of duty—“to govern life by duty is simply crawling out of one hole into another.”196 Darrow continued to claim that Foster knew the conscience depends upon one’s heredity and environment. He also charged that Foster’s silence was an admission that animals are without free will or very little at most. Darrow continued to claim “…there is no faculty, physical or mental, that belongs to man that does not belong to any animal.”197 For Darrow, a world of free will would leave humans with no guide or law, only a world of “lost souls.”

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

137

Suggestions for the Questions of a Sunday-School Catechism IV. God.198 1. How have you come by your knowledge of God? 2. For what reasons do you consider your knowledge of God valid? 3. Would you say that Jesus came to bring a correct and perfect conception of God, or God himself? 4. What was Jesus’s thought of God? 5. What advance, if any, does the revelation of God in Jesus represent that of the Old Testament? 6. In view of what you learned in Question 5, what theory do you form as to the mode of God’s self-revelation? 7. Is there a revelation of God in nature and conscience as well as in history? What does Paul teach upon this subject? 8. Give us your idea of the nature and character of God. 9. What is meant by God’s work of (a) creation, (b) providence, and (c) redemption? V. Jesus Christ.199 1. What was the peculiar character of Jesus’s witness to himself? 2. What was the basis of the ascription of divine dignity to Jesus on the part of the early Christian communities? 3. May Jesus be properly called God? 4. Name the nature-miracles and the spirit-miracles wrought by Jesus according to the Gospels, and try to form a theory which shall do justice to the facts. 5. Show that the death of Jesus was historically unavoidable. 6. What is the connection of the circumstances which led to the death of Jesus with the kernel and the shell of the Old Testament revelation? 7. Was the death (and resurrection) of Jesus an indispensable means to the salvation of men? Discuss this, as it affected the rise of the Christian community, and the gaining of new members to it today. 8. Did the death of Jesus remove an obstacle in the Divine Mind that was in the way of his forgiving sinners? 9. What is meant by (a) Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of the Father, and (b) his work there? 10. Give your thought as to the second coming of Christ.

138

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency Foster noted that modern education’s slogan is Learning by doing. This approach reflects the spirit of democracy, as well as the method of the sciences. It is those who express a knowing and doing personality that society values the most. From this perspective, Foster considered the distinction between calling and vocation. A calling is providential and moral while vocation is optional by one’s own preference. By the eighteen century, the religious basis of vocations was undermined. Foster noted that the sacred calling of ministry has in its own way; followed the experience of the secular calling. “The sacred calling is becoming de-supernaturalized and, in a sense, de-spiritualized.”200 Also gone is the divinity of sacraments, trust in divine inspiration, regeneration, sanctification, and perfection. We are now faced with a dream of a scientific ministry in which “the minister is not so much prophet and priest of God as an administrative officer of a philanthropic and humanitarian institution endowed by capital, which he is competent to execute.”201 The minister is supposed to learn in divinity school scientific efficiency. The issue becomes whether a person is for the sake of vocation or vocation for the sake of the person. What is required is the restoration of the religious basis of secular life. “It is not science, it is faith, the communion of all men in and with God that can make man the lord and not the slave of capital and machine and organization.”202 Foster claimed that the authentic church of God focuses on a religious faith that is a spiritual and invisible communion with the faith. The call of a minister is not to social service but it involves ministering to the depth of humans who cry for God. The watchword of the modern world is efficiency, which Foster suggests is a shallow form of pragmatism that fails to reach the pragmatic depths. As a result, we find ourselves in an age of doubt, which has led, based on science and free inquiry, to a challenge to the Biblical faith with the certainty that the Bible is a human book. The minister of efficiency may offer modern persons techniques and organizations but not the bread of life. It is evident that the biblical canon has had no authority over people, for humans become the measure of the book. Modern persons, based on new ideals of the human and personality, came to view the state as obsolete and without permanent existence. Humans now viewed science as true and social customs as valuable. However, doubt soon came to dominate humans’ view of the state and social customs, based on the old hereditary condition that limits the positive role of humans.

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

139

Foster considered the role of efficiency in helping lost souls. The modern minister of efficiency can only offer superficial reforms. Our bodily needs may be better met, but the soul is forsaken. It is evident that “efficiency” limits the ministers’ fundamental tasks. “In sum: the great question is not that of efficiency, but of the criterion of efficiency.”203 Considering the role of minister in the terrible situation of our modern world, Foster questioned the utility of studying theology in divinity schools. The issue is whether theology can be both ecclesiastical and scientific, or in a more acute form: “Can theology be at once scientific from the point of view of science and serviceable from the point of view of practicable Christianity?”204 If science serves the self-cognition of spirit, it fosters the practical ends of life—the self-realization of spirit. Foster contended “…honesty and sobriety of judgment are among a minister’s best assets in our age of doubt. They go toward the formation of personality, which is at once the primary need of man and the main concern of all education.”205 The value of studying scientific theology is that it keeps one from a narrow professionalism and enables one “to know how to face the problem as to what is primary and what secondary and impermanent in religion.”206 The scientific spirit in theology enables one to know a religious idea or deed in light of its historical and psychological emergence. One is forced to understand what is primary and what is secondary in religion. Religion is not a matter of instinct and emotion or ceremonies, creeds, and institutions connected to the church. Humanity’s strong point lies in its ideals and the effort to realize these ideals as they seek to be what they ought to become. “…the study of theology makes us recognize throughout, always and everywhere, the search for the unity and continuity of life and love of man with an eternal and fatherly God.”207 Foster shifted focus to how the scientific study of theology equips the preacher. A religion of reason focuses on ideas of God, freedom, the moral law, and immortality. This perspective is supplemented by a religion of revelation. From these perspectives, “…the truth and error of all positive historical religions were adjudicated.”208 The modern intellect, based on critical evaluations, has negated naïve rationalism. Foster suggested that religion is ever in transition. Modern persons cannot accept the answers provided by a minister who lacks the depth and courage to face reality. Foster also noted that “…part of the study of theology is to subject our piety to the laws of survival.”209 He suggested that a great merit of scientific theology is the recognition that prayers, not proofs, are the way God is known—“that we know God because we have faith in him, rather than have faith in him because we know him. Modern theology has probably done no more

140

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

service than to clarify this problem.”210 The young minister who completes formal theological education should recognize that one’s education must continue because “its religion and its theology are alike in the making.”211

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

141

Concerning Immortality From the web of pictorial ideas of Christianity transformed by criticism, modern persons have disengaged the notion of a doctrine of immortality, which included continuity of consciousness. “Faith in immortality, thus understood, became the kernel of the religiosity of the old rationalist.”212 The rationalist enriched its belief in immortality by the notion of recognition after death, making possible reunion with loved ones gone before. By retaining a doctrine of hell, rationalism retained a notion that limited the comfort offered. Idealistic speculation was not satisfied with the view either of the orthodox or of the rationalists. “Hence idealism sought to conceive immortality, not as a transcendent but as an immanent, not as a future but as an eternally present, immortality.”213 Without the hope of eternal life, it is doubtful if humans would keep the commandments of God. Without immortality, there would be no morality. Foster suggested that in the present state of thought, it would not be in the best interest of society to base morality upon immortality. Foster was aware that in modern thought the traditional faith in immortality was much in question. This eclipse of faith in immortality should lead us to examine homely values such as living cheerfully; enhance habits of charity and mutual kindness, to learn how to love each other, and to appreciate nature and all humans. Foster suggested that in order to focus on fulfilling these values, humans might need to close our minds to a possible reward in a future life. Since the doctrine of retribution has failed to support immortality, the apologist focused on the teleological argument. A person is supposed to realize its own endowment, but no one can accomplish this goal in this life. Therefore, there must be an immortal life where the person can accomplish this goal. Foster opined, “According to this idea, the moral good striven for and attained, cannot be sacrificed to dissolution, and every end, though transitory to our empirical vision, must serve a permanent end, and in this way be preserved in the latter. Accordingly, the religious idea of immortality is brought into harmony with the transcendent rational idea, which, in order to the ideal of humanity as a mere relatively infinite end, requires an absolutely infinite world-end, in which that ideal of humanity is contained as a stage of realization. This is the moral basis—a valid basis; as it appears to me…”214 There developed the idea of a soul-atom, but empirical analysis of inner experience has proved fatal to this idea because it does injury to the valid ethical content of the thought of immortality. We value spiritual goods not for their sake but to make us happy. It is not true that a

142

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

substantial soul leads to personal immortality, for such a theory negates personal immortality. By focusing on the individualistic idea of the worldend, we postulate an entirely subjective position that threatens the ethical value of this idea “because it is believed that the unlimited subjective desire for happiness can find its satisfaction only in this way.”215 The spirit is considered immortal and as an incessant becoming in order that the subject may enjoy immortality. Out of the experiences of countless generations, the conviction of immortality has grown and matured. Foster turned to the thought of Maurice Maeterlinck, a Belgian poet who sought to write the drama of the soul—to the person for whom all our conduct is incidental because our feelings are due to our inner experiences. Maeterlinck held “…it is the world of instinct that is the one true world.”216 Maeterlinck held that the life here has no effect upon a possible life hereafter, with which Foster was not satisfied. Foster reminded us, as he previously indicated in The Finality of the Christian Religion, that Jesus viewed humans as the object of a living love. “Faith in the infinite worth of human personality in the sight of God—if there was anything new in the convictions of Jesus, it was this.”217 Jesus held to the worth of man as man, and dared to hope that man could become the home of the moral values and the religious blessedness, which he felt in himself. If modern humans are able to turn from its doubt of the eternal truths of Jesus, we may acquire the strength to face the dark times of life and the dark hour of death.

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

143

Conclusion In his focus on developing an adequate philosophy of feminism, Foster noted that the first human right was mothers’ rights. Under the Catholic Church, the nun became the ideal woman; but in time, women revolted against the image of the nun and elevated motherhood above celibacy and virginity. The modern woman seeks increased rights as she seeks to be herself as a free selfhood. Modern civilization must continue to bring enlightenment instead of exploitation and enhance the path of freedom and independence for women. Foster contended that religion requires affirmation of human cognitive capacity. Because the facts and laws of science are artificial, science teaches no truth. He also contended that science must be forced to assume a cognitive function, or religion must abdicate its cognitive function. Functional psychology conveys the impression that the mind is an organism whose knowledge function must be accorded value and dignity. Humans cannot rely on science only since it establishes fact out of raw fact, being limited by the properties of the material under consideration. In order to be a good minister one must be a good person who believes in his message. The period of rationalism supported black slavery based on the humanist proof that Negroes has no soul. Our social duty requires that we not impede the becoming of the Negro and all persons. In the humanism of classical Greece and Rome, those with the ability and time for contemplation are the true humans. A new ideal of humanity was projected in the rationalistic 18th century, making humans something noble, great, and lofty. In the period of rationalism, the system of black slavery was based on humanistic proof that Negroes had no soul. With the new philosophy of the human organism, the vocation of the human organism is to become a person. The next emancipation is inner emancipation, which each must accomplish individually. From this perspective, Foster suggested that all must work together to assist the Negro for their cultural becoming. In 1902–3, Von Heinrich Weinel delivered six lectures in which he traced the destruction of the traditional portrait of Christ. Foster contended that Weinel claimed that no dogmatic affirmations about Jesus could be made unless they are consistent with Jesus’s real human nature. Foster claimed this to be the correct position because otherwise we have no sure valuation of Jesus. James Denny reviewed Weinel’s lectures and suggested that if he is correct Christianity has strayed from its original conception. He further suggested that if Christianity is to have a place in nature, it

144

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

required a radical change. Denny contended also that Christ’s confession of faith is the kernel of Christianity. Foster rejected this view for two decisive reasons, one psychological and the other moral. Since each person is unique, each person’s faith is unique. Foster concluded that “if being a Christian consists in thinking about Jesus as he thought about himself, then Jesus is the only Christian that there is.” At the 1909 Baptist Congress, Foster responded to papers relating pragmatism and theology, noting that there was little testimony on such a relationship. Speculative theology has been historically alien to pragmatism. Psychology and history of religions have explained the historical experience and the religion of science have presented the morphology and physiology of religion. The philosophy of religion determines the validity of the religious idea and the value of the religious motive. After these processes have provided their insights, Foster wonder what was left for theology to do, since “there was no subject-matter and no method of which theology has peculiar and exclusive use.”218 The justification of theology must be found in its practical religious use. Foster addressed the 16th Baptist Congress in 1898. Foster addressed “How Far Can the Truths of Christianity be Stated in Terms of Naturalism?” He proposed replacing the purposeless of mechanical causality of materialism with spiritual causality. It is spiritual causality, with its purposefulness, that distinguishes naturalism from materialism. Foster addressed the distinction between naturalism and traditional supernaturalism. The term traditionally is employed to mean before supernaturalism was corrupted by elements of naturalism. Naturalism stood between supernaturalism and absolute rationalism, but Foster conceded that naturalism is more in accord with the methodic principle of modern historical and natural science. He considered the suggestion that it was not necessary for the literary origin of the Gospel documents to be miraculous produced. Foster concluded that the very point of Christianity is that God is as good as Jesus. Faith in immortality was the kernel of the old rationalist religion. Without hope of eternal life, many might give up that religion from their subjective perspective. In the “Ethics of the Wage,” Foster viewed the “wage war” as a genuine sign of the time that revealed the divine life of humanity. The core of this issue is freedom, for freedom suggests that the laborer is worthy of hire. The laborers who must devise measures that will secure a just recompense for toil; but under no circumstances shall a wage fall below the normal expenditure of energy spent in doing the work.

Selection of Diverse Shorter Writings

145

At the 1909 Baptist Congress, a speaker was absent and Foster was asked to make a few “Remarks.” He noted that historical and philosophical criticism has led us to view the work of Christ as an unhistorical construction, resulting in the disintegration of the person and doctrine of Christ. Due to the scantiness of our information concerning Jesus, he suggested that Jesus was a supreme example of a universal law of solidarity and the law of dying to live. Through these laws, we have an organic relationship with Jesus expressed as our redemptive experience. It is through our emphasis on God’s immanence that the Cross is a constant in life. In Foster’s sermon on death, he noted that many persons conceived of death as their friend. He suggested that death is a strong witness to the Gospel. With that understanding, we face death unafraid. Foster and Clarence Darrow held a public debate on the question “Do Human Beings Have Free Will?” Foster contended that freedom and will are the same. The will is not some kind of independent substance that functions apart from relationships. Neither is freedom a property of the will. Foster further sought to explore the contention that freedom is not an extension of matter. He suggested that if he is correct, freedom is not an endowment but an achievement. Darrow indicated a willingness to focus on whether a person is free. He limited the will to being one’s state of mind before action. For Darrow, the question should be whether one is free to will as one will. Darrow contended that our lives would not be a problem if the theologians had not developed the idea of a soul that lives forever either in relation to God or the Devil. Darrow also contended there would be no free will because it would be God’s will, instead of an individual’s will. Foster suggested that Darrow offered a form of determinism that combined God’s Fore-ordination with Fate as the “fixing” forces behind things. Foster granted that we are all determined in part, but he contended that the real issue was whether we are simply determined by a past or whether we are determined by a future and its temptation. Darrow had supported his position by claiming that humans are animals. Foster insisted that humans are a different type of animal and rejected Darrow’s “old trick” to lower the dignity of man by exalting the dignity of animals. For Foster, human dignity is not submission to the environment or heredity but is demonstrated in our making these servants of our becoming. The key for Foster was that we live in an open and malleable universe to which we bring worth through the ideas for which we live. In “The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency,” Foster noted that modern education focused on learning by doing which

146

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

has led to the notion of a scientific ministry in which the minister is less prophet and priest and more as an administrative officer of a philanthropic and humanitarian institution. For Foster a minister is not called to social service but is called to ministering to the depth of humans’ needs. Now the watchword for training ministers is efficiency, which Foster noted is a shallow form of pragmatism that fails to reach the pragmatic depths. He insisted that the modern minister of efficiency could only offer superficial reforms. He suggested that a great merit of scientific theology is the recognition that prayers not proofs are the way God is known. When the young ministers complete formal theological education, they should recognize that education must continue because religion and theology are always in a process of becoming.

SUMMATION

George Burman Foster had an inquiring mind that enabled him to consume and to relate copious materials, which always placed him in varying degrees of tension with his Baptist tradition. However, he was totally committed to remaining in this Baptist tradition and remaining a Baptist ordained minister, even though the tensions increased with each of his publications. Even after his controversy with the Chicago Baptist Ministers’ Association, he remained committed to the importance of religion and to his ordination as a Baptist, with his understanding that the religion based on Jesus is a mythology. Foster was seldom invited to preach in a Baptist Church but was in much demand to preach at Unitarian Churches. Foster’s level of scholarship is more than impressive, especially if his family situation is fully realized. Mary Lyon Foster, his wife, was increasingly becoming an invalid, as revealed in his appeal to President Harper in 1900 for a raise of $500 to assist in their family expenses due to Mary’s neurasthenia. Mary Foster had given birth to five fragile children. Between 1902 and 1918, all five of the Foster’s children died from various causes. His final years were consumed by grief. However, in his grief he chose the topic “death” for his final sermon at the University of Chicago. Some persons argued that Foster tempered his humanistic religion during these years. Harvey Arnold noted that Foster had cried out to Shailer Mathews pathetically, on returning from the drowning of his son, Raymond, in 1902, “that there must be a God somewhere in the universe.”219 These deaths led Foster to doubt the very objective reality of God. Since he wrote no significant scholarly works at this time of his life, it is difficult to establish clearly a shift in his thought. He did write an essay entitled “A Homely Meditation, without Subtlety, on the Tragedy of the Steamship Titanic,” in which he asked: “how may we attain, not to a shadow God, not a God idea merely, but to the real and living God.”220 After Douglas C. Macintosh, a former student of Foster’s, read the essay on the Titanic; he wrote Foster asking “if the article did not represent a modification of the position taken in The Function of Religion.221 Foster replied to Macintosh. “Yes, I have passed through the slough of

148

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

epistemology subjectivity, and see more clearly and hold more firmly that objective and social reality of religion. Still, I think that dualism is dead… But a real God, and real man, a real world—our need of this is too imperious to give them up.” However, it is evident that within a few years he was asserting his radical thesis that humans do “not need to be redeemed with the old terrible redemption.”222 Foster continued to give lectures during these final years. Shortly before his death, he had delivered at Harvard Divinity School the Dudleian Lecture on “Revealed Religion” and had accepted to deliver the Nathaniel William Taylor lectures at Yale School of Religion on the subject “The God-idea.” Foster had completed in the summer of 1917 a series of lectures on Nietzsche at the University of Chicago. In Foster’s major work, The Finality of the Christian Religion, he established that Christianity had taken two forms. The first form was as an authority religion that evolved into a second form that was the religion of the spirit. The religion of the spirit involved human moral consciousness. For Foster, the issue was not about was passing or permanent in Christianity but whether there was anything permanent in Christianity. He conceived Jesus’s concept of God as Father to be more in line with the philosophical idea of immanence rather than transcendence. God is purely a spiritual reality for Jesus with whom he was spiritually and personally in communion. Christianity as an authority religion was based on the Bible being the Word of God. Thus, the Bible was conceived as a supernatural communication of doctrines, with these doctrines being divine because of their miraculous mode of origin. From this perspective, authority religion affirmed the inerrancy of Scriptures based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures were organized into a canon of God’s revelations, which served to reinforce authority religion in the form of the developing Roman Catholic Church. Foster rejected the allegorical method, employed by the Orthodox Church for determining the Word of God. The Reformation began a form of Christianity that abandoned miraculous supernaturalism. One approach was rationalism, which inserted natural causes in its explanation. The other approach viewed Christianity from a legendary or mythical hypothesis. Myths were not claimed to be historical reality but they were neither illusion nor superstition. Foster saw a rise of a humanistic perspective toward the end of the Middle Ages with a focus on the beauty of nature and of humans. This perspective included humans’ natural endowment, as well as their desires for goodness and truth in relation to history and nature. Foster designated this as Humanism. As Humanism developed, it transformed the scientific

Summation

149

view of nature, leaving humans within a boundless universe seeking knowledge based on critical reason. It also replaced the external creator by a beginning and endless process. Heaven and hell are only ideals. The transcendent is now revealed in humans as they seek an infinite becoming. Foster contended that the issue was whether God can function in the flux and change of time, since the God beyond the universe is dead. The deity becomes a moral ideal, with humans focusing on their inner nature. Foster noted that process, laws and methods were key words for the spirit-religion, which was based on a religion of the moral consciousness of humans. It is persons who save persons, not by ideas but by ideals. Persons are bound only by reason and conscience. Foster claimed that science was not opposed to religion; its real enemy was supernaturalism. Evolution reversed humanity’s relation to nature, with the God beyond space and time having been negated by the Copernican revolution. Individuals share a collective life, with each person’s goal becoming a personality. With the rise of the modern world, what had been considered eternal truths must be discovered anew within an individual’s spiritual life. The moral principles attributed to Jesus are no longer considered valid for all times. The information we have about Jesus and what is attributed to him is so sketchy that we are left only with a Jesus-mythology. All accounts about supernatural revelations are myths, since all values are inherent in nature and the historical order. For Foster, what was new in Jesus was his faith in the infinite worth of human personality. Foster postulated that such a faith is a modern expression of humanism. In The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence, Foster noted that the conception of God in a particular period was dependent upon the doctrine of the soul accepted by psychologist. Modern science employed the mathematico-mechanical method for manipulating phenomena, which led to the new psychology and its view of the soul as a system of ideas, with nature as a system of atoms. From biology emerged the focus on human development, with each organism being a selfdirecting system seeking its own development and preservation. Modern psychology views the soul as the generator of ideas that guides the organism in understanding its changing situations. Humans are not born free, for freedom is an attainment not an endowment. Individuals are only free within a common social environment. With the rise of humanism, humans relied upon the truth discovered in nature and in our common social organization. However, each individual is responsible for developing its capacities that will enable it to rise above our animal natures. Morality is a key achievement of the soul as it seeks to

150

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

function in and bring control to a larger reality. Foster contended that what make us humans are our capacities to postulate God. Thus, it is faith that makes religion. Foster suggested that religion was expressing our profoundest impulses in our intimate life, as the individual seeks the infinitely good, true, and beautiful. The only way to nurture these religious impulses is by leaving religion alone. The problem is that modern persons impose artificial ideas on the essential elements of religion. Foster claimed that if religion is not primarily about humanity’s life and spirit, its sense of unreality becomes an illusion. He was struck with how the teachings attributed to Jesus fit humanism and claimed that reform Christianity is Christian humanism. Foster questioned whether the inner witness of the Holy Spirit is adequate to cover all the Scriptures. We have no way of knowing whether the Scriptures’ report what Jesus’s followers really believed and whether it is relevant for all times. He noted that in modern thought the emphasis is on the experience of regeneration. However, the danger in this approach is over-emphasizing subjectivity, which turns faith into gnosis. Foster suggested that the value of this approach is its emphasis on rationality and the inner unity of the Christian faith. He did postulate that having an extrahistorical being entering humanity could be conceived only as mythology. Foster noted that in modern thought the emphasis on regeneration has shifted to a focus on growth. However, it did not enable Christians to support Darwin’s evolutionary theory because it violated their creationfaith. He suggested that the religious attitude that claimed cognitive value in relation to nature, history, and God is superstition. Foster also suggested that we could only determine whether our religion is true by finding the good in life. Foster considered whether modern persons need a reevaluation of Jesus for him to be relevant. Orthodoxy considered the essence of Christianity to be found in the Messianic role of Jesus. However, in modern thought the Messianic conception has been replaced by ideas of immanence and evolution, the larger problem remains between the eternal and the historical. Foster rejected Christianity as the only true religion because it is not a religion based on historical facts but is a religion of personality. He postulated that if Jesus had never lived and been crucified it would have make no essential difference. Orthodoxy’s basic error was viewing Jesus’s death as essential for our salvation because it failed adequately to express the functioning of God’s love and failed to grasp that the inner character of salvation is ethically determined. Foster postulated that ideas of good and evil are social conventions, but when we grasp the social genesis and growth of the moral, it dissipates its

Summation

151

influence upon us. Human growth and development has been established by evolution, but Jesus commanded unlimited love of God and our neighbor. However, we recognize our inability to fulfill Jesus’s command due to the power of sin in society. Foster suggested that sin is a social and individual reality that requires correcting by education and self-education. He noted that current education fails in this regard. Foster indicated that faith enables us to love and trust God, which also includes the duty to confess the faith. This faith enables our love for neighbor to be actualized. It was with the Reformers that secular culture was appreciated. It is only through realizing the ethical principle of the kingdom of God that the social order promotes righteousness and the public welfare. The pre-scientific world with its pre-scientific religions is behind us, but the problems with which Foster saw humanity confronted were spirituality, freedom and worth. Are people to be dominated by their work or is a vocation for the sake of the person? Will personality and humanity be secondary to the machine and capital in the secular world? Unfortunately, God and religion have not yet evolved as an original expression of our contemporary cultural needs. Religion for many continues to be dominated by a church dedicated to retaining an outmoded historical tradition. Foster proclaimed that modern persons must develop a religion that supports the highest values and ideals of contemporary culture, granting that these values and ideals are always becoming and culturally relative. Although he contributed to the theological conscience, which insisted upon scientific history and consistency, it is questionable whether our culture has evolved to a point of supporting Foster’s “religion without supernaturalism.” Nevertheless, Foster remains a key figure in the developing religious thought in American for destroying the claim of Christianity as the final and complete revelation of God and for demonstrating the appropriateness to the study of Christian traditions of the religio-historical method used in the study of Comparative Religion.

NOTES

Historical Sketch. 1. Mrs. L. G. Hoover, “A Timeless Life,” The West Virginia Review, February, 1929, p. 148. 2. J. V. Nash, “A Twentieth Century Emancipator,” The Open Court, Vol. XXXVI, No. 6, June, 1922, No. 793, pp. 321–2. 3. Cf. Edgar A. Towne, “A ‘Singleminded’ Theologian: George Burman Foster at Chicago,” Foundations: A Baptist Journal of History and Theology, Vol. XX, No. 1, January–March 1977 and Vol. XX, No. 2, April–June, 1977. 4. Cf. Harvey Arnold, God Before You and Behind You: The Hyde Park Union Church Through a Century 1874–1974, pp. 28–37. 5. “Remarks of Clarence Darrow at the Memorial Services to George Burman Foster and the Funeral of John P. Altgeld”, John F. Higgins, Printer, Chicago, Ill., 1919, p. 3. 6. Ibid., p. 4. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid., p. 6. The Finality of the Christian Religion. 9. In 1903, Foster concluded a series of lectures at Harvard Divinity School, which were published in 1906 as The Finality of the Christian Religion. 10. G. B. Foster, The Finality of the Christian Religion, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906. p. 5. 11. Ibid., p. 9. 12. Ibid., p. 10. 13. Ibid., p. 12. 14. Ibid., p. 15. 15. Ibid., p. 17. 16. Ibid., p. 19. 17. Ibid., p. 21. 18. Ibid., p. 29. 19. Ibid., p. 32. 20. Ibid., p. 34. 21. Ibid., p. 53. 22. Ibid., p. 56.

154

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

23. Ibid., p. 59. 24. Ibid., p. 64. 25. Ibid., p. 75. 26. Ibid., p. 77. 27. Ibid., p. 80. 28. Ibid., p. 81. 29. Ibid., p. 85. 30. Ibid., p. 92. 31. Ibid., p. 96. 32. Ibid., p. 108. 33. Ibid., p. 124. 34. Ibid., p. 126. 35. Ibid., p. 127. 36. Ibid., p. 137. 37. Ibid., p. 141. 38. Ibid., p. 142. 39. Ibid., p. 146–7. 40. Ibid., p. 157. 41. Ibid., p. 150. 42. Ibid., p. 154. 43. Ibid., p. 164. 44. Ibid., p. 168–9. 45. Ibid., p. 171. 46. Ibid., p. 174. 47. Ibid., p. 183. 48. Ibid., p. 186. 49. Ibid., p. 192. 50. Ibid., p. 198–9. 51. Ibid., p. 207. 52. Ibid., p. 211. 53. Ibid., p. 224. 54. Ibid., p. 232. 55. Ibid., p. 302. 56. Ibid., p. 311. 57. Ibid., p. 325. 58. Ibid., p. 328–9. 59. Ibid., p. 341. 60. Ibid., p. 347. 61. Ibid., p. 394. 62. Ibid., p. 405. 63. Ibid., p. 408.

Notes

155

64. Ibid., p. 412. 65. Ibid., p. 422. 66. Ibid., p. 426. 67. Ibid., p. 429. 68. Ibid., p. 433. 69. Ibid., p. 445. 70. Ibid., p. 481. 71. Ibid., p. 496. 72. Ibid., p. 502.

The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. 73. G. B. Foster, The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909, p. 3. 74. Ibid., pp. 4–5. 75. Ibid., p. 6. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., p. 7. 78. Ibid., p. 8. 79. Ibid., p. 9. 80. Ibid., p. 14. 81. Ibid., p. 18. 82. Ibid., p. 21. 83. Ibid., p. 25. 84. Ibid., p. 27. 85. Ibid., p. 30. 86. Ibid., p. 34. Christianity in Its Modern Expression. 87. G. B. Foster, Christianity in Its Modern Expression, New York: Macmillan, 1921; Reprint. Memphis, TN: General Books, 2010, p. 4. 88. Ibid., p. 19. 89. Ibid., p. 21. 90. Ibid., p. 30. 91. Ibid., p. 34. 92. Ibid., p. 35. 93. Ibid., p. 39. 94. Ibid., p. 42. 95. Ibid., p. 46. 96. Ibid., p. 58. 97. Ibid., p. 68. 98. Ibid., p. 80. 99. Ibid., p. 98.

156

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

100. Ibid., p. 103. 101. Ibid., p. 116. 102. Ibid., p. 120. 103. Ibid., p. 125. 104. Ibid., p. 132. 105. Ibid., p. 137. 106. Ibid., p. 144. 107. Ibid., p. 155. 108. Ibid., p. 162. 109. Ibid., Cf. p. 173. 110. Ibid., p. 174.

Nietzsche. 111. G. B. Foster, Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931. p. 5. 112. Ibid., p. 8. 113. Ibid., p. 132. Diverse Writings: Philosophy of Feminism. 114. G. B. Foster, “The Philosophy of Feminism,” The Forum, Vol. 52, July 1914. p. 10. [I have dealt with some of the sermons, debates, and short essays in previous writings on Foster and include them, with some revisions. Please note especially my The Empirical Tradition on American Liberal Religious Thought, 1860–1960. pp. 130–140.] 115. Ibid., p. 13. 116. Ibid., p. 15. 117. Ibid., p. 17. 118. Ibid., p. 19–20. 119. Ibid., p. 22. Diverse Writings: Pragmatism and Knowledge. 120. G. B. Foster, “Pragmatism and Knowledge,” The American Journal of Theology, XI (October 1907). p. 591. 121. Ibid., p. 594. 122. Ibid., p. 595. Diverse Writings: Theological Training. 123. G. B. Foster, “Theological Training for Our Times,” Biblical World. Vol. 9, No. 1. (January 1897), pp. 23–25. Diverse Writings: Status and Vocation. 124. G. B. Foster, “The Status and Vocation of Our Colored People,” The Survey, February 1, 1913. p. 568. 125. Ibid.

Notes

157

126. Ibid. 127. Ibid.

Diverse Writings: Recent Theological Literature. 128. G. B. Foster, “Recent Theological Literature,” American Journal of Theology, Vol. 9, April, 1905, p. 333. 129. Ibid., p. 334. 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid. Diverse Writings: Pragmatism as Philosophical Basis for Theology. 133. G. B. Foster, “Can Pragmatism Furnish a Philosophical Basis for Theology,” 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress. Chicago & New York: The University of Chicago Press, 1909. p. 26. 134. Ibid. 135. Ibid., p. 28. 136. Ibid., p. 29. 137. Ibid., p. 30. 138. Ibid., p. 31. Diverse Writings: Christianity in Terms of Naturalism. 139. G. B. Foster, “How Far Can the Truths of Christianity Be Stated in Terms of Naturalism?” Sixteenth Session of the Baptist Congress for the Discussion of Current Questions. New York: Baptist Congress Publishing Co., 1898, p. 134. 140. Ibid., p. 134–5. 141. Ibid., p. 135. 142. Ibid., p. 137. 143. Ibid., p. 138. 144. Ibid., p. 139. 145. Ibid., p. 140. Diverse Writings: Ethics of the Wage. 146. G. B. Foster, “The Ethics of the Wage,” The Sewanee Review, Vol. 29, January, 1921. p. 41. 147. Ibid. 148. Ibid., pp. 42–3. 149. Ibid., p. 42. Diverse Writings: Remarks to 27th Baptist Congress. 150. G. B. Foster, “Remarks,” 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress. Chicago and New York: University of Chicago Press, 1909. 151. Ibid., p. 106.

158

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

152. Ibid., p. 107. 153. Ibid., p. 108. 154. Ibid., p. 109.

Diverse Writings: Function of Death in Human Experience. 155. G. B. Foster, “The Function of Death in Human Experience,” p. 4. 156. Ibid., p. 5. 157. Ibid., p. 7. 158. Ibid., p. 8. 159. Ibid., p. 9. 160. Ibid., p. 12. 161. Ibid., p. 14. 162. Ibid., p. 15. 163. Ibid. 164. Ibid., p. 17. 165. Ibid. Diverse Writings: Do Human Beings Have Free Will? 166. G. B. Foster and Clarence Darrow. “Do Human Beings Have Free Will? p. 5. 167. Ibid., p. 6. 168. Ibid., p. 8. 169. Ibid. 170. Ibid., p. 11. 171. Ibid. 172. Ibid., p. 13. 173. Ibid., p. 19. 174. Ibid., p. 20. 175. Ibid., p. 21. 176. Ibid., p. 24. 177. Ibid., p. 26. 178. Ibid., p. 30. 179. Ibid., p. 35. 180. Ibid., p. 36. 181. Ibid., p. 37. 182. Ibid., p. 38. 183. Ibid., p. 39. 184. Ibid., p. 40. 185. Ibid., p. 42. 186. Ibid., p. 44. 187. Ibid. 188. Ibid., p. 45.

Notes

159

189. Ibid., p. 46. 190. Ibid., p. 47. 191. Ibid., p. 48. 192. Ibid., p. 49. 193. Ibid., p. 50. 194. Ibid., p. 51. 195. Ibid., p. 52. 196. Ibid., p. 55. 197. Ibid., p. 58.

Diverse Writings: Questions of a Sunday-School Catechism 198. G. B. Foster, Biblical World, Vol. 17, No. 3 (March, 1901). 199. Ibid. Diverse Writings: Critical Scholarship & Ministerial Efficiency 200. G. B. Foster, “The Contributions of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency,” pp. 734–5. 201. Ibid., p. 735. 202. Ibid., p. 737. 203. Ibid., p. 741. 204. Ibid., p. 743. 205. Ibid., p. 744. 206. Ibid., p. 745. 207. Ibid., p. 747. 208. Ibid., p. 748. 209. Ibid., p. 749. 210. Ibid., p. 750. 211. Ibid., p. 751. Diverse Writings: Concerning Immortality 212. G. B. Foster, “Concerning Immortality.” The Biblical World. New Series, XXVII (February, 1906). p. 123. 213. Ibid., p. 124. 214. Ibid., p. 126. 215. Ibid., p. 127. 216. Ibid., p. 129. 217. Ibid., p. 131. Diverse Writings: Conclusion 218. G. B. Foster, Christianity in Its Modern Expression, New York: Macmillan, 1921, Reprint: Memphis, TN: General Books. 2010. p. 4.

160

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

Summation 219. Harvey Arnold. Near the Edge of Battle Chicago: Divinity School Association, University of Chicago, 1966. Arnold, p. 158. 220. The Chicago Tribune, (April 21, 1912), part 1, p, 4. 221. Hjalmar W. Johnson, “The Religious Thought of George B. Foster,” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1931). p. 585. 222. G. B. Foster, “The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency,” The American Journal of Theology, Vol. XX, No. 2. p. 165.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnold, Harvey. God Before You and Behind You: The Hyde Park Union Church Through a Century 1874–1974. n.d. —. Near the Edge of Battle. Chicago: Divinity School Association, University of Chicago, 1966. Darow, Clarence. Remarks of Clarence Darrow at the Memorial Services to George Burman Foster and the Funeral of John P. Altgeld. Chicago: John F. Higgins, Printer, 1919. Foster, George Burman. “Can Pragmatism Furnish a Philosophical Basis for Theology.” 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress (The University of Chicago Press), 1909. —. Christianity in Its Modern Expression. New York: Macmillan, 1921. —. Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931. —. “How Far Can the Truths of Christianity be Stated in Terms of Naturalism?” Sixteenth Session of the Baptist Congress for the Discussion of Current Questions (Baptist Congress Publishing Co.), 1898. —. “Pragmatism and Knowledge.” The American Journal of Theology XI (October 1907). —. “Recent Theological Literature.” The American Journal of Theology 9 (April 1905). —. “Remarks.” 27th Annual Session of the Baptist Congress. Chicago and New York: University of Chicago Press, 1909. —. “Suggestions for the Questions of a Sunday-School Catechism.” Biblical World 17, no. 3 (March 1901). —. “The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency.” The American Journal of Theology XX, no. 2 (n.d.). —. “The Ethics of the Wage.”The Sewanee Review 29 (January 1921). —. The Finality of the Christian Religion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906. —. “The Function of Death in Human Experience.” n.d. —. The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909. —. “The Philosophy of Feminism.” The Forum 52 (July 1914). —. “The Status and Vocation of Our Colored People.” The Survey, February 1913.

162

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

—. “Theological Training for Our Times.” Biblical World 9, no. 1 (January 1897). —. and Clarence Darrow. “Do Human Beings Have Free Will?” n.d. —. “Concerning Immortality.” The Biblical World New Series XXVII (February 1906). Hoover, Mrs. L. G. “A Timeless Life.” The West Virginia Review, 1929. Johnson, Hjalmar W. The Religious Thought of George B. Foster. Ph. D Dissertation, Yale University, 1931. Nash, J. V. “A Twentieth Century Emancipator.” The Open Court XXXVI, no. 6 (June 1922). Peden, W. Creighton. Empirical Tradition in American Liberal Religious Thought 1860–1960. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. 2010. The Chicago Tribune.April 21, 1912: Section 1. Towne, Edgar A. “A ‘Singleminded’ Theologian: George Burman Foster at Chicago.” Foundations: A Baptist Journal of History and Theology XX, no. 1 & 2 (January–March & April–June 1977).

INDEX “ought”, 96–9, 107 Absoluteness, 7 accommodation, 13 principle of, 13 allegorical method, 13, 17, 47, 148 altruistic, 80, 96, 134 American Liberal Religious Thought, ix, 162 AMES, Edward Scribner, 65 AMMON, Christoph Friedrich von, 11 Anti-Christ, 109, 111 anti-feminist, 109 Antochian School, 15 apologetics, 19, 30, 122 AQUINAS, Thomas, 12, 20 ARISTOTLE, 21, 51 Armenians, 17 ARNOLD, Harvey, 64, 147, 153, 160 atoms, 51, 53, 59, 149 atonement, 91, 94–5 AUGUSTINE. See Saint Augustine of Hippo authority religion, 7–8, 12–3, 15–8, 47–8, 148 BACON, Francis, 1st Viscount St. Alban, 25 BALDWIN, Jesse A., 73 Baptist, ix, 1–2, 55, 60, 63–8, 70–7, 122, 127, 144–5, 147, 153, 157, 161–2 Baptist Ministers’ Conference, 75 BARCLAY, Robert, 16 BARTLETT, W. A., 74 BARTON, Mary. See Foster, Mary Barton basis of faith, 82–3, 104 Becoming, 7, 15, 19, 24–6, 29, 31– 3, 35–6, 41, 48, 54–6, 59–61, 74, 77, 82, 96, 99, 101–2, 104, 118–

9, 124, 130, 136, 138, 142–3, 145–7, 149, 151 humanity, 19, 48 beneficent doctrines, 12 BERGSON, Henri-Louis, 129 Bible, 12, 14–20, 34, 47, 52, 55, 60, 63–4, 77–8, 124, 138, 148 Biblical, 85–6, 92, 125, 138, 159, 162 biblical criticism, 15 Biblical faith, 92 biblical theology, 79 Biblical World, 64, 156, 159, 161–2 biology, 149 BJØRNSON, Bjørnstjerne Martinius, 2 BLOLS, Dr. Austen K, 64, 65 BOBBITT Gibson, 1 Permilla, 1 bodily resurrection, 19, 64, 82, 104 BOUSSET, Wilhelm, 41, 43 BRANDES, Georg Morris Cohen, 111 BRUNO, Giordano, 21 BRYCE, W. X, 66 BUDDHA, SiddhƗrtha Gautama, 80, 122 Byzantine Christ, 35 CALIXTUS, Georg, 15 CALVIN, John, 13, 17, 22, 90 canon, 13, 15–7, 47, 63, 84, 138, 148 capacities, 53, 59, 89, 149 capital, 103, 138, 151 Catholic, 10, 13, 16–8, 21–2, 26, 44–5, 47, 68, 70, 73, 85, 98, 100, 143, 148 Catholic Church, 16–8, 21–2, 44, 47, 68, 85, 98, 143, 148 Catholics, 7, 13, 17, 20, 23, 28, 44,

164

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

56, 73, 98 causation, 29, 99, 124–5, 135–6 Chicago News, 64 Chicago Post, 64 Chicago School, ix Chicago Tribune, 63–4, 66–76, 160, 162 CHRIST, 8, 10–1, 15, 17–8, 21, 35, 39, 43, 63, 68, 70, 74, 80–1, 83– 96, 98–100, 104–5, 109, 111, 117, 120–1, 127–130, 137, 143, 145 Byzantine, 35 divinity of, 68, 86–7, 105 Greek, 35, 121 Christian, 2, 7–8, 10–2, 15–6, 19– 20, 24, 29–32, 34–5, 40–1, 43, 51, 56, 60, 63–6, 77, 79–86, 88– 9, 91–109, 112, 121–2, 124,137, 142, 144, 148, 150–1, 153, 161 Dogmatics, 79, 83, 98, 104 ethics, 31, 96, 98 humanism, 83, 104, 150 Perfection, 99 religion, 2, 7–8, 19, 24, 43, 51, 63, 66, 69, 77, 79, 81, 83, 91– 2, 94, 104, 142, 148, 153, 161 religious character, 100 Christianity, 2, 5, 7–12, 15, 19–20, 23–5, 29, 31–2, 34–6, 41, 44–9, 63–4, 66–8, 73, 80–6, 88, 91–3, 98, 102, 104, 106–7, 109, 111–3, 117–8, 120, 124–5, 139, 141, 143–4, 148, 150–1, 155, 157, 161 evangelical, 2 primitive, 46, 111 Christianity in Its Modern Expression, 79, 155, 159, 161 Christians, 12, 16, 19, 21, 34, 40–2, 44, 72, 75, 80, 85, 98–9, 102, 104, 107, 125, 130, 150 evangelical, 72, 75, 85 Christology, 11, 91–3 dogmatic, 91 CICERO, Marcus Tullius, 16 Civil War, 1

Colored People, 118, 156, 161 Comparative Religion, 2, 64, 151 COMTE, Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier, 33 conscience, 8, 19, 21, 25–6, 38, 46, 48, 96–8, 102, 107, 126, 131–2, 134–7, 149, 151 religiously determined, 98 conversion, 19–20, 99 Copernican theory, 22 cosmic Messiah, 85 cosmic process, 95, 101, 123 creation-faith, 29, 88, 105, 150 CROW, J. C., 76 crucifixion, 41, 45, 94 Cults, 80 culture, 39, 44, 46, 54, 91, 98, 102, 107, 110, 112, 118, 132, 151 DARROW, Clarence Seward, 2–4, 131–6, 145, 153, 158, 161–2 DARWIN, Charles Robert, ix, 20, 24, 26, 30, 53, 80, 111–2, 123, 150 Davidson College, ix death, 3, 16, 38–9, 43, 54, 82–3, 94– 5, 100, 106–7, 109, 111–2, 127, 129–30, 137, 141–2, 145, 147–8, 150 DEMIURGE, 15 DENNY, James, 120, 143–4 dependence, 26, 80, 92, 99, 101, 103–4, 131 determinism, 97, 99, 107, 110, 134– 5, 145 DEVIL, 21, 45, 47, 133, 145 DEWEY, John, 122 Disciples of Christ Church, 65 divine causality, 19 divine immanence, 94 doctrine of, 94 divine immanency, 22 modern principle of, 22 Divine Will, 17 divinity of Christ, 68, 86–7, 105 divorce, 102 DIXON, Amzi Clarence, 71–2, 75 doctrine of the soul, 51, 59, 149

Index DOGGETT, Ann and Lewis, ix Dogmatics, 79, 83–6, 104, 122 Christian, 79, 83, 98, 104 Christology, 91 Scripture, 85 dualistic conception, 81, 104 DUN SCOTUS, Blessed John, 21 duty, 7, 19, 25, 46, 65, 99–102, 107, 118, 126, 134, 136, 143, 151 EARL, John A., 71, 75 ecclesiastical, 11–3, 19, 21, 23, 25, 30, 35, 54, 70, 77, 79, 83, 92–3, 113, 122, 139 edification, 41 efficiency, 91, 99, 135, 138–9, 146 emancipation, 90, 117–8, 143 empirical, ix, 11, 32, 34, 36–7, 54, 60, 86–7, 92, 97, 105–6, 111, 124, 141 Empirical Tradition in American Liberal Religious Thought, 162 empiricism, 26, 112 end of the world, 31, 42, 86–7, 93, 105 endowments, 53, 56, 59–60 error of orthodoxy, 95, 106, 150 eschatological, 44 eschatology, 82, 104 essence, 22–4, 33–6, 53, 58–9, 78, 84, 86, 88–9, 91–3, 97, 104–6, 122, 150 eternal gospel, 10 eternal life, 82, 85, 87, 90, 101, 104, 107, 129, 141, 144 Eternal Recurrence, 111 eternity, 1, 31, 89 EUCKEN, Rudolf Christoph, 23 evangelical, 2, 39, 72, 74–5, 78, 85, 88, 91 Christianity, 2 Christians, 72, 75, 85 faith, 88 evangelism, 41 Evil, 8, 20, 39, 43, 61, 90, 96–8, 103, 107, 111, 118, 129, 150 evolution, 8, 23–4, 26, 29–31, 48,

165 55–6, 60, 80, 83, 91, 106–7, 112, 118, 120, 124–5, 150–1 evolutionism, 7, 27, 29, 34, 48 spiritualistic, 27, 48 external creator, 22, 48, 149 extra-canonical tradition, 13 faith, 2, 8, 10, 12–21, 24–6, 29–32, 34, 38–42, 45, 47, 49, 51, 55–61, 64–5, 71, 73, 75, 78–96, 99, 101– 2, 104–7, 115, 120, 122, 130, 135–6, 138–9, 141–2, 144, 149, 150–1 evangelical, 88 new, 16, 20 faiths against faiths, 81, 104 FATHER, 16, 39, 45, 47, 81, 86–7, 104, 137, 148 FELSENTHAL, E. B., 73 FENN, William Wallace, 4 FEUERBACH, Ludwig Andreas von, 33 finality, 4, 7–8, 11, 19–20, 24, 43, 47–8, 111, 130 First Baptist Church Saratoga Springs, NY, 2 First Congregational Church, 74 FORD, Smith T., 72 forgiveness of sin, 82, 85, 101 FOSTER George Burman, ix, 1–4, 7–12, 14–32, 34–6, 38–45, 47–8, 51–7, 59–61, 63–111, 113–36, 138–9, 141–51, 153, 155–62 Harrison, 3 James, 1 Louisa Ann Bobbitt, 1 Mary, 3 Mary Barton, 1 Mary Lyon, 2, 3, 147 Mary Pownell, 1 Oliver Harrison, 1 Raymond, 3 Free Religious Association, ix free will, 2, 131, 133, 136, 145, 158, 162 freedom, ix, 4, 11, 21–2, 25, 28, 30–

166

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

1, 33, 36, 52–3, 59, 67–8, 70–1, 76, 96–100, 103, 106–7, 114, 117, 126, 13–2, 134–6, 139, 143– 5, 149, 151 fully human, 54, 60 Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence, 74 functional psychology, 115 Galilee, 38, 40 Garrick Theater, 3 GASTON, John N., ix GOD, 8–24, 26, 29–32, 35, 38–40, 42–5, 47–8, 51–3, 55–7, 59–61, 68, 73–4, 76–108, 113, 116, 120– 1, 124–5, 128, 130, 132–4, 137– 9, 141–2, 144–51, 153, 161 as Father, 45 as holy, 45 as King, 45 as superstition, 105, 150 Kingdom of, 38–9, 42, 44, 47, 86–8, 90, 98, 100, 102–3, 105, 107–8, 113, 151 living, 23, 45, 147 Trinitarian, 23 will of, 44 God Before You and Behind You, 64 God-consciousness, 106 Godhead, 10, 88 good, 10, 14, 24, 29, 31, 39, 42, 44– 5, 57, 61, 67–8, 70, 81, 87–9, 91– 2, 96, 98–9, 102–3, 105–7, 109, 114, 117, 119, 124–5, 135, 141, 143–4, 150 good works, 99, 107 GOODSPEED, Thomas W., 66, 73–4 Gospel, 10, 25, 38, 88, 124–5, 144 grace, 19, 85, 89, 91, 93, 102, 106 divine, 89, 93, 106 doctrine of, 91 essential importance of, 85 miracle of, 19 of God, 102 Greek Christ, 35, 121 growth, 7, 33, 77, 87, 96–7, 99, 105, 107, 129, 150

GUNKLE, Hermann, 41 HARNACK, Adolf von, 34–5 HARPER, William Rainey, 2–3, 66, 147 Harvard, 4, 73, 148, 153 Divinity School, 4, 148, 153 Heaven, 22, 32, 38, 43, 81, 104 HEGEL, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 11, 14–5, 17–8, 79 Hell, 22, 48, 65, 141, 149 heredity, 30, 96, 131, 133, 136, 145 HERMANN, Bernard, 8, 41, 56 Hibbert Journal, 122 HIRSCH, Dr. Emil Gustav, 65 historical criticism, 10, 15, 35, 120– 1, 127 historical Jesus, 39 historicity, 14, 43 HOBBES, Thomas of Malmesbury, 51 Holy Spirit, 10–4, 18, 47, 81, 83–4, 87, 99, 104–5, 125, 148, 150 HOPKINS, Frederick E., 75 Hudson Library, Highlands, North Carolina, ix human, 4, 7–14, 16–20, 22–4, 26, 28–9, 31, 33, 35–6, 38–9, 42–3, 45, 49, 52–7, 60, 69, 74, 77, 80– 3, 86–7, 89–100, 102, 104–7, 112–4, 118, 120, 123, 125–6, 129, 131–2, 135–6, 138, 142–3, 145, 149 doctrine of duties, 16 experience, 61 fully, 54 growth, 107 nature, 18, 54 humanism, 21, 48, 54, 60, 148 humanistic perspective, 21, 48, 148 humanity, 5, 8, 19, 21, 25–6, 33, 36, 38, 45, 48, 53–4, 57, 59–61, 83, 87, 89–94, 97, 105, 118, 126, 129, 135, 141, 143–4, 149–51 ideal of, 53, 59, 118, 141, 143 humanness, 39, 45, 118 humans, 7, 9–10, 12–3, 19, 21–26,

Index 29–31, 33, 37, 42, 44, 47–8, 52– 61, 63, 73, 77, 79–82, 86–91, 93– 7, 100, 102, 104–8, 113, 118, 123, 125, 128–9, 131–6, 138, 141–3, 145–6, 148–9 as natural creatures, 60 capacity to postulate God, 55, 60, 150 make their gods, 61 HUME, David, 17–8 hypothesis, 18, 26, 29, 47, 55, 80, 123, 148 legendary, 18, 47 mythical, 148 IBSEN, Henrik Johan, 2 idea of necessity, 28 idealism, 119, 122, 134, 141 illusion, 18, 47, 55, 57, 61, 79, 110, 126, 132, 148, 150 immanence, 7, 22, 24, 45, 47–8, 53, 91, 94, 106, 120, 128, 145, 148, 150 divine, 94 of God, 94 immanent, 8, 20, 22, 28, 95, 141 immanent criticism, 8 immortality, 4, 10, 64–6, 139, 141, 144 Independents, 56, 60 inerrancy of Scripture, 14, 47, 148 infallibility, 13, 15 infinity, 1, 22 infinity of becoming, 22 inner revelation, 16 inner witness, 14, 47, 81, 84, 105, 148, 150 doctrine of, 84 inspiration, 13, 14, 19, 34, 41, 63–4, 84, 138 doctrine of, 14, 84 JACKSON, Rev. J. L., 65 JAMES, William, 57 JESUS, 7–12, 14, 16–9, 23–4, 31–2, 34–5, 38–45, 47, 49, 63, 77, 80– 9, 91–5, 98–102, 104–7, 113, 120, 124–5, 127, 130, 137, 142–

167 5, 147–51 as the Messiah, 39–40, 42–3, 91 fit humanism, 104, 150 historical, 39 pictures of, 23, 38 JESUS CHRIST, 81, 83–5, 87 Jesus-mythology, 49, 149 Jewish, 35, 38, 43, 45, 83, 104, 121 Jewish Messiah, 121 JOACHIM of Fiore, 10 JOHN, 10, 12, 15, 38–40, 49 of Damascus, 12 JONES, Rev. Jenkin L., 65 Journal of History and Theology, 153, 162 JUDSON, Harry Pratt, 71–3, 76 KALTHOFF, Albert, 38 KANT, Immanuel, 17–8, 20, 24, 33, 56, 92 Kingdom of God, 38–9, 42, 44, 47, 86–8, 90, 98, 100, 102–3, 105, 107–8, 113, 151 KRUG, Wilhelm Traugott, 11 labor, 29, 45, 103, 115, 126 language, 34, 36, 41, 53, 57, 65, 96 laws, 17–8, 21, 24, 26, 28–9, 36, 44, 48, 88, 92, 96, 115, 125, 127, 130, 133, 139, 143, 145, 149 natural, 28–9, 48 legendary hypothesis, 18, 47 LEIBNIZ, Gottfried Wilhelm von, 17 Leipzig University, 109 LESSING, Gotthold Ephraim, 10, 14– 6, 18 liberalism, 92 LOEB, Jacques, 18 logical criticism, 8 Logos, 12, 35, 39, 80, 121 LOISY, Alfred Firmin, 34 LOTZE, Rudolf Hermann, 30 love, 2, 4, 19, 28, 39, 44–5, 47, 57– 8, 81–3, 87, 88–90, 93–5, 98–9, 101–2, 104, 106–7, 109–11, 130, 134, 139, 141–2, 150–1 Love to God, 98, 101–2 LUKE, 3, 39–40

168

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

LUTHER, Martin, 13, 15–7, 22, 25, 39, 44, 98, 113, 117 LYON, Mary. See Foster, Mary Lyon MACINTOSH, Douglas C., 147 MACLAURIN, Donald D., 70, 75 MAETERLINCK, Maurice Polydore Marie Bernard, 2, 142 MANGASRIAN, Mangasar Magurditch, 65 MARK, 38–40 MARTYR, Justin, 12 MARX, Karl Heinrich, 126 MARY, 113 materialism, 9, 28, 51, 59, 124, 144 supernatural, 51, 59 materialistic, 28, 52, 97, 124 mathematico-mechanical method, 51, 59, 149 MATTHEW, 39–40 MCELVEEN, William T., 74 MCFAUL, James A., 73 McMasters University, 2 Meadville Theological School Library, ix mechanistic principle, 32 MENDEL, Gregor Johann, 30 merit, 46, 139, 146 Messiah, 35, 39–40, 42–3, 80, 85, 91, 121, 127 Jesus as the, 39–40, 42–3, 91 the Jewish, 35, 121 metaphysics, 31, 65, 77, 81, 96, 110–2 of the will, 112 methods, 24, 48, 86, 149 MEYERS, Reverend Johnston, 64, 67–75 Middle Ages, 10, 21, 35, 48, 53, 60, 113, 115, 121, 148 miracle. See miracles miracles, 12, 17–9, 20, 28–9, 35, 39, 42, 48, 63–4, 66, 88–9, 125, 137 nature, 137 spirit, 137 monism, 31, 36, 82, 88, 134 Montanistic, 10

MONTANUS, 10 MOORE, Addison Webster, 67 moral evil, 45, 47 morality, 24, 31–2, 35, 39, 44, 53–4, 59–60, 80, 94, 96, 98–9, 102, 104, 141, 149 mystery, 8, 26, 28, 32, 37, 42, 45, 47 mystic, 12, 35, 87 myth, 43, 73, 77, 94, 106 mythical hypothesis, 148 mythology, 23, 43, 49, 87–8, 105–6, 147, 149–50 myths, 18, 47, 148 natural laws, 18, 28–9, 48 natural religion, 12, 35 naturalism, 8–9, 26, 28–9, 33, 48, 83, 124–5, 144, 157, 161 Nature, 51, 59, 112, 122 nature-beings, 31, 48, 99 nature-miracles, 137 Negroes, 118, 143 neo-positivism, 123 new faith, 16, 20 new philosophy, 23, 143 new psychology, 51, 59, 149 new science, 22, 29 new supernaturalism, 14 New Testament, 10, 15–7, 23, 47, 83–4, 86–8, 90–1, 99 NEWTON, Sir Isaac, 26 NIETZSCHE, Friedrich Wilhelm, 2, 109–12, 148, 156, 161 obedience, 25, 41, 52, 57, 61, 84, 94, 98 OCCAM, William of, 21 Old Testament, 10, 15–7, 84, 86, 88, 90, 93, 98, 137 Omnipotence, 89 organism, 30, 52–4, 59, 92, 114–5, 118, 123, 143, 149 original sin, 54, 89 orthodoxy, 7, 10, 18, 45, 56, 63–4, 83–4, 91, 95, 106, 150 downfall of, 84 ecclesiastical, 83

Index error of, 95, 106, 150 opposition to, 10 principles of, 63–4 tragic history of, 45 OWEN, John, 22 PARAKLETE, 10 passions, 31, 54–5, 60, 89, 118 PAUL, 12, 39–41, 85, 87, 103, 113, 129, 137 PAULUS, Friedrich, 18 PEDEN, W. Creighton, ix, 162 penal satisfaction, 94, 106 perfectibility, 7, 10–1 Perfection, 11, 54, 83, 99, 138 personality, 4, 19, 21, 24, 29, 33, 35, 37, 42, 45, 48–9, 58, 69, 75, 80– 3, 87, 91, 93–4, 104, 106, 114, 120, 123, 138–9, 142, 149, 151 PFLEIDERER, Otto, 43, 125 philology, 10, 109–10 philosophy, 2, 4, 7, 23, 26–7, 32, 37, 48, 64, 67, 73, 79, 84, 91–2, 96, 110–1, 113, 115, 118, 122, 125, 143–4 new, 23, 143 pictures of Jesus, 23, 38 pietism, 44 piety, 28–9, 58, 92, 139 Pilgrim Congregational Church, 75 poesy, 55 POLYBIUS, 36 power, 4, 18–9, 21–2, 25, 31, 39, 43–5, 47, 80, 82, 92, 94–8, 104, 107, 112, 118, 121, 124, 151 pragmatism, 115–6, 122–3, 156–7, 161 Prayer, 57, 61 predetermined, 55 pre-scientific, 118, 151 primitive Christianity, 46, 111 Princeton University, 73 process, 3, 8, 13, 15, 18–9, 22–4, 26, 28, 31–2, 34–6, 41, 45, 48, 52–5, 60, 77, 81–3, 95, 101, 103– 4, 112, 123–5, 127, 132, 135, 146, 149

169 proofs, 18, 57, 81, 139, 146 prophecy, 12, 14, 17 prophets, 12, 43 moral character of, 12, 101 Protestant, 10–1, 14, 26, 34, 99, 113 Reformers, 10 Protestantism, 17, 26, 34–5, 44, 46, 48, 56, 87 Protestants, 7, 12–5, 17–8, 20, 28, 34, 56, 85 providence-faith, 88 psychification, 55 psychology, 42, 51–3, 56, 59, 74, 77, 87, 97, 115, 123, 143, 149 functional, 115 new, 51, 59, 149 public welfare, 103, 108, 151 PUSFORD, W. Hanson, 76 Quakers, 16 QUALE, William Alfred, 65 rationalism, 18–20, 24, 26, 47, 56, 83, 85, 125, 139, 141, 143–4, 148 rationalist, 12, 54, 69, 141, 144 rationalistic criticism, 91 Redeemer, 11, 74 redemption, 44 Reformation, 21, 23, 47, 85, 87–8, 102, 117, 121, 148 regeneration, 20, 85, 87, 99, 105, 138, 150 religio-historical, 7, 9, 81, 86, 151 method, 7, 151 movement, 81, 86 study, 9 religion, 2–3, 5, 7–8, 11–9, 22–6, 28–35, 37, 41, 43, 46–8, 52, 54– 61, 63–4, 66–70, 74, 76–7, 79– 81, 83, 91–4, 96–7, 99, 102, 104, 106–7, 115, 117, 122, 129, 139, 142–4, 146–51, 153, 161 as a set of ideas, 56 as a system of beliefs, 56, 61 as supernatural materialism, 59 based on knowledge of God, 56 Christian, 2, 7–8, 19, 24, 43, 51, 63, 66, 69, 77, 79, 81, 83, 91–

170

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

2, 94, 104, 142, 148, 153, 161 of ideals, 24 of personality, 17, 93, 106, 150 primary elements of, 57 usefulness of, 57, 61 Renaissance, 21 repentance, 93–4, 99 resurrection, 14, 16, 19, 39, 64, 82– 3, 91, 95, 104, 127, 137 of Jesus, 137 of the body, 19, 64, 82, 104 retribution, 10, 141 revealed religion, 10–1, 15 revelation, 9–10, 12–3, 15–6, 18– 20, 22, 24, 26, 29–30, 32, 34, 47– 9, 54, 80, 82–8, 98, 104–5, 124– 5, 129, 137, 139, 151 righteousness, 10, 45, 90, 95, 103, 108, 151 RITSCHL, Albrecht, 86, 109–10 Rochester Baptist Theological Seminary, 2 ROCKEFELLER, John Davison, 2, 71 sacrament, 63, 86–7, 138 sacramental, 51–2, 59 SAINT AUGUSTINE of Hippo, 12 salvation, 14, 25, 27, 39, 51, 59, 63– 4, 81, 84–6, 93, 95, 106, 137, 150 sanctification, 90, 99, 138 sanctification of the community, 90 SATAN, 42, 90 SCHLEIERMACHER, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, 11, 15, 39, 56, 92 SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur, 36, 109–12 science, 8–9, 19–22, 24–6, 28–31, 34, 36, 41, 43, 47–8, 51–2, 54, 56–7, 59, 63, 65, 79, 80–1, 83–6, 97, 102, 104, 110, 112, 115–6, 122, 124–5, 130, 135–6, 138–9, 143–4, 149 new, 22, 29 scientific, ix, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 24, 28–9, 36–8, 44, 48, 56, 63, 79, 83–4, 88, 92, 115–6, 118, 120, 123, 129, 138–9, 146, 148, 151 theology, 139

scriptural interpretation, 34 Scripture, 10–1, 13–6, 34, 47, 56, 60, 78, 81, 84–5, 87–8, 95, 98, 104–5, 148, 150 as the Word of God, 13–4 inerrancy of, 14, 47, 148 Scriptures. See Scripture secular culture, 102, 108, 151 secular knowledge, 10 secularism, 44 Shelton College, 1 SIMON, Richard, 15 Sin, 9, 12, 19, 24, 31–2, 42, 54, 82, 85, 89–90, 94, 97–9, 101–2, 105, 107, 119, 125, 151 Christian view of, 89 emancipation from, 90 forgiveness of, 82, 85, 101 hereditary, 12, 31 human, 89, 125 kingdom of, 42, 90, 99 original, 54, 89 power of, 31, 94, 97–8, 151 universality of, 89, 99 sinlessness, 11, 93 SMITH, F. A., 73 SMITH, Gerald Birney, 66 SMITH, John Merlin Powis, 4 social conventions, 107, 150 social movements, 103 social self, 57 social-utilitarian morality, 96 society, 21, 24, 33, 44, 53–5, 60, 76, 82, 89, 96–7, 98, 100, 103, 107, 109, 114, 126, 131, 133, 138, 141, 151 Socinianism, 91 Socinians, 12, 14, 17 SOCINUS, Lelio, 92 SOCRATES, 110, 112 soul, 5, 9, 12, 21, 23–4, 28, 33, 51– 61, 78, 109, 118–9, 124, 129, 132–3, 139, 141–3, 145, 149 doctrine of, 51, 59, 149 SPINOZA, Benedict de, 13–8, 48, 52, 92

Index spirit religion, 48, 81, 104 spirit-miracles, 137 spiritual discipline, 44 Spiritualism, 21 spiritualistic evolutionism, 27, 48 STONE, Jerome A., ix STRATON, John R., 66 STRAUSS, David Friedrich, 15, 17, 110, 112 substitutionary, 94 supererogation, 100 Superman, 111 supermundane, 80, 82, 104 supernatural materialism, 51, 59 supernaturalism, 8, 12, 14–16, 18– 20, 26, 33, 35, 42, 47–8, 56–7, 61, 124–5, 144, 148–9, 151 absolute, 12, 125 new, 14 traditional, 124, 144 superstition, 18, 47, 88, 105, 148, 150 superstitions, ix, 28 TAINE, Hippolyte-Adolphe, 111 teleology, 26, 30, 84, 89, 92, 123 TENNYSON, Alfred Lord, 45 TERTULLIAN, Quintus Septimius Florens, 12 The American Journal of Theology, 156, 160–1 The British Weekly, 120 The Empirical Tradition on American Liberal Religious Thought, 1860–1960, 156 The Finality of the Christian Religion, 51, 66, 69, 153, 161 The Forum, 156, 161 The Function of Religion in Man’s Struggle of Existence, 67–72, 77, 149, 155, 161 the Jewish Messiah, 35 The Open Court, 153, 162 The Sewanee Review, 157, 161 The Survey, 156, 161 The West Virginia Review, 153, 162 theology, 2, 28, 34, 40–1, 51–2, 66,

171 72, 79, 86, 88, 92, 104, 109, 122– 3, 139, 144, 146 thinking, 9, 23–4, 27, 29, 44, 54, 60, 73, 118, 121, 126, 144 time, 1, 3, 8, 10–1, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22, 29–32, 35–6, 41–3, 48, 52, 60, 65–6, 71–2, 76–7, 89, 91–2, 95, 100, 105, 110, 113, 118, 121, 126–8, 143–4, 149 TINDAL, Matthew, 16 tradition, ix, 15–7, 20, 23, 31–2, 34, 38, 40, 55, 60, 86, 96, 109, 131, 147, 151 traditionalist, 12 transcendence, 45, 47, 148 Trinitarian God, 23, 77 trinity, 74, 87 TROELTSCH, Ernst, 4, 35, 37 truth, 5, 8, 10, 16–7, 19, 21–4, 26, 29–31, 33–4, 43, 45, 48, 52, 54– 61, 67, 76, 79, 83, 96, 98, 104–5, 109, 115, 117, 121–5, 130, 139, 143, 148–9 TUFTS, James Hayden, 4 TULLER, M., 67 Unitarian, 3, 68, 70, 72, 147 University at Bale, 110 University of Bonn, 109 University of Chicago, ix, 2, 4, 63– 8, 71–5, 77, 129, 131, 147–8, 153, 155, 157, 160–1 Divinity School of, 2, 64–6, 160– 1 Libraries of, ix University of West Virginia, 1 University of Wisconsin, 3 value-judgments, 82, 96 VAN HISE, Charles Richard, 3 virgin birth, 18 virtue, 81, 99–102, 107, 134 vocation, 44, 54, 58, 61, 83, 93, 98, 100, 102, 107–8, 118, 138, 143, 151 as a concept of duty, 100 as social worth, 100 to achieve highest ideals, 58, 61

172

From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion

to become a person, 118 to become a personality, 93 to become fully human, 60 voluntarism, 112, 123 wage war, 126, 144 WAGNER, Wilhelm Richard, 110–2 WEINEL, Von Heinrich, 120, 143 WESLEY, John, 22 will, 8, 10, 17–8, 24, 29, 32, 38, 39, 43–4, 48, 53, 57, 59, 61, 63, 66–

8, 70, 72–4, 80–3, 86, 88–90, 94, 96–101, 105–6, 111–2, 116, 119, 121–2, 124, 126, 129, 131–3, 136, 144–5, 149 will of God, 44 Will to Power, 111–2 Word of God, 13–6, 47, 148 Yale University, 2, 73, 148, 160, 162 ZWINGLI, Huldrych, 12