Religion of Democracy : An Intellectual Biography of Gerald Birney Smith, 1868–1929 [1 ed.] 9781443868730, 9781443861694

Citation preview

Religion of Democracy

Religion of Democracy: An Intellectual Biography of Gerald Birney Smith, 1868–1929

By

W. Creighton Peden

Religion of Democracy: An Intellectual Biography of Gerald Birney Smith, 1868–1929, by W. Creighton Peden This book first published 2014 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 © 2014 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): 1-4438-6169-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-6169-4

TO My Friend and Colleague John N. Gaston

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................... ix Historical Sketch ........................................................................................ 1 First Decade The Writings Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education ........... 5 Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought .......................................... 8 The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement ....... 9 Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message ...................................... 15 The Task and Method of Systematic Theology ..................................... 17

The First Windup .............................................................................. 21 Second Decade The Writings Can the Distinction Between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books Be Maintained? ........................................................................................... 25 Christianity and Critical Theology ........................................................ 27 The Function of a Critical Theology ..................................................... 29 Social Idealism and the Changing Theology ......................................... 31 Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation .................... 44 The Problem of Theological Method..................................................... 46 Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion? ....................................................... 47 Christianity and History ........................................................................ 49 What Is Christianity? ............................................................................. 51 Theology and the Doctrine of Evolution ............................................... 53 What Shall the New Testament Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar? ............................................................................... 54 Truthfulness In Teaching The Truth ...................................................... 57 Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy .............................................. 58 Democracy and Religious Experience ................................................... 62 Christianity and Industrial Democracy .................................................. 64 Christianity and Political Democracy .................................................... 68 The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age ....................................... 71 Making the Church Safe for Democracy: III. Democracy and Church.. 75

The Second Windup ......................................................................... 77

viii

Table of Contents

Third Decade The Writings Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity ......................................... 85 The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History ......................................... 86 The Realities of the Christian Religion ................................................. 86 The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty .............................................. 87 The Spirit of Evangelical Theology....................................................... 89 Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching? ................................ 91 Principles of Christian Living ............................................................... 94 What Does Contribute to the Modern Preacher? ................................ 105 Is Theism Essential To Religion? ........................................................ 107 The Education of Religious Leaders ................................................... 110 Some Elements Entering Into Present-Day Religious Experience....... 111 Science and Religion ........................................................................... 113 Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education .......................................... 117 Theological Thinking In America ....................................................... 119 Current Christian Thinking.................................................................. 121 Religious Experience Through Worship ............................................. 131 Training Christian Ministers................................................................ 133 Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation .................. 134 The Problem of Authority in Protestantism ......................................... 136 What is the Matter With Religion and What is to be Done About It? . 139 Traditional Religion in a Scientific World .......................................... 140 The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics ...................................... 140

The Third Windup .......................................................................... 143 Finale View of Religion ............................................................................ 157 Democracy...................................................................................... 158 Scientific Method ........................................................................... 159 Doctrines ........................................................................................ 161 Ethics .............................................................................................. 164 Notes....................................................................................................... 167 Publications from the Empirical Project ................................................. 173 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 175 Index ....................................................................................................... 179

PREFACE

For the past fifty years, I have been researching and writing on the empirical tradition in American philosophy and religious thought for the years 1860 through 1960. My first focus was on the Free Religious Association, formed in 1867. The FRA was composed of thinkers who accepted Darwin’s findings and who 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 focused on those philosophers and theologians who composed the early University of Chicago Divinity School. To be a member of this faculty, one had to commit to the scientific method in all areas of exploration. Gerald Birney Smith joined the Chicago Divinity School faculty in 1900 and served as their primary person in theology. The current volume on Gerald Birney Smith concludes my research and writing on the empirical tradition. For those who would like to explore further, a complete list of “Publications from the Empirical Project” is included near the end of this volume. If you will explore the Table of Contents, you will note that we begin with a Historical Sketch, consider Smith’s writings in three different decades, and conclude each decade with a summary “windup.” This approach provides the reader the opportunity to consider the development of Smith’s theology. I am indebted to Sue Barrett, a friend since my doctoral studies at St. Andrews University, for serving as an external critic for this manuscript. Sue provided detailed suggestions, for which I would like to express my sincere appreciation. I also wish to express my appreciation to Pamela Crosby for her assistance in securing copies of articles by G. B. Smith. I am also indebted to John N. Gaston, a close friend and fellow graduate of Davidson College, for his computer assistance, as I am more than technologically challenged. Appreciation is also expressed to the University of Chicago Libraries and to the Hudson Library of Highlands, North Carolina. —W. Creighton Peden, 2014

HISTORICAL SKETCH

Gerald Birney Smith (May 3, 1868–April 3, 1929) was born in Middlefield, Massachusetts. His parents were Metcalf John and Harriet Louise (Eldredge) Smith. He was a descendent of Matthew Smith, who emigrated from England to Massachusetts in 1637. Smith attended the public schools of Middlefield and received further education at home from his father, who was college educated. Metcalf Smith expressed progressive views and engaged in philosophizing. Smith attended Brown University, receiving the A.B. degree in 1891. After graduation, Smith accepted a one-year teaching position at Oberlin Academy where he taught Latin. He left Oberlin to teach mathematics and foreign languages at Worcester Academy for three years. On July 10, 1894, Smith married Inez Michener of New Sharon, Iowa. They moved to New York City in order that he might seek further education at Union Theology Seminary. Smith receiving the B.D. degree summa cum laude in 1898, as well as the M.A. magna cum laude from Columbia University in the same year. He also received Union’s two-year traveling fellowship. The Smiths spent the two years in Europe, with his studying in Berlin, Marburg, and Paris. Upon their return from Europe in 1900, Smith received a call to the Divinity School of the new University of Chicago, to be an Instructor in Systematic Theology and Ethics. In 1909, Brown University conferred the Doctor of Divinity degree upon Smith. Like other faculty in the Divinity School, the Smiths joined Hyde Park Baptist Church. They were active participants in Hyde Park, with Smith teaching classes, as well as serving in different offices in the Church. After two years at Hyde Park Baptist, he was ordained by the congregation as a Baptist Minister in 1902. Following his study in Germany, Smith was greatly influenced by Albrecht Ritschl’s Geschichte des Pietismus and the general Ritschlian perspective. Smith then infused his Ritschlian perspective with the mystical piety of his teacher W. Herrmann, especially Hermann’s Der evangelische Glaube und die Theologie Albrecht Ritschls. In his teaching, Smith stressed experience as a basis for theology rather than Biblical teaching. This approach led him increasingly to the claims of scientific and democratic ideals. In Smith’s initial monograph entitled

2

Religion of Democracy

Practical Theology 1903, he stressed the conflict between the interests of science and practical religion. However, Smith urged the establishment of a new department to adjust the scientific conclusions of critical theology to human religious needs. He attempted to demonstrate such an adjustment in an essay, along with two Biblical scholars, E. D. Burton and J. M. P. Smith, in Biblical Ideas of Atonement: Their History and Significance, 1909. In this essay, he stressed the importance of critical insights for a vital religious experience. In a volume edited by Smith, A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion 1916, he sought to assist pastors seeking to keep in touch with recent scholarship. Later he edited a supplementary volume, Religious Thought in the Last Quarter-Century 1927. Smith’s chapter was a prolegomenon to an empirical theology, instead of the method of authority. In Principles of Living 1924, he presented his perspective on Christian Ethics. His final book, Current Christian Thinking 1928, presented a critical survey of diverse appeals to authority and provided an utterly empirical methodology for reconstructing theology. Smith was known as an incisive and systematic teacher who inspired his students to independent thinking. As an individual and as a teacher, he was friendly, with a good sense of humor. Bernard E. Meland, a future Divinity faculty member, was a student of Smith’s. He also had Smith as his doctoral advisor (who was replaced by Henry Nelson Wieman at Smith’s death). Meland considered Smith to have a mystical aspect to his theology, which spoke to Meland’s own mystic orientation. Meland recalled, “The most single influence upon my thinking during graduate school days was Gerald Birney Smith. My devotion to him was so complete that for years after his death, I thought of my own work and writing as a continuation of his labors, which had been cut off so untimely.”1 Meland also spoke of Smith’s talents as a teacher: “Smith’s talents were definitely critical rather than constructive. I do not recall any major course under him in which a constructive line of analysis was attempted. His ability to enter into another man’s position and to interpret the constructive turns of thought, upon which the particular author under consideration had ventured, was remarkable. His incisive mind and his economy of language enabled him to delineate a point of view with simplicity and sharpness that made it immediately available to the students’ minds. Then with a slyness that seemed at first harmless and which seemed to make his remarks almost incidental, he would drive his spears of criticism into the point of view under analysis.”2 In addition to his teaching and writing, Smith presented the Nathaniel William Taylor Lectures at Yale University in 1912 and the Earle Lectures at Pacific School of Religion in 1920. Smith served for several years as

Historical Sketch

3

chairperson of the University Orchestral Association, as president of the Board of the University of Chicago Settlement, and as an adviser to the Religious Education Association. Smith and Shailer Mathews edited A Dictionary of Religion and Ethics 1921. From 1909 to 1920, Smith served as managing editor of the American Journal of Theology and as founding editor of the Journal of Religion from 1921 until his sudden death in 1929. His wife and son, Cecil Michener Smith, who was a graduate student at Harvard University, survived him. G. B. Smith was never comfortable with his professorial discipline, designated “systematic theology” from 1900 to 1906. From 1906 to 1913, he served as Associate Professor of Dogmatic Theology. In 1913, he became Professor of Christian Theology and served in that capacity until his death in 1929. Although Smith was a noted mathematician and musician, his primary responsibility was in theology. Smith’s special concern was the relationship of Christian ethics to the modern world. Although he was fully a part of the general social gospel and pragmatic orientation of his peers in the early years at Chicago, Smith’s theological and philosophical position was closest to that of George Burman Foster. Cecil Michener Smith, wrote “Some Memories of Gerald Birney Smith”, which was published in The Divinity School News on February 15, 1939. He noted that his father had grown up on a New England farm, located about a mile from Middlefield, which was a small hamlet that was quite isolated. “Consequently the social life of Middlefield was confined to the simple, inexpensive pleasures of those who could manage to get together. Singing schools, church suppers, and all-day preaching fests were the sum and substance of community life in those days. Over and over again, year after year, the same people got together and amused one another in the same ways.”3 G. B. Smith devoted himself to learning how to know and understand the simple folk of the community. He always attended the annual Fourth of July picnic in Middlefield, long after becoming a university professor. “With my father it was a sacred ritual to make the rounds of all the bean pots, sampling each farmer’s wife’s recipe, and offering exceedingly heartfelt compliments to those whose beans gave evidence of a superior culinary secret. After lunch, he joined enthusiastically the three-legged races and softball. Then when the formal climax of the afternoon arrived, he was led to the speaker’s platform. From this point of vantage he delivered a short homily.”4 C. M. Smith suggested that his father’s capacity to absorb himself in the mind of the group was a strong and positive characteristic of his role as a teacher. “...I have known him to spend endless patient hours trying to help his pupils become objective enough to absorb the facts of both sides

4

Religion of Democracy

of the controversy.”5 He further postulated that, toward the end of his father’s career, he gained a mystical sense. “In the last four years of his life he became intensely critical of the methods and aims of current Protestant worship, and began to plead for the placing of liberal religion upon a more dignified artistic plane.”6

FIRST DECADE

The Writings Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education In “Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education” 1903, Smith questioned whether a divinity school which has adopted the scientific method can fulfill its responsibility to train ministers to serve local congregations. If not, what solution is compatible with the integrity of the scientific orientation in the curriculum? Smith reminds us that spiritual truths and scientific truths differ psychologically. All scientific hypotheses or conclusions are open to reexamination and revision, if facts warrant it. The historian constantly encourages questioning which often leads to demolishing the untested theories of students who enter the divinity school. The student is forced to overthrow or modify present conclusions. A student trained in the historical method acquires the habit of making provisional decisions. Smith cautioned “...there is little difference between the fundamental agnosticism of the avowed infidel and the judicial doubt of the critical scholar.”7 If the divinity of Christ is doubted, it makes limited difference to an individual for whom the divinity of Christ is of supreme value. To a person of action the primary thing is having a positive conviction. If anything interferes with one’s positive conviction, it is rejected as being destructive and agnostic. The scholar recognizes that a person adapted for practical work may not be capable of treating history in a scientific spirit. He suggested that an interpretation is true only when it applies to the real thought expressed in the interpretation. Smith reminds us that we first must know what the Bible actually teaches before we can make use of it with any kind of accuracy. The scholar may proclaim the advantageous results of the historical method, with the results being rehearsed with distressing results. Most important to the practical person is the loss evident in substituting

6

Religion of Democracy

intellectual curiosity for spiritual authority. Suspending judgment and being willing to enter either of two conflicting postulates are conditions of science but may result in the death for active faith. When two interests are diverse in kind, provision for the scientific does not necessarily involve adequate grounding for practical ends. Performing the scientific task of articulating Christian truth is incomplete until it produces both practical and historical theology. Smith noted four kinds of exegesis, with three having a distinctively practical end. The allegorical approach enabled Christian content to be read into the Old Testament. The moral sense provided practical direction for ordinary Christian life. The anagogical approach satisfied our supramundane aspirations. For Thomas Aquinas the chief end of the study of scriptures was to determine the doctrine to serve the practical needs of the church. When theological faculties were established, their job was only to expound the Scriptures in relation to approved traditional doctrines. The scientific and the practical ideals were not thought to be different, so there was no need for a special department of practical theology. This made possible the transfer of church history from the practical disciplines to the historical. The pragmatic method of teaching history was replaced by an inductive approach seeking the facts, whether these facts referred to the practical lessons or not. The historical approach in biblical studies stressed not reading into a passage what the writer did not intend. The figurative and allegorical approaches, which had been important in the traditional method, now must be abandoned. The scientific approach required the student to ascertain the real historic meaning of a book before attempting to make practical applications of the book. The conservative approach sought to reproduce scriptural truth, contending that a translation was not needed. What the conservatives did not require was another translation of scriptural doctrine in light of modern psychological counterparts. Rather, they sought complete abandonment of modern attempts to formulate religious ideas. Smith realized that our educational approach was so secularized that biblical references in literature were not recognized by most of the students. From the teachings in science, the students had a new conception of a human relationship to what had been considered ultimate reality. The old theory held that people are required to undergird their religious thinking by the teachings of Scriptures. Scripture was now a relic of precritical scholarship. Smith opined: “While education and environment have transported the einfaltige Layen out of the biblical cosmos into the world of modern science, out of the

First Decade: The Writings

7

simple surroundings of Palestinian peasants into the complex world of industrial America in the twentieth century, out of the individualistic and supernaturalistic religious ideal of the past into the social and ethical ideal of the future, the education of the theological student has been transporting him back into that very world which is becoming so strange to laymen… If the minister’s attempt to introduce such critical conclusions in his preaching, he may indeed arouse the intellectual curiosity of his hearers; but he will soon find that a subtle barrier has arisen between him and his distinctly ‘evanelical’ brethren. It is the inevitable difference between scientific truth and spiritual truth which thus sets the critic apart from the evangelist.”8

Another solution to the recognized problem that biblical theology did not adapt to modern needs was the contention that religious faith was not attached to past events but to contemporary reality. This required that we abstract the eternal kernel of revealed truth from its historical usage. The congregation may be taught the spiritual truth, but it will be packaged in a logically complete system. However, a normal person today rejects the notion of original sin as portrayed by traditional theology. It was even more difficult to present the Adamic account to a congregation which accepted Darwin’s theory of human origin. Or consider the issue of eschatology. A modern educated person would find it difficult to entertain the calamitous end of the world noted in the New Testament. Many theologians had rejected being a scriptual systematizer and had attempted to reconstruct a statement of belief that was a direct articulation of Christian experience. In this fashion theology ceased to be based on an objective historical discipline. The influence of modern science is indispensable if the student is to provide an intelligent account of beliefs that are provocative of a more vital understanding of Christian truth. However, their primary value will be more scientific than practical. Smith questioned whether the present departments of practical theology could meet the needs of the student involved in critical studies. Traditionally practical theology was considered the science of cultivating ecclesiastical religious life. Certainly the minister performs ecclesiastical functions. However, the minister also has a prophetic role which deserves more attention than it presently receives. The practical training of divinity students is now primarily to promote ecclesiastical efficiency. Practical theology should enable the student to establish the practical function of the knowledge obtained from other departments. Smith contended that the content of the student’s theology must be scientifically ascertained. He explained: “This same content, however, is not a genuinely scientific expression of Christianity unless it embodies the psychological realities which make up religious

8

Religion of Democracy

experience, and this, too, in a form which can be apprehended by a nontheological audience. All pedantry must be eliminated... In order to give psychological evaluation to religious doctrines, a thorough study of the psychology of religious experience would be indispensable.”9 The real truth of Christianity is to be found in life. To establish this truth requires the historical method and a psychological understanding. Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought In Atonement Chapter XIII: “Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought” 1900, Smith noted that since biblical times Christians have understood atonement in light of Adam and Eve’s sin over eating the forbidden fruit, for which future humans will pay the penalty of death. One must remember that the Adam and Eve account was not an original Hebraic story, that when the tribes returned from exile they brought the story with them. Smith noted that a doctrine of atonement based on the Adam and Eve mythology fails to come to grip with our contemporary moral life. However, this view of sin in modern times has been employed against business excess, gambling, child labor, and other individual and social excesses. Smith opined; “In the social consciousness of our age there is latent a sense of moral obliquity which despairs of a laissez-faire policy, and which cries out for deliverance. If Christianity can link its doctrine of atonement to the real sense of sin, it will not have to devise arguments to persuade men to accept it.”10 Atonement today cannot be understood as appeasement of an angry monarch-God. Over the centuries, there have been many proposed reconstructions of the theory of atonement. However, all fail because they begin with the God of traditional theology. To erect an adequate doctrine of atonement we should begin with the realization that humans have acted damnably toward each other. An adequate doctrine of atonement today cannot rely on the Fatherliness of God, in light of the desperate moral issues in which humans are involved. Smith noted that crimes of wicked persons against humanity are more real in modern times than crimes of humans against God. The reality of these crimes against humanity demands we begin by acknowledging our debt to humanity. Smith realized that so far we had been unable to modernize the doctrine of God satisfactorily to confront the moral demands of our contemporary age. He argued that the Copernican astronomy, the doctrine of evolution, and the strength of democracy had negated the biblical picture of God. “Unless God can be felt to hate the sin which humanity

First Decade: The Writings

9

hates, men will turn to the social agitator rather than to the Christian Church.”11 God must be immanent in modern times as a suffering God who bears the burden of the evils of this world. Smith suggested that this conception of God must be the conception of a developing theology, for evil affects God. If God is immanently involved with humanity and if God actually bears the evil done to God’s children, then atonement for an outraged humanity is atonement made to God. Democracy requires satisfaction, for those who have been anti-social and who have selfishly mistreated others for their own profit will be punished. Smith noted that those who act in unsatisfactory ways are also those who share and approve the social consciousness that condemns them for their actions or lack of actions. External punishment for their actions does not confront the root of the matter. Conversion or change of heart as the supreme atonement for the sins of the past is the requirement of democracy. Smith explained “...if this takes place, democracy is willing, nay glad, to take upon itself the consequences of the wrong, to endure the pains resulting from past evils in order to set free the converted soul to devote its energies to the social welfare.”12 If Jesus completely identified with the moral rights of humanity, then he can be the redeemer of humanity. However, if humanity comes to believe Jesus was the perfect expression of the ideal that humans seek, believe Jesus took upon himself the burdens of moral strife, and was faithful to the ideal at the cost of being crucified; then we can believe Jesus to be the perfect expression of the moral will of the immanent God. Jesus was crucified being unwilling to be false to the divine will, with the cross becoming the eternal symbol of identification with God. The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement In The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement 1909, Smith began with the question “what is the value of biblical material to men in the twentieth century who wish to formulate vital convictions.”13 In attempting to answer the question, one is tempted to include one’s particular interpretation of biblical texts. The historical method of biblical interpretation provides insights into the actual experiences of the person whose convictions are being interpreted. For the historical student, the biblical teachings are not ultimate, but are means by which we grasp the actual situations and spiritual problems presented by the biblical writers. The historical method provides concrete occasions of spiritual accomplishment that inspire one’s thinking.

10

Religion of Democracy

Our focus turns to these concrete realities of the Bible, which are conditioned by the historical and social environment. However, we must remember that what serves as a solution to a religious issue in one age may not serve in a subsequent age. Theology is always in a process of being reconstructed as humans experience change. An evaluation of the biblical doctrine of atonement provided insights into the problem of God’s dealing with humans, and provided insights into how religious communion with God was possible for humans who were sinful. The Semitic people lived a tribal existence, where maintaining a right relation to God was essential. Thus, the essential trait of the Hebrews’ religion was a constant emphasis on the moral nature of atonement. However, they had to learn that God does not always accept repentance on the part of a wrongdoer. Atonement is not found in the sacramental conceptions that the Hebrews shared with other groups in antiquity. Rather, atonement means the total triumph of the ideal of righteousness. Any theory that does not involve the highest moral standard should be denounced. The Old Testament view of atonement required judging one’s inner moral quality. Another element with which Israel dealt was a solution to the problem of evil. They viewed events in nature as punishment, which served to recall the people to their obligations to God. By seeking national acclaim, they sought to promote their religion. Even the destruction of Israel was taken as God way of leading the people to righteousness. When Israel was in Exile, they developed the concept of redemption in the form of vicarious suffering. It was by suffering that the unaware came to view vicarious suffering as a spiritual accomplishment that the righteous God provided as a transcendent interpretation of the mystery of life. This interpretation was later of positive value in bringing the gentiles to knowledge of God. “To believe that righteous men, by moral transformation through suffering in the very moment of seeming defeat and humiliation to be actually working out the redemptive purpose of God, is to give to the world a transcendent interpretation of the deepest mystery of life.”14 Even if the evil we do serves the purpose of the righteous God, it remains evil, even when it is totally moralized. Atonement by vicarious suffering allows evil to be part of God’s world without destroying faith in God. The only way to win God’s approval is by keeping the law of righteousness. This understanding resulted in the danger of a mechanical interpretation of religious life. One may become so committed to technical demands that one is unable to show God’s love toward those in need. Jesus devoted his life to this higher revelation, with his death demonstrating the conflict between the divine revelation of goodness and the

First Decade: The Writings

11

hostility of aroused persons. Jesus denounced those external factors that blocked people from being devoted to an inner devotion to the will of God. Smith postulated that it was the witness of the spirit and not a theory of atonement, which enabled early Christians their confidence. Atonement is misrepresented when its primary emphasis is on an external balancing of accounts. Shifting to Paul’s theory of the atonement, we must keep in mind that Paul was trained in the school of legalism. After his religious experience, Paul understood that it was legalism which led to Jesus’s death. Paul’s preaching was an attempt to lift people out of legalism into a legalistic conception of the atonement, which indicated that the law is superseded by the righteousness, made possible in Christ. However, every person fails to exemplify keeping the law of God. On that basis, none would escape God’s death penalty, as God would show God’s absolute condemnation of sin. The penalty that humans deserve fell upon the redemptive power of Christ. God was not satisfied with an external punishment of sin because the sinner deserved death. Paul’s purpose was to suppress the legalistic ideal of the relationship between God and humans and to replace it by “the inner experience of the redemptive work of Christ.”15 Paul’s atonement expounded an insightful inward and spiritual redemption, which was to occur in human souls by the presence of Christ, and the mystical experience of the Christian with Jesus’s death and resurrection. Paul expounds this view because he patterned his life on certain religious ideals. If in modern thinkers Paul’s conceptions do not encompass vital religious convictions, they forfeit his religious suggestions. The focus in the Epistle to the Hebrews is on the conception of sacrifice, attempting to demonstrate that Christ released his followers from all externalism. People had entered, because of the work of Christ, in a new covenant that was in their heart but not outwardly fulfilled. Jesus’s sufferings were viewed as the means of his spiritual flawlessness. The followers of Christ were to connect with Jesus’s inner self in order to benefit from his redemptive work. “The inner transformation of the Christian is of more importance than the ritual of sacrifice.”16 In the Old and New Testaments, the religious convictions of the age moved toward a perfect expression of the atonement as making people inwardly righteous. God’s concern was for humans, to turn them from sin—to transform them spiritually—to inward righteousness. This inward righteousness justified acquittal by God’s true judgment and was not a mere technical release. The death of Jesus was the great mystery to be explained. The writers of the New Testament converted the Messiah’s death into a revelation of

12

Religion of Democracy

God’s redemptive love. Previously the cross was a symbol of disgrace, but Paul made it the symbol of God’s love and of God’s way of transforming the world. Smith opined, “The redemptive purpose of God is supremely revealed in the vicarious suffering of the One who completely incarnated the divine love and righteousness.”17 Paul was concerned that salvation be understood as affirming without question God’s righteousness in God’s securing human salvation. Thus, the death of Christ was not a defeat for God. Rather, it was the demonstration of God’s power to save. The significance of atonement in biblical teaching was found in the spiritual meaning of thinking about God-humans relations. The details of this redemptive theology were to enforce the ideal of moral salvation and the cost of such redemption. Suffering became evidence of God’s election. Smith shifted the focus to modern thought regarding atonement, recognizing that many modern persons have difficulty with the doctrine of the atonement. Therefore, in order to attain its significance, the doctrine must be restated so that it may be received more positively presented in modern language. Smith recognized that such an effort would most likely be a failure, because it would make atonement to appear fatally artificial. It just may be that there are no modern equivalents to the biblical doctrine of atonement. A problem concerns the idea of sacrifice to an age that has abandoned this form of religious cultus. The notion of shedding blood being of religious value is absurd because it has no real significance in modern life. What was considered the most vital element in religion is now considered by modern people to be a formal transaction. What is true of the term “sacrifice,” applies also for many biblical terms. Smith explained: “But no concept from a far-away age artificially introduced into our circle of thought can begin to compare in influence and power with the concepts inwrought into our thinking by the stress of actual life.”18 To attempt to reinterpret biblical conceptions with equivalent modern conceptions is impossible because we have no modern equivalents. The Bible is considered a living book because it deals with truth directly from life. The history of the doctrine of atonement illustrates the inherent value of beginning with actual life. The theories that were retained in permanent form employed conceptions real to the time in which they were formulated. However, none of the historical theological attempts has been able to reproduce the biblical doctrine. Because of these failed attempts, our first task is to grasp the essential ingredients of modern thought, and then to ascertain how these ideas may be interpreted based on our Christian convictions.

First Decade: The Writings

13

There has been a decline in the sense of sin by modern persons because they no longer think in terms of “conviction of sin.” Religious experience today is based on a desire to lead a better life, which does not necessarily involve a radical inner transformation. The modern notion of atonement no longer proclaims redemption from God’s curse. The biblical doctrine of atonement was based on an agonizing conviction of sin, which required special adjustments. The incarnation and crucifixion were appropriate in that age, but that age has long since gone. Now we view, based on biology, that death is not due to sin but is a normal element of life. A doctrine of atonement based on these classical elements fails to have meaning in our moral life. Smith suggested that certain contemporary facts have generated a new sense of sin. Many members of churches are devoted to the worship of Mammon by being committed to worldly success without concern for human welfare. This orientation is being confronted by an ethical revival today that is focused on the real sense of sin. The workers feel this injustice most acutely. There is also a moral protest that condemns ecclesiastical Christianity for its failure of refuting the oppressors and in general neglecting justice and mercy. Smith reminds us that we all are involved in the social and industrial system, which generates these injustices. He contended that “in the social consciousness of our age there is latent a sense of moral obliquity which despairs of a laissez-faire policy, and which cries out for deliverance.”19 The same process that limited our view of sin has also made a monarch-God untenable. The doctrine of evolution refutes the special creation of humans, which necessitated a changed conception of God. Human origin is not due to a transcendent creative act, but to a slow development of a world-process. If there is a creative God, this God is the immanent power in the universe rather than an outside king. In our political democracy, laws come from the people and not from an immanent authority. Furthermore, in ethics we refer to moral laws that have no transcendent source. Heaven and hell today are states of character. To attain God’s approval, one simply elevates one character to merit approval. Smith postulated that a theology that attempted to explain the meaning of life in terms of an outmoded conception of God in relation to the world was powerless. No longer could atonement be the propitiation of an angry monarch-God, for atonement must be based on a real sense of sin. Thus, reparation is due to humanity whose rights have been enraged. Such reparation can only begin with the repentance of greedy persons. So long as one begins with the God of traditional theology instead of the fact that humans have acted horribly toward other humans, we are left with trying

14

Religion of Democracy

to preach the love rather than the wrath of God. Unless God hates the sin which humanity hates, society is better off with social agitators instead of the Christian church. Morally the work has not begun and can only be done by those who have the conviction that God actually cares. For those who have worked long days just to survive surely have some claim upon God apart from our being miserable sinners. As Smith proclaimed, “this kind of God is no God at all. The theologian may call him infinite, but in practice he is finite.”20 Certainly this God cannot be the God of love. If God is to be real to us, our new theology must be based on our moral awakening, which is being manifest as a social religion of power. The social movements for the rescue of all citizens are separated from the religion of the pew, because the redemptive theology of the church is useless in its present form. If future generations are to speak of the doctrine of atonement, it will be in terms that a social worker will comprehend. This doctrine must emerge from our deeper interpretation of the moral struggles that are real today. However, the practical evils of life are not easily eliminated. Evil is a very practical thing, so it must be of importance to God. Smith explained: “If God is really immanent, if he is really at the heart of the cosmic process, then he must actually be bearing the burden of evil in his world, or else he will become the helpless fategod of pantheism.”21 Smith suggested that the wicked-will of persons caused an actual defeat of God’s ideals. He further suggested that the coming theology must conceive of God as bearing the burdens of the evil world. Some prophet may arise who will interpret our moral suffering with a God who identifies with our suffering and moral struggle. When this occurs, we will have a God of power. If God is bearing our burdens of evil, then God in humanity is against the sinners against humanity. A democracy can only be satisfied if the person who has been anti-social shall approve the social consciousness that condemns it. “Democracy demands conversion—a change of heart— as the supreme atonement for the sins of the past.”22 Paul considered Christ to represent the sum-total of suffering for human sins. Atonement involved Christ’s suffering and the suffering of sinners who identified with Christ. Smith suggested that the modern democratic spirit demanded a similar view of the sinner with the suffering caused by wrong. In considering the significance of the cross of Christ, it must be interpreted from a basic belief in a God who is immanent in humanity. Jesus’s significance for modern thought cannot be made clear by starting with a transcendent divine decree or by trying to define the transcendent deity of Christ. People wanted to know if Jesus has a positive concern for modern persons’ moral struggle. It is only by showing that Jesus

First Decade: The Writings

15

completely identified with the moral rights of humanity that he could be the redeemer of humanity. If Jesus took upon himself the burden of human moral strife, then we can believe Jesus to be the incarnation of the immanent God who shares with humans the burden of evil. To say that Jesus was crucified to fulfill the divine purpose means that the cross is the eternal representation of identification with God. Thus, sacrifice and suffering are God’s way of redeeming people. However, the moral influence theories of atonement have not demonstrated how the cross provides assurance to the penitent of God’s forgiveness and favor. Salvation occurs, but not because of a transaction between God and humans. It is because humans share the life of God by identifying with the way of the cross. Smith noted that doctrines are attempts to make consistent the reality based on actual experience. Biblical experiences are different from modern experiences, due to contemporary social, political, and scientific environment. However, we are like biblical persons in that we are unable to undo the evil we have done. We must rely on God’s judgment concerning the consequences of our actions. “The doctrine of atonement means that God assumes this burden, and enables the sinner to find through repentance and consecration an assurance of union with God which nothing can disturb.”23 Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message In “Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message,” 1910, Smith noted that German New Testament scholars had been forced to become defenders of the faith. They had employed the methods of historical criticism to get behind myths and legends to the “historical Jesus.” Some scholars claimed that the logical outcome of this scholarship was to eliminate Jesus from the development and growth of Christianity. The battle raged as the question turned to whether Jesus of the Gospels ever lived. Professor Weinel, a German theologian, questioned whether this radical criticism had made preaching impossible. He further affirmed that the critical method allowed for a dynamic faith in Jesus. In England the question was, in light of critical scholarship, whether Jesus should be called divine. Smith suggested that these questions have caused confusion to pastors, informed by critical scholarship, who desire to preach the truth and not just what is emotionally acceptable. From this perspective, Smith wondered what one could sincerely say about Jesus in a Christmas sermon. Critics have questioned the validity of the historicity of the infancy narratives, since many scholars consider the narratives to be legends. Professor Sanday suggested two types of

16

Religion of Democracy

Christology based on critical scholarship—a full and a reduced Christology. Smith explained: “The ‘full’ Christology, according to Dr. Sanday, employs critical conclusions merely to furnish the foundation upon which religious thinking may build the amplest possible structure in which faith may find its home. The ‘reduced’ Christology, on the other hand, insists that we must content ourselves with sure foundations. The desire to be absolutely honest with the facts means in this latter case a more or less clearly recognized agnosticism.”24 Dr. Sanday advocated the “full” type of Christology based on psychological investigations which suggested that each individual, based on the view that through their subliminal consciousness, they could reach into a region not accessible to ordinary consciousness. Smith noted that William James in Varieties of Religious Experience had a similar suggestion for contact with the divine. Smith claimed that this simply transfers the issue from historical criticism into that of psychological criticism, without establishing a Christology beyond the impact of criticism. Theology cannot be isolated from the rest of life. Sanday concluded that anything like the biblical doctrine of the divine nature of Christ must be made reasonable to thinking persons in order that they realize the presence of God in human life. Smith contended that the New Testament does not appeal to any “subliminal consciousness” in order to explain the divinity of Jesus. He recognized that biblical criticism often appears “destructive,” but raising problems is only for the purpose of reaching conclusions that are more tenable. For centuries, theological questions were claimed true if they conformed to a doctrine contained in the Bible. Now, based on biblical criticism, people are free of the quantitative approach of measuring religious affirmations; they are free—based on criticism—to form a theology based on trying to affirm all elements of New Testament doctrine. Smith indicated that criticism is both negative and positive, as it furnishes an appreciation of forms of faith recognized to embody transitory features. One will be more in tune with the apostolic age based on criticism, which enables us to value positively the faith of the apostles. Criticism has revealed different forms of belief in the New Testament. Each New Testament writer has embodied the Christ of faith into the writer’s own worldview. The significance of different perspectives in the New Testament lies in the various theologies that developed. These writers, like ourselves, share the social ideals of the time and incorporate these ideals into our religious thought. “The Jesus in whom the disciples believed was the marvelous figure with characteristics corresponding to the socialized ideas of messianic activity which conditioned the thinking

First Decade: The Writings

17

of the early Christians.”25 We should find in contemporary thinking divergence of doctrines, just as in the New Testament. Smith considered the purpose of a Christmas sermon is to indicate the significance of Jesus in order that we might share in the optimism of the infancy accounts. What we seek to preserve is the spirit of the New Testament. He suggested that preachers, employing the critical methods today, attempted to preach the same as preachers in the first century. Smith contended that criticism does not provide the bare facts concerning Jesus. The disciples’ Christology was seen, as they understood their faith, directly based on ideas already persuasive in social life. Smith suggested that criticism has done its job when it enables us to understand how disciples introduced Jesus as the source of saving power of the world. The question, which confronts contemporary persons, is whether we have a personal love and trust of Jesus to give him a supreme place in our lives. The value of criticism is that it frees us of trying to operate in a firstcentury worldview. The Task and Method of Systematic Theology In “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology” 1910, Smith contended that a theology, based on an outgrown form of statement, loses its power to interest or convince humans, who are influenced by the inductive sciences and who judge human effort by the standard of efficiency, as seen in the use of business. The task of the theologian is to discover and formulate methods that correlate the theologian’s learning with other forms of learning. In time, the ecclesiastical control was eliminated. Today science has adopted the facts. The problem remained of stating the facts that confront theology, in order that they can be identified and differentiated. Since Schleiermacher, most theologians focused on those aspects of human experience that might be considered religious. “Theology thus comes to be the systematic presentation of our fundamental religious convictions.”26 In time, experience was understood to be complex, conditioned by historical circumstances and the ever-changing environment. Experience is not a fountain from which permanent conclusions flow. However, theologians attempted to relate Christian experience to a golden age of Jesus, which provided an element of finality and provided to theology a definite focus, which may be systematically expounded without the aid of any science. The influence of Jesus was the material upon which theologians could build a system. Some theologians considered this approach overly subjective and narrowly dogmatic. The older theology claimed its doctrines were based

18

Religion of Democracy

on the objective revelation of God. For a theology based on human experience, abandoning this objective test was viewed as utter folly. Those conditioned by the ideal of research questioned whether a type of religious experience could be separated from other experiences as a doctrinal norm. Those working in psychology of religion demonstrated that Christian experiences are also found in other religions. New Testament scholars demonstrated that the Christian faith has never been totally under the influence of Jesus. Modern biblical scholars rejected Ritschl’s systematic theology as untenable because it failed to establish a definite method for dealing with the material, even though they retained the notion of an absolute or final theology, which fit the authoritarian method and was inconsistent with an inductive approach. While acknowledging that religious ideas change according to humans’ changing needs, some theologians still considered their task to be a defense and exposition of the New Testament faith as a canon to test doctrinal issues. “If we are to have the truth of God rather than the opinion of men, we must insist on some super-empirical test of human opinion.”27 The response of practical faith often screens scientific problems. If theological conclusions must rest on some absolute standard, the task is to establish the absolute standard. Since human experience is relative, it cannot meet an absolute standard. Jesus and special inspiration provided the basis for the norm of religious thinking. Based on scientific exposition, the validity of a conclusion depends on whether it meets the demands of empirical testing. Smith indicated that the vast majority of people are educated by the church to accept a super-empirical revelation as the norm of correct religious thinking. However, if human limitations are granted to Jesus, it limits the super-empirical basis on which theology needs to build. So long as criticism is feared, the theologian who puts critics out of doors has an advantage. Although all divisions of the church rely on the New Testament as the foundation of their theology, the diversity of opinion has led to religious wars. Smith contended that, by adopting the historical method and the view of social psychology, a principle of explanation might establish constructive results, as an adequate understanding of doctrine requires a correct understanding of the problems requiring solution. Smith suggested that a clue to the task of systematic theology might be found in the history of religious beliefs. By analyzing the underlying development of past religious beliefs, we gain its significance. Possibly an equal analysis of the conditions of modern life would suggest the form of religious belief most adequate for today. However, if we hold an ideal of authority, modifications of doctrine will not be considered a positive

First Decade: The Writings

19

achievement. Certainly, the theory of evolution had caused theology to revise the doctrine of creation. However, if evolution is infused by historical study, the theologian may make theology appear truer to the facts. Smith postulated four main tasks necessary in the scientific formulation of adequate religious beliefs for today. He stated the four tasks: “(1) the historical understanding of the growth and significance of the religious ideals which constitute our social inheritance; (2) the analysis of present religious needs; (3) the interpretation of these needs in such a way as to suggest religious convictions which shall be at the same time practically efficient and rationally defensible; and (4) the apologetic defense of the theological convictions reached.”28 These four are linked to the empirical task of revealing what should be adequate religious convictions for today, based on understanding human life in its total relationships. Smith recognized that the methods and aims of historical investigation are accepted, as are the methods and aims of any science. The historian seeks to ascertain the events of the past and to show how these forces influenced the aspirations, beliefs, and initiatives of humanity. The theologian seeks an accurate understanding of the reasons for the fundamental ideas and organizations in the history of religion. It is especially important to understand the activities of the past century from which our doctrines have evolved and their influence on science, philosophy, and literature. It is only by acquaintance with human religious development that one can understand how theology is made. Smith opined, “Indeed, one of the conspicuous traits of the empirical method of studying human life is the large and positive use which is made of the experiments and achievements of the race in the past. But it should never be forgotten that the theologian is dealing with the problems and convictions of his own day, and that these are his primary concern.”29 Theologians must abandon individualistic points of view and accepted doctrines in order to do justice to the social facts that are shaping a potent moral appeal for people today. Smith recognized that many theologians were treating science as a preaching device for harmonizing theology and science. However, theologians should employ their constructive imagination while insisting on verification by appeal to the facts. This process should provide an adequate working hypothesis for dealing with the experiment of life, at least until a better grasp of things is achieved. Smith contended: “...If the moral and religious problems due to our modern social and industrial life were to receive a similar scientific attention, it might be found possible to formulate a living theology definitely correlated to the social situation.”30

20

Religion of Democracy

The theologian deals with human life in its broad complexity, while interpreting life by those religious beliefs thought to help humans struggle with the experiment of living. The theologian postulates that religious convictions are important to the development of personal and social experience. It is hoped that understanding the nature and function of these beliefs will promote the efficiency of a wholesome religious life. Human thought seeks information about the Power that brought us into existence. An analysis of the social situation must take into account human concern regarding this Power or it will be unable to treat, in an adequate manner, the deeper interests of humans. In order to provide an adequate analysis, the theologian must employ the scientific method, to be able to judge whether a particular theological orientation is adequate for enlisting religious beliefs in a given age and environment. Smith postulated that Christianity, basically, is in accord with the scientific spirit. He found the insights of Jesus into human religious needs and the power of Jesus’s teaching and character to be adequate and efficient in the construction of theology. Smith proclaimed that based on a scientific study of religion, one must see in Jesus the most significant source of religious faith in all human history. In this fashion, the theologian has employed the empirical method. However, his task will also establish the inadequacy of any philosophy of life that fails to consider human religious needs and to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity over rival religious theories.

TheFirstWindup The University of Chicago’s Divinity School was unique in being committed to the scientific method, a commitment that included each faculty member being so committed. In “Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education” 1903, Smith began by raising the issue of whether a divinity school, which has adopted the scientific method, can adequately train ministers for local congregations. Smith reminded us that spiritual truths and scientific truths differ psychologically. Constantly encouraging students to question all positions often leads to demolishing students’ untested theories as they begin their divinity school studies. In this approach, the student is forced to modify present conclusions and acquire the habit of making provisional decisions. Scholars recognize that a student, oriented to practical work, may not be capable of treating history in a scientific spirit. However, Smith reminded us that a student’s theology must be scientifically ascertained, which cannot occur unless it embodies the psychological realities which make up religious experience, as well as requiring the historical method with a psychological understanding. In “Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought,” 1909, Smith noted that the doctrine of atonement, based on the Adam and Eve mythology, is inadequate for contemporary moral life. What is required is linking atonement to a real sense of sin, instead of it being an appeasement of an angry God. An adequate doctrine of atonement requires the realization that humans have acted damnably to each other, and requires acknowledging our debt to humanity. God must be immanent in modern times as a suffering God who bears the burden of the evils of this world. This conception of God must be part of a developing theology. Conversion or change of heart, which was the supreme atonement for sins of the past, is now understood as the requirement of democracy. Smith explained: “if this takes place, democracy is willing, nay glad; to take upon itself the consequences of the wrong, to endure …past evils in order to set free the converted soul to devote its energies to the social welfare.”31 To be the redeemer of humanity, Jesus must identify completely with the moral rights of humanity. If humans can believe that Jesus bore the burdens of moral strife and was faithful to the ideal, which resulted in his being crucified, Smith claimed that Jesus could be the perfect expression of the moral will of the immanent God.

22

Religion of Democracy

In “The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement” 1909, Smith asked, what is the value of biblical accounts to contemporary people? He noted that the historical method of biblical interpretation affords insights into the actual experiences of the people being studied. Theology is always reconstructing as human experience changes. The doctrine of atonement provides insights to the problem of God’s dealing with humans. Atonement by vicarious suffering allows evil to be part of God’s world without destroying faith in God. The only way to win God’s approval is by keeping the law of righteousness. Smith postulated that it was the witness of the spirit and not a theory of atonement that gave early Christians their confidence. Redemption is revealed in the vicarious suffering of the One who incarnated divine love and righteousness. There is a problem with the ideas of sacrifice and blood shedding in an age that has rejected these forms of religious cultus. A doctrine of atonement based on these classical elements fails to have meaning in our moral life. In “Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message” 1910, Smith pointed out that German scholars employed historical criticism to focus on the myths and legends of the “historical Jesus.” The battle raged in Germany over whether Jesus of the Gospels ever lived, while in England the focus, based on critical scholarship, was whether Jesus should be called divine. From this perspective, Smith wondered what could be said about Jesus in a Christmas sermon, especially since most scholars considered the Christmas narrative to be a legend. He noted that people are free, based on criticism, to form a theology which tries to affirm all elements of New Testament doctrines. Criticism reveals different forms of belief in the New Testament, which serve as the bases for the various theologies that have developed. Smith considered that a Christmas sermon should indicate the significance of Jesus, in order that people or the congregation might relate to the optimism of the infancy stories. Smith considered criticism to have completed its task, when people understand how the disciples considered Jesus as the saving power of the world. The value of criticism is that it frees people from a first-century worldview. In “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology,” 1910, Smith contended that a theology based on outmoded statements will not convince persons influenced by inductive sciences and who judge by the standard of efficiency. Efficiency is the method by which Smith determined the validity of doctrines and connected a theologian’s learning from other forms of learning. The task remained of relating the facts that confront theology in order that they may be identified and differentiated.

The First Windup

23

Since Schleiermacher, the focus of theology has been on aspects of human experience that might be considered religious. Smith noted that experience is not a fountain from which permanent conclusions flow. It is questionable whether a type of religious experience can be separated from other experiences as a doctrinal norm. Although religious ideas change according to our changing needs, traditionalists insisted on some superempirical test of human opinion. He noted that the vast majority of church people accept a super-empirical revelation as the norm. Smith suggested that by studying the history of religious beliefs in relation to contemporary religious beliefs, we might discover the beliefs most adequate for today. It is only by acquaintance with human religious development that we can understand how theology is made. Theologians must accept doctrines that do justice to the social facts affecting people today. It is hoped that understanding the nature and function of beliefs will promote the efficiency of a wholesome religious life. In addition, the task of systematic theology is to establish the inadequacy of any philosophy of life that fails to reflect human religious needs. Smith deemed that this effort to connect beliefs and needs demonstrated the superiority of Christianity.

SECOND DECADE

The Writings Can the Distinction Between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books Be Maintained? In “Can the Distinction between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books Be Maintained?” 1911, Smith questioned whether Christianity would be stronger or weaker if it applied the critical method to the study of the Bible and the critical approach toward the problems of theology. Smith suggested that the answer to this question depends on the attitude of Christian folk. Christianity has at times presented contrasting answers to this question. On the one hand, it has been appalled by the alleged bleakness of science and philosophy. On the other hand, it has primarily been attracted by an intuitive religious experience. However, the truth of religion is more complex than plain statements about religion. If religion does not employ the best scholarship, it fails to attract the strongest minds. The proposed question is a blow at the center of faith in God’s revelation, but it is a question based on developments in theological scholarship, which makes it an imperative issue to confront. Smith contended there are further questions that need to be confronted: the doctrines of the infallible church, the sacramental efficacy of baptism, communion, the theory of priestly ordination, and the difference between an ordained minister and a layperson. Smith noted that the failure to retain the distinction between canonical and non-canonical writing might result in creating a religious faith that later generations might find more satisfactory. When the church, clergy, and sacraments are no longer valued because of “divine rights”, it is just a few steps to a more democratic view of the Bible. Another is whether the layperson has just as good a right to speak of ecclesiastical matters as someone ordained. Smith noted that any religion designates certain writings, rituals, or localities in which the presence of God is accessible. The rise of criticisms, either religious or scientific, often requires modifications from either religion or science regarding the exact nature of these special events.

26

Religion of Democracy

Smith postulated that a doctrine based on facts is better than one used to negate troublesome facts. When it was being considered which books should be canonical, some sorts of standards were considered. However, it was impossible to establish with certainty where the line should be drawn between uninspired and inspired writings. It was when Luther denied the authority of the church and appealed to the Word of God alone that there was felt a need for determining an exact list of authoritative books. For Catholics, the voice of the Church decided which writings were inspired. As the faithful custodian of the doctrines of Christ and the apostles, the Church made distinction between canonical and noncanonical writings. If one agrees that the Catholic Church has the capacity to decide such questions, the decision is final. Human judgments were not allowed regarding the divine pronouncements of the church. Luther proposed a practical test. His main concern was to discover the source of a justified faith. The distinction made by Luther was between the idea of original inspiration of the scriptures and its present power to inspire faith in God. Luther’s fundamental interest was to test the legitimacy of writings by asking whether they actually conveyed God’s forgiving message to the soul. John Calvin took a similar position to Luther’s, by using a practical test for his doctrine of the inner testimony of the Spirit. Calvin believed in the divine origin of the Scripture and was certain that we had received it from God’s own mouth. He was primarily concerned to show that the actual power of the Bible convinces humans apart from the authority of the church. Smith noted that if Calvin’s approach were accepted as proposed, it would negate any distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings. The basic difference between the Bible and other literature was that in the Bible the statements were historically accurate, while in other literature we cannot be sure. Smith did not think that the facts warranted that distinction made by Calvin based on the inner testimony of the Spirit. Scholars recognized that the writers of the Bible had an imperfect view of science and historical ideas. Biblical scholars increasingly considered that the eschatological beliefs of the first century belonged to passing aspects of Christian history. Smith noted that contemporary scholarship questioned the idea that external marks established the unique authority of the Scripture. It has become apparent that traditional beliefs are not supported by facts. The distinction between the Bible and other literature simply does not exist. Except for the somewhat arbitrary decisions of ecclesiastical councils, Christians have never been able to draw a definite line between canonical and non-canonical writings. Most of the material used to understand the religion of Israel is based on non-canonical

Second Decade: The Writings

27

writings. Smith claimed that it was impossible to understand the Bible without studying with equal care non-biblical sources. The word “Bible” stands for the collection of religious writings that have come to stand by itself. The Bible is an example of the survival of the fittest in the realm of religion. What really concerns us is the work of the great prophets of Israel and the teachings of Jesus, for these made religion an immediate experience of the living God. Christianity and Critical Theology In “Christianity and Critical Theology” 1912, Smith questioned whether Christianity would be stronger or weaker if it applied the critical method to the study of the Bible and the critical approach toward the problems of theology. Smith suggested that the answer to this question depends on the attitude of Christian folk. Christianity has at times presented contrasting answers to this question. On the one hand, it has been appalled by the alleged bleakness of science and philosophy. On the other hand, it has primarily been attracted by an intuitive religious experience. However, the truth of religion is more complex than plain statements about religion. If religion does not employ the best scholarship, it fails to attract the strongest minds. Based on modern psychology, we have learned that ideas are employed to interpret our experience and, in addition, serve as items for our meditation. However, ideas are not objects of thought. If we become overly involved in abstractions, the “ideas of ideas” may misrepresent fundamental reality. The purpose of theological criticism is to provide the best conceptual tools for the propagation and explanation of the message of Christianity. However, there have been revolts against academic theology by those expressing emotional pietism or creedal legalism. These revolts failed to provide a satisfactory basis for the construction of beliefs. From the historical method of studying religion, it is evident that an appeal to experience, void of scientific analysis, or an appeal to an approved system of ideas are considered protected from criticism. Smith postulated that now it is possible to secure aid from scientific analysis concerning the significance of religious ideas. On this basis, it is possible to determine what makes a doctrine vital to religious life. It is also possible to determine harmful influences in theoretical undertakings. This historical understanding of religion enables us to seek aid of exact scholarship. Religions that grow by missionary and evangelical undertakings usually owe their origin to a leader of profound religious experience, which made possible a relationship to an unseen source of spiritual potency and security. The real core of religion is to be sought through an

28

Religion of Democracy

understanding of the inner life of those who claim the secret of a profound religious experience. Thus, if one seeks to know Christianity, one must know Jesus and the important figures in the historical development of Christianity. Professor Paul Wernle suggested a distinction between original and “first hand” religion. If one fails to understand the original sources of religious insight, one’s own religious life will be constrained. It is essential that someone must furnish a firsthand revelation of the meaning of religion. “Indeed, the doctrines of institutional Christianity derive their value from the fact that they represent attempts to work over and to make clear the significance of the revelation derived from the original personal sources of real religion.”32 In order to grasp Christianity, it is necessary to know the transforming power of Jesus and significant persons within the history of Christianity. If one neglects the inner life of those who have revealed their most profound religious experience, one’s own religious life is limited. Even the doctrines of traditional Christianity are attempts to make clear the revelation of Jesus Christ. Smith opined, “It is incumbent on critical scholarship to bring clearly to light the advantage which it possesses in its apprehension of the relation between religious experience and doctrinal formulations, so that it shall not stop short of its entire opportunity.”33 Criticism allows us to determine more accurately the specific character of the biblical literature and the religion it fostered. Understanding the biblical religion based on critical study enables one to become a disciple of Jesus. No longer will the inexact methods of exegesis be employed, for it fails to disclose the fundamental summons of biblical religion. Critical scholarship should enable us to know more accurately the content of biblical religion. The Old Testament provides insights into primitive beliefs and practices which supported ecclesiastical power. However, the significant feature of this literature was the basic message of the prophets, that the facts one experiences be faced in all their evil features. To be religious one must repent of the evil being committed and be devoted to the will of God’s righteousness. The essential question is whether one is willing to repent of one’s sins and to seek God’s favor by being devoted to a righteous life. If one failed to make this basic moral decision, true religion is impossible. It is because of this moral decision that we must surrender to the demands of personal and social righteousness. Smith criticized any understanding of the Scriptures that blunted simple humanitarian morality. If we understand the life of Jesus, we are forced to confront the motives of his inner life and forced to make a decision for or against the ideal Jesus presents. In the biblical period, there was incredible opposition to Christian ideals that caused many to despair of finding the Kingdom of God in an

Second Decade: The Writings

29

evil age. Those with faith in the righteous God developed a separatist ethics and theology in terms of a supernatural world instead of in terms of this world’s evolution. The power of faith in Jesus dominated eschatological theology that enabled people to withstand persecution and sacrifice. As the community of Jesus’s disciples grew, they began to dream of conquering this world in the name and power of Christ. Smith considered that the current situation is similar to early Christians in that, because of the indifference and hostility to the instructions of the Messiah, faith was only possible in another world. We are confronted by modern science which leaves no room for miracles of grace and by the realization that people are withdrawing from the church in order to follow secular policies. For many this has resulted in the self-sacrifice required by Christianity to appear foolish. Critical scholarship no longer allows the possibility of defending Christian ideals by an appeal to authority. Many question whether Christianity today can prevail in our new world. Christian ideals are only possible when people believe in the reality of a righteous, loving God. Smith postulated that new interpretations are already taking form in our contemporary situations in light of critical scholarship, which dares us to be true to our inner conviction as disciples of Jesus and to convince the modern world of the strength of this faith. Of course, a Christian theology today will differ from New Testament theology because our way of thinking and our problems differ. Smith contended that, in spite of these differences, we recognize the power of Christ’s spirit and the redeeming power of God. If this spirit is retained, there will be a new valuing of Christianity and a new appreciation of the biblical message that the critical method supports. The Function of a Critical Theology In “The Function of a Critical Theology” 1912, Smith noted that theology remains essential to religion. However, one must be guided by ideas that effectively and consistently stimulate the impulse and activities of religion. If one accepts the legitimacy of critical principles, the nature of this guidance is altered. Before the rise of critical scholarship, the job of the theologian was assumed to present in a systematic form the accepted truths of revelation. God’s word had condemned every child born to be hopelessly sinful. Because the Bible was tied to the religious life of the age in which it appeared, it is impossible to regard biblical pronouncements and illustrations as timeless and absolute truth. Theologians today have abandoned the notion of forcing one’s thinking into the mold of biblical examination that rejects the proof-text method and replaces it with methods of reasoning, which implies a test of truth

30

Religion of Democracy

radically different from the appeal to authority. Those who rely on a divine communication felt that, by substituting a different test of the scriptures, the divine certainty was negated. Smith explained: “To put it sharply, the test of truth employed by the older theology was the appeal to God’s will and God’s revealed truth. The test employed by critical scholarship is located in human judgment, which is admittedly fallible.”34 If one appeals to the Word of God, this appeal is subjective to what one believes to be the Word of God. There is just no way of getting back of one’s beliefs except by a critical comparison of the validity of belief itself. A theology based on critical scholarship will employ the same methods and tests as applied to other areas of human interest. The guidance provided to theology will parallel the guidance supplied by scholarship in other areas of interest. The facts are the first thing one encounters, to be followed by theoretical formulations or working hypothesis. A theory is always relative to the facts one seeks to explain. The theory is revised when these facts are better explained by a new hypothesis. This makes doctrines and ideas tools to be used as one encounters reality. One also should imagine the problems to be overcome and the resources available by putting forth a theory or doctrine as our basis for further experiments. Scientists are not concerned with a formulae’s metaphysical adequacy. Rather, they are concerned with a formulae’s proved capacity for solving problems of experience. This distinction between practical efficiency and metaphysical truth applies to religious theories in the Bible. For example, the New Testament contains an eschatology that most persons today consider to have been scientifically discredited. At the same time, people realize that religious devotion was kept alive by a faith that took eschatology literally. People have come to realize that all our theories are limited by our human experiences, from which there is no escape. Based on the sum of experiences, one realizes that we live within the context of our environment, which is so vast and full of mystery that the sciences have not adequately considered. It is legitimate and necessary that humans develop a theory of the unseen realm. From these efforts arose the doctrines of transmigration, of immortality, and of resurrection. These doctrines have served to enrich peoples’ experiences even though they are scientifically inadequate. The positive enrichment of life comes from attempts to project a way of spiritual progress in the unseen realm, even though people realize this progress cannot be adequately established scientifically. Those theories, which have served in ministering to practical experiences in working out the problems of living religiously, are retained. Smith contended that there is an inevitable relation between efficient doctrine and human experience.

Second Decade: The Writings

31

He explained: “If the reason for the strength of the biblical theology is to be found in the fact that it most directly and successfully symbolized in meaningful terms the fundamentals of a right relation to the unseen source of holiness and truth, the strength of any theology must depend on its regard for precisely this quality.”35 The Bible presents the blessings of religion to be a direct gift from a kingly God. Today many parts of the world have adopted democracy in place of a sovereign. Humans have learned that our highest good cannot be given by a higher power, for they must work this good out by themselves, as people cooperate with the diverse resources and the immanent forces of our environment. Theology today reflects this altered way of viewing our moral and spiritual relationship, with theologians making changes in an effort to provide ways of conceiving God that will be more vitally effective. A major problem is that people have developed an adequate expression of faith in the immanent God. However, Smith contended that humans would gradually find doctrines that confirm universal experience, enabling them to recognize the differences between biblical accounts and those that seem adequate. Smith noted that it does not follow that these doctrines lose the power to guide our lives. Biblical criticism does not negate the Bible as a continuing source of religious inspiration. It means that the vital experimental method, of developing a living theology in biblical times, should be freely employed today. If a modified doctrine is more effective in promoting religious life, it will be adopted. Smith concluded: “The fundamental difference between the guidance which was sought by the older theology and that which is discovered by critical scholarship is this: The older theology took the doctrines of the Bible as authoritative formulae, and used them as rules by which to guide life. The critical theology studies the Bible to discover the way in which so triumphant a theology was developed, in order that we may worthily strive to work out in our day the best theology possible to us in the light of our total experience and knowledge.”36 Social Idealism and the Changing Theology In Social Idealism and the Changing Theology 1913, Smith noted that contemporary theology was increasingly requiring specialists to understand biblical criticism. If Christianity requires a supernatural order, it does so as a means for eternal salvation in God’s kingdom. He suggested that Christians’ belief in supernatural help is possibly the most permanent contribution of Christianity. Smith noted that contemporary theology was oriented to an exclusive intellectualism, as specialists are required to understand biblical criticism.

32

Religion of Democracy

What is required in the present situation is an ethical religion to guide us. Orthodox traditional religion was based on truth from a higher wisdom that was in conflict with contemporary rights of individuals to experiment and arrive at one’s own truth. He noted that there was discrepancy between contemporary ethical insights and traditional theology. Many feared that this would limit our moral loyalty to Christianity. Smith suggested that solving these problems required employing the ethical principles that dominate the new age. The glory of traditional Christianity was its ethical supremacy. In establishing the ethics of the new age, the chief danger is that we rely too much on science. Regardless of the problems, contemporary persons can no longer rely on the views of our ancestors. In chapter one, Smith focused on “Ecclesiastical ethics and authoritative theology.” Jesus’s primary aim was to arouse, in those who heard him, the conditions required for membership in the Kingdom of God. Jesus shared with his followers the conception of history, which asserted that primary human interest could only be found in another world-order. The early church’s essential task was to convey the primary focus of the gospels and to protect against false teachings. Smith suggested that the precepts and life of Jesus, from God’s perspective, “meant the most elevated conception of life which has ever ruled a generation of men.”37 The early Christian community was undergirded by a fraternal ethic that supported the group’s interest by keeping the group pure so that they might be admitted as full members in the Kingdom of God. In time, heresy and schism arose in the group and were important as ethical issues. The true church had to prove it was following Jesus’s teachings and conveying to others this sacred foundation. At that period also, new forms of religion emerged which were based on the doctrine that individual redemption leads to eternal life as a citizen of the Kingdom of God. Religion, drawn to a supernatural order, was not then considered a force to transform this world but as the means for eternal salvation in God’s kingdom. Smith noted that the Jesus-religion was based on a catastrophic view of history that proclaimed that supreme human interests are to be found in a supernatural realm. Since the gospel provided the only way for persons to become citizens in God’s kingdom, the primary task of the early church was to pass on the essentials of the gospel and counter perversion. In this fashion, there was a stern focus on purity of life for all members of the church. As the early church grew, it became necessary to develop an ecclesiastical authority to spell out the conditions of salvation, which required significant sacrifices of worldly possessions. The authority developed

Second Decade: The Writings

33

doctrines of supernatural forgiveness of sin, supernatural regeneration, and a doctrine of penance. Since human nature contains an evil power that prevents being good, moral reformation requires divine forgiveness from the power of sin. The doctrine of sacramental regeneration provided hope to those fearful of being able to enter the Kingdom of God based on their morality. God’s righteousness was a gift based on the atonement of Jesus and remains available in the Eucharist and Baptism. This sacramental idea of salvation required that those who administer the sacraments do so in the proper way required by ecclesiastical control. It was thought that mere membership in the church makes a person good. Smith suggested that Christians’ belief in supernatural help is possibly the most permanent contribution of Christianity. Since sin is tied to worldly goods and pleasures, the obvious way to rid the soul of sin is to limit one’s partaking of worldly pleasures. Penance due to these worldly pleasures was the Church’s action to standardize morality. Failure of obedience to the church was the supreme sin. Augustine in The City of God presented a Platonic philosophy of history in which all human organizations are subordinated to God’s rule. With the advancement of civilization into Europe, the European people sought to learn from antiquity and to put these ideas into practice in order to elevate existing customs. As Christian principles of thought and action were learned and put into practice, the habit emerged of thinking about these principles as expressions of a universal rule and thinking of the church as God’s custodian of infallible and perfect doctrines by which all persons must live. This perspective reflected a view of a decadent world by an apocalyptic concept of history. When humans are unable to realize the desired things of life, depending on an authority is natural and ethical. However, when humans are able to understand their problems and to create ideals adequate for dealing with the problems, insistence on retaining the ideal of authoritative control is inappropriate. “The Middle Ages therefore established in the minds of men the conception of an authoritative divine control expressed in divinely given scriptures and interpreted by the divinely commissioned church.”38 It was taken for granted that institutional control was the correct way for human progress. For Catholics absolute submission to the divinely established church was essential. However, when Catholicism went to war with the moral claims supplied by science, the result was disastrous moral confusion. Smith addressed the discrediting of ecclesiastical ethics during the Middle Ages. Ecclesiastical ethics were perfected in a mediaeval system based on belief in the unchanging will of God, with the result that it limited the evolution of culture. Major changes occurred in the mediaeval

34

Religion of Democracy

era that resulted in the development of the modern world. The essential difference between the ancient and modern worlds was based on the ability to control the forces of nature for the sake of our comfort and welfare. Industry, commerce and wealth were considered an important part in the realization of the Kingdom of God. Believing that the Second Coming was near, the early church had no positive role for industry beyond producing the basic needs for life. Acquired wealth was condemned because it caused the sin of avarice. Christians believed that God ordained for each person a certain role in society, with industry developing from peoples’ social needs without support from church doctrine. Based on Adam Smith’s doctrine of non-restraint, G. B. Smith thought the best results for society would occur based on free competition unimpeded by religious or political interference. It is by striving together that economic justice will increase the general welfare. Smith noted that contemporary industrial actions ignore organized Christianity. Smith opined, “Out of the turmoil of the industrial conflict is arising an immanent democratic social movement, which is creating new valuations, and is seeking to inaugurate new economic policies… The religious possibilities latent in modern social movements are seldom appreciated by men educated in the traditional way.”39 The Protestant revolution did not envision a secular state. Its leaders assumed that it would be Christian. However, the results of this assumption were the Thirty Year War in Germany and the war between Netherlands and Spain. Grotius provided the foundation for international polity by an appeal to natural laws. He stressed that God-given knowledge was available to all persons without the mediation of a church and constituted the basis for ethics, regardless of whether God exists. Authority is not derived from the church but from the natural desires of the citizens. From this foundation, there emerged a social contract, which promoted the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. From this tradition emerged the modern state founded on a secular basis, with the state being neutral toward ecclesiastical organizations. The modern state was defined by the social and economic welfare of its citizens and by equal toleration of religious beliefs and practices. The people, understanding their problems, sought an immanent principle of justice that resulted in disestablishing the institutional church from the political arena. The church was now viewed as an association of people who voluntarily promoted the object of their religion, which established the church as being of human origin. The result was an altered type of religious consciousness.

Second Decade: The Writings

35

With the church limited in a secular state, humans must make their own decisions regarding ethical standards. Human rights of conscience were recognized, even if one defies ecclesiastical authority. This meant that one’s morality could be complete without any reference to religion. In a secular state, the people determine their own beliefs. Smith noted, “So completely is the right of private judgment recognized in modern Protestant bodies (that) the ethics of belief today involves an appeal to standards strikingly different from those which were embodied in the systems of theology which prevailed in the days of ecclesiastical supremacy.”40 The secular state led to the secularization of modern scholarship. Scholarship was thought to aid humans preparing for heaven. Scholarship also led to doubt, which caused the church to stress the supreme moral value of conformity. With the development of modern science, there emerged a bitter struggle against the churches’ conception of ethical scholarship. Unfortunately, scientific literature was often hostile to theology, which resulted in a new mind-set that was aware that the ecclesiastical ideal had been discredited. Smith noted that many leaders in the modern church welcomed the scientific approach and supported untrammeled inquiry. Now Christianity must compete with other ideals. Appealing to a higher authority is now viewed as a weakness, which discredited the moral power of earlier Christianity. With the modern world increasingly supporting scientific scholarship, Christianity faced a serious crisis. Now business, politics and scholarship is emancipated from the control of religion. Modern persons exercised their freedom of thought and sought unlimited progress, even though the ethics of modern industry often conflicted with the morality of humanitarianism. All are aware of the diverse experimentation that requires adequate guidance, without a great primary view of the meaning of life. Thus, the modern scientific world seeks a new approach for valuing human endeavor. Rejecting a priori principles, people today seek an understanding based on the development of ethical needs in the evolution of humans. These ethical precepts are based on human needs without referring to any superhuman or pre-human source. Smith explained: “The consequence of this historical and empirical approach to the subject is the elimination of the last vestige of the mediaeval attitude… Any divergence from this eternal code would be considered as positively wrong. From this point of view, it was natural to assume that the ecclesiastical system represented the unchanging truth. However, the adoption of the ‘historical method’ of studying morality means that all ideals—including the

36

Religion of Democracy

ecclesiastical system—are seen to be historically conditioned. Of none can we say that it is ‘absolutely’ good in any timeless sense.”41 Ethics is based now on a science of relative values, instead of the traditional exposition of absolute truths. Smith contended that the employment of the empirical and historical method is now being felt in all matters of a spiritual life. Some churches are even gaining a better perspective of their daily duties by an empirical evaluation of the facts, instead of the exegetical approach of ancient literature. Churches that sought to preserve the mediaeval approach were discredited by modern organizations based on an ethical purpose. Smith affirmed that modern protestant seminaries have adopted the scientific method in place of doctrine approved by a church. Modern scholars hold views contrary to those views attributed to a divine authority or super-historical origin. Smith postulated that a secular origin of Christianity, rather than an ecclesiastical construal, is conventional in theological literature. However, this affords a patently different perspective than provided by the ecclesiastical power. This scientific spirit also was applied to the study of other world religions. Religious scholars are becoming accustomed to forming opinions about Christianity, without being bound by the guidance of the church. Now secularized methods are employed for understanding Christianity. Smith next considered the moral challenge of the modern world. He noted that the infallibility of the established system was so fixed that it is difficult to transcend it. When society is secularized, there is increasingly disregard for the attempts of the church to influence society. Smith contended that modern culture assumes a semi-contemptuous attitude towards traditional Christian forms and efforts. Christianity needs to face the facts of modern life in order conceive the task of making evident the role of a moral theology, even though culture currently is halfcontemptuous of traditional forms of Christianity. Smith contended that what is needed today is for Christianity to proclaim an aggressive program that will command the moral enthusiasm of contemporary persons. Protestantism also held to this basic otherworldly emphasis. Miracles have evolved from a sacramental view by focusing on the inner working of the Spirit as pertains to the individual, but the preparation for heaven based on redemption of sin remains the primary focus, when the world is considered in a hopeless state. However, when the eschatological inheritance is rejected, we view the developing scientific view as correct. Our increasing understanding of evolution raises new ideals of duty to humanity that are a challenge to the Christian ideal of the eternal welfare of living humanity. The eschatological hope has been abandoned by

Second Decade: The Writings

37

modern thought, which has caused a sense of perplexity. Traditional Christianity has viewed the secular world as being unable to fit persons for heaven, but the focus on secular interests cannot be ignored in the present world. Smith contended that the lack of fulfilling secular interest has led to a moral paralysis in dealing with the great contemporary social problems. Smith suggested Christianity needed to abandon its ascetic attitude and recognize the value of natural human instincts and aspirations in the secular life. If Christianity can make this shift, it will be in a position to contribute to the solving of the current moral problems. Smith opined, “…a Christianity which doctrinally proclaims this world to be a ‘city of destruction’ from which to flee to the ‘celestial city’ will find its influence steadily lessening.”42 This pessimistic view of human accomplishments reflects a lack of scientific control, which is evident in religious beliefs and practices of people before the development of modern science. These people considered the evils of life to be ordained by God for the purpose of discipline, which reflects a submissive faith amid sorrows. It was the moral duty of these early Christians not to protest but to submit without protest. Smith indicated that our attitudes are entirely different today, for the evidence of evil arouses our protest. We have control today based on science and the responsibility to make this control effective. Human submission today only occurs when science lacks controlling evidence. Smith contended that with science providing means of controlling evil, the attitude of passive submission becomes unbearable. Previously the means of grace were considered as God’s functioning for our eternal welfare. However, the benefits of science are so much greater than the approach of passive submission that modern humans espouse the benefits of science. Social problems are now to be solved through scientific control. In this fashion the traditional ethic of Christianity, which belongs to a prescientific age, was realized by miracles. Today this traditional ethic based on miracles is flatly contradicted by modern scientific control. Modern Christians are confused by the unscientific theological notions taught in the churches and the call of modern life to apply scientific research against the foes of solving our social welfare problems. Christianity must learn to feel and endorse moral enthusiasm for scientific research and its achievement. Through modern science, we have learned of the relationship between physical and spiritual health. Parents previously focused on their children being saved, but today we realize that spiritual health relates to our bodily experiences. When happiness is the means by which we judge a thing good or bad, we appeal to the physical condition by which a sensation is created. Evolution has enabled us to understand that each of us goes

38

Religion of Democracy

through a process of growth, which involves a relation between our inner life and its environment. Previously reaching the good life was conceived in terms of a soul without consideration of one’s physical or social environment. The basic task was to confront the soul with doctrines of salvation and to urge spiritual self-surrender. Smith contended that if we rely only on spiritual efforts, the church could not hope to assist humans adequately unless the spiritual appeal is tied to making the environment helpful to this process. The old tradition of salvation, as an escape from the world and our flesh, failed to include the scientific formation of character. Many in the modern world contend that, if we improve the economic status of humans, their ills and sins will be eliminated. Smith noted that this view vastly enlarged the jurisdiction of ethical and religious endeavor. Smith argued that modern religion, if true to its task, would be able to resolve the inequitable distribution of financial resources in the modern period. This effort would require a new perspective on the accumulation of wealth. With our modern ideals tied to success, we are gaining insights into human activities as the strongest means of establishing their moral attitudes. The traditional master and servant relations were considered the correct basis of employment, which was based on the approach of primitive industry as the model of our social duty. Smith opined, “The great question of the future is as to how the new ethics shall be put into practice. The tremendous agitation now going on in the direction of an appeal to external and non-religious reconstructive efforts is ominous. Does it mean that mankind has become so convinced of the impotence of inner spiritual forces that it is willing to trust its case to external organizations?”43 The issue was whether workers will be passive under the magnanimity of government or will develop an inner spirit of moral heroism, which shall be reflected in legislation as the manifestation of the essential ethical convictions of humans. An important issue is whether the churches will be involved in developing moral heroism as part of a religious renaissance. Of course, there is the real possibility that a new religion born of the issues of modern life will lose all contact with the inheritance of Christianity. Smith contended that the advancement of thought and enterprise provided a spiritual opening for the present generation. This religious opening was enhanced by the vast resources of science that reveal the need for controlling the conditions of life. Our changing view of wealth considers it an impediment to the soul, if based on an individualistic philosophy. At the same time, we realize wealth is essential for enhancing our social and personal health.

Second Decade: The Writings

39

Smith suggested that those who realize the import of the changes wrought by modern life also feel the necessity of incorporating the new ideals into Christianity. There is moral and religious power in the secular conception of a better future for humans on earth if people engage nature in support of spiritual ends. Early Christians focused on a new heaven and earth for the righteous. With the emergence of modern science, the divine mysteries are one by one being unlocked. Smith suggested that contemporary scientific achievements are so tremendous that the claimed Christian miracles are out of place. The God, worshipped by believers in modern science, freely provides the resources of the universe. The power of the God of mediaeval theology was limited to the possibilities of a pre-scientific age. Smith indicated that Christianity has been slow in realizing that our natural world is richer in possibilities than the supernatural world of traditional religions. What is required is for religious faith to make positive use of the resources at hand, which science has revealed to be in abundance. Smith contended that humans could be saved from the temptations of modern wealth and power by holding a strong religious faith and life, which supports human control of nature in the process of realizing the Kingdom of God. However, this religious life is only possible if based on a religious interpretation of modern life and thought, which correlates contemporary religious thinking with the enormity of the issues. This religious thinking must trust in a larger future instead of being literally bound to the past. Humans should use God’s resources to remake the world, instead of being bound by supernatural powers that lie out of human reach. Modern humans need to develop a moral passion, which will lend support to the moral forces being realized in the new age. The next focus was the ethical basis of religious assurance. The life of a religion depends upon its convincing humans that it provides a vital contact with divine help. The theology of the first century attempted to project assurance by affirming supernatural source and authority for the doctrines that were approved by the church. An authoritative church did not exist in the first century, probably not until 4th century. Religious hope as a source of deliverance was valued through a special providential dispensation. However, the ecclesiastical orientation has failed to show vigor for modern life and has failed to grasp the moral value of truth afforded by scientific research. The contemporary religious task is to indicate the latent religious value of modern life. A theology that fails in an appeal to the moral conscience of humans is impotent. Those who attempt an emphasis of the religious consequence of natura and secular must guard against the traditionalist contention that such a position is a

40

Religion of Democracy

denial of the essentials of Christianity. Smith suggested that those who fail to recognize the ultimate right of what is ethically good are not free from the effects of a limiting formalism. He also recognized that, due to fear and distress, certainty in religious thinking had weakened in recent years. He explained: “A remarkable transformation of theology is already taking place in response to the moral demands of our age... What is attempted is to point out certain ethical implications of the transition which is in progress, so that in our attitude toward changing doctrine we shall not be applying criteria which can bring only perplexity and confusion.”44 Smith next addressed “The Dogmatic vs. The scientific basis of assurance.” He noted that early Christians did not expect this world to continue. If the world was destined to a speedy destruction, it could not provide adequate basis for religious assurance. In its early period, Christian assurance was based on an anti-scientific foundation. It was not until the modern world that the growth of secular interest provided the bases for a secular science to develop, based on a method that received the confidence of humankind. Christian theology had contended that there were certain true principles that served as a means of guiding life. The truths were provided from an elevated realm that was inaccessible to human reason. Smith opined, “The assurance of the theologian has thus rested on the possibility of affirming the unchangeable truth of certain doctrines. The assurance of the scientist rests on the possibility of verifying or of revising all doctrines by the use of exact methods of research.”45 So long as pre-scientific assurance is held, the moral significance of the scientific method cannot be realized. Many felt that employing the scientific approach was destructive and weakened confidence in Christianity. Smith noted that purpose of modern education was to instill this scientific spirit into the social consciousness of contemporary persons. From this perspective, the essential issue was whether the conclusions reached are in accord with the revealed truth of the system employed. If a doctrine was altered, it weakened confidence in the system and was considered destructive scholarship. An argument based on the traditional theological thinking of an individual would have the opposite impact on a person of scientific orientation. Smith contended that when the scientific approach becomes dominant, there would be a decrease of arguments based on non-scientific grounds. The scientific spirit will then dominate the work of theological investigation. Smith noted that the scientific spirit as an ideal had come to control theological schools, including the departments of practical theology. Those grounded in traditional doctrinal content found no assurance in a scientific approach, especially because the scientists demonstrated no religious loyalty. Those who held to “God’s

Second Decade: The Writings

41

Word” were appealing to a profound moral motive, but those who focused on freedom of speech and research did not make a social appeal adequate to generate a popular moral enthusiasm and allowed the traditionalists to define the test of social efficiency. Smith opined, “The scholar who attempts at the same time to serve ecclesiastical demands and to maintain scientific truthfulness needs to beware lest the demands of the two masters conflict and leave the servant in a situation where his loyalty to both may be seriously tested… Any modifications of the authorized system will— from the point of view of the ecclesiastic—be judged as examples of a privileged laxity. And this laxity is accepted by the scholar of an academic ‘right’ which he enjoys under the charter of freedom of research.”46 So long as the content of doctrine is supreme, every scholar and minister oriented to the scientific spirit will be considered less committed to the truth than those who follow the system unimpaired. The modern mind seeks a mastery of method in order to improve upon the past, contending that scientific criticism is never destructive. A person trying to hold on to the traditional view and to adopt the scientific approach will be hopelessly divided. A strong contemporary religion will possess all of life, but this is impossible if science continues to be regarded as irreligious. Smith considered those who trust in the scientific method have developed a theology inspired by an eager moral courage. Smith focused on the actual social efficiency of doctrines in their time, rather than their conformity or non-conformity to an established system. The Bible presented a changing theology to meet changing human needs from which we may develop confidence in theology that does not claim finality or infallibility. Smith realized that nothing is more biblical than to refuse to face the facts. He also contended when one has acquired the historical method, one has acquired a confidence with also occurs for those who master the scientific method. Smith postulated that the constructive outcome of modern biblical study is not to provide theologians new dogma; rather it suggests that the genesis of doctrines can be established by scientific means. This approach recognized scientific method as an assured value in the study of religion. However, he recognized the traditional form of biblical study, as revealing absolute truth and an unchanging theology, retained a hold against the scientific spirit. Tradition should be a servant of the present and not its master. Smith considered the ethical principles of traditional Christian theology to be essentially aristocratic. He accepted that in that period they conceived of a dualism between human worldly principles and the principles of the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom’s ideals were based on divine rights instead of their being compatible with earthly reality.

42

Religion of Democracy

Christians claim to be heirs of a heavenly estate that they did not create. In their natural states, humans are outcasts but may gain salvation by acceptance of the grace made possible through God’s plan of salvation. People were assured by the church of a miraculous revelation that validated the details of revealed religion. This miraculous revelation undergirded the expectation of the Second Advent. The Reformers retained the view of the church concerning miracles as essential in a theological interpretation of human life. Emphasis was on the corrupt nature of humans as well as the necessity of a miraculous regeneration bestowed by a higher realm instead of being generated from within the individual. In this fashion, Calvin and others retained an eschatological view of history. Theology retaining aristocratic principles and the older class distinctions received adverse criticism. With the emergence of the modern world, attention was given to the resources available to humanity and to the moral values immanent in human evolution. Miracles were rejected by science because they make humans dependent on a superior supernatural being. Smith concluded: “We are coming more and more to feel that the best credentials for religious faith are to be found in the service which is rendered to humanity in ways which humanity can understand and by methods in which humanity can have a share rather than in superhuman claims.”47 Theology in the Middle Ages considered baptism the manner in which the grace of God entered the human soul to validate salvation. The reformers focused on the marks of Christian character being in the ethical and religious life of humans with the requirement of baptism. In non-ritualistic churches, even the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper disappeared. Smith noted that moral efficacy is evident in changes in the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible, especially as the writers were viewed as persons with normal human experiences. Smith suggested that the democratizing of the doctrines of scripture has exalted the historical Jesus as savior, for those who failed to discover the meaning of salvation in aristocratic relationships. Although our view of the Bible has been radically altered, the more modern estimate suggests that the spiritual power of the Bible relates to our modern life and problems. With the rejection of baptismal regeneration, conversion in the modern sense is genuinely ethical. Now transformation is from an immanent force rather than an alien influence. Ordination was removed from the realm of miracles to a focus of practical efficiency. Smith opined, “These instances of doctrinal modifications reveal the fact that there has actually entered into theology an ethical emphasis which finds abundant access to God without appeal to miracles. We have developed, or we are in the process of

Second Decade: The Writings

43

developing, such a degree of confidence in the morally honest use of God’s universally accessible resources that the older type of dependence on miracle seems to be actually less secure.”48 The loss of aristocratic privilege has been replaced by a democratic cosmos in which all events are treated alike. Schleiermacher conceived of God as living and immanent, which did not require a supernatural realm for discovering God. It was this conception of God as an ever-present immanent Spirit that undergirded the newer liberalism. God is now conceived as enabling transformation in the varied processes of growth in nature, with humans depending on these processes of growth in nature to achieve our welfare. For Smith, an ethical theology compels respect for humans, confident that the limitations of our knowledge can be enlarged. From this perspective, theological reconstruction enables Christianity to contribute to the developing modern civilization. Smith contended that Christ’s significance today is determined by the ethical standards of the modern world. He further contended that belief in Christ’s divinity is a moral duty from the perspective of the ethical consideration Christ proclaimed. Smith opined: “The foregoing remarks will show that the ethical transformation of theology in accordance with the democratic standards of our day is actually taking place with great rapidity… the fundamental presuppositions of the older aristocratic ideal are almost universally retained in modified form as if the validity of religious belief depended upon their retention.”49 Many in the modern world considered the sovereignty of Christ to be threatened, if his teachings and life are not explained by a transcendent origin. Our focus is on the immanent forces we encounter in our environment, because we have not yet been able to define divinity that is in accord of our religious experience. We still project divinity as belonging to another realm, which fails to project divinity as belonging to a special process in the modern world. In addition, we are pressed by scientific and moral demands to modify Christ’s miraculous characteristics in order to develop an ethical theology that transforms divinity into concepts compatible with a democratic ethic. If this is accomplished, we will be able to understand God as our immanent co-worker, with salvation interpreted as a process of cooperation with God. Smith proclaimed that the divinity of Christ is to be understood in the God-consciousness revealed in his life and death. We share in God-consciousness within our lives. This enables us to confess our belief in the divinity of Christ. The social organization of the Christian community transfers the Godconsciousness.

44

Religion of Democracy

Our modern view of God is modified by the diverse processes that result in an increase of beauty, moral life, and worship. The world is no longer for us a finished creation but a world of infinite possibilities. Our practical life, as we seek our welfare, is largely dependent on the expansive forces of the universe. Smith also suggested that our spiritual life depends on the collaboration of the immanent God in order that we may reach our highest ideals. Thus, both the old and new views of reality proclaim the dominant need of humans for God. Smith maintained that God is the living spirit of truth and righteousness. He defined life as the organisms seeking an environment that will make survival and development possible. The task of theology is to determine how the environment enables life to reach its fulfillment as intended by divine power. He concluded with the contention that we must seek a theological reconstruction that will allow Christianity to play a role in our continuing developing civilization. Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation In “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation” 1913, Section I: “Some conditions to Be Observed in the Attempt To Correlate Science and Religion,” Smith applauded those seeking to reconcile science and religion, as he contended that these significant areas should be working together for the sake of enriching life. He noted that the words “religion” and “science” are abstract concepts, meaning that there is no generalized religion and no actual generalized science. The conflict between science and religion, Smith suggested, is not a conflict between every science and every type of religion. The great bulk of scientific discovery has not encountered religious opposition and many scientists are active in their local congregations. Smith postulated “...a scientist, purely as scientist, feels no need of religion,”50 because religion is not required in one’s work as a technical scientist. Science is sufficient unto itself, which leads to an increase in specialization to the extent that important scientific work requires methods and presuppositions that are beyond the grasp of ordinary persons. As science becomes more specialized, religion fades into the background. In other words, if one views reality so that scientific concepts dominate, religion recedes more and more into the background. Smith suggested that in this situation the task is to indicate the vulnerable character of a scientific dogmatism. From popular conceptions of science, science becomes a kind of mythology, which Smith suggested to be a false messiah. In the popular use of science, there is absent the essential methods of observation and

Second Decade: The Writings

45

testing. To claim a scientific foundation for a religious doctrine is nothing but a claim based on superficial analogies. Most scientists confess their relative ignorance of fields beyond their specialty. However, in the case of religion, it is often assumed that those personally active in religion are the least qualified to judge its value than those who remain aloof. Smith opined, “The true implication of the scientific spirit would be that those who have more specialized in the study of religion are more competent to talk about it than are those for whom it has been a more or less casual affair.”51 The great service which science has provided is forcing humans to face the facts, or to live in a dream world. Science has disclosed the character of the world to be so radically different from the ordered world of the old theology that radical readjustments are required, which require our developing a more adequate religious loyalty than the loyalty taught to children by parents. The methods of science can offer no assistance in this readjustment, because it is concerned with facts only and not concerned with issues related to the inner life of a person. Scientists often judge religion based on its relation to science. They consider unscientific religion illegitimate. Smith was concerned with the impact of science on the inner life of perplexed students. Smith explained: “The fact is that hundreds of earnest students in our universities are left floundering in the realm of their religious loyalties, just because the sciences are incompetent to deal with this problem. Some day we shall ask whether the wholesome development of a student’s general morale is not quite as important as is his scientific knowledge… Let me repeat. Science, as science, does not furnish the technique for helping students to a wholesome religious adjustment.”52 The assistance provided by religious leaders is seriously defective, as they seek some form of words that will enable the student to keep saying the words the church wants, without contradicting the findings of science. From this perspective, religion engages in superficial compromises without facing the facts. As scientists generally overlook problems of individual adjustment, teachers of religion generally underestimate taking science seriously and truthfully. Smith postulated that to be truthful this generation needs radical change in some of its traditional doctrines. Religious adjustment must be to undeniable facts. However, religion is not restricted to scientific data, for its task is to enhance and ennoble the inner life of individuals. Certainly, the spirit of truthfulness enhanced by science is important to religion but it does not alone constitute religion. Religion requires reverence and devotion. Smith noted that religion should be linked to the arts as well as to the sciences.

46

Religion of Democracy

Smith suggested that Protestantism is just beginning to realize that when religion becomes overly rationalized, it loses its power to support the cultivation of nobler emotions. When the symbolism of religion is engaged in a valid understanding of its significance, people will be attracted to religion. However, these traditional symbols conceive of a world largely discredited by modern science. In the early traditions, eternal human destiny was heaven or hell, based on a system of rewards and punishments. Sciences consider this picture of the universe to be incredible. In this modern age, religious people are accepting the worldview of science. Religious living is now sought in interpersonal relations, with many persons no longer considering heaven or hell to be a possibility. The ideas, which traditional religions embody, are now questioned instead of yielding to their influence. Smith contended that the task of modern religious education is to foster ideas and symbols that ennoble the good life, as it has to be lived in the real world. With the demise of the older theology, religious utterances were required, which reflected an understanding of the world in which humans live. In addition to an intellectual understanding of religion, an appreciation of the fact that religion provided a noble esthetic view of the meaning of life was required. Smith suggested that scholars are needed who know their field and understand the meaning of personal emotions and loyalties involved in modern religion. What is needed in modern religion is a language adequate to the forms of worship compatible with modern attitudes toward the reality for which people may hope. In this task, religion cannot look to the scientists to help establish the meaning of religion. A modern religion must enable people to live nobly while facing the facts of reality. Smith noted “...in the last analysis, religion is an art rather than a science.”53 The Problem of Theological Method In “The Problem of Theological Method” 1913, Smith reviewed William N. Clarke’s, The Use of the Scriptures in Theology. Clarke noted that for generations it has been taught that the Bible was the infallible Word of God, with theology transcribing the teachings of Scripture. Conservatives object to the new theology based on the doctrine of the authority of the scriptures. Clarke indicated how the traditional doctrine of equal authority of all parts of the Scripture has harmed biblical studies. It has made the teachings of Jesus on par with the book of Daniel. This requires twisting the interpretation to bring these diverse writings into harmony. The critical historical study of the Scriptures is so advanced that

Second Decade: The Writings

47

it is difficult to take the older method of theology seriously in the modern age. In an attempt to offer a positive direction for studying the scriptures, Clarke proposed the following principle: “The Christian element in the Scriptures is the indispensable and formative element in Christian theology, and is the only element in the Scriptures which Christian theology is either required or permitted to receive as contributing to its substance.”54 Clarke considered the New Testament to be the norm for interpreting the Old Testament, without making the New Testament an authoritative code. Clarke also substituted the quantitative norm of orthodoxy by a qualitative norm, which revolutionized the theological method. If Christian theology would adopt this principle, it could no longer appeal to simple objective sources of information. Now theology must take responsibility for determining the quality of all accounts in the Scripture, since a purely objective authority no longer is adequate, for one must test and judge. Smith noted that Clarke implies that the free exercise of judgment will provide an essential unity of understanding. Clarke even talks of removing the non-Christian elements in the Scriptures. In the latter part of the book, Clarke deals with the distinction between negative results and positive results. Negatively, one would remove from modern theology all obsolete features, such as sacrificial systems or primitive cosmology. Clarke judges these as non-Christian for failing to meet the qualitative test. Smith questioned the adequacy of this position. Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion? In “Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion?” 1913, Smith noted that there is an extensive feeling among evangelical Christians that modern scholarship is dangerous to faith. It is true that a college education should provide a wider vision, which might well carry over to one’s religious faith. If one’s religious perspective does not expand with one’s intellectual growth, one’s broader understanding will never exceed a simple faith. Of course, the advances of modern science make it imperative that traditional doctrines, considered essential for Christians, will be under sharper consideration. The result may be that honesty on the student’s part may require changes or even denial of what was considered essential to one’s religious faith. Smith also postulated that scholarship is making positive contributions to an understanding of nature, the nature of religion, and may even provide justification of one’s faith. Smith quoted Professor McGiffert on the change of the religious situation at the close of the eighteenth century: “New Conceptions of religion have emerged and have resulted in forms of Christianity congenial to the temper and discoveries of the modern age, so

48

Religion of Democracy

that it has become possible for a man to be fully in sympathy with the modern spirit and yet remain a Christian.”55 It is often overlooked in this period that criticism was destructive of natural theology and demonstrated that historic religion did not correspond with rationalism or formal theology. At the end of the eighteenth century, this new age disclosed that religions had a historical growth and development like all human institutions. From Schleiermacher came the perspective “that religion is rooted in our feeling of dependence upon the mysterious power which creates and sustains us; and that religion is more truly expressed in practical worship than in abstract doctrines.”56 Smith postulated that today we understand that there is not one exclusive form of religion but a surprising diversity of beliefs. Based on study in the history of religions, we know that religion is a definite universal element in civilization. Religion even survived when the forms of religion were disbelieved. Therefore, if humans experience disintegration of their ancestors’ religion, we realize that older forms of religion pass away. Smith contended, “...there is deep in the constitution of man an insatiable longing for satisfactions which can be supplied only by religion.”57 People have also learned, from the historical study of religion, that religion is adaptable to the changing needs of humanity. This perspective often perplexes students who have conceived of religion as a consistent body of doctrines. As religions move toward disintegration, stress is often placed on creeds, rituals and sacraments. Since religion is one of the basic human needs, humans cannot tolerate inauthenticity in creeds and practices. Religion is also practical and finds ways of expressing the needs of human experience. Smith postulated that religion is not an intellectual abstraction or a universal philosophy. Religion only exists in the experiences of specific people. Religions die when they no longer influence individuals’ lives. It is a dead religion when no living persons adopt and use it in their living. Religions live in the convictions of people rather than in technical documents. For example, in England workers in the fields and factories did not find the state religion met their needs, which resulted in the Methodist revival. We see this compulsion in humans who are constantly starting new religions. Smith suggested that you could not tell if a person is religious by the doctrines one might believe. Such a standard would exclude many persons who were sincerely religious. Amid all the variety of religious forms, scientific study has established what is principally religious. One basic

Second Decade: The Writings

49

element of religion is being reverent in the presence of mystery that encompasses our life. Smith contended it was this spirit of reverence that separated humans from other animals. William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience reveals the penurious nature of a person’s life who has not cultivated the spirit of worshipful imagination. Smith asserted that if one is unable to distinguish the hidden poetry of life, one is really missing the best of life. Religion interprets the universe as a realm where spiritual human goals can be realized. Religion also reinforces human ideals by viewing them in relation to the expansive sanctions of divine will. Professor James has demonstrated that religion is a compelling force for keeping humans true to the endless task of launching higher moral control in our social life. Smith opined, “To believe that something more than personal convenience is at state in the deciding of moral questions, to feel that loyalty to what is right brings one somehow into deeper relations to the power which makes for righteousness in the universe, to be convinced that God cares whether I am true to the best or not—this is one aspect of religion.”58 It is only in this fashion that morality is able to preserve its honor and authority over humans. A third element of religion is the capacity to enhance the means by which reverence and idealism are inculcated into experience. Changes are to be expected in any living religion. Religious changes are imperative when a religious faith encounters changed problems. Beneath the varied expressions of religion have been quests for deeper meaning, reverence for the mystery of life, and the buttressing of the moral ideals of humans. Scholarship has revealed that religion deserves serious attention, as other forms of study. Scholarship affirms the validity of the religious quest and removes inadequate ideas, such as immutability which dogmatism affirms. Smith affirmed that now the scientific spirit and the religious quest go hand in hand in providing new vigor and wider influence for religion. Christianity and History In “Christianity and History,” 1914, Smith realized that many theologians today fail to deal with the time between the New Testament and the present age. They are content with a comparative study between the New Testament and a modern understanding of it. From this perspective, the New Testament contained what was essentially Christian, plus nonessential additions from later ages. In modern beliefs, we can still find the kernel of original Christianity along with modern beliefs. The full development of the historical method made these comparisons possible.

50

Religion of Democracy

People know that all religions have a historical development, which means that Christianity is a growing movement. Sabatier, in Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion, deals with Christianity and religion in general, from the perspective of historical and psychological study of religion. He considered religion to be a natural and necessary endeavor of human experience. Religion arises because of practical human needs of living. Needs arise in particular historical situations and they are expressed in concepts of the time. Sabatier considered Christianity an outgrowth from the religion of the Old Testament, which at it zenith focused on an inward mystical experience of God. Rites and ceremonies were based on these inward experiences. He considered the essence of Christianity to be based on the religious consciousness of Jesus, which represented the most complete development of religion. Jesus was aware of his tie with God, which constituted the essence of Christianity. Jesus was not interested in various forms of worship or in theology, leaving Christians free to organize in a manner that promoted Christianity’s vitality. Thus, rituals and theological doctrines arose which supported this vitality but were always subordinate to the religious experience. Sabatier considered real Christianity to be this inward experience, free from any disadvantage, which might arise by attempts to identify Christianity with any particular stage of its growth. This freedom is allowed because no theology is necessary for true Christianity. One might question whether Sabatier adequately expressed Christianity in terms of an inward spiritual experience, which appears to suggest that the essence of Christianity is an abstraction. His position would be reinforced by noting that the essence of Christianity includes the content of the total Christian tradition. Sabatier and Adolf Harnack held similar positions, as they both wished to think of Christianity existing perfectly in Jesus’s inner religious experience. Sabatier interpreted Jesus’s experience as being a form of spiritual mysticism, which was capable of inspiring various forms of theology. He also recognized the positive value of doctrines. Harnack viewed Catholic doctrines and worship practices as a corruption of Christianity, and suggested that if one desired to be a genuine Christian, one should renounce non-Christian ecclesiastical organization. Alfred Firmin Loisy disagreed with Sabatier and Harnack. He did not believe that Jesus’s original gospel could be reduced to a pure spirituality, as Harnack indicated. Loisy also considered the gospel to be adequately expressed in the developing Catholic Church and that the historical evolution of Christianity expresses the true essence of Christianity. He also defined primitive Christianity based on historical investigation, and

Second Decade: The Writings

51

questioned whether this religion is appropriate to the modern age. Loisy also considered the eschatological interpretation of history to be an essential part of the religious experience of Jesus. He suggested that this idea of the coming Kingdom was such an essential part of Jesus’s teaching that historians should make this hope the essence of the gospel. What Is Christianity? In “What is Christianity?” 1914, Smith had previously discussed the process of changing from reproducing authorized doctrines to the method of asking inductively what we have a right to believe. He noted that it is possible that an inductive approach could produce the same result as the method of appeal to authority. In considering the changes taking place in thinking, we should recall the large group who hold to fundamental religious beliefs and the confidence it provides. Smith suggested that these changes should be considered adjustments of Christianity to new situations. Having noted the fact of historical continuity, we note that beliefs of one generation are not necessarily the same for later generations. Christianity is declared by its exponents to involve a sum of doctrines, which loyal Christians were to affirm. Today different doctrines are reflected in different denominations. When one affirms the method of honest and free inquiry, the question becomes more difficult. One may discover that one has no interest in some of them and consider that they really do not belong in Christianity. However, if we are free to restrict attention to our vital convictions, how can we define Christianity? Smith noted that thousands of people today are facing this situation. Harnack’s What Is Christianity? spoke to this situation. If one doubts, what is the nature of Christianity that allows such doubt? Thousands of university students faced this situation. In addressing this topic, Harnack spoke to about six hundred students. A student took stenographic reports of the lecture and presented them to Harnack, with the recommendation that they be published. Harnack proposed to answer the question “What Is Christianity? by historical investigation; but he found varying systems of belief and practice which all claimed to be Christian. He suggested there was a permanent essence of Christianity that allowed variations, which are always presented as the authentic gospel. He also discovered that “Real Christianity is to be recognized in all of the various historical forms of that faith.”59 Each form of faith added obscure elements taken from contemporary life of the time. At times, a group would reinterpret the gospel message and eliminate elements that did not belong. Except for the

52

Religion of Democracy

periods of Reformation, the church was largely “a history of the progressive obscuration of the gospel.”60 Harnack turned to the teachings of Jesus, recognizing that these teachings were dependent upon the work the evangelist attributed to Jesus. Harnack thought that when we get beneath these inherited ideas we discover the pure gospel Jesus proclaimed. Harnack summed it up to three ideas: “The Kingdom of God and Its Coming;” “God, the Father, and the Infinite Value of the Human Soul;” and “The Higher Righteousness and the Prophet of Love.”61 Harnack presented the historic types of Christianity, demonstrating how each has added to the gospels certain philosophical or political elements seeking to make the church dominant. He judged the different forms of Christianity by whether they put in the forefront the simple spiritual gospel. Harnack declared that Jesus required no particular Christology. He spoke of “the double gospel”—the gospel of Jesus and the gospel about Jesus, and contended that the latter should be subordinate to the former. The gospel about Jesus Harnack contended was not essentially Christian. He received considerable objections to his position. Reinhold Seeberg published The Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion two years after Harnack’s book. It was his contention to present a more conservative judgment on the essentials of Christianity. Seeberg was considered part of the “modern positive” school of theologians, which demanded complete freedom of investigation. He, like Harnack, stressed that the essence of Christianity is an inward experience. Seeberg was interested in the activities of Jesus that expressed the “absolute loveenergy” of God. Problems arose with his position, especially whether “the essence of Christianity is to be found fundamentally in the divine provision for our salvation rather than in the human experience of salvation. Can we trust wholly to human experience to define the divine source?”62 Shailer Mathews’ The Gospel and the Modern Man sought to avoid the subjective elements that Harnack and Seeberg included. He suggested that since a modern person does not put religious hopes in an apocalyptic catastrophe, the eschatology of the New Testament was considered unimportant. Mathews attempted to present Christianity in terms of the original participants. He contended that the New Testament faith might be analyzed into two elements: “(1) actual experiences on the part of Jesus or of the disciples due to their contact with definite facts and (2) inherited ideas or concepts which they used in the exposition of those experiences. However, these are not a primary aspect of Christianity as are the facts of

Second Decade: The Writings

53

experience.”63 Mathews emphasized the facts of experience as a primary aspect of Christianity. The three books assumed that essential Christianity is found in its original form and that modern Christians derive their religious life directly from the New Testament form of Christianity. For them, being a Christian means to be in vital relation with the historical Jesus. Theology and the Doctrine of Evolution In “Theology and the Doctrine of Evolution” 1915, Smith reaffirmed that Christianity is always in a process of growth. Since Darwin’s day, whole sciences have adopted the principle of evolution. Evolution has captured the imagination of the people, as has the industrial revolution with its many social problems. The social problems are reinforced by the teachings of Jesus, but the theory of evolution appears to contradict some doctrines considered authorized by the Bible. For this reason, evolution has become a serious problem for Christian thinkers. Both of these aspects of modern thought are so potent that theology cannot ignore them or evade the primary question of the way we construct our theological beliefs. Evolution contradicted the biblical account of divine creation by fiat. When evolution grew in favor, theologians sought to recognize the scientific data supporting evolution, without giving up their belief in the divine authority of scripture. Attempts were made to “harmonize” Genesis with the scientific data by an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, with the meaning of biblical text transformed to be more in accord with scientific accuracy. This approach brought some comfort, but it proved to be unsatisfactory because of its evasive fashion of reaching conclusions. This created in the minds of scientists a suspicion that theologians were more concerned with saving face than confronting the facts. In 1889, Professor LeConte published Evolution and Its Relations to Religious Thought. He accepted evolution and contended that it was compatible with a vibrant religious faith. Henry Drummond, in 1889, published Natural Law in the Spiritual World. He applied the principles of biological evolution to traditional Christian ideas. Drummond’s book received popular approval and established the positive use of evolution in interpreting Christianity. Smith noted that within thirty years following Drummond’s publication, theological opposition to evolution had subsided, with evolution receiving a positive place in religious thinking. Lyman Abbott published The Theology of an Evolutionist. Abbott believed that evolution was here to stay. His approach was to present a familiar doctrine of traditional theology, asking whether an interpretation may be given to the doctrines that are consistent with believing in

54

Religion of Democracy

evolution. Abbott postulated, “If everything comes into existence by continuous progressive change, what may be said about creation, sin, redemption, and other Christian doctrines?”64 His reply was adapted to meet the needs of average Christians, whose primary concern is whether their religious assurance can be maintained. James Y. Simpson published The Spiritual Interpretation of Nature, which reveals his scientific training. He sought the content of evolution from the perspective of biological science. Evolution means that everything occurs through a process of “change with continuity.” Simpson postulated that science and religion deal with the same world, but from different perspectives and purposes. He does not withdraw religion from the world of evolution and scientific criticism. Rather, he insists that science and religion deal with the same world, but from different orientations and purposes. Religion can be viewed as an attempt to understand life and the world using methods superior to those provided by non-religious inquiry. He contended that humans are justified in concluding that—in the cosmic process—there is a quality that is teleological and indicates a divine purpose guides the cosmic process. Francis H. Johnson in God in Evolution seeks to be consistently empirical. He noted that our inherited beliefs are based on their being biblically based, but modern science has forced us to abandon these biblical ideas. Johnson understood that our beliefs are products of evolution. However, he conceded that our beliefs needed to be revised based on critical testing. Our inherited belief in God requires revision. After considering the facts, Johnson concluded that God is not the omnipotent absolute as suggested in theological treatises. Religion means that God and humans must work together for spiritual aims. What Shall the Systematic Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar? In “What Shall the Systematic Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar?” 1915, Smith’s purpose was to pose questions on the relationship which should prevail, between the department of New Testament interpretation and the department of systematic theology, in light of the present methods of scholarship. “Dr. Shedd declared that the principal difference between systematic theology and biblical theology lay in the fact that the biblical theologian dealt with the body of doctrine part by part, while the systematic theologian considered it as a comprehensive whole.”65 The biblical theologian deals with doctrinal materials in sequences established by the New Testament writers. The systematic

Second Decade: The Writings

55

theologian employs the same material but is free to consult the logical requirements of a system. Smith recognized that this approach is still felt in both departments and in churches. New Testament scholars do not provide a strictly historical interpretation. They cannot escape the fact that preachers and religious teachers employ the New Testament as a textbook in religion and morals. However, the historical method of interpretation abandoned this conception. Modern New Testament scholars aim to expose the religious thoughts and actions of those living in the New Testament period, but some elements cannot be employed in modern theological considerations. Still, it is the responsibility of those conducting historical exposition to do full justice to first century ideas, whether they are or are not of essential importance for the modern period. In systematic theology, this biblical foundation is abandoned. Systematic theologians are more interested in the questions religious persons today are asking. They seek to consider these questions in order to endorse religious convictions. These theologians do not deal with obsolete matters that have been imbedded in the body of New Testament theology. However, they must consider contemporary problems being raised today, even though these issues were unknown in the first century. Theologians, who identified with the older conception that combined biblical theology and systematic theology, approached the content of modern belief by appealing to the New Testament. They also approach the New Testament from a dogmatic instead of a historical perspective. Unless the theologian is professionally able to engage in exact historical exegesis, the result may be an artificial interpretation. Smith postulated, “The continued employment of loosely edifying ways of interpreting the New Testament, however, inevitably means a loss of the capacity for conscientious truthfulness in reporting and interpreting the words of others. One of the most disheartening things about much theological controversy of our day is the unscrupulous lack of truthfulness in representing the position of an opponent.”66 He insisted that such an approach reveals a lax standard of reporting about contemporary life. For a systematic theologian to employ misrepresentations of the New Testament ideas is wrong. To substitute a superficial exegesis for adequate scholarship will continue until the ideal of accurate historical interpretation becomes a moral obligation. The New Testament scholar should insist that no doctrine should be considered unless one has the training for exact historical interpretation. These scholars should require theologians to be scientifically exacting in projecting the conditions of modern religious beliefs. The most important

56

Religion of Democracy

thing is to speak against superficial biblical interpretation in order to view adequately the true nature of the theological responsibility. Smith suggested that current doctrinal interpretations of the New Testament are often dictated by the religious convictions of modern life. The fact that New Testament doctrines are historically conditioned requires modification of the idea that systematic theology should include biblical doctrines as they are. Smith desired to distinguish between “temporal” aspects of the New Testament and those that are “eternally true.” An apocalyptic eschatology is not compatible with modern evolution. Smith suggested there are other elements of the New Testament that evoke our positive response, as we attempt to separate the kernel from the husk of the doctrine. We should obtain “essential principles” which can relate to the constructive work of the theologian. However, the primary question is the criterion that enables us to distinguish between the temporal and eternal facets of a doctrine. The crucial issue is whether the criterion of distinguishing between temporal and eternal aspects of a doctrine is adequate. Smith noted that to make these distinctions would likely disrupt the impartiality of historical investigation. The systematic theologian has the responsibility of determining what use of New Testament doctrines can contribute to a modern theology. The historical facts with which the New Testament scholar deals must be considered from the processes of historical criticism. There are really two distinct types of historical problems. One type is based on actual historical data by which to test the correctness of a statement by a given writer. The other type refers to items where there is no sufficient data, leaving only the possibility of conjecture. Weighing evidence of such types is not simple. For the sake of accurate scholarship, the New Testament scholar should refuse to provide definite and final conclusions where there is insufficient data to support such conclusions. If the decisions are based on doctrinal grounds and not historical decisions, this should be so stated. Smith noted that when objective historical evidence is insufficient, the decision concerning what is true would be determined by common philosophical considerations. Modern inquiries about the New Testament records would never have occurred to a first century thinker, who believed in miracles. The inquiries of modern persons should be critically evaluated by the logic of modern thought. The theologian who attempts to establish doctrines based on facts cannot depend on New Testament scholars. Every “theory” of the resurrection is ultimately determined on certain theological or general scientific understandings. If modern theologians seek to ascertain what modern people ought to believe about the resurrection, consideration must

Second Decade: The Writings

57

determine what is believable in general about life after death. The theologian must deal with the problem of a rational belief in superhistorical realities. The New Testament scholar’s primary task is to furnish an accurate and rich description and interpretation of early Christianity. Our main interest is in the wonderful religious life partially expressed in New Testament doctrines. Smith suggested that these scholars should not engage in discussing modern theology until they have reached a satisfactory answer concerning their primary task. The New Testament should be read in order to discover what the writers believed. However, any religious belief is wrought out of the experience of people. What is important to understand is not the minute accuracy of what was said but why they believed as they did. Just as long as these scholars allow the exigencies of modern thinking to dominate their efforts, they fail “to do justice to those aspects of New Testament thinking in which the modern man is not interested.”67 These scholars also should not question whether the beliefs in question could be normative for modern religious thinking. If these scholars present an accurate and supportive historical exposition, what is its value to the systematic theology? It will enable the theologian to understand that this noble literature represents a vital creative religious movement. The theologian will come to realize that New Testament theology demonstrates that “it is because the religious aspirations and perplexities of the day made a creative use of the resources in the environment of the early Christians, formulating convictions so as to cheer and strengthen the soul.”68 If this is true of New Testament Christianity, any modern systematic theologian’s task is to bring doctrines from an alien source into religious life. Demonstrating how the New Testament religion grew and organized itself reveals the essential process by which any dynamic organization of religious life occurs. A modern theology must involve the vital issues of our day and must relate to how early Christians resolved their problems. Truthfulness In Teaching The Truth In “Truthfulness In Teaching The Truth,” 1916, Smith postulated that the problem of education could be illuminated if the word “reality” replaced the concept “truth.” No definition is adequate which does not place one in contact with reality and is unfit as a means of education. He also applied this contention to the realm of religion. Smith considered it a most appalling mistake to bring children into contact with unreality.

58

Religion of Democracy

Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy In “Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy” 1917, Smith noted that the United States has entered the World War with an idealism of great spiritual possibilities. He further suggested that our country should support President Wilson’s plan to make the world safe for democracy. “This means ultimately that human interests must be made supreme as contrasted with the interests of any one class or group or nation at the expense of another.”69 However, he contended such a possibility required that the Christian church provide a religious interpretation of democracy. He noted that the fundamentals of the gospel of Jesus included the value of every human soul, an attitude of good will, and the practice of the Golden Rule. These fundamentals are essential to any society that desires to live, based on mutual trust and righteousness. Christianity is more than a gospel of good will, as it is organized with doctrines and practices that require the loyalty of Christians. Of course, these factors developed before democracy, as Christianity struggled with the politics of imperialism by proclaiming that they were citizens of heaven. Still, the structure of Christianity was determined by imperialistic ideals, which makes one wonder if the Christian church can adapt to this evolving age without changes in emphasis and organization. Smith suggested four essential questions that must be faced for such changes. The first question focused on the fundamental issue between autocracy and democracy—who ultimately controls the decisions that affect the welfare of humans? Autocracy claims the right to such control, but democracy claims this right for its citizens. Smith noted that any restraints placed upon its citizens are not in harmony with the democratic ideal. In view of this fact, Smith questioned whether we are preserving in our inherited doctrines and polity an understanding of authority that is in conflict with the idealism of democracy. He realized that an autocratic religion would be an anomaly in a democratic world. Christianity in the mediaeval age was ruled by an ideal government based on divine sanctions that determined the content of religious belief. The doctrine of infallibility was an expression of absolute autocracy by Catholicism. The Protestant Reformation enabled the individual to defy the authority of the Catholic Church. The struggle in England also involved political freedom, since the church and state were interlaced. Absolutism rules only as people elect to support it. Smith suggested that Protestantism made democracy possible. Originally, Protestantism did not change the basic principles of mediaeval thought, contending that religious thinking proceeds on the notion “that conformity to authoritatively prescribed

Second Decade: The Writings

59

teaching is imperative. Independent inquiry is dangerous, and dissent from scriptural doctrines is disloyal to God.”70 The issue of biblical criticism became significant, as it was still held to be religious treason not to give one’s assent to the dictates of the Bible. Criticism applied to the Bible meant that the Scriptures are subject to human judgment. Criticism is essential to political democracy and to a religion, which serves a democracy. The actual authority in a democracy is the citizen who elects the lawmaker, which requires an essential identification of the lawmaker with the people. The historical method employed for studying the Bible enabled the writers to be somewhat mechanical in speaking of a superhuman oracle. The historical spirit of interpretation is required if the Bible is to be employed in a democracy. Blind submission is basically opposed to democracy. If the church is to guide in the new age, it must demonstrate God leading in the actual events of life rather than just issuing proclamations. This orientation required a readjustment of religious sentiment based on discovery of ideals and aims not previously thought. This also required a readjustment because the living generation carried a larger responsibility for discovering the ideals and aims not previously understood. When the Bible is considered as interpretations of the struggle for faith and of God’s response, it provides us the religious guidance of democracy. The church in democracy must make accessible the historical interpretation of the Bible, which will require revisions of religious ideals. Smith suggested that the democratic age required new prophets and creative leadership. When the resources of the nation were coordinated, the future took precedence over the past. Some considered democracy to lack reverence for traditional ways, but this was just an expression of the desire that the future will be better than the past, as nations learn to live together in peace. Smith questioned whether the Christian church was prepared to foster this type of spiritual idealism, since our inherited view of duty focuses in the opposite direction. Catholics accused Modernists of holding all heresies, because they are oriented toward the future instead of the past. Catholics and Protestants understood Christianity to be divinely prescribed and obligatory. Beliefs had to be those from the first century, which will not comply with social and industrial relations today. Societies were formed based on scriptural sanction, although few persons considered sanctions required. Societies were judged by whether such a society will enhance Christian living in the future. It should be noted that most Christian thinking supported conservative instead of constructive and progressive views of the task of Christianity. Smith opined: “The

60

Religion of Democracy

impotence of a religion which simply reproduces the past is tragically revealed when, as often occurs, a father who knows nothing but inherited ideas is helplessly bewildered by the religious estrangement of his son, not knowing that the bigger world of the son demands a bigger faith than that which the father can supply.”71 Smith postulated that the past is inhibiting the contemporary religious life, as the church favors conformity. Many reject the Christian ministry because they conceive the church as not supporting free and independent thinking. The mediaeval way of thinking remains in churches today, even when they attempt to be oriented to the future. If the future conditions our aims and standards, we must adopt the method of scientific experimentation in order to make advances in knowledge. The basic difference between a mediaeval and a modern person is that the mediaeval reasoned from general philosophical hypotheses while modern persons rely on the method of scientific observation and experiment. Democracy is a tremendous experimentation. Democracy puts elected individuals to the test of experience. If the people do not agree with the elected figures decisions, it can choose different leaders at the next election. Democracy can only exist when government is responsive to the vision of a better future and establishes laws to secure this future. The freedom to experiment requires that we learn from our mistakes as well as from successes. There is no a priori infallible authority that prevents error, which requires that we learn to distinguish the good from the bad. Smith questioned whether the Christian church welcomed experiments in belief and practice as characteristic of modern life, since it often is uncomfortable with nonconformity. To assume that mediaeval doctrines will—without change—be appropriate in the modern world, is to beg the question, because Christianity in the new age requires experimentation. As an example, Smith selected the content of faith in China, as it grows toward being a sympathetic organ of modern democracy. The missionaries are seeking a new approach. Smith opined, “If we shall come to see that it is essential to the vitality of religion in Japan or in China that freedom to think honestly and to construct doctrines congenial to the oriental mind be granted, it will be self-evident that the same freedom should be granted to Christians in our land. The broader spirit of sympathetic toleration may be the means of encouraging a type of Christianity flexible enough to meet the needs of the growing democratic world.”72 What should be the attitude of the church toward science? Catholicism attempts to keep science under control, while Protestantism is suspicious of a completely free science. The problem is that an a priori control of science, by the church or any other force, will prevent the discovery of

Second Decade: The Writings

61

truth. What is needed is for the church to put its doctrines, organization, rituals to scientific tests and if changes are needed to make them. This new attitude at the time was considered a necessary and effective weapon against the strength of the Catholic Church. It was easy to transfer this assertion of freedom from ecclesiastical control to affirming the entire system of faith and practice in Protestantism. However, a feeling of absolute certainty that God endorses our entire system may be failing to understand the basic attitude of Christianity. Smith asked, “Are we ready to exchange the absolutes of dogmatic certainty for the experiment conditioned by constant criticism? Is a religion that wants no risks to be preferred over a religion that is committed to ventures of faith in which the outcome is not absolutely certain? This is a fundament question which must be faced in our day.”73 Modifications of the old dogmatic approach are evident, as we exchange this dogmatic certainty for experiments conditioned by criticism. For example, in the past two generations we have come to view origins in a completely new light. What is true of the doctrine of creation is coming to be true for other theories in other realms of thought and practice. Smith indicated that it is here that the doctrine of evolution can play a positive role in the religion of democracy. Evolution informs us that all things always are in a process of growth or change. This view shattered the thinking based on divine rights, with moral values based on moral values of a supernatural origin. After time considering evolution, we gain insight into the positive part evolution contributes in a religion of democracy. We now understand that everything is a process of growth and change. No longer should we think in terms of divine rights and morals based on supernatural origins. In time, we discover that the doctrine of evolution actually makes possible a new kind of faith that emphasizes the grandeur of the God of the entire earth. A democratic faith will be forward oriented, as we believe that defects can be corrected. Christianity is viewed as a religious movement always in the process of becoming, which Smith suggested as a better interpretation of the providential guidance of God. When the Catholic belief tried to evangelize the world, its faith became complacent and generated the rise of the Protestant Reformation, putting an end to the ideal of ecclesiastical control. When Protestantism became self-satisfied, Pietism and the Methodist revival arose and set the stage for a religious democracy. In our day, new opportunities for Christianity emerge in the religious meaning of progress, based on inquisitive minds freely working out beliefs that inspire life instead of accepting prescribed creeds. A pathetic feature is that those

62

Religion of Democracy

formerly alienated by the church’s dogmatism are not aware of the new spirit growing in the church. Democracy and Religious Experience In “Democracy and Religious Experience,” 1919, Smith noted that although religions vary in beliefs and practices, it is not difficult to understand what people are trying to do in religion. They are engaged in experimentation, seeking from an invisible realm aid and companionship in facing the trials of life. Over time, religions change as the cultures change. Smith suggested that when national provincialism has passed, identifying God exclusively with a nation appears sacrilegious. Therefore, in considering religious experience, we must be careful not to limit it to a stereotyped form. Theologies have been considered to share a definite form consisting of conviction of sin, faith, conversion and sanctification. However, the cultural conditions determine the good that one seeks. In the Bible, Israel develops its religious experiences through the trials of battle, necessitating their seeking divine aid in battle. It was only after this phase of development passed that a more encompassing view of God emerged. However, some religious groups retained a provincial type of faith, which limited its ability to support total human life. We must keep in mind that Christianity developed centuries before democracy. In ancient and mediaeval times, Christians developed their beliefs and practices in the civilization in which they lived. Class distinction was the norm, with government being from top downward. “Christianity was interpreted as a system of truth and practices divinely provided for men and administered on their behalf by church officials.”74 Smith noted several conditions of religious experience in Christianity, from the perspective of government. The first was extreme humility as the natural language of religion. Salvation came to those who were under the conviction of sin, described as a solemn confession of human nature’s inherent disability. Humans had no natural rights and were totally dependent upon God’s mercy. In the account of the “fall”, humans were intrinsically corrupt and in need of guidance, since they did not know the way of salvation. No one could be saved without following the plan of salvation, which had been made known from above. God was conceived in terms of autocracy. God is so distant from humans that they could not experience God’s blessings and rewards except by God’s voluntary condescension. John Calvin’s doctrine of election was based on this ideal of royal perfection in which the perfect ruler made laws for people. Based on God’s free grace, some humans were predestined to be saved. God is absolute and unlimited sovereign, who deals with humans

Second Decade: The Writings

63

according to God’s will. Salvation is a granted privilege, not a universal right. Humans affirm their worthlessness before God, which might reinforce their sense of inferiority. Smith postulated that in a democratic age there was less emphasis on original sin. The gulf between God and humans is so great that one might consider God humiliated by condescending to help humans. The religious experience in this theology is one of passive acceptance, which may not fit with a democracy that is based on criticism of existing institutions and the right to change them for the better. It is questionable whether a religious experience based on passive loyalty can supply the inspiration which democracy requires. Of course, these aristocratic interpretations of Christian experience reveal only part of the truth, for not all Christians accepted reforms. If Christians are bound by autocratic aspects of this doctrine instead of human needs, they may be unprepared to endorse the ideals of democracy. In mediaeval Catholicism, one’s religious experience and life is an attitude of loyal submission to the regulations of the church. The first step in democratizing religious experience was taken by Martin Luther, although he was not a pioneer in democratic thinking. Luther’s contribution was uncovering and defying the autocratic church of Catholicism and insisting that humans must be free among religious equals. Now it was not necessary to have a priest for a person to approach God. Justification by faith means that all have access to the source of spiritual power, which is the ennobling of common people. Although Luther broke the autocratic power of the priests and the church, he retained the other main ideals of medieval theology. The next step in the democratization of religious experience is known as rationalism, which occurred outside of orthodoxy but influenced Arminianism and some aspects of the Methodist movement. Rationalism sought the full rights of religion outside of orthodoxy and rejected the doctrine of original sin. Rationalism had its greatest impact in England during its struggle for political democracy. They declared that one’s natural reason was capable of guiding one to God because God does not establish arbitrary demands on people. Rationalism has a serious religious defect, as it retained the monarchical conception of God, with God stripped of most monarchial powers. They did not look in the Bible for ideals different from their own reason. Smith noted that, although the rationalist democratized human nature, they failed to democratize the conception of God. Rationalism had no message for those who toil and suffer, as it remained an upper-class movement.

64

Religion of Democracy

The evangelical revival expressed a true democratic interest in that part of the population who virtually had no religious rights. It employed the theology criticized by rationalism, based on mediaeval ideals, but adopted Lutheran emphasis on an individual’s capacity for a full religious experience without an autocratic agency. The Wesleyan movement was developed from association with the Moravian Brethren. A member received the grace of God, which meant that the member was an active participant in the life of God and was under a strict control of ideals and behavior. Both Luther and the evangelicals viewed humans ruined by original depravity and stressed an inner personal experience of conversion. All class distinctions were negated, as they helped each other in experiencing conversion. This definite democratic movement virtually dominated ecclesiastical bodies, which had been under aristocratic control. It extended missionary efforts as they searched for effective ways of dealing with social problems. Alongside of evangelical Christianity, there developed a form of mysticism with a different conception of God. God was conceived as an absolute sovereign, which provided a sense of security to those elected to salvation. In modern times there has developed a simple and direct religious experience of real intimacy, which has been called the idea of the immanence of God. Schleiermacher expressed that each person has the natural right and natural power to experience the presence of God. Emerson also expressed the same experience of immediate fellowship with God. Smith noted “...the significant thing about this religious attitude is its complete abandonment of the theological structure which interpreted religion in terms of an autocracy.”75 Today religious experiences have been democratized in Protestantism, as the conviction that human endeavors have a divine reinforcement with an immanent divine power. Christianity and Industrial Democracy In “Christianity and Industrial Democracy,” 1919, Smith postulated that it is easy to trace Christian thinking in relation to the experiments and theories involved in democratic forms of government. However, the basic question in industrial democracy concerns the control of the procedures of industry and the disbursement of profits. Smith opined, “Democracy means that those who administer the affairs of any organization shall receive their authority from popular consent instead of from a source removed from popular control.”76 The benefits of workers are distributed in a fashion that leaves the workers reliant on the owner’s autocratic will. Democracy in industry means that owners, managers, and workers shall have a say in the decision of fundamental questions, which is similar to

Second Decade: The Writings

65

democracy in government, where the citizens have actual power to influence and control government instead of being controlled by a superior. Smith focused on “The Ethics of Industry in a Class System.” If society is structured on a class system, it means that because of one’s birth or other factors one is privileged to avoid unpleasant labor. Those not blessed by birth are confined to a life of toil. The original source of such distinctions is soon forgotten, but it is carried forward by social customs interpreted in terms of ethical conduct. The formulating of ethical duties is in the hands of the upper class. The moral condition of society is judged by the respect given to the aristocracy. When the upper class controls the conditions in society, they have the moral responsibility to show benevolent care to the workers. This paternalistic ethics was carried over from the days of slavery to the conditions between employer and employee. When a class system is applied in industry, the upper class exercises authority, but they also have the moral responsibility to show benevolent care to dependents. Paternal solicitude was the highest virtue of the upper class. The next focus for Smith was “Christian Ethics in a Class System.” One might think that Christianity would oppose a class system. However, Smith noted, “In general Christianity has taken for granted the existing industrial order and has interpreted life in terms of a deepened sense of moral responsibility within the limits of this order.”77 There was no religious distinction between Jew and Gentile. One’s religious life may provide an enhanced sensitiveness to the duties of a paternalistic social system. Early Christians were not concerned with an ethic of production. What concerned them was a distribution of wealth in a spirit of love. The important thing for Christians was that those of wealth should help their neighbor, as they considered poverty to be expected. They were not trying to humanize the means of production, as the emphasis was on individual purity of life rather than trying to overthrow the existing customs. The general Christian attitude is seen in Augustine’s principle that Christians should use the world but they should not enjoy the world. The only value of anything was whether it contributed to making life acceptable to God. Smith indicated that judging business ethics in this theological manner does not apply to the development of democratic standards. The practical application of Augustine’s principle is seen in the notion of Christian stewardship, as one is to conduct one’s life as a trust from God. The doctrine of stewardship had a positive influence on an autocratic industrial organization and exerted a strong influence for social righteousness. However, from a democratic perspective, the doctrine of

66

Religion of Democracy

stewardship is seriously defective because it is judged as a theological stewardship, judged by theological professionals who keep it out of the hands out of the working class. Theological stewardship is open to the same objections as the divine rights of kings. Smith next turned to “The Development of the Modern Industrial World.” Catholics explain the modern industrial unrest by blaming Luther for the movement toward intemperance. However, the discovery of America and the new world provided opportunities to alter one’s status by one’s own actions. The most important factor regarding new opportunities was the Industrial Revolution. Smith noted “...large-scale industry supplanted the smaller enterprises and did away with the personal relationships between master and employee, which made the doctrine of stewardship practicable.”78 Large-scale manufacturing increased the problem of introducing humanitarian relationships. It is the job of the factory manager to secure a good profit on the money invested. The worker is employed to work in the interests of the investors. Stewardship has become so commercialized that it has lost its moral significance. The workers are no longer willing to depend on benevolent intentions of the managers and seek by their own efforts to have a voice in determining the conditions of employment. The trade union was organized to oppose the power of capital. Socialism emerged to democratize industry by abolishing private ownership of productive property. All of these movements supported direct action by the workers to seek what they considered just. The actions by the workers and the response often by managers led to class warfare. In the workers taking this stand, they voice a democratic ideal. Smith next focused on “The Attitude of Christianity toward Modern Industrial Problems.” He noted that the movement for industrial democracy usually involves a class struggle in which the workers agitate for greater rights and more wide-ranging control. If their demands are not granted, violence often occurs. The church understands the evils of strife and seeks peaceful ways of dealing with these complex problems. With Christianity conceived as a perfect system of truth based on divine revelation, social reform is viewed as involving Christian principles. However, the workers’ demands are based on actual experiences in industry. Smith postulated that in the last century Christianity “has been more concerned with the theological correctness of the ‘principles’ to be applied than with the concrete details of industrial development which have given rise to the agitation for industrial democracy.”79 Since the labor movement often involved violence, the church was often suspicious of the movement.

Second Decade: The Writings

67

However, Christianity has always supported the poor and oppressed, but in recent years, there has been an increasing awareness that industry needs to be reorganized in support of human justice. Smith indicated that the Catholic Church was more active in seeking justice than Protestantism, because Catholicism viewed the church to be responsible for instructing people in spiritual principles. However, Catholicism opposed all organizations based on secular principles. “In other words, the Catholic ideal of a just society is that of a church-controlled culture…The particular kind of industrial organization advocated would depend on the theological conceptions of what is divinely ordained rather than on the demands of the people concerned.”80 The doctrine of stewardship was reaffirmed, based on the premise that one’s financial situation was divinely ordained. However, stewardship required that each person must be respected as an individual and as a Christian. Therefore, employers should pay a fair wage, which allowed the workers leisure and cultural opportunities. However, the workers’ lot for Catholics could only improve based on ecclesiastical control of conduct and the owners acknowledging that the workers are human beings. In a recent Catholic publication, the workers have a moral right to an adequate wage. Smith considered this humanitarian perspective to be a superior challenge to a profit seeking industrial society. He regarded the Protestant attitude, especially as expressed by Martin Luther, toward industrial development to be inadequate when compared to the Catholic position. The Protestant attitude toward industrial labor issues was influenced by the political doctrine of freedom. The dissenters raised this doctrine in support of their rights of conscience in religious issues. “It was easy to pass from the ideal of governmental non-interference in matters religious to an approval of the laissez faire conception of industry.”81 Smith recognized that modern capitalism has developed where Protestantism was the ruling religious force. He quoted from John Wesley’s sermon that every Christian should earn all that is possible, save all possible, and contribute all possible in benevolence. Applying the doctrine of stewardship to the owner of industry, the emphasis was on giving away surplus funds. Smith recognized that Protestantism has been increasingly interested in industrial problems. He mentioned Washington Gladden’s radical view of social problems and Walter Rauschenbusch’s stimulation of thousands in the cause of industrial justice. Protestant churches, especially influenced by Rauschenbusch, were increasingly focused on the problems of industrial reconstruction. The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America’s primary concern was solving the industrial problems of

68

Religion of Democracy

contemporary society. It was evident that the theological doctrine of stewardship was inadequate for dealing with these industrial problems. Smith concluded that if Christianity is to be an inspirer of democracy it must view life “in terms of democratic processes rather than in terms of regulations imposed from overhead.”82 Christianity and Political Democracy In “Christianity and Political Democracy,” 1919, Smith indicated that the purpose of this essay is “to discover from the history of Christianity the judgments which have been passed upon the nature of political power by the Christian conscience, and to estimate the significance of these judgments in relation to the growth of democracy.”83 Smith indicated that the answers must be historical, although the focus will be on facts and not opinions. Smith began with the political authority that dominated mediaeval thought, which was a system of political autocracy. Such a system could not support the democratic ideals that are basic to constructing modern society. The mediaeval system was based on the doctrine of the original state of humans, which held that humans were created perfect and therefore not in need of restraints or punishment. Thus, there was no need for government, for all people would naturally do right. From the imaginary, primitive state that expressed the purpose of God in creation, there developed the conception of the “law of nature” which was conceived as being divinely appointed. If one could understand the law of nature, one would understand God’s will. Since humans were created in this primitive state, all were by nature free and equal with access to the goods of nature. There was no need for any political government, since God had created humans in a perfect social environment. The sin of Adam and Eve led humans to scramble for the goods of nature. In this scramble, some humans were stronger or more aggressive which enabled a few to secure the larger share. Now injustice and oppression ruled. In order to restrain the forces of evil, God ordained political government with laws to be enforced by the rulers. Sometime the government’s rules were seen as punishment for sin. At other times, it was seen as remedial force to diminish evil. Thus, the legitimacy of political government was based on divine decrees and was considered as God’s representative on earth. The rulers functioned “by the grace of God” to curb evil. Smith suggested that this conception of the nature of political power protected the rulers from adverse criticism or revolution. If the ruler failed to diminish evil and actually increased it, the ruler would be judged by the

Second Decade: The Writings

69

divine purpose. The reverence due to the ruler was based on the divine authority of the rule. If the ruler failed God’s purpose, the ruler would be considered unfit for office. It was in the ruler’s divine commission that Christianity sought to influence politics. The struggle between church and state was based on both claiming their existence based on divine rights. The church held the upper hand so long as its theological based political theory was maintained. In turning to the philosophy of modern democracy, Smith noted two stages in its development. One stage was a struggle for political freedom with the mediaeval philosophy of natural rights. The second stage employed the idea of historical development and progress based on human experiment. Discussions regarding the first stage will be theological, while discussions regarding the second stage will be secular. Religion felt more comfortable with the first stage than the second stage. Smith defined democracy as “the assertion of the right and ability of men to determine for themselves what they want and to control the officials who administer the laws designed to secure the desired ends.”84 Democracy, focusing on human rights, begins at a different place than mediaeval philosophy, which began with the decree of God. The theological doctrine of human depravity played an important role between these two positions. It was assumed that humans in their original state were competent to live with others in a society undergirded by equality and freedom. After Adam, humans required restraint and guidance from God. Democracy, against the doctrine of human depravity, supported the right and ability of humans to exercise freedom. The rights of free humans are based on the ground of the original human nature as created by God. In its second stage, democracy is based on the preamble to the U. S. Constitution. Instead of focusing on the original nature of things, the Constitution looks forward to tasks that must be accomplished to promote human welfare. With the Constitution directing human government to focus on human interests, it displays a humanistic philosophy which Roman Catholics and other find unsettling. Smith’s next focus was on “Catholicism and Political Democracy.” Catholicism claimed that the church was established by God through Christ and was responsible for interpreting God’s will. On the surface, the Church noted that many of democracy’s laws are at variance with Christianity and even with natural law. Pope Leo XIII passed judgment on a society where each person is free to think on any subject and to do what each desires as unchristian because it supports the will of the people instead of the decrees of God. With Catholicism, the keynote is obedience

70

Religion of Democracy

to divine authority, which caused their rejection of the humanistic philosophy of democracy, of sovereign human rights. The next focus was on “Lutheranism and Political Democracy.” Luther freed Christians from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther’s revolt was against the Pope, whom Luther claimed was not doing the will of God. He also strongly opposed Erasmus’ Humanism. Christians should obey the will of God and divinely established rulers whenever this could be distinguished. They could protest a ruler’s decision on the ground that it did not express God’s will. Luther was more concerned that the ruler follows God’s purposes than the ruler function by the consent of the people. Lutherans are neutral to the form of Government so long as it maintains the assurance of God’s forgiving love. Smith turned to a consideration of “Calvinism and Political Democracy.” John Calvin, like Luther, was not sympathetic with the humanistic philosophy of human rights. Calvin differed from Luther in his stress on the Christian life, obedience, and the application of biblical standards to all life. Although Calvinism was a dominant force in breaking the absoluteness of monarchical power, Smith considers that it has ceased being a major factor in the movement to democracy. The next focus was on the separation of Church and State. Since the ideal form of government was one in which God should rule, there remains an incentive to establish societies based on Christian principles. However, in a democracy many citizens do not accept the authority of divinely established commands. When groups of individuals were convinced that the church was in error, the authority of the Church could be set aside. This right of dissent assumed each individual to have the capacity to discover God’s Will in Scripture. The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism, insisting on a complete regeneration based on the commands of Jesus for church membership. The Anabaptists, unlike Luther or Calvin, did not seek to rule the world. They rather sought to gain freedom for their consciences in the area of religion. In taking this approach, they extended the humanistic conception regarding the inherent freedom of humans, which was a basic principle in the development of modern democracy. The Pilgrims came to America and established a new experience in political organization based on religious freedom and the first written constitution in history. This was a government subject to human authority. Smith noted their government paved the way for support of the ideal of democracy, later expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution.

Second Decade: The Writings

71

Smith’s final focus concerned whether Christianity can be genuinely democratic. In an autocracy, one is confronted by an authority that is beyond one’s reach. Christianity’s view of church and government was based on divine origins that allowed the possibility of an autocracy. Smith concluded with four contentions: (1) an autocratic religion cannot prepare citizens for a democracy. (2) A democratic religion must exist by human consent rather than by a claim of divine rights. (3) A democratic Christianity must look forward rather than backward. It must exalt a creative spirit rather than the demand for conformity. (4) The adoption of a democratic spirit in Christianity means the development of intelligent citizenship rather than the inculcation of dogmatic propaganda. The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age In “The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age” 1919, Democracy means self-government. It can only succeed by the citizens expressing inner self-control. If the people lack intelligence, social loyalty, and respect for the rules of the game of political action, democracy will not provide a good government. The key factors in training citizens for a democracy are a sense of social obligation and a sincere respect of the welfare for all citizens. Smith claimed that these key factors are crucial aspects of Christianity. An adequate education will help the student to develop an inner appreciation of a problem and the power to attempt a solution, which must be developed in relation to the field where the problem presents itself. Moral stances must be developed in relation to the domain in which morality is to be applied. Smith illustrated the point in relation to the Great War. So long as the war continued, the morale of training held the attention of those being trained. However, with the end of conflict military training became tedious. If the Christian Church is to provide spiritual power for a democratic society, Smith suggested that religious experience and moral training must be directly related to the problems of a democratic society. If the church continues to preach autocratically, it will be unable to stimulate an adequately democratic society. An autocratic society puts divine rights above the rights of the people, which checks free criticism, but in a democracy, criticism is crucial to securing the peoples’ rights. The modern church has the imperative task of training their people in moral judgment, in order that Christian ideals may be applied to democratic discussions regarding political issues. Still, there are many preachers who are constantly preaching against the evils of criticism—especially in relation to the Bible, which they consider an autocratic authority.

72

Religion of Democracy

Smith claimed it was time for us to grasp the full significance of criticism in our democracy, especially the separation of church and state. The church has no divine rights or legal authority to enforce its decisions on the citizens. In a democracy, we should not allow an ethic of submissive obedience to be applied to industry or politics. If we do not incorporate into modern democracy careful criticism, our public life will become warfare between demagogues. Christianity’s impact in modern democracy will be limited if it continues to denounce and to distrust criticism in religion, for critical methods have been adopted in most theological schools. All attempts at autocratic control must be removed in order to endorse the positive moral and religious significance of critical methods. Ministers and religious teachers are actively training people to be positive citizens in a democracy. A Christian must reject autocratic control and learn to cooperate with all citizens in a democracy, based on the democratic method of free discussion. In ancient times, the rulers were autocrats, so it was fitting to think of God as the Supreme Autocrat. However, this tended to separate God from humans, with religion consisting of efforts to connect the gulf between God and humans. Smith conceived that the worship of God involved one’s emotions in adulation of the most comprehensive righteousness conceivable. However, in time a more adequate ideal of God emerges, often depicted from analogies of an autocratic regime. If the church is to wield its influence in a democracy, it must enable people to worship God in such a manner that will enrich the ideals of democracy. Autocracy emphasizes the transcendence of God, while democracy, if it be religious at all, the immanence of God. Worship of God in a democracy involves the discovery of something about God not previously recognized. In a democracy, the ruling power is integral with all citizens. In a theology of autocracy, God was viewed in contrast to humans. The divinity of Jesus was presented as widening the gulf between Jesus and other people. Smith suggested that democracy has been negating the autocratic conception of religion, with the Bible becoming a source of noted religious experiences, instead of being a collection of divine doctrines. These shifting perspectives have resulted in a major humanization of the conception of God. In place of an autocratic cosmic ruler, many seek a mystic passion for an intimate relationship with a divine source. Smith noted that philosophically there emerged the notion of a finite God, which he claimed was religiously an irrelevant idea. The Omnipotent God of classical times has receded, after confronting the great evils of the Great

Second Decade: The Writings

73

War, to the point “that God’s nature and activity have ever been truthfully expressed by the absolutes of finished systems of theology.”85 Smith theorized that worshiping God in a democracy encompasses human values which democracy holds supreme. The reality of God is discovered in our experiences of justice, brotherhood, and in the general enrichment of life. Smith indicated that we cannot distinguish between where God’s activity concludes and humans beings. In democratic worship, the presence of God is found in the elevating ideals of humanity, especially in paternal and filial love and in the building of a better social order, which does not stress an increase in material gains. Democracy cannot involve so called saints who are elevated from society. Smith proposed that in democratic worship the presence of God is found in the ideals of paternal love, filial devotion and abundant neighborliness. An adequate perspective of worship for our ancestors was that valid worship focused on the spiritual, making for a better future. Contemporary worship must be sensitive to the positive forces seeking a better humanity in the new world. Evangelization belongs more to an autocracy than a democratic experience. The good life is bestowed by grace, with no provisions for human merit. The tragedy of much evangelization is that people are content with God’s salvation, without consideration of active service in social renovation. Smith noted that the ideal in the Great War was to save the world from the vicious onslaught against American ideals. Smith suggested that there was one unfortunate inheritance from the era of autocracy, which was that humans were trained to receive favors from above, rather than developing an attitude of social cooperation, which would provide for an improved system of allocating goods. Evangelization pictured humans as helplessly dependent on God, rather than humans being called to cooperate in establishing a better world. Smith questioned whether evangelization could develop a more adequate form suited to the needs in a democracy. Sin is a concept that has been defined in relation to an autocratic system. One sinned by refusing to accept the divinely established government. In a democracy, sin would relate to exploiters of humanity. Being saved from sin one becomes a coworker with God. Being reconciled with God means that one is also reconciled with the righteous cause to which religious persons are committed. Those who are unconcerned with human welfare are withdrawing from the real presence of God. Salvation occurs only when this aloofness is overcome. Salvation occurs in the process of enlisting in God’s cause, which means the evangelization of democracy.

74

Religion of Democracy

With the rise of democracy, there emerged a compelling desire to transform human thoughts by taking the gospel to non-Christian lands. Smith suggested that sin—as defined by the evangelist—occurs when humans do not support the welfare of their associates. While this aloofness is an attempt to withdraw from the presence of God, salvation comes through negating this aloofness. When one overcomes aloofness, they become democratized and able to share in the life of humanity. Smith recognized that one does not first experience salvation and then add good works. Smith opined, “One experiences salvation in the very process of enlistment in God’s cause. And such salvation means the evangelization of democracy.”86 One result, of democratic development in the late nineteenth century, was students eager to carry the gospel to non-Christians. By the twentieth century, Christian churches were persuaded to provide for mission work in an efficient manner. This task began within the context of the ideals of autocracy. They would take the Gospel to the heathens with their false religions, since Christianity is the only religion based on divine rights. Eventually the understanding arose that the emphasis should be to strengthen and purify the most adequate religious and moral traits of the native religion. Smith claimed, “...this experience of evangelizing the native ideals is genuine democracy in religion.”87 From evangelism, Christianity learned that it must overcome its smug provincialism. They began to consider the needs of the world to hear the Gospel and eventually arrived at the conclusion of the need for a democratization of evangelism. In this fashion, the missionary enterprise was conceived as a democratic social program. Smith held an elevated view of the missionary, contending that “...in this age when God is bringing the nations face to face with the evil consequences of exploitation, the missionaries are the most clear-sighted and statesman-like leaders of democratic policy.”88 When the missionary efforts are understood as a democratic religious movement, Christianity has a supreme purpose. Smith noted that the traditional church falls short of the demands of the modern age. Part of the problem has been an effort to incorporate autocratic principles in a developing period of democracy. Smith opined, “The criticism which is so often decried as being ‘destructive’ may be only another name for a democratic freedom of self-determination in religion. If we look at all the facts, we shall see that religion has become more humane, more concerned with man’s present needs, more actively inventive in devising ways in which to meet those needs… but not yet enough of the religious interpretation which links the deed with the

Second Decade: The Writings

75

genuine devotion to the gospel of Jesus.”89 With the rise of the ‘social gospel,’ Christianity had a new vision of organizing humanity to meet its social and religious needs as the revelation of God’s purpose in that age. Smith contended in conclusion that the process of democratizing Christianity belongs to the same movement that is concerned with the evangelization of democracy. Making the Church Safe for Democracy: III. Democracy and Church In “Making Christianity Safe for Democracy: III. Democracy and Church,” 1919, Smith postulated that Christianity had always been a church religion. There has always been sharp criticism in and of the church. Since the Great War, there have been many voices impatient with the church over petty disputes between denominations. Its criticism only appears when the church appears essential to the achievement of its ideals. As religious experience has a medium of expression, it can be effective in the world. The church has always been essential to the Christian religion. However, religious movements have arisen in opposition to the errors of the Church and have sought a churchless religion. Without such an organization as the church, its propaganda enlisted limited support. From historical and psychology studies, it is clear that religion is a group as well as an individual experience. Religious movements have shown that the church is essential to Christianity, with other movements seeking to purify the errors of the church by setting up a churchless religion.

TheSecondWindup In “Can the Distinction between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books Be Maintained?” 1911, Smith noted that the failure to retain the distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings might result in creating a religious faith that later generations might find more satisfactory. Smith also noted that any religion designates certain writings, rituals, or localities in which the presence of God is accessible. The rise of criticisms, either religious or scientific, often requires modifications from either religion or science regarding the exact nature of these special events. For Catholics, the voice of the Church decided which writings were inspired. Calvin was primarily concerned to show that the actual power of the Bible was able to convince humans apart from the authority of the church. Smith noted that if Calvin’s approach were accepted as proposed, it would negate any distinction between canonical and non-canonical writings. Biblical scholars increasingly consider that the eschatological beliefs of the first century belong to passing aspects of Christian history. Smith noted that contemporary scholarship questioned the idea that external marks established the unique authority of the Scriptures. It has becoming apparent that traditional beliefs are not supported by facts. In “Christianity And Critical Theology” 1912, Smith questioned if the critical method is employed in studying the Bible and the problems of theology, whether Christianity will be stronger or weaker. At times critical scholarship is employed in the exposition of doctrine, but its final appeal is to an intuitive religious experience. In “The Function of a Critical Theology” 1912, Smith noted that theologians today have abandoned the mold of biblical thought and employed critical scholarship, which is located in human judgment. A theology based on critical scholarship employs the methods and tests that are applied to other areas of human interest. Smith contended that there is an inevitable relation between efficient doctrine and human experience. He explained that the strength of any theology must depend on its efficiency. In “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation” 1913, Smith applauded those seeking to reconcile science and religion, as he contended that these significant areas should be working together for the sake of enriching life. If one views reality so that scientific concepts dominate, religion recedes more and more into the background. The great service which science has provided is forcing us to face the facts, or to live in a dream world.

78

Religion of Democracy

Smith, in “The Problem of Theological Method” 1913, noted that a revolution in method has taken place, with the best theological seminaries having adopted this method and undertaken constructive work based on principles and methods that were previously considered destructive. This revolution in method has led to a new theology. However, modern theologians, not primarily concerned with theological systems, focus on the failure of traditional theology to answer adequately the pressing questions of modern persons. The problem lies with the method being unconvincing, even though there are significant movements in modern theology seeking a convincing method. These movements are attempting to determine what modern persons have a right to believe. Being equipped with an adequate method, modern theologians are able to understand the diversity that is occurring in all realms of theological development. Any attempt to consider the old method based on the teachings of an authoritative Scripture is viewed as unsatisfactory. What is Christianity becomes the next focus, which cannot be simply determined by asking what the Bible teaches. Smith’s third focus deals with Theology and History. Historical scholarship characterized that the increase of historical knowledge necessitated conceiving that Christianity was an unfinished system, but was one in continuous development. The fourth foci are on the idea of development that is most characteristic of modern theology. Smith recognized the universal acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis, but he expected serious problems of theological reconstruction. In Social Idealism And The Changing Theology 1913, Smith noted, contemporary theology required that specialists understand biblical criticism. He suggested that the present situation required an ethical religion as our guide, due to the discrepancy between contemporary ethical insights and traditional theology. However, Smith was concerned that in establishing ethics for the new age, the danger was that we rely too much on science. The Jesus-religion was based on a catastrophic view of history, with the early community under-girded by a fraternal ethic and the need to prove it was following Jesus’s teachings. With Christianity oriented to a supernatural order, it was not considered as a force to transform this world but as a means for eternal salvation in God’s kingdom. As the early church developed, it became necessary to delineate the conditions of salvation, with moral reformation possible because of divine forgiveness from the power of sin. Smith suggested that Christians’ belief in supernatural help is possibly the most permanent contribution of Christianity. With sin tied to worldly-

The Second Windup

79

goods and pleasures, we should limit our partaking of worldly pleasures. With the church considered God’s custodian of infallible and perfect doctrine, this reflected a decadent world with an apocalyptic concept of history. It was taken for granted that institutional control was the correct way for human progress. He noted that the basic difference between the ancient and modern worlds is based on the ability to control the forces of nature. Adam Smith suggested that the ecclesiastical ethics of the Middle Ages, based on the unchanging will of God, limited the evolution of culture. Based on Adam Smith’s doctrine of non-restraint, the best society will occur, based on free competition unimpeded by religious or political interference, which will result in a democratic social movement. The Protestant Revolution did not envision a secular state. Grotius provided the foundation for international polity by an appeal to natural laws. God-given knowledge was available to all without the mediation of a church, which constituted the basis for ethics. Authority is not derived from a church but from the natural desires of the citizens, which led to a social contract that promoted life, liberty, and happiness. The modern state was founded on a secular basis, defined by the social and economic welfare of its citizens, and by equal toleration of religious beliefs and practices. In a secular state, humans decided their ethical standards, which led to the secularization of modern scholarship. With the modern world increasingly supporting scientific scholarship, there developed a new approach for valuing human endeavor. Ethical precepts now were to be based on humans needs, without reference to any superhuman force. Smith recognized that the empirical and historical methods are being felt in all matters of spiritual life. According to Smith, the empirical and historical methods now affect all factors of a spiritual life. Ethics is now based on a science of relative value, instead of the traditional exposition of absolute truths. He noted that modern protestant seminaries have adopted the scientific method in place of approved doctrines by a church. We have developed secularized methods instead of ecclesiastical explanation of the origin of Christianity. Smith next focused on the moral challenge of the modern world, as seen in modern culture’s half-contemptuous view of the traditional forms and efforts of Christianity. Modern thought has rejected the eschatological hope, leaving the people faced with a sense of perplexity. He suggested that modern Christianity needed to abandon its ascetic attitude and value the natural instincts and goals of secular life. Today humans submit when science lacks controlling evidence. Social problems are now to be solved through scientific control. We now understand because of evolution that each person goes through a process of growth that involves our inner life

80

Religion of Democracy

and its environment. The old tradition of salvation, as an escape from the world and our flesh, failed to include the scientific formation of character. Smith suggested that modern religion must be able to resolve the problems posed by the staggering financial resources available in modern society, which would require a new perspective on the accumulation of wealth. We now realize that wealth is essential for developing our social and personal health. Christianity has been slow in realizing that our natural world is richer in possibilities than the supernatural world of traditional religions. Modern humans need to develop a moral passion that will lend support to the moral forces being realized in the new age. Contemporary religion depends upon its convincing humans that it provides a vital contact with divine help. The contemporary religious task is to indicate the latent religious value of modern life. Smith noted that a remarkable transformation of theology is emerging in response to the moral demands of our age, as we attempt to indicate certain ethical implications of the transition in progress. Smith next addressed “The Dogmatic vs. The Scientific Basis of Assurance.” Early Christians expected the world to end soon, so they could not provide an adequate basis for religious assurance. In its early period, Christian assurance was based on an anti-scientific foundation. It was not until the modern world that secular interests provided the basis for secular science to develop. Theologians’ assurance rested on the unchangeable truth of certain doctrines, while the assurance of scientists rested on the possibility of verifying or revising all doctrines by research methods. Smith suggested that the purpose of modern education is to instill this scientific spirit in contemporary persons. He also noted that those who attempt to be loyal to ecclesiastical demands and scientific truthfulness must be aware of the conflicts between the two orientations. Modern persons seek a mastery of method in order to improve upon the past. Smith considered that those who trust in the scientific method developed a theology based on an eager moral courage. He focused on the social efficiency of doctrines in their time rather than their conformity or non-conformity to an established system. A theology that does not claim finality or infallibility is more biblical than refusing to face the facts. Modern biblical study does not provide a new set of authoritative dogmas. Rather, it indicates that the historic genesis of doctrines can be traced by scientific means, though many modern persons remain against the scientific spirit. Smith considered that the ethical principles of traditional Christian theology were aristocratic, as Christians claimed to be heirs of a heavenly estate. In the modern world, the focus is on the resources available to

The Second Windup

81

humanity and to the moral values immanent in human evolution. Miracles were rejected by science because that made humans dependent on a superior supernatural being. Smith noted that moral efficacy is evident in changes in the doctrine of inspiration of the Bible, with writers of normal human experiences. We are in the process of developing confidence in the morally honest use of the accessible resources of God which makes dependence on miracles seems to be less secure. The loss of aristocratic privilege has been replaced by a democratic cosmos. It was Schleiemacher’s conception of God as ever-present, living, and immanent, which undergirded the newer liberalism. For Smith, an ethical theology compels respect for humans, confident that the limitation of our knowledge can be expanded. He contended that Christ’s significance today is determined by the ethical standards of the modern world. Many in the modern world consider the sovereignty of Christ limited, if Jesus’s life is not explained by a transcendent origin. We are pressed by scientific and moral demands to modify Christ’s miraculous qualities in order to develop an ethical theory compatible with a democratic ethic. In this fashion, the world is now for us one of infinite possibilities that provide for the fullest possible use of the divine power. In “Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion?” 1913, Smith contended that there is an extensive feeling among evangelical Christians that modern scholarship is dangerous to faith. If one’s religious perspective does not expand with one’s intellectual growth, one’s broader understanding will never exceed a simple faith. Of course, the advances of modern science make it imperative that traditional doctrines, considered essential for Christians, will be under sharper consideration. “New Conceptions of religion have emerged and have resulted in forms of Christianity congenial to the temper and discoveries of the modern age, so that it has become possible for a man to be fully in sympathy with the modern spirit and yet remain a Christian.”90 Smith contended, “...there is deep in the constitution of man an insatiable longing for satisfactions which can be supplied only by religion.”91 Religion only exists in the experiences of specific people. Religions die when they no longer influence individuals’ lives. It is a dead religion when no living persons adopt and use it in their living. Smith suggested that you could not tell if a person is religious by the doctrines one might believe. Religion interprets the universe as a realm where human spiritual goals can be realized. Religion also reinforces human ideals by viewing them in relation to the expansive sanctions of divine will. Changes are to be expected in any living religion. Religious changes are imperative when a religious faith encounters changed problems.

82

Religion of Democracy

In “Christianity and History” 1914, many theologians are content with a comparative study between the New Testament and a modern understanding of it, failing to deal with the time between the New Testament and the present age. However, modern believers still find the kernel of original Christianity along with modern beliefs. In “What Is Christianity?” 1914, Smith asked inductively what we have a right to believe. In considering the changes taking place in thinking, many hold to fundamental religious beliefs. Smith suggested that these changes should be considered adjustments of Christianity to new situations. He also noted that beliefs of one generation are not necessarily held by the next generation. Smith reaffirmed, in “Theology and the Doctrine of Evolution” 1915, that Christianity is always in a process of growth. Social problems are reinforced by the teachings of Jesus, but the theory of evolution appears to contradict some doctrines considered authorized by the Bible. Evolution contradicted the biblical account of divine creation by fiat. In “What Shall the Systematic Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar?” 1915, Smith noted that New Testament scholars do not provide a strictly historical interpretation. Modern New Testament scholars aim to expose the religious thoughts and actions of those living in the New Testament period, but some elements cannot be employed in modern theological considerations. In “Truthfulness In Teaching The Truth” 1916, Smith postulated that the problem of education could be illuminated if the word “reality” replaced the concept “truth.” He considered it a most appalling mistake to bring children into contact with unreality. In “Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy” 1917, Smith noted that the United States entered the First World War with an idealism of great spiritual possibilities. These possibilities required Christian churches to provide a religious interpretation of democracy, which involved the value of all human souls, an attitude of good will, and the practice of the Golden Rule. He noted that autocracy claims the right to control, but democracy claims this right for its citizens. Smith suggested that the Protestant Reformation made democracy possible. He further suggested that it provides us the religious guidance of democracy, although the Bible requires revisions of its religious ideals. Democracy exists when the government is responsive to a brighter future and establishes laws to secure this future. Smith noted two stages in the development of modern democracy. One stage was based on the philosophy of natural rights. The second stage envisioned historical development and progress based on human

The Second Windup

83

experiment. Democracy, against the doctrine of human depravity, endorsed the rights and ability of humans to exercise freedom. In “Democracy and Religious Experience” 1919, Smith noted that in religion people are engaged in experimentation, seeking from an invisible realm aid and companionship in facing the trials of life. Over time, religions change as the cultures change. However, the cultural conditions determine the good that one seeks. Today religious experiences have been democratized in Protestantism, as the conviction that human endeavors have a divine reinforcement with an immanent divine power. In “Christianity and Industrial Democracy” 1919, Smith suggested that the basic question in an industrial democracy concerns the control of the procedures of industry and the disbursement of profits. The workers are reliant on the owner’s autocratic will. Democracy in industry means owners, managers, and workers have their say in fundamental questions. When a class system is applied to industry, the upper class exercises authority and has a moral responsibility to convey benevolent care to dependents. The important thing for Christians was that those of wealth should help their neighbor. They were not trying to overthrow the existing customs. Augustine’s principle was that Christians should make use of the world but not enjoy the world. The only value of anything was whether it contributed to making life acceptable to God. Augustine’s principle was seen as an idea of Christian stewardship, which had an impact on an autocratic industrial organization. Smith shifted to “The Development of the Modern Industrial World” (which the Catholics blamed on Martin Luther) for the movement toward intemperance. With the discovery of America and the Industrial Revolution, largescale enterprises developed which increased the problem of introducing humanitarian relationships. Trade unions were organized to oppose the power of capital. Churches sought social reform based on Christian principles, while the Catholics were more active in social justice. The doctrine of stewardship was reaffirmed, based on the principle that one’s financial situation was divinely ordained and the principle that each person must be respected as an individual and as a Christian. Catholics postulated that workers have a moral right to an adequate wage. The Protestant view toward industrial labor issues was related to the doctrine of freedom. Smith recognized that modern capitalism had grown where Protestantism was the dominant religious force, quoting John Wesley that Christians should earn as much as possible. He also recognized that Protestants were increasingly interested in industrial problems. He mentions Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, and

84

Religion of Democracy

the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, who sought solutions to the industrial problems. Smith concluded that Christianity should be an inspirer of democracy. In “Christianity and Political Democracy” 1919, Smith, in turning to the philosophy of modern democracy, noted two stages in its development. One stage was a struggle for political freedom from the mediaeval philosophy of natural rights. The second stage employed the idea of historical development and progress based on human experiment. Smith defined democracy as the right and ability of people to determine what they want and to control the officials who administer the laws. In “The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age” 1919, The Christian Church is to provide spiritual power for a democratic society. Smith suggested that religious experience and moral training must be directly related to the problems of a democratic society. The modern church has the imperative task of training their people in moral judgment, in order that Christian ideals may be applied to democratic discussions regarding political issues. A Christian must reject autocratic control and learn to cooperate with all citizens in a democracy, based on the democratic method of free discussion. In “Making Christianity Safe for Democracy: III. Democracy and Church” 1919, Smith noted that, based on historical and psychology studies, it is clear that religion is a group as well as an individual experience. Religious movements have shown that the church is essential to Christianity, with other movements seeking to purify the errors of the church by setting up a churchless religion.

THIRD DECADE

The Writings Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity In “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity” 1920, Smith noted that the great danger of contemporary times is that people are regarded as a commodity and are traded as a commodity. The industrial revolution was based on a willingness to use humans impersonally, which is richly revealed in Elizabeth Gaskell’s North and South. Modern persons view the world with different eyes. “The discovery of science, the invention of machinery, and the conception of evolution has combined to give us the picture of the world as plastic material.”92 It is possible with an increase of knowledge, we may employ our effort to rid ourselves of many ills and in the process create for ourselves new sources of fulfillment. The characteristic trait of modern thinking is a confident trust in human effort and activity. An ancient view of pessimism viewed human life on earth as expressed in the doctrine of innate human depravity, which required Christians to depreciate natural human activities. Emphasis in the modern world is on using power to get what one wants. If Jesus is to have any power or influence in the modern world, it is indispensable that we present his genuine moral and social achievements. Jesus’s achievements must not be undervalued or robbed of their moral value by claims that it was easier for Jesus than other humans. Smith pointed out that an adequate religious inspiration for our contemporary world requires a different conception of salvation from the view developed when humans became conscious of their personal power. If the contemporary world is to be saved, it requires a passive dependence on means of grace. Our religious need is not an awakening of one’s consciousness of personal power. Rather, the focus should be the moral inspiration and the education of already established powers. Salvation under these conditions necessitates Jesus having the power to arouse and to advance moral idealism. Smith postulated, “And such stimulation is possible only as Jesus is conceived as a citizen of this world, persuasively

86

Religion of Democracy

and triumphantly devoting himself to the moral task of bringing human rights to recognition and shaping human efforts to the making of a righteous society.”93 Smith contended that if Christianity is to lead the contemporary spiritual movements, it must cease the superficial habit of mediating modern religious expressions by metaphysical norms related to Christian heresies. He further suggested that we should understand the significance of Jesus as a unique citizen of the world, who established a real companionship with the God and who labors to make the world a better place. Although we live in an unfinished world, Smith postulated that the best is yet to come. If this is an adequate analysis, God’s relation to this development must be understood as projecting unending moral creativity. Humans and God have the task of finishing an unfinished world. Smith suggested that a yoke-fellow is a more real God than a metaphysical absolute. From this perspective, the divinity of Jesus is more adequately conceived by an unqualified belief in Jesus’s complete human experience. The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History In “The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History” 1920, Smith noted that the old Protestantism shared with Catholicism a conception of salvation in which supernatural powers intervened to rescue humans from this world. The primary concern was to save individuals for an eternal life with God. This salvation can occur only as divine forces from the supernatural realm of eternity invade the human realm and transform it. The Realities of the Christian Religion In “The Realities of the Christian Religion” 1921, Smith noted that in the Forward: “To The Student,” that “...this course draws its material from Christian experience in all ages and of many sorts.”94 In Introduction I, religion is presented as a personal experience, with the understanding that neither doctrine nor worship has any meaning unless it expresses a personal experience. Religious experience is the relating of one’s events to the spiritual forces in the universe, which enables one to concentrate one’s self and life in communion with God’s purpose. The quest for God is what makes religion dynamic. Because religious experiences vary, doctrines also vary. The significance of one’s beliefs is to be sought in the experience and not in doctrines. In Introduction to Study II, the stress is on understanding that the reality of religion is based on profound experiences. The course attempts to bring the student face to face with various accounts that express what

Third Decade: The Writings

87

religious persons feel. Inspiration occurs when one’s feelings are so intense that they reveal an intimate contact with great spiritual forces. When such an experience enables one to discern truth or duty, revelation occurs. Inspiration is to be studied by the historical method. Study IV focuses on “The Meaning of Salvation.” Salvation, like other realities of religion, is to be discovered in one’s experiences. Humans need salvation because they consider something is wrong and needs to be corrected. Unless one knows what is wrong, one flounders in the dark. We need to realize that what is wrong for one person may not fit another. No two individuals need salvation from the same evil. If the focus is on sin in general, one may be prevented from focusing on the sins in need of attention. Seeking salvation in general may lead one to neglect special stages of religious experience. The theme of Study V is “Christian Living.” One can understand the full meaning of Christian Faith only by experiencing that faith as a constant power in all realms of one’s life. The more conspicuous aspects of religion, such as worship or creeds, are important. However, the primary judge of a Christian is the way in which a person lives with one’s neighbors. It is suggested, “...the most wonderful thing about the Christian religion is its power to transform and ennoble apparently commonplace details of life.”95 Study VI focuses on “The Future Hope.” It is noted what an important place the future holds in our lives, for without it we would be unable to build on the actual achievements of the past which related to processes of growth and improvement. If one can envision the outcome of present efforts for a better future, one can be inspired to a nobler activity. Christianity is a religion of hope as well as a religion of present experiences. If one believes in God, one hopes for a better future. The person of moral purpose seeks the realization of one’s ideals, as the Christian seeks the realization of God’s purpose. Three aspects of future hope to be considered in this study are “(1) the belief in a better social order, (2) the possibilities of spiritual growth, and (3) life after death.”96 The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty In “The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty” 1922, Smith noted that the campaign against critical scholarship in the area of religion involves not only the question of truth but also the question of religious loyalty. He urged that critical scholars be loyal to the institution of Christianity, because there is danger in theological scholarship of a scientific provincialism. The morale of any cause depends on the loyalty of those promoting it. If this primary loyalty is not restored, the cause will splinter.

88

Religion of Democracy

Those engaged in the forceful effort against critical scholarship, for the most part, do so out of a genuine concern for loyalty. Christianity’s primary aim is to enlist others in the opportunities of religious experience and the responsibility for religious service. Conservative Protestants view critical scholarship to impair loyalty. Those whom these conservatives address have little or no knowledge of the procedures of critical scholarship. It is easy to mislead these people by quoting dead scholars who support their position or by indicating disagreements among living scholars as evidence of the whims of criticism. Smith contended that the conservatives are really attacking these critical scholars on the ground of religious loyalty. Attacking these conservatives as ignorant persons does not help the situation. The contention of critical scholars is that zeal without knowledge is dangerous. If religious loyalty requires accepting an inadequate theory of the Bible, the discovery of adequate facts will aid the discrediting of religion. To call on Christians to reject evolution will make students ashamed of a religion that applauds ignorance. Smith recognized the danger of critical scholarship. Granted that establishing the facts is essential, it still does not answer the conservatives’ question. Smith was concerned that “an illicit secularizing of religion”97 did not occur because of critical inquiry. Religion’s right to be is its organizing and expressing the experiences of love and service. However, in the process of critical investigation, the scholar may consider religion exclusively as material for scientific or critical historical conclusions. If the critical scholar becomes so specialized, it could lead to one dropping out of active association with a religious group. This would lead to judging critical scholarship only by scientific standards. Of course, not every scholar withdraws, but many become provincial and neglect the requirements of human culture. Smith presented two analogies of loyalty. The first regarded marriage and the loyalty that often revolves. The second analogy was taken from the political realm in a free country where criticism abounds. Smith noted that criticism leaves the critic and followers detached from the operative organizations and institutions of society. A critic who is considered an outsider will have limited influence. However, the critical scholar of religion today has a unique opportunity, for every branch of human knowledge is in need of revision. A critical scholar who assumes no responsibility for relating the scholarship to actual religious life should not complain if denounced as a foe of religion. Smith opined, “To translate

Third Decade: The Writings

89

religion into non-religious terms, or to use religion for non-religious purposes cannot be defended even on grounds of scientific precision.”98 Those who criticize critical scholarship demonstrate its wide influence on modern religious thinking. Smith urged a reorganized religious loyalty, which shall include all made known by critical examination. However, critical scholarship, which uses religion only as material to compose scientific papers, will find support only in the scientific community. The reactionary conservatives claim to seek conservancy and advancement of religious vitality, as they labeled all critics under the same attack. The reality of the situation is that one’s loyalty cannot be determined by one’s theological conclusions. Smith suggested “…loyalty is far more dependent on the spirit of social generosity than on any other one thing... A reconstructed religious loyalty, strong and virile because it faces all the facts, is within reach wherever scholars care enough about religion itself.”99 The Spirit of Evangelical Theology In “The Spirit of Evangelical Theology” 1922, Smith emphasized the lack of a distinctive evangelical theology, which differentiated evangelicalism from the types of Protestantism it opposed, based on persuasive appeal instead of citing an authoritative system in support of its appeal. Smith contended that by its focus on heresy hunting and theological disputation “the spirit of evangelicalism was in danger of being lost.”100 If the evangelical could limit these attacks, it was thought it might well provide a contemporary restatement of doctrine. Evangelical Christianity is currently defined in terms of certain theological doctrines. It is thought that, if the evangelicals retain their focus on these doctrines, they will maintain their power. Smith suggested that, by rigidly holding their doctrines and by criticizing and condemning those who rejected their doctrines, they appear to have lost the spirit of Jesus. He further suggested that defining evangelical Christianity by its doctrinal tenets leads us only into confusion. Garvie contended that over time the doctrines of the evangelical must change with the evolution of thought, so it is a waste of time to define it in terms of doctrines. Smith noted that the spirit of the evangelicals was as important as its theology. Luther stressed the necessity of one having a personal experience of religion and a personal assurance of forgiveness. His position was a rejection of the Catholic’s concept of authority. “In other words, the content which may be experienced is more important than the official character of the writer of the book.”101 From this perspective, Luther destroyed the distinction between laity and clergy, as well as

90

Religion of Democracy

repudiating the idea of an authoritative church. Instead of the role of the priest, Luther insisted the test involved a genuine on a personal experience of religion and a personal assurance of forgiveness. Catholicism held to the important concept of authority. In other words, the content that we may experience is more important than the writer of the book is. Luther terminated the distinction between clergy and laity. In repudiating the authoritative church, Luther made the test of a living experience supreme. Protestantism was compelled to prove that Catholicism was a perverted interpretation of the intent of Jesus. Early Protestants had no objections against coercion. If coercion failed, authority must be recognized. Dissenters must be treated as sinners. The evangelical movement in Europe largely shaped American Christianity. The non-religious character of American Protestantism was recognized by Pietisms. For Catholicism, authority was all-important. The content of a writer became officially more important than the character of the writer. Martin Luther abolished the distinction between clergy and laity, as well as repudiating the conception of an encompassing church. He also appealed to the test of living experience over claims of Catholic doctrine. Protestantism was compelled to prove that Catholicism was a perversion of the original intent of Christ, while contending that the evangelical form of Christianity was the type instituted by Christ. Protestant theologians attempted to prove the scriptural genuineness of the doctrines and polity that undergirded this denomination. This approach relegated the testimony of religious experience to a minor place. Early Protestants used coercion, even imprisoned and tortured heretics or dissenters to death. Authority must be recognized and obeyed and those with inner convictions must yield to the outer demands of the system. If coercion was not effective, the individual was dogmatically denounced. For these evangelists, the important thing was to deepen the religious experience in those who professed Christianity. The evangelical preachers affirmed doctrines of Protestant orthodoxy in opposition to rationalistic theories. The evangelicals sought to secure a personal experience of salvation, with doctrines being more than mere intellectual affirmations. It is significant that evangelical groups did not try to prove that they were the sole authoritative church, as they primarily sought to present the message of salvation so that listeners would trust in the Saving Grace of God in Christ. Evangelicals were irenic, interdenominational, and democratic. They were the first denomination to make the missionary enterprise dominant. Evangelicals based their emphasis on profound religious experiences instead of acceptance of particular doctrine. Smith suggested evangelicals

Third Decade: The Writings

91

were in danger of abandoning their ideals and practices of the spirit of evangelicalism by attempting to save its outward form. “It is the personal discovery that religion is a creative power in the inmost citadel of the heart that admits one to the fellowship of evangelical Christians.”102 Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching? In “Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching?” 1922, Smith noted that the campaign against evolution sought to tie Christianity to a dogmatic system that is being destabilized by modern scholarship. Those leading the campaign fail to comprehend the moral and religious significance of the scientific spirit, as they seek to deny future generations of the knowledge that is only available by free scientific research and freedom of teaching. “A type of religion which distrusts candid critical inquiry betrays a suspicious weakness. A virile religion welcomes and interprets the best knowledge.”103 Smith thought that religious people would eventually realize the futility of suppressing established scientific doctrines especially since scientists and Christian leaders almost universally accepted evolution. He considered it incredible that one teaching science should teach from a theological decision instead of teaching based on scientific research. In 1919, in Philadelphia, there was a World Conference on the Fundamentals of the Faith. They sought to stop the teaching that humans descended from brute beast, for it denied the biblical account of the creation of humans, the beginning of sin, the plan of salvation, and the eventual triumph of Christianity throughout the world. Lacking adequate knowledge on the subject, inroads into students’ belief regarding infidelity and atheism caused significant public concern. William Jennings Bryan made a telling point when he claimed that Christian people have consented to the elimination of positive religious instructions from public schools. Bryan claimed that without this religious instruction, public schools permitted a definitely anti-religious propaganda to be taught. In an article in the New York Times, Bryan stated: “Unfortunately most schools of this class profess to be Christian, but they teach doctrines concerning the Word of God, the person and work of Christ, and the origin of the human race which are contrary to the teachings of the bible and destructive of Christian faith and morals.”104 Many persons agreed that a deep concern for the religious welfare of students is an honorable attitude. If it should become generally understood that college teaching lessens the morale of student, the public would seek for a religious control of teaching. Already schools seeking teachers of science are definitely inquiring into the religious orientation and attitude of

92

Religion of Democracy

candidates. Of course, this appeals to those who are primarily concerned with the spiritual life. However, those seeking a religious control of teaching would deny future generations the discoveries that may occur if people are free to search for the truth. The fundamentalist considered the evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of species a “guess.” By calling the evolutionary hypothesis concerning the origin of species a “guess,” they find it possible to ridicule the proposal that teachers should be permitted to teach irresponsible guesses when these controvert the Bible. By this gross misrepresentation, they disclose a superficial flippancy that bodes ill for the spiritual honesty of the cause that they represent. All persons of intelligence realize that scientific hypothesis is a provisional insight that requires further exact research. If facts occur which are unrelated to the first hypothesis, the hypothesis must be revised to encompass the new discoveries. In this manner, a scientific hypothesis comes closer to the truth. If one misunderstands the nature of a scientific hypothesis, one may be robbed of some insights of real significance. A frequent argument against Darwinism is that it has already been abandoned by modern scientists. Smith suggested that in the last fifty years of research, the Darwinian hypothesis has certainly been modified. Most scientists realize that the scientific attitude involves humility in facing the facts that prevent premature dogmatism. Smith suggested that our doubts are not about the reality or truth of evolution, but about the origin of species. Scientists in the future will be able to construct a theory that shall account for all the facts in detail. President Hopkins of Dartmouth College claimed “the minute that education becomes something besides a sincere and openminded search for the truth it has become a pernicious and demoralizing influence rather than an aid to society and an improver of civilization.”105 The trial in Kentucky, for one with a scientific temper, demonstrates a suspicious weakness. If religion has become so internally oriented that it cannot engage in free discussion, something is fatally wrong. The blocking of free discussion makes it difficult for one of a scientific spirit to relate to the type of religion that vilifies and misrepresents the scientific insights. Smith opined, “Those who know and love historic Christianity must enter a protest against this movement in the name of Christianity itself. To restrict Christianity to the ideas contained in the Bible is to substitute for real Christianity the scribism which Jesus and Paul repudiated.”106 Certainly there are customs and ideas in the Bible that were appropriate to a particular stage of development but lack meaning today. Christianity was able to make modifications in traditional doctrines and practices that enabled it to continue as a vital force in our ever-enlarging knowledge.

Third Decade: The Writings

93

Smith suggested that those who seek to halt this characteristic of Christianity misread the history of Christianity. Smith questioned whether religion has so declined that it appears an enemy of education. He reminds us that the Christian faith suffused the best learning that made it the supreme influence in the world. All who distrust science and seek to dominate science by threats and penalties are opponents of science. However, Bryan assumed that Christians do not want evolution taught because it wrongs Christians to permit evolution to be taught. Smith questioned this contention, claiming that most Christians want truth seeking to prevail in education. He suggested that in the future as in the past, Christianity would welcome as part of religion the scientific spirit, which provides an easy way of being satisfied with doctrines. This view would make attaining the truth a constant spiritual exercise. However, modern education seeks the discovery of truth through careful critical investigation, which leads to revisions of previously held opinions. This critical investigation applies in the realm of religion as anywhere else. Students are also led to a critical re-examination of their pre-college opinions. Fundamentalist sought to outlaw this method of education by insisting that the conception of accepting beliefs based on authority shall be preserved. When an authoritarian meets a person who has difficulty in reaching a conclusion, that person has no proposal except submitting to authority. In the last resort, an appeal to authority is an appeal to force. If a person will not voluntarily yield to authority, the person must be made to yield. The painful thing about authoritarian zealots is their obvious lack of Christian love. Now the “campaign lie” has come to dominate our politics instead of the reverent search for the truth. With education seeking the capacity to discover the truth, the only adverse criticism of religion would be limited to a kind of religion that resists the truth. Introducing a student to a method of critical inquiry will lead the student to form conclusions based on a careful study of the facts and will also lead the student to be critical of religious beliefs. When the student realizes that religious faith does not stand or fall based on the rejection or affirmation of specific arbitrary doctrines, a new sense of confidence occurs. Smith understood that a movement of popular education was sweeping the country. He hoped that those who enjoy freedom in teaching would clearly indicate that Christian faith has no need to fear critical investigation. When religious beliefs are compelled by assent to “authority,” religion has lost its spiritual power. For those who believe that religious faith should always seek the truth under all circumstances demonstrate the vitality of Christian faith.

94

Religion of Democracy

Principles of Christian Living In Principles of Christian Living 1924, one of humanity’s chief aims is to include “good” things in human lives, while also excluding “bad” things. No one doubts the advantage of promoting the good, even if they are unclear what is involved. All ethical systems must be tested by their capacity to enlighten all persons to things that bring lasting satisfaction. Although we all seek the good, often we are mistaken in our judgment of what is really good. All acts must be judged in light of their immediate appeal, as well as its consequences. The quest for the good often involves comparisons, especially in seeking the highest good. From this seeking of the good, we develop a philosophy of the good, which is ethics. Moral good is what we seek even when our impulses point in a different direction. Moral behavior often appears as the natural way in which to act, especially in seeking the highest good. As communal animals, we seek the good opinion of others, even though we have to be trained to consider others’ rights and privileges. We educate the individual to learn to share with others the good things of life. However, when the interest of others differs from one’s interest, the welfare of others must be considered. Through the ages, our ancestors have been engaged in determining the fundamental principles to guide them in seeking the highest good. Through this process, each generation shares the accumulated experiences of the race. When moral ideals are conspicuous in a code, they tend to remain static. If the moral position remains unchanged while the conditions of life change, the code may no longer represent the highest good. Smith postulated that the spirit of Jesus undergirds our principles of morality in such a way that our quest for the highest good never abates. Often the common sense of the race expressed the good in moral ideals, such as justice and honor. Smith contended that profound moral ideals often take on a religious interpretation—which at its best affirms God’s support for supremely moral conduct. Christian ethics seek to define the highest good and to determine how humans may attain the good. It differs from other positions by insisting on the supreme test of Christlikeness, because it provides the best way of making our ethical inquiries with due regard to all human values. Unfortunately, false conceptions of what is right often glorify a sentiment of loyalty, which resulted in serious moral problems. This historical view of morality provided a way of improving moral ideals without upsetting one’s loyalty. The moral code of the age evolves from the social experience of that age. Christians seek to know the ethical positions that

Third Decade: The Writings

95

developed during biblical times and throughout Christian history. In our day, the youth feel that the morality of past generations fails due to being narrow and out of date. A historical understanding is required if we are to understand our present duties without tragic breach with the codes of the past. Some aspects of Hebrew ethics: The ideals expressed by Jesus were shaped by the traditions in the Jewish community, with some of these ideals dominating Christian thinking down to today. Yahweh guided the rulers and judges who organized and controlled social life. The ethics of Yahweh was to do the will of God. The message of the prophets was to do things pleasing to God, which are the human values which ethics interprets. Devout persons engaged in a legalism regarding worship and ceremonies believed to be pleasing to Yahweh. This type of legalism decomposed in Christian ethics. However, this legalism was a religious mode of perceiving the moral life. Right and wrong have been determined by God in the sacred Scriptures. The defect of legalism is that it focuses on a collection of precepts instead of the actual necessities of life. Smith noted that studying a book never corresponds to a study of life itself. It is essential that the Scriptures be correctly interpreted or legalism faces the possibility of becoming dehumanized. The prophets kept the faith of the people of Israel alive, by the assurance that God would rescue the Israelites from their misery. The ethics of God’s Kingdom contrasted with the customs of the Israelites. Morals prevent one from merely seeking utilitarian rewards. Smith suggested that Christians should be appreciative of the Hebraic Scriptures for interpreting the good life in religious devotion, which is also moral. Christian ethics always seeks freedom from the legalistic method, while conserving its noble spirit. The ethical ideals of Jesus’s central purpose focused on his being a worthy disciple. Smith noted that it is difficult to be certain what Jesus taught and suggested two considerations that interpreters of the New Testament must encounter. Christian readers of Jesus’s teachings believe that Jesus sanctions their beliefs. From critical historical study, we learn that the gospels were written a generation after Jesus’s death and do not provide the same accounts of his sayings. The primary purpose of the gospel writers was to provide an exposition of selected sayings of Jesus for the benefit of Christians facing problems and situations, which are very different from those faced by contemporary Christians. If we feel that the way Jesus interpreted morality indicates his spiritual greatness, we will not be concerned about our inability to identify the exact words of Jesus. This

96

Religion of Democracy

inability suggests that Christian ethics should not employ Jesus’s teachings legalistically. Jesus reaffirmed the coming Kingdom of God, where one’s standard of conduct will be judged. This resulted in a relative downgrading of trivial ritualistic requirements. Jesus presented the Kingdom’s social order being where good will is supreme. Since Christians today no longer anticipate a catastrophic revolution in history, they often view the Kingdom as a conception of a righteous society that will evolve from existing social structures. Realizing that Jesus presented the Kingdom in opposition to the present social order can be disturbing for contemporary persons. The interim between the present day and the establishment of the Kingdom was not a waiting period but a time for preparing for the Kingdom. The value of the Kingdom was its expression of an overpowering experience of companionship with God the Father. The Jews were loyal to their God, which involved unfailing love to the Jewish people. The followers of Jesus viewed themselves as select persons already living the Kingdom life. Smith postulated that in determining what is moral, Jesus was what we would call today an empiricist, as he spoke to specific situations and adapted conduct to the setting. However, Jesus left no ethical system, just his moral life and spirited sayings. Christians today should be guided by Jesus’s experience of inspired good will. The early Christians were conscious of living in an unfriendly world, which eventually led to their being persecuted. They had no illusion that the Christian ideal would be realized in the dominated world of Rome. Although expecting Jesus’s return, they planned for a continued existence in this world. Their seclusion led to a devaluation of the community, especially for the youth. However, after several centuries they began to talk of a Christian world under the direct guidance of the church. However, divergent views continued. The church needed an authoritative affirmation of Christian principles, as some new participants advocated bizarre doctrines. Eventually the Catholic Church became the defender of faith and practice, based on the belief that Jesus had entrusted his apostles with this responsibility. By the Middle Ages, the Roman church held enormous power, prestige, and provided great service to the people and preserved the culture that remained from their classical period. Catholic ethics stressed duty of obedience to divine constraints. Since all were sinners, their primary duty is to secure divine forgiveness of sin. In the confessional, one learned a comprehensive list of duties expected of every Christian. The Catholic Church controlled education and investigation and dominated as much of society as possible. This ideal of church control does not fit well with democracy.

Third Decade: The Writings

97

Martin Luther repudiated the authority of the church in order to be loyal to his Christian conscience. He rejected relying on the church for salvation, contending that one must look to God alone. Luther taught salvation by grace, not by works. One was constrained from depending on external authority, as Luther stressed only spontaneous expressions of Christian faith and love being truly Christian. Protestants rejected Christianizing the social order under church control. It was expected that each Christian would exhibit the spirit of Christ in all human relations. Rulers of societies were expected to rule as disciples of Jesus. Lutheran ethics focused on those attitudes that the individual controlled, leaving the political and financial matters in secular hands. Like Luther, John Calvin stressed that salvation was by grace alone. The Bible was the word of God, which Christians should obey. Calvin was more of a legalist than Luther was. Calvin’s ideal society was under biblical control and should be Christianized. In time Calvin’s influence waned, but we see his influence in New England as the disestablishment of the church rejected Christianizing the social order in the tradition of Calvin. The Reformation in England was political and not primarily religious. The Roman Catholic Church was eliminated from English affairs, being replaced by an Anglican church-directed culture. Today we no long speak of Christian nations, as Jews and all other people have equal political rights with Christians. Laws were framed to protect dissenters from ecclesiastical power. Smith postulated that there are two essential questions a moral person should always ask. The first is what is the highest good? The second is whether one is willing to devote oneself to the highest good. In the history of Christianity, primary stress has been placed upon the dedication of the individual to the will of God. Smith suggested that what is needed is applying the scientific spirit to Christian ethics, for it is essential that we have an understanding of all the facts. However, many Christians do not have adequate knowledge of the complicated issues of today. We have also limited Christian morality to only part of our lives. Christians desiring to help those in need must be informed of the exact knowledge which modern society has established. No one can solve a problem without precise knowledge. Thus, Christian ethics, embodying the spirit of Jesus, is a constant quest for the good. Christian theology at times has defined human nature as a metaphysical entity identical in all persons. However, it is impossible to get back to an original human nature. Each person is unique, with certain inherited aptitudes. From birth, the baby confronts being stimulated to develop certain types of behavior. Education is the most important influence on

98

Religion of Democracy

shaping a child’s conduct, which affirms that human nature can be molded. Each person has a conscience that leads the individual to do certain things. A conscientious person always decides in favor of what is morally better. However, the intention of doing right does not necessarily provide special insights concerning what is right. Moral judgment is acquired through wide experience in which different possibilities are carefully considered. A Christian conscious seeks what is required for a disciple of Jesus. Our Christian social conscious, like our individual conscious, is neither fixed nor infallible. A danger is that the conscience shall be overly sensitive to the notion of ecclesiastical matters, making it relatively ineffective in secular matters. Many treatises on ethics have focused on a distinct entity called the will. The practical question for ethics requires an empirical inquiry into human behavior. Freedom suggests that one can stop and deliberate before committing oneself to an activity. Smith contended that the conditions of freedom are a healthy physical and mental life, a broad range of interests, and a capacity for intelligent valuation. Yet, temptations occur, with escape being possible by turning attention to something more worthy. We gain a capacity for intelligent valuation by placing ourselves under the influence of those who have discerned the difference between what is good and what is debasing. We must be so acquainted with Jesus that we love what Jesus loved. In this fashion, we have in us “the mind of Christ.” We often project a moral choice as an arbitrary choice between two alternatives, while rejecting other possibilities. The better moral choice involves readjusting one’s conceptions to fit the facts, as one seeks to be loyal both to the Bible and to scientific honesty. Moral responsibility indicates that an individual is capable of some response to moral demands. Smith recommended the habit of daily confession in prayer as a means of cultivating a persistent sense of responsibility. The sense of responsibility is more highly developed in social relations with a standard accepted by the social group. This new loyalty should always include what is worthy in the old tradition, for the moral task is to co-ordinate different responsibilities. The Christian test of responsibility is to strive to be perfect as God is perfect. Smith noted that there really is no such thing as sin, apart from those guilty of sinning. Sin has become so burdened with conjecture that it is in jeopardy of becoming an abstract term. Adequate knowledge concerning the conditions of moral living is required if one seeks to live correctly. Such knowledge is possible by measuring one’s life by the principles of Jesus. From this perspective, we seek to fulfill a primary moral responsibility to assist the inexperienced without humiliating them. Failure

Third Decade: The Writings

99

to live by the principles of Jesus often occurs due to ignorance, lack of one’s self control, and physical conditions. We assimilate the social customs of the community in which we are born. Even when we think we are doing right, we may discover that we are morally wrong. Smith suggested that these sinful factors lend credence to the idea of original sin. When confronted with our sin, we feel remorse. For many persons, repentance ends with remorse. However, Christian repentance begins when our emotional shame leads to productive planning for a better life. Christian doctrine has insisted that divine grace assists people in their moral endeavors. Roman Catholics view the sacraments as providing our claim on future bliss. Evangelical Christians replaced sacramental salvation with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Faith is an inner perspective involving moral choice. Sacraments may aid one’s inner attitude, but they are no substitute for one’s inner attitude. Smith noted that the evangelical view of conversion conveys a similar sentiment to the Catholic’s view of sacraments. He further recognized that emotional evangelism increasingly is being modified by the principles of religious education. Traditionally one feared the consequences of sin—eternal punishment in hell. However, many Christians today find the conception of hell so vague that it fails to induce moral living. Still, we know that fear of consequences is an important motive in conduct. Luther projected the Christian experience to fill with grace the individual that includes the feeling of intense gratitude to be doing what God wants done. Being conscious of a divine call is a powerful motive. However, with education becoming the path by which one becomes a Christian, the appeal to personal responsibility dominates. Love is one of the strongest motives. Love is a sentiment of gratitude and an eagerness to please the object of our love. Love of Jesus provides a better understand of his teachings, as we catch the spirit of Jesus’s life. One of the strongest human influences is loyalty to a group. Many view church membership as primarily a means of getting to heaven. They may not understand some difficult theories of salvation, but they value feeling a part of the disciples of Jesus. Christians look forward to citizenship in God’s society. The current proclamation of the social gospel contends that the social organizations must be converted. Smith presented the Christian faith as a romantic adventure seeking eternal life. The Christian faith affirms the unbounded value of every human life. In spite of our sins, all persons are worth saving. Being citizens in the Kingdom of God gives the individual a sense of increased importance. Believing there is a cosmic moral purpose enables one to be devoted to a

100

Religion of Democracy

moral cause, confident that one is cooperating with God. The Christian has the understanding of belonging to the company that loves and trusts Jesus. A primary role of the Christian church is to support Christian ideals, which it does by acquainting people with the gospel. The church fosters a better life in a better world for an individual, as well as for all participants. It treats its members as children of God, who must strive for the Kingdom of God. It is the individual’s responsibility and duty to uphold Christian ideals. Loyalty to the church requires members to correct any faults in the church, in order to preserve the handing down from generation to generation the deposit of Christianity’s long social history. The Christian owes to the church leading a worthy Christian life. It is necessary that the individual believe that what is believed is true or one’s spiritual life is an expression of hypocrisy. A religious experience precedes interpretations of that experience. A historical understanding of the church reveals that doctrines have never been fixed and final in the life of the church. A living faith finds ways of revising doctrines. In the modern era, creeds are viewed as symbols of social desire. The test of a creed is whether it makes for a more Christ like spirit in one’s life. Worship should reinforce Christian behavior. Sunday should be observed in an effort to make people more Christ-like. Smith noted that today Sunday has become commercialized, when what is needed is to provide opportunities for cultivating the higher life. The desire for church unity is based on the moral waste of divisions in Christendom. It is absurd to have denominational separation, which has resulted in many inefficient churches. For Catholics there is but one way to unity, which is that non-Catholics must repent of the sin of heresy or schism and return to the fold of the Roman Catholic Church. Church separation among Protestants is being overcome to a degree by the idea of interdenominational cooperation, which leaves each denomination to determine their beliefs and practice. Smith suggested that the spirit of Christlikeness is best promoted by practical cooperation in tasks on which all can agree. In considering the relation of the church to the state, Smith noted three stages in the history of Christianity. Early Christians expected the political organization of the state to be terminated. Later the church expected the state to promote and uphold Christianity as the religion of the world. In America a third attitude is the separation of church and state. Smith next focused on the Christian family as the essential social group. Family relations provide a setting for frank discussions, which makes the family the basic and most important provider of social education. This function of families applies to Christian as well as non-

Third Decade: The Writings

101

Christian families. Biologically, humans depend on the union of parents of the opposite sex, who are sexually attracted to each other. However, for a happy family the sexual attraction should involve a solemn commitment to be faithful to each other and to make the life of the family a constant growing experience. In the Roman Catholic Church, marriage is considered a sacrament that imparts a supernatural grace. In rejecting marriage as a sacrament, Protestant marriage tends to focus on there being genuine love and a shared purpose of living together permanently. The test of being Christ like is found in the devotion of each to the other. A Christian marriage also requires a common moral purpose that is cemented with love. Normally marriage produces children, which provides an expansion of our parental love. The decision of the number of children requires considering the rights of a child to physical and educational opportunities in order that the child’s best capacities can be realized. In modern life, divorce has become an increasing social issue. When mutual love has disappeared, it is nearly impossible to speak of the “sanctity” of marriage. However, a minister may decline marrying someone who has previously divorced for individualistic gratification. Smith was concerned that life tied to industry has resulted in the disintegration of the family. Under present circumstances, it is imperative that the Christian family plan and foster a common social life. Christianity began as a religion of the working class and has always recognized the dignity of the worker. Christian ethics assumes that every able-bodied moral individual will desire to be usefully employed. What is needed is to organize industry so that work will be made more motivating and rewarding. There is a vast difference between just seeking a job and selecting a vocation, as a vocation offers the possibility of doing something worthwhile. Industry needs to be organized to make work stimulating and rewarding. The Roman Catholic Church separated religious occupations from normal occupations. Protestants did not specify any occupation as purely religious, because all Christians are to be engaged in ministry. A Christian leader’s responsibility is to minister to those in spiritual need. The Christian teacher is responsible for introducing young persons to their cultural inheritance. Today teachers are faced with difficult problems— especially as modern science and historical criticism have corrected many ideas that had previously been considered sacred. The Christian physician, with knowledge of the relationship between physical and mental health, must preach the gospel of clean living. The Christian lawyer is responsible to make the law support social good. The Christian ministry in industry

102

Religion of Democracy

must recognize that those owning or managing a business seek a large income. The Christian businessperson needs to make it relatively easy for other types of ministry to function within industry. The owner of industry must incorporate good will and moral opportunity into the work environment. Unfortunately, most workers do not have the opportunity of choosing a vocation. They find themselves, for the most part, in doing monotonous and often deadening work. In such toil it is difficult to find a personal motive that would give work a spiritual value. When one’s work is so limited, one has the possibility of an avocation in which Christian ideals serve the welfare of humanity. In considering the Christian attitude toward recreation, Smith noted that there are certain types of enjoyment in which Christians may not participate. Pleasure is dependent on the natural impulse not being restrained. Happiness is dependent to a great degree upon one’s character and training. The Christian test of pleasurable activities is whether they provide interesting activity. One should not seek only pleasure for it inevitably leads to excess. For Christians, the test of pleasure is found by asking whether it is compatible with a Christ like attitude. Christians should avoid activities occasioning wrongdoing. The problem with commercial amusements is their expense and the doubtful and spicy amusements they provide, which also requires no initiative by the individual being amused. For those engaged in monotonous work need agreeable physical exercise, as well as mental recreation. In large cities, life provides no playground except the street and fails to provide places where young people may enjoy themselves. There is also danger in activities that provide excessive excitement. Christian growth seeks a spirit of good will toward others, which wholesome recreation can provide. If riches and material possessions become one’s supreme end in life, one places the Kingdom of God in second place. However, there is moral value in ownership, which brings a sense of responsibility that is difficult to attain in any other way. One who owns a house provides better care than one who rents. The fact of legal ownership is often inherited. Just because one owns a property does not guarantee that the owner has a moral right to it, in the sense of having done something to deserve it. In the Middle Ages, the Christian use of property was formulated in the doctrine of stewardship, with legal possession based on a divine ordinance. If one has illegally acquired property, one cannot be righteous by giving part of it to society. Today we find enormous inequalities in personal possessions. This causes one to question if our present system of property is adequate. All wealth should be used to render to humanity some service. In the present, new experiments are being made which involve the

Third Decade: The Writings

103

individual in some service that can render to humanity a better environment. Consideration is also being given to the need of some form of collective ownership to supplant the present system. Every Christian should establish a budget to regulate one’s expenditures. Not all possessions are tangible, for the most important possession is in the spiritual realm. Whether a Christian’s possessions are material or spiritual, one has a responsibility to share them with as many people as possible. One’s most important possession, which must be shared, is the spirit of good will for Christian disciples. Christianity is now confronted with the full implications of the industrial revolution in a democracy. Ancient and medieval thought viewed industrial ethics from the perspective of a class system. Christianity dealt with industrial ethics in terms of paternalism, which found ethical expression in the doctrine of stewardship, and which considered whatever advantage one had to be derived from God. The leaders of industry regarded themselves as glorifying God. Modern industry is human made, which nullified the doctrine of stewardship. The modern worker was not enthusiastic about working in such an impersonal environment. Effort is currently underway to develop an organization in which everyone shall feel a sense of a cooperative endeavor. The churches are often ignored in industrial communities with the result being a strong sense of distrust and cynicism. This situation creates a moral problem due mainly to the communities being established for economic reasons. The workers seek a living wage, which involves an increase in pay, as well as comfort and dignity for one’s family. However, an industrial enterprise can only exist by making a profit. The problem is how to make these changes without dislocating the industrial process. Christians urge a spirit of brotherhood and good will, but how can brotherhood be established between workers and management. What is needed is to carry over into industry standards established in other realms. The spirit of trust and cooperation is possible only when the workers are convinced that the spirit of justice governs industrial relationships. What is needed is the introduction of democratic methods into these paternalistic organizations, in order that the ideal of cooperation may replace conflict. Other problems include the exploitation of the weak, especially women and children being paid an insufficient amount for them to maintain health and respect. Smith noted that a minimum wage is required to enable workers to live in self-respect. The ideal of Christian justice cannot be realized unless the welfare of the workers should be placed above fiscal interest of another group. Labor organizations arise because labor is considered a commodity, instead of the contribution of workers. Labor organizations seek to realize their aims

104

Religion of Democracy

by strikes if necessary. Christians should ask whether the rules of the game are fair. What is needed is moral respect of the rights of labor. Christians should seek to redeem the labor movement in order that it may be a selfrespecting moral force supporting mutual trust in industrial relationships. A better social order would bring about better human relationships undergirded by the Christian spirit. During the Roman period of early Christianity, it was dangerous for a Christian to be engaged in politics. The New Testament is concerned with the inner religious life of the individual rather than social or political concerns. It was after the conversion of Constantine that official relations between the church and Rome were firmly established. As the power of the Empire declined, the Catholic Church assumed power as guardian of the social order and became a political power, maintaining armies and engaging in warfare with other political powers. The church maintained that political government was ordained by God in order to restrain evil. The church was responsible for spiritual interest, with the state being responsible for temporal interest. With the Protestant Reformation new freedom was introduced which left the rule more absolute than before. Dissenters felt that obedience to God required defiance of ecclesiastical authority. Modern democracies manifest an independent attitude which traditional Christian theology condemned. The modern state is utilitarian, an instrument for peace among citizens. The state exists to secure the kind of society that Christianity believes to be desirable. The moral rewards of a rightly organized government are so obvious that Christians will give it their support. Our sense of moral obligation is strong in relation to personal relationships and weak when there is no such contact. We develop our moral codes in a random fashion, but one’s conduct is influenced by particular loyalties. However, these loyalties are not always consistent with our Christian teachings. War is a good example, for the acts of war are an example of maladjustment. Maladjustments in industry are another example. All such maladjustments challenge Christian idealism, which is frequently noted by a doctrine of moral perfection. Individual Christians were expected to live a sinless life, which usually led to difficulties. Compromise is required in order to avoid moral disaster. One who is willing to compromise contributes to the modifications and adjustments necessary in order to avoid conflict. Smith suggests that one who is willing to compromise is more wisely moral. The Christian is to love one’s neighbor, which implies a constantly enlarging of moral considerations with an increase of one’s neighbors. The necessity of compromise has been correctly applied to Christianity as it increasingly spread through

Third Decade: The Writings

105

Greece and Rome. The rights of non-Christians were eventually recognized, which resulted in Christians including what was good in the new in order to keep pace with the expanding culture. Christians attempt to organize their lives in consecration to Jesus Christ, which results in their experiencing a high moral idealism. However, when conflicting interests are confronted, the Christian views the required adjustment in terms of it being compatible with Christian ideals. When one becomes a Christian, one desires to persuade others to become Christians. The rules of industry and politics should be established based on experience and not forced to conform to Christian principles. Christians will still seek a way of maintaining an attitude in industry and politics that is compatible with the spirit of good will to all. It is evident that the Christian life is a spiritual adventure in which one seeks to share the Kingdom life with all persons. What Does Biblical Criticism Contribute to the Modern Preacher? In “What Does Biblical Criticism Contribute to the Modern Preacher?” 1925, Smith noted, “Biblical Criticism, therefore, compels a clearer recognition of the real task of the preacher, viz., to interpret the religion of his own day in direct fashion rather than by the method of the scribes.”107 Protestant Christianity is involved in a rapid evolution, which can be seen in the curricula of theological seminaries. Twenty-five years ago, the emphasis was on biblical study, based on the expectation that being acquainted with the principles and results of higher criticism would vitalize Christianity. Future ministers were being trained to “preach the Word”, based on the assumption that the more Bible the student studied, the better preacher one would become. In recent years, Hebrew is no longer being taught and the teaching Greek is also being relaxed. “But unless a man can read the Bible in the original, he can never be a firsthand interpreter of biblical texts.”108 Biblical criticism affords precise knowledge concerning biblical literature. It does so by inquiring about the literary history of a particular book. This raises a host of complicated problems. The books of the Bible—for the most part—are composed by authors who have been subjected to successive re-editing. Tracing the historical nature of biblical books and placing them in their particular historical perspective requires specialized scholarship, which most preachers do not have. Smith postulated that no longer do ordinary preachers have the skills of reading the Bible in its original languages. Previously it was thought that the meaning of a text could be understood by intensive study. The main significance of a word is the reality-feeling it indicates. “Now this realityfeeling can be sensed only as the reader or the hearer shares the experience

106

Religion of Democracy

of the person who uses the word.”109 To interpret a biblical text requires an understanding of its historical development. Without this understanding, just the study of words will never enable one to reach our goal. Further specialization of biblical study requires insights gained from archaeology and anthropology. Also important is consideration of the observation of primitive forms of religion that still exist. It also employs insights gained from sociology and politics, but an accurate interpretation of a biblical writing requires an understanding of what the writer had in mind and the mood of the writer. Smith noted that many religious problems in the Bible have no counterpart in modern times, for the biblical world is vastly different from our modern world, especially in terms of a catastrophic end of the world and a final day of judgment. Smith listed four points regarding how biblical criticism contributes to the modern preacher: 1. “Biblical criticism emancipates the preacher from scribism.”110 A scribe treats the doctrine and precepts found in the Bible as entities in themselves, which the scribe turns into a system and calls all to adopt the system. By knowing the truth about the Bible, one escapes literalism. 2. “Biblical criticism compels us to find a vital, rather than a formal, test of belief.”111 Smith postulated that finding a doctrine in the Bible does not decide it is relevant to modern theology. Dr. H. E. Fosdick makes a distinction between “abiding experiences” and “changing categories” in which experiences are to be interpreted. “Abiding experiences” refers to considerations that are as real to us as they were real to the biblical writers. “Changing categories” refers to passages that were real to biblical writers but are not to the modern world. When outgrown biblical categories fail to provide an adequate solution to a problem, we are left with the problem without a biblical solution. Modern persons must discard “changing categories.” The result of biblical criticism is that the real test of a doctrine is whether it is inherently believable instead of conforming to some biblical norm. The preacher’s primary task, following biblical criticism, will be to focus on the religion of living people. 3. “The historical interpretation of the Bible creates interest in the social situation out of which doctrines arose.”112 Historical interpretations require one to focus on economic, political, and social conditions instead of doctrines. For the non-critical interpreter, doctrines considered taught by the prophets are primary. What is significant for the critical interpreter is whether doctrines reveal a noble religious faith struggling for expression. The task of the modern

Third Decade: The Writings

107

preacher is to challenge a generation to follow God’s judgment. A critical study of the Bible challenges the minister to convey the practical and social conceptions of biblical people to those listening. In this fashion, preachers become more interested in living people than in doctrinal systems. 4. “Biblical criticism makes it clear that the biblical writers were children of their own age, and we’re speaking to contemporaries.”113 Smith noted that the power of their preaching lies in this fact. They appealed to an idealized past as they sought to make the present better. If the past has spiritual value, it must become an inspiration for those living. By a process of re-editing of biblical materials, they sought to make the past edify and inspire the present. “If the preacher catches this spirit of the biblical writers, he will concern himself with the religious needs of living men, using the past in such a way as to minister to those needs.”114 Smith noted that biblical scholars are aware that preachers often violate the standards of accurate interpretation. It is assumed that preaching should be critical, historical interpretation, but few preachers are capable of this test. However, given the state of theological education, it cannot be expected that biblical criticism will be employed by many preachers. There is a fundamental difference between historical interpretations of the Bible and evangelical interpretations of modern religion. Since the preacher is unable to master the details of biblical criticism, emphasis will be placed on an approach the preacher hopes to have some degree of authority. Smith suggested that the preacher who faces directly contemporary problems is more in accord with noted biblical characters than trying to reproduce the ancient message. The modern preacher will seek to be as courageous as biblical characters, in censuring sin and calling all to the higher life based on the conditions of modern life. Is Theism Essential To Religion? In “Is Theism Essential To Religion?” 1925, Smith noted that due to the increase of employing the empirical method in probing the nature of religion, unexpected results have occurred. Before the empirical method, religious doctrines and formal procedures were considered divinely established. Now they are considered based on human experience. Religion itself is acknowledged for its intrinsic values. However, when God is no longer the guarantor of religion, God’s role in religion has significantly changed. It appears that religion will continue, even if God has no place in religion. This contention leads to the question whether theism is essential to religion.

108

Religion of Democracy

Theism is the doctrine that nature has a Creator, with humans having a political authority and a theological interpretation of human experience. This theological interpretation of nature, society, and personal life can be developed into an intellectually adequate philosophy, with all problems solved by the appeal to God’s rationality and moral character. Smith suggested ways in which modern thought had rejected the traditional threefold doctrine of theism. The first was the rejection of the divine rights of kings, with the democratic thrust affirming the rights of people. The struggle for democratic rights resulted in the secularizing of politics. Smith noted that the Great War demolished belief in the divine guidance of nations. The second was the secularization of nature. The old laws of nature are being disentangled to reveal any particular fact, with each science free to engage in any promising experiment. “To presuppose any such closed system as is affirmed by theism seems to the scientist to be a pure exercise of imagination.”115 Smith noted that scientists generally speak of religion rather than God and tend to direct us from employing the theistic hypothesis. Transgressions are located in definite human conditions instead of in a general doctrine of sinfulness or a plan of salvation. This pluralism leaves God a dwindling place in contemporary religion, so there is little need for a theistic philosophy. Thus, the demand for theism is limited to personal religious experience, which raises the question whether one can be religious without a belief in God. The scientific interpretations that eradicated theism are now affecting the realm of personal religion, with the understanding that rationalization is secondary to the primary activity of human life. Ideas are secondary to the automatic reactions of humans to the stimulating environment. From this perspective, God appears because of human religious experience. Thus, first there is religion with theological ideas being secondary. The contemporary view of the nature of God is distinctively pragmatic. The right to believe in God’s existence is generally based on the human contention that such a belief is required by human experience in its basic aspects. This is the dominate view of contemporary theologians. From the history of religions, we gain the suggestion that religion often outgrows its theologies. Contemporary Christianity fosters an attitude of toleration, with theology a matter of individual conscience. Smith explained: “When to our secularized politics and our secularized conception of the universe we add the present religious toleration of theological differences, it is no wonder that men are beginning to ask whether the doctrine of God is not too difficult and too vague to furnish the best basis for religion.”116 .

Third Decade: The Writings

109

Smith shifted the focus to proposals to establish religious values without including theism. Some philosophers and theologians reject an appeal to superhuman forces, contending that such an appeal diminishes the social reconstruction need today. Max Otto, in Things and Ideals, sought to include idealism in scientific control to foster human welfare. Otto also contended that theism leads people to spend effort trying to prove that God will make things right. Smith considered this kind of faith to be immoral, because it provides an excuse to evade our imperative duty of analyzing the problems of social reconstruction. This antithetic position follows science, which informs us that the cosmic process is indifferent to human ideals. If one takes this position, it resolves the problem of evil. The primary task of humans now becomes uniting all persons in a cooperative enterprise of extracting from nature all aids enhancing human welfare. Pondering the inviolable order of nature, Smith considered any theism that identified the loving God of the Christian tradition with the trend of the cosmic process, as substituting sentimentalism for social engineering. Humans can only accomplish something by using the forces of nature within the limits nature imposes. It was Smith’s position that “a dualism between the cosmos and the life of man can scarcely be successfully maintained.”117 However, humanity would rather have the universe on its side than to defy it. If it is clear that the cosmic process does not care about human ideals, we live in a heartless evolution. Smith considered the efforts of Scribner Ames to be someone who sought to retain historical Christianity’s religious idealism. However, Ames reinterpreted traditional religious concepts in support of a social gospel. Ames contended that although God is a reality in experience, God is a humanistic and not a superhuman reality. We must admit that determined persons have been unable to endorse the doctrine of theistic control, based on the perennial problem of evil. We admit that the cosmic process seems indifferent to moral values. This perspective led to the conception of a “finite God,” who preserves the quality of love by declining to be responsible for the cosmos in its entirety. We no longer expect God to alter the course of nature. God’s activity is restricted, almost exclusively, to helping humans deal with their fate with spiritual triumph. Smith projected that humans in the future will adopt a more inductive approach in seeking to define the nature of the cosmos in terms of religious worship. God’s character will be found in the reciprocity between people and their environment. Life is an adjustment between organisms and our environment. At issue is whether we can make an

110

Religion of Democracy

adjustment that provides an experience of spiritual oneness with cosmic mystery. If this adjustment is possible, we have a religious discovery of God. Although Smith acknowledged the humanistic zeal of some antitheists, he felt “that there is a spiritual profundity in the mystical interpretation which is relatively lacking in idealism which attempts to get along without God.”118 In religion, humans bring their highest ideals before the vast cosmic mystery, which brings a sense of satisfaction. We understand that our conceptions of physical reality are not descriptive but are symbolic. If the theistic hypothesis becomes a handicap, we may abandon it without abandoning our belief in some kind of cosmic reality that stimulates in us the experiences we call religious. However, the theistic hypothesis is too definite for our enlarging knowledge of the nature of the cosmos and is too rationalized. We recognize that some processes are occurring which appear to be indifferent or hostile to our welfare. Smith postulated that humans recognize a quality of the cosmic process similar to the quality of our own spiritual life. This quality is adequately expressed by the conception of a Divine Presence in the cosmic order. Smith questioned whether traditional theism could be a convincing way of fostering a religious view of the world in light of modern science. He contended that when the mind recognizes our complicated universe, “it will demand some kind of spiritual fellowship with the non-human as well as with the human.”119 We cannot fully project the conception of God that will emerge, but it will express kinship between humans and the environment that supports our spiritual quest. Smith concluded that our religious cosmic relationship must be empirically studied and our conception of God must be formulated in tentative terms growing out of our experience. The Education of Religious Leaders In “The Education of Religious Leaders,” Smith reviewed Theological Education in America by Robert L. Kelly. He began with appreciation for the Institute of Social and Religious Research and its series of studies. He postulated, “…our social institutions grow up under the influence of ideals and loyalties which may or may not be wisely correlated with the facts which ought to be faced.”120 Too often reforms are undertaken for idealistic reasons rather than to meet actual needs. Dr. Kelly had collected data from one hundred and sixty-one theological seminaries in the United States and Canada. Smith was impressed with the lack of standards in theological education. He noted that Bible schools provided for Fundamentalist theological education. He was somewhat

Third Decade: The Writings

111

surprised with the lack of agreement on ideals undergirding theological education. Many schools focused on preserving unchanged the “faith once delivered.” The students were responsible for mastering the content of this original faith so that they will be able to speak with authority. Hebrew and Greek traditionally had been the backbone of theological education, although many no longer require Hebrew or Greek. To balance the changes, many seminaries now offer courses in sociology, ethics, psychology of religion, and in religious education. Seminaries were responsible for developing “real religious leaders.”121 This leadership responsibility raised for Smith a question: “Does religious leadership consist merely in knowing better the modern world in order to introduce into that world an unchanged content of faith derived from ancient expressions?”122 For Smith, religious leaders were not primarily charged with supporting a faith once delivered but were responsible for understanding and guiding a historically evolving faith. Another issue was the scholastic standards of these institutions. “In general, the seminaries seem to be organized on the theory that while it is extremely desirable that all ministers should be college graduates, yet many non-collegiate men may well be given the best training possible.”123 The lack of preparing leadership for rural churches and industrial regions was an evident limitation of theological education. Other issues focused on financial standards or the kind of influence theological education had on social or political issues. Some Elements Entering Into Present-Day Religious Experience In “What Are Some of the Elements Entering Into a Present-Day Religious Experience?” 1925, Smith addressed the Religious Education Association on “Religious Education and Religious Experience.” He sent a letter to some members of the Association asking their conception of “religious experience.” He sought to discover the meaning of “...religious experience” and how religious education contributed to the experience. Although responses to his letter were limited, those who did respond interpreted religious experience without using the phrases and words essential to a discussion of this topic a generation ago. The kind of religious experience the respondents addressed was that of a very mature person, with no mention of the kind of religion needed to cultivate children. The respondents took for granted that a religious life is a good thing. However, their critically individualistic conception of religious experience failed to address a factor of major importance to Catholics and Episcopalians, which is an emphasis on the church as the primary social carrier of religious values. Most considered the value of common worship,

112

Religion of Democracy

and considered the church to be a community of religious persons rather than it being the social carrier of Christianity. Smith addressed a negative aspect of the respondents’ testimonials, which was the absence of the main ideas of a generation or two ago. Previously in Protestantism emphasis was placed on forgiveness of sin and the joy of being a friend of God. In the responses Smith received, there was no hint of an angry God who must be appeased or the need of a special atoning process in order to secure forgiveness. All respondents recognized that today’s religious experience is a gradual growth of emotions and convictions rather than a crisis. The respondents placed a strong emphasis on moral attainment as the supreme end of religion, which may explain their omission of repentance and forgiveness. They also failed to provide for the eager enlistment in the moral tasks of the future, which is important to modern persons who seek a creative moral life. The emphasis on morality included the restriction of religion almost entirely to this world. There was almost no thought of religion being a preparation for a future life, which means that religious values stand or fall based on the test of the present life. However, their responses focused on religion commending the quality of adaptability to changing conditions. Smith suggested, “…a religion which engenders loyalty to a growing and adaptable moral idea is needed in our day of rapid change.”124 The respondents all viewed religion as an appreciation of the world in which we live. The religious person so relates to the environment that one finds the glorious experience of what is vaguely described as a spiritual life. “The religious person thus lives in relation to an invisible world of means.”125 Part of the vagueness regarding modern religious experience may be because the present generation faces a physical universe and social order radically different from society interpreted by traditional theology. The reason for questions regarding the existence of God may be that the world of modern science leaves little room for the God of traditional theology. Our older moral ideas focused on social conditions that for the most part no longer exist. Smith concluded, “...a vital religious experience, then, must frankly recognize that people are facing a new universe which has vastly outgrown the old theology, and a new social order which has outgrown the older morality. This new universe and this new social order are more real to thoughtful people than are the doctrines and moral precepts which formed the substance of the older religious education. A vital religious experience must relate men in their aspirations and behavior to this very real, cosmic

Third Decade: The Writings

113

and social world. We have scarcely begun to realize that this is our religious task, much less to define it accurately.”126 Smith shifted to specific items that received emphasis from the respondents. 1. The belief that religious experience today must be an experience inspired and guided by Jesus. Doctrines of creation, atonement, and salvation have become dim, but the personality of Jesus has become more distinct. 2. Modern religion must adjust to the cosmic forces on which humans depend. 3. Most respondents agreed about the need for some kind of mystical communion with God. Modern people find a personal relationship with Jesus, but they have difficulty in a belief in God, rather than an intimate acquaintance with God. The old fear of God has vanished. Trust in Jesus and fellowship with God comprises the whole of religious experience. Smith noted certain factors that usually are involved in programs of religious education. 1. Religious education has traditionally rested on the Bible, although half of the responders failed to mention the Bible. Emphasis was placed on the experiences of biblical characters instead of doctrines. 2. Prayer and worship are usually emphasized as basic religious experiences. Several respondents referred to the Bible as revelation or a road map of religion. Those who did considered the Bible felt it to be a literature of inspiring ideals. Formal prayer was not considered desirable. 3. The church received a subordinate place, but it was considered for establishing Jesus’s way of life. Smith asked what has been learned from the responders. Thoughtful people are seeking a somewhat new type of religious experience, free from a dependency on the church. This type of religious experience turned away from theology, creeds, and ecclesiastical ceremonies and focused not on Christ but on Jesus as the only true religious person. By focusing on Jesus, they sought a more vital experience of God, based on mystic reverence and prayer than philosophical discussions. Smith noted that the respondents failed to recognize the non-rational factors in religion. However, they recognized that most people share in certain folkways in their religion. Science and Religion In “Science and Religion” 1926, Smith reviewed six books. He noted that in a short time science has imposed upon humans a relatively new way of thinking, which has provided a host of new ideas. For centuries, religious leaders in Christendom have affirmed that long ago the essential truth of religion was adequately given. Now there is a clash between those loyal to final doctrines and the new ideas produced by science. Smith

114

Religion of Democracy

reviewed six books that interpreted both science and religion in the modern situation. J. Arthur Thomson presented a course of lectures at Union Theological Seminary, entitled Science and Religion. He expressed his basic position: “We must learn to render unto Science the tribute that is its due; and to God the things that are HIS.”127 Thomson defined science as a careful method of investigation which enables us to identify precisely any object of study, how it behaves, and to trace its history from its emergence to its present form. Thomson stressed the self-imposed limits of science, which does not profess to provide universal explanations but which does provide specific knowledge. In order to secure exactness, science excludes many factors from its specific study. He also noted that the idea of God is outside scientific discourse. The pictorial elements of traditional theology reflect a world perceived by the senses, which suffers a radical transformation or near elimination. Thomson suggested that the basic ideas of religion could not be attacked by science, although the form of the idea may be altered by radical concepts sneaking in. He quoted from Thomson: “In conclusion we would point to the biggest fact of all, that science has shown the world to be a more harmonious, more unified, in every way grander world than our forefather thought of; the serious question is whether our vision of God is also growing.”128 If religious ideas become dominated by scientific conceptions, Thomson claimed this would be the “heresy” of panpsychism, which would serve as a basis for the mystic’s personal sense of a divine presence. In this immanentist conception there would be limited place for juridical conceptions, which serve as the essentials of Christian creeds. Smith found Thomson’s suggestions on religious interpretation to be vague and confused. The second book is William North Rice’s Christian Faith in an Age of Science, which was written twenty-five years earlier. Rice dealt with the question people at that time were asking, viz., “How can we accept the conclusions of modern science and still believe in the Bible?”129 Rice, in a booklet entitled, Science and Religion; Five So-called Conflicts, reviews briefly Copernican astronomy, the age of the earth, the antiquity of humans, cosmic evolution, and biological evolution. Rice concluded, “…every one of the five supposed conflicts between science and Christianity was essentially a conflict between scientific beliefs and a Bible supposed to be inerrant.”130 He suggested that if the doctrine of biblical infallibility were abandoned, science could not touch Christianity’s central truth that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto

Third Decade: The Writings

115

himself. Smith agreed with Rice’s general position, “but the proposal to locate religion in a pleasant region of absolute security raises the question whether so protected a thing will develop the husky virility of science, which asks no protection from radical criticism.”131 C. Stuart Gager’s The Relation between Science and Theology was the next book for review. Smith indicated that the bulk of the book dealt with an explanation of the scientific method. He concluded that a reader would gain a good conception of what scientists attempt to do, but not much insight about the relation of science to religious interests. Professor Louis Matthews Sweet’s book, To Christ through Evolution, is a meticulous effort to deal with the doctrine of evolution, while retaining the “apologetic purpose of retaining unimpaired the essential contentions of orthodox theology.”132 Sweet noted that the Bible describes things from the naïve view of an unscientific observer. To object to the biblical standard because it does not match exactly to scientific classification is artificial and does not address the real issue, which relates to the biblical theme of the creatorship of God. Smith contended that both the Bible and the conclusions of science might be true, if properly understood. Sweet also provided a comprehensive view of leading biologists and scientists, which showed the divergence of opinion among evolutionary scientists. He also suggested that the mysteries that confront science could easily be explained by assuming a divine power to be in control of the whole process. Sweet considered the evolutionary hypothesis to fail to account for the difference in mental power between lower animals and higher animals, which we designate as humans. It would appear that the creative power is responsible for the new species of humans. In this approach, humans are thought to be closer to divine origin than other species. God is considered the total cosmic power who works through the evolutionary process until the universe was ready for the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Sweet was the first conservative to attempt to master the material on which scientists based their conclusions. He left science free to develop theories it finds valuable, so long as the creative activity of God is not eliminated. Smith suggested that Sweet failed to raise the question, “What would become of his theistic assumption if it were to receive the kind of critical examination which he has given to scientific theories? Would he not be compelled, as he has compelled the scientists to do, to confess ignorance, to admit that no exact experimental testing has been made, and to confess eventually that speculation plays a large part in his theology? John M. Watson, in Science as Revelation, does not attempt to create a boundary between religion and science. Watson’s title indicates his

116

Religion of Democracy

projection that science will provide all the religion needed by humans. In a sweeping manner, he reviews what the sciences inform us about our world, which leads him into ethics. In ethics, he discovers that “moral laws are cosmic laws, just as truly as are the laws of gravitation, of chemical affinity, of magnetism, of electricity, of biological growth, and of psychological growth. The Law, Order, Cosmos, God discoverable elsewhere thus became fundamentally moral.”133 Watson has all the attributes of God emerging unavoidably out of the universe revealed by science. The limitations of Watson’s work are that he eliminates all differences between science and religion, which limits both realms of any uniqueness and which leaves the reader in a hazy sentimentalism. The final review was of A. N. Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World, which is devoted to questions of the scientific method. Whitehead is critical of certain aspects of contemporary scientific practices. He notes the anti-philosophical temper of science. Whitehead suggested, “The world of science has always remained perfectly satisfied with its peculiar abstractions. They work, and that is sufficient for it. The point is that this scientific field of thought is now, in the twentieth century too narrow for the concrete facts which are before it for analysis.”134 For Whitehead, concrete enduring entities influence the character of subordinate organisms. Some possess patterns that may impose on combinations of the patterns. Enduring reality is sought in these patterns instead of in simple physical entities. Whitehead considers the universe as thought of events in an interlocked community. God places specific limitation on an indefinite variety of possible systems, and in general is the reason the universe is what it is. Smith noted that science could not say why existence is what it is. Whitehead considers the conflict between science and religion to be of value. Religion must alter doctrines based on better information. The health of religion is based on trust that honest questioning is all to the good. Whitehead stressed the cosmic significance of religion as the vision of what stands behind and within the flux of things. It is real but is realized as it provides meaning to all that passes and in whose possession is the final good. The mystical relationship to the depths of reality beyond the reach of science is religion. Whitehead also made clear that our experience of reality includes its aesthetic and mystical aspects. Smith suggested that in order to develop adequate religious ideas in our new world, religion must quest for a better apprehension of its object of worship. He doubted whether a pre-scientific theology could satisfy people who enter this quest. Professor Edgar S. Brightman examines the meaning and value of religion as an actual human experience in his book entitled Religious

Third Decade: The Writings

117

Values. However, religious experience does not exclude a consideration of religious ideas. Brightman focused on positivism or humanism, contending that the meaning of religious values is to be found in their functioning of adjusting to human social relations. Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education In “Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education” 1927, Smith noted that the Catholics and Jews have definite policies on the role of the State in matters of religious education. The Catholic Church viewed itself as responsible for teaching people all that should be known in order that they may be prepared for eternal life. The Jews assumed responsibility of the entire religious education. They were also distrustful of attempts by the State to endorse particular religious attitudes. Protestant denominations take for granted that there will be autonomous religious bodies within a free state that guarantees religious freedom to all. The Presbyterian Church reflected Calvinism’s view of the Bible as the ultimate source and guide of morality. The Roman Catholic Church considered all human duties and rights to be provided by God. Based on this understanding, morals presuppose a theological explanation. Important to their position is the natural law theory and the Divine Positive Law. They also considered that all power expressed by the public proceeds from God. The ultimate purpose for humans is to secure eternal happiness in a future life, as well as attaining some degree of temporal happiness. Catholics also considered it a public crime to speak or act as if there is no God and considered it a sin if the state did not care for religion. Thus, the state usurps the responsibility of the Church, when their children must be sent to mixed schools. They denied the civil government the right to educate their children, for such education is the function of the spiritual society. The Catholic theory of education considered the family as divinely established and primarily responsible for the well-being and education of children. The family has equal rights in choosing and pursuing the things required for its liberty. While the Church teaches spiritual truths, the truths of science, history, and culture are considered profane learning. The state is divinely appointed for promoting human welfare. The Catholic Church recognized the rights of non-Catholics to have schools. However, the Church considers it necessary to maintain its own school system, because the religious phase of education is essential. Thus, the state exists to assist

118

Religion of Democracy

humans seeking temporal happiness, while the Church is concerned with eternal salvation. The Protestant Episcopal Church is responsible for establishing a strong and effective church within a free society. They considered secular education to have lost its religious note by slowly weakening their emphasis on the humanities, as well as developing antagonism to various forms of religious training. Thus, the Episcopal Church considers the educational system in need of including adequate religious teaching, considering the problem of spiritual illiteracy due to secular education. Presbyterians considered the state to be an autonomous as well as a divine institution. They also considered the Bible as the sole ultimate source of moral education. Although they consider religious education in the home to be essential, they support the Bible being used in the state’s educational system to support moral training. The Congregationalists insisted upon the church being separated from the state. However, they supported the validity of secular education. Religious education was the primary responsibility of the church as a supplement to secular education. The Northern Baptist Church sought the church to be entirely separate from the State. However, they were concerned that the Christian element was being diminished in America’s educational system. Therefore, they supported the Bible being read in public schools in support of moral and civil law, which will require the church and state cooperating in weekday religious instruction. The Disciples Church has supported religion as an essential part of education, while keeping the separation of church and state. The church has a major responsibility for education and it should establish a second system of schools that cooperates with the state’s educational system. “It is our conviction that any program offered by the church that falls short of making religion a genuine part of the educational experience of the child, will never meet the needs of either education or religion.”135 The Lutheran Church considers the state divinely ordained and autonomous, just as the church is. The Lutherans were to be entirely responsible for religious education. It is suggested that local congregations establish their own weekday school. The Parish and Church School Board were responsible for developing the literature to be used in weekday religious schools. The Methodist Episcopal Church was concerned with the lack of the religious element in education. However, they noted that what was needed in education was a vital religion that could support the culture and the educational system. Freedom of thought and the sense of personal responsibility are essential for public education.

Third Decade: The Writings

119

The Methodist Episcopal Church of the South insisted that the secular educational system must be free from ecclesiastical influences. They denied the principle that religious education could be a function of taxsupported schools. At the same time, they supported the state furnishing moral instruction in every grade of public education. The American Unitarian Association supports the complete and entire separation of church and state. However, if the state should offer churches some time for religious instruction, the Unitarians would give it serious consideration. The Christian Science has no established position regarding the relationship between church and state. However, they consider religious education essential in its support of human progress and individual welfare. Modern Judaism, in its various forms in America, endorses the separation of church and state. They condemn sectarianism in public education in any form. However, they supported ethical instruction in all schools, but insisted that Jews must provide religious education for their children. State schools should keep the Bible out of public education, as well as ethnic influence. Theological Thinking In America In “Theological Thinking In America” 1927, Smith noted that prior to 1890 there was no adequate consideration given to the effort of theological reconstruction. However, during this period biblical criticism was taken seriously. By employing the methods of exegesis, biblical texts were employed for the purpose of teaching church doctrines. Smith suggested that exegesis had been discredited by more exacting scholarship. “For example, the precise nature of the three persons in the Trinity or the exact definition of the two natures of Christ could not be adequately dealt with if the theologian restricted himself to biblical material.”136 Biblical scholars also were involved in recovering details about ancient cultures, as well as reconstructing the history of Biblical culture. With this scholarly focus, biblical scholars lost interest in relating their scholarship to systematic theology. It was the idealistic philosophy of Frederick Hegel and his followers that projected a conception of God based on an analysis of human experience, by unfolding the meaning of consciousness. These thinkers realized that in following this approach they felt that they were in the presence of the all-inclusive Absolute, which they identified as the Christians’ God. By 1899, the more conservative religious thinkers employed a way of theologizing that did not involve the process of biblical

120

Religion of Democracy

criticism. Rather, it provided a conception of God as being an ever-active immanent Power who organized and rationalized the universe. By the beginning of the 20th century, “Personalism” emerged in a group of thinkers at Boston University’s School of Theology. They projected that reality is ultimately to be found in personality. Human religious life was viewed as being a personal relationship with the personal God who sustains the cosmic order. These diverse religious thinkers interpreted Christianity in terms of the general spiritual culture, which resulted in their rejecting the inherited ecclesiastical system. Smith considered Ritschlianism, in the first decade of the twentieth century, to be the dominant perspective because of its direct appeal to religious experience, while also contending that Christianity is a religion of revelation. It provided a transition from the traditional dogmatic conception of Christianity to a more empirical and historical perspective. However, there remained many traditional Christians who consider the Bible to be infallible, if read humbly and in the spirit of Christ. Many biblical scholars ceased considering the Bible in this fashion, as their focus sought to understand how religions function in human life. The older traditional conception viewed God as being supernatural, which faced difficulties with the developing scientific and historical knowledge. The traditional view of a miracle was an event that had no natural cause. Twentieth century modern theologians contended that a vital religious faith must find expression in modern persons’ world. Miracles were considered as belonging to the realm of legend, not based on verifiable facts. Smith opined, “The philosophical equivalent of the theological notion of the supernatural is the conception of absoluteness or finality... The conception of absoluteness, however, has met with serious difficulties in the light of our psychological and historical understanding of the conditions of human thinking... Absoluteness can be affirmed of an ideal Christian, which has never found concrete expression in any actual historical form. If we consult history rather than imaginary ideals, we are compelled to recognize the relative nature of all forms of religion… The only Christianity which we know is a historical movement in which fallible human beings, meeting definite geographical, political and cultural conditions…As conditions change, the activities, organizations, and doctrines of Christianity change.”137 Smith recognized there was a basic disagreement between theological positions. One wanted to limit historical and critical interpretation and return Christianity to resting on divine establishment. The other view supported the need of ideas that conflict with historical data. The modernist sought to understand the development of Christianity based on

Third Decade: The Writings

121

social evolution. A crucial issue concerned the definition of the nature and work of Christ. Under the influence of Ritschlianism, the norm of theology primarily focused on Christ instead of the Bible. Salvation depends upon satisfying God’s justice. There was a widespread rejection of traditional Christology, with the Jesus of history no longer identified with the Christ of traditional theology. Jesus was increasingly viewed in terms of his earthly existence. From this perspective, divinity was found in the spiritual quality of his life with God. At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, there was a determined opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis, especially by the more orthodox. Modern science required no support from religion. The appeal to traditional authority meant nothing to the scientific minds oriented by the empirical method. Based on the question why religion is essential to human life, a re-examination of the doctrine of God was done in light of the psychological and historical study of religion. However, modern thinkers viewed the physical universe and the development of humanity to be the natural process of evolution, with the existence of God relegated to our religious experience. William James suggested that God has a place with other realities in our experience, which made God a finite being in a pluralistic universe. Henri-Louis Bergson found the evolutionary process to be unfinished. He proposed that sociology and social psychology account for religious ideals based on human need and the development of human technique, rather than salvation being based on the action of a superhuman being. Current Christian Thinking In Current Christian Thinking 1928, Smith indicated that this work was part of a series “intended to set forth in a readable form the results of the scientific study of religion and ethics…It is hoped that the series will help to show that the method of experiment and criticism contributes to stronger religious faith and moral idealism.”138 In the “Preface”, Smith noted that the present survey undertakes to interpret the important trends in theological thinking in the United States of America. The subject of chapter one is “Roman Catholicism.” Catholics held their religion to be the perfect religion divinely established by God. Jesus taught his apostles the doctrines and rituals of Christianity, which were to be passed on to their successors. The Bishops replaced the apostles as the directors of the thinking and the practice of the Church, which provided for the continuous proclamation of this interpretation of religion. The perspective of Catholicism as the “absolutely perfect religion” is based on the doctrine of infallibility. The Bible is also considered infallible

122

Religion of Democracy

because it is God’s word. The decisions of the Church are also infallible. When an apostolic bishop speaks under the direction of the Holy Spirit, his words are infallible. The belief that Catholicism is the “absolutely perfect religion” provided by God is based on the doctrine of infallibility. Infallibility provides a kind of security that would be impossible without this belief. Based on this doctrine, the Catholic Church claimed it was divinely authorized to teach the truth and that the Catholic doctrines are in harmony with right reason. With the discovery of Thomas Aquinas’ philosophy, which is, basically, a reworking of aspects of Greek philosophy, the Church gained a new sense of direction. Pope Leo XIII ordered that all priests be trained in the basics of Aquinas’ philosophy. Smith considered Modernism to be the most important theological controversy today because “critical scholarship has compelled a reexamination of theological doctrines which were formerly believed to have been authoritatively settled.”139 There was a modernist factor in the Protestant Reformation that encouraged the individual to defy an established church. This weakened Protestantism by allowing the individual to dissent from a church that was considered corrupt. When John Knox challenged Queen Mary to conform to the Scriptures, the divine right of a ruler vanished. The American and French revolutions eliminated the appeal to theological standards. The scientific method led to scientific conclusions without religious questions being raised. However, there were a few theories that upset theological doctrines. Copernican astronomy was the first battle that led to a policy of interpreting nature apart from Scriptures. Today the origin and history of the earth and of humans are understood from scientific rather than theological approaches. The desire for more adequate understanding of the truth of the Bible has resulted in the techniques of critical biblical interpretation, which indicated that conscientious Christians might be mistaken. For biblical precepts to be correctly interpreted, it is necessary that they fit the historical situation to which they originally applied. Modernism attempted to interpret religious beliefs in order to include modern ideas in the service of religion. They believed in the evolution of religion and the historical development of Christianity. Modernists were willing to change traditional doctrines, if such change would serve to make religion more dynamic in contemporary life. However, modernism is primarily interested, not in ascertaining whether a doctrine was originally authorized, but in discovering whether it is believable by modern persons. They want to discover what interpretation of religion is inherently convincing. Unfortunately, modernist gained a reputation for vagueness, as they inquired into what is a religious value. Modernists are not

Third Decade: The Writings

123

identified with creeds but rather represent a spirit of open inquiry and a willingness to make such modifications of traditional theology as are required for a fuller knowledge of facts. They believe that the historical doctrines of the church represent the creative thinking that correlated religious beliefs with contemporary culture. In 1907, the Pope issued an encyclical presenting Christianity as a divinely authorized system of beliefs and practices that only the Catholic Church could preserve and administer. Modernism was defined as a conflict between authorized and unauthorized views. In other words, shall a Christian’s conclusions be determined by authority or based on free inquiry of the facts? The method of free inquiry led Protestants to the necessity of deciding whether they will go along with modern culture. Protestant orthodoxy assumed that its approach was a positive interpreter of contemporary culture. However, the impact of modernism on Protestants’ orthodoxy was more than anticipated, with the result that Protestants are faced with deciding whether to go along with modern culture, modifying its theology, as modern scholarship requires. They insisted that the content of doctrine remain unchanged. They preserved this content by rejecting destructive criticism that raised doubts about the validity of traditional beliefs. Religious emotions make it difficult to adopt new doctrines, as many sought to keep religious assurance and critical scholarship “harmonized.” Smith noted that within the past years critical scholarship has attained an almost complete independence from theology. The beliefs of biblical writers are related to the circumstances in which they emerged, and are often found so interrelated with those conditions, that it is impossible to establish a literal transference to a different culture. The new generation differs from previous generation by seeking to view religion historically and critically. This required that religious convictions no longer be based on the acceptance of some authority. They felt that the church should not cast suspicion on unconventional views, as everyone has a right to make honest inquiries and to believe what one really does believe. Protestantism was faced with having to decide whether it would support this somewhat radical transformation of its traditional attitudes and loyalties. The alternative for Protestantism was to seek to reinstate the older orthodoxy in face of the fact that much of modern theological scholarship rejected that method of arriving at conclusions, which characterized Christianity in the past. If Christianity is considered an authoritative fixed system for all times, it would seem then, that the fundamentalists and not the liberals are the genuine representatives of true Christianity. Some argue that liberalism is

124

Religion of Democracy

not Christian at all but is a new and different kind of religion. If a preacher comes to the personal view that is not in accord with historical creeds, should one be allowed to preach or teach? “Fundamentalists and Catholics agreed that if they are not in harmony with the official standards, they are to be condemned.”140 Modernists were not defending a system but were looking for the truth. Instead of defending doctrines, they seek conclusions on religious matters that seem to be justified by the facts. Fundamentalists are bitter because modern science and modern educational ideals support the modernists. Today many fundamentalists resent free inquiry and still hold to “authoritative” ideals, making them out of touch with modern scholarship. Fundamentalists “are keenly conscious that they must reinstate the fundamental attitude of submission to authority in order to win. They are anti-rationalistic and anti-cultural, whereas the framers of the older creeds were favorably disposed to reason and culture.”141 Fundamentalists generally functioned in a hostile environment, as they had no official denomination that excluded modernists. The modernists and fundamentalists were each free to develop and exercise religious devotion as fit their temperament. Fundamentalists did not approve of modern education and considered theological seminaries to be “hotbeds of infidelity.”142 Fundamentalists’ doctrine accepted the entire body of orthodox theology. They strongly supported the infallibility of the Scriptures. Fundamentalists opposed higher criticism and scientific theories that call into question parts of the scripture, like the first part of Genesis. The authoritative Bible is the one essential of true faith. Christianity is essentially a supernatural plan of salvation. Human religious life is interpreted in terms of the divine plan. Human history is to be an interpretation of the divine plan of creation followed by The Fall. The doctrine of the deity of Christ is evidenced by the supernatural birth of Christ. “Another essential is the doctrine of redemption on the ground of the merits of the death of Christ.”143 Liberals were charged with failing to affirm that Christ’s blood was shed as a substitutionary sacrifice. Fundamentalists held “that the ultimate triumph of righteousness is coming through the personal and visible second coming of Christ.”144 If one accepts evolution, one abandons faith in the inerrancy of the Bible. However, a new method is now available which critically examines the facts. When necessary, revisions are made of previously held opinions. By the use of this method, the revision of religious beliefs has been shown to be inevitable. Different orientations were presented as evidence of sinful perversity. Protestants in recent times have become dissatisfied with theological

Third Decade: The Writings

125

contentions that divide and are now seeking a way of reuniting. Putting doctrinal disputes in the background has found expression in a new type of theology. “The attempt is made to give prominence to those articles of faith which are the expression of fundamental and supposedly universal Christian experience, and thus to appeal to life itself rather than to official authority.”145 Applying the scientific method to theology means that doctrine must justify itself, not by an appeal to authority, but rather by citing facts that all can discover. The defenders of biblical infallibility admitted the possibility of minor errors in transmission and translation of the Scriptures. This admission led to the claim that absolute infallibility was limited to the original manuscripts of the Bible. Smith acknowledged that biblical scholarship is complicated. With the new method of theological investigation, there was growing impatience with dogmatism. Those relying on authority, postulated that Christianity is life rather than doctrine. Another development of the critical scientific method in all realms was that younger theologians desired to be scientific and to seek a more direct source of belief. This source is found in the religious experience of Christians. Schleiermacher found religion to be a profound experience that involved a mystical relationship between one’s inner life and the mysterious Infinite upon which all people depend. Many in America found the experimental approach to the problems of theology refreshing. They began with the incontrovertible fact that thousands of humans claim to have had a real contact with God, which has provided salvation through Christ. The next step was to examine these experiences to determine what convictions concerning God and Christ are involved. If these experiences appeared to be valid, it is possible to develop and defend a theology as reasonable beliefs. By appealing to experience, the door was open to a scientific vindication of the task of theologians and the experiences in churches. However, there remained the task of determining “the meaning of experience,” and whether all Christian experiences were alike. The problem remained whether the theologians’ insights were merely subjective opinions. Granting this problem, the Bible remained the source of doctrine, with Christian experience being the source of verifying the doctrines of the bible. This appeal to experience changed theology. No longer citing biblical texts, theologians now employ the new approach of asking what Christians actually experience because of their contact with Christ. If the theologian lacks a precise definition of experience, religious opinions are left to the

126

Religion of Democracy

chance preference of the individual. Smith noted that this approach does not safeguard the doctrine of the authority of the Bible. The experience of contemporary people affirms the invariable orderliness of nature. Attempts were made to show how “miracles” fit within the idea of the orderliness of nature. This view of miracles does not tell us whether confidence in theological conclusions rest on authority or experienced reality. Smith postulated that there is no way we can experience metaphysical qualities. He noted that in the old Christology the religious experience of Jesus was barely noticed, leaving the human nature of Jesus Christ an abstract thing. Attention is now given to practical questions, with metaphysical issues consigned to historical consideration. Now the question which demanded consideration is what is a religious experience and how do we distinguish between this experience and hallucinations or vague speculation. The psychological study of religion appears to discredit the unique features of Christianity, as these features may be based on special indoctrination. However, others considered all religions as humans seeking the best possible life and regard Christianity as one of the many paths of the religious quest. “A primary task for a theology of experience was the discovery of some conception of revelation which could be validated by the appeal to experience rather than by a questionable dialectic.”146 Biblical Criticism seemed to point the way to such a reconstruction. Progressive revelations were suggested because God revealed himself to humans gradually, starting with elementary truths and leading the people to a more correct apprehension of God’s will. This conception of revelation allowed the theologian to be relieved of some embarrassment caused by a doctrine of equal inspiration of all parts of Scripture. Part of the Old Testament could be excluded which offended modern Christian idealism by calling them imperfect stages of the progressive revelation of God. This led to the contention of why constructive theology was not solely based on the perfect revelation in Christ. Seeking an ideal of Christocentric theology relieved theologians from keeping up with biblical criticism. “The task of theology then would be to discover the convictions created in the experience of the Christian by the revelation which he received through Christ.”147 “Ritschlian theologians insisted that theology should be an expression of genuine religious experience.”148 The Ritschlian aim was an “attempt to make theology genuinely scientific, in the sense that it proceeds by appealing to the testimony of living men rather than to dictates of mere authoritative canons; but it undertakes to show that the living convictions

Third Decade: The Writings

127

which yield a Christian theology are caused by the divine redemptive power of Jesus.”149 Ritschlians tried to be absolutely faithful to the scientific spirit, which meant they relied on biblical criticism to proceed as far as it could. Warfare developed between religion and science. However, if science is to be left free to formulate its own conclusions, the theologians must not be dependent on science for their convictions. The supremely important thing about a Christian experience was to the Ritschlians to be an absolute assurance of the reality of salvation. “The first task of theological thinking was to formulate a method which should make religious conclusions independent of the results of either biblical criticism or natural science in order that the religious man holds his convictions with absolute certainty.”150 The Ritschlians classed religion with aesthetics and ethics rather than with science. For them, God is found in a religious experience, and not by a process of scientific analysis. Science seeks proof while religion seeks to be appreciated. With theology based on value judgments, it makes its affirmation on experimental grounds, just as science appeals to another aspect of experience. This placed the theological absolute in its own domain. By relating religious experience to revelation, the divine source of Christian beliefs could be maintained. Smith explained: “The experience of the Christian must be shown to be definitely produced by an objective reality which compels a confession of the actual presence of divine power.”151 Theology does not consist in the rehearsing of private human ecstasies. Rather, it involves the exposition of an objective gospel, which is available to everyone and which creates value judgments that provide “religious assurance.” A God dependent on philosophical argument has no religious power, for salvation only occurs by a superhuman power. The main task of theology is to determine the precise divine gospel as the basis of salvation. Both Catholics and Protestants consider the Bible as revelation, but the Ritschlians seek to discover in the same records a quality that evokes the conviction that God is speaking. The Ritschlians sought to free theology from subjective opinions of Christ, with the focus being on the historical Jesus. The objective fact is the real Jesus, who alone is the foundation of Christian theology. The orthodox found in the New Testament an accurate view of Jesus as divine, based on proof texts affirming the doctrine. Ritschlians’ theological method asks searching questions of nature; which leads to the view that nature has no redeeming message for humans. Nature is ruthless and heartless and therefore cannot be the basis for religious faith. The orthodox conception of the Bible—as a supernaturally

128

Religion of Democracy

inerrant document—must be abandoned, as well as seeking the inner life of Jesus that we inevitably recognize to be divine. Christian doctrines are convictions written by those who encountered the historical Jesus and who were encompassed by Jesus’s power. Thus, theology is derived from our religious experience. It is an experience created in the religious soul by the divine power of the historical Jesus. This theology differs from older forms of theology by employing an empirical method in determining where the divine is located. If the essence of Christianity involves a loyalty to the character and teachings of Jesus, the task of theology is to examine all questions in light of the ideals presented by the disciples of Jesus. The theological method employed seeks to preserve that older feeling of security, based on the belief that religious convictions are divinely authorized. Religious feelings rest exclusively on faith in the loving God revealed in Christ. The doctrine of the atonement, in this context, ceases to have any place in the relationship between God and humans. Christian theology can only affirm Jesus as the forgiving grace of God, based on practical experience. This focus on Christ includes a new focus on ethical and social virtues. The test of theological claims is whether Christ is presented as the supreme and only authority. The religion of Jesus expected a speedy end of the world and Jesus’s second coming. Smith noted that the value of the Bible is found in its supernatural origin, with the significance of Jesus based on his supernatural birth and regeneration. The dominant interests in the present make it difficult to focus on issues that were previously of strong interest. The critical method has altered the appeal of the supernatural. Evolution has changed our view of nature and humans. From these perspectives, the Bible is studied historically, which has generated the view that it is the expression of human religious development instead of a supernatural message. Modern theologians, turning from the supernatural, considered the entire universe as the activity of divine control. They interpret religion as a natural human experience. The new monism had no supernatural and focused on the spiritual meaning of our relation to the infinite universe. An idealistic philosophy emerged which viewed the universe as an expression of Intelligence that is active and creative rather than contemplative. God becomes the eternal creative force of reality instead of a transcendent Being who contemplates a finished universe. The world is the dynamic expression of God’s activity. God becomes the eternal creative organizer of reality who is present in the entire universe and in all history. The new philosophy welcomes searching criticism and all that science can tell us about the universe. This philosophy of immanence negated all

Third Decade: The Writings

129

systems of theology and sought to show how God’s present activity can be understood in all reality. God is seen as constantly creating and organizing the world, with divine providence being in the very structure of things. Since God’s activity is immanent in all things, there is no need to restrict theology to the Bible. The meaning of revelation is extended to an understanding that God is always revealing God’s self in organizing and upholding the universe. We are all children of God, which Jesus realized fully. With God conceived as being universally immanent, the evolutionary process is conceived as the incarnation of God in finite form. The doctrine of atonement also received a new interpretation, with humans having within themselves the potentiality of divinity. Through the eternal process of incarnation, humans are able to share the glory of divine life. Although this view has strong sentimental appeal, the idealist interpretation of the universe fails to have much in common with the conclusions of modern science. This conception of religion, as something entirely natural, makes the most important contemporary religious question the definition of God. Younger persons have no conception of a supernatural world and conceive of humans as the product of this cosmic process. Religion becomes one finding the right adjustment to this process. God is then thought of as a reality in process to which correct adjustment may be made. However, any conception of God must conform to the findings of modern science. If a persons does not feel the reality of God, a doctrine of God is not essential, which raises the question whether theism is necessary. In the modern quest for God, God is no longer appealed to as the patron of religion. If religion is viewed experientially instead of theologically, such a religion must affirm the existence of God. However, is theism essential to religion? If a person does not feel the reality of God, God is not religiously essential. Theism is the doctrine that nature has a Creator and Preserver, which provides a theological explanation of the physical universe, a theological view of political authority, and a theological interpretation of religious and moral experiences. Personal religion is based on the certainty of divine judgment and a divine way of salvation. Modern thought has broken with the traditional threefold theological control. First was the fall of the divine rights of kings, followed by the separation of church and state. Theism has vanished from political philosophy. Political organizations are no longer tested theologically, for theism has vanished from political discussion. A secular society requires no distinctively religious requirements. One can be a good citizen without

130

Religion of Democracy

believing in God, making theism a matter of taste. Smith noted that no scientists have found a conception of God to be of value in their research. Nature was the last realm to be secularized, which functions best with no overriding philosophy. Scientists “cannot discover that the conception of God is of the slightest use in furthering his investigations.”152 Scientists who believe in God have a rather vague emotional inheritance. “In the face of this practical pluralism the appeal to God occupies a decreasing place in modern religion.”153 The method of practical thinking, which eliminated theism from both natural and social sciences, was making inroads into the realm of personal religion. Ideas develop as we adjust to our environment. From this perspective, God is the result of religious experience. Religion comes first and then religious ideas. From the history of religions, religion has a way of outgrowing its theologies. God is only essential to a religion that conforms to divinely approved doctrines and rituals. The essentials of contemporary Christianity are to be found in certain attitudes and ideals of life instead of in theological doctrines. The contemporary questing of theism is based on our thinking of religion in terms of itself rather than in terms of theology. Those who defend theism seek to maintain a religion of escape from the ills of our world. Humans no longer attempt to prove the existence of God who will overcome evil, but rather seeks to unite all persons in the cooperative effort to secure from nature aid in furthering human welfare. Granting that supernatural theism is under attack, it is difficult to maintain a dualism between the cosmos and the life of humans. The cosmic process cares nothing for human ideals. Scribner Ames suggested that while God is a reality in experience, God is a humanistic rather than a superhuman reality. In a modern democracy, salvation requires social cooperation. God then represents the spirit of the group seeking the kingdom of God. God acts only through the activities of the human group. Theism explains the universe in terms of a philosophy that enables humans to believe that a cosmic power supports their ideals and values. Theism assumes that the evolution of the universe is united by a single divine purpose. The difficulty with this view is the problem of evil that creates doubts. Regardless, the cosmic process appears to be indifferent to human values. According to the modern view, God’s activity is evident in human generosity and courage. Theologians of the future will adopt a more inductive approach in defining the nature of the cosmic object of religious worship. They will view the problem in terms of humans adjusting to the environment rather than in terms of a theistic control. God will be found in the reciprocity between humans and their environment.

Third Decade: The Writings

131

Theology has been more interested in mysticism than depending on philosophy. Humans feel a sense of spiritual loneness with the cosmic mystery. However, in relating our ideas to mystery we experience a sense of satisfaction. Belief in God means that within a circle of society and the non-human environment we encounter a quality of the cosmic process that is akin to our spiritual life. In encountering the vast Universe, we are not satisfied just to describe our findings regarding the universe, for we depend on kinship between humans and non-humans. A more promising method of approach affirms that our cosmic environment must be empirically studied. Our conception of God grows out of our experience, rather than being based on an a priori philosophy. Many people express a belief in God without being able to define God. There was much controversy over the theory of evolution, especially by the fundamentalists, because it challenged their militant type of religion. They held that if there was conflict over evolution and the Bible, the Bible wins. Emergent evolution allowed for new phases in the evolutionary process. Smith noted that many theologians still are unable to adjust to the theory of evolution, which turns attention to the future, because they are wedded to the past. Many considered the impact of the doctrine of evolution to indicate a vitality of religion and the fact of human progress. Evangelical Christianity is responsible for an emphasis on personal experience with the creative spiritual power. The Lutheran view of a personal experience leads religious thinking in a very different direction. From this perspective, the proof of Christianity depends on the inner life of humans instead of asking whether it is authoritatively determined. The evangelical approach leads to an upheaval of its participants’ inner lives. One discovers in one’s inner life a new self, strangely related to God. Our new selves dare to reject comfort-seeking rules of superficial human nature in order to consecrate on the vast spiritual endeavor. Religious Experience Through Worship In “Religious Experience Through Worship” 1928, “III. Illustrations from Wider Sources,” Smith noted that sincerity is essential to genuine religious experience. Many persons feel today that often religion is not genuine. People profess their faith at one time but live according to different ideals. Smith reminds us that Jesus attacked hypocrisy as the enemy of true religion. The superficiality of much religion is evident in times of crisis. Religion must emerge from our encounters with reality, not by just repeating words. “This means that in the cultivation of the religious

132

Religion of Democracy

life each person should begin with what is indubitably real to him.”154 If one seeks to be religious, one must speak honestly the truth. Many of the leaders of spiritual idealism stressed the essential genuineness of religion. Luther faced the church, saying “Here I stand; I can do no other, so help me God.”155 He demonstrated a passion for unmistakable reality, while the Catholic leaders sought to conserve their form of religion. Even Abraham Lincoln refused to identify with any church because it professed to believe what it in reality did not believe. Sincerity leads one to begin with familiar ways that suggest fellowship with God. Traditionally the religious life observes specific times for worship at sacred places, using familiar sacred books. Smith suggested that specific objects and places in religion help one to gain a stronger view of reality than informal ways of devotion. Roman Catholics especially used sacred objects that were based on a wider and more profound religious compulsion. The cross is the symbol in Christianity that readily indicates a profound religious experience. In Protestantism, one cultivates a religious life by reading the Bible. John Calvin indicated that a believer reads the Bible from the perspective that God is speaking these words to the reader as a means of realizing fellowship with God. St. Augustine was converted by reading the New Testament passage: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envy; but put ye the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof.”156 John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is based on biblical texts, which he enlarges in his visions and experiences. These experiences may seem artificial to modern persons. Smith noted, “...the fundamental principle of sincerity requires us not to pretend to possess anything which is not really ours.”157 In the Roman Catholic Church, Holy Communion is important because it makes God real through contact with sacred objects. This enhances our devotional life by beginning with a feeling of reality. 1. Vision and insight are fundamental in a truly religious life. Most of us have experienced how things come to us in unexpected ways in all areas of life, not only in religion. An example would be the apple falling from the tree for Newton, as well as Paul’s overpowering vision or Isaiah’s vision of the Lord “high and lifted up.” St. Ignatius attributed his special power to visions. Jonathan Edwards had similar experiences following his conversion. James Russell Lowell had an experience in a conversation with Israel Putnam: “As I was speaking the whole system rose up before me like a vague Destiny looming

Third Decade: The Writings

2.

3.

133

from the abyss. I never before so clearly felt the spirit of God in me and around me. The whole room seemed to me full of God.”158 Meditation is indispensable to a profound kind of life. Smith suggested that a spiritual problem is that people have come to depend on external circumstance for their stimulation. “Meditation means taking time to realize meanings.”159 It requires a relaxation in order to understand the implications of things by which great results are achieved. Most persons recall an extraordinary religious development based on an aimless discussion with a friend. Tolstoy wrote of such experiences, as well as Mrs. Herman in Creative Prayer and W. A. Brown in The Life of Prayer in a World of Science. These works make clear that meditation is separated from aimless daydreaming. When one feels entirely at home in the devotional life, it is perfectly natural to talk things over with God. We recall the use of personal pronouns in the Psalms and in St. Augustine’s Confessions. Augustine considered his whole life derived from his fellowship with God. Henry Nelson Wieman contended “...most effective worship is always solitary.” Hymns also are examples of conversations with God, such as “Lead Kindly Light” and “O Love that will not let me go.” Some converse with God via letters to express a personal talk with God.

Training Christian Ministers In “Training Christian Ministers” 1928, Smith noted that over the past twenty years Christian churches have become aware that religion must be related to the new and not yet understood world. At the same time, American scholars have retained unimpaired the conception of a divinely authorized system upon which people could rely for salvation. This system was accepted because it was authorized. Evolution has been interpreted in an idealistic philosophy that, within Christian doctrines, could receive an edifying explanation. It was taken for granted that Christianity with its traditional theology would be the culture of the future. However, a striking feature of the twentieth century has been the abandonment of a future life. The leaders in Christian churches must learn how to conceive religion in relation to new ideals. In Protestant seminaries, the study of the Bible has been the basis for a theological education, with a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew being an essential foundation of this study, in order that one can provide an adequate interpretation of texts. The problem is that an increasing number of theological seminaries have ceased requiring Hebrew and Greek. The Old Testament is now being interpreted to represent a developing religious quest instead of a collection of theological finalities. “The important

134

Religion of Democracy

developments in the curricula and ideals of theological schools have been in the direction of a more intelligent and cordial use of non-biblical means of understanding religion.”160 The establishing of chairs in Christian Sociology are examples of this non-biblical approach to understanding religion. The contention was that Christianity has a primary duty of understanding the social conditions of today. However, many of these sociologists were ill equipped to provide this understanding, contending that Christians already have the solution for all social ills. Smith noted, “With this feeling, it was possible for a young minister to utter himself in authoritative manner on social or industrial questions, and to discredit himself in the minds of those in his congregation who knew at first hand facts and conditions which had not been mastered by the preacher.”161 Smith noted that the First World War destroyed easygoing doctrinaire ideals. Christianity had failed to prevent the war, demonstrating that Christianity has no magic power in words, no matter how religious or biblical they may be. Social science realized the necessity of obtaining precise knowledge of the conditions before attempting a diagnosis or suggesting a remedy. Smith contended that this attitude increasingly dominated theological education. However, experience demonstrates that a minister trained in this approach to social problems is more likely to secure the cooperation of the community, than if the approach was in a more doctrinaire fashion. Smith considered the most significant approach during the past twenty-five years to be the development of an understanding of the aims and methods of religious education. Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation In “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation: Some conditions to Be Observed in the Attempt to Correlate Science and Religion” 1928, Smith applauded those seeking to reconcile science and religion, as he contended that these two significant areas should be working together for the sake of enriching life. He noted that the words “religion” and “science” are abstract concepts, meaning that there is no generalized religion and no actual generalized science. The conflict between science and religion, Smith suggested, is not a conflict between every science and every type of religion. The great bulk of scientific discovery has not encountered religious opposition and many scientists are active in their local congregation. Smith postulated “...a scientist, purely as scientist, feels no need of religion,”162 because religion is not required in one’s work as a technical scientist. Science is sufficient unto itself, which leads to an increase in

Third Decade: The Writings

135

specialization to the extent that important scientific work requires methods and presuppositions that are beyond the grasp of ordinary persons. As science becomes more specialized, religion fades into the background. In other words, if one views reality so that scientific concepts dominate, religion recedes more and more into the background. Smith suggested that in this situation the task is to indicate the vulnerable character of a scientific dogmatism. From popular conceptions of science, science becomes a kind of mythology, which Smith suggested to be a false messiah. In the popular use of science, there is absent the essential methods of observation and testing. To claim a scientific foundation for a religious doctrine is nothing but a claim based on superficial analogies. Most scientists confess their relative ignorance of fields beyond their specialty. However, in the case of religion it is often assumed that those personally active in religion are the least qualified to judge its value than those who remain aloof. Smith opined, “The true implication of the scientific spirit would be that those who have specialized in the study of religion are more competent to talk about it than are those for whom it has been a more or less casual affair.”163 The great service which science has provided is forcing us to face the facts, or to live in a dream world. Science has disclosed the character of our world to be so radically different from the ordered world of the old theology that radical readjustments are required, which require our developing a more adequate religious loyalty than the loyalty taught to us by our parents. The methods of science can offer to us no assistance in this readjustment because it is concerned with facts only and not concerned with issues related to the inner life of a person. Scientists often judge religion based on its relation to science. They consider unscientific religion illegitimate. Smith was concerned with the impact of science on the inner life of perplexed students. Smith explained: “The fact is that hundreds of earnest students in our universities are left floundering in the realm of their religious loyalties, just because the sciences are incompetent to deal with this problem. Some day we shall ask whether the wholesome development of a student’s general morale is not quite as important as is his scientific knowledge… Let me repeat. Science, as science, does not furnish the technique for helping students to a wholesome religious adjustment.”164 The assistance provided by religious leaders is seriously defective, as they seek some forms of words that will enable the student to keep saying the words the church wants, without contradicting the findings of science. From this perspective, religion engages in superficial compromises without facing the facts. As scientists

136

Religion of Democracy

generally overlook problems of individual adjustment, teachers of religion generally underestimate taking science seriously and truthfully. Smith postulated that to be truthful this generation needs radical change in some of its traditional doctrines. Religious adjustment must be made to conform to undeniable facts. However, religion is not restricted to scientific data, for its task is to enhance and ennoble the inner life of individuals. Certainly, the spirit of truthfulness enhanced by science is important to religion, but it does not alone constitute religion. Religion requires reverence and devotion. Smith noted that religion should be linked to the arts as well as to the sciences. Smith suggested that Protestantism is just beginning to realize that when religion becomes overly rationalized, it loses its power to support the cultivation of nobler emotions. When the symbolism of religion is engaged in a valid understanding of its significance, people will be attracted to religion. However, these traditional symbols conceive of a world largely discredited by modern science. In the early traditions, human eternal destiny was heaven or hell, based on a system of rewards and punishments. Sciences consider this picture of the universe to be incredible. In this modern age, religious people are accepting the worldview of science. Religious living is now sought in our interpersonal relations, with many persons no longer considering heaven or hell to be a possibility. The ideas which traditional religion embody are now questioned, instead of yielding to their influence. Smith contended that the task of modern religious education is to foster ideas and symbols that ennoble the good life, as it has to be lived in the real world. With the demise of the older theology, religious utterances are required, which reflect our understanding of the world in which we live. In addition to an intellectual understanding of religion, one should appreciate the fact that religion provides a noble esthetic view of the meaning of life. Smith suggested that what was needed were scholars who knew their field and understood the meaning of personal emotions and loyalties involved in modern religion. What is needed in modern religion is a language adequate to the forms of worship compatible with modern attitudes toward the reality for which we may hope. In this task, religion cannot look to the scientists to help establish the meaning of religion. A modern religion must enable people to live nobly while facing the facts of reality. Smith noted “...in the last analysis, religion is an art rather than a science.”165 The Problem of Authority in Protestantism In “The Problem of Authority in Protestantism” 1928, Smith suggested that the Catholics have no basic problem with authority, as the purpose of

Third Decade: The Writings

137

the Church was to enforce alleged decrees of God. Protestantism insisted on the individual Christian’s right to interpret or the right to private judgment of the Bible under the control of the Holy Spirit. Martin Luther supported the principle that took for granted that the Bible was absolutely authoritative. It was when the Catholic Church stood in the way of effective preaching that Luther denied the right of the Church to be the interpreter of God’s revelation. Luther sought to make the revelation more accessible to all. He supported giving “free scope to the inner authority of the Spirit.”166 If one preaches Christ, one is apostolic. Luther had as the basis of his appeal the objective gospel, while maintaining the primacy of the objective message. This approach is confirmed in his idea of faith. For Luther, faith arises when a person reads God’s objective message in the Scriptures and trusting that promise, finds forgiveness in its proclamation. He did not teach that this assurance could be supported by mystic meditation. Neither did he support one expecting the voice of God based on one’s inner feeling. Luther believed the authority of the Bible remained intact, guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. John Calvin also considered that the inner voice of the Holy Spirit assured the believer of the authenticity of the entire Bible. One’s confidence is based on the authority of the Bible not by critical testing each passage, for the entire Bible would correct inadequate interpretations. The authority of the Bible involves the entire book. Later attempts sought to guarantee the total Scriptures by demonstrating that the Holy Spirit required a theory of verbal inspiration. It was expected that readers of the Bible would experience the inner conviction that God would have only expressed God’s will in an infallible text. Scholarship at the time was involved in removing objections to this conviction of infallibility. Smith noted that the foundation of early Protestantism was its denial of any human authority of the Bible. Luther was hostile to worldly wisdom and to the Catholic Church. Calvin considered the entire Bible to be the Word of God. The Protestant principle of authority is tied to the conviction of the infallibility of Scripture. “To attempt to base a belief in the infallibility of the Bible on arguments means to put human reasoning before divine authority.”167 Smith noted that this was exactly what Protestantism was compelled to do. It should be noted that the Reformation occurred as the new spirit of literary and historical criticism was confronting thinking persons. The origins of books and documents were critically examined based on historical evidence. From the seventeenth century forward, scholars

138

Religion of Democracy

contradicted the teachings of the Bible. By the next century skepticism of the infallibility of the Bible was developing. Some scholars contended that the content of revelation was only expressing truths based on natural reason. Modern Protestantism was compelled to adopt the developing methods of scholarship, based on the premise that the authority of Scripture can only be vindicated by human reasoning which employed methods used in other fields. Those holding to primitive Protestantism protested what they considered destructive criticism coming from orthodox scholars. Others contended that by appealing to human scholarship instead of to divine authority, one abandons the original Protestant perspective. Smith opined, “Not human opinion, but the authority of God himself was, as we have seen, the bulwark of original Protestantism against both Romanism and rationalism.”168 As Smith previously noted, the attempt to establish the objective authority of Scripture in order to maintain its integrity ended in undermining the Protestant principle of faith. Assuming that the theory of the authority of Scripture is supreme, over the inner voice of the Spirit, leads to unscriptural formalism. Robert Barclay provided the classic example of this position in Apology for the True Christian Divinity. He contended that divine inward revelations were necessary for building true faith, but could never contradict the outward testimony of the Scriptures or of right or sound reason. Barclay considered the inner Voice to be an objective message from God, not as a stage of a person’s inner experience. Since the inner guidance comes from God, it is infallible. However, when this inner experience is doubted, it is usually doubted by one studying modern psychology, suggesting “...the divinity of the inner consciousness in the absolute sense disappears.”169 The problem for modern Protestantism is the desire for an absolute infallible declaration of divine truth, which is an attempt to maintain the conception of dogmatic authority that Catholicism is organized to maintain. According to Catholic theology, humans have no essential role in the making of true religion. Humans must accept what is divinely given. The content of this faith can be trusted because it was ordained by God. The Catholic system theoretically was able to keep the original pledge of faith intact. For Catholics, the voice of the Church is above the view of an individual. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, this is real authority. Protestant attempts to maintain the principle of authority have resulted in the multiplication of sects and has resulted in a failure. The dominant focus of the Reformation was in vital personal religion. Luther found religion vindicated in the experience of living people instead

Third Decade: The Writings

139

of in declarations of an official church. Smith noted that this reform supported the principle of practical vitality and efficiency, contending that what is unbelievable or immoral cannot be made sacred by the decree of the Church. Smith suggested that religious programs are being formulated on the needs of the people rather than on alleged authoritative proclamations. He further suggested that the Bible and traditions of Christianity are being used as incentives to a creative life of our own. In this type of Protestantism, the issue of authority is replaced by the more insistent question of religious vitality and efficiency. What is the Matter With Religion and What is to be Done About It? Smith suggested that, in “What Is The Matter With Religion and What Is To Be Done About It? A Symposium,” 1928, the answer is that the social situations have changed, which has resulted in making ineffective what was formerly satisfactory. Smith noted two answers are given concerning the state of religion. One considers that the perfect form of religion has been established authoritatively. Any decline indicates a departure from the authoritative religion. If religion is to become strong again, it will involve securing the faithfulness of all religious people to what is understood to be God’s will. Contemporary Protestantism has doubts about this perspective, in part due to the many different denominations with each claiming to understand God’s will. The different denominations consider it unfitting to claim complete rights to divine favor, which has eradicated the desire for being authoritative in the pattern of Roman Catholicism. This opinion has also fostered an increase in denominations, with people moving from one denomination to another without having to change their convictions. Since convictions do not have to change in these moves, the attractiveness of the physical building becomes important. Smith also suggested a second answer: “It is suffering from an inadequate understanding of what the program of a non-authoritative church should be.”170 This lack of an adequate understanding requires study and analysis of the actual conditions. Such study has begun with an array of surveys for making a social diagnosis. However, religion is behind most institutions and organizations that are engaged in such studies. Some churches have become successful by focusing on the essential needs of the people. Smith hoped that these individual successes would contribute to a growing understanding of how to manage religious institutions, in order to meet the real religious requirements of the present generation. Smith considered it necessary to focus on the methods employed in theological programs, in order that they provide for students an

140

Religion of Democracy

understanding of the diversity of religious thinking they may encounter in ministry. These students need to understand the actual duties and problems that they may encounter in ministry. Theological education should focus on meeting the actual vocational needs of the students. Smith cautioned that our studies must be organized so that they provide reliable information according to the scientific standards of accuracy. In addition to the facts learned, ways of implementing these insights into practical programs must be established. Smith questioned whether most religious leaders understand what modern religion is and how to make use of the knowledge that is available. Traditional Religion in a Scientific World In “Traditional Religion in a Scientific World” 1928, Smith reviewed The Catholic Church and Its Reactions with Science, by Bertram C. A. Win-die, The Creator Spirit, by Charles E. Raven, and Reality in Religion, by Gilbert T. Rowe. The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics In “The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics” 1929, Smith postulated that the distinctive feature of Christian ethics has focused on the theory that morality entails obedience to God’s requirements. The reference to God expresses belief that when one discovers God’s commandments, one discovers a final moral obligation. This perspective has led to the view that such an obligation is not dependable unless controlled by religion. An effect of this theory was the dogmatism expressed by denominational mindsets. By defining morality as compliance to God’s commandments, any church or group claiming to be Christian, who have neglected what is considered by many to be God’s command, are considered morally defective. Smith noted that popular opinion has radically changed from previous generations. Now moral values are derived from experience, leaving many to ask what is the policy of Christian ethics in our contemporary world. The theological background of Christian ethics presented an allcomprehensive theory that fails to provide specific guidance for many areas of conduct. Situations occur where there is a conflict of duties. No one can entirely escape conflicts between the ideal and the natural demands of our instincts. From these conflicts, the doctrine of “probabilism” was conceived, meaning that no absolute final solution can be provided. All that can be done in this situation is to consider the different answers as probable within the capacity of moral conduct. When absolute laws are considered from varying circumstance, casuistry becomes an

Third Decade: The Writings

141

aspect of ethical reasoning, acknowledging a degree of relativeness in all practical morality. Protestantism sought to eliminate the casuistically based system of Reformation doctrine that those who have been justified by faith can expect to be guided by the Spirit to determine correctly the will of God from a study of the Scripture. Luther considered that regenerate persons shared a kind of intuition that enabled them to abide by the will of God. “Christian ethics received a remarkable humanizing from the influence of this spirit of Luther’s.”171 One cannot be devoted to the will of God until one has experienced a change of heart, made possible by justification of faith. John Calvin added two essentials to Christian living. The first was a love of righteousness, which is not a natural propensity. The second is a prescribed rule meant to prevent our making false steps in our race to righteousness. In this fashion, Protestantism stressed true faith in place of the Catholic Church’s stress on the authority of the Church. Protestants understood that a false faith leads to incorrect conduct. Until recently, orthodoxy of belief has been a primary concern of Protestant denominations. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use their theological view of Christian ethics, based on the authority of the Church. For those with knowledge of the Church’s tradition regarding casuistry may be able to suggest adjustments in harmony with this tradition. The Church has been successful in combining modern moral and social problems in obedience to God. Protestantism has suffered from not being an authoritative church that interprets the will of God. The Reformers assumed that God would enable a person of faith to be guided by the Spirit to understand correctly the meaning of Scripture. For some time the division into denominations weakened modern Protestantism. Smith suggested “...the efficiency and attractiveness of the local church today is probably a more important factor than is the denominational label.”178 He considered this a significant change of inward attitude, which meant that churches were being judged, not by theological standards, but by empirical appraisals based on human needs. However, theological formulas offered guidance for situations very different from those presented. Smith provided a brief survey of the manner in which Protestant ethics was being taught, which indicate the situations by which we are confronted. Biblical literalism is the most uncompromising expression of theological theory. Christians study the Bible and comply with whatever it commands. Thus, their loyalty to follow the Bible was uncompromising.

142

Religion of Democracy

However, it is impossible to obey all of the commands of the Bible. Even Biblical literalists resort to casuistry to some extent. During the last fifty years, it has become clear that the Bible is not what the Reformers assumed, because it has been historically relativized. From a historical perspective, the ethical theory supported literal obedience that is impossible. Smith indicated that the problem of biblical courses in colleges is that they reveal the bankruptcy of traditional Protestant philosophy, as the doctrine of biblical authority is discredited. He also stressed that “no amount of mere biblical knowledge will equip one to face the moral problems of modern life.”173 Many persons through past ages have laid emphasis on the supremacy of Jesus’s teachings over the remaining parts of the Bible. However, most Christians do not take literally the Sermon on the Mount. The application of Jesus’s teachings is subtle casuistry as taught by contemporary Christian teachers, who hold that Jesus’s teachings can be reduced to general principles that can be applied to contemporary problems humans confront. Christian living means that we apply the principle of love to the situations we encounter. Smith suggested that including the teachings of Jesus in contemporary Christian ethics serves to involve a more openminded method in dealing with moral problems, which provides the feeling of being led in one’s thinking by Jesus. The empirical method of determining good conduct has been adopted by liberal Protestants. Right or wrong is established in terms of actual values experienced rather than by a priori precepts or authoritative needs. This type of teaching involves the ideals of self-determination, which are tested by asking if they are in harmony with the spirit of Jesus. Being a good Christian involves a creative task, in which religious aspirations are integrated in valuations based on an actual study of human experiences.

TheThirdWindup

During Smith’s final decade, his primary focus was teaching. However, he edited with Shailer Mathews A Dictionary of Religion and Ethics and was the founding Editor of the Journal of Religion. The Smiths also continued their active participation in Hyde Park Baptist Church. In “The Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity” 1920, Smith postulated that the primary danger of the modern era is that people are treated as a commodity and traded as a commodity, which expressed a willingness to use humans impersonally. Our view of the world has been changed by the discovery of science and the invention of machinery. Smith noted that the primary trait of contemporary thinking is a confident trust in human effort and capacity, in contrast with the doctrine of innate human depravity. In the modern world using power is the key to securing what one desires. If Jesus is to be taken seriously now, it is necessary to present his moral and social achievements. Smith noted that an adequate religious inspiration for our present world requires a different conception of salvation, which requires a passive dependence on means of grace. Salvation necessitates Jesus arousing and advancing moral idealism. Christianity must cease mediating modern religious notions by metaphysical norms relating to Christian heresies. Smith further contended that we must understand the significance of Jesus as a unique citizen who had a real relation with God and who labored to make the world a better place. God’s relation to our developing world is an unending moral creativity, with Jesus conceived in terms of his complete human experience. In “The Christ of Faith and The Jesus of History” 1920, the Christ of traditional creeds is no longer considered to be the historical Jesus. If Jesus is to provide salvation, he must have the necessary qualities for our complete redemption and be identical with the historical Jesus. Contemporary persons have a new understanding of religious experience, with the focus on our life on earth. In the Renaissance, salvation meant that Jesus was the supreme teacher of reasonable conduct. A division between rationalism and evangelicalism has always existed. Luther postulated religious experience that would be closer to the estimate of Jesus. The rationalists revised Christology in order to fit the picture of Jesus to their conception of religion. Schleiermacher, in Discourse on Religion, attacked rationalism for being shallow and providing a cold and

144

Religion of Democracy

formal intellectual theology. He stressed that our dependence on the world is really a dependence on God, with salvation meaning one has attained a God-consciousness supplied by the Savior. Salvation, for Ritschlian theology, involves a relationship with God, which assures people that their moral life will prevail in this world indifferent to moral values. Christ for Ritschl is the Man Jesus. Hegel affirmed the Absolute to be dynamically present in all phases of finite reality. His Christology focused on the indwelling divine Logos. Modern writers postulate that God and humans are—basically—akin, making the incarnation not a miracle but an expression of the universal immanence of God. Biedermann distinguished between the Christ-person and the Christprinciple. With the adoption of critical methods, the identity between the Christ of faith and the historical Jesus became an important issue. Modern social interpretations of Jesus were due to modern moral and religious interests. The social gospel group was primarily interested in the faith of Jesus instead of his “person.” Based on a critical historical perspective, the character of Jesus is derived from living ideals rather than an exact exegesis. Based on historical scholarship, it was considered possible to construct a reliable conception of Jesus’s inner character, noting that the early church was not interested in the historical Jesus. Since we have limited information about Jesus, it is difficult to get back to the New Testament faith. Liberal theologians insisted that all we know about Jesus are expressions of faith that attribute to Jesus the qualities necessary for salvation. Smith noted that current critical scholarship understood that the Scriptures included subjective elements. The essential works of the Christ of faith are seen in his ethical love, his identity with the will of God, and the resurrection and adoration. Faith requires locating in Jesus the spiritual forces necessary for a dynamic religious life. Smith postulated that the traits of the historical Jesus reveal all that faith needs to affirm. “In The Realities of the Christian Religion,” a bible-study course, religious experience must express a personal experience in which one’s events relate to the spiritual forces in the universe. Salvation is to be discovered in one’s experiences. Humans need salvation because they consider that something is wrong. The primary judge of a Christian is the way in which a person lives with one’s neighbors. If one believes in God, one hopes for a better future. In “The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty” 1922, Smith urged critical scholars to be loyal to the institution of Christianity, because there is danger in theological scholarship of a scientific provincialism.

The Third Windup

145

Conservative Protestants view critical scholarship to impair loyalty. Smith was concerned that an “illicit secularizing of religion” might occur because of critical inquiry. If critical scholars become so specialized, it could lead to one dropping out of active association with a religious group. A critic who is considered an outsider will have limited influence. Smith urged a reorganized religious loyalty that shall include all made known by critical examination. He suggested that a reconstructed religious loyalty is within reach when scholars care primarily about religion itself. In “The Spirit of Evangelical Theology” 1922, Smith emphasized the lack of a distinctive evangelical theology that differentiated evangelicalism from the types of Protestantism it opposed. He noted that, by focusing on heresy hunting and theological disputation, evangelicalism was in danger of being lost. Evangelical Christianity is defined by certain theological doctrines, with their criticizing and condemning those who reject their doctrines. In early Protestantism, coercion was employed against heretics or dissenters who were consider sinners. The evangelicals did not pretend to be the sole authoritative church because their primary concern was for each person to experience salvation. It is the personal discovery that religion is a creative power in the citadel of the heart that distinguishes one as an evangelical Christians. In “Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching?” 1922, Smith noted that those attacking evolution attempted to tie Christianity to a dogmatic system which was being negated by modern scholarship. Smith thought that eventually religious people would cease attacking scientific doctrines, especially evolution, which is now universally accepted. In Principles of Christian of Living 1924, humans seek the good things of life. Ethical systems are tested for their capacity to enlighten all to those things that bring lasting satisfaction. In seeking the good, one develops a philosophy of the good, which is ethics. We train persons to share with others the good things of life. If the conditions of life change while the moral positions remain unchanged, the code may no longer represent the highest good. Christian ethics seeks to establish the highest good, which is dependent on how humans fulfill the supreme test of Christlikeness. The ethical ideal of Jesus was to be a worthy disciple. He presented the Kingdom’s social order being where good will is supreme. Roman Catholics stressed duty of obedience to divine constraints. Luther and Calvin stressed that salvation was by grace alone. Smith postulated two essential questions that a moral person should always ask. The first is what is the highest good and the second question is whether one is willing to devote oneself to the highest

146

Religion of Democracy

good. The better moral choice is to readjust one’s conceptions to fit the facts. Smith suggested that there is no such thing as sin, apart from those guilty of sinning. Previously one feared eternal punishment in hell as the consequences of sin. Today many Christians find the conception of hell too vague to be taken seriously. Smith understood the Christian faith as a romantic adventure seeking eternal life. In this adventure, the individual must believe that what is believed is true or one’s spiritual life is an expression of hypocrisy. In modern times, the desire for church unity is based on the moral waste of divisions in Christendom. The Christian family, for Smith, was the essential social group. He noted that Christianity began as a religion of the working class and has always recognized the dignity of the worker. What is needed is to organize industry so that work will be made more motivating and rewarding. Pleasure is dependent on the natural impulse not being restrained, with happiness dependent to a great degree upon one’s character and training. The Christian test of pleasurable activities is whether they provide interesting activity. In the Middle Ages, the Christian use of property was based on the doctrine of stewardship, with legal possession based on a divine ordinance. If one has illegally acquired property, one cannot be righteous. However, not all possessions are tangible, for the most important possession is in the spiritual realm. Whether a Christian’s possessions are material or spiritual, one has a responsibility to share them. One must share the spirit of good will. Modern industry, being human made, nullified the doctrine of stewardship. Christians urge the spirit of brotherhood and goodwill, but the issue is how can brotherhood be established between workers and management. What is needed is to carry over into industry standards established in other realms. Democratic methods need to be introduced into these paternalistic organizations, in order that the ideal of cooperation may replace conflict. Christian justice cannot be realized until the welfare of the workers is placed above fiscal interest of another group. Modern democracies share an independent attitude, which traditional Christian theology condemned because the state is utilitarian. In “What Does Biblical Criticism Contribute to the Modern Preacher” 1925, biblical criticism recognized that the real task of a preacher is to interpret the religion of the day in a direct fashion. However, the preacher must have an understanding of religions’ historical development. It also requires that the preacher be able to read the New Testament in its language, for without that ability the preacher can never be a first-hand

The Third Windup

147

interpreter of biblical texts. Smith noted that many problems in the Bible have no counterpart in modern time. Smith noted four points regarding how biblical criticism contributes to the modern preacher. 1. Biblical criticism frees the preacher from scribism, which treats the doctrine and precepts in the Bible as entities that are turned into a system. 2. Biblical criticism requires one to find a vital, rather than a formal, test of belief. The result of biblical criticism is that the real test of a doctrine is whether it is inherently believable instead of conforming to some biblical norm. 3. Doctrines arose out of social situations. The preacher’s task is to challenge a generation to face God’s judgment by focusing on the religion of living people. Historical interpretations require one to focus on economic, political, and social conditions instead of doctrines. The preacher is to convey the practical and social conceptions of biblical people to those listening. 4. Biblical criticism makes clear that biblical writers were children of their age who spoke to their contemporaries. The modern preacher will need to be as courageous as biblical characters, in censuring sin and calling all to the higher life under modern conditions. Smith read his paper, “Is Theism Essential to Religion?” before the Theological Society of New York on April 11, 1925. He noted that before the empirical method, religious values and procedures were considered divinely inspired. When God is no longer the guarantor of religion, God’s role has significantly changed. It appears that religion will continue even if God has no place in religion. From this perspective, Smith asked whether theism is essential to religion. Theism claims that nature has a Creator. Problems are solved by the appeal to God’s rationality and moral character. Affirming theism was an exercise of imagination to the scientist. Theism is limited to personal religious experience, which raises the question whether one can be religious while believing in God? The contemporary view of the nature of God is distinctively pragmatic. Some philosophers and theologians reject an appeal to superhuman forces because such an appeal diminishes the social reconstruction needed. Smith considered this appeal immoral because it provides an excuse for not dealing with the problems of reconstruction. Humans are limited to using the forces of nature within the limits nature imposes. Smith considered a theism that identifies the Christian God with the trend of the cosmic process to have substituted sentimentalism for social engineering. It is clear that the cosmic process does not care about human ideals. Human life is an adjustment between organism and our environment. We discover God’s character in the reciprocity between

148

Religion of Democracy

persons and their environment. Smith postulated that if theism becomes a handicap, we might abandon it without abandoning our belief in some kind of cosmic reality that stimulates us in the experience we call religious. He questioned whether traditional theism could foster a religious view of the world in light of modern science. In “The Education of Religious Leaders” 1925, Smith presented a review of Theological Education in America by Robert L. Kelly. Kelly had collected data on one hundred and sixty-one theological seminaries in North America. He was shocked by the lack of standards in theological education. Hebrew and Greek had been the backbone of traditional theological education but many seminaries no longer require these classical languages. A major lack in theological education was its failure to prepare leadership for rural churches in industrial regions. In “What Are Some of the Elements Entering Into a Present-Day Religious Experience?” 1925, Smith addressed the Religious Education Association on the topic of this essay. He sent letters to some members of the Association inquiring about their concept of “religious experience.” He sought to discover the meaning of religious experience and learn how religious education contributes to this experience. However, he received few responses to his letter. The respondents considered a religious life a good thing, but they failed to mention the church as the primary social carrier of religious values. Smith noted that for past generations the emphasis was on forgiveness of sin and the joy of being God’s friend. The respondents expressed no sense of an angry God who must be appeased or for an atoning process which enables forgiveness. They also placed emphasis on moral attainment as the supreme end of religion, which limited religious restrictions to this world. Smith concluded that a vital religious experience must recognize that today people face a new universe that has outgrown the old theology and a new social order that has outgrown the old morality. He further noted that most respondents agreed about the need for a kind of mystical communion with God, but failed to mention the Bible or to recognize the non-rational factors in religion. In “Science and Religion” 1926, Smith reviewed J. Y. Simpson’s Landmarks in the Struggle between Science and Religion and Henry N. Wieman’s Religious Experience and Scientific Method. Simpson viewed evolution as displaying purposiveness based on a transcendent God, the source of our existing world. For Simpson, traditional Christian theology is based on revelation. Wieman, in Religious Experience and Scientific Method, discusses the method by which religious thought is compatible

The Third Windup

149

with science. He insisted that humans are aware of God but do not know how to define God. Before God can be defined, one must have experienced God. In “The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age” 1926, Smith reviewed six books. J. Arthur Thomson published Science and Religion, in which he stressed the self-imposed limits of science, which does not profess to provide universal explanations. He noted that the idea of God is outside scientific discourse. Smith found Thomson to be vague and confused. Smith reviewed William North Rice’s Christian Faith in an Age of Science. Rice considered five so-called conflicts between science and Christianity to be a conflict between scientific beliefs and a Bible supposed to be inerrant. If the doctrine of biblical infallibility were abandoned, science cannot touch Christianity’s central truth that God was in Christ reconciling the world to God. C. Stuart Gager’s The Relation between Science and Theology was reviewed. Smith noted that the book essentially explained the scientific method, with limited insight about the relation of science to religious interests. Louis Matthews Sweet’s book was To Christ through Evolution. Sweet attempted to deal with the doctrine of evolution while retaining orthodox theology. He also showed the divergence of opinion among evolutionary scientists. Sweet also contended that humans are closer to divine origin than are other species. John M. Watson’s Science as Revelation indicated that science would provide all the religions humans need. He suggested that ethics discovers that moral laws are cosmic laws. The limitations of Watson’s book are his eliminating all differences between science and religion. The final review was of A. N. Whitehead’s Science and the Modern World. Whitehead considered the universe as thought of events in an interlocked community, although he was critical of certain aspects of contemporary scientific practices. For Whitehead, concrete enduring entities influence the character of subordinate organisms. Some possess patterns that may impose on combinations of the patterns. Enduring reality is sought in these patterns instead of in simple entities. God places specific limitation on an indefinite variety of possible systems, and in general is the reason the universe is what it is. Smith doubted whether a pre-scientific theology could satisfy people who enter this quest for a better apprehension of its objects of worship. In “An Overlooked Factor In The Adjustment Between Religion and Science” 1927, Smith indicated that the focus of this article considered the

150

Religion of Democracy

mindset of how loyalty to Christianity affected its welcome to science. He noted that the culture of science is radically different from the culture suckled by the church. The religious person seeks in worship a relationship with objective reality and that theological concepts represent reality. Those who defend the churches’ doctrines are considered superior to those who do not. However, a significant change has occurred with science becoming dominant in educational institutions, which has meant a new approach to religious investigations. Religious fundamentalists reject any scientific theory not in accord with the Scriptures. Catholics’ relations with science are cordial, as they consider science to confirm “the teachings of revelation.” Ritschlian theologians affirmed the existence of two distinct realms of reality. Smith considered that it would be a disaster to religion if science were ruled out of the religious domain. However, he suggested that religion belongs more to the area of art than to the realm of science. If there is to be an adjustment between these two realms, theologians must have an adequate understanding of science and scientist must have an adequate understanding of theology. In “Theological Thinking in America” 1927, Smith postulated that the method of exegesis had been discredited. Biblical scholars were recovering details about ancient cultures, as well as reconstructing the history of Biblical culture. Frederick Hegel projected a view of God based on an analysis of human experience, by unfolding the meaning of consciousness. Smith considered Ritschlianism to be the dominant position by its direct appeal to religious experience, while also contending that Christianity is a religion of revelation. It provided a transition to a more empirical and historical approach. Modernists focused on social evolution as the way to understand the development of Christianity. However, as the Twentieth Century began there was resolute opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis. There was also a re-examination of the doctrine of God in light of the psychological and historical study of religion. In “Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education” 1927, Smith noted that for the Roman Catholics, morals presuppose a theological explanation. They also considered all power expressed by the public proceeds from God. The Episcopal Church viewed the educational system in need of adequate religious teaching. Presbyterians, considering the problem of spiritual illiteracy, affirmed moral training being taught in public education. Congregationalists insisted on the separation of the church from the state. Lutherans limited religious education to the church. The Methodist desired

The Third Windup

151

that public education be free for ecclesiastical influences. Modern Judaism supports the separation of church and state. In Finding God in Human Life 1927, Smith postulated that humans seek the good things of life. Ethical systems are tested for their capacity to enlighten all to that which brings lasting satisfaction. In seeking the good, one develops a philosophy of the good, which is ethics. We train persons to share with others the good things of life. If the conditions of life change while the moral positions remain unchanged, the code may no longer represent the highest good. Christian ethics seeks to establish the highest good to determine how humans may secure the good based on the supreme test of Christlikeness. The ethical ideal of Jesus was to be a worthy disciple. In Current Christian Thinking 1928, the focus was on the scientific study of religion and ethics. Catholics held their religion to be the perfect religion divinely established, based on the doctrine of infallibility. Modernism employed critical scholarship for re-examining theological doctrines. If Christianity were a fixed system, it would seem that fundamentalists are the genuine Christians. The fundamentalists, who accepted the entire body of orthodox theology, disapproved of modern education and modern science because they supported the modernists. By applying the scientific method to theology, doctrines must justify themselves. Schleiermacher’s experimental approach viewed religion as a profound experience that involved a mystical relationship between one’s inner life and the mysterious Infinite. However, there remained the task of understanding the meaning of experience, and whether all Christians have alike experiences, as well as understanding the difference between an experience and hallucinations. Theology faced the task of discovering whether a conception of revelation can be validated by experience. The Ritschlians considered theology to be an expression of genuine religious experience. Seeking to be faithful to the scientific spirit, they relied on biblical criticism. They classed religion with aesthetics and ethics rather than with science. The primary task of theology was to determine the precise gospel as the basis of salvation. The Ritschlians sought to free theology from subjective views of Christ, with the focus being on the historical Jesus. Smith noted that the critical method had altered the appeal to the supernatural, just as evolution had changed our view of nature and humans. The new philosophy of immanence rejected all systems of theology and sought to demonstrate how God’s present activity can be understood in all reality. This conception of religion as something essentially natural

152

Religion of Democracy

makes the most important contemporary religious question the definition of God, instead of viewing God as the patron of religion. Nature was the last realm to be secularized, with God having a limited place in modern religion. Scientists had found no conception of God to be of value in their research. God is only essential to religion that conforms to divinely approved doctrines and rituals. The modern question of theism is based on our thinking of religion in terms of itself rather than in terms of theology. No longer attempting to prove the existence of God who will overcome evil, humans seek to unite all persons in the cooperative effort to secure from nature aid in furthering human welfare. Belief in God now means that we encounter a quality of the cosmic process that is akin to our spiritual life. Evangelical Christianity emphasized a person’s experience with the creative spiritual power. In “Religious Experience through Worship” 1928, Smith suggested that in the refinement of the religious life each individual begins with what is irrefutably reality. Sincerity focuses on familiar ways that suggest fellowship with God. Protestants read the Bible to cultivate a religious life. A fundamental principle of sincerity is that one not pretend to own that which is not yours. People have come to depend on external conditions for their stimulation when what they need is meditation, because one begins to feel entirely at home in one’s devotional life. In “Training Christian Ministers” 1928, Smith postulated that modern religion must come to grip with our new and not yet understood world, while American scholars continue the view of a divinely authorized system as a basis for salvation. A striking feature of contemporary religion is the abandonment of a future life and the use of non-biblical means of understanding religion. Smith noted that the Great War destroyed our doctrinaire ideals. He considered the most important approach to be the development of the aims and methods of religious education. In “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation: Some Conditions to be Observed in the Attempt to Correlate Science and Religion” 1928, Smith noted that the words “religion” and “science” are abstract concepts, which indicates that there is no generalized religion and no generalized science. Science is satisfactory unto its self and requires no need of religion. When one views reality so that scientific concepts dominate, religion recedes into the background. When science becomes a kind of mythology, it is a false messiah. It is generally assumed that those engaged in religion are the least qualified to judge its value. The great service of science is it forcing us to face facts instead of living in a dream world. He postulated that most religious leaders seek some form of words that will enable the student to keep saying the words the church wants. The

The Third Windup

153

world, viewed from the perspective of science, provides no assistant to religion’s focus on the inner life and does not provide the technique for helping students in religious adjustment. Smith also noted that the traditional religious symbols conceive of a world discredited by modern science. Modern religious education must present symbols and ideas that ennoble the good life and which enable people to live facing the facts of reality. In “The Problem of Authority in Protestantism” 1928, Smith noted that Catholics have no problem with authority. However, Protestants insisted on an individual Christian’s right to the principle of private judgment. Luther considered the Bible being absolute and authoritative. Smith noted that early Protestantism denied any human authority of the Bible. The Reformation occurred as the new spirit of literary and historical criticism was confronting people. Scholars began to contradict the teachings of the Bible, with skepticism of the infallible Bible on the rise. Modern Protestantism was compelled to adopt the methods of scholarship, contending that the authority of Scripture can be vindicated by human reasoning employing methods from other fields. Robert Barclay contended that divine inward revelations are necessary for building true faith, but which cannot contradict the testimony of the Scriptures or sound reason. Since inner guidance comes from God, it is infallible. However, modern psychology suggests that divinity of the inner consciousness in the absolute sense disappears. Smith proclaimed that reforms supported the principle of efficiency and religious vitality. Modern Protestantism has been weakened by division into denominations. He suggested that the efficiency and attractiveness of the local church is more important than its denomination. Smith indicated that in the last fifty years it has become evident that the Bible is not what the Reformers assumed, because it has been historically relativized and the doctrine of biblical authority has been discredited. With the empirical method of determining good conduct being adopted by liberal Protestants, right and wrong are established based on actual values experienced, which involves the ideals of self-determination. In “What is the Matter with Religion,” 1928, Smith suggested that the social situation had changed; making ineffective what had been effective. The perfect form of religion was established authoritatively, making any decline of this position a departure from this perfect form. For religion to become strong again, the religious people must commit themselves to doing God’s will. Protestantism has doubt about this perspective, in part due to the varied denominations each claiming to understand God’s will. This perspective

154

Religion of Democracy

has resulted in an increase in denominations. Smith also suggested that another reason for the decline was a failure to understand adequately the program of a non-authoritative church. He hoped that this would lead to knowledge of how to manage religious institutions. Smith focused on the methods employed in theological programs in order that students understand the diversity of religious thinking. He suggested that theological education should focus on the actual vocational needs of the students. Smith questioned whether most religious leaders know what modern religion is and how to make use of that knowledge. Smith emphasized, in “What Is The Matter With Religion And What Is To Be Done About It? A Symposium” 1928 that the social situations have changed, negating what was formerly satisfactory. For religion to become strong again, people must return to what is considered God’s will. A problem is that different denominations claim to understand God’s will, which has fostered an increase in denominations. A second issue is that these denominations fail to understand what the program of a nonauthoritative church should be. Some churches have been successful by focusing on the needs of the people. Theological education should also focus on meeting the vocational needs of the students. Smith questioned whether church leaders understood what modern religion is and how to make use of this knowledge where it is available. In “Traditional Religion in a Scientific World” 1928, Smith claimed that if one wants to be up to date in the discussion of religion today, one must take account of science. Smith reviewed three books that adapted what had been received by tradition so as not to clash with science. They are Bertram C. A. Windle’s The Catholic Church and Its Reactions with Science, Charles E. Raven’s The Creator Spirit, and Gilbert T. Rowe’s Reality in Religion. In “The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics” 1929, Smith postulated that Christian Ethics focuses on the theory that contends that morality requires obedience to God’s wishes. In this understanding is discovered an absolute final morality. Smith noted that popular opinion has radically changed, with moral values now derived from experience. Complex situations occur where there is a conflict of duties. This leads to the doctrine of “probabilism,” which means there is no absolute solution that can be provided. When absolute laws vary according to changing circumstances, casuistry becomes an aspect of ethical reasoning, which includes a degree of relativeness in practical morality. Protestantism sought to negate the casuistically based system on the doctrine of being “justified by faith.” Luther contended that regenerated persons have a kind of intuition that enables them to follow God’s will.

The Third Windup

155

Calvin added as essential the love of righteousness and following rules that prevent one making false steps in seeking righteousness. Protestantism suffered from not being an authoritative church that can explain the will of God, but it assumed that God would guide us to understand correctly the meaning of Scripture. Smith provided a brief summary of how Protestant ethics was being taught. He noted that biblical literalism is the most uncompromising expression of theological theory, which resorts to casuistry. This revealed that Smith was aware that in the past fifty years it has become clear that the Bible is not what the Reformers assumed, because it clearly had become historically relativized. The doctrine of biblical authority has been discredited. Jesus’s teachings are reduced to general principles that can be applied to contemporary problems. Being a Christian meant that one applies the principle of love to one’s situations. Such an approach involves an open-minded empirical method for facing moral problems. The empirical method involves the ideals of self-determination, which are tested by asking if they are in harmony with the teachings of Jesus.

FINALE

Albert Camus, in The Rebel, contends that Western culture should not be dated in reference to before and after the death of Christ but rather, in reference to the French Revolution. On the one hand, the significance of the French Revolution is found in the involvement of the masses in determining the policy-direction of society. On the other hand, the significance also encompasses the dethroning of the traditional autocratic God, who was replaced by the will of the people. A similar point is also made by Ortega y Gasset in The Revolt of the Masses. G. B. Smith would agree in spirit with these assessments. It is Smith’s contention that two factors of the modern world have radically changed our human understanding and life-style. As indicated by Camus and Ortega, the rise of democracy and the radical expansion of the masses constitute the first factor. Just as important is the second factor, which expands the application of the scientific method into all facets of human experience. So that Christianity may be intelligible and dynamically relevant to the modern world, Smith calls for all Christian doctrines and practices to be changed, if necessary, in light of the modern demands of democratic society and the world-view made possible by the modern sciences. In the following comments, we shall explore Smith’s views concerning the relation of religion to democracy and scientific method. Then we shall consider the implications of these factors for altering Christian doctrine and practice. ViewofReligion Smith viewed Christianity, and all other religions, “as an attempt on man’s part to enter into right relations with those forces which will enable him to realize the richest life in the world here and now.”174 The Christian tradition began with the focus on increasing richness of life here and now; but as the early Christians’ experiences became harsher, a mood of pessimism began to permeate. On the one hand, this pessimistic mood was expressed by the increasing tendency to conceive of God as a supernatural, autocratic deity who was remote from the struggles of individuals and groups. Salvation was expressed in terms of an act of benevolent condescension on the part of God, with humans passively accepting what

158

Religion of Democracy

was provided from above. On the other hand, this mood was expressed in the doctrine of innate human depravity, which “required Christians to depreciate natural human activities.”175 The net result of this pessimism was to create an inadequate religion that brought about an increasing disunity between God and humans. An adequate religion is not to be found in the logical consistency of doctrines, but in whether the religion meets the pragmatic test of providing the satisfactory consequences. An adequate religion’s satisfactory consequences are evident when religion enhances experiences “of vital unity with great forces in the environment.”176 Such a religion serves as the “the means of organizing and expressing precious experience of aspiration, love, devotion, service.”177 Smith conceived of his task as assisting in re-directing and correcting Christianity in terms of crucial factors in the modern world so that it can once again become a satisfactory religion. Democracy The function of religion consists of “trying to obtain from the invisible realm the aid necessary to secure the things most valued in that particular group or generation.”178 Since democracy is one of the most valued characteristics of the modern world, it is necessary for Christianity to adjust in order to be an adequate religion. The problem of traditional Christianity is that it is conceived of as an elitist religion based on a system of theological favoritism. Such favoritism is well expressed in the theological doctrine of unconditional election. From the point of view of autocracy, God cannot be reproached with injustice because God elected to save some while allowing others to go to eternal damnation. Luther attempted to provide some correction to Christianity in his contention that the authority of the priest is dependent upon the consent of the governed. Luther also contains elements of the democratic spirit in his doctrine of justification by faith, which “means that every person has an immediate access to the source of spiritual power and joy by the simple exercise of personal faith.”179 Yet Luther’s theology is a failure for the modern person because it rests upon the doctrine of the innate sinfulness of humans. So long as Christianity is tied to an autocratic view of God with a system of doctrines consistent with such a view, it will remain an elitist religion inappropriate to be the guiding force of modern society. The root of the anti-elitist hostility “is found in the conviction that the Christian church is part and parcel of a system of special privileges which democracy is bound to demolish.”180 Smith attempted to delineate the characteristics of a democratic religion, as follows: 1. An autocratic religion cannot prepare citizens of a democracy.

Finale

159

2. A democratic religion must exist by human consent rather than by a claim of divine rights. 3. A democratic Christianity must look forward rather than backward. It must exalt a creative spirit rather than the demand for conformity. 4. The adoption of a democratic spirit in Christianity means the development of intelligent citizenship rather than the inculcation of dogmatic propaganda.181 If Christianity is to become a democratic religion, then the church and its clergy must function in appropriate ways. The clergy must stop preaching about a supernatural, autocratic God and should focus on the problems of a democratic society. The church should cease calling persons to direct their time, energy and money in trying to get to heaven and, rather, should re-direct these persons to ministering to the needs of people here and now. In a democracy, true worship enhances reverence for those human values which democracy makes supreme—values such as justice, brotherhood, progress and enrichment of life. Smith contended that redirecting Christianity in terms of democracy fit within the democratic spirit of Jesus as displayed in his teachings concerning the human relationship of all persons. “For democracy of which we dream is nothing but human society made conscious of the divine sublimity of that picture of human brotherhood and justice which can be best realized as men become sharers of the life of Jesus. The evangelization of democracy and the democratizing of Christianity are two aspects of the same moment in which God is working out his purpose for this age.”182 ScientificMethod The fundamental issue facing modern theology, if it is going to make the Christian faith intelligible in a democratic society, is whether it can discard the “inherited conception of Christianity as a perfect revelation of truth which abides substantially unchanged from age to age.”183 This has been the issue for religion since the impact of Copernicus. By the Nineteenth Century, the issue was openly expressed in the struggle between Orthodoxy and Modernism and in the Programme of Modernism put forth in reply. The struggle focuses on the question “What is truth?” The Orthodox position replies with the traditional answer, “Truth is to be found in the content of authorized belief.” The reply from the Modernist or more liberal orientation is that “Truth is determined in the light of careful, critical study, making primary use of historical tools.” Smith contends that that the student of Christianity cannot serve these two orientations, for only the orientation to critical study will provide the satisfactory consequences

160

Religion of Democracy

required for an adequate religion in the modern world. One must reject the traditional approach of allowing one’s study to be determined by a preconceived theory, even if the theory has always been accepted as divinely revealed. Rather, one must attempt to take account of all the facts and let one’s conclusion be dictated by these facts. By following this critical approach, one will develop a stronger religious faith because it will be based on honestly facing the facts. The strength of this faith will also be great because it will incorporate the understanding that increased data will probably require a continuing process of changes in the way one understands the Christian tradition and expresses one’s Christian faith. “It is of fundamental importance that the student of theology should learn to tell the religious value of honestly facing the facts. The man who has taken this attitude of absolute loyalty to whatever proves itself to be true, possesses a spiritual strength which can never be attained by one who is in constant dread least criticism make inroads into his faith. It is only as one comes to feel that loyalty to the truth is more religious than mere conformity to a prescribed statement that the full value of critical methods will appear… Conclusions reached by historical inquiry may be revised or even abandoned without involving any sense of moral disloyalty to the old. One thus obtains a spiritual anchorage. Changes in religious convictions become possible without the period of moral disintegration engendered by the attempt to compromise with the dogmatic attitude.”184 Smith contends that the scientific method should not only be applied to critical study historically oriented, but also should be applied to Christian living. Traditional theology has followed the deductive method. This approach begins with what is considered the revealed doctrine and plan of Salvation of God, and then prescribes acceptable experiences of Christian living as a logical consequence of the dogmas of salvation. In light of the scientific approach, Smith would have theology begin with the inductive method. This approach requires first the examining of religious experiences to discover the data for theological thinking that can determine satisfactory expression of Christian living. If one applies the inductive method purely as a scientist, one will not be concerned to discuss the reality of the existence of God but will limit the consideration only to the idea of God and its psychological significance. An adequate religion requires that religious experience be set forth not as mere psychology but as theology. Therefore, the task of theology is to apply and interpret the scientific approach in such a way that persons feel the reality of the communion of the individual with God. Smith contended that the task of theology is “the attempt to think over our religious inheritance in the light of present problems, so as to

Finale

161

formulate for today and to transmit to the coming generation an expression of faith vitally related to our actual life.”185 Since our actual life is increasingly dominated by the scientific method and a worldview that eliminates from our thinking the idea of supernatural interventions, an adequate expression of our Christian faith will have to be in terms of this scientific perspective. No longer will it be acceptable to “save the face” of theology by engaging in slight-of-hand tricks, such as the attempts to harmonize Genesis and geology. We must accept the reality that the medieval superiority of theology over all branches of learning has ended. What is required today is a frank admission of the errors in Christian theology and a determined effort to be fair and truthful in re-developing Christian doctrines adequate for the actual living that confronts modern persons: “There is no better defense of any theory than to show that it rests on a full and accurate examination of the facts. It ought to be evident to everyone that knowledge of facts is constantly improving as humanity advances. We today know many things concerning which men were ignorant two thousand years ago. Instead of assuming that a doctrine that was formulated in the past is absolutely true and has only to be defended against attacks, we ought first to make sure of our facts. If this investigation results in the modification of the doctrine in question, it is far better to make the modification than to conjure up clever arguments that conceal the truth. If once, we shall have come to the point of being willing to go wherever the facts lead no matter what becomes of our doctrines, we shall occupy a position far stronger than that of the popular defense. Theology has so long been accustomed to rely on external authority that it is necessary to exercise particular care in order to meet modern questions in a way which will convince men accustomed to scientific exactness.”186

Doctrines In redeveloping Christian doctrines in terms of criteria appropriate to the modern world, it is necessary in the Protestant traditions to establish the authority-role of the Bible. It has already been indicated that Smith strongly supports the use of historical critical tools in studying the biblical tradition. Such study should be undertaken from the frame of reference that there is no absolute truth. Humans live in an unfinished and becoming world that, according to the traditional view of a static revealed truth in the Bible, must be corrected. What we must seek in the Bible are spiritual insights that will help us come into greater contact with the reality that confronts us. The test for evaluating the adequacy of the spiritual insights of the Bible is the pragmatic criterion whether satisfactory ideals are being established. “The primary aim of the biblical story is like the aim of a fable to

162

Religion of Democracy

present in pictorial form some spiritual truth so that through the power of vivid imagery it shall arouse the inner life of the reader… Questions of historical accuracy should be subsidiary to the main purpose… truthfulness, then, in the realm of spiritual life, will consist in a constant determination to place the right ideals before children rather than in the attempt to secure correct ideas.”187 We are to begin with our religious experiences and from examining these to discover the data for theological thinking. Smith would have us follow this inductive approach in establishing a new doctrine of God: “A more promising method of approach seems to me to be the frank recognition of the fact that our religious relationship to what we worship in our cosmic environment must be empirically studied, and our conception of God must be formulated in tentative terms which grow out of that experience, rather than in terms of an a priori philosophy assuming to be final.”188

The old conception of God has been expressed in different ways, all of which are currently inadequate. On the one hand, God has been presented as an autocratic, supernatural monarch. As indicated previously, this view is rejected from a democratic perspective. On the other hand, God is conceived of as a heavenly Father. This view is rejected because “Fatherliness on the part of God is not an adequate starting-point in the presence of the desperate moral issue of which we are part and parcel.”189 Having rejected the more traditional concepts of God, Smith is careful to point out that “we have not yet satisfactorily reconstructed the doctrine of God to meet the moral demands of our age.”190 Yet, there are definite characteristics necessary in this new doctrine of God. One characteristic must be of “A suffering God, bearing the burden of the evil in his world— this must be the conception of the coming theology... Evil cost something to God himself.”191 Another necessary characteristic is a God that hates sin, for “Unless God can be felt to hate sin which humanity hates, men will turn to the social agitator rather than to the Christian Church.”192 In general, Smith conceives of an immanent God that is creatively involved in trying to solve the social, evolutionary problems of humanity. Smith opined, “We are living in an unfinished world. The best is yet to be. If this is true, then the relation of God to this development must be conceived in terms of unceasing moral creativity. The finishing of an unfinished world is a task of God no less than of man.”193 Since a new doctrine of God is necessary, it is appropriate to question whether we shall also require a new view of Jesus Christ. Smith’s answer is a qualified “yes,” as he contends, “historical analysis shows that the interpretations of Jesus which we have either in ancient or in modern times

Finale

163

are expressions of faith, in which the believer attributes to Jesus those traits which are deemed by him to be essential to salvation.”194 In our democratic age of complex social problems, we are interested in the spiritual ideals for which Jesus stands rather than in his “person.” What is required is a view of Jesus that is related to contemporary human experience. Smith contends “...the divinity of Jesus is best asserted by an unqualified belief in his completely human experience.”195 In essence, the power of Jesus is dependent upon his role as an inspiration to stimulate and to develop moral idealism—idealism based on the genuine moral and social achievements accomplished by Jesus. In our increasingly interdependent world, adequate stimulation is possible only as Jesus is conceived as a citizen of the world, persuasively devoting himself to the moral task of increasing human rights and shaping human efforts to the making of a more just social order. The new Christology fits with the new doctrine of God, for both give emphasis to an unceasing moral creativity giving direction to the completion of an unfinished social world. Smith explained: “It is only as Jesus can be shown to have made the most complete identification of himself with the moral rights of humanity that he can be the redeemer of men... But if the world shall come to believe that in Jesus we have the most perfect expression of that ideal toward which humanity yearns, if we can feel that he took upon himself without evasion the burden of the moral strife, and was faithful to the ideal even at the cost of crucifixion, then we can believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the immanent God who is sharing with men the burden of evil. And to know that Jesus, the perfect expression of the moral will of the immanent God, was crucified because he would not be false to the divine purpose means that the cross becomes the eternal symbol of identification with God.”196

Smith’s new doctrine of God also requires a change concerning the traditional view of sin, atonement and salvation. In the traditional view, sin is conceived of as an original condition of alienation on the part of all humans from God. Smith contends “...it is impossible for men today either to repent of Adamic sin or to regard death as a penalty for sin.”197 A more adequate view of sin must be tied to the increasing social consciousness of the modern age, which despairs of a laissez-faire policy regarding the ills of humanity. “It is coming to be seen that the gravest sins of our time are due to willingness to use men impersonally, to regard human activities as a commodity to be traded with like other commodities.”198 Atonement and salvation are not effected through Jesus paying a price to God in order to do away with original sin. Rather, atonement and salvation occur by an overcoming of the sin by which humans remain aloof from the welfare of

164

Religion of Democracy

fellow-humans in need. “Salvation can only come through the overcoming of this aloofness. But when this is overcome, the individual is democratized.”199 In the beginning of our remarks, we indicated that Smith calls for a reworking of Christian doctrine in terms of criteria relevant to the modern world. One criterion is an expanded application of the scientific method, often expressed in pragmatic terms. A second criterion is the demands of democratic society. Smith’s new conception of God, and how God relates to humans, clearly indicates this pragmatic orientation and overriding concern with a democratic perspective: “If God is not separate from humanity, if he is actually bearing the burden of the evil done to his children, then atonement made to an outraged humanity is atonement made to God... The only satisfaction with which democracy can be content is that the man who has been anti-social, who has selfishly wronged others for his own profit, shall actually share and approve the social consciousness that condemns him for his wrong. Mere external punishment does not reach to the root of the matter. Democracy demands conversion—a change of heart—as the supreme atonement for the sins of the past. And if this takes place, democracy is willing, nay glad, to take upon itself the consequences of the wrong, to endure the pains resulting from past evils in order to set free the converted soul to devote its energies to the social welfare.”200 Ethics If we had to designate one area of concern as the guiding focus for G. B. Smith, it would be ethics. His overriding concern is how to make Christianity the dynamic, directing force healing the social ills of humanity. Understanding that the modern world is increasingly under the influence of democratic principles and a scientific-industrial orientation, Smith looks to the New Testament for possible ethical guidance. He found the New Testament ethic dominated by two limiting factors. On the one hand, the people are more concerned about the criteria for righteousness in terms of the coming Kingdom than with establishing what ought to be done to make this world a better place in which to live. On the other hand, the ethics of the New Testament function on the simple level of personal relationship rather than being involved in any serious entanglement with the social and industrial problems of existing society: “The New Testament thus lacks interest in social evolution which is an essential of modern ethical thinking.”201 Special consideration is also given to the Catholic and Protestant traditions in ethics. The problem with both is that they rest their ethical

Finale

165

foundation upon a supernatural source, following the deductive method for relating the ethical principles by which humans live. For the Catholics, the church is the divinely appointed agent of God charged with guiding human inquires and deciding what conclusions are in accordance with God’s will. Unfortunately, the Reformation occurred before humans had come to realize the possibilities of empirical inquiry, with the result being that Protestants applied the deductive method to the revealed law in the Scriptures. Although Jesus did not stress the universal ethical principles of love, justice, brotherhood, and ministering to the needs of the disenfranchised, his principles were encased in a worldview that is at best difficult for modern persons to understand and relate to their living situations. The guiding principle of Smith’s ethic is the inductive method. What we must do is start with human experiences, attempting to discover human needs and appropriate actions related to these needs: “Ethical precepts thus are made relative to human needs instead of being referred to any superhuman or pre-human source.”202 Rejecting the view of innate human sinfulness, focus should be given in ethics to modern insights into human nature. We have learned that through education and other methods of guidance, human conduct can be shaped. In other words, human nature is plastic and can be molded: “Christian ethics should take account of the factors which enter into the remaking of human nature, and should set forth the duty of using all proper means for the securing of a Christian character.”203 In essence, Smith’s ethic is part of his overall view of Christianity being adapted to the modern world. He finds God’s will in the actual appeal of the facts of human experience rather than in a prescribed code or revealed tradition. Modern religious thinking draws its inspiration from the world in which we live. Therefore, “Christian ethics must learn to determine its content by a careful study of the problems which confront us and an understanding of the resources with which we may attain moral results. Christian ethics should be defined as the determination of the duties of a modern Christian living in a modern world. To define it in terms of an ethical system, belonging to another age, is to fail to make Christianity completely ethical.”204

NOTES

Historical Sketch 1. W. Creighton Peden, Life and Thought of Bernard Eugene Meland (2010), p. 4. 2. John N. Gaston & W. Creighton Peden, Eds., Bernard Eugene Meland’s Unpublished Papers (2013), p. 145. 3. Cecil Michener Smith, “Some Memories of Gerald Birney Smith”, The Divinity School News, 1939. 4. Ibid., p. 2. 5. Ibid., p. 3. 6. Ibid., p. 4.

First Decade: The Writings 7. G. B. Smith, “Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education” 1903, p. 70. 8. Ibid., p. 78. 9. Ibid. 10. G. B. Smith, Atonement (1909), Chapter XIII: Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought, p. 302. 11. Ibid., p. 309. 12. Ibid., p. 303. 13. G. B. Smith, “The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement” 1909, p. 269. 14. Ibid., p. 279. 15. Ibid., p. 289. 16. Ibid., p. 286. 17. Ibid., p. 288. 18. Ibid., p. 293. 19. Ibid., p. 302. 20. Ibid., p. 309. 21. Ibid., p. 311. 22. Ibid., pp. 313–4. 23. Ibid., p. 319. 24. G. B. Smith, “Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message” 1910, p. 397. 25. Ibid., p. 376. 26. G. B. Smith, “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology” 1910, p. 217. 27. Ibid., p. 219. 28. Ibid., p. 224. 29. Ibid., p. 226. 30. Ibid., p. 230.

168

Religion of Democracy

First Decade: The Windup 31. G. B. Smith, “Atonement In The Light of Modern Thought” 1909, p. 313.

Second Decade: The Writings 32. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and Critical Theology” 1912, p. 388. 33. Ibid., p. 389. 34. G. B. Smith, “The Function of a Critical Theology” 1912, pp. 308–9. 35. Ibid., p. 314. 36. Ibid., p. 317. 37. G. B. Smith, Social Idealism And The Changing Theology 1913, p. 7. 38. Ibid., p. 44. 39. Ibid., p. 61. 40. Ibid., p. 75. 41. Ibid., pp. 89–90. 42. Ibid., p. 114. 43. Ibid., p. 144. 44. Ibid., p. 163. 45. Ibid., p. 167. 46. Ibid., p. 180. 47. Ibid., pp. 212–3. 48. Ibid., p. 221. 49. Ibid., pp. 226–7. 50. G. B. Smith, “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation” 1913, Section I: “Some conditions to Be Observed in the Attempt to Correlate Science and Religion,” p. 304. 51. Ibid., p. 306. 52. Ibid., p. 397. 53. Ibid., p. 310. 54. G. B. Smith, “The Problem of Theological Method” 1913, p. 277. 55. G. B. Smith, “Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion?” 1913, p. 10. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid., p. 11. 58. Ibid., p. 14. 59. A. Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 3. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Reinhold Seeberg, The Fundamental Truths of the Christian Religion, p. 6. 63. Shailer Mathews, The Gospel and the Modern Man, p. 7. 64. Lyman Abbott, The Theology of an Evolutionist, p. 39. 65. “What Shall the Systematic Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar?” 1915, p. 383. 66. Ibid., pp. 385–6. 67. Ibid., p. 398. 68. Ibid., p. 399. 69. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy” 1917, p. 399. 70. Ibid., p. 411.

Notes

169

71. Ibid., p. 349. 72. Ibid., p. 352. 73. Ibid., p. 354. 74. G. B. Smith, “Democracy and Religious Experience,” 1919 p. 354. 75. Ibid., p. 144. 76. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and Industrial Democracy,” 1919, p. 493. 77. Ibid., p. 495. 78. G. B. Smith, “The Development of the Modern Industrial World,” p. 499. 79. Ibid., p. 509. 80. Ibid., p. 502. 81. Ibid., p. 504. 82. Ibid., p. 507. 83. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and Political Democracy,” 1919, p. 408. 84. Ibid., p. 411. 85. G. B. Smith, “The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age” 1919, p. 633. 86. Ibid., p. 637. 87. Ibid., p. 638. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid., p. 639.

Second Decade: The Windup 90. G. B. Smith, “Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion?” 1913, p. 10. 91. Ibid., p. 11.

Third Decade: The Writings 93. G. B. Smith, “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity”, p. 203. 94. Ibid., p. 206. 94. G. B. Smith and Theodore G. Soares, “The Realities of the Christian Religion”, Foreword. 95. G. B. Smith, Study V: “Christian Living”, p. 450. 96. G. B. Smith, Study VI: “The Future Hope”, p. 48. 97. G. B. Smith, “The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty” 1922, p. 192. 98. Ibid., p.195. 99. Ibid., p.196. 100. G. B. Smith, “Spirit Evangelical” 1922, p. 624. 101. Ibid., p. 627. 102. Ibid., p. 633. 103. G. B. Smith, “Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching?” 1922, p. 245. 104. Ibid., p. 246. 105. Ibid., p. 254. 106. Ibid., p. 255. 107. G. B. Smith, “What Does Biblical Criticism Contribute to the Modern Preacher?” 1925, p. 178. 108. Ibid., pp. 178–9. 109. Ibid., p. 180. 110. Ibid., p. 181.

170

Religion of Democracy

111. Ibid. 112. Ibid., p 183. 113. Ibid., p. 184. 114. Ibid., p. 185. 115. G. B. Smith, “Is Theism Essential to Religion?” p. 360. 116. Ibid., p 367. 117. Ibid., p 368. 118. Ibid., p 373. 119. Ibid., p 376. 120. G. B. Smith, “The Education of Religious Leaders,” p. 100. 121. Ibid., p. 101. 122. Ibid., pp. 101–102. 123. Ibid., p. 102. 124. “What Are Some of the Elements Entering Into a Present-Day Religious Experience?” p. 271. 125. Ibid. 126. Ibid., p. 272. 127. “Science and Religion,” p. 308. 128. Ibid., p. 309. 129. Ibid. 130. Ibid., p. 310. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid. 133. Ibid., p. 312. 134. Ibid., p. 313. 135. “Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education,” p. 358. 136. G. B. Smith, “Theological Thinking In America,” p. 96. 137. Ibid., p. 105. 138. G. B. Smith, Current Christian Thinking, Editors’ note before title page. 139. Ibid., p. 35. 140. Ibid., p. 36. 142. Ibid., p. 65. 142. Ibid., p. 68. 143. Ibid., p. 73. 144. Ibid., p. 74. 145. Ibid., p. 79. 146. Ibid., p. 97. 147. Ibid., p. 98. 148. Ibid., p. 99. 149. Ibid. 150. Ibid., p. 102. 151. Ibid., p. 105. 152. Ibid., p. 150. 153. Ibid., p. 152. 154. Ibid., p. 26.

Notes

171

155. Ibid., p. 27. 156. Ibid., p. 29. 157. Ibid. 158. Ibid., p. 31. 159. Ibid., p. 32. 160. G. B. Smith, “Training Christian Ministers,” p. 686. 161. Ibid., pp. 686–7. 162. G. B. Smith, “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation,” p. 304. 163. Ibid., p. 306. 164. Ibid., p. 307. 165. Ibid., p. 310. 166. G. B. Smith, “The Problem of Authority in Protestantism,” p. 397. 167. Ibid., p. 402. 168. Ibid., p. 404. 169. Ibid., p. 410. 170. G. B. Smith, “What Is The Matter With Religion And What Is To Be Done About It? A Symposium,” p. 509. 171. G. B. Smith, “The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics,” p. 108. 172. Ibid., p. 109. 173. Ibid.

Finale 174. G. B. Smith, Current Christian Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928, p. 143. This essay was previously published in my Empirical Tradition in American Liberal Religious Thought, 1860–1960, 2010. 175. G. B. Smith, “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity,” American Journal of Theology, Vol. 24, p. 203. 176. G. B. Smith (ed.), A Guide To The Study of the Christian Religion. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916), p. 510. 177. G. B. Smith, “The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty,” Journal of Religion, Vol. 2, p. 192. 178. G. B. Smith, “Democracy and Religious Experience,” Biblical World, Vol. 53, p. 4. 179. Ibid., p. 139. 180. G. B. Smith, “The Moral Meaning of Democracy,” Biblical World, Vol. 53, p. 4. 181. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and Political Democracy,” Biblical World, Vol. 53, pp. 442–3. 182. G. B. Smith, “The Task of the Church in a Democracy,” Biblical World, Vol. 53, p. 639. 183. G. B. Smith, A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion, p. 486. 184. Ibid., pp. 491–2. 185. Ibid., p. 543. 186. Ibid., pp. 544–5. 187. Ibid.

172

Religion of Democracy

188. G. B. Smith, Atonement, (with J. M. P. Smith and E. D. Burton), University of Chicago Press, 1909, p. 307. 189. Ibid., p. 307–308. 190. Ibid., p. 312. 191. Ibid., p. 309. 192. G. B. Smith, “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity,” p. 207. 193. G. B. Smith, “The Christ of Faith and The Jesus of History,” American Journal of Theology, Vol. 18, p. 538. 194. G. B. Smith, A Guide To The Study of the Christian Religion, p. 529. 195. G. B. Smith, “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity,” p. 207. 196. G. B. Smith, Atonement, p. 315. 197. Ibid., p. 298. 198. G. B. Smith, “Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity,” p. 194. 199. G. B. Smith, “Christianity and Political Democracy,” p. 637. 200. G. B. Smith, Atonement, pp. 313–4. 201. G. B. Smith, A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion, p. 562. 202. G. B. Smith, Social Idealism and the Changing Theology, p. 89. 203. G. B. Smith, Principles of Christian Living, p. 70. 204. G. B. Smith, A Guide To The Study of the Christian Religion, p. 570.

PUBLICATIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL PROJECT

The Empirical Tradition Peden, W. Creighton. Empirical Tradition in American Liberal Thought, 1860–1960. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2010. The Free Religious Association Peden, W. Creighton. Civil War Pulpit to World’s Parliament of Religion: The Thought of William James Potter, 1829–1893. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1992. —. The Philosopher of Free Religion: Francis Ellingwood Abbot, 1836– 1903. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1992. Peden, W. Creighton and Everett J. Tarbox, Jr. The Collected Essays of Francis Ellingswood Abbot (1836–1903), American Philosopher and Free Religionist. Vols. I–IV. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1996. Peden, W. Creighton. Essays and Sermons of William James Potter (1829–1893), Unitarian Minister and Free Thinker. Vols. I–II. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003. —. “Francis Ellingwood Abbot (1836–1903).” In Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers, 1860–1960. Bristol, UK: Thoemmes Press, 2004. —. An Intellectual Biography of David Atwood Wasson (1828–1887): An American Trancendentalist Thinker. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2008. —. Evolutionary Theist: An Intellectual Biography of Minot Judson Savage, 1841–1918. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. —. “Francis Ellingwood Abbot.” Unitarian Universalist Dictionary of Biography. 2009. http://uudb.org/articles/francisellingwoodabbot.html (accessed February 14, 2014). The Early University of Chicago Divinity School Peden, W. Creighton. “A Dialogue with Henry Nelson Wieman.” The Journal of Religious Thought XXX, no. 1 (1968): 63–85. —. Wieman’s Empirical Process Philosophy. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1977.

174

Religion of Democracy

Hartshorne, Charles and W. Creighton Peden. Whitehead’s View of Reality. New York, NY: Pilgrim Press, 1981. Peden, W. Creighton and Larry E. Axel. Henry Nelson Wieman, Creative Freedom: Vocation of Liberal Religion. New York, NY: Pilgrim Press, 1982. Peden, W. Creighton and Charles Willig. Henry Nelson Wieman: Science Serving Faith. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1987. Peden, W. Creighton. The Chicago School: Voices of Liberal Religious Thought. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press, 1987. Peden, W. Creighton and Jerome A. Stone. The Chicago School of Theology: Pioneers in Religious Inquiry. Vols. I–II. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1996. Peden, W. Creighton. A Good Life in a World Made Good: Albert Eustace Haydon, 1880–1975. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2006. Peden, W. Creighton and John N. Gaston, editors. Pragmatism and the Rise of Religious Humanism:The Writings of Albert Eustace Haydon (1880–1975). Vols. I–III. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Melen Press, 2006. Hartshorne, Charles and W. Creighton Peden. Whitehead’s View of Reality (republication). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. Peden, W. Creighton. Life and Thought of Bernard Eugene Meland, American Constructive Theologian, 1899–1993. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010. —. The Life and Thought of Henry Nelson Wieman (1884–1975). Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010. —. Christian Pragmatism: An Intellectual Biography of Edward Scribner Ames, 1870–1958. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. Gaston, John N., and W. Creighton Peden, editors. Edward Scribner Ames’ Unpublished Manuscripts. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011. —. Bernard Eugene Meland’s Unpublished Papers. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. Peden, W. Creighton. From Authority Religion to Spirit Religion: An Intellectual Biography of George Burman Foster, 1857–1918. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013. —. Religion of Democracy: An Intellectual Biography of Gerald Birney Smith, 1868–1929. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The writings of GERALD BIRNEY SMITH considered in this volume. Smith, Gerald Birney. “Atonement in the Light of Modern Thought.” Atonement, 1909. —. “Attitudes of the Churches as to the Respective Spheres of Church and State in the Matter of Religious Education.” Religious Education, 1927. —. “Biblical Criticism and the Christmas Message.” Biblical World, 1910. —. “Can Christianity Welcome Freedom of Teaching?” Journal of Religion, 1922. —. “Can the Distinction Between Canonical and Non-Canonical Books be Maintained?” Biblical World, 1911. —. “Christianity and Critical Theology.” Biblical World, 1912. —. Christianity and History. American Institute of Sacred Literature, 1914. —. “Christianity and Political Democracy.” Biblical World, 1919. —. “Christianity and the Spirit of Democracy.” American Journal of Theology, 1917. —. “Christianity and Industrial Democracy.” Biblical World, 1919. —. Current Christian Thinking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928. —. “Democracy and Religious Experience.” Biblical World, 1919. —. “Is Scholarship Hostile to Religion?” Biblical World, 1913. —. “Is Theism Essential to Religion?” Journal of Religion, 1925. —. “Making Christianity Safe for Democracy: III Democracy and Church.” Biblical World, 1919. —. “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation.” Biblical World, 1913. —. “Nature of Science and of Religion and Their Interrelation: Some Conditions to be Observed in the Attempt to Correlate Science and Religion.” Religious Education, 1928. —. Practical Theology: A Neglected Field in Theological Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1903. —. Principles of Christian Living. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924. —. “Religious Education.” Religious Education, 1927.

176

Religion of Democracy

—. “Religious Experience Through Worship.” In Experiments in Personal Religion. 1928. —. “Science and Religion.” Journal of Religion, 1926. —. Social Idealism and the Changing Theology. New York: Macmillan Co,, 1913. —. “Spirit Evangelical.” Journal of Religion, 1922. —. “The Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History.” American Journal of Theology, 1920. —. “The Contribution of Critical Scholarship to Ministerial Efficiency.” In A Guide to the Study of the Christian Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1916. —. “The Education of Religious Leaders.” Journal of Religion, 1925. —. “The Function of a Critical Theology.” Biblical World, 1912. —. “The Moral Meaning of Democracy.” Biblical World, 1919. —. “The Philosophy Underlying Christian Ethics.” Religious Education, 1929. —. “The Problem of Authority in Protestantism.” Crozer Quarterly, 1928. —. “The Problem of Theological Method.” Biblical World, 1913. —. “The Realities of the Christian Religion.” American Institute of Sacred Literature, 1921. —. “The Reconstruction of Religious Loyalty.” Journal of Religion, 1922. —. “The Religious Significance of Jesus’s Humanity.” American Journal of Theology, 1920. —. The Significance of the Biblical Teachings Concerning Atonement. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1909. —. “The Task and Method of Systematic Theology.” American Journal of Theology, 1910. —. “The Task of Religion in a Democratic Age.” Journal of Religion, 1926. —. “The Task of the Church in a Democratic Age.” Biblical World, 1919. —. “Theological Thinking in America.” In Religious Thought in the Last Quarter-Century. 1927. —. “Theology and the Doctrine of Evolution.” Biblical World, 1915. —. “Traditional Religion in a Scientific World.” Religious Education, 1928. —. “Training Christian Ministers.” Religious Education, 1928. —. “Truthfulness in Teaching the Truth.” Biblical World, 1916. —. “What Are Some of the Elements Entering Into a Present-Day Religious Experience?” Religious Education, 1925. —. “What Does Biblical Criticism Contribute to the Modern Preacher?” Journal of Religion, 1925.

Bibliography

177

—. What is Christianity? American Institute of Sacred Literature, 1914. —. “What is the Matter with Religion and What is to be Done About It? A Symposium.” Religious Education, 1928. —. “What is the Matter with Religion?” Religious Education, 1928. —. “What Shall the Systematic Theologian Expect from the New Testament Scholar?” American Journal of Theology, 1915.

INDEX ABBOT, Francis Ellingswood, 173 ABBOTT, Lyman, 53 ADAM and EVE, 8, 21, 68 Adamic sin, 163 allegorical, 6, 53 America, 7, 66–7, 70, 83, 100, 110, 118–9, 121, 125, 150 American, ix, 73, 90, 122, 133, 152 Revolution, 122 American Institute of Sacred Literature, 176 American Journal of Theology, 3, 171–2, 17–7 American Unitarian Association, 119 AMES, Edward Scribner, 109, 130, 174 Anabaptists, 70 anagogical approach, 6 anthropology, 106 anti-scientific, 40, 80 apocalyptic, 33, 52, 56, 79 eschatology, 56 apologetic defense, 19 AQUINAS, Saint Thomas, 6, 122 archaeology, 106 aristocratic, 41–3, 63–4, 80 Arminianism, 63 Atonement, 2, 8–15, 21–2, 33, 113, 128–9, 163–4, 175 AUGUSTINE. See Saint Augustine of Hippo authority, 2, 6, 13, 18, 26, 29–30, 32–6, 39, 46–7, 49, 51, 53, 58– 60, 64–5, 68–72, 77, 79, 83, 89– 90, 93, 97, 104, 107–8, 111, 121, 123–6, 128–9, 136–9, 141–2, 153, 155, 158, 161 autocracy, 58, 62, 64, 68, 71–4, 82, 158

autocratic control, 72, 84 AXEL, Larry E., 174 BARCLAY, Robert, 138, 153 BARRETT, Sue, ix beliefs, 61 BERGSON, Henri-Louis, 121 Bible, 5, 10, 16, 25–7, 29–31, 41–2, 46, 53, 59, 62–3, 71–2, 77–8, 81– 2, 88, 92, 97–8, 105–7, 110, 113– 5, 117–22, 124–9, 131–3, 137–9, 141–2, 147–9, 152–3, 155, 161 scientific honesty, 98 the infallible Word of God, 46 biblical, 1, 6–10, 12–3, 15–6, 18, 22, 26, 28–9, 31, 41, 46, 53–6, 59, 70, 77–8, 80, 82, 91, 95, 97, 105–7, 113–5, 119–20, 122–3, 125–7, 132, 134, 142, 146–7, 149, 151–3, 155, 161 cosmos, 6 criticism, 15–6, 22, 31, 59, 78, 105–7, 119–20, 126–7, 146–7, 151 doctrine, 12, 56 doctrine of atonement, 10, 12–3 doctrine of the nature of Christ, 16 experiences, 15 interpretation, 9 literature, 28 persons, 15 picture of God, 8 religion, 28 scholars, 18, 26 studies, 6 teaching, 1, 9, 12 terms, 12 theology, 7, 31, 54–5 Biblical World, 171, 175–6 BIEDERMANN, Friedrich, 144

180

Religion of Democracy

Boston University School of Theology, 120 BRIGHTMAN, Edgar Sheffield, 116–7 Brown University, 1 BROWN, William Adams, 133 BRYAN, William Jennings, 91, 93 BUNYAN, John, 132 BURTON, Ernest DeWitt, 2 CALVIN, John, 26, 42, 62, 70, 77, 97, 132, 137, 141, 145, 155 CAMUS, Albert, 157 canonical, 25–6, 77 Catholic, 26, 50, 58, 61, 67, 70, 89– 90, 96–7, 99–101, 104, 117, 122– 3, 132, 137–8, 140–1, 154, 164 concept of authority, 89 doctrines, 50, 90 ethics, 96, 164 ideal of a just society, 67 theology, 138 theory of education, 117 view of sacraments, 99 worship practices, 50 Catholic Church, 26, 50, 58, 61, 67, 70, 96–7, 100–1, 104, 117, 122– 3, 132, 137, 140–1, 154 Catholicism, 33, 58, 60, 63, 67, 69, 86, 90, 121, 138–9 Catholics, 26, 33, 59, 66–7, 69, 77, 83, 99–100, 111, 117, 124, 127, 132, 136, 138, 145, 150–1, 153, 165 Chicago Divinity School. See University of Chicago Divinity School of CHRIST, 5, 11–2, 14, 16, 26, 28–9, 43, 67, 69, 81, 86, 90–1, 97–8, 100–2, 105, 113–5, 119–21, 124– 8, 132, 137, 143–4, 149, 151, 157, 162 consecration of, 105 divinity of, 5, 43 redemptive power of, 11 the presence of, 11 Christian, 2–3, 6–7, 9, 11–2, 14, 17– 8, 25–9, 31–4, 36, 39–43, 47–54,

58–60, 63–8, 70–2, 74–5, 77–8, 80–4, 86–7, 91, 93–105, 109, 114, 118, 120, 124–8, 133, 137, 140–8, 151–5, 157–62, 164–5 behavior, 100 beliefs, 127 Church, 9, 14, 58–60, 71, 82, 84, 100, 133, 158, 162 conscience, 68, 97 convictions, 12 creeds, 114 doctrines, 54, 99, 128, 133, 157, 161, 164 ethics, 2–3, 65, 94–7, 101, 140–2, 145, 151, 154, 165 experience, 7, 17–8, 63, 86, 99, 127 faith, 18, 87, 91, 93, 97, 99, 146, 159–61 family, 101 family, the essential social group, 100, 146 God, 147 heresies, 86, 143 history, 26, 77, 95 idealism, 104 ideals, 28–9, 71, 84, 96, 100, 102, 105 ideas, 53 justice, 103, 146 leaders, 91 life, 6, 70, 100, 105 living, 59, 87, 94, 142, 160 love, 93 marriage, 101 miracles, 39 morality, 97 nations, 97 people, 91 principles, 66, 70, 96, 105 religion, 75, 87 repentance, 99 stewardship, 65, 83 teachers, 142 teaching, 104 theology, 3, 29, 40, 47, 80, 97,

Index 104, 126–8, 146, 148, 161 thinkers, 53 thinking, 59, 64, 95 tradition, 50, 109, 157, 160 truth, 6–7 Christian Science, 119 Christian Sociology, 134 Christianity, 7–8, 13, 15, 20, 23, 25, 27–9, 31–40, 43–4, 47, 50–3, 57– 62, 64–6, 68–9, 71–2, 74–5, 77– 84, 86–93, 97, 100–1, 103–5, 108–9, 112, 114, 120–6, 128, 130–4, 139, 143–6, 149–52, 157– 9, 164–5 evangelical, 64 religion of the working class, 66, 101, 146 Christians, 8, 11, 17, 22, 26, 29, 33– 4, 37, 39–40, 42, 47, 50–1, 53–4, 57–8, 60, 62–3, 65, 70, 74, 80–1, 83, 85, 88, 91, 93–7, 99–104, 119–20, 122–3, 125, 134, 141–2, 145–6, 151, 157–8 Christlikeness, 94, 100, 145, 151 supreme test of, 94, 145, 151 Christocentric theology, 126 Christology, 16–7, 52, 121, 126, 143–4, 163 church and state, 58, 69–70, 72, 100, 117–9, 129, 150–1 separation of, 70, 72, 100, 118–9, 129, 151 church unity, 100, 146 CLARKE, William Newton, 46–7 class system, 65, 83, 103 coercion, 90, 145 collective ownership, 103 Columbia University, 1 commodity, 85, 103, 143, 163 Congregationalists, 118, 150 conservative approach, 6 Conservative Protestants, 88, 145 CONSTANTINE, Emperor, 104 Copernican, 8, 114, 122 COPERNICUS, 159 cosmic mystery, 110, 131

181 cosmic process, 14, 54, 109–10, 129–31, 147, 152 critical scholarship, 15–6, 22, 28– 31, 77, 87–9, 122–3, 144–5, 151 CROSBY, Pamela, ix Crozer Quarterly, 176 Dartmouth College, 92 DARWIN, Charles, ix, 7, 53 Darwinism, 92 Davidson College, ix dead religion, 48, 81 death, 2–3, 6, 8, 10–1, 13, 43, 57, 87, 90, 95, 124, 157, 163 democracy, 8–9, 13–4, 21, 31, 58– 64, 66, 68–75, 82–4, 96, 103, 130, 157–9, 164 demands conversion, 14, 164 industrial, 64, 66, 83 depravity, 64, 69, 83, 85, 143, 158 human, 69, 83, 85, 143, 158 original, 64 Disciples Church, 118 discipline, 3, 7, 37 historical, 7 DRUMMOND, Henry, 53 Earle Lectures, 2 education, 1, 3, 5–6, 21, 40, 46–7, 57, 71, 80, 82, 85, 92–3, 96–7, 99–100, 107, 110–3, 117–9, 133– 4, 136, 140, 148, 150–4, 165 adequate, 71 controlled, 96 fundamentalist, 110 modern, 40, 80, 93, 124, 151 moral, 118 outlaw methods of, 93 popular, 93 problem of, 57, 82 public, 118–9, 150–1 religious, 3, 46, 99, 111–3, 117– 9, 134, 136, 148, 150, 152–3 secular, 118 social, 100 theological, 5, 21, 107, 110–1, 133–4, 140, 148, 154 theory of, 117

182

Religion of Democracy

EDWARDS, Jonathan, 132 efficiency, 7, 17, 20, 22–3, 30, 41– 2, 77, 80, 139, 141, 153 efficient doctrine and human experience, 30, 77 ELDREDGE, Harriet Louise. See Smith, Harriet Louise empirical, ix, 2, 18–9, 20, 23, 35–6, 54, 79, 98, 107, 120–1, 128, 141, 147, 150, 153, 155, 165 empirical method, 19–20, 107, 121, 128, 142, 147, 153, 155 England, 1, 3, 15, 22, 48, 58, 63, 97 Epistle to the Hebrews, 11 ERASMUS, Desiderius, 70 eschatological, 26, 29, 36, 42, 51, 77, 79 beliefs, 26, 77 hope, 36, 79 inheritance, 36 interpretation of history, 51 theology, 29 view of history, 42 eschatology, 7, 30, 52, 56 apocalyptic, 56 of the New Testament, 52 eternal kernel, 7 ethical revival, 13 ethics, 3, 13, 29, 32–5, 38, 65, 78–9, 94–8, 103, 111, 116, 121, 127, 140–2, 145, 149, 151, 155, 164–5 evangelical, 27, 47, 64, 81, 89–91, 99, 107, 131, 145 Evangelicals, 90 evil, 9–10, 14–5, 22, 28–9, 33, 37, 68, 74, 87, 104, 109, 130, 152, 162–4 evolution, 8, 13, 19, 29, 33, 35–7, 42, 50, 53–4, 56, 61, 79, 81–2, 85, 88–9, 91–3, 105, 109, 114–5, 121–2, 124, 130–1, 133, 145, 148–51, 164 attacks against, 145 campaign against, 91 conception of, 85 conflict over, 131

contradicts biblical account of creation, 82 doctrine of, 8, 13, 61, 115, 131, 149 human, 35 natural process of, 121 of Christianity, 50 principle of, 53 principles of biological, 53 social, 121, 150, 164 teaching should not be permitted, 93 theological opposition to, 53 theory of, 19, 53, 82, 131 this world’s, 29 understanding of, 36 universal acceptance of, 91 exegesis, 6, 28, 55, 119, 144, 150 exact, 144 historical, 55 kinds of, 6 methods of, 28, 119, 150 superficial, 55 faith, 6–7, 10, 15–8, 20, 22, 25–6, 29–31, 37, 39, 42, 47, 49, 51–3, 59–63, 77, 81, 87, 91, 93, 95–7, 99–100, 106, 109, 111, 120–1, 124–5, 127–8, 131, 137–8, 141, 144, 146, 153–4, 158–61, 163 Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, 84 First World War, 58, 82, 134. See also the Great War. FLAVIUS VALERIUS AURELIUS CONSTANTINUS AUGUSTUS. See Constantine FOSDICK, Dr. Harry Emerson, 106 FOSTER, George Burman, 3, 174 FRA. See Free Religious Association Free Religion, ix Free Religious Association, ix, 173 freedom, ix, 35, 41, 50, 52, 58, 60– 1, 67, 69–70, 74, 83–4, 91, 93, 95, 98, 104, 117–8 democratic, 74

Index doctrine of, 67, 83 of teaching, 91 of thought, 118 political, 69, 84 religious, 70, 117 the conditions of, 98 French, 122, 157 Revolution, 122, 157 fundamentalist, 92–3, 110, 124 Fundamentalists, 123–4, 131, 150–1 GAGER, Charles Stuart, 115, 149 GARVIE, Alfred Ernest, 89 GASKELL, Elizabeth Cleghorn, 85 GASSET, José Ortega y, 157 GASTON, John N., ix, 167, 174 GLADDEN, Washington, 67, 83 GOD, 8–16, 18, 21–2, 25–34, 37, 39–44, 46, 49–50, 52, 54, 59, 61– 5, 68–70, 72–5, 77–9, 81, 83, 86– 7, 90–1, 94–100, 102–4, 107–10, 112–7, 119–22, 125–33, 137–41, 143–4, 147–55, 157–60, 162–5 as an ever-present immanent Spirit, 43 doctrine of, 8, 108, 121, 129, 150, 162–3 faith in, 10, 22, 25–6 forgiving grace of, 128 Kingdom of, 28, 32–4, 39, 41, 52, 96, 99–100, 102, 130 knowledge of, 10 law of, 11 nature is distinctively pragmatic, 108, 147 worship of, 72 Golden Rule, 58, 82 good, seek the, 94, 145, 151 grace, 29, 37, 42, 62, 64, 68, 73, 85, 90, 97, 99, 101, 128, 143, 145 as a means of salvation, 143 divine, 99 means of, 85 salvation by, 97 saving, 90 supernatural, 101 GROTIUS, Hugo, 34, 79

183 growth, 15, 19, 38, 40, 43, 47–8, 50, 53, 61, 68, 79, 81–2, 87, 102, 112, 116 harmonizing, theology and science, 19 HARNACK, Adolf von, 50–2, 168 HARTSHORNE, Charles, 174 Harvard University, 3 HAYDON, Albert Eustace, 174 Hebrew ethics, 95 HEGEL, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 119, 144, 150 HERMAN, Brigid Emily, 133 HERRMANN, Wilhelm, 1 highest good, 31, 94, 97, 145, 151 historical method, 5, 8–9, 18, 21–2, 27, 35–6, 41, 49, 55, 59, 87 HOLY SPIRIT, 122, 137 HOPKINS, Ernest Martin, President of Dartmouth College, 92 Hudson Library, Highlands, North Carolina, ix human experience, 17–8, 22–3, 30, 42, 48, 50, 52, 77, 81, 86, 107–8, 116, 119, 128, 143, 150, 157, 163, 165 theology based on, 18 humanism, 70, 117 humanity, 8–9, 13–4, 19, 21, 36, 42, 48, 73–5, 81, 94, 102, 121, 161–4 changing needs of, 48 crimes against, 8 exploiters of, 73 God who is immanent in, 14 moral rights of, 9, 15, 21, 163 our debt to, 21 redeemer of, 9, 15, 21 the ills of, 163–4 humanity, welfare of, 102 Hyde Park Baptist Church, 1, 143 hypothesis, 5, 19, 30, 78, 92, 108, 110, 115, 121, 150 idealism, 49, 58–9, 82, 85, 104–5, 109–10, 121, 126, 132, 143, 163 Christian, 104, 126 moral, 85, 105, 121, 143, 163

184

Religion of Democracy

of democracy, 58 religious, 109 spiritual, 59, 82, 132 immortality, 30 individualistic conception of religious experience, 111 gratification, 101 points of view, 19, 38 religious ideal, 7 inductive approach, 6, 18, 51, 109, 130, 162 inductive method, 160, 165 Industrial Revolution, 53, 66, 83, 85, 103 infallibility, 36, 41, 58, 80, 114, 121–2, 124–5, 137–8, 149, 151 absolute, 125 conviction of, 137 doctrine abandoned, 114, 149 doctrine of, 58, 121, 151 of the Bible, 125, 137–8 of the established system, 36 of the Scriptures, 124, 137 infallible, 25, 33, 46, 60, 79, 98, 120–1, 137–8, 153 injustices, 13 innate human depravity, 85, 143, 158 ISAIAH, the Prophet, 132 Israel, 10, 26, 62, 95, 132 JAMES, William, 16, 49, 121 JESUS, 9–11, 14–8, 20–2, 27–9, 32– 3, 42, 46, 50, 52–3, 58, 70, 72, 75, 78, 81–2, 85–6, 89–90, 92, 94–100, 105, 113, 115, 121, 126– 9, 131–2, 142–5, 151, 155, 159, 162–3,165 a citizen of this world, 85 achievements of, 85 activities of, 52 an empiricist, 96 as the incarnation of God, 15, 163 atonement of, 33 commands of, 70

consecration of, 105 crucified, 9 death of, 11 democratic spirit of, 159 disciples of, 28–9, 97–9, 128 divinity of, 16, 72, 86, 127, 163 ethical ideal of, 145, 151 exact words of, 95 faith in, 15, 29 faith of, 144 followers of, 96 gospel about, 52 gospel of, 58, 75 historical, 15, 28, 42, 53, 86, 121, 127–8, 143–4, 151 human limitations of, 18 humanity of, 21, 85, 143 ideals of, 95, 163 incarnation of, 115 influence of, 17–8 inner life of, 128 insights of, 20 life of, 28, 32 love of, 99 of the Gospels, 22 original gospel of, 50 perfect expression of the moral will, 9, 21 personality of, 113 power of, 163 principles of, 98 redemptive power of, 127 religion of, 128 religious consciousness of, 50 religious experience of, 50 resurrection of, 11 return of, 96 saving power of the world, 22 sayings of, 95 significance of, 14, 17, 22, 86, 128, 143 spirit of, 89, 94, 97, 99, 142 sufferings of, 11 teachings of, 20, 27, 32, 46, 52– 3, 78, 82, 95–6, 128, 142, 155 the absolute standard, 18

Index transforming power of, 28 trust in, 113 JOHNSON, Francis Howe, 54 Journal of Religion, 3, 171, 175–6 justification by faith, doctrine of, 99, 158 KELLY, Robert Lincoln, 110, 148 kernel, 49, 56, 82 Kingdom of God, 28, 32–4, 39, 41, 52, 96, 99–100, 102, 130 KNOX, John, 122 labor, 8, 65–7, 83, 103–4 child, 8 industrial, 67, 83 organizations, 103 rights of, 104 law of nature, 68 LECONTE, John, 53 legalism, 11, 27, 95 LEO XIII. See Pope Leo XIII liberalism, 43, 81, 123 LINCOLN, Abraham, 132 LOISY, Alfred Firmin, 50 Love, 10, 12, 14, 17, 22, 52, 65, 70, 73, 88, 92–3, 96–9, 101, 104, 109, 133, 141–2, 144, 155, 158, 165 LOWELL, James Russell, 132 loyalty, 32, 40–1, 45, 49, 58, 63, 71, 87–9, 94, 98–100, 112, 128, 135, 141, 144–5, 150, 160 religious, 40, 45, 87–9, 135, 144– 5 taught by parents, 135 to a group, 99 to a moral idea, 112 to Christianity, 150 to follow the Bible, 141 to the church, 100 to the teachings of Jesus, 128 to what proves to be true, 160 LUTHER, Martin, 26, 63–4, 66–7, 70, 83, 89–90, 97, 99, 132, 137–8, 141, 143, 145, 153–4, 158 Lutheran ethics, 97

185 Lutheran Church, 118 maladjustments, 104 marriage, 88, 101 MARY, Queen of England, 122 MATHEWS, Shailer, 3, 52, 143, 168 MCGIFFERT, Arthur Cushman, 47 MELAND, Bernard Eugene, 2, 167, 174 Methodist, 48, 61, 63, 150 Methodist Episcopal Church, 118–9 MICHENER, Inez. See Smith, Inez Michener Middle Ages, 33, 42, 79, 96, 102, 146 Middlefield, Massachusetts, 1, 3 miracles, 29, 36–7, 39, 42, 56, 81, 120, 126 modern education, 40, 93, 124, 151 purpose of, 80 Modern Judaism, 119, 151 modern science, 6–7, 29, 35, 37, 39, 46–7, 54, 81, 101, 110, 112, 114, 121, 124, 129, 136, 148, 151, 153, 157 Modernism, 122–3, 151, 159 Modernist, 122, 150, 159 moral, 6, 8–10, 12–4, 19, 21–2, 28, 31–3, 35–44, 49, 55, 61, 65–7, 71–2, 74, 78–81, 83–7, 91, 94– 104, 108–9, 112, 116, 118–9, 121, 129, 140–51, 154–5, 160, 162–3, 165 appeal, 19 attainment, 112, 148 attitudes, 38 awakening, 14 behavior, 94 cause, 100 challenge, 36, 79 character, 108, 147 choice, 98–9, 146 claims, 33 codes, 94, 104 condition of society, 65 conduct, 94, 140 confusion, 33

186

Religion of Democracy

conscience, 39 control, 49 courage, 41, 80 creativity, 86, 143, 162–3 decision, 28 demands, 8, 40, 43, 80–1, 98, 162 disaster, 104 disintegration, 160 disloyalty, 160 duty, 37, 43 efficacy, 42, 81 enthusiasm, 36–7, 41 experiences, 129 forces, 39, 80, 104 heroism, 38 idealism, 85, 105, 121, 143, 163 ideals, 49, 94 ideas, 112 individual, 101 influence, 15 inspiration, 85 instruction, 119 issues, 8, 162 judgment, 71, 84, 98 laws, 13, 116, 149 life, 8, 13, 21–2, 44, 95–6, 112, 144 living, 98, 99 loyalty, 32 motive, 41 nature, 10 obligations, 55, 104, 140 obliquity, 8, 13 opportunity, 102 paralysis, 37 passion, 39, 80 perfection, doctrine of, 104 person, 97, 145 positions, 94, 145, 151 power, 35 problem, 103 problems, 37, 94, 142, 155 protest, 13 purpose, 87, 99, 101 quality, 10 questions, 49

reformation, 33, 78 responsibility, 65, 83, 98 results, 165 rewards, 104 rights, 9, 15, 21, 67, 83, 163 salvation, 12 sense, 6 significance, 40, 66 standard, 10 strife, 9, 15, 21, 163 struggles, 14 suffering, 14 task, 86 tasks, 98, 112, 163 theology, 36 training, 71, 84, 118, 150 traits, 74 transformation, 10 values, 35, 39, 42, 61, 81, 85, 102, 109, 140, 144, 154 waste, 100, 146 will, 9, 21, 163 mystery, 10–1, 30, 49, 110, 131 mystical experience, 11, 50 mystical interpretation, 110 mythology, 8, 21, 44, 135, 152 Adam and Eve, 8 Nathaniel William Taylor Lectures, 2 natural rights, 62, 69, 82, 84 philosophy of, 69, 82, 84 neighbor, 65, 83, 104 New Sharon, Iowa, 1 New Testament, 7, 11, 15–8, 22, 29–30, 47, 49, 52–7, 82, 95, 104, 127, 132, 144, 146, 164 eschatology, 52 New York City, 1 NEWTON, Sir Isaac, 132 non-canonical, 26 non-Christian, 47, 50, 74, 101 non-theological, 8 Northern Baptist Church, 118 Oberlin Academy, 1 Old Testament, 6, 10–1, 28, 47, 50, 126, 133

Index original sin, 7, 63, 99, 163 Orthodox, 32, 159 orthodoxy, 47, 63, 90, 123, 141 OTTO, Max Carl, 109 ownership, moral value of, 102 Pacific School of Religion, 2 PAUL, 11, 12, 14, 92, 132 preaching of, 11 purpose of, 11 theory of atonement, 11 PEDEN, W. Creighton, ix, 167, 173– 4 personal experience, 64, 86, 89–90, 131, 144 of conversion, 64 of creative spiritual power, 131 of salvation, 90 religion as, 86, 89, 90 Personalism, 120 philosophy, ix, 19–20, 23, 25, 27, 33, 38, 48, 69–70, 82, 84, 94, 108, 119, 122, 128–31, 133, 142, 145, 151, 162 Pietisms, 90 Pilgrims, 70 POPE LEO XIII, 69, 122 POTTER, William James, 173 power, 11–4, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28–9, 31, 33, 36, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48–9, 63–6, 68, 70–2, 77–8, 81, 83–5, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96–7, 104, 107, 115, 117, 127–8, 130–2, 134, 136, 143, 145, 150, 152, 158, 162–3 Power, 20, 120 practical theology, 2, 5–7, 21, 40 pragmatic, 3, 6, 147, 158, 161, 164 pragmatic method, 6 predestined, 62 pre-scientific, 40, 116 Principles of Living, 2 progress, 30, 33, 35, 40, 61, 69, 79, 80, 82, 84, 119, 131, 159 Protestant, 4, 34–5, 58, 61, 67, 82– 3, 90, 101, 104–5, 117, 122–3, 133, 137–8, 141–2, 155, 161, 164

187 ethics, 141, 155, 164 Reformation, 58, 61, 82, 97, 104, 122 Protestant Episcopal Church, 118 Protestant Revolution, 79 Protestantism, 36, 46, 58, 60–1, 64, 67, 83, 86, 89–90, 112, 122–3, 132, 136–9, 141, 145, 153–5 Protestants, 59, 83, 90, 97, 100–1, 123–4, 127, 141–2, 152–3, 165 psychological realities, 7, 21 psychology, 8, 18, 27, 75, 84, 111, 121, 138, 153, 160 psychology of religion, 18, 111 PUTNAM, Israel, 132 QUEEN MARY, 122 rationalism, 48, 63–4, 138, 143 RAUSCHENBUSCH, Walter, 67, 83 redemptive, 10–2, 14, 126 redemptive theology, 12 reformation, 33, 52, 78 Reformation, 58, 61, 82, 97, 104, 122, 137–8, 141, 153, 165 Protestant, 58, 104 religion, 2, 4, 10, 12, 14, 18–20, 25– 9, 31–2, 34–5, 38–9, 41–2, 44– 51, 54–5, 57–64, 70–2, 74–5, 77– 8, 80–1, 83–4, 86–9, 91–3, 100– 1, 105–8, 110–8, 120–36, 138– 40, 143, 145–54, 157–60 adequate, 158, 160 adverse criticism of, 93 authority, 93 autocratic, 58, 71, 158 basic ideas of, 49, 114 biblical, 28 Christian, 75 churchless, 75, 84 conspicuous aspects of, 87 contemporary, 108, 152 control of, 35 core of, 27 cosmic significance of, 116 dead, 48, 81 democratic, 71, 74, 158, 159 discrediting of, 88

188

Religion of Democracy

elitist, 158 essential truth of, 113 ethical, 32, 78 evolution of, 122 expressions of, 49 God as guarantor of, 147, 152 historical, 19, 48, 150 illicit secularizing of, 145 impotence of, 60 inadequate, 158 liberal, 4 meaning of, 28 militant type of, 131 modern, 38, 46, 80, 107, 113, 130, 136, 140, 152, 154 natural language of, 62 of Israel, 26 perfect form of, 153 personal, 89, 138 practical, 2 primitive forms of, 106 psychology of, 18, 111, 126 revealed, 42 secularizing of, 88 study of, 20, 41, 45, 50, 121, 151 supreme end of, 148 the function of, 158 the nature of, 107 the perfect form of, 139 the reality of, 86, 87 traditional, 32 truth of, 25, 27 understanding of, 27, 46, 136 vitality of, 60, 131 religion of democracy, 61 religious, ix, 2, 6–7, 10–3, 16–23, 25, 27–31, 34, 37–40, 42–55, 57– 65, 67, 70–5, 77, 79–91, 93–5, 97, 99–101, 104, 106–36, 139– 40, 142–5, 147–54, 160, 162, 165 education, 119, 134, 136, 148, 150, 152–3 enemy of, 93 freedom, 70 loyalty, 40, 45, 87–9, 135, 144–5 Religious Education, 175–7

Religious Education Association, 3, 111, 148 religious experience, 2, 8, 11, 13, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 43, 50–1, 62– 4, 71–2, 75, 77, 84, 86–8, 90, 100, 108, 111–3, 117, 120–1, 125–8, 130–2, 143–4, 147–8, 150–1, 160 a gradual growth of emotions and convictions, 112 democratization of, 63 intuitive, 25, 27, 77 new type of, 113 psychology of, 8, 18 the meaning of, 148 vital, 112 religious ideal individualistic, 7 supernaturalistic, 7 resurrection, 30, 56, 144 revelation, 10, 25, 29, 75, 87, 120, 126–7, 137–8, 148, 150–1, 153, 159 divine, 10, 66 firsthand, 28 in Christ, 126 miraculous, 42 of God, 12, 18 science as, 115, 149 super-empirical, 18, 23 the Bible as, 113, 127 RICE, William North, 114–5, 149 righteousness, 10–2, 22, 28, 33, 44, 49, 58, 65, 72, 124, 141, 155, 164 RITSCHL, Albrecht, 1, 18, 144 Ritschlian, 1, 126–7, 144, 150–1 conviction that God is speaking, 127 Ritschlianism, 120–1, 150 direct appeal to religious experience, 120, 150 the dominant perspective, 120 theology focused on Christ, 121 Roman Catholics. See Catholics ROWE, Gilbert Theodore, 154 SABATIER, Louis Auguste, 50

Index sacrifice, 11–2, 15, 22, 29, 124 conception of, 11 ritual of, 11 SAINT AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO, 33, 65, 83, 132–3 SAINT IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA, 132 salvation, 12, 15, 31–2, 38, 42–3, 52, 62–4, 73–4, 78, 80, 85–7, 90– 1, 97, 99, 108, 113, 118, 121, 124–5, 127, 129–30, 133, 143–5, 151–2, 157, 160, 163–4 SANDAY, Dr. William, 15–6 SAVAGE, Minot Judson, 173 SCHLEIERMACHER, Friedrich Daniel Ernst, 17, 23, 43, 48, 64, 125, 143, 151 science, 2, 6–7, 17, 19, 25–7, 29, 32–3, 35–42, 44–7, 54, 60, 77– 81, 85, 91, 93, 101, 108–10, 112– 7, 121, 124, 127–8, 134–6, 143, 148–52, 154 modern, 6–7, 29, 35, 37, 39, 46– 7, 54, 81, 101, 110, 112, 114, 121, 124, 136, 148, 151, 153, 157 scientific, ix, 1, 5–7, 15, 18–21, 25, 27, 35–41, 43–5, 48–9, 53–4, 56, 60–1, 77, 79–81, 87–9, 91–3, 97– 8, 108–9, 114–6, 120–2, 124–7, 134–6, 140, 144–5, 149–52, 157, 160–1, 164 accuracy, 53 analysis, 27, 127 approach, 6, 35, 40–1, 160 beliefs, 114, 149 concepts, 44, 77, 135, 152 conclusions, 2 control, 37 criticism, 54 data, 53, 136 discourse, 149 discovery, 44, 134 doctrines, 91, 145 dogmatism, 44, 135 environment, 15 exactness, 161

189 experimentation, 60 honesty, 98 hypothesis, 5, 92 ideals, 1 knowledge, 45, 135 literature, 35 method, ix, 5, 20–1, 36, 40–1, 79–80, 115–6, 122, 125, 149, 151, 157, 160–1, 164 orientation, 5 perspective, 161 practices, 116, 149 problems, 18 provincialism, 87 research, 37, 39, 91 scholarship, 35, 79 spirit, 5, 20–1, 36, 40–1, 45, 49, 80, 91–3, 97, 127, 135, 151 standards, 88, 140 study of religion, 151 theory, 115, 124, 150 truths, 5, 7, 21, 41, 80 understandings, 56 Second Coming, 34 secular state, 34–5, 79 secularized, 6, 36, 79, 108, 130, 152 SEEBERG, Reinhold, 52, 168 separation of church and state, 70, 72, 100, 118–9, 129, 151 SHEDD, William Greenough Thayer, 54 SIMPSON, James Young, 54, 148 sin, 7–8, 11, 13, 21, 33–4, 36, 54, 62–3, 68, 73–4, 78, 87, 91, 96, 98–100, 107, 112, 117, 146–8, 162–3 SMITH, Adam, 34 SMITH, Cecil Michener, 3, 167 SMITH, Gerald Birney, ix, 1–3, 5–9, 11–23, 25–49, 51, 53–75, 77– 117, 119–23, 125–8, 130–55, 157–65, 167–72, 174–5 SMITH, Harriet Louise, 1 SMITH, Inez Michener, 1 SMITH, John Merlin Powis, 2 SMITH, Matthew, 1

190

Religion of Democracy

SMITH, Metcalf John, 1 SOARES, Theodore G., 169 social contract, 34, 79 social customs, 65, 99 social environment, 10, 38, 68 social experience, 20, 94 social gospel, 3, 75, 99, 109, 144 Social Idealism, 31, 78 social obligation, 71 social problems, 37, 53, 64, 67, 134, 141, 163 Socialism, 66 spirit, 5, 11, 14, 17, 20–2, 26, 29, 36, 38, 40–1, 43–5, 48–9, 58–60, 62, 65, 71, 80–2, 89, 91–5, 97, 99–100, 102–3, 105, 107, 120, 122–3, 127, 130, 133, 135–8, 140–2, 145–6, 151, 153–4, 157–9 spiritual idealism, 59, 132 spiritual truth, 5, 7, 21, 162 St. Andrews University, ix stewardship, 65–7, 83, 102–3, 146 Christian, 65, 83 doctrine of, 66–7, 83, 102–3, 146 theological, 66 STONE, Jerome A., 174 suffering, 9–10, 12, 14–5, 21, 139, 162 vicarious, 10, 12, 22 supernatural theism, 130 supernaturalistic religious ideal, 7 supramundane, 6 SWEET, Louis Matthews, 115, 149 Systematic Theology, 1, 3, 17–8, 22–3, 54–7, 119 Method of, 22 TARBOX, Everett J., 173 the Great War, 71, 73, 75, 108, 152. See also First World War. the new world, 66 Theism, 107–10, 129–30, 147–8, 152 doctrine that nature has a Creator, 108, 129

doctrine that nature has a Preserver, 129 theological, 3, 5–7, 12, 16, 18–21, 25, 27, 36–7, 40, 42–4, 46–7, 50, 53–6, 64–6, 68–9, 72, 78, 82, 87, 89, 91, 105, 107–8, 110–1, 114, 117, 119, 120–30, 133–4, 139– 41, 144–5, 147–8, 150–1, 154–5, 158, 160, 162 absolute, 127 approaches, 122 background of Christian ethics, 140 beliefs, 53 claims, 128 concepts, 150 conclusions, 18, 89, 126 contentions that divide, 124 control, 129 controversy, 122 convictions, 19 correctness, 66 criticism, 27 development, 78 differences, 108 docrtine, 158 doctrine, 68, 69 doctrines, 50, 89, 122, 130, 145, 151 education, 5, 21, 107, 110–1, 133–4, 140, 148, 154 explanation, 129, 150 favoritism, 158 finalities, 133 formulas, 141 general scientific understandings, 56 interpretation, 129 interpretation of human experience, 108 interpretation of human life, 42 investigation, 40, 125 literature, 36 method, 46–7, 78, 127–8 modern considerations, 82 opposition to evolution, 53

Index orientation, 20 positions, disagreement between, 120 programs, 139, 154 questions, 16 reconstruction, 43–4, 78, 119 scholarship, 25, 87, 144 scholarship, modern, 123 schools, 40, 72 seminaries, 78, 105, 110, 124, 133, 148 standards, 122, 141 stewardship, 66 structure, 64 systems, 78 theory, 141, 155 thinking, 40, 121, 127, 160, 162 unscientific notions, 37 Theological Society of New York, 147 theology, ix, 1–3, 5–10, 13–4, 16– 23, 25, 27, 29–32, 35–6, 39–48, 50, 53–7, 63–4, 72–3, 77–8, 80, 82, 89, 97, 104, 106, 108, 112–6, 121, 123–31, 133, 135–6, 138, 144–6, 148–52, 158–62, 174 biblical, 7, 31, 54, 55 Catholic, 138 Christian, 80, 97, 104, 126–8, 146, 148, 161 Christocentric, 126 contemporary, 78 ethical, 81 evangelical, 89, 145 independence from, 123 intellectual, 144 main task of, 127, 151, 160 medieval, 63, 161 modern, 57, 78, 106, 159 New Testament, 57 old, 112, 135, 148 orthodox, 115, 124, 149, 151 practical, 2, 5–7, 21, 40 pre-scientific, 116, 149 problems of, 125 Ritschlian, 144

191 systematic, 3, 18, 23, 54–7, 119 systems of, 129, 151 the task of, 128 traditional, 78, 112, 114, 121, 123, 133, 160 Thomson, John Arthur, 114, 149 TOLSTOY, Leo (Count Lev Nikolayevich), 133 trade unions, 83 transcendent, 10, 13–4, 43, 81, 128, 148 transcendent interpretation, 10 transformation, 10–1, 13, 40, 42–3, 80, 114, 123 transmigration, 30 Trinity, 119 truthfulness, 41, 45, 55, 80, 136, 162 U. S. Constitution, 69–70 Union Theology Seminary, 1 United States, 58, 82, 110, 121 University of Chicago, ix, 1, 3, 21 Divinity School of, ix, 1–2, 21, 173 Libraries of, ix Settlement Board, 3 University of Chicago Press, 171–2, 175–6 unscientific, 37, 45, 115, 135 unscientific religion, 45, 135 wage, 67, 83, 103 WASSON, David Atwood, 173 WATSON, John M., 115–6, 149 wealth, 34, 38–9, 65, 80, 83, 102 WEINEL, Von Heinrich, 15 WERNLE, Paul, 28 WESLEY, John, 67, 83 WHITEHEAD, Alfred North, 116, 149, 174 WIEMAN, Henry Nelson, 2, 133, 148, 173–4 WILLIG, Charles, 174 WILSON, President Thomas Woodrow, 58 WINDLE, Sir Bertram Coghill Alan, 154

192

Religion of Democracy

Worcester Academy, 1 world, 3, 6–7, 9–10, 12–4, 17, 21–2, 29, 31–40, 42–6, 54, 58, 60–1, 65, 70, 73–5, 77–81, 83, 85–6, 91, 93, 96, 100, 106, 110–4, 116, 120, 128–30, 133, 135–6, 140, 143–4, 148, 149, 152, 157–8, 160–5 an appreciation of, 112 as evil, 14 biblical, 106 Christian, 96 contemporary, 85, 140 creating and organizing the, 129 decadent, 33, 79 democratic, 164 destined for destruction, 40 developing, 143 discredited by modern science, 153 dominated by Rome, 96 end of the, 7, 80, 106, 128 escape from, 80 evils of, 9, 21 evolution of, 29 God’s, 22 God’s way of transforming the, 12 ills of the, 130 invisible, 112

Jesus a citizen of, 85 Jesus, the saving power of, 22 life in a better, 100 modern, 3, 29, 34–6, 38, 40, 42– 3, 60, 79–81, 85, 106, 111, 136, 143, 157–8, 160–1, 164– 5 natural, 39, 80 new, 73, 116 of industrial America, 7 of infinite possibilities, 44 of modern science, 6, 112 our dependence on, 144 our view of, 143 real, 136 reconciling to God, 149 religious view of, 148 saving power of the, 17 scientific, 35 secular, 37 social, 113 supernatural, 29, 39, 80, 129 understanding of, 54, 136 unfinished, 86, 161–3 World Conference on the Fundamentals of the Faith, 91 World War. See First World War. See also the Great War YAHWEH, 95 Yale University, 2