Modern Christianity Explained
ONE of the ways in which the advanced theologians of the present day mislead those who do not look carefully into their teaching is by using Biblical terms and phrases in a sense entirely different from that which has been established by the common usage of Christian believers. These dispensers of new light claim to believe in the gospel of Christ, and often quote the words of the prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles as furnishing a sort of orthodox medium through which to convey their new philosophy, but an analysis of their teaching will show that they are utterly at variance with the real revelation made through “holy men of God.” Occasionally one of these so-called liberal Christians explains the meaning which he has attached to some of the familiar forms of expression in which fundamental truths have been crystallized, and thus makes clear the sense in which he uses them. An example of this is found in an address delivered at the State conference of Congregational churches at Gardiner, Maine, Sept. 27, 1905, by William De Witt Hyde, president of Bowdoin College. An abstract of this address is printed in a recent issue of the Outlook. President Hyde first sets forth his own conception of Christianity and of an impersonal God in these words: “There are two essentials of Christianity. The first is a reverent recognition of One Great Good Will, which has its way for every word we speak and every deed we do. [This is the doctrine of God in man.] . . . The second essential of Christianity is the democratic attitude toward other people. To fall short of the democratic attitude toward the humblest and worst of our fellow men is to fall out of the reverent attitude toward the Great Good Will, which includes the welfare of the lowest equally with the highest, of the worst no less than the best.” “From these two principles,” says Dr. Hyde, “all Christian doctrine and all religious duties can be logically deduced.” He then proceeds to illustrate his view in a manner both clear and astonishing. He says:— Is Jesus Christ the divine Son of God and the Saviour of the world?—Yes; because in precept and example, in life and death, he was implicitly obedient to the Great Good Will, and included the lowliest and worst in his sympathy and4service. Measured by these essential tests, Jesus stands forth as supremely divine. Is there a Holy Spirit?—Yes; for there have been and are to-day countless men and women who have reverence toward the Great Good Will and democratic sympathy toward their fellows as the attitude and spirit of their lives. Is the Bible inspired?—Yes; for its contents were produced, selected, sifted, and preserved by the spirit of reverence to the Great Good Will and helpful service of humble human need. Is prayer answered?—Yes; for every man who really wants this twofold gift of reverence toward the Good Will and democratic comradeship with men can have it; and no man gets it who does not earnestly want it and practically ask for it. Are we saved by the sacrifice of Christ?—Yes; for no man, from Christ to his humblest disciple, can do the Good Will and try really to serve others without suffering the enmity and hate of the selfish and sinful, with whose schemes the just and generous Christian man is bound to interfere. Do all men need conversion?—Yes; for it is not natural nor easy to make the Good Will for all our fellow men the principle of conduct; and no man is a Christian until that principle is consciously accepted and adopted as the spirit and purpose of his life. What is the basis of church-membership?—Fellowship with Christ in the effort to translate the Great Good Will for all men into personal life, and the life of the community. Note the frankness with which the essential doctrines of the Christianity of the Bible are perverted and the new theology taught by giving modern, philosophical reasons, rather than Biblical reasons, for assenting to orthodox forms of belief. Dr. Hyde first explains what he means by Christianity. In doing this he practically substitutes human philosophy for divine revelation. He next explains some of the fundamental verities of revealed Christianity in harmony with his philosophy. He is then, of course, free to declare his belief in the divinity of Christ, in the Holy Spirit, in the inspiration of the Bible, in answered prayer, in salvation through the sacrifice of Christ, etc., but what he really believes in is his own philosophy concerning these doctrines, and not in the doctrines themselves as set forth in the Scriptures. The difference between the two is as wide as the gulf which separates paganism from Christianity. That the Christianity which Dr. Hyde advocates is simply a refined and veneered heathenism is plainly shown by what he says concerning missions. We quote again:— What will become of missions? As a means of saving the heathen from future punishment by offering our creeds, our rites, our forms of organization, the missionary cause is already dead. The opportunity to infuse into their traditions and customs the spirit of reverence for the One Good Will, and sympathy for all men, makes missions the supreme duty of the present, and the promise of a better, richer, more diversified, and more comprehensive Christianity than the world has ever seen. The Christianity which the apostle Paul preached led the heathen who accepted it to discard their traditions and customs. At Ephesus “many also of them that had believed came, confessing, and declaring their deeds. And not a few of them that practised magical arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all.” The apostle’s message to the heathen was: “We also are men of like passions with you, and bring you good tidings, that ye should turn from these vain things unto a living God.” Dr. Hyde’s message would be: “We would like to infuse into your traditions and customs the spirit of reverence for the One Good Will.” Which is Christianity, and which is merely a compromise with heathenism? But Dr. Hyde is not the only teacher who puts his own meaning into forms of expression which have a settled meaning in common usage. The time has come when we must know whether a man has a theological dictionary of his own in which new definitions of old terms are to be found, or whether he accepts the old-time meaning of Biblical expressions, before we really know whether his profession of belief in the third angel’s message proves him to be in harmony with the body. When by the cleansing of the sanctuary prophesied of by the prophet Daniel one man means the actual work of Christ our High Priest in the sanctuary in heaven, beginning in 1844, while another means the movement for health reform in this generation, both may profess faith in the cleansing of the sanctuary as a most important doctrine, and yet be wide apart in their views. The same principle applies to other phases of this message. We grant freedom of choice to every man. In the ordinary sense of the expression, one man has the same right to accept the new theology as another has to hold to the gospel as revealed in the Scriptures, but both ought to be frank and honest in the expression of their views. Open and manly opposition to the truth is more honorable than a professed co-operation which undermines the fundamental principles of genuine Christianity.