Two Contrasted Conceptions
A professor in the Northwestern University (Methodist) of Evanston, Ill., has written a book under the title, “The Religion of a Mature Mind.” We have not seen the book, but its publication suggests to the Outlook (New York) a view of the differences which exist between what it is pleased to call “two contrasted conceptions of the universe;” namely, the theological and the scientific. The Outlook says:— “Without undertaking to state either of these conceptions fully or accurately, a task quite impossible in a brief space, if not indeed quite impossible, as yet, in any space, we will venture to indicate the contrasts between them by suggesting certain of them in parallel columns, thus:—
| The Theological |
The Scientific |
|---|
| An Absentee God. |
The Universal Presence. |
| The miraculous. |
The divine order. |
| A saintly fellowship. |
A universal brotherhood. |
| A book revelation. |
Spiritual consciousness |
| Individual salvation. |
The evolution of humanity. |
| Heaven hereafter. |
God’s kingdom on the earth. |
The scientific conception, as we here hint at its definition, is no less religious than the theological. It equally starts from God and leads to God. . . . It is more present and practical, but it is also more undefined and mystical.”
This is in some respects the clearest and most definite statement of the real platform of the “Higher Criticism” which we have yet seen, and as it is put forth by a journal which is a recognized exponent of the scientific conception of the universe, or in other words, of the “Higher Criticism,” it is worthy of attention. In the first place we do not think it a fair presentation of the case to make it appear that all who do not accept the conclusions of “Higher Criticism” regard the object of their worship as “an Absentee God.” But it may be true that it is this view of God which is largely inculcated in the theological seminaries; for it is certain that an altogether wrong conception of God is taught in many professedly Christian schools. We wish, however, to emphasize two of the expressions used in the outline of the scientific conception of the universe, and to point out two conclusions which follow, and which are really admitted in this same article. In apparent contradistinction to “an Absentee God,” but in practical contradistinction to “the Personal Being of God,” we have “the Universal Presence.” In apparent contradistinction to “a saintly fellowship,” or the fellowship of the saints, but in practical contradistinction to any class of “saved” sinners, we have “a universal brotherhood.” From these two scientific views of God and of man, conceptions which grow out of a scientific treatment of the whole question of religion, it follows at once that religion must be a universal experience, and that the final salvation of all men is assured. That is to say, in the teaching of the “Higher Criticism” there is no place for the atoning work of Christ the divine Saviour, no demand for a divine sacrifice for sin, no necessity for the Comforter and his work, and no actual cleansing of the universe from sin by the destruction of sinful beings. Instead of “individual salvation” we have “the evolution of humanity.” These conclusions are, in effect, accepted by the Outlook in urging the need of “frankly reconstructing the whole intellectual framework on a basis of a universal God, a universal religion, a universal authority [“spiritual consciousness”], and a universal issue in the final culmination of God’s work in the world.” It is noticeable that those who accept and teach this view of religion have much to say about “God,” but have very little demand for Christ and his cross. They present very beautiful ideals of a life of devotion to truth, but present only a natural and scientific way of attaining to these ideals. Instead of pointing helpless humanity to “the Lamb of God, that beareth the sin of the world,” and encouraging sinners to expect the indwelling Spirit through the new birth, they insist that every man is already the temple of the Holy Spirit, as is proved by the wonderful processes which are continually carried forward in the body outside the control of the will. Inasmuch as these processes are just as wonderful in other animals as in man, the logical conclusion is next reached that there is not simply a brotherhood of man, but a brotherhood of being, and the other members of the animal kingdom at once become “our inferior brethren.” Then killing an animal becomes “murder,” and one who takes the life of an animal is “an assassin.” This is the teaching of Hinduism, and yet, strange to say, the records of history show that no people have been more cruelly regardless of the value of human life than have the people of India. One who has made a study of Buddhism writes thus: “The teachings of the new school Buddhism, as far as I am able to judge, have no effect on the hearts of those who believe and trust in it.” There is certainly a demand to-day for teaching the fundamental truths of Christianity. There is need of preaching Christ and him crucified as the only hope of the sinner. There is a call for sturdy and courageous work in brushing aside these false hopes of self-salvation6by mere conformity to natural law, and of preaching repentance and remission of sins through faith in Christ, the one only Mediator. Beware of such a teaching of “the Universal Presence,” as results in weakening your faith in the personal being of God. Beware of that teaching of “a universal brotherhood” which leads to the conclusion that there is no difference between the holy and the profane. Beware of that teaching of “the divine order” which leaves no room for a miraculous manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit in the church. Beware of that teaching of “God’s kingdom on the earth” which leaves no demand for the speedy coming of our blessed Lord to establish his kingdom of righteousness in a new earth. Beware of every effort which is put forth to settle questions of religious experience upon a scientific basis. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men.”