VI. Religious Convictions or Conventions?—What Religion Means
By L. P.
—The Bible—Attitude
My dear Robert,—
Your letter gave me real joy; not that I am glad you are troubled with religious doubts, but rather that these doubts are of a nature to show that you are doing a little real thinking on your own account, and also because you have written me so freely concerning them. The saddest thing about many young Christians of to-day, is that their religion sits so lightly upon them. They are not troubled with doubts, but neither are they strengthened and supported by convictions. At most their religion is a sort of convention, the proper observance of which includes refraining from ordinary labor on one day in seven, attendance on public worship on that day, the avoidance of outcrying sins, and a decent regard for various other proprieties expected of the nominal Christian. But of religion as an inner experience, a something which shall penetrate and transform the life, and set a man all on fire for God and righteousness, they know nothing. Neither do they know the deep comfort of religion, for they have never experienced real heart mourning over sin and evil.
Doubt may be an encouraging omen at a certain stage in a young man's mental and spiritual development; not the doubt that one rests in, but the one that precedes certainty. To rest supinely in a state of doubt and uncertainty, is to resign one's manhood, to say farewell to that generous courage with which the young man should attack every obstacle that presents itself to his progress onward and upward. No; doubt must be fought and conquered, but it must be in honorable warfare. Intellectual honesty is a first requisite to a growing Christian experience. Look your doubts squarely in the face, fight them in broad daylight, and with God's help, liberally promised to every struggling, aspiring soul, overcome them.
Remember, however, that spiritual problems must be worked out under the conditions of actual life, not merely thought out in the closet. Religion is nothing if it does not embrace the whole life of a man,—body, soul, and spirit. When it takes hold of a man, it makes him do things. And it is in helping him to do things, that it proves to him its worth. The philosopher in his study may spend days and weeks in fruitless inquiry into the power and efficacy of the Christian religion; the humble washerwoman solved the question long ago by putting it to the actual test of every-day life, and has been drawing, ever since, that blessed comfort and help which has made her move in a little heaven of her own. Let me illustrate further what I mean, by a very homely example. The question is as to the efficiency of a certain kind of rifle. One man takes it all to pieces, studies the form and structure of the various parts, and tries to arrive at a conclusion as to whether it ought to work or not. Another man pulls the trigger, and notes the result. The first man may know a good many things about the gun, but the second man knows the all-important thing, what it will do.
There is another sense in which the active man is superior to the contemplative man. The mere putting oneself into active, helpful relations with one's fellow men, strengthens the foundations of character, and enlarges and deepens the powers of reflection. Even if Christianity offered only intellectual problems, it would be worth while for the philosopher to devote himself to practical benevolence in order thus to sharpen the reasoning powers and inform the conscience. Perhaps you will think I am wide of the mark in comparing the doubts you express to those of a philosopher; but there are thousands wholly innocent of knowledge of philosophy, who yet contemplate religious problems with much the same detachment as the university professor. Hence the idea can not be too insistently put forward that Christianity lives or dies by the results of a practical test. Either it substantiates its claim to lift man above temporal and material things and satisfy the cravings of his soul for the divine, or it does not. This large question is the main issue. Once answered in the affirmative, the lesser things may be taken up in their order. The man who is sure of God and a future life, is on vantage-ground to fight his doubts.
The Bible, like Christianity, is to be judged by its fruits, and judged as a whole. Coleridge found it divine in that it touched him at greater depths of his being than any other book. Is not the same thing true of you and me? And if the Bible is acknowledged to be a divine revelation, then it naturally follows that the proper attitude for one who would understand it, is that of humility and reverence. "The scorner seeketh knowledge and findeth it not, but with the lowly is wisdom." The Bible, while it is much more than literature, has this in common with all great literature, that it must be approached in the attitude of a disciple. The flippant, worldly spirit is death to the understanding of any truly great poet; much more is it to an understanding of the sacred mysteries of that divine book, which surely should be approached only on bended knee.
This reverent view of the Bible grows out of the nature of its divine message. If we can not fully understand God, how can we expect to understand His book? Is it not enough that we get sufficient light from it to live holy lives? nay, more, that we receive from it comfort in the hour of grief and bereavement, knowing that all things work together for good, and there is a brighter time coming when this great fact will become clear as noonday to us? Is it not enough that the Bible helps us to feel after God and find Him very near to us, even at the door of our hearts? How could a book dealing with great and solemn mysteries, sounding the very depths of human life, and mounting into the highest heavens, be otherwise than difficult of complete comprehension? Why should we expect to understand with our unaided intellects that which was written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Nevertheless, this attitude of reverence toward the Bible should not lead us to the worship of the letter; neither should it cause us to gloss over real difficulties of an intellectual character. Our own reason tells us that there are things pertaining to the spiritual life which are not susceptible of demonstration; these things are to be experienced by us through faith. There are other things, again, which frankly belong to the intellectual life, and here it should be allowed to have full sway within proper limits. When one is dealing, for instance, with portions of the Bible that have to do with history and the fulfilment of prophecy, it is proper to apply rigid intellectual tests to any position that we may wish to put forward ourselves, or that others may offer us. In such matters, piety can not take the place of knowledge, tho it will always conduce thereto, and reverence is always fitting when dealing with anything so great and powerful as the Word of God.
Intellect has its place, however, and we should manfully grapple with the problems that present themselves, not only with a view to understanding them for ourselves, but also in order to explain them to others. It must be recognized that many other well-meaning persons have explained some of these prophecies in different ways; and it behooves us, when we put forth a certain view, to back it up with as strong arguments as the nature of the case will permit. If it is a matter that can not be finally decided, then the position taken should be the one which is least open to objection. Moreover, in dealing with such a matter one should be as careful to define one's terms, lay down one's premises, and soberly draw conclusions, as if one were engaged in a legal argument. Not that the bare anatomy of the argument should necessarily be prominent, but in spirit all these conditions should be fully met.
The trouble with much of the popular Bible teaching is that the line is not properly drawn between that which concerns the intellect and that which is primarily concerned with the life of the spirit; and13sometimes loose statements are made just because it is assumed that we have the truth anyway, and need not be careful to fortify our position by those sound arguments that, in the Bible phraseology, will confound our adversaries.
Now I have not dealt with the scientific doubts that you propose, but have laid down certain general principles which I believe will be of some little help to you. In my next letter I shall take up the question of science and the Bible. Meanwhile let me admonish you to seek God in prayer that He may grant you the illumination of His Spirit. It is well to remember that many things that are hidden from the wise and prudent are revealed to babes. There is a childlike humility that is compatible at once with the deepest spirituality and with the most thorough knowledge of scientific methods of proof. We must have it if we would make progress in the way of truth.
