RATIONALISM in England no longer dwells on the outside; it has effected its entrance into the very heart of the church, and bids fair, in the near future, to exercise a predominating influence.
In these days there is no longer any “offense of the cross.” You can be a Christian without believing in any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. This is the burden of a great many articles in the newspapers and magazines, and is also taught by skillfully-written books, which are having a very wide circulation.
The most popular, certainly the most fascinatingly-written book of this character, is Dr. Harnack’s notable work, “What Is Christianity?” which, in cheap paper binding, is having an enormous sale throughout the country. The book is in the author’s most taking style, and contains a good deal to which, considered by itself, no exception could be taken; but it is distinctly rationalistic in tone, and, taken as a whole, may well be placed in the category of books subversive of Christianity. Perhaps the system of belief it expounds might not inappropriately be called “Rationalized Christianity.” Certainly it explains away all that is most distinctive and characteristic in the Christian religion as revealed in the Bible, and leaves in its place a sort of 20th-century Platonism, flavored with a weak tincture of the Gospel.
No Divine Saviour—No Resurrection.
In the first place, the book frankly tells us that the history of Jesus’ birth is not to be taken account of. “Two of the gospels do, it is true, contain it;” nevertheless “we may disregard it.” In other words, Jesus is simply the son of Joseph.
Of course, on top of this we are not surprised to be told that the stories of demons are “absurdities,” and that in general in the religious teaching of Jesus we must discriminate between the kernel and the husk. The resurrection degenerates into a mere “belief.” “Whatever may have happened at the grave,” writes Dr. Harnack, “and in the matter of appearances, one thing is certain: this grave was the birthplace of the indestructible belief that death is vanquished, that there is a life eternal.” Again he says: “It is not our business to defend either the view which was taken of the death, or the idea that He had risen again.” (Italics ours.) The thoughtful reader will note the significance of this language—how carefully it excludes any statement of fact in connection with the resurrection. We are prepared now to be told that the death on the cross as one for expiation for sin, is only an “idea,” one which “responds to a religious need.” Moreover, “everywhere that the just man suffers, an atonement is made which puts us to shame and purifies us.”
The Gospel according to John finds no place in Dr. Harnack’s scheme. It “does not emanate from the apostle John,” and “can not be taken as an historical authority in the ordinary sense of the word.” The wonderful discourses by Christ, which form such an important part of this Gospel, were, Dr. Harnack says, drawn up by the author himself, who “illustrated great thoughts by imaginary situations.”
Christ’s divinity is denied in these words: “The name of the Son, rightly understood, means nothing but the knowledge of God. . . . Jesus is convinced that He knows God in a way in which no one ever knew Him before.”
“Paul,” we are told, “became the author of the speculative idea that not only was God in Christ, but that Christ Himself was possessed of a peculiar nature of a heavenly kind.”
No Literal Kingdom.
The kingdom of Christ, according to Dr. Harnack, is “nothing but the treasure which the soul possesses in the eternal and merciful God.”
What, then, is the Gospel, as this book would make it out to be? First, it “has to do with the Father only, and not with the Son.” Here is the summing up of the whole thing, in the author’s own words—here is his answer to the soul’s inquiry, “What shall I do to be saved?”
If with a steady will we affirm the forces and the standards which, on the summits of our inner life, shine out as our highest good, nay, as our real self; if we are earnest and courageous enough to accept them as the great reality, and direct our lives by them; and if we then look at the course of mankind’s history, follow its upward development, and search in strenuous and patient service for the communion of minds in it, we shall not faint in weariness and despair, but become certain of God, of the God whom Jesus Christ called His Father, and who is also our Father.
This is evidently a carefully-worded statement of the author’s belief. It is what he calls Christianity. But what humble, believing follower of Jesus Christ would recognize it as such? Does it not, by leaving out Christ, virtually deny its own name? Is it anything at all but an exalted form of heathenism?
Yet there is scarcely any recent work of eminence in the field of theology but is more or less tinged with these rationalistic ideas. The world’s scientists have seized upon evolution as a means of ruling out the idea of a personal Creator. Its scholars have chosen Rationalism as a means of ruling the divine element out of the Christian religion. The result, in both cases, is practical atheism, whether it be called by that term or not. Professor Harnack, with all his great learning and ability, is strangely ignorant of the essential characteristics of Christianity. He may be Germany’s greatest theologian; yet many a ten-year-old child has a truer, more consistent view than he, of spiritual realities.
Speculation does not solve
the problems of the spiritual world, which yield only to obedience and faith. We must believe, and do, if we would know. To rationalize religion is to take the very heart out of it. When we have reduced God to the comprehension of the human mind, we have eliminated His divinity.
It is a striking “sign of the times” that Dr. Harnack’s book, with all its crude unbelief and utter contradiction of vital religious truth, should meet with a hearty reception in church circles generally, and that its author should be held up as one of the champions of Christianity. Truly, we have here an example of base betrayal of a sacred trust. But no one who knows the Word for himself, need be deceived. Philosophical subtleties can not move the man who stands on the vantage-ground of truth. Neither can they turn aside one who is seeking for truth, for he can claim the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.”
