viene eet pen At aa > aeons 3s Ste, Ce rotates 1 Baers fF geitany wit Te elt rise stew rit ee iar aa neler et rate in oe ee Vey e 5 7 if ee f > { ; os A - ve g RRS weiee Peer eeat rete, Casein E Pr oath ae See ae oe ret cera ane y vrs eet te et eure res eagestrps Bie oF elke ste re ae fe elale Aste Te ere oeete t eget th eee yee Pyro i Petar! rig be aslo ed «4° 26 PPT T ean PAM ee eet eteye* eS SS eh ‘prides Ree tak eee rerasee? Division Section THE SURVIVAL VALUE OF CHRISTIANITY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/survivalvaluechrOOmeck RCE Renta THE SURVIVAL VALUE - 2% wy Ot yEht a % tig i pas Pat ww ii BY , JOHN MOFFATT “MECKLIN, Pu.D. PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY IN DARTMOUTH COLLEGH. AUTHOR OF “AN INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL ETHICS,” “THE KU KLUX KLAN,” ETC. Let him who says when he reads my book, “Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true,” assert, if he pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And if he do this with charity and truth, and take the pains to make it known to me (if I am still alive) I shall then receive the most abundant fruit of this my labor. AUGUSTINE, De Trinitate, I, 3, 5. NEW YORK HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY COPYRIGHT, 1926, BY HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, ING. PRINTED IN THE U.S. A BY QUINN & BODEN COMPANY, INC, RAHWAY, N. J. i a To HENRY STANHOPE BUNTING ;: ad pa eu a ss ; - MF ri oa wu Foreword M* are debating today as never before the origin, history, and enduring worth of the Christian faith. In offering the following pages as a possible contribution to this debate the writer is painfully aware of the difficulty, not to say the futility, of his task. There is first of all the diversity of belief, due to differences of tem- perament and tradition, which is all but insur- mountable. There is secondly the deep aversion of the pious soul to the critical attitude in reli- gion. The Fundamentalist reader will doubtless find the frank criticisms of his point of view un- pleasant, but the writer must remind him that Fundamentalist leaders have not been particu- larly sparing of the feelings of their opponents. The New Testament scholar will perhaps be in- clined to challenge many statements dealing with the exceedingly difficult questions as to the origin of Christianity. Finally, the strenuous applica- tion of the distinction between fact and fiction, which is the guiding principle of the book, has Af vi FOREWORD lent to the pages that follow a negative tinge which was not intentional, but which, perhaps, is in a measure unavoidable. The writer begs his reader not to be misled by the large title of this little book. It is no blast of the archangel’s trump bidding to a last great assize. The writer is not so rash as to essay a final evaluation of a faith whose vitality nineteen centuries have failed to exhaust. The task he has set himself is much more modest. It is to determine the principles by which our age must revalue its Christian heritage. Such an inevi- table revaluation is not the death-knell of faith as many imagine. It may be an indication of a new lease on life. HANOVER, N. H., November 12, 1925. secede nate Oye wo Contents CHAPTER I Tue CHALLENGE OF F'UNDAMENTALISM ORTHODOXY BY LEGISLATION WHY FUNDAMENTALISM ? : : : THE TYRANNY OF RELIGION IN AMERICAN LIFE . THE HIGH PRIESTS OF OBSCURANTISM ; THE ISSUE : : P : ‘ ; : k CHAPTER II THE RELIGIOUS IMAGINATION THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION AMONG THE MENTAL PROCESSES ; : ! THE PROBLEM OF THE RELIGIOUS IMAGINATION THE SYMBOLS OF THE RELIGIOUS IMAGINATION THE DECAY OF DOGMA . , s : : f THE DILEMMA OF THE RELIGIOUS IMAGINATION . SYMBOL AND REALITY ‘ : ; : : CHAPTER III JESUS OR CHRIST THE JESUS OF HISTORY . , } , ; 3 THE ‘‘SON OF MAN’’ ; ; : fl ; : THE LORD OF GLORY ‘ } f ‘ ‘SAND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US’’ . , ; , 5 : : Vil 58 64 69 17 89 101 108 125 138 151 Vlil om DOE o9 CONTENTS CHAPTER IV Wuar Is CuristiAnity? THE PROBLEM . Be ee . . . THE FUNDAMENTALIST AND HIS MENTAL STEREO- TYPES LIBERALISM ° ° ° ° . . ° CHRISTIANITY AS PURE MYTH MODERNISM . 3 . . : ° . ° RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE . ° ° ° INDEX ry ° ° ° . ° . ° . PAGE 168 171 186 205 222 240 209 THE SURVIVAL VALUE OF CHRISTIANITY Chapter I THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM Ye men of Athens, I percewe that in all things ye are somewhat too reigious.—Paul 1. ORTHODOXY BY LEGISLATION. N maRcH 21, 1925, the following became law O in the sovereign state of Tennessee: ‘‘BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, nor- mals or other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory which denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. ‘‘BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction 3 4 THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM shall be fined not less than One Hundred ($100.00) Dollars for each offense.’’ This legislation resulted in the Scopes trial at Dayton, Tennessee, in July, 1925, a trial that attracted the attention of the civilized world. A bill forbidding the teaching of evolution in the state-supported schools under penalty of a heavy fine and imprisonment was introduced in 1921 into the lower house of the Legislature of Kentucky and, only after a hot fight, defeated by a vote of 42 to 41. In the same year a rider was attached to an appropriation bill in the Senate of South Carolina providing that ‘‘no moneys appropriated for pub- lic education or for the maintenance and support of state-supported institutions shall be used or paid to any such school or institution teaching or permitting to be taught, as a creed to be followed, the cult known as ‘Darwinism.’’’ This did not become law. In the summer of 1925 a similar rider was at- tached to an appropriation bill in the Legislature of Georgia and defeated. In 1923 a joint resolution was passed by the Legislature of Florida stating that ‘‘it is im- proper and subversive of the best interests of WHY FUNDAMENTALISM? . 5 the people of this state’? for any teacher in a state-supported institution ‘‘to teach or permit to be taught atheism, or agnosticism, or to teach as true Darwinism, or any other hypothesis that links man in blood relationship to any other form of life.’’ A similar resolution introduced into the lower house of the North Carolina Legislature in April, 1925, was defeated by a vote of 64 to 47. In January, 1924, the governor of this state, at the suggestion of the High-School Textbook Com- mittee, caused to be stricken from the list of text- books available for use in the state two works on biology because the public press had alleged that they contained references to evolution. 2. WHY FUNDAMENTALISM ? What inspires this attempt to enforce by legis- lation a uniformity of religious beliefs through- out the country? The answer is, Fundamentalism. What is Fundamentalism? For one group, whom Mr. H. L. Mencken represents, it is merely the religion of the Babbitts, which has suddenly added to its traditional obscurantism a militant pro- gram which it is trying to enforce by law. An- 6 THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM other group, for which one of the fuculty of an eastern university speaks, would dismiss Funda- mentalism as a futile posthumous revival of is- sues settled long ago. For the Liberal, who bears the brunt of the Fundamentalists’ attack, it is a struggle for power and control within the various Protestant denominations. Yet in reality the Fundamentalist movement is more than all this. It is a revolt of traditional Protestant orthodoxy against the spirit of modern culture. It is a sort of counter-revolutionary trend initiated by con- temporary American medievalists to stem the tide of the revolution in life and thought effected by the two great engines of modern culture, de- mocracy and science. Fundamentalism challenges the moral and spiritual values of modern civili- zation. Fundamentalism and the Ku Klux Klan have much in common. Both profited immensely from the post-war fears which stampeded so many men and women back to ancient loyalties. The one hundred per cent Americanism of the Klan finds its parallel in one hundred per cent orthodoxy. Both movements, while apparently assuming a na- tional significance since the war, have their roots in the past. The Klan is the logical continuation WHY FUNDAMENTALISM? ‘4 of habits of thought and feeling that found expres- sion in the Knownothingism of the middle, and the American Protective Association of the close, of the last century when the native American Protestants came into conflict with the prevail- ingly Roman Catholic alien immigrants. Simi- larly Fundamentalism is an attempt by the tra- ditional orthodox element within the various Protestant denominations to preserve its tradi- tions and identity in opposition to the rise of modern culture which is creeping into the school in the guise of evolution and into the church as Liberalism. The Klan is prevailingly a small-town move- ment and fails signally to gain any foothold within the larger cities and the industrial centers. The stronghold of Fundamentalism is found like- wise in the small towns and countryside where the intellectual and religious life has been least affected by modern culture. Fundamentalism is strongest in rural communities. Tennessee, with its famous Fundamentalist anti-evolution law, is seventy-five per cent rural. In all that vast region stretching from Virginia to Texas and Oklahoma, together with a large section of the Middle and 1See Mecklin, The Ku Klux Klan, Ch. V. 8 THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM Far West, the rural population far outnumbers the urban. Urban leaders in politics, education or religion are at the mercy of the rural mind. The ‘‘cultural lag’’ of the countryside is a famil- iar fact of history. ‘‘Pagan,’’ a word derived from pagus, country, was the term applied by the early Christian church to idolaters, since the villagers, being those most remote from the cities and centers of Christian culture, were the last to adopt Christianity. The Klan and Fundamental- ism are alike, finally, in their tendency to appeal to ‘‘direct action.’? The Klan seeks through its mask and clandestine political combinations to coerce men and women into one hundred per cent Americanism. The Fundamentalists, on a some- what higher level, are seeking through legislation to combat science and to compel the people of a free country to retain the orthodox faith. It was hardly an accident that on his death Mr. Bryan was proclaimed as the greatest of all the Klansmen. In great states such as Tennessee and North Carolina, where rapid strides are being made in education, the state universities and high schools have outstripped the masses of the people, who distrust and fear the newfangled ideas of science WHY FUNDAMENTALISM? 9 which they do not understand. The attitude of an influential element in this area is well ex- pressed in the following statement of a religious leader who is by no means a rabid Fundamen- talist: | ‘Tt is an uprising of parents that they are having in North Carolina. ... A few days ago, while I was a guest in one of the most devout Christian homes I have ever known, I saw a boy of twelve with a booklet which had in it a series of grotesque-looking pictures of what somebody imagined prehistoric man looked like. One page gave a landscape purporting to show how the earth looked one hundred million years ago. After that there was a paragraph telling how life began in the world. Here are a few lines of it: ‘¢¢Close your eyes and think of some muddy cutter or frog pond full of stagnant water with a scorching sun glittering down on the green slime which floats among the bulrushes and swamp weeds. Those cesspools, geologists tell us, were the cradle of life on earth. This life, called alge, was a very low form of plant composed of a jelly- like mass which floated on the stale, slimy, black water of the primitive swamps. Step by step scientists follow the evolution of this low, simple 10 THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM plant into a soft, boneless creature, resembling a piece of liver, composed of a single life-cell .. .’ ‘This is a sample of the stuff some of our children are getting. No wonder that Christian people are rising up all over the land and saying that this sort of thing has gone far enough... . If our views of the separation of Church and State make it impossible to teach Christianity in our public institutions, they should make it equally impossible for any teacher to sneer at Christianity and to teach views that are anti- Christian. Our teachers ought to have the sense and the decency to see this, and we believe that the great majority of them do see it. If they fail to see it, then it may become necessary to forbid them to teach anti-Christian views and theories. It is a poor rule that does not work both ways.’’? We have here the protest of an outraged and ignorant piety—outraged because it is ignorant —against the conclusions of science. Such a mind would prefer the fictions of the first chapters of Genesis or the theological speculations of the Middle Ages to the approved findings of the pa- tient, unprejudiced scientist. From the veiled threat at the close of this statement, there is not 2The Presbyterian of the South, March 4, 1925. WHY FUNDAMENTALISM? 11 the slightest: doubt that where the alternatives are offered of loyalty to Genesis or loyalty to the tested conclusions of the laboratory, this mind would elect the former. To assert that life did not originate as the old Hebrew writers imagined, is ‘‘irreligion’’ and ‘‘anti-Christianity.’’ Here we have the heart of the Fundamentalist chal- lenge. It disputes the right of science to any autonomy or finality within its own sphere. The conclusions of science are always threatened by the charge that they are ‘‘anti-Christian.’’ It is significant that the following rebuke of this pious obscurantism is not from an ungodly scientist nor yet from a heretical Liberal, but from a Roman Catholic, Lord Acton, the late learned historian of Cambridge University: ‘(Whatever diverts government and science from their own spheres, or leads religion to usurp their domains, confounds distinct authorities and imperils not only political right and scientific truths, but also the cause of faith and morals. ... A science that for the sake of protecting faith wavers and dissembles in the pursuit of knowl- edge is an instrument at least as well adapted to serve the cause of falsehood as to combat it. ... A discovery may be made m science, which 12 THE CHALLENGE OF FUNDAMENTALISM will shake the faith of thousands, yet religion cannot refute it or object to it’? (italics the author’s). The enunciation of Galileo’s heliocentric as- tronomy shook the faith of the man of the Middle Ages far more than evolution has jarred modern orthodoxy. Orthodox religion objected most vig- orously and tried to refute this ‘‘anti-Christian’’ doctrine of science; it ended by doing the only thing it could do, accepting it. 3. THE TYRANNY OF RELIGION IN AMERICAN LIFE. A prominent New York paper, commenting upon Fundamentalism, says: ‘‘What we are wit- nessing in America today is an organized at- tempt at the domination of politics through cer- tain theological sects. The plain truth is that the illiberal churches have gone into polities and have either terrorized the politicians or seduced them with the offer of votes.’’ The militant leaders of orthodox Protestant- ism have apparently lost all faith in the power of that sweet charity which they are supposed to preach, a charity that ‘‘is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, THE TYRANNY OF RELIGION 13 is not easily provoked, . . . rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all thing's, endureth all things.’’ There is something paradoxical, not to say absurdly grotesque, in the spectacle of a faith, claiming the support of an infallible divine revelation, and yet appealing to the weak arm of human law to save it from destruction. More amazing still is the fact that, among a people whose historic boast is religious freedom and tolerance, orthodox Protestantism is able to assume a truculent and tyrannical attitude with- out a parallel in any other great nation. This is illustrated by the following ten reso- lutions adopted by the ministerial association of Charlotte, North Carolina, in April, 1925. ‘ The idea, moreover, expands by virtue of its own inner, unreflective power. Cit- ing the parable of the mustard seed, ‘‘which a man took and hid in his field’’ but which thrives by virtue of its own inner life ‘‘so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof,’? Newman says, ‘‘Here an internal ele- ment of life, whether principle or doctrine, is spoken of rather than any mere external mani- festation; and it is observable that the spontane- 21 Development of Christian Doctrine, pp. 20, 30, 22 Op. cit., pp. 38, 39. 23 Op, cit., p. 56, 228 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? ous, aS well as the gradual, character of the growth is intimated... it is not an effect of wishing and resolving, or of forced enthusiasm, or of any mechanism of reasoning, or of any mere subtlety of intellect; but comes of its own innate power of expansion within the mind in its sea- son,’’ ** 7 What, then, for the Modernist is ultimate fact in Christianity? It is not found, as the Funda- mentalist asserts, in an inspired document nor are we, with the Liberal, to identify it with a body of historical facts as to the life and teach- ings of Jesus. It is to be found only in the un- folding life of a spiritual community, which, in the language of Tyrrell, ‘‘is slowly realizing the ideas and ends in whose service it was founded,”’ a community which ‘‘through many fluctuations and errors and deviations and recoveries and re- actions is gradually shaping itself into a more efficient institution for the spiritual and moral development of individuals and societies.’’ If we take a cross section of this continuous unfolding life we shall find certain values or ideas which are permanent and the varying forms, symbols or whatnot through which a 24 Op. cit., pp. 73, 74. 25 Medievalism, p. 145. MODERNISM 229 . given age seeks to express these values. Chris- tianity, then, seen immediately and from the point of view of one moment in its life, is a syn- thesis ‘‘not between the old and the new indis- criminately, but between what, after due criti- cism, is found to be valid in the old and in the new.’’** The very opposite of Modernism is Medievalism, or the traditional Catholic point of view, which ‘‘is only a synthesis effected between the Christian faith and the culture of the late Middle Ages.’’ *” It would be hard to find a more scathing ar- raignment of the blunting effect of Medievalism, or the Catholic type of Fundamentalism, upon the intellectual sensibilities of men than is given by Tyrrell in the following passage: ““The idée-meére of Medizevalism’’ is that it ‘“oives the authority of divine revelation to a mass of untenable historical and scientific statements that belong merely to the primi- tive expression of revelation. One knows how even a single false premise will develop into a vast and complex system of falsehoods the further one pushes the argument that it vitiates. Bind men’s consciences, then, to a 26 Op, cit., p. 143. 27 Op. cit., p. 144. 230 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? whole host of such premises; forbid them to criticize them; force them to bring the results of their observation and reasoning into ac- cord with them; compel them to defend such premises against all gainsayers, against all texts and facts and documents that may be adduced against them, and the result must be just what it has been—a profound inward skepticism begotten of the apparent conflict between truth and truth; an absence of any- thing that deserves the name of intellectual conviction; an inability to understand or re- spect such conviction in others; a readiness to think black is white when so commanded; a habit of controversial chicanery and dishon- esty that strikes at the very root of candor and truthfulness.’’ *° The Modernist’s organic conception of life pro- vides a congenial basis for mediation between the church and modern culture. For if the Modern- ist ‘‘believes in the Church as a Catholic, as a man he believes in humanity; he believes in the world.’’*® To assert that the world is God-for- saken and worthless, that its progress in science, art, education and civic freedom is a godless prog- 28 Medievalism, p. 180. 29 Op. cit., p. 147. MODERNISM 231 ress simply because it is secular, ‘‘seems to the Modernist the most subtle and dangerous form of atheism.’’ The Modernist even goes so far as to say that ‘‘his faith in the world is more fundamental than his faith in the Church,’’ an almost unbelievable assertion from the lips of a Catholic, because the world is ‘‘the living whole of which she is but an organic part; and the whole is greater than its most vital organ.’’ The Church and the world are thus most vitally and inseparably united; ‘‘each must absorb the quick- ening forces of the other under pain of a mon- strous and lopsided development.”’ This organic evolutionary note of Modernism, which is merely the logical expansion of Newman, enables it to make common cause with all the so- cial, economic or political forces in the community striving for a larger and more human existence. It is not surprising, then, to find in France and other lands movements for social democracy and reform being instinctively drawn to Modernism. Revelation is conceived by the Modernist in terms of this organic and evolutionary idea of society. ‘‘Revelation is divine,’’ but not in the orthodox Fundamentalist sense of an objective, supernatural imparting of truth. It is ‘‘an ex- 232 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? perience that utters itself spontaneously in imagi- native popular non-scientific form.’’ That is to say, this indwelling and directing divine energy registers itself through the evolving religious ex- perience of the community of believers. ‘‘Theol- ogy is the natural, tentative, fallible analysis of these experiences.’’ Theology, therefore, is a human product. It is the result of the play of the intellect of man over the raw experience of the religious consciousness of the community through which contact is made with the divine. Therefore, theology is true and helpful just in the measure that it grows out of and ever returns to the collective religious experience of those who ‘‘live the life and breathe the hope of the Gospel preached by’ Jesus.’’*° Theology, then, cannot be tied down to any ‘‘stereotyped statements, but only to the religious experiences of which certain statements are the spontaneous self-chosen, but at most symbolic, expressions.’’ ** The implications of these statements are: (a) dogmas are not fixed but vary with the ever evolv- ing life of the Church. (b) Dogmas are not exact statements of truth and reality, for religious re- ality is so intimate and subjective that it beggars 30 Op. cit., p. 129. 81 Op. cit., p. 152. MODERNISM 233 exact scientific analysis. (c) The raw material of dogmas are symbols or fictions of the imagina- tion which do not purport to give us truth or reality. Dogmas, therefore, can never be more than mere logical and critical refinements of fic- tions of the religious imagination. (d) The sym- bols of the religious imagination are ‘‘spontane- ous’’ and ‘‘self-chosen,’’ that is to say, they arise directly out of the exigencies of the given reli- gious experience and are in no sense deductions of reason nor can they be safely made the basis for final deductions as to religious truth or real- ity. The symbols of one stage of religious ex- perience may not satisfy the demands of a re- ligious experience of a later period. The attitude of the Modernist towards science is both frank and fearless. He demands ‘‘abso- lute freedom for science’’ and he would have it fettered only ‘‘by its own laws and methods.”’ All experience, including the spiritual as well as the natural, belongs to the field of science. The Modernist, in fine, ‘‘has nothing to do with that sort of more educated and temporizing ultra- montanism that shrinks from an inopportune pressing of principles which the world has un- fortunately outgrown; that loves to rub shoulders 234, WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? cautiously with science and democracy; that strives to express itself moderately and grammat- ically; that would make a change of circumstances and opportunities pass for a more tolerant spirit; and that is usually rewarded for its pains by find- ing itself between the hammer and the anvil.’’” Finally, the Modernist has the courage of his convictions and when asked by the Fundamental- ist what is to be the upshot of this world of or- ganic and unremittent development, in which it must be admitted there is no place for a ‘‘finished theological system,’’ he replies, ‘‘I do not know.”’ What he does know is that ‘‘the whole world is in labor,’’? and there is no prophet who can tell us exactly what the morrow will bring forth. Our vision reaches only to the horizon, not beyond it. Truth, like life, ‘‘is an unending process of ade- quation, not a finished result.’’ * It is not difficult to point out weaknesses in Modernism. Its very modernity doomed it to in- evitable failure. Of all institutions, the Roman Catholic Church is the last that can comfortably accommodate itself to the basic assumption of Modernism. How is it possible for a church whose boast is eterna non caduca to make a place 32 Op. cit., p. 153, 83 Op. cit., p. 157. MODERNISM 235 within its borders for the unbridled creative evo- lution of the Bergsonian type preached by Tyr- rell? The encyclical letter of Pius X, September 8, 1907, that killed Modernism, was merely an in- evitable move for self-preservation. Moreover, Modernism, or this curious potpourri of the or- ganic evolution of Spencer, the social vitalism of Burke, the dynamic idealism of Hegel, the creative evolution of Bergson, the opportunistic Pragma- tism of William James, all tinged with romanti- cism, is utterly at variance not only with the Ro- man Catholic Church, but with original Christian- ity and the ancient culture that gave it birth. The spirit of the Roman Empire still lives in the Ro- man Catholic Church. Modernism reeks with the spirit and the methods of modern culture. It is based upon theses utterly at variance with the Middle Ages and antiquity. The Catholic Church has always strenuously contended that it alone is the legitimate heir of Jesus and the aposiles. The Modernist contentions would strip it of this leadership and make it only one of the various manifestations, both Christian and non-Christian, of the divine indwelling spirit of God in mankind. For both Catholic and Protestant of the orthodox type Jesus is the unique and eternal and final 236 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? embodiment of religious truth. According to the Modernist Jesus is merely a link in a chain, a part of a long process of religious evolution. Modern- ism, finally, is exposed to all those criticisms that have ever been leveled at the dynamic idealism of Hegel and the romantic intuitionalism of Berg- son.** It will not be denied, however, that of all the attempts to solve the problem of the relation of fact and fiction in the Christian faith, Modernism is the most interesting and suggestive. Modern- ism avoids the twofold weakness of Liberalism, namely, the undue narrowing of the essence of Christianity down to a minimum of historical facts as to the life and teachings of Jesus and the consequent discrediting of the subsequent cre- ations of the religious imagination in historic Christianity. It also avoids the impasse of Fun- damentalism whose naive supernaturalism hope- lessly obscures the whole question of fact and fic- tion in religion. Finally, its sense of historical values saves it from the subjectivism of the radi- cals who would make Christianity a pure fiction of the religious imagination. The dynamic ideal- ism of Tyrrell, with all its weaknesses, does offer 34 See Berthelot: Un Romanticisme utilitaire, III, pp. 324 ff. MODERNISM Ne a basis for a reconciliation between the eternal dualism of fiction and fact, symbol and religious reality. ‘To be sure, he bridges the gap only by subordinating the world of fact to that of value. By placing back of the unfolding drama of life an immanent directive force which is spiritual, the hard world of factual realities becomes affili- ated with that of the spirit. But it may very seriously be doubted whether we can ever bridge the gap between the facts of history and the fic- tions of the religious imagination without some such spiritual synthesis. In fact, it may be con- tended that some such synthesis is always pre- supposed by the great religious genius. For one, therefore, who is inclined to dispute this a priors assumption of dynamic idealism, the dualism, it is to be feared, will always remain. Tn this connection it is interesting to note the differences between the scientific historian Loisy and the poetical mystic Tyrrell. They approach the problem of fact and fiction from different angles. For Loisy the Jesus of historical fact and the Christ of faith are always separated by a gap he never succeeds in bridging, although he con- stantly seems to assume that the gap is bridged 238 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? in the evolution of the Christian faith. The Jesus of history, Loisy contends, is the proper object of exact historical criticism. Here conclusions are reached based upon a principle of historical probability akin to the theory of probabilities used in all scientific establishment of fact. Such a test could not possibly be applied to the Christ of faith. Hence the gap between them. Tyrrell, on the other hand, approaches the prob- lem not from the standpoint of historical science, but from that of the psychology of religious ex- perience. Tyrrell presupposes that this experi- ence necessarily conditions the historical fact. Thus for Tyrrell his own inner religious experi- ence unconsciously bridges the gap between the Jesus of fact and the Christ of faith. Later, as his thought matured, Tyrrell sought to justify this religious intuition with a vague and uncriti- cally romantic philosophy of history, the germinal ideas of which were derived directly from New- man and indirectly from Hegel. He erected into a loose metaphysical system the implications of a subjective intuitive experience. The mystic Tyrrell even goes farther and asserts that this intuition of reality may be more trustworthy than the exact and objective science of the historian. MODERNISM 239 In the plays of Shakespeare we have a deeper in- sight into reality than in the chronicles that sug- gested them. Similarly the gifted religious soul that enters deeply and intuitively into life may gain a firmer grip upon truth and reality than the coldly and critically objective scholar who deals only with externals while the inner life escapes him. For this reason Tyrrell contends that the deeply mystical insights into history attained by the devout Christian may be of more value than the results of historical criticism. Tyrrell here approaches the intuitionalism of Bergson on the one hand and the insights of the poet and artist on the other. It would seem indeed that without some such intuitive synthesis as that presupposed by Tyr- rell, the chasm between the world of science and common sense and that of the religious imagina- tion can never be bridged. In the eternal religious problem there are three factors, the immediate religious experience, the symbol of the imagina- tion by which it is represented, and the transcen- dental religious reality which experience and sym- bol seem to presuppose. The symbol arises pri- marily neither as a logical deduction from the experience nor as a scientific explanation, but 240 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? merely as an aid to its objectification. When we analyze the relation of the symbol of the imagina- tion to the inner religious experience, we are on a basis of fact. When we raise the question of the relation of the fictions of the religious imagina- tion to the transcendental religious realities, we leave the realm of psychological fact and enter that of metaphysics. Men of mystical tempera- ment, such as Tyrrell, who assert that through an intuitive synthesis they have expanded the world of immediate religious experience with its symbols so as to include this world of transcen-_ dental metaphysical reality, can never make’ such mh assertions matter of scientific proof. They: are convincing only to those who have had similar mystical experiences. 6. RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE. The foregoing discussion does not pretend to offer a final answer to the difficult question as to the place of religion in our*modern culture. Its purpose is more modest, namely, to suggest along what lines the answer is to be sought. The status of religion in modern culture is being sharply debated. The disputants are still far RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 241 from agreement. The religious readjustment now in progress requires time and will not be hurried. There. are; however, certain conclusions which would seem to follow from what has been said. It should be clear in the first place that religion has certain necessary limitations which grow out of its very nature. » Religion can not be trusted to give us that exact knowledge we get from sci- ence. Religion can not give us the insight into the nature of ultimate reality, which is the task of philosophy. The reason is that religion deals with fictions of the imagination, symbols whose function is not to give us exact knowledge, but to make possible the objectification of inner ex- periences of value. Religion has much to answer for because she has attempted and still attempts to usurp the roles of scierice and philosophy. The result is that she has duplicated the world of fact and common sense with another world of Elysian fields, of smoking hells presided over by horned devils, of flocks of angels and demons. She has loaded the consciences of men with inexorable laws of harsh but unhuman deities; she has lent her supernaturalistic sanction to every sort of cruelty of man to man; she has preferred myth and legend to the finality of the tested principles 242 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? of science; she has mistaken superstition for the voice of God; she has prolonged the existence of obscurantism and intolerance by clothing them with the semblance of truth and finality. Her imaginative substitute for science can never be more than pseudo-science. Her supernaturalis- tic ethical sanctions can never be more than a fictitious makeshift for moral wisdom. Her meta- physics can never be more than ‘‘a bloodless ballet of logical categories,’’ the theologian’s refinements upon fictions of the religious im- agination. Religion in the past has assumed to give us absolute truth, but her instruments have been the intuitions of the mystic or the metaphors of the poet. These fictions of the religious im- agination grew and hardened into established ways of thought and conduct until they be- came a world in themselves superimposed upon and often taking precedence over the hard em- pirical world of scientific fact, of moral wisdom or of human loveliness. The unpardonable con- ceit of religion is that while she springs from life and derives her symbols from life, she insists that they are not mere symbols, ‘‘but are rather information about experience or reality elsewhere RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 243 —an experience and reality which, strangely enough, supply just the defects betrayed by real- ity and experience here.’’ Religion in the past has dealt with imaginative absolutes, with infallible ‘‘thus saith the Lords.”’ Hence religion is made singularly uncomfortable by the note of relativity that runs through modern knowledge. This growing sense of relativity is the product of the sheer complexity of modern society. It is no longer possible for one mind, like that of Aristotle in the s*mpler social order of ancient Athens, to compass the infinite ramifica- tions of human knowledge and human relations. It is no longer possible for a master mind to reduce the tangled modern order to a clean-cut logical system as was done by Aquinas for the feudal order of the Middle Ages. Absolute law, absolute ethics, absolute authority, take on for men more and more the appearance of illusions. There is small room in such a world for infallible and final solutions for all the issues of life. The note of relativity is still further strength- ened by the conclusions of science. The great revolutionary principle of evolution, so utterly distasteful to the traditional religious imagina- tion, makes it impossible for men to accept an 244 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? eternally fixed body of doctrines, a faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is possible to retain the old idea of a static:God only by placing him outside the eternal flux as a sort of disinterested spectator so that he can escape the trail of the serpent of evolution which crept into our intel- lectual paradise in the middle of the last century. From another. source, and that least expected, namely, in physics and astronomy, the notion of relativity has gathered strength. That the bright realm of the stars should likewise be bathed in an eternal flux jars the pious imagination, for is not the firmament also the handiwork of ‘‘the Father of Lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning’’? The traditional religious imagination is singu- larly lost and unhappy in a world given over to the idea of change. This is due in part doubtless to traditional habits of thought. It may be due also to the felt necessity for a stable background for the realm of religious values. Values seem to be safer in the hands of a changeless deity. A world of values in eternal flux is a strain upon the imagination. It demands greater faith, more spiritual and moral adventurousness, than is pos- sessed by the average man or woman. It re- RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 245 quires an adjustment to an unaccountable ele- ment in experience. It assumes an element of contingency from which even the deity himself does. not escape. The conservative faces this element of relativity with the familiar dilemma ‘Coither the acceptance of an infallible body of truth revealed by an unchangeable God or else skepticism and the shipwreck of faith.’’ Com- promise is not possible. Roman Catholic and Protestant Fundamentalist thus join ‘‘the agnos- tic in destroying a partial faith in order that they may drive believers to seek the shelter of a whole one.’’ A second inference which would seem to follow from the discussion of the preceding chapters is that religion cannot be trusted as a principle of social control. The reason for this is obvious. Social control is becoming more and more a ques- tion of the accumulation of a body of exact sci- entific knowledge which is wisely and efficiently applied to social problems. If, as has been shown, religion deals primarily with symbols of the re- ligious imagination, it cannot be trusted either to gather, to evaluate, or to apply the exact knowl- edge demanded for problems of social direction and social control. It is hardly an accident that 246 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? the immediate, practical concerns of modern so- ciety are being more and more divorced from re- ligion. Since the rise of modern culture, that is since the close of the 17th century, this process of secularization has been rapid. The state, busi- ness, science, education, art, have all emancipated themselves from the control of religion. Perhaps the most thoroughly secularized and non-religious phase of modern life is business. This is undoubtedly due to the very real gap that exists between traditional religion and business, the most strenuously modern phase of life. Re- ligion deals with the fictions of the imagination, business with the hard facts of the market, the laws of the machine process and the axioms of common sense. To be sure, religion and economics were closely related in the past. Basic in the thought of the Physiocrats,” to whom Adam Smith owed much, was the idea of God working through nature as the only source of wealth. Traces of this religious background lingered with Adam Smith, who thought that the individualistic, competitive, and profit-actuated members of the economic order were harmonized by an ‘‘invisible 35 A school of French thinkers of the eighteenth century who taught that through obedience to natural laws men are to gain their highest well-being. RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 247 hand,’’ a shadowy remnant of the providential idea of the economic order taught by the Physio- erats. But it would be hard to find a less re- ligious book than Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, published in 1817. This book of three hundred pages, which dominated English thought for a half century and inspired a whole social and industrial philosophy, does not once mention the name of God. Out of the union of the inexorable economic Jaws of Malthus and Ricardo and the impersonal mechanical forces of the machine process in the industrial revolution was born the non-moral, non- religious Frankenstein, Modern Business, which has defied religion more effectively than any other phase of modern life. Leaders of business respect religion and are often deeply religious themselves, but the successful business man never confounds religion with business. The one is factual, presupposing a body of exact knowledge applied to concrete problems, while religion deals with fictions of the imagination which may have moral and religious inspirational value but can not be made the basis for an economic program. No vital concern of modern life in which there is a demand for a scientific mastery of fact and 248 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? a careful and unprejudiced application of tested knowledge to the problems concerned fails to suffer when controlled by religion. When great religious denominations prostitute their positions of honor and responsibility by waging an inquisi- torial campaign to eliminate the teaching of evo- lution from state-supported schools, they make re- ligion ridiculous. They create a situation in which, as at Dayton, Tennessee, the dignity and efficiency of the law, the facts of science and the values of education and religion become at once ~ obscured in a poisonous cloud of ignorant and truculent bigotry. The most shameful phase of the Dayton trial was its intellectual indecency. The explanation is clear. Religion from its very nature deals with beliefs, fictions of the religious imagination, which may serve to orient precious hopes, but which, by reason of their removal from the realm of fact and common sense, can never be made the basis of effective social control or social ethics. Evolution is a question of fact that | must be settled by scientifically trained men. But at the Dayton trial the issue was at once removed from the realm of fact to that of uncharted re- ligious beliefs. The Dayton trial settled nothing RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 249 unless it be the utter incompetence of religion as a principle of social control. In the third place it should be possible, in the light of the conclusions reached, to suggest the place and the function of religion in modern life. Religion belongs to the realm of ideals and values. Its affiliations are with poetry rather than with science or philosophy. The religious imagina- tion is akin to the poetic in that it is a free interpretation, or, if you please, a transfiguration of the hard world of factual reality. The re- ligious imagination, like the poetic, idealizes. The difference between the scientific and com- mon-sense way of looking at things and that of the poet or religious seer is well stated by Santayana: ‘‘If meditating on the moon I con- ceive her other side, or the aspect she would wear if I were traveling on her surface, or the position she would assume in relation to the earth if viewed from some other planet . . . my thinking, however fanciful, would be on the scientific plane. ... If on the other hand I say the moon is the sun’s sister, that she carries a silver bow, that she is a virgin and once looked lovingly on the sleep- - ing Endymion, only the fool never knew it, my 250 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? lucubration is mythical. ... The elements are incongruous and do not form one existence but two, the first sensible, the other only to be enacted dramatically, and having at best to the first the relation of an experience to its symbol.’’ * Now it is a fundamental trait of the religious imagination that it takes objects, persons, situa- tions, or events and turns them into symbols. They must undergo this transforming process be- fore they gain that universality and that eloquent spiritual appeal which the brute fact never has. The classical example of this is the transforma- tion by the Christian imagination of the Jesus of history into the Christ of religious worship. These great symbols of the religious imagination become in time weighted with moral values. They form a super-world in which the wrongs of this life are righted, the hideous failures made good, the shattered hopes realized. So powerful is the appeal of this super-world with its symbols of spiritual values distilled from brute reality, so congenial and human it is, so pulsating with hu- man hopes, so warm with the very life blood of the race that it becomes vested with a sense of 36 Life of Reason, III, 128. RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 251 reality that may even take precedence over the reality of the immediate world of brute fact. In simpler and less critical ages religion thus was able to assume a dictatorial position in so- ciety. Even in the Middle Ages theology was called the queen of the sciences. This is now no longer possible. Deeper psychological insight into the nature of the religious experience, a clearer grasp of fact and fiction, the sobering effect of a mass of scientifically tested fact, an understanding of the vastness of the universe and the limitations of the human mind have combined in creating a situation in which we are no longer deceived as to the essentially fictional character of the sym- bols of the religious imagination. What finally is the place of fact and fiction in the religion of the masses of men? A cross section of the religious life of the masses today, as in the past, will reveal the existence of what might be called a bookless religion. Few, indeed, in Prot- estant or Roman Catholic communions read and inform themselves on religious issues. Nota frac- tion of the members of a given church know what heresy is—or care. Very few can state the creeds of their churches. Only a minority follow the 252 WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY? squabbles of the theologians. This bookless ré- ligion of the masses has two poles. One is the im- mediate experiences of the religious values and the other is the traditional symbols by which these experiences are represented. These symbols are not criticized. The question is never debated as to whether they are logically consistent or harmo- nize with science. Galileo may overthrow the old earth-centered astronomy, Darwin may write his Origin of Species, or Kinstein may advance his theory of relativity, and the masses with their bookless religion go their way undisturbed. When the attention of the masses is called in some spectacular fashion, as in the Dayton trial, to a thesis of science such as evolution, these champions of a bookless religion decide invaria- bly in favor of the orthodox position, for they fear the new and the strange which they do not understand. They cannot fit these newfangled ideas into their old traditional set of religious symbols. It is only when the ideas of science and modern culture become embodied, through applied science or otherwise, in the prevailing ways of life, that they affect the thinking and feel- ing of the masses on religious matters. Tradi- tional religious symbols do in time become dis- RELIGION AND MODERN CULTURE 253 credited through the educative effect of altered ways of life. Of the masses of men, in religion as in other things, it is true that they live their way into their thinking; they do not think their way -into their living. ; eA 7 AS i a Sap fe ‘4 a ¥ Me deg | ne wa i a RR ae oy ay i aa ey, Le ne ii : ha kat ‘ i « vt ‘ t ‘ ; : : os Aw TS. Awe, te > Index Acton, Lord, Attitude toward Science, 11 Acts of the Apostles, 142 Ad Praxean, 98 note American Commonwealth, Bryce, 30 note Ames, Prof. Adelbert, Jr., 95 Anti-Christian Sociology, Rev. Wm. P. McCorkle, 15 note Apologetics, 168, 223 Apuleius, Metam., 155 Aristotle, 19, 243 Arius, 97, 196 Arnold, Matthew, 46 Athanasius, 98, 196 Augustine, Conversion of, 25 Bauer, 216 Benedict of Nursia, 66 Bergson, 235, 236, 239 Bible, fundamentalist fetish, 177, 178 Bollandist Fathers, 72 Bousset, 169 Bryan, William Jennings, and dogma, 77; and fundamen- talism, 27; greatest of all Klansmen, 8; ignorance of, 52; on education, 34; on evolution and the Bible, 180 Bryce, Lord, 29, 30 Burke, 225, 235 Caird, 226 Calvin, 179, 191, 201 Carlyle, 225 Catholicism, alien immigrants, 7; and the Inquisition, 178; attempt to suppress Mod- ernism, 224; dogmas of, 176, 82; joins with Fundamental- ism, 245; Lord Acton on Science, 11; medievalism of, 229; modernism and ortho- doxy, 35, 169; Roman spirit in, 235; also see Modernism Christ (see Jesus) Christianity, and Modern Cul- ture, 240; as pure myth, 205; basis of, 177, 188; central problem of, 168; compromises of, 196; four groups com- prising, 169; intolerance of traditional, 1938; Modernist definition of, 170; mythical character of, 217; of the masses, 197; oldest record of, 117; Pagan background of, 212, 216; proof of the origin of, 181; reasons for growth of, 219; What is it?, 168 Christianity and Liberalism, J. Gresham Machen, 56 note, 175 Christianity at the Cross- Roads, George Tyrrell, 224 Christ Myth, The, Drews, 217 Church, missionary motive of the early, 120; pragmatic needs of the early, 119 Common Law, The, Chief Jus- tice Holmes, 74 Controversies, 76, 98, 129, 168, 179, 201 Council of Nica, 97, 99, 196 Daniel, 128 Darwin (see Evolution) 255 256 Dayton, Tenn., science and the masses, 252; trial of evolu- tion at, 3, 248 Democracy, and Catholicism, 222; and religion, 30; power of mass opinion, 172; privi- leges’ of, 283. spiritual tyranny of, 33 Development of Christian Doc- trine, Cardinal Newman, 226 Docetists, 151 Dogmas, 76, 84, 85, 158; cen- tral, of Fundamentalism, 99; clash with Science, 85; decay of, 77, 84, 87; develop- ment of, 74, 82, 89; ideal system of, %75; Modernism and, 232; nature of, 81, 97, 101; origin of religious, 82, 134; tyranny of religious, 77 Education, and Fundamental- ism, 32, 39; centers of learn- ing, 31, 179, 180; Denomina- tional Schools, 41; in the South, 8, 13; State-sup- ported institutions, 31, 248; vs, Evolution, 4 Edwards, Jonathan, 19 Einstein, 252 Emerson, 81 Emmerich, Anne _ Catherine, mystical experiences of, 159 Emperor Worship, 143 Enigma of Jesus, The, Cou- choud, 125 note Evangelical Dilemma, The, J. R. Nixon, 201 Evolution, affiliation of Mod- ernism with, 226; and the Bible, 55, 180; and the masses, 252; clash’ with Dogma, 85; effect on doc- trines, 243; Fundamentalism vs., 17, 172; ignorant atti- tude toward, 9; in Modern- ism, 231; legislation against, INDEX 3, 97; on trial, 248; Origin of Species, Darwin, 252; Re- ligion vs., 13; theories of, and Genesis, 63; vs. Genesis, 102 Ezra, 128 Fictions, artistic, 95; dogmatic, 74; in science, 79; meaning of word, 94; not necessarily false, 63; of Genesis, 63, 68, 87; of history, 91; of Middle Ages, 92; of religion, 134, 242; varieties of, 64 Florida, religious legislation in, 4 Founding of New England, The, J. T. Adams, 21 note France, homeland of Modern- ism, 223; religious conflict in, 34 Fundamentalism, and the mod- ern spirit, 88; belief in Christ, 175; Bible a fetish in, 58, 68, 178; Catholicism joins with, 245; challenge of, 3, 11, 189; dangers of, 33, 34, 40; definition of, 5; de- mands a “show-down,” 195; effect of supernaturalism in, 177; effect of war on, 192; “Kither-or” of, 178, 200; endangers integrity of re- ligion, 186; helplessness of, 171; history of, 17; incon- sistency regarding miracle, 174; intolerance of, 193; kin- ship to Liberalism, 203; men- tal, stereotypes of, 17a methods of, 8; ‘“Monkey- bills,” 39, 75; origin of dogmas of, 83, 99; real men- ace to, 2538; revivals, 23; scope of controversy, 168; similarity to Ku Klux Klan, 6, 8; sin against nation, 32; strongholds of, 7; value of evolution, 87; vs. Science, 11, INDEX 13, 52, 200; weakness of, 204, 236; Wm. Jennings Bryan and, 8, 27 Galileo, and Inquisition, 178; clash with dogma, 12, 85, 252 Genesis, creation story of, 102, 107; fictions of, 10, 87; the- ories of, and evolution, 63, 102 Gods, ancient, 91, 111, 145, 149, 183, 211, 212, 220 Gospel and the Church, The, Loisy, 67 note, 223 Gospels, The Four, 118; apolo- getics of, 132; character of Jesus in, 122, 182; essence of Christianity in, 190; fulfill- ment of prophecy, 183; God- man portrayed in, 218; legends of the, 84; miracle in the, 130; purpose of the, 119, 121 Hadrian’s Rescript an Minicius Fundanus, 144 note Harnack, Prof. Adolf, 100, 169, 170, 190, 199 Hegel, 19, 216, 226, 235, 236, 238 Heresy, 49, 98; Docetists, 151; ignorance of, 251; of Galileo, 86 Hibbert Journal, 183 Historicity of Jesus, The, Case, 208 ‘History of Dogma, Harnack, 100 note History of European Morals, Lecky, 25 note History of Religion in the United States, H. K. Rowe, 22 note Hobbes, 57 Holmes, Chief Justice, 74, 100 Hutchinson, John, 179 257 Ignorance, cause of anti-evolu- tion crusade, 53 Imagination, biological theory of, 58; dangers of, in re- ligion, 61; deification of Jesus, 137; dilemma of re- ligious, 89; examination of religious, 106; fictions of re- ligious, 93, 97, 103, 205; func- tions of the, 62; fundamental trait of religious, 250; Jesus in the religious, 78, 110, 115, 122, 125, 127, 134; John’s mystical, 152, 159; origin of religious, 65; Paul’s’ con- tribution to religious, 115, 116, 141, 148; problem of religious, 67, 90; religious, of Middle Ages, 201; results of religious, 221; supreme role of the, 125; symbols of religious, 53, 69, 72, 106, 174; traditional religious, 244; types of, 63, 64; value of human, 57; weakness of Fundamentalist, 173 Inquisition, 178 Irenzus, 77 Isaiah, 134 James, William, 226, 235 Jesus, actual knowledge of, 110; cult among pre-Chris- tian Jews, 218; description of, by Paul, 115, 142; dogmas regarding, 75, 76, 84; dual personality of, 109, 164; dwindling figure of, 201; early opinions regarding, 111, 112, 113; enigma of, 123, 164, 207; failure to prove Messiahship, 131; Farewell Supper of, 160; Fundamentalist picture of, 175, 176; Gospel picture of, 119, 122, 132; historicity of, 108, 220; idealization of, 258 186, 165; in the religious imagination, 110, 115, 122, 125; John’s picture of, 152, 159, 161; Liberal and Funda- mentalist opinions of, 199, 205; “Lord of glory,” 139; Messiahship of, 127; miracles of, 180; modern controversy about, 169; mystery of his life, 122; non-Christian ref- erences to, 112; or Christ, 108, 110; Paul’s letters, 113; prophecies and fulfillment, 134; religious importance of, 110; second coming of, 128; Sermon on the Mount, 66; “Son of Man,” the, 125, 138; symbol of the ascension, 93; theories regarding, 207; triple personality, in mod- ern religion, 176; “Word be- came flesh,” the, 151 Jews, historical picture of Jehovah, 197; Jesus-god cult among, 218; tradition and prophecy, 135, 138 John, deity of Jesus in gospel of, 118, 129, 160; Logos of, 201; mysticism of, 152, 158, 159; realism of Jesus’ pic- ture, 152, 158; _ religious imagination of, 221 Josephus, on Jesus, 111 Journal of Social Forces, 15 note Kant, 19 Kentucky, religious legislation in, 4 Ku Klux Klan, methods of, 8; similarity to Fundamental- ism, 6, 8; strongholds of, 73 William Jennings Bryan and the, 8 Ku Klux Klan, The, Mecklin, 7 note INDEX Kurios Christos, W. ‘Bousset, 138 note Laws, against evolution, 3; Florida, 4; Kentucky, 4; North Carolina, 5, 18; South Carolina, 4; Tennessee, 3, 28 Legends, 72, 108, 184 Lex Orandi, George Tyrrell, 224 Liberalism, aims of, 189, 196; and science, 169, 197, 200; characteristics of, 192; criti- cism of, 195; danger to Christianity in, 201, 202; ef- fect of war on, 192; handi- caps of, 194; kinship with Fundamentalism, 203; nega- tive effect of, 206; origin of, 189, 190; religion restricted by, 202; search for Jesus, 175, 176, 199; weakness of, 204, 236; what it is, 186; world’s debt to, 191 Liberty, religious, 50 Life of Reason, Santayana, 250 Locke, 19 Loisy, 66, 182, 223, 225, 287; excommunication of, 224 Luke, 93, 118, 119, 129, 142 Luther, 96, 191, 201 Macaulay, Lord, 23 Malthus, 247 Mark, 118, 119, 129, 142 Matthew, 118, 129, 134 Medievalism, 229 Medievalism: A Reply to Cardinal Mercier, George Tyrrell, 224 Mencken, H. L., 5 Mind, action of the, 58, 59 Ministerial Association of Charlotte, N. C., ten resolu- tions of, 13 Ministers, number and _ in- INDEX fluence of, 40; qualifications of, 45, 48 Miracles, 130, 161, 173, 174 Modern Business, origin of, 247 Modern Culture, 171, 240 Modernism, Catholic, 169, 170; aims of, 189; attempted sup- pression of, 224; attitude toward dogmas, 88, 232; creed of, 230; evolution in, 231; Fundamentalism vs., 55; homeland of, 223; lead- ers in, 223, 226, 235; nature of, 189, 225; Science and, 226, 233; superiority of, 236; Tyrrell’s theories, 238; ulti- mate fact in religion of, 228; weaknesses of, 234; Protes- tant, 169, 170 Modernism, Paul Sabatier, 224 Monarchians, 98 “Monkey-bills,” 39, 75 Morley, Lord, 47 Mystery-cults, ancient, 208, 219 Mystery Religions and Chris- tianity, The, Angus, 210 Mysticism, 158, 159 Mystic Way, The, Underhill, 153 note Myth, 72, 83, 169; Christianity as, 205 Napoleon, 57, 61 Newman, Cardinal, 231, 238 Newton, 107 Nicene Creed, 76, 196 North Carolina, and evolution, 13; religious legislation in, 5 170, 226, Obscurantism, 37 On Compromise, John Morley, 48 note Origin of Species, Darwin, 252 Orthodoxy, and modern culture, 259 78; and the masses, 252; by legislation, 3; in politics, 12; Protestant, 169; retreat from tradition, 181 Paul, as theologian, 149; con- version and development of, 25, 141; doctrines of, 75, 84, 139, 150; faith of, 140; Jesus- cult in teaching of, 218; letters of, 113, 147; Lord Jesus of, 115, 142, 201; re- sult of religious imagination of, 221; spokesman of gen- tiles, 139; visions of; 70 Paul V, Pope, 178 Physiocrats, 246 Pius X, Pope, 224, 235 Plato, 82, 172 Pliny the Younger, 112, 144 Pluralistic Mystic, A, William James, 167 note Plutarch, Lives, 73, 220 Politics, religion in, 8, 12 Presbyterian of the South, The, 10 note Primitive Religion, character- istics of, 66 Principles of Political Econ- omy and Taxation, Ricardo, 247 Prophecy and Fulfillment, 135 Protestantism, in Germany, 190, 191; Liberalism and orthodoxy, 169; also see Lib- eralism Psalms, 134 Public Opinion, Lippmann, 172 Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer, 182, 199 Realities, religious, 104, 105; symbols and, 101 Reason, in religious experi- ence, 67 260 Religion, absolutism of, 243; and business, 247; and Mod- ern Culture, 240, 249, 251; dictatorial position of, 251; fictions of, 242; not a prin- ciple of social control, 245; responsibility of, 241; usurped authority of, 241 Religious Imagination (see Imagination) Revivalism, 23, 25, 128, 150 Ribot, 64 Ricardo, 247 Ritschl, 191 Romanticisme utilitaire, Berthelot, 236 Rousseau, 64 Un, Santayana, 249 Schleiermacher, 191 Science, and religion, 67, 173, 179, 197, 233; and the masses, 252; Fundamentalism vs., 11; Ignorance vs., 9; in denomi- national schools, 41; in- herited authority of, 186; Lord Acton on, 11; “make- believes” in, 79; symbols used in, 69 Secularization, modern, 246 Shakespeare, 239 Shelley, 62, 103 Smith, Adam, 83, 246 Smith, Prof. W. B., 217 Socrates, 46 South Carolina, religious legis- lation in, 4 Spencer, Herbert, 225, 235 State and the Church, The, Ryan and Millar, 223 INDEX Strauss, 216 Suetonius, 113 Supernaturalism, Biblical, 173; in Fundamentalist _ belief, 177 Symbols, and reality, 101; his- torical, 73; of Genesis, 92; religious, 101, 185, 252; stereotyped, 172; value of, 71 Tacitus, Annals, 113 Tennessee, cause of anti-evolu- tion law, 97; evolution trial at Dayton, 248; religious laws of, 3. Tertullian, 98 Theological America, note Theology, birth of Christian, 121 Thomas Aquinas, 243 Tocqueville, de, 33 Tyranny, of religion, 12; of religious dogma, 77 Tyrrell, George, 223, 225, 228, 229, 235, 236, 238 Education im R. L. Kelly, 42 Vierte Hvangelum, Schmiedel, 163 Voltaire, 17 Das, Wesley, John, 180 Westminster Confession, 196 What is Christianity?, Har- nack, 199 Winchell, Prof. Alexander, 180 * | RY a he es A iy iy. te 4 many? Ff 11012 01018 1