SHALL WE HAVE A. CREED? E. Hersury SNEATH THE CENTURY CO. NEW YORK AND LONDON Kin OF PRINGE % ual (27 ae io “x, 5 LOL og ign ge eit SRSAG Rs ENS sy Tee | sneath, Elias Hershey, 1857- eA ee | Shall we have a creed? | SHALL WE HAVE A CREED? Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https ://archive.org/details/shallwehavecreed00snea QR CE UACE > / WV < A SHALL WE Ha¥ A CREED? / BY E. HERSHEY \GNEATH, Pu.D., LL.D. PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION, YALE UNIVERSITY THE CENTURY CO. New York & London Copyright, 1925, by THE CENTURY CO. PRINTED IN U. 8. A. THE VAIL-BALLOU PRESS BINGHAMTON AND NEW YORK PREFACE This book embodies the substance of an address delivered by the under- signed, as President of the Theological Society, before that organization at its last annual meeting in New York. The address was repeated before the Convocation of the Divinity School of ‘Yale University held in April, 1925. A number of those who heard it have expressed a wish that it might reach a larger audience through publication. The author has complied with their re- quest, earnestly hoping that it may be of some service to the Christian Church in this period of controversy and strife. E. HersHrty SNEATH. New Haven, Connecticut, August, 1925. CONTENTS OHAPTER PAGE I Reticiovs VaLtures—IlIuHE CREED . 3 II Arcuments IN Favor oFf THE Ciera pera 1h LT a TN | Be A ACT A III Ossections To THE Creep. . 24 IV Tue Destrapiuiry or A CrEED . 46 V ToxeraTion anp Unity . . . 68 SHALL WE Haves A CREED? SHALL WE HAVE A CREED? CHAPTER I RELIGIOUS VALUES.—THE CREED note a pathos bordering on tragedy in the inestimable loss to the race due to a failure to develop a true sense of values. We are creatures of inher- |: reviewing the history of man we itance and are governed largely by its authority, often accepting what it gives with little or no reflective consideration of its worth. ‘This is so in practically every department of life. In the social sphere we are born into society the in- [3] Shall We Have a Creed? teraction of whose members is largely determined by customs handed down from one generation to another and which, as a rule, are received without earnest inquiry into either their intrinsic or relative value. In the political realm we are born under government, the form of which the average individual unreflectively and unhesitatingly ac- cepts. If it be a republic, well and good. If it be a monarchy, well and good. Occasionally there are rebellions and revolutions, based upon independ- ent thought, but on the whole, certain forms of government have endured for centuries, receiving loyal support hav- ing no foundation in thoughtful esti- mates of their merits on the part of their subjects. In religion, the sphere of [4] Religious Values—The Creed supreme values, the same attitude is manifest. We are Buddhists, Chris- tians or Mohammedans by inheritance. We were, so to speak, born into one of these religions, and accept it quite gen- erally on the authority of that inherit- ance. Reason, on the whole, plays very little part in the acceptance of religious beliefs and in the development of re- ligious loyalty. And, what is true of the great religions, is true with refer- ence to sectarian interpretations of a religion. In the United States the Christian Church is divided into 186 sects, originally based on a difference in conceptions of worth. But, so far as the adherents of these denominations to-day are concerned, they, in general, accept the evaluation of their forbears [5] Shall We Have a Creed? with little or no rational questioning. Here, too, there are exceptions, but a careful examination will reveal the fact that these exceptions merely prove the rule. Now, inheritance in the social, politi- cal, and religious spheres is undoubtedly a good. Progress were impossible without it, and a proper regard for its authority, as based often on centuries of experience, is obligatory upon us. But an unconsidered and unevaluated acceptance of it has been, and is to-day, a serious loss to progress. It has often resulted in disregarding higher values for lower ones, and in perpetuating the accepted supremacy of the latter. This is especially true within the sphere of religion. In some instances our ances- [6] Religious Values—The Creed tors have had a mistaken sense of val- ues and many of their offspring have blindly accepted their conceptions and closed their eyes to higher worths within this sacred sphere. Because of the im- portance and sanctity of the subject, and the almost instinctive veneration that we have for the authority of age, any attempt at modification of, or sub- stitution for, these evaluations is often viewed with disfavor and frequently at- tended by persecution. ‘The history of religious martyrdom is a striking testi- mony to the truthfulness of this state- ment, and the less brutal, but cruel ani- mosity that, throughout the history of religion, especially of the Christian re- ligion, has attended a departure from generally accepted estimates, corrobo- [7] Shall We Have a Creed? rates it. There is really no more vital question and no more sacred and im- perative obligation confronting the Church to-day than that of determining the real value of the recognized religious values, and, by a comparative study of them, ascertaining what is the supreme essential of our religion. ‘There are those who emphasize the intellectual worths. With them religion is prima- rily an intellectual belief—an accept- ance of dogma or creed. There are oth- ers who stress mystical experience. Re- ligion is primarily something subjective, experiential, an inner life in which the soul immediately apprehends and com- munes with God. Still others empha- size what may be broadly characterized as the esthetic factors in religion—the [8] Religious Values—The Creed aspects of worship. ‘Then there are those who lay great stress on the ethical element. With them the very heart of religion is righteousness—individual and social. The supreme objective is the establishment of the kingdom of righteousness in the world. As men usually act on the basis of these evalua- tions, it is quite apparent that most of our difficulties in the Church are the outgrowth of a failure to determine properly spiritual worths. It is not our purpose to deal with this subject in its entirety, but to treat merely one form of the intellectual values of re- ligion—the so-called creed. It has played a conspicuous part in the history of the Church. About it some of the fiercest controversies have raged, and it [9] Shall We Have a Creed? has been responsible for some of our most serious divisions. Its power does not seem to be on the wane to any con- siderable extent. Here and there a few individuals or groups may free them- selves from its fetters; but, on the whole, the millions who constitute our Church membership to-day are dom- inated by a creed so far as their reli- gious belief is concerned, and its sup- posed sacredness and infallibility are still guarded with zealous care. It seems to the writer that the discussion of this subject is especially opportune at this time in view of the widespread disturbance within the borders of the Church which is undoubtedly due pri- marily to a failure on the part of many to estimate properly the creed. [10] CHAPTER II ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE CREED ECALLING Spinoza’s sage R remark, that “all definition is perilous,” we may proceed cau- tiously to define a creed as a formal statement of beliefs on the part of some authorized individual or body of indi- viduals acceptance of which is supposed to be essential to the Church’s welfare or the salvation of the individual. With this definition, an impartial evaluation of it may be attempted. In reviewing the literature of creed and dogma, espe- cially such works as those of Dunlop, [11] Shall We Have a Creed? Swainson, Hahn, Hoefling, Mohler, Schaff, Burn, Green, Winer, and later works such as those of Curtis and Skrine, as well as the standard works in Christian Dogmatics and the His- tory of Doctrine, we are presented with practically all that can be said in favor of the creed. These claims may be briefly stated as follows:— First, it is urged that a creed is help- ful because, by stating what is deemed to be essential Christian truth, it differ- entiates Christianity from other reli- gions. Indeed! this is given by some as the first raison d’étre of the creed. It aimed to distinguish Christianity from Judaism and other religions of the time. In the same way it may be con- ceived of as helpful today, especially in [12] Arguments in Favor of the Creed missionary lands, to point out to those whom we would convert the likenesses and differences of the teachings of Christianity and those of Buddhism, Mohammedanism, Confucianism, etc. Thus the creed subserves a very useful purpose in Christian propaganda. Again, it is claimed that within the Christian Church itself a creed is help- ful in enabling Christians to distinguish between truth and error, orthodoxy and heterodoxy, as they relate to Christian belief. All along the line of the devel- opment of the Church there have been deviations from what is supposed by many to be the essential truth of the Christian religion. It is thought that the standardizing of belief tends to pre- vent such departures. [13] Shall We Have a Creed? Furthermore, since differences of opinion and belief with reference to re- ligious truth have arisen within the Church itself, giving rise to many reli- gious sects, creeds are helpful in differ- entiating these sects from one another. We are thus enabled to distinguish Protestant from Catholic, Presbyterian from Lutheran, Methodist from Epis- copalian, ete. Still another claim that is made for the creed is that, being a definite state- ment of the content of belief, it makes for clearness of spiritual conception, which, in turn, makes for more or less definite purpose and action. When there is no creed there is often a nebu- losity of mind with reference to things religious—a wandering in clouds or [14] Arguments in Favor of the Creed darkness. This inhibits religious ac- tivity. Conduct in this sphere, like conduct in other spheres, depends for its efficiency not only on conception and belief, but on their clearness and definiteness. Faith needs to be more or less centred. A creed facilitates this. Many can sympathize with Ten- nyson in his plea for, and semi- justification of, this definiteness or focusing of faith when, in one of the cantos of In Memoriam, he says: “QO thou that after toil and storm Mayst seem to have reach’d a purer air, Whose faith has centre everywhere, Nor cares to fix itself to form, “Leave thou thy sister when she prays Her early Heaven, her happy views; [15] Shall We Have a Creed? Nor thou with shadow’d hint confuse A life that leads melodious days. “Her faith thro’ form is pure as thine, Her hands are quicker unto good: Oh, sacred be the flesh and blood To which she links a truth divine! “See thou, that countest reason ripe In holding by the law within, Thou fail not in a world of sin, And ev’n for want of such a type.” We have a true psychology here. There is, undoubtedly, on the part of many a desire to articulate belief as an aid to faith and conduct. With them it cannot have ‘“‘centre everywhere.” It must be focused. What Van Oosterzee says of dogma is affirmed of the creed, viz.: that it is a psychological necessity. [16] Arguments in Favor of the Creed “No one can do without it, since every- one seeks for a more or less formulated expression of his holiest convictions.” Another argument in favor of a creed and one that comes with a good deal of force is, that organization is really nec- essary for the progress of Christianity. Organized, systematized effort is much more effective than its opposite. Lack of organization results in much unnec- essary repetition and waste of effort. The creed, like the constitution of a civil state, furnishes an excellent basis for religious organization. Like the civil constitution it also proves to be a tie binding its members together in unity, and, as the old adage truthfully affirms: “In union there is strength.” Closely related to the reason for the [17] Shall We Have a Creed? creed just presented, is another, viz: A failure to render religious belief definite is often the cause of doubt and skepti- cism. It is frequently said, religious truth is too vague, too boundless, too nebulous, to merit serious consideration ; and indifference, skepticism and some- times atheism are the fruits of this sense of religious vagueness. A creed, by its definiteness of statement, in a measure helps to curb this tendency. Furthermore, it is urged that a creed is confession, and, according to the an- cient saying, “Confession is good for the soul.” Professor James, in _ his Varieties of Religious Haperience, says that confession is present in most religions. ‘There is a desire on the part [18] Arguments in Favor of the Creed of the soul to confess. Some think there is an element of “cleansing” in it, and, therefore, confess their belief. The late Dr. Schaff, in his Creeds of Christendom, says that there is not only a desire to publicly confess, but that it is a duty to do so. “Faith,” he says, “like all strong conviction, has a desire to utter itself before others—‘Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh’; ‘I believe, therefore I con- fess’ (Credo, ergo confiteor). ‘There is also an express duty, when we are re- ceived into the membership of the Chris- tian Church, and on every proper occa- sion, to profess the faith within us, to make ourselves known as followers of Christ, and to lead others to Him by the [19] Shall We Have a Creed? influence of our testimony.”+? ‘The creed, in the judgment of its framers and of those whom they represent, ex- presses the very essence of Christian truth. Acceptance of it is regarded by many as essential to salvation, and such acceptance in their judgment involves confession of it before others. Again, it is claimed that a creed sub- serves a very useful purpose in religious education. It articulates and systema- tizes the cardinal doctrines of the Bible and thus facilitates instruction in the basic truths of the Christian religion. It makes the fundamentals of faith more easily understandable for the av- erage adult and can be framed in cate- 1The Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, Vol. I, p. 4. [20] Arguments in Favor of the Creed chetical form so as to become a very helpful means in the religious educa- tion of children. This is illustrated in Luther’s small Catechism, and the Heidelberg and Westminster Cate- chisms. Furthermore, by systematiz- ing and rendering definite and objective the essential content of Christian faith, it makes it much more intelligible and tends to relieve it of a vague and shal- low subjectivism. This makes for sci- entific religious education which, in turn, makes for genuine spiritual growth. Finally, it may be said in behalf of the creed that it is helpful in Christian worship. Worship is an essential part of religion. It is almost omnipresent in its history. ‘The creed may be, and [21] Shall We Have a Creed? is, utilized in Christian worship, as, for example, the use of the Athanasian Creed in the worship of the Latin Church in the Middle Ages, and later of the Apostles’ Creed in the Lutheran and Episcopal Church service. There is often something very inspiring and spiritually strengthening in the concer- ted confession of religious belief. It is similar to the exalted feeling that pos- sesses the real patriot when he joins in singing the national anthem expressive of his political sentiments. These are the arguments in favor of the creed as they may be gathered from such works as we have cited, especially those of Dunlop and Schaff. Con- temporaneous thought in its advocacy of the creed, or in the justification of [22] Arguments in Favor of the Creed dogma, really contributes nothing ad- ditional. ‘There is truth and force in every one of these arguments; most of them are well grounded psychologically, and, taken as a whole, they constitute a strong case in favor of thus standard- izing religious belief. However, there is another side to the question. Creeds are open to very serious objections, and, before forming a judgment as to their desirability, these objections should be carefully considered. [23] CHAPTER III OBJECTIONS TO THE CREED REVIEW of the literature on A creeds referred to reveals the following objections: First, of course, is the old one, that, as a rule, creeds substitute authority for freedom, especially as it relates to the interpreta- tion of Scripture and the validity of dogma. This makes against progress and interferes with the sacred rights of the spirit of man. It makes for nar- rowness and intolerance, for tyranny and persecution. In the earlier creeds, such as the Athanasian and the Decrees [24] Objections to the Creed of the Council of Trent, those who dis- sent are anathematized. Indeed, a double curse upon dissenters consti- tuted the final act of this famous Coun- cil. We hardly fare any better in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Here the civil magistrate is invested with authority, and it is his duty to suppress “all blasphemies and heresies” (Ch. XXIII, 8). And in the present controversy between the so-called Fun- damentalist and Modernist we discover much of the same spirit of narrowness and intolerance. As we review the his- tory of the Church we note that bitter persecution and even death have fol- lowed in the wake of the creed. ‘This substitution of authority for the free- dom of private judgment and the free- [25] Shall We Have a Creed? dom of conscience in regard to religious belief not only obstructs progress within the Church, but it is a menace to prog- ress in the field of Science. Regarding the Bible as infallible, and the creed’s interpretation of it as essentially cor- rect, its advocates sometimes oppose the teaching of Science on questions relat- ing especially to Cosmology, Biology, and Anthropology when this teaching runs counter to that of the interpreta- tion of the Scriptures represented by the creed. The opposition to Science and the persecution of sincere inquirers after truth on the part of those who slavishly adhere to a religious creed form a dark page in history, and con- stitute one of the most serious objec- tions to the adoption of a creed. [26] Objections to the Creed In the second place, the objection is urged that the creed is, in a large meas- ure, responsible for destroying the unity of the Church. We have said, in con- sidering the arguments in its favor, that, like the constitution of the civil state, it is a “bond of union”; but it also proves to be the means of creating serious di- visions within the Christian fold. And, as “in union there is strength,” so in di- vision there is often weakness. It is productive of confusion, mutual antag- onisms, persecution, and waste. Strong men will assert their right to private judgment, and, when the exercise of this results in the development of views and convictions that run counter to the creed, if these views seem sufficiently vital and the convictions be sufficiently [27] Shall We Have a Creed? strong, these men proclaim them and soon find a following. Not infre- quently this results in establishing a re- ligious sect, which in turn adopts an- other creed—usually a modification of the one previously accepted. Of course all religious sects do not originate in this way. As Professor McComas has pointed out, in his Psychology of Reli- gious Sects, racial and national, social and political conditions are often pri- marily responsible for them. Dziffer- ences of conception of Church adminis- tration constitute another source of the rise of religious sects. But, of the nu- merous Christian sects, a considerable number owe their origin primarily to differences of conviction with reference to certain theological beliefs embodied [28] Objections to the Creed in a previously accepted creed. This seems to be largely true of the Protes- tant sects immediately following the Reformation,x—the Lutheran, Zwin- glian, Reformed, Anglican, and Presby- terian. Even in many of those sects whose origin was not primarily due to differences in doctrinal beliefs, we find these creedal differences reflected and constituting an obstacle to united Chris- tian effort and genuine progress. Another objection, closely related to the one just considered is, that sectarian creeds interfere with Christian propa- ganda. Missionaries complain that they are greatly hindered in their work by creedal differences. They make for confusion. ‘Those whom the missionary would convert find it difficult, if not, [29] Shall We Have a Creed? indeed, impossible, to determine which sect really represents Christian truth, and ofttimes very naturally take an unfavorable attitude toward Christian- ity because of radical differences in the various creeds. Thus missionary work suffers. -It suffers, also, more or less from the lack of united effort, compe- tition and waste that are characteristic of sectarianism in Christian countries. Indeed, creedal divisions constitute one of the most serious handicaps under which the Christian missionary labors. Again, it is objected, that the creed often causes a reaction in the form of indifference, skepticism and infidelity. Dunlop, in his Collection of Confes- sions of the Church of Scotland, pub- lished more than a hundred years ago, [30] Objections to the Creed deals with this objection. If it called for consideration then, it certainly does so now when a greater tendency to exer- cise the right of private judgment exists, and when more sectarian creeds abound. With a wide diversity of theological opinions expressed in creeds, which opinions are often contradictory, it not infrequently occurs that the would-be believer is led almost to distraction and then to disgust resulting in indifference to things religious. “If good, earnest, intelligent people,” he says, “differ so widely in their judgment in regard to religious truth, and great ecclesiastical organizations condemn the teachings of one another, what is the ordinary mor- tal to do?” Indifference, agnosticism, or atheism results in many cases. Men [31] Shall We Have a Creed? and women are sometimes led to ask al- most as disdainfully and ironically as did Pilate: ‘What is truth?’ Read such standard works on the History of Christian Doctrine as those of Hagen- bach, Shedd, and Harnack, or the later volumes of Sheldon, Fisher, Seeberg, and Loofs, and note the conflict of opinion all along the line of the develop- ment of ‘Christian thought. The intel- ligent layman sees in this development “eonfusion worse confounded.’ Note, also, the difference and conflict of opin- ion to-day. Are we any nearer an agreement in our systems of dogma, sometimes summarized and made au- thoritative by the creed, than men of preceding centuries? Does the Ro- man Catholic represent the truth? [32] Objections to the Creed The Protestant says, “No!” Does the Trinitarian represent the truth? The Unitarian says, “No!” Does the Pres- byterian, with his Westminster inherit- ance, represent the truth? The Mod- ernist says, “No!” Does the Anglo- Catholic represent the truth? The av- erage American Episcopalian says, “No!” Does Christian Science repre- sent the truth? Scores of Christian de- nominations say, “No!” Well, then, replies your earnest, intelligent layman seeking after truth in this sacred sphere, “What is truth?” It is easily under- stood how such differences and conflict of thought and belief in our theologies and creeds are creative of doubt, indif- ference, agnosticism, and sometimes of atheism. ‘This is, indeed, one of the [33] Shall We Have a Creed? serious’ evils with which the Church must reckon. We have, of course, sim- ilar differences and conflicts in other spheres of thought and belief, but they do not clothe themselves with the sa- cred authority and power of the reli- gious creed, hence we can adjust our- selves more easily to them. Still another objection may be urged against the creed—one that, in the writ- er’s judgment, has not been sufficiently dealt with. It is its frequent lack of a true sense of values as these relate to the means for realizing the great end of the Christian religion. According to the teachings of Jesus, the real aim of our religion is the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the world and this Kingdom is a Kingdom of Righteous- [34] Objections to the Creed ness. The moral values, in other words, are the supreme values of life, and salvation means a realization of these transcendent worths. Now, in some instances, we find acceptance of the creed as a whole, and in others accept- ance, at least, of certain articles, af- firmed as necessary for salvation. Non- acceptance of them means the eternal loss of the soul. For example, take the Athanasian Creed. It was not only authoritative in the Latin Church in the Middle Ages, but later it was re- garded by Protestants with great re- spect. Dr. Schaff says, “It was for- mally adopted by the Lutheran and several of the Reformed Churches, and is approvingly mentioned in the Augs- burg Confession, the Form of Concord, [35] Shall We Have a Creed? the Thirty-nine Articles, the Second Helvetic, the Belgic, and the Bohemian Confessions’’; * and only fifty years ago it figured in the service of the Church of England on certain festival days.’ This historic and influential creed opens with the words: 1. “Whosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold the Cath- olic Faith; 2. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” This creed, acceptance of which in its totality is affirmed to be absolutely es- sential for salvation, embodies a meta- 1The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I, p. 40. 2Tbid., p. 41. 3Ibid., Vol. II, p. 66. [36] Objections to the Creed physical doctrine of the Trinity, which seems almost to involve a contradiction; also doctrines of the incarnation, Christ’s descent into Hades, his resurrection and ascension, his second coming, the bodily resurrection of the dead, the immortal reward of the good, and the penalty of everlasting fire for the evil. According to its conception of the essential condi- tions of salvation, Unitarians, Univers salists, many Congregationalists, many, if not all, Modernists will have to burn everlastingly. Now, if the end of the Christian religion be the attainment of righteousness, will anyone, believer or nonbeliever in, for example, this meta- physical conception of the Godhead, tell us just how such a belief conditions the attainment of righteousness—that is, of [37] Shall We Have a Creed? salvation—more than belief in a per- sonal God of righteousness not pos- sessed of this triune nature? How does it make one more honest, more truthful, more just, more pure, more loving? In other words, just how much more does the Trinitarian rather than the Uni- tarian view of the Godhead make for what Jesus expressed to be the whole sum of man’s duty; or of what is nec- essary to inherit eternal life: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself’? A man who does this is saved according to both Christian and philosophical eth- ics, for he realizes in his own life the highest values, and what higher salva- [38] Objections to the Creed tion is there than this?) The same ques- tion might be asked in regard to other articles of this famous creed. In what respect does belief in bodily resurrec- tion enable one better to love God with all his heart and his neighbor as him- self, than belief in personal immortality without such bodily resurrection? And why should one who believes in the immortality of the soul, but not in the resurrection of the literal body, be “morally” penalized in the form of be- ing compelled everlastingly to burn in the fiery pit? Fortunately, most of our Church creeds do not take the ex- treme position of the Athanasian Creed in making acceptance of its articles ab- solutely necessary for salvation. But many of them, while not taking this ex- [39] Shall We Have a Creed? treme attitude, seem to be guilty of a mistaken sense of religious values in an- other way. They raise the intellectual values above the moral values of reli- gion. Some Trinitarian churches will hardly admit to membership men and women of the Unitarian faith, no mat- ter how morally upright they may be. With them such rare personages as Channing, Emerson, Samuel Long- fellow, James Freeman Clarke, Ed- ward Everett Hale and others, were they living to-day, would have to be ex- cluded from the fold, no matter how consecrated to the cause of righteous- ness they might be. Our Presbyterian brethren are loath to admit to the min- istry, if, indeed, they will admit him at all, one who will not subscribe to some [40] Objections to the Creed of the more fundamental articles of the Westminster Catechism. He may be orthodox in character and conduct, but he is not regarded as such in doctrinal belief, hence he must not be given the right hand of ministerial fellowship, and must be denied the privileges to la- bor for the Kingdom of God in connec- tion with this communion that are to be accorded to those who believe in orig- inal sin, predestination, the second ad- vent, the resurrection of the body, and other doctrines, some of which, at least, many honest minds and righteous souls find it difficult, if not, indeed, impossi- ble to accept. One cannot be admitted to membership in many Baptist churches who does not believe in and con- form to their requirements in regard [41] Shall We Have a Creed? to baptism. The respective churches of this denomination may not have a formal creed, but the views of this sac- rament that some of them require for admission to church membership are in reality a creed. One may be the most righteous man in the community and yet, unless he subscribes to these views, he will be denied by some of the churches of this denomination the aid to righteousness that may be received through churchly intercourse and spir- itual fellowship with the excellent peo- ple who constitute the membership of many of the churches of this large and influential organization, because he is regarded a heretic in his belief and con- duct as they relate to the sacrament of baptism. But our friends of the de- [42] Objections to the Creed nominations referred to above are not alone in this unfortunate exaltation of theological or doctrinal values above — the moral values of our religion. It would, undoubtedly, be impossible for many so-called Modernists, no matter how consecrated to the cause of righteousness they may be, to gain ad- mission to membership in such organ- izations as the Episcopal, Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, and many other evangelical churches. The difficulty relates to our conception of worths. There is an over-valuation here of intel- * lectual belief in the religious life. This excessive evaluation has been and is responsible for much of the hostility toward the creed. It is claimed that, although theoretically these churches [ 43 ] Shall We Have a Creed? do not always subordinate the moral to the intellectual values of religion, they do so practically. Righteousness, it is urged, is the supreme essential in the Christian life, and this may be attained just as well, if not, indeed, better by re- jecting a creed that affirms that all men sinned in Adam; that from all Eternity God ordained some to be saved and others to be damned; that embodies ex- treme views of the sacraments; that re- quires acceptance of certain eschatologi- cal views—views of the resurrection, judgment and destiny that seem to be almost an insult to both God and Man; and other objectionable affirmations and requirements. So that, in this defective sense of values, the creed often proves [44] Objections to the Creed to be a hindrance rather than an aid to religious progress. These are the main objections that have been urged against the creed. They are, indeed, formidable in their character. When we compare them with the arguments in favor of it what are we to say in regard to its desirabil- ity ? [45] CHAPTER IV THE DESIRABILITY OF A CREED T is the writer’s belief that most of the arguments in favor of the creed are valid. It does enable us to compare and differentiate the Christian religion from other religions; it does enable us to distinguish the various Christian sects from one another; it does furnish a basis for Church organi- zation and serve as a bond of union; it does make for definiteness and clear- ness of conception and thus for efficiency of Christian conduct, and for the alleviation and prevention of doubt and [46] The Desirability of a Creed skepticism so often due to the vague- ness and nebulosity of religious concep- tion; it is a confession, and confession is good for the soul; it is helpful in pro- moting Christian education, and it is a valuable aid in religious worship. All of this must in fairness be conceded. But what of the opposing arguments? These appear to be equally valid and forceful. The Creed does interfere with the rights of private judgment and conscience; it does make against church unity and for sectarian bit- terness and strife; it does, because of the conflict of beliefs manifest in creeds, cause skepticism and indifference; it does represent a serious over-valuation of the intellectual worths of religion at the expense of the higher ethical val- [47] Shall We Have a Creed? ues. What, then, is to be done? Our answer is that, since a creed may be very helpful, for the reasons just out- lined, the Church’s attitude toward it should be determined by the possibility of so constructing it that really valid objections will disappear. This may be done by framing it in such a manner that acceptance of its contents will prove exceedingly helpful to salvation —meaning by salvation the realization of the supreme values of life. More specifically, the creed should contain three fundamental articles of Christian belief, each one of which is most helpful to the life of righteousness. The fol- lowing articles are of this character: I. I believe in Jesus’ conception of God as the righteous Father who de- [48] The Desirability of a Creed sires and Jabors for the righteousness of his children. II. I believe in Jesus’ conception of the law of love, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself,” as the supreme and all-comprehensive law of righteous- ness. Itt. I believe in Jesus’ conception of the immortality of the righteous soul. Of course, articles I and III of this creed are really implied in article II, when we study this article in connection with the conversation of Jesus in which it was uttered. But there are advan- tages in rendering them more articulate and explicit. [49] Shall We Have a Creed? A brief consideration of these articles of faith will make it evident that they are exceedingly helpful to salvation; that is, to the realization of the highest values. In the first place, is not be- lief in a God of righteousness who is in the world, working for righteous ends, who is our Father, sympathizing with us, and ready to aid us in the moral struggle, a tremendous inspiration and help to every soul who is seriously try- ing to work out his own soul’s salvation and endeavoring to help others to do the same? Often the battle is fierce; often virtue is defeated and vice tri- umphant; often injustice seems to be on the throne and righteousness in the dust; often the wicked flourish like a green bay tree and the righteous are [50] The Desirability of a Creed forsaken; often the moral world seems to be a veritable contradiction, and in discouragement the struggling soul cries out: “Who is sufficient for these things?” Sometimes, indeed, it 1s nearly convinced of the hopelessness of the struggle and is almost ready to give up in despair. In the life of everyone earnestly striving for the realization of the highest worths it is a tremendous in- spiration and aid to feel that no mat- ter whether clouds and darkness be round about Him, justice is the habita- tion of His throne; that there is “a Power not ourselves in the world that makes for righteousness,” and that this Power is our Father, who is interested in our moral welfare, and that we are co-workers with Him in establishing the [51] Shall We Have a Creed? kingdom of righteousness in our own hearts and in the heart of the race. This first article of our proposed creed is not only helpful, but in many cases, almost necessary for salvation, if we are to conceive of salvation in terms of righteousness. The second article is also helpful to salvation. It gives us a positive rather than a negative conception of it. It is not fleeing from the wrath of God to come; from eternal burning; from ever- lasting remorse. It is a realization of the law of love. Salvation is the mor- alization of life, of our relations with God, with our fellow-men, and with our- selves. ‘lo be saved we must know what salvation is and what is the law govern- ing it. This second article gives it to [52] The Desirability of a Creed us with the authority of the Master and, in the judgment of the writer, with the authority of the rational spirit, in Je- sus’ significant reply to the tempting lawyer who asked him what he had to do to inherit eternal life. Jesus asked him, ““What is written in the law? How readest thou?” ‘The lawyer answered: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.” And Jesus said unto him, “Thou hast answered right: this do and thou shalt live.” There is no Body of Divinity, no system of religious metaphysics, no series of theological dogmas, the accept- ance of which is required as a con- dition of inheriting eternal life. ‘There [53] Shall We Have a Creed? is no requirement of subscription to a creed affirming incomprehensible doctrines of the Trinity and Incarna- tion; there is no obligation to believe in a creed affirming the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of man’s bodily organism, the last judgment, and en- trance of the evil into everlasting fire. « What its necessary for inheriting eternal hfe is, to put forth our best efforts to live righteously—to love God, neighbor, and self with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. That, indeed, is a sufficiently difficult task without be- ing compelled to accept a system of re- ligious metaphysics and questionable affirmations of men who, however ear- nest and consecrated, have unfortu- nately developed a wrong sense of val- [54] The Desirability of a Creed ues within the sphere of the Christian religion. Let us accept the teaching of our Lord and Master and adopt as one of the principal articles of our faith that which he affirmed to be necessary for inheriting eternal life, viz.: to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves. The third article, “I believe in Jesus’ * conception of the immortality of the righteous soul,” is also exceedingly helpful to salvation. 'To believe thor- oughly in the immortality of personal worth, is certainly with the average man a great incentive and inspiration to at- tain it. If Virtue’s destiny be the dust; if the righteous spirit’s goal be annihila- tion; if death means thus far and no further; the soul is robbed of one of its [55] Shall We Have a Creed? most powerful incentives to righteous purpose and action. As the writer has said elsewhere,’ such rare spirits as Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Huxley, and George Eliot may not need the encour- agement of belief in the immortality of personal worth in order to practice vir- tue, but, with most of us, zeal for right- eousness would be far less earnest were we to believe that the soul exemplifying it has no higher destiny than “dust and ashes.” But, according to the Chris- tian faith, we go from grace to grace, from glory to glory in the moral life. As Browning says, “from lower levels to higher levels.” In striving for these higher values in which salvation lies, we strive for eternal values. How can 1 Religion and the Future Life, New York, 1923, [56] The Desirability of a Creed such a belief fail to prove helpful to the soul earnestly seeking salvation if he re- gard salvation as the perfecting of the soul in righteousness? Of this immor- tality of personal worth our Christian faith assures us, and, inspired and greatly encouraged by it, we labor on no matter how dark the day, how fierce the struggle, how discouraging the en- vironment, and how apparently meagre the immediate results. We are con- scious that we strive not for the worths that perish, but for the transcendent values that are eternal. It is evident, then, that a creed con- taining these three fundamentals of Christian faith is vitally helpful in our efforts to realize the great end of the Christian religion—salvation, or the [57] Shall We Have a Creed? moralization of life. Furthermore, it also removes the serious objections that are urged against a formal statement or confession of faith. In the first place, it does not substitute authority for free- dom of private judgment and con- science. Practically all Christian sects accept these three articles, Catholic and Protestant, Fundamentalist and Modernist alike, confess them. Of course there are many differences of opinion among them as to the philoso- phy of these three beliefs, but not with reference to the truth and vital impor- tance of the beliefs themselves. ‘To be asked to publicly confess them would, therefore, not be regarded as a restric- tion of personal liberty or freedom. So that the adoption of this creed would re- [58] The Desirability of a Creed move the somewhat formidable objec- tions relating to the substitution of au- thority for freedom. Again, being so broad and catholic in its character, it removes the doctrinal basis, so far as the fundamentals of the Christian faith are concerned, for sec- tarianism and the waste, division, and strife that it involves. It would thus make for unity and for the strength that les in union. This, undoubtedly, would prove a great gain to the Chris- tian Church. In the third place, it removes the ground for reaction against the creed which so often takes on the form of re- ligious indifference or skepticism, based on diversity and conflict of religious belief. Here we can say to the world: [59] Shall We Have a Creed? “We all agree on what is fundamen- tally essential. Our differences relate merely to things subordinate.” Again, this creed removes the obsta- cles to missionary work which arise be- cause of sectarian creeds. Those whom the missionary aims to reach could, without serious trouble, be made to see that fundamentally all Christian sects are in agreement; that their differences largely concern things that are not ab- solutely essential. Finally, it removes the objection growing out of an over-valuation of what is subordinate, and often of what is of little or no importance in so-called Christian belief. It states the ulti- mate objective of the Christian religion and declares the law by which it is to be [60] The Desirability of a Creed realized. This would prove a great gain. Hardly anything, except delib- erate sin itself, is such a serious obstacle to Christian progress as this mistaken sense of values. It diverts the travel- ler from the main road. To remove the cause of this diversion by setting clearly before his vision the real goal of his journey and the direct road to it, would prove to be of incalculable ad- vantage to him. Thus we see that a creed embodying the three fundamental articles of the Christian faith is not only directly help- ful to the attainment of salvation—to the realization of right relations be- tween God, neighbor and self,—but it also removes serious objections that are very naturally and justifiably urged [61] Shall We Have a Creed? against creeds that impose subordinate, and often unnecessary, articles of be- lief as necessary for salvation or for ad- mission to membership in the Christian Church. [62] CHAPTER V TOLERATION AND UNITY HILE thus commending, as we have in the foregoing section, the formulation and use of a creed that will be helpful in establishing the individual and _ so- ciety in righteousness, its content should be limited to the three articles that we have considered. All else relating to belief should be excluded, either because of its non-essential or relatively non- essential character, or because it makes for harmful division and waste, or be- cause it implies, in the judgment of a [63] Shall We Have a Creed? large body of Christian believers, a misinterpretation of Christian truth. However, we should not be intolerant. In things relating to Christian belief that are not included in the creed we should respect the judgment and con- science of our brethren who differ from us. If aman believe in the Trinitarian conception of the Godhead, in the im- maculate conception, in original sin, in predestination, in the bodily resurrec- tion of Christ, in his descent into Hades, in the second coming, in the bodily res- urrection of man, in everlasting damna- tion of the wicked, in heavenly bliss for believers, etc., that is his own affair. Why persecute him? On the other hand, if a man disbelieve in some, or even all, of these doctrines, why be in- [64] Toleration and Unity tolerant and tyrannical and endeavor to expel him from, or forbid his entrance into, the Christian fold, or any division of this fold? Tolerance and charity should be our attitude in these things that are subordinate. Nothing of real worth is gained by intolerance and per- secution. It is really un-Christian in character and makes against rather than for the great end for which the Church exists. Were we to stress the funda- ~ mentals as stated in the three articles of our creed, and to allow the utmost free- dom in regard to all else pertaining to the Christian faith, what a tremendous advantage would accrue to the Church! It would mean a clearer vision of the great end of our religion,—the consum- mation of the Kingdom of Righteous- [65] Shall We Have a Creed? ness in the heart of the individual and in the heart of society,—a long step forward in our efforts to bring into be- ing “the new heavens and new earth wherein righteousness shall dwell’; a more definite conception of the means by which the goal of the Church is to be realized; a far greater unity of spirit and effort in our attempts to attain it. It would result in eliminating much bitterness, strife, and waste. It would give us an organized fellowship in which the tie that binds would be the tie of Christian love,—‘‘a fellowship of kindred minds like unto that above.” All of this would mean a much more rapid progress of the Kingdom of God upon earth. Why should this be regarded as [66 | Toleration and Unity Utopian? Candidly, is it not sound reason and our solemn duty? ‘The re- sponsibility of Christian leadership is very great to-day. ‘The Church has an Herculean task before it in trying to bring in the reign of Righteousness. But, as Bishop Manning said recently, “In the face of the world’s greatest need, the Church stands enfeebled and weakened by controversy and conflict between Christians, resulting in a tre- mendous loss of energy and resources.” This is undoubtedly true. Why then waste our time and energy in quarreling among ourselves over things that are not absolutely necessary, and some of which are in reality harmful, when the need of the most united effort is so ur- gent? Let us accept our Lord’s sense [67] Shall We Have a Creed? of values as illustrated in His life and teaching, embody it in a simple creed, and go forth as a united church to the conquest of evil and the triumph of good. “MASTER, WHAT SHALL I DO TO INHERIT ETERNAL LIFE? AND HE SAID UNTO HIM, WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW? HOW READEST THOU? AND HE ANSWER- ING SAID, THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL, AND WITH ALL THY STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL THY MIND; AND THY NEIGHBOR ‘AS THY- [68] Toleration and Unity SELF. AND HE SAID UNTO HIM, THOU HAST ANSWERED RIGHT: THIS DO, AND THOU SHALT LIVE.” [69] UTNE RS MU et Pea Daya e178. ; chs a i a Ly Wo? VU eee hy ie Wu abe Ty 2 Ae f if, ht : 4 ie iy, ; 7 « « ; 7 a J “s ‘* Sep iti _ ts ‘. iy AY é im Nw bet . Li we iii f he We, j iy RA We i re : ti \ i il ak: \ Videara, OS eres § ae ; } 1 te : CAP AE Rl Wey Mi tr, rh Stas ne aii yout ere ate PAT cay ' on a ? See By Sat ata 4 as 4 . : hy . b, AG a hake | eae | ts 7% UP, wih Xr Pe Abe vy y Ae he hi Le % \ i tet Tait ! , ps hee y AP 7 ? ay os a Pee PCASAY iw Ay 4 i. oo fe Ua ae YON ely OX | ht ; rr 1? , ‘ , :) va J ‘ , ] ; { . wy't H ~ y , } ; \ > : ViG sf ae, ie peat } : Lf ok ' ; , y ‘ ’ , < sf iy ’ j i AS . ae , ¥ ' i ‘ . 4 i r ai t Hi t ' ( ¢ ‘ : 4) yh eet ee r " sh) i ; J J yj . ir ; rly Wa ; ‘ ; 5 : Wn ." ‘ s ‘i i Agte 4 }; : hyey ; I ¢ S bi ‘ 1 ; i 44 ” i - ' ' ; ; ' . oe i : T) b ' iy LJ ‘ t a aah rp alee ai Healy ; | i 1, i i J y 7 + y) i ia | é " j { : ‘ ‘ i \ 7 F Bix fi t 4 ¥ i ; oy ee f : ay J , f i re Le A) nf ’ ? ; ] f My it, Fi i 1 ¥ y a4 , ; ‘ ivy ‘ ‘ xe ) mead | ; A Al ee ay at ai ¥ ; ae 01013 0 6 T Tin 2