THE NEW THEOLOGY

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2033, 19 March 1907, Page 1

THE NEW THEOLOGY

Tho London Tribune gives n number of short references by clergymen of various donoininutions to the Rev. R. J. Campbell’s “Now Theology.” Canon Scott Holland says:—“According to tho phrase adopted by what is called ‘The Now Theology,’ wo must each ono of us he a Christ, but this theology removes all tho ground on which the possibility of our so becoming depends. AVo cannot become Christs if Christ was no more than wo ourselves aro.” Dean AVeildon: “The New Theology is Unitariunism —nothing moro and nothing less.” Rev. J. B. Meharry, D.D.: “The Atonoment should be dwelt on unceasingly, but wo will not discover its might until wo have laid on it our deepest 1 sorrow and rocoived that peace which tlie world cannot take away, as it cannot give.” Rev. C. Elisor AYalters: “Tlioology, if it refuses to accept tho gospel of Christ, has no message for mo.” Tho Bishop of Truro: “AVo aro approaching towards moro liberal viows of the interpretation of the Scriptures. 1 believe that the present controversy will load to a closer union between the National Church and Nonconformists.” Tho Bishop of London: “There is no such thing as ‘a New Theology.” Tho Church of Jesus Christ has only ono faith. Jesus Christ, incarnate, born of the Virgin Mary, very God, as well as very mau, living, dying, risen, ascended, tho same yesterday, to-day, and for over.”

Tho Rev. Dr. Fairbairn, ono of the most eminent of English theologians, is not at all alarmed over “The New Theology.” He distinguishes between the New Theology and the Rev. R. J. Campbell's theology, and says that Mr. Campbell fails to see the relation between the descent of the soul, the doctrine of sin, and the person and work of Jesus Christ. The Rev. J. -H. Jowett, of Birmingham, has no sympathy with “Tlie New Theology.” “AVe must have the real Christ—the risen, glorified, personal Christ; not a fine man, not the finest of men, but the Lord of Glory, above all men and governing all men.” Mr. Campbell himself is vigorously meeting - the fusillade of criticism from all quarters which his views have provoked. Speaking at Brighton, Mr. Campbell referred to tho “wiseacres and busybodies who aro calling for my resignation on tlie ground that in their judgment I am not teaching in accordance with the terms of the City Temple trust deeds,” and replied that “they have nothing to do with the City Temple or its minister, and I shall resign when my Church calls for my resignation and not before.” In the of an interview he again denied responsibility for the term “New Theology.” “It is not,” he says, “of my making or of my choice.” He concedes that the doctrine of the Divine Immanence (tlie starting point of those who take the New Theology attitudo) is certainly not now, but he insists that “it ought to be placed in the foreground of Christian thought.” Mr. Campbell continues: “But of one thing I am quite sure:, this is only incidentally a theological movement. It‘ is.far more a moral and spiritual movement. It is a religious quickening; it is rising spontaneously in every Church in Christendom, and sooner or later it will call the whole of the civilised world back to God. It Y;ill put an end to the alienation of the masses on the ono hand and tho intellectual classes on the other, from religion. It is the doctrine of the humanity of God and of tho divinity of Man,”