EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

Otago Witness, Issue 2817, 4 March 1908, Page 19

EVANGELICAL THEOLOGY

MANIFESTO TO THE CHURCHES

REPLY BY REV. R. J. CAMPBELL.

LONDON, February 27. Twenty chairmen of the Congregational Union or heads of colleges have signed a manifesto to the churches affirming their faith in the leading Christian doctrines, though they welcome the progress that is" being made in evangelical theology.

The Rev. R. J. Campbell, replying to this maifesto at the City Temple, said that this attempt to allay the prevalent" theological unrest would prove as futile as the Papal encyclical against the Modernists.

Our London correspondent writing on January 17 said: — The wonderful R. J. Campbell does not halt in his orueade on

behalf of what he strangely regards as his " New Theology," which, as has been oft remarked, isn't "new" and isn't

" theology." And now he has reached a new stage hy preaching "A Christianity which ien,'t Christianity."

In hie new book, " Christianity and the Social Order," which came out yesterday, Mr Campbell says: "The aims of Socialism even from the material point of view are distinctly Christian." Unluckily for Mr Campbell, the chief leader and apostle of the so-called " Socialism," speaking publicly only three day o ago, said : " Christianity is Anarchism, not Socialism. There is no word in Christianity about Socialism."

Ajs one critio caustically, but truly, observe* : " The juxtaposition of these recent; utterances i 3 a little unfortunate for Mr Hyndman and the Rev. R. J. Campbell— both of whom are shining lights in the Socialist camp. Mr Hyndman is a veteran in the ranks of tha revolutionaries. As a convinced subscriber to the dogma of destruction, he stands shoulder to shoulder with Mr Belfort Bax and Mr Robert Blatohford in their disdain for religion and their contempt for the churches. The Rev. R. J. Campbell has recently joined the noble band who wish to see the present fabric of the modern State reduced to ruins. He is a mere neophyte. It is obvious, however, that Mr Campbell — the minister of the City Temple and the successor to Dr Parker — has not found it easy to reconcile hie pastorship of the leading Congregationalist Church in ihe country with hk association with the Blatchfords. the Belfort Baxes, and the Hyndmans of the atheistic school of Socialism."

Already Mr Campbell finds himself ostracised by orthodox religious organisations. He says that after the New Theology controvsrsy broke out. in January last year all his Frc-e Church engagements were cancelled by the churches themselves, as were most of his preaching- appointments with other ecclesiastical bodies. "At present," he states. "I anr> in the position of having been quietly excluded from an active share in every Nonconformist organisation with which I was formerly connected with the exception of the City" Temple itself." And so the critic already quoted points out: t! The Socialist platform was the only on© that remained open to him ; and the Blat-chfords and the Belfdrt Baxee welcomed him with op'en arms. But the -sew ' comrade' speedily arrived-'at the conclusion that they were uncomfortable bedfellows. It was necessary both in order to retain his position as a Christian minister and to justify his association with atheistic Socialists, that he should endeavour to ■find a via media to bridge over the gulf. Hence this amazing book. It may be said at once that it. is a document which will have an effect the very reverse from that desired by its author. It Vill neither reconcile the Nonconformists of the country to the doctrines of Mr Hyndman, nor the Socialists to the travesty of Christianity propounded by Mr Campbell."

This is true. But it place* Mr Campbell in a distinctly awkward position. Thus, to quote the same writer once more: '"Not unnaturally his recently-inspired enthueiasm for Socialism induces the Rev. R. J. Camnbell to make very extensive concessions to the views of his Atheist friends. The first half of his book is occupied by an exposition of the N-ewest Theology, which places the New Theology of a year ago absolutely in the shade. Ho tears to tatters almost every article of faith held by the churches from the icry earliest days of Christainiiy. He levels some knock-down blows at the cherished beliefs of ordinary e\er\day Christian folk: —

" ' We must regard the Bible as a collection of purely human documents possessing- a fascinating interest from the historical point of view. We shall treat it as we should treat Froissart, or the Christian Chronioles.'

" ' Whatever be the merits or the demerits of modern orthodox Christianity, it is not the faith once for delivered to the Saints.'

' ' We may reject at ones as unhistoric any gospel reference to portents which declared the supernatural dignity of Jeeus at His birth, or even at His baptism.' <««mu, eimerstitions about the dramatic

second coming, the general resurrection . . need not deceive us in the least.' " ' Underneath every partial explanation offered in an orthodox pulpit, Catholic or Protestant, is the outrageous assumption that Jesus of Nazareth, by His cruel death on Calvary, somehow purchased Divine forgiveness of sins for the whole human family —a forgiveness, however, "which must be individually claimed. This monstrous assertion — for such it is — vitiates the whole of our religious life, and has done so for I ages.' I "' We must have done with the falsehood that believing something or other about the i execution of Jesus on ' Calvary will act as the plutocrat's open sesame to glory, or that the lack of it will doom some rcoor ignorant child to hell/ " "In his attempt to hitch Socialism to the ohariot-wheele of Christianity," gays one writer (Mr F. Hadfield Farthing), "Mr • Campbell strips the Bible narrative of everyJ thing that savours of the miraculous or supernatural. He apparently regards the Divine Head of the Christian Church as hardly more than an ordinary social reformer of Hi 6 time and generation — a purely human agent who had a genius for inspiring enthusiasm among a handful of adherents, but who was afflicted by the narrowed vision, and many of the imperfections of His kith and kind. Here is the paragraph in which Mr Campbell sums up his position:— 'Primitive Christianity confined itself to the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the world, whereas modern Christianity*" has weakened its efforts in this direction by its other worldism. This will have to be given up, just as we have already given up the whole New Testament view as to the connection between sin and death, the structure of the universe, physical immorality, and the like. Then, and not till then, shall we be able to recover something of the intensity and enthusiasm which acomnanieed the early Christian preaching of the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God.' " In his sermon at the City Temple yesterday, the Rev. R. J. Campbell said that what he regretted atout ordinary Protestantism was the comparatrvely grudging recognition which it gave to the mother of Jesus. Popular Christianity was suffering to-day because most of our creeds - contained only the man's point of view, for which shaven monk 6, who never loved wife or child, were partly responsible. Wha.t ! we wanted was more, not Jess, of the thought of the motherhood in God. Alluding to the attitude of men towards women to-day, he said : " What about the 100,000 ' foreign ' women in London? Who is responsible? What sickening cant," he 6aid, "is talked about the terrible sore of our modern civilisation. In one breath men spoke of 'that class ' as a necessity, and in the next as belonging to the nethermost pit, as unfit for reputable human society, to be kept at all costs from coming into contact with wives and daughters. If it was a grim, terrible necessity this class deserved better treatment and ought not to be regarded as moral lepere. It was cowardly, wicked, and hypocritical to scorn them "by day and associate with them by night. These women, he concluded, were denied the liberty men claimed for themselves, and when such men talked about their chivalry to women they were contemptible. The only way to get rid of the evil was to put women on an equality with men, and thus set them free. If every woman was sure of a living independaut of man, there would not be a single ' unfortunate ' in London."