Books: To Infidelity and Back
H >>
Henry F. Lutz >> To Infidelity and Back
Pages:
1 |
2 | 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12
Quite naturally this open confession of a pronounced liberal
attracts more than ordinary attention. The liberal papers, including
the _Christliche Welt_ itself, pass it by without further comment,
but the conservatives speak out boldly. Representative of the latter
is the _Evangelische Lutherische Kirchenzeitung_, of Leipzig, which
says:
"The psychological and spiritual solution of Rittelmeyer's problem
is not so hard to find. The soul of man can not live on negations. To
stir the soul there must be positive principles and epoch-making
historical facts, such as are offered by the Scriptural teachings of
Christ and his words. There can be religious life only where there is
faith in him who is the truth and the life. Liberal theology has
failed because it has nothing to offer."
Dr. Harnack, its great high priest, found it an unsatisfying portion,
and, doubtless influenced by its failure, has resigned and turned his
energies into other channels.
Unitarianism appeals almost entirely to the head and but little to
the heart. It supplies a kind of abnormal stimulant to the intellect,
but usually freezes out the emotions. It is like the arctic regions,
where they have six months of light, but no heat, and where
consequently there is no growth of any kind. It is broad, but really
superficial and shallow. It is like a piece of rubber stretched over
a wide surface; it is wide, but it becomes very thin. Emerson seemed
to recognize how shallow rationalism makes people when he declared
that "a small consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds--little
philosophers, little statesmen and little divines." The finite mind
cannot see the consistency of the great and deep truths of life and
God. To try to deal with these great questions with human logic is
like manipulating a circle with a break in it. Each reasoner calls
attention to the break in the circle of logic of others, but
dexterously manipulates his own circle so as to hide its missing
link.
Rationalism is a delusion and a snare, and, when followed to its
logical conclusion, leads to absurdity and death. Fortunately, most
people who are tainted with this disease do not follow it to its
legitimate conclusions. Through preconceived and inherited ideas and
sentimental inertia, they are held to their moorings. But,
unfortunately, their pupils are not always thus protected. Many
preachers who are held in their place by religious habits and
associations, give expression to rationalistic ideas that take
lodgment in the minds of young men who are not surrounded with
religious habits and associations to hold them; and who, following
these rationalistic ideas to their logical conclusion, are led to
doubt and confusion. I believe that hundreds of thinking young men
have been led away from Christ and the church in this way, all
because they and their teacher did not recognize the true character
of rationalism and the proper functions and limitations of the finite
intellect. Mansel gives a proper diagnosis of rationalism in the
following words:
"The rationalist . . . assigns to some superior tribunal the right
of determining what (in revelation) is essential to religion and what
is not; he claims the privilege of accepting or rejecting any given
revelation, wholly or in part, according as it does or does not
satisfy the conditions of some higher criterion, to be supplied by
human consciousness." Rationalism proceeds "by paring down supposed
excrescences. Commencing with a preconceived theory of the purpose of
a revelation, and of the form which it ought to assume, it proceeds
to remove or reduce all that will not harmonize with this leading
idea." "Rationalism tends to destroy revealed religion altogether, by
obliterating the whole distinction between the human and the divine.
If it retain any portion of revealed truth, as such, it does so, not
in consequence, but in defiance, of its fundamental principle."
But while many ministers are not much injured apparently by their
rationalistic taint, many others are, and all are more or less.
Eternity alone will reveal how much faith in God's Word, and
therefore in God himself, has been weakened or destroyed by this
dread mental disease. Look at the destructive ravages of
rationalistic criticism of the Bible. The Unitarians have completed
this work and have eliminated all the supernatural from the Divine
Record. But it is the preachers in the evangelical churches who are
following the Unitarians afar off in this matter, that are doing the
most damage to the faith of Christ's followers. I have been there,
and know how Unitarians look at this matter. They point to these
evangelical preachers as an evidence that the entire religious world
is rapidly coming to their position. On the other hand, they look at
these preachers with pity and contempt because they do not follow the
thing to its logical conclusion, and drop the Bible entirely as a
supernatural revelation. And I believe the Unitarians are right in
this. The same fundamental reasons that led the rationalistic critics
in the evangelical churches to their present conclusions will
inevitably and logically lead to the Unitarian conclusions, whenever
preconceived ideas and inherited prejudices are sufficiently relaxed.
When I first studied this question of destructive higher criticism so
called (it is often _hire_ criticism) from the rationalistic
standpoint and under rationalistic guides, its conclusions seemed the
most reasonable thing on earth. I wondered that I had not seen it
myself long before, and I looked with pity upon the deluded victims
who did not see it. But after I was delivered from rationalism and my
eyes were opened, I commenced to study the other side of the question
and discovered where I was deceived.
Let me give you a few samples of the reasoning of rationalistic
criticism as exhibited by its strongest advocates. Where it says that
Jesus walked upon the water, we were gravely informed that Jesus did
not walk upon the water at all. It happened to be a foggy morning and
the disciples were deceived; he was really walking on the shore.
Where it says "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side," we
were informed that the Greek word here means primarily to prick as
with a pin, to pave the way to belittle the wound of Jesus, despite
the fact that the narrative adds, "straightway there came out blood
and water." The purpose of this was to make way for the _theory_ that
Christ did not die on the cross, but was simply in a lethargy, and
when he came to in the tomb he pushed the stone away, and this so
frightened the soldiers that they took to their heels, thinking it
was a ghost, while Christ escaped to the mountains, where he lived
secretly the rest of his life and finally died a natural death. All
this without a scrap of historical basis, and despite the express
declaration of the narrative that an expert, who was sent by Pilate
to ascertain if he was dead, reported that he was. This is so
contrary to the facts of the narrative, and the character of Jesus
and his disciples, that it is harder to believe it than any miracle
recorded in the Bible. Why these ridiculous and absurd conclusions,
despite the historical facts? Simply because of the necessity to get
rid of the supernatural at the mandates of rationalism. To preserve
such puerilities, the manuscripts were kept in a fire-proof vault
lest fire should destroy them. The claims of destructive criticism
are so absurd and ridiculous, when looked at from a truly scientific
standpoint, that I confine myself in this book to exposing the
erroneous viewpoint of rationalism, believing that when that is done
any one can easily see that there is nothing in it. Besides, its
quibblings have been often and ably exposed by competent authors and
their works are accessible to all. That any one who claims to believe
the Bible should give his time to teaching innocent and uninformed
children and adults the conclusions of rationalistic criticism seems
almost too absurd to believe; and when it is done under the pretense
of honoring the Bible, it is but another illustration of how our
moral and intellectual vision can be warped and distorted when we
look through the colored glasses of rationalism and bias.
It is said that a minister kept telling his congregation that
different parts of the Bible were myths, legends, etc., and not
historical. One of his members cut out of her Bible every section he
said was not true. When he made a pastoral call she showed him her
mutilated Bible. Upon his remonstrance, she replied that he had said
that these parts were not reliable, and so she did not want them as a
part of her Bible. He was shocked at his own vandalism.
I have shown that the same rationalistic objections that are brought
against facts revealed in the Bible can be brought against facts
revealed in nature. The only sensible thing to do is to recognize the
limitations of our finite intellects and accept all well-
authenticated facts, whether revealed in the Bible or in nature. We
must learn that in the very nature of things our finite minds cannot
fully grasp and comprehend the infinite. Therefore we have God's
revelation in the Bible, which, though not the product of the human
intellect, fully satisfies its every reasonable demand.
We have also learned that man has by nature strong religious
emotions, which, if exercised, give great joy and peace. Even
unguided by revelation, they grope after God with the help of the
finite intellect. These emotions are blind and were never intended to
give us light. They are a source of great joy and power, but must be
guided and filled by divine revelation to be properly exercised. The
neglect of this fact has led to all kinds of mysticism and
fanaticism. And while this is better and more helpful than cold
rationalism, it is nevertheless an unsafe guide, and does more harm
than good to humanity. Faithfulness compels me to say that, as
rationalism, so mysticism has found its way into the evangelical
churches and has done much to rob God's Word of its power and to
divide Christ's followers into warring camps. The religion that does
not thoroughly enlist, exercise and sanctify the human emotions is
not worth having; but we are not to believe every spirit, but to try
the spirits by the Word of God. Let us lay aside our "think-so's" and
"feel-so's," and let us turn to the revelation that comes from above,
that our intellects may be flooded with light and our emotions may be
submerged in God's love, so that our entire being--body, mind and
soul--may be filled, occupied and sanctified to the glory of Christ.
With the Unitarian movement that started at the beginning of the last
century, with so many human instrumentalities back of it, let us
compare the Apostolic church which was started in the first third of
the first century by a handful of poor, illiterate and despised
Galileans. Although the wealth and culture and political power of the
world were all against them, at the end of the century we are told
that they numbered five hundred thousand.
Again let us compare with Unitarianism, this modern movement for the
restoration of primitive Christianity which started somewhat later
than Unitarianism. Its reproach in the eyes of men--that it has no
literature--is its glory in the eyes of God; for the Bible is its
literature. Its work has been done chiefly among and through the
common people. At the end of the century it numbered among its
adherents more than a million and a quarter. While sectarian churches
numerically much stronger report meager increases and even decreases,
it reports an average of over forty thousand increase for the last
several years.
The experiences narrated in this chapter have made real to me the
belief that God is in every act of our life. That through his loving
care, "all things work together for good to them that love God." When
I think of how, in his providence, he took me away from the community
and religion of my early neighbors and brought me in a mysterious way
to a religion and people I had never heard of, I am overwhelmed with
the evidence of his hand in it.
To the honest doubter I would say, take courage, my brother, the Lord
will lead you, in his providence, to the way, the truth and the life.
I can testify that he brings the spiritually blind by a way that they
knew not and leads them in paths they have not known. He makes
darkness light before them and crooked things straight, and will not
forsake them if they continue to sincerely seek for light until he
has accomplished his purpose concerning them and brought them to the
feet of Jesus.
To those out of Christ I will say, that I have tasted and seen that
the Lord is good. After having tried both, I have found a hundred
times more real pleasure in than out of Christ. And while I am yet
tied to clay and suffer many things through the weakness of the
flesh, so that I groan within myself and long to be entirely
delivered from this bondage of death, yet I am filled with love,
peace, joy and power through the earnest of the Spirit dwelling in
me, and I serve Jesus patiently, waiting for the hope set before me,
even the coming of our Saviour, when this corruptible, mortal body
shall be changed into the likeness of the glorified body of Jesus,
and I shall be with him and shall be like him. Oh, how this hope
fills my being with love and joy unspeakable! Will you come and
accept this salvation? In the Saviour's name, who died to purchase it
for you, we bid you come. _Come while it is called to-day!_
CHAPTER II.
MY PARTING MESSAGE TO THE UNITARIAN SCHOOL.
During my third year at the Meadville Unitarian Theological School,
after I became thoroughly convinced that the Unitarian position was
untenable, and I had found my way back to Christ, it so happened that
it was my turn to read a paper and to preach to the school, as the
members of the higher classes preached before the school in turn. In
these parting messages I frankly and sincerely presented my change of
viewpoint, and argued against the Unitarian position as strongly as I
could at the time. The school is open, on equal terms, to anybody
wishing to study for the ministry, no matter what their views, or
what religious body they belong to. Everybody is supposed to be
perfectly free to hold and express his honest religious opinions. In
the spirit of this generosity, I patiently listened to all the school
could offer me in presenting what it believed to be the truth, and
gratefully accepted every help it could give me in my search for the
truth. I felt I was acting in entire harmony with the spirit of the
founders of the institution when I used the knowledge and culture
imparted to me in kindly contending for the truth as I saw it, even
when it was against the truth as held by the teachers of the school.
Most of my sermon on "The Proper Method of Inquiry in Religion" has
been lost or mislaid. But I have the paper read before the school,
and the last part of the sermon. I give these here because it shows
how the matter looked to me at that time, and how I treated it in the
presence of the keen, intellectual audience of students and
professors.
The professor of homiletics, who read and criticised all sermons
before they were preached, rather took me to task for my bold attack
upon Unitarianism, but he admitted to me that, although he had
preached and taught it for more than a score of years, there were
yearnings in his soul that it did not satisfy. The sermon was
listened to with great respect and sympathy, especially by the more
conservative students. About ten years later I received a letter from
a young Unitarian minister in Massachusetts who referred to the
sermon, and said he had never forgotten it, but was often reminded in
his experience of how true it was, especially in what I said about
the coldness and fruitlessness of Unitarianism.
Although the matter in this paper and sermon is largely the same as
that in the previous chapter, I present it because, as the line of
thought is out of the ordinary and somewhat difficult to the general
reader, its repetition in this conversational style will help to get
a better grasp of the deadly delusions of rationalism. Truth usually
has to be repeated in various ways before it gets a thorough hold
upon the average mind. Therefore "precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little
and there a little" (Isa. 28:10).
_A Religious Discussion Between Mr. Liberal, Mr. Orthodox and Mr.
Freethinker_.
SCENE.--Ocean of Life. STEAMBOAT.--Experience.
[The three above-named persons had made each other's acquaintance,
and had engaged in discussions with each other on several occasions.
They now seat themselves in a group on deck and enter upon the
following discussion.]
_Mr. Liberal_--The great objection to your religion, Mr. Orthodox, is
that it violates reason and conscience. To be more specific, let us
consider a few instances. There is your doctrine of eternal
punishment, in which you ascribe fiendish qualities to our dear
heavenly Father such as the most savage human being could not be
capable of. Then, take your doctrine of the Trinity, around which
most of your dogmas cluster, and we see at once that it violates the
simplest postulates of reason. I know that you will answer that these
are all mysteries which are to be accepted on faith. But it is
perfectly clear that there is no mystery about it. It is as clear as
daylight that three cannot be one. You talk about mysteries which we
must accept by faith, but all such talk is nonsense and ignores our
sacred reason. The idea of getting over all difficulties by declaring
them mysteries, and exhorting your opponents to leap over them by the
exercise of faith, is truly, as some one has said, "a touchstone for
whole classes of explanations based on no evidence." You orthodox
people are the cause of all the infidelity that is afloat in the
land. People come in contact with your irrational and ridiculous
claims, and, taking them as religion itself, they throw overboard the
whole business, the good with the bad. What we need is a pure and
simple religion that will satisfy man's reason and conscience as well
as his heart. And we do not have to go far for such a religion, for
we find it in the liberal faith which it is my privilege to
represent. Let us compare our grand, simple and rational beliefs with
your irrational, absurd and mysterious products of the Dark Ages, and
see what a contrast there is between them. Instead of your "Son is
God, Father is God, Holy Spirit is God; yet there are not three Gods,
but only one," we have the simple faith in one heavenly Father--all-
powerful, all-wise and all-good. No mystery about it. It would be
absurd to suppose that such a God could punish his children to
eternity, or that He would require the suffering of the innocent to
enable him to forgive the guilty. Then, of course, we reject all the
absurd dogmas clustering around your conception of the Trinity. The
simple belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man is
enough for us. Instead of your endless punishment, we have the
reasonable belief that the Father punishes simply to bring us good,
so that our joy may be greater. This is all perfectly simple, and can
be understood by the uneducated man as well as by the philosopher.
_Mr. Orthodox_--It is an easy thing to make charges; and, as they are
usually made in sweeping terms, it frequently requires hours of time
and much explanation to answer the charges made in a few minutes,
even when the charges are false. I shall endeavor to defend myself,
but must beg you to give me sufficient time to make myself
understood. In the first place, I claim, as you say, that you cannot
understand all the mysteries about religious doctrines. They must, to
a large extent, be accepted by faith. And I claim that it is more
reasonable to accept them by faith than to reject them on the ground
that you cannot understand them. This may seem ridiculous to you, but
wait until I explain myself further. Take eternal punishment. You say
that man is a free agent, and that through his free agency he is able
to bring evil and punishment upon himself. You say that God has so
ordained because it is best for man that he should be left free, even
though he becomes liable to suffer because of it, as it will be for
his final good. In other words, you claim that God does punish his
children for their own good. It seems perfectly just to you that God
should punish a person because he is a free agent, but when we say
that man can bring eternal punishment upon himself through his free
agency, then you think it ridiculous, although the principle is
exactly the same and the only difference is that of degree. But I see
that I must be more general in my statements or I will not get far.
You bring a host of other charges against us, either directly or by
implication. You say that yours is a pure and simple religion that
can be understood by uneducated people as well as by philosophers.
Here we get at the very heart of the difference between us. It is
true that your doctrines are _very simple,_ but that is their chief
demerit. _They_ are simple, but the facts that they attempt to deal
with are very complex. To declare that religious problems are simple
is to go counter to the expressed opinions of the great thinkers of
all ages. Such questions as evil, good, life, immortality, free will,
God, and a host of others, are decidedly complex.
They are largely inscrutable and have always been considered so. And
yet all the complex realities of life and death which have defied the
theologians and philosophers of all ages, you now tell us are very
simple, and you carry the simple solution around with you only too
glad to give it free to everybody. Why is it that all of the
thousands of worried and distressed souls don't come flocking to you?
Why is it that the philosophers and thinkers don't come rushing in
from all directions, to get from you the truths they have so long
sought after? Why is it that the uneducated masses do not come to you
and accept your simple doctrines which they can so easily understand?
I know that you are ready with a charge of ignorance, prejudice,
self-interest, etc., but I claim that as a rule your charges do not
charge. You, believing in an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful God,
who is Truth itself, must believe in the triumph of truth; and here I
agree with you. I believe that just as soon as truth is brought in
contact with error the latter will have to vanish just as sure as the
darkness vanishes when a light is brought into a room. Error may
apparently linger because of peculiar circumstances which we are
ignorant of, but as soon as truth has a fair chance of coming
directly in contact with error, the victory is won. I claim,
therefore, that the reason that your explanations are not accepted,
is because they do not explain. Your doctrines offer protection to a
small part of the man, but leave all the rest exposed to the cold and
inclement weather. The uneducated do not accept your doctrines
because they belie their own experiences.
_Mr. Freethinker_--I hope you will pardon me for interrupting you,
Mr. Orthodox. You are getting too hot. I think it will be better for
you to cool off before you continue, and in the meantime I will have
my say. That is the greatest objection I have to you religionists--
you are all fanatics. You get an idea into your head, and then think
that the continuance of the world depends upon you thrusting it into
everybody's face. Of course you are willing to suffer for your
doctrines, and even to die for them if need be, but that is the way
with all fanatics. Your foolish notions give occasion for amusement
to cool-headed free thinkers, who see perfectly well that they are
all the result of self-delusion. I believe in keeping perfectly cool;
in always keeping the head as high above the heart as it is in the
body. I don't believe in attacking a man from behind while he is
engaged by another in front, but, during the time Mr. Orthodox is
cooling off, I wish to show you, Mr. Liberal, wherein I differ from
you. Your great appeal is to reason, and I agree with you entirely
on that point; but I don't arrive at your conclusions. You have been
fixing your eyes on the monstrous outrage of reason in your brother's
position so steadfastly, and yours is so much more in accordance
with reason, that it is not surprising that you should have failed to
see the irrationality of your own position. Furthermore, you have
had a great deal of inherited prejudice to overcome, and a man cannot
be expected to get rid of all those at once, especially when they have
reference to the heart or feelings. You say that your God is all-good,
all-wise and all-powerful. The inevitable, logical conclusion from
that is that such a God would give his children an infinitely small
amount of evil and an infinitely large amount of good. But such is
not the case; therefore, to keep that jewel of rationalism which is
so dear to you, you must give up your belief in such a God. Just
wait a minute! I know that you are ready to give a lot of quibbling
that will satisfy some people who follow their prejudices and inherited
feelings, but I defy the whole world of logicians to show that such a
conclusion is less logical than the claim that there can be three in
one. You say that it is in the nature of things that God must give us
evil that we may enjoy good the more afterwards. But if you clear
yourself from all prejudice, you will see that this is the old method
of the ostrich of putting its head under the sand and imagining that its
entire body is protected. Nay, even worse than that, you don't even
protect your head. Any man that gives clear sweep to his reason will
see that if God must comply with certain conditions, then he is not
all-powerful If he is all-powerful, he can give us all good without
any evil, and if he is all-good it would logically follow that he
will do so. Then, again, while affirming that man is a free agent,
you at the same time claim that every effect must have a cause, or
that something cannot come out of nothing. Now, the reconciliation of
these two facts has ever defied the reason of mankind. And those that
have adopted the belief in free will have confessed that reason did
not lead them to that conclusion, but experience. On the other hand,
the logical conclusion is inevitable that man cannot be free. I know
that people have endeavored to satisfy themselves to the contrary,
and I know that some have really succeeded in deceiving themselves so
far as to believe that they could logically hold to it; but I declare
that they have never succeeded in convincing any unprejudiced mind,
and I defy any logician to prove that the conclusion of free will as
consistent with eternal causation, is less absurd than that two and
two make five.
Pages:
1 |
2 | 3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12