What the previous discussion has called the truly mystical--the recognition of the whole man, of the entire personality--is coming in increasingly to correct both the falsely mystical and the falsely metaphysical. We are arguing now, in harmony with the social consciousness, from the standpoint of the broadly rational, not from that of the narrowly intellectual.

II. THE FATHERHOOD OF G.o.d, AS THE DETERMINING PRINCIPLE IN THEOLOGY

One might reach essentially the same general results from the influence of the social consciousness, by seeing that, so far as it deepens for us the meaning of the personal, it will deepen immediately our conception of the Fatherhood of G.o.d--the central and dominating doctrine in all theology--and so affect all theology. For, with a change in the conception of G.o.d, no doctrine can go wholly untouched.

Every step into a deeper feeling for the personal--and the growth of the modern social consciousness is undoubtedly a long step in that direction--deepens necessarily religion and theology. Perhaps the possible results here can be ill.u.s.trated in no way better than by recalling Patterson DuBois' putting of the needed change in the conception of the proper att.i.tude of a father toward his child. We are not to say, he writes: "I will conquer that child, no matter what it may cost him," but we are to say, "I will help that child to conquer himself, no matter what it may cost me." Now that change in point of view is a well-nigh perfect ill.u.s.tration of the social consciousness in a given relation, and it cannot be doubted that it is a true expression of Christ's thought of the Fatherhood of G.o.d; but has it really dominated through and through our theological statements?

Manifestly, what it means to us that G.o.d is Father depends on what we have come to see in fatherhood. And Princ.i.p.al Fairbairn, in the second part of his _The Place of Christ in Modern Theology_, has given us a good ill.u.s.tration of how much it means for theology to be in earnest in making the Fatherhood of G.o.d the determining doctrine in theology.

III. CHRIST'S OWN SOCIAL EMPHASES

Again, if the general influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine is to be recognized at all, it is evident that a Christian theology must take full account of Christ's own social emphases. By loyalty to these, it will expect best to meet the need of an enlightened social consciousness. It will strive thus--to use Professor Peabody's instructive summary of "the social principles of the teaching of Jesus"--to be true to "the view from above, the approach from within, and the movement toward a spiritual end; wisdom, personality, idealism; a social horizon, a social power, a social aim.

The supreme truth that this is G.o.d's world gave to Jesus his spirit of social optimism; the a.s.surance that man is G.o.d's instrument gave to him his method of social opportunism; the faith that in G.o.d's world G.o.d's people are to establish G.o.d's kingdom gave him his social idealism. He looks upon the struggling, chaotic, sinning world with the eye of an unclouded religious faith, and discerns in it the principle of personality fulfilling the will of G.o.d in social service."[55]

And every one of these three great social principles of Jesus has obvious theological applications, not yet fully made.

The social consciousness, indeed, well ill.u.s.trates Fairbairn's admirable statement of how progress is to be expected in theology.

"The longer the history [of Christ]," he says, "lives in the [Christian] consciousness and penetrates it, the more does the consciousness become able to interpret the history in its own terms and according to its own contents. The old pagan mind into which Christianity first came could not possibly be the best interpreter of Christianity, and the more the mind is cleansed of the pagan the more qualified it becomes to interpret the religion. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the later forms of faith should be the truer and purer."[56]

Now the social consciousness itself is a genuine manifestation of the spirit of Christ at work in the world, and the mind permeated with this social consciousness is consequently better able to turn back to the teaching of Jesus and give it proper interpretation.

IV. THE REFLECTION IN THEOLOGY OF THE CHANGES IN THE CONCEPTION OF RELIGION

Once more, theology, as an expression of religion, will at once reflect any change in the conception of religion. The influence of the social consciousness upon religion, already traced, will, therefore, inevitably pa.s.s over into theology. This means nothing less than a changed point of view, in the consideration of each doctrine. For theology must then recognize clearly that it can build on no falsely mystical conception of communion with G.o.d; but, while keeping the elements in mysticism which are justified by the social consciousness, it will require of itself throughout a formulation of doctrine in terms that shall be thoroughly personal, thoroughly ethical, and indubitably loyal to the concretely historically Christian. Many traditional statements quite fail to meet so searching a test; but no lower standard can give a theology that should fully meet the demands of the social consciousness.

The general results of the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrine, then, may be said to include: The emphasis upon the fully personal, and so conceiving theology in terms of personal relation; the deepening of the conception of the Fatherhood of G.o.d, and making this the determining principle in theology; the application of the social principles of the teaching of Jesus to theology; the reflection in theology of the natural changes in the conception of religion wrought by the social consciousness. Now any one of these general results indicates the certain influence of the social consciousness upon theology, and any one might be followed out into helpful suggestions for the restatement of theological doctrines.

But we shall probably most clearly and definitely answer the question of our theme, if we ask specifically concerning the several elements of the social consciousness: How does a deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men, of the mutual influence of men, of the value and sacredness of the person, of personal obligation, and of love, tend to affect our theological point of view and mode of statement?

And our inquiry will follow these separate questions in separate chapters, except that for the purposes of theological inference, the last three may be appropriately grouped together.

[54] Nash, _Ethics and Revelation_, p. 259.

[55] Peabody, _Jesus Christ and the Social Question_, p. 104.

[56] Fairbairn, _The Place of Christ in Modern Theology_, p. 186.

CHAPTER X

_THE INFLUENCE OF THE DEEPENING SENSE OF THE LIKE-MINDEDNESS OF MEN UPON THEOLOGY_

In definitely considering the influence of the social consciousness upon theological doctrines, our first question becomes: How does the deepening sense of the like-mindedness of men affect theology?

Obviously, here, the change will be largely one of mood. We shall look at our themes with a different feeling, and so speak differently, modifying our methods of putting things in those slight ways that do not seem specially significant to one who judges in the ma.s.s, but mean very much to one who feels the finer implications of personal life.

These finer changes no one can hope to follow out in detail. Certain of these finer changes will naturally find incidental expression in the course of the more formal treatment.

But our attention must be mainly given to the statement of some of the most important of the plainer results of the principle in theology.

I. NO PRIME FAVORITES WITH G.o.d

In the first place, this conviction of the like-mindedness of men means that there can be no prime favorites with G.o.d.

It can hardly help affecting the thought of election. Election will, indeed, be thought of as qualified by the character of the chosen; for even Paul's argument in Romans clearly recognizes this, and is, in fact, itself a distinct argument against a narrow doctrine of election, as others have recognized.[57] But, beyond this, the conviction of the like-mindedness of men will especially view election as a choice for service. The divine method of election must be in harmony with Christ's fundamental principle of his kingdom, and with the developing social consciousness: "Whosoever shall be first among you, shall be servant of all."[58] It is no accident that this thought of election as choice for preeminent service, which is indeed soundly biblical, has come into special prominence in these days of the social consciousness. The same change is pa.s.sing over our view of the "elect," as of the "privileged" and "governing" cla.s.ses. We shall not return to the older feeling of prime favorites of G.o.d, and the problem of evil will find herein a certain alleviation. We shall feel increasingly that each race and each individual have their calling and have their compensating advantages; and that, when it comes down to the final test of opportunity, the differences in opportunity between individuals are far less than they seem; for to each one is given the possibility of the largest service any man can render--the possibility of touching closely with the very spirit of his life a few other lives. "There are compensations," as James says, "and no outward changes of condition in life can keep the nightingale of its eternal meaning from singing in all sorts of different men's hearts."[59]

II. THE GREAT UNIVERSAL QUALITIES AND INTERESTS, THE MOST VALUABLE

Moreover, since equality of need among men,[60] implies, as we have seen, a common capacity--even if in varying degrees--of entering into the most fundamental interests of life, this belief in the essential likeness of men is likely to carry with it that most wholesome conviction for theology, that the great universal qualities and interests are the most valuable. Not that which distinguishes us from one another, but that which we have in common is most valuable. As Howells tells the boys in his _A Boy's Town_, "the first thing you have to learn here below, is that in essentials you are just like every one else, and that you are different from others only in what is not so much worth while."[61] This consideration is no small help in facing that most difficult problem for any ideal view of the world--the problem of evil.

In G.o.d's world, we feel that the most common things ought to be the best. And this growing conviction of the social consciousness comes in to confirm our faith. The constant and simple insistence of Christ on receptivity as a fundamental quality in his kingdom is built, in fact, on an optimistic faith in the value of the common things.

It is interesting to notice the varied confirmations of the value of the common. How often we have to feel that the deepest discussions come out with only deeper insight into the great common truths; and, on the other hand, that in stilted philosophizing, what seems at first sight a great discovery, proves only a perversely obscure way of putting a common truth.

It is the very mission of genius--of the poet in the larger sense, we are coming to feel, to bring out the value of the common. His distinctive mark is that he has kept a fresh sense for the great common experiences of life. So Kipling prays:

"It is enough that through Thy grace I saw naught common on Thy earth.

Take not that vision from my ken."

So, the greatest in art, Hegel contends, has a universal appeal.

It is a wholesome and heartening conviction, I say, to bring into theology, that the really best things are common, accessible to all, actually shared in, to an extent beyond that which our superficial vision seems to show. For, after all, this conviction of the social consciousness is only bringing home to us, in a new and appreciable way, Christ's own optimism and his own faith in the love of the Father. It is only another ill.u.s.tration of Fairbairn's principle of the Christian consciousness becoming more Christian, and so better able to understand and interpret Christ.

And it leads us back by this route of the social consciousness, to emphasize in life, and in our theological thinking upon the conditions of entering the kingdom of G.o.d, Christ's own insistence upon the two universally human characteristics found in every child--susceptibility and trust, which, voluntarily cherished, become teachableness and belief in love. If G.o.d is Father indeed, and we are intended to come to our best in a.s.sociation with him, these qualities must be the most fundamental ones. And they imply no lack of virility, either, for the highest self-a.s.sertion, as Professor Everett pointed out in his criticism of Nietzsche, is in complete self-surrender to such a will as G.o.d's. "When Jesus said, 'He that loseth his life shall save it,'

he said in effect--The self-surrender to which I call you is the truest self-a.s.sertion. We find thus in the teachings of Christianity a summons to strength far greater than that implied by the self-a.s.sertion which is most characteristic of the teachings of Nietzsche, because it is the a.s.sertion of a larger self."[62]

Our outlook becomes well-nigh hopeless, when we make our tests of admission to the kingdom so much more exclusive than Christ himself made them.

III. ESSENTIAL LIKENESS UNDER VERY DIVERSE FORMS

It is particularly important for theology that this conviction of the like-mindedness of men has come from a growing power to discern essential likeness under very diverse forms; for this consideration bears not only on the problem of natural evil, but also on the problem of sin and of the progress of Christianity.

We have taken some curiously diverse paths to this understanding of diverse lives. Travels, history, biography, autobiographical fragments, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and--to no small degree--fiction, with its stories of out-of-the-way places and out-of-the-way peoples and of unfamiliar cla.s.ses,--all have been thoroughfares for the social consciousness here.

We are slowly learning to see the likeness under the differences, and so to transcend the differences even between occidental and oriental.

All this means much, not only for our practical missionary putting of the truth, but also for our final theological statements. They will inevitably grow simpler, larger, more universally human, and at the same time more deep and solid.

We are slowly learning, too, to discern a deep inner content of life under conditions that have no appeal for us, and to see like ideals and aspirations under very diverse forms of expression. Take, for example, these three or four sentences--a small part of that quoted by Professor James in his essay, _On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings_,--from Stevenson's _Lantern-Bearers_: "It is said that a poet has died young in the breast of the most stolid. It may be contended rather that a (somewhat minor) bard in almost every case survives, and is the spice of life to his possessor. Justice is not done to the versatility and the unplumbed childishness of man's imagination. His life from without may seem but a rude mound of mud; there will be some golden chamber at the heart of it in which he dwells delighted."[63]

And, later, on the side of ideals, Stevenson is quoted once again: "If I could show you these men and women all the world over, in every stage of history, under every abuse of error, under every circ.u.mstance of failure, without hope, without help, without thanks, still obscurely fighting the lost fight of virtue, still clinging to some rag of honor, the poor jewel of their souls!"[64] And now, having quoted Howells and Stevenson as theological authorities, I shall be pardoned if, for a moment, I erect Kenneth Grahame's _Golden Age_ into a "theological inst.i.tute": "See," said my friend, bearing somewhat on my shoulder, "how this strange thing, this love of ours, lives and shines out in the unlikeliest of places! You have been in the fields in early morning? Barren acres, all! But only stoop--catch the light thwartwise--and all is a silver network of gossamer! So the fairy filaments of this strange thing underrun and link together the whole world. Yet it is not the old imperious G.o.d of the fatal bow--+heros hanikate machan+--not that--nor even the placid respectable +storge+--but something still unnamed, perhaps more mysterious, more divine! Only one must stoop to see it, old fellow, one must stoop!"[65]

It means very much for the sanity of our outlook on life, and for any possible theodicy, that we can believe the heart of such a view as this for which Stevenson and Grahame are here contending. And what is all this attempt to get away from this "certain blindness in human beings," of which Professor James speaks, but a growing into one of the fixed habits of Jesus, what Phillips Brooks calls "his discovery of interest in people whom the world generally would have found most uninteresting?" "And this same habit," he adds, "pa.s.sing over into his disciples, made the wide and democratic character of the new faith."[66]

IV. AS APPLIED TO THE QUESTION OF IMMORTALITY