Publication date
3/15/10
Volume
31
Number
6
The WatchTower
A Layman on the "New Theology"
The Watchtower Magazines
/../literature/watchtower/1910/6/1910-6-1.html
 
 
 
VOL. 
XXXI 
BROOKLYN, 
N. 
Y., 
MARCH 
15, 
1010 
No.6 
A 
LAYMAN 
ON 
THE 
"NEW 
THEOLOGY" 
lA 
STRIKING 
AND 
AULJ<: 
REVIEW 
OF 
DR. 
ELIOT'S 
VIEWS.] 
wonld 
chew 
off 
its 
own 
fingers; 
a 
cat, 
or 
eVen 
a 
child, 
woulll 
walk 
into 
the 
fire 
before 
intellect 
lUlll 
taught 
bim 
his 
danger; 
and 
so 
on 
to 
the 
ellll 
of 
the 
chapter. 
"Perhaps 
one 
might 
think 
that 
because 
this 
lecture 
was 
de­ 
livered 
at 
Harvard 
it 
is 
too 
extreme 
a 
statenwnt 
of 
the 
New 
Theology. 
But 
the 
New 
Theology 
is 
world-wide. 
For 
many 
of 
its 
disciples 
it 
has 
no 
God 
(except 
as 
the 
soul 
of 
the 
uni­ 
verse 
may 
be 
a. 
God, 
if 
one 
can 
grasp 
that 
idea), 
no 
inspired 
Bible, 
no 
heaven-sent 
Savior 
of 
the 
world; 
its 
fundamental 
principle, 
if 
I 
have 
been 
able 
to 
make 
it 
out, 
is 
the 
absolute 
and 
positive 
negation 
of 
any 
supernatural 
power 
whatever 
in 
the 
past, 
present 
or 
future, 
with 
all 
that 
that 
implies. 
And 
as 
far 
as 
its 
professors 
and 
votaries 
have 
come 
under 
my 
ob­ 
servation, 
it 
is, 
in 
this 
fundamental 
principle, 
pretty 
much 
the 
same 
at 
Harvard, 
Union, 
Yale, 
Chicago; 
very 
much 
the 
same 
among 
Episcopalians, 
Methodists 
and 
Baptists 
as 
it 
is 
among 
Unitarians 
and 
Congregationalists; 
and 
it 
seems 
to 
have 
won 
a 
large 
majority 
of 
the 
young 
clergy 
of 
the 
Protes­ 
tant 
Churches 
in 
this 
section. 
Thcre 
are 
minor 
differences, 
of 
course; 
Dr. 
Eliot's 
position 
is 
the 
llllvancerl 
logical 
position, 
towards 
which 
all 
the 
others 
are 
tending, 
but 
which 
not 
all 
have 
yet 
reached. 
Some 
men, 
moreover, 
are 
entirely 
subject 
to 
the 
influence 
of 
the 
new 
theologv; 
others 
are 
influenced 
partly 
by 
the 
new 
and 
partly 
hy' 
the 
old 
in 
all 
stages 
of 
progress, 
but 
in 
general 
acquiring 
a 
little 
more 
of 
the 
new 
leaven 
and 
losing 
a 
little 
more 
of 
the 
old 
each 
year. 
"\Vell, 
this 
is 
rather 
a 
long 
It'ttpr 
on 
theology 
from 
one 
who 
i8 
not 
a 
theologian. 
:My 
interest 
is 
not 
wholly, 
perhaps 
not 
chiefly, 
theological; 
it 
is 
rather 
practical 
and 
sociological. 
I 
have 
long 
been 
convinced 
that 
the 
church 
could 
not 
adopt 
Dar­ 
winism 
without 
being 
killed 
by 
it, 
anel 
the 
New 
Theology 
is 
largely 
the 
effect 
of 
Darwinism 
on 
the 
church. 
"We 
all 
know 
that 
there 
is 
a 
sort 
of 
elective 
affinity 
be­ 
tween 
unbridled 
democracy 
and 
atheistic 
Rocialism. 
By 
un­ 
bridled 
democracy, 
I 
mean 
the 
kind 
which 
gives 
to 
the 
Sea 
Island 
negro 
the 
sallle 
political 
weight 
as 
to 
his 
former 
mas­ 
tel'; 
which 
gives 
to 
the 
half-pauper, 
half-vicious 
denizens 
of 
the 
slum 
distriets 
of 
our 
great 
citic8 
the 
same 
voting 
power 
as 
the 
independent 
househol(ler 
or 
businrss 
man 
possessrs; 
ayl'. 
which 
giye 
them 
more, 
since 
ns 
they 
are 
mOl'r 
numprous. 
thry 
who 
pay 
no 
direct 
taxes 
are 
alloweel, 
in 
effpct. 
to 
levy 
them 
on 
those 
who 
do. 
by 
elpding 
aldl'rmen 
and 
other 
officers 
as 
worthless 
as 
themselves-the 
sort 
of 
drmocracv 
whirh 
reallv 
believes 
the 
olel 
maxim, 
"Vox 
populi. 
I'OX 
Dei." 
This 
may 
st'em 
like 
political 
heresy 
to 
many, 
hut 
wl1en 
the 
new 
thpolog:v 
shall 
have 
destroyed 
the 
common 
man's 
helirf 
in 
God, 
thl' 
fepl­ 
ing 
of 
moral 
obligation 
to 
him 
ana 
to 
our 
fellows, 
as 
his 
chil­ 
oren 
(as 
it 
will 
do 
if 
it 
is 
not 
vigoronsly 
opposcd), 
and 
when 
the 
:Marxian 
missionaries 
shall 
Iw 
ve 
malle 
as 
mncll 
progrpss 
in 
teaching 
their 
gospel 
of 
robbery 
to 
the 
negroes 
of 
tl1r 
South 
and 
the 
poorer 
classes 
of 
our 
cities 
afl 
tIH''y 
have 
already 
ma,le 
on 
the 
Continent, 
and 
art' 
making 
in 
I~on(lon, 
Wt' 
shall 
begin 
to 
appreciate 
what 
sort 
of 
a 
Vox 
Dei 
the 
Vox 
populi 
of 
a 
god­ 
less 
people 
can 
be. 
This 
affinity 
betwpt'n 
extreme 
democracy 
and 
atheistic 
socialism 
haf! 
long 
bet'n 
strikinglv 
manifl'..;tl'a 
Oil 
the 
Continent; 
it 
begins 
to 
be 
seen 
in 
England 
an(l 
AnlPriea. 
The 
North 
of 
Germany, 
I 
am 
told, 
is 
so 
far 
won 
by 
atheistic 
and 
Marxian 
socialism-the 
so-called 
Socinl 
Democracy-that 
the 
existing 
order 
if! 
chiefly 
maintainen. 
in 
the 
Germ~n 
Em­ 
pire 
by 
the 
Catholic 
South, 
the 
country 
districts, 
and 
the 
well· 
drillp(] 
bayonet. 
"And 
to 
me, 
one 
of 
the 
most 
interesting 
thing~ 
in 
connp./'­ 
tion 
with 
the 
so-callen. 
npw 
theolog-'y 
is 
the 
fact 
that 
so 
many 
of 
its 
disciples 
are 
showing 
as 
much 
affinity 
for 
militant 
so­ 
cialism 
as 
the 
atheism 
of 
the 
Continent 
shows, 
awl 
for 
the 
same 
reasons. 
Thi~, 
of 
course, 
is 
not 
true 
of 
all 
its 
'lisciples 
or 
teachers-is 
emphatically 
not 
true 
of 
Dr. 
Eliot-but 
it 
seems 
to 
be 
a 
tendency 
of 
the 
system. 
"Christianity 
teaches 
that 
man 
is 
inclincd 
to 
sin; 
that 
Ius 
natural 
impubes 
are 
often 
ba'l; 
that 
he 
needs 
human 
govern­ 
ment 
as 
well 
a, 
divine 
guidance; 
"The 
powers 
that 
he 
arc 
oJ'([ained 
of 
Uo'!.' 
The 
majority 
of 
the 
followers 
of 
:Mar., 
and 
many 
of 
the 
professor., 
of 
the 
New 
Theology 
alike 
Jeny 
the 
existence 
of 
00(1 
(in 
the 
sense 
in 
which 
Utp 
church 
has 
heretofore 
understood 
tltat 
existence), 
an,[ 
the 
tl'n,lency 
of 
Illan 
to 
sin; 
they 
say 
that 
man's 
natural 
impul..;('s 
are 
good 
and 
for 
the 
most 
part 
teach 
that 
salvation 
lies 
in 
the 
destruc- 
also, 
the 
miHunrlerstanding 
of 
the 
mission 
tion 
of 
poverty 
anu 
misery. 
Christianity 
tpaches 
brotherly 
3!Hl 
and 
400. 
The 
most 
ol'llinary 
intellect 
love, 
but 
forbids 
robbery 
and 
even 
covetousnpss. 
Marxian 
so- 
if 
there 
were 
no 
pain 
in 
the 
world, 
a 
baby 
eialism 
pretends 
to 
advance 
brotherly 
love, 
but 
its 
maxim 
is 
[4581] 
(99 
111(1) 
The 
following 
from 
The 
Religious 
Herald 
contains 
consider­ 
able 
truth 
and 
is 
well 
worth 
the 
reading 
as 
bearing 
on 
mat­ 
ters 
seen 
from 
TIlE 
\VATCII 
TOWER:- 
"You 
h:1 
ve 
probably 
scen 
in 
the 
papers 
references 
to 
the 
definition 
of 
the 
new 
theology 
given 
by 
Dr. 
Eliot, 
president 
emeritus 
of 
Harvard 
College, 
and 
for 
thirty-five 
years 
the 
first 
citizen 
of 
MasS'lchusetts, 
if 
not 
of 
New 
England. 
But 
second­ 
hand 
newspaper 
accounts 
are 
apt 
to 
be 
inaccurate; 
I 
thought 
you 
might 
like 
to 
see 
the 
original, 
and 
accordingly 
am 
enclos­ 
ing 
a 
copy 
of 
the 
Harvard 
Theological 
Review, 
under 
separate 
cover, 
containing 
his 
lecture. 
"Dr. 
Eliot 
has 
been 
much 
criticised, 
but 
for 
my 
part 
I 
ad­ 
mire 
his 
courage 
and 
honesty. 
Now, 
as 
always, 
he 
speaks 
the 
truth 
as 
he 
spes 
it. 
without 
fear 
or 
favor. 
Too 
many 
of 
the 
advocates 
of 
the 
new 
theology 
pursue 
the 
policy 
which 
a 
:'\fethodist 
minister 
in 
a 
neighboring 
parish 
explained 
to 
me; 
they 
pxpress 
their 
views 
freely 
at 
ministers' 
meetings, 
but 
have 
a 
tacit 
undcrstanding 
not 
to 
mention 
them 
to 
the 
pews. 
And 
this 
resppet 
for 
the 
tender 
feclings 
of 
the 
superstitious 
ones 
( 
!) 
who 
occupy 
the 
prws 
is, 
aftpr 
all, 
not 
impolitic; 
for 
if 
the 
new 
thpology 
wcre 
understood 
by 
the 
average 
layman, 
he 
would 
find 
it 
so 
hard 
to 
distinguish 
from 
the 
old 
atheism 
that, 
ac· 
cording 
to 
his 
temper, 
he 
would 
stay 
at 
home 
and 
save 
his 
1ll00H'Y, 
or 
would 
try 
to 
get 
a 
new 
pastor 
installed. 
"The 
Methollist 
clrrgyman 
I 
mention 
tells 
me 
that 
a 
great 
llIajority 
of 
the 
younger 
ministers 
of 
that 
church, 
in 
this 
]Mrt 
of 
the 
country, 
nre 
bclievers 
in 
the 
new 
theoloO'y. 
A 
ma­ 
jority 
of 
thp 
Prot~sbnt 
ministers 
that 
I 
know 
her;abouts 
ad­ 
here 
to 
it, 
il]('luding 
mo..;t 
of 
the 
younger 
m€n. 
"You 
will 
sec 
th:1t 
Dr. 
Eliot's 
lecture 
consists 
of 
two 
parts. 
The 
first, 
which 
is 
negative, 
is 
practically 
undistinguishable, 
so 
far 
as 
I 
can 
see, 
from 
ancient 
athei"m. 
In 
fact, 
the 
new 
theology, 
as 
I 
understand 
it, 
in 
its 
adyanced 
form, 
has 
less 
belief 
.in 
a 
Go,[ 
(consi,[ered 
as 
a 
personality, 
with 
conscience 
an,l 
wIll), 
who 
preaterl 
the 
universe 
and 
the 
livinrr 
creatures 
in 
it, 
than 
Davil[ 
Hume, 
Edward 
Gibbon, 
Thomas 
Payne, 
Vol­ 
taire. 
allll 
.T 
. 
.T. 
Rousspau 
had. 
. 
"As 
to 
the 
positive 
part 
of 
thE' 
new 
theology-well, 
I 
shall 
Wish 
to 
know 
what 
YOU 
think 
of 
it. 
"It 
is 
P,t,y 
for 
u;e 
to 
understand 
this 
state 
of 
mind 
of 
the 
atheist, 
a~llthtic, 
OJ' 
matel:ialist, 
and 
in 
this 
age 
So 
many 
of 
the 
foremost 
Intell~ets. 
espeCIally 
on 
the 
Continent, 
deny 
all 
evi­ 
dpnce 
of 
the 
c:\:lstence 
of 
God, 
that 
I 
am 
not 
surprised 
to 
learn 
that 
any 
man 
holds 
such 
views. 
But 
to 
deny 
positively, 
on 
the 
one 
hand, 
all 
those 
conceptions 
of 
the 
Creator 
thnt 
seem 
nat­ 
ural 
to, 
man, 
an,l 
then. 
without 
adhpring 
to 
the 
logic 
of 
atheism, 
ngno"tIcism 
or 
lIIa/eralism, 
to 
set 
up 
the 
hazv, 
and 
to 
mv 
mind 
illogical 
vic\\' 
of 
God 
which 
is 
presented 
in' 
this 
~ew 
theology; 
hardly 
seems 
normal, 
nor 
does 
it 
seem 
as 
if 
it 
could 
ever 
acquire 
llJan~' 
panlPst 
followers 
among 
the 
common 
ppople. 
It 
seems 
to 
me 
to 
bear 
strOI\CT 
internal 
evirlence 
of 
its 
oriCTin 
in 
the 
study 
of 
the 
skepticn! 
professor 
of 
theology, 
and 
to'\ave, 
if 
I 
1lJ~~: 
usc 
t?e. 
cxpression, 
a 
pprhaps 
uncomciow, 
but 
yet 
hypo­ 
cnbcal 
ongtn. 
Of 
course, 
when 
I 
say 
this, 
I 
do 
not 
at 
all 
refer 
to 
Dr. 
Eliot. 
"But 
I"t 
us 
pnt 
onrs~IYes 
for 
a 
moment 
in 
the 
place 
of 
the 
mnn 
who 
h~lS 
been 
ordamed 
to 
the 
Chri5tian 
ministry, 
who 
has 
lost 
faIth 
allli 
lacks 
the 
courage 
to 
turn 
his 
back 
on 
his 
palling 
and 
his 
friends, 
to 
confess 
himself 
a 
failure 
and 
to 
I)('gin 
lifp 
~nelV. 
To. 
"uch 
:" 
one 
the 
new 
theology' 
appeals 
strongly; 
It 
saH's 
hiS 
consistency; 
it 
sayes 
his 
salary; 
it 
san's 
him 
from 
the 
humiliatiiln 
that 
open 
apostasy 
wouid 
in­ 
volve. 
Skpptip" 
cum 
manly 
f"cl 
niorp 
or 
less 
di"like 
of 
an 
ex­ 
[Jiie;t: 
the 
faithful 
consider 
him 
an 
apostate. 
But 
by 
em­ 
braCing 
t.he 
so-called 
new 
theology, 
he 
holds 
hi5 
pastorate 
or 
Ip"turps~lp 
and 
wins 
reputation 
as 
being 
learned, 
liberal 
and 
progressive. 
"Whatever 
the 
cause 
may 
be, 
the 
so-callerl 
npw 
theology 
spcms 
to 
be 
dominant 
in 
most 
Protestant 
tllPolocrical 
semina­ 
rips 
in 
Oprmuny, 
Englanrl 
and 
the 
northern 
part 
~f 
the 
United 
~tates, 
or 
wherc 
not 
dominant, 
to 
be 
rapidly 
increasing 
its 
in­ 
tI 
uenpe. 
. 
"You 
will 
note 
in 
Dr. 
Eliot's 
lecture 
that 
in 
denying 
the 
pXIs/pncp 
of 
a 
comcious 
p('l'sonal 
(Jo,l 
(as 
distin 
cruished 
from 
the 
Cod 
II 
ho 
is 
the 
stnn 
of 
all 
living 
souls, 
humabn 
and 
brute, 
good, 
ba,l 
ancl 
iilll 
itrerpnt 
alike), 
lIe 
denies 
all 
hope 
of 
a 
future 
life. 
"How 
CUI 
iou..;, 
of 
pain 
on 
pagl's 
ought 
to 
see 
that 
Vou. XXXI BROOKLYN, N. Y¥., MARCH 15, 1910 No. 6 ~———— A LAYMAN ON THE “NEW THEOLOGY” {A STRIKING AND ABLE REVIEW OF DR, ELIOT’S VIEWS. ] The following from The Religious Herald contains considerable truth and is well worth the reading as bearing on matters seen from Tne WatcH TowER:— “You have probably seen in the papers references to the definition of the new theology given by Dr. Eliot, president emeritus of Harvard College, and for thirty-five years the first citizen of Massachusetts, if not of New England. But secondhand newspaper accounts are apt to be inaccurate; I thought you might like to see the original, and accordingly am enclosing a copy of the Harvard Theological Review, under separate cover, containing his lecture. “Dr. Eliot has been much criticised, but for my part I admire his courage and honesty. Now, as always, he speaks the truth as he sees it, without fear or favor. Too many of the advocates of the new theology pursue the policy which a Methodist minister in a neighboring parish explained to me; they express their views freely at ministers’ meetings, but have a tacit understanding not to mention them to the pews. And this respect for the tender feelings of the superstitious ones (!) who oecupy the pews is, after all, not impolitic; for if the new theology were understood by the average layman, he would find it so hard to distinguish from the old atheism that, according to his temper, he would stay at home and save his money, or would try to get a new pastor installed, “The Methodist clergyman I mention tells me that a great majority of the younger ministers of that church, in this part of the country, are believers in the new theology. A majority of the Protestant ministers that I know hereabouts adhere to it, including most of the younger men. “You will see that Dr. Eliot’s lecture consists of two parts. The first, which is negative, is practically undistinguishable, so far as [ can see, from ancient atheism. In fact, the new theology, as I understand it, in its advanced form, has less belief in a God (considered as a personality, with conscience and will), who created the universe and the living creatures in it, than David Hume, Edward Gibbon, Thomas Payne, Voltaire, and J. J. Rousseau had. _ “As to the positive part of the new theology—well, I shall wish to know what you think of it. “Tt is easy for me to understand this state of mind of the atheist, agnostic, or materialist, and in this age so many of the foremost intellects, especially on the Continent, deny all evidence of the existence of God, that I am not surprised to learn that any man holds such views. But to deny positively, on the one hand, all those conceptions of the Creator that seem natural to man, and then, without adhering to the logic of atheism, agnosticism or materalism, to set up the hazy, and, to my mind, illogical view of God which is presented in this new theology, hardly seems normal, nor does it seem as if it could ever acquire many earnest followers among the common people. It seems to me to bear strong internal evidence of its origin in the study of the skeptical professor of theology, and to have, if I may use the expression, a perhaps unconscious but yet hypocritical origin. Of course, when I say this, I do not at all refer to Dr. Eliot. “But let ug put ourselves for a moment in the place of the man who has been ordained to the Christian ministry, who has lost faith and lacks the courage to turn his back on his calling and his friends, to confess himself a failure, and to begin life anew. To such a one the new theology appeals strongly; it saves his consistency; it saves his salary; it saves him from the humiliation that open apostasy would involve. Skeptics commonly feel more or less dislike of an expriest; the faithful consider him an apostate. But by embracing the so-called new theology, he holds his pastorate or lectureship and wins reputation as being learned, liberal and progressive, “Whatever the cause may be, the so-called new theology seems to be dominant in most Protestant theological seminaries in Germany, England and the northern part of the United States, or where not dominant, to be rapidly increasing its influence. “You will note in Dr. Flict’s lecture that in denying the existence of a conscious personal God (as distinguished from the God who is the sum of all living souls, human and brute, good, bad and indifferent alike), he denies all hope of a future life, “Wow curious, also, the misunderstanding of the mission of pain on pages 399 and 400. The most ordinary intellect ought to see that if there were no pain in the world, a baby [4581] would chew off its own fingers: a cat, or even a child, would walk into the fire before intellect had taught him his danger; and so on to the end of the chapter. “Perhaps one might think that because this lecture was delivered at Harvard it is too extreme a statement of the New Theology. But the New Theology is world-wide. For many of its disciples it has no God (except as the soul of the universe may be a God, if one can grasp that idea), no inspired Bible, no heaven-sent Savior of the world; its fundamental principle, if I have been able to make it out, is the absolute and positive negation of any supernatural power whatever in the past, present or future, with all that that implies. And as far as its professors and votaries have come under my observation, it is, in this fundamental principle, pretty much the same at Harvard, Union, Yale, Chicago; very much the same among Episcopalians, Methodists and Baptists as it is among Unitarians and Congregationalists; and it seems to have won a large majority of the young clergy of the Protestant Churches in this section. There are minor differences, of course; Dr. Eliot’s position is the advanced logical position, towards which all the others are tending, but which not all have yet reached. Some men, moreover, are entirely subject to the influence of the new theology; others are influenced partly by the new and partly by the old in all stages of progress, but in general acquiring a little more of the new leaven and losing a little more of the old each year. “Well, this is rather a long letter on theology from one who is not a theologian. My interest is not wholly, perhaps not chiefly, theological; it is rather practical and sociological. I have long been convinced that the church could not adopt Darwinism without being killed by it, and the New Theology is largely the effect of Darwinism on the church. “We all know that there is a sort of elective affinity between unbridled democracy and atheistic socialism. By unbridled democracy, I mean the kind which gives to the Sea Island negro the same political weight as to his former master; which gives to the half-pauper, half-vicious denizens of the slum districts of our great cities the same voting power as the independent householder or business man possesses; aye, which give them more, since as they are more numerous, they who pay no direct taxes are allowed, in effect, to levy them on those who do, by electing aldermen and other officers as worthless as themselves—the sort of democracy which really believes the old maxim, “Vow populi, vow Dei”? This may seem like political heresy to many, but when the new theology shall have destroyed the common man’s belief in God, the feeling of moral obligation to him and to our fellows, a3 his children (as it will do if it is not vigorously opposed), and when the Marxian missionaries shal} have made ag much progress in teaching their gospel of robbery to the negroes of the South and the poorer classes of our cities as they have already made on the Continent, and are making in London, we shall begin to appreciate what sort of a Vow Dei the Vow populi of a godless people can be. This affinity between extreme democracy and atheistic socialism has long heen strikingly manifested on the Continent; it begins to be seen in England and America. The North of Germany, I am told, is so far won by atheistic and Marxian socialism—the so-called Social Democracy—that the existing order is chiefly maintained in the German Empire by the Catholic South, the country districts, and the well drilled bayonet. “And to me, one of the most interesting things in connertion with the so-called new theology is the fact that so many of its disciples are showing as much affinity for militant socialism as the atheism of the Continent shows, and for the same reasons. This, of course, is not true of all its disciples or teachers—is emphatically not true of Dr. Eliot—but it seems to be a tendency of the system. “Christianity teaches that man is inclined to sin; that his natural impulses are often bad; that he needs human government as well as divine guidance; ‘The powers that be are ordained of God.’ The majority of the followers of Marx and many of the professors of the New Theology alike deny the existence of God (in the sense in which the church has heretofore understood that existence), and the tendency of man to sin; they say that man’s natural impulses are yood and for the most part teach that salvation lies in the destruetion of poverty and misery. Christianity teaches brotherly love, but forbids robbery and even covetousness. Marxian socialism pretends to advance brotherly love, but its maxim is (99 100)

This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Global Policy on Use of Cookies and Similar Technologies .