Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 3a

Dr. Tudor Jones and the Doctrine of the Atonement

page break

Dr. Tudor Jones and the Doctrine of the Atonement.

Sir,—"He believes as they do." Who is he ? And who are they? He is the Rev. Isaac Jolly, Presbyterian Minister, Palmerston North, New Zealand; and they are Principals Garvie and Forsyth. Now, I have pointed out from the beginning that they believe in the Atonement as a great spiritual reality which cannot be expressed at all in the logical forms of the past; that they believe that even the very words of the Bible are not sufficient to express this highest act of the death of the Founder of Christianity. The words of the Bible are a help, but unless we have interpreted them with our own minds and have brought them into the deepest focus of our own souls no book religion, no piecing together of verses of the Bible, will enable us to realize the meanings of the truths and deeds of the Founder. These men believe, too, that the Creeds and Confessions of the past cannot express the deeper meaning of the Atonement of Christ or of any other lesser religious hero of history. These men have pointed out with emphasis throughout their books that it is not mere theories and mere creed intellectualisms that we need, but more of the very same thing as Jesus himself possessed; and they have shown, too, that by no external transaction on the part even of God in eternity can this be given to us. For these men know what Mr. Jolly has yet to learn : that no alien thing can enter into the mind and spirit of man except in the degree man's own power is at work. Hence they place on one side "the man-made theories" of distant days, because they are aware that these may be held in the head without touching the heart and life at all. They state, as I have already quoted from them, that these head theories of the past are not religion but the transient and past clothing of religion. This clothing must be changed in theology and religion, as it is changed without the discussion of any Presbytery or Assembly in all the other branches of knowledge. These men have shown that the meaning of the Atonement which can be valid and be the highest Norm or Standard for us to-day is to be sought in the very ideals which Jesus realized and which every good human being possesses in potentiality. They have shown that doctrines which have crystallised into immutable dogmas such as a trinity of persons arranging the destiny of man in eternity, the fall of man, original sin, personal devil, everlasting hell, payment of a debt which God as an oriental king demanded for the sins of men, the miraculous and mythical elements which have gathered page break around the name of the Founder of Christianity, the modes of thought and the terminology expressed in all creeds and confessions,—these and a hundred other things they in conjunction with practically all other modern religious teachers have cast into a sea of oblivion. Yet Mr. Jolly says that he believes as they do. They have explained why they have cast aside these things, and could not believe as they do until they had done it. "He believes as they do" without having done it, or, as far as his letters show, without realizing the need of doing this at all. Instead of that he jumps at a stray word which they use in a sense totally different from him, and then says that he believes as they do.

Let me show your readers in reality what they do believe and how they believe it. The Atonement is viewed by them as man's ultimate reality. So I view it myself. The highest peak of goodness and holiness and love and service has been scaled by Jesus Christ. It has become evermore an ideal for man; to do the same with his own nature will mean for every human being the gaining of God, Freedom, and Immortality. All this is independent of every intellectual notion about the Godhead or of the deity of Christ. In fact the term deity has largely disappeared from current theological literature, and the word divinity has taken its place. We all believe in the divinity of Christ, and believe in the potential divinity of every good man and woman. Where has any ideal and goodness that is in any of us come from except from the divine source of all Being ? No one emphasized this more in the Britain of the 19th Century than the immortal heretic Dr. James Martineau. But the two men whom Mr. Jolly quotes do not base their religion on any written creed or confession. They have none, and know too well that "God is not a God of the dead but of the living," i.e., that the divine reveals himself to the mind and spirit of men through Ideals and through the great Personalities of History. These men know that the highest revelation of God must be sought in these two sources at least. The first source is the present with all its complexities framed into a religious totality and experience; the second source is the unique personality of Jesus who realized the ultimate reality possible for humanity. The Atonement is thus something totally different from notions about God and Christ and Man under legal terminology; it is the way how to live and how to die; it means what I said in the sermon which offended Mr. Jolly : "Jesus the unique figure of Christendom has pointed out to us the greatest truth of all—that the path of self-denial is the path of self-realisation." So many things, as already pointed out, had to be placed on one side before the centre of gravity of religion could be placed here. It has been the greatest spiritual gain of modern religion to have brought this out. It is none other than the way how to live, how to dive into the depth of page break Being, and how to taste and live eternal life in the midst of time.

But let us turn to Mr. Jolly. Has he no capacity to understand this fundamental difference between the dogmas of the past and the living realities of the past and the present ? These living realities, and the Atonement amongst them, can only mean anything to us in the degree we utilize them in our own lives. Judging from his letters, and that is all I know of Mr. Jolly, I have no hesitation in stating that he has not grappled with the real problem at stake. The Rev. J. Gibson-Smith states that Mr. Jolly has no capacity to understand "The Christ of the Cross," and that he puts forward his "man-made theories." I challenge him again to tackle the real problem of the Atonement. Mr. Jolly, I understand, is a much older man than I am, and with all modesty do I say that he has a great deal yet to learn on the great differences which modern religious and philosophical literature has made abundantly clear between the transient and the permanent elements in Christianity. The people, too, have a right to know of this difference. Any reader who wishes to see a fragment of this truth presented may do so by reading a little book which I have published this week on the Religious Philosophy of the leading religious idealist of Europe, one under whom I had the great privilege of studying these subjects—Prof. Rudolf Eucken of the famous University of Jena in Germany (Rudolf Eucken's Philosophy of Religion : Wellington, Messrs. S. & W. Mackay and Messrs. Whitcombe and Tombs.)

There is another matter to which I have to call attention in closing. Mr. Jolly ignores the work of foreign countries. The men whom he quotes could never have written their books without this literature. In the Crown Theological Library of Messrs. Williams and Norgate 24 volumes have already appeared presenting the modern views of religion. Only six of these volumes are the work of English writers. These foreign volumes express and explain the distinction which I have indicated above between the transient and the permanent elements in religion. Dr. Garvie says of them : "I am very grateful for the publication of these volumes." Dr. Marcus Dods says: "Your Crown Theological Library has done wonderful service to theological learning in this country." The Rev. Isaac Jolly is satisfied to leave this on one side or on his shelves. His reference to Dr. Mackintosh's review in "The Hibbert Journal" shows an entire lack of discrimination of the meaning of that review. With this I shall deal in my next letter. I may now inform Mr. Jolly that "The Hibbert Journal" is financed by a Unitarian trust and that two Unitarian Ministers are its editors, and also, that I happen to be the representative of that Journal in New Zealand

I am, etc.,

W. Tudor Jones,