No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2011
Systematic theology is, and of right ought to be, primarily practical. In the first place, true religion is both one of the ends of an ideal human life and, in the long run, an indispensable means to the morality which is most essential to human welfare, inner and outer. In the second place, theology is necessary as an instrument for the proper control of the development and expression of religion—a special case of the function of ideas in the control of life. It follows, therefore, that a sound theology is a human necessity. The purpose of the theologian, whatever else it may or must include, must be to find those religious truths which are essential to the vitality and efficiency of the best type of human religion.
That this has really been the aim of theologians in the great formative periods of the history of Christian doctrine may readily be shown. The prevailing impression with regard to orthodoxy and excluded heresies is that the distinction between them is arbitrary and external. This is indeed to the modern mind true in large measure of the distinction between the old orthodoxy and heresy; but in their own day this distinction was neither arbitrary nor external. Then it was organically related to the most pressing of problems; it was supremely vital, for the issues involved were nothing short of spiritual life and death.
1 It will be readily understood that what is here suggested is something very different in idea from the “modern orthodox” movement in Germany, as represented by such writers as Theodor Kaftan, Seeberg, Stange, Dunkmann, and Grützmacher. That is essentially an attempt to convince the modern mind of the truth of the ancient and mediaeval orthodoxy.
2 Harvard Theological Review, January, 1911.
3 When the mystic interprets all reality from the point of view gained within the mystical experience in its more extreme forms, the result is an extreme monism in which the individuality of man is merged in that of God; when he interprets life and reality from the ordinary non-mystical point of view of common sense while attaching religious value to the mystical experience alone, a somewhat too pluralistic world-view is the result.
4 Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 518.
5 F. M. Davenport, Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals, p. 280.