THE CHRISTIANITY OF CHRIST [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—I do not know whether you can find room for a letter written from a different point of view from that of your articles, and advancing other considerations. But I know you like to give your readers both sides. May I say that I am in full agreement with much that you say, and may I add, by way of explaining my position, that I am neither a ritualist nor an Ang,lo-Catholic ? But it can hardly be denied that both these sections have a valuable contribution to make to the Christianity of to-day and to-morrow.
You discard as idolatries ritual, dogma and exclusiveness. I suggest that in their measure these elements are necessary, and only become idolatrous in their abuse. Religion has never been entirely without them, and they are all sanctioned in the New Testament.
Ritual has its origin merely in the desire for beauty, and beauty has its proper place in worship. It is, of course, possible to have false ideas of what is beautiful, or to over- emphasize its rightful claims. Excess is really the reaction against previous negligence. But the principle is in itself healthy : ritual of some sort is always present in worship. The question is, can the instinct be checked without harm ? Attempts to do without ritual have always made worship dull and ugly. Exclusiveness is commended and even commanded by St. Paul. Circumstances and outlook have changed since his day, and no Christian now thinks it right to avoid people who arc not of his mind. But an all-em-• bracing tolerance tends to the belief that all opinions are of equal value : and the evil results of such a state of mind. are plain enough. As to dogma, it is a question of degree. You would yourself allow the greatest dogma of all, that God is. I do not think dogmas were invented out of the mere love of dogmatizing. It is quite impossible to get back to the state of mind of the early Church. Its teaching was welcomed with the receptivity of childhood. But afterwards Inevitably questions began to be asked, and answers had to be found ; for Christianity is of the head as well as the heart. The points at issue were discussed by some of the acutest minds of the old world. Our less subtle northern intelligence does not readily apprehend all the niceties involved. The only language that could ad- equately tackle them is dead. But the work was done, and the Creeds emerged : and no assault delivered since has been able to change a letter of them. What has been accepted by the general consent of the main body and has, been proved unshakable should, one would think, be regarded as at least provisionally true. The old questions have not lost their importance, though the discussion of them has lost its interest. May that not be because they have been settled once. for all, and we are meant to get on with the work more suitahle to our generation ? So I believe the majority of Church people, whether clergy or laity, regard them. Probably the dogmas of the creeds are necessities of correct thought, following the admission of the two principles that God is, and God is love. Anyhow they are the foundations of the Christian faith, and no good is likelY to be done, by digging
Previous page
