28 FEBRUARY 1931, Page 28

Whose Son is He?

Jesus—Lord or Leader ? By Frank Lenwood. (Constable 7s. 6d.) Mn. LENWOOD has written a book of a type which was both more prevalent and more appreciated twenty years ago than it is to-day, when the Liberal Protestant outlook is no longer in fashion. It is made interesting by its writer's vigorous style and intense sincerity ; but there is little in its arguments which is not already familiar to theological students. Obviously the facts related in the New Testament admit of two opposite interpretations. Either we have in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth the finest flower of humanity and nothing more, or a unique irruption into history of the divine—in the words of Dr. Vernon Bartlett, quoted by Mr. Lenwood, "the direct action of Gosi's transcendent will to create something beyond the result of His immanent working."

Here is that fatal " either—or " which Von Hfigel declared to be the source of our worst religious difficulties. But forced options appear to be congenial to Mr. Lenwood's mind, which is earnest and candid rather than subtle ; and he feels no doubt that if Christianity is to have a future, the central problem of Christology must be resolved in a non-supernatural sense. The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, he thinks, should be regarded as part of the margin of error inevitably present in any human religion which is to make contact with men. It is, in fact, an " over- belief " ; and those experiences of the Church which seem to Christians to guarantee it are mostly referable to pro- jection and suggestion. The discussion, however, is robbed of much of its value by the fact that most of the best recent work on Christology is ignored. Mr. Lenwood does not seem to be acquainted with the writings of Professor Hodgson or Father Thornton ; nor does Archbishop Temple appear among his authorities. Indeed, on the philosophic side his equipment seems slender ; and though too much metaphysics is certainly bad for religion, the total absence of a philosophic background is as certainly fatal to it. The result is a lack of depth, a deficient sense of mystery, a kind of breezy certitude that things have got to fit. The solution to which Mr. Len- Wood leads us is practically identical with Unitarianism. He argues its religious advantages with a persuasive eloquence which is in itself attractive and will doubtless ensure appre-