EVENING SITTING THE NEW THEOLOGY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2762, 20 February 1907, Page 17

EVENING SITTING THE NEW THEOLOGY.

The annual sermon in connection wnh the union wa? preached b\ the Rev. J Sargin^oi), of Linwocd, who ijav <l ar ry admirable discourse on the now theology. The preacher pointed out thar the mi n who formulated cieeds were not hackers aftor truth in any real ppn»e, for all tho truth they required they believed th<-\ hud in certain document-,. The question between orthodoxy and heterodox\ nc-iei had been a question between truth and eiror, but only one of agreement with or deviation from a certain standard or rule. The new theology, however interested it miirht be in inquiring what apostles and evangelists said, and what they meant, did not by any means legaid the answer as netesanly final. There was «caiiel\ one of the positions taken by the new theology that could not be suppoitcd by (juoi.ttions from Christian writer* in e\<.-ry a?<> of the Church; but \enerable name* had no more right to 1 ule in theology than m astronomy. The new theology »?« as me\itable as the new cosmology and the new political economy. People clung to old ideas and forms purely bocau-e they were aceu«tome<l to them and could not understand the position of a religiou« man for whom the old dogma had become utterly incredible and altogether impoMbl' 1 . It was too often foi gotten that oithodoxy itself was an aggre=s.i\e intellectual t.y«.<er>i, a .standing challenge to the human mind, and by no means the humble and meek j child of mv-tery which it often claimed j to be. The new theology was but an ' irdication of the new and fuller life that had come upon them. The new scientific | spirit and method had also made large , contribution to the new thought and ( wrought revolutions in their conceptions of the Bible. The new theology was more lational than the old, and tended to make things clearer, but the average hearer hated to be reasoned with or to have things made clear— to have their religion divorced from incident and history; he wanted a creed •with historic roots, and the poetic element in him must be appealed to. There were many reasons why the new theology was regarded somewhat languidly by those

who attended churches, for it was weak in its programme and incentive, and furnished poor fuel for firing aggressive ie- , ligious zeal. To the men of the new ) theology their belief was purely a question !of its biith. If the Christian Church could I not somehow accommodate godly men for 1 whom orthodoxy had become tinthinkable ! then its claim to universal empire was an impertinence. With all their strength they should protest against the assertion of the identity of Christianity with creed — the only thing that had any right to uniI \ers-al empire was love. The triumph of , the Lord Jesus was one thing — the triumph !of the theologian was another. The most fatuous notion that could be conceived was that the kingdom of God was to achieve full and final dominion on this earth when j the world was agreed upon what were [ called the fundamentals of the Christian I faith. Jesus would reign, but npt 83- a theologian — He never was a theologian — IHe was too full of God for that ; but He would reign when all had become brothers. At the close of the sermon tho Communion was administered to the delegates.