The 'New' Theology

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 20, 16 May 1907, Page 23

The 'New' Theology

The secular press continues to give extensive free advertisements to the Rev. Mr. Campbell (a minister of the Independent Church) and his miscalled ' new ' theology. The reverend gentleman's claim to notice is soon told : Without having ever been in a theological college, or received any theological training, or mastered that ' queen of the sciences,' he has permitted himself to dogmatise upon the deepest questions of theology ; to advance old heresies as ' new ' ; and, while still professing to be a Christian minister, he has ventured to deny several of the dogmatic facts that lie at the root of the Christian faith. The New Agnosticism. Mr. Campbell's latest move (according to the 'Britfish Weekly') has , been to join the advanced socialists. And (says the ' British Weekly ') h,e has ' nothing but compliments for Mr. Blatcluoid, 1 the aggressively agnostic editor of the ' Clarion.' Mr. Blatchford's opinion of Mr. Campbell and the ' new ' theology is contained in a ' Clarion ' article which we take in part irom the Dunedin ' Outlook ' of this week :— ' It is only three yeais,' says Mr. Blatchford", ' since the religious world was denouncing '■' the infidel editor of the Clarion," a-nd, behold ! we have agnostic seciaFism preached from a Christian puJpit. ' Yes. That is what it has come to. The " New Theology" is "God and My Neighbor," with the soft pedal on. It is Thomas Paine in a white tie. It is the Ingersoll fist, muffled in a boxft^ glove. It is the " Clarion " rue, worn with a difference. ' As an agnostic socialist, I am, naturally, pleased with the book. . . . ' Mr. Campbell is a Christian minister and lam an infidel editor ; and the difference between his religion and mine is too small to argue about. But I sail under the Jolly Roger. ' Mr. Campbell believes, I think, in the immortality of the soul. I express no opinion on that subject. . . ' Mr. Campbell calls Nature God. I call Nature Nature. . « 1 Mr. Campbell things JesuS' the most perfect man that ever lived. I think there have been many men as good, and some better. But be7ond those differences I think I may venture to say that there is nothing Mr. Campbell believes that I deny, and nothing I believe that he denies. Beyond these differences I am as much a Christian as is the Rev. R. J. Camnbell, and the Rev. R. J. Campbell is as much an infidel as the editor of the " Clarion." ' _ After a statement of Mr. Campbell's denials of some of the fur/da-mental truths of Christianity, the agnostic socialist editor goes on to say :—: —

' Mr. Campbell abandons the orthodox theory of sin. . . So do I. ' Mr. Campbell meets me more than half way on the subject of Determinism,, and will, I believe, oomie the other half when he has thoroughly mastered the problem. ' These are bold assertions, and perhaps Mr. Campbell may think them too sweeping ; but the proof is easy. ' The best proof is a comparison of " The New Theology " with my " infidel " books.' Thus far the agnostic editor of the ' Clarion.' Mr. Campbell is evidently out of place in a Christian pulpit. ' A Farrago of Nonsense.' Dr. Fairbaim, Principal of Mansfield (Protestant) College, Manchester, writes of the ' new ' theologian in the ' Manchester Guardian ' of April 2 :— ' He appears here as one " line the wa"ses of the sea driven with the wind and tossed," and so I cannot think that anything, here written is of permanent value. In the only private letter I wrote concerning the "New Theology," I described it as "a farrago of nonsense." What was said in haste may be repeated at leisure and in public. But what more or other thing may he expected from one who th : nks his speech rich with truths that can enlighten the woikl ?' Here is another extract from the same article in the Manchester daily :— ' A dear friend of mine, a large-hearted and influential Presbyterian, used to sneak of Thomas Goodwin as " the Prince of the Puritans " ; and he advised all students of theology to buy and to study his works tor the sake of the thought they expressed and the (man 'they revealed. Now the man is here described simply to say that he who knows his life', his mind, his struggles, his 'Ideals will never, invoke his authority to justify an attempt to appeal to the high hand of the law to put down any controversy or en)i any quest after truth. That is a thing he neither could nor would do. He had faith in truth, but not in oppression. He believed in reason, but not in coercion. He proudly thought, with his friend John Milton, that man ought l*o be encouraged to utter and to argue freely, for only in free discussion was ■there any power to sway the will of man. He would have said : '■' The new may ibe a bad theology, ill thought out amid worse presented, more nearly allied to ' nonsense ' than to reason. But the proper answer to it is a better theology and arguments to commend the better to reasonable men." He would not have named the author of the " New Theology"" a " theologian," but would have held him too illiterate, ill-informed, and uncharitable to be so called. He would have replied : " With what my successor says about ' the old ' or 'the conventional ' or ' the collegiate ' theology I a>gree ; 'but then what he says apainst it may he said with more reason against himself. He may, indeed, be a preacher, a man of letters, a historian of affairs', a philosopher, or anything else in literature ; but hie is not enoucch of a scholar or original thinker to be a divine. He is, indeed, .too easily provoked to be a genuine lover of truth. The only term that can describe his i?n : orance'is a word he himself frerlv rses— ' audacity. ' He mtay know hqw to speak, but how to think "is an art he has still to acquire." '