EDITORIAL.

THE PREVALENT AVERSION TO THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY. THEOLOGICAL Controversy seems foreign to the spirit of modern times. Surprise is often expressed that persons can be found nowadays to engage in heated discussion of religious doctrines. Some can scarcely understand the appearance of theological factions in this period of tolerance and progress. The feeling is common, also, that those who excite and promote controversy are deserving of blame, that they go contrary to the true interests of society, and that they have failed to learn the lesson of history or the character of the religion which is only injured by the measures they take to defend it. One of the significant contrasts between the present and a past not yet remote is this aversion to theological disputes, which is now almost universal, as compared with the eagerness of whole communities, formerly, to foment the doctrinal controversies which were conducted by ecclesiastical and political leaders. Yet controversies still arise in the religious world and assume large proportions, till the interests of institutions, the progress of humane enterprises, and the organized life of religious bodies are seriously disturbed. Strong feeling is excited, which does not abate until the existing generation of combatants has disappeared. As increasing disapproval of war is not accompanied by the cessation of warfare among civilized nations, so the almost universal disapproval of theological controversy does not avail to prevent the outbreak of energetic and, in some cases, bitter contests concerning opinions in religion. We shall seek some of the reasons for this prevalent aversion, and shall also look for the conditions under which the conflict of religious beliefs promotes the progress of Christianity.

One reason for this aversion is the feeling that the most sacred truths and hopes should not be made the occasion of strife. This reason has more weight than any other. The gospel is a religion of peace and love, of meekness and gentleness and forbearance and magnanimity. How, then, can those be justified who in alleged defense of the gospel become embroiled in clamors and contentions? Also, the most sacred feelings are awakened by the gospel: penitence, in which the contrite spirit ventures to expose its impurity to the searching gaze of the holy but loving Father of spirits; faith, in which a limited, ignorant child of earth walks humbly and courageously forth with the vision of God and of eternity; love, in which selfseeking man turns from his selfishness to obey and serve his God with a reigning devotion. And shall repentance be required to exhibit its characteristics to the scrutiny of metaphysical dispute? Shall faith submit to analysis that irreverent debate may gain or lose a victory? Shall love furnish a catalogue of its constituents that a claim of orthodoxy may be triumphantly vindicated? The truth of the gospel and the

feelings produced by it are too sacred to furnish material for intellectual combats. The strifes which are permissible in politics when men compete for earthly rewards, and in socialistic conflicts when pecuniary values are chiefly involved, cannot be welcomed or even tolerated in the sphere of religion. How sad the spectacle, it is said, when in some village the ministers of Christ use their pulpits as positions for attack and defense, and when animosities are aroused among neighbors on account of sectarian differences. This reason for aversion to controversy in respect to religion has great force, and at the same time illustrates the degree to which Christianity, in spite of the follies of its adherents, has exhibited its true character in the world.

A second reason for the aversion which prevails is the impression that theological controversy has usually been injurious to society and to religion. Bad results, it is urged, are seen all around. The multiplication of sects, for example, is a result of theological differences, and in nearly all cases of theological disputes; and sectarian subdivision of the church of Christ is generally regarded as a disgrace and a menace to the gospel. An arid orthodoxy, which is the severance of opinion from conduct, is a result of the importance which theological contention ascribes to correctness of intellectual belief. The growing disregard of religious observances and increasing indifference to the church are results of bitter and angry contentions concerning doctrinal opinions, by which religion itself has been cheapened in the estimation of multitudes of men. Neither can it be forgotten, we are reminded, that behind these results which appear in modern life is the dark background of the centuries of the Christian era, which sometimes with singular appropriateness are called the centuries of conflict, for not only has there been the conflict of Christianity with heathenism, but also the internecine conflict of parties, sects, and factions within the church itself. The history of persecution, martyrdom, religious wars, ecclesiastical usurpation, and the like, illustrates the evil of theological controversy. Combatants of today, if they lived among the conditions of the past, would resort, it is thought, to the old methods of physical torture, sequestration of property, and execution of the death penalty in order to accentuate the correctness of their belief. Tempers and motives which worked such havoc in the past cannot, it may well be supposed, find expression at any time without bringing injury to society and weakening the supports of religion.

Another reason for the aversion which exists is an impression that love of the truth is not usually the controlling motive in theological controversy. Doctrinal controversialists, it is declared, are no more free than political partisans from misrepresentations, innuendoes, acrimony, personalities, and unfairness. The capital of a sect or faction is invested in the doctrinal opinions of which it is representative, and its prosperity, indeed its existence, depends on the maintenance of those opinions. Property in churches, colleges, seminaries, endowed societies, is a prize to be held. The employment of clergymen, secretaries, agents, editors, professors, is

dependent on the continuance and growth of a sect, or even of a party within a sect. The reputation of individuals for consistency and ability in support of the distinguishing tenets of the denomination or wing of the denomination is at stake. Pride in the extension of a sect pervades the great body of adherents. Competition with other sects incites to a more strenuous support and a more zealous propagation of distinctive beliefs. So much enters in which is temporal, secular, and personal, that motive is largely compounded of elements other than simple and earnest love of the truth. Abstract theories are put forward, indeed. Exegetical, historical, and philosophical reasons are urged for the truth or falsity of given opinions. An uninitiated observer might perceive nothing but unalloyed desire to ascertain the truth, and apparent disregard of consequences. But a more intelligent scrutiny discovers selfish motives and assigns them the principal value. Behind abstract opinions are concrete persons. Behind spiritual doctrines are carnal passions. Thus, to understand the religious epochs of the past, biography must be sketched as well as doctrine. Certain effects, apparently trivial, such as a filioque added to a creed, or the phrase "all men" pushing out the phrase "the elect," are highwater marks produced by torrents which were swollen by the rush of personal rivalries, and the forcefulness of worldly interests. Personal names have become attached to various theological systems not so much because for distinguished intellectual services such designation was agreed on afterwards, as because certain men who were leaders of thought had also the skill and force necessary to guide personal, social, and political affairs to chosen issues, and because desire for their own personal success directed their energies through many channels which converged to the conspicuous result. The final issues of theological disputes, as expressed in abstract statements of doctrine, are algebraic formula, which when developed are found to stand not only for intellectual honesty and devotion to the truth, but also for various unsanctified motives and ambitions.

And yet another reason for the prevalent aversion to theological controversy is an impression that the contention is with regard to matters of which there is little positive knowledge, or concerning distinctions which are unimportant. The essential truths of religion may require defense as against the attacks of atheism, infidelity, and skepticism. The monster errors of materialism and of false philosophy and ethics should be opposed vigorously. But theological controversy is within the circle of revealed truth, and even so is concerning that which is vague and nonessential. Precise shadings of theory concerning the threefold distinctions of the Divine Being, the exact manner in which the writers of the Bible were inspired, the approach of God to souls in the disembodied state, and the mysterious conditions of eternal destiny, are subjects about which, in the nature of the case, but little can be known, and which, even if they were better understood, could have no vital relation to duty and character. Also, since theological theorizing so often proceeds on the slenderest basis of ascertained facts, the result is not highly esteemed in

an age which has become familiar with the positive and solid results of the methods of scientific investigation.

It should not be supposed that aversion to theological contention is confined to those who have not become involved in controversy. Adherents of a party, and even leaders in the combat, may be decidedly averse to strife and debate. It is often the case that circumstances which were almost accidental, and were certainly beyond control, forced them into public discussion. It was not expected that the utterance of given opinions would produce a commotion. It was believed that theories would be argued out in the serene region of scholarship, and under the conditions of Christian courtesy. The evils incident to controversy are deplored. It is only because interests are at stake which seem too important to be deserted that leaders in a discussion are willing to proceed farther. There are persons, it is true, polemical by nature, who have the complete and agreeable use of their faculties only in the excitement of controversy. But they are exceptions, even among those who have the influence of intellectual leadership. And with the mass of intelligent people at the present time aversion to disputes in theology is so prevalent as to amount almost to indifference concerning religious opinion. They will sacrifice opinion for the sake of peace and quietness. Anything, they say, is better than controversy.

It must be asked, however, if all the weighty considerations relative to theological controversy have been brought into view when some of the reasons for dislike of it have been recognized. Are there conditions, in modern times, which make the carrying of opinions into the shock of attack and defense salutary? We proceed, therefore, to consider some of the good uses of controversy in respect to theological opinions.

It cannot be denied that progress in doctrine has usually been conditioned on controversy. Almost every epoch in the development of religious belief has been marked by commotion. For religious opinion is not merely speculative. It furnishes end and motive to life. It creates organizations in society. It gives ideals to society itself. The evolution of personal and social life towards higher conditions cannot go on independent of beliefs in religion. Opinions which stand in the way of progress, whether by prohibition or repression, are questioned and attacked, to be first defended and finally modified. Conservatives and progressives almost necessarily come into opposition, because they hold antagonistic theories of life as well as of truth. Arius and Athanasius might have been directed to go aside and discuss their differences till they should reach some conclusion, and afterwards to come back and let their own and others' lives go on as usual. But the meaning and use of life for themselves and for their generation were involved in the issue of their controversy. The doctrine of God as Three in One, which Athanasius brings forward, would be extreme and unreal, and if Arius did not attack it as dishonoring God, or as an intellectual contradiction, it would not receive those modifications which were needed. Paul always had a

theological controversy on hand with Judaizers or philosophers, or with the apostle Peter himself. The enlargement of the doctrine of Atonement out of arbitrary limitations into universality meant the enlargement of the conception of God. It was an immense gain to the beliefs, hopes, and motives of men. The advance was opposed at every step. The bitterest passions were aroused. But in view of the emancipation which remains, while the incidental evils have passed out of sight, it will not be said that the price was too great. Theology makes progress by development, and conforms to the method of development in all spheres of thought and action, which is the method of struggle. At all events, the gains of the centuries of Christian thought have been made under conditions of conflict, and the general verdict is that the gains are indispensable in personal and social life. The judgment that controversy is always injurious to society and to religion needs to be modified.

It is to be remembered, again, that difference of opinion in theology comes to expression in concrete conditions. Truth gets rooted in life. It shapes character, institutions, and occupations. Principles do not exist in abstractions, but in realities. The principles of physics have no existence apart from bodies, nor of botany apart from plants, nor of chemistry apart from substances, nor of religion apart from man and his institutions. It is not possible, even in thought, to separate a principle from the realities in which it must be embodied. The divine method is to embody truth in a visible world, an actual history, a throbbing life. Therefore it must be in some concrete form that opinions in religion come into aggressive or defensive attitudes. As a principle of law is established by the trial of some case which involves a real interest, so doctrine is defined through the living interest of an institution, a denomination or a religious observance. Although these interests sometimes intrude selfish motives into inquiry for the truth, it is also to be remembered that truth cannot be abstracted from life, nor so much as discussed out of its actual relations. No surprise need be felt because the present controversy within the Congregational denomination affects the interests of a missionary society and of a divinity school, for although the methods adopted by some who are engaged in the strife cannot be justified, it is by reason of such concrete results, actual or threatened, that people are led to think and decide, and that truth wins its way into firm possession. If religious truth were confined to the realm of abstractions, and depended for its acceptance only on intellectual apprehension, it would, perhaps, have made its way with inconceivable speed. But as its function is to create character, to establish customs, to produce literatures, and to cultivate the very power of apprehension on which its influence depends, there seems to be no method possible but proof, experience, and advance through painful conflict.

And, once more, the essentials of truth can stand out in their commanding proportions in distinction from non-essentials only under the processes of testings and overcomings. Under attack the non-essential,