The question whether the Christian religion is declining is agitating
the public mind in some measure at the present time. This is due to
the many changes that are taking place in the forms of religion, the
types of doctrine, and the methods of action in the numerous religious
organizations which bear the name of Jesus Christ. Are these changes
symptoms of disease and decay in the Christian religion, or are they
evidences of renewed vitality and enlargement by growth? It is quite
evident that many things which have been regarded as important and even
essential in the past have declined in importance, and some of them
seem to be on the eve of disappearing altogether. It is not surprising
that those who have been trained to regard these as essential to
Christianity should think that the Christian religion is declining
with them. If, however, these things are not so important as has
been supposed, but have gained for a time an exaggerated importance,
then their decline to their normal position and the advance of other
things to their rightful place, as more important things than has
hitherto been supposed--all this is evidence of a healthful advance in
Christianity. This question, therefore, will be answered in accordance
with the point of view of the one who considers it. If it is to be
answered correctly we must put aside all prejudice, and examine the
whole situation candidly and with a critical scientific spirit. It
is impracticable within the bounds of this article to examine this
question on all sides. We can only make a few suggestions relating to
it.
It is necessary at the outset to approach the question aright. We
must distinguish between what is essential to the Christian religion
and what is non-essential. This is not so easy a task as one might
imagine. We can only make this distinction generally, and not with
scientific precision. In the study of religions we have to distinguish
(1) the more fundamental things in the historical institutions and
experience in life; (2) the doctrines which express the popular belief
or scientific knowledge of the adherents of the religion; and (3) the
expression of the religion in ethical principles and moral conduct.
The order of development is always life, doctrine, morals. The earlier
stages of the Christian religion and of Christian experience at any
time and in any community is the vital experience and the institutional
organization. Doctrines of faith and knowledge presuppose the vital
relation, and morals presuppose both, and conduct is the final aim
and crown of the whole development. And yet there are some scholars
who exaggerate the relative importance of each one of the three in its
relation to the other two and to the whole.
In our age greater attention is given to Christian ethics and sociology
than ever before. A man who has the ethical enthusiasm of our times
is inclined to criticise historical Christianity with great severity,
because of its failure to realize the highest ethical ideals, and
especially those presented by Jesus in his teaching and his example.
Historical Christianity is so far below these ideals, even in its
best types, that one is inclined to say if the Church has failed so
badly in nineteen centuries, what prospect has it in the present or
the future? Some good men in our times are disgruntled with historical
Christianity for its ethical failures, and keep aloof from the Church
on that account; but these are after all proportionately few, and they
are unreasonable, for they exaggerate the ethical phase of Christianity
over against the doctrinal and the vital; they fail to see what is
necessarily involved in the development of the Christian religion,
that the ethical age should come last of all; and they also are not
just in their estimate of Christian history, for, notwithstanding the
failure of the Church, there has been a wonderful and steady ethical
advance through the centuries. Indeed, it is Christianity itself which
is chiefly responsible for the ethical enthusiasm of the present time,
and this is an evidence that Christianity is about to enter upon the
last and highest stage of its development. Holy love in principle and
practice in the liberty of self-sacrifice is better understood in the
Church to-day than ever before, and it is becoming more influential
in the Church and in the world. The Church is about to put forth the
supreme ethical influence of holy love to transform society and the
lives of men.
In large sections of the Church the greatest stress is still laid
upon Christian doctrine, especially as expressed in dogmatic forms.
If a man thinks that orthodox doctrine is the test of a healthful
and vigorous church, he will make that the determining element in
his judgment whether Christianity is advancing or declining. In this
sphere we have to distinguish three things: (1) The popular orthodoxy,
which is determined by the consensus of teaching from the pulpit; (2)
the scholarly orthodoxy, which is determined by the teaching of the
theologian from the chairs of the theological schools and in text-books
of dogmatic theology; (3) the official orthodoxy, which is determined
by creeds, liturgies, confessions of faith, and canons of the Church.
There can be no doubt that there has been a great overturning of dogma
in our times, and it is altogether probable that this will assume
much greater dimensions. Many think that dogma has had an exaggerated
importance in the past, and, from their point of view, the Christian
religion has made an advance by pushing dogma back to a less dominant
position. Those who maintain that dogma is of supreme importance
naturally think that the Christian religion declines when dogma is
discredited in the Christian community. There can be little doubt that
a large number of men absent themselves from church attendance because
they dislike the popular orthodoxy, which seems to them antiquated,
unscientific, and untrue. Many refuse to unite with religious
organizations which are dominated by an orthodoxy representing the
theories of scholastic theology. Many remain apart from the churches
because they are unwilling to be responsible in any way for their
official orthodoxy. Many, born and trained in Presbyterian families,
refuse to remain in an organization which is responsible for the hard
doctrines set forth in the Westminster Confession. Many Methodists
refuse to be compromised by Wesley’s doctrines and Wesley’s rules of
life. Many refuse to remain Baptists because of what is involved in
close communion. Many refuse to be Episcopalians because they resent
the doctrines and practices of sacerdotalism. And so we could find,
more or less in all religious communions, a dissatisfaction with
dogmas--sometimes superficial, giving a plausible excuse for absence,
sometimes profound, inciting active hostility to the Church. If all of
these dissatisfied ones are to be regarded as hostile or indifferent
to Christianity, then it is evident that an army of Christians have
practically separated themselves from the Church in our time, and we
must say that Christianity has in this respect declined. If, on the
other hand, we think that these dissatisfied and disgruntled ones are
yet Christians, and that they are maintaining their faith in Christ
in opposition to an unreasonable church, that they are exerting an
important influence in the transformation of the dogmas of the Church,
then we may say that this is an evidence that Christianity is in a
state of transition, that it is on the move away from an untenable
position of exaggerated dogma to a truer and stronger position,
in which dogma will be transformed and given its normal place and
importance.
The effort to throw off the bondage of the popular and the scholastic
dogma is an advance, and not a decline; it is an advance into the realm
of freedom. It first gives the possibility of a critical re-examination
of the dogmatic faith of the Church. Only by the application of the
scientific methods of our age to dogma is it possible for our age to
verify dogma and accept it as valid and reliable. We can not rely on
anything that is merely traditional or the product of the logical
analysis of premises which remain themselves unverified. The revolt
against the confessional orthodoxy, especially in the Presbyterian,
Reformed, and Lutheran Churches, is not a sign of decline, as some
think, but a wholesome movement which indicates a determination to know
the truth and to hold nothing but the truth.
The Chicago-Lambeth articles, adopted by the whole Anglican communion
throughout the world, reduces the essential doctrines of Christ’s
Church to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed; those creeds in
which all the great historical churches, the Greek and the Oriental,
the Roman and the Protestant, agree. This marks a dogmatic advance,
not a dogmatic decline, because it makes the distinction between the
essential and unessential doctrines, it defines essential doctrines by
holding up ancient fundamental historical creeds; it thereby represents
all other matters as within the realm of the unessential doctrines, the
province of Christian liberty.
The churches are therefore readjusting themselves in their relation
to Christian doctrine, and the Christian community is readjusting
itself likewise. The offensive features of Christian dogma, while still
retained and advocated by some theologians and some communions, have
been in great measure removed by other theologians and communions, and
the process is going on with great rapidity. The war against science,
criticism, literature, and art--all that is characteristic of our
age--is gradually being limited to a smaller number of theologians and
denominations, and there is ever an increasing number of theologians
and churches which fully recognize all the achievements of modern times
and who are at work in harmonizing them with the verified Christian
dogmas in a larger, grander system--in a new theology representing
all that is noblest and best in Christianity as applied to the modern
world. While this process is going on, the dissatisfied ones will
take some little time to find their new church homes and to adjust
themselves to new conditions and circumstances.
So far as the great mass of mankind is concerned, the chief factor
in the Christian religion is the fundamental one of the Christian
life and the Christian institution, and the advance or decline of
Christianity will be judged from this point of view. Here, however, we
must recognize that there are several types of religious life which
sometimes combine in one community, but which ordinarily exist apart as
characteristic of different temperaments, different nations, different
races. The lines of cleavage in historical Christianity are for the
most part racial, national, or temperamental. We have to take this
into account when we consider the religious life and institutions
of different countries. What a difference there is in religion from
this point of view in the great centers, such as Rome, St. Petersburg,
Berlin, London, Edinburgh, New York! That man would go far astray who
should undertake to use any one of these as a test of any or of all the
others.
Let us consider, for example, the question of participation in the
services of the Church. Rome has apparently, from a Protestant point
of view, an abnormal number of churches, and in these churches an
extraordinary number of chapels and altars. The reason for this is
that there is an immense number of clergy in Rome, and all these
altars are needed that they may perform the most important of their
duties--the sacrifice of the mass. The churches, chapels, and altars
are not erected for the people merely--if so, vastly fewer would be
necessary--but for the priests who sacrifice for the people even when
they are absent. Berlin has apparently very few churches, and these
are not always well attended by the people, and are used infrequently
except on Sundays. Judging from this, it would be a very irreligious
city; but any one who really knows Berlin would not say that it is
less religious than Rome. The religion of the German people finds its
expression in a mystic type of personal piety and of family and social
life; it maintains and propagates itself without frequent attendance
upon public worship.
In London regular attendance upon public worship is commonly regarded
as indispensable for the maintenance of the Christian religion.
Therefore Christian people frequent the churches to an extent that is
unknown on the continent of Europe. But to make the British habit of
frequenting the Church for public worship a test of the vitality of
the Christian religion in the great cities of the Continent would be
altogether unjust and untrue. The historical development of religion
in Great Britain has brought about an entirely different state of
affairs there from that which we find everywhere else in the world.
The situation in Great Britain is therefore special, peculiar, and,
one might say, abnormal as compared with the situation in other
parts of the world. In the United States the original population was
chiefly British, and therefore followed British methods in religion.
But in the present century our land, and especially our cities, have
filled up with a population from the continent of Europe, bringing
with them Continental methods of worship which would not yield to or
readily adopt British methods. Intermarriage with the British stock
and familiar converse in society have tended to assimilation, and
therefore the situation has gradually and inevitably emerged that
the Christianity of New York and Chicago and our other great cities
has assumed an intermediate position between that of the Continent
and that of Great Britain. The religious customs characteristic of
British Christianity have undoubtedly declined--they have yielded to
the influence of Continental Christianity. If British Christianity
is the norm by which we are to judge, then Christianity has declined
in the United States. If, however, it is not the norm, then it might
appear that an intermediate position, such as we have attained by
the assimilation of the British and the Continental types, may be a
real advance and gain, because of the appropriation of some of the
best features of both methods and the rubbing off of some of the
eccentricities and excrescences of both. A decline in the relative
attendance upon the public worship, and especially upon the second
service on Sunday, is exactly what we would anticipate under the
circumstances. It is altogether probable that the decline is much
less than we had the right to expect in view of the vast influence
exerted upon us by Continental types of Christianity during the past
half century. And it is altogether probable that the decline has not
reached its normal goal. Especially is this the case when we take into
consideration other influences which tend to diminish the attendance
upon public worship.
1. In Great Britain, where the churches were established by law,
the state and Church were so entwined that it was a badge of good
citizenship to attend upon public worship. In antithesis with this,
attendance of the nonconformists upon public worship was regarded as a
standing by their principles and a test of fidelity and courage. These
influences worked also in the United States during the colonial period;
but during the present century this motive has lost its influence,
and it is to be feared that politicians as such feel under no special
obligation to attend church, especially in view of the attitude of many
of the ministry as to political life and political questions.
2. In Great Britain it has been a badge of social propriety to attend
public worship. Social influences still prevail greatly in the United
States, in villages and small cities, and even to some extent in the
churches in the great cities, where they are organized and conducted
in social lines as social religious clubs. But this influence is much
weaker than it used to be, and it is gradually passing away.
3. The pulpit was once the chief means of instruction and of
intellectual and moral stimulation for the people. The preacher was the
people’s orator. The pulpit has in great measure lost its attractive
power in this regard. The daily and weekly press have a greater
influence in public instruction. The multiplication of cheap books
also takes from the preacher a large share of his influence in this
regard. Oratory in legislative bodies has to a great extent lost its
influence. Its place has been taken by simple, compact, time-saving
statements, often printed but not delivered. Committees do the work
which used to be done after discussion before the public. So the people
will not listen now to the pulpit orator of former generations. They
demand short, crisp sermons that bristle with points, and are practical
and helpful. In other words, the oratorical and highly intellectual
character of the pulpit which used to attract worshipers no longer
attracts them. They feel that they can get more benefit in this regard
by reading in the comfort of the home. Multitudes of people can no
longer be induced to attend church to be instructed by the minister
or to get his judgment on topics of the time, or to be stirred by his
eloquence; they can get all these things cheaper and easier by reading
at home. When, now, this is re-enforced by the fact that multitudes
dislike the doctrines of the Church, and resent them when they are
preached, we can easily understand that church attendance should
decline very greatly from this reason.
But this is no evidence that the Christian religion has declined. If
men absent themselves from public worship because it is no longer
necessary for them, as good citizens and as respectable members of
society, to attend, or because they may get their instruction and
stimulation elsewhere easier and with less expenditure of time and
money, that is simply an evidence that attendance upon church in the
past has been due in great measure to other than religious reasons, and
that, these no longer holding, attendance has disappeared with them.
The attendance upon public worship, though reduced so far as number
is concerned, is now more simply and purely for religious reasons,
and therefore minister and people may with greater freedom make the
services more distinctly religious.
This is indeed the real situation that has emerged. The sermon
has declined relatively in importance, and rightly so. It had an
exaggerated importance in the Protestant Church, especially in the
non-liturgical churches. There is a world-wide tendency now, which
is increasing in power, to improve and enlarge the worship of the
Church. Liturgies and ceremonies of worship are more discussed now
in the Protestant world than are sermons and lectures, because it is
becoming every day more evident that the Church is organized for common
prayer and for public worship, and not merely to furnish a pulpit for
a minister. The pulpit is more and more being merged in the worship,
and is losing its domination over the worship. With this tendency
goes increased attention to the Holy Sacraments, especially the Holy
Communion, more frequent celebrations and more frequent participation,
increased opportunity of worship during Sunday and during the week,
and also therewith the greatly increased attention to the organization
of the Church for aggressive Christian work. Those who think that the
pulpit is everything in the public service naturally suppose that with
the decline of the pulpit Christianity declines, but those who think
that public worship is the essential thing in the Church rejoice at the
changes that are taking place, and hold that Christianity is advancing.
They maintain that it is not so important for the Church to gather
large crowds to listen to the sermon as it is for the church doors to
be ever open, with frequent services for the convenience and help of
worshipers at any time, without regard to whether they are few or many,
assured that thereby a much greater number of people are reached and
benefited than by the former limited methods.
It is sometimes said that biblical criticism has undermined faith
in Holy Scripture, and that, therefore, many absent themselves from
public worship. But there is no real evidence for it. I doubt not
that the opponents of biblical criticism drive many people from their
congregations, just as they do when they attack the sure results
of modern science, or expose their ignorance in the discussion of
political and economical questions in which they have not been trained;
but these people simply remove to other congregations where they will
not be offended by obscurantism and intolerance. Biblical criticism
really makes the Bible more attractive to the people, and its reading
and exposition more interesting and influential in the Church.
A careful study of the situation makes it evident that the Christian
religion is not declining in our land; but it is passing through a
transition state, putting off antiquated dogmas, customs, and methods,
and adapting itself to the modern world, and transferring itself so as
to better accomplish its work. In no age has Christianity made more
advance than in the century now drawing to a close.
* * * * *
The Indians of Bolivia are described by Sir Martin Conway as “an
exceedingly bigoted folk, retaining under a mask of Christianity
their ancient superstitions, little altered,” and are kept in
order by priestly management rather than by force. Mr. Conway
was seriously interfered with by them in the prosecution of his
researches because the nature of his undertaking involved some
outrage to their superstitions. They regard the mountains above the
level of habitation as part of the other world, and holding, among
other fancies, that a golden bull and a golden cross planted by
supernatural agency stood on the summit of one of the peaks round
the base of Mount Serata, thought that the object of the explorer’s
expedition could be nothing else than to obtain possession of these
priceless treasures. Hence they offered formidable opposition to
him.