“If society of to-day can at all tolerate that such doctrines
as Christian morality are taught in our schools as the
foundation of practical conduct of life, this is possible only
because the ethics of the old biblical Christianity has, in
the course of centuries, grown to be something quite different
from what it was in the beginning. The throughout communistic,
labor-abhorring, world-hating, miracle-infatuated morality of
original Christianity, constantly dreaming of the collapse
of the world near at hand, and suited only to the demands of
the paupers of the time, could only be changed and adapted
to the conditions of later periods of radically different
conditions, with great difficulty. The Catholic church has
done much to accomplish this purpose, and in a still higher
degree Protestantism has made many concessions to humanitarian
ethics and practical reason. These concessions, however, must
appear from the historical standpoint, as adulterations of the
Christian ideas. Exactly in the degree that Christian morality
in modern times has remained a living power, it has ceased
to remain Christian in the historical sense.... The tendency
of the whole development of the modern world is to conceive
the moral norms as natural conditions of human society, and
to understand them in their connection of the individual with
the whole. This thought and sentiment must become in the child
a living power, and morality cannot expect in this respect
help from religion. Religion knows only the relation of the
individual to God, as it is expressed in the mystical ideas of
sin and mercy. Religion knows no duties and goals for humanity,
but only for the egotistic desire of salvation for the
individual. Religion knows no progress, no evolution, but only
eternal life or eternal damnation. The civilised nations of
Europe had to go through with many hard struggles in order to
arrive at the idea that there is a humanitarian, and a natural,
morality, in comparison with which all religious dogmatism must
be considered as indifferent additions. Only on the basis of
this conviction is it possible that there exist to-day so many
religious confessions of faith, and among them also those
who are religious without having any special confession. Here
lies the great duty of our time for enlightened legislation,
for our schools, to take care that the universal Christian
be developed from the narrow dogmatism, and, further, the
universal human ideal, from the universal Christian. To expect
this of the clergy of the different religious societies, would
be a mistake.... The theological spirit and the principle of
free investigation, are irreconcilable adversaries. Every
religion, of whatever denomination it may be, is stable in its
very nature. It pretends to be eternal truth, and whenever it
compromises with the idea of progress, it does so reluctantly,
and in the form of concessions.”
We agree with Professor Jodl in his opinion that our present dogmatic
religions are entirely unfit to understand the demands of the present.
And it is true that the humanitarian ideas of morality have been slowly
developed from the crude and immature notions of the apostolic times. The
aim of our moral development must be humanitarian ethics. But we disagree
with professor Jodl that we cannot expect a further evolution of our
moral ideas from the clergy.
It seems to me that here lies the important difference between the old
and the new world. Conditions favor religious progress in America,
while the conditions in Europe cut off all hope and produce an ominous
stagnancy.
The clergy of the old world, in Germany as well as in England, and in
all Catholic countries, are appointed only on the condition of being
ultra-conservative in religious matters, as well as otherwise. No young
man whose enthusiasm would carry him so far as to suggest reforms on
broader humanitarian principles, would be admitted in the church as
ministers. And if he had been admitted by mistake, he would meet with
a fate similar to that of the Abbé Lamennais, whose experiences are
admirably described by George Julian Harney, in No. 213 of _The Open
Court_.
The situation is greatly different in America. Our clergymen, our
congregations, our churches, are perhaps more orthodox in many respects,
and especially in their belief, than those of Europe. Nevertheless, they
are more liberal in principles, and they are less obstinate concerning
dogma. Most of our churches here do not even possess dogmatic creeds, or
confessions of faith. The clergy of the Baptists, the Congregationalists,
the Unitarians, are not bound by oath before taking orders; to believe
in sundry articles and to preach certain doctrines which are supposed
to be absolute truth. The Baptists, it is true, are as a rule very
orthodox and very dogmatic, but they are liberal in spite of it, open to
conviction, and not averse to going onward with the times. This attitude
of the American clergy must appear inconsistent to Europeans who can, in
ecclesiastical affairs, only judge from their own experiences. And it
may be that their position is as much inconsistent as was for instance
that of Newton, who considered the trash he wrote on some theological
questions concerning the apocalypse as infinitely superior to his
mathematical and astronomical works and did not see that the recognition
of the law of gravitation would go far toward freeing humanity from many
of those nonsensical ideas which he cherished so highly.
In former times I was inclined to blame the clergy for the lack of
progressiveness in the churches, but I have come to the conclusion that
not the clergy are to be blamed for retarding the broadening of the
religious spirit, but the lay-members of the churches. I am personally
acquainted with several clergymen of different denominations, Christian
as well as Jewish, who conceive it their duty to point out the way of
progress and to further the spirit of a scientific world-conception in
religious matters. They advance exactly as quickly and exactly as far as
they can in working out of the narrow dogmatism of the religious views of
their flock the ideas of a broad humanitarianism.
It has often happened that clergymen, encouraged by their congregations,
have grown too broad in the opinion of their narrower brethren, and it
was customary, in former years, to cast them out according to the old
fashion of dealing with heretics, which is still customary in European
churches. The churches have become more careful here, for, whenever such
a case happened, these liberal clergymen were, as a rule, not deserted
by their congregations. Thus every act of removing a clergyman usually
led to a schism, and it seems that, at least to some extent, the churches
have of late given up their policy of removing heretics within their
ranks.
This much is certain, that many among the American clergy are ready to
progress with the times, and to accept the truth wherever they find it.
In Europe religion is dictated to the people from above by government and
church authority. The clergymen are servants of these authorities. Their
consciences are not bound, as they ought to be, to teach the truth and
nothing but the truth, but to teach the doctrines which their employers
bid them teach. And this policy is still considered right and natural,
even among liberal minded people.
In America the clergy are exponents of the views of their congregations.
In Europe the congregations are separated from their pastors by a deep
gap: there is no gap between the congregation and the clergy in America.
Both are in the closest contact. Our congregations are more orthodox than
European congregations; therefore our clergy is more sincerely orthodox,
and more honestly narrow, than the European clergy. The European clergy
are more scholarly, yet at the same time there may be more hypocrites
among them in Europe who know better than they preach. But there is no
doubt that with a further development of intellectuality and scientific
insight, our congregations will become broader and more liberal and
more humanitarian, and, with the congregations, our clergy are bound to
develop in the same lines.
European theology is much superior to American theology in scholarly
critique, in historical investigation, and in philosophical depth.
Nevertheless, we must not hope from European theologians that they
will undertake the great work of reform that is so much needed in our
churches, which is nothing less than to reconcile religion with science;
to let religion develop into a religion of science, preaching boldly and
unreservedly those humanitarian ethics which stand upon the principles
of truth; that is, of scientifically proved truth, which finds the
sanction of the moral “ought” in the facts of experience.
Professor Jodl says:
“The main objection of the supporters of dogmatism in school
politics is this: They propose it is not so much religion that
is needed in education; not the contents of ecclesiastical
doctrines, but to give to morality a foundation; to give it
what science calls the sanction of ethical rules.... From this
standpoint, every attempt that is liable to weaken the ethics
of religious sanction must appear equivalent to the attempt of
abolishing criminal law and penal institutes, and to deliver
the peaceful citizens into the hands of murderers and robbers.”
Professor Jodl continues:
“The nature of religious sanction consists in this: that the
moral rules are conceived as the behests of an all-powerful,
omniscient being, that promises to immortal man for their
fulfilment, eternal rewards, and for their non-fulfilment
eternal punishment in the life beyond.”