fh Ne, 
 440 
 Pople 
 
 re 
 
 5 
 3! 
 ; 
 7 
 
 ee 
 Se 
 
 (Ne 
 
 ES oe 
 Pan es 
 
 artsy 
 Wh 
 ey, 
 
 
 
Library of Che Theological Seminary 
 
 PRINCETON * NEW JERSEY 
 
 CS) 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 Gerrett Biblical Institute 
 
 BV. .4070: .G26 T43 
 
 Garrett Biblical Institute. 
 The theological school to- 
 day | 
 
 
 

 
i 4 
 4 
 
 
 

 
 Ur, 
 SOG! iiGH AL SEW 
 
 The Theological Schoo 
 To-day 
 
 Wy 
 
 Addresses Given on the Occasion of the 
 Inauguration of President Frederick 
 Carl Ejiselen and the Sixty- Eighth 
 Annual Commencement of 
 Garrett Biblical Institute 
 
 4 Published by 
 
 GARRETT BIBLICAL INSTITUTE 
 Evanston, ILLINnoIs 
 
 
 
 
5 A 
 
 a ae, Vat, 
 
 if sy ners. ‘ may 
 4 ta +h 
 
 YM fon 
 
 hata 
 
 ; . il 
 
 Li 
 — 
 > 
 . 
 2 
 
 
 
ForEWORD 
 
 lis 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 OR RO EEE EOE EE RRO EEE EEE ESE OEE SEER EEE 
 
 Tue TuHEo.ocicat ScHoou To-Day, Inaugural 
 PNG ODN SFE oe Seen sete aa ny ee eae RRA oy pt teh rg a 
 By the Reverend President Frederick Carl 
 
 Ejiselen, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. 
 
 II. Tuer Tracuer, Baccalaureate Sermon................ 
 By the Reverend Bishop Edwin Holt Hughes, 
 eed 4 be 1 Bed Bod Ed 
 
 II. THe Maxine or tHe PropuHet, Community 
 POE VICE A CUP CSS Go oe crs mie want en) cota User eS 
 By the Reverend Lynn Harold Hough, 
 TEDW LiDsS Eat D2 LL.D: 
 IV. Cwuristian Service, Address under the auspices 
 of the Chicago Preachers’ Meeting....................-- 
 By Professor James Moffatt, M.A., D.D., 
 Litt.D. 
 V. Essentiats oF A Worup Reticion, Alumni 
 PV CIILGRG IRE Siena ote ee eI) xe eG th OS 
 By the Reverend James Edwin Crowther, 
 MAG. B.D.,.D.D: 
 VI. Cnristian Conrroversy, Commencement Ad- 
 PTET Saas a a Re esate Seiya RE AEA ah ea Rs SS a ato 
 By the Reverend Bishop Francis J. McCon- 
 nell, Ph.D., D.D., LL.D. 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ADDRESS AT THE NAMING OF THE CHARLES 
 IVEATEA ThA ROOT ITA RTC CHA Pes ee tre ete A 
 By the Reverend Horace Greeley Smith, D.D. 
 
 THe CHARGE TO THE PRESIDENT.......-------02--ce00-- 
 
 By the Reverend John Thompson, D.D. 
 3 
 

 
 oe Lage Ai | 
 
Foreword 
 
 Garrett Biblical Institute received her charter seventy 
 years ago. Established in order to serve the pressing needs 
 of the church, she has sought ever to adjust her work to 
 the changing demands reflected alike in the problems of 
 Christian thought and in the changing life and tasks of 
 the Christian community. A notable commencement was 
 that of 1924, which marked thirteen years of service by 
 Charles Macaulay Stuart as president and the dedication 
 of the beautiful main building of the Garrett group. But 
 the achievements of this period seem to Garrett men simply 
 to afford the setting for larger tasks ahead. ‘To the leader- 
 ship of the School in these larger tasks Frederick Carl 
 Hiselen has been called as president, and his inauguration 
 fittingly marks the beginning of the new epoch. 
 
 In the mind of the committee in charge the occasion 
 made almost inevitable an inquiry into the general question 
 of training in leadership and the task of a theological 
 school to-day. To this specific question President EKiselen 
 addressed himself in his inaugural. His address is placed 
 first as giving the title to this volume. The other addresses, 
 given by distinguished visiting speakers, follow in the 
 order in which they were given. Bishop Edwin H. Hughes 
 speaks as a student and sets forth a noble tribute to ‘The 
 Teacher.” Dr. Lynn Harold Hough presents the large 
 demand which the present day brings in relation to ‘The 
 Making of the Prophet.” Professor James Moffatt in 
 his “Christian Service” discusses primarily the work of 
 the preacher in serving men through the church. The ad- 
 dress by Dr. James E. Crowther deals with the “Essentials 
 of a World Religion,” a central matter for religious lead- 
 ers. Bishop McConnell’s commencement address on ‘*Chris- 
 tian Controversy” is a most pertinent consideration of the 
 spirit and aim of religious discussion. An Appendix con- 
 tains in slightly abbreviated form the addresses given by 
 
 5 
 
representatives of the Board of Trustees, that of Dr. 
 Horace G. Smith at the naming of the Charles Macaulay 
 Stuart Chapel, and the charge to the new president by 
 Dr. John Thompson. 
 
 It seemed to the Board of Trustees that the significance 
 of the occasion and the intrinsic value of addresses them- 
 selves called for the publication of this material as of 
 interest not only to those immediately concerned but to a 
 larger constituency of the church and to others engaged 
 in the same task of the training of religious leadership. It 
 should be added that Dr. Moffatt’s address is reproduced 
 from a stenographic report which it was not possible to 
 submit to the author for revision. 
 
The Theological School To-day 
 
 INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY THE REVEREND 
 PRESIDENT FrepERICK CaruL EISELEN, 
 
 PH.D.37D:.D2LE.D: 
 
 Higher education in America was born of a desire to 
 furnish to the pilgrim settlers a trained religious leader- 
 ship. The inscription on the Harvard gateway reads: 
 “After God had carried us safe to New England, and we 
 had builded our houses, provided necessities for our liveli- 
 hood, reared convenient places for God’s worship, and set- 
 tled the civil government, one of the next things we longed 
 for and looked after was to advance learning and per- 
 petuate it to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate min- 
 istry to the churches when our present ministers shall lie 
 in the dust.”” The same determination underlay the 
 founding, late in the eighteenth century, of the first sep- 
 arate theological seminary in America, namely, the Sem- 
 inary of the Dutch Reformed Church, established in Flat- 
 bush, Long Island. During the one hundred and fifty 
 years since that time schools for the training of Protestant 
 ministers have steadily increased in number, until there 
 are now in the United States more than one hundred and 
 thirty institutions that may be classified as theological 
 seminaries. 
 
 The same motive inspired John Dempster, the father of 
 theological education in the Methodist Episcopal church. 
 Says his biographer, Professor Bannister, ‘‘While John 
 Dempster was a presiding elder he was unusually exercised 
 with the greatness of the preacher’s work, with the need 
 of more workmen that need not be ashamed, with the 
 need, too, of schools for special training with reference to 
 this work; and the impression deepened and was wrought, 
 while he was in South America, into the purpose of de- 
 voting his powers, when he should return, to the building 
 
 {; 
 
up of special training schools for the ministry.” The 
 opportunity came when he was appointed a professor in 
 Newbury Seminary, Vermont, where a department of 
 Theology and Sacred Literature had already developed 
 into a distinct school, known as the Newbury Biblical In- 
 stitute, of which Professor Dempster soon became the 
 guiding spirit. 
 
 In 1847 a Biblical Institute was opened at Concord, 
 New Hampshire, with John Dempster as its president. 
 Twenty years later this Institute was removed to Boston 
 and reorganized as the Boston Theological Seminary. It 
 became, in 1871, the earliest department of Boston Uni- 
 versity, and has since then been known as the Boston Uni- 
 versity School of Theology. When the Concord Biblical 
 Institute had become fully established, Dr. Dempster left 
 for the west, with the full determination of establishing 
 a series of similar institutions across the continent. The 
 first of these was Garrett Biblical Institute. The current 
 catalogue of Garrett opens with this statement: “Garrett 
 Biblical Institute, the oldest theological school in the 
 Middle West, was founded to meet the need for trained 
 leaders in the work of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 this great territory.” Evidently for the founders the fun- 
 damental task of the theological seminary was the training 
 of effective leaders in the work of the church. 
 
 Before the place and function of the theological sem- 
 inary can be defined or discussed in greater detail, it is 
 necessary to raise two or three preliminary questions: 
 What is the work of the church? What type of leadership 
 is needed? Moreover, a definition of the function of the 
 church presupposes an answer to the even more fundamental 
 question: What is the nature and function of religion? 
 More specifically, what is the nature and function of the 
 Christian religion? Again, since the theological seminary 
 is only one of several types of institutions of higher 
 learning, some may be disposed to raise a third preliminary 
 question, namely: What is the place of the theological sem- 
 inary in the system of modern higher education? 
 
 Let us then, by way of introduction, briefly consider 
 these three preliminary questions: 
 
 What is religion? Recent definitions of religion have 
 
 8 
 
stressed two points which in the past have not always re- 
 ceived sufficient emphasis. In the first place, it is coming 
 to be almost universally recognized that religion in gen- 
 eral, and the Christian religion in particular, calls into 
 play the entire personality. The Christian religion is 
 not exclusively, or even primarily, a state of emotion or 
 a system of doctrine, or a set of laws and regulations 
 regarding conduct. The Christian religion is more than 
 any one of these; indeed, more than all combined. Chris- 
 tianity is loyalty of the entire personality, thinking, feel- 
 ing, willing, to God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. It is 
 the self-identification of the entire personality with Christ. 
 
 Again, it is coming to be recognized more and more 
 that religion has to do, not only with the relation of man 
 to his God, but also of man to his fellows; the funda- 
 mental law of the Christian religion is, ‘Thou shalt love 
 the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 
 and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength,” and 
 “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none 
 other commandment greater than these.” Religion, there- 
 fore, has rightly been defined as “man’s consciousness of 
 relation to his larger environment: (a) his feeling of rela- 
 tion to God and to humanity; (b) his thought about these 
 relations and their consequences; (c) the action resulting 
 from this feeling and belief.” 
 
 On the basis of this definition of religion, what is the 
 function of the church? Is it to evangelize the world, as 
 suggested in the popular watchword of a generation ago, 
 “The evangelization of the world in this generation”? Is 
 it to save souls from the wrath to come, to enjoy eternal 
 bliss? Is it to build up a local organization consisting of 
 men and women of congenial spirit, or to increase the 
 membership and influence of the denomination as a whole? 
 Is it to conserve doctrines and creeds and to secure the 
 assent of men and women to them? Rightly interpreted, 
 all these are worthy objectives, and suggest important 
 elements in the work of the church, but unless all these 
 objectives are regarded as means to an end, rather than 
 as ends in themselves, the church is bound to fall far short 
 of her God-given opportunities in this day and genera- 
 
 9 
 
tion. The fundamental task of the church is to co-operate 
 in the building of a new world order, a world order per- 
 meated by the spirit of divine truth and righteousness. 
 Efforts in this direction will produce permanent results 
 only if they are based on religion; for religion alone can 
 create the ideals and furnish the dynamics which must 
 be at the heart of any effective program of rebuilding the 
 world. ‘To supply this central element is the supreme task 
 of the church. 
 
 This definition of the task before the church suggests 
 the type of leadership needed in the work of the church, 
 and, in turn, the type of training the theological seminary 
 should offer. The members of every church and congrega- 
 tion have a right to expect their minister to be an effective 
 preacher, a wise teacher, and a sympathetic pastor, but, 
 if the function of the church is as comprehensive as sug- 
 gested above, the activities the minister must direct cannot 
 be confined to the members of his church. There are re- 
 sponsibilities and duties toward outsiders which cannot be 
 met by preaching alone. Think for a moment of the 
 modern city church, with its schools, clubs, leagues, enter- 
 tainments, and various hospitalities. By directing these 
 the minister may enter into the larger life of the com- 
 munity and be of service to many who have no vital 
 relationship to the church. 
 
 The opportunities of the modern minister as a leader 
 of religious activities are even more comprehensive. The 
 minister may become, and indeed should become, the leader, 
 or at least, the inspiration of all movements and agencies 
 for the social betterment of the community. Nothing 
 which, directly or indirectly, affects the well-being of men, 
 lies outside the sphere of ministerial interest and activity. 
 However, permit me to express the conviction that if the 
 minister approaches these responsibilities simply as an 
 economist, a social reformer, or a settlement worker, he 
 is bound to fail. I fully agree with the writer who says, 
 “The mission of the church is first of all to the souls of 
 men, and if it degenerates into an annex to a labor union, 
 an employment agency, or a charitable society, people will 
 fail to see why they should join the annex rather than the 
 main body. ‘The church may co-operate with these 
 
 10 
 
agencies, as with every good work, but it should remember 
 that its chief work is spiritual.” 
 
 What is the place of the theological seminary in the 
 program of ministerial training for these manifold activ- 
 ities? President Walter Dill Scott, in an article entitled, 
 “Discovery of Truth in Universities,” after calling atten- 
 tion to the remarkable contributions already made and yet 
 to be made in the realms of physical and biological sciences, 
 continues: ‘‘The most fruitful researches during the 
 twentieth century will probably be conducted not in the 
 natural sciences, but in the social sciences. We are at 
 last coming to see that the proper study of mankind is 
 man. We are beginning to direct our researches to the 
 whole life of mankind, to the nature of man as a social and 
 political being, and to the achievements of man recorded 
 in languages, literature and institutions. There is recog- 
 nized a need for a thorough rewriting of all our texts on 
 History, Economics, Politics, Sociology, Psychology, 
 Aisthetics, Pedagogy, Ethics, and Religion.”’ The condi- 
 tions demanding these new developments he describes thus: 
 “Men are not now working together happily and effec- 
 tively. There is said to be a lack of control in the home, 
 restlessness in the school, apathy in the church, shirking in 
 the shops, dishonesty in the counting house, graft in pol- 
 itics, crime in the city, and Bolshevism threatening all our 
 institutions.” 
 
 Professor Elwood, who for many years has been vitally 
 interested in the solution of problems growing out of peo- 
 ples living together, closes his significant volume entitled 
 “The Social Problem” with these words: ‘Practically the 
 solution of the social problem depends upon the finding and 
 training of social leaders . . . . The university produces 
 experts in law and medicine, in agriculture and engineer- 
 ing, but experts in dealing with the problems of human 
 living together, very rarely. Yet these experts are the 
 ones most needed at the present time if western civilization 
 is not to perish through its failure to solve the social prob- 
 lem. Will the universities of the western world awake to 
 their responsibilities for providing social leadership?” 
 
 But, is it not true that religion is the only adequate 
 basis for establishing harmonious human relationships? 
 
 11 
 
President Coolidge, in one of his most significant utter- 
 ances, asserts: ‘We do not need more national development, 
 we need more spiritual development. We do not need more 
 intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not 
 need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not 
 need more government, we need more culture. We do not 
 need more law, we need more religion. We do not need 
 more of the things that are seen, we need more of the 
 things that are unseen.” In other words, the great need 
 is for social leaders with a religious vision, or religious lead- 
 ers with a social vision. ‘To train these leaders is not the 
 task of the college alone, or of the graduate school alone, 
 or of the theological seminary alone. It calls for the fullest 
 co-operation on the part of all three, college, university, 
 and theological seminary, each institution making its own 
 characteristic contribution to the total program of prep- 
 aration. 
 
 Whatever differences may exist between the ministry and 
 Law, Medicine, and similar professions, the ministry has 
 become in a real sense a profession, and the theological 
 seminary is a professional school as truly as is the Law 
 School or the Medical School. The theological seminary, 
 therefore, is not a substitute for a College of Liberal Arts, 
 or for the non-professional school of research. The primary 
 aim of the college has been defined as the development of 
 character or personality; that of the graduate school of 
 research as knowledge, and that of the professional school 
 as skill in the application of both character and knowledge. 
 Undoubtedly these definitions contain elements of truth. 
 On the other hand, if interpreted narrowly, they are by no 
 means the whole truth. The theological seminary, like 
 other professional schools, cannot neglect the development 
 of a strong, well-rounded character; for the professional 
 man, be he lawyer, or doctor, or minister, must first of all 
 be a man of high, noble character. Nor can the theological 
 school afford to minimize the importance of knowledge, for 
 the greatest skill is skill born of the widest possible knowl- 
 edge. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim of the theological 
 seminary should be the training of the prospective minister 
 in the skillful use of all he is and all he knows in and 
 for the Kingdom of God. Therefore, the great problem 
 
 12 
 
confronting the theological seminary in every generation 
 is so to adjust its curriculum that its graduates may be 
 prepared to meet effectively the legitimate demands made 
 upon them by the church and society in the age in which 
 they live. 
 
 Does the theological seminary of today furnish suf- 
 ficient opportunity for adequate ministerial training, 
 that is, training which will qualify the minister for 
 the manifold activities of the church? If we had to 
 accept at their face value the severe criticism urged 
 against them, the doors of our seminaries might better 
 be closed. There seems to be a _ widespread notion, 
 one theological professor has said, that “we are deal- 
 ing largely with the past, with dead issues, that we 
 are fighting over in mock tournaments the thrilling 
 theological prize fights of the dead centuries, treading the 
 arid sands of medieval scholasticism, leisurely sitting down 
 for recreation, occasionally to split hairs with Anselm or 
 Thomas Aquinas, and watch imaginary angels dance on 
 hypothetical needlepoints, and anon to arouse the artificial 
 fervor over antiquated controversies that once rocked the 
 civilized world so violently, but no longer stir even a slight 
 tremor in all Christendom, except maybe very occasionally 
 in the innocuous gymnastics of a Monday morning min- 
 isters’ meeting, when we run out of real sensations.” 
 
 A generation ago this criticism may have been justified 
 in some instances, and may still hold good of a few 
 theological seminaries; yet, no one who knows the out- 
 standing theological seminaries as they are at present can 
 believe that they deserve this criticism. They are awake 
 to the new demands upon them, and are making diligent 
 effort to meet them, even though they have not yet at- 
 tained perfection. 
 
 How, then, may the theological seminary discharge its 
 obligation to the present age? 
 
 First of all, let it be remembered that the primary 
 contact of the seminary with the church and the outside 
 world is through its students and graduates. Consequently, 
 it must make its most direct, as well as its most significant, 
 contribution through these same students and graduates. 
 This does not mean that the seminary should be satisfied 
 
 13 
 
with what it can do for the men within its halls. There 
 are ways of service, both numerous and varied, which as 
 yet have scarcely been realized, though here again, the 
 approach will be largely through those who already occupy 
 positions of religious leadership. For instance, theological 
 seminaries might well make their libraries more useful to 
 Alumni and other ministers in the active work. They might 
 make increased provision for extension courses: where pos- 
 sible, through extension classes for ministers and other re- 
 ligious workers; in other instances, through lectures at 
 conferences and other ministerial gatherings. There is 
 also a need of correspondence courses for both undergrad- 
 uates and graduates, and the production of literature, both 
 in periodical and book form, for the discussion of theolog- 
 ical and other subjects of interest to ministers. Again, the 
 theological seminaries, either separately or in a group or 
 in groups, might render important assistance to ministers 
 through the organization of a bureau, or bureaus, of re- 
 ligious and social research to which ministers throughout 
 the country might turn for information regarding facts 
 and conditions as well as for counsel. ‘These are some of 
 the ways in which the seminaries may serve the church and 
 the world directly, and I fully appreciate the need for and 
 importance of this service. Nevertheless, at this time my 
 chief interest is in the work of the seminaries for and with 
 the student body. 
 
 Moreover, the seminary, in order to meet adequately its 
 obligation to the students, must remember that its function 
 is to teach students, not subjects. The student must be 
 at the center of the educational program; subjects, courses, 
 and all other things must be, not ends in themselves, but 
 means to an end—the end being the training of the 
 students to the highest degree of effectiveness in their life 
 work. The charge has been brought against the Sunday 
 School of the past that its primary interest was in the 
 subject matter to be taught, rather than in the children to 
 be trained in Christian motives, attitudes, and activities. 
 This criticism, in so far as it may be justified by the facts, 
 directs attention to a serious weakness, and I am afraid 
 that a similar accusation might possibly be brought against 
 some of the seminary teaching of the past, if not of the 
 
 14 
 
present. I am confident that the student and not the 
 subject matter should be supreme; that the training of the 
 student for his life work and not the teaching of subjects, 
 or the impartation of knowledge, should be the supreme 
 objective in the theological educational program. 
 
 The question presents itself concretely in this fashion. 
 If a student comes to the seminary filled with a passion to 
 be a true minister of the Christian gospel, to interpret the 
 ideals of divine righteousness, and to apply them to all 
 human relationships, and, moreover, with a desire to teach 
 others how to vitalize these ideals in individual, social, 
 national, and international relationships; if this be the 
 object that brings the student to the seminary, what has 
 he a right to expect from the school? Or, to put it in 
 another way, what kind of training has the church a right 
 to expect that prospective ministers will receive, in order 
 that they may make the largest contribution toward the 
 Christianizing of modern life in all its varied and complex 
 aspects ? 
 
 In the light of what has been said regarding the func- 
 tion of the theological seminary, it may be accepted as self- 
 evident that the seminary should help the student to acquire 
 a knowledge of ministerial technique. Out of the experi- 
 ence of the past have grown certain convictions as to 
 methods and organizations through which the manifold 
 tasks of the church may best be accomplished. The con- 
 crete expressions of these convictions are seen in the various 
 types of services and organizations in the local church, as 
 well as in the more complicated organizations and boards 
 of the church as a whole. It goes almost without saying, 
 that a seminary fails in its purpose if it does not offer 
 instruction that will furnish to the student a knowledge of 
 these methods and organizations, and, what is of equal im- 
 portance, practical training under competent supervision 
 in the use of these methods and the administration of these 
 organizations. ‘The student is entitled to instruction and 
 training in the construction and delivery of sermons and 
 the conduct of the various church services; in the nature 
 and methods of evangelism; in the organization and admin- 
 istration of the manifold enterprises of the local, as well 
 as the general church; in the aims, objectives, methods, 
 
 15 
 
organization and administration of Religious Education in 
 all its many phases and relationships; in short, in every- 
 thing that promises to make him and the church an active, 
 intelligent and efficient force for righteousness in the lives 
 of individual men, the community, the nation, and the 
 world. 
 
 A word may be said here regarding the importance of 
 Religious Education. At the present time few would agree 
 with the contention of a speaker who about twenty years 
 ago insisted that Sociology and Pedagogy have no place 
 in the theological curriculum; and yet in some quarters 
 there still is doubt as to the proper place and function of 
 Religious Education. ‘Thus, not so long ago, a speaker 
 suggested that Religious Education “is concerned mainly 
 with the popularizing of religious ideas in the Sunday 
 School, and its objective is either the children or the more 
 simple minded among the adults.” He continued, “Now 
 there is no question that all this new machinery of ped- 
 agogy, adolescent psychology and the like is a very wel- 
 come advance, but it is clear that it is most useful in the 
 case of backward children; in the case of brighter children 
 the older methods need no improving upon.” 
 
 It is, of course, erroneous to assume that Religious Edu- 
 cation confines itself to children; for the teaching function 
 of the church in its relation to all ages is increasingly 
 appreciated. Nevertheless, it is true that the proper re- 
 ligious training of childhood and youth is one of the most 
 effective means of establishing and extending on a firmer 
 basis the Kingdom of God on this earth. Says Dr. Poole, 
 of London, in an address delivered at the Convention of 
 the World Sunday School Association held in Glasgow, in 
 June, 1924: ‘Give us the unspoiled child of this genera- 
 tion to train in the ideals of the common good, and we will 
 give you back a world of brothers in a single life time. 
 The rule of Christ in the lives of men is the basal line in 
 Religious Education for today. Our prevailing social 
 order has been based on self-interest and has been utterly 
 un-Christian. Until competition is replaced by co-oper- 
 ation, and self-interest by service, there can be no healing 
 for the nations. There is no true self-realizations save in 
 self-development for the service of human brotherhood. 
 
 16 
 
The supreme task of the new religious education is to 
 reach the world’s children with a teaching program that 
 will produce a new generation motivated with the co-opera- 
 tive urge instead of a competitive one. We must have a 
 race of comrades and brothers instead of a race of rivals 
 and victors.” 
 
 “In hearts too young for enmity 
 There lies the way to make men free; 
 Where children’s friendships are world wide, 
 New ages will be glorified. 
 Let child love child, and strife will cease, 
 Disarm the hearts, for that is peace.” 
 
 A knowledge of technique is essential, but it is by no 
 means the only thing that is essential. Sometimes the 
 question is asked: Are the theological seminaries to be 
 centers of practical training, or are they to be seats of 
 learning? Anyone who in this connection even thinks 
 of ‘‘either—or” has no adequate appreciation of the sem- 
 inary’s task. Some years ago a student about to graduate 
 made this statement in class: ‘‘If I had my course to take 
 over again, I would take more courses in Psychology and 
 Public Speaking, and fewer in Bible and Theology, for it 
 is more important to know how to put the message across 
 than to have something to say.” Experience has probably 
 taught this man better; for, though one of the most sig- 
 nificant contributions of the minister to the church and the 
 world will continue to be his message, surely the content 
 of this message is of more consequence than its form, 
 important as the latter may be; and the seminary must 
 aid the student to find and understand this message, its 
 content, its source and its power. This involves, among 
 other things, a proper appreciation, interpretation and use 
 of the Bible, and of those fundamental doctrines and truths 
 which have been the mainspring of human progress for 
 centuries and millenniums. 
 
 It may not be out of place to sound a warning in this 
 connection. No sane man can deny that conditions at 
 home and abroad present serious problems and perplexities 
 to the church, problems growing out of the rapid material 
 development, without its proper evaluation and adjustment 
 
 17 
 
on the basis of eternal principles of truth and righteous- 
 ness. ‘These problems are found in all human relationships, 
 the home, the church, the school, industry, politics, inter- 
 national relations. Surely, it is not strange that in the 
 presence of these perplexities, modern programs of educa- 
 tion, including ministerial education, should place an ever- 
 increasing emphasis on practical methods of doing things. 
 But, while this practical emphasis is quite justifiable, the 
 modern tendency is not without its dangers. 
 
 (1) There is danger, for instance, of a one-sided devel- 
 opment, of producing a smooth-working machine when 
 the primary goal should be the producing of a man. Are 
 there not some who would transfer the spirit of Pervus 
 DeJong, in “So Big,” to the realm of theological training? 
 ‘Reading and writing and figgering,” said DeJong, “‘is 
 what a farmer is got to know. The rest is all foolishness. 
 Constantinople is the capital of Turkey, he studies last 
 night, and uses good oil in the lamp. What good does it 
 do a truck farmer when he knows Constantinople is the 
 capital of Turkey? That don’t help him to raise turnips.” 
 
 (2) There is inherent in this present emphasis on doing 
 things a danger of drifting without clearly defined ideals 
 and convictions; and yet it is still true that devotion to 
 a great cause or ideal makes a great life, while the absence 
 of an overpowering ideal or conviction means a dwarfed 
 life. Is not the secret of Lincoln’s success to be found in 
 the overpowering dynamic of a great ideal? Speaking of 
 the slave power he exclaimed on one occasion, ‘“‘Broken by 
 it, I, too, may be! Bow to it I never will. ... Here, without 
 contemplating consequence, before High Heaven and in the 
 face of the world I swear eternal fidelity to the just cause, 
 as I deem it, of the land of my life, my liberty, and my 
 love.” 
 
 (3) There is also danger of overlooking the fact that 
 even a minister, in order to do his best, must first of all be 
 his best. Anything less than the best in personality and 
 character is a peril to the church. Owen Wister makes 
 the chief character in “The Virginian” say, “I tell you 
 this; a middling doctor is a poor thing; a middling lawyer 
 is a poor thing; may heaven save us from a middling min- 
 ister.” This apples not only to the minister’s professional 
 
 18 
 
skill, but even more to his manhood and personality. The 
 church today needs and needs badly as leaders of its great 
 enterprises not only men whose professional skill is de- 
 veloped to a high degree of perfection, but even more 
 symmetrical and well-rounded men, men of ideals, men of 
 character. Consequently, the task of the seminary is to 
 make the student a stronger and better man physically, 
 intellectually, morally, and spiritually. 
 
 The minister, no matter how well trained in technique, 
 cannot be permanently or constructively effective unless 
 he also has the most severe and thorough intellectual and 
 scholarly training. As someone has put it, “If history has 
 taught us anything, it has taught us that within western 
 civilization the priest is not likely to be effective if he is 
 not a scholar too.” What I should like to emphasize, there- 
 fore, is this: If the theological seminaries are to discharge 
 their obligation to the present age they must teach the 
 student to think, to think clearly, to think constructively, 
 to think persistently, to think courageously. This applies, 
 first of all, to thinking in matters religious and theological. 
 Generations gone by, for the most part, accepted without 
 question inherited doctrines and creeds as embodying in 
 unchanging form the faith and truth once delivered unto 
 the saints. Hence the supreme demand was to instruct the 
 prospective minister in the doctrines accepted by his par- 
 ticular denomination. At the present time theological edu- 
 cation is less simple, for the theological seminary must 
 now reckon with the scientific spirit, which is interested not 
 so much in theories, doctrines, creeds, as in the great facts 
 behind these doctrines and creeds. That means that the 
 teacher of theology cannot be content with securing the 
 intellectual assent of the student to the doctrines of the 
 church or to the ideas of the instructor or of the text book ; 
 he has the much more delicate responsibility of guiding the 
 student in the examination of the foundations of the faith, 
 without hiding, denying, or minifying any relevant fact, 
 and in the building, upon personal experience, of a creed 
 that will give stability and prevent vagaries in thought 
 and life. 
 
 It does make a difference what a person believes. ‘As 
 a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.’? No one, for in- 
 
 19 
 
stance, can read the life story of Isaiah in the light of his 
 inaugural vision without becoming convinced that the 
 truths which impressed themselves upon his mind on that 
 occasion, especially with reference to the nature and char- 
 acter of Jehovah, were the dominant influences throughout 
 his long prophetic career. His thought concerning Jesus 
 of Nazareth made a fundamental difference in the attitude 
 and activity of Saul of Tarsus. Dominated by one view, 
 he was a persecutor of the church; under the inspiration of 
 another he became the chief promulgator of the new faith. 
 The chief inspiration of Martin Luther was his conviction 
 regarding the nature of faith and salvation, and the func- 
 tion of the church. All this means that consciously, as 
 well as unconsciously, the conduct of the individual, the 
 group, the nation, the world, is determined by thoughts, 
 beliefs, convictions, which have become a part of the intel- 
 lectual equipment. 
 
 There was a time when the minister was the recognized 
 intellectual leader of the community. The universalizing 
 of education has ciianged this; and yet, if the minister, the 
 church, and religion are to retain a vital significance, the 
 minister must regain, at least in some realms, his intellectual 
 leadership. What is religion? What is Christianity? 
 Why should Christianity be accepted as the best religion? 
 What may I believe concerning God, the Person of Jesus 
 the Christ, salvation, life after death, prayer, the church? 
 And what about the Bible? What of its origin, its inspira- 
 tion, its authority, its present day value and use? 
 
 The present is sometimes called an age of doubt. Un- 
 questionably the statement is true regarding the attitude 
 toward certain formal beliefs and institutions; but on the 
 other hand there never has been more interest in or inquiry 
 regarding the fundamental verities of the faith. Men can 
 live without settling all questions, but is it possible to 
 build a Christian character, a Christian community, a 
 Christian world, except upon the foundation of at least a 
 few clearly defined convictions? Where may the people 
 turn for guidance in these days of flux, if not to the man 
 who occupies the position of leadership in the church? 
 
 This imposes upon the theological seminaries the obliga- 
 tion of helping prospective ministers to think clearly and 
 
 20 
 
fearlessly in the realm of religion and theology, in order 
 that they, in turn, may help their people to think clearly 
 and courageously. This does not mean that the preacher 
 should fall into the habit of which a good old woman com- 
 plained in these words: “‘So many of our preachers now-a- 
 days have nothing else but arguments. They argufy about 
 everything, and do you know, really one does get tired of 
 having everything argued.” Nevertheless, there is room 
 in preaching for affirmation, for instruction, and even for 
 argument, so that men may know what they believe and 
 why they believe it. The emphasis of instruction and 
 training in sound theological thinking does not mean the 
 assumption of labels, the promotion of controversy, or the 
 alignment in hostile camps. ‘‘We have reached a time,” 
 said the late President Little, ‘‘when it is more comfortable 
 to be crazy than to be sane, a time in which the two great 
 idols of civilization, the brazen god up-to-date and the 
 wooden god out-of-date divide between them the babbling 
 multitudes.”’ In the interest, not of division, but of union; 
 not of controversy, but of harmony, I am pleading for 
 clear thinking on the part of the people as well as of their 
 leaders. 
 
 It is, however, not only in the realm of theology that 
 there is need of clear, steady and courageous thinking. 
 My predecessor, President Stuart, in his inaugural address 
 declared it to be his purpose “to show that it is to the 
 theological seminary we must look for the leadership which 
 will make sound doctrine operative in the affairs of society 
 and in the life of the world.” Far be it from me to min- 
 imize the necessity of individual regeneration; for the 
 permanency of all external and social changes is conditioned 
 by an inner transformation of the individual; nevertheless, 
 the social gospel also is an essential part of the Christian 
 message. Indeed, ‘if Christianity is not applicable to men 
 in their corporate capacities and in their larger social rela- 
 tions, it will not be operative long in their strictly individ- 
 ual affairs.” But, granting that the minister is to have a 
 share in the Christianizing of politics and industry, does 
 he not need to know something about the present political 
 and industrial situation? If he is to contribute to the 
 destruction of war and the establishing of a reign of 
 
 21 
 
brotherhood and good will, does he not need to know 
 something about the factors that breed international and 
 interracial suspicion, hatred and strife, as well as about 
 those other factors that promote confidence, good will and 
 peace? Consequently, the seminary must help the student 
 to a proper evaluation of current events in the light of the 
 principles of Christian ethics and a clearer understanding of 
 practical methods of achieving a Christian economic order, 
 and of establishing Christian standards in national, inter- 
 national and interracial relations. 
 
 In principle this position is almost universally accepted, 
 but I fear the churches, the ministers, and the seminaries 
 have too often contented themselves with generalities. No 
 doubt the supreme need is that the spirit of Jesus should 
 permeate the whole of life, but from every direction comes 
 the demand that the church be more specific and point out 
 in detail how and where the spirit of Jesus may be applied. 
 In industry, for instance, what is the Christian view re- 
 garding collective bargaining, a living wage, an eight- 
 hour day, injunctions against strikes, the protection of the 
 worker while at work, child labor, the employment of 
 women, profit and management sharing, and other questions 
 of a similar nature? ‘True, these are economic questions 
 which cannot be settled by quoting texts in church; they 
 must be determined by experts in the light of economic 
 facts and forces; but is there not also a religious. and 
 ethical aspect to these questions? Is there not a religious 
 and moral atmosphere in which the slightest personal ad- 
 vantage appears mean and contemptible, if there is a 
 shadow cast upon it by even the smallest injustice to a 
 fellow man? And is it not the business of the minister and 
 the church to create this atmosphere, in which men will 
 show Christ-like consideration for their fellows, in which 
 the general good is exalted above private gain? When 
 this atmosphere is created, then and not until then, these 
 economic questions can and will be settled in a manner 
 that will not be a reproach to our Christian civilization. 
 
 That he may meet this responsibility the minister must 
 know not only the principles of the Christian religion, 
 but also the facts regarding modern industry; and if he 
 does not get this knowledge earlier in his educational career, 
 
 22 
 
is it not the task of the seminary to help him secure it 
 before he enters upon his ministerial responsibilities? The 
 ministerial student should know modern industry both in 
 its historical development and its dominating principles 
 and aspirations. To illustrate, R. H. Tawney in “The 
 Acquisitive Society” writes: “A society which aimed at 
 making the acquisition of wealth contingent upon the 
 discharge of social obligations, which sought to proportion 
 remuneration to service and denied it to those by whom 
 no service was performed, which inquired first, not what 
 men possess, but what they can make or create or achieve, 
 might be called a functional society, because in such a 
 society the main subject of social emphasis would be the 
 performance of functions. . . . At present we live in an 
 acquisitive society in which the whole tendency and inter- 
 est and preoccupation is to promote the acquisition of 
 wealth.” Granting the accuracy of this statement, can 
 modern industry be considered in harmony with the prin- 
 ciples for which the church stands, and if there is a con- 
 flict, what can the minister do to bring modern industry 
 under the sway of the Gospel he is commissioned to pro- 
 claim? The pull is, as ever, to one extreme or the other, 
 to maintain the status quo, or to overthrow everything that 
 is. Here, again, the true solution may be somewhere be- 
 tween the extremes. To find his own way amid the con- 
 flicting theories and claims is no easy matter, nor is it easy 
 to direct others in the way in which they should go. 
 
 What is true of the industrial situation is also true in 
 the realm of interracial and international relations. It 
 is a relatively simple matter to point out shortcomings, to 
 criticize wrongs, and even to hold up Christian ideals; but 
 unless the minister can assist in the formulation and execu- 
 tion of a constructive program he will fall far short of the 
 real possibilities inherent in the ministerial office. All this 
 means that if the seminaries are to discharge their obliga- 
 tions in the present world situation, the training they offer 
 must go beyond administration, organization, methods, 
 program, technique. It must teach the student to think, 
 to think intelligently, to think sanely, to think fearlessly, 
 concerning the world in which they live, the conditions in 
 which they must do their work, the problems—personal, 
 
 23 
 
social, industrial, national, international, interracia]l— 
 which they must assist in solving, and the specific ways in 
 which the Christian religion may become operative in the 
 life of the whole world. 
 
 In the remaining time at my disposal I desire to em- 
 phasize one additional aspect of ministerial training, 
 namely, the development of those qualities and character- — 
 istics which are sometimes summed up under the term 
 “spiritual.” The effective minister of the twentieth cen- 
 tury undoubtedly must have a keen, well equipped and 
 well trained mind; but surely Rabbi Cohen is right when 
 he asks, in an address delivered many years ago before the 
 Jewish Theological Seminary Association of America, “Is 
 there not something yet more needful, something without 
 which learning is sterile, logic and eloquence but stumbling 
 blocks? Is not simple faith more to be desired in our 
 leaders than any and all other qualities or requirements?” 
 He continues: ‘‘The people are an hungered and athirst 
 for the knowledge of the living God, and too often there 
 is none to satisfy them... . You cannot reach this God 
 through the intellect alone, you cannot preach this God 
 to the intellect alone. ... If a man feels not the truth of 
 religion, if he knows not the living presence of his Father, 
 how can he inspire in others the sentiment he lacks, or 
 bring others to see the light that shines not in his own 
 soul?” And he closes the address with this appeal, ad- 
 dressed to the president and members of the faculty: “Make 
 your pupils learned scholars, imbue them with the love of 
 knowledge, train them in the arts and graces of expression ; 
 but before all, and above all, and beneath all, make them 
 believers, believers that are not ashamed to bear witness to 
 their faith.” 
 
 Whatever else may be required of the modern min- 
 ister, he should never forget that primarily and _pre- 
 eminently he is, like the Hebrew prophet of old, an in- 
 terpreter of God and of his will to the day and generation 
 in which he lives. These prophets possessed certain spir- 
 itual qualifications which to my mind account in large 
 measure for the impression they made upon their own day 
 and generation, as well as for their permanent significance 
 in the religious history of mankind. Moreover, the more 
 
 24 
 
intimately I come to know the Hebrew prophets, the 
 stronger grows my conviction that the modern minister 
 may learn much from these ancient men of God regarding 
 his own qualifications for the ministerial office. It may be 
 the realization of this fact that is responsible for the some- 
 what inadequate designation of the theological seminaries 
 as “schools of the prophets.” 
 
 Let me indicate briefly a few elements in the qualifica- 
 tions of the ancient Hebrew prophets. (1) These prophets 
 were men of vital religious experience. They saw God and 
 lived in close personal fellowship with him. The truth 
 took hold of their hearts and lives, and only because they 
 saw and felt and experienced and lived, did they burn 
 with a divine enthusiasm to make their contemporaries see 
 the same visions, experience the same life, and realize the 
 same ideals. (2) The prophets were holy men, holy in 
 both senses in which the word is used in the Old Testament. 
 They were, on the one hand, set apart, consecrated, whole- 
 heartedly devoted to God and his service; he and his cause 
 had first claim at all times. They were, on the other hand, 
 morally pure; their lives were clean and in accord with 
 the highest ideals they proclaimed. They sought to reflect 
 in thought, word and deed the character of God as appre- 
 hended by them. (3) The prophets were inspired with 
 the deep consciousness of a divine call: “I have appointed 
 thee a prophet.” Furthermore, they proved supremely 
 loyal to their call and to their convictions. Hardship could 
 not dim their consciousness; opposition could not quench 
 their ardor; danger of death itself could not swerve them 
 from their purpose. (4) The prophets looked upon them- 
 selves as free and independent moral beings, with a definite 
 responsibility for the results of their labors. They knew 
 that their own faculties and powers were not superseded by 
 powers and faculties from without, but that they must 
 make diligent use of their own talents. At the same time, 
 they were deeply convinced that they could achieve results 
 only through real divine co-operation. 
 
 Are these qualities needed in the minister of to-day? Can 
 anyone doubt the importance of the vision and the living 
 experience of God? He who has not a sublime spiritual 
 vision of God and a living experimental hold on the truth 
 
 25 
 
he proclaims and urges others to apply and to live, is not 
 the person to grapple successfully with the perplexing 
 problems that confront the church and the minister to-day. 
 And how great is the need of holiness in the two-fold sense 
 of the term! ‘The consecration of all time, all strength, 
 all thought, the whole being, to the cause of Him whose 
 representative and co-worker the modern minister is! There 
 must also be moral purity and integrity, purity in body, 
 mind and spirit. It is a blow to the cause of God when- 
 ever one who is looked upon as a representative of God 
 swerves from the way of rectitude. And surely the con- 
 viction of a call is not to be despised, not necessarily an 
 audible call, such as was stressed by a former generation, 
 but the deep, gripping conviction, however produced, that 
 the minister is in the ministry because there he can render 
 the largest service in harmony with the divine will and 
 purpose. More important, even, is consistent loyalty to. 
 this conviction. Once more, the modern minister should 
 have a sense of responsibility for the results of his efforts. 
 He should labor as if everything depended upon himself, 
 relying at the same time with sublime faith upon the 
 divine co-operation as if everything depended upon God. 
 
 Is it a part of the theological seminaries’ responsibility 
 to assist in the development of these spiritual graces and 
 characteristics? It may possibly be taken for granted that 
 the men entering a theological seminary have made the 
 great Christian decision, and, consequently, that it is not 
 one of the functions of the seminary to produce a conver- 
 sion experience in the newcomers. Nevertheless, is it not 
 true that young men entering the seminary come with the 
 expectation of finding there help in their own personal 
 religious life? A graduate of a seminary other than 
 Methodist, in the class of 1924, opens an article entitled, 
 ‘What the Seminary Does for a Man’s Religion,” with this 
 paragraph: “A short time ago a professor in a theological 
 seminary asked his class upon what qualifications they 
 believed men now entering the ministry are most apt to 
 base their choice of a seminary. Do such men want to 
 find first of all practical knowledge of the problems which 
 the church faces to-day? Are they looking for a solution 
 of intellectual problems? Do they desire practical instruc- 
 
 26 
 
tion in preaching, teaching, or administration? Or are 
 they looking for a place where they believe their religious 
 convictions will be strengthened and their consecration 
 deepened by a true Christian fellowship and a fuller devo- 
 tional life? The answers of the class showed that men 
 come to the seminaries to find all of these things, but the 
 majority held that the determining factor in most cases is 
 the desire to find a seminary where a deeper spiritual life 
 and a fuller message will be found through the piety and 
 enthusiasm of those with whom a man comes in contact.” 
 —(The Christian Work, Nov. 15, 1924). 
 
 Do the seminaries consider this an essential phase of 
 ministerial education? Do they apply themselves in all 
 seriousness to the proper discharge of their obligation in 
 this matter? Dr. Kelly sums up the results of his inves- 
 tigations on this point in these words, although he admits 
 that the replies received may fail to do justice to the sem- 
 inaries: ‘The executive officer of one seminary reported 
 that his faculty members were ‘presumably Christian gen- 
 tlemen’; another reported ‘not interested’; and a third 
 asked why the seminary should concern itself with such 
 matters. At the other extreme, one seminary reports three 
 required chapel services daily. No fewer than 120 sem- 
 inaries gave information on the methods which they had 
 found successful in promoting the spiritual life of the 
 seminary. ‘These replies indicate that the chief dependence 
 of the seminary in meeting this phase of their responsibil- 
 ity is in prayer. Prayer, individual and in groups of 
 varying kinds, is mentioned by no fewer than eighty sem- 
 inaries. Other agencies in order of frequency in the 
 schedules are ‘the chapel,’ ‘personal work,’ ‘special serv- 
 ices,’ ‘student societies,’ etc. Evidently not so much effort 
 is put forth with individual students as with groups; but 
 of seventy-five seminaries that report some such effort, 
 forty-one make ‘personal interest and work’ prominent, 
 while others mention ‘conferences,’ ‘prayer,’ the seminary 
 ‘atmosphere,’ ‘volunteer religious work,’ etc. Several sem- 
 inaries have professors or lecturers on personal evangelism.”’ 
 
 If the development of spiritual gifts and the promotion 
 of the spiritual life of students is an essential part of 
 the seminaries’ task, how may this responsibility be met? 
 
 Qt 
 
Of course, when it comes to detailed and specific methods, 
 each institution must wrestle with the problem in its own 
 way. Nevertheless there are certain general suggestions 
 which may apply to all. 
 
 First: All members of a theological faculty may be ex- 
 pected to be Christian gentlemen, interested in the personal 
 religious life and problems of the students; and yet, might 
 there not be appointed one specially qualified person to 
 maintain intimate personal relations with the students in 
 spiritual matters? ‘‘He should satisfy himself in a tactful 
 way that each student is forming and maintaining the 
 habit of private prayer and meditation, and he should 
 give definite advice and guidance not only in public ad- 
 dresses, but also in private conference with individuals at 
 frequent intervals.” 
 
 Second: The use of the ordinary and generally recog- 
 nized means of grace should be encouraged. The study of 
 the Bible constitutes one of the important subjects in the 
 theological curriculum, but the classroom study cannot put 
 the primary emphasis on the direct, personal, devotional 
 message; and yet, unless the Bible is studied with this end 
 in view, it will fail to enrich and quicken as it may the 
 spiritual life of the reader. Prayer, also, has been proven 
 by the centuries an unexcelled means of promoting Chris- 
 tian experience and life, and students must be made to 
 realize that with all the changes in point of view and psy- 
 chological interpretation, prayer is still a unique source of 
 life, vigor, insight, and inspiration. There are many 
 books, in addition to the Bible, which are of real devotional 
 help. Would it not be a fine thing if students could be 
 persuaded always to have in a convenient place some book 
 especially adapted to the enriching and strengthening of 
 the individual spiritual life—and to use it? Again, there 
 is not as much of intimate, religious, devotional conversa- 
 tion as there should be. Students indulge in plenty of theo- 
 logical discussion, much of it enriching and helpful; but 
 why not, without cant and the superficial use of pious 
 phrases, also do the other thing, and carry on sincere, re- 
 ligious, devotional conversation? 
 
 Third: Probably every seminary makes provision for 
 one or more services of a distinctively religious nature. I 
 
 28 
 
doubt that attendance upon these services should be made 
 obligatory ; but they should be made so attractive and help- 
 ful that a student would consider absence a distinct loss. 
 My own conviction is that the chapel service should be main- 
 tained as a service of devotion. Im addition to the regu- 
 lar services, other periods, such as retreats or quiet days, 
 may well be set apart for meditation and prayer. 
 
 Fourth: The entire seminary program should co-oper- 
 ate to make the student a stronger and better man, not 
 only intellectually, but also morally and spiritually. The 
 intellectual discussion of the Bible, of religion, of God 
 himself, does not necessarily produce a stronger personal 
 faith, but under the proper direction of men who under- 
 stand the personal problems of students and sympathize 
 with the perplexities arising from the wider knowledge and 
 the newer point of view, these discussions may and should 
 become channels through which the individual life may 
 become richer, fuller, and more Christ-like. 
 
 Having said all this about the need and the methods of 
 meeting it, it becomes necessary to state that even with the 
 best efforts, it 1s impossible for the seminary alone to 
 determine the spiritual growth of its students; for that 
 depends in the last analysis upon the student himself. The 
 faculties and the student bodies should keep this fact in 
 mind, not for the sake of relaxing efforts, but of avoid- 
 ing disappointment, and, especially on the part of the 
 students, criticism of the seminary, the curriculum, or the 
 faculty, for failing to supply something which no curric- 
 ulum or institution can supply. If students who enter the 
 seminary come in the quest of a deeper spiritual life, they 
 must take the first steps in that direction. Neither they 
 nor the faculty should expect the curriculum of itself to 
 supply it. Both must co-operate to find, and when found, 
 to use all the methods and means that will send the men 
 from the seminaries with a keener sense of God, a stronger 
 and more vital hold on the fundamental verities of the 
 Christian faith, and a deeper and more whole-hearted con- 
 secration to the work to which in the providence of God 
 they are called. 
 
 Seventy years ago Garrett Biblical Institute began its 
 career as a school for the training of ministers with four 
 
 29 
 
students; during the past academic year the enrollment 
 was 421. May we not accept this remarkable growth as 
 an evidence of approval and of recognition that the insti- 
 tution, by adjusting its curriculum to ever-changing de- 
 mands and conditions, while remaining supremely loyal to 
 its original purpose, has succeeded in meeting the expec- 
 tations of its founders, its supporters, and of the Church? 
 All hail to the leaders of the past, from John Dempster to 
 Charles Macaulay Stuart! But, after all, the successes 
 of the past years cannot be credited to any one man or 
 any small group of men; they are the result of hearty 
 and enthusiastic co-operation on the part of Alumni, stu- 
 dents, Trustees, Faculty, and friends, to all of whom we 
 reverently acknowledge our debt. They have made Gar- 
 rett what it is to-day. 
 
 The task in the days to come will not be easier, nor the 
 problems less perplexing; nevertheless, I am looking into 
 the future with implicit assurance, for I am convinced that 
 the new administration will be blessed, as have been blessed 
 the administrations of the past, with the quiet confidence 
 and ready responsiveness of all who are interested in the 
 largest usefulness of the institution. Is there any reason 
 why, with this sympathetic and energetic support, the 
 future contributions of our beloved school to the building 
 of the Kingdom of God should not be even more significant 
 than the most glorious achievements of the past? To the 
 realization of this hope I pledge my time, my strength, my 
 all. Now, as I assume in this formal manner the heavy 
 responsibilities with which I am charged, I ask in all sin- 
 cerity for your sympathetic co-operation, your good will, 
 your prayers; for I feel, as did Abraham Lincoln, on 
 assuming the Presidential office in the disquieting days of 
 1861: ‘I am sure I bring a heart true to the work. For 
 the ability to perform it I must trust in that Supreme 
 Being who has never forsaken this favored land. .. . With- 
 out that assistance I shall surely fail; with it I cannot fail.” 
 
 30 
 
The Teacher 
 
 BaccALAUREATE SERMON BY THE REVER- 
 END Bisnop Epwin Hour HucHeEs, 
 ea bit LAS AYA Be 16 Wig 8} 
 
 “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto 
 him that teacheth in all good things.” —Galatians 6:6. 
 
 You will, first of all, dear friends, note the peculiarity of 
 this text. It reverses all our habits and expectations. We 
 would anticipate that the Apostle would say, ‘“‘Let him 
 that teacheth communicate unto him that is taught in all 
 good things.” Instead he turns the process in the oppo- 
 site direction. Teachers are supposed to be made for 
 scholars, but here scholars are made for teachers. The 
 stream of benefit once flowed from the mind and heart 
 of the teacher over to the mind and heart of the pupil, but 
 now Paul bids the stream flow the other way. We may sur- 
 mise that he is thinking, primarily, of material support 
 for the teacher; yet the context does not make the limita- 
 tion, while the immediate language itself broadens out until 
 it asks the scholar to render back to the teacher ‘“‘all good 
 things.” It is much as if he had written, “Be good and 
 helpful to your teachers. Return to them in some coinage, 
 or in all worthy coinage, principal and interest on the in- 
 vestment they have made in you.” 
 
 The word is too fine and suggestive to be neglected. 
 There are not many occasions when it could be amplified 
 with propriety and profit; but it surely comes to our King- 
 dom for such a time as this. Custom prescribes a sermon 
 for Commencement Sunday; and somehow the precedent is 
 so fitting and sacred that not even secular institutions care 
 to take it from their programs. Could there be any better 
 time to think of “the Teacher’’? 
 
 It is an adventurous subject. It is safe to say that 
 none of you have ever heard it presented either in bac- 
 
 31 
 
calaureate sermon or in an address for the graduation 
 hour. The students receive their portion in more than 
 due season. The graduates are glorified as the evidences 
 of the educational process. ‘The times are interpreted as 
 making a calendar for new achievements. The world itself 
 is presented as the arena for contest and the field for en- 
 deavor. Sometimes, also, the great backgrounds of intel- 
 lect and experience are given a scholarly discussion. Thus 
 do we sweep the gamut of school life, and of after-life. 
 
 And yet—not quite! The Teacher—What is his mean- 
 ing for an hour like this? Does he not remain in the un- 
 observed recesses of thought, even as he sits in modest 
 retirement on the commencement platforms? Do we not 
 give attention to the products of education, rather than 
 to its producers? Perhaps this is partly due to the fact 
 that the speaker is often himself a teacher, or has been a 
 teacher. He can scarcely, therefore, exalt his own clan. 
 You can even compliment him to the glorious extent of 
 saying that he does not expect the high place at graduation 
 time. He loses himself in his work. He says to his stu- 
 dents in a mood that is genuinely apostolic, ‘Ye are our 
 hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing.” ‘Ye are our glory.” 
 It is no venture to say that the teachers have not been 
 conscious of their omission from direct treatment in the 
 great and vibrant commencement hours. They have no 
 grievances, growing out of verbal neglect. I hold no 
 brief from them—to become the spokesman of their com- 
 plaint. But I hold a brief from my own heart and from 
 many thousands of hearts to be the spokesman of grati- 
 tude. We will therefore pass the teacher through the 
 stages of Estimation, Depreciation, Appreciation and Ex- 
 altation. 
 
 1. Estimation. ‘The importance of the Teacher can 
 scarcely be overstated. Fully one-fifth of the average life 
 within the fences of civilization is spent with him. At 
 five or six years of age the child goes into his presence. 
 From then until he is 18 or 25 or 27 that child spends more 
 of his conscious hours with the Teacher than he spends 
 with his parent. In a way indeed the Teacher becomes an 
 intellectual substitute for the parent. The public school 
 system is still an infant, even though it seems so well 
 
 32 
 
fixed into our national life. Prior to its coming the home 
 was a school; and sometimes the governess, and more often 
 the father or mother, became the instructor of the child. 
 Susannah Wesley was the teacher of her nineteen children. 
 When each came to his sixth birthday the busy mother in 
 the Epworth Rectory sat down with him after the frugal 
 breakfast and, ere the sun sank into evening shadows, 
 the child knew his letters and had his start in reading. 
 
 In a way the picture is typical of the not-distant 
 day. But in season the increasing complexity of modern 
 life compelled a change. ‘The public school became an 
 adjunct of the private home. ‘The teacher became the 
 parent’s proxy. The case is even deeper than this state- 
 ment would indicate. There is actually a certain domestic 
 element in the teaching life. The more experienced educa- 
 tional administrators will directly conclude that the premier 
 requisite for a successful teacher is a certain parental mood. 
 This may be reached through the actual experience of 
 parenthood or it may come through an increased instinct 
 that makes for spiritual paternity or maternity. But 
 without that mood the Teacher is doomed to failure. In 
 the society of God he is, within large areas of the intel- 
 lectual life, the substitute for the parent. Into the school- 
 room where he works scores of fathers and mothers come in 
 an anxious, though unseen, procession, making him their 
 aid and representative. If Shakespeare was right when he 
 said that parents stand to their children in the stead of 
 God and so become the lieutenants of Heaven, then teachers 
 are the second delegates of the Most High, the officers, but 
 twice removed, of that intellectual grace that reaches up 
 to the omniscience of the Infinite God. 
 
 That religious conception of the Teacher has a strange 
 and beautiful warrant in the New Testament. The cen- 
 ter of its gospel is parenthood. The spell of the world’s 
 orphanhood is broken by one who said, “When ye pray, 
 say, Our Father.” After that the record is one of an 
 itinerant and unroofed schoolroom. The Incarnate Son 
 of the Infinite becomes the Teacher of the finite. His fol- 
 lowers are called in translation “disciples,” which is Latin 
 for pupil or scholars. He, himself, is seldom called the 
 Preacher; He is rather the Teacher. The pedagogical 
 
 33 
 
vocabulary sprinkles the pages of the four gospels. God, 
 the Father, becomes God, the Son; God, the Son, becomes 
 God, the Teacher. 
 
 Therefore, wherever that gospel goes the Teacher is 
 sure to come. Non-Christian lands wallow in illiteracy. 
 But lands where the gospel is free abound in the schools 
 that are free, free in the sense that they are open to all 
 classes, and free in the sense that they have true intel- 
 lectual liberty. When Jesus enters a country, he is fol- 
 lowed by a regiment of teachers. He always founds a 
 “college of apostles.” He came to Massachusetts, and 
 Harvard College came. He went to the South, and William 
 and Mary College came. He went to Connecticut, and 
 Yale College came. He came to Evanston, and North- 
 western and Garrett came. His march over the earth is 
 marked by institutional footsteps. ‘The Carpenter of Naz- 
 areth specializes in the building of schools. His closer 
 followers in the Church set so good an example that di- 
 rectly the State caught the inspiration. She entered upon 
 the most colossal educational investment ever made in the 
 history of the race, the public school system. Geography 
 and history would both show that this system came from 
 Christ. The Carpenter of Nazareth democratizes Educa- 
 tion. Hence comes that vast army of teachers who go 
 forth each day to do battle against ignorance. It may not 
 be made up wholly of sanctified crusaders. But in its 
 moral and spiritual quality it serves to lift the average of 
 the race, and is really composed of as fine a God-fearing 
 body of men and women as can be found on the planet. 
 
 2. Depreciation. Eventually these secondary teachers 
 pass their products on to their partners in collegiate life. 
 The transfer is made amid that period of youth when the 
 sense of freedom is likely to outrun the sense of respon- 
 sibility. For a time, therefore, the Teacher suffers depre- 
 ciation. ‘The students are not old enough to have expe- 
 rienced the defeats and disappointments and sorrows that 
 come only with the years. They have an idealism not yet 
 mixed with charity. Some of them, at least, are in that in- 
 teresting section of life where they mistake swelling for 
 growing! Jokes on the Professors slip into the school 
 Annuals. Personal peculiarities are the subjects of mimicry. 
 
 34 
 
Unless carefully censored the Yearly Minstrel show is an 
 exhibit of professorial idiosyncrasies or even weaknesses. 
 The Teachers’ nicknames arrive, being at first in the way 
 of ridicule though later to be converted into terms of 
 affection. In addition to half-serious criticism, there is 
 also good-natured raillery—sometimes expressed in jokes 
 that border on vulgarity. The Professor’s red cow is 
 painted white, licks her sides and dies, while the doubtful 
 artists work on the county roads in order to purchase the 
 cow’s successor! ‘The Dean’s closed carriage is pulled far 
 into the country by human motors that gurgle and murmur 
 in glee and at the end of three miles the Dean leans from 
 the carriage to say that he has had a pleasant ride and 
 is now ready for the return journey! ‘The ludicrous animal 
 with the long ears and the harsh voice is placed in the Pres- 
 ident’s Office; and the head of the institution, discovering 
 the perpetrators of the ancient joke, gives the students 
 three hours in which to remove their little brother to a 
 more stable equilibrium! All these are actual happenings 
 in college life. They show that thus early students and 
 teachers are placed in opposite camps, even though the 
 camps be located somewhat artificially and merrily. The 
 deeds are joined by words. Returning alumni know that 
 a speech which reproduces in chapel the tones and gestures 
 of any teacher is sure to delight the students. One such 
 alumnus, being a natural wag, made himself popular with 
 several generations of undergraduates by declaring that 
 on his first return to his college he went immediately to 
 see the ‘‘fossils’”? in the museum, and then went from there 
 to call on the members of the faculty! 
 
 These are the more superficial signs of Depreciation. 
 There is likewise a deeper sign expressed in the student 
 code. In its more extreme articles this code declares the 
 faculty the hostile camp and then gives the usual definition 
 of “treason” as lending “aid and comfort to the enemy!” 
 In milder articles it prohibits unduly close association as 
 a “questionable amusement.” In olden days a student who 
 was nice to the faculty was given a name that indicated 
 that he hailed from the State of Illinois! There are cer- 
 tain parts of that student code that are passing or are 
 being modified. It may be that the athletic life of the 
 
 35 
 
schools is in a degree responsible for this good change. At 
 any rate the interest of teachers in vigorous physical con- 
 tests in which they themselves cannot participate has 
 given a common field, in the higher sense, where professors 
 and students often meet. Portions of the student code 
 will abide, because they should abide. The student who 
 spies on students will remain an outcast, while the student 
 who ‘“‘tells on’? his fellows, unless in some deep matter of 
 personal honor or of civic responsibility or in harmony 
 with student government, will continue to dwell in the land 
 of contempt. But those parts of the student code that 
 put false restraint upon the association of teachers and 
 scholars must yield utterly to the new humanism of our 
 day. 
 
 There is also a yet deeper phase of the relation. The 
 semi-paternal attitude of which we have spoken involves 
 some power of discipline. The change from home to 
 school is quick, even to the point of violence. Often it 
 comes in less than a day. In the morning we are under 
 the good dominion of our parents. In the afternoon we 
 walk in that strange liberty that is the characteristic of 
 college life. That liberty is our peril, even as it is our 
 opportunity. It may be used as an occasion to the flesh; 
 it may be used as an occasion to the mind and spirit. In 
 other words, school life is an intermediate state. It is a 
 period of semi-independence, or of semi-dependence, as 
 you may please to put the emphasis. The field of free- 
 dom is greatly enlarged, the parental restraint being con- 
 fined to counsel by letters, the parental responsibility ex- 
 pressing itself in the writing of checks! Into that parental 
 void, so suddenly made, the Teacher comes in considerable 
 degree. His smaller authority moves into the place occu- 
 pied by the parental authority, and yet it does not wholly 
 fill that place. It is purposely lessened in order that the 
 student may have the glorious chance of freedom. 
 
 Yet discipline is sometimes involved. The figure of speech 
 that expresses the situation somewhat is this: The Teacher 
 becomes a step-parent, and that, too, more quickly than the 
 conventions of good society allow! The usual resentment 
 may come. The student revels in that quick and glorious 
 liberty. To study when you please; to go to bed when 
 
 36 
 
you will; to select such companions as you desire; to dis- 
 pose without immediate hindrance of such time as you may 
 have between recitations; all this is a wonderful program! 
 But soon, at some point, authority steps in; and that from 
 a person, whom you have but recently met! It may be 
 too much for the warm impulse of youth. Discipline fol- 
 lows; and student anger, thinly veiled, meets the teacher’s 
 firmness, scarcely concealed! The clash is on; and many 
 of us can recall its excited bitterness. We quickly reclas- 
 sify our once beloved Teacher. He is a tyrant now, a 
 Cesar, a czar! Our vocabulary breaks down in the effort 
 of telling just what we think of him. 
 
 There is an interesting literary illustration of this hap- 
 pening in John Masefield’s “Daffodil Fields.”” The doubt- 
 ful hero and near-villain is Michael who seems to regard 
 his mother’s apron strings as mere bonds of domestic 
 slavery. He goes away to school duly and makes the dis- 
 covery that teachers have apron strings too! He is 
 eventually expelled and prowls back to his own home in the 
 midnight darkness to meet the anxious question as to 
 why he is not at the distant college. He announces his 
 expulsion as a kind of triumph by saying— 
 
 “And I am glad; for I have had my fill 
 Of farming by the book with those old fools— 
 Exhausted talkatives whose blood is still, 
 Who try to bind a living man with rules. 
 This fettered kind of life, these laws, these schools, 
 These codes, these checks, what are they but the clogs 
 Made by collected sheep to mortify the dogs?” 
 
 There you have the feeling of more than one student. 
 Collegiate discipline is a mortification. Are we not men 
 and women? Why then this kindergarten? All this mood, 
 in various grades and forms, becomes a part of that depre- 
 ciation which we visit upon our teachers. What we have 
 said about some of them in our angry impulse would add 
 sizzling chapters to the literature of abuse. It is very 
 good that usually the book does not close here. There 
 are other chapters to be written; and some of them will 
 
 37 
 
glow with the ardent love and gratitude of the saner es- 
 timates of life. 
 
 3. The third stage is Appreciation. Life’s judg- 
 ments become both more kindly and more just. The 
 student of one year becomes himself a teacher the 
 next year, and his own life begins to interpret the instruc- 
 tors of the past. Or perhaps his own slight circle of 
 authority in some other work furnishes the needed com- 
 mentary. We approach the age and likewise the stand- 
 point of our teachers. Hence impulsive depreciation passes 
 over into steady appreciation. 
 
 This is an individual experience. It is also a racial 
 experience. The great treatments of life, as seen in lit- 
 erature, become exponents of the Teacher’s place. If 
 Shakespeare does not glorify the teacher, he does not cari- 
 cature or criticize him. His nearest approach to ridicule 
 is in “King Ferdinand’s Academy” where monastic vows 
 to study break down when the princess and her ladies 
 appear—a sort of an advance statement of one of the 
 beautiful perils of co-education! The piece is probably a 
 satire on the pedantry of certain teachers of the Eliza- 
 bethan age; and it is, also, a claim that love adds “a 
 precious seeing to the eye.” 
 
 But the later age that bordered on our own time saw 
 the Teacher in the bogs of literature. Charles Dickens 
 came, and in his novels he made many schools and created 
 many teachers. Marton and Strong are there; but so are 
 Bradley Headstone and the terrible Squeers. Mr. Dickens 
 denied that he was guilty of exaggeration. Yet if he 
 were not, some of the teachers of his time would have 
 been Satan’s choices for district schools in perdition! We 
 will not blame Dickens. The power of caricature has its 
 place, in pedagogical life as well as in political life. It 
 takes a twenty mile breeze to drive a vessel at a ten mile 
 speed. England laughed and wept at the doors of Dickens’ 
 schoolrooms and then went forth to begin her educational 
 reform. 
 
 But we have no Dickens to-day. H. G. Wells tried the 
 role somewhat in his “Joan and Peter,” and the work fell 
 flat and has even thus early dropped into forgotten liter- 
 ature. In different writing Veblen essayed a like role for 
 
 38 
 
higher education. His book may be marked ‘‘Perishable.” 
 In the problem fiction of our time the Teacher goes all 
 but unscathed. It is perhaps a sign of the transition 
 through which the pulpit is passing, that the modern 
 preacher is the frequent hero or villain of a_ novel. 
 ‘Robert Elsmere,” “John Ward, Preacher,” ‘The Damna- 
 tion of Theron Ware,” ‘The Case of Richard Meynell,” 
 “The Crucifixion of Philip Strong,” ‘“*The Inside of the 
 Cup,” “Saint’s Progress,” and ‘The Cathedral” are all 
 examples of the modern problem fiction that represents the 
 limitation or failure of the Minister. The Teacher has no 
 corresponding place in the later literature. If he is not 
 its hero, he has at any rate ceased to be its villain! ‘Those 
 who have even a meager knowledge of the laws of literature 
 cannot but conclude that the Teacher has measurably 
 gained his recognition. He may not have yet won his 
 full place in the literary Hall of Fame, but he has sur- 
 rendered his place in the literary Rogues’ Gallery! 
 
 The maturing individual follows the way of a maturing 
 race. All autobiographies show this; and biographies show 
 it no less. The life of Garfield cannot omit Mark Hop- 
 kins; Paul cannot tell his religious experience without pay- 
 ing tribute to Gamaliel; Grose’s life of Bashford must 
 give room to William Fairfield Warren and to Dean Lati- 
 mer; the record of James Whitcomb Riley must give 
 liberal space to Captain Lee O. Harris, the teacher who 
 started a frolicsome boy from cheap and vulgar penny- 
 dreadfuls to the reading of the finer novels with their 
 equally enchanting adventures. Modern biography is 
 often an apotheosis of the Teacher. 
 
 Sometimes, likewise, it joins the earlier and later teach- 
 ers in a wonderful comradeship. The examples could be 
 multiplied beyond number, and beyond patience. One 
 fiction character can represent them all. Recently I stood 
 in the room in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, from which Ian Mac- 
 laren passed up into God’s nearer presence. As I turned 
 from the door I found myself saying, ‘*Thank God that he 
 gave us “‘Domsie Jamison.’ Jamison was, as you all know, 
 the secondary teacher with the post-graduate passion. He 
 trains George How and finds in him the beginnings of a 
 scholar. He makes testy old Drumsheugh finance the lad 
 
 39 
 
as he goes to Edinburgh. He gives modest prophecies 
 about the boy’s university record. One day the letter 
 comes; and the Domsie’s hand shakes and his eye grows 
 misty as he reads: 
 
 “Edinburgh. 
 
 “Dear Master Jamison: 
 
 “The class lists are out, and you will be glad to know 
 that I have gotten the medal in the Humanities, and in the 
 Greek.” The aged Teacher stands like a Simeon in the 
 temple of Education. He hastens away to tell George 
 How’s mother. But the tears in his old eyes and on his 
 old face will not let him read. So he breaks into exclama- 
 tions and says, “It’s na use! It’s na use! He’s first in 
 Humanities, and first in the Greek, first of them all. The 
 like of this has na been seen since there was a schule in 
 Drumtochty. And I came to tell you as fast as my old 
 legs could carry me.” And the Mother, Margaret How, 
 took his hand and said, “It’s your doing, Master Jamison; 
 and for your reward you have neither silver nor gold; 
 but you have a Mother’s gratitude.’ Thank God for 
 such teachers, the modest people in the distant towns and 
 townships who pass their pupils on to the Edinburghs and 
 Evanstons. ‘Thank God, too, for their upper partners 
 on the educational road, who become the final colleagues in 
 the sacred program of the preparation for life. 
 
 4. ‘This brings us naturally on to the stage of E-zal- 
 tation. If any of you accuse me of idealizing the teaching 
 profession I shall not be at pains to deny the charge. I 
 shall plead guilty with no sense of guilt. Nor shall I 
 even admit that the case of Domsie Jamison is mere inven- 
 _tion. His spirit lives incarnate in many thousands of 
 American teachers, secondary and collegiate. We may go 
 quite farther than that and claim that the reality sur- 
 passes the fiction. No English novelist has given us an 
 imaginary character equal to Arnold of Rugby. No Amer- 
 ican novelist has fashioned a teacher equal to Mark Hop- 
 kins of Williamstown. God’s hand does better work than 
 man’s pen. Dickens gave us Dr. Marigold, the traveling 
 auctioneer, who between his spells of noisy salesmanship 
 instructed the blind Sophy and eventually brought her to 
 
 40 
 
the city that other teachers might enlarge the range of her 
 inner vision. In Dickens’ ““American Notes” one can easily 
 see that the imaginary Marigold was far surpassed by the 
 actual Dr. Howe who opened the world of sights and sounds 
 to Laura Bridgman. 
 
 The greatest educational achievement in the life of one 
 person is not to be found in any novel. It is rather found 
 in a thrilling bit of American history. For I think that 
 you will all agree that the case of Helen Keller is the 
 deepest, as well as the most dramatic, accomplishment of 
 individual teaching in the records of the race. The child 
 sits in the double prison of darkness and silence. We need 
 not review the patient processes by which the world was 
 brought to her along the only possible scanty avenues. 
 By the untold labor and the unspeakable persistence of 
 Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller was led forward into the en- 
 larging Kingdom of God, until at last a child that had 
 been sightless, speechless, soundless, seizes her Radcliffe 
 diploma with an eager hand and walks from the platform 
 amid the huzzas of humanity. 
 
 Helen Keller knew who was her deliverer. In her lec- 
 ture on “Happiness” she kept repeating as a grateful 
 refrain, ‘“‘Love wrought this miracle in me.” At the end 
 she recited, by request, the Twenty-third Psalm, until her 
 hearers could see her banqueting at the prepared table in 
 the presence of her old enemies of blindness, and deafness, 
 and dumbness, while on the platform, still studying every 
 modulation, was the teacher, Anne Sullivan Macy, the 
 modest heroine of a thousand battles against the most 
 _stubborn foes of the intellectual life. The case is both 
 history and parable. Our teachers have opened our eyes 
 so that we see more; our ears, so that we hear more; 
 our lips, so that we speak more. ‘They have in some 
 measure defeated our three-fold enemy. ‘They have been 
 the undershepherds of the Good Shepherd, so much so 
 that in all our better moments, such as these, we find 
 ourselves praying that they, as well as we, may abide in 
 the house of the Lord forever. 
 
 5. You will permit me to add to this baccalaureate ser- 
 mon a fifth section, not designed when this message was 
 planned. We will call it Specialization. I offer no apol- 
 
 41 
 
ogy for bringing hither to-day a human document, for 
 omitting those learned discussions that are rightly thought 
 appropriate for the graduation days. I have now reached 
 the age when my teachers join my parents in the gallery 
 of gratitude, and when their pictures hang in close com- 
 pany with the pictures of my father and mother. Not 
 long since I went back to my first alma mater. For the 
 only time in many years the professional home that had 
 always opened to me was closed—because its tenant had 
 gone to another dwelling place. Professor Davies had 
 mounted the fiery chariot of his beloved Old Testament 
 and had passed into the Heavenlies. I had little taste for 
 the fine hilarity of the alumni luncheon, always enjoyed 
 hitherto. One alone of my old teachers was in active 
 service, Professor Austin; while two others, Professors 
 Perkins and Parsons, remained to greet their boys of the 
 older days. The shouting procession to the gymnasium 
 did not fit my mood. I preferred a pilgrimage. Down the 
 street I went by the cottage where Professor Grove lived 
 long; northward to where Whitlock and Nelson dwelt; to 
 the left where the observatory dream of Professor Perkins’ 
 life awaits the further opening of the skies; up the hill 
 by the old castle where Professor Davies resided; over the 
 valley to where the venerable and revered ex-President 
 Merrick lived in saintly quiet; then on by the President’s 
 residence from whose doors I had many times seen emerge 
 the severe and splendid figure of President Payne; on past 
 Professor Williams’ house from whose pathway I had seen 
 his alert figure trip in the far days; a little farther to 
 Professor McCabe’s residence that I might linger for a 
 time in the memory of his smile and his love; then out 
 the main street to the sleeping places in the acres of God. 
 I walked all through ‘“‘Professors’ Row” where dust sleeps 
 close neighbor to dust, even as in life the tabernacles had 
 been pitched so near to each other upon the Mount of 
 Knowledge. Along the ways of memory my teachers came 
 back to me like a veritable resurrection of gratitude. I 
 heard again the well-known tones; I saw again the familiar 
 gestures. It was a time of mournful gladness, or of glad 
 mournfulness. As I reviewed the experience later, I could 
 not tell which mood had predominated. I know only that 
 
 42 
 
I thought of no text-books, and that I recalled no definite 
 lessons. I simply memorialized the teachers themselves. 
 Directly I went back from the campus of the dead to the 
 campus of the living, to meet the hundreds of graduates 
 that swept from the banquet tables out over the college 
 lawns, and to entertain no regret that I had spent the 
 hours in a grateful effort to communicate some good things 
 to the spirits of my old teachers. 
 
 Now I am here with your alma mater. For you, my 
 dear graduating friends, other teachers came in God’s 
 good time and by His kindly grace. You see their faces, 
 and you hear their voices even though long since some 
 of them trailed off into the silences. Ninde, Terry, Ben- 
 nett, Little, Stuart, and others, how they come back to 
 the grateful memories of Garrett men. They make for 
 you a procession of glory. In the sober review that always 
 comes with graduation hours, we are assured that our in- 
 structors would have arisen for us at darkest midnight and 
 would have gone for us on journeys of difficulty and 
 danger. St. Paul elsewhere hints that teachers are the 
 gifts of God. If that be true, God has been very good to 
 - Garrett Biblical Institute; and we believe that in His provi- 
 dential arrangement for the succession in the Presidency 
 He has been good, once again, in bringing President Eiselen 
 to these sacred tasks. Our hearts make this an All Saints’ 
 hour for our teachers. We group them here to-day: and 
 we should like to obey St. Paul’s command that we should 
 communicate to them in all good things, and not least of 
 all, in that reverent gratitude that may make either earth 
 or heaven a happier place for them all because their works 
 have won for them places in our spiritual “Hall of Fame.” 
 What have they not done, for us and for the whole world? 
 If to-day Christian men and women could get the vision of 
 Garrett accomplishments and see the panorama of achieve- 
 ments which her teachers have wrought to the very ends 
 of the earth, her coffers would overflow with endowments 
 and her long line of professors would be hailed as among 
 the most productive forces of the Kingdom of God. 
 
 The graduates of this week, and of other years, have 
 perhaps been busy in these baccalaureate moments in se- 
 lecting favorite teachers to whom your hearts bring their 
 
 43 
 
tributes. What shall we render unto them? What best 
 thing, among many good things, can we communicate? 
 The answer in words is not difficult, however difficult it be 
 in deeds. We are their achievements. We can waste their 
 lives, or we can enlarge them. We can squander their 
 labors, or we can husband and increase them. Our teachers 
 were in large part men and women who themselves brought 
 tributes to the Greatest Teacher, and who loved Him. The 
 character that they achieved in obedience to Him, and the 
 service that they rendered in His name, will be the double 
 persuasion that will send us to visit more than one grave 
 over which we will reverently repeat the tribute brought 
 by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow on returning to Bowdoin 
 College to the sepulchre of his old teacher, Parker Cleave- 
 land: 
 
 “Among the many lives that I have known, 
 None I remember more serene and sweet, 
 More rounded in itself, and more complete, 
 Than his who sleeps beneath this funeral stone. 
 These pines that murmur in low monotone, 
 These walks frequented by scholastic feet 
 Were all his world; and in this calm retreat 
 For him the teacher’s chair became a throne. 
 With fond affection memory loves to dwell 
 On the old days when his example made 
 A pastime of the toil of tongue and pen. 
 And now, amid the groves he loved so well, 
 That naught could lure him from their grateful 
 shade, 
 He sleeps, but wakes elsewhere, 
 For God hath said, ‘Amen! ” 
 As you go, carry these teachers, and their Great 
 Teacher, in your hearts; and God go with you. 
 
 44: 
 
The Making of the Prophet 
 
 ADDRESS AT THE COMMUNITY SERVICE BY 
 THE REVEREND Lynn Harowtp Hoveu, 
 Peas. Dig birt. Die LED: 
 
 There is a waning interest in things which can be done. 
 Inevitably they suggest the period at the end of a sen-_ 
 tence. They suggest completion, finality, death. The ex- 
 haustless elements in the human spirit call for tasks which 
 cannot be accomplished. Every achievement leads on to 
 another and so there is always the vista beyond, always the 
 alluring summons of the future. The infinite elements in 
 the human spirit are answered to by the infinite unfolding 
 of the task. The contrast between Greek and Gothic art 
 illustrates precisely what we mean. Greek art had as- 
 tounding finish and completeness. It had the repose of an 
 orderly and lovely finality. Its proper symbol is a circle. 
 And the essential characteristic of a circle is just this: 
 you cannot improve it; you cannot make it more perfect. 
 But the human mind cannot rest in the gracious finality of 
 a completeness which after all suggests that the human 
 spirit has been exhausted by the very perfection of the 
 lovely things which it has produced. And Gothic art ex- 
 presses the deeper and more satisfying attitude. The 
 Gothic cathedral does not suggest finality. It does not 
 suggest completeness. It suggests deathless aspiration and 
 perpetual and joyous and advancing endeavor. The spire 
 is pointing to a perfection ever sought, ever pursued and 
 yet always beyond human reach. Everything about a 
 Gothic cathedral suggests a constant achievement always 
 pointing onward to new triumphs yet to be achieved. Its 
 proper symbol is the pointed arch whose glory is an aspira- 
 tion after that which is forever won and is forever revealing 
 itself as the far and glorious object of a new quest. Only 
 
 AD 
 
a flying goal can satisfy the passion for the infinite which 
 dwells in the heart of man. 
 
 The splendor and the tragedy of the work of the prophet 
 are just here. It is his glory that the windows of his 
 life are perpetually open toward the infinite. The sense of 
 moral and spiritual exhaustion which belongs to a task 
 which comes to completion with nothing left beyond does 
 not characterize the work of the prophet. He lives where 
 time and eternity meet. And a strange light like that in 
 the eye of the Child in the Sistine Madonna is always 
 gleaming in his eye. But the tragedy of his work lies in 
 this. He is called to do the thing which cannot be done. 
 He is called to achieve that which is beyond achievement. 
 When he cries: “Give now to dogs and apes. Man has 
 forever,” he has definitely surrendered the possibility at 
 any hour of sitting in satisfaction in the presence of a 
 completed task. Indeed the very nature of his work leaves 
 him open to searching and devastating criticism. His 
 standards are always impossible yet he dare not relinquish 
 them. His ideals are beyond achievement, yet he dare not 
 surrender them. He unites the glory of a perpetual expec- 
 tation with the tragedy of a perpetual sense of failure. You 
 cannot try to lift the ocean without being cast torn and 
 bleeding on the shores of the infinite sea. Yet if you 
 persist in the endeavor you will understand at last that 
 only a heart-breaking endeavor is great enough for the 
 creature of whom it may be truly said that God has put 
 eternity in his heart. 
 
 There is then no necessity at all for apology when a 
 man who is describing the making of the prophet sets 
 before the young men who listen an impossible ideal and 
 calls them to the performance of an impossible task. In 
 the very nature of the case this is just what he must do. 
 And if he does not do it he fails conspicuously from the 
 very beginning of his endeavor. ‘There is no room for 
 complacency at the spot where time meets eternity. And 
 on the other hand there is no place for light and easy- 
 minded carelessness. ‘The prophet is not a man who fails 
 to do anything because it is impossible for him to do every- 
 thing. He accepts his task and fills each day with high 
 endeavor. He is all the more effective as he meets the 
 
 46 
 
passing days because infinity itself has gotten into the 
 demand which is made upon him. 
 
 We will begin with some matters which lie at the very 
 foundation. 'The man who is to exercise the office of 
 prophecy in our time should be first of all a technical 
 scholar. He should be thoroughly trained in the methods 
 of scientific research. He should know thoroughly well 
 the difference between source materials and secondary 
 authorities. And in some little spot somewhere he should 
 be completely master of all the materials which lie at the 
 basis of sound knowledge in the present state of investiga- 
 tion. This does not mean that he must be a great scholar. 
 It requires a life-time to meet that demand. It does mean 
 that he is a sound and scientifically equipped man who 
 would be at home in the most demanding sort of seminary 
 anywhere. It is this achievement and the training which 
 lies behind it which will save him from judgments not 
 duly tested and opinions with no solid basis in fact. It 
 will teach him how much more easy it is to be brilliant 
 than to be careful and how tremendously important is the 
 caution of the judicial mind. And it will give to his very 
 speech qualities which will at once command the interest 
 and the respect of trained scholars in every field. The man 
 who wins the scholars must be a scholar himself. And 
 it is only by being a scholar that a man becomes capable of 
 being the most effective sort of pastor of men’s minds. 
 
 The prophet may well choose as the subject he is to 
 know the best an area in one of the fields having especially 
 to do with his own ministry. He may become a sound 
 New ‘Testament scholar who has made his own the funda- 
 mental materials with regard to some aspect of New Testa- 
 ment scholarship. He may become a sound Old Testament 
 scholar who knows completely the available materials re- 
 garding some period or author. He may be a scholar 
 with a complete knowledge of some bit of the great field 
 of church history or the history of doctrine. Or his own 
 field may be in history, or philosophy or some other sub- 
 ject. The great matter is that he should be a definitely 
 equipped scholar, as well as a man of moral and spiritual 
 enthusiasm. 
 
 47 
 
Then the prophet must be a man of erudition. His 
 task is the interpretation of life. And the knowledge of a 
 small part of some particular field with all the meticulous 
 accuracy of the scholar’s mind will not produce an inter- 
 preter. He must learn to see life steadily and to see it 
 whole. He must learn to live where the departments meet 
 and to appraise their returns as they come in. Even a 
 preacher in a university town can have a message of inter- 
 pretation for specialists in every department just because, 
 while these men know more each about his own field than 
 does the minister, the latter if he is a true man of erudition 
 knows more about the relations of the departments to 
 each other than does any man who spends his life in any 
 one department. If one may use an illustration far from 
 academic fields and one which may not be particularly at- 
 tractive to the scholar, the prophet must be like the city 
 editor of a great newspaper. Particular reporters and 
 particular department writers send in materials from every 
 conceivable field. But he takes all this material and ap- 
 praises it and sees it as a total and finally sets forth the 
 results in relation to his knowledge of the total situation in 
 the whole city. There is probably no greater need in 
 respect of the intellectual life of America to-day than the 
 production of a larger number of men of erudition, if 
 America is to be saved from the provincialism of the pa- 
 rochial mind. And it is essential to the work of the inter- 
 preter of life that he shall learn to live where the depart- 
 ments meet. 
 
 Much help and guidance in this matter may be received 
 from the Shelburne Essays of Mr. Paul Elmer More. 
 These eleven volumes constitute the ripest product of 
 ample erudition which has come from an American pen. 
 Indeed there is only pardonable exaggeration in the say- 
 ing that he is our American Sainte Beuve. Mr. More was 
 at one time a professor of Sanscrit. He knows the classic 
 literature of India with the intimate understanding of a 
 true scholar. He has the happiest sort of knowledge of 
 Greek and Latin literature. And he is at home in every 
 period of English literature besides having vital contacts 
 with European thought and expression. And so in a won- 
 derfully stimulating fashion he is able to see everything in 
 
 48 
 
the terms of everything else. His tracing out of the his- 
 tory of an idea or even of a mood about life is always a 
 fascinating piece of mental and literary activity. There 
 is a kind of intellectual perspective about the writings of 
 Mr. More which is amply rewarding. One may disagree 
 with him constantly but his writing is of such a character 
 that the very process of disagreement enlarges one’s mind. 
 And if one follows the close and intimate perusal of the 
 eleven volumes of the Shelburne Essays by a reading of 
 volume after volume of Sainte Beuve it is at least true 
 that one begins to understand what erudition is. 
 
 Few men in our time have done more to make possible a 
 securely based and yet comprehensive view of life than 
 Mr. F. S. Marvin. With F. Melian Stawell he is the 
 author of that extraordinary book, ‘The Making of the 
 Western Mind,” in which all the constituent elements of 
 our contemporary mental world pass in survey and the 
 background even of our industry and our commercial ac- 
 tivity is seen in new relations. Mr. Marvin is the author of 
 two books, “The Living Past” and “The Century of 
 Hope,” which have the very stuff of scholarship turned into 
 erudition in them. But it is as the editor of the Unity 
 Series published by the Oxford University Press that he 
 has covered the largest field. Each volume, ‘The Unity 
 of Western Civilization,” “Science and Civilization,” and 
 the others, is made up of monographs written by experts 
 in some particular part of the field which is being discussed, 
 and taken all together the Unity Series constitutes prob- 
 ably the most significant body of generalization based 
 upon sound scholarship to be found in similar compass in 
 the English language. 
 
 Of course one might go on and on. The histories of 
 particular departments and fields of science and commerce 
 and art have their great place. But the man who will 
 master the materials offered by More and Marvin from 
 their varying points of view will have the beginnings of 
 erudition, and he will have a fine collection of bibliograph- 
 ical material with which to go forward. His mind will be 
 in some degree a reflection of the experiment of civilized 
 life on this planet. And he will discuss any subject with a 
 new sense of its various and fruitful relationships. If the 
 
 49 
 
pulpit is to be made a great power it simply must produce 
 men who pay the great price of years of wide and brood- 
 ing reading and study which results in the attaining of 
 wide-ranging erudition. ‘The experience of the ages must 
 speak in the great prophet. 
 
 The prophet is a man whose fundamental ethical and 
 spiritual life is the product of the experience reflected in 
 the Old Testament and the New. The passion of the 
 Hebrew prophets has entered into his own blood. He 
 has pronounced the word righteousness with all the inten- 
 sity which characterizes the speech of Amos. He has seen 
 the heartbroken love of God with the eyes and out of the 
 heart of Hosea. He has caught the kingly vision of Isaiah 
 and Jeremiah has taught him the meaning of that vicarious 
 suffering whose most memorable delineation is in the words 
 of the Isaiah of the Exile. He has felt the lyric passion of 
 religion with the psalmists. He has entered into the 
 meaning of the shrewd sagacity of the wisdom literature. 
 He has seen history as a vast sermon in action with the 
 prophetic interpreters of Israel’s past. He has come to 
 understand the meaning of a God with a character, a God ~ 
 who is righteousness and love alive. 
 
 Then he has made his own the mood out of which the cut- 
 ting passionate words of John the Baptizer came. And he 
 has passed into the large gracious atmosphere of the pres- 
 ence of Jesus. Here he has found a splendor of moral and 
 spiritual beauty undreamed of before, and with all the 
 generous sympathy and unhesitating moral incisiveness 
 which cuts to the very heart of evil. He has allowed the 
 Gospels to pour their meaning deeply into his mind and 
 heart. He has meditated over their far reaching implica- 
 tions with Paul and has felt their brooding mystic beauty 
 with John. He has seen the new life become a mighty 
 campaign to win the world. He has found the most essen- 
 tial elements in his prophetic message and the dynamic of 
 his ministry in the transforming experience which speaks 
 in the Old Testament and the New. 
 
 But the prophet knows that other peoples have met ex- 
 periences which he must make his own and must incor- 
 porate in his message. The keenest minds which have dealt 
 with the experience of living in this world have belonged 
 
 50 
 
to that marvelous Greek people whose life came to full 
 flower in fifth and fourth century Athens. Their clarity of 
 thought, their sense of proportion, their subtle understand- 
 ing of harmony, their exhaustless curiosity of mind, their 
 capacity for observation and classification, and all their 
 gracious artistry of living he must make his own. To be 
 sure there is more than a suggestion of all this in Jesus 
 himself. For in a sense the Hebrew and the Greek meet 
 and are harmonized in his mind. When he says, “Ye are 
 the salt of the earth,” thinking of health and preserva- 
 tion from decay, thinking of moral vigor and spiritual 
 virility, He is speaking the very language of the Hebrew 
 spirit. When he says, ‘Ye are the light of the world,” 
 thinking of brightness of illumination and of all the clear 
 and lovely ministries of light, He is speaking pure Greek. 
 The prophet must follow this clue and become capable of a 
 ministry of light. It is not an easy or obvious thing 
 which a man approaches as he attempts to understand the 
 Greek spirit. He may indeed have read much Greek and 
 still be quite innocent of its meaning. If he will read the 
 understanding and interpreting volumes by Professor 
 Butcher of which “Some Aspects of the Greek Genius” is 
 an example, and will follow Mr. Livingstone through ‘*The 
 Greek Genius and Its Meaning for Us,” “The Pageant 
 of Greece,” and that composite volume, ‘*The Legacy of 
 Greece,” and will make his own the materials of Professor 
 Greene’s understanding study, “The Achievement of 
 Greece,” he will be ready to go back to his own study 
 with a new understanding. A good deal of what we call 
 progress consists of forgetting a great thing in order 
 that we may learn the meaning of a useful thing. If we 
 were to forget the meaning of Greece while we are learn- 
 ing the meaning of machines we would come upon tragedy 
 sad and disillusioning enough at last. 
 
 All this leads one to say that the prophet must come to 
 a genuine understanding of the world of beauty. Perhaps 
 it is not putting the matter too strongly to say that we 
 must make beauty Christian or beauty will make pagans 
 of us. We all admit that the prophet must interpret 
 goodness. We are ready to add that he must interpret 
 truth. We are many of us far from clear that he must also 
 
 51 
 
interpret beauty. If beauty had been mastered and made 
 Christian in the Italian Renaissance, the whole future 
 history of the world might have been different. It is of 
 the very nature of beauty either to lead up to moral and 
 spiritual heights or by a retrogressive movement to lead 
 down to depths of indulgence and even of dark and hideous 
 vice. And just because this is true the prophet cannot 
 ignore a force so potent for good or for evil. To be 
 sure he must never try to make beauty morally self-con- 
 scious. He must never rob it of its fresh and spontaneous 
 luster. But he must see all its creative possibilities. He 
 must see that beauty can give wings to the conscience 
 and to the spirit. And he must be a perpetual example 
 of a mind living at that great spot where truth and good- 
 ness and beauty meet, the three together becoming greater 
 than any one could be alone. 
 
 The prophet is a citizen of his own age and he cannot 
 avoid if he would the outstanding aspects of its own ex- 
 perience and life. The magical word of our period is the 
 word science. And the prophet must come to the very 
 heart of the meaning of the scientific movement and of 
 scientific achievement in order that in this realm too he 
 may be a true interpreter. Sometimes the prophet has 
 been tempted to assume a merely hostile attitude to science. 
 In fact it is to be remarked that most men at first dislike 
 anything which requires them to learn a new vocabulary. 
 The intellectual trouble involved in learning all the pass 
 words involved in so diversified a movement as that of mod- 
 ern science is indeed great. And the prophet is tempted to 
 suspect that in all this transition into a new vocabulary 
 things which are infinitely precious to him may be lost 
 sight of and forgotten. But the way out of the dilemma 
 is not hostility to science but the mastery of science. If 
 the prophet cannot teach a scientific vocabulary to be 
 the vehicle of the realities of the spirit, who can be ex- 
 pected to do it? Sometimes the prophet is tempted to be 
 a sort of Henry Clay seeking for compromises by which 
 the new and the old can live together in peace. History 
 would suggest that such compromises are only half way 
 houses on the road to civil war. There is a third attitude 
 and this we believe is to give the prophet a new oppor- 
 
 52 
 
tunity and a new capacity. This third attitude is not one 
 of hostility. It is not one of compromise. It is one of 
 joyous and eager utilization. It consists in a zestful pro- 
 ceeding by a kind of divine right of eminent domain to 
 annex the whole realm of science for the purposes of the 
 moral and spiritual life. 
 
 This attitude does not regard science as either the friend 
 or the foe of religion. It sees in all the results of science 
 a vast mass of material ready to be gathered up into the 
 noblest sort of moral and spiritual interpretation of life. 
 It knows that these raw materials can be misused. It is 
 frankly and heartily certain that they can be built into 
 the very structure of the temple of God. In the happiest 
 and most assured fashion it turns the scientific vocabulary 
 to the uses of religion. Following the long and adven- 
 turous tale of the biological process from that far time 
 when life first emerged from the water and vegetation and 
 animal forms appeared upon the land, on through all the 
 varied stages until civilization becomes suffused with intel- 
 lectual and aesthetic and moral and spiritual meaning, it 
 sees God as the fundamental potency at every stage and 
 receives a religious impulse from it all of incalculable 
 power. This world of the evolutionary process is the world 
 in which those unfolding intellects which we would win for 
 the Christian sanctions live. And it will come to them as an 
 immeasurable assurance that all these things are pro- 
 foundly and happily related to the deepest experiences 
 of religion. 
 
 The truth is that much of the disturbance in religious 
 circles in the United States at the present time could have 
 been entirely avoided if religious leaders had treated with 
 happy and confident frankness the results of scientific in- 
 vestigation, incorporating them as part of their moral and 
 spiritual message and making them the very vehicles of 
 Christian truth. The policy of silence and evasion has 
 proved very costly. The true prophet lives at the spot 
 where science and creative mysticism, biology and Christian 
 truth meet in bright and joyous fellowship. 
 
 The prophet must be able to utilize the findings of the 
 new psychology for the purposes of the Kingdom of God. 
 The younger generation knows life with an unabashed 
 
 53 
 
frankness hardly paralleled. It knows all the physical 
 experiences from the standpoint of entirely candid discus- 
 sion. And there are times when the preoccupation of some 
 psychologists with matters of sex and the reflection of this 
 attitude in the obsessions of current fiction and discussion 
 tend to produce a state of mind in which the physical ex- 
 periences connected directly and indirectly with the carry- 
 ing on of the life of the race are seen in a fashion entirely 
 without proportion and understanding. Of course attack 
 is of very little value in respect of these matters. We must 
 meet the new generation on its own ground and with its 
 own passwords we must lead the way out of the morass 
 into safety and sanity and a large, full life. The truth 
 is that the creative impulse is the fundamental impulse in. 
 life. But it only begins with the physical experience of 
 sex; 1t goes on into ever enlarging areas. It comes to 
 bloom and beauty in all the lovely creations of art. It 
 comes to fine flower in the creation of all the great insti- 
 tutions which give glory to human life and dignity to the 
 race. It lives in the creative activity of the thinker, in 
 the building of an, edifice of the mind by the scholar and 
 in all the rich and varied play of the mind. It shines in 
 all the moral intuitions of humanity and is the creative 
 force in every system of ethics. You do not need to defy 
 the creative impulse in order to achieve a noble character. 
 You only need to use it for that purpose. It is the inspira- 
 tion of self-sacrifice. It is the glowing center of all spir- 
 itual experience and achievement. When all this is seen, 
 instead of regarding all those mysterious forces which 
 begin to assert themselves in the adolescent period as foes 
 ‘to be conquered, they are understood to be the very forces 
 which lie at the foundation of all the glory of the intel- 
 lectual and xesthetic and moral and spiritual life. A young 
 man does not need to defy his nature. He needs to use it 
 for the noblest ends. And a motive which appears on a 
 low level can always keep and increase its power as it is 
 sublimated and becomes active on a higher level. The 
 forces which we have so often feared are really our allies 
 and our friends. 
 
 The prophet must study all the strange and varied ad- 
 ventures of men as they have tried to learn how to live 
 
 54 
 
together. He must see the present experiments in the 
 light of all previous experiments so that he may speak 
 about these things with a ripened wisdom. And he must 
 mingle with concrete men and women who are under the 
 heavy burdens of life until he feels the tragic pain of 
 their situation and the meaning of their struggle. And all 
 the while he must appraise and judge these things in the 
 light of the commanding principles which emerge in the 
 life and teachings of Jesus. The dream of the great com- 
 munity must shine before his eyes. And loyalty to the 
 great community must throb in his heart. 
 
 And most of all and deepest of all the prophet must meet 
 God in human life. Everything depends upon how the 
 meeting takes place and what vital meanings enter into it. 
 We meet many people who leave us completely cold and 
 the memory of the meeting rouses no glow of satisfaction. 
 We meet others at the very peak of personal responsive- 
 ness and in all the following years the memory of the 
 experience stirs us. It is possible to meet Jesus Christ at 
 such a low level of personal vitality that in reality we do 
 not meet him at all. The prophet must have met him at 
 his most sensitive moment of moral struggle. He must 
 have met him at his most acute moment of intellectual 
 insight. He must have met him at his supreme moment of 
 spiritual aspiration. He must have met him with every 
 capacity of sensitive responsiveness exposed to his influ- 
 ence. If any man meets Jesus Christ at the peak of his 
 personality it is enough to make a prophet of him. At 
 all events it is sure to make a Christian of him. For the 
 supreme moment in a personal experience among human 
 kind is the moment of such terrible honesty and complete 
 awareness morally and spiritually, that we know that only 
 as our lives find such a reconstruction and completion as 
 Jesus Christ offers is there a possibility of harmony and 
 fulfillment and service. In such a moment we know that 
 in meeting him we are meeting the ultimate values of the 
 universe. God has no more to say to us than he says in 
 Jesus Christ. . 
 
 Along all these lines the prophet comes to understand 
 the exhaustlessness of life. And it is a great moment 
 when, valid and clear in his personal experience, comes 
 
 55 
 
the conviction that you are simply not through living when 
 the time comes for you to die. You have only begun. 
 You have only mastered the alphabet. The real reading 
 lies far in the future. And so the intuition arises that 
 only eternity can satisfy the exhaustless passionate hunger 
 of the human spirit. Nobody who kills the infinite in him 
 can believe in immortality. Any man who begins tasks 
 which require eternity will come to believe in a future 
 great enough for the fulfillment of his tasks. Only one 
 who can say, “‘I am the resurrection and the life,” can give 
 him all that he really needs. The greatest human adven- 
 ture is to make investments which only eternity can realize. 
 
 With all these things alive in his mind and heart and 
 will, a man sets about his work as a prophet. He is 
 heartbroken at his own moral and spiritual failure. He 
 is infinitely joyful in a sense of the power of the friendly 
 God whose face he sees in the face of Christ. His task is 
 impossible, but he sets about it with a good heart and with 
 immortal hope. 
 
 56 
 
Christian Service 
 
 ADDRESS AT THE SERVICE UNDER THE AUSPICES 
 OF THE CHicaco PreacHEerRs’ MEETING BY 
 THE REVEREND Proressor JAMES Mor- 
 
 FaTT, M.A., D.D., Lirt.D. 
 
 Not being very sure of the exact audience this morn- 
 ing, I can only promise you two things, that what I 
 say will be Scotch, as I am born Scotch; secondly, that 
 it will be short. The last thing my young daughter said 
 to me when I left Scotland was, “Now, daddy, don’t bore 
 the dear Americans with long speeches.” And being a 
 husband not only subject to his wife but subject to his 
 family, I try to bear that in mind. 
 
 What I want to speak about this morning is something 
 about the service of the church, Christian Service, and to 
 say one or two things to you. Although they may be 
 more or less obvious, at any rate they are convictions 
 of my own and convictions that are being reinforced by 
 what I have seen and observed of religious life not only in 
 our country but in the United States. 
 
 I have been here two months and I have again felt the 
 value of the golden rule for travelers. The golden rule 
 for travelers is ‘Never agree with a man who abuses his 
 own country.” Never do. 
 
 Now some people learn to take the same line with 
 those who run down their own church. The great habit 
 of some people (I am sorry it is among the younger 
 generation). is running down the Christian Church. They 
 will talk loudly about the vanity and the outworn nature 
 of the Christian Church, and they will speak loudly about 
 the defects and errors and the handicaps and the general 
 inefficiency of the Christian Church to which they belong. 
 There are some people who would never say a word 
 against their church simply because self-interest would 
 
 57 
 
prevent them doing so. Nevertheless, I have an extreme 
 suspicion of all persons belonging to a church who in 
 public run it down. 
 
 I don’t think we have any right to object to criticism 
 of our church, whatever church we belong to; we should 
 welcome criticism, because often that criticism points out 
 to us something wrong. But friends, the criticism that 
 I want to hear of the church is the criticism of men and 
 women who have prayed for the church. 
 
 When I read in the Book of Revelations about the 
 Prophet’s message to the church, I find in the second and 
 third chapters harder things said about some Christian 
 churches than have been said in the whole of the rest of 
 the New Testament. More severe rebukes of church 
 after church are enclosed in these messages, but these 
 rebukes carried home and did the work. Why? Well, 
 because the man who said them spoke as a man who had 
 first of all seen these churches as seven stars held in the 
 hand of the Lord and as seven golden candlesticks or 
 lamp stands among which the Son of Man was moving. 
 He had seen the divine ideal of the church. In prayer he 
 had a vision of what God meant the church to be, and 
 in the light of that vision and in the light of that ideal he 
 spoke his words of rebuke to the church. 
 
 Now that is the kind of rebuke that you and I can 
 accept, the only kind of rebuke which I hold is really 
 valuable, because all churches, like all institutions and 
 political parties, require to be called back from time to 
 time to their original principles. We are extremely apt 
 to forget the fundamental principles of our religion and 
 of our church. We drift away from them insensibly and 
 from time to time it is quite a good thing that a sharp 
 criticism should draw us back to restate and to revive 
 the principles that are fundamental to our service and 
 our call. 
 
 In the service of the kingdom and of the church, 
 friends, there is one great problem, it seems to me, that 
 deserves our thought, I mean the relation between ideas 
 and persons. One of the most useful books I ever read 
 upon Christian preaching when I was a young minister 
 was by Phillips Brooks, and Phillips Brooks says that 
 preaching is truth conveyed by personality. Now that 
 
 58 
 
is a valuable definition of preaching: good preaching is 
 truth conveyed by personality. But here is what inter- 
 ests me often in life: how can you get ideas transferred 
 from one life to another? What are the conditions for 
 the transmission of truth and conviction? That is not 
 at all so easy, I think, as we imagine. God gave gifts to 
 men, says the Apostle, and his gifts are men; he gave 
 gifts to the church and the supreme gifts of God are 
 men. Whenever a church has some new idea and some 
 fresh thought of God, it has always been conveyed 
 through human personality. 
 
 When I study church history, as it is my business to 
 do, I am more and more convinced that it is not theolo- 
 gians who are responsible for the progress of doctrine, it 
 is preachers. The great advances in Christian doctrine 
 have always come through preachers, through great 
 Christians who were in touch with the common life of the 
 church and who thus sought to embody the truths that 
 dawned upon them. But how can you get an ideal truth 
 conveyed to the mind of another person? It is by no 
 way so simple as you think. Personal example, of course, 
 tells now and then; if you see an act performed by some 
 person, some person whom you respect, it tends naturally 
 to the reproduction of that act in you. There is an 
 imitative faculty in us. 
 
 Then, to present an idea effectively also tells, and that 
 is where the work of preaching and teaching comes in. 
 Conviction of truth can be brought about with force, 
 imagination and illustration. In some churches symbol- 
 ism is very largely employed. I was very much struck 
 the other day by hearing an American Baptist layman 
 say to his pastor, “I wish sometimes I could see you 
 with a crucifix in one hand and swinging incense in the 
 other hand.” When he was asked what he meant, he 
 said, “What I want some time is symbolism.” In many 
 churches symbolism is largely used to represent Christian 
 truth, but the great and common point is to get a new 
 idea started in other people’s minds. To produce a new 
 growth of thought and imagination is not a simple task; 
 it is very difficult for some people because instinctively 
 they shrink from propaganda. 
 
 59 
 
There are two classes of minds; there is a class of 
 mind that is quite content to get truth for itself, to 
 brood over it and to assimilate it, to state it. That is 
 what we call the academic type of mind. Then there is 
 the other type of mind that no sooner gets hold of a truth 
 than it seeks to impart it. Here propaganda is upper- 
 most. 
 
 Now, of course, I don’t mean to say that the first 
 class is not useful in the church. Sometimes a man does 
 great service to his men just by thinking. An example 
 is the work of Rousseau in France. But it is the second 
 class, the men who believe and therefore speak that are 
 most useful. They feel entrusted with truth which they 
 must impart to others. And yet, friends, even here we 
 have got a difficulty. The truth that we are to present 
 to others and convey to others can never be merely a 
 truth that just dawned upon us, it must be a truth that 
 has passed through our being. You can’t pass on to 
 other people with any effectiveness something that is 
 simply yours suddenly and on the surface. If there are 
 any students here of this college, remember that is the 
 great function of ‘a school. I meet students sometimes 
 even in Scotland who come to college with a really pro- 
 phetic gift, with great zeal and evangelism, and really re- 
 gard college as kind of a passing stumbling block in their 
 course. They have got to put up with it, and they will 
 for a year or two, as one of those mysterious checks on 
 the human spirit imposed by the church, but they are all 
 the time panicky to get out and preach and teach. 
 
 Of course that is responsible for a thin ministry. When 
 God puts men into college he means them to be students, 
 he gives them precious years to study and to learn how to 
 think. If they don’t use these years, then they are lay- 
 ing up for themselves a very thin time in years to come, 
 and the result is that afterwards, having failed to as- 
 similate the truths, they fail to have the driving power 
 that makes the Christian convictions go home. 
 
 Friends, it is not simply the fact that we have truth to 
 preach, it is the deeper question: are we the men from 
 whom people will take these truths? History tells us 
 that there are often great thoughts of God and ideas of 
 truth which fail because they are misrepresented. I often 
 
 60 
 
think the Christian truth is like a good hymn; a good 
 hymn is sometimes handicapped by a bad tune. Now 
 there are great ideas that are handicapped by the people 
 who state them. I have heard some men preach great 
 doctrines and all the while the man’s personality was 
 discounting what he said. It is extraordinarily impor- 
 tant to ask ourselves, are we the kind of people from 
 whom others can take the truths we preach? Have we 
 personality and character behind us sufficient to convey 
 these truths to those who listen to them? Have we the 
 spirit of modesty, the sense of service, the unselfishness 
 of life? Can we speak truth through our personality and 
 not put ourselves forward? 
 
 Now I am very fond of fishing and I always appreciate 
 the word of our Lord to his disciples when he said, “I will 
 make you fishers of men.” But if there is one thing that 
 a fisherman must do, he must never let himself be seen; 
 if he puts himself forward in his fishing, he hasn’t a 
 chance of getting a fish, and there are many men who fail 
 in the ministry because they put themselves forward too 
 much. ‘They exaggerate their personality; they adver- 
 tise themselves. And they don’t get people—they may 
 get an audience but they don’t get a congregation, they 
 don’t win souls for the Lord. And that is one great 
 criticism we have passed upon ourselves. 
 
 Because of this service of a church about which I am 
 speaking, this effort to get ideas home to other people 
 through example, through effective statement and ‘in 
 other ways, it is implied that our supreme judge—I mean 
 on earth—is the church. There is the greatest distrust of 
 ministers who in these days seem to find that outside 
 occupations are much more interesting than the work of 
 the ministry. 
 
 I think that is getting away entirely from the New 
 Testament. There is a text in St. Paul upon which I 
 have never preached but which has preached to me. It is 
 in the first chapter of Second Corinthians. Paul writes, 
 “Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, 
 that in simplicity and sincerity of God we have behaved 
 ourselves in the world and more abundantly toward you.” 
 Toward you in the church, more abundantly toward you. 
 A Christian minister’s character and work should come 
 
 61 
 
out most of all to the church of which he is a minister. 
 There he stands or falls. His reputation in outside 
 circles may be quite justified and legitimate, but says 
 St. Paul, “and more abundantly toward you.” It is no 
 service at all to the church or to ourselves when we seek 
 and find our reputation outside the circle of those whose 
 interests ought to be our chief concern. 
 
 A second thing that I find extremely important in 
 Christian service is this: the true Christian service is the 
 undying expression of devotion to Christ, and the foun- 
 tains of Christian service will dry up unless they are 
 steadily reinforced in personal religion, and the personal 
 religion must express itself in service. 
 
 In the last chapter of St. John’s gospel, three times 
 over Jesus asked Peter, “Simon, do you love me?” 
 
 “You know I love you.” 
 
 “Feed my sheep.” That is, take upon yourself the 
 personal responsibility of the men and women for whom 
 I have made you responsible. Serve them. Now, Christ 
 says to the minister, “Feed my sheep.” When we are 
 young ministers we are very fond of talking about “my 
 congregation.” It is quite legitimate. But friends, your 
 congregation isn’t yours, it is Christ’s. Feed my sheep. 
 We belong to Christ and Christ will judge you for what 
 you have done with them or what you failed to do with 
 them. Feed my sheep and give them what they need, 
 wholesome instruction, not always what they lke; some- 
 times what they like is not what they should get, and 
 sometimes ministers are too afraid to give them what 
 they need. 
 
 My dear friend Dr. Denney in Glasgow, one of our 
 strongest theologians, used to say, with a twang in his 
 voice, to some of his students just leaving for the min- 
 istry, “Gentlemen, remember our Lord said, ‘Feed my 
 sheep.’ Be the shepherds, don’t be the pet lambs.” There 
 is a certain type of minister who is the pet lamb of his 
 congregation; he is petted by them; he does good and 
 all goes well, but there is no guidance. <A real shepherd 
 who will minister must take the responsibility and give 
 people what they require. 
 
 “To feed my sheep is the expression,” says Christ, 
 “of love to me,” and there I think we have largely de- 
 
 62 
 
parted from the New Testament standards. I worked 
 with a committee recently in drawing up a new hymn 
 book for the Presbyterian churches, and one of our aims 
 was to get better hymns upon service. It is extraor- 
 dinary how few good hymns on Christian service you 
 can get. You have got a mere handful of hymns and 
 what struck me in working over the ancient model hymn 
 book was that the great classical hymns upon love to 
 Christ failed to bring out the very point that Jesus 
 Christ emphasized. Take, for example, the glorious 
 hymn of Cowper, 
 
 “Hark, my soul! it is the Lord; 
 
 *Tis thy Savior, hear his word; 
 
 Jesus speaks, he speaks to thee: 
 
 ‘Say, poor sinner, lov’st thou me?’ ” 
 And so on it sweeps to the end, but there is not a word 
 about feeding my sheep. Love to Christ is demanded and 
 expressed, but without any relation to this Christian 
 service, and if any of you here have got poetical gifts, 
 you can’t do a better thing for the Christian Church than 
 to write some good hymns on Christian service, inspired 
 by the thought of love to Christ. There are plenty of 
 great classical hymns, but not for Christ, and there are 
 some good ones on Christian service but hardly any that 
 unites the two as the New Testament does. 
 
 It is in this Christian service which brings devotion 
 to our Lord where we find disinterestedness, and this 
 comes out in a word of our Lord which most of us fail to 
 recognize. I mean one of the beatitudes. “Blessed are 
 the pure in heart for they shall see God.” Now I 
 suppose in that beatitude “God” is perfectly unam- 
 biguous, it is a monosyllable and it is perfectly simple. I 
 have heard two classes of sermons on this, one a sermon 
 upon purity, pointing out that when life is soiled by sen- 
 suality it loses any sense of godliness, which is true. An- 
 other was by an English bishop who showed how by 
 detachment from the sensuous the soul reached conception 
 of truth and vision of beauty inaccessible otherwise, 
 and being a Scotchman not very mystical, I felt decidedly 
 left out of this sermon, and wondering whether Jesus 
 
 63 
 
in Palestine was addressing psychologists or persons 
 interested in vision, and going home and reading the New 
 Testament I discovered, of course, as you know, that 
 Jesus referred to something entirely different. The “pure 
 in heart”? meant not persons who are free from sensuality, 
 but persons who are disinterested or single-minded. 
 Water is pure when it is not mixed with any foreign 
 substance. The mind and the heart are pure when there 
 is no ulterior motive entering in, and Jesus praises here 
 not absolutely one particular life, but the life that is 
 bent upon one thing alone, the same thought that he 
 expresses later when he says no man can serve two 
 masters. 
 
 I was told the other day by one of my good Methodist 
 friends that John Wesley in his sermon takes the same 
 view, the pure in heart are the single-minded, and that 
 is the meaning of the beatitude. 
 
 Now notice what is meant by the second part, “see 
 God.” To see God is an oriental metaphor for having 
 real fellowship with God. To see God was to enter God’s 
 presence and gain access to him. When we say today 
 we want to see a,person, it commonly doesn’t mean that 
 we want to get a sight of the person, but we want to have 
 an interview with him, to ask a favor, to get advice. 
 Well, so in the ancient world, to see God was to get access 
 to God’s presence. 
 
 For example, in court life we read that when David 
 pardoned Absalom for his rebellion and allowed him to 
 return to Jerusalem, he said, “‘He is not to see my face.” 
 That didn’t mean, of course, Absalom wasn’t to see his 
 father, because he was certain to see him about the city, 
 it meant that Absalom was not to gain access to the inner 
 council, he was excluded from the private interviews with 
 his king and father. So to see God on the lips of Jesus 
 means to have access to God’s presence, and the beati- 
 tude, therefore, means Christ praising men and women 
 who in their service of Him are perfectly absorbed with 
 pure motives. 
 
 I will give you an illustration of the life of Bishop 
 King. One man came to see him often. He was intro- 
 duced to him, and then King said, “When he was talking 
 to me I saw his eyes just roaming around the company 
 
 64 
 
in search of somebody more distinguished.” He pleaded 
 he wanted to see Bishop King and he did see him, but he 
 ‘was on the outlook for an introduction to a person higher 
 in society. 
 
 Now men and women, Jesus knew that is just the way 
 we treat God; we say we want to meet God, have an 
 interview with God, and we take the position of prayer 
 and take the words of prayer on our lips and how often 
 our real minds are upon something else. We are not 
 pure in heart as we seek an interview with God. 
 
 In the same way with Christian service, people may 
 profess to serve the kingdom of Christ, and yet motives 
 of reputation and personal advantages may creep in and 
 make their service impure and therefore unsatisfactory. 
 “Blessed,” says Jesus, “are the pure in heart, the single 
 minded, for they it is who see God.” 
 
 Now such is the great conception of Christian service 
 with these qualifications and conditions. 
 
 There are two things more I want to say about it. 
 The first is this: I have been speaking about the distinct 
 conditions of our service of God and of His church, but 
 we have got to remember the other side, friends; when 
 we are servants of God and employed in his service, we 
 are naturally apt to take too much upon ourselves, to 
 regard our abilities and energies as the main support of 
 God’s cause. Certainly no one, at any rate today, could 
 afford to do less than his utmost in the service of Chris- 
 tianity; nevertheless, no real Christian service will be 
 done unless we remember the responsibility of God. 
 
 Sometimes I read articles or hear men speak about 
 Christianity and its prospects that say “Is Christianity 
 going to survive?” or hear addresses upon the possibility 
 that Christianity may resolve itself into some humani- 
 tarian religion, and I wonder whether such persons have 
 lost the sense of humor or the sense of history, or both. 
 
 Men and women, Christianity of the Lord Jesus Christ 
 is a fire which He came to kindle. “I came,” He said, 
 “to kindle a fire.’ You and I are not like a group of men 
 upon a lonely moor, kneeling down to prevent a little 
 spot of fire being blown out by the great winds of the 
 world, although to listen to some people you would think 
 we were. The Christian Church is not neryously engaged 
 
 65 
 
in trying to prevent the extinction of Christianity from 
 the universe; Christianity is in far wiser hands than ours, 
 as it has always been. What you and I have to do is to 
 keep in touch with the fire. The fire will always burn; 
 the question is whether it will burn in our lives, whether 
 it has material to use in our devotion and thought and 
 perseverance that will enable God to do the work of 
 lightening and warming our age. That is the problem for 
 our service, and that is where we are to learn again the 
 great truth, that the Christian religion, the Christian 
 service implies first-hand acquaintance with God. 
 
 Now that may seem a very obvious thing to say, but 
 here is the fact: today the world is loud with voices 
 speaking against God, denouncing Christianity. Now we 
 don’t need to be upset about that; that has always been 
 the case, the world is often full of people talking about 
 God, discussing religion in various aspects, and we forget 
 that Christianity will never survive by listening to people 
 talking about God. Christianity begins and continues 
 and thrives as we hear God speaking to us. It is the 
 voice of God, and the great weakness of our service today 
 is that we are not giving enough time to hear the voice 
 of God. We are making our worship too much a lecture or 
 a concert, and we are failing to do as our fathers did, 
 with all their defects. Our fathers knew that worship 
 meant to be still and know that God is God; hear the 
 voice of God speaking; and that is at the heart of Chris- 
 tian service. 
 
 The last thing I want to speak about is this: to me the 
 great test of a Christian service (and I don’t often get 
 the pleasure of worshipping in one) is whether in the 
 course of that service I forget there is somebody speak- 
 ing and only am conscious of the presence of God. That 
 ought to happen in every Christian service. There ought 
 to be in the course of the preaching or of the reading of 
 the Scriptures or the prayer or singing a moment where 
 every worshipper has the presence of God in his con- 
 science. 
 
 This is true because as far as I can see the great end 
 of Christian preaching is to produce this effect. It is 
 nothing today, or it is a very small matter at any rate, 
 that we should be able to explain from the Bible how in 
 
 66 
 
far off days such-and-such a thing happened. It is a 
 small matter that we earn scholarships and make our- 
 selves marks in the art of reproducing ancient life and 
 biblical scenes. The task of the church and of preach- 
 ing is far deeper than that, and there is a very searching 
 word spoken by Prof. Herrmann of Marburg, one of the 
 most advanced of German theologians, spoken to his own 
 party, which I sometimes read to myself as a rebuke. 
 Here is what Herrmann says: “Liberal theologians are 
 experts in the appreciation of piety outside themselves, 
 but a piety of their own, a religion of decision, but rarely 
 emerges into the light of their consciousness. They are 
 masters in the art of presenting to us the way which the 
 prophets received the word of God, or the way which the 
 apostle was filled first with conflict, then with peace; they 
 can wipe the dust of centuries from the words of Jesus, 
 but they seldom show any sign of concern about what 
 Christ means for themselves, and they show no signs that 
 a personal life bears down upon them from the pages of 
 Scripture.” 
 
 Now there are theologians to whom that doesn’t apply, 
 but it is a very suggestive and deep warning and it brings 
 me to this point that I would like to leave with you: it 
 seems to me that nowadays we require to remind our- 
 selves that the reading of the Bible is one of the great 
 sacraments of the church. I am convinced that from 
 the beginning Bible reading has been one of the great 
 sacraments of the church. In a sacrament there is some- 
 thing that appears, as in baptism there is water, in the 
 Lord’s Supper the bread and the wine; and by means of 
 these simple signs, the spiritual presence of God is made 
 real to us. Now in reading the Bible, the written page or 
 the oral word becomes sacramental. All through history, 
 especially at the beginning, the reading of the Bible 
 proved itself a means of communion with God. Men and 
 women in reading it finally were charged with vitalizing 
 power. 
 
 We speak about the Bible, the record of revelation; 
 it is that, but it is more than that, friends, it is a part 
 of revelation. I don’t mean it in any mechanical sense, 
 but there is no doubt whatever in history that the text 
 of the Bible, the words of the Bible, are charged with life 
 
 67 
 
and that those who read them reverently and with an 
 open mind come repeatedly into direct touch with the 
 loving God who inspires and that is one of the great 
 things to define for our age today. When Erasmus broke 
 through the tradition of the medieval church and tried 
 to present the New Testament as purely and as freshly 
 as possible, he said the one main object of all his New 
 Testament study was to make Jesus Christ more visible, 
 and he said if you put a New Testament into the hearts 
 and minds of the people and into their hands, the New 
 Testament will give them Christ talking, healing, dying, 
 rising, the whole Christ in a word. 
 
 Now that is the great end and object of all our study 
 of the Bible, and I say this without in the least sense 
 depreciating historical criticism with which I am in deep 
 sympathy myself. 
 
 Men and women, it is a small thing to us if we are 
 able to make clear, a little more clear, how in the far 
 past this word was spoken or that deed was done; it is a 
 small thing in the Christian pulpit to be able by means 
 of choice language and artificial eloquence to sway an 
 audience with Bible words. ‘The great thing, the thing 
 by which the church lives and the thing for the lack 
 of which you and I will be condemned by God, the great 
 thing is, in our Christian service, to enable men and 
 women to be conscious of the presence and to hear not 
 us but Him who is the same yesterday, and today, and 
 forever. 
 
 68 
 
Essentials of a World Religion 
 
 Atumni ADDRESS BY THE REVEREND JAMES 
 
 “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven which a 
 woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was 
 all leavened.”? Matthew 13:33. 
 
 The assumption of these words is that the ideals rep- 
 resented by the kingdom of heaven will eventually per- 
 meate the entire social order of the world, and become 
 operative in all of life’s relationships. That is our con- 
 fident expectation. It can scarcely be claimed, however, 
 that modern Christianity is identical with the kingdom of — 
 heaven. We would, therefore, inquire as to what modifi- 
 cations our modern Christianity must undergo if it is to 
 achieve its mission as a world religion. I venture to sug- 
 gest seven essentials for such a religion. In doing so, 
 it is my purpose to deal only with the points of greatest 
 weakness in our modern Christianity rather than to 
 attempt a comprehensive epitome of the requisites of a 
 world religion. 
 
 I. Humility. Although modern Christianity repre- 
 sents only one-third of the world’s population, we have 
 calmly assumed that it is destined to become the world 
 religion. Whether this assumption is born of a Christian 
 faith or a Nordic complex is open to debate. The white 
 man, for at least a hundred years, has posed as a world 
 ruler, and has largely taken it for granted that his was 
 the only culture worthy of propagation. 
 
 We Christians have painted our polychrome maps with 
 Heathenism in black, Buddhism in yellow, Hinduism in 
 
 69 
 
orange, Mohammedanism in green, and Christianity in 
 the crimson of redemption. Then we have piously asked: 
 
 “Shall we whose souls are lighted 
 With wisdom from on high, 
 Shall we to men benighted 
 The lamp of life deny?” 
 
 This assumption of our illumination and their benight- 
 edness is naturally and properly resented by what we are 
 pleased to call the non-Christian world. We are re- 
 minded that our Master “made himself of no reputation.” 
 It was he who said: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall 
 inherit the earth,” which, being translated, does not 
 mean “Deutschland tiber Alles,” “Britannia Rules the 
 Waves,” “America First,” nor “White Supremacy.” 
 
 Race pride, which thinks unworthily of others in pro- 
 portion as it “thinks of itself more highly than it ought 
 to think,” is a peril of modern Christendom, even as it 
 was of ancient Israel. Such a phenomenon as the Ku 
 Klux Klan, these knights of the night shirt desecrating 
 a crimson cross to'yellow purposes, is a startling evidence 
 of our benightedness, and justifies the allegation that 
 “the West is a part of the non-Christian world.” “I am 
 convinced,” says H. G. Wells, ‘that there is no more evil 
 thing in this present world than race prejudice; none at 
 all. I write deliberately, it is the worst single thing in 
 life now. It justifies and holds together more baseness, 
 cruelty and abomination than any other sort of error 
 in the world.” 
 
 One thing is certain: our modern Christianity must 
 be purged of its pride and prejudice if it is to find favor 
 with mankind as a world religion. 
 
 II. Mutuality. As Christians, we are to go to our 
 brethren of other races not because they need ws, but 
 because we need each other. A Christian of India com- 
 plains that “you make us feel that you want to do good 
 to us; you don’t make us feel that you need us.” Love 
 and friendship are based, not on equality or inequality, 
 but on mutuality, mutual respect, mutual helpfulness. 
 
 Mutuality is an attribute of personality. “Ye are 
 my friends,” says Jesus. ‘We are workers together with 
 
 70 
 
God,” says Paul. Not only do we need God but God 
 needs us. So is it among men. Only together can we 
 build the kingdom of brotherhood. It is this “together- 
 ness” that destroys the humiliation of pauperism, of de- 
 pendence, of paternalism. No self-respecting race will 
 long endure the condescending patronage of foreigners, 
 however Christian our intentions may be. 
 
 It is not necessary that we belittle ourselves in order 
 to appreciate others. With what measure we esteem, we 
 shall be esteemed. Beholding as in a mirror the glory 
 of the nations, we shall be transformed into the similitude 
 of the glory we admire in them. Every nation has some- 
 thing to contribute to the sum-total of human enrich- 
 ment. Each nation is the master of every other nation 
 in some one thing. Hence, we must go to the peoples of 
 the world not only as teachers but also as learners. We 
 must not only send our best to them; we must invite and 
 cordially welcome their finest minds to enlighten us. Not 
 all the graces of the Spirit are within white skins. Glori- 
 ous civilizations existed when our ancestors were painted 
 savages. God “hath not left himself without witness” 
 among any people. 
 
 The music of the symphonic orchestra is possible only 
 on a basis of mutuality. It is not at all a question as to 
 which instrument is superior to the other; all are neces- 
 sary. Harmony is impossible so long as the trombone 
 insists on being the whole orchestra. Is it not high time 
 that we Anglo-Saxons, even we Christians, cease to as- 
 sume that we are the whole “parliament of man,” and 
 recognize that we are not a majority; not even a quorum, 
 but that we are “members one of another”? With such a 
 relationship of mutuality we shall “make one music as 
 before—but vaster.” 
 
 III. Liberality. The chief obstacle to the progress 
 of Christianity is Christianity. The River of Life, as it 
 has flowed from the throne of God down into our twenti- 
 eth century, has gathered upon its bosom much debris 
 from the channels through which it has passed. Instead 
 of a river “clear as crystal,” modern Christianity is not 
 unlike the “Big Muddy.” Not only have we this treasure 
 in earthen vessels, but in the progress of the centuries 
 
 71 
 
ecclesiastical dogmatism has largely substituted the 
 material vessels for the spiritual treasure. 
 
 Harold Begbie says that “a Buddhist or a Mohamme- 
 dan could get no true notion of the Christian religion 
 by spending his whole life in the cathedrals and churches 
 of Europe. Nor, if he gave himself up to a study of 
 mass-books, catechisms, prayer-books, hymnologies, con- 
 troversial theology and missals of mysticism, could he 
 ever arrive at the heart and soul of this religion.” 
 
 We live in a day of theological controversy. It is a 
 contest between finality and progress in religion. The 
 partisans of tradition insist on confining us within a 
 theological terminal. The pioneers of truth prefer the 
 adventure of an experimental highway. We repudiate 
 the idea that unity with the past involves uniformity with 
 the past. Paul said: “After the way which they call 
 heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers.” 
 
 The temple of truth is not a house divided against 
 itself. It is at the mercy of neither fundamentalists, 
 fanatics, fools, philosophers, nor higher critics. Truth 
 was before anybody preached it or proscribed it. It is 
 not changed by man’s theory about it. It cannot be 
 cajoled to lie nor compelled to compromise. It is as 
 immutable as God himself; it is the corner-stone of the 
 universe. Men may come and men may go, but Truth 
 goes on forever. 
 
 “Our little systems have their day, 
 
 They have their day and cease to be; 
 They are but broken lights of thee, 
 
 And thou, O Lord, art more than they.” 
 
 The young people of the Orient study the storm- 
 scarred book of geology which reveals a world, not six- 
 thousand, but millions of years old. Or they study biol- 
 ogy and the Darwinian theory as to the origin of species. 
 On every hand they are confronted with evidences of an 
 evolutionary process, the development of lower into 
 higher forms of life, and the degeneracy of higher into 
 lower forms. 
 
 “Evolution ever climbing after some ideal good, 
 And Reversion ever dragging Evolution in the mud.” 
 
 72 
 
They turn to the Church for its interpretation; for the 
 reconciliation of religious theory with scientific demon- 
 stration. They ask for light, not heat; for demonstra- 
 tions, not denunciations; for reason, not ridicule; for 
 conclusions, not calisthenics. Thank God, we live in a 
 day when the Church can fearlessly face every doubt 
 that is born of sincere and earnest inquiry. 
 
 We humbly confess that it was not ever thus. In 
 the middle of the last century, on account of the dis- 
 closures of Charles Darwin, a storm of invective and 
 misrepresentation broke over the Christian world, and 
 still clouds the sky in our own day. Dr. Lightfoot of 
 Cambridge University, one of the foremost Hebrew 
 scholars of the seventeenth century, had declared that: 
 “man was created by the Holy Trinity on October 23, 
 4004 B.C., at nine o’clock in the morning.” Cardinal 
 Wiseman described evolution as “a movement which 
 threatens the fragmentary remains of Christian belief.” 
 Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford declared that “the prin- 
 ciple of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with 
 the word of God.” Even Mr. Gladstone affirmed that 
 Darwin had “relieved God of the labor of creation, and 
 had discharged him from the governance of the world.” 
 An American Bishop made the historical and hysterical 
 declaration that “if this hypothesis is true, then the Bible 
 is an unbearable fiction, and Christians for nearly two 
 thousand years have been duped by a monstrous lie.” To 
 Dr. Laing, the fact that Charles Darwin was buried in 
 Westminster Abbey alongside of Sir Isaac Newton, was 
 an evidence that England was no longer a Christian 
 country. 
 
 Happily that age of dogmatic darkness is almost past. 
 “The night is far spent; the day is at hand.” The peril 
 to religion is not in science. Rather it was indicated by 
 Erasmus when he said: “By identifying learning with 
 heresy you make orthodoxy synonymous with ignorance.” 
 It is the traditionalist who is the skeptic. The most 
 deadly form of unbelief is that which doubts the sincerity 
 of science, scorns the integrity of intelligence, distrusts 
 the processes of progress, and interprets the saffron sun- 
 rise of every new, creative day as the final conflagration 
 of all things. 
 
 73 
 
The young man of the Orient is not going to be con- 
 tent with a hand-me-down theology. He will not be a 
 mimeograph copy of the past, a human ditto mark, a 
 peripatetic Amen. Any attempt to force Occidental 
 forms and formulas of Christianity on the Orient will be 
 unfortunate in its results. ‘We are there to give Christ,” 
 says Dr. E. Stanley Jones of India, “and we will allow 
 and urge other peoples to interpret him according to 
 their own national genius.” Meanwhile, we would do 
 well to join with Alexander Pope in his “Universal 
 Prayer” when he says: 
 
 “Let not this weak, unknowing hand 
 Presume thy bolts to throw, 
 And deal damnation round the land 
 On each I judge thy foe.” 
 
 IV. Service. The founder of Christianity “took upon 
 himself the form of a servant.” He measured the stature 
 of human greatness by the reach of human service. “He 
 that would be great among you, let him be the servant 
 of all.” When living in South Africa, Mahatma Gandhi 
 had two pictures on the wall of his room: Christ washing 
 the feet of his disciples, and the crucifixion of Christ. 
 Mr. Gandhi, although a disciple of Hinduism, accepts 
 Christ and follows him, but rejects Christianity. What 
 does this attitude signify? 
 
 It means that there are elements which have become 
 associated with modern Christianity that are contradic- 
 tory of both the spirit and teaching of Jesus. President 
 Coolidge said to the recent convention of the Foreign 
 Missionary Societies of the United States and Canada: 
 “Not everything that the men of Christian countries 
 have carried to the other peoples of the world has been 
 good and helpful to those who have received it. One of 
 the greatest things that a missionary movement could do 
 would be to assure that all who go out from the Christian 
 to the non-Christian communities should carry with them 
 the spirit, the aims, the purposes of true Christianity.” 
 
 It is manifest that no missionary movement can give 
 any such assurance except for its own personnel. But 
 that is a relatively small company. In Nigeria, the 
 
 74 
 
representatives of government and commerce are seven 
 to one in proportion to the missionaries; on the Gold 
 Coast forty-seven to one. Moreover, Christendom is 
 represented not only by individuals but by newspapers, 
 by wireless and radio, by acts of our Government, and 
 by our influence on the nationals of other lands dwelling 
 temporarily within our borders. 
 
 The fact of the case is that modern Christianity is 
 linked hand and glove with a civilization of exploitation, 
 of materialism, of imperialism, whose law is the rule of 
 gold and not the golden rule. The motive of this civili- 
 zation is profit, not service. Its symbol is an eagle, 
 not a dove. Its sign is a scourge, not a Cross. Its 
 spirit is competition, not co-operation. Its complex 
 is Nordic, not Nazarene. Its interest in the extension 
 of the Kingdom of God to all mankind is represented 
 by the price of a single battleship per annum, contrib- 
 uted by a relatively small proportion of Christians. 
 
 Mohammedans think of Christianity in terms of the 
 Crusades; the Jews, in terms of pogroms and persecu- 
 tions; the Chinese in terms of the Opium War; the Japa- 
 nese in terms of Admiral Perry’s guns that forced open 
 the doors of Japan for Americans, and the Exclusion 
 Bill that closed the doors of America to Japanese; India 
 in terms of British imperialism and the Amritsar mas- 
 sacre; Africa in terms of slavery, the liquor traffic, and 
 the loss of eleven million square miles of their fatherland 
 to European powers; Mexico in terms of 850,000 square 
 miles of territory plundered from them in what General 
 Grant describes as the most iniquitous war ever waged 
 by a strong nation against a weaker one. 
 
 A brilliant Negro of French West Africa has voiced 
 the cry of the non-Christian world in words that are 
 more than rhetoric when he says: “Civilization, civiliza- 
 tion, pride of the Europeans and charnel-house of the 
 innocents. You have built your kingdom on corpses. 
 Whatever you wish, whatever you do, you move in lies. 
 At sight of you, gushing tears, shrieks of agony. You 
 are might prevailing over right. You are not a torch; 
 you are a conflagration. You devour whatever you 
 touch. If we knew of what vileness the great colonial 
 
 75 
 
life is composed, of what daily vileness, we should talk of 
 it less; we should not talk of it at all.” 
 
 One of India’s greatest statesmen says: “Your Jesus 
 is hopelessly handicapped by his connection with the 
 West.” The Orient is judging the value of Christianity 
 not by the missionary, but by the mercenary, the mer- 
 chant, the militarist. Both they and we know that these 
 represent the Western conception of Christianity rather 
 than the idealistic missionary. Kagawa of Kobe says 
 that American missionaries in Japan, although they are 
 people from heaven, nevertheless are hated because “they 
 are thought of as only people from America.” 
 
 If the Christian religion is to have authority among 
 the nascent nations of mankind as a world-religion, it 
 must either Christianize the international commerce and 
 politics of Christendom, or it must frankly and openly 
 repudiate their practices. Service must become a domi- 
 nant and decisive factor in our international relations. 
 A world religion cannot pray on its knees on Sunday, 
 and prey on the aborigines the rest of the week. 
 
 V. Practicability. Certain practices which are a re- 
 proach to Christendom are condoned on the ground that 
 any other course, for the present at least, is imprac- 
 ticable. Hence, the teachings of Jesus are regarded as 
 ideals to be adored rather than commands to be obeyed. 
 We are thus placed in the unfortunate position of at- 
 tempting to convert the rest of the world to ways that 
 we profess rather than to ways that we pursue. 
 
 The vital issue affecting Christianity today is not 
 doctrinal but dynamic. Will the thing work? There are 
 other religions, more or less beautiful and intellectual, 
 that offer a way out of the present world. But Christian- 
 ity is pre-eminently a way in, not a way out. It claims 
 power to transform the present order. Its New Jeru- 
 salem is one that is “coming down out of heaven from 
 God.” The kingdom of this world is to be brought under 
 the mastery of the Galilean. 
 
 Can it be done? Granting that a time element is in- 
 volved and that not everything can be done at once, does 
 the history of Christianity give the impression of a per- 
 sistent and practical progress in the mastery of human 
 problems? We believe it does, notwithstanding the long 
 
 76 
 
periods in which the leaven seems to have lost its power. 
 Of this we may be sure, the other two-thirds of the human 
 race are not likely to accept Christianity merely on the 
 basis of its much-disputed theology which may seem very 
 important to us. They will want to know if Christianity 
 can meet their personal, industrial, and national prob- 
 lems. Can this kingdom of hell be transformed into the 
 kingdom of heaven? If so, show us the sample. 
 
 Sherwood Eddy says that the average income of the © 
 people of India, representing one-fifth of the human race, 
 is less than five cents a day. C. F. Andrews declares: 
 “The condition of the industrial workers of India is 
 terrible. They are underpaid, underfed, and forced to 
 live like cattle. They are exploited both by native and 
 foreign capitalists.” Dr. Barnes reports to the Indian 
 Government as follows: “Some factories in India declare 
 dividends of two-hundred to four-hundred per cent. 
 Child mortality is appalling. Ninety-eight per cent of 
 the infants of women factory workers have opium ad- 
 ministered to them. It is a household remedy for every 
 ailment of infancy and childhood.” Dr. Potts, in his 
 book, “The Emergency in China,” speaks of the largest 
 of the sixty cotton mills in China. On a gold basis the 
 average wage is 15 cents a day for men, 1314 for women, 
 and 6 cents a day for children. They work thirty days a 
 month, for Sunday is not a rest day. 
 
 A further investigation was made of the rug-making 
 industry in Peking. The number of shops investigated 
 was 205, having a total of 6,834 employees. Ninety per 
 cent work 12 hours daily; less than seven per cent have 
 one day a week of rest. Seventy-five per cent receive 
 less than 15 cents a day, gold, as wages. Dr. Daniel J. 
 Fleming in his recent book, “Whither Bound in Missions,” 
 says that “except in the British colony of Hong-Kong, 
 there is not a law in China of any consequence for the 
 restriction of modern industry which is pouring into 
 the country with the most up-to-date machinery, but 
 with almost total disregard of the value of the human life 
 which is to be chained to the machinery.” 
 
 From these facts it must be evident that Christianity 
 is to be challenged in the Orient not at the point of its 
 theology but its ethics; not as to its metaphysics but its 
 
 Lik: 
 
dynamics. Are the ideals of Christ practicable? Does 
 Christianity seek to actualize these ideals? Does being 
 a Christian involve the practice of these ideals? Once 
 the missionary call was to unoccupied continents. Now 
 it is to unoccupied areas of life, vast areas of human 
 activity wherein Christ is but a name. The call today is 
 to evangelize not only Africa, India, China, but also 
 commerce, industry, politics, and international relations. 
 
 Mr. Gandhi was asked how Christianity could be made 
 more attractive. He replied: “Practice your religion 
 without adulterating it or watering it down. Practice it 
 in its rugged simplicity; and emphasize love, for love is 
 the central thing in Christianity.” Says another Oriental 
 scholar: “If you were at all like the Sermon on the 
 Mount, or even like the prophetic ideals of Israel, Asia 
 would fall down before your God.” John R. Mott speaks 
 a much-needed word when he says: ‘Make Christianity 
 difficult and you will make it triumphant.” 
 
 VI. Spirituality. I am not thinking simply of mys- 
 tical Christianity. That is beautiful; it is necessary, but 
 of itself it is inadequate. General Gordon was a lovely 
 mystic, but his business involved the killing of Chinese 
 and Arabs. John Newton was a godly mystic. He 
 wrote, “How sweet the name of Jesus sounds in a be- 
 hiever’s ears.”” He also wrote of having blissful com- 
 munion with God while on a slaving expedition on the 
 West Coast of Africa. In the very nature of things, if 
 Christianity is to be a world religion, its spirituality 
 must be consistent with its ethics. 
 
 Again to quote Harold Begbie: “A visitor from India 
 or China whose purpose was to study the followers of the 
 Son of God at the center of their national life would 
 surely find himself, in the streets of London, the victim 
 of an immense hallucination. It would be impossible 
 for him to believe that London in any way expressed the 
 mind of Christ. He would see on every side an ostenta- 
 tion of wealth bewildering in its profusion, and stagger- 
 ing in its effrontery. He would see in the shop windows 
 the manifold productions of a commerce created by van- 
 ity, voluptuousness and sensuality. The bill-boards 
 would shock his modesty by their prurience, or disgust 
 his intellect with their vulgarity. He would look for self- 
 
 78 
 
sacrifice and he would see self-assertion; for modesty and 
 he would see immodesty; for humility and he would see 
 arrogance; for gentleness and he would see audacity; for 
 meekness and he would see vanity; for reticence and he 
 would see effrontery; for service and he would see idle- 
 ness.” 
 
 Let us listen patiently to a voice from India. Tagore 
 speaks from a knowledge of the West when he says: “We 
 have seen this great stream of civilization choking itself 
 from debris carried by its innumerable channels. We 
 have seen that, with all its vaunted love of humanity, it 
 has proved itself the greatest menace to man, far worse 
 than the sudden outbursts of nomadic barbarism from 
 which men suffered in the early ages of history. We have 
 seen, under the spell of its gigantic sordidness, man los- 
 ing faith in the heroic ideals of life which have made him 
 great.” And then he pens these noble lines to his own 
 countrymen: 
 
 “Be not ashamed, my brothers, to stand before the proud 
 and powerful 
 
 With your white robe of simpleness; 
 
 Let your crown be of humility, your freedom, the free- 
 dom of the soul. 
 
 Build God’s throne daily upon the ample bareness of 
 your poverty, 
 
 And know that what is huge is not great, and pride is 
 
 not everlasting.” 
 
 ‘ 
 
 But spiritual Christianity must also find expression in 
 another realm. The Christian, like his Master, must 
 frankly trust to spiritual rather than physical agencies 
 as a means of defense and progress. President Coolidge 
 has recently said: “I feel strongly that public opinion, 
 based on proper information, working through agencies 
 that the common man may see and understand, may be 
 made the ultimate authority among the nations.” 
 
 Dr. Chiba, President of the National Christian Council 
 of Japan, speaking on the Exclusion Bill, gave utterance 
 to this statement: “Shall we boycott American goods and 
 send all American missionaries out of our country? Will 
 that solve the problem? No! There is only one way to 
 
 79 
 
settle it permanently: that is to fight it out only in the 
 spirit of the Master who taught: ‘Whosoever shall smite 
 thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also.’ Do 
 you think this means to be cowards? God forbid! No 
 coward can act like this. Only a man of tremendous 
 moral strength can do this. Here is the bravest act of 
 all. Here is the only way to deal with moral wrongs in- 
 flicted by others. Do you really believe that Jesus, 
 crucified, was victorious, more so than Napoleon? Let 
 us once more believe in the final victory of right, of pa- 
 tience, and of love.” 
 
 In nothing has Christianity been more apostate than 
 in its international relations. For at least fifteen-hun- 
 dred years it has raised but little protest against those 
 who 
 
 ‘“‘Wade through slaughter to a throne, 
 And shut the gates of mercy on mankind.” 
 
 What a travesty that the Crimean War of 1854 should 
 have been waged for the defense of the Holy Sepulcher 
 of Jesus. He who needed no such defense for his life 
 surely needed it not for his tomb. John Morley may not 
 be wholly right when he declares that Christianity has 
 been responsible for more wars than any other cause 
 whatsoever. But there is sufficient truth in the allega- 
 tion to bring shame to our countenance were it not for 
 the fact that to multitudes of Christians war is still re- 
 spectable, and even praiseworthy. 
 
 This fact is at least undeniable, that we who profess 
 to be disciples of the Prince of Peace have been the drill- 
 masters of war for the non-Christian world. They were 
 the authorized representatives of Christian powers who 
 put guns into the hands of Africans, and taught them 
 how to disembowel a white man, who trained the horse- 
 men of India into the cavalry of Empire, who compelled 
 Japan to become a first-class naval and military power, 
 who organized the battle-fleets of South American Re- 
 publics in preparation for future wars, and who waged 
 the most costly, the most brutal, the most deadly war of 
 all human history. 
 
 But it is of little avail either to denounce or defend 
 the past. Our face must be set forward if we would be 
 
 80 
 
world-winners. We must, in this matter at least, exem- 
 plify the practice of the early disciples who, before Chris- 
 tianity became a baptized paganism and a part of the 
 State under Constantine, followed the example of their 
 Master and trusted in spiritual rather than brutal agen- 
 cies to right the wrongs of men. Whatever our judg- 
 ment on the past may be, it is folly for a proposed 
 world religion to 
 
 “Attempt the Future’s portal 
 With the Past’s blood rusted key.” 
 
 VII. Unity. One reason why we maintain two-hun- 
 dred brands of Protestant Christianity -in the United 
 States is because our Christianity is not big enough. 
 If we loved our Christ as much as our creeds we would 
 have more respect for his prayer “that they all may be 
 one.” 
 
 There is a consequent loss of efficiency. To admin- 
 ister $44,000,000 per annum, the United States and 
 Canada maintain 236 separate foreign missionary soci- 
 eties. It also impairs our approach to the non-Christian 
 world. It is difficult to imagine a cordial welcome among 
 the Celestials of China for a Dutch-Reformed-American- 
 Chinese Church. The spirit of Oriental Christianity was 
 happily expressed by a Chinese Christian at a recent 
 Conference: “We agree to differ; we resolve to love; we 
 unite to serve.” 
 
 The essential unity, however, is not only ecclesiastical 
 but racial. We are told that racial unity is impossible 
 because there can be no real unity except among equals. 
 But equals in what? Dr. J. H. Oldham has stated the 
 case effectively as follows: “All races are equal in the 
 possession of a personality that is worthy of reverence. 
 They are equal in the right to the development of that 
 personality so far as may be compatible with the common 
 good. And in the determination of what constitutes the 
 common good, they have an equal claim that their case 
 should be heard and weighed, and that judgment be dis- 
 interested and just.” 
 
 There is an essential unity of mankind. The islands 
 of the sea are separated only at their summit; beneath 
 
 81 
 
the ocean’s surface their bases are one. Increasingly the 
 races must live a commingled life. Transportation and 
 communication are obliterating distance. The New York 
 Public Library receives 40 current periodicals from 
 China, 59 from Japan, and 89 from India. “Ye are no 
 more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens.” 
 
 Above all else, there is a glorious unity in Christ. A 
 leading Bengali Nationalist says: “India must come to a 
 universal religion. That universal religion will be Chris- 
 tianity, modified by our own genius and culture.” A 
 Hindu College President declares that “there is growing 
 up in India a Christ-cult, apart from the Christian 
 Church, with a motive of service, love and self-sacrifice.” 
 A Hindu Philosopher says: “We had high ideals of God 
 before Jesus came, but Jesus is the highest expression 
 of God we have ever seen. He is conquering us by the 
 sheer force of his own person, even against our wills.” 
 A Hindu Professor of Modern History adds his tribute: 
 “My study of modern history has shown me that there is 
 a moral pivot in the world today, and the best life of 
 East and West is more and more revolving about that 
 moral pivot. That moral pivot is the life and character 
 of Jesus Christ.” It is also the testimony of John Oxen- 
 ham in his poem: 
 
 “In Christ there is no East nor West, 
 In him no South nor North, 
 But one great fellowship of love 
 Throughout the whole wide earth. 
 
 “In him shall true hearts everywhere 
 Their high communion find; 
 His service is the golden cord 
 Close-binding all mankind. 
 
 ‘Join hands then, brothers of the faith, 
 Whate’er your race may be! 
 Who serves my Father as a son 
 Is surely kin to me. 
 
 “In Christ now meet both East and West, 
 In him meet South and North; 
 All Christly souls are one in him 
 Throughout the whole wide earth.” 
 
 82 
 
It will be remembered that when Gandhi broke his 
 twenty-one day fast he requested the assembled guests 
 to sing: 
 
 ‘When I survey the wondrous Cross 
 On which the Prince of glory died, 
 My richest gain I count but loss, 
 And pour contempt on all my pride.” 
 
 On Christmas Day, 1923, a non-Christian editor in 
 India wrote an editorial of which this is a brief extract: 
 ““A Hindu becomes a better Hindu, a Mohammedan a 
 better Mohammedan, a Parsi a better Parsi by following 
 his own ancestral faith in the master-light which Jesus 
 lighted nineteen centuries ago. He himself spoke of 
 his message as leaven which operates in and through the 
 pre-existing stuff of which each nation’s life is molded. 
 Thoughtful missionaries realize the need of recasting 
 their old methods in the new light in which Christ appears 
 today. To them and all we wish a Happy Christmas.” 
 
 It was on that same Christmas Day that a Bengali 
 Poet sent the following to C. F. Andrews: 
 
 “Great-souled Christ, on this blessed day of your 
 birth, we who are not Christians bow before you. We 
 love and worship you, we non-Christians, for with Asia 
 you are bound with ties of blood. 
 
 “We, the puny people of a great country, are nailed 
 to the cross of servitude. We look mutely up to you, 
 hurt and wounded at every turn of our torture—the 
 foreign ruler over us the crown of thorns; and our own 
 caste system the bed of spikes on which we lie. 
 
 “The world stands aghast at the earth hunger of 
 Europe. Imperialism in the arms of Mammon dances 
 in unholy glee. The three witches—War Lust, Power 
 Lust, Profit Lust—revel on the barren heaths of Europe, 
 holding their orgies. 
 
 ‘There is no room for thee there in Europe. Come, 
 Lord Jesus, come away. ‘Take your stand in Asia, the 
 land of Buddha, Kabir and Nanak. At sight of thee our 
 sorrow-laden hearts will be lightened. O Teacher of Love, 
 come down into our hearts and teach us to feel the suffer- 
 ing of others, to serve the leper and the pariah with an 
 all embracing love.” 
 
 83 
 
We sing with George Matheson: 
 
 “Gather us in, Thou Love that fillest all! 
 Gather our rival faiths within thy fold! 
 Rend each man’s temple veil and bid it fall, 
 That we may know that thou hast been of old; 
 Gather us in! 
 
 “Gather us in! We worship only thee; 
 In varied forms we stretch a common hand; 
 In divers forms a common soul we see; 
 In many ships we seek one spirit-land ; 
 Gather us in! 
 
 ‘Hach sees one color of thy rainbow light, 
 Each looks upon one tint and calls it heaven; 
 Thou art the fulness of our partial sight; 
 We are not perfect till we find the seven; 
 Gather us in! 
 
 “Thine is the mystic light great India craves, 
 Thine is the Parsi’s sin-destroying beam, 
 Thine is the Buddhist’s rest from tossing waves, 
 Thine is the empire of vast China’s dream; 
 Gather us in! 
 
 “Thine is the Roman’s strength without his pride, 
 Thine is the Greek’s glad world without its graves, 
 Thine is Judea’s law with love beside, 
 The truth that centers and the grace that saves; 
 Gather us in! 
 
 ‘Some seek a Father in the heavens above, 
 Some ask a human image to adore, 
 Some crave a spirit vast as life and love; 
 Within thy mansions we have all and more; 
 Gather us in!” 
 
 84 
 
Christian Controversy 
 
 CoMMENCEMENT ADDRESS BY THE REVEREND 
 Bisuop Francis JouHn McConneE tt, 
 Mra lL) Dec nlila Uy 
 
 I wish first of all to express my very great gratifica- 
 tion at being present at exercises which mark the formal 
 opening of Dr. Ejiselen’s administration. Anyone familiar 
 with what is going on in the realm of Old Testament 
 study knows that Dr. Eiselen stands today in the front 
 rank of Old Testament scholars. I think the trustees of 
 Garrett Biblical Institute are to be congratulated on 
 their choice of a first-rate scholar as head of the Insti- 
 tute. We hear so much in these days about the need of 
 practical men at the head of our institutions that it is 
 positively refreshing to see a choice of a theological 
 president made admittedly with high scholarship as the 
 first requisite. Dr. Eiselen’s thinking is of that pro- 
 ductive type which finds its way down into the actual liv- 
 ing conceptions of ministers and laymen and issues in 
 deeper devotion to the Kingdom of God. Of course, 
 everyone is aware that in the selection of Dr. Eiselen the 
 practical talents have not been overlooked. Garrett 
 Biblical Institute is to be congratulated on the fact that 
 the new leader of the institution has the rare power of 
 making the finest results of scholarship actually work in 
 the preaching of the ministers, and in the practical activ- 
 ities of preachers and laymen alike. 
 
 I suppose that nobody will doubt that my theme is at 
 least timely. I do not remember a period in my experi- 
 ence as a minister when religious debate has raged more 
 sharply than at the present hour. We are confronted 
 by grave social and international questions upon which 
 the church has, or ought to have, a distinct message. 
 It can at least be said that the church is taking part in 
 
 85 
 
such debates. Moreover we are discussing again with a 
 good deal of vigor and some heat questions as to the rela- 
 tion between religion and science which we thought settled 
 twenty-five years ago. 
 
 It may be just as well to remind ourselves at the outset 
 that a state of controversy is always more or less normal 
 in the church. It may be too much to say that the church 
 has made her greatest advances during periods of reli- 
 gious debate, for much depends on the inherent worth of 
 the matters under discussion. A debate over trivial mat- 
 ters does not help the progress of Christianity. A de- 
 bate however on a dignified and worthy theme may be of 
 largest benefit for the advance of religious thinking. 
 
 In any case we are not likely at any time to be com- 
 pletely free from religious controversy. Suppose we 
 start with a group of Christians on the same level of 
 understanding and spiritual experience. Suppose now 
 some of that group receive what seems to them to be a 
 call to a higher understanding and experience. Inevitably 
 the attempt of the smaller group to lead the other group 
 to its own level, and the attempt of that other group 
 to remain where it is, will bring about intellectual conflict 
 which may have far-reaching consequences. The theolo- 
 gians tell us that we can account for the origin of the 
 problem of evil by the very fact that as soon as any per- 
 son or persons seize a moral value above the ordinary, 
 that ordinary forthwith becomes evil to those of larger 
 insight. I am not sure that this is an altogether just 
 statement, but I think we cannot deny the fact that 
 differences in levels of religious understanding bring 
 about acute religious controversies. It may be more 
 charitable to say that controversy arises out of the fact 
 that the truth itself is many-sided, and the war is be- 
 tween disputants on the same level. This however is al- 
 together too easy-going. Some views are higher than 
 others, and the grim conflicts are between the higher and 
 the lower views. 
 
 If we are to be Christians in our controversy we may 
 well say at times that we will not consider some questions. 
 It would hardly be Christian at the present time to 
 waste energy discussing whether the sign of the cross 
 shall be made with one number of fingers rather than with 
 
 86 
 
another, or whether one mode of baptism is more essential 
 than another, or whether an Episcopacy is itself clothed 
 with some inherent sanctity. It is hardly the mark of 
 good sense to raise such questions as these, and the Chris- 
 tian ought as far as possible to be guided by good sense. 
 There are other questions however which ought to be 
 frankly raised, questions like that as to the possibility of 
 adjusting evolutionary thought to Christian theology, 
 or that as to the processes by which the books of our 
 Bible came into existence, or the manifold questions as to 
 how Christianity is to be adapted to our modern social 
 and international difficulties. Various expedients have 
 been resorted to during the past quarter century on the 
 part of many good ecclesiastical leaders which have 
 amounted almost to subterfuge in dealing with many 
 urgent intellectual and social duties. For example, we 
 are often told that the Church should confine itself to 
 its proper work, that our business is to preach the Gospel 
 and that the principles of the Gospel, scattered like good 
 seed on the earth, will of themselves in the end bring 
 about a harvest of better intellectual opinions and better 
 social institutions. We are likely to be told that this 
 method of announcing principles has been the method of 
 the prophets from the beginning. 
 
 There is first of all some historical misunderstanding 
 here. The prophets of the Old Testament especially 
 never spoke in general or abstract terms. Jesus never 
 spoke abstractly. The prophets and Jesus indeed uttered 
 great principles, but they uttered these principles con- 
 cretely and in reference to particular situations. Amos 
 and Isaiah attacked luxury in specific terms. Jesus did 
 not indeed have anything to say about slavery, or about 
 modern capitalism, but he attacked covetousness and 
 greed by assailing the vested interests of his time, namely 
 those in the keeping of the religious forces which cen- 
 tered chiefly around the temple. It is undoubtedly true 
 that the prophet scatters seed on the ground, but some- 
 one must cultivate the growing crop and someone must 
 definitely and decisively put in the sickle when the time 
 of harvest has come. We cannot escape such definite 
 duties by talking about “the primary duty of the church” 
 or about a pure Gospel. I never have been able to under- 
 
 87 
 
stand what the oft-used expression “pure Gospel” means. 
 If it means the Gospel that indubitably came from the 
 lips of Jesus we must remember that we find the most 
 definite utterances concerning specific evils in what are 
 considered the oldest strata of the New Testament. It 
 was these utterances that made the officials of the time of 
 Jesus think of him as a meddler. If Jesus had been an 
 abstract teacher of abstract truth, if he had attended to 
 “the primary work of the Church” in distinctively spir- 
 itual instruction after the manner of some of his ministers 
 of the present day, he could have preached for fifty 
 years and never have had any more trouble than some 
 of the ministers of today have. 
 
 No, it is not Christian to dodge manifest applications 
 of Christian truth to intellectual or social situations with 
 the plea that the business of the Christian is to preach 
 the Gospel. Nor is it Christian to dismiss some impor- 
 tant questions with the distinction between truths that 
 are primary and truths that are secondary or instru- 
 mental. Henry Ward Beecher is supposed to have made 
 an excellent hit when he said that religion is the oyster 
 and theology the shell. Others have uttered the same 
 thought in the wise adage that the Gospel is the wheat 
 and theology is the husk. The climax of wisdom is sup- 
 posed to be reached when someone arises to remark that 
 he does not care to eat oyster shells or husks. There is 
 a certain type of lay religious teacher going about the 
 country at the present time calling on the preachers to 
 give the people wheat and not husks. All this seems 
 convincing until we remind ourselves that one of the best 
 ways to develop a better type of grain is to provide a 
 better type of protecting husk. The theologians at the 
 present time who are earnestly striving after statements 
 of truth, that may after a fashion be characterized as 
 husk, are really striving to ensure a better spiritual food 
 supply for the world. Suppose that theological state- 
 ments are merely instrumental. The progress of modern 
 civilization in industrial, scientific, humanitarian discov- 
 ery is largely due to the creation of better and better 
 instruments. A searcher after astronomical truth is not 
 likely to be patient if a lens-maker excuses the bad focus 
 of a glass by saying that after all lenses are purely in- 
 
 88 
 
strumental. Suppose a man stands before us who is cap- 
 able of doing two tasks equally well, the task of present- 
 ing truth effectively Sunday after Sunday to congrega- 
 tions of two thousand five hundred persons, or of shaping 
 the thought of twenty-five theological students week after 
 week in the search for better conceptions of God and his 
 processes. Suppose this unusual man should have to 
 choose which of the two courses he would take. If he 
 were to ask my advice I think, after more than thirty 
 years’ experience in the ministry, I would have to counsel 
 him to give himself to the training of students in the most 
 serious iatellectual approach to an understanding of God. 
 Such training may of course be instrumental, but we 
 are suffering terribly just now from the lack of good 
 instruments. 
 
 Another course which is not quite Christian is to refuse 
 to consider some matters up for discussion on the ground 
 that the consideration of such themes is likely to affect 
 adversely the manifold practical activities of the Church. 
 I do not find that many preachers are concerned about 
 the effect of their attitude toward religious controversy 
 on themselves or on their own local enterprises. They do, 
 however, seem to be seriously concerned about the effect 
 of such controversy on the world-wide benevolent enter- 
 prises of the Church. They know that missionary activi- 
 ties especially are conducted upon such a narrow margin 
 of financial safety that, if there is any considerable 
 shrinkage of the missionary funds of the denomination, 
 missionaries will have to be called home or work on star- 
 vation terms. It is this horror of what may happen to the 
 benevolent enterprises of the denomination, and not any 
 fear of their own personal future, which acts as a deter- 
 rent upon the speech of many a preacher who would 
 otherwise be prophetic. I do not think, however, that a 
 church has a right to conduct its benevolent enterprises 
 in any such fashion as to interfere with the prophetic 
 spirit in its pulpits. It may be a counsel of perfection, 
 but it is nevertheless a counsel of wisdom, to say that the 
 utterance of the truth as the prophet sees it is the most 
 essential function of the Church; and that if the benevo- 
 lent enterprises of the denomination are so conducted 
 that threat to those enterprises curbs the prophetic 
 
 89 
 
spirit, that fact is a serious reflection upon the manage- 
 ment of those in charge of the enterprises, for as a mat- 
 ter of fact serious curtailment of benevolent funds sel- 
 dom follows the outspoken utterance of the truth. The 
 shrinkage from such causes is so small that the manage- 
 ment of benevolent enterprises ought to allow for such 
 contingencies in any church that aims to be at all loyal 
 to the forward impulse of Christianity. 
 
 Just here it may be in order to say that a large part 
 of the danger to benevolent receipts from prophetic ut- 
 terance comes out of the fact that the ministers have 
 not been faithful to their tasks as teachers. Time and 
 again I have heard young ministers say that they are 
 thankful for the introduction to doctrinal and Biblical 
 and social questions which they received in the theological 
 school, that they have found peace themselves as to these 
 troubled matters, and that then they have gone on to 
 preach the gospel without reference to controversy. 
 The result is that many preachers who could have 
 trained their laymen to take a right point of view on con- 
 troverted matters, at least a point of view that would 
 save them from spiritual distress, have allowed the laymen 
 to remain in ignorance. I do not mean that the pulpit 
 is the place for debate, but there ought to be oppor- 
 tunity in special classes in every church for the discus- 
 sion of the themes at a particular moment occupying the 
 attention of religious thinkers. I know a man who for 
 years sat in the classes of one of the foremost English 
 Biblical authorities, and accepted the advanced views 
 taught by that scholar, who has kept so silent on all such 
 matters that members of his congregation have not the 
 slightest idea as to where he stands on the modern meth- 
 ods of Biblical study. ‘This preacher himself calls the 
 quality—that has enabled him to keep silent—“tact.” 
 
 On the Biblical discussions of today, the ordinary lay- 
 man is not informed. Virtually every preacher gradu- 
 ated from a theological school in the past quarter century 
 has at least been introduced to the modern view of the 
 Bible. The layman has not had such an introduction. If 
 the introduction has not ruined the faith of the preacher, 
 but has rather strengthened his faith, there is no reason 
 
 90 
 
why it should have any other effect on the faith of the 
 layman. 
 
 The situation is somewhat the same as concerns social 
 questions. Very few business men, even though they 
 themselves may be large employers of labor, know much 
 about modern industry from the laborer’s point of view. 
 Even if the successful business man has himself come up 
 from the ranks, he does not understand the current labor 
 point of view. A preacher who reads a labor journal 
 very likely knows more about what the laboring groups 
 are thinking than does the employer of labor himself, 
 for it is almost impossible to get an employer to read a 
 labor paper with an open mind. So the employer is apt 
 to label all interest in labor questions as bolshevist. This 
 does not mean that the employer is an ignoramus; it 
 simply means that on the matter under discussion he is 
 not well informed. The same thing can in turn be said of 
 the laborer of course. Few groups of laboring men today 
 have the slightest knowledge of the employer’s point of 
 view or of the sympathetic interest of the ministry of the 
 Church in the laborer’s difficulties. The condition here 
 is not at all beyond remedy. Without transforming his 
 pulpit into a platform for the advocacy of social pana- 
 ceas, a minister can find ways of introducing his laymen 
 to the ideas which are astir in all realms of social con- 
 troversy. 
 
 The controversial questions, then, are not to be evaded. 
 They are to be frankly faced. What does frank facing 
 of them involve if we are to maintain a Christian spirit? 
 Christian honesty implies first of all a deliberate inten- 
 tion to understand what an opponent means. Christian 
 controversy has often been far from Christian in this 
 respect. ‘I'wenty-five years ago I heard a debate between 
 two exponents of the doctrine of Christian perfection, 
 both Methodists, and each claiming to represent the true 
 Methodist position. One took the ground that entire 
 sanctification had to be wrought in the believer’s soul by 
 a distinct work of grace, registering itself in a single 
 experience. The other maintained that the goal might be 
 reached by more gradual approaches through successive 
 experiences. If these debaters had taken the pains to 
 understand one another they would have seen that the 
 
 91 
 
difference between them was very slight, at least not wide 
 enough to warrant a formal debate. Yet each persisted 
 in reading into the other’s utterances meanings which 
 the other manifestly did not intend. The debate reached 
 its climax with one opponent marching off the platform 
 declaring that the other speaker evidently was actuated 
 by a desire to mislead immortal souls into perdition! 
 Considering the nature of the theme under discussion, 
 this was rather an alarming outcome, especially since 
 both men professed, or admitted, that they were entirely 
 sanctified. Yet such an outcome is not one whit more 
 ridiculous than the results reached when controversialists 
 get into the temper which makes against understanding. 
 The essential question in a discussion is not just what a 
 man says, but what he means by what he says. Of course, 
 if all our Christian arguments back and forth are to be 
 carried through after the fashion of speeches by lawyers, 
 we shall have to stick pretty close to the wooden rules 
 governing legal discussion, but the great living issues of 
 the religion of society are seldom settled by the methods 
 of lawyers. : 
 
 In the next place, if a Christian is to be honest he 
 must take care not to give a needlessly wrong impression 
 of what he means. Honesty consists not merely in what 
 we say, but in producing the correct impression by what 
 we say. Of course there is no way of insuring that every- 
 body will understand our speech, but we can take reason- 
 able precautions against misunderstanding. We can take 
 pains, for example, to explain definitely what we mean. 
 Not all questions can be answered briefly. Certainly not 
 all questions can be answered by a crisp yes or no. Take 
 just two instances from current day debates. Suppose 
 we ask a candidate for the ministry to answer yes or no 
 as to whether he accepts the virgin birth. If the candi- 
 date answers only yes or no he may woefully misrepresent 
 himself. Many of us have never had any serious difficulty 
 in accepting the dogma of the virgin birth. It has al- 
 ways seemed to us to be an inherently fitting accompani- 
 ment to the inauguration of a career like that of our 
 Lord. If, however, a man asks us to say yes to the 
 question about the virgin birth, we insist on accompany- 
 ing our answer with a statement that “yes” is not to be 
 
 92 
 
interpreted to mean that incarnation necessarily de- 
 pends upon any one method of divine procedure. If on 
 the other hand the candidate answers no he is not neces- 
 sarily to be interpreted as meaning that he knowingly re- 
 jects the incarnation. Or suppose we ask the candidate 
 to answer yes or no as to whether he believes in evolution. 
 That question simply cannot be answered yes or no. Ifa 
 man answers yes, he may mean that materialistic forces 
 have produced the organic world on their own account, 
 and that the Divine Creator has had no part in the proc- 
 ess whatsoever. On the other hand he may mean that 
 evolution is a description of the Divine processes, valid 
 within certain limits, which are manifestations of methods 
 rather than of forces. If he says no, he may mean that he 
 denies the evolutionary process outright, or he may mean 
 simply that he is not satisfied with any of the present 
 statements of evolutionary theory. It may be that he 
 has approached evolution by a careful study of Darwin 
 and of Mendel and of Weissmann and of De Vries, and 
 does not feel like committing himself to any compendious 
 statement. If I know that my words are likely to be 
 interpreted in one way while I myself interpret them in 
 another way, how can I escape a spirit of dishonesty if 
 I do not go to the utmost to make myself clear? It is 
 altogether true that many times the Christian prophet 
 has to send forth utterances which are sure to be mis- 
 understood, or utterances which may not be understood 
 for half a century. Nevertheless, there is no justifica- 
 tion for our uttering our thought in such fashion as to 
 lead to misunderstanding if there is any way of making 
 ourselves intelligible. 
 
 It may be well for us also to remind ourselves often 
 that debate is not the best method for the discovery of 
 truth. Especially in the consideration of social ques- 
 tions from the Christian point of view is it true, that not 
 always does solid intellectual result come out of debate. 
 In such realms the better method is that of discussion, 
 with all parties to the discussion placing before the group 
 their complete thought, not with the idea of carrying a 
 point or of fortifying a position, but with the purpose 
 rather of meeting on common ground for the sake of 
 common advance to forward positions which can be held 
 
 93 
 
by all Christians in common. The Church ought to take 
 the lead in such discussion. We ought by this time to be 
 firmly enough established in our faith in the essential 
 truth of Christianity not to be afraid even of adverse 
 discussion, and not to be always shouting forth our de- 
 fiance after the manner of the debater. The favorite 
 gesture of the debater is with the clenched fist. Not 
 much truth is arrived at by clenching fists. The finer, 
 subtler shades of spiritual meaning can seldom be com- 
 municated at the top of the voice. 
 
 In these days the faithful proclamation of the truth 
 by a minister of the gospel is not likely to lead to much 
 persecution. Still, the prophet may just as well be pre- 
 pared for the fact that he is not likely to receive calls 
 to some pulpits or to be elected to some offices. He is 
 likely to be misquoted and misinterpreted, he is likely to 
 lose some friendships. Some pious souls will look at him 
 with shocked and horrified gaze; but none of this counts 
 if he is setting on high a fresh revelation of important 
 truth. 
 
 94 
 
"i 
 
 et hi 
 
 ae 
 ane ‘ 
 
 ae 
 
 
 
5 
 Reigns 
 vet pk 
 
 
 
 ee 
 
Appendix 
 
 Appress AT THE NAMING OF THE CHARLES 
 Macaunay Stuart CHAPEL BY THE ReEv- 
 EREND Horace GREELEY SMITH, D.D. 
 
 It is a well established custom for educational institu- 
 tions to name buildings in honor of individual men. Some- 
 times the man thus honored is one who has made a dis- 
 tinct contribution in the field of learning to which the 
 building is dedicated, sometimes he is one who has given 
 of his wealth to promote and maintain the school, and 
 sometimes the man chosen is one who has invested his 
 very life in the institution. The Trustees of Garrett 
 Biblical Institute have long intended to follow this well 
 established practice. Frankly, it is our hope that in the 
 years to come these beautiful buildings, as well as the 
 others that must rise alongside of them, will bear the 
 names of those who have served the Christian Church in 
 some distinctive way. 
 
 It is my pleasure this afternoon to announce the in- 
 auguration of that policy, and to report to you our 
 action. At the last meeting of the Board of Trustees, it 
 was unanimously voted that hereafter this room in which 
 we are now meeting should be known as the Charles 
 Macaulay Stuart Chapel. A tablet has already been 
 placed just outside the door bearing a formal inscrip- 
 tion to that effect. 
 
 Our joy in taking this step now is greatly increased 
 by the fact that Doctor Stuart’s own heart will be glad- 
 dened by this expression of love and esteem. Moreover, 
 it will bring to him the satisfaction of knowing that 
 through all the years to come his name, as well as some- 
 thing of his spirit, will be enshrined in this room. There 
 is a certain poetic justice in this action. This room is 
 largely the creation of his mind, and surely is the child 
 of his heart. 
 
 97 
 
This, I am sure, will receive the hearty approval of 
 your mind and heart, and it is hardly necessary that 
 anything more should be said to you, his friends. Yet I 
 have been asked to voice for the Trustees their apprecia- 
 tion of the devoted service as well as the charming Chris- 
 tian character of Doctor Stuart. Well do I know that 
 I must carefully restrain myself in what I say about him. 
 Any undue praise upon my part would probably result 
 in my being summoned into the very presence of that 
 genial gentleman. There I would doubtless meet the fate 
 of that king of the olden day, who was brought into the 
 presence of the saintly Samuel, and hewed “in pieces 
 before the Lord.” Some of you, I doubt not, can imagine 
 the sharp play of his racy humor and subtle irony as he 
 thus disposed of me. However, I am going to insist that 
 if this is done, it shall be a private and not a public exe- 
 cution. 
 
 For more than thirty years, Doctor Stuart has been 
 officially connected with Garrett Biblical Institute, and 
 for a much longer time has been an intimate and unfail- 
 ing friend. In 1883, he received his baccalaureate degree, 
 having completed the course of study required of students 
 at that time. After thirteen years spent in the pastorate 
 and editorial work, he was called to become a member of 
 this faculty and to occupy the chair of Sacred Rhetoric. 
 For another period of thirteen years, he served in that 
 position, working in a happy comradeship with his col- 
 leagues and in an inspiring fellowship with his students. 
 There is no way of gauging the influence of those years 
 spent in the classroom. One can only imagine the mul- 
 tiplied forces set in motion by the large number of men 
 who went out to become leaders in their varied fields of 
 service, after a period of training under this enriching 
 teacher. 
 
 There is time to speak of one and only one aspect of 
 his teaching. He did somehow or other lead his students 
 to look for and to appreciate the beautiful in life. Beauty 
 was one of the chosen “staves” of his own life, and he 
 would have it so with others. In his letter to the Philip- 
 pians the Apostle Paul implores his readers to think on 
 things that are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and of 
 good report. If Doctor Stuart ever preached from that 
 
 98 
 
text, I am sure that the major portion of the sermon dealt 
 with “whatsoever things are lovely,” even though he had 
 to violate certain homiletic rules to bring that to pass. 
 Many of the students of those days went from that class- 
 room echoing in their hearts the words of Pilgrim after 
 his illuminating visit at the House of the Interpreter: 
 
 “Here have I seen things rare and profitable, 
 PSA Del SAL Uae Mite! cit siete fevel erst isis iss 
 
 Thankful, O good Interpreter, to thee.” 
 
 } 
 
 This attitude of mind and capacity of heart to know 
 and appreciate the beautiful has constituted a far richer 
 contribution to the life of the church than most of us 
 have realized. When he became a member of this faculty, 
 there still lingered considerable fear of things aesthetic. 
 The church fathers in the stern simplicity of their faith 
 had stripped our churches of most of their beauty, and 
 robbed our liturgies of much of their richness. The 
 beautiful was regarded with suspicion. Doctor Stuart 
 greatly assisted in the movement that is leading us back 
 to a new appreciation of the artistic elements in life. He 
 entered into the varied realms of literature, music and 
 art. In these spheres he moved with easy freedom, ap- 
 praising all things with a critic’s eye, and appropriating 
 their essential values in behalf of the church. Just as 
 these nobly beautiful buildings silently suggest the beauty 
 of holiness, so Doctor Stuart by his teaching and life has 
 led several generations of students not only to look for 
 the beautiful, but to utilize its many expressions in the 
 interpretation of the Christian life. 
 
 In 1909 Garrett loaned Doctor Stuart to the church 
 at large to become the editor of the Northwestern Chris- 
 tian Advocate. After two years of distinguished service 
 in this work, he returned to the Institute as President, in 
 which post he remained until 1924, At that time he 
 became President Emeritus, and resumed his place as a 
 member of the faculty. The years of his administration 
 were marked by unusual development in every direction. 
 The faculty increased from thirteen to twenty-four; the 
 student body grew from 223 to 392. During this time 
 
 99 
 
these buildings, probably the most beautiful group de- 
 voted to theological education in America, were erected. 
 Equally striking progress came in the educational field. 
 The Graduate School and the Diploma Training School 
 were differentiated, greatly to the advantage of both. 
 The courses of study were not only widened and enriched, 
 but reorganized in accord with the demands of modern 
 theological education. A policy of faculty supervision 
 of student preachers was instituted. These and other 
 advances constitute a record of achievement in which 
 any administrator might take just pride. 
 
 While we have given this chapel Doctor Stuart’s name 
 largely in recognition of this notable service, that was 
 not our only motive. We have done this also because of 
 the manner of man he was. The things he has done, he 
 “ought to have done.” To that end was he selected and 
 appointed. They constitute the first mile of his journey 
 with us, and in a sense we compelled him to go that mile. 
 But he also went the second mile, and brought into our 
 fellowship the gracious gift of a singularly rich and re- 
 sourceful personality. The charm and courtesy of his 
 Christian character have been an unmeasured blessing 
 to increasing numbers through all these years. The 
 serenity of his deeply religious nature has fallen across 
 our lives like an evening benediction. Consequently, while 
 we have admired him for the achievements of these years, 
 we love him for the unique quality of his personality. 
 
 We cannot forget the contribution he has made to our 
 lives by his constant good cheer and unfailing sense of 
 humor. Across the waters there is a distinguished church- 
 man who is often referred to as the “Gloomy Dean.” 
 Someone asked the caretaker of his cathedral why they 
 called him the gloomy dean. This man shrewdly replied, 
 “He is not gloomy, he is just a Sad Hoptimist.” None 
 of us were ever allowed to think that Doctor Stuart was 
 even a sad optimist. He was the glad hearted man among 
 us, who often lightened the load and lighted the way of 
 life by that genial and wholesome pleasantry that seems 
 to be instinctive in his very being. 
 
 Doctor Stuart has been able to retain in a remarkable 
 manner the spirit of youth. The years have passed, but 
 they seemed to have made little or no mark on his life. 
 
 100 
 
Even his close friends have been greatly surprised to 
 learn what tales the calendar told concerning his age. 
 They have come to think of him as a sort of Peter Pan, 
 who refused to grow old. At any rate, he has succeeded 
 in keeping the smiles and the sunshine that belong prima- 
 rily to the period of youth. 
 
 These and other gracious qualities of his character 
 have given him a vital leadership through the years. 
 Some men lead by a certain dominating quality that often 
 has a domineering aspect in it. Others lead by the sheer 
 impact of cold intellectual power. Still others lead by 
 the crafty use of the arts and wiles of strategy. Doctor 
 Stuart has led, officially and unofficially, by the very 
 charm of his manhood. He is reported to have said once, 
 when asked how he would lead certain groups in a diffi- 
 cult situation, “A little child shall lead them.” In the 
 finest and best sense of that phrase we find the secret of 
 his leadership. 
 
 It is considerations of this character and others like 
 them that have led your trustees to designate this room 
 as “The Charles Macaulay Stuart Chapel.” We hope 
 it is a fitting recognition of his distinguished service not 
 only to Garrett, but to the church at large. 
 
 101 
 
tere 
 sys baad § fv 
 aM | ‘ 
 ue 
 oh 
 
 ge si 7 ‘ 7“ ) 
 ibe Bes i ai eee ile tee i) a 
 ROEM teeeeionanea: a 
 7 tate Wieilaete. en. herpes 
 
 we i 
 
 Whe aber iN rapt 
 Tele ‘Sas Saw 
 
 CE Eee Wea 
 
 ie inf 
 Mis "i i , ‘ 
 f \ \, yi 
 
 ani ) —— 
 : Sol i eit 
 
 Pere | Wis: " ‘oh f a 
 era Ltt 28 ae 
 
 -¥ 
 * 
 
 
 
The Charge to the President 
 
 Tue CHARGE TO THE PRESIDENT, BY THE REVEREND 
 JoHN THompson, D.D. 
 
 The head of the Church calls men into his ministry, 
 but it is the duty of the church to train them. He called 
 and trained the twelve himself. Now he calls and the 
 church must train. Schools such as Garrett Biblical 
 Institute exist for the purpose of training God-called 
 ministers. You have been chosen for the high, honorable 
 and responsible position of President, and the influence 
 of your personality and life will touch the school at every 
 point. By your courtesy, permit me briefly to indicate 
 some of the things the church expects from her theo- 
 logical institutions. 
 
 We need a new emphasis upon the ministry of preach- 
 ing today. The Bishop of Durham has been bewailing 
 the decline of preaching in the Anglican Church. In the 
 development of socialized churches and varied institu- 
 tional activities, there is a danger that the supreme 
 importance of preaching be forgotten. Calvin in his 
 “Institutes” says, “If preaching be not reckoned as a 
 sacrament, but parallel with them, it is because it is 
 more, not less than a sacrament.” Jesus appointed men 
 to preach. Paul felt himself called to preach Jesus 
 Christ and him crucified. His exhortation to Timothy 
 was, “preach the word.” The preacher is the envoy of 
 Christ, an ambassador of God. 
 
 In this connection I may be pardoned for suggesting 
 that possibly the professors would be better qualified for 
 the training of preachers if they were also pastors of 
 some suitable church and preaching at least once a week 
 themselves. This would keep their own minds creating in 
 the direction of preaching. It is questionable whether 
 a man who has been out of the pastorate a decade or 
 two is qualified to train men for effective preaching in 
 
 103 
 
these modern times unless he himself has kept in constant 
 practice and vital touch with the life of the church and 
 the needs of a congregation. 
 
 Warn the young men in the school against busying 
 themselves too much with minor matters. Nothing must 
 interfere with pulpit preparation. Nothing must be 
 allowed to drain the energies of life. The late Dr. Frank 
 Gunsaulus, one of my best counselors, once said to me: 
 “Tf I had to begin my ministerial career again I should 
 not even lecture. I should devote my life’s energies to 
 preaching.” And then, speaking of a mutual friend, he 
 said, “Dr. Jowett pays the price of great preaching.” 
 
 So may I be permitted, by your courtesy, to enjoin 
 you to instruct the young men to major in preaching. 
 Cultivate a passion for it. Let nothing interfere with 
 their preparation for it. Make them feel that to manu- 
 facture alibis for failure is almost an unpardonable sin in 
 a man called to preach. Tell the young men that their 
 youth and social qualities and certain activities may 
 carry them along to about forty, but if, when they have 
 reached that period, they have not laid the foundation 
 for preaching, they will not be in demand by the churches. 
 There is nothing like preaching to hold a man in large 
 ministerial sphere down to the later years of life. 
 
 The great commission to the Apostle was, “Feed my 
 lambs.” ‘The minister is called to feed men’s souls. And, 
 standing here in this presence, and remembering the name 
 of this school, it is proper to remark that to do this he 
 must first expound the Word. This is a biblical institute, 
 and he should be trained so that he can bring out of the 
 treasury of the Word things new and old. He should 
 study to be a luminous expositor of those Scriptures 
 ‘given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, 
 for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- 
 ness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
 furnished into all good works.” 
 
 He will not claim inerrancy for the Word. Human 
 elements must be recognized in it. The priceless treasure 
 is in an earthen vessel. The people to whom he ministers 
 must be helped to see the difference between inspiration 
 and infallibility. ‘They should be taught that the in- 
 trinsic authority of truth is not dependent on authorship. 
 
 104 
 
The reformers were confronted with an infallible church, 
 and they met those arrogant claims with the affirmation 
 of an infallible book. But it is very important in these 
 days that the fine distinction be made between infalli- 
 bility and inspiration. The Book must not be set up as 
 a fetish. The people must be saved from bibliolatry. We 
 have had too many anathemas hurled by untrained men 
 at the heads of devout scholars. 
 
 We have traveled far beyond the theories of Baur and 
 the Tiibingen school of criticism. We have the works 
 of Ramsay and Moffatt and McGiffert and James Drum- 
 mond, Lightfoot and Sanday and others. So we have a 
 richer and better book to expound. The grandeur and 
 value and spiritual wealth of this Book of priceless treas- 
 ure is appreciated now as never before. And we need this 
 clearer light. There is much unrest today, and the moral 
 energies need definite direction. The Bible must be ex- 
 pounded as living literature and the people made to feel 
 that there is in it a message from God for them. This 
 expository preaching should be such as will lead the 
 people to search the Scriptures for themselves. 
 
 The minister must know theology. Timothy was ex- 
 horted to guard the deposit and “Hold fast the form of 
 sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and 
 love which is in Christ Jesus.” 
 
 We need a restatement of theology, especially of those 
 truths which most vitally touch experience and the doc- 
 trines of salvation. The old approach of total depravity 
 can no longer be made. Men no longer believe there is 
 no good in them. According to that old doctrine, all 
 that men could claim was their vice. Yet the incon- 
 sistency of this is easily seen when men are asked to 
 respond to gospel appeals, and that very response implies 
 that there is some good in them. The old doctrine which 
 used to be in the very hymn books of the Sunday School 
 made badness natural and goodness foreign to human 
 nature. 
 
 Then the old teaching that the least sin merited eternal 
 punishment, and that for God to forgive the innocent 
 must suffer, can no longer be preached. To teach that 
 being divine, the suffering of the Son carried infinite 
 merit, and that God accepted that suffering as an atone- 
 
 105 
 
ment, was once efficacious in the salvation of some of us. 
 But the modern mind regards it as unreasonable, and 
 our theology must commend itself to the reason. It must 
 not misrepresent God. That old doctrine of punishment 
 was a libel on God. 
 
 But our people must have their souls nourished with 
 Christian doctrine. We must get back to doctrinal 
 preaching. Thomas Boston is called “Scottish father 
 in God of the Free Church of Scotland.” It is recorded 
 that on making a pastoral call he saw on the window sill 
 of one of his parishioners ‘“The Marrow of Modern Divin- 
 ity,” by Edward Fisher. He borrowed the book. It 
 changed his whole ministry. He loaned the book to 
 others. He spoke to his brother ministers about it, and 
 that little incident, finding that book on the window sill, 
 had a far reaching influence on all the religious life of 
 Scotland. Are ministers in making pastoral calls today 
 likely to find books on Christian doctrine on the tables 
 of their parishioners? How many of our people, either 
 young or old, are informed concerning our doctrines? 
 And yet the church is founded on doctrines and our 
 young men must be trained to feed the souls of the people 
 with sound doctrine and reasonable Christian theology. 
 
 The old term “cure of souls” was a significant designa- 
 tion for the work of the minister. He is a physician of 
 the soul, and as such he should be as well trained as a 
 physician for the body. In a school hke this students 
 should have a good working knowledge of religious psy- 
 chology. This new science is of inestimable value to the 
 physician of the soul. The soul physician needs more 
 skill today than in former years. Our modern life tends 
 to reduce black and white to gray and to eliminate fine 
 ethical distinctions. ‘There are subtle influences operat- 
 ing on men’s moral natures. We have no instruments 
 with which to measure the influence of the moral atmos- 
 phere or the pressure of temptation. For the “cure of 
 souls” we must study the laws of the soul. 
 
 Then again modern psychology tells us that “interest”’ 
 is the keynote in our life. The pedagogists recognize this 
 and base their methods of instruction in “interest.” Stu- 
 dents of youth and educators are building the new arts 
 in education on the principle of interesting the mind. 
 
 106 
 
The preacher must be as scientific as the teacher and be 
 artful in interesting the minds of his hearers. If they 
 are not interested he is simply marking time. 
 
 Then, the skillful physician deals with the patients 
 one by one. He makes a diagnosis of each case. In like 
 manner the soul physician cannot afford to neglect pas- 
 toral work. For it is here he becomes acquainted with 
 the inner life, domestic circumstances, business difficulties, 
 heavy burdens, fierce conflicts, lacerated souls and broken 
 spirits among his people. In pastoral work he comes into 
 sympathetic relation with them. The physician of the 
 soul cannot afford to neglect it. 
 
 When Jesus went through the cities and villages of 
 Galilee he saw “the people as sheep without a shepherd.” 
 They were lost, bewildered, burdened, discouraged. And 
 the record is, he was moved with compassion. His soul 
 was filled with infinite sympathy and a great yearning to 
 help them. A literal translation would indicate that his 
 whole frame was shaken with emotion as he beheld them. 
 Are we so shaken today? Have we any such uncontrol- 
 lable emotion? To cultivate the intellect is not enough; 
 we need young men for the ministry with a warm heart. 
 The masses are in the condition of those ancient Gali- 
 leans, only worse, with the keener competition and strug- 
 gle of modern life. Multitudes of them feel God has no 
 relation to their life. God does not care, neither do men. 
 They accuse the church of indifference. They charge 
 us with caring more for the fortunate and well circum- 
 stanced. They chide us for not lifting up our voice 
 against injustice and oppression as we should. They 
 even affirm that ministers are in search of the larger and 
 wealthier churches; that they shun the hard fields and 
 the densely crowded sections; that money is placed above 
 men. Can we deny these accusations? Can we show 
 self-sacrificing passion to save men that gives the lie to 
 these imputations? Have we the passion for souls that 
 would lead us to shed blood to rescue the perishing and 
 save the dying and help the unfortunate and lift up the 
 unprivileged ? 
 
 We are called to be shepherds of souls. That will 
 mean often to leave the ninety and nine and go to the 
 “desert, wild and bare,” in the search of the wanderer. 
 
 107 
 
It will mean cross bearing and sacrifice and pouring out 
 of life. Garrett in the past has sent her men to the ends 
 of the earth. They have lifted up the cross in every land 
 under the sky. They have pioneered on the frontiers of 
 the home land. They have invested their lives in the 
 darkest, seamiest sections of the City. 
 
 May the sons of Garrett, under your direction, be 
 worthy of the best traditions of your school and measure 
 up to the highest New Testament ideals of the Christian 
 ministry. And remember that what was true of the 
 Master is still true of his followers, that “without shed- 
 ding of blood there is no remission of sins,” and that what 
 Thomas said to Jesus: “Except I shall see in his hands 
 the print of the nails and put my fingers into the print,” 
 the world is saying to the ministry today—except we 
 can see the print of his nails in your hands we will not 
 believe your message. 
 
 24593 
 108 
 
ales 
 
 Pay 
 Henle 
 
 ae ® 
 Wa 
 
 ha 
 
 ro! 
 
 ~ : Sent a 
 
 
 

 
 
 ¢ i f it 
 i ith Ws a I, 
 it) Pee ie tale te : POT 
 A = “i , wy) Ube mh RY 
 7 7 4 ie wi Thee Bits 
 4 Hh itl Se Hg 
 Be eee 
 ¥ ey ULM aid te y 
 RRM ec Viee Tchr hw 
 is . Rea PAG ‘ 
 Pe aa gad Con 1S ; 
 Schet aet ean a 
 eee iro h 
 We “Ae 
 , LSA ONG hs 
 < } tds 
 veg Set eat 
 2 AUT ee 
 ~s 7h M ay My +. 
 i aka 
 t it maitr 
 ce © raked} : 
 > R ‘ 
 ns . 
 S for 
 }, 
 ' BY 
 ‘ 1 
 ‘ ; 
 art 
 . : 
 A 
 ie 
 : } ‘ 
 ' 
 ‘] 
 i 
 1 
 ¥ 
 “ ' 
 5 th 
 i 
 Pi 
 - 
 i: ; = 
 { F 
 i 
 ‘ 
 } 2 
 1 
 ) 
 af 4 H 
 »" 
 * 
 ' ~ 
 TA: 
 ie 3 - F 
 : mir Py 
 ! Let 5 
 14 
 ‘4 
 f 4 » 
 iy me th Oye? 
 , « “ 
 it ‘ = Pe: 
 : Z 
 > | ; 
 hg Wied TE th Oh 
 4 ' 
 1 
 t ' 
 ry. 
 ae 4 
 Haare’) 4 | 
 5 al 
 el ate f! Kater i 
 Dar (¥ i. Z , 
 - ot t i ~.4 at J 
 i 4 
 cA Weel e doers mee eal Ee 
 | ; Ok ie "a Aeioey’, , * { 
 Pint dea 3 re: 
 raat Php a | SA Roe be ‘ 
 rub : < . hie”. 
 io 1 “i Vee ie oa 
 far oO wa “sao B A 
 % “5 4, fale hie 
 SSRPAT eee ON ere? eh en 
 AD ee Yee ; ‘ 
 ¢ Na Agi ence a oy ele 
 Pa a | Swe? oo care A 
 og : 4 GE hi #) ie te Ae) * 
 See (A Se Nie Soeae an 
 SAD cy) Set alee) shen 
 oo ah Svar 7 cae, as 
 a) da we. eee : 
 
 ‘\ 
 
 Po wee vei, 
 
 
 
 
 

 
rp ~ w 
 4% C 
 i 
 
 rears, Ais 
 
 
 
oii A | 
 
 PO 
 
 7 
 
 { 
 ed 71%) 
 ae i, 
 
 
 
TNT 
 
 4 1012 01252 0294 
 
 Fo) 
 S 
 | @ 
 
a 
 we 
 
 Milt Wy ng 
 
 
 
XY -4 
 Warrant 
 
 Ae) 
 wa A) 
 
 Ks 
 
 ee 
 pete Es 
 
 ae) 
 
 ‘ 
 
 ie iors 
 yes "i 
 
 as 
 
 ROR 
 Je ? 
 aD 
 
 . rs 
 Nt 
 
 ae 
 
 + 
 
 a 
 
 y 
 
 =f, 
 y 
 
 x 
 
 Ferg Ser 
 tay 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 >; 
 
 4) 
 ) 
 
 z ow, e 
 aimee tie 
 ¥ 
 
 Re AGW TOE 
 3 Gtas 
 
 BSS 
 * Ras ps 
 4 
 
 a) 
 
 (aN 
 2s ay 
 Sele 
 
 pilates 
 aR 
 
 ie 
 % NAR, 
 err 
 
 RG ea 
 
 Ve 
 
 iT ¢ 
 
 146G 
 
 “ 
 
 f 
 
 AU 
 Ree iGn 
 
 ' BSN ai 
 t ‘we 
 
 wut 
 Beri 
 Aer Gt 
 
 ~ 
 
 Cate 
 al fond iis 
 Msptedys 4 
 
 or tr ee A 
 Seu 
 
 SOAS 
 . 
 
 é 
 
 t 
 
 ’ 
 WAG 
 
 Gee “ 
 ” Siri x, : 
 
 78 
 = 
 
 we 
 
 sey 
 nat, 
 He