: 
 SRS 
 
 . 
 SAS . 
 SSSA 5 . ENS 
 SKS : . AS 
 Nites Sh SOA 
 Sh * . 
 See 
 RS SRA 
 +S \) 
 WR 
 EN 
 SO 
 Sts 
 OS 
 es 
 
 SERS SAAS : 
 
 : S SARS RRA as SE . SS 
 MSS AAA SS 
 
 . $y wet AAS ~. 
 
 AX r X ASV SS SES S SS : SRS S 
 
 SNES . 
 
 SO 
 
 , SAN “S 
 + 
 
 WS NS 
 . 2 
 TS 
 
 SENSES 
 
 ns SEE 
 S 
 
 SRS 
 
 AK 
 AK 
 
 NEVA ‘ 
 SSS . . 
 SSS 
 
 Mee hed Ce a ab, 
 
 . 
 
 \ ‘. 
 S 
 SSS 
 
 } ei et ats a eh da BO he, 
 
 S 
 we 
 a 
 
 Ye 
 Gp 
 
 Ly 
 
 3S 
 S 
 SS 
 SS 
 S 
 
 AN 
 
 S 
 
 Zi, 
 
 cues 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING 
 AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 NEW YORK + BOSTON - CHICAGO - DALLAS 
 ATLANTA +» SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., Lmitep 
 LONDON - BOMBAY + CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Lm, 
 TORONTO 
 
EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING 
 AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 - 
 - 
 en 
 ; 
 . 
 
 ett 
 VaSNy 
 
 VY 
 TA Cor 
 
 
 
 
 BY , 
 GRANVILLE “HICKS 
 
 NEW YORK 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 1926 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
Copyright, 1926, 
 By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 
 
 
 
 Set up and electrotyped. 
 Published October, 1926. 
 
 Printed in the United States of America by 
 THE FERRIS PRINTING COMPANY, NEW YORE. 
 
To 
 
 DoroTHY 
 
Relat 
 
 iP 
 
 Pike # 
 Pe tee 
 quk) iF 
 Ty J 
 \ fe 
 
 Pd > 
 
 ed wah 
 fed Ae 
 
 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 Though in part this book has grown out of my 
 own need for surveying the field of religion as 
 widely and as carefully as possible, it is in large 
 measure the result of two years of book reviewing. 
 As literary editor of the Christian Leader I have 
 read, so far as one person could, all the books deal- 
 ing with religion which have appeared in the past 
 twenty-four months. Out of that reading this 
 book has come, offering little that is new but sum- 
 marizing the points of view of a variety of 
 thinkers. 
 
 It would be impossible to list the names of all 
 the men who have helped me, either through their 
 books or by the spoken word, but there are two 
 men in particular whose aid and encouragement I 
 wish to acknowledge. Dr. John van Schaik, editor 
 of the Christian Leader, and Professor Henry J. 
 Cadbury, formerly of Harvard Theological School 
 and now of Bryn Mawr College, were kind enough 
 to read the manuscript in part, but my obligation 
 to them goes far beyond this service. Dr. van 
 Schaik, who, indeed, made the book possible by 
 appointing me to the literary editorship of his 
 journal, has encouraged me from the first and has 
 
 7 
 
8 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 repeatedly given me assistance. Professor Cad- 
 bury, during the two years which I spent in his 
 classes, placed me under an obligation not only 
 with reference to this book but also with regard 
 to my teaching and to my outlook on life. To 
 both these men I would express my gratitude and 
 appreciation. 
 
 GRANVILLE HICKS. 
 Northampton,-. Mass. | 
 August, 1926. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 J. PERSONAE DRAMATIS ...... EELS, 13 
 POU PALUTAY (Oly LIne enict ie rei aletwas pays 
 Pie AL WAY, OF SUPERSTITION 4 fn) 35 
 IV. THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.... 45 
 SPINE TDs ye ariel egval el coat eee tee 51 
 
 VI. THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 595 
 VII. THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST.. 70 
 Nel Ue eT HE KINGDOM. OR JGOD hls 83 
 
 IX. JESUS AND THE LIFE OF TO-DAY... 99 
 
 X. THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL 105 
 
 MP ESCIENCE AND: RELIGION» 2 8.5 2.0.00). 113 
 XII. _ THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH.... 124 
 XIII. PROMING, CONCLUSION! 2 cise cratecsses 138 
 

 
EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING 
 AT CHRISTIANITY 
 

 
CHAPTER ONE 
 PERSONAE DRAMATIS 
 
 In three months of teaching at Caldgate I had 
 made few friends, and the Christmas recess was 
 proving a cheerless affair. wo dark rooms, which 
 obstinately resisted all effort at decoration, filled me 
 with depression, an emotion aggravated by the 
 sight of a snow-covered campus left undefiled in the 
 absence of the student body. I wanted to get out 
 of doors, but I was not in the mood for walking 
 alone. Refusing even to glance out the window, 
 I sulkily devoted myself to my books. Downstairs 
 the telephone bell rang repeatedly while I pretended 
 not to hear it. At last my landlady, in her labori- 
 ously conscientious way, answered. I heard her 
 climb the stairs as far as the landing, whence she 
 called, “‘Mr. Cleaves.’’ Without hoping for too 
 much, I threw my book on the couch and hurried 
 to the telephone. 
 
 It was Dr. Beardsley calling. Beardsley was one 
 of the half-dozen acquaintances I had made since 
 coming to Caldgate. A friend had written him 
 about me, and he had promptly made a visit. I 
 liked his sincerity and good humor, but I had only 
 once attended the First Unitarian Church, of which 
 
 13 
 
14 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 he was pastor, and I did not expect to become a 
 regular attendant. ‘‘Cleaves,’’ he said, ‘‘a few friends 
 of mine, including two of your colleagues, are going 
 out in the country to a house I have borrowed. We 
 want to have a good long talk and a chance to get 
 into the woods. I'd like to have you come along.” 
 
 Of course I accepted. I would have accepted any 
 invitation that tempted me away from my books 
 and into the country. I took the stairs in half a 
 dozen bounds, and my clothes were packed twenty 
 minutes before the automobile horn sounded out- 
 side. “The drive occupied about an hour, most of 
 which we spent discussing education. Leaving the 
 main highway, we followed a rutty drive until 
 we stopped before a pine-sheltered bungalow. 
 “Belongs to a parishioner of mine,” Beardsley ex- 
 plained, as we threw down our luggage outside the 
 door. Excusing himself, he slipped into the next 
 room, while I went out to cover the radiator of the 
 car. “The house was so near the consummation of 
 my desires that I was beset with doubts. Who 
 were the men who were coming and of whom 
 Beardsley had as yet said nothing? What would 
 we discuss? Had I, after all, escaped the depression 
 of my rooms only to expose myself to two days of 
 boredom? 
 
 Beardsley returned and led me into a room where 
 comfortable chairs spread in a semi-circle around 
 an open fire. ‘The cheeriness of the place made a 
 start at dispelling my doubt. Instinctively I went 
 
PERSONAE DRAMATIS 15 
 
 to warm my hands. Beardsley’s thin and wrinkled 
 face reflected the fire's glow. It was tanned like 
 old leather, an ascetic face, I thought, though re- 
 lieved by an optimistic mouth and encouraging 
 eyes. About fifty, I should imagine, Beardsley was 
 a man of contrasts. Even as his agreeably humor- 
 ous eyes belied the ascetic twist to his face, so an 
 impression of limitless durability challenged the 
 evidences of ill health in his thin frame, his stooped 
 shoulders, and his alarming cough. He was not a 
 well man, anyone would say, but I knew enough 
 of his war record in the Red Cross to confirm that 
 impression of reserve strength. Moreover, since the 
 war he had borne the cares of a large parish, which 
 he had saved from slow decline and made a power 
 in the college community. 
 
 “Sit down here where you can get the warmth,” 
 he bade me. “Do you smoke? Well, I prefer a 
 pipe too, but here are cigarettes and cigars if you 
 want them. I’m glad we arrived first, but I hope 
 the others will be here soon.”’ 
 
 We lit our pipes, and once mine was burning 
 properly I asked him, “Are you in the habit of 
 doing things like this?’ 
 
 He chuckled. “Well, rather. I like to talk, and 
 I’ve managed to find some other people who have 
 the same weakness. “Iwo or three of us meet regu- 
 larly, but this is something special. After all, 
 there’s nothing like the exchange of ideas.”’ 
 
 He was beginning to philosophize on the value 
 
16 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 of discussion and the place of the Socratic method, 
 when we heard a car bumping its way over the ruts. 
 He ran to the door, returning in a few minutes with 
 a much younger man, thirty-five or less I estimated, 
 whom he introduced as Mr. Priest. Priest bowed 
 to me cordially but with reserve. Above his fine, 
 thin-lipped mouth a black moustache traced its 
 closely clipped outline. He wore the neatest of 
 gray knickerbockers, and as he lit a short, straight- 
 stemmed pipe suggested the perfect man of the 
 world. 
 
 Beardsley continued, “‘I was just telling Cleaves 
 that I’ve had a hankering for a rousing discussion. 
 I’ve been alternating lately between periods of in- 
 tellectual staleness and periods of effervescence. I 
 need stimulus, and I want a chance to get some 
 things off my chest. I thought we’d renew our 
 college days. Scott Fitzgerald or Percy Marks or 
 somebody quite truthfully says that in college one 
 always discusses just two subjects, religion and sex. 
 We've discussed many things, Priest, sex included, 
 but usually we’ve avoided the fundamentals of reli- 
 gion. [his time I want to grasp the bull by the 
 horns.”’ 
 
 Again the sound of a car, and Beardsley rushed 
 out. I spoke a few casual words to Priest, wanting 
 to ask him just what I’d been let in for, but he 
 seemed rather cold and a little formidable. He spoke 
 at random, but with bearing on my thoughts. 
 “Beardsley is a great man for discussion. At home 
 
PERSONAE DRAMATIS 17 
 
 he has scientists, politicians, [ don’t know who. 
 They like to come. He always seems to pick his 
 company helter-skelter, but there is usually a good 
 reason why each is present.’’ He looked at me as 
 if he were wondering why I had been invited. I 
 wondered too, but in a way his words had been 
 reassuring. 
 
 When Beardsley returned, he had four men with 
 him. After formal introductions he settled us all in 
 comfortable chairs, and then resumed his conversa- 
 tion. “Yes, I wanted to grasp the bull by the horns. 
 I’ve brought you here to discuss religion, without 
 definition, and without preliminary. But first I 
 think you ought to know each other better. Let me 
 go round the room. Dr. Pratt is the pastor of the 
 Elm Street Baptist Church, not a large church 
 as churches in Caldgate go, but an important one. 
 It reaches more of the common people in the 
 city than any other except the Catholic church. 
 Mr. Pratt has as much influence in the com- 
 munity as any man here. No wonder he’s 
 sitting next to Kilpatrick and hobnobbing with 
 him. ‘They served on the city council together 
 for ten years. [hey stood side by side and 
 fought the liquor traffic, cleaned out the red light 
 district, built a respectable jail, and won the ever- 
 lasting curses of the mayor and his gang.” 
 
 Beardsley began to relate an anecdote of the city 
 council, and I took the opportunity to examine the 
 two men of whom he was speaking. Pratt, from 
 
/ 
 
 18 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 whose red, smooth-shaven face cheerful intensity 
 shone forth, appeared to be Beardsley’s own age. 
 I observed that his brown business suit was.in not 
 the best condition, the cuffs of the trousers a little 
 frayed, one button of the vest unloosed as if it 
 had been bought when he was three or four years 
 younger and ten or fifteen pounds lighter. Kil- 
 patrick was also a large man, but tall and rather 
 imposing, about sixty I judged. <A long gray 
 moustache, the keenest of blue eyes, and gray, thick 
 hair contributed to the distinction of a face that 
 was unmistakably Irish. Beardsley began to de- 
 scribe him, speaking of him as a distinguished 
 lawyer and a politician with a difference, “a man 
 who has more than once honored me by accepting 
 my hospitality.” 
 
 I could see that Beardsley was enjoying himself. 
 “A born toastmaster,’’ I thought with a touch of 
 malice. He finished with Kilpatrick, and began 
 with the man on my right, Graff, a member of the 
 astronomy department, a very young but very bril- 
 liant professor, whom I casually knew. Graff, 
 I decided, was as unfamiliar with the other mem- 
 bers of the group as I. Beardsley discussed Graff's 
 work with easy familiarity, clearly amazing Graff 
 by mentioning a contribution to a technical journal 
 on the size of the universe. He wriggled uneasily 
 as Beardsley heaped praise upon his achievements. 
 I determined that I should know him better before 
 the year was over. 
 
PERSONAE DRAMATIS 19 
 
 Before I knew it, Beardsley was talking about 
 me. “‘Cleaves,’’ he said, ““was brought here under 
 false, pretenses. He is an English instructor in the 
 college. He inhabits a couple of depressing rooms 
 in a damp and unlovely house. I knew he would be 
 unhappy at home, and I counted on that to win 
 an acceptance for my invitation. It did, and here 
 he is, wondering why I ever invited him to par- 
 ticipate in a discussion of religion. Simply, Cleaves, 
 because you have a critical mind. I have read your 
 reviews and sketches, and I know the quality and 
 character of your intellect. We are to discuss re- 
 ligion, and most of us will indulge in flights of 
 fancy and riots of rhetoric. I depend on you to 
 prick our pretty bubbles. I beseech you to be 
 merciless.”’ 
 
 His good-natured raillery touched my vanity, 
 though I knew I was foolish to take offense at it. 
 Beardsley was going on, poking fun now at Richard 
 Loring, perhaps the best-known member of the col- 
 lege faculty, a biologist of repute, a much sought 
 after lecturer, and the author of a number of popu- 
 lar books on science. Loring, though only forty, 
 affected a Van Dyke beard, and wore eye-glasses 
 attached toa cord. He never spoke without giving 
 the appearance of delivering the ultimate word on 
 the subject at hand. I knew that in certain fields 
 of biology he had done experimental work of 
 great value, but as a man he had seemed to me in- 
 
20 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 sufferable, and for his popular works, which I had 
 never read, I had conceived a vast contempt. I 
 was amused at the deft satirical touches with which 
 Beardsley embellished his flattering account, and 
 I was surprised at the note of affection in his voice. 
 
 “Finally,’”’ continued Beardsley, ““‘we have our 
 friend, Roderick Priest, who from the pulpit, in 
 the press, and on the lecture platform, has made a 
 name for himself. In theology he is among the 
 leaders of the modernists. An unqualified pacifist, 
 something of a socialist, defender of human rights 
 and upholder of racial equality, he is a rebel, an 
 idealist, and a better golfer than anybody in this 
 room.” I looked on Priest’s cold sleekness with 
 surprise, incredulous of all but the golfer. He re- 
 turned my look calmly, without warmth but with- 
 out hostility. 
 
 “And that concludes the roster,’’ said Beardsley. 
 “With the exception of Graff and Cleaves you are 
 all familiar with my ways as host. As I have said, 
 I feel in the mood for a discussion of religion. I 
 have no theories as to how we should approach the 
 subject, no hope of arriving at any definite result. 
 All I hope is that we can exchange our views 
 candidly and, I may add, clearly. I have so far 
 been very loquacious, for which I beg your for- 
 giveness. I shall try—without much hope of suc- 
 cess—to be less so, but I trust that you will talk 
 all you please. ‘There is tobacco here in three 
 
PERSONAE DRAMATIS 21 
 
 forms, if that is any aid to you. The library here 
 is at our disposal. Whoever cares to is perfectly 
 at liberty to go out and stroll through the woods 
 whenever he wants to. Gentlemen—’”’ He relit his 
 pipe, and silence fell upon us. 
 
CHAPTER TWO 
 A WAY OF LIFE 
 
 A little staggered, I awaited the beginning of 
 conversation. It seemed to me incredible that 
 Beardsley could expect this motley group really to 
 discuss so difficult a subject as religion. While most 
 of them had had more warning than I, they all 
 seemed. to have come at short notice. “That they 
 had come was the surprising and the encouraging 
 thing. I looked at Graff, and he stared back at me, 
 clearly as much at sea as I. He was a complacent 
 young fellow though, and undoubtedly his sense 
 of achievement in his own field made him feel at 
 ease in any company. Voicing my question as well 
 as his own, he asked “‘Do you really believe, Dr. 
 Beardsley, that we are about to engage in a discus- 
 sion of religion? We scarcely know each other, 
 and yet you propose that we lay bare our hearts and 
 minds.”’ 
 
 Beardsley smiled easily. Pratt and Kilpatrick 
 both stiffened, but the latter spoke first, a note of 
 courteous rebuke in a voice which a suggestion of 
 brogue enriched. “We who know our host well, 
 Mr. Graff, are pleased and proud to be asked to 
 
 22 
 
A WAY OF LIFE 23, 
 
 come this morning. Never have we been disap- 
 pointed in these informal gatherings of our friend's. 
 I had planned for a busy two days, but I gladly gave 
 up my plans in order to join you gentlemen. In 
 this room and in this atmosphere I feel no hesi- 
 tation in baring heart and mind, as you put it, 
 and I will confess to you, Professor Graff, that in 
 my profession it is not often that I have the in- 
 clination to do so and less often that I humor such 
 an inclination. It is true that Dr. Beardsley has 
 suggested a very delicate subject and if anyone were 
 to feel its delicacy more than the others, surely it 
 would be I, a lone Catholic. I do feel its delicacy 
 very acutely, but I am all the more willing to dis- 
 cuss the subject with you gentlemen here, because 
 I could not discuss it elsewhere or in another com- 
 pany.” He restored to his mouth the cigar with 
 which he had been gently gesturing, and soon smoke 
 almost obscured the rugged old face. 
 
 Pratt still wanted to speak, but again he was 
 forestalled, this time by Priest, who in his thin- 
 lipped way said, “Tolerance, my dear Graff, is a 
 ptinciple with which you are not unfamiliar?” 
 
 I looked to see how Graff was responding to this 
 perfectly polite but distinctly hammer-and-tongs 
 treatment. He was beaming, his youthful face re- 
 flecting both satisfaction and anticipation. “‘If this 
 is a fair sample,’’ he said, “‘you mean tolerance and 
 not a decorous ignoring of really vital subjects. If 
 so, I’m with you.” 
 
24 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 “Good,”’ cried Beardsley, “‘you belong with us.” 
 He looked at me as if wondering if I also belonged 
 there, and, a little piqued by that look, I hastened 
 to express a thought that had been running through 
 my mind. ‘Tolerance,’ I said, “‘what is it, and 
 why should one be proud of it? If you really believe 
 you're right, then the other man’s wrong. Of 
 course if you’re uncertain, if the matter is one that 
 cannot be settled, then it’s only common sense 
 to be tolerant of the other fellow’s guesses. In re- 
 ligion, however, most people are unwilling to admit 
 that they’re only guessing. They think they 
 know. ‘Take a concrete example. Mr. Pratt is a 
 Baptist, believing certain things which Dr. Beards- 
 ley as a Unitarian denies. In what sense can Mr. 
 Pratt tolerate Dr. Beardsley?”’ 
 
 Pratt spoke now, the words leaping out in a 
 torrent. “A point well taken, Mr. Cleaves, a point 
 well taken. ‘Tolerance is either the product of 
 honestly admitted doubt or of indifference. Let me 
 take a concrete instance. Dr. Graves, the Episcopal 
 rector, doesn’t believe in prohibition, not because 
 he’s a drinking man, but because he thinks it won’t 
 work. Now I have great faith in the efficacy of 
 prohibition. But we can be tolerant of each other’s 
 opinions, [ admitting that perhaps prohibition 
 won't work, he admitting that perhaps it will. 
 Each acts on the assumption that he is right, but 
 either accepts the possibility that he may be wrong. 
 Or there is the matter of some new appointment at 
 
A WAY OF LIFE 25 
 
 the college. Mr. Cleaves and I might have opposite 
 opinions, but we should admit that it really mat- 
 tered very little one way or the other, and we 
 should therefore be tolerant. Religion, on the 
 other, hand, is not like these matters. I am not in- 
 different to religion, and I certainly will not admit 
 that my religious views are no better than guesses. 
 I believe that I am right and that Beardsley is 
 wrong, and if I could save Beardsley or one of his 
 parish I would certainly do so and feel that I had 
 done no less than my clear duty.”’ 
 
 “And yet,’’ said Beardsley, ‘“‘you manage to talk 
 with me.” 
 
 “Yes,’’ Pratt answered. “‘Logically I suppose it 
 could be said that I ought not to do so, except in the 
 hope of converting you.”’ His perplexed expression 
 changed to one of affection as he added, ““And my 
 hope of that is very slight.” 
 
 “Fortunately we are not logical,’’ commented 
 Priest. 
 
 “It is sure that we are not,’’ agreed Pratt, ‘‘for- 
 tunately or unfortunately. I find myself associat- 
 ing with men whose religious views differ from 
 mine and whom I believe to be damned unless they 
 can be brought to see the light. I cannot convert 
 them, and they cannot convert me. It does no 
 harm, then, even if it does no good, for us to ex- 
 change views. I love these men, as I believe my 
 Master would have me love them. I labor for the 
 salvation of their souls. But I cannot be always 
 
26 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 trying to convert them. I do what I can, and then 
 I reconcile myself. I find that here on earth these 
 men serve many of the ends that I seek to serve, and 
 I gladly associate myself with them. If they want 
 to know what I believe, I tell them, and if they 
 want to tell me what they believe, I listen. We re- 
 main friends, and I have come to value friendship 
 very highly.’ | 
 
 “Friendship is a better word than tolerance,’’ 
 Beardsley said. “Weare all of us here in much the 
 spirit that Pratt has described, each convinced that 
 he is right but each willing to respect the other for 
 all his wrongness. But tell me, Pratt, would you 
 stop me from preaching my heresy if you had the 
 
 eNOS 
 
 “I think we must all,’”’ suggested Kilpatrick dryly, 
 “admit the God-given right of a man to be wrong, 
 always supported by John Milton’s saying that 
 “Truth is strong, next to the Almighty.’ ”’ 
 
 “We are agreed,’ pronounced Loring. He 
 looked about him to see if any questioned his dic- 
 tum. “Let us, then, proceed.”’ 
 
 “All right,’’ said Priest blandly, with an amused 
 smile at Loring’s pontifical air. ‘I throw out, nota 
 definition of religion but a partial description, a 
 fundamental fact about religion: religion is a way 
 of life.”’ 
 
 “Whatever that means,”’ said Graff. 
 
 “It means primarily that religion is concerned not 
 
A WAY OF LIFE 27 
 
 with what you believe but with how you live. 
 Religion is bound up with conduct. It is the most 
 inclusive thing in life, touching all personal and 
 social relationships.”’ 
 
 “Then,” I inquired, “you leave out belief alto- 
 gether? You would say quite flatly that morality 
 and religion are the same thing. Your criterion of 
 religion is what a man does.”’ 
 
 “On the contrary,’’ Priest returned with a suave 
 smile, “I don’t leave out belief altogether, I don’t 
 say that religion and morality are the same thing, 
 and I don’t make my criterion of religion what a 
 man does.”’ 
 
 “Very good,” said Beardsley. ‘Of course, 
 Cleaves, we who hold that religion is a way of life 
 don’t leave out belief. Conduct is based on belief.” 
 
 “T deny that,”’ said Graff. ““And I am not talking 
 behaviorism or any other school of psychology. 
 I appeal quite flatly to common sense. How far 
 does belief influence conduct. Compare any two 
 groups, Christians and atheists for example, and I 
 wager that you will find substantially the same 
 types of conduct in both groups.” 
 
 “On the surface that appears to be true,’’ Beards- 
 ley rejoined, “but in a more subtle sense conduct is 
 certainly based on belief. The primary thing is 
 whether we believe the universe is friendly to our 
 highest ideals or not. Habit is so strong in a man 
 that he may go on doing the same things if he sud- 
 denly comes to the conclusion that the universe is 
 
28 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 neutral. I know perfectly well that he is not going 
 to go out and murder his employer, embezzle his 
 funds, and run away with his wife. But in subtler, 
 though equally important ways, his conduct will 
 be changed. ‘Then of course there is belief in im- 
 mortality, the possibility of future punishment, and 
 so forth. Such belief probably has less influence 
 on conduct than we like to think, but it nevertheless 
 has a great effect.’ 
 
 *“That expresses the argument in part,’’ Priest 
 acknowledged, “but I should like to drive home the 
 answer to Mr. Cleaves. Belief is important, is fun- 
 damental, but only because it is reflected in conduct. 
 In one sense at least it is secondary, not primary. 
 Now as to the other two charges, I think I can 
 take them up together. My criterion of religion is 
 not what a man does but what he is. The distinc- 
 tion, which is not always easy to make, is of the 
 highest importance. Jesus always emphasized a 
 central righteousness of character, as had most of 
 the prophets before him. He was not interested in 
 the jots and tittles, in the tithing of anise and cum- 
 min. He broke with the Scribes and Pharisees, who 
 were concerned to do just so. He taught his disciples 
 that they should be rather than do. ‘Love,’ very 
 boldly says Saint Augustine, ‘and do as you like.’ 
 That is enough to explain what I mean when I say 
 that my criterion of religion is not what a man does 
 but what he is. 
 
 “As for religion and morality, perhaps Mr. 
 
A WAY OF LIFE et 29 
 
 Cleaves was justified in assuming that I believe them 
 to be the same, but you will remember that I said 
 that in calling religion a way of life I was giving 
 only a partial description. Just a minute.’ He 
 rose hastily, strode to one of the bookcases that 
 filled every available foot of wall-space, and, sitting 
 on the window-seat, where the light was better, 
 began to read from the book he had taken. “‘It’s 
 James’ Varieties of Religious Experience. Here! 
 ‘In broadest and most general terms possible, one 
 might say that religious life consists in the belief 
 that there is an unseen order, and that our supreme 
 happiness lies in harmoniously adjusting ourselves 
 thereto.” There, you see, are both belief and con- 
 duct. We believe in an unseen order, and we act on 
 that basis.”’ 
 
 Beardsley was now at the shelves. Drawing out 
 a little book, he said, ‘‘Leuba puts it this way: “We 
 would therefore throw out of our definition any- 
 thing which did not include—(1) A belief in a 
 great and superior psychic power—whether per- 
 sonal or not. (2) A dynamic relation—formal and 
 organized or otherwise—between man and that 
 Higher Power tending to the preservation, the in- 
 crease, and the ennobling of life.’ ”’ 
 
 “We were going to avoid definitions,’’ resumed 
 Priest, after thanking Beardsley, “but I think James 
 and Leuba give us something to work on, although 
 they clearly define religion at a minimum. All I 
 tried to do was to suggest further that religion was 
 
 , 
 
30 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 a way of life. If that were all, then there would 
 be no distinction between religion and morality, for 
 an ethical code is also a way of life. I might try 
 again and say that religion is a way of life involving 
 adjustment to an unseen order. Perhaps that makes 
 it clearer?”’ 
 
 I nodded, but Beardsley. added, ‘‘It is precisely 
 the people who regard religion as a way of life that 
 Dr. Peabody would include in the church of the 
 spirit that he discusses in the book of that name. It 
 is because religion from that point of view is a 
 matter of spirit that it is so hard to define.”’ 
 
 He paused. Priest nodded. Loring nodded. 
 These three were evidently in agreement. Beardsley 
 threw a log on the fire, which he prodded vig- 
 orously. A pine branch mildly tapped against the 
 window. ‘The three who were in agreement waited 
 forareply. Graff, occupied with his own thoughts, 
 seemed unwilling to press his views. Recalling 
 that neither Pratt nor Kilpatrick had spoken for 
 the past half-hour, I looked at them and became 
 aware that Pratt wanted to speak but was defer- 
 ring to Kilpatrick. 
 
 Pratt it was, however, who picked up the 
 cudgels of war. “‘I suppose,’’ he began, “‘that you 
 are expecting Kilpatrick or me to disagree with you. 
 I can’t speak for Kilpatrick, of course, though I 
 imagine that in this matter we are in essential agree- 
 ment. I agree that religion is a way of life.’’ He 
 protruded his red face to see if we showed surprise, 
 
A WAY OF LIFE 31 
 
 as I for one unmistakably did. ‘“‘Yes, religion is a 
 way of life. All I would add to what has already 
 been said is that I believe religion gives us more 
 guidance in life than you are willing to admit.” 
 Again he paused to stare about him, seriousness in 
 every line of his face. “We have the Bible, and 
 the Bible contains very definite instructions about 
 life. It tells that there is a Kingdom of God, and 
 that it is of first importance to us all. It tells us 
 that there is a way in which we can win that King- 
 dom. God himself took on human form, lived 
 among men, and died for our sins that we might 
 have eternal life. Christ was a ransom for our 
 shortcomings, and without him we could never 
 attain the blessedness we all covet. Moreover, we 
 have in the Bible definite rules for conduct. I agree 
 with Priest that central righteousness of character is 
 more important than individual laws or particular 
 acts. But it is my conviction that there can be no 
 satisfactory adjustment to the reality of the universe 
 without recognition of God’s revelation and his 
 plan of salvation. I think you will see that I am 
 to a great degree in harmony with the rest of you.” 
 
 “Except,’’ said Beardsley, “‘that you insist there 
 is only one way of life, and that is yours.” 
 
 Pratt replied simply, “How could I do otherwise, 
 for I have God’s words before me? I have no need 
 to consult James and Leuba and the others; the 
 Bible is authority enough for me. It is plain 
 enough for all to read, and the simplest folk know 
 
32 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 its meaning as well as, frequently better than, the 
 most educated.” 
 
 Loring cleared his throat, and tapping his eye- 
 glasses he spoke, ‘I am greatly interested in what 
 you say about religion as a way of life, Pratt. I 
 should have thought that you fundamentalists 
 would rather have defined it as a way of belief.” 
 
 “‘K common misapprehension,” said Pratt, ignor- 
 ing the supercilious tone, “but a natural one. I 
 regret to say that a good many of my friends over- 
 emphasize the importance of belief. In one sense 
 they are right; its importance cannot be over- 
 emphasized. But they give the impression that be- 
 lief is all there is. I should say without hesitation 
 that acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Lord 
 is essential not only for salvation but also for a truly 
 good life. I should say that no man can truly 
 follow Jesus unless he confesses him as Lord and 
 Master, and I should say conversely that any true 
 follower of Christ would gladly confess his sonship. 
 I should say further that, compared to the recogni- 
 tion of the divine plan of salvation, conduct it- 
 self is relatively unimportant. And having said 
 all that I should still say that conduct itself is of 
 tremendous importance, that our interest in the 
 life eternal must not blot out our interest in the life 
 that is here, and that religion is truly a way of life 
 as well as a way of belief and a way of salvation.” 
 
 So intense had Pratt been that, as he finished and 
 settled back into his chair, all of us found our- 
 
A WAY OF LIFE 33 
 
 selves settling back into our chairs. Loring tapped 
 and lit a cigarette with a nervous gesture, and Priest 
 sucked an empty pipe. On Kilpatrick’s strong old 
 face lines of meditation furrowed their way. 
 Beardsley nodded his admiration. Only Graff 
 seemed unmoved. 
 
 Hesitantly I broke the silence. ‘“‘Do you know,” 
 I said, “‘if I believed, as you do, that all who didn’t 
 accept Christ were irrevocably damned, I couldn't 
 sleep easy nights?” 
 
 “T don’t,”” said Pratt, and I knew that he meant 
 it. 
 
 “J should stand on the street corners and tell 
 people that they must come to Jesus,”’ 
 
 “T do,’’ he answered, “‘and sorry business it is. 
 They don’t listen. Sometimes they scoff. I can’t 
 make them listen. I can’t revile them. I can only 
 tell them the good news that is in Christ Jesus. If 
 they don’t accept—’’ He sighed. “Then suddenly, 
 in amazement, he flashed at me, ““You didn’t think 
 that I sat in smug satisfaction gloating over my 
 own salvation and the damnation of the countless 
 millions, did you?’’ It was neither a challenge nor 
 a protest but a simple question. I shook my head. 
 
 “But look here,” exclaimed Loring, “‘you know 
 that there are rascals who accept Jesus. Are they 
 saved ?”’ 
 
 “T don’t know. Most of my brother ministers 
 would say yes. But to me saying that the repeti- 
 tion of a few phrases brings salvation is like—well, 
 
34 £IGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 magic. I think that a man has to accept Jesus with 
 his whole heart, and no man could do that and re- 
 main a rascal. But where draw the line? We are 
 all sinners. ‘We who believe are strengthened by 
 God’s grace, but we are still sinners, such sinners 
 that we could never be saved if God through his 
 love had not sent his Son to die for us. I believe 
 that any sinner can be saved by truly believing on 
 the Lord. Beyond that I can’t say.” 
 
 “Most fundamentalists would say, however,”’ 
 persisted Loring, ‘‘that anyone who accepted 
 Christ would be saved.’’ Pratt nodded. “‘And 
 they would say that anyone who didn’t would be 
 damned?”’ Again Pratt nodded. ‘“Well, how do 
 you feel about that?” 
 
 “In God’s providence he may save those who re- 
 fuse his plan of salvation, but he does not say so, 
 and I know of no path but that which he has re- 
 vealed to us—’’ But he was silent, and so were 
 we all. 
 
CHAPTER THREE 
 A WAY OF SUPERSTITION 
 
 To my surprise Graff, who had hitherto seemed 
 exceedingly bored, now preémpted the central post- 
 tion. Rising from his chair near the wall he stood 
 by the fire, his left arm thrown over the mantel. 
 With his disarming youthfulness of countenance he 
 seemed to be deprecating any thought that he was 
 trying to be either dogmatic or smart. His words 
 came with amazing fluency, and despite his youth 
 he rather created the impression that he was lectur- 
 ing a group of freshmen. 
 
 “If you have finished discussing whether religion 
 is a way of life or a way of belief, I should like to 
 propose the thesis that it is a way of superstition. 
 I am an astronomer, and for me to venture to speak 
 among professional students of religion may seem 
 presumptuous. Yet I have been something of a 
 student of religion myself, and I think it only fair 
 that my point of view should be expressed. [ shall 
 begin by saying a word or two about the origin of 
 religion, though what I say will be familiar to 
 those of you who have read the works of ‘Tylor, 
 
 35 
 
36 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Frazer, and Leuba.’ He cleared his throat and with 
 a gesture plunged into his subject. 
 
 “The primary root of religion is the instinct of 
 self-preservation. This is inextricably associated 
 with a desire for the preservation of the group, for 
 man does not and cannot live for himself alone. The 
 other side of the shield is self-realization, another 
 aspect of self-preservation. Now the bare impulse 
 of self-preservation has nothing religious about it, 
 but by experience man learns his insufficiency. 
 Things happen to the primitive man, and he natu- 
 rally believes that somebody made them happen. He 
 comes to believe that there are powers that can in- 
 fluence his well-being, that these powers are actuated 
 by motives like his own, and that they may be 
 worked upon so as to avoid harm or to bring good. 
 What a man wants from his gods, then, will largely 
 determine the manner in which he conceives them. 
 If he wants plenty of food, he will think of them in 
 one way; if he is interested in higher values, he will 
 think of them in another way. 
 
 “Now man gets his ideas of spirits largely from 
 his own experience. Primitive man believes in 
 ghosts. Why shouldn’t he? He is familiar with 
 death, and he sees very clearly that something goes 
 out of the body at death. In dreams he sees his 
 dead friends, and he also sees living friends whom 
 he knows to be far away. ‘Therefore he con- 
 cludes that in every man is a spirit which may some- 
 times leave the body during life and which per- 
 
A WAY OF SUPERSTITION 37 
 
 manently leaves the body at death. Thus he knows 
 souls, and he concludes that the spirits in objects 
 are much the same. Of course there may be other 
 reasons for this belief in souls and spirits, but what 
 I have said will suffice. 
 
 “Thus we see that man comes naturally to a be- 
 lief in spirits. These, of course, grow to gods in 
 due season. Man gives up his nomadic life and takes 
 to the cultivation of the soil, and his gods take shape 
 as agricultural deities. He fights, and there comes 
 to his mind the idea of a tribal war-god. He or- 
 ganizes a monarchical state, and there comes the 
 idea of the king-god. Eventually his mind leaps 
 to the conclusion that there is one god, for he sees 
 in things a unity that he has not known before. 
 Only the exceptional man reaches that stage, for 
 even to-day the majority of people are polytheists, 
 but the masses, though they cannot comprehend 
 monotheism, accept the terminology. In the same 
 way the exceptional man comes to put moral values 
 higher than his material well-being, and he con- 
 cludes that God is spiritual. Most people, of course, 
 still think of God as material; their idea of him is 
 anthropomorphic; but they avail themselves of the 
 other language. 
 
 “There you have, hastily portrayed, the genesis 
 and development of the idea of God. Need I say 
 that the belief in immortality follows the same 
 course of development? ‘The later stages of this 
 growing and changing process are reflected in the 
 
38 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 various religious literatures. The Old Testament 
 contains invaluable records of the whole, long evolu- 
 tion, but the New Testament is just as much a part 
 of the whole, and of course the literature of the re- 
 ligions of India, the Greek religions, and the various 
 other religions reflect the same process. We have 
 such a consistent scheme, one so adequate and in- 
 clusive, that it is almost impossible not to over- 
 simplify it.” 
 
 He paused, though with every evidence of in- 
 tending to continue, but Priest spoke up. “I don’t 
 see,’ he said, ““what you're driving at. Most of us 
 here accept everything you have said. Will you 
 explain what you meant by saying that religion is 
 a way of superstition?” 
 
 Graff turned to Beardsley, “Will you pass me 
 that little book?’ Thumbing it briskly, he came 
 to the page he wanted and read, “ ‘Psychological 
 analysis leaves absolutely no standing ground to 
 those who insist upon interpreting the advent of 
 Religion as the manifestation of essentially new 
 kinds of powers, of the birth of a ‘“‘spiritual life’’ 
 for instance.” Are you willing to admit that the 
 birth and growth of religion are perfectly natural 
 phenomena?” 
 
 Priest nodded. “TI think so,’’ he said. 
 
 “You will agree with me, then, that God didn’t 
 have a hand in the development?’’ Graff insisted. 
 
 “Oh, no,” replied Priest. 
 
 Over Graff's smooth round face a look of per- 
 
A WAY OF SUPERSTITION 39 
 
 plexity spread. Then, smiling suddenly, he said, 
 “Would you admit that God has no more of a hand 
 in the development of religion than He has in the 
 development of science, say, or literature?’ 
 
 “Yes,” answered Priest. 
 
 “Good. You think of God as revealing himself in 
 many walks of life.’’ He looked about him and 
 saw Beardsley and Loring nodding their agreement. 
 ‘Well, you three, I take it, follow my argument up 
 to a certain point. You all believe in God as an 
 objective reality?’’ “They nodded. ‘Then it may 
 be difficult for you to get the right angle on this 
 question: doesn’t it seem quite conceivable to you 
 that this process might have taken place even if 
 there were no God? Isn’t it perfectly possible that 
 belief in God is entirely a product of human needs, 
 desires, weaknesses?”’ 
 
 Beardsley answered. “‘It is hard to say. There 
 are metaphysical points involved. I might ask 
 how those needs got there. I might ask a number of 
 questions, but I will be quite candid. It seems to 
 me entirely conceivable that the idea of God and 
 immortality might have developed on the basis of 
 human needs and without reference to any objective 
 reality. How about you, Priest?’ 
 
 “T agree,’ said Priest. He seemed always alert, 
 and now was ready with a question, “But even if 
 that is true, it doesn’t in the least affect the objective 
 reality of God and immortality, does it?”’ 
 
 “Not at all,’’ replied Graff cheerfully. “All I 
 
40 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 wanted to point out was that the religious develop- 
 ment of the past could be interpreted in terms of 
 human hopes and fears, human disappointments 
 and human strivings. As to the status of present- 
 day belief in God and immortality I have had noth- 
 ing tosay. But now let us disregard all the religious 
 beliefs of the past, and start out like Descartes to 
 build for ourselves. I presume that we have two 
 chief sources of light on the subject of God, namely, 
 philosophy and religious experience. First examin- 
 ing religious experience, I confess that I am puzzled. 
 You see, I never had a religious experience, but 
 neither did William James, and if he could venture 
 to make an exhaustive study of the subject, as- 
 suredly I might venture the briefest of comments. 
 When we see that it is perfectly possible to ex- 
 plain religious beliefs in the past on the basis of 
 human demands, doesn’t it seem likely that what 
 we call religious experiences are induced by the de- 
 sire for the comfort and strength religion gives? Of 
 course it’s not quite so simple, but I throw out that 
 suggestion. And does it not occur to you also that 
 a good deal of philosophizing is influenced by the 
 will to believe? But I let that pass. Let us take 
 philosophy at its face value. Does anybody here 
 believe that philosophy can prove the existence of 
 God?’’ No answer except for a shaken head or two. 
 “Does anybody here believe that the metaphysical 
 absolute of Royce, the élan vital of Bergson, or the 
 limited God of Rashdall is really the same as the 
 
A WAY OF SUPERSTITION 41 
 
 God of religion?’”’ Again no answer. “Is there 
 anybody here who would declare that scientific 
 materialism is untenable as a philosophy?’ As 
 there was no reply, he waved his hand trium- 
 phantly. “I think you have gone with me as far as 
 I can expect you to go. I am content.” 
 
 I was not, however, and I said, “I’m not sure 
 that I follow you. Would you mind making clear 
 just what your point is?” 
 
 “Not at all,’’ he replied. ‘“‘I will recapitulate. 
 Religion grew naturally out of human hopes and 
 fears, and we do not need special revelation or 
 divine intervention of any kind to account for any 
 set of religious beliefs. Moreover, religion to-day 
 is just as much a product of man’s desires as it ever 
 was, and for that reason we distrust so-called relig- 
 ious experiences as evidence of the existence of God. 
 Furthermore, philosophy cannot prove the existence 
 of God, and the kind of God toward which the 
 various theistic philosophies point is not the same 
 God as the one worshiped by Christians. Phi- 
 losophy is no help, then, and more than that it may 
 deal a blow at religion because at least one quite rea- 
 sonable form of philosophy denies the existence of 
 God altogether. Is that clear?” 
 
 I nodded. ‘“‘But ——” 
 
 He waved his hand. “I might as well finish 
 now, if you will permit me. I subscribe to that 
 philosophy. I believe that there is no God, no im- 
 mortality, no purpose in the universe, no friendly 
 
42 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 power, no revelation. [I believe that by and large 
 it is a mistake for people to delude themselves. It 
 seems to me that people want from the gods or 
 from God those things which they have already 
 determined to be good. If that is so, no values 
 will be destroyed by the disappearance of belief in 
 God. If the fundamental principles of morality 
 are sound, then they are sound, and whether we be- 
 lieve in God or not has nothing to do with it. I 
 wish, then, that humanity would shed these de- 
 lusions and would stand upon its own two feet, 
 facing a universe of which it is an insignificant 
 factor but in which it has a glorious if brief future.”’ 
 
 “All very well,’’ said Priest, ““‘but why did you 
 start out by saying that religion was a way of 
 superstition?” 
 
 “That was a harsh word, unnecessarily so. I 
 can thoroughly understand the human motives 
 that led to the construction of the Christian Epic, 
 as Santayana calls it, or of any other religious epic. 
 It was inevitable. [The power of discriminating 
 between fact and desire is rare, and only in recent 
 times anyway have there been indications of the 
 true nature of the universe. Philosophical mate- 
 rialism as we know it is the child of the scientific 
 movement. I can understand, then, and I can 
 sympathize, but I don’t accept. From my point 
 of view all religion is superstition, but I dislike to 
 use the word because of its connotation. I sym- 
 
A WAY OF SUPERSTITION 43 
 
 pathize with religious men and I honor them, but 
 I think they are wrong nevertheless,”’ 
 
 Having finished his discourse Graff sat down 
 again. Beardsley spoke. “I think we are all very 
 glad to have the case of the atheistic or agnostic 
 scientist put before us so clearly, so tolerantly, and 
 so logically. I need not say, Professor Graff, that 
 We are not convinced.’’ A wry smile crossed Beards- 
 ley’s face, suggesting to me that he alone of the group 
 had seriously grappled with the view of life pro- 
 posed by Graff. He went on, “I think it only fair 
 to say that for myself I accept Mr. Graff’s analysis 
 of religious growth as a product of human nature, 
 but that is to me only the more evidence of its true 
 divinity. Like Mr. Priest I find the hand of God 
 in every phase of human existence, and certainly 
 I find it here in the magnificent advance of the 
 human race from savage animism to belief in God 
 as a loving father. As for religious experience I do 
 not want to speak for myself, but I cannot doubt 
 that certain of my friends have been vouchsafed 
 the most direct contact with the divine spirit. In 
 the case of philosophy I agree that the God of most 
 systems is not the God that we worship, but it 
 seems to me that these systems are the product of ex- 
 cessive zeal and an unwarranted presumption con- 
 cerning the powers of our poor minds to fathom 
 the infinite. I might point out, however, that in 
 modified form idealism gives a very firm foundation 
 for Christian theism. Materialism is of course 
 
44 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 perfectly tenable, but one can hardly say that it 
 can be demonstrated. If idealism can be said to be 
 the product of our unchecked desires, might not we 
 call materialism the product of the scientific mind 
 run wild?’ 
 
 After his mild jest Dr. Beardsley stared into the 
 fire. Graff clearly was not disposed to reply. Pratt 
 and Kilpatrick, much to my surprise, had both 
 seemed a trifle bored during Graff’s harangue, but 
 now they were stirring uneasily. Loring, who had 
 indignantly fidgeted in his chair while Graff was 
 speaking, now calmly placed his eye-glasses on his 
 nose and waited for somebody to speak. Priest too 
 seemed to be waiting, his eyes, like Dr. Beardsley’s, 
 on the leaping flames. 
 
CHALLE Re POUR 
 THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE 
 
 Several minutes had passed, and no one had 
 spoken. Priest arose and rapped out his pipe. 
 Beardsley also got up, saying, “I’m afraid I must 
 leave you. I have an engagement in the kitchen.” 
 
 Graff, whose interest had lapsed once he had 
 finished his discourse, looked up with his pleasant 
 smile. “‘How about an assistant? I’m a boss cook.” 
 
 “Good,” said Beardsley, and they went out to- 
 gether. 
 
 “A remarkable man!”’ said Kilpatrick when the 
 door was shut. 
 
 He referred, we judged, to Beardsley, and we 
 agreed, Pratt kept shaking his head, and finally he 
 remarked, “I wish I could understand Graff.’’ 
 
 “He adds a valuable point of view,’’ was Lor- 
 ing’s comment. 
 
 “Yes, but we'll never get anywhere so long as 
 we're all talking about different things. Now the 
 fundamental question is the matter of authority. 
 Has man an authority greater than his own reason 
 or has he not?” 
 
 “Ah,” said Priest, ‘‘there we are. Let’s discuss 
 
 45 
 
46 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 the idea of authority, with you upholding the Bible 
 and Kilpatrick upholding the Church.” 
 
 ‘“’There’s not much to say on my side,’’ Pratt re- 
 plied. ‘I accept every word of Scripture as in- 
 spiced by God. No question of faith can be dis- 
 cussed apart from the Bible. If the Bible sup- 
 ports it, it is so; if the Bible contradicts it, it is 
 false. That is my whole position. As for Kil- 
 patrick . 
 
 “Well,” the other began, raising his massive head, 
 ‘what the Bible is to you, the Church is to me, 
 I believe that the Church was founded by Christ 
 through Peter and the other apostles. I believe that 
 to the Church Christ entrusted the advancement 
 of his kingdom. For me all questions of faith are 
 bound up with the authority of the Church. ‘The 
 Church is the way of salvation. That men might 
 reap the benefits of his death Christ ordained the 
 sacraments, the administering of which he left to the 
 Church. These sacraments are the only way of 
 eternal life. They have this power because Christ 
 was the Son of God, because he died for men, and 
 because he created the Church. These three facts 
 are central dogmas of the Catholic faith, and like 
 everything else relating to the faith they are estab- 
 lished through the authority of the Church. The 
 Church is not only the administrator of the sacra- 
 ments but also the preserver of faith. All questions 
 of faith are in the hands of the Church. ‘The 
 principal items of faith were established long ago 
 
 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE 47 
 
 at the great councils, but from time to time it has 
 been necessary for the Church to redefine its posi- 
 tion, and this it has done with absolute authority 
 and complete accuracy.” 
 
 “I don’t see how you can believe all that,” said 
 Pratt, with the look of amazement which was al- 
 Ways appealing yet amusingly naive. ‘““The Church 
 is made up of men, men quite as likely to make mis- 
 takes as you and I. Why anyone should submit 
 to the authority of men when there is the divine 
 authority of the Bible is more than I can see.” 
 
 “But the Bible was written by men.” 
 
 “By men inspired by God.” 
 
 “The men who make up the Church are also 
 inspired by God. I do not for a moment question 
 the divine authority of the Bible. I only add that 
 God has given us not only a divine book but also 
 a divine instrument for the interpretation of that 
 book. And I think you will find the evidence for 
 the divine authority of the Church quite as strong 
 as the evidence for the divine authority of the Bible. 
 What about the interpretation of Scripture? You 
 Protestants say that one man’s interpretation is as 
 good as another’s. We prefer the interpretation of- 
 fered by the Church which Christ established.’’ 
 
 “The question of interpretation is difficult,” 
 soberly returned Pratt, ‘but what can a man do 
 when he believes that the Scripture says one thing 
 and the Church tells him that it says another?” 
 
 “If he believes that the Church is divinely in- 
 
48 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 stituted, he will realize that he must be in error. 
 It is foolish to speak, as some people do, of a man’s 
 surrendering his reason when he accepts the verdict 
 of the Church. ‘The test of a man’s reason comes 
 when he establishes or rejects the Church’s claim 
 to divine authority. Once his reason is satisfied that 
 the Church’s claim is justified, it is assuredly the 
 part of reason for him to value the Church's 
 judgment above his own.” 
 
 “But I don’t believe that the Church is divine.” 
 
 “There, of course, you have a right to your own 
 opinions, but I cannot see that there is a single claim 
 which can be made for the divine authority of the 
 Bible that cannot be matched in the case of the 
 Church. The evidence is qualitatively and quanti- 
 tatively pretty much the same in both cases.”’ 
 
 ‘The position of the Church would be stronger,” 
 commented Priest, “if it had always confined its 
 activities to the interpretation of Scripture. If it 
 had kept its fingers out of politics, we might all be 
 Catholics to-day.” 
 
 “Politics or no politics,” said Loring, “‘the 
 Church was doomed when she came up against 
 science. Galileo was the real reformer. The 
 Church bucked demonstrable facts, and that was her 
 downfall.” 
 
 “Protestants all!’’ commented Kilpatrick with a 
 smile. ‘‘And I hope you see, Pratt, for what you 
 are responsible. When Luther denied the authority 
 of the Church, he paved the way for all manner 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE 49 
 
 of heresies. And I must say that I find Unitarians 
 like Beardsley or even agnostics like Graff more 
 logical than you. Once a man questions the true 
 fount of authority, I can’t see where there's any 
 stopping.” 
 
 Priest made haste to anticipate Pratt’s ready 
 reply. “I think you are right,” he said to Kil- 
 patrick. ‘You have suggested just what was wrong 
 with Luther. He wasn’t ready for the idea of 
 a Church without an arbitrary authority, so he 
 introduced the authority of the Bible. It was a 
 step ahead because it thrust the responsibility on 
 the individual, but it wasn’t a long enough step. 
 It has really remained for our own time to complete 
 the work that Luther began.”’ 
 
 “What a lot there is,’’ I remarked, rather ir- 
 relevantly, ‘“‘to be said for the Catholic church. It 
 civilized Europe, it preserved Christianity, it still 
 gives tremendous comfort to certain people who 
 feel the need for an abiding authority.” 
 
 “And observe,” added Kilpatrick, “how many 
 heresies it has outlived in the last nineteen cen- 
 turies.”’ 
 
 “Usually by absorbing their best features,’’ com- 
 mented Priest. 
 
 “It’s all very well,’ said Kilpatrick, ‘‘to talk 
 about the Church lightly, but by your own stand- 
 ards you have to admit that the Church has been 
 the only body that has really transcended national 
 boundaries, that it has offered men a great boon, 
 
50 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 practically as well as spiritually, in its sacraments, 
 and that it has cared for sick souls as Protestant 
 bodies have never done.” 
 
 The voice of Beardsley surprised us. Putting his 
 head in the door, he called, ‘“That may be true, 
 but I know two Protestants who have been caring 
 for hungry stomachs. . Gentlemen, luncheon is 
 served.” 
 
CHAPTER FIVE 
 INTERLUDE 
 
 After luncheon, which turned out to be an ex- 
 traordinarily pleasant meal, we codperatively 
 washed the dishes without serious damage to the 
 china. We had left behind the seriousness of the 
 morning, and we acted as foolishly as only men on 
 a holiday can. Loring relaxed his dignity with 
 comic effect, Priest and Kilpatrick were agreeably 
 warm, and the rest of us reveled in buffoonery. 
 
 Once the dishes were washed Beardsley proposed 
 that we take a look at the surrounding country. 
 Taking the lead, he marched us straight across the 
 snow-covered fields and up a hill, from which we 
 could see, once our eyes were accustomed to the 
 brightness, acres of level ground, all an even white. 
 Farmhouses stood out at rare intervals, and we 
 could see the smoke from three or four chimneys. 
 The rutted road along which we had come indicated 
 the location of the bungalow, which was itself 
 invisible in its clump of pines. On the other side 
 of the hill the land sloped down to a river-bed, to 
 tise again in a series of hills, most of them with only 
 occasional trees and all of them scarred with great 
 
 51 
 
52 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 rocks, clearly visible under the three or four inches 
 of snow. 
 
 We went down the hill, and after making Kil- 
 patrick test the ice for us followed the river. We 
 spread out in twos or threes, and I availed myself of 
 the opportunity to walk with Graff. Soon we were 
 so far ahead of the others that they could not hear 
 our conversation. ‘“‘Funny, eh?’’ he began. 
 
 ‘Very,’ I agreed, ‘‘but I am enjoying it.” 
 
 “So am I. I’m afraid, though, that it’s because 
 I relish any chance for an argument. I can’t say 
 that I am very much interested in religion, even in 
 the anthropological side of religion, which I once 
 studied considerably before I stumbled on as- 
 tronomy. I have a streak of the propagandist in 
 me, I expect, and I like a chance to expound my 
 views, but, as I say, best of all I like a chance to 
 argue.” 
 
 ““That’s a queer trait in a scientist,” I commented, 
 “though I dare say scientists have their vices too. I 
 can sympathize with you, but I can’t agree. Lam 
 interested in religion. The questions of human 
 origin and human destiny seem to me to be still 
 of transcendent importance, even though I have 
 given up almost all hope of answering them. I 
 cannot believe that scientists such as you have found 
 the final answer, despite the fact that tentatively I 
 have adopted much the same answer for myself. 
 Perhaps one reason why I maintain an interest in 
 religion is because it appeals so strongly on the 
 
INTERLUDE 9 i 
 
 human side. Sometimes it seems to me that the 
 human race has done nothing finer than the devel- 
 opment of the idea of God. If that idea isn't 
 true, then I’m sorry. I can’t help feeling that a 
 race that could imagine a God deserves to have 
 one. From my point of view men’s religious hopes 
 seem both pathetic and magnificent.” 
 
 “That's the artist of it,” he replied, “but I must 
 say that it leaves me quite cold. ‘You see 3 
 
 He stopped short, for a wild shouting began 
 at our right, and suddenly a small boy on a sled 
 swept out of the trees and across the river. Another 
 followed him, careening between us and Beardsley 
 and Loring, who were now just behind. ‘The 
 sleds dashed on, and we stopped to watch the boys 
 as they hit a spot which the wind had swept bare 
 and skidded to a tumble. 
 
 They soon trotted back, and Beardsley began to 
 talk with them. We all paused to watch them take 
 another coast. Finally Graff and I persuaded them 
 to lend us their sleds, and we climbed the bluff 
 until the river was completely hidden by the in- 
 tervening evergreen trees. We took one look, and 
 then we plunged down the steep hill, narrowly 
 escaping several trees, but successfully negotiating 
 the slide to the foot of the hill, where we dropped 
 disconcertingly to the river. We upset at the 
 slippery spot, but we were enthusiastic and urged 
 the others to try. They refused, and the boys 
 seemed to begrudge us another coast. We went on, 
 
 
 
54 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Beardsley catching up with Graff and me to say, 
 “Look here, I can’t have you discussing religion this 
 afternoon. Save it for to-night.”’ 
 
 We laughed, and he walked on with us. Soon 
 we came to a little lake, which, under Beardsley’s 
 leadership, we began to cross. From the time we 
 struck the river the walking had been difficult, but 
 now it became dangerous, and Kilpatrick pictur- 
 esquely berated Beardsley for exposing us all to the 
 danger of breakage. We had successfully reached 
 the opposite shore and had begun to climb the 
 bluff, when Beardsley bade us to look back at the 
 sunset, not strikingly beautiful because cloudlessly 
 clear, but with its appeal nonetheless. We realized 
 for the first time that we were cold, and the surprise 
 of finding that we were not two hundred yards 
 from the bungalow was far from unpleasant. 
 Bursting in, we revived the fire, and sat before it. 
 Through the western window we could see Venus, 
 incredibly bright. Nobody said much, and we 
 basked in the sleepy comfort of the room. 
 
CHAPTER SIX 
 THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 
 
 We insisted on doing what we could to help 
 get the dinner, but once more Beardsley and Graff 
 took the lead. Comparatively little conversation 
 accompanied the meal, for we were exceedingly 
 hungry, and we devoted ourselves almost exclusively 
 to the steak and the French fried potatoes, which 
 Graff had prepared with a solemn care worthy of 
 some complicated laboratory experiment. 
 
 After dinner Beardsley insisted on our going 
 out of doors again to look at the stars. Once we 
 were clear of the pine grove, our view of the heavens 
 was unimpaired. Venus and Jupiter were just 
 setting. In the southeast Orion stretched forth 
 its magnificence. The Pleiades and Hyades stood 
 out like configurations of gems. Graff refused to 
 lecture on astronomy, confining himself to a few 
 jocular remarks on ‘“‘the heavenly circus’ and “‘the 
 duplicity of epsilon Lyrae.” Beardsley recited 
 Bert Leston Taylor’s ‘“‘Canopus.’’ Nobody seemed 
 inclined to declaim, “The heavens declare the glory 
 of God,” but I suspected that the rhythm of the 
 psalm was beating itself out in more than one 
 
 55 
 
56 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 mind. In silence we made our way back to the 
 house, each of us doubtless absorbed in his own 
 meditations. I was supremely concerned with the 
 riddle of the universe. The others, I imagine, 
 pondered their various solutions of that riddle. 
 
 Once we were again seated around the fire, Lor- 
 ing, somewhat to my surprise, hastened to summon 
 us back to the discussion of religion. He turned 
 to Pratt, “‘And what are the fundamentals?”’ 
 
 “The first fundamental,’ Pratt began, “is of 
 course the literal inspiration of the Bible. I be- 
 lieve that Christianity is the religion of a book, 
 a revealed religion. I believe that God spoke to 
 the men who wrote the Bible, and that he gave 
 to them the absolute truth.” 
 
 “But why,” asked Loring, “‘do you believe that 
 the Bible is inspired?’ 
 
 “Partly, at least, because it'says so. Saint Peter, 
 in his second epistle, says, ‘Holy men of God spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.’ This I 
 believe to be the precise truth. When Amos said, 
 ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ he too was speaking the 
 literal truth, for what he said God had inspired 
 him to say. I could quote other passages, for there 
 are many of them, but these will suffice. In the 
 second place, I believe in the plenary inspiration 
 of the Bible because that belief has been justified by 
 time. For many centuries men have affirmed that 
 the Bible was the word of God. Would not this 
 have been proven a false claim if it had not been 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 57, 
 
 true? The Bible has been subject to innumerable 
 attacks, and yet it stands and its circulation in- 
 creases. Why? Because it is literally true. In the 
 third place, I believe in the inspiration of the Bible 
 because only upon that assumption can the tenets 
 of Christianity be unshakably founded. The 
 Christian faith is remarkably consistent, incredibly 
 strong. It gives every evidence of being God-made 
 and not man-made. ‘The chief instrument of God 
 in the making of this faith is the Bible, and with the 
 Bible stands or falls the Christian religion.” 
 
 Pratt’s earnestness was always impressive. 
 Though he spoke without seeming to admit the 
 possibility that he might be mistaken, there was 
 less of dogmatism than of personal conviction in 
 his tones. No one could think that he was rattling 
 off a list of things he ought to believe; he was 
 telling us the very intimate faith of his heart. Lor- 
 ing, a little disturbed, asked, “Would you say, then, 
 as the late Mr. Bryan did, that the Bible must be 
 wholly true or wholly false, direct revelation or a 
 dastardly imposture?”’ 
 
 “No, I can see a certain truth in the conclusions 
 of the critics. “The Bible would have value even 
 if it were man-made. It might even have more 
 value than any other book in the world. It would 
 not, of course, have the value of a God-made book. 
 And I should not call it an imposture simply be- 
 cause it lays claim to inspiration. Its human 
 
58 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 authors, being human, might quite possibly have 
 been mistaken.”’ 
 
 “Tt seems to me,’’ I put in, “that that effectively 
 disposes of your argument from the Bible's own 
 claim to inspiration.”’ 
 
 “In a sense yes, in a sense no. If a man makes 
 a claim that is not substantiated, we may think 
 less of him or we may not, but, if the claim is sub- 
 stantiated, then we think more of him for having 
 made it. If I did not find evidence that the Bible 
 is the word of God, I should not accept the mere 
 statement, but I do find such evidence. I find it in 
 the very nature of the book. Can we explain 
 the writings of the evangelists, at least two of 
 whom we know to have been Galilean peasants, 
 upon any other hypothesis? Can we otherwise 
 explain the history of Israel, both with regard to 
 its successes and its failures? Can we otherwise 
 explain the predictions which were later fulfilled? 
 Can we explain the character and influence of Jesus 
 unless we admit that what the Bible says about him 
 is true?” 
 
 Priest, always attentive, now began to ask ques- 
 tions in his calm, authoritative voice “Do you 
 accept, then, the story of creation in Genesis?”’ 
 
 “It seems to me the most reasonable explanation 
 I know, much more reasonable than the theory of 
 evolution, but of course I should accept it anyway.”’ 
 
 “But how about the moral standards of the 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 59 
 
 Bible? Take, for example, Samuel’s wrath at 
 Saul’s failure to slaughter all the Amalekites.”’ 
 
 “God’s will for his people changes, as is neces- 
 sary if they are to fulfill the destiny he has for them. 
 And I would call to your attention that in this case 
 Samuel shows a higher morality than Saul, for 
 Saul had kept the Amalekites alive solely for the 
 sake of personal aggrandizement.”’ 
 
 “What about the familiar question of Jonah and 
 the big fish?’ 
 
 “That raises the problem of miracles. Per- 
 sonally I find no difficulty in believing that God 
 would interfere in any of those sequences which we 
 call natural law in order to fulfill his purpose. Do 
 you doubt that he can interfere with them?” 
 
 “No, but I question if he ever does.” 
 
 “That seems to me like plain dogmatism,” said 
 Pratt shaking his head uncomprehendingly. “You 
 admit that God can perform miracles; if you didn’t, 
 of course you would doubt the Bible accounts, But 
 you admit that he can, and yet in the face of the 
 best of evidence you deny that he does. I don't 
 understand.” 
 
 Loring interposed suavely, as one who would 
 make all clear. ‘“You see, Pratt, Priest and I do not 
 accept the Bible as any better evidence than any 
 other ancient book. The ancients had no idea of 
 cause and effect: to them the rising of the sun was as 
 much a miracle as the floating of an axe head. 
 They were not trained observers. Modern science 
 
60 EIGHT WAYS OR LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 has a long record of the most careful observations, 
 and this record fails to show any divergence from 
 natural law. We have naturally come to the con- 
 clusion that God uses natural law and doesn’t use 
 miracles. “The evidence for this conclusion seems 
 to us to be so strong that we are inclined to be- 
 lieve that the ancient reporters of miracles were 
 mistaken, and our conviction is strengthened be- 
 cause we can see in many cases how their mis- 
 takes originated.” 
 
 Both Pratt and Priest were ready to speak, but 
 I hastened to interrupt, fearing that we should be 
 led into an interminable discussion of miracles, 
 whereas the Bible was the subject at hand. “I 
 think,” I said, “that I understand Pratt’s attitude 
 toward the Bible, but I wish that Priest would give 
 us his view as a whole rather than piecemeal.” 
 
 “That might be well,” he said. “I can explain 
 my position very simply. I believe that the Bible 
 is both inspired and inspiring, but I do not believe 
 that it is literally true. I agree with Dr. Gordon 
 of Boston that verbal infallibility is nonsense ex- 
 cept to those ‘who wear the green goggles of tradi- 
 tional orthodoxy,’ but like Dr. Gordon, Bishop 
 Lawrence, and Dr. Fosdick I would not yield to 
 Machen, Norris, Massee, or even Pratt here with 
 regard to admiration for and daily use of the Bible. 
 I am surprised at men who think God can speak 
 only in direct prose. Why Jesus himself taught in 
 parables! 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 61 
 
 “In the second place, I believe that the Bible is 
 uneven. Dr. Fosdick expresses this very well in his 
 book, The Modern Use of the Bible. Have you ever 
 tried to get any spiritual enlightenment from the 
 book of Leviticus? Do you find much food in the 
 ‘begats?? Can you seriously compare the stories 
 in Genesis with the teachings of the prophets, or 
 the teachings of the prophets with the Sermon on 
 the Mount?”’ He asked the questions without rais- 
 ing his voice, always coolly driving home his point. 
 
 He continued: “In the third place, I believe in the 
 results of the so-called higher criticism. I like a 
 thing that Dr. Jefferson says: ‘If the Bible was 
 taken away from us by modern scholarship, it was 
 only for a moment, and modern scholarship has 
 handed it back to us again more useful and more 
 precious than ever.” This is absolutely true. 
 Modern scholarship has given us the clue to the 
 amazing contradictions in the Pentateuch by show- 
 ing us how narratives coming from different periods 
 have been woven together. It has shown us how 
 to interpret the history of Israel by revealing the 
 prejudices of its writers, by telling us about the 
 circumstances of writing, and by bringing to hand 
 the vast contributions of archeology. It has en- 
 abled us to appreciate the prophets, hitherto an arid 
 desert with but few oases. It has shown us that the 
 pessimistic book of Ecclesiastes and the sensuous 
 Song of Songs were not written by Solomon. It 
 has clarified the background of the gospels and 
 
62 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 illuminated the circumstances under which the 
 epistles were written. It has made us see that the 
 book called Revelation is not an isolated case but 
 belongs to a recognized type of writing. From 
 one end of the Bible to the other it has brought out 
 new values, solved old problems, explained peren- 
 nial difficulties. Most important of all it has made 
 it possible for us to see the religious development 
 of a singularly gifted people, the growth and evolu- 
 tion, if you like the word, of religion.” 
 
 He paused. “And in the fourth place, I believe 
 that it is folly to consult the Bible in matters of 
 science, in questions of the earth’s origin, of its 
 place in the universe, of the laws governing matter. 
 So far as the Bible contains statements on these 
 matters, they are mere guesses, no better than the 
 guesses of any other people in that age. Frequently 
 they contain sublime truths, but they are not the 
 truths of science. The first chapter of Genesis is a 
 masterly statement of the place of God in the creat- 
 ing and sustaining of the universe, but it is useless as 
 a statement of the methods of creation. No, the 
 Bible does not enlighten us as to the facts of science, 
 but it does the more important task of showing 
 us the fundamentals of human nature and reveal- 
 ing to us the ways in which men come to know and 
 love God.” 
 
 Pratt had been examining the floor, patiently 
 following Priest’s words, trying to understand 
 them, trying to be fair. As he questioned Priest, 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 63 
 
 no hint of vexation crept into his voice, where there 
 was only the tone of patient inquiry. ‘‘Does it seem 
 to you that God would have obscured his word 
 and left it to men of the nineteenth and twentieth 
 centuries to find the true meaning?” 
 
 “It seems to me that God’s method is always to 
 make it possible for men to discover the truth and 
 always to let them discover it for themselves.” 
 
 “You say that the Bible is uneven. In a sense 
 I admit it. But because Leviticus is less important 
 to us than the Sermon on the Mount, is it there- 
 fore any less true?” 
 
 “Obviously not. All I say is that the modern 
 view of the Bible recognizes the differences, whereas 
 the traditional view tends to obscure the differences 
 by suggesting, if not by affirming, that the entire 
 Bible is on one level.” 
 
 “Tf that is so, it is unfortunate, but it does not 
 seem to me to be so. I would ask you another 
 question. Do you presume to be able to tell what 
 parts of the Bible are true and what are false?” 
 
 “TI fear,’ said Priest, “that I must make a dis- 
 tinction. So far as the historical sections of the 
 Bible are concerned, there is a real question as to 
 their truth. This question scholarship helps us 
 answer, and I feel that [am not unduly presumptu- 
 ous when I say that I can declare certain state- 
 ments true and others false. Of course I cannot 
 do this with all the historical passages in the Bible. 
 But there are other sections, the teachings of the 
 
64 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 prophets and of Jesus and Paul. No scholar can 
 tell us whether these are true or not, though per- 
 haps he can help us to know whether or not they 
 were spoken by the men to whom they are at- 
 tributed. The truth of these statements cannot 
 be mathematically demonstrated, and it is inde- 
 pendent of the scholars. It reveals itself in our 
 own lives or not at all. In this realm all conclu- 
 sions are personal, subjective, and more or less 
 arbitrary, but even here I think one can make deci- 
 sions. The Sermon on the Mount is true in the 
 sense that I have just used the word. ‘The expres- 
 sion of hatred in the imprecatory psalms is, in 
 the same sense, false. Within the limits suggested, 
 then, I think I can tell that certain passages are 
 true and others false.” 
 
 “T think,” said Pratt, with a touch of awe in 
 his voice, “that you take upon yourself a great 
 responsibility. But now for your fourth point— 
 does it seem to you that God would have allowed 
 a false statement of the origin of the world to have 
 mingled with great spiritual teachings such as you 
 admit the Bible contains?” 
 
 “Yes, the fact that the Israelites were people of 
 great spiritual insight does not mean that they were 
 two thousand five hundred years ahead of their time 
 in their conception of the universe. God is content 
 to let such things develop in their own good time.”’ 
 
 “Well,” said Pratt, “it seems to me that for 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 65 
 
 you the Bible is a very pretty problem and not 
 much more.” 
 
 “T object. Let me read from Fosdick’s book, 
 which I find here. He is saying that a man may 
 reject the resurrection of the flesh but keep the im- 
 mortality of the soul, may reject the visitation of 
 demons but keep his sense of the reality of sin and 
 evil, and so forth. ‘Only superficial dogmatism,’ 
 he says, ‘can deny that that man believes in the 
 Bible. It is precisely the thing at which the Bible 
 was driving that he does believe. Life eternal, the 
 coming of the Kingdom, the conquest of sin and 
 evil, the indwelling and sustaining presence of the 
 Spirit—these are the gist of the matter once set forth 
 in ancient terms, but abidingly valid in our terms 
 too, and valid also in other terms than ours in 
 which our children’s children may express them.’ 
 Or, ‘The essential value of the Bible thus lies in 
 its abiding and reproducible experiences, even when 
 one has to get at them through altered categories.’ 
 Or, speaking of his own experiences, ‘I saw that the 
 new methods of study were giving far more than 
 they were taking away. I cannot think of a 
 student of the Bible of major importance who is 
 not more than reverent.’ ”’ 
 
 “You leave me quite cold,” Pratt replied. “After 
 one has thought of the Bible as the word of God, 
 any praise of it as man-made seems trivial and thin.”’ 
 
 “Doubtless it does, but the fact remains that one 
 cannot choose whether he will accept the Bible as 
 
66 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 literally true or not. Many men, who would be 
 glad of the comfort which belief in literal inspira- 
 tion gives, are forced into a recognition that the 
 Bible is man-made, as you put it. Imagine the joy 
 with which they discover that the Bible still has 
 value, that it is still the book of books. Imagine 
 their surprise and satisfaction when they find that 
 despite their change of view the Bible is still a 
 revelation of God, a source of comfort and insight, 
 more truly a guide and a companion than it was 
 before.” 
 
 Pratt turned to Beardsley, and a touch of humor 
 illuminated his serious face, “The case for the de- 
 fense—or should I say the prosecution?—rests.’’ 
 
 Beardsley smiled. “Perhaps Kilpatrick would 
 like to add a word.” 
 
 “No,” said Kilpatrick, “I have little to add. My 
 position is that of my church, which you know. 
 I have been very much interested, however, in what 
 has been said, and I should like to know how Lor- 
 ing and Cleaves, who are laymen like myself, feel 
 on the matter. I can guess what Professor Graff 
 would say.” 
 
 Loring cleared his throat and good-naturedly, 
 albeit with weighty gesture, waved his eye-glasses 
 at me, but I shook my head, and he began. “I was 
 brought up to read the Bible, but as soon as I broke 
 away from the parental influence I began to de- 
 vote all my time to my science, and I neglected the 
 Bible. Of late years, however, I have become in- 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 67 
 
 volved in controversy, finding myself on the side of 
 Mr. Priest and his modernist friends, arguing 
 against the materialists on the one side and against 
 the fundamentalists on the other.” As he paused 
 Priest remarked courteously, “‘An invaluable ally!’ 
 Loring bowed and went on, a smile of satisfaction 
 on his lips, “As a result I have found it expedient 
 to read the Bible, and I have come to substantially 
 the position which Mr. Priest has just admirably 
 outlined for you. I find the results of modern 
 scholarship a great help in the understanding of 
 the Bible, which now means more to me than it 
 ever has before. I pay no attention to its pseudo- 
 science, of course, but in the spiritual and moral 
 realm I value its guidance highly.” 
 
 As Loring looked at me I resolved to be as re- 
 strained as he had been, for I was aware that among 
 his many popular lectures was one on the Bible and 
 science, and I had rather feared that he might feel 
 called upon to deliver it to us. “As literature,” I 
 said, “I cannot praise parts of the Bible too much, 
 and I appreciate what modern scholarship has done 
 for us. Its most valuable contribution to our 
 thinking is the idea that the Bible is not a unit. 
 Once we grasp that idea we are on the brink of com- 
 pletely revaluing the contents of the various con- 
 stituent books. I am, then, in essential agreement 
 with Priest and Loring, but I am not so complacent 
 as they with regard to the spiritual message—or 
 
68 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 messages—of the Bible. I cannot accept the reli- 
 gion of Isaiah—or the religion of Jesus, for that 
 mattey—ain every particular. In their conceptions 
 of the spiritual nature of the universe, if you like 
 the phrase, and in their views on morality they do 
 not satisfy the modern mind. To me the Bible 
 remains chiefly a work of literature, a monument, 
 if you like, to certain of the sublime delusions of 
 which man has been a happy victim.” 
 
 Pratt sighed. “There you have it. Deny the 
 plenary inspiration of the Bible, and you begin a 
 downward course. If that is insecure, then the 
 deity of Christ, his virgin birth, his bodily resur- 
 rection, the atoning value of his death, his second 
 coming, all are lost. Then comes agnosticism and 
 finally atheism.” 
 
 Priest was aroused. “But that’s not so. Cleaves? 
 views are exceptional. Millions of men who re- 
 ject the literal interpretation of the Bible are not 
 atheists and are in no danger of becoming such.” 
 
 “Yet many come to that end.” 
 
 “But you can’t argue that way from conse- 
 quences. Simply because some people go to an 
 extreme is no argument, and anyway if a thing 
 1s true you’ve got to accept it whether you like the 
 consequences or not.” 
 
 “Certainly,” said Pratt emphatically, “but the 
 very fact that the higher criticism frequently leads 
 to departure from even the beliefs of the modernists 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND THE BIBLE 69 
 
 ought to indicate to us that the plenary inspiration 
 of the Bible is indeed a fundamental, an integral 
 part of Christianity. The fact that when this goes 
 everything goes suggests, at least, that this must be 
 trues: 
 
CHAPTER SEVEN 
 THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 
 
 No one seemed inclined to voice a further 
 opinion, and Graff inquired with unbecoming 
 levity, “What’s next on the program?” 
 
 We looked at Pratt, who looked back at us, and 
 the seriousness of his face checked any tendency to 
 smile at Graffs’ nonchalant query. “I presume the 
 virgin birth,”’ he told us. 
 
 “Well,” said Loring. 
 
 “I believe in the virgin birth. I could not do 
 otherwise since two of the gospels expressly state 
 that it took place. That is not argument enough 
 for you, of course, but even regarding the Bible as 
 you do I should think you would find it difficult 
 to deny that Christ was born in this manner. I 
 can see no more reason for rejecting the stories of 
 Christ’s birth than for rejecting any other part of 
 the gospel narrative. If you do reject the virgin 
 birth, it must be because of some preconceived idea 
 you have.” 
 
 He paused, but Priest did not seem inclined to 
 pick up the challenge, and in the hope of clarifying 
 the issue I remarked, “There are at least two prin- 
 
 70 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 71 
 
 ciples at stake. In the first place, there is the ques- 
 tion whether Jesus was born of a virgin or not, and 
 in the second place the question whether the virgin 
 birth is a fundamental article of Christian belief.”’ 
 
 “Quite right,” Pratt acknowledged, “‘and I 
 should say yes to both questions.”’ 
 
 “As would I,”’ laconically added Kilpatrick. 
 
 “Well, I admit an honest doubt as to the first 
 question,’ said Priest, ‘‘although I feel fairly certain 
 that Christ was born in the same way as you and I. 
 But I flatly disagree with you as to the second ques- 
 tion. Certainly Christ could be the Incarnate God 
 just as well if he were born of human parents as 
 if he were born of a virgin. Among my friends 
 in the modernist ranks there are plenty who believe 
 in the virgin birth, and plenty more who don't, but 
 they are all agreed that it is not a fundamental.” 
 
 “And that,’’ returned Pratt promptly, “is where 
 I disagree with them. I think the virgin birth is a 
 fundamental article of Christian faith because it is 
 recorded in the Bible and because it is a testimony to 
 the deity of Christ. You believe in Christ’s deity, 
 don’t you?” Priest nodded. “Well, where is your 
 evidence of Christ’s deity? It is no whit stronger 
 than the evidence for the virgin birth. If you re- 
 ject the virgin birth it’s a very short step to re- 
 jecting the deity.” 
 
 Priest shrugged his shoulders, “To me Christ’s 
 deity is so tremendous a thing that I can’t imagine 
 its hinging on the manner of his birth.”’ 
 
72 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Pratt appeared to be puzzling out his line of at- 
 tack when Graff suddenly turned to Beardsley and 
 said, “And why do you reject the virgin birth?” 
 
 ‘“‘Por a number of reasons,’’ said Beardsley, speak- 
 ing easily and gently tapping his empty pipe on his 
 knees. “In the first place I don’t believe in the deity 
 of Christ. Therefore the story of the virgin birth 
 seems to me a little preposterous. In the second 
 place, Iam very skeptical about any violations of the 
 laws of nature, and of course the fundamentalists 
 would admit, even insist, that the virgin birth was 
 such a violation. “These are my preconceptions, 
 as Pratt very justly calls them. Now I hope I 
 am willing to be convinced if shown satisfactory 
 evidence, but I give the Bible no special prestige 
 in matters of this kind, and I should expect from the | 
 Bible just as strong evidence as I should require 
 from any book, ancient or modern, which recorded 
 a virgin birth. “The evidence which the gospels give 
 seems to me insufficient, for I should need conclusive 
 proof before I could be convinced that such viola- 
 tion of natural law had taken place.” 
 
 “Viewing the stories purely as evidence,” I asked, 
 “what do you think of them?” 
 
 “Not very much. There is no reference to the 
 virgin birth in Mark, which is generally agreed to 
 be our oldest gospel, and apparently there was no 
 reference to it in the other document which Mat- 
 thew and Luke employed. ‘The gospels of Mat- 
 thew and Luke, moreover, make no reference to the 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 73 
 
 matter in their stories of Jesus’ life, and their de- 
 scriptions of the attitude of Jesus’ family toward 
 him would hardly seem fitting if we accept the vir- 
 gin birth. There is no evidence that Paul knew 
 anything about the virgin birth, and the author 
 of the fourth gospel chose not to make any refer- 
 ence to the event. Finally, there is a decided aroma 
 of mythology in both birth stories.” 
 
 “Aren’t you arguing almost entirely from si- 
 lence’ asked Pratt, ‘‘and isn’t that a weak argu- 
 ment? Besides I wonder if I could answer your 
 argument by suggesting that very few people knew 
 about the virgin birth. Obviously the detailed 
 reports which our gospels contain could only have 
 come from members of the Holy Family. Perhaps 
 the event was revealed to Matthew by Joseph and 
 to Luke by Mary.” 
 
 “Perhaps,” said Beardsley, smiling. 
 
 “How did the story of the virgin birth originate 
 if it is false?’’ persisted Pratt. “For all the claims 
 there really is no precise parallel.” 
 
 “T don’t know,” replied Beardsley, “and I hardly 
 think it’s essential for my case that I should know. 
 Where did the story of Buddha’s miraculous birth 
 come from? Whence did all the myths arise? I 
 don’t know. Perhaps, as Berguer suggests, man 
 has a psychological propensity for creating such 
 stories, modeling them according to fundamental 
 patterns of his mind. In any case I shouldn’t feel 
 that the presence of an exact parallel would prove 
 
74 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 that the gospel story was borrowed, and I certainly 
 don’t think that the absence of an exact parallel 
 proves that that story is true.” | 
 
 “You weren't,’ I said to Pratt, “‘suggesting that 
 if the story of the virgin birth isn’t true Jesus must 
 have been an illegitimate child?” 
 
 “Well 99 
 
 “For that,’’ I said, “seems to me very much un- 
 worthy of you. Youcan see, I hope, that the story 
 might have arisen in any one of many ways.” 
 
 ‘Yes,’ said Pratt heartily, “‘you’re right of 
 course.’ And then with a burst of naive candor 
 which made me admire him, “I’m afraid we some- 
 times use that business about illegitimacy as a 
 weapon. It’s really not fair.” 
 
 “Good!” cried Beardsley, and then, hastening to 
 change the subject, turned to Priest, “You would 
 agree with me on the whole, wouldn’t you?” 
 
 “On the whole, except that I believe in the deity 
 of Christ, which makes it easier for me to conceive 
 that he might have been miraculously born, I sup- 
 pose, though by and large I agree with you that the 
 evidence is insufficient.” 
 
 “Well, what about the deity?’’ asked Graff in his 
 casual manner. | 
 
 Pratt and Beardsley smiled at each other, and the 
 rest of us perceived that on that subject they had 
 exchanged views before. We waited for one or the 
 other to speak. Pratt, settling himself in his chair 
 and meticulously adjusting the cuffs of his golf- 
 
 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 75 
 
 stockings, spoke first. “I believe in the deity of 
 Christ,” he said. “Yes, I can say that I believe 
 it to be fundamental, not fundamental in the sense 
 that I would exclude from church fellowship those 
 who disagree, but in the sense that it is of the foun- 
 dation of the Christian Church. I cling to Jesus as a 
 man, and I find in his humanity guidance and 
 strength, but I do not find the humanity of Christ 
 sufficient to explain his character or his place in 
 history. How can you deal with Jesus if you deny 
 his deity? He will not fit into human categories; 
 there is something in him that is beyond human 
 experience. Moreover, without the fact of Christ's 
 deity what is there left for the Christian Church? 
 What distinguishes it from other religions? What 
 gives it its authority? To me it is a curious cir- 
 cumstance that, though throughout history heresies 
 have arisen denying the deity, they have all per- 
 ished. Look at Unitarianism. Recently it cele- 
 brated its one hundredth anniversary. Compare its 
 growth with the growth of the orthodox church~s 
 during the same period. With all due respect to my 
 friend Dr. Beardsley, I would say that Unitarianism 
 has never been a strong force except in an ethical 
 or intellectual way. It has never possessed spiritual 
 dynamic. And spiritual dynamic is such stuff as 
 churches are made of. I find in history, then, a 
 complete vindication of my belief in Christ’s deity.” 
 
 Dr. Beardsley’s angular face peered at Pratt. 
 “Well, Pratt,” he said, “a good deal of that argu- 
 
76 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 ment might well be applied to the infallibility of 
 the Bible.’’ 
 
 All of us, Pratt and Priest included, smiled, and 
 Pratt answered, “It had a reminiscent note, didn’t 
 it?’’ Then he added, “You might say to Priest, 
 ‘It is very comforting to believe in the deity of 
 Christ, but if the facts force you to the opposite 
 conclusion you have no choice.’”’ 
 
 “Very good!”’ cried Beardsley with an appreci- 
 ative smile, while Priest squirmed a little. “That 
 is my position exactly. I suppose that I should 
 like to believe that God had revealed himself 
 uniquely in Jesus, just as I—and Priest too—would 
 quite possibly feel more comfortable if we could 
 depend on an infallible Bible. The facts in both 
 cases force me to believe differently. It seems to 
 me that our gospels contain the record of a very 
 remarkable man, but a man. He is the highest 
 point in our civilization, a man of great insight, 
 marvelous capacity for noble living, and amazing 
 power of inspiration. It is no wonder that his 
 followers considered him a God. No man can 
 know him without becoming his disciple. Dr. Jef- 
 ferson says that the Bible is all the more valuable be- 
 cause it is human, but he will not concede that 
 Christ is all the more valuable because he is human. 
 With Christ as with the Bible, the first perception 
 of the exclusively human is a shock. One longs 
 for the comfort of the old view. But in time one 
 sees that one has not lost but gained, that the leader- 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST Tite 
 
 ship of Jesus the man is much more significant than 
 the leadership of Christ the Son of God. We realize 
 that this Jesus differed from us greatly in degree 
 but not at all in kind, that what he achieved we may 
 achieve. The significance of his words is greater, 
 his leadership stronger, his sacrifice more appealing, 
 and his example more inspiring. In the case of 
 the deity of Christ, as in so many cases, the liberal 
 thinks the foundations have gone, but finds that 
 they are firmer than ever.” 
 
 “You speak,’’ returned Priest, “‘of finding it 
 necessary to reject the deity of Christ. Why? Not 
 from any evidence in the Bible.” 
 
 “Oh, no,’”’ answered Beardsley. “After all, the 
 evidence can only hope to establish two things: 
 that Jesus’ associates believed that he bore a unique 
 relationship to God, which I readily grant; and that 
 he himself taught that he was thus unique, a point 
 somewhat in dispute. But granting both these 
 points would not establish Christ’s deity, for I 
 have already remarked that I grant the first point, 
 and as for the second I am willing to believe that 
 Jesus might be mistaken. No, the evidence is not, 
 and cannot be, conclusive. It is chiefly a matter for 
 theology. Without going too deep, I can only say 
 that the idea of the Trinity does not jibe with my 
 philosophy. No view of the relationship between 
 God and Jesus seems intelligible to me except that 
 view which makes Jesus a man, in whom the God- 
 spirit dwelt more fully than in any other man.” 
 
78 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 “We have to accept many things without under- 
 standing them,’’replied Priest. “If I did not be- 
 lieve in the deity of Christ I could hold little hope 
 for mankind. What you have said about Jesus’ 
 being more imitable because human leaves me cold. 
 As well tell men to imitate Shakespeare as to imi- 
 tate Jesus. If he is a man, he is truly unique, but if 
 God is incarnated in him, then he is the standard 
 by which we may regulate our lives, the goal of 
 our strivings, not the evidence of our inferiority. 
 I agree with Dr. Fosdick, who says, ‘If God be 
 not in him, God is not anywhere.’ ”’ 
 
 “T cannot but think,”’ said Beardsley, “‘that you 
 and I are closer together than you are willing to 
 believe.”’ 
 
 “Tl am afraid you are,” suddenly said Pratt, “but 
 if there is a difference, it is an important one. [ 
 think—I am not sure—that Priest has made a place 
 for the atoning death, but I can’t see how Beardsley 
 expects anyone to be saved.’ 
 
 “J fear that my theory of the atonement will not 
 satisfy you,’ Priest replied. “I hold that Christ, 
 the Son cf God, saves men by his influence. He 
 was the revelation of God, and without that revela- 
 tion man would be in darkness. But I believe that 
 his saving power lies in his life rather than in his 
 death.” 
 
 “Indeed I was right when I said we were not far 
 apart,’’ commented Beardsley. 
 
 “That seems to me a very weak theory of the 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 79 
 
 atonement,’’ said Pratt earnestly. ‘“‘I hold that God 
 sent Christ into the world that his death might 
 bring us salvation. By his death we have eternal 
 life.”’ 
 
 “Surely you do not hold that Christ’s death 
 ransomed men from the devil?’’ inquired Loring. 
 
 “Oh, no,’’ answered Pratt patiently, “that view 
 has not been commonly held for many years. I 
 believe that man fell through the exercise of his 
 free will, which was given him by God though 
 it limits his sovereignty. “Then, despite the fact » 
 that man had of his own volition rejected God’s 
 ways, God, because of his great love for men, sent 
 his Son into the world to bring man redemption. 
 ‘This is the theory of the substitutionary atone- 
 ment. I subscribe to it, not only because it fits 
 the facts of experience, but also because it is clearly 
 stated in the Bible. I cannot see that man can have 
 the slightest hope of salvation apart from Christ’s 
 death. It may be regrettable, but it seems self- 
 evident that not even Jesus’ example has made men 
 anywhere near good enough to be saved.” 
 
 “T can’t see that,’’ Beardsley said. “‘Quite pos- 
 sibly I’m not good enough to be saved, but I’m 
 sure I am too good to be damned.”’ Pratt’s red face 
 grew redder. “‘I am sure,’’ Beardsley went on, “that 
 when God took the trouble to develop man by 
 millions of years of evolution, He didn’t intend 
 him for the scrap-heap.” 
 
 “There you have the Unitarian of it,’’ Priest ex- 
 
80 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 claimed. “I, having been influenced by the Univer- 
 salists, believe that God is too good to damn man, 
 while you, to complete the bon mot, believe that 
 man is too good to be damned.”’ 
 
 “Do most modernists hold with you that all men 
 will be saved?” I asked Priest. 
 
 ‘Why, no. Dr. Gordon and a good many others 
 do, but some believe in conditional immortality, 
 and I suppose a few accept the idea that some men 
 are eternally damned.” 
 
 I observed that Beardsley was consulting his 
 watch, and I realized that the evening was far gone, 
 but before the conversation could drop Pratt re- 
 marked, “I suppose there’s no point in going further 
 with the fundamentals. The two other cardinal 
 points in the fundamentalist credo are the bodily 
 resurrection and the second coming, in both of 
 which I believe.”’ 
 
 “TI may believe in them figuratively,”’ said Priest. 
 “but in any case I don’t consider them fundamental. 
 If we believe that we are immortal, I can’t see that 
 the bodily resurrection matters one way or the other, 
 and as for the second coming I am willing to let that 
 wait until it happens, striving in the meantime to 
 establish the Kingdom of God on earth.”’ 
 
 “Ts there any hope,’’ I asked, ‘‘that the funda- 
 mentalists and modernists can come together?”’ 
 
 Priest answered, “It has been suggested that they 
 could unite on a program that would appeal to both. 
 Sherwood Eddy, I believe, suggests the following: 
 
THE FUNDAMENTALS AND CHRIST 81 
 
 an inspired Word of God, Jesus’ way of life, a 
 risen and divine Savior, the eternal principle of 
 sacrifice, the coming of the Kingdom of God 
 through the law of love.” 
 
 “Well, of course we believe in these principles,” 
 said Pratt. “They are true, but without the funda- 
 mentals I have named they are only part truths. 
 For us to concede that the five items Priest has men- 
 tioned are the essentials of Christianity would be 
 for us to deny the true essentials.’’ 
 
 “What will the end of the fundamentalist- 
 modernist controversy be?’”’ I asked, leading them 
 on. 
 
 Priest answered, ‘““‘Who can tell? Neither side 
 can give in. Of course I hope that through educa- 
 tion the fundamentalists may broaden out 5 
 
 “While I,’”’ Pratt interrupted, ‘‘pray daily that 
 the modernists may be brought to see the light.” 
 
 “Exactly,’’ said Priest with a weary shrug of his 
 shoulders. “In the end it appears to me that there 
 will be division of Protestant Christians into two 
 camps, which may not be a bad thing in a way, 
 for it will clear out a good deal of wasteful de- 
 nominational machinery.” 
 
 “Did it ever occur to you,’’ asked Graff blandly, 
 “that perhaps by the time that happens the majority 
 of the people will be outside the churches and will 
 be slightly amused but otherwise untouched by the 
 fundamentalist-modernist futilities?’’ 
 
 I chuckled, but no one spoke, and Dr. Beardsley 
 
 
 
82 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 hastened to rise. “Gentlemen,” he said, ‘‘this dis- 
 cussion could go on indefinitely, but we have to- 
 morrow, and this outing of ours is for some of us 
 a rest as well as an argument. May I suggest that 
 we retire? I will show you to your respective 
 rooms.” 
 
CHAPTER EIGHT 
 THE KINGDOM OF GOD 
 
 The exceeding roominess and comfort of the 
 bungalow appeared as we paired off for bed, Priest 
 and I sharing a room under the eaves. I was tired 
 enough to rejoice in Priest’s taciturnity, and we 
 went to bed and to sleep almost immediately. In 
 the morning I awoke to hear voices in the corridor, 
 and rousing Priest I dressed. When we had hur- 
 ried downstairs we found that Beardsley was be- 
 fore us. He directed us to get what we wanted and 
 eat. We were still at the table when Graff came in, 
 with two pairs of skis in his hands. Having been 
 the first to eat, he had rummaged at Beardsley’s 
 suggestion through a great closet, whence he had 
 produced the skis. Priest refused to go out, on the 
 ground that he had brought with him work which 
 he was under obligations to finish. Beardsley also 
 pleaded the excuse of work, and Graff and I started 
 out before the others were up. 
 
 After a most strenuous morning we directed our 
 ungainly foot-wear back to the bungalow, arriving 
 shortly before noon. The great living room was 
 deserted, but we could not fail to hear a riotous 
 
 83 
 
84 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 tumult in an adjoining room. Opening the door 
 we found what might have been a good-sized 
 studio, barren now of all kinds of furniture ex- 
 cept one huge table, on which Beardsley and Kil- 
 patrick were playing a ferocious game of ping-pong. 
 We joined Loring, Pratt, and Priest, who were 
 cheering them on, and before long we were partici- 
 pating in the championship tournament, which, by 
 the way, Priest easily won. After we had rebuked 
 Priest and Beardsley for pretending to have work 
 and had sufficiently commented upon our virtuous 
 superiority in spending the morning in the open, 
 we left the game to prepare lunch, Graff having 
 promised to initiate me into the culinary mysteries 
 involved. Luncheon over, we foregathered once 
 more around the fireplace. 
 
 Graff, who was in fine fettle, led off by saying, 
 “A good deal of the time yesterday you seemed to 
 be speaking a foreign language. If I were in the 
 presence of a group of medieval scholastics dis- 
 cussing the number of angels who could stand on 
 the point of a needle I couldn’t feel more out of 
 place, and less in touch with reality. I have no 
 wish to indulge in the crude, uncritical, and un- 
 sympathetic attacks on religion which character- 
 ized seventeenth century deism and nineteenth cen- 
 tury atheism. I believe that science has outgrown 
 such controversies. “They were natural enough in 
 their time, when everything seemed to depend on 
 a successful rejection of the miracles, but now most 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 85 
 
 men of science have reached the point where they 
 are quite indifferent to the controversial questions of 
 religion, and they can therefore afford to be sym- 
 pathetic. They cannot, however—or at least I can- 
 not—get excited over such questions as the virgin 
 birth.” 
 
 “We are beginning a new day,” said Beardsley 
 pleasantly. “What would you suggest?” 
 
 “Oh, I don’t care. Let’s have a debate as to 
 Whether or not Jesus ever lived. Ill take the 
 negative.” 
 
 “That's really too much, Graff,’”’ I cried. ‘You 
 know that the evidence for the existence of Jesus 
 is overwhelming.” 
 
 “Um. Let’s see. What is the evidence? There 
 are the gospels. Is there anything else? Josephus 
 tells us very little about Jesus, and most, if not 
 all, of what he said is generally thought to have been 
 added. He was writing not many years after Jesus 
 lived, and he was attempting to give a complete 
 history. How could he have ignored as important 
 an event as the life of Jesus?” 
 
 “It has been suggested,”’ I replied, ‘‘that Josephus, 
 who was writing for Gentiles, deliberately avoided 
 reference to Messianic movements. And there are 
 other suggestions. But I think it is enough to say 
 that Jesus was so inconspicuous that Josephus did 
 not think him worthy of mention.” 
 
 “Quite a concession,” said Graff. “But all I want 
 
 , 
 
86 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 to point out is that there is no reliable witness in 
 secular history to the existence of Jesus.” 
 
 “Granted. But the argument from silence proves 
 nothing, and besides we have the gospels.’’ 
 
 “Oh, if you’ll base your case on the gospels that’s 
 all right. Then all I reply is that the gospels are 
 pure fiction. They were made up by the adherents 
 of Christianity.” 
 
 “But where did Christianity come from, if 
 Jesus never lived?” asked Pratt in perplexity. 
 
 “It was simply a synthesis of Greek and Jewish 
 thought. Most scholars will tell you that there is 
 comparatively little in Christianity which cannot 
 be traced to Greek or Jewish sources. It began 
 with a few men who borrowed from both cultures. 
 Among other borrowings from the Greeks was the 
 idea of a savior-god, which came from the mysteries. 
 At first Jesus was no more a real man than Orpheus, 
 Mithra, or the Great Mother, but gradually the con- 
 viction grew that he actually had lived on earth, 
 and then there came to be biographies of him, uti- 
 lizing the myths that had grown up. Probably the 
 letters of Paul are the earliest documents we have, 
 and certainly they might well give the impression 
 that Christ was not a historical character. Perhaps 
 the fourth gospel was next; who knows? And 
 finally, of course, the synoptics, where the human- 
 ization is at its maximum.” 
 
 “Very ingenious,” I replied, “but hardly con- 
 vincing. It is rather too long a process to have 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 87 
 
 taken place in fifty years, and yet there is much to 
 indicate that Mark was written by the year 80 at 
 the latest.”’ 
 
 “Very simple,” he answered. “Probably this de- 
 velopment took place over two or three centuries. 
 Once we do away with the idea of a historical Jesus, 
 we don’t have to have him die in the year 30, do 
 we? This sect may have been developing for years 
 before that time.” 
 
 “IT see you have read your Drews and your 
 Smith, but do you really find any evidence for this 
 pre-Christian Jesus? Do you find any satisfaction 
 in the parallels that Jensen draws? Moreover, isn’t 
 it usually the case that history moves from the per- 
 sonal to the idealization and deification, rather than 
 the other way.” 
 
 “And yet it is frequently stated that the superior- 
 ity of Christianity over the mysteries lies in the fact 
 that it had a historical founder. Might not the 
 members of this Jesus-sect have realized the ad- 
 vantages? But’ he laughed, “I really agree with 
 you that there is not much doubt that Jesus lived. 
 I find the parallels and the word-plays very poor 
 stuff, and I grant that a tendency in the direction 
 of making a god a man would be most unusual. 
 All I wanted to do was to liven the discussion a bit.” 
 
 “And this was the man,” remarked Pratt, in a 
 low but perfectly audible tone, “that wanted us to 
 discuss something real. He said he couldn’t under- 
 
88 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 
 
 stand the language we spoke. Well We 
 laughed, Graff as heartily as the rest. 
 
 “Yet,’’ I suggested, “‘hasn’t Graff done us a serv- 
 ice by suggesting how little we really know about 
 Jesus? I sometime marvel at the temerity of these 
 people who write biographies of Jesus, when we 
 know so little about his life.”’ 
 
 “It seems to me that we know quite a bit about 
 Jesus,’’ Beardsley remarked. ‘“We have the four 
 gospels.” 
 
 “And yet that’s not so very much,” I answered. 
 “When you have made allowance for repetitions 
 the remainder is quite slight. All of Mark practically 
 is in either Matthew or Luke, and of course they 
 duplicate each other considerably in the non-Marcan 
 material. “Th: c leaves a comparatively small body 
 of material, if we exclude the fourth gospel, which 
 presents a view of Jesus so different from that of 
 the synoptics that many scholars are dubious how 
 much of it to accept. But even if we utilize every 
 available item of information, we have nothing 
 about Jesus’ childhood and youth. We have the 
 account of three years at the most, and a very 
 sketchy account of that. Far from covering every 
 incident of Jesus’ life during those three years, the 
 gospels touch only a few scattered events. Far 
 from giving all his sayings, they preserve for us a 
 mere handful.” 
 
 “Nonetheless,” Priest commented, “we know 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 89 
 
 quite as much about Jesus as we do about most 
 men in antiquity.” 
 
 “Except, of course, that he left no writings. It 
 is little enough at best that we have, and that little 
 is not entirely reliable. The gospels are not the work 
 of modern historians, but the random writings of 
 men who were setting down at second hand what 
 they learned from Jesus’ disciples. “hey were not 
 interested in accuracy as we use the term, and they 
 were influenced by their own desires and prejudices. 
 The result is uncertainty.” 
 
 “You don’t leave us much to stand on,” com- 
 mented Priest, “and yet on the whole I think you’re 
 tight. But I should like to point out that one often 
 learns much about the character of a man from a 
 chance account of a chance act as from volumes of 
 biography, and that a man’s teaching may some- 
 times be as well summed up in a few sentences as 
 in a series of books.” 
 
 “There is truth in that,” I replied, “and yet 
 where there is much that is seemingly contradictory 
 it is hard to know what act or what words.” 
 
 Priest pondered briefly. “Well,” he said, “I 
 think I can safely call Jesus’ teaching about the 
 Kingdom of God central.” 
 
 Kilpatrick and Pratt nodded slightly, as did 
 Beardsley. “All right,” I said, “what does Jesus 
 teach about the Kingdom of God?” 
 
 “To speak in our language instead of his, he 
 
90 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 means a better social order based on righteousness 
 and brotherly love.” 
 
 “Maybe! But I don’t see where you find much 
 about the social order,” cried Beardsley. 
 
 “Nor I! declared Pratt. 
 
 “It doesn’t appear on the surface perhaps,” was 
 Priest’s reply. “The men who wrote the gospels 
 were obsessed with the idea that Christ was soon -to 
 return, and they therefore tended to forget or ignore 
 specific social teachings, but the spirit is there and 
 can easily be found by one who approaches the 
 gospels with an open mind. ‘Take the teachings 
 relative to non-resistance. Do you suppose that they 
 had no bearing on the most acute problem facing the 
 Jews, the problem of the attitude to be shown to- 
 ward Rome? ‘The Zealots wanted to fight Rome, 
 trusting in God to bring them the victory. Jesus 
 counseled the people to build up their civilization 
 and to overcome the Romans by moral strength and 
 not by force. Look at Jesus’ attitude toward the 
 downtrodden, the harlots, the poor, and so forth. 
 Look at his attitude toward the hated tax-gatherers. 
 Always he was trying to make them better members 
 of society, the while he sought to socialize the at- 
 titude which other people took toward them. The 
 high value which he places on personality is 
 strongly indicative of the trend of his social teach- 
 ings. His wide humanitarianism reflects itself in 
 his attitude toward the Sabbath, where he shows 
 that he puts life above institutions. He insists that 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 91 
 
 wealth is not to be sought after, and he vigorously 
 attacks the rich, but such passages as the parable 
 of the steward give the impression that he was at- 
 tacking the misuse of wealth rather than the fact 
 of wealth. He was interested in the family and 
 sought to maintain its purity. He was democratic 
 and held that the rulers should be the servants of 
 the people. In the phrase, the Kingdom of God, 
 . Jesus summed up all his social ideas. As Shailer 
 Mathews puts it, ‘By the Kingdom of God Jesus 
 meant an ideal social order in which the relation of 
 men to God is that of sons and to each other that 
 of brothers.’ ”’ 
 
 “No,”’ said Beardsley with a friendly but sardonic 
 smile, “I can’t see that. It seems to me that Jesus 
 is much more original and much keener of insight 
 than you make him out to be. If it had been the 
 social teacher you describe he would have been quite 
 in line with the prophets, and like them he would 
 have attacked the social abuses of his times, the cor- 
 ruption of the government, the vice of the great 
 cities, the oppressions practiced by the rich, and the 
 general lack of faith. He would not have hesitated 
 to express his attitude toward Rome, nor would 
 he have been sparing in his denunciations. It was 
 an age when a social reformer would not have been 
 amiss, and I doubt if the Jews would have crucified 
 him, though the Romans might. No, Jesus chose 
 the more difficult task. He realized that all social 
 reform is futile unless one first reforms the indi- 
 
92 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 vidual. “Therefore he said, ‘The Kingdom of God 
 is within you,’ truly the most significant, the most 
 revealing phrase in all his teachings. What is the 
 parable of the sowers but a parable of the way in 
 which the Kingdom can develop in the hearts of 
 men? Iam surprised, Priest, that you did not fol- 
 low Charles Foster Kent in his opinion that the 
 parable of the laborers in the vineyard teaches the 
 principle of the minimum wage. Of course it 
 manifestly teaches that men can achieve the central 
 righteousness which is the Kingdom of God, even 
 though they are late in doing so. All the parables, 
 of the pearl, of the mustard seed, and all the rest, 
 teach the same message. Jesus is trying to implant 
 in man a new idea of God, the fatherhood, and 
 a new attitude toward God and toward life. He 
 knows that this seed, if once rooted, will grow and 
 flourish, and he is confident that eventually it will 
 make a new and better social order.” 
 
 “You have admitted half my point,” returned 
 Priest, “when you say that Jesus was aiming at a 
 better social order, even though you believe he was 
 aiming at it indirectly. There is, however, a most 
 important difference between us. I say that Jesus 
 aimed directly at improving the social order, and 
 you say that he sought to improve individuals. We 
 disagree chiefly as to the method he took, and there 
 is much to be said on both sides.” 
 
 Graff precipitated himself into the conversation 
 with his usual suddenness. “You talk about ac- 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 93 
 
 cepting the historical evidence, and yet you flatly 
 ignore the obvious fact that Jesus meant the King- 
 dom of God in an eschatalogical sense. How else 
 can you interpret his remark to the High Priest 
 at his trial? ‘Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting 
 at the right hand of power and coming with the 
 clouds of Heaven.’ Then there is the long passage, 
 which is found in Mark, the earliest gospel, giving 
 the eschatalogical program in detail. Knowing 
 what we do about the Messianic hope of the Jews, 
 is it possible to interpret such passages other than 
 literally?” 
 
 Priest replied, “The passages are there, but they 
 seem almost certainly to be interpolations. After 
 Christ’s death the idea grew up that he would soon 
 return, and therefore it was felt that he must have 
 promised a second coming. ‘Thus these passages 
 crept into the gospels. They were influenced, more- 
 over, by the hard times through which the Jews and 
 Christians were both passing. The chapter in 
 Mark, for example, clearly refers to the destruction 
 of Jerusalem in the year 70.” 
 
 Pratt would not give Graff an opportunity to 
 reply. Almost stammering in his eagerness, he said, 
 “JT am very glad that Professor Graff has raised this 
 point, which seems to me to be fundamental. We 
 have these passages, and there is no objective reason 
 for rejecting them. I personally believe that Jesus 
 meant them literally. It is on the basis of these 
 passages that we fundamentalists believe that Jesus 
 
94 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 will return to judge the world in his own good 
 time.” 
 
 “I also accept them literally,” said Graff, “but 
 with an important reservation. I believe that Jesus 
 was mistaken. You hold that Jesus was referring 
 to an event which is still in the future. I believe, 
 however, that he had in mind an event that was to 
 take place in a very short time after he delivered 
 those words. Probably he believed at first that the 
 day of doom would come during his own lifetime, 
 but later, when he realized that he must suffer and 
 die, he believed that the day would be postponed 
 until the time of his death or soon after. I find 
 this attitude coloring all his teachings. I agree with 
 Schweitzer that the eschatalogical interpretation of 
 Jesus’ life is the only adequate one. From the very 
 beginning of his career Jesus believed that he was 
 the Messiah, a conviction that came to him, I think, 
 at the time of his baptism. His acts, the healings 
 and so-called miracles, were signs of his Messiah- 
 ship. He concealed his conviction from all, even 
 the disciples, until late in his career. Finally, at 
 Caesarea Philippi, he confessed his ambitions and 
 his faith, and on entering Jerusalem he for the first 
 time publicly assumed the Messianic role. That he 
 believed the Kingdom was at hand is shown in the 
 instructions which he delivered to the disciples on 
 sending them forth, but it is also apparent in all 
 his teachings. He preaches a mere interim-ethic, a 
 course of action suitable for people who are await- 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD . 95 
 
 ‘ing the end, but not suitable for people to continue 
 to live by.” 
 
 Graff was now the center of the discussion, and 
 one could see by his face that he enjoyed his posi- 
 tion. Pratt was the first to fire a question at him. 
 “I agree with some of the things that you have said 
 but not with others. What reason have you for 
 saying that Jesus expected the end at once?” 
 
 “I should think it would be enough for you 
 that he said that some then living would never taste 
 death, but that is not enough for me, for I can’t 
 argue, as you do, that he must have made that re- 
 mark because the Bible attributes it to Him. No, 
 it is the whole tone of the thirteenth chapter of 
 Mark that convinces me.” 
 
 Pratt apparently had a reply ready, but Priest 
 forestalled him. “As I say, certain passages support 
 your point of view, but I have tried to show that 
 they are interpolations. I might add to what I 
 have already said that Jesus may have used the 
 Messianic terminology to a minor degree because he 
 could not otherwise have made himself intelligible 
 to his contemporaries. He used language which 
 roughly described his conception of his purpose, 
 but he used the terms loosely. The trouble came 
 when the evangelists not only took these statements 
 literally, but also expanded them because of their 
 conviction that the end was at hand.” 
 
 Beardsley nodded approvingly at Priest, and 
 Graff caught the gesture. “I don’t want to seem 
 
96 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 personal,” he said, “but it seems to me that most 
 of your difficulty arises from your unwillingness 
 to admit the possibility of Jesus’ being mistaken.” 
 
 Beardsley answered, his long, yellow hands play- 
 ing casually with a book, “It isn’t merely a matter 
 of being mistaken. If Jesus believed himself the 
 Son of Man in the Messianic sense, the deliverer of 
 Israel, the central figure in the Day of Doom, then, 
 as you have suggested, his ethics have no validity 
 for our time.” 
 
 “T object to that,” I hurriedly interposed, “and I 
 should like to put forth a view that reconciles the 
 opinion of Graff to some extent with yours. I think 
 that Graff is entirely right in saying that eschata- 
 logical conceptions dominated Jesus’ idea of him- 
 self, but I think that he—and Schweitzer—are 
 wrong in saying that Jesus therefore preached an 
 interim-ethic. JI am not sure that for Jesus an in- 
 terim-ethic would have differed so very much from 
 a personal ethic, but, and this is more important, I 
 hold in any case that Jesus was not so consistent as 
 Graff would have us believe. He would make it 
 appear that Jesus thought of nothing but his 
 Messiahship. My idea of Jesus is that he was less 
 intense than that. He accepted his mission, devot- 
 ing himself to it whole-heartedly, but that did not 
 prevent him from being interested in individuals. 
 In that respect I agree with Dr. Beardsley as against 
 Mr. Priest. Either because his mind didn’t work 
 that way, or because his confidence that the end was 
 
THE KINGDOM OF GOD 97 
 
 at hand made him indifferent, he didn’t pay much 
 attention to institutions. But he paid much at- 
 tention to individuals. This interest in individuals 
 seems to me to be inextricably bound up with the 
 Messianic element, and I do not believe that we can 
 understand Jesus without taking both into con- 
 sideration. What does he say about the Kingdom 
 of God? Very little. What he talks about is what 
 we must do to inherit the Kingdom. In other words 
 he is interested principally in conduct, and the 
 phrase, the Kingdom of God, simply sums up the 
 whole thing. It is meant literally, just as Graff 
 says, but it is applied in terms of individual conduct, 
 just as Beardsley says.” 
 
 There was general discussion, and I defended and 
 enlarged upon my thesis, trying to show that Jesus’ 
 views on conduct were not modified by his belief in 
 the imminence of the end. Then Kilpatrick spoke, 
 “IT should like to express another view of the King- 
 dom of God, namely, that by that term Jesus desig- 
 nated the Church. Jesus founded the Church, and 
 He must have realized its importance, but he seldom 
 referred to it explicitly. Clearly, then, what he had 
 in mind when speaking of the Kingdom was the 
 Church. Many Protestant theologians have recog- 
 nized this. Ritschl, I believe, made a distinction, 
 saying that the Kingdom was informal and the 
 Church formal. I, of course, do not make that dis- 
 tinction.” 
 
 Loring brushed the ash from his cigarette, and 
 
98 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 with the heavy humor which had endeared him to 
 many women’s clubs remarked, “Six people, six 
 opinions. Was ever the old proverb, ‘Ouot homines, 
 tot sententiae,’ better exemplified? And what 
 shall I, a poor layman, a humble student of science, 
 do? Shall I advance a seventh opinion, or shall 
 I remain silent, thus giving the impression that I 
 am really the wisest of the lot?” We laughed good- 
 naturedly, partly perhaps at his sleek smile of 
 self-satisfaction. 
 
CHAPTER NINE 
 JESUS-AND THE LIFE OF TO-DAY 
 
 After we had shifted our positions and Priest 
 and I had attended to the lighting of our pipes, 
 Beardsley remarked, “‘It is queer how a discussion 
 on one phase of a man’s life or message will involve 
 consideration of his entire personality and his place 
 in history.” 
 
 “Yes,” said Kilpatrick, “there really seems to be 
 nothing left to say about Jesus.” 
 
 ‘Thus we tentatively agreed that the discussion 
 was closed, and having so agreed we immediately 
 reopened it. I was responsible, for I casually said, 
 “IT notice that Klausner in his new book reaffirms 
 what has many times been said, namely, that there 
 is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that cannot be 
 paralleled in Jewish sources.’ 
 
 “Ah, yes,” said Beardsley, “that may be true, 
 but there is about him a sense of leadership which 
 can scarcely be defined but which cannot be 
 ignored.” 
 
 “Now,” I replied, “you have raised the whole 
 question of the value of Jesus to-day.” 
 
 “I should hardly call that a question,” Pratt 
 
 ) 99 
 
100 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 stated. “Jesus means to-day what he has always 
 meant. He is the living Son of God, who at a 
 period of history took on human form in order 
 that he might bring about the salvation of those 
 who believe in him. Without Christ there is no 
 hope of salvation, no Christian religion, no meaning 
 in life. By the role he played when on earth and 
 by his divine influence since his resurrection he is 
 the most important figure in human history. Value 
 —without him there simply is no value anywhere.” 
 
 “Amen!”’ cried Kilpatrick. ‘‘But I would add to 
 your account of the value of Jesus. He was and is 
 all that you say, but his value is immeasurably 
 enhanced for our day by the fact that he created the 
 Church and founded the sacraments. Thus he pro- 
 vided both a way of salvation and an insttument of 
 guidance in this life. Through the Church he still 
 offers men eternal life and still guides them through 
 the world’s temptations.” 
 
 I turned to Beardsley. “You,” I said, “believe, 
 as do I, that Jesus was only a man. What would 
 you say about his value?”’ 
 
 “You tempt me, young man,” he replied, “for 
 that is a subject on which I have preached many a 
 sermon. I will try to be restrained. For me Jesus 
 is a great man and a great leader. By his life he set 
 the highest standards for our lives, by his death he 
 gave us our supreme example of self-sacrifice, by his 
 teachings he established ideals for all times. To me 
 Jesus is the man above men, the great leader and 
 
JESUS AND THE LIFE OF TO-DAY 101 
 
 example, a man to be admired, to be loved, to be 
 followed.” 
 
 “T feel much as Beardsley does,’’ said Priest, ‘‘and 
 like him I revere Jesus as a leader. or me Jesus 
 is all he is for Beardsley and much more. Beardsley 
 speaks of him as he would of any man who had 
 lived and died and set a good example. I never 
 think of Christ as dead. ‘To me he is more alive 
 than any of our contemporaries. He works with us 
 and through us. As I look back on the great 
 struggles in which men have sought to establish 
 social justice I see the hand and the influence of 
 Christ, not the influence of his example but his 
 living influence. As I see men battling for human~ 
 ity to-day I know that they are working with 
 Christ, guided and encouraged by him. I am not 
 interested very much in whether he was the In- 
 carnate Logos or not, nor in whether he thought of 
 himself as the Davidic Messiah or the Son of Man. 
 Any term is but man’s feeble attempt to describe 
 the glory of Jesus. I am interested in his magnifi- 
 cent life, in the revelation of God in him, in his 
 eternal influence in the affairs of men. “To me the 
 long record of social progress is only explicable in 
 terms of his living contacts with men’s souls. 
 Slavery has gone, womanhood has been uplifted, 
 the ignorant have been enlightened, the sinful have 
 been saved—all through his influence. When I look 
 upon the non-Christian world and see the suffering, 
 misery, degradation that there exist, I know what 
 
102 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Christ means. When I try to think of God without 
 thinking of his revelation in Christ, I know what 
 Christ means. When I meditate upon the vastness 
 of the universe and the insignificance of man in 
 nature, I know what Christ means. Christ a man, 
 yes, but fortunately for us, more than a man.” 
 
 So impassioned a flow of oratory from the suave 
 Priest dazed me for a moment, and none of us felt 
 inclined to question or to attack him. After a brief 
 hush Beardsley spoke. ‘“There we have the modern- 
 ist view, expressed with a passionate mysticism 
 which is none too plentiful in modernist ranks or 
 elsewhere.”’ 
 
 “It is the sort of thing,” seriously commented 
 Graff, “at which I can only marvel. I should like 
 to tell, however, what Jesus means to an atheist. 
 Of course he is to me simply a man, but a great one, 
 He lived a noble life, under the impetus, as I am 
 constrained to believe, of a great delusion. He was 
 moved by high ideals, ideals which still have their 
 validity. I accept such of his ideals as prove valid 
 for me, and the others I do not hesitate to reject. 
 He was not infallible, but he possessed keen insight 
 into human nature, and his goals for human life 
 were high. I reverence him as I do Plato, Galileo, 
 Newton, Darwin—as an adventurer and a dis- 
 coverer.” 
 
 ‘For once,”’ said Loring, “Graff and I are in es- 
 sential agreement, though I, not being an atheist, 
 
JESUS AND THE LIFE OF TO-DAY 103 
 
 would add that Jesus gives us great insight into the 
 character of the divine.” 
 
 “It is remarkable, is it not,’ said Beardsley, ‘chow 
 Jesus lays hold of all men?” 
 
 He was about to turn to another theme when I 
 interrupted. “It is indeed remarkable,’’ I began, 
 “and the remarkable thing about it is that most men 
 find in Jesus a reflection of their own ideals. Take 
 any number of recent biographies. For Bruce Barton 
 Jesus is a modern business man, the he-man type, 
 an advertiser, a Rotary Club speaker, and the like. 
 For Mary Austin he is a mystic. For Klausner and 
 Jacobs he is a Jew. For Kautsky he is a socialist. 
 And I might goon. What is the significance of this? 
 ‘To me it is simply that, as Beardsley has said, the 
 figure of Jesus has laid hold of men. At first they 
 thought of him as the Son of Man, then Paul 
 thought of him more or less as the risen god of a 
 cult of salvation, then the author of the fourth 
 gospel identified him with the Logos, then the 
 theologians battled for centuries as to how his 
 nature could be both human and divine. Always 
 he was the instrument of salvation, whether in the 
 terms of the mysteries, in the crude barter theory of 
 the Middle Ages, or in the atonement theory of 
 Anselm. Always the man himself was obscured. 
 And then suddenly men became interested in the 
 man himself. They wanted the historical Jesus, 
 but they couldn’t find him. All that was left was 
 the mythical figure in what Santayana calls ‘the 
 
104 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Christian, epic.’ The scholars went to the gospels, 
 and some of them admitted that their research was 
 fruitless. Other men and women, not scholars, 
 went to the gospels, and finally they brought forth 
 a man in their own image. So many recent bi- 
 ographers, as I have said, have simply embodied 
 their own ideals in Jesus. So we have on the one 
 hand the historical Jesus, whom we can but vaguely 
 discern and who is not particularly important for 
 our day. On the other hand we have a multitude 
 of figures, the mythological Christs, not only of the 
 churches but of groups of men and women outside 
 the churches. Each figure represents a body of 
 ideals that were vital at the time and in the place 
 of its creation, and each figure is therefore im- 
 portant. But none of these figures is the Jesus 
 who was born in Palestine and died there some 
 nineteen centuries ago.” 
 
CHAPTER TEN 
 THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL 
 
 “Well, that seems to be that,’’ commented Beards- 
 ley with a comical grimace. “Where do we go 
 from here?” 
 
 “I should like to hear Mr. Priest expound his 
 ideas on the social duties of the Church,’ I re- 
 marked. 
 
 “Good,” said Beardsley, with a smile and a nod 
 at Priest. 
 
 Priest smiled back, giving a twist to his mustache. 
 “Gladly,” he said, “though I warn you that it is 
 a favorite theme of mine, and that once I get wound 
 up there’s no stopping me.” 
 
 “TIl rely on this crowd to stop anybody,” 
 Beardsley told him. 
 
 “On your head be the responsibility, then. In 
 the first place, I have already indicated that I think 
 of Jesus as the supreme teacher of the social gospel. 
 I find in his words not only a sanction for the 
 social enterprise of the Church but also a direct 
 exhortation. Of course here I have to distinguish 
 between my attitude and that of Beardsley. Beards- 
 ley would hold, I imagine, that Jesus is not of 
 
 105 
 
106 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 particular value as a social teacher because he does 
 not give specific statements on the solutions of 
 economic problems. He might also argue that 
 being limited by his own horizon Jesus could not 
 possibly show us how to deal with our modern 
 social problems. My answer would be based on the 
 fact that I regard Jesus as more than a man. There- 
 fore any word of his is significant for me. Though 
 it is quite true that he makes no attempt to legislate 
 on the question of poverty, for example, the fact 
 that he is interested in the poor justifies our taking 
 an interest, and so it goes with the other great social 
 problems. ‘That is, I am interested in Jesus’ ex- 
 ample in dealing with social problems, even though 
 there is no specific legislation. And that leads to 
 my second point. Even though Jesus might have 
 been perfectly capable of dealing with the most 
 complex problems, his disciples could not have per- 
 petuated his teachings because they could not have 
 understood them. As it is, however, he deals with 
 the fundamental principles which must underlie 
 every sound social order, and in many cases, though 
 not all, he leaves the application to us.”’ 
 
 “There,” said Beardsley, going straight to the 
 point, “is the question: whom do you mean by us? 
 Do you mean the ministers and church officials or 
 do you mean men in general?” 
 
 “I had in mind ministers and church officials,” 
 admitted Priest. 
 
 “Then right there is where we disagree. I be- 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL 107 
 
 lieve that Jesus did lay down fundamental prin- 
 ciples, just as you do, but I believe that it is left to 
 every man to apply them for himself. It is our 
 duty as preachers to spread these principles, to get 
 men to accept them, but it is the duty of those men 
 to apply them—in their own lives.’’ 
 
 _ “But,” replied Priest, “people do not understand 
 the implications of these principles. In particular 
 they do not comprehend how they bear on social 
 relations. For another thing, people are frequently 
 ignorant of the way in which to go about applica- 
 tion. They simply don’t understand the facts in the 
 CAs 
 
 “And you presume that ministers are able to 
 give them the facts?’’ Beardsley asked drily. 
 
 “In many cases, yes. At least ministers can set 
 people thinking. But better than that ministers 
 can see that their people get expert information. 
 The steel strike report-is a case in point. Few 
 ministers could adequately inform their parishes as 
 to the merits of that strike, but through the experts’ 
 report they were able to give them accurate infor- 
 mation. I firmly believe that the chief duty of the 
 Church to-day is to reinterpret the gospel in terms 
 of the needs of the times. Great Scott, our grand- 
 fathers didn’t hesitate to apply Jesus’ teaching, 
 but they applied it to individual conduct. Why 
 isn’t it just as legitimate for us to apply it to social 
 conduct?” 
 
 “My reply would simply be that in my opinion 
 
108 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 it is quite futile for us to talk about this solution 
 or that. We have to hammer away at changing 
 human nature, by no means the impossible task 
 that some people seem to think. Alter individual 
 character, and the social order will take care of 
 itself.” 
 
 “Granted,” said Priest, “but sometimes it seems 
 a little difficult to change character without chang- 
 ing environments too. Occasionally one can make 
 an appeal strike home, but usually when men are 
 over-worked and underpaid, when they live in con- 
 ditions of indescribable squalor, when they’re badly 
 nourished, left uncared for when sick, burdened 
 with innumerable children—well, just try and 
 change their souls.” 
 
 “That is true,”’ said I, “but how will preaching 
 change all this?” 
 
 “By getting under the skin of other people,” he 
 returned. “Most of the capitalist class are nomi- 
 nally Christians. Tell them that to be Christians in 
 fact they must eliminate such conditions. Through- 
 out the country there are men and women who are 
 beginning to accept the spirit of Jesus. Show them 
 how that spirit must be applied. They will leaven 
 the whole country, create a body of enlightened 
 public opinion, and pave the way for better things. 
 We preachers can create a body of socially-minded 
 Christians who will change conditions and make 
 it possible for these others, the downtrodden, to 
 come to a place where we can reasonably hope to 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL 109 
 
 reach them with our gospel. The saving of souls, 
 the changing of character, the awakening of the 
 divine spark are of tremendous importance, but 
 they’re not neglected, as Beardsley believes, just be- 
 cause we drive home their significance in the achieve- 
 ing of a better social order.” 
 
 “That’s all very well,” I interrupted, “and I be- 
 lieve that the Church might well state moral prin- 
 ciples in terms of social duties, but what I can’t 
 sanction is the constant reference to the social teach- 
 ings. In the first place I think there are no social 
 teachings of Jesus. I agree with Beardsley that he 
 was interested in the individual. But even if there 
 were I don’t see why they should be made the 
 standards to-day. I agree with Dr. Jacks, who 
 intimated that he was sick of all this talk about 
 Jesus’ way of dealing with problems. He suggested 
 that we try to find the best way and take a chance 
 on its being Christian.” 
 
 “That sounds very well,” Priest replied, “but I 
 can’t see how one can hope to find the best way 
 without taking the way of Jesus into account. 
 Whether he was interested in social problems or not, 
 he touched on the fundamentals of morality, and 
 they are not to be disregarded in trying to solve any 
 problem whatsoever. If they are disregarded, then 
 the way of solution proposed is not the best way.” 
 
 “Both of you,’’ said Beardsley, “‘put too much 
 emphasis on mechanical solutions to suit me. We 
 are wasting our time trying to find social machinery 
 
110 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 that is fool-proof, and it can’t be done. What we 
 need to do is to get at these problems as they arise 
 in human nature. If we can substitute a spirit of 
 service for a spirit of greed, there will be no labor 
 problem. If we can substitute a spirit of love for 
 a spirit of hatred, there will be no problem of war. 
 I want to be fundamental, to deal with these 
 problems at their source and not in their advanced 
 stages.” 
 
 “T wonder,” said I, “if it would be cynical for 
 me to suggest that, if we wait until we change 
 human nature to change these problems, there may 
 not be any humanity left. As Dewey has shown, 
 it is hard to tell where human nature leaves off and 
 its ways of expression begin. A great deal can be 
 done by changing environments, just as Priest has 
 said. And it is after all the easier and the more 
 practical task. Why so scornful of social machinery? 
 Granted that it will work imperfectly or not at all, 
 if the underlying spirit is unchanged, it remains 
 true that even with the best spirit in the world some 
 kind of machinery will be needed.” 
 
 “Well,” said Beardsley, “it’s mostly a matter 
 of degree. [I admit that machinery is necessary, but 
 what I am afraid of is that people will become so 
 absorbed in machinery, have already become so 
 absorbed, that they will forget the more funda- 
 mental task. Let the Church, then, devote itself to 
 that task.” 
 
 “To all of which I say amen,” commented Pratt. 
 
THE CHURCH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL Il111 
 
 “J think Beardsley’s attitude is correct, but I would 
 amend it. I think there is only one way in which 
 men can be reborn and that is by accepting 
 Jesus. I do not believe that the chief duty of the 
 Church is social service work. Too many churches 
 have adopted social programs because they have 
 lost sight of the true gospel and are vainly search- 
 ing for something to take its place.” 
 
 “I can’t see that a church has the true gospel un- 
 less it applies it. “The social mind is the mind of 
 Jesus,” Priest declared. 
 
 “Ah,” said Kilpatrick, “it takes the Church to 
 solve these problems. She has always recognized 
 that her prime concern is with the saving of men’s 
 souls, but she has never been indifferent to their 
 earthly welfare. When a need has arisen, the 
 Church has always stood ready to help. Thus she 
 has always relieved the poor and ministered to the 
 sick, for these are perennial needs. But sometimes 
 she has undertaken a task only temporarily, to lay 
 it down when some instrument of which she ap- 
 proved was ready to engage in it. At present she 
 is far from indifferent to social problems. Thirty 
 years ago Pope Leo issued his encylical on the labor 
 problem, not only laying down fundamental 
 principles but also suggesting their application. In 
 this country the Social Welfare Council has been 
 in the forefront in making constructive proposals. 
 But the Church is never distracted from her central 
 purpose by these activities. In such a manner she 
 
 
 
112 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 avoids the two extremes of indifference and absorp- 
 tion.” 
 
 None of us spoke, for we had learned that we 
 could never hope to carry any subject through un- 
 til all the odds and ends were disposed of. ‘The 
 afternoon had gone, and already it was dark, with 
 Venus once more brilliant in the west window. 
 Sometime in the course of the discussion an auto- 
 mobile had driven up the rutted drive, but Beards- 
 ley had not gone out. Now, as the discussion 
 gently paused, he rose and left without excuse, but 
 he soon returned, smiling broadly but saying noth- 
 ing. Wesat in the half dark waiting. 
 
CHAPTER ELEVEN 
 SCIENCE AND RELIGION 
 
 We had been silent for fully ten minutes when 
 Beardsley commented, ‘‘So far we have said very 
 little about science. Loring here holds that there 
 is no conflict between science and religion. I move 
 that we ask him to explain his position.” 
 
 “Good!” exclaimed Priest. 
 
 “It’s a long story,” said Loring in his impres- 
 sively urbane manner. “In the first place, I must 
 speak as a biologist, since that is my field. And it 
 may be just as well, for biology is the storm center 
 at the present time. As a biologist I can say quite 
 freely that for me there is no struggle between re- 
 ligion and science. I believe in evolution and I be- 
 lieve in God. Science deals with phenomena. It 
 can have nothing to say as to what underlies 
 phenomena. For dealing with phenomena science 
 has developed a technique, known as the scientific 
 method. By the use of this technique science has 
 been able to give us its great discoveries concerning 
 man and the universe. Now biology deals with the 
 development of life. In this field scientists like 
 Linnaeus painstakingly struggled to classify the 
 
 113 
 
114 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 data, discovering a great deal that was unknown 
 about species, the resemblances between species, the 
 geographical distribution of species, and so forth. 
 But it remained for Darwin, working on the foun- 
 dation established by his predecessors, to suggest an 
 hypothesis that would bind these facts together. 
 This hypothesis was the theory of evolution, the 
 theory that these various species had developed 
 from a common source, the higher coming from 
 the lower. Thus he had a theory which fitted all 
 the facts, and which has fitted all the facts dis- 
 covered since his time. But Darwin went a step 
 further. He tried to discover what had made these 
 species develop, and he suggested two forces, sexual 
 selection and natural selection. Sexual selection, 
 which deals with characteristics which lead to sur- 
 vival because they make the owner an attractive 
 mate, is no longer highly regarded. Observation 
 has shown that sexual selection, while it may play 
 a part, is not a very considerable factor. Natural 
 selection has also been subjected to attack, but to 
 my mind it is clearly the chief factor in evolution 
 and the only factor the existence of which has been 
 conclusively demonstrated. There may be other 
 factors—I think there probably are—but we know 
 little, if anything, about them. Natural selection 
 argues that variations occur through the processes 
 of heredity and that such variations endure as have 
 survival value.” 
 
 He coughed decorously and went on, “You will 
 
SCIENCE AND RELIGION 115 
 
 pardon me, I trust, for taking so long over a matter 
 which is familiar to you all. Now let me speak of 
 religion. Religion deals with a field quite other 
 than that which is the province of science. Religion 
 treats of the things of the spirit, with what lies be- 
 neath the phenomena that are the concern of science. 
 ‘So long as religion devotes itself to this field, and 
 so long as science keeps away from this field, there 
 is no difficulty. “The trouble comes when, as has 
 been well said, dogmatic scientists clash with dog- 
 matic religionists. But I would not limit myself 
 to so negative a statement as I have just made to 
 you. Science and religion do deal with different 
 provinces, but there are points of contact. The 
 question of origins, for example, is one which the 
 scientist cannot answer. However far one traces 
 back the process of evolution, it is still necessary 
 to say, ‘In the beginning, God.’ Moreover, the 
 general tendency of evolution, from the lower to the 
 higher, suggests a divine purpose in the universe. 
 But again I say that religion is independent of 
 science, that the man whose religion is free from 
 false science is never in conflict with true science. 
 Just to sum up I should like to quote the state- 
 ment drawn up and signed by a large group of 
 scientists and religious leaders.” 
 
 He drew from his pocket a little folder and read 
 to us, “ ‘The purpose of science is to develop, with- 
 out prejudice or preconception, of any kind, a 
 knowledge of the facts, the laws, and the processes 
 
116 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 of nature. The even more important task of re- 
 ligion, on the other hand, is to develop the con- 
 sciences, the ideals, and the aspirations of mankind. 
 Fach of these two activities represents a deep and 
 vital function of the soul of man, and both are 
 necessary for the life, the progress, and the happi- 
 ness of the human race. It is a sublime conception 
 of God which is furnished by science, and one 
 wholly consonant with the highest ideals of re- 
 ligion, when it represents Him as revealing Himself 
 through countless ages in the development of the 
 earth as an abode for man, and in the age-long in- 
 breathing of life into its constituent matter, culmi- 
 nating in man with his spiritual nature and all his 
 God-like powers.?” He took off his glasses and 
 looked pointedly at Pratt, 
 
 Pratt was ready for the fray. “Evolution,” he 
 said rather loudly, “is nothing but a guess,” 
 
 Loring raised his hands, “Oh, Lord! If evolu- 
 tion is a guess what is there that is fixed. I don’t 
 believe that there is a first class scientist in the 
 country who doesn’t believe in evolution. There 
 is a vast difference, my friend, between an hy- 
 pothesis and a guess.” 
 
 “Haven't some scientists,’ demanded Pratt, “‘said 
 that evolution couldn’t be proven? Didn’t Bateson 
 say that the origin of the species remained un- 
 established ?” 
 
 “Yes, he did, and he continued by saying that 
 he still believed in evolution. I have admitted 
 
SCIENCE AND RELIGION 117, 
 
 that there are real differences of opinion concern- 
 ing the manner of evolution, but the fact of evolu- 
 tion is universally admitted by scientists.” 
 
 Pratt was making an effort to regain calmness. 
 “Anyway,” he went on, “‘there is nothing in the 
 Bible about evolution, and there are passages which 
 give a totally different view of the origin of man.” 
 
 “There you are,” Priest suddenly remarked. 
 “Just as we said yesterday, if you persist in using 
 the Bible as a textbook of science, you’re bound 
 to get into trouble.” 
 
 “If I may point out the attitude of the Catholic 
 church,’’ put in Kilpatrick, “I think you will 
 realize how wisely it has acted in this matter, as 
 in others. The Church has never made any official 
 pronouncement on the subject of the interpretation 
 of the first chapters of Genesis. So great a church- 
 man and scholar as Augustine interpreted these 
 chapters in a manner not unfavorable to the theory 
 of evolution. Many Catholic scholars to-day ac- 
 cept many points in the position of the evolu- 
 tionists. [he Church encourages speculation, but 
 she stands ready to interfere if that speculation con- 
 flicts with established doctrine.” 
 
 “I’m surprised,” said Pratt hotly, “that the 
 Catholic church doesn’t perceive the danger in all 
 this. The theory of evolution insults God and 
 demeans man.” 
 
 “So,” said Loring with careful malice, “you pre- 
 fer mud to monkey.” Pratt stared at him blankly. 
 
118 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 “You think,’ Loring resumed suavely, “‘that God 
 made man out of a little mud. I think that He 
 made him out of a monkey, as you would er- 
 roneously put it. [Iam not sure that my conception 
 is any lower than yours.” 
 
 We were all amused when Pratt ignored Loring’s 
 manner. ‘The real question,” he said, “is whether 
 God used evolution, as Mr. Bryan ably expressed it. 
 I believe He didn’t. Observe what the theory of 
 evolution does: it teaches men that the world can 
 get along without God. Thus it makes men atheists. 
 What is the God of the evolutionists? Either 
 He’s a kind of absentee landlord, who started things 
 running and then let them run by natural law, or 
 else He is natural law. What kind of a God is that? 
 Compare the God of Christianity, God the just and 
 loving Father, God who cares for even the sparrows, 
 God who has made the earth for man and who con- 
 trols man’s destiny, God who made man in his 
 image and sent his Son to save man. ‘There is a 
 God whom men can worship! The God of the 
 evolutionists is no God at all. Let the modernists 
 make the most of the theistic scientists. Most 
 honest scientists are atheists,” 
 
 “Good for you!” almost shouted Graff, and I 
 could see the grin on his face in the flickering light 
 from the fire. “I can’t abide these scientists who 
 want to have their cake after they’ve eaten it. They 
 very nicely throw to the churches such choice bits 
 as the vital force, or the purpose in the universe, 
 
SCIENCE AND RELIGION 119 
 
 or the prime mover. Anything they can’t explain 
 they let the Church get all the comfort out of that 
 it can. Any scientist who accepts the theory of 
 natural selection commits himself to a view of the 
 universe in which God is unessential. The very 
 heart of science is to explain facts and events with- 
 out reference to supernatural forces such as God. 
 Science necessarily leaves unsolved some pretty 
 steep problems, and what do the helpful scientists 
 do? ‘They pass these problems over to the churches. 
 They tell the churches they can have the blanks, 
 the while they devote their lives to filling in the 
 blanks. The only honest position is agnosticism 
 which calls the blanks blanks and not God.” 
 
 “But you’re not an agnostic,’ snapped Loring. 
 “You’re an atheist.” 
 
 “Right!” answered Graff, unperturbed. “But 
 so far as my science goes I’m an agnostic, and so 
 are you. If you weren’t you wouldn’t be a scientist. 
 The only difference is that you insist on putting 
 God in the blanks, while I think that these re- 
 maining blanks may be filled just as the others have 
 been. And so far as a purpose in the universe is 
 concerned—well, where do you find it?” 
 
 “In the development of nature up to man and in 
 the development of man higher and higher.” 
 
 “Then your idea is that the universe was made 
 for man.” 
 
 “Precisely.” 
 
 “Once more Pratt has my sympathetic approval. 
 
120 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 If there were a God, and if he had wanted to make 
 man, I don’t believe he’d have taken several million 
 of years. ‘The special creation theory seems a lot 
 smoother and more efficient to me. But seriously, 
 doesn’t it appear ridiculous to suppose that man is 
 the whole show? Of course man has powers that 
 the other animals haven’t, but he has developed by 
 the same process as they. Come over to the observ- 
 atory some night and take a look at the heavens. 
 [ guarantee that you'll leave with a different opinion 
 of the importance of man. I think Flammarion 
 said that life is an unprofitable episode on one of 
 the lesser satellites of one of the least of suns. The 
 word unprofitable is unscientific because subjective 
 —he found life unprofitable, I find it profitable— 
 but otherwise the statement is perfectly correct.” 
 Loring squared his shoulders with dignity. Ap- 
 pealing to us all, he began, “Man seems so unim- 
 portant to my friend here because of his view of 
 the universe. What he says about scientists who 
 throw the blanks to religion as a sop has a grain 
 of truth, but it misses the central point. Graff is 
 wrapped up in his science, which is as it should be. 
 I am sure we all respect him for his many achieve- 
 ments. But he has allowed himself to become in- 
 different to almost everything else. I happen to 
 know that he is fond of music, but I wonder if his 
 love for music could have survived if he had ceased 
 going to concerts. Obviously it would have atro- 
 phied. And that is just what has happened in the 
 
SCIENCE AND RELIGION Wel 
 
 case of religion—he has allowed the side of him 
 that would naturally be responsive to religion to 
 atrophy. I firmly believe that there is something 
 in man that gives him a sense of God. “That some- 
 thing can be cultivated, as the great mystics have 
 _demonstrated. With some of us it is never very 
 acute, just as with some of us the musical sense is 
 never very acute. But it is always there, and it 
 can be cultivated. If a man waits until he is forty 
 before he makes an attempt to become sensitive to 
 the things of religion, he will have difficulty, and 
 he will never make much of a success. I waited— 
 to my regret. At first I was cocksure, but the 
 older a scientist gets the less confidence he has in 
 his science. He knows there must be something 
 more. I have reached out for that more. In so 
 doing I have surrendered nothing of my science, a 
 fact that has necessitated an adjustment, which is 
 what gives the appearance of leaving the blanks 
 to God. Perhaps that is what we do, but I well 
 know that if we put God in the blanks we find that 
 he really includes those areas which we are pleased 
 to think we have explained.” 
 
 Loring had spoken with so much feeling that he 
 had lost a little of his composure. After a moment 
 or two of silence, Beardsley remarked, “I should 
 like to hear from you, Graff, as fully as we have 
 just heard from Loring. I suppose this will seem 
 crude to you, but what does your materialism leave 
 
 your” 
 
122 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 “Everything,” Graff replied blandly. “Ifa thing 
 is beautiful, it’s beautiful, isn’t it? If an action is 
 good, it’s good. Whatever man prizes is its own 
 justification. Unfortunately men have always 
 thought it necessary to invent a mythology or a 
 theology to support their judgments, but they really 
 needn’t have bothered.” 
 
 “But what incentive is there in life if there is 
 nothing eternal?” asked Priest. 
 
 “Every incentive. As Leuba says, man works 
 quite as well with an incentive that is just before 
 his nose as he does with one in infinity. I can’t 
 see that eternity is much of an incentive. I do my 
 work because I enjoy it, and because people who 
 come after me will profit by it. That’s much more 
 of an incentive than any conception of eternity, if 
 there could be such a thing as a conception of the 
 inconceivable.” 
 
 “Y ou’re incorrigible,” said Beardsley. “You're the 
 real enemy. Whatever may divide the rest of us, 
 we believe in a living universe, to use Jacks’ phrase, 
 a universe dominated by purpose, a universe that 
 is friendly to our highest ideals. We need not con- 
 cern ourselves much with science, except when 
 science denies the existence of a divine spark in men. 
 Against the science that does that we must fight to 
 the last ditch. There the real issue lies.” 
 
 “Amen!” said Priest. 
 
 “And yet,’’ smiled Graff, ‘‘we materialists have 
 our ideals too.” 
 
SCIENCE AND RELIGION 123 
 
 “You have no business to,’’ Beardsley retorted. 
 
 “On the contrary, for we recognize our ideals for 
 what they are, while you make up fairy stories 
 about them.” 
 
 Graff grinned with such good humor that Beards- 
 ley burst out laughing. ‘‘Sometimes,’’ he said, 
 “T think you’re on the side of the angels too.” 
 
 “God forbid!” cried Graff, at which incongruity 
 we hooted. 
 
CHAPTER TWELVE 
 THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 
 
 Strange sounds had been issuing for some time 
 from the adjoining room, and now the folding 
 dcors into the studio were flung aside. Ai tall, fair- 
 haired man stood smiling at us, and behind him 
 we could see the long table, covered by a multiplic- 
 ity of dishes and lighted with candles. “I judge,” 
 said the man. “‘that you have reached a break in 
 your discussion. If so, dinner is ready.” 
 
 Beardsley rose. “Gentlemen, may I present Mr. 
 Kimberley Stock, the well-known artist and the 
 owner of this bungalow. I had hoped that he 
 could be with us during our stay, but it was im- 
 possible. He insisted, however, on preparing for 
 you this surprise. As you come to know him 
 better, you will, I am sure, regret, as I do, that he 
 could not be with us from the first.”’ 
 
 After Beardsley had presented us individually 
 to Mr. Stock, we sat down at the table. He had 
 evidently brought servants with him, and the meal 
 proved a pleasant contrast to the rough and ready 
 product of our own hands. Stock, who looked 
 quite the successful artist, made an engaging host, 
 
 124 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 125 
 
 asking many questions about our deliberations. He 
 would sardonically stroke his black Van Dyke as 
 we told him of this or that remark. When we had 
 finished dinner, he suggested that we return to the 
 living room to continue our talk, and we again as- 
 sembled about the fireplace, glad to be spared the 
 washing of dishes. 
 
 “This,” said Beardsley, “will be our last op- 
 portunity for profound discourse on matters of 
 high import. Kilpatrick, Loring, and Graff have 
 already told me that they must return to the city 
 to-night. Priest and I plan to go back early in the 
 morning, and we shall be glad to take the rest of 
 you. Our solemn conclave nears its conclusion. 
 What shall be our theme this evening?”’ 
 
 “If there is so little time left us,” I remarked, 
 “should we not spend it discussing the future of the 
 Church?”’ 
 
 “By all means!”’ cried Beardsley, and the others 
 nodded their approval. Stock also applauded the 
 suggestion, declaring himself ready to contribute his 
 share. | 
 
 “Tl wonder,” said Beardsley, “just what there is 
 to discuss. Pratt here believes that the Church 
 will continue its work of saving souls until the day 
 of judgment, unless it is hoodwinked by atheistic 
 Scientists into accepting evolution and disregarding 
 the Bible. Kilpatrick, I should imagine, has not 
 much doubt that the Mother Church will weather 
 the storm, for, as he has pointed out, she’s weathered 
 
126 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 a good many before now. Priest and I, despite 
 some slight differences, oppose to this static view 
 the idea of the Church progressive, which empha- 
 sizes the truth to be revealed quite as much as the 
 truth that has been revealed, accepts the discoveries 
 of science, enlarges its idea of God, and humanizes 
 its idea of Jesus. Loring is presumably with us. 
 Graff, on the other hand, is indifferent, granting, I 
 suppose, our right to bother with such trivialities if 
 we want to, but for himself wrapped up in the ex- 
 ploration of the heavens.” 
 
 “You leave me out,” I remarked, “and omit Mr. 
 Stock. Therefore it becomes necessary for us to 
 speak for ourselves.” 
 
 “Proceed, then,’’ Stock insisted. 
 
 “Very well. I do not share Graff’s indifference, 
 but I do believe that the Church is doomed.” 
 
 “And why?” asked Priest. 
 
 “I have already intimated,” I said, “that I be- 
 lieve that the liberal Church has lost its raison d’étre. 
 What is Christianity, historically speaking? It is 
 a system of salvation, having as its cardinal points 
 the inspiration of the Bible, the deity of Christ, and 
 the possibility of salvation through Christ. Liberals 
 almost universally reject the first point. On the 
 second point they differ, but the most orthodox of 
 them considerably modifies the old Christologies. 
 On the third question they hedge a good bit, but 
 when they say, as they sometimes do, that they are 
 saved through Christ, they mean something quite 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 127 
 
 different from what Pratt here means. In what re- 
 spect, then, are they Christians?” 
 
 “Obviously,”’ exclaimed Beardsley, ‘‘in the sense 
 that they try to live according to the teachings of 
 Jesus.” 
 
 “Por purposes of argument,” said I, “let us grant 
 that. But you in turn will have to admit that 
 historically Christianity has been a religion of sal- 
 vation.” 
 
 “Yes, unfortunately.” 
 
 “Unfortunately or not, it isso. Christianity has 
 had a unique place in human thought precisely be- 
 cause it offered a way of salvation; according to its 
 adherents the only way of salvation. You have 
 broken with that tradition. You accept Jesus as 
 a teacher, just as you accept Plato, Buddha, 
 Spinoza, and others. If you find more guidance 
 in his teachings than in the teachings of these other 
 men, the difference is, after all, one of degree not 
 of kind.” 
 
 “I would admit all that,” Beardsley replied. “I 
 am quite content to say that Jesus was simply a 
 prophet, though the greatest prophet that ever 
 lived.” 
 
 “And to carry your reasoning a bit further, you 
 would say that your philosophy of life is based on 
 the contributions of many thinkers, Jesus among 
 them. Thus you come to the position of the com- 
 munity Church, which flatly states that it is not 
 Christian and which seeks to include the best in 
 
128 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 all religions. Such a position most liberals, your- 
 self included, I imagine, refuse to take. And in 
 any case such a position would mean the disruption 
 of the Church as we know it.” 
 
 “Still and all,” said Beardsley, “I can’t see that 
 you’ve said anything as yet to support your conten- 
 tion that the Church is doomed. All you have said 
 is that the form of the Church must be changed, 
 that we must surrender the name of Christians. | 
 doubt if you're right, but if you were, the Church 
 might still persist in a new form, like the com- 
 munity Church, if you will.” 
 
 “‘Now,’’ I returned, ‘“‘we come to the heart of the 
 matter. ‘There are two questions. First, will the 
 Church change its form rapidly enough to fore- 
 stall its losing its grip. Second, would even a 
 change of form save it? I should reply in the 
 negative to both questions, and of course if my an- 
 swer to the second question is no, it doesn’t matter 
 what I think about the first. Why do people go 
 So church? Either to get something they believe is 
 absolutely essential to their welfare or else to ex- 
 press something they already have. Now if the 
 Church offers salvation, and the people believe that 
 they can win salvation only through the Church, 
 they will obviously attend. But, as you have al- 
 ready admitted, the liberal wing of the Church does 
 not offer salvation, and the constituency of the 
 liberal Church would not believe its claims if it 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 129 
 
 made them. ‘That seems to eliminate the first reason 
 for church attendance.”’ 
 
 “And what about the second?” asked Priest, as I 
 paused, 
 
 “Well, just at present the Church isn’t much help 
 in that respect. Suppose a man has a real experience 
 of God, whatever that may be. Can the average 
 Protestant service mean anything to him? ‘The 
 average prayer must appear to him to be a mere 
 irreverence, the average prayer an insult, and the 
 average church music a blasphemy.”’ 
 
 Priest chuckled. ‘“You’re pretty much right, 
 Cleaves. But let me probe deeper. If the Church 
 could learn to help people to express their reli- 
 gious experiences, wouldn’t that save it? ‘That 
 seems to me to be the central point of Sperry’s 
 Reality in Worship, which I rather suspect you've 
 been reading.” 
 
 “There again we have to face two possibilities. 
 First, it is a fair question whether people nowa- 
 days have this desire for expression. Second, sup- 
 posing that they have it, will they find the Church 
 necessary as the instrument of expression? Now 
 for my part, I should answer the first question 
 affirmatively, with due qualifications. Men do, 
 even to-day, sometimes find themselves en rapport 
 with the universe. Certain of the phenomena of 
 mysticism are very real, whether one explains them 
 by referring to glands or by referring to God. And 
 when men have this feeling, they will require a 
 
130 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 way of expressing it. Moreover, once they have 
 had it, I suspect that they will seek a method of re- 
 gaining it. What I doubt is that they will turn to 
 the Church. As I have already said, it is futile 
 for them to turn to the Church now, and I think 
 they are learning that they do not have to turn to 
 the Church. Of course, if one thinks of this experi- 
 ence as essentially religious and if one considers the 
 Church as the only link between man and God, one 
 will turn to the Church, but people are increasingly 
 coming to question both the major and the minor 
 premise of that syllogism. To put it in personal 
 terms, I and a lot of other people are discovering 
 that it is quite possible to have rational, moral, and 
 happy lives without the Church.” 
 
 “Well, what do you find as a substitute for the 
 Church?” asked Priest. 
 
 “No one institution,” I replied. “A great con- 
 cert or a great play serves for me the purpose that 
 I imagine the Church ought to serve. That is, 
 they help me to recapture that sense of belonging 
 in the universe which all of us crave. Moreover, 
 writing gives me a certain scope for self-expression 
 in all my moods. And if my life were completely 
 rounded out, as some day it may be, I should 
 want to add practical philanthropy to my program, 
 and I might even dabble a little in a chemical labora- 
 tory. In other words, I cling to the old pagan 
 ideal of truth, beauty, and goodness. I find, on a 
 purely empirical basis, that my life is richer be- 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 131 
 
 cause of them. I find only fragments of truth, no 
 beauty, and frequently a perverted kind of good- 
 ness in the churches. But in science—and also in 
 literature and art—I find truth; in art again I find 
 beauty; and in philanthropy, social service, and 
 wrestling with my own job I find plenty of op- 
 portunity for goodness.” 
 
 “But look here,” said Priest, “what about the 
 social enterprise of the Church?” 
 
 “T think the Church might well surrender all its 
 enterprises to other bodies, who could carry on the 
 work more efficiently.” 
 
 “But at least,’’ said Pratt, speaking for the first 
 time since dinner, ““you must admit that these other 
 social enterprises need the dynamic which the 
 Church gives. They may scorn the Church, but 
 most of their social idealism is a Church product 
 just the same.” — 
 
 “Right!” said Priest. 
 
 “Perhaps,” I answered, “but I am by no means 
 convinced. In my experience the Church has fre- 
 quently had to build on existing social idealism 
 instead of social idealism’s being supported by the 
 Church. But I have talked too much. I know 
 you are not convinced, but I should hardly hope 
 to convince you however extensive my presenta- 
 tion of my case. Let some one else have the floor.”’ 
 
 “I should like it,” said Kilpatrick, “if I may be 
 so bold. I want the chance to speak a word on be- 
 half of the Catholic church, and Cleaves has given 
 
132 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 me my opportunity. He is just right when he 
 tells you that people go to church to get something 
 they must have or to give something they must 
 give. That’s the strength of my church. ‘That's 
 why it doesn’t need to worry. It has something 
 every man really wants—the key to salvation. And 
 no other church so completely satisfies the desire 
 for the expression of religious emotion. I’ve 
 been sitting here, thinking about that. The Church 
 at its best—in its architecture, its music, its mass— 
 offers to every man the opportunity to express his 
 deepest feelings. I can’t help but believe that any 
 man who had had a religious experience, as Cleaves 
 called it, would feel real satisfaction in going into 
 a Catholic church. Doesn’t it make you think pretty 
 hard to realize that the Catholic church has not 
 only a body of doctrine which has resisted every 
 heresy but also a mode of worship that satisfies 
 man’s deepest needs? I know that you will judge 
 this to be narrow, but when I look about me at 
 the hundred and one Protestant sects, at the new 
 faiths that spring up over night, at the growth of 
 atheism, I wonder if the time isn’t coming when 
 men and women will return to the one church, 
 when they will admit the futility of their little 
 ‘ntellects and will accept the authority of the 
 Church Triumphant.” 
 
 As Kilpatrick concluded, Stock spoke up. “Mr. 
 Kilpatrick is right,” he said, while we looked at him 
 in surprise, “and Mr, Cleaves is right. The Church 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 133 
 
 must be founded on the story of Christ’s life and 
 death, of his founding an omniscient Church, of his 
 atoning sacrifice. And the story is true, not as 
 history or as dogma, but as art. The Christian 
 epic expresses the very quintessence of human ex- 
 perience. It is the greatest artistic triumph of the 
 buman race. When I go to church I recite the 
 creeds, and I believe them—as art. “There, Mr. 
 Cleaves, is the answer to your keen analysis of the 
 Church’s decay. If we could only see that the 
 Church is founded on a myth, we could brush away 
 all this intellectual juggling of the modernists, all 
 this obscurantism of the fundamentalists. We 
 could build on the strongest foundation the world 
 affords, the foundation of the beautiful.” 
 
 The good-natured Pratt fumed. Neither my 
 scepticism nor Graff’s atheism had disturbed him 
 as much as this view of Mr. Stock’s. “But it’s not 
 honest,” he expostulated. “You say that you be- 
 lieve things that you don’t believe. You make a 
 mockery of religion.” | 
 
 Stock only smiled. “John Cowper Powys says 
 that there are four stages of religious development 
 before true religion is attained, the first being emo- 
 tional belief, the second metaphysical belief, the 
 third absolute disillusionment, and the fourth 
 xsthetic understanding. It is when a man realizes 
 that there is no such thing as truth that he is free 
 to evaluate the real truth—-which is the truth of 
 arty 
 
134 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Graff, who had been silent, looked up ingenu- 
 ously and said, “Do you know, I think that’s all 
 tommyrot.” 
 
 “So?” said Stock placidly. 
 
 “Yes, I think science supplies us with certain 
 facts that cannot very well be denied.” 
 
 ‘Very good, my friend, very good,’’ said Stock. 
 “I am willing to admit that scientists deal with 
 facts, heaven help them, but we are talking about 
 religion, not about science, and religion is very 
 much akin to art.” 
 
 “But after all,” said Beardsley, “you must grant 
 that even religion comes up against certain facts. 
 You want us to believe whatever we want to be- 
 lieve.” 
 
 “Oh, no, I want you to believe what is beautiful. 
 I see no more reason for rejecting the Christian 
 story than for rejecting Hamlet.” 
 
 “You put religion on a level with fiction!” 
 sputtered Pratt. 
 
 “IT put it on a level with art,” responded Stock. 
 “T could not place it higher.” 
 
 Graff laughed. “You are indeed an invaluable 
 addition to our company, Mr. Stock. You look on 
 religion as a myth and glorify it for that reason. 
 I look on religion as a myth and reject it for that 
 reason.” 
 
 “And I’m inclined to think,” I added, “that Mr. 
 Stock is quite as fatal for the Church as you. A 
 myth that one knows is a myth ei 
 
 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH 135 
 
 “Yow’re still pessimistic about the Church then,” 
 said Priest. 
 
 “Very. And our conversations these two days 
 have made me more so. I have realized how the 
 critical study of the Bible has torn at one of the 
 foundations of the Church, how the change of 
 attitude toward Jesus has destroyed another, and 
 how the rise of science has weakened a third. I 
 see the whole structure tottering. In its place what? 
 The Catholic church and the fundamentalists will 
 hang on for years, perhaps for centuries, but I see 
 the other churches steadily waning. The more in- 
 telligent people, begging Kilpatrick’s and Pratt’s 
 pardon, have turned to the modernist ranks. Now 
 they are leaving them. They will adjust them- 
 selves to the bleaker view of the universe that science 
 presents, and | think they will be quite as moral and 
 quite as idealistic as we are. [hey will adhere to 
 the scientific method, even though they may learn 
 to be critical of its results. “They will certainly find 
 more satisfaction in art than most of us do. They 
 may even try the value of worship when there is 
 no God to be worshiped, for, as Santayana has 
 said, ‘It is love that makes the world go round, and 
 not, as idolatrous people suppose, the object of 
 love.’ But the churches, these places where people 
 are preached at and sing antiquated hymns, these 
 they will ignore.” 
 
 “Bravo!” cried Graff. 
 
 Priest shook his head. “I sympathize with you, 
 
136 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 but I cannot agree. These ideals of truth, beauty, 
 and goodness, of which you speak, seem to me ten- 
 able only because the universe is favorable to them. 
 That is, I believe that the efforts of mankind are 
 worth while solely because there is a God. And I 
 believe that the Church, with all its failings, does 
 bring men closer to God than the concert-hall and 
 the theater, valuable as these are. I hope that the 
 Church is going to become wiser and kinder. I 
 have faith, you see, in its potentialities, because I 
 believe that its trust in God is justified. I see it 
 fighting intolerance, the dogmas of science as well 
 as religion. I see it growing, learning to enrich its 
 service of worship perhaps, learning to make its 
 preaching vital, learning to utilize all that is good 
 in life. I see the Church a force for enlightenment, 
 an instrument for social justice, a source of beauty, 
 and most of all a power in bringing men into con- 
 tact with the spiritual reality which we call God. 
 And, I may add, I believe that in all these achieve- 
 ments the moving force will be the spirit of Christ.” 
 
 Beardsley nodded slowly. “And what do you 
 see, Pratt?” 
 
 Pratt glanced up, his everlasting seriousness over- 
 come by a mellow smile. “As Amos said, I am 
 neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but it 
 seems to me after this discussion that I see a power- 
 ful lot of people going to hell.” 
 
 “Well,” said Graff, “I’m sure I don’t know why 
 you all worry so about the future of the Church.” 
 
THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH L/ 
 
 “Because of the need for maintaining the con- 
 tinuity of a great and beautiful tradition,” said 
 Stock. 
 
 “To save men’s souls!” exclaimed Pratt. 
 
 “Yes, but here and not hereafter,” commented 
 Beardsley. 
 
 “To bring in the Kingdom of God on earth,” 
 Priest said with a snap in his calm voice. 
 
 I said nothing, but sat there wondering. Graff 
 said with a shrug, “Oh, well!” And after a mo- 
 ment he added that it was time he was leaving. 
 With regret we watched the three of them, Graff, 
 Loring, and Kilpatrick, make their departure. 
 When they had gone we talked inconsequentially of 
 other things and soon went to bed. 
 
CHAPTER THIRTEEN 
 AND IN CONCLUSION 
 
 The next morning we all departed, Beardsley and 
 I setting out together. Beardsley, who seemed sub- 
 dued in mood, waited until we reached the main 
 highway before asking the obvious question: 
 “How did it strike you?” 
 
 A little at a loss, I said, ““Well, I liked it. They 
 are good men, intelligent men, and it was a pleasure 
 to listen to them. We didn’t get anywhere, but I 
 think each of us learned something new, something 
 which he can utilize in his future thinking.”’ 
 
 “That justifies the two days we spent,” he re- 
 plied, “and I really expected nothing more. Still 
 it had occurred to me that we might come to some 
 conclusions. I was foolish, I admit, but I had a 
 faint hope that we could discover a way out of the 
 confusion and indifference that complicate the work 
 of the Church.” 
 
 He stopped for a moment, and then resumed. 
 “I do not want to ignore the divisive factors in the 
 religious life of to-day. The people who want 
 everyone to overlook matters of belief are doing 
 nothing but make a bad matter worse. No, I 
 
 138 
 
AND IN CONCLUSION 139 
 
 say that the fundamentalists and the modernists and 
 the agnostics and all the rest must face the issues in 
 which they disagree. And I am quite sure that 
 we can learn to codperate despite our differences. 
 Yet I must confess that I become pessimistic when 
 I realize, as yesterday and the day before I was 
 forced to realize, how wide the gulfs between us are. 
 A world that contains both Pratt and Graff is a 
 strangely muddled world.” 
 
 “I dare say,” I replied, “that the world has al- 
 ways contained men who disagreed quite as de- 
 cidedly as they do.” 
 
 “No doubt, no doubt,”’ he replied absently. “But 
 everyone seems confusedly looking for a way of 
 life and finding none. Sometimes I think that those 
 who appear most certain are only whistling to 
 preserve their self-deception.” 
 
 “Tt is a sterile age,’’ I made reply, somewhat 
 tritely. “We have neither gods nor demi-gods. 
 We are capable of nothing great, not even of great 
 illusions. In such an age religion is certain to be 
 impotent, the more so when there is great material 
 prosperity. We shall, I think, witness strange 
 developments. Perhaps we shall see the recrudes- 
 cence of orthodoxy, fundamentalism in more 
 dogmatic and more oppressive form. Perhaps there 
 is something new coming, the character of which 
 cannot be prophesied, a synthesis following the 
 present disintegration much as the Christian 
 synthesis followed the breakdown of paganism. 
 
140 EIGHT WAYS OF LOOKING AT CHRISTIANITY 
 
 Or it may be that men are learning to do without 
 religion, at least without organized religion.”’ 
 
 Beardsley, watching the road ahead, spoke 
 slowly. “The great periods of history have been 
 the periods of great faith, Why?” 
 
 “Perhaps,” I said, “because man only achieves 
 under the impetus of illusion.” 
 
 “Or perhaps,’ he responded, “‘because this faith 
 has not been wholly illusion. Perhaps this faith 
 has been the root of accomplishment because in its 
 essentials it was justified. Perhaps the universe 
 looks with favor upon the great ideals of men.” 
 
 We turned into the streets of Caldgate, crowded 
 with automobiles bearing men to their offices. 
 “That,” he said, somewhat irrelevantly, “is the 
 cardinal article of my faith. “That is why I can- 
 not look unmoved at the spectacle of the disin- 
 tegrating Church. I am coming to the time when 
 I must leave my life-work. Who will carry it 
 on? Not you young men, for you have broken 
 with the Church. I cannot say that the Church 
 has made civilization, but I will say that the ideals 
 on which civilization is built are the ideals which 
 made the Church possible. If the Church is weak- 
 ening, it is because the ideals are losing their appeal. 
 What will take their place? I fear that nothing 
 can. Sooner or later the world must come back 
 to them. But in the meantime, — can the 
 Church do nothing to make men see the validity of 
 its view of the universe? Must it stand idly by and 
 
AND IN CONCLUSION 141 
 
 watch civilization go to pot? That bleaker view 
 of the universe of which you speak cannot satisfy 
 men because it is untrue. Or do I think it is un- 
 true because it cannot satisfy men? You see how an 
 age of doubt strikes at us all, especially at those 
 who will not take refuge behind a barricade of 
 dogmas.” 
 
 He brought the machine to a halt before the 
 bleak boarding house where I spend my days. In 
 silence we sat fora moment. Abruptly he shook 
 my hand. “I have a day’s work,” he said, “and 
 in my work Good-bye, my boy.” 
 
 
 

 

 
ta?! 
 
 a 
 
 
 
4% 
 x : 
 
 - Loree 
 o) W's , 
 ee # 
 ohh 4, 
 
 eo, 
 ar 
 
 
 
1 1012 0 
 
 iii Ill il | i 
 

 
SS 
 
 sy Se 
 
 CG 
 
 yy 
 
 An 
 
 SSS 
 : 
 ws 
 
 Nee 
 
 SESH 
 SAND 
 SERS 
 
 7 
 
 os 
 SY 
 AF, 
 
 ic 
 eo 
 ie 
 Lp 
 
 of} 
 
 
 
 wi rT ars ch sine pre 
 
 es ae