BL 53 .C722 1923 Crabb, Cecil Van Meter. Psychology’s challenge to Christianity Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/psychologyschallOOcrab Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Rev. Cecil V. Crabb, M. A., B. D. (Louisville and Princeton) Pastor of First Presbyterian Church CLARKSDALE, MISS. Published by PRESBYTERIAN COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION Richmond, Virginia COPYRIGHT 1923 PRESBYTERIAN COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION RICHMOND, VIRGINIA PRINTED IN U. S. A. WHITTET & SHEPPERSON RICHMOND, VA, {Eo jWp ®Iife jflarp Bupree Crafab CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. The Demand for a Sound Psy¬ chology of Religion . 7 II. The Rise of the Psychology of Re¬ ligion . 31 III. Human Personality. 49 IV. Some Tried Principles. 79 V. The Feelings and The Will. 94 VI. The New Psychology. 109 VII. The New Psychology—Its Lim¬ itations . 143 VIII. Some Practical Hints from Psy¬ chology . 177 IX. The Challenge . 190 Preface I N the midst of the psychological and other heresies of the hour this book is intended to be a useful weapon for the defence of the Historic Faith. Its aim is not only to make the reader abreast of the latest thought along these lines, but also to give him a greater physical, moral, and spiritual efficiency in his Christian life. It is adapted for pastors, for religious workers in the Sunday School, in the women’s circles, in young people’s work, and for every Christian. Chapter I. The Demand for a Sound Psychology of Religion T HIS is an age of specialization. The day when a man could be proficient in any given line of human endeavor merely by possessing an encyclopedic knowledge of all the arts and sciences is past. The price of success is the concentration of attention. This age not only demands an intimate ac¬ quaintance with the laws operative in any particular line of endeavor, but also is be¬ ginning to study the application of modern psychology to the given pursuit. Hence, such investigations have arisen as the Psychology of Efficiency, the Psychology of Advertising, the Psychology of Education. In every line of human endeavor where men are dealing, not exclusively with material entities, but also with the human factor, they are finding that to be successful they must be acquainted with the fundamental laws of human per¬ sonality. This is a day when we seek the specialist in every line. In medicine, in law, in education the world is calling for men who are specialists in all that pertains to their given work. What is the situation in this respect in that most vital activity of the human spirit, re¬ ligion? Do we demand high qualifications of Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity those who shall work in this sphere? Must the religious worker be intimately acquainted with the laws that govern the human soul? I am sorry to state that we make no such rigid demands. In fact, until a few years ago there were no educational qualifications at all demanded of the lay worker along re¬ ligious lines. Here is one of the most re¬ markable anomalies of the present day: in the most important pursuit in which the human spirit can engage the qualifications demanded of the worker are decidedly lower than the requirements exacted in secular ac¬ tivities. The church has practically neglected the laws of the human soul. As T. W. Pym says in Psychology and the Christian Life, “In such application the Christian Church is behind-hand. In the industrial world the new psychology is being widely applied in a practical way. Research into fatigue and its causes, into the relation of mental to phy¬ sical fatigue, is resulting in many improve¬ ments in factory methods; motion study is bringing further improvements. ,, We see then that the church has largely neglected a study of the laws of the human soul. Surely such negligence is inexcusable. Men would never think of entrusting the welfare of their bodies to doctors who were ignorant of the laws of the human anatomy. But they com¬ mit the care of their souls to the guidance of religious workers who ofttimes are woe¬ fully ignorant of the laws of human personal¬ ity. The human soul is a more sensitive [ 8 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity organ than is the body. Here a tactless, un¬ informed person with no acquaintance with the laws of human personality is in a posi¬ tion to do untold harm to the religious sensi¬ bilities of the soul. What shall we say of the spiritual and mental equipment that should be demanded of the worker along religious lines? Of course, he should be a regenerated person, and should have had some definite Christian experience. Then he should be well acquaint¬ ed with the Bible. He should know the terms of God's message to sinful men. There is no place in Christian work for the man who has no message from above, nor for the man who has no burning desire to save souls and to set up the kingdom in this world. There are certain fundamentals in religious experience and moral outlook that a person should pos¬ sess before he ever undertakes any work for Christ. But aside from these evangelistic, religious, and Biblical qualifications, what shall we say of his mental equipment? I be¬ lieve that next to the above qualifications a knowledge of the laws of the human soul is most vital. If the religious worker desires to work with the human soul, he should know the laws that govern its operation. The doc¬ tor, before he begins to operate on the human body, spends four or five years in investiga¬ tion and study of the laws of that body. But we allow workers with no knowledge of hu¬ man personality to attempt to minister to the moral and spiritual ailments of mankind. [ 9 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Surely the day is near at hand when the church shall demand that her workers, both clerical and lay, shall possess some knowledge of the fundamental laws of the human soul, to which they bring such vital ministrations. We have neglected the psychology of religion long enough. We are paying for our negli¬ gence by witnessing a distressing amount of inefficiency in Sunday School work, in evangelism and personal work, and, in fact, in all lines of religious endeavour. I hope and pray that a new day is coming—a day in which all who essay to do religious work of any kind will make a diligent study of the laws of psychology that govern the patient whom they are trying to treat. As Rev. J. P. Hicks well states in his Ten Lessons in Per¬ sonal Evangelism, “Even as the successful teacher would not think of permitting a year to pass without reading a good work on psychology, so the personal worker may pro¬ fit by the same rule.” Some one may ask at this point, “Cannot this necessary knowledge of the laws of the human soul be obtained from the Bible?” I answer both, “Yes” and “No.” The Bible does tell clearly of man’s nature as a sinner. It reveals to us what God thinks of man’s moral and spiritual condition. But the Bible is not a text book on Psychology any more than it is on philosophy, science, or even on theology. It is a mighty revelation of God’s redemptive processes in the world, and it touches on all other sciences—whether they [ 10 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity be psychology or philosophy—only so far as they affect its great end. The Bible rather takes for granted the great ultimates—the existence of God, the existence of the human soul, the faculties and laws of operation of the ego. Nowhere will you find in the pages of the Bible any elaborate philosophical dem¬ onstration of the existence of God. Nowhere will you find any subtle argument to prove that man has a soul. Nowhere will you find any scientific discussion of the laws of the human personality. These themes all belong to the sphere of natural revelation; and they are not discussed elaborately in the great supernatural revelation of redemption. We are supposed to have settled these matters as to the existence of God, the fact of the human soul before we come to a study of the Bible. These are the foundation stones on which the grand Biblical structure of super¬ natural religion is built. But the great trou¬ ble today is that many Christian workers have never properly placed some of the great foundation stones—such, for example, as the nature of the human ego and its laws— and when they try to build a superstructure of religion in their own and other people’s lives, they find that the building is defective. The trouble is a faulty foundation. Before we begin our building of Christian character, let us be sure that some of our foundation stones are not cracked. Let us remember that the Revelation in the Bible takes for granted the great ultimates of natural reli- [ 11 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity gion. There are some presuppositions which we may bring to a study of the Bible which will make it very difficult for us to obtain much help from its supernatural message. Now, since God is the author both of the Bible and of the human soul, then we need have no fear that there will be any contradic¬ tion between the two. God is not the creator of confusion but of harmony. Indeed, a care¬ ful study of the human personality will only increase our knowledge of the glory of our God, as this is reflected in that most wonder¬ ful of all His creations, the being created in His own image, man. Let us approach a study of the psychology of religion without a fear that our faith will be shaken, but with a firm conviction that it will be strengthened, that our apprehension of the Glory of our Creator will be heightened, that our enjoy¬ ment of Christianity will be increased, and that our efficiency as a worker for Christ will be augmented. With these introductory remarks I want to note a little more in detail the value of a study of psychology for the Christian. We will divide our discussion into four heads. [ 12 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (I.) VALUE OF THE STUDY TO THE SUNDAY SCHOOL WORKER The superintendent, departmental super¬ intendent, Sunday School teacher, and those who work in any capacity about the school are engaged in a work of transcendent im¬ portance. They have to do with the child at the most critical period of its life. They deal with the child at the plastic age when the grooves of life-habits are being cut in the nervous system, when its philosophy of life or great mental complexes are being formed. The Sunday School directs the re¬ ligious training of the child at that most critical period of its life, the adolescent, when there is the birth of the new con¬ sciousness. Surely under these conditions a knowledge of the human soul is essential. The wise teacher should not only know the general laws of human psychology, but should know something of child psychology and of the meaning of adolescence. Because Sunday School teachers have been ignorant of psychology and of the very patient with whom they had to deal every Sunday, there has been in the past lamentable inefficiency in Sunday School work. Let us remember that the foundation to all modern, efficient, up-to-date Sunday School work is a sound psychology of religion. A sane psychology [ 13 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity is at the basis of all proper grading in the Sunday School, all efficient departmental work, all selection of proper literature, the use of the right songs in the different depart¬ ments, the ability to present Bible truths at¬ tractively so that pupils of different ages will be interested and held in the school, all the doctrinal work in the Sunday School in the form of catechisms. All of these prob¬ lems go back at the last for solution to a sound psychology of religion. We begin to see now why a wise Sunday School teacher should be acquainted with the laws of the human soul. The time has come when he or she cannot do efficient Sunday School work and remain ignorant of the funda¬ mental laws of personality. The teacher who persists in ignoring the study of the human soul will awake some day to find that he is lamentably behind the times. Because the psychology of religion has been neglected in the past in Sunday School work, our schools have been poorly graded and unattractively handled. We have had to witness the distressing sight of seeing children become uninterested in the Sunday School and in the Bible, and because of this lack of interest drift out into the world. We have seen these same children go to High School and later to college, carrying with them a distaste for all Sunday School work and a prejudice against the Bible. We have observed these boys and girls later, because they were not properly grounded and forti- [ 14 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity fied in the faith, yield to the assaults of naturalistic evolution and higher criticism, and sooner or later drift into infidelity. Who knows but what if Sunday School work and Bible study had been made attractive to them in their early days, they would have grown up with a love for Bible work instead of with a prejudice against it! A sound psy¬ chology of religion might have saved the day. (II.) IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY TO THE EVANGELIST AND PERSONAL WORKER Evangelism is the great business of the church. The evangelist not only deals with the human soul in regard to its most vital concern, religion, but also touches it at the most critical stage of the whole religious process, the birth of the new life in the soul. Under these conditions he should be an ex¬ pert in his knowledge of the laws of per¬ sonality. Wonderful are his opportunities for good or evil. He faces an audience when their emotions are highly aroused and by the power of suggestion can be directed either in sane or extravagant channels, when the powers of judgment and inhibition on the part of the crowd are at a low ebb, when the laws of herd or crowd psychology are highly operative. We thus see that the [ 15 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity evangelist has most serious responsibilities imposed upon him. Because of the condition of the crowd, it is largely at his control. He can either lead them to God, to wise Chris¬ tian choices, and to a normal Christian life; or by abusing his high position, he can lead them into the strange by-paths of extrava¬ gant emotionalism. Surely of all persons in the work of religion, the evangelist should be acquainted with the laws of the human soul. To say that he can be a sane evangelist and know nothing of the laws of psychology would be just as foolish as to say that it makes very little difference whether the doctor who is present at the birth of a baby and watches it during its early days knew anything of the laws of medicine and of anatomy. The position of the evangelist in the religious life is comparable to that of the doctor who brings a child into the world. Both have a perilous responsibility. Both should be experts in their line. I contend that a sane, helpful evangelism is founded on a proper knowledge of the psychology of religion. Such are the solemn responsibilities and such the much needed training of a success¬ ful, safe evangelist. Do we find that all evangelists possess this needed training? We all know that this is not the case. On the other hand, the queer notion prevails that whereas a man should have technical train¬ ing to do pastoral work, yet that a man with little or no theological equipment can [ 16 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity easily become an evangelist. Indeed many would seem to hold that scientific training is a handicap to an evangelist, and that the less he knows of psychology and theology, the more efficient and successful he will be. This situation has brought about a condition in which the evangelistic field is more open than any other sphere of Christian work to the mountebank and the charlatan. The evangelist gets the people into an emotional condition where he can easily abuse his high prerogative. The crying call of the hour is for a sane evangelism. We need more sane, educated, conscientious men in evangelism, who have not only hearts on fire for the souls of men; but who have an expert knowledge both of theology, the science of God, and of psychology, the science of the human soul. I firmly believe that of all fields where a sane psychology of religion is needed, that the evangelistic demands such knowledge most of all. Then I would note, under this head, that in order properly to do personal work we need to know the laws of the human soul. A standardized method of evangelism and personal work has abounded, whereas we need a specific, personal, man-to-man method of approach. No traveling man would try to sell goods by a standardized method of ap¬ proach. He studies each man individually. He must know something, at least in a prac¬ tical way, of the laws that govern human personality. Surely the personal worker in [ 17 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity this greater work of winning men to Christ should not lag behind the efficient salesman in his knowledge of the laws of the human soul. As Hicks says in Ten Lessons in Per¬ sonal Evangelism, “There is an approach to each individual.” In the past, too much has it been assumed that all people are born into the kingdom alike by the storm and stress method. The more calm and normal method of gradual growth through the Spirit into the kingdom has been overlooked. I hope now we begin to see that many of the prob¬ lems of evangelism and personal work are psychological questions; and that no man can be a sane, wholesome evangelist or personal worker without some grasp on the funda¬ mental laws of the human soul. (HI.) VALUE OF THE STUDY FOR AN ADEQUATE DEFENCE OF THE FAITH This is a day when the science of apolo¬ getics, or a proper defence of the Christian Religion, is very important. Like our fore¬ fathers in the first centuries of the Chris¬ tian era, we are again called on to defend the historic faith. The issue of the struggle is clearly drawn. It is supernaturalism against naturalism; progressive evolution of humanity over against the old doctrine of salvation through divine Grace. This is no [ 18 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity arid academic question like the debates of the schoolmen as to how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. It is no theological logomachy that can be confined within the cloistered walls of some theolo¬ gical seminary. It is a vital, every-day issue that affects the personal, religious life of every Christian, whether he be a minister or a layman. This is no narrow battle line; but a mighty front that like the Hindenburg line during the war stretches over a whole continent and even further. It extends from our great theological seminaries to our church courts, out into our individual churches, to the mission fields, to our colleges and even to our high school class rooms and right into the homes of every Christian. Now in this battle of liberalism against the historic faith each Christian should do his part. It cannot be won by the efforts of the leaders alone, any more than victory in the great war could have been achieved through the purely in¬ dividual efforts of General Foch or General Pershing. Furthermore, in this great battle of the ages, there is a need for trained sol¬ diers both in the ranks of the clergy and of the laity. Mere enthusiasm and zeal will not conquer the powers of liberalism any more than good intentions alone would de¬ feat the Kaiser. It took patriotism plus skill and money and ships to win that war; and it is going to take piety plus information and hard study and individual training in the ranks to win the battle for the old faith. In [ 19 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity this great war for orthodoxy we need care¬ ful study in order that we may be properly fortified as to our own doctrinal position and in order further that we may be able to de¬ tect the weak points in the line of the enemy. I do not believe that the battle for the historic faith will ever be won until both clergy and laity are clearly informed as to the true issue that is at stake, and until they have that pro¬ per apologetic training in the fundamentals of their own faith that will enable them, not only to stand firmly but also to advance into the ranks of the enemy. But some one will ask, “What has all of this to do with the Psychology of religion?” I would answer, that the battle starts right here. It is the acceptance of a faulty psychol¬ ogy of religion that is the first step down¬ ward on the slippery path of heresy. When Satan is making his assaults on the line of orthodoxy, he first of all attacks the line that defends a sound psychology of religion. When he would conquer the citadel of the old faith, he first tries to storm the lines that hold the fundamental truths that man has a soul, that this personality is created by God and in His image, that it is free and responsible. When that line falls, then it is comparatively easy for him to conquer the other defences that uphold the doctrines of supernatural salvation—the deity and atonement of Christ, and the work of the Holy Ghost. What think ye of man? Has he a soul to be saved, one created in the image of God? [ 20 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Is he born into the world innocent, perfectly able in his own strength to choose the higher instincts of altruism and sympathy that lie dormant within him? Or is he guilty, de¬ praved, unable to save himself, and in dire need of divine Grace? If man has no soul worthy to be saved, or if he is not depraved, then there is no necessity for the doctrine of the atonement, of the incarnation, or of the work of the Holy Ghost. The first heresy then is in regard to the Psychology of re¬ ligion. Men, first of all, get off the track of orthodoxy in regard to the nature of man; and having left the line of conservatism here, they inevitably and logically go astray as to the nature of God, as to the person of Christ, as to the meaning of the atonement, and as to the whole conception of salvation. Christian doctrine is a closely-knit concep¬ tion, and when one part of the system is vitiated, then the whole structure is weak¬ ened. For a long time the rank and file of Chris¬ tians held that the study of psychology was of no import to them. It smacked too much of metaphysics and of the schools. In like manner they had said in the past that the Higher Criticism was an academic matter that was confined within the four walls of a theological seminary, until they found one day that it was cropping out in the High School histories, in the standard encyclo¬ pedias, and in some of our Sunday School literature. Then they awoke to the nature [ 21 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of the crisis and saw that it behooved them— for the sake of their children at least—to be¬ come informed on this matter of Higher Criticism. The subject had invaded their own homes, had awakened them from their doctrinal lethargy, and had forced them to become interested. So it will be with the psychology of re¬ ligion. The day has passed when the Chris¬ tian layman can be indifferent to the kind of psychology that is being taught to his chil¬ dren in the high schools and colleges of the land. A great deal of the current psychol¬ ogy, as will be pointed out later, leaves no foundation on which a Christian faith can be built. When a boy or a girl goes out into the world, it is very essential that we know his or her views as to the nature of his or her soul and as to the powers of that soul. A man’s attitude toward his own per¬ sonality is basic to all religion and morality. The philosophy of life of any man is most essential. Before I discuss any vital ques¬ tion with any man I would like, first of all, to know what that man’s philosophy of life is and especially what his attitude to his own soul is. The views of men are made almost entirely by their private philosophies of life. People are pessimists or optimists, material¬ ists or idealists, Christian Scientists or Cal¬ vinists not so much because of the given facts that are presented to them but be¬ cause of an underlying philosophy of life that colours and interprets these facts and [ 22 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity forces experience to fit into the private mould of their personal platform. As Swift has well said in Psychology and The Day’s Work, “The related experiences of an individual be¬ come organized into a system of ideas that decide his outlook and opinions in matters upon which the experiences have any bear¬ ing. These systems of thought have been called mental complexes.” We see then that it is very important to get right mental com¬ plexes into the mind of the Christian. Be¬ fore we could possibly get the truth into some minds, it would be necessary, first of all, to have a kind of mental house-cleaning and get rid of some false mental complexes. As long as the Christian Scientist elects to stand upon his peculiar mental platform re¬ garding matter and the human soul, it would be a fruitless undertaking to try to get into his mind the truths of High Calvinism. There are some philosophies of life that positively will not serve as an intellectual foundation for Christian doctrine. They are too rickety. I had a Seminary friend who held the peculiar materialistic view that a man’s conduct is determined absolutely by the arrangement of the nerve cells in his brain. As long as he elected to stand upon such a psychological platform, it was a hopeless task to get him to accept proper views as to a man’s individual responsibility to Almighty God, as to faith, repentence, and salvation in general. [ 23 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Then a proper understanding of the psy¬ chology of religion is a good protection against many of the “isms” and “schisms” of the day. One of the most distressing sights of the times is to see supposedly Christian people drifting into Christian Science, Mental Healing, Spiritualism and other false cults. As we hope to show later, in many cases a faulty psychology of religion was responsible for the lapse. Their faith was not properly anchored to the great doc¬ trinal truths of the Bible. It was not a thought-out religion, but was founded on empty emotionalism. Like the man of whom Christ spoke, they built their religious struc¬ ture on the sand of empty emotionalism; and the rains of error descended, and the floods of false suggestions came, and the winds of heresy blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell. Now in a study of the psychology of religion we are in position to understand and to correct many of the extravagancies of modern religious life. We can interpret and understand how to apply the proper cor¬ rective to the wild emotional orgies of the religion of some of the negroes. We can understand more clearly other neurotic out¬ bursts and heresies that have arisen in the history of Christianity; and we can know all the better how to avoid these pitfalls in our own religious life. All of these matters are problems that concern the psychology of religion. [ 24 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (IV.) VALUE OF THE STUDY AS A STIMULUS TO DEEPEN OUR APPREHENSION OF CHRISTIANITY One of the dangers incident to the orthodox position is that it will land us in arid intel- lectualism. From the very nature of the case, because the great doctrinal positions have been formulated by the Fathers of old, the young Christian is prone to accept in a second-hand sort of a manner these doctrinal positions without any original investigation on his part. Henceforth and forever he be¬ comes a conventional, second-hand thinker who goes to the fountain of tradition for all of his inspiration and who lacks entirely the spirit of investigation and research. He will traverse the old paths of the past; and they have been travelled so long that they have become hard and beaten and never yield to any creative thought. Hence liberalism often has more freshness and spontaneity and stimulus about it than has orthodoxy. In a conversation with the late Dr. Warfield, of Princeton Seminary, he admitted to me that he read largely only the books of liberal¬ ism, for he had clearly in his mind the posi¬ tion of the conservative side and needed lit¬ tle additional study along those lines. I sub¬ mit this question, “Is it a healthy condition when we have to go to liberalism to get our [ 25 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity spontaneity, our inspiration and our stimulus to creative thinking? Is orthodoxy to be bankrupt in respect to all that is buoyant and fresh and creative?” One characteristic of American religious life today is the lack of creative thought. The American pulpit does not seem to grap¬ ple with the eternal realities as it should. In many of our religious discussions there is much that is orthodox and true—perfectly true—but perfectly commonplace, and with¬ out a touch of novelty, originality, or sug¬ gestiveness. In current religious thought we miss anything that is intellectually stimulat¬ ing. How few people we meet elicit any original thoughts from us, or inspire us to freshness and spontaneity! I believe, however, that we can all be more suggestive and stimulat¬ ing in our thinking, if we will only strive to that end. What is the secret of suggestive thinking? It is to receive our thoughts not in any second-hand sort of manner, but at first-hand. No second-hand thinker can possess a spark of originality or intellectual stimulus. The recipe for suggestiveness is to quit second-hand thinking, and to launch out into a fundamental, first-hand investiga¬ tion of the essentials of life. We must first of all drink at the eternal springs of thought ourselves, if the rivers of spontaneity and suggestiveness are to flow from us. [ 26 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity The problem then resolves itself into this, “How can a man be orthodox and yet con¬ tinue to be fresh and stimulating?” We want to remain on the paths of orthodoxy. We are not willing to stray out on the by¬ paths of liberalism, even to secure a few novel, bizarre nuggets of original thought that we may pick up by the way. My an¬ swer would be, “Go back to the original sources in your investigation of the subject at hand. Think out for yourself the great problems of life and religion. Cease all sec¬ ond-hand thinking.” Herein lies the value of a study of the psychology of religion. We are tracing problems right back to their source. We are dealing with first-hand reali¬ ties. We are studying the very basic, essen¬ tial problems of our being. The value of the study of religious psychology is that each Christian has just as much right as any other to investigate for himself and to come to his own conclusions. I know of nothing that will so give him a new intellectual and spiritual vision as a judicious study of the psychology of religion. If more of our think¬ ers would study psychology and philosophy, there would be more of an intellectual stimu¬ lus and freshness in their utterances. No study is more stimulating, more suggestive of new thoughts than the psychology of religion. Finally, this study will enable us to sound in a deeper manner the richer veins of faith, peace, and power in our blessed religion. [ 27 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Most Christians do not claim their full heri¬ tage of peace and joy and power in the Holy Ghost. We all live below par spiritually. I firmly believe that a study of a sane psy¬ chology of religion will enable us to claim more fully our full heritage of power and peace in Christianity. Why do heresies arise? Is it not because Christians have neglected some fundamental aspect of their religion—and a heresy has sprung up properly to accentuate this neg¬ lected doctrine? The Christian world is largely neglecting to emphasize the immense psychic power in the ordinary peace, faith, and joy of the Christian life—and hence Christian Science is flourishing today. Be¬ cause these qualities are so emphasized by heretical cults, we Christians lean backward, will have nothing to do with such things and hence we fail to live up to our full heri¬ tage. If the member of some false cult gets sick, all of the devotees of the body will avail themselves of all the faith, prayer, and hope at their disposal for the restoration of the sick. You let a Christian become ill, and we not only do not avail ourselves of the normal power of Christian faith and optimism but we even forget to pray for the sick one. We consign the sick to Providence and natural causes—and go on about our business. Now I claim that the Christian Scientists and Faith Healers have no monopoly on the psychic power of Christian faith and joy. I [ 28 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity hope that a study of the Psychology of Re¬ ligion will show us how to avail ourselves of our full heritage along these lines. In the chapters on The New Psychology I will discuss this whole matter more in detail. I hope that this study will be the means of opening up whole avenues of power in the Christian life that you have never known before. Out in the oil fields the companies will often deepen an old well; and thereby reach new sands and obtain a fresh “gusher.” Now I firmly believe that the ordinary Chris¬ tian needs to deepen the wells of his Chris¬ tian experience; to dig down through the strata of common-place, conventional re¬ ligion to new sands where he will find fresh streams of peace, faith, and power. We are not living up to our full possibilities as Chris¬ tians. We have left the wonderful psychic qualities of faith and optimism entirely in the hands of the faith healer and Christian Scientist. The Church has decided that she will have absolutely nothing to do with such things. As a result we have deprived our¬ selves of rich mines of power and strength. Such is the challenge that modern psy¬ chology makes to Christianity. It is both destructive and constructive. On the one hand, many modern psychological doctrines tend to undermine the very foundations on which the superstructure of a sound Chris¬ tian faith is built. The Christian of today must be able to defend the basic pillars that uphold his faith. The crucial battles of [ 29 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity present-day religion are being fought out not on the fields of theology, historical and literary criticism, nor on that theatre where science and theology are supposed to be in eternal warfare, but in the sphere of the psychology of religion. Then, on the con¬ structive side, modern psychology hurls the challenge to Christianity to set her own house in order. There is no denying the fact that the modern mind demands more peace, poise, and power both physical and spiritual than traditional, scholastic, and conventional Christianity is able to give. How shall she answer the challenge? The answer is to be found in a sound psychology of religion. [ 30 ] Chapter II. The Rise of the Psychology of Religion I N’ this chapter I wish to discuss briefly the relation that in general has existed be¬ tween psychology and religion during the past one hundred years. I desire to sketch the two currents of thought as they lead up to and merge in the comparatively recent science of the Psychology of Religion. As has been pointed out, the attitude of psy¬ chology in general to the whole system of theology is very fundamental and basic. A sound theory of the human mind makes pos¬ sible an enduring theology; while a false doctrine of the soul and of its function im¬ perils the very existence of the Christian system, or, in fact, of any religion that is worthy of the name. In the first place, let us note the attitude of the older psychologists towards religion. By these I mean the school of Natural Realists or Common Sense Psychologists made up of such men as Thos. Reid, Wm. Hamilton, Noah Porter, and James McCosh. The outstanding feature of the older psy¬ chologists that is of interest to the religious worker is that they believed in the doctrine of the soul, and constructed their psycholo¬ gical tenets on the “common sense” testimony of consciousness and on the normal conscious [ 31 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity life of the ego. The psychological position of these men was decidedly favorable to Christianity. Upon its tenets the principal beliefs of orthodox religion could be easily constructed. As Baldwin points out in his History of Psychology, the theological in¬ terest in natural realism and in the philos¬ ophy of common sense had much to do with their currency. Dogmatic spiritualism be¬ came the theory of the soul that was taught by Christian theologians. In most of our church colleges and theological seminaries the psychological tenets of this school were largely held up until a few years ago; and in our orthodox seminaries today, Natural Realism is the current psychology. This con¬ dition is not accidental, but has resulted be¬ cause in the psychology of Common Sense Christian leaders have found the system that most nearly squares up with the psycholo¬ gical teachings and presuppositions of the Bible and which makes possible the erection of orthodox theology. The chief tenets of this school such as the value of the testimony of consciousness, the value of introspection, the doctrine of the existence in man of an enduring personality that thinks, and feels, and wills, the importance of common sense, and the truth of the duality in experience of a material and of a spiritual world—all of these positions were largely sound and very helpful to a study of religion. It is the vogue in scientific and pseudo philosophic circles to speak disparagingly of the old psy- [ 32 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity chology, and to denominate it, “The faculty psychology long discarded.” Of course, there were some crudities about it, and there was a tendency to accept in too uncritical a spirit the findings of consciousness and of common sense. But with all of its short-comings it still stands as a truer, more exact interpreta¬ tion of man’s psychic life than many of our highly specialized, ultra scientific, quasi philosophical forms of the so-called “New Psychology.” After a student comes from the highly technical, behaviouristic, evolutionary terms of the new to the simple, common sense statements of the old, he feels like a traveler who has left the malarial, boggy, enervating lowlands of a swamp country and risen in altitude to the bracing, inspiring, tonic heights of a lofty plateau. The old Psycho¬ logy may be lacking in scientific terminology and in reaction experiments, and may be too metaphysical—but it leaves a sound foundation upon which Christianity may be constructed. All honour to those men who in their day stood forth unflinchingly for the doctrine of the existence of a human soul, and who, in the face, ofttimes, of contempt and misrepresentation contended for their position. They have laid the foundation upon which a Christian system of thought can be built, and have made possible a ra¬ tional, enduring theology. In the next place, let us notice briefly the rise of the New Psychology, and its bearing on the Christian life. Side by side with the [ 33 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Natural Realism there has always existed a psychology of protest. This rejected the doctrine of the soul and resolved man into a bundle of associated ideas and sensations. The greatest representatives of this school was David Hume with his doctrines of Sensa¬ tionalism and Associationism. In his system a thorough-going “Associationism,” essen¬ tially mechanical in character, took the place of self-consciousness, as held in the older psychology. He divided our mental life into impressions and ideas. The flow, connection, and composition of these ideas was ruled by the principle of association. In order more fully to explain some of our more fundamen¬ tal thoughts and axioms and the feeling of identity in our mental life, he buttressed his doctrine of the power of association by the principle of “custom” or “habit.” Whatever has the semblence in our psychic life of fixed¬ ness, necessity, or permanence is said to be due to the working of this principle. In his hand, habit worked wonders, almost miracles; and essayed to perform the role that the “in¬ ner sense” of John Locke, the formal cate¬ gories of thought of Kant, and the doctrine of the human soul in Natural Realism all claimed to do. As Baldwin well says in his History of Psychology, “Things repeatedly and invariably associated together become parts of one whole over which habit over¬ flows and to which habit gives the sanction of a universal and necessary connection.” Such was the position of that greatest representa- [ 34 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tive of the psychology that opposed the doc¬ trine of the human soul. Opponents of the belief in human personality have never found a more subtle, acute protagonist than David Hume. Another development in the New Psy¬ chology came with the introduction of ex¬ perimental work in this line. Perhaps the greatest exponent of this position was the German Psychologist Wundt. He calls his science “empirical” psychology to distinguish it from the “Metaphysical” psychology of the old school. He says in his Outlines of Psy¬ chology, “The characteristic that distin¬ guishes metaphysical psychology from empi¬ rical psychology is, then, to be found in the attempt of metaphysical psychology to deduce psychical processes, not from other psychical processes, but from some substratum entire¬ ly unlike these processes themselves: either from the manifestation of special mind sub¬ stance, or from the attributes and processes of matter.” There arose a distinct line of mental research called “Mental Chrono- metry,” which inquires into the time taken up by psycho-physical and mental processes. The time of the reaction from sense to muscular response—as when I press a key as soon as I see a light—may be divided into three parts: that of the sensory transmission by the optic nerve, secondly, that of the cen¬ tral or brain process, and finally that of the motor transmission to the muscles of the hand. Now, since the time required for parts [ 35 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity one and three may be calculated, this may be deducted from the whole, and the actual time of cerebral processes discovered. Such is the method of the experimental psychology. This demanded that psychology and its prob¬ lems should be approached rather in the spirit of science than of metaphysics. Where it was not hostile to the existence of the human soul, it was agnostic on the subject; and left such shadowy, scholastic, unscientific themes to the metaphysicians in their cloist¬ ered halls. Undoubtedly the greatest representative in America of the New Psychology was William James. He has written in a wonderful style; and has advanced many theories that are il¬ luminating and suggestive. Much of his psy¬ chology is sound. He resolves personality into a stream of consciousness. His psy¬ chology is permeated with his pragmatic spirit, and shows a decided disinclination to consider any reality as final or fixed. The Psychology of William James is by no means unfavorable to religion. It merely does not leave as carefully prepared a foundation for a theological super-structure as the old psy¬ chology. Natural Realism had left the stones all laid, and the foundation ready for the building of a religious edifice. The psy¬ chology of James leaves many good stones there—but the theologian before he erects his building, must roll up his sleeves, and construct as staple a foundation as possible out of the stones at his disposal. [ 36 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity At this point we would mention the rise of Genetic Psychology or the science dealing with mental origins, and its religious bear¬ ing. The inspiration of this was the doc¬ trine of Naturalistic Evolution. Its pre¬ cursors were Lamarcke with his belief in the transmission of acquired characters, and Charles Darwin with his doctrines of the continuity of animal and human organisms both as to physical, mental and moral char¬ acteristics, and of development through the operation of natural selection and the sur¬ vival of the fittest. Perhaps the best repre¬ sentative of this evolutionary period was Herbert Spencer. He applied consciously and directly the principles of psychology which were implicit in Darwin. The native a priori forms of the mind were looked upon as solidified social experience, acquired, hardened, transmitted by heredity. In more modern times the positions of this school have undoubtedly been taken up and ampli¬ fied by the “Behaviourists.” They contend that we should cease trying to study the soul, or character of a man, but should confine all of our efforts to a consideration of his ex¬ ternal acts, or behaviour. Psychology with this school is resolved largely into a study of animal and human behaviour and a con¬ sideration of the laws operative in the one sphere of actions. They interpret the mind in terms of the “behaviour” of the organism under different conditions. The American Psychologist, Professor Holt, for instance, [ 37 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity very clearly expounds the view that mind is merely the “integration” of the organism’s motor response to stimuli. In line with this same general position is the psychological positions of that new school, the Neo-Realism. In their hatred of all that is subjective and in their passion for all that is objective, some of the writers reduce consciousness to a mere relation between external objects. Others hold that consciousness is a mere trans¬ parency that, like a good window glass, enables us to see outside objects just as they are without in any way changing them. Then, there are some, like Spaulding, who adopting a term from mathematics, hold that consciousness is a dimension. It must be evident to all that these various positions unite in taking away from us entirely the doctrine of human personality. The human mind cries out for bread—an abiding, spiri¬ tual principle that can give unity, indivi¬ duality, and a sense of identity to man’s psychic life—and genetic psychology has given it a stone, a dimension. Then there is a newer psychology still. This is the science that is built on such fac¬ tors in man’s psychic life as the doctrine of the subconscious, the theory of fundamental complexes built out of the primary instincts that are evolved from lower animals, the power of suggestion (both auto and hetero), and various theories as to divided personality. The tendency of this psychology is to fit all our psychic life into abnormal moulds. The [ 38 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity alienest and the student of paranoia would now become our authority on all psychic mat¬ ters. The difference between this and the old psychology is well brought out by Tansley, the chief exponent of the new position, in his New Psychology. He says that for many years the subject matter of psychology was almost entirely limited to what is called “the content of consciousness,” and that its sole method of investigation was introspection. He contends that a great advance in recent years has been largely due to a recognition of the part played by the unconscious and non-rational processes in mental life. He holds that this great change is due, on the one hand, to the evolutionary, biological way of regarding the human mind as absolutely evolved from the lower animals, and, on the other, to a new comprehension of the mean¬ ing of abnormal mental processes, or psy¬ chopathology. As we go into the position of this abnormal psychology in some detail in our two chapters on The New Psychology, we will not discuss it further at this point. Briefly we have tried to trace the relation¬ ship of these two currents of thought. We have now come to the point where we must notice the rise of the science of Psychology of Religion. This is a comparatively new science. We find precursors of it in that great work of Augustine, The Confessions, and in the treatise of that great American psychologist, philosopher, and theologian, Jonathan Edwards, on The Religious Affec- [ 39 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tions in three parts. But these were more of a metaphysical, devotional, and theolo¬ gical nature than scientific and psychological. They were only heralds of the dawn of the new science; and it was many years after their appearance before the dawn. For a long, long time scientists and psychologists never seemed to think that the phenomena of the religious life should be studied. Either they were too indifferent to the whole sub¬ ject of religious phenomena to consider them worth investigating, or else they considered the religious precincts too sacred to be in¬ vaded by the methods of science. The real pioneers in this work, who broke the ground in the field of religious psychology, were Wil¬ liams James in his Varieties of Religious Ex¬ perience and Starbuck in his Psychology of Religion. These men for the first time, in¬ vestigated the factors of the religious life in an inductive, scientific spirit. Of course, they made no really new discoveries in the field of religious phenomena; and they seemed to lack the power of critical discrimination that would enable them to judge between the true and the false, the sane and the extravagant in the sphere of religious phenomena. The chief value of their efforts is that they mani¬ fested to the world of science the importance of the religious facts in life, and that, by ex¬ ample and teaching, they made it clear that Christianity, as a psychic study, is just as worthy of scientific consideration as are those data that can be weighed and measured. [ 40 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity The day has gone when scientists and philo¬ sophers can contemptuously rule out of court, as unworthy of all serious attention and in¬ vestigation, the data of the religious life. This new standing in the scientific field, is, I believe, largely due to the careful, pains¬ taking efforts of these pioneers in the work of psychology of religion. Then, too, their efforts had a helpful influence on the treat¬ ment of Christianity itself. It was made clear once for all to Christian thinkers that in the psychology of religion, they had a wonderful field for investigation and study. It was evident that critical principles and scientific methods could be well applied to all spheres of Christian work and religious education. Hence, largely through the ef¬ forts of these early students of psychology of religion, a large field with wonderful potentialities was opened up for the theolo¬ gian, the minister, the student of Sunday School education, and, in fact, for all of those who are interested in more than a super¬ ficial way in the activities of the Christian life. More and more has it become manifest that this is a field in which onlv the Chris- tian thinker is qualified to make fruitful in¬ vestigations and sound deductions. The un¬ believer may collect inductively the facts of the religious life, but just because he has had no spiritual experience or first-hand acquaint¬ ance with the data of Christianity, he is not prepared to make any helpful or sound inter¬ pretations of the phenomena before him. [ 41 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Thus, while scientists who are not Chris¬ tians may point out the vast possibilities latent in the new field of psychology of re¬ ligion, yet it remains for the genuine Chris¬ tian to develop this new science to its highest consummation. Surely the opening up of this new field of exploration constitutes a mighty challenge to all of the scientific ac¬ curacy, and to all of the subtle powers of criticism and investigation that the Christian thinker possesses. I would not leave the reader under the impression that James and Starbuck were the only pioneers in this field. There were also men who like Dr. G. Stanley Hall began the periodical which since 1912 has been called The Journal of Religious Psy¬ chology, and like Coe, who in 1900 wrote The Spiritual Life. The further develop¬ ment of this science may be well divided into a left and a right wing. In the rest of this chapter we will consider these two lines of investigation. The left wing may be represented by such characteristic writers as James Leuba, who has written A Psychological Study of Re¬ ligion and a Belief in God and Immortality; by Ames, who has written a Psychology of Religious Experience; by James Bissett Pratt, who has written a book entitled The Religious Consciousness, and by Swisher in Religion and the New Psychology. This angle of psychological development is de¬ structive rather than constructive. A fav¬ orite method of this school, used especially [ 42 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity by James Leuba, has been the inductive or questionaire method that was inaugurated by Starbuck and James. A series of religious questions would be sent out to representative men in all lines of endeavor, and from the replies received, various theories of religious interpretation would be formed. This is liable to all of the dangers of the inductive, statistical method of investigation. When inductions along religious lines are divorced from all of the fundamental axioms of re¬ ligion and from all of the stabilizing influ¬ ences of great general principles, then most faulty and illogical generalizations are likely to result. This has actually been the case in many of these so-called scientific studies. When a man forms his generalizations from a limited number of replies received from a rather limited sphere of investigation with¬ out any regard to the general principles of revelation, morality or religion, then there is no limit to the fantastic theories of re¬ ligious interpretation that he may concoct. As I have said above, the purpose of this left wing of psychological investigation seems to be destructive rather than construc¬ tive. It would tear down completely the strongholds of orthodoxy. In the hands of liberal thinkers the psychology of religion has been converted into a weapon with which to tear down the bulwarks of the Christian faith. I have said that in its passion for the purely inductive method it made no ap¬ peal to the fundamental principles of mo¬ rality, or revelation. If there is any sphere [ 43 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity to whose general principles and ultimate con¬ clusions it appeals, it is the field of Natural¬ istic Evolution. For the destructive critic of religion the dicta of Evolution have be¬ come the final court of appeal, and the ulti¬ mate and absolute revelation of the truth. The method of this left wing is to attempt to reduce all of the higher data of the re¬ ligious consciousness to phenomena of a lower sphere. Especially would it find in the deliverance of Naturalistic Evolution the complete explanation, by means of an appeal to primitive religious practices, of all those Christian experiences that are so vital to the believer. The higher is to be interpreted in terms of the lower. By such writers as E. S. Ames in his Psychology of Religious Experience, religion is identified with the emergence of the social consciousness and is based, from the positive standpoint, on the “mores” or customs of the tribe to which a religious sanction has been given and which correspond to the “thou shalts” of the moral law; and from the negative standpoint, on the taboo, or that place, object, or event which would hinder the collective, social life of the tribe, and which corresponds to the “Thou shalt nots” of the Bible. This left wing teaches that conversion is purely an emergence at the adolescent period of the domination of the higher centers; that revivals are explicable by what has been dis¬ covered of the rhythm of life, and the psy¬ chology of the mob; that belief is really feel- 144] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ing founded on sense perception; that wor¬ ship arises from the gregarious or herd in¬ stinct, and from man’s desire for expres¬ sion; that the moral law is only an expedi¬ ency founded on the needs, for the moment, of the herd; in fact, that all religious prac¬ tices and theistic beliefs are to be supplanted, in the process of evolution, by that purely social religion in which the mandates of the crowd take the place of the moral law, and the will of society usurps the throne of the Divine Being. The final position, if there be any final conclusion to such methods, is that the old beliefs in God and Immortality are hurtful to man in his struggle, and should be given up entirely. Such is the blind alley of negation into which this left wing of religious psychology has brought the be¬ liever. Surely this destructive position of this branch of the psychology of religion is a distinct challenge to the defenders of the old faith. In the next place, I would note the work done by what I have styled the right wing of religious psychology. This is ably repre¬ sented by such men as: James Stalker with his Christian Psychology; James Snowden with his Psychology of Religion; Gardner and Psychology and Preaching; Pym with Psychology and the Christian Life; E. L. House and The Psychology of Orthodoxy; Hudson in Recent Psychology and the Chris¬ tian Religion. The work of these men is constructive rather than destructive. They [ 45 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity well realize the limitations of the study, and have not endeavoured to make the deliver¬ ances of the new science of psychology of religion take the place of the Divine Relation from God. In their hands the study becomes an ally instead of an enemy to the Christian Faith. In general, their work and investiga¬ tions are postulated on the foundation of orthodox, evangelical Christianity. Their purpose is by means of a study of the psy¬ chology of religion to inject into all forms of religious work and, especially into reli¬ gious education, more scientific, efficient methods; to unlock by their investigations for the average Christian the deeper riches and untold treasures of a boundless Chris¬ tian experience; and in the sphere of apolo¬ getics, to show conclusively that the natural revelation which God has made of Himself and of man’s nature in the sphere of Psy¬ chology harmonizes in every way with the supernatural revelation which He has made both of His Being and of man’s needs in the Bible. In general, the above purposes have been well discharged. There is one criticism that I would pass on the work of these men of the right wing. In some cases they have lacked the spirit of criticism and of philo¬ sophic poise, and have manifested too great a haste to accept unquestioningly the newest deliverances of the scientists, and have tried post haste to fit the facts of religion into the newly-discovered mould, even if there is a strain and a pinch somewhere. Many of [ 46 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity these writers have showed a tendency to be worshippers of the “Zeitgeist”; to accept at once without a critical judgment all of the newest psychologic deliverances; and to lack the spirit of genuine criticism. That is one weakness of many American thinkers and preachers: they worship at the shrine of passing and ephemeral philosophic and scientific discoveries. Some preachers read of some new psychological theory, and then, forthwith announce that they will preach on this subject next Sunday night, and show how religion must be recast to fit into this new mould. What the world needs impera¬ tively today is more of the note of authority in pulpit and in thelogical chair—that spirit which will refuse to accept every new psy¬ chological or philosophical theory, even if it is backed up by the prestige of some ultra specialist. One great advantage of the min¬ ister’s position is that he may speak with a note of authority. He may not be competent to make elaborate reaction experiments; he may not be a specialist in abnormal psy¬ chology; but when it comes to dealing with the nature, the origin, the needs, the laws of human personality, he can speak with a note of absolute finality, such as no other can do. Let the religious worker stand by his guns; and contend, especially in regard to the nature of the soul, for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It is this note of authority, of certitude, and of conviction in regard to human personality that is lack- 147 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ing in American religious life today. The preacher is the very man to restore this miss¬ ing element. The peril of the status of the psychology of religion today is that it is be¬ ing discussed ofttimes by men who are not specialists in regard either to the things of God or man; and that often hasty, erroneous, and even dangerous theories will be con¬ cocted. In this hour when psychology has come into its own, and when even the daily papers are publishing popular discussions on Psycho-analysis and Auto-suggestion, it well behooves the religious worker to realize the dangers incident to such popular and often superficial discussions, and to supply that element of absoluteness and authority in re¬ gard to the religious aspect of personality that is so much needed. [ 48 ] Chapter III. Human Personality I N this chapter I wish to discuss the prob¬ lem of personality. Perhaps it will sur¬ prise many readers to hear that the fact of personality is called in question today. On the one hand, it is denied by those material¬ istic psychologists who reduce all of man’s psychic life to external behaviour with the three-fold process of outward stimulus, cen¬ tral re-adjustment, and motor response. If personality is not denied, it is made an im¬ potent spectator of the purely mechanical, nervous adjustment between the organism and its environment. By other writers per¬ sonality is the mere summation of the vari¬ ous attitudes of our conscious and subcon¬ scious life. Such is the challenge from the materialistic, functional psychology to per¬ sonality. Then there is an equally urgent challenge from the idealistic wing. They teach that man is inherently divine, a part of God, and that salvation consists in the obliterating of the distinction between his personality and God’s. They end up by de¬ stroying personality just as truly as does the materialist. What is the problem of per¬ sonality? It is not whether in his psychic life man possesses a stream of consciousness-^ that flows on uninterruptedly from day to day; it is not whether in the midst of the [ 49 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity multiplicity of his experiences he has a feel¬ ing of inter-connectedness between his vari¬ ous states of consciousness. The issue re¬ solves itself into this: whether in the midst of the various transient states that we call experience there abides a personality that has unity, identity, and a peculiar indivi¬ duality, separate from other personalities and from God’s; or to put the matter in theological terms, the problem reduces itself to this: does man possess a soul? This issue is most important to all psy¬ chology, but especially to the psychology of religion. If man is a mere bundle of sensa¬ tions, or a bare stream of consciousness, or a mathematical dimension, as the Neo- Realists insist, then he has no soul worthy of the name to save. If this be the case, then while we may study man and his nervous reactions experimentally, as we would investigate the animals, yet all reli¬ gious psychology is useless. Let me insist again THAT THE VERY STUDY OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION IMPLIES THAT MAN HAS A SOUL. If we listen to many of our modern psychologists, we would decide that man has no soul to save, and that any psychology of religion is a useless study. If man has no real personality, or soul, we had just as well disband our Sunday Schools, tear down our churches, do away with our missionary societies, and cease writing or speaking of the psychology of religion—yea, of religion itself. Hence, in a treatise of [ 50 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity this kind, we see the importance of ascer¬ taining right at the start whether there is any such existence in man as an enduring personality. The religious worker may be rather shocked to find that modern psycho¬ logy denies the existence of the soul. Now, it may not do so in these words; but it is either agnostic towards or completely op¬ posed to the old doctrine that man has an abiding personality with unity, identity, and individuality. It insists that we should leave such questions alone as unworthy of psy¬ chology, and should study entirely the prob¬ lem of behaviour both of man and of the animals. Hence, it behooves those who are interested in the fundamentals of orthodox psychology to come once more to the defence of the doctrine of personality. Has man a soul? Let us at this point note some of the outstanding arguments for the existence of real personality in man. [ 51 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity WE BELIEVE THAT MAN HAS AN ENDURING PERSONALITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I.) FROM THE FACT THAT ALL THEORIES THAT WOULD SUPPLANT THE DOCTRINE IMPLY IT. Thus arose in the last century the practice of trying to make the doctrine of the associa¬ tion of ideas take the place of any real theory of personality. All of man’s mental life was resolved into the association of ideas. This was made the mighty power that generated all his thoughts, emotions, and volitions. The power of the association of ideas had dis¬ placed the soul of man. It was no longer necessary, and could be discarded along with other psychological antiquities. But it must be clear to any careful thinker that the bare doctrine of association of ideas will not in some automatic way generate all of man’s psychic activity for him. The very notion of association of ideas demands some abid¬ ing, permanent entity in man’s psychic life to which the various mental elements can be related, some kind of common field or theatre in which the association of ideas can take place. We begin to see that the very doctrine of association that would displace the soul demands for its successful operation and real [ 52 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity foundation the existence of an abiding per¬ sonality in man. Then, too, while associa¬ tion might in some mechanical way bring up into the field of consciousness our past ex¬ periences and direct our rather instinctive and habitual actions, yet it would be impotent to generate any novel ideas or to do any creative thinking in general. Only a real personality can accomplish that. Thus we see that this doctrine that would supplant the theory of personality, demands it for its successful operation. So it is with our modern Neo-Realists. They would resolve consciousness into a mere relationship. They would make sense data or the reports of our five senses the ultimate elements in man’s psychic life, and would build up all his psychic experiences from these. In fact, the Neo-Realist would do away with consciousness; and in his passion for the purely objective, would destroy the subjective entirely. At this point I would like to ask this question, “What meaning have sense data, unless they are related to a personality that can experience them, and to whom they have some meaning?” Thus the very doctrine of sense data demands the existence of the soul. The New Psychology has not rendered less valid the doctrine of personality. As an example of the position of modern psycho¬ logy, we find that Pierce in Our Unconscious Mind divides the field of psychic activity in man into the three fields of the conscious, [ 53 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the fore-conscious, and the unconscious. Be¬ tween the conscious and the foreconscious he postulates a secondary censor that tends to protect the conscious, to keep painful ideas in the background, and to keep the stream of thought clear. Between the foreconscious and the unconscious he also places a primary censor that is protective in its function, and which tends to keep back the unconscious wishes and repressed conflicts of our lives. Now, what strikes us is that this theory of the three fields of psychic activity with its two censors that stand like sentinels, is a very elaborate mental mechanism, and that like all complicated structures, it should have for its harmonious working some cen¬ tral head that shall guide smoothly and suc¬ cessfully all of its elaborate operations. All of this only goes to prove that the more elab¬ orate modern psychology makes the mechan¬ ism of man’s mental life, the more imperative it makes the demand for a real personality as its central head. In other words, the New Psychology instead of rendering less credible the doctrine of the soul, has by its very elab¬ orate psychic machinery rendered an uncon¬ scious testimony to the need for an abiding personality. Thus we see that every theory that is put forward as a substitute for real personality, demands it for its successful operation. This would only go to show that the doctrine of the soul is basic to all of man’s psychic life, and that we cannot possibly dispense with it. [ 54 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (II.) BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF PERSON¬ ALITY IS NECESSARY TO MAKE INTELLIGIBLE CERTAIN PSYCHIC FACTORS IN A MAN’S LIFE For example, there is the fact of memory. Now an act of memory implies not merely the recurrence of an object, but the recur¬ rence of that object as having affected an enduring personality. If there is no indentity about the subject, the fact of memory is in¬ explicable. If I am an entirely different person today from what I was last year, then the recollection of a certain event as affecting me at a given time and place last year, would have no meaning. The very idea of memory would become meaningless, and would soon drop out of usage. Professor Warren in Human Psychology explains memory as due to a retention trace from a past experience left in the nervous system. But a concrete experience of memory does not consist in a mere revival of a retention trace of past scenes, but of a definite revival of these happenings as having occurred to me, as being mine, in other words, as affect¬ ing my personality. Thus memory to be ex¬ plicable at all depends on a personality that endures throughout the past that embraces the given recalled events. Porfessor Warren says that memory is like a phonograph rec- [ 55 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ord, which bears no resemblence to the words or music. But we must remember that it takes personality to manipulate a phono¬ graph record before we have music. A bare record would lie idle until Doomsday with¬ out bringing up a past. Let us consider that mysterious quality of our being that we call the sense of per¬ sonal identity. How can we grow older day by day, have new experiences, make new ac¬ quisitions, forget many things, and yet con¬ tinue to be the same persons? Jastrow in The Subconscious speaks of this as follows: “The feeling of personal identity is thus something deep, intimate, and elemental, and yet participates in the fluctuations and va¬ rieties of mental experience.” How shall we explain this mysterious sense of personal identity that is the very backbone of our existence? Professor James with his stream of consciousness theory, holds that about all of our experience there is a certain personal warmth that binds all of them together, and renders it absolutely certain that they are our own and do not belong to another. But that sense of private and personal warmth is the very thing that we are trying to ex¬ plain—and should not be given as an ex¬ planation itself. The best explanation of this mystery is that at the very basis of all our psychic life is a personality that abides the same throughout life, and that is responsible for this sense of identity. [ 56 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Then there is the subtle fact of meaning. Why do various objective experiences have different meanings for different people? Why does a mere piece of goods with red, white, and blue on it stir up feelings of patriotism in one man, and of hatred in the anarchist, an enemy to all government? This subtle sense of meaning can be explained only by the existence of an enduring personality that is affected variously by the different experi¬ ences, and that gives to each a meaning. This interpretation of varied experiences cannot be explained merely in objective terms by the pouring in of sense impressions upon the mind from the external world. The mind contributes something to the process. There is its entire past with its storehouse of memory that it brings; there are certain ulti¬ mate categories of thought that it imposes that bring order out of chaos, and give us a real sense of meaning. If you deny the ex¬ istence of an abiding personality, then it logically follows that the given external happening would have the same meaning for each individual. The existence of this element of meaning cannot be denied. Even the materialist must postulate it to make his own theory endure. There could be no doctrine of materialism with its elaborate hypothesis of the conservation of energy in a mere world where atoms impinged upon each other mechanically and worked out all of man’s psychic life. If materialism is to endure, there must be a personality with a [ 57 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity mind to form its elaborate hypotheses, and to understand these when they are concocted. What is true of materialism is equally true of Neo-Realism. With its highly technical doctrines, based largely on modern mathe¬ matics, it needs a mind that is vastly more than a mere relationship both to elaborate these finely spun theories, and to understand them after they are concocted. One of the ablest, clearest exponents of modern “soul-less” Psychology is Professor Warren in his book Human Psychology. He holds that the changes in the nervous con¬ nections are not due to a mysterious guiding agency, which acts as a sort of telephone operator within us, whose duty it is to plug in certain connections and remove others. Now there is the very point of difference between psychology based on personality and the purely behaviouristic psychology. To the latter the mental life is comparable to a sort of automatic telephone exchange where the connections between the sensory and motor nerves are made mechanically. To the be¬ liever in personality, while there are the wires and connections that play a vital part in mental life and are comparable to the nervous system, yet there is also an operator within, who has a hand in blocking certain connections, in changing others, and even in initiating messages of his own. But some one will exclaim with horror, “You are bringing philosophy into the dis- [ 58 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity cussion—and that does not belong in a treat¬ ment of psychology.” My reply is that you can have no sound psychology without im¬ porting philosophy into it. If psychology is studied merely as an empirical science, then there are certain great facts in the case to which justice is not done. There are cer¬ tain fundamental problems in psychology like the question of personality that cannot be adequately treated without bringing in philo¬ sophy. If philosophy is left out, then we usually have a warped, poorly balanced psy¬ chology. Then, philosophy is needed impera¬ tively today in modern psychology to bring that coherence, that breadth of view, that spirit of criticism that are so much lacking in all current discussions along these lines. The tendency today is for some investigator to make some startling discovery along the lines of the unconscious, or auto-suggestion, or some feature of abnormal psychology, and in his enthusiasm for his new truth to pro¬ claim that all past theories are false, and to try to make all the facts of psychic life fit into his newly-discovered mould. We need, I say, philosophy in psychology to cor¬ rect this tendency to go off at a tangent after every new discovery in the field of abnormal psychology, and to give to the science that sanity, that depth, and that coherence which it once had. We need more psychologists like James Ward, who, with an accurate knowledge of modern science, combines a well-balanced philosophic spirit. [ 59 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (HI.) BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY TO EX¬ PLAIN CERTAIN MORAL AND SPIRITUAL FACTORS IN MAN’S LIFE There are certain moral data in life that we must consider. Thus there is the feeling of oughtness, the sense of responsibility to a higher power, the fact of communion with God, and all the peace, joy, and faith that constitute the blessedness of religious ex¬ perience. It is needless to state that these are inexplicable, unless there is a soul to experience them. What meaning can there be to the sense of responsibility, if man is a fleeting stream of consciousness with no sense of identity? If I am a different person tomorrow from what I am today, it would be wicked to punish me today for what I have done in the past. The very notions of responsibility and of liability to just punish¬ ment would disappear, if there is no abiding personality. So it would be with all of the higher conceptions of the religious life. Faith itself implies that there is a real personality that looks upward and casts itself upon a higher power. But the scientist exclaims with holy horror that these religious data have no scientific validity—and rules them forthwith out of court. I claim that these data exist for a [ 60 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity whole host of people, even if they do not for others—and that it is unscientific to neglect a whole segment of phenomena that bear upon a given subject. The scientist is ever claiming that all of the factors must be considered, and that a given hypothesis must satisfy not a part, but all of them. I claim that the data of religion are just as worthy of scientific consideration — yea, more so, then cases of hysteria and insanity. The time has come when Christians must brand as unscientific in the highest degree, the framing of hypotheses that leave out of account whole segments of human experi¬ ence. We have had too much unscientific psychology of this kind. The preacher needs to speak with authority on his subject. He needs to realize that the data of the religious life are the ultimates of experience. The time has come for him no longer to be afraid of every ultra specialist who has given his life to the study of hysterical women or cases of paranoia and who thinks that he can fit all of the facts of psychology into his peculiar mould of thought. We need, espe¬ cially in the ministry, that note of authority in regard to the fundamentals of life that was so marked in the work of our Lord Jesus. Let all of those who love the historic faith cease to cringe and fawn before every ultra specialist in the field of psychology and stand firmly by their guns. [ 61 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (IV.) BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF PER¬ SONALITY IS A SELF-EVI¬ DENT TRUTH The opponents of the doctrine of the soul claim that it is very mysterious and far¬ fetched, and that it is founded on the scholastic doctrine of the existence of a strange substance that underlies all pheno¬ mena. They hold that since this substance theory has long been rejected, that the be¬ lief in the soul, which has been postulated upon it, should be given up in like manner. They would caricature the subject as an in¬ tangible, impalpable, magical substance lying back of the facts of our every-day psychic life. They claim that we know absolutely nothing of it, but that it is the creation of an exploded philosophy. We would reply to this that the doctrine of the soul instead of being mysterious, intangible, and scholastic is the most immediate, self- evident fact in our whole life. We know our own personality immediately in every act of cognition, or emotion, or willing. Every act of self-consciousness is indisputable proof of the existence of the soul. The argument for personality of the old philosopher Descartes as involved in his words, “Cogito ergo sum,” “I think; therefore, I exist,” stands without rebuttal to this day. This is a self-evident truth. In our psychic experience our knowl- [ 62 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity edge of our own personality and our appre¬ hension of the objective world in general grow up together. We can no more deny the existence of the one than we can of the other. Richardson well shows in his Spiri¬ tual Pluralism that the growth of experience consists in action and reaction between sub¬ ject and object, manifested in an ever-in¬ creasing complexity and differentiation of the object. We claim that the existence of the subject is a self-evident truth, and that it is just as necessary to make our daily ex¬ perience rational and complete as is the ex¬ istence of the external world around us. We are aware of the existence of our own per¬ sonality in every psychic function. Without this doctrine there can be no complete inter¬ pretation of experience. When it is denied, then the resulting view is always warped and one-sided, and fails to give a complete integration to the facts of our daily life. If we accept this doctrine of personality, then we are only believing the most intuitive and immediate fact of our being, and we are in a position to give to our experience that completeness, that integration, and that as¬ sured foundation that it so much needs. We start, then, with this ultimate—the fact of human personality. In postulating an ultimate we are taking no exceptional course. All psychology starts with some ultimate. The materialist postulates the eternity of matter and the doctrine of the conservation of energy. The idealist starts [ 63 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity with the assumption of certain categories of thought. The Neo-Realist takes as the basis of his philosophy the existence of sense data. We see then that the Christian psychologist is not in an unenviable class by himself, when he begins his investigations by assum¬ ing the existence of an ultimate: the exis¬ tence of the human soul. All of them start with some fundamental assumption. It is merely a question as to which ultimate is to be postulated. I claim that if all thinkers are going to start with some fundamental, that it is best to assume that ultimate that most completely and thoroughly satisfies all of the facts in the case. I further hold that the doctrine of human personality is the simplest, most intimately known of any of the ultimates that have been postulated, and that it best explains all of the facts in the case. I further contend that it makes explic¬ able all of the assumptions of the other philosophers, whereas their postulates are in no position to explain or make possible any doctrine of personality. For example, from such assumptions as the existence of . sense data or of the presence of categories of thought, we never could deduce or build any kind of a subject doctrine. But, on the other hand, if we start with the self-evident ex¬ istence of the ego, then both sense data as being given to and experienced by this per¬ sonality, and categories of thought as being fundamental axioms imbedded in the soul, are both rational and necessary existences. [ 64 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity It would seem to be the part of wisdom that if we are going to make any assumption, that we should start with one that is deep and sufficiently inclusive and strong enough to support any further postulates that might have to be made. Such an ultimate is the existence of personality. Every philosophy that is worthy of the name attempts to give a rational interpreta¬ tion of our “Here-and-now” experience. Now experience cannot be interpreted exclusively in terms of the objective factors as the Neo- Realist attempts to do; nor exclusively by means of the subjective elements as the idealist attempts. May Sinclair in the New Idealism makes a noble attempt for Idealism, but we feel all the while that something is lacking in her explanation of experience. This is a product of the interaction of both the subjective and the objective factors. To use a mathematical term, experience is a function of both the objective and the sub¬ jective order. In the subjective order per¬ sonality is dominant. Yes, this whole order is the product of personality and her laws. Such are the arguments for the existence of the soul in man. It is well for all Chris¬ tian workers to realize that this tenet is as¬ sailed by the New Psychology. Some psy¬ chologists hold that it is the function of psychology to study only cases of behaviour in man and animal. Hence they ignore all reference to the existence or work of the [ 65 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity soul. That is an outworn religious concept. Some of the New Psychologists would make man only a bundle of instincts, and would contend that his psychic life is generated by the play and interplay of these. Thus Tan- sley in The New Psychology claims that the three dominant instincts in man are the self, the herd, and the sex instincts. All man’s psychic life is due ultimately to the inter¬ play between these fundamental instincts. When there is a conflict, the mind, so to speak, is thrown back upon itself. This leads to the elaboration of the mental mechanism intervening between the exciting object and the motor response of the organism. Hence the important complexes, or association of mental elements with a common emotional tone, are formed. These complexes in the New Psychology are at the basis of man’s psychic life. We want to make it clear that in this scheme of things, there is no room left for the existence or operation of human personality. The instincts that we have in¬ herited from the lower animals are the dynamic concepts in all psychology, and are responsible for all of our acts. These New Psychologists would deny absolutely that man’s soul is created in the image of God. Man, in his psychic life, is merely a highly evolved animal. McDougall in his Social Psychology says, “It is only a comparative and evolutionary psychology that can provide the needed basis; and this could not be created before the work of Darwin had con- tee] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity vinced men of the continuity of human with animal evolution as regards all bodily char¬ acters, and had prepared the way for the quickly following recognition of the similar continuity of man’s mental evolution with that of the animal world.” He further argues that among the false assumptions of the past to be given up is the old conception of a special faculty of moral intuition, a con¬ science, a moral sense or instinct. When we come to the study of psychology, we see more clearly than anywhere else the destructive results of Naturalistic Evolution. As long as evolution is confined in its operation, to the building up of man’s body, the theologian being no professional biologist, is not fully aware of its import. But when evolution begins its work in the soul of man, and we see it enter the very holy of holies of divine truth and demolish the doctrine of per¬ sonality, so dear to the Christian thinker, then we begin to realize the full effects of its ravages. Evolution is now working in a field that the Christian thinker under¬ stands. It is well for the Christian to realize fully the vital differences to his faith aris¬ ing from bodily or biological evolution and from psychic evolution. As to biological evolution, of course it is true from an ab¬ stract standpoint that the creator might have used evolution as a method of creation and providence. But unfortunately for this com¬ promise theory, science is not formulated by the laws of logic; and it is contrary to the [ 67 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity whole genius of modern science that God would have used one method in the creation of man’s body, and then have intervened and supernaturally given him a soul. If there is one antipathy that modern science possesses above all others it is a deep opposition to supernaturalism. It is not in the sphere of bodily evolution but in psychic evolution that modern science does most damage to the historic faith. Writers like Robinson in The Mind in The Making, Humphrey in The Story of Man’s Mind, and Hobhouse in Mind in Evolution, have laboured heroically to prove that man’s mind is evolved from the lower animals just as is his body. Hobhouse holds that intelligence, or the ability to correlate past experiences with subsequent actions, evolves through four stages. First, there is the stage of reflex action and inarticulate correlation. Secondly, there is the process by which the perceptual order is formed, and practical, concrete judgments are made. Thirdly, there is the rise of conceptual think¬ ing in which the common characters that run through perceptual experience are extracted. Fourthly, there comes the rational system or correlation of correlations, in which the ultimate goal is the synthesis of reality as a whole. Such is the method of psychic evolu¬ tion. Now Christians may differ as to the effect on Theology of biological evolution. But let me make this clear: THE DOC¬ TRINE OF PSYCHIC EVOLUTION IS UTTERLY DESTRUCTIVE OF THE BE- [ 68 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity LIEF IN PERSONALITY; AND NO VALID CONCEPTION OF THE HUMAN SOUL CAN BE BUILT UPON ITS TENETS. Let us see the issue clearly: this new evolutionary psychology destroys human personality. Man is a bundle of instincts. As McDougall says in his Social Psychology, “The human mind has certain innate or in¬ herited tendencies which are the essential springs or motive powers of all thought and action, whether individual or collective, and are the bases from which the character and will of individuals and of nations are gradu¬ ally developed under the guidance of the in¬ tellectual faculties.” Let us notice just how complete personality, and all the attributes of a being created in the image of God are annihilated by naturalistic psychic evolution. There is no separate faculty of conscience, but it is resolved into an emotion. The moral law has no absolute validity, but as Tansley so well shows in his New Psycho¬ logy, is a code, based on the demands of the herd instinct with all of the defects and limi¬ tations shared by all codes built up on pure expediency. Tansley tries to show that the moral law is primarily the rule of the herd to regulate the life of its members. “The herd’s moral law, like its other characters, is subject, of course, to natural selection, and therefore, in a general way, is useful to the herd.” Marriage is not ordained of God, [ 69 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity but is only a convenience based on the herd or sex instincts. We are beginning to see just how completely naturalistic evolution as operative in the New Psychology demolishes the doctrine of personality, and all of the holy laws applicable to a being created in the image of God. Not only are personality and its basic laws imperiled, but even religion itself, as we know it, is in grave danger of destruction. Tansley in the New Psychology speaks of a process known as Projection which “consists in attributing parts of the mental content to outside entities. ,, He states that in a primitive state of culture man pro¬ jects parts of his own personality upon the forces of nature and thus personifies and often defies them. He shows how finally, “God then becomes the centre of the indi¬ vidual’s own struggle towards unification, the repository of his deepest hopes, the con¬ fident of his deepest troubles.” In other words, it would seem that religion is the projection outward of man’s unrealized de¬ sires in his natural, instinctive life. God would seem to be a useful projection of the mind of man, that aids him in his struggles with the forces of nature and with the world about him. Tansley has stated in His New Psychology, “It cannot be doubted that God has been a necessity to the human race, that He is still a necessity, and will long con¬ tinue to be. We begin to see that the New Psychology as it is based on naturalistic evo¬ lution is utterly destructive of religion in [ 70 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the evangelical sense. Basing, as it does, all moral and social values on the herd and sex instincts, it has no real necessity in its scheme for the existence of a God to impose His Holy Will on man, but can readily make society and its demands take the place of the Divine Being. We might say that to the New Psychology society is its god. Religion is needed only to make this world more liv¬ able, to console man in his disappointments here, to conserve social values. Morality is all we need; and that can be generated by the power of the herd and sex instincts with¬ out a direct revelation from God. As Henry C. Sheldon pertinently asks in his article on “The Psychology of Religion Interrogated,” in the Princeton Review for January, 1922, “Is there good historic warrant for defining religion as the consciousness of social values, or as the recognition and pursuit of social values, thus leaving out of the definition all explicit reference to a felt relationship to a Higher Power?” Modern Psychology would reply that we have ample warrant so to de¬ fine religion, and that we can construct all of the morality and religion we need with¬ out believing in the objective existence of the Supreme Being. He may exist as the pro¬ jection outward of man’s unrealized desires and frustrated hopes, but that is all the ex¬ istence that is demanded for Him. We begin to see the logic of naturalistic psychic evolution as applied to the problem of personality and its related laws. If we [ 71 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity deny that man is created in the divine image and insist that he is only a bundle of animal instincts, then real personality is destroyed, and with it all moral and religious life worthy of the name. The alternative is clear-cut: either man is created in the divine image, with a real personality and subject to the will of his Divine Creator; or man is evolved in his mental and moral life upward from the lower animals, with certain primary in¬ stincts productive of his whole psychic life, but with no real self or soul. A valid doctrine of human personality is most essential to a sound psychology of re¬ ligion. So many of the popular books on psychology that essay to do the laudable work of showing man how to conquer fear through a dynamic, militant faith achieve this result by breaking down the distinction between God and man. Thus Gibson in The Faith that Overcomes the World says that we should pray that the victory is ours because we are one with the one Power in the uni¬ verse, God. A one-sided insistence on the divine immanence is the fundamental postu¬ late of most of the modern psychology with any spiritual tendency. We must hold fast to the notion that man’s personality is created by God, not merely indwelt by Him, and that it is separate from the Divine Personality. As often happens, the doctrine of personality is jeopardized not only by some teachers of liberal Christianity, but also by some sup¬ posedly ultra-orthodox Christians. I refer to [ 72 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity certain advocates of the Victorious Life movement who giving a quietistic interpreta¬ tion of Christianity insist that we must cease trying to think, feel, or will, but must let Christ think, feel, and will through us. The Christian today must guard tenaciously the doctrine of human personality, and must re¬ sist every attempt whether from liberal or from hvper-orthodox to break down the dis¬ tinction between God and man. Of any popular psychic work today it is well to ask two basic questions. In the first place, “what is your doctrine of personality? Is man a distinct and separate creation by God, or is he only an emanation or part of the Divine Being?” In the second place, I would ask, “What is your doctrine of sin? Is it rebel¬ lion against God and His Holy Law, or is it only a limitation?” These questions are the acid tests that any reader should apply to the whole hosts of modern books on religious psychology that essay to bring peace and power to man. It is a denial of the Divine transcendence and a one-sided emphasis on the divine im¬ manence that constitutes the challenge today to personality. Real personality, whether in God or man, demands both transcendence and immanence. God must be present in the processes of this world, but He must also be above and distinct from them and able to act independently of them—else He has no real personality. Man’s soul must be in the mechanical processes of his nervous sys- [ 73 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tem—but it must also be able to transcend them, and to grasp these processes in a unity that is essential to all thought. It is no accident that before God in His Word reveals anything about sin, salvation, or even about His own blessed nature, He first declares the glorious truth that man is created in His image. This order of reve¬ lation is not arbitrary, but is so manifested by design. The tenet that man possesses a real personality is really the foundation stone to the doctrines of Christian salvation. If man has not been created in His image, has no real personality, but is only the result of animal instincts acting and interacting in his psychic life, then such terms as the fall, sin, the moral law, and the history of redemp¬ tion have absolutely no meaning for us. Upon the foundation stone which declares that man has a soul is built the wonderful superstruc¬ ture of the doctrines of Christian salvation. If the basic doctrine of human personality is in jeopardy, it would seem that the whole magnificent structure of redemption is im¬ perilled. Having stated the fact that God exists and is creator of the world, the Bible next reveals that man is created in His image. Let us not forget that the fact that man has a personality that is created in the Divine image is just as truly a revealed truth as the glorious doctrines of the deity of Christ, of the Trinity, and of the Atonement. This truth that man has been created in the divine likeness ought to be clear to man from [ 74 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity natural revelation, but sin and a false philo¬ sophy have so blinded his eyes that he has lost sight of the doctrine and needs to go back to the glorious revelation in the Book to learn it afresh. If the Bible places the revelation as to the nature of personality right at the beginning, we should follow in its footsteps, and accentuate the truth that man has a soul created in the divine likeness as the foundation stone of all our Christian thinking. Let us remember that if this doctrine is rejected, then all that we hold dear in our Christian system perishes with it. This is the first line of defence to the Christian system. If it falls before the as¬ saults of Satan, then it is comparatively easy for him to storm the allied truths that deal with sin, the law, and human redemption. [ 75 ] Chapter IV. Some Tried Principles I N' the preceding chapter we tried to make it clear that at the basis of any sound psychology is the doctrine of an enduring personality. Having laid the groundwork, we are now in position to go more into detail in a practical study of the challenge that modern psychology makes as to the function¬ ing of that personality. We will begin with a study of HABIT What is a habit? Professor James defines it as follows: “An acquired habit from the physiological point of view, is nothing but a new pathway of discharge formed in the brain, by which certain incoming currents ever after tend to escape.” In habit we are studying the more mechanical side of psy¬ chic life. We all know that the law of habit is very potent in the religious life. Then how important are good religious habits! The practice of regular church attendance, of systematic reading of the Bible and Prayer every day, of proportionate giving of our money to God, of profanity and purity —these practices are largely the results of religious habits formed in youth. [ 76 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Now the Sunday School has the scholar under its care during those years when the character is plastic—and before the great grooves of habit have been set. Let it labour that the pathways shall be cut in the right direction—in the direction of righteousness and not of sin. In connection with the for¬ mation of early religious habits we are nat¬ urally brought to the issue as to what should be the nature of early religious education. Should the catechism and its dogmatic in¬ struction be abolished? Should a shorter Bible be presented to the children? Coe in a Social Theory of Religious Education with its goal of the Democracy of God on earth insists that dogmatic instruction should be supplanted by social teachings. The practice of using the catechisms is challenged today. The two-fold grounds on which this challenge is made are: the denial of the doctrine that the child is in a state of original sin, and the denial that there is any final and infalli¬ ble revelation that can be forced on the child. Those of us who still cherish these old doctrines believe that since there is such a thing as final, authoritative truth in re¬ ligion that the sooner it can be implanted in suitable form through the catechisms in the child mind, that the child will be all the better fitted not only for the religious and moral duties of life but also for those social obligations so dear to the heart of the modern liberal. [ 77 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity This brings us to the subject of CONVERSION During recent years psychologists have made quite a study of the phenomena of con¬ version. Especially has this been done by Professor James in his Varieties of Reli¬ gious Experience, and by Mr. Starbuck in his Psychology of Religion. These men have claimed that conversion, instead of being an abnormal, is a natural process, and that it is just as amenable to the laws of psychology as any other psychic fact. They have made an elaborate study of cases of conversion, especially from the inductive standpoint; and have tried to classify the various principles at work in conversion, to group the various religious types, and to formulate definite laws regulative of that period. Now un¬ doubtedly these men have done a valuable work in their minute study of conversions, and undoubtedly they have announced some most valuable laws. The only danger is that they will carry too far the idea of the opera¬ tion of psychical law in conversion, will over¬ look the divine, supernatural side in the great process, and will end by making it a purely naturalistic act. After this word of caution it will surely repay us to study some of the results of their labours. Mr. Starbuck, after elaborate inductions, says that conversion does not occur with the same frequency at all periods of life. It belongs almost exclu- [ 78 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity sively to the years between 10 and 25. “One may say that if conversion has not occurred before 20, the chances are small that it will ever be experienced.” He says that there are two types of conversion. One is accom¬ panied with a violent sense of sin, and the other with a feeling of incompleteness, a struggle after a larger life, and a desire for spiritual illumination. He contends that conversion is distinctly an adolescent pheno¬ menon. “Back of the whole adolescent de¬ velopment, and central in it, is the birth of a new and larger spiritual consciousness. Expressed in psychological terms the adole¬ scent movement consists in the commence¬ ment of the functioning of the higher in¬ tellectual centres in the brain.” Such are some of the laws that Mr. Starbuck states. Surely he has given some valuable laws and hints to the religious worker. First of all, there is the most important fact, that if conversion does not occur before the age of twenty, it will not likely occur at all. Most personal workers have realized this long ago, even before it was given a psychological statement. Surely it is a most solemn fact to us all that there is a certain time when con¬ version will likely take place; and that if that period passes, while we must never limit the power of God’s Grace, yet the likelihood is that a profession will never be made. The important fact is that the Sunday School teacher has control of the child just at the very critical period, when conversion is likely [ 79 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity to occur. Surely a knowledge of this law should prompt the conscientious teacher to labour indefatigably to persuade his pupils to accept Jesus Christ, and to warn them of the great danger of putting off this decision from time to time. Now, in general, the modern psychology of religion challenges the old, orthodox idea of conversion. Conversion is due to the emer¬ gence of the social consciousness through the idea of sex. Thus sympathy, co-operation, and sociability are developed. It is unsci¬ entific to teach that the religious nature is miraculously implanted. Conversion must give way to illumination and education, in oder that the innate, divine tendencies of the child mind may be brought to fruition. In the next place we would consider the principle of APPERCEPTION We may define apperception as that pro¬ cess by which a new experience entering the field of consciousness is incorporated into our existing mass of ideas. In this act the ten¬ dency is for the new idea to be assimilated in terms that we already possess in our stock of thoughts, emotions, and experiences in general. As William James says, “It is obvi¬ ous that the things which a given experience will suggest to a man depend on what Mr. Lewis calls his entire psychostatical condi- [ 80 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tion, his nature and stock of ideas, or, in other words, his character, habits, memory, education, previous experience, and momen¬ tary mood.” Such is the doctrine of apper¬ ception. If the human mind tends to assimi¬ late new experiences in terms of its present store of ideas, then if the religious worker is trying to introduce new ideas into the mind of the child, it is necessary that he should know something of the present stock of ex¬ periences which the child possesses. Let him try to get the child viewpoint. He should not expect to introduce religion into his life by means of antiquated theological forms or trite terms of “piosity” that have no meaning for the young person. If he would be a suc¬ cessful religious worker, he should explore the secrets of the child mind, see what he is thinking, examine the world of phantasy and fairies which he has created, note his play life and his play wants, and then should try to adapt his religious instruction to this stock of experiences which are locked up in the young soul. It might be that the follower of the old faith could answer the challenge of modern liberalism to all dogma and catechetical in¬ struction by a wise use of the law of apper¬ ception. The modern mind has its own atti¬ tudes and modes of thought and prevailing complexes—and attention should be paid to these in modern preaching and dogmatic dis¬ cussion. The old truth is eternal, but it can be couched in modern phrases. The average [ 81 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Christian today is not interested in the philo¬ sophical verbiage of the fourth or sixteenth century. If the law of apperception as re¬ lated to religious truth were wisely studied and followed by the orthodox camp, perhaps the challenge of the liberal might be largely met by disarming him right at the start. Let us now proceed to study what the older psychologists called the faculties of the soul. They held that the human personality is a unity that thinks, and feels, and wills. Now modern psychology laughs at this crude faculty psychology. But it cannot get away from the realities underlying these terms. The realities of thought, emotion, and voli¬ tion are there—and we had just as well use the term “faculty” to describe them as any other. Of course, we do not mean that the soul is divided into three air-tight compart¬ ments, but that the whole personality is present in every act of thinking, feeling, and willing. Three great philosophies of religion have been based on each of these faculties as exercised in religion. Let us note: THE REASON On the operation of the reason in religion has been built the great philosophy of IN- TELLECTUALISM. Now modern psychol¬ ogy challenges the use of the reason in re¬ ligion. This distrust of its use in religion is based on its abuse by two extreme camps: the enemy of the old faith, the rationalist, [ 82 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity and the friend of orthodoxy, the Protestant scholastic. The first would make the human mind the source and measure of religious truth. A man should believe only what is absolutely rational and intelligible to him. The modern mind has little patience with the tenets of the old rationalism. It knows full well that the human mind is finite, and that limitation is incapable of apprehending abso¬ lute truth; and it further knows that some kind of a blight hangs over the reason, whether we call it a bad complex, a repressed conflict, or just plain old sin. Then the Prot¬ estant scholastic has undoubtedly brought the use of the reason in religion into disrepute. While he would not make the intellect the source of truth, yet he claims that reason must endeavour to harmonize absolutely all of the great truths of revelation. I have seen men by means of a mathematical equation try to harmonize the great doctrines of di¬ vine sovereignty and human free agency. Our modern mind has little use for such arid scholasticism. Now for these and other rea¬ sons the use of the reason in religion, and its product, doctrine, are in disrepute with the modern world. The liberal thinker stresses doctrine rather than life. He is interested in social service rather than in dogmatics. Has not Ellwood told us in The Reconstruction of Religion that before the church can begin her great task, the socialization of the world, she must rid herself of tradition and subordi¬ nate theology to the social sciences? Has [ 83 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity not Nolan R. Best written on The Unpopu¬ larity of Theology, and insisted that this is due to her partisan insistence on distinctions in dogma which ought to be given up in the interest of unity? As to the objection to theology that she makes vexatious distinc¬ tions, I would reply that it is the very func¬ tion of reason to make distinctions. If we are to have no clear-cut analyses and dif¬ ferentiations in religion, but only a hazy, indefinite, blunt contact with reality, then let us go back to mysticism or to the use of the feelings as the interpreting faculty in religion. It strikes me that scientists and secular thinkers in general are manifestly unfair in their objection to the making of distinctions in religion. They surely make clear-cut distinctions in science and in psy¬ chology. They would surely decry the en¬ trance of a tyro or a dilettente in science who, rejecting all of the authoritative thought of the past, persisted in forming his own conclusions, however bizarre they might be, and who when reprimanded by authori¬ ties on the subject, persisted in saying that finely spun distinctions should not count any¬ how, and should not be interjected to disturb the harmony of the meeting. But the day has come when a man can leave his own field of sociology or psychology, enter the field of religion, reject all of the deliverances of the past ages on theology, and make his own bizarre interpretations. Surely if we wish to find the truth in any line, we must make [ 84 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity distinctions in thought. One of our literary men has objected that in the deliberations of the Council of Nice in regard to the Trin¬ ity, our fathers fought a theological battle over a diphthong. Yes, but that little diph¬ thong was not inconsequential. It repre¬ sented the difference between Unitarianism and evangelical truth, between legalism and salvation by Grace, between the power and peace of a supernatural religion which thous¬ ands hold dear and mere naturalism. Give us more clear-cut distinctions like that. What the world needs today is more doc¬ trine in religion. We demand more of a mighty grappling by the reason with the things of eternity. Because the world has neglected Christian doctrine for a century, she is paying for it in lower standards of morals and social practice. Has not the Old Book told us that as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he? Auguste Comte has said that in man’s evolution he has passed through the three stages of theological, metaphysi¬ cal, and scientific thought. Of course, the implication is that we have left behind years ago the superstitious age of dogma. After a century during which this program has been partially tried out, I would correct Comte’s order by this one: the theological, the metaphysical, and the anarchistic. I would further say that this is an anti-climax rather than a climax, as Comte taught in his theory. We have sown the wind of a rejec¬ tion of theology; we have reaped the whirl- [ 85 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity wind of corrupted morals and debased social practice. We have sown rationalism, natur¬ alism, higher criticism; we have reaped Nietzsche, pagan ethics, and Bolshevism. It was no accident that Nietzsche, with his doc¬ trine of the super-man, and Darwin, with his survival of the fittest and the ethics of the jungle laid hold of Germany’s national life. That ethical catastrophe did not strike as a bolt out of a clear sky. The way was pre¬ pared by a rejection of authority in religion, by a denial of fundamental Christian doc¬ trines, and by a subjectivism in doctrine that made every man’s mind a law unto itself. When all authority was broken in doctrine, and every man became a law unto himself, it was perfectly natural that this same rejec¬ tion of authority and utter subjectivism should spread to the field of ethics. In other words, the rejection of vital Christian doc¬ trine was the cause of anarchy in morals and in government. A man first thinks crook¬ edly, and then acts crookedly. The result is not immediate with a nation, for a genera¬ tion may for a while run on the borrowed moral assets from the past. Our age is suf¬ fering today from a repudiation of the great doctrines. We need not less but more the¬ ology of the right sort. Writers today, like Bousfield in The Omnipotent Self, are plead¬ ing for directive as opposed to mere phan¬ tasy thinking as a cure for what he calls Narcissism, or selfish pride, so-called from Narcissus, who in Greek mythology, saw his [ 86 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity reflection in a spring and fell in love with it. Robinson, in Mind in the Making, urges cre¬ ative thinking in distinction from our sav¬ age or medieval mind as the solvent of all our ills. I contend that it is more directive thinking about the things of the Spirit, more systematic grappling with the fundamental revelation from God that the world needs. What is theology? Is it a “Bugaboo” at which the plain man should shy? It is noth¬ ing but plain, common-sense, systematic thinking about the matters of divine revela¬ tion. Cannot a man be saved who never heard of systematic theology? Surely he can, just as a man can drive his car without knowing the difference between the carbu¬ retor and the differential. But one thing is certain: if he knows something about the mechanism of his car, he can enjoy the run¬ ning of it all the more, and surely if it gets out of commission, he is ail the better quali¬ fied to fix it. Thus a sound knowledge of Christian doctrine will enable the average Christian all the more to enjoy his salvation, and it will prepare him all the better to meet and combat the heresies, or doctrinal mis¬ haps, that he will meet by the way. Having noted the operation of the reason in religion, let us now consider some more or less closely allied functioning of the soul. This brings us to the subject of [ 87 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ATTENTION In all our mental life there are few facts more important than this. All teachers have faced the problem of the securing and hold¬ ing the attention of the scholars. Especially is this a problem in religious training. What is the psychological basis of attention? Mr. Angell, of all the psychologists, it seems to me, has defined it best. He says in his Psy¬ chology that the field of consciousness is ap¬ parently like a vidual field. But there is always a focal point to this field with a mar¬ gin of objects around it—and this focal point which reveals the momentary activity of the mind is what we mean by the fact of atten¬ tion. It is a strange thing—this matter of the attention. The child goes into the Sun¬ day School—and around it is a discrete mass of objects of various and sundry kinds to which it can give attention. Why does it hold its attention to some objects, and not to others ? I believe that the actuating prin¬ ciple in all attention is the law of interest. WE ATTEND TO THOSE THINGS IN WHICH WE ARE INTERESTED. It is the same world into which we all go—the unbeliever and the Christian—but the former sees only selfishness, money, and dirt; while the latter discerns higher spiritual values, the obligations of the moral law, and God. It is the same world—but it is the law of interest that guides the one to see evil and the other good. If interest is at the basis [ 88 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of voluntary attention, what is at the basis of interest? We may state that the expla¬ nation of what virtually interests us is to be found in the last analysis in the nature of our personality. Attention, the law of interest, the state of a man's heart—that is the sequence of the psychic process. How shall the attention of the world be turned to higher things? This resolves itself into the question, “How shall the world's interests be turned upward?" Both of these queries come in the last analysis to the basic prob¬ lem, “How shall the heart of the world be changed so that its interest and its attention shall be upon the proper social, moral, and spiritual values ?" Christianity answers this challenge of psychology by the old, old story, “Ye must be born again." Let us notice briefly the law of ASSOCIATION Some years ago psychologists reduced all of our mental life to the power of association. The law of association was made a mighty force that really took the place of the human soul, and did all of our thinking, feeling, and willing. But the law can achieve no such miracles as this. The power of associ¬ ation presupposes a soul for its very mean¬ ing and operation; and it is vain to expect it in any merely mechanical way to generate ideas, emotions, and volitions. We have all witnessed in a practical way the working of this law. When we allow our attention to [ 89 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity wander, why is it that one idea will suggest another; and that one conception will follow another in this way indefinitely in the field of consciousness? The physiological bases of association are the pathways cut in the brain to which I referred in the study on habit. Let us imagine a given pathway that is about to discharge into one of two others. Into which will it go? That will depend on the number of times that it has discharged into the given pathways, and to the inten¬ sity of such discharges. Or to put the mat¬ ter in more practical terms, one idea will suggest another, because in the past it has been more often connected with that idea than with others, or because it has been associated with it in an intense degree. Such is the mechanical or neural basis of associ¬ ation. The New Psychology makes the com¬ plex the fundamental element in our psychic life. Now the complex is nothing but a network of associated ideas with a common emotional coloring. These kindred com¬ plexes are said to be organized into a com¬ mon psychic group or system called “con¬ stellations. 1 ” We hear today of various com¬ plexes—the inferiority, the sex, the religious, etc. Now any complex becomes dangerous, when it dominates the psychic life, and usurps the autonomy which the central per¬ sonality ordinarily exercises. Now it is un¬ doubtedly true that much of the religious thinking of the average man is purely com¬ plex or associative in nature. The lines that [ 90 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity form these religious constellations come from various directions; from our hereditary re¬ ligious beliefs, from the conventional dogmas that are in the air at the time and to which we can easily subscribe in a second-hand sort of a way, and to the religious environment in which we are brought up. Now it must be clear to all that merely associative thinking will never advance civilization or the king¬ dom of God. We need not associative think¬ ing but creative, directive grappling at first hand with the eternal realities. At this point we would say just a word about the operation of MEMORY Professor James in his Psychology says that the complete exercise of memory pre¬ supposes two things: the RETENTION of the remembered fact; and its REMINIS¬ CENCE, REPRODUCTION, OR RECALL. He says that the cause both of retention and of recollection is the law of habit in the nervous system, working, as it does, in the association of ideas. Sigmund Freud says that the act of forgetting is a protective mechanism of the mind. We forget what we do not wish to remember or consider of little importance. Memory is a most important element in our intellectual life. At the basis of that mysterious thing that we call personal identity is memory. Dr. Snowden calls it “the spinal column of personality.” Prof. Ladd has told us that when we revive an [ 91 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity image from the past, our entire mental his¬ tory is involved. Memory is the storehouse of the mind; and many thinkers claim that we never lose the impress of a single experi¬ ence. Thus we carry around with us the result of our entire past history and ex¬ perience. Every impression, whether it be high or low, noble or degraded, leaves its mark on the nervous system and is determi¬ native in our future mental operations. This is a serious thought that we never entirely forget anything, and that in our nervous system we carry around all of the results of our past history. It is the storehouse of our past experience; and it is for us to deter¬ mine, especially when we are young, whether it shall harbour vile, ignoble, base thoughts; or whether it shall be a treasure house of all that is lofty, and true, and pure. Memory is the faculty of tradition, of “standpatism,” of ultra-conservatism. It sees the best day in the past. While it exercises a useful role in the midst of the religious radicalism and modernism of the present, yet it cannot be allowed to dominate all of our thinking, and to chain us to the past. In the last place, we would discuss IMAGINATION Dr. Snowden calls it the “picture-making power of the mind.” Psychologists classify imagination under the heads of productive and reproductive. The latter is that power of the mind by virtue of which it brings up [ 92 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity copies of past experiences, even after the original outward stimulus is gone. The ma¬ terial on which it works is that found in the storehouse of memory. Productive imagi¬ nation, while perforce it must make use of many of the results of our past experience, yet either by an original re-classification of our past materials, or by some stroke of cre¬ ative activity, it brings forth a new image. Imagination has come unto her own today. Emile Coue says that imagination rather than the will is the determining factor in mental life, and that in a conflict between the two the imagination is always the victor. Many modern religious writers would state that religious values are due to the work of the imagination, and are the projection out¬ ward and upward of our unrealized desires. Undoubtedly imagination is a vital faculty to the student of the psychology of religion. Many preachers and teachers fail because they do not pay a proper heed to its use. Then, from a theoretical standpoint, the work of this faculty is important. One of the greatest mysteries of theology is creation out of nothing . It is hard for the human mind to envisage just such a process. There is no analogy to absolute creation in nature. It is purely a tenet of revelation. Perhaps the nearest approach to such creation is in the work of productive imagination that, in the hands of our poets, artists, and musicians, brings forth something new and novel. Such is its theoretical significance to theology. [ 93 ] Chapter V. The Feelings and the Will I N this lesson we would discuss those facul¬ ties of the mind that we style the feelings and the will. Let us notice, then, THE FEELINGS The interpretation of religion based on the use of this faculty is MYSTICISM. Psychologists have long debated as to what is the basis of the emotions. In general, three different theories have been advanced. The first would give the emotions a purely physical foundation. As Ladd says in his Outlines of Physiological Psychology, “Feel¬ ings are, essentially considered, a peculiar consciousness of the condition of the nervous system.” In general, this theory holds that experiences that enhance the general vitality of the bodily organism give pleasure, while those which impede its regular function, cause pain. Under this head we would in¬ clude the theory of Professor James, that our emotions in a given case do not follow from the mental perception of a given fact, but from the bodily changes that immediately ensue. In other words, he would claim that we do not cry because we are sad, but that we are sorrowful because we cry. The sec¬ ond theory holds that feelings are secondary [ 94 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity conditions of the mind, dependent on the re¬ lation of ideas. If ideas inhibit each other, the resulting consciousness produces pain; while if they further each other and readily coalesce, a feeling of pleasure results. The third, and as we believe, the true theory of the feelings holds, as Ladd expresses it, “Feeling is a primitive and underived mode of operation of conscious mind.” It is un¬ derived from any other psychic fact; it is one of those ultimate facts of consciousness that, because, it is ultimate, cannot be well defined. There is a peculiar, personal, pri¬ vate element in a feeling that is absolutely unique. When one asks us to describe a feel¬ ing, the best answer we can give is, “I have felt. You must have the same experience to understand.” Any effort to translate feel¬ ings into purely intellectual terms is a par¬ tial failure. They belong to different realms of consciousness and have no common de¬ nominator. What shall we say of the use of the feel¬ ings in general? Have they a legitimate function in life, or are they a relic, as some claim, of man’s emergence from barbarism, that should be allowed to dry up and to atrophy? Many students who have done work in the philosophic departments of our larger universities have found that there are many professors who seemed to think that it was a disgrace to manifest their feelings. Since they considered that any flow of the emotions would hinder the best scientific and [ 95 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity logical work, they rather encouraged the suppression of all the feelings. I believe that it was Charles Darwin who confessed in later years that he had worked so long at cold, scientific investigations, that some of his emotions had practically atrophied. Is a destruction of the emotions desirable? Are they a faculty once useful in our early strug¬ gles with the beasts, as some claim, that we have today outgrown; and hence should be removed, as no longer necessary, somewhat as we get rid of the vermiform appendix? Because they often arouse a personal bias in any investigation and hence rather inhibit the cold, passionless activity of the intellect, should they be destroyed? I hasten to an¬ swer most emphatically, “No.” I believe that the feelings constitute one of the important faculties of the human soul, along with the intellect and the will. God has given us our feelings with a purpose; and He never in¬ tended that we should destroy or abuse them. THERE CAN BE NO COMPLETE PER¬ SONALITY WITHOUT A DISCIPLINED CULTIVATION OF THE FEELINGS. I care not how acutely logical the mind of the scholar has become, if he has lost his power of emotion, he is to a certain extent a neural abnormality. I care not how well disciplined and how well controlled the will of man may be, if his feelings have dried up, he is not a well-rounded personality. The feelings have been planted in us by the Creator for a pur¬ pose; and it is a sin for us to try to uproot [ 96 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity them. As Dr. Snowden says in his Psy¬ chology of Religion, “The interests of life reside in our feelings. It is not until our ideas strike these mystic strings and wake them into music or discord that they elicit our interest. The feelings are also the im¬ mediate motives that move the will. There is no tendency for the will to act until the feelings pour their flow upon it as a stream upon a wheel, or as steam into the cylinder upon the piston that drives the engine.” Most of our sense of worths and values in life resides in the feelings. We should some¬ times try to see just how many of the real values in life can be reduced to the form of cold logic. We would likely find that there are very few. Most of those things that make life and intercourse attractive, win¬ some, and charming have their basis in a well disciplined use of the feelings. Now the feelings have always assumed great prominence in the interpretation of re¬ ligious facts. Many writers have held that religion made its appeal primarily to the feelings. Schliermacher, the father of mod¬ ern subjectivism, has defined religion as “a feeling of dependence.” James and Pratt have made the emotions the primary organ for the interpretation of religious reality. It is undoubtedly a fact that much of our popu¬ lar religious psychology and liberalism with their teachings that we can have an immedi¬ ate intuitive sense of the divine within us, that we can open the flood gates of conscious- [ 97 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ness and let the Over Soul pour within us, that salvation consists in a realization of the Christ that is within, that they are based on pure mysticism. There is a certain charm about mysticism. To neglect all objective standards of truth, all of the demands of the intellect, and to indulge in a purely private, subjective, immediate intuition of truth, to hear the still small voice within, to heed the inner light alone—such an experience pos¬ sesses undoubted exhiliration. The subject by neglecting all objective standards of truth is free from the worries incident to theologi¬ cal, historical and critical problems, and can have the absolute certitude of a personal con¬ tact with reality, and can feel the warmth and glow of the touch of religious verities. While his experience of truth is entirely sub¬ jective, yet he is satisfied. Is that not enough in religion? He can answer his critics in the words of the poet Tennyson as he wrote in the midst of the skepticism of the 19th cen¬ tury: I found Him not in world or sun, Or eagle’s wing, or insect’s eye: Nor through the questions men may try, The petty cobwebs we have spun; If e’er, when faith had fallen asleep, I heard a voice, “Believe no more,” And heard an ever-breaking shore That tumbled in the Godless deep; [981 Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity A warmth within the breast would melt The freezing reason’s colder part, And like a man in wrath the heart Stood up and answered, “I have felt.” What shall we say as to mysticism? Now the very fact that this philosophy has led its devotees into the affirmation of directly con¬ tradictory positions, and also into great ex¬ travagances, neurotic and even immoral, should convince us all that there should be some limitations to the use of the feelings in religion. That there is an element of truth in mysticism, and that in religious experi¬ ence there is a personal, private apprehen¬ sion of the truth that each must have for himself in order to be a Christian, no one will deny. But this is different from affirm¬ ing that mysticism is the correct mode of interpretation of Christianity, and that Christian experience alone is the final form for the formation of Christian truth. What are the correctives that we should apply to mysticism, or to the use of the feelings in religion? In the first place, the true psychic order is for the intellect to guide in the apprehen¬ sion of the truth. Of course, this position is repellent to the mystic, for he wishes to be turned adrift without a pilot upon the wild seas of subjective experience. He replies that we are bringing in doctrine, and that religion is not doctrine but life. That brings us to the important question as to the proper [ 99 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity relation between doctrine and life. I would state that doctrine is related to life both in its GENESIS and in its GUIDANCE. Now all life must have some source; it must flow from some spring of truth. The very quality of the stream of life will be largely deter¬ mined by whether it flows from a pure or a foul spring. Now the source of Christian life is certain great historic facts connected with the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and a certain interpretation of said facts. Now the facts themselves constitute history; the interpretation is doctrine; and the result is life. This then is the three-fold process involved in the creation of any kind of life: fact or history, interpretation of this fact or doctrine, and the entering in of this fact so interpreted into my experience in the form of life. All life—secular, scientific, re¬ ligious—originates in this way. We go through exactly the same process in regard to every experience in the every-day world. I read of some great national or international event in the newspaper. What is the first question that arises in my mind? It is this: is that true or not- Is that real history? Then, when I have decided that it is accu¬ rate history, what is the next step? It is this: what is the significance of that event in world history? It is always a process of interpretation. In other words, we are only constructing a doctrine of that given event. We are building up systems of doc¬ trine every day. But there is one more as- [ 100 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity pect of the event to be considered. What ef¬ fect will it have on my life? Will it change my life for better or for worse? This is what I call the experimental side of the issue. It is where life growing out of the interpre¬ tation or doctrine of this given fact origi¬ nates. Then this life after it has started flowing must be properly guided. This act of guid¬ ance is the function of the intellect. In the Delta of the Mississippi years ago when there were no levees, the Father of Waters spread out at times for forty miles in width. There were no banks to guide the stream. Now, by a magnificent set of levees it is kept within a certain channel. The stream of religious life of many people today is like the Missis¬ sippi in the olden times. It just flows pro¬ miscuously and widely over all the swamps and bogs of error, heresy, and extravagance. Its stream of life needs some levees of doc¬ trine to confine it within sane channels. In the second place, mysticism needs to conform to the great objective standard, the word of God. The Bible through the work of the Spirit is the source of all religious life; and all Christian life and experience should be tested by it. Of course, the mystic objects to all external or objective standards of con¬ duct or truth. Does he not have the inner light, the Christ within to guide? Pitzer in a recent number of the Princeton Review argues that Mysticism is nothing but the [ 101 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity blind instinct for God of natural religion. I was once talking to a friend, a minister, who claimed that he did not need the law of God as revealed in the Bible to guide his foot¬ steps, because he had the Christ within to guide him. We had been talking about one method for securing international peace, and he had disdainfully replied that he had no interest in all such projects. He further said that we ought to be building battleships to destroy the Japanese. I thought in horror, “What sort of a Christian are you? Surely in addition to the Christ within, you need some acquaintance with the Christ of objec¬ tive Revelation who has told us to love our enemies and to do good to those who despite- fully use us.” This only goes to show that the great danger of mysticism is anti-nomi- anism, or a disregard of the law of God as a rule of faith and practice for the Christian. In the third place, the mystic needs to remember that the end of every normal psychic state should be some kind of an action. An intellectual apprehension of the truth should lead to an emotional attitude, and this should lead to some kind of an act of will. Modern psychology with its reduc¬ tion of all psychic life to the three-fold pro¬ cess of stimulation, central adjustment, and motor response, makes it clear that every act of emotion should lead to an adjustment of some kind to reality. Whenever the pro¬ cess of intellection, emotion, and will is cut off at any stage, we have a truncated process [ 102 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity that is abnormal. We should not engage in any emotion as a nervous luxury, but should allow it to pass into some decision, or change of will. Every time that we have a good impulse and allow it to evaporate into maud¬ lin sentimentality, we are left all the weaker, and are liable to degenerate into a flabby, moral character. In the next place we would discuss that faculty of the soul that we call THE WILL The philosophy of religion based on the will as the interpreter of religious data is VOLUNTARISM. Mr. Angell says that the will is the “Whole mind active.” Professor Warren denies that the will is an original faculty of the soul, but holds that it is a secondary state arising through the chance nervous connections, and that its appropri¬ ateness is due to natural selection. The function of the will in religion is much emphasized today. The doctrine of evolu¬ tion with its insistence on the fact that the end of every psychic process should be a motor adjustment to environment is largely responsible for the prominence given to this faculty. Life, holds Tridon in his Psycho Analysis, is largely the result of the three great urges—the nutrition, the sex, and the safety urges. The stress placed on the will in the philosophy of religion goes back to Kant, who held that God, freedom, and im- [ 103 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity mortality could not be proved by the pure reason, but were postulates of the practical reason. Schopenhauer, the great German philosopher, has interpreted the universe as the product of unconscious will. This ac¬ centuating of the will has led to Pragmatism in philosophy with its tenet that the true in doctrine and in life is that which works. In Theology the same tendency is seen in the insistence that it is not doctrine, but the social side of the Gospel that counts. Now it is undoubtedly true that the will is a most vital faculty in the Psychology of Religion. It is enslaved in sin; and until it is reached by the power of the Spirit, it makes no dif¬ ference how intellectually Orthodox a man may be, or how many tears he may shed, he is not a saved man. The end of all preaching should be to reach the will, and to lead to a religious reaction of some kind. When Jesus found the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, He did not say, “Does your intel¬ lect make it plain that you should be made whole?” He did not say, “Do you feel like being saved?” No, this Master student of the human soul went right to the crucial spot, and said, “Wilt thou be made whole?” Now important as is the will, it cannot be left as the sole interpreter of Christianity. We cannot trust the pure will any more than we can trust the pure feelings in the appre¬ hension of religious truth. The great urges are blind and will lead to destruction just as readily as to salvation. Germany for a cen- [ 104 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tury followed the blind urges, and we see where they have led her. The truth is that the world has followed the blind leadings of the animal urges long enough. This is our great trouble today. The will needs guidance from the intellect and from the word of God just as truly as do the emotions. We have spoken of the relation of intel¬ lection to volition: of how the reason should be the guide for both the feelings and the will. Now I would discuss briefly the effect of willing on our thinking. It was Professor James who coined the celebrated phrase, “The will to believe.” Men had long known that in the choice of their beliefs the pure intellect alone could not determine which they would accept. They would never make any decisions if they waited until the intel¬ lect made the results of a given course logi¬ cally and mathematically clear. Thus there is the man who is waiting to decide in his beliefs between atheism and theism. Now if he expects the issue to be made indis¬ putably clear by rigorous logic, he will have to wait until Doomsday, until he makes his decision. So it is evident that if he is ever to take his stand upon any belief at all, the case must be appealed to some other faculty besides the pure intellect. His active in¬ terests in life must decide for him which theory (Theism or Atheism) he wills to be true; he must accept his belief even on in¬ complete evidence; and set forth to make his platform true. This is only another way of [ 105 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity saying that he must accept certain great facts on faith, and labour that gradually his faith may be transformed into knowledge. This attitude of mind Professor James calls the “Will to believe.” Says he, “When I look at the religious question as it really puts itself to concrete men, and when I think of all the possibilities which both practically and theoretically it involves, then this command that we shall put a stopper on our heart, in¬ stincts and courage and wait—acting, of course, meanwhile more or less as if religion were not true—till such a time as our intel¬ lect and senses working together may have raked in evidence enough—this command, I say, seems to me the queerest idol ever manu¬ factured in the philosophic cave.” Christ Himself realized the effect of our willing on our believing. He did not claim in any place to make Christian truths logically and math¬ ematically clear to the believer right at the beginning. He says in John 7:17, If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself. The will to believe is at the basis of the psychology of conviction, as Jas- trow has shown. It is at the basis of much fundamental discussion of Liberalism, Mod¬ ernism, and Higher Criticism. It is un¬ doubtedly true that many an ultra-modernist has a will “not to believe in the super-nat¬ ural,” has developed a sort of “naturalistic” complex that colours all his thinking and is in danger of taking the reigns of control [ 106 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity from his personality. Hence when he finds a fact in the documents that seems to support Super-naturalism, he is sure that the given datum must be wrong or must belong to a later document. With this I bring to a conclusion that part of the discussion which deals with the chal¬ lenge which the tried principles of psychol¬ ogy make to Christianity. The central fact that I would leave before the mind of the reader is that Christianity makes its appeal to the whole personality of man, and that it takes the whole personality, and not any one exclusive faculty to interpret it. Let us com¬ pare the soul of man to a great steam engine. Now, in order that the engine may properly function three things are necessary: there must be fire in the box to give heat to the boiler; there must be steam to give power to the pistons; there must be an engineer in the cab to manipulate the throttle, and to guide the working of the engine in general. Now the steam in the boiler is the will or motive power in man; and the fire in the box is comparable to the feelings, that by their ar¬ dent, kindling rays are intended to arouse the will into action; while the engineer in the cab is the reason. Would we dare to heat that engine red hot, with the steam escaping from the valves, and start it down the track with no engineer at the throttle? We would say that such a wild engine would be a men¬ ace to everything else on the line of railroad. But if in the moral and spiritual world we arouse the feelings of man to fever heat and [ 107 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity energize his will, and yet do not allow the reason to act as the guide to his soul, we are turning loose upon society a mighty, uncon¬ trollable power that will be a menace to all that come its way. No—it is never safe to arouse the religious emotions and will of man, unless the intellect is put in charge to direct their religious functioning. Christi¬ anity then makes its appeal to the whole per¬ sonality of man; and is properly interpret¬ able only by the whole soul. There have arisen great systems of thought which have claimed that religion makes its appeal ex¬ clusively and primarily to one isolated fac¬ ulty. One party claims that religion is in¬ tended exclusively for the intellect. We call them Intellectualists. Another school of thinkers state that Christianity makes its primary appeal to the feelings; and we have mysticism. Then there are others who make it the keystone of their system that the will is the primary organ for the apprehension and the interpretation of the truth. These we call Voluntarists. Now all of these sys¬ tems are partly wrong and partly right. They are right in claiming that religion does make an appeal to these respective faculties; and they are wrong in holding that it appeals exclusively to them and in denying the testi¬ mony of the other faculties to the truth. I believe that the true position is that Chris¬ tianity is intended for the whole personality of man (intellect, feelings, and will), and that it takes all three to interpret it cor¬ rectly. [ 108 ] Chapter VI. The New Psychology I N this study we wish to consider some aspects of the New Psychology as it Chal¬ lenges Christianity. We may differentiate the subject matter of this science from the old psychology by saying that it deals more particularly with the non-rational, hidden, subconscious elements of our psychic experi¬ ence rather than with the conscious side of it. We will understand more fully the nature of the New Psychology, as we consider its bearing on the general subject of religious work. Let us note under the following heads its importance to the Christian: (U THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUBCONSCIOUS MIND With a little study and reflection each one of us can realize the important part that the subsconscious mind plays in our every-day life. There are many mental operations that cannot be performed at all by the conscious self, but which must be entrusted for their successful performance to the subconscious soul. For example, in times of insomnia, we have found that the more our conscious minds laboured to bring on sleep, the greater [ 109 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity was the failure, and that we found rest only by dispersing conscious attention and en¬ trusting the whole operation to the subcon¬ scious soul. To illustrate further, as we have tried to remember a name that has just barely slipped from our memory, we have discovered that by conscious attention we never could find it, but that when we ceased trying to recollect it, sooner or later it welled forth from the depths of our subliminal be¬ ing. Again, in those days of the long ago, when we were endeavouring to learn to ride a bicycle, we found that if we saw an obstacle in the road that we wished to avoid, the more our conscious minds thought about that dan¬ ger and the necessity of avoiding it, that the greater was our likelihood of hitting it. Thus there are many operations in our lives that the working of the conscious part of our being hinders, and that should be turned over completely to the function of the subcon¬ scious self. Now, a recognition of the prac¬ tical working of the subliminal in practical experience has led to a scientific study of the nature and function of the subconscious. Volumes have been written on the subject. Mr. Galton as quoted by Jastrow in The Sub¬ conscious has this to say, “There seems to be a presence chamber in my mind where full consciousness holds court, and where two or three ideas are at the same time in audience, and an antechamber full of more or less allied ideas, which is situated just beyond the full ken of consciousness. ,, This antechamber is [ 110 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the subconscious mind. It plays a very im¬ portant part in our mental life. Brill in Fun¬ damental Conceptions of Psycho-Analysis says that eight-ninths of our actions are guided by the operation of the unconscious. Dr. G. Stanley Hall claims that, just as in the case of an iceberg, one-eighth of its body is above the water and seven-eighths is be¬ low, so the same ratio holds with the soul of man, and that seven-eighths of his psychic life belongs to the field of the subconscious. The operation of the subliminal self is es¬ pecially noticeable in cases of genius and in the acquisition of proficiency of any kind. Those who have played tennis very much know that when they are trying to serve the ball successfully, that it is not wise to give conscious attention to every movement, but that real proficiency comes when the whole matter is taken under the control of the sub¬ conscious. So it is in learning to play the piano. It is the beginner that uses the con¬ scious mind to attend to every act of finger¬ ing. The genius has entrusted the whole op¬ eration to the subliminal self. It has been found that in the case of mental prodigies like skilled mental calculators, the subcon¬ scious mind is the source of their success. Such is the import of the subconscious in our psychic life. What is the significance of the subliminal to the religious worker? I believe that the doctrine of the subconscious mind brings into prominence the fact of the wide extent [ill] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity and profound depths of our personality. The Christian Psychologist had said long ago that man should not be judged merely from his external acts, but by the nature back of them. The new teaching of the importance of the subconscious only accentuates this truth. This doctrine is the enemy of that super¬ ficial view of the modern Behaviourists that it is action alone that counts in psychology, and that the psychic life of man may be con¬ strued entirely in terms of the purely neural process of outward stimulus, central adjust¬ ment and motor response. This new tenet proclaims in no uncertain terms that it is not external actions that are important in psychology and in life, but the nature of man with all of its hidden depths. It would refer the real sources of action to the secret springs hidden in the subconscious mind rather than to the purely surface waters of external behaviour. The New Psychology agrees with scripture that the external ac¬ tions of man spring from his inner nature. This new science only extends to marvelous and unthought-of depths the hidden re¬ sources of that nature. This is in line with the teachings of Christ in Matt 12:33 and 7:17. He says, “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree can¬ not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a cor¬ rupt tree bring forth good fruit.” The New Psychology in its doctrine of the importance of the subconscious in a man’s life only makes [ 112 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity it all the more evident that a man cannot be changed by reforming his external actions, but that the inner depths of his nature must be regenerated. Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. The Bible everywhere teaches that our in¬ voluntary, unconscious acts are better revela¬ tions of character than our studied and vol¬ untary ones. In the great Judgment scene in Matthew 25, it is made clear that the basis of rewards and punishment are not the pre¬ meditated, deliberate, studied acts of man, but those little unconscious, natural, involun¬ tary deeds of kindness and service like feed¬ ing the hungry, giving a cup of cold water to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison. These little acts are vital, because they are a more genuine manifesta¬ tion of our real characters and of our atti¬ tude to Jesus than are our studied prayers in public, our premeditated professions, and our Pharisaic postures. It would seem that our subconscious minds and their operation, play a most important part in our religious lives. In Matt 12:36 Jesus teaches that for every idle word, men are to give an account in the day of judgment. It would appear then that the manifestations and functions of the sub¬ liminal self are very important in the eyes of the Lord. We all instinctively realize that the little, unpremeditated, involuntary ac¬ tions of men and women are the real mani¬ festations of their characters. As Words¬ worth has said in Tintern Abbey, in speak- [ 113 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ing of the sensations that the beautiful banks of the Wye have aroused in him: . . . feelings too Of unremembered pleasure: such perhaps, As have no slight or trivial influence On that best portion of a good man’s life, His little, nameless, unremembered acts Of kindness and of love. Having considered the import of the sub¬ liminal self, we would now pass on to an¬ other aspect of the New Psychology, viz: (ID THE DANGERS OF THE DIVIDED LIFE The New Psychology teaches that there are three stages in the mental life: the conscious realm where our ordinary thinking, feeling, and willing take place; the foreconscious where reside the experiences that have dropped out of memory, and other mental elements that may easily well forth into con¬ sciousness ; and thirdly the unconscious, where have been repressed painful experi¬ ences of the past, which are held back by a barrier from crossing the threshhold of con¬ sciousness. Between the conscious and fore conscious spheres there stands guard to at¬ tend to the passage of experiences from one to the other what has been called the second¬ ary censor; while between the unconscious and the foreconscious there is a mental sen¬ tinel called the primary censor. Now, at this [ 114 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity point, we wish to study the relationships between these three spheres and how they affect the internal harmony and well-being of the mind. This is a rather complicated matter, and one that has occasioned much speculation, investigation, and many theories on the part of psychologists. In the New Psychology the fundamental factor is the complex. This is an association of mental elements with a common emotional colouring, any one of which may arouse the others. Now suppose there comes up a com¬ plex that is out of harmony with the rest of the mental life. The mind always tries to maintain a state of harmony or mental equilibrium, and self-preservation is its first law. What is to be done with the painful complex? The mind, to preserve its inner harmony, performs what is called an act of repression and throws the incompatible member from the foreconscious into the un¬ conscious, where it is held back by a barrier from interfering with our normal operations. Jastrow in The Subconscious shows how these dissociated states that have been thrown out of consciousness in the interests of inner harmony may become so powerful that they rebel against the dominant self, set up an autonomy of their own, and threaten the unity of the psychic life. In this way we have cases of dissociated per¬ sonality. There is the celebrated case of Miss Beauchamp, who in addition to her real self could be any one of three different per- [ 115 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity sons. She could change her personality from time to time, often from hour to hour. To the demonic personality the name “Sally” was attached. She would torment the other self, even going so far as to make expeditions into the country to get spiders, snakes, and toads with which to afflict the normal Miss Beauchamp. There have been other cele¬ brated cases of multiple personalities like Mary Reynolds, Rev. Hanna and others. Now, it must be evident to all of us that the existence of these repressed conflicts in the unconscious realm of our minds is bound to exercise a profound influence on the unity of our soul life. Rebellion cannot exist in any state without imperiling the very au¬ tonomy of that body. So it is with the mind. What makes these repressions interesting and dangerous is that they cannot be discov¬ ered easily, but, as I have said, are held back from consciousness by a barrier of some kind. Now the work of undertaking to dis¬ cover the nature of these conflicts and of finding out how to release them has been done by some noted psychologists. Foremost among these are the Psychologists Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Freud had read how Professor Charcot had discovered the symptoms of these repressions through the use of hypnotism. Freud was working at this time with a Dr. Breur. From the lat¬ ter he learned that these barriers might be discovered by letting the patient talk on in¬ definitely. In this way sooner or later the [ 116 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity nature of the repression would be disclosed. He discovered the “talking cure.” In con¬ nection with this he instituted the “Cathartic method” of purging or unburdening the mind of past conflicts. In cases of hysteria he found that these were caused by the fact that painful experiences at some past time had been repressed into the unconscious and kept locked there. As soon as the patient, through constant talking disclosed the nature of this past experience and had an opportunity to unburden herself and release the painful complex from the unconscious mind, then the hysteria or other disease ceased. What is needed is an emotional outlet; and the patient was found to be loathe to let go of the painful experience. In discovering the nature of these repressions it was found that there are many of our mannerisms that are symbolic actions. They are expressive of hidden con¬ flicts or concealed wishes. Thus, if we study many of our mannerisms we find that they may be expressive of concealed desires. The rattling of coins may reveal a materialistic tendency; rubbing the hands shows an incli¬ nation to worry; playing with the mustache manifests a strain of vanity. Carl Jung, of Zurich, a pupil of Freud, carried on the work of the master. He held that the myths, phan¬ tasies, and mythologies of the past are but the symbols of the unrealized wishes and in¬ complete strivings of mankind. He held that we should study these historic problems for the light they shed on our own. These heroes [ 117 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of the past are but the personifications of our human wishes and aspirations, the imagery of our secret thoughts. Here we can see the secret springs of impulse beneath the psychologic development of races. Jung, in a most monumental, scholarly work en¬ titled the Psychology of The Unconscious, has gathered together illustrations from the past to develop the above thesis. In this connection there has arisen that word of which we hear so much in popular thought, “Psycho-analysis.” This has been called “The surgery of the mind”—for it stands in the same relation to personality as surgery does to the body. It is a method by which through analysis of the mind the na¬ ture of these concealed conflicts is found out, in order that they may be released and inner harmony restored. In the hands of experts it may be very useful; but in the hands of dilettante psychologists it may lead to morbid introspection and may do us much harm in our mental life. Such is the danger of the divided life in the sphere of psychology. What shall we say of the divided life in the psychology of religion? Tansley in The New Psychology has shown that man has a definite amount of psychic energy, and that its action is very similar to that of physical energy. Like physical energy it tends to escape by all sorts of side channels or through weak points in the barriers to action, and to follow the line of least resistance. [ 118 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Now if it is true that man has only a definite amount of psychic energy available for his daily use, and if he divides this between the world and his religion, between God and the Devil, it will follow that he will not lead a very effective life in either sphere. If we scatter or divide our psychic energy, it means a life of inefficiency. In Matthew 6:21-24 Christ, in speaking of the impossibility of serving two masters, is really dealing with a case of the divided life. Jesus Christ was the greatest student of human nature that the world has ever seen. As He looked about Him, He saw many people vainly trying to serve God and Mammon; in other words, try¬ ing to lead the divided life. Now, He knew this was a sheer impossibility, not only be¬ cause God is a jealous God and will brook no divided allegiance, but also because of the nature of man. There is a psychological rea¬ son why the divided life cannot be lived suc¬ cessfully. In other words, our personalities are so built that we cannot serve two masters. The soul functions as a unit. The psycholo¬ gists tell us that the normal human person¬ ality has at its disposal only a definite amount of psychic energy. Now, if an at¬ tempt is made to divide that between two masters, it should be evident to us all that discord, and lack of harmony and will power is going to result. A divided life is a life that never accomplishes anything. It never functions normally and efficiently. As Bishop Paget is quoted in the Psychology of The [ 119 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Christian Life by Pym, “Surely half-heart¬ edness, wavering and faltering faith, or love of purpose, the hopeless toil of living two lives—this is the source of at least much of the unhappiness and unrest, the weariness and overstrain and break-down in modern life.” When we try to serve two masters, we so scatter our energies between the two, we so dissipate our powers, that we really have no resources available to serve either. Christ Himself teaches the doctrine of the necessity of the single life in Matthew 6:21 and 22, where He says that where our treasure is there our hearts will be also. He further says that the light or lamp of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light. When Christ came into the world He found a whole host of people who were inefficient in their Christian living. They were below par morally and spiritually. They were not living up to the full possibilities of their souls. There was the man who was so fretting and fuming about his daily bread that he was dissipating his energies and scattering his powers, and was not in position to live the efficient spiritual life. It was a case of the divided life. There was the man who was coveting his neighbor’s wealth—just as many people covet today—and his life was so divided that it could do little either for the Master or for the Devil. Christ found that many Chris¬ tians were under the domination of fear, and were not availing themselves of the wonder- [ 120 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ful possibilities and marvelous potentialities of faith. I think that there are many Chris¬ tians today who are living the inefficient life. They are below par. They are not function¬ ing normally. They are trying to serve two masters. Christ came to teach us how to live the life of power and of spiritual effi¬ ciency. One of the first suggestions He would make is that we should cease trying to serve two Masters. No man can have spiritual efficiency who is living the divided life. This then is the tragedy of the divided life in religion. In the first place, it means the loss of power. What impresses us today is the lack of real power in the church. She has the money, she has the personalities at her disposal—but for some reason, she does not seem to make much impress on the world. We have lost the Pentecostal power. Why is that ? I firmly believe it is largely because church members are trying to live the di¬ vided life. We are flirting with the world. We are one day under the flag of King Jesus, and the next we are doing obeisance to over- lord Mammon. I firmly believe that if for one week the Christians of the land would quit trying to live the divided life and would surrender completely to King Jesus, that the church would possess such power that she would sweep the world to Christ. We have at our disposal today the same Holy Ghost that the Pentecostal church had—but the chief difference is that while they lived a life [ 121 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of complete consecration, we are trying to serve two masters. I believe that the prin¬ cipal explanation of our loss of power is the divided life. To the church of the twentieth century God says in commanding tones, Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. In the next place, the divided life means loss of peace. Many Christians complain that they do not know the peace of God in their lives. The trouble is that they have a divided personality. They are not one in their devotion to their Lord. Wherever you have schism, and division, and revolution, then you will never have peace. Peace comes only as a resultant of one flag, one country, one set of laws, complete harmony, and con¬ cord in the government. A divided authority means revolution and war and turmoil. A great French teacher is quoted by Pym in his Psychology and the Christian Life as saying, “Do you know what it is that makes man the most suffering of all creatures? It is that he has one foot in the finite and the other in the infinite, and that he is torn between two worlds.” Yes, that is the trouble, and the reason that many Christians are not at peace. They have one foot under the communion table and one foot out in the gay halls of society. They have one foot in the church aisles, and the other in the materialistic mar¬ kets of the world. Man tries to be a citizen of two worlds and makes a failure of living successfully in either. I have seen two classes of people who seemed, as far as out- [ 122 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ward appearances go, to have a measure of satisfaction in life. One is the Christian who is trying to live entirely for Christ. The other is the complete worldling who has no scruples about the dangers of the world, and who is immersed in its gay life. But of all the miserable, discontented, ill-at-ease people those persons who are trying to keep at the same time one foot in the kingdom and the other in the world are the most wretched. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. That is not alone good theology; but very sound psychology. We hear much today of efficiency in our mental life. Tansley shows that there is a fundamental quality of the mind by virtue of which it endeavours to maintain a mental equilibrium, and which is constantly upset by the working of individual instincts. Thinkers are pointing out the psychic value of some great religious concept that will unify, harmonize, and rally all of our ener¬ gies around one end. Such a concept is resig¬ nation to the will of God. THE ONLY EFFICIENT LIFE IS THE ONE FULLY AND COMPLETELY CONSECRATED TO GOD. A half-consecrated life then is an in¬ efficient one. The only person who has genuine efficiency and poise and mental power is the fully consecrated Christian. Christianity calls us to the life of full surren¬ der and vital power. [ 123 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Having considered the challenge of the subconscious to our religion and having noted the fundamental need for internal harmony in the inner workings of the mind, we are in position to consider the method of education and guidance of the subconscious that is called suggestion. This brings us to (HI.) THE IMPORT OF SUGGESTION TO THE CHRISTIAN What is suggestion ? McDougall in his Social Psychology defines it as follows: “Sug¬ gestion is a process of communication result¬ ing in the acceptance with conviction of the communicated proposition in the absence of logically adequate grounds for its accept¬ ance." We are all making constant use of suggestion in our daily lives. When we sug¬ gest a proposition to another, we mean, that in some way we introduce it into his con¬ scious mind. The term comes from two Latin words meaning, “carrying under." If we think of the soul of man as consisting of a conscious chamber and a subconscious ante¬ chamber, then suggestion is the method by which certain ideas are deposited in the ante¬ chamber through the vestibule of conscious¬ ness. In general, there have been three views as to the function and extent of use for suggestion. One position is that sug¬ gestibility is a condition peculiar to hysteri- [ 124 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity cal subjects, and is practically synonymous with hypnotism. This school holds that ninety per cent of the people can be hypno¬ tized ; and hence that suggestion has a very wide range. The second view is that sug¬ gestion may function in normal minds, but that it has no affinity with normal mental operations. It is connected with some ob¬ scure faculty, and its power is liberated through dissociation. The third theory is that of Bernheim and his colleagues of Nancy and is that all people are suggestible, but that hypnotics are more susceptible through the power of dissociation that takes place in their minds. Then there are two kinds .of suggestion. One type exists where some other person introduces the suggestion in the patient’s mind, and is called hetero-sugges¬ tion. The other kind takes place when the subject himself makes the suggestion to him¬ self, and is styled auto-suggestion. A great debate has taken place as to which of these is the more potent in its operation. As in the case of many a great historic debate, the truth lies not in either extreme but in a mid¬ dle position. If man has a great subconscious chamber in his mind in which various ideas can be deposited, then it stands to reason that the man himself can make these deposits, and also that some one else can introduce new concepts into the mental vault, provided that he gains the permission to do this from that great sentinel or censor that stands guard between the conscious and subconscious [ 125 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity rooms of the soul. For example, I can make a deposit to my credit in the bank, and also my friend can put money to my balance. Both methods are permissible. But undoubt¬ edly it is more beneficial to me and more con¬ ducive to my financial self respect, if I am the one that makes the deposits. In like manner, in mental operations, it is more help¬ ful to my soul and has more of a tendency to mental self-respect, if I am the one that makes the suggestions rather than another. One thing is certain: even in successful cases of hetero-suggestion, the operator must in some way gain control of the workings of that mental censor that stands guard at the subconscious mind. We see a case of this kind in hypnotism. Of late years we have heard a great deal of the working of auto-suggestion. The po¬ tency of this power for physical and moral healing has been greatly emphasized by Emile Coue, of the Nancy School in France. He holds that the unconscious self is the grand director of all of our functions. Hence he believes that if an organ is out of running, all that is necessary is for an order to be placed in the subconscious mind for the given part of the body to operate normally, and that soon health will ensue. He holds that the imagination in our mental life is more effective than the will, and he compares it to a wild horse and to an uncontrolled torrent of water. Now auto-suggestion is the method to be used to control and govern this torren- [ 126 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity tial power that we call the imagination, to make it amenable to our conscious minds and to convert it from an enemy into an ally. If the unconscious mind is to be controlled, then the favorable time for its education is when the conscious mind is less active and when it is easy to gain access through the mental censor to the realms of the subliminal. That time is when we are drowsy at night, just before we go to sleep. Hence Cone sug¬ gests in his Self Mastery through Conscious Auto-suggestion that every morning before getting up and every evening as soon as we are in bed that we shut our eyes, and repeat twenty times in succession, moving our lips and counting mechanically on a long string with twenty knots the now celebrated but over-worked phrase: “Day by day in every way I am getting better and better.” We have witnessed the great popular interest in auto-suggestion that swept our country with the coming of Emile Coue to our shores. As has been the case with most popular psycho¬ logic fads and theories, there has been a ten¬ dency to make all of the psychic facts fit into this peculiar mould, and, disregarding real philosophic poise, to make suggestion the panacea for all of man’s ills. That sugges¬ tion is a means of education of the subcon¬ scious, there can be no denial. But sugges¬ tion has its limitations, and needs to be prop¬ erly correlated with the other facts of man’s psychic life. Suggestion is like a two-edged sword in psychology, and may cut in the di- [ 127 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity rection of good as well as of evil. Suggestion may beget counter-suggestion in the mind, and stall; a train of associated suggestions in the subconscious that will produce more con¬ fusion than harmony. Moreover auto-sug¬ gestion always faces the great limitation that a man cannot lift himself psychologically by his own boot straps. After the popular furor has died down in the life of psychologic thought, we will be able to estimate the real significance of auto-suggestion, and the real challenge it puts to Christianity. If man has this wonderful subterranean vault that we call the subconscious, and if the ideas implanted there exercise such a great influence on our bodily functions, then how important it is that man deposit there only good, true, pure, and noble thoughts. If we plant there seed thoughts of anger, malice, lust, failure, fear and selfishness, then if this theory is true, we should expect a har¬ vest of failure, licentiousness, sickness, and death in our bodily and moral beings. On the other hand, if we have stored our sub¬ conscious chamber with thoughts of love, un¬ selfishness, and Godliness, then we can read¬ ily expect peace and happiness in our whole personality. This whole teaching is a won¬ derful commentary on the text, “The wages of sin is death.” Yes, we can readily see why it means death physical as well as death spiritual. We begin to see that it is all-im¬ portant as to the nature of the thought de¬ posits that we make in our subconscious store [ 128 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity houses. Auto-suggestion is only a method of making deposits of health, strength, power in this subliminal chamber. As I was read¬ ing the suggestions of Emile Coue for im¬ planting these health-giving ideas of power and strength in the subconscious, I could not keep from thinking, “Would it not be vastly better to implant in the subconscious store¬ house quotations from the word of God rather than suggestions of our own concoction. Happy is that man who in his mental exer¬ cises fills his subliminal chamber with apt quotations from the word of God.” The won¬ derful power of suggestibility inherent in ideas, only emphasizes anew the importance of storing our minds with the word of our God. If Coue is right in his theory that just before going to sleep is the proper time to implant ideas in the subconscious mind, then it would seem advisable to Christians to make that one time for reading the word of God. Another message to the Christian from the doctrine of Auto-suggestion is that it shows psychologically the transcendent power of faith. The psychologists tell us that by conscious will action we can no more make ourselves to be good, than we can raise our¬ selves by our own bootstraps. Indeed there is a law called the law of reversed action which teaches us that the harder we strive to eradicate a given habit with our wills, the more pronounced we make it. As I have noted before, Emile Coue holds that when the imagination and the will are in a struggle, [ 129 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the imagination gets the victory. This would indicate that we cannot by sheer will action overcome a bad habit. As Pym says in Psy¬ chology and the Christian Life, “But in the heart and mind of man the Christian life should be less a fight than a faith.” The New Psychology agrees with Paul when he says in Galatians 2:16, “A man is not justi¬ fied by the works of the law.” We see the folly of trying to make ourselves good by following a set of rules, or moral gymnastics, as Benjamin Franklin once endeavoured to do. The New Psychology is decidedly against the doctrine that man can reform himself by conscious effort. It unites with Paul, Augus¬ tine, and the Reformers in pointing to the grand doctrine, THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. The New Psychology has much to say of the effects of faith and of fear. The advo¬ cates of auto-suggestions say unhesitatingly that faith is at the bottom of any success that the patient achieves along these lines. He must have faith in himself, faith in the method that he is adopting. The advocates of the New Psychology stress the importance of faith in our lives. Usually, however they are not dealing with Christian faith, but with faith in our own powers. I believe that the Christian needs a new exploration into the land of Christian Faith. He needs to learn more of the mighty dy¬ namic, and the heroic powers that are locked [ 130 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity up in this wondrous treasure house of faith. We have construed the term too much in static, intellectualistic, creedal terms. We need to learn more of the dynamite wrapped up in Christian belief. We need to learn anew the power it has for a vital, pulsating, victorious Christian life. We have turned this province largely over to the Christian Scientist and the Faith healer. While they made explorations into this wonderful land of promise, we have been content, we ortho¬ dox Christians, to remain in the desert of a dead, arid, scholastic, second-hand, dead faith. We have been living right over mines of gold, and have not taken the trouble even to dig into them. We need to learn more of the power right at our disposal for mental efficiency, bodily health, a victorious per¬ sonality in this wondrous word, faith. In the West I have had considerable ex¬ perience with the followers of Christian Sci¬ ence and of the other new cults. I have usually found that most Christians leave the orthodox folds for these heresies, not for some metaphysical, moral, or even theologi¬ cal reason, but because they thought they had found in these false teachings a source of power, peace, and poise for their bodily, men¬ tal, and spiritual beings that they looked for in vain in the folds of the evangelical church. It is invariably the discovery of some new psychic power in the new cult that attracts. As E. L. House says in the Psychology of Orthodoxy, “Throughout the world there is [ 131 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity a growing distrust of academic medicine, a revolt against its materialistic dogmas, and, on the other hand, thousands are leaving our great historic Christian churches for Chris¬ tian Science, New Thought, Faith Healing, and Theosophy, because these systems ap¬ pear to create an atmosphere of faith, hope, love, cheerfulness, kindness, and utterly deny worry, fear, anger, hate and criticism. And the people have learned that the mind at peace with itself reflects its serenity in the unconscious processes of the body.” The mission of the Psychology of Religion should be to show that it is unnecessary to wander into forbidden fields to discover the wondrous psychic power of faith. This study should be the key that will help unlock all of the marvelous stores of peace, power, and plenty in the glorious treasure house of faith. We have had a mine of wealth at our disposal and did not know it. The theologian has always pointed out the close connection between sin and disease. The dogmatic theo¬ logian says that the latter was sent as a penalty for the broken law. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death—death spirit¬ ual and physical. Now the Psychology of Religion aims to show only from a psychic standpoint the truth of this statement that we have long regarded as true from the theo¬ logical viewpoint. It shows clearly how wicked, base, and impure ideas implanted in our subconscious minds bring death naturally and automatically to our mental faculties and [ 132 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity to our bodily organs. Not only would it show from a psychological standpoint that sin brings death, but it would also make clear the fact that the implanting of the new life through faith in Jesus should act as the anti¬ dote to sin and should destroy its poison both in our souls and in our bodies. We Christians in our faith have the most wondrous treasure house in the world, and we have not even taken the trouble to enter the door and count our riches. Let us note, at this point, the beneficial ef¬ fects of faith and the baneful influences of fear. Each life must be lived in the one or the other atmosphere. We will either live our lives surrounded by the depressing air of fear or encased in the ennobling air of a pure and undefiled faith. Which shall it be? It is for us to choose whether we will sur¬ render wholly to fear or to faith. Which will be the dominant note of our life? Harry Emerson Fosdick in his book on Faith has a chapter in which he contrasts the effects of the two opposite attitudes in a man. He says that fear imprisons the soul in a prison house of gloomy doubts; while faith is the great liberator. Fear is the great paralyzer; while faith empowers. Faith encourages; while fear weakens and discourages. Where are you living? Is it in the damp, chilling climate of fear? Or have you moved your life out into the bracing, uplifting, tonic atmosphere of an heroic faith ? The kind of spiritual plant of character that you will one day pro- [ 133 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity duce will be largely determined by whether you are living in the atmosphere of faith or fear. Let us notice the effects of these two attitudes. At this point, let us notice the results of these two attitudes on a man’s own faculties and powers. We should all wish so to live that our powers will act at the highest point of efficiency. No normal man should wish to get only fifty per cent efficiency out of the operation of his mental and moral talents. Now in what kind of a clime should we live in order to get the highest development out of our faculties? Surely it should not be in the climate of fear. We all know that our powers cannot operate to their fullest extent when we are always afraid of something. Fear lowers our vitality and our efficiency. We are not our complete selves when we sur¬ render to its destructive powers. On the other hand, the man of faith, just because he lives in such an atmosphere, raises the strength of his faculties to their highest point. When you surrender to fear all of your days, you naturally cannot think your profoundest thoughts, nor feel your noblest sentiments, nor will your most heroic en¬ deavours. Fear cripples and depresses our faculties; while faith builds up and stimu¬ lates. We have heard much of late of the influence of a wholesome faith on our bodily organs, and of the destructive effect of fear. E. L. House in The Psychology of Orthodoxy tells us that Prof. Gates, of Washington, D. [ 134 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity C., has made a number of experiments with people under the influence of harmonious thoughts, and again with the same persons under the influence of some discordant ideas. He has discovered that the man thinking dis¬ cordant thoughts is affected throughout his entire organism. He concludes, ‘‘Every men¬ tal activity creates a definite anatomical structure in the being which exercises the mental activity.” If this is the case, then it stands to reason that the attitudes of fear and faith will have a marvelous influence on our bodily structures. I sincerely believe that if a man lives all his days in the damp, gloomy cellar of fear, that even his physical powers are affected and their vitality low¬ ered. On the other hand, if a man even of weak physique dwell all his days in the at¬ mosphere of a brave, noble faith, I sincerely believe that his Christian faith will tend to strengthen his body. When Jesus came into the world He found men under the domination of fear. He knew full well that a Christian could not live a normal life, and have his powers function to their highest efficiency, when living in such an atmosphere. One of the destructive forces from which He would deliver men was fear. Have you ever noticed how often he turned to his disciples in their hour of turmoil, and in a tone of deepest love and often in terms of affection said to them, “Fear not.” He would lead men from out of the twilight zone of fear into the full daylight of luminous [ 135 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity faith. “Fear not, little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the king¬ dom.” When Jesus was in the world, He saw a class of people that were possessed of little faith. He uses a single Greek word, Oligo- pistos, to describe them, and we may well give them the title, “Little Faith.” Hastings in his book on Faith gives six cases of little faith. We have seen those people among us. They walk our streets; they enter our churches. In Matthew 6:30 Jesus speaks of Mr. Little Faith who is the victim of worry. We have shaken hands with him every day. The good Lord would try to banish his worry by stating the grand truth of God’s Provi¬ dential care for His children. Then in Matt. 8:26 we meet Mr. Little Faith who is con¬ quered by fear. The disciples are afraid of the storm. We have all met this gentle¬ men—yea we have trodden in his shoes our¬ selves. In Matthew 14:31 we find Brother Little Faith yielding to cowardice. It is Peter about to sink when he is walking the waters. Have we not seen Mr. Little Faith, the cowardly Christian, afraid to work in the church, afraid to launch campaigns for money, afraid to take any forward step for the kingdom? In Matthew 16:8 we find Mr. Little Faith the slave of materialism. It is the discussion about the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples persist in taking a materialistic, worldly interpretation of Christ’s teachings. Surely this brother is [ 136 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity in our churches today. He even sits on our official boards. Finally in Matthew 17:20 we meet Little Faith in the form of Half-belief. The disciples could not heal the lunatic boy, and Jesus tells them that little faith is re¬ sponsible. May it not be that the presence of this brother in our churches today is one great reason why we are not able to heal the spiritually sick of the land. Such is the fate in this world of Little Faith. John Bunyan tells us of the troubles of Little Faith on his journeys. He was set upon by footpads, robbed of his ready money, though not of his jewels, which happily for him were too se¬ curely hid for their fingers to purloin. He had to beg his way gloomily through life, yet came to the heavenly city in the end. Is not that a fit description of the average Chris¬ tian today? The Devil has set upon him; could not take his jewels of salvation but has robbed him of his ready money of spirit¬ ual efficiency, peace, power, and the attri¬ butes of a victorious personality. May this study in the psychology of religion enable us to see the value from a physical, mental, and spiritual standpoint of a robust faith, dis¬ close to us the marvelous potentialities in¬ herent in a vital faith in God, and enable us in the future to hold on to our ready money on the Christian journey. At this point there is one caution that I would register in regard to the psychic value of faith. I refer to the fact that a genuine, dynamic faith is based upon a valid object. [ 137 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Now modern religious psychology has much to say of the power of faith, but it is little concerned with the content or object of that faith. It bids us work up an atmosphere of faith in our souls—but as to the content of that trust it is little interested. Just have faith—and that faith may be in the hidden powers of your own subconscious minds, in Emile Coue, in the Over Soul, or in the Christ within you. Such a belief is a purely emo¬ tional affair and has no intellectual content. Now I claim that sooner or later the object of our faith affects vitally the emotional state that is aroused in our hearts. In other words, there is both a subjective and an ob¬ jective content to faith, and the objective content reacts on our inner feelings. For ex¬ ample, I may put out to sea in a boat that has a serious leak of which I am unaware. Now my faith in that defective boat may be sublime, and I may start on my journey with lofty feelings. But finally I will meet with the hard reality, and find that the boat is sinking. Where then is my lofty subjective faith? Even the most intense subjectivism must finally kick against hard reality, and be aroused from its emotional slumbers. Thus we see that merely to have any kind of faith will not suffice even in the realm of the psychology of religion. As Dr. Machen well shows in Christianity and Liberalism, the ob¬ ject of the faith is all-important. The only faith that will give real psychic peace, power, and plenty is a rational faith in a historic [ 138 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Jesus who died for our sins, and who is abundantly able to deliver us not only from the guilt, but also from the present power of sin as it works in the entire range of our personality. That is the only faith that counts in the psychology of religion. In concluding this chapter I would say a few words about the significance of the pres¬ ent emphasis on the HEALING SIDE of Christianity. This aspect of our religion is being much stressed today. We have seen how it was the inspiration of many false cults like Christian Science. This interest in the therapeutic aspect of religion makes a defi¬ nite challenge to orthodox Christianity. Phy¬ sical healing is being stressed today within the bounds of the church. Traveling evange¬ lists advertise the revival of healing along with the revival of religion. Thousands flock to hear them for this reason. Now since the church has so long neglected the healing min¬ istries of a virile faith, it is natural that when prodded on by the false cults which stress this, that there should be the swinging of the pendulum to an extreme. From compara¬ tive neglect, physical healing in the church has now come to a position of prominence. The ministry must reckon with this demand for physical ministrations from the church. What should be the attitude of the church? This is the occasion for much poise and sane thought. The wrong attitude may lead to grave dangers in the life of the church. In [ICO] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity view of this situation we would note the fol¬ lowing points: First, the wholesome effect on the body of a healthy soul-life should be stressed. This truth should never have been allowed to pass into obscurity. Materialism has too long reigned supreme in the field of healing. Let us go back to the figure of the telephone ex¬ change. Suppose that I cannot get good ser¬ vice over my telephone. Now this condition may be due to several causes. There may be a defect in the receiver or transmitter; or the wires may be down. But these are not the only causes of trouble. Suppose the op¬ erator is careless, or discourteous, or ineffi¬ cient in general. That situation will cause bad telephone service just as truly as for the wires to be down. Now in the human tele¬ phone exchange the operator is the soul or personality. If that central self is irritable, cross, devoid of self control, inefficient, it will give poor connections between the in¬ coming and out-going nervous currents. Hence ill health will result. Thus, the con¬ dition of this operator that I call the soul is going to affect vitally the character of my body. This doctrine the preacher should em¬ phasize today. He should make it plain that a vital Christianity will conduce to bodily as well as moral and spiritual health. In other words, we need to develop a sound psychology of religion. By this I do not mean a mere symposium of passing fads and fancies in psychology, but I mean a recognition, on the [ 140 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity one hand, of the legitimate needs of person¬ ality as shown by introspection and by study, and on the other hand, a recognition of the fact that vital Christianity is adequate to satisfy all of the demands of our souls. In the second place, I would note that there is grave danger in this therapeutic emphasis, that in the consciousness of men this physi¬ cal ministration of religion will become more important than the spiritual aspect. Action produces reaction. Having neglected so long the physical bearing of vital religion, there is grave danger that today it will become the chief side of Christianity. Observation shows that where the physical side of religion is stressed, it is likely to become the all-im¬ portant thing. Christ found that the people of His day were more interested in the miracles of healing than in the miracles of Grace. My observation with the healing evangelists today is that the healing side of their ministry is liable to become more im¬ portant in the eyes of men than the spiritual message, and that consciously or uncon¬ sciously they will push it to the fore. To all who are enthusiastic for physical healing, after some little study both practical and theoretical, I would say, “Remember that the chief thing in religion is not the healing of the body, but the healing of the soul. Christ did not die primarily to save the bodies of men from pain. There is grave danger that your doctrine will produce a race of men that are afraid of pain above everything else. We [ 141 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity will become self-indulgent and Epicurean. Let us never forget that pain has a definite ministry in the world.” In the third place, I would note that much of this work of religious healing ignores the supernatural work of divine grace. King in his stimulating book, Nerves and Personal Power, has well shown how our nerves can be dominated by the moral self, and regu¬ lated through self-control. Now it is well to stress this important truth, but we must remember that the moral self can have no power save as it is energized from above. In many of the teachings about the healing side of Christianity the supernatural aspect is in danger of being ignored. [ 142 ] Chapter VII. The New Psychology—Its Limitations I N this chapter I wish to note certain chal¬ lenges that the New Psychology makes to Christianity, and finally to show the all- sufficiency of the Gospel to meet these. At the outset let us note: (D THE DANGER IN THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE NORMAL PHENOMENA OF LIFE FIT INTO ABNOR¬ MAL MOULDS! This is the day of the specialist. Now there is grave danger in the very special¬ ization of psychology. We have lost the wide, coherent viewpoint of the old psychology. The science has become largely divorced from philosophy and religion, and it is paying the penalty in being too technical, too one-sided, and too much inclined to run off at a tangent after each passing theory. It is labouring under the peril of exaggerated emphases. Some specialist will make a startling discov¬ ery that explains certain data in his own nar¬ row field, and in his enthusiasm for his new theory he proclaims that all past explanations in the field are erroneous and that his “pet” [ 143 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity doctrine will amply interpret all of the phe¬ nomena of the soul. I think I can illustrate this danger of over-specialization of the sub¬ ject by noting briefly the work of some of the Continental psychologists, notably Sig¬ mund Freud and Carl Jung. Freud has un¬ doubtedly done some valuable work in the field of abnormal psychology. His diagnosis of hysteria as being due to certain painful conflicts that have been repressed in the un¬ conscious and that need some kind of a re¬ lease before psychic unity is restored—this is all most valuable. In like manner his theory of the important part that the unful¬ filled wish plays in life is illuminating. He has advanced the idea that our dreams are only expressions of our unfulfilled desires, which once the normal inhibitions of wakeful life are removed come to realization. He has taught us of the libido, or life-current or psychic energy, that is attached to the great primitive instincts. With great illumination he has traced its sinuosities as, blocked in some of its natural flow, it winds its way hither and yon seeking some pathway of dis¬ charge. All of these suggestions in regard to the flow of the psychic current are most helpful. But Freud did not stop with these theories. He emphasized the importance of the sex idea in psychology. With him sex and love are synonomous. The psychic side of sexuality as well as its somatic expression are emphasized. With him the manifestation of the libido, or psychic current, is confined [ 144 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity almost to the channel of sex. An attempt is put forth to make this idea explain most of the phenomena of life. Certain actions in childhood are due to certain perverse sex manifestations. In this connection Freud speaks of the “Infantalism of Sexuality.” This sex current in its devious windings is blocked by the incest barrier—and this stop¬ ping of its flow has a profound effect on the life of the soul. Now, Carl Jung, of Zurich, a disciple of Freud, differs from his master in certain aspects. With him the libido has a wider range than mere sex. It is rather the vital push in life and corresponds to the Elan Vital of Bergson. It is manifested in growth, hunger, and in all human development and activity. It becomes a mighty cosmic force like the energy of physics. He differs from Freud again in regard to some of the sex manifestations of the libido, or psychic cur¬ rent. The manifestations of childhood are not due to certain perverse displays of the libido, but are preliminary expressions of that sex colouring that appears in later life. He speaks of the three stages of sex manifesta¬ tion : pre-sexual, pre-pubertal, and that period from puberty to the time of maturity. At puberty the child frees itself from the pa¬ rental dependence. He speaks of the self- sacrifice motive, when the childish feelings and demands are slain, and the duties of the individual existence are assumed. He holds rather to a dynamic theory of life. Man may direct the libido, or psychic current, into use- [ 145 ] • • Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ful channels, or allow it to wander into for¬ bidden pathways. He holds that phantasies and myths of the race are compensations for the unfulfilled adaptations and aspirations of life. When the psychic current is blocked, there is a reanimation of past ways of libido occupation. No myth or story or psychic symptom of any kind is without some mean¬ ing. There is nothing lawless in the psychic world. We can abridge the abyss that sep¬ arates us from antiquity and find that Oedi¬ pus and other characters are still with us. There is a wonderful identity of elementary human instincts. The Psycho-analyst should study historic problems, for these shed light on the individual problems of the day. These heroes of the past are personifications of the human libido, imagery of our secret thoughts. Hence, Jung has made a colossal study of the myths and phantasies of the past to illustrate his thesis. He claims that in these studies we can see the secret springs of impulse be¬ neath the psychologic development of the races. Now we have discussed these methods of the new psychologists in order to show the reader the lengths to which they will go in their attempts to fit all of the normal data of life into their own fantastic theories. It is legitimate to study cases of hysteria and other abnormal phenomena, and to form theories to explain these data—but it is illegitimate to try to make these peculiar hypotheses explicable of all the normal facts [ 146 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of life. It is permissible even to adopt the sex hypothesis as explicable of certain ab¬ normal factors, but when the theory of love is made the dominant theory of life, and carried to morbid, revolting lengths, then it is time to call a halt on fantastic psychology. As we read these sex hypotheses of the modern psycho-analyst, we feel that we have got into a morbid, unwholesome atmos¬ phere, and we yearn for the bracing, tonic air of a sound philosophy and an inspiring theology to purify the foul odors of incest and sexual psychology. That many of the suggestions of the new psychologists are helpful, cannot be denied. The power of suggestion, the function of the subconscious mind, the dangers of repressed conflicts lodged in the unconscious have been recognized long ago by people of common sense. Of course, specialists have studied more thoroughly these operations, and given these factors psychologic nomenclature—but the principles are as old as the hills. Let us take these theories for what they are worth in their own sphere—but in our enthusiasm for them do not let us decide that all past psychology is faulty and erroneous, and en¬ deavour to make these bizarre doctrines ex¬ plicable of all that is in heaven, on earth, and in the waters under the earth. The great lack on the part of current specialists in the field of psychology is philosophic poise and any spirit of genuine criticism. If there ever was a time when the coherence of view of [ 147 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the philosopher, and the authoritative note of the preacher is needed in psychology it is now. The field has been surrendered too long to the ultra-specialist. All of man's normal, waking life cannot possibly be fit into the moulds that explain paranoia and hysteria. We need explanations of these abnormal cases—but let us realize the very limitations of our theories, and confine them to their own peculiar sphere of operation. The clarion call of the hour in the field of psychology is for the philosopher and the theologian. The former is demanded to rescue the science from the ravages of the one-sided ultra-specialist, and to give it that sanity, that balance, that poise, and that coherence of view that it so much needs and that will alone restore it to that high place it deserves as the science of the soul of man. Then the preacher or theologian is needed to emphasize the truth that man is created in the divine image, and to insist in authorita¬ tive tones that the human soul cannot be adequately studied without taking into ac¬ count the teachings of religion. He needs to proclaim with an air of finality that no adequate theory of personality can possibly be formed that does not consider the re¬ ligious needs of man and also the revelation that the Bible makes as to the soul. The call of the hour is for the preacher to meet bravely the challenge, and to defend fearlessly the fundamental revelations of Scripture as to human personality. Modern psychology [ 148 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity cannot dispense with the authoritative note that he and he alone can bring to the study. The next caution that I would make in regard to the study of the New Psychology is the following: (ID THERE IS A DECIDED WEAKNESS IN THE ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THEOLOGY, AND ESPECIALLY THE NA¬ TURE OF CHRIST BY THE NEW PSYCHOLOGY There is a marked tendency today on the part of enthusiasts of the New Psychology to attempt to explain various orthodox religious conceptions in terms of the new science. Thus E. L. House in his popular psychological lec¬ tures essays to explain the nature of the Trinity in this way. He holds that the Father is the Subconscious Mind of God, that the Son is the Conscious Mind, and that the Holy Spirit is the Super-Conscious Mind. In like manner have there risen various at¬ tempts to explain the life of Jesus in the nomenclature of the New Psychology. His dual nature is perfectly simple in the eyes of many, in the light of the findings of this new science. The Divine nature is resident in the subconscious; while the human dwells in the conscious part of His being. This ex¬ planation of the mysterious personality of [ 149 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity our Lord is satisfactory to many Christians. Not only is His nature made to fit into these peculiar moulds but also His work and func¬ tions are forced into them. His healing is due to His marvelous Faith, and to His wonderful use of the powers of auto and hetero-suggestion. The miracles were due to the operation of psychic laws that the ancients did not understand, but which are intelligible to us in the light of the findings of the New Psychology. In His great temp¬ tation Jesus had to meet and conquer the promptings of the three primary instincts of man. Remember, that in the eyes of the new thinkers, sin is only a violation of the normal psychic energy that belongs legitimately to each primary instinct. Thus in the tempta¬ tion to turn stones into bread, Jesus was combatting the appeal to misuse or abuse the instinct of passion. This was only a manifestation of the sex instinct. In the appeal to cast Himself down from the temple and win the plaudits of the crowd, Christ was face to face with the temptation to abuse the social instinct. Finally in the challenge to Him to fall down and worship Satan and win universal dominion, the Son of man had to meet the strong attractions of a misuse of the ego complex. Such are some of the at¬ tempts to make the life of Jesus fit into the moulds of the New Psychology. What shall we say in answer to these ingenious theories ? I would make two remarks, viz: [ 150 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity In the first place, there is involved in all these attempts the danger of gross anthro¬ pomorphism. The early heathen accused the Christian apologists of trying to make God in the image of man. To Celsus they seemed like, “frogs in council on a marsh, worms in synod on a dunghill, quarreling as to which is the greatest sinner, and yet declaring that God announces all things to us beforehand. . . . . Land and water, air and stars, all things are for our sake and are appointed to serve us.” If the early thinkers so appeared to Celsus, I wonder how our devotees of the New Psychology with their heroic attempts to make God and Jesus conform to the tenets of their science, really would look in his critical eyes. It always has been a taunt hurled at Christian Theology that it tried to make God in the image of man, and it would seem that the new thinkers have fallen into that trap. I would say to these followers of the New Psychology what Shakespeare said in Hamlet, viz: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Let us be truly thankful that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the morbid investigations and weird theorizings of many of our current thinkers. In regard to the fundamentals of religion, we had better confine ourselves to the revelation of the Bible, to the theology of the Fathers and the confessions, and not try to be wise above what has been written. Let us confess in [ 151 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity humility that we cannot fit into purely human moulds such doctrines as the Trinity, and the dual Nature of Christ. The term “The Psychology of Jesus” is somewhat ambiguous. If by it we mean an attempt to make the personality of Jesus conform to the moulds of modern psychologic speculation, then all of the objections that I have outlined above apply to such a position. But if by the term “The Psychology of Jesus” we intend to describe the teachings of Christ Himself as to the soul of man and its laws, then it is truly a most valuable study. He was the Master Psychologist of all time. It is said of Him that He knew what was in man—and that is vastly more than can be said of many of our ultra-specialists. It would well repay any student of psychology to study carefully the teachings of this Master Mind of all the ages in regard to the things of the spirit. If this is what we mean by “The Psychology of Jesus,” then give us more of such investigation and study. In the second place, I would note in all these attempts to explain the personality of Jesus along psychologic lines, the danger of destroying the uniqueness of His person. There is a certain animus in this fantastic attempt to explain Jesus by the New Psy¬ chology. It is not purely speculative in its interests, nor inspired entirely by the laud¬ able desire to make all the clearer the nature of His blessed personality. It is in line with [ 152 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity all of the attempts of Naturalistic Evolution and its strong ally, the New Psychology, to do away entirely with the supernatural. I will discuss this point more fully in my last chapter. The grave danger is that Jesus will be made purely a product of evolution, a child of His times, and that His personality will be evacuated of all that savors of true Deity. We can well say to the New Psychology, “You have taken away my Lord, and I know not where you have laid Him.” Truly in Germany, where many of the tenets of this science have originated, they have taken Him away from the orthodox fold. Under the inspiration of the abnormal psychology, they have given us the theory of the Pathological Jesus. He is a fit study for the alienist, a rare case of paranoia. Such is the Christ of the radical school. This would seem to be the reductio ad absurdam of all attempts to make Jesus conform to the tenets of abnor¬ mal psychology. It has brought us once more into the blind alley of pure negation. In like manner the New Psychology would essay to explain other Biblical phenomena by its peculiar tenets. Thus the Apostle Paul is the victim of a perverted sex complex, the Oedipus complex. In Greek mythology Oedi¬ pus has an unnatural love for his mother Jocasta, kills his father, Laius, and marries her. Now Paul was a sexual abnormality. Because his own love life is violently re¬ pressed, he seeks compensation in a strict observance of the Jewish law. On the road [ 153 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity to Damascus he suffers an anxiety attack, a sudden welling up of a repressed emotion. By the principle of ambi-valence, or law of opposites, by which an emotion is turned into one of opposing character, he transfers to himself the cruelty which he had afflicted on others, and his hatred of Jesus is turned to love. Such is the account of Paul’s conver¬ sion by some adherents of the New Psychol¬ ogy. What shall we say of it? All I would say is that there is nothing, absolutely noth¬ ing, in the Scriptures to indicate that Paul was the victim of the Oedipus complex or that his conversion was due to the law of ambi-valence. It is a law of science that when an hypothesis does not fit into the facts in a given case, that the sooner it can be abandoned, the better. In concluding this chapter I wish to note as Christianity’s answer to the challenge of the New Psychology: ( 111 .) THE ALL-SUFFICIENCY OF THE GOS¬ PEL FOR MAN’S EVERY PSYCHIC NEED The purpose of this study in the psychol¬ ogy of religion is to make it clear to the reader that he does not have to go into any of the passing cults of the hour in order to find satisfaction for the needs of his per¬ sonality, but that in the religion of Jesus he [ 154 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity has the bread of life for his soul. This science should not strive to glorify itself, but should be the hand-maiden of Christianity. Like John the Baptist, it should be willing to say in complete humility, “I must decrease, but it must increase.” Now it would require the compass of an entire volume to point out the adequacy of the Gospel to satisfy all of the psychological aspirations of man. We can only illustrate the thesis that we have taken, and leave it to the reader to develop the position more fully from the Scriptures. The important consideration is that the reader shall realize that the Gospel is all- sufficient for his personality, and that it is not necessary for him to go to outside philoso¬ phies for his soul to be satisfied. To make clear this position we should notice, in the first place THE ALL-SUFFICIENT CHRIST If we would realize the adequacy of the Christ for the soul’s every desire, we have only to examine closely the very terms that are used to describe His relationship to the believer. He is said to be the Water of life, the Bread of life, the Door, the Word. Now in these terms we have left the realm of the luxurious and the accidental, and have en¬ tered the sphere of the indispensable and the essential. There are many articles that at different times we might put in the ranks of the non-essential and the luxurious—but bread and water hardly belong in those cate- [ 155 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity gories. Men of all ages, climes, and condi¬ tions regard these as at the basis of all life, and as absolutely essential to their material and spiritual well-being. We have entered the sphere of the vital, the necessary, the sustaining, the every-day need. Since Jesus Christ stands as bread and water to all our religious ideals and cravings, let us consider how He gives strength to the various parts of a man’s personality. Our method will be to examine the three outstanding faculties of the human ego, and to see just how He sustains each of them. Let us see how He is adequate for all of the aspirations and needs of our intellects, sensibilities, and wills: In the first place, He satisfies all of the desires of our intellects. But at this point some one will ask, “Ought man to bring any intellectual demands to religion?” First of all, the technical scholar may take this posi¬ tion. He may claim that if man has any ques¬ tions about the universe and about his own personality, he should take them to science and philosophy, and let these more exact branches of knowledge satisfy his queries. He further claims that religion is not in¬ tended to satisfy the intellectual cravings of man; but is intended primarily to charm his emotions, for it is founded not on intellectual principles, but upon the feelings. Such is the position of many a thinker. He thinks that religion does not deal sufficiently in exact formulas and in mathematical principles, to [ 156 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity be able to answer any of the real questions of life. To a person who holds such a posi¬ tion, our thesis that Christ is sufficient to satisfy all of the intellectual needs of the soul, has no meaning. But such a thinker should realize that there are many questions that science by its method of dealing with sense data and with logical processes exclu¬ sively cannot handle. You cannot deal with matters of the spirit with a measuring rod, nor with the tools of a laboratory. Science then by the very limitations of its nature can¬ not answer all of life’s questions. In like manner, philosophy is incapacitated to an¬ swer all of the questions that a man would ask. Its colossal attempts to give a solution to the problems that relate to man’s destiny have been remarkable—but they have been one stupendous failure. It has succeeded in raising the questions, but has never an¬ swered them. It cannot answer them, for the simple reason that it would make the human intellect, and that in sin, the measure and source of truth—whereas we need a divine revelation to give us any finality in matters and questions of religion. But some¬ one will object that even if these questions cannot be answered by science and philoso¬ phy, religion by its very nature is unfitted to answer them. They hold that it has no in¬ tellectual foundation, and contains beliefs contrary to science and to philosophy. But could religion persist if it contained truths that are contrary to those that are valid in [ 157 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity other branches of knowledge? Is it likely that God’s supernatural Revelation would contradict His Natural one? No, religion could not long persist if its truths did not cohere with the other facts that we believe in science and philosophy. The mind cannot be divided into air-tight compartments—and part of it believe a given fact true in Chris¬ tianity, and yet not hold that it is valid in science and in philosophy. Man is not made in that fashion. Religion must be founded upon truths that while they transcend the intellect, yet do not contradict its principles. Such is our answer to the position of the professional scholar. Then there is the atti¬ tude of the man who is not a technical scholar in religious and scientific matters. He says, “Well, I do not want to bother about Christ’s satisfying my intellectual needs. When I go to church I want to leave all of my intellec¬ tual problems at home. It is too much trou¬ ble to think in church.” Such a man likes to bask in intellectual indolency and som¬ nolency in the pew and to drink in a few high-sounding and pleasing phrases that may fall upon his ear. But he does not believe in thinking in religion. To him I would reply that we cannot have any real religion that is worthy of the name that is not founded upon truths that appeal to the intellect. The only religion that will abide during these stirring days when heresies are so rife, is one that has an intellectual foundation. [ 158 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Having noted that man should have cer¬ tain intellectual demands in the sphere of re¬ ligion, I would note that Christ is able to satisfy all of the needs of the reason. In the first place, he satisfies all of the demands that we might make upon Him as a Saviour. Our intellects can find no defects in His makeup. Stop some time, and plan just what kind of a Saviour man needs. Then apply these in¬ tellectual demands to Christ, and you will find that with His human and divine natures in one person He satisfies all of them. Thus the intellect must admit that Christ is an all-sufficient Saviour. Then having admitted Him as a Saviour, we find that He answers the other questions that we might ask. There is the problem of immortality. Phi¬ losophy and science have tried to find proof that a man will live again after death. They have tried to do it by subtle philosophic ar¬ guments, or by the method of communication through spirits in psychic research. All of their proofs have been unsatisfactory. But Jesus Christ answers these questions thor¬ oughly. By His teachings He shows that a man will live again, and then by His own death and resurrection He gives tangible proof that man is immortal. He has brought life and immortality to light. Thus He an¬ swers all of the other questions of a religious nature that a man may ask. There is the subtle problem of the relation of justice and love in the Divine Being. Show us the Father and it sufficeth us. What is the true [ 159 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity philosophy of history? These questions and others find answer in Jesus who is the image of the invisible God, the alpha and omega of history, and God’s Reconciliation for sin. Thus we see that Jesus and He alone is sufficient for our intellectual aspirations. There has always been a party in the Church who believed that because of their superior intellectual endowments, the simple Christ was not sufficient to satisfy their rational needs. Hence they have constructed for themselves a “religion plus” — plus New Thought, or Christian Science, or Psychical Research. The simple Christ was not enough for them. Paul found just such a condition in the Colossian Church. To the simple Gos¬ pel they had grafted on a weird mixture of oriental philosophy, theosophy, and mysti¬ cism that we might style ancient Eddyism. It was the beginning of the heresy called Gnosticism. Paul replied to them that Jesus needed no such increment from philosophic lore added to the Gospel. He and He alone was sufficient to answer all of their prob¬ lems and satisfy all of their subtle philo¬ sophic needs. In Colossians 2:3 he speaks of Christ in whom are hid all of the treas¬ ures of wisdom and knowledge. He is the mine of profound truth at which man’s puny intellect may dig for ages, and still find greater treasures of truth than it can ever master. To all today who think that the simple Christ is not enough for all their intellectual [ 160 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity needs and that they must lug in added au¬ thorities on science, and health, and phi¬ losophy, I would say, “Go back and work more deeply the mine Christ Jesus. That has in it treasures yet untouched, and which will more than exhaust the possibilities of your intellects.” The problems that cluster about the personality of our Blessed Lord are acute and subtle enough for all the philosophic dialectic and metaphysical acumen of the most profound. Jesus meets the challenge of modern philosophy and psychology for a deeper stimulation of thought. That He amply meets the challenge I would point you to the countless books and speculations that have risen since that day in the long ago when the Chalcedonian Fathers framed their most precise, scriptural, and scientific inter¬ pretation of His person down to the debates over His Person that are rife in the Modern¬ ist movement of today. In the second place, Christ satisfies all of our emotional needs. Man not only thinks, but he also feels. He has an emotional fac¬ ulty as well as an intellectual. Perhaps this is the side of His being that in the sphere of religion has been most stressed in the past. Religion and the feelings have always been vitally associated. There are a small class of people mostly of a scientific temper, who claim that we should stifle the emotions, for they hold that the feelings interfere with the intellectual apprehension of the truth. But man is not pure intellect—and it is nat- [ 161 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ural and proper that the emotions, if piloted by the intellect, should react on the presen¬ tation of certain great truths. The very na¬ ture of an emotion is that it is an attitude that the whole man assumes towards certain truths. We naturally assume some attitude of approval or disapproval—pleasure or pain —towards every object before the mind. Should we fail to respond in an emotional way to the greatest truths of all—those in religion? The only caution that should be observed in the exercise of the emotions is that they should be guided by the operation of the intellect. Otherwise they may bring us into wild extravagances and emotional excesses. Upon what do our emotions feed? They may be nourished by various objects. They may flare up under the excitations of a melo¬ drama; or they may burn fiercely as we sit and read of the sad plight of the heroine in a story. But, after all, the highest and noblest object to arouse the emotions is the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. The loves that He excites are the noblest; and the hatreds that He kindles are the fiercest, and yet the most free from the lower, debasing elements of human nature. He is ever call¬ ing upon men to love the highest and to hate that which is low and defiling. In order for an emotion to be of the highest type, two conditions are necessary. In the first place, the object upon which the emotion reacts must be lofty; and in the second place, the [ 162 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity feeling towards that object must be elevated. Often one condition is satisfied without the other. Thus, a mother may cherish the noblest, most self-sacrificing love towards a wild, worthless boy. Here the emotion is noble enough, but the object is low. Then the per¬ son of Christ may be presented to a sinner, and he in his self-will may rebel and come to the point where he hates the Lord Jesus. In this case the object is lofty, but the corres¬ ponding emotion towards it is low. But Jesus Christ when He appeals to our emo¬ tions, satisfies both of these conditions. In the first place, His person is the very highest object in the universe on which our feelings can be attached. Then in the second place, His Spirit engenders within us the proper feelings of love and veneration towards that blessed person. When Christ would restore to favor the cowardly Peter by His three-fold question, “Lovest thou Me more than these,” as recorded in John 21:15, I would have you note that the appeal is made to love, or the emotional side of His personality. He asks Peter to present Him with a purified, refined, unsefish, fully-sanctified emotion. In the last place, Christ satisfies the de¬ mands of our wills. The volition is, after all, the most important faculty of man in re¬ ligion. The intellect may place the given data before the ego; the emotions may as¬ sume an affective attitude in the matter, but it is for the will to make, in the light of these facts, the great decision. It is the will of [ 163 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity man that determines his destiny for time and eternity. It is not what you think, not what you feel about Jesus Christ, but what wilt thou do with Jesus that is called the Christ, that will determine your position in this life and in the world to come. Now if the will is the faculty in man to which re¬ ligion most appeals, then surely it needs strengthening at all times. How prone our wills are to grow weak; to lose their power of resistance to evil; to lose the ability wisely to make great decisions. They become weak and flaccid, incapable of acting in great emer¬ gencies, and they need some great dynamic applied to them that will energize them for the great temptations of life. Humanity today needs a spiritual dynamic for its will as it needs nothing else. The world under the stress of crisis has had its high tide of moral idealism when it had lofty visions of unselfish service, of the brotherhood of na¬ tions, of the abolition of war; but this has been succeeded, as we have recently noted in current history, by an ebb tide of material¬ ism, of intense nationalism, and of selfish¬ ness. Man needs a sustaining moral dy¬ namic for his will. It is not more ideas that he needs, but more power that will enable him to live up to these ideas. Christ as the great Redemptive Power is the only adequate spiritual dynamo for man’s will. To those in great crises as well as to those who are traveling down a monotonous road in life, I present Christ as the great ener¬ gizer and dynamic for their weak wills. We [ 164 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity hear much today of a proper education of the will. Many are writing to efficiency ex¬ perts to learn the secret of will power; many have adopted the doctrine of Affirmation, that a man can do anything that he wills to do. To all who are desiring the true edu¬ cation of the will, I commend Christ who alone through His indwelling Spirit can quicken your dead volitions and then keep them sustained and keyed up to a proper spiritual and moral dynamic. Christ is able to sustain our entire per¬ sonalities, because He is our Abiding Friend. We are persons and only another great per¬ sonality can give us the proper strength for life. As Augustine said in the long ago, “Thou hast made us for thyself, and our souls are restless till they find their rest in thee.” Christ is the best friend for our souls. When Arthur Henry Hallan died, it seemed that the soul of Tennyson would lapse into skepticism. He tells us of his spiritual strug¬ gles and final victory in that wonderful poem, In Memoriam. In section 49, he yearns for the spirit of his dead friend to strengthen him in life’s trials. I would apply these verses in a deeper sense to our Living Friend who is with us at all times to uphold and to inspire. Writes the poet: Be near me when my light is low, When the blood creeps, and the nerves prick And tingle; and the heart is sick, And all the wheels of Being slow. [ 165 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Be near me when the sensuous frame Is racked with pangs that conquer trust; And Time, a maniac scattering dust, And Life, a Fury slinging flame. Be near me when my faith is dry; And men the flies of latter spring, That lay their eggs, and sting and sing, And weave their petty cells and die. Be near me when I fade away, To point the term of human strife, And on the low dark verge of life The twilight of eternal day. In the next place, I would note THE ALL-SUFFICIENT BOOK Of course, it is pre-eminently true that the whole Bible is admirably suited to satisfy all of man’s psychic needs. But it would be impossible to show in detail how the entire Bible meets man’s psychological demands. As a fit illustration of the adequacy of the whole book, I am going to outline briefly, from a psychological standpoint, the most psychological book of the entire Scriptures, Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. I would entitle this, “The Power of a Victorious Per¬ sonality, or the Triumph Over Evil Circum¬ stances Through Possession of the Mind of Christ.” What were the circumstances over which he triumphed so gloriously? It was likely [ 166 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the sixth year of Nero’s reign, and Paul was a prisoner at Rome. That monarch had started most auspiciously under the guidance of his wise friends, Seneca and Burrus. But the latent ferocity within him soon came to the surface, and he soon started on his wild orgy of debauchery, arson, and murder. In April, 59, he assassinated his own mother Agrippina. He divorced his young wife, Oc- tavia, and married his mistress, Poppaea. For the sake of his mistress he had his wife beheaded, and her head brought on a platter to the new queen. It was at such a time that Paul was a prisoner at Rome. Perhaps some of the very soldiers who attended him as a prisoner at Rome, and to whom he preached the Gospel, had helped to assassinate Agrip¬ pina or had cut off the head of Octavia. How was a man to triumph over such untoward circumstances? The solution was the pos¬ session on his part of the Mind of Christ. By the Mind of Christ Paul did not mean that obliterating the distinction between your mind and His there should be an identity of mind, but that through the operation of His Spirit, you should emulate his Character and moral disposition in the midst of untoward circumstances. These were not all the evil circumstances over which Paul triumphed. In addition there was the bitter hostility on the part of the Jews at Rome to him and to his Gospel. Poppaea, Nero’s mistress, was a Jewess, and she likely incited her lord and master to per¬ secute the Christians. [ 167 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Timothy had joined him at Rome, and acted as his amanuensis. In midsummer Epaphroditus came with the thoughtful con¬ tribution for Paul’s necessity from the be¬ loved church at Philippi. When he returned, Paul sent to the church that choicest Psy¬ chological treatise on the power of the Gos¬ pel, the Epistle to the Philippians. I will outline the four chapters briefly. CHAPTERL TRIUMPH OVER ADVERSITY THROUGH THE MIND OF CHRIST Paul is telling the Philippians of his per¬ sonal sorrows and tribulations. The key verse is verse 20, where he tells them that his earnest wish in it all is that Christ shall be magnified in his body, whether it be by life or by death. He relates his sufferings to the one point, “Does it magnify Christ.” Perhaps the greatest inspiration of new cults throughout the ages has been the problem of human suffering. Paul would say, “Do not deny its existence. Acknowledge it as a fact, but relate it to a still greater truth, the will¬ ingness to glorify Jesus in everything. Re¬ alize that in the light of the glorious truth of the power resident in the mind of Jesus, that these present sufferings are of slight mo¬ ment and shall soon pass away.” How much better to solve the problem by placing it be¬ side the still grander truth of the supremacy of the mind of Jesus in all the relations of [ 168 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity life, than to stultify the consciousness by de¬ nying that pain exists. Our age needs a new understanding of the philosophy of pain. We need to learn afresh its biological function as a warning that there is a wrong adjust¬ ment to environment and that tissue is being destroyed; its moral value as a developer of strong character; and especially its spiritual meaning as a penalty for sin, and a method of chastisement for God’s children. CHAPTER II. THE MIND OF CHRIST—THE INSPIRA¬ TION TO LOWLY SERVICE There was a slight dissention in the be¬ loved church. Paul would cure this spiritual disease by bringing to bear upon it the pro- foundest motive of which he knew: an appeal to cultivate the mind of Christ. Making use of his favorite psychological term “mind,” he asks them to have the same mind, and especially to develop within their souls the mind of Jesus. The key verse is verse 5, in conjunction with the following six verses, where he appeals to them to develop this mind of Jesus. It is the apostle’s wont, as David Smith says in the Life and Letters of St. Paul, “to invest the commonest duties with the loftiest sanctions.” Thus when he would stir up the grace of liberality in the Corinthians he asks them in II Corin. 8:9 to remember the grace of the Lord Jesus, who though He was rich, yet for our sakes be- [ 169 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity came poor. In these days when social service is being stressed as never before, it is well to remind Christians that the only valid mo¬ tive and genuine inspiration for service of mankind, is possession of the mind of Jesus. In this chapter he refers to two examples of lowly service by men who were like “minded” with him. There is Timothy, whom he hopes to send to Philippi as soon as he can find how his case will turn out at Rome. Then there is Epaphroditus, who will return home shortly to relieve the anxiety which his sickness at Rome had oc¬ casioned them. CHAPTER 111. THE MIND OF CHRIST—THE ANTI¬ DOTE OF DOCTRINAL VAGARIES The Judaizers had followed Paul to Rome. There had been a break in the church there over the old problem as to whether the basis of the Gospel is law or grace. It has been suggested that possibly an outbreak had taken place at church, where Epaphroditus had been openly assailed. The assault had been of a three-fold nature: Gentiles had been branded as uncircumcised dogs; there was an attack made on the apostle’s personal record; and it was charged that the Gospel relaxed moral obligations. After showing that these legal attainments were as nothing in comparison with the mind of Christ, Paul [ 170 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity shows that the consummation of all religion is to possess this super-eminence of the knowledge of Jesus. The key verses are 8, 9 and the following. To know within our souls the inner resurrection power of this same Jesus and the fellowship of His suf¬ ferings—in other words, to possess the mind of Christ, that is the acme of all religious endeavour. The acquisition of this mind in¬ sures the Christian against moral and spiritual stagnation, for it will spur him on to press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. He appeals to his readers to be thus minded. In these days when modern legalism in the form of Liberalism boldly asserts that salvation is by character, it is well for us to remember that the consummation of the Gos¬ pel is for the believer to acquire the mind of Christ, and that this can only be attained through a religion that is essentially super¬ natural. In the doctrinal controversies of the hour it is well for Christians to endea¬ vour at all times to manifest the mind or disposition of Jesus. CHAPTER IV. THE MIND OF CHRIST—ALL SUFFICIENT FOR THE SOUL’S EVERY NEED This chapter is the climax of an epistle that is essentially psychologic in its nature. The richness and depth and suggestiveness of its psychic teachings are simply amazing. [ 171 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Paul shows conclusively how the Gospel is sufficient for the needs of the soul from every conceivable angle. It would seem that he has anticipated nearly every modern psychic heresy and new cult that has arisen under pretense of supplying some need of human personality that the simple Gospel does not seem to furnish. After a person has read this chapter from a psychic standpoint, I believe that he will realize fully that the Gospel has met completely every psychic desire of the soul, and will see the utter folly of the claim that new cults and philosophies are needed to supplement and interpret the old evangel. My method in this chapter will be simply to outline the answer of the Gospel to the claims of ancient and modern psychic doc¬ trines. Verse 4. The Secret of Joy. Paul says that the source of our rejoicing should be in the Lord. Despite the protests of rigid and austere moralists, it is still true that the quest of joy is one of the greatest desires of man¬ kind. The inspiration of many a false cult today has been the desire to furnish abound¬ ing happiness to mankind. The true source of joy is not through a shallow optimism that asserts that all is well even when there is no valid foundation for this claim, nor through some forced grin that the muscles of the mouth may work up mechanically, but the fountain head of all abiding happiness is in the Lord. [ 172 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Verses 5-7. The Antidote for Christian Science. Paul exhorts them to let their “sweet reasonableness” be known unto all men. He appeals to them not to let their minds be divided and torn hither and yon by worry, but to take all their requests to God. As a result of this course the wondrous peace of God will act as a sentinel to the mind to keep out care, and anxiety, and bitterness. To all Christians who are prone to go into Christian Science to obtain a greater peace and calm than the Simple Gospel can afford, I commend a study of these verses, indeed of this whole epistle. To all who are desirious of solving the problem of pain and care, I would appeal to you not to stultify the plain testimony of your consciousness and run the grave risk of committing intellectual suicide by denying your five senses when they report that trouble and discord exist. As a sub¬ stitute for this course, I would appeal to you to develop a calm temper of mind, and not to get overly excited, but to take your worries to the Throne of Grace and to cast the burden on Him. Having done that, then place as the censor over your subconscious mind, of which the New Psychologists speak, the peace of God with instructions to keep out anxiety, discord, all fretting and fuming and every inharmonious note in life. This is the Chris¬ tian substitute for Eddyism. It has the ad¬ vantage over that cult of being founded on the Gospel, on sound common sense, on a [ 173 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity sound philosophy, and an enduring psy¬ chology. Verse 8. The Christian Substitute for New Thought. Paul tells them that in re¬ gard to those things that are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, and of good report—be such your treasure. If it be true that the thoughts deposited in the subconscious mind tend to realize themselves and tend to exer¬ cise a wondrous influence over the whole body, then assuredly the rich thought deposit of which Paul speaks here should furnish a man with peace, power, and plenty. As¬ suredly there is no need for the Christian to embrace New Thought to avail himself of the opportunity to mould his life by the dynamic, creative power of thoughts. Christianity is the only power in the universe that can purify corrupt thoughts and create lofty, in¬ spiring ones. Verses 11-12. Secret of Contentment. Paul tells the Philippians that while he ap¬ preciates their contribution, that he does not speak of want, for he has been initiated into the secret of being self-contained and mas¬ ter of his own soul through possession of the mind of Christ. This is a wondrous secret, this mystery of contentment, one for which philosophers, political economists, and moral¬ ists have long sought. This heavenly con¬ tentment, a divine gift that comes only through possession of the mind of Christ, is a consummate need of our age. Most of our [ 174 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity economic dissatisfaction is due to the vain attempts to secure contentment through things. Most of our unhappiness in the home, as a recent writer has well pointed out, is due to phantasy-wishing and phantasy¬ chasing, “to crying after the moon” in the sphere of romance. The modern world needs to go back to Philippians and to learn from Paul the secret of contentment. Verse 13. Doctrine of Divine Suggestion. The advocates of auto-suggestion say that man should say each night before retiring, “Day by day, in every way, I am getting bet¬ ter and better.” If you wish to practice auto-suggestion, I would suggest that instead of this much-used formula which puts at your disposal only those powers that are resident within you, that you try divine suggestion and repeat to your subconscious mind, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” This puts at your dis¬ posal all of the omnipotent power of God. A life lived in such an atmosphere of divine affirmation, is absolutely certain to possess strength for every eventuality, and to be pre-eminently successful. Verse 19. True Riches, or the Cure for Materialism. Paul tells them that God will supply all of their need according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus. The man who really appropriates that is the truly rich man. To deposit that truth in your subcon¬ scious minds and really and truly to live by [ 175 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity it, will make you richer than if you had deposited in the bank all of the stocks and bonds on Wall Street. In this age of crass materialism, it is well to remember that the true basis of wealth is not material, but spiritual values, yes, is God Himself. [ 176 ] Chapter VIII. Some Practical Hints from Psychology T HE purpose of these studies is to be both of practical and theoretical value. In order that their practicality may be as¬ sured I am incorporating at this point a num¬ ber of simple suggestions, made from the psychological standpoint, for the help of the religious worker. These will be partly by way of recapitulation and partly by way of inferences and corollaries from the chapters that have preceded. There are other equally practical suggestions that readily might be made. It is my hope that the reader of this book will be stimulated to jot down other feasible suggestions that may occur to him. (L) TRY TO OBTAIN THE VIEWPOINT (BOTH EMOTIONAL AND INTEL¬ LECTUAL) OF THE PERSON YOU ARE TRYING TO INFLUENCE This is a very important rule. It follows as a corollary from the law of apperception according to which the mind in assimilating any new ideas or experiences tends to inter¬ pret them in terms of the ideas and com¬ plexes that it already possess. If this is the [ 177 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity case, then if we are trying to get a new idea into the mind, the course to pursue is to endeavour to ascertain something of the present psychic possessions and attitudes of the person we are endeavouring to reach. The wise salesman realizes that he must try to get a sympathetic point of contact with the person he is trying to interest. He would never think of rushing into a store and brusquely asking for a sale. But for some unaccountable reason the children of this world are wiser in their methods than the children of light. As salesmen of the most valuable possessions that heaven or earth know, we are not half so diligent in attempt¬ ing to reach a point of contact with our cus¬ tomers as are the business men of the world. Hicks, in his Ten Lessons in Personal Evan¬ gelism, well remarks, “There is an approach to each individual. The worker should study the individual and be sure he is right and then go ahead.” If we follow this rule, it will mean that we will discard all conven¬ tional, standardized methods of religious ap¬ proach, that we will give up all technical and theological terms with which the person we are trying to reach is not acquainted, that we will try to get his viewpoint and adopt his vocabulary. The nearer we can come to en¬ tering his mind, to getting his world outlook, to seeing his problems, and to adopting his vocabulary, the greater will be our chance of success. [ 178 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (ID DO NOT ARGUE There is a certain rapport and psychic sympathy that must exist between a speaker and his audience, and between the personal worker and the person he is endeavouring to reach. The more harmonious and unified is this action the greater will be the success of the speaker or the religious worker. Now, when this is broken, the efficiency of the in¬ terview is at once lowered. We have all gone through the experience of having a person who was out of sympathy with our message and our ideals come into an assembly, and we have felt at once that the unity of the psychic rapport was broken. Now the dan¬ ger in a religious argument is that it at once sets up a barrier between the worker and the person he is trying to reach, and tends to destroy this unity of spirit and psychic sym¬ pathy that should exist between them. When we begin to argue with a man, at once he is thrown on the defensive, throws up his in¬ tellectual fortifications, and prepares to withstand us and our proposition. Before we can win him to our position, we first have to overcome this state of psychic warfare and restore a psychic rapport. Experience must have convinced us all, time and time again, that religious arguments accomplish nothing. They tend only to cause each side to dig all the more deeply its intellectual trenches, and to fortify all the more strongly [ 179 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity its positions preparatory for another assault. Continued argument is fatal to effective per¬ sonal work. A religious argument with the sinner goes on the false assumption that his fundamental error is in his mind. In reality sin has affected his whole personality—in¬ tellect, feelings, and will. (HI.) PRESENT SCRIPTURE CLEARLY AND SIMPLY The instrument which the Holy Spirit uses in the conversion of a sinner is the word of God. The writer of Hebrews in 4:12 writes, “For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of sword and spirit, and of the joints and mar¬ row, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” In Ephesians 6:17 Paul councils the efficient warrior to take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Personal worker, remember that the most efficient weapon that you can use for con¬ quering sin in the heart of your patient, is the word of God. Hold fast to that. Per¬ haps as I was presenting above the folly of religious argument you were about to ask this question, “If I am not to argue, how then am I to reach his religious doubts and personal problems and to overcome his diffi¬ culties?” My answer to this question is, [ 180 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity “Use the word of God. It will be much more effective in overcoming religious doubt and indifference than any arguments, however subtle you may consider them, that you can possibly present. Furthermore, the carnal heart at least has great respect for the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. But it has no such respect for your personal ar¬ guments ; and it may make remarks that will hurt your feelings. When anger and heat are once aroused, then your ability to reach this given person is lost. ,, Hold, then, to the word of God as your weapon. My experi¬ ence is that when I use this old sword, I am treated with respect and do efficient work; but that when I descend to the use of carnal weapons, such as personal arguments or loud altercations, that my usefulness is at once crippled. Study the scripture. Have a verse on the end of your tongue that will meet every objection of your patient and every situation that may arise. Your efficiency as a worker will largely depend on your ability to quote scripture aptly and pointedly and- simply so as to combat every error of Satan. The use of the Word in all evangelistic work means that the conversion will be based on a sound psychology of religion and that all danger of empty emotionalism and, maudlin sentimentality is avoided. The use of the scripture as the great instrument in personal work is not only in line with the teachings of the Bible, but perfectly in accord with the tenets of a sane psychology of religion. The [ 181 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity cognitive side of a man should be reached first before the emotional or the volitional faculties; and the use of the Truth as an in¬ strument of conversion insures that the proper order is observed. (IV.) TRY TO REACH HIS EMOTIONAL LIFE Modern psychology is stressing more and more the importance of the emotions. Man is more than a cold, intellectual machine. Some of our most cherished beliefs and con¬ victions are not founded on the conclusions of pure logic, but on the emotional side of our being. A great majority of our likes and dislikes, our desires and our prejudices have an emotional foundation. Hence in all personal work it is very essential to tie on the dormant religious strivings of the pa¬ tient to some great emotional complex in his life. Try to make a contact between his present emotional life and love to God or Christ. It may be that through his love for his mother, his sense of honour and fair play, his love for his child, you can bridge the gulf between his present state of indifference and God. Here is a great opportunity for us to study wisely the person we are trying to reach. The efficient personal worker is one who can find some emotional attachment, some tender feeling or religious association that may be used as a tender thread to lead the sinner gradually out of the darkness into [ 182 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the light. It may be some tender association, some sweet sentiment that the world would hardly notice, but still it may be just the tiny bridge that will lead him home to God. Study well the temperament, the emotional life, the likes and dislikes of the person you are try¬ ing to bring to God. (V.) MAKE ALL YOUR EFFORTS TEND TO A CLEAR-CUT DECISION OF THE WILL Do not be satisfied with any other steps until this stage is reached. The sinner may insist that his mind sees the truth of the Gospel clearly, and he may shed copious tears, but he is unwilling at this time to make any definite stand of any kind. Do not be satisfied for him to stop at this point. Mere tears or good intentions will not suffice. Insist on some clear-cut, visible decision like going down the aisle or confessing Christ before men. Many a man has had his intel¬ lectual doubts removed, and has shed tears at the story of Jesus, but has refused to sur¬ render his will to the Christ, and has died just outside the promised land. William James has said that all consciousness is mo¬ tor. Whenever we receive any new concept before the mind, the natural attitude is for that given concept to lead to action of some kind. So it should be with the greatest con¬ cept that can enter the soul—the religious [ 183 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity one. A sane psychology teaches that it should lead to some definite, normal act be¬ fore men. Experience has shown that the more open the confession the sinner makes before men, the more likely he is to lead a useful Christian life. I have received very little effective service out of those Christians who, like Nicodemus, came to Jesus by night. The value of an out-and-out, definite confes¬ sion before men is that the exercise of a strong act of will tends in a retroactive sort of way to strengthen one’s intellectual and emotional attitude towards religion. Then, too, such an open stand becomes in memory a great objective fact to which our religious life is anchored. Associations are built about that great step; new and old com¬ plexes are related to it. In the great strug¬ gle with the world, this open declaration of our allegiance to Jesus before men will ex¬ ercise a great stabilizing influence on our religious faith and will tend to keep us true to Him. It is a sort of anchor to the soul. (VI.) INSIST ON THE CONVERTS GOING TO WORK After you have won the sinner to Christ, then the next step is to put him to work. It is bad psychology as well as poor religion for a man to confess the Saviour, and then to be permitted to drift into idleness. There should be some form of expressional activity. [ 184 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity The New Psychology is insistent that the psychical life of man moves in a regular pro¬ cess of cognition, affection and conation. If this is the natural cycle of life, then every new concept that comes before the mind should tend to issue in some form of cona¬ tion or action. If it does not, then it is not a normal psychical process. Surely, then, the greatest concept that can possibly enter the mind of man, the religious idea, should take issuance in definite action of some kind. The first few days after the sinner has made his confession are critical times for him. He has just taken a great step. His emotional life is aroused, and he is swayed with an ardent love for His Lord, and his soul is full of lofty visions and high ideals of service. His will is charged with impulses for action. Shall his high visions and bubbling enthusi¬ asm be allowed to evaporate into maudlin sentimentalisms and empty emotionalism? Shall his young will be allowed to fall nat¬ urally into the rut of conventional, common¬ place, and fruitless Christianity? It all de¬ pends largely on the care that is bestowed upon him after his conversion. If a wise pastor and diligent leaders give him some definite work to do, and guide his newly aroused religious currents into useful chan¬ nels of service, then he will likely become a strong Christian. Pastor, religious leader, watch carefully the early days of your young convert’s life. Above all things see that he is directed into some wise channel of service. [ 185 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity (VII.) INSIST THAT HE FORM PROPER RELIGIOUS HABITS I am convinced more and more that the usefulness of the average Christian depends largely on the habits that he has formed, especially in his youth. The practice of go¬ ing to church services and prayer meeting, of giving systematically and proportionately of his money to the Lord, of reading his Bible and praying every day—these are all largely matters of religious habit. Christians who have given up these good practices have told me that when other habits were formed it was just as natural to work on Sunday morn¬ ing, to neglect to give anything to God, and to fail to read the scriptures for whole weeks. Psychologists tell us that a great part of our normal waking life is determined absolutely by habit. This same rule applies in the re¬ ligious life. Happy is that man whose habits are his allies rather than his enemies. The normal Christian life of many people is largely a matter of following the religious habits they formed when they were young. If religious habit is so potent in the religious life, it is very essential that the young con¬ vert form helpful and serviceable ones. Youth is the time when the grooves of habit are cut. When your young convert has made open confession and has been put to work, then impress on him the importance of form- [ 186 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity ing proper religious habits, especially in re¬ gard to such vital matters as church attend¬ ance, proportionate giving to God, and regu¬ lar Bible study and prayer. (VIII.) TRY TO KEEP HIM IN A WHOLESOME SPIRITUAL ENVIRONMENT The young convert has made an open con¬ fession, has been put to work, is forming proper religious habits. What next shall he do? It is necessary that he shall associate with those of kindred religious spirit, that he shall keep company with those who will in¬ spire rather than hinder his religious de¬ velopment. There is great potency in spiritual enthusiasm. No religious habit is safe, unless it is enthusiastically performed. No virtue is sure to persist unless it is col¬ oured with enthusiasm. In the matter of the Christian life it is very essential that it be initiated with as strong an enthusiasm as possible, and that it shall be given a spiritual momentum that will overcome the downward drag and lukewarmness of a lack¬ adaisical old world. Hence every influence for good should be thrown about the young Christian, every possible incentive for ser¬ vice should be applied. Perhaps the wise teacher will keep before his mind helpful suggestions as to his power through Christ, the certainty of victory over sin, and as to the new life that is his in such abundance. [ 187 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Surely helpful suggestions from pastor and Sunday School teacher wisely thrown into the mind will avail much at this stage of the Christian life. Then there is the power of psychic contagion, the power for good that comes from a crowd. Insist that the young convert keep in the company of good people, that he be active in some definite church work and get the inspiration of communion with good people. In other words, bring to bear on the will of the young convert every good impulse that you know, put into his mind every wise and helpful suggestion, and insist that in the spiritual warfare he call to his side every possible ally for good that is available. So hedge him about with good, wholesome, and tonic influences that he cannot fail. (IX.) ENCOURAGE THE PRACTICE OF OPEN DISCUSSION OF HIS RELIGIOUS PROBLEMS WITH YOU Modern psychologists are insisting much on the danger of the divided personality. Especially are they contending that it is dan¬ gerous for any conflict to be repressed into the unconscious mind where it will drain off psychic energy, and from which it may emerge into the foreconscious mind at a time when our inhibitions are weak and disturb our mental and moral equilibrium. There has arisen the science of psycho-analysis, [ 188 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity which makes the attempt to find out the na¬ ture of these dangerous repressions in the unconscious mind and how they may by open confession be given relief. How shall Chris¬ tianity meet the challenge of psycho-analy¬ sis? Now this doctrine of repressed con¬ flicts has immense significance to the re¬ ligious worker. Sooner or later the young convert, even with his wise habits and spiritual safeguards about him, will have his troubles, and perhaps his secret sins. What shall he do with these? Of course, he can confess them to his God, but he needs to talk them over with others. A spiritual conflict within that is not settled harmoniously will soon lead to that divided self with its lack of harmony of which James speaks in his Varieties of Religious Experience. Now, the Catholic Church has its open confession to the priest. This is based on a false theology; but it has some psychological value in that it allows the distressed mind to confess its con¬ flicts to another soul, and to be restored to a normal equilibrium. What in Protestantism shall take the place of the Confessional? Shall we go back to Rome as W. E. Orchid argues we should do in The Finality of Christ? I think the answer is to be found in the practice of utmost confidence and can¬ dour between the personal worker and the new convert. [ 189 ] Chapter IX. The Challenge A S we come to the last study of this book, certain conclusions should stand out clearly to the reader. One is that a sane psychology of religion, as based on the great evangelical doctrines, may become a most useful servant to the Gospel. It pro¬ claims in no uncertain tones that the religion of our Lord is amply able to supply all of the psychological needs of man without recourse to any outside cult. The study of the psy¬ chology of religion should tend to make us more efficient Christians, and all the more desirous to appropriate the great heritage of power and peace that is ours as children of God. We have found that in the Gospel there are psychic reserves of which we never dreamed sufficient for our personalities. Such are the conclusions that we have reached in regard to a sane, orthodox psy¬ chology of religion. What shall we say of the tendency of the New Psychology, and of the work of its hand-maiden, the destructive wing of the psychology of religion? We have seen that such studies would strike a deadly blow to the very fundamentals of the faith. Indeed so vehement is their assault on the orthodox lines that a ringing challenge goes forth for all orthodox Christians to rally to the defense of the historic faith. In this [ 190 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity final study I wish to note this imperial chal¬ lenge. Let us consider: (D THE CHALLENGE TO DEFEND THE HISTORIC DOCTRINE OF SIN If there is one characteristic that, from a theological standpoint, differentiates this age from other periods of religious thought and activity, it is this: there is a marked absence of the sense of sin. The conviction of sin rests very lightly on this present gen¬ eration. All of the forces of our modern thought and civilization have conspired to destroy this ancient theological doctrine. Modern literature, current philosophy, science, the New Psychology, and even the forces of liberal theology are all banded to¬ gether to banish from the field of thought and religion this outworn conception of our fathers. Has not Sir Oliver Lodge assured us that the modern world is gradually get¬ ting away from the old idea of sin. The New Psychology would destroy entirely the his¬ toric definition of iniquity. It would define sin as an abuse or misdirection of the psychic energy that belongs to one of the three pri¬ mary instincts—the ego or self, the herd, and the sex. There is quite a distance from this modern definition of sin to the old his¬ toric description of it, as any want of con¬ formity unto or transgression of the law of God. I firmly believe that for this changed [ 191 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity attitude towards sin, we are largely indebted to the influence of the New Psychology and its staunch ally, naturalistic evolution. There are two reasons why the tenets of the new science of psychology have tended to under¬ mine the historic view of iniquity. The first reason is because there has been a denial of the doctrine of creation. A great part of the validity of the old doctrine of sin undoubtedly consisted in the fact that man sustained to his God a position of dependence that naturally and inevitably resulted from his being a created being. Since God is the creator of man in His own image, then it logically follows that He is absolute sov¬ ereign over all that man is and does. Man then becomes over his life, talents, and pos¬ sessions only a steward of his creator. But suppose that the conception of creation in the image of God is destroyed. It must be evident that one of the great bulwarks for the orthodox conception of God has collapsed. Liberal thought has substituted for the notion of a creative God that of an immanent Deity. God did not as a transcendent being create man in His image; but the Deity is an immanent Being that indwells all creation. Man then becomes a part of God, and is es¬ sentially divine. Hence if he has God within him, it is absolutely impossible for him to sin. The old notion of the sovereignty of God over His creatures, and of man’s being only a steward of his life and talents has been succeeded by the modern doctrine of [ 192 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity the potential divinity of all men. The cre¬ ated being can no longer sin by denying the sovereignty of the Creator, for he is a veri¬ table part of God Himself. Thus under the influence of the pantheism of the New Psy¬ chology, we have gradually lost the orthodox conception of sin. Of course, the denial of the creation of man in the divine image has also destroyed the old notion of the fall of the creature. If man was not constructed a being perfect in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and with dominion over the creatures, but is gradually developing upward in a moral and spiritual sense, then the notion of the fall in the Garden of Eden has no meaning. Man is still in the process of attaining the perfect divine image; and it is inconceivable that he had it at some remote date in the historic past. The only doctrine of the fall that the New Psychology recognizes is a “fall up¬ ward.” The second reason for the denial of sin is because the validity and oughtness of the moral law is denied today. There is no such thing as a perfect law of God based on His eternal nature, which man ought to obey. The law is based entirely on the herd instinct. It is a creation of pure expediency, that tends to hold society together. Conscience as a separate faculty of man that can issue a moral imperative is denied, and reduced to a mere emotion. Sin is not against the nature of God, but against society. McDougall in [ 193 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity his Social Psychology claims that moral con¬ duct and social conduct are synonymous. It is under the leadership of the New Psy¬ chology that the liberal theologians have be¬ gun to speak much of the social nature of sin. The essence of sin with them is not that it is a violation of God's law, but that is a blow struck at the nature of society. Ac¬ cording to their version of the story, when the prodigal comes to himself in the pig sty, he should lament not that he has sinned against his Father, against High Heaven and is no more worthy to be called His child, but because he has sinned against his fellows and against society in general. Sin in the hands of these modern teachers has been evacuated of all theological significance and has been given purely a social value. It follows from these positions that I have outlined that there is an absolute denial of the doctrine of total depravity. This is a relic of theological barbarism. Henry C. Vedder says in The Fundamentals of Chris¬ tianity that total depravity is a doctrine that is opposed to the fact of consciousness and experience. Thus we see that modern thought is a bitter enemy to the old doctrine that man comes into the world guilty in the sight of God because of the sin of the first parents, that he is depraved in all of his faculties by iniquity, and that he is unable to work out his own salvation. The New Psy¬ chology teaches that man comes into the world with both good and evil instincts, and [ 194 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity that through education he must develop the good ones and eradicate the bad ones. Since the fall of man is denied, the modern psy¬ chologist would have no logical ground for affirming the doctrine of total depravity. Denying, as he does, that man is created in the divine image, that the moral law has any binding obligation on him, that sin is against God at all, he is perfectly consistent in not believing in total depravity. The tenets of theology are so closely knit together, that when the original premise is changed, then the whole system is vitiated. All of these heretical positions in regard to sin on the part of the New Psychologist follow logically and inevitably from the original position that man is not created in the image of God. Sin, to the New Psychologist, is some form of psychic abnormality. It is a case for the alienist and the student of paranoia. The sinner should be pitied, not condemned. He should be operated on for some lesion in the brain; he should not be punished. If this position is true, then our churches should be transformed into hospitals where defective brains may be operated upon and made nor¬ mal. Our preachers should be supplanted by students of abnormal psychology. Against all of these false notions, the Christian should proclaim, in clarion tones, that sin is a viola¬ tion of the Holy law of God, and that it is directed primarily against His nature and not against society. He should follow in the footsteps of Dr. Benjamin Breckenridge War- [ 195 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity field. Of his position Dr. Patton in The Princeton Theological Review well says, “He believed in the old-fashioned doctrine of sin. To criminologist, alienists and students of abnormal psychology he left the task of ex¬ plaining the kleptomaniac and the degen¬ erate. He had no cavil against the claim that such abnormal conduct rests on a phy¬ sical basis, and he had no objection to the word paranoia. But his studies had led him to attach greater importance to the word hamartia. The normal abnormalities of mankind were to him matters of far greater moment than the exceptional behaviour to which I have referred. He believed in the guilt and power of sin.” Another grave menace in the present psy¬ chological attitude to sin is that it would re¬ duce all evil to limitation. Postulated on the pantheistic view of the world it holds that the only sin is falling short of divinity. Emerson has said that the only sin is limi¬ tation. Gibson in The Faith that Overcomes the World contends that the essence of all evil is limitation. Most of the modern here¬ sies, whether they be Christian Science, New Thought or Liberal Theology, unite on this platform that the essence of sin is not re¬ bellion against God’s law, but is limitation, and that salvation is not through the cross, but through a complete realization of the forces of Divinity naturally resident in our souls. [ 196 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity “Know this, 0 man, sole root of sin in thee Is not to know thine own divinity.” Such is Psychology’s challenge to the his¬ toric doctrine of sin. I would note in the next place (ID THE CHALLENGE TO DEFEND THE DOCTRINE OF THE SUPER¬ NATURAL If there is one theological conception against which the New Psychology is even more hostile than it is against the idea of sin, it is the doctrine of the supernatural. The supernatural has absolutely no place in its philosophy of the universe. That does not mean that it is merely opposed to a miracle having occurred at different times in the past, but that it is vehemently against the notion that at any time the Divine Being intervened in the world process. God’s only method of operation is, as an immanent Being, to work within the world movement, through the laws of nature. He cannot suspend them, or act independently of them. The very idea of any supernatural interruption at any point in the process is absolutely foreign to the genius of the New Psychology or to Natural¬ istic Evolution. Its fundamental thesis is the uniformity of natural law. If it were to ad¬ mit the supernatural at any point in the pro¬ cess, then its whole philosophy of the uni¬ verse would be jeopardized. [ 197 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity This is the most critical attack on the cita¬ del of evangelical Christianity. The Gospel is a supernatural religion, or it is nothing. The whole line of Gospel Supernaturalism is so constructed that if one part is outflanked by the enemy, one redoubt after another is endangered, and the whole line is imperiled. In the rest of this study I will show that as the doctrine of the supernatural is destroyed in one sphere of Christianity, that one line after another is weakened, until the whole system is threatened. The chain of Gospel arguments is so constructed that when one link in the supernatural system is broken, others are weakened. Let us note how the breaking of one link threatens the others. In the first place, there is a denial of any supernatural creation. We have already no¬ ticed this position at some length. We men¬ tion it here only because it is the first step in the destruction of the doctrine of the supernatural. The direct action of God is denied at the very first of the world process. This is the first step by which a man leaves the orthodox line. It may seem a compara¬ tively simple move, but it is in the wrong direction. After it has been taken, then logically the other fundamental positions are denied one after the other. The other de¬ nials are only the logical and natural outcome of ruling God out of the process right at the start. These other positions that I will men¬ tion follow the rejection of the doctrine of man’s being created in the divine image, as [ 198 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity naturally as night follows day. Since the naturalist has ruled God out right at the start, he must surely see to it that He is kept out through the entire development of re¬ ligion. It must be naturalistic all the way. The next step is the denial of any super¬ natural revelation. The Bible becomes, not the record of God’s inspired message to men, but of man’s ceaseless, though often mis¬ taken, strivings in the course of evolution upward to God. This means that the doc¬ trine of the inspiration of the Bible is im¬ periled and practically destroyed. One of the most critical attacks made on the Gospel to¬ day is to assault the basic doctrine of Divine Inspiration. The Liberal Theologians have found that it is useless to deny that doctrines like the atonement or justification by faith are taught in the scriptures. Their method now is to deny that any of the writings of the New Testament save the words of Jesus are inspired, and to claim that the teachings of Paul are only false interpretations of the Master’s words, and are due to his Rabbinical training, and to the theologic and philosophic ideas that were “in the air” at that time. By this method the critic can destroy any doctrine of evangelical Christianity. He has transferred the seat of authority in religion from the Bible itself, to his own weird, fan¬ tastic subjectivism. Man will believe only that in the Bible which he wants to believe. In his own breast each man carries about with him the supreme authority, in religious [ 199 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity matters, in his own predilections and wishes and personal whims. It is needless to state that this means that in the sphere of religion there is no final authority, but that each man is a law unto himself. We are caught up in the endless treadmill of subjectivism. Such is the result of the denial of the historic doc¬ trine of supernatural revelation and divine inspiration. The next stage in the assault on the ortho¬ dox line is the denial of a supernatural atone¬ ment. Having cast aside the historic view of Revelation and divine inspiration, the lib¬ eral thinker is now in position to accept or reject any truth of the Bible according to his own personal whims or notions. What could be more natural and logical than to give up what has been regarded as the cen¬ tral doctrine of the Christian system, the vicarious atonement of our Lord Jesus. This gruesome tenet is not found in the bright, simple Gospel of Jesus, but is a product of the ingenious brain of Paul. It was con¬ cocted under the influence of the Messianic hopes of the Jews, his rabbinical training under Gamaliel, the exalted emphasis on the law at that day, the sacrificial system of the Hebrew people, and as an illogical deduction from the religious experience of the apostle. The atonement exerts a Moral Influence on men and, as Henry C. Vedder has pointed out in his recent book, is intended to convince men by such a death that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Saviour of men, and thus to [ 200 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity draw all men unto Him. Vedder further claims that the doctrine of the atonement is a result of the sacrificial notions which the fraudulent priestly class “palmed off” on the people of that day. We should follow, not the priest, but the prophet, who is the gen¬ uine representative of the Lord. From such conglomerate sources has come down the his¬ toric doctrine of the substitutionary atone¬ ment through Paul, to Augustine, to Calvin, and down to the orthodox churches of the present day. But it is all wrong. The task of the scholar is to pierce beneath the rub¬ bish of tradition, and to ascertain by methods of criticism just what was the simple teach¬ ing of Jesus. He will find that the center of Christ’s teachings was not the atonement, but the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Such is the strange position in the land of heterodoxy which the student has reached logically and inevitably, who first took the wrong step on the perilous road of a denial of the supernatural. The very point I am trying to make is that the tran¬ sition from one rejection of supernaturalism in the sphere of salvation to another has been perfectly natural, once he denied the direct intervention of God in the act of creation right at the beginning of the process. The next logical step is the rejection of a supernatural salvation. Henry C. Vedder says in The Fundamentals of Christianity that God does not save us by any miracle, but that Salvation must be won. Since the [ 201 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity liberal theologian has rejected the foundation stone of the orthodox view of salvation, the death of Christ, it is incumbent upon him to erect another basis for man’s redemption. He very quickly does so, and announces that salvation is by character. About the year 409 A. D. there came to Rome from Britain a monk by the name of Pelagius. He did the very laudable work of preaching the need of a moral reformation. When men asked him how to be good, he would reply, “Just exercise your will-power, and you can make yourself a good, virtuous man. Your will has not been hurt by the sin of Adam, and you are perfectly able to save yourself in your own strength.” He created quite a sensation in religious circles; and won over to his views, Coelestine, a man of un¬ questioned talent and ability, and others. But his views were not long permitted to re¬ main unchallenged. It was evident to all genuine, evangelical Christians that such a position was utterly hostile to the orthodox belief that salvation is through God’s Grace alone. The foremost protagonist of the evangelical side was Saint Augustine. There were some bitter theological harangues, some banishments, excommunications, and some great church councils. But someone will ask, “Why do you go back to a hoary theological debate, that can only be of academic interest to us?” But I claim that conflict between the Monk Pelagius and the church Father Augustine is an age-long battle. The issue [ 202 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity is just this: does God save a man, or does he save himself? That question is still being debated; and will be until man goes to his long home. You go today to our theological seminaries, to our church courts, to our uni¬ versities and colleges, to our separate con¬ gregations, and even to our mission fields, and there you will still find Pelagius and Augustine. Each one of us has to take his stand as a follower of one or the other. Let us keep clearly before us the real issue at stake between the forces of Orthodoxy and Modernism today. In the heat of the strug¬ gle ofttimes dust clouds of prejudice and hoary tradition are thrown up by both parties that tend to obfuscate the crux of the prob¬ lem. The issue is clear-cut. It does not re¬ solve itself into a choice between special cre¬ ation and so-called Theistic Evolution as a special method of God’s providence; it is not concerned primarily with the critical views as to the date, authorship, and historicity of a certain book of the Bible. These are not the main lines of the struggle. The issue is this: Naturalism against Supernaturalism. The question resolves itself into this: is there a transcendent God, and a transcendent moral and spiritual order above the marks of di¬ vinity that reveal themselves in nature, the soul of man, and the mandates of society, and has this Superior Being and order deigned through Grace alone to enter this present world process and to win it to Himself? This is the paramount question overshadowing all [ 203 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity other issues. Of course, this vital question underlies and colours many present day dis¬ cussions as to evolution, higher criticism, the historicity of certain books of the Bible and the Virgin Birth. These other questions are all subsidiary to the great issue: Naturalism against Supernaturalism. Evangelical religion insists that God saves a man; modem Liberalism holds that man saves himself. All of our modern heterodox creeds agree in this, that all that is necessary for salvation is for a believer to come to the realization of the divinity within him. They may differ in nomenclature, in many sub¬ ordinate doctrines, in certain philosophical positions that each emphasizes, but they are one in this: MAN SAVES HIMSELF. As E. L. House well says in the Psychology of Or¬ thodoxy, “There is a tremendous movement today to regard man as the chief agent in his own salvation.” A recent writer, Gibson, in The Faith that Overcomes the World makes the suggestion that man should get out of his subconscious mind the idea that he is a miserable sinner, and that perhaps if he could get implanted deeply enough the idea of immortality, he could conquer death by his own mind. There is a wonderful fas¬ cination for many in the doctrine of auto¬ suggestion. Undoubtedly it has effected many unusual bodily cures, and is at the basis of all mental healing. Emile Coue claims that by auto-suggestion a man may reform his moral character. What shall we say of [ 204 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity this process of moral reformation by auto¬ suggestion? It is only another case of Pe- lagius. It reaches the fallacious doctrine that a man may pull himself out of the mire of sin by his own boot straps. We may as well talk of cleansing the foulness of a city sewer by pumping back into it the very same im¬ pure water and filth that was in it, as to talk of a man’s reforming his sinful heart by pouring into it his own thoughts. He needs thoughts and influences that come to him from a higher source than his own wicked heart. Thus far have we come on the strange road of naturalism. But are we not at the end of it? No, to change the figure, there is one more link in the chain of salvation to be broken before we fully realize the havoc that was done by denying the fundamental truth that God created man in His own image. Finally, I would note that there is a de¬ nial of a supernatural Deity. The orthodox view of God is that He is both immanent in the world and also transcendent to it. Now the liberals assert only the fact of the in¬ dwelling God or His immanence. He is in no sense above the world, has no power of acting directly on the world process, but can operate only through natural law. The ques¬ tion arises, “If God has His hands tied by natural law in the carrying out of His plans, can He any longer be regarded as a free per¬ sonal Being? Is He not merely synonymous with the forces of nature?” I firmly believe that with the denial of the transcendence of [ 205 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity God, of His ability to intervene directly in the world-process, we have robbed Him of His personality. He becomes henceforth only a cosmic force, the soul of the world. If the old idea of God has been given up, then it is perfectly natural for liberal thinkers to sub¬ stitute for the idea of the Deity, the notion of Society. Society with its laws and its claims becomes our God. This is a perfectly logical result of their denial of the super¬ natural. Society is surely a more tangible, more vital, more real entity than the indefi¬ nite, shadowy, helpless being that they style the “Immanent God.” Such an object could exert no claims and demands nothing from man; whereas society has rights and laws that are very pressing. We violate her man¬ dates and owe repentence to her. Henry C. Vedder has said that “God is Democracy.” Would it not be more exact to state that the converse of this is true, and to say, “Democ¬ racy is our God?” Coe in a Social Theory of Religious Education, speaks of the Democ¬ racy of God, and of the Social Idealism of Jesus. Writers like Ellwood are insisting that we reconstruct religion from the stand¬ point of the all-importance of society. De¬ mocracy and science are to be made the twin pillars of the new positive religion that is to be divorced from all creed, from all tradition, and from all supematuralism. Let us welcome the new religion of hu¬ manity. One of the anomalies of modern thought is that the old religion of Humanity [ 206 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity of Auguste Comte is being revived. This doctrine went the way of all flesh forty years ago. Why should a philosophical corpse be dragged across the stage of thought? Judg¬ ing from these positions we need not be sur¬ prised if in the modern reconstruction of re¬ ligion, the old notion of a personal God is discarded, and in its place is put the more modern concept of the supremacy and tran¬ scendence of society. Such is the havoc that the forces of Nat¬ uralism would do to the battle line of the his¬ toric faith. Salvation in its eyes can be achieved purely through natural processes. But I would ask these questions of liberalism, “Have natural processes been pre-eminently successful in bringing peace and concord to mankind? Have the forces resident in this old world been sufficient to usher in that per¬ fect social order, that, in your eyes, is the consummation of all religion?” To a man who is an outside observer it would seem that mankind has tried the forces of this world, and that they have failed to bring peace and concord to this war-torn, sin-cursed old world. Ententes, alliances, militarism, a league of nations, disarmament conferences surely belong to the natural processes of the world, and they have failed lamentably to bring in the social millenium, that to liberal thinkers is the acme of all religion. The real crux of the matter is that we have had too much of purely natural processes, and of an out-working of the forces resident in the [ 207 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity world-order. The natural order has failed; and we need a supernatural order, one that is above this world, with different laws, dif¬ ferent ideals, different motives, a different type of Deity, and a different salvation. The clarion call of the hour is for a supernatural Gospel. Prof. J. G. Machen in a recent article in the Princeton Review said that our modern world is largely pagan. Yes, that is its trou¬ ble. It is distinctly pagan in its outlook; and the sad fact is that it does not realize its true condition, and is vainly trying to cure its ills by an appeal to the very forces that are supreme in this world. The cure for pagan¬ ism is not more paganism in religion; but for a Gospel that belongs to another and a higher world-order, and that is able to enter this dying old world and to regenerate and to save it. All of this means that we need a super¬ natural Gospel. The evangel of naturalism has failed. During the French Revolution a crowd of thinkers tried to get up a religion— one that was constructed entirely from the elements of this world. For some reason their new-fangled religion did not seem to grip the people. In desperation they went to the statesman Talleyrand, and asked him what the trouble was and what they should do to make their religion powerful with men. The subtle diplomatist replied, “I would ad¬ vise you to try the virtue of being crucified and rising from the dead on the third day.” Methinks that is the very counsel that our protagonists of modern naturalism need. [ 208 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity Their religion is of this world, and of this world entirely. It lacks the dynamic, the drawing power of the cross. The great Teacher said in the long ago, “And I, if I belifted up, will draw all men unto me.” And modern science, and liberal theology with all its wisdom of this world has never devised any magnet equal to the cross. It alone, as the consummation and the highest embodi¬ ment of the supernatural Gospel, is the su¬ preme need of the hour. The battle is on. The issue is clear-cut. It is naturalism versus supernaturalism. It is Augustine against Pelagius. It is the doc¬ trine that God saves over against the tenet that man is able to redeem himself. The supreme need of the world is the doctrine of salvation through pure Grace. The peculiar glory of Calvinism is that it accentuates this doctrine as no other system does. Dr. Benja¬ min Breckenridge Warfield in his little book on the significance of the Westminister Standards says, “This is the meaning of what we call the Puritan Conflict which, from the theological side, was nothing else than the last deadly struggle of evangelical religion— the gospel of God’s grace—to preserve itself pure and sweet and clean in the midst of the most insidious attacks which could be brought against it.” If we would take part in this battle, two conditions must be fulfilled. One is that we must know on just what part of the line the crucial battle is being fought. It would be folly to rush at this critical hour [ 209 ] Psychology’s Challenge to Christianity to the defense of the doctrine of the mode of Baptism, when in reality the supreme strug¬ gle is taking place around that redoubt that guards the supernaturalness of the Gospel. Then knowing where the critical struggle is taking place, the individual Christian must be properly trained and must have suitable weapons so that he can fight the good fight of faith. That each Christian may know the seriousness of the issue, and that he may be all the better prepared to meet psychology’s challenge to Christianity, is the purpose of this little book. [ 210 ]