Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 61:244 (Oct 1904)
Article: The Illusions Of A Personal Theology
Author: A. A. Berle

BSac 61:244 (Oct 1904) p. 617

The Illusions Of A Personal Theology

Rev. A. A. Berle

There are many indications that we are nearing the end of a revolutionary epoch in theology. On every hand there seems to be evidence that many of the theological fads and alleged improvements in thought and reasoning, as well as the application of the critical and rational instincts in an exceptional and peculiar manner to the materials of religion and the documents of religious authority and instruction, have at least reached the maximum of their attractiveness for pioneer spirits, and that we are in a fair way to return to the safe and sane highways of historical theology. In some respects this period, which now seems to be drawing to a close, has been a most interesting and fruitful one. We have styled it “revolutionary.” But its revolutionary character was not shown in any specially violent outbreaks which characterized it, though it saw a few belated and absurd heresy trials, and witnessed a few rather heated controversies dealing with certain minor phases of theological thought. But it was none the less revolutionary because its processes were less violent but rather more fundamental on that account. The citadels of faith were assailed, this time, by men not conscious of overthrowing vitalities, but merely supposing that they were changing land-

BSac 61:244 (Oct 1904) p. 618

marks. The most fundamental conceptions of religion were displaced by critics and theologians, as if these things could be made and unmade in a day. No point of view appeared to be to them other than just that. The identification of any series of views in a coordinate union with a series of convictions, with religion in its external expression, seemed to enter into the mind of hardly any one. The entire conception of religion being based on certain inward personal ideals and experiences, all external facts and authorities were dismissed either without deference or examined only with the vivisector’s interest. Great emphasis was laid on the difference between “religion “and “theology,” a difference which is real enough in academic circles, but which in many respects is perfect foolishness when applied to the practical administration of religious institutions. The exalted ideals of humanity were supposed to compensate for the loss of all external regulation and authority. The “person” was supposed to be of such value, that he was to be studied and ministered to at any cost, but especially at the cost of institutional religion. The universities and the churches alike fell eagerly into this way of thinking, with the result, that, while there seems to be a general agreement that there is more “religion “in the world than ever before, there is coincidently also general agreement that the business of carrying on organize...