Welsh Journals

Ecclesia Creatrix. By the Rev. Dr. E. E. Thomas. r~r\ HERE is at the present time a widespread demand that the Church shall bring her doctrine and her worship into closer relation with the deeper philosophic and scientific thought of the time. Men have supreme confidence in this thought because they realize that it is the one great formative and constructive power in life. The material structure of life has been built up and is sus- tained by scientific knowledge and investigation; the social institutions which give to men their opportunities, their obligations, duties and rights, rest upon bases of philosophic thought and theory; every pleasure of life and every adornment that art can give are refined and made worthy of man's spirit only through the careful discipline of knowledge. Religious doctrine and worship occupy a large place in life, and by many they are considered as the most important part of life; but they are not the very basis of life, raamifying themselves through every part of it and constructive of every movement within it. There was a time during the Middle Ages when this was the case. Men would not willingly go back to the Middle Ages, nevertheless they feel that if religion is what she claims to be, she ought to occupy the place in relation to modern life that she did in relation to mediaeval life. Are philosophic and scientific thought truer and more fundamental than religion, that they have taken her place in relation to life? That is the question to which, in this paper, we would indicate an answer. We must not confuse religion with certain of its problems that seem to stand out above the rest. The problems as to the existence and nature of God, and His relation to human beings the question as to the immortality of the soul; these are undoubtedly religious problems. But although they are problems which religion sets us to solve, nevertheless, thought concerning them, and solutions put forward as regards them, do not exhaust the religious life. I am quite aware that we speak of different religions, and that when we examine the diifferences between them we find they turn upon varying solutions given to these fundamental religious problems. Nevertheless, although these differences split up religious communities, they do not break into the deeper religious life. The plain man is wiser when he calls them forms of religion, and their devotees, different denominations, or different sects. I would rather call them different thought interpretations of certain fundamental aspects of religious life; for if we attempt to define the nature of God and to determine His relation to souls; if we seek to penetrate into the nature and destiny of human life, we are bound to do so in terms of thought and knowledge. It is these differences in thought and knowledge that yield differences in religious outlook and conviction. The more superficial thought and knowledge are, the greater are the number of religious sects and denominations. At the same time, however, the distinction between a great wealth of religious life, and the interpretation on our part of what that life means to us, is a necessary distinction, and one that cannot be done away with. Let me illustrate what I mean from the history of the early Church. When Christ came He claimed to be, not a great teacher of religious truth, but a creative source of religious life; one who had it in His power to take the whole of human life and to give it its direction towards a final destiny in the life of God. Here we have no philosophic interpretation of life, no guidance of life by these or those principles or standards; but rather the redirection of human life by a living power or personality commensurate with the whole sweep of that life, and able to gather it up within His own hands as it were. During His lifetime Christ's disciples made no through- going attempt to interpret the meaning and significance of His life; they were content to live in communion with Him. But once Christ was taken from their presence we find them striving to interpret what the Master said, and what He intended; we find them building up a corporate life that should be the embodiment of His purposes. The epistles of St. Paul are full of philosophic thought gathered from Judaism, from Greek and from Oriental sources, and all brought to bear upon that one great wonder;- what was Christ and what did He intend? The same distinction between a source of life and its interpretation is made clearer when we proceed to examine the great differences that divide Christendom to-day. All the different forms of religion draw a distinction between the Divine Presence, which is the source of inspira- tion or the fount of religious influence, and the authority through which that inspiration is mediated and by which its truth is guaranteed. It is on this question of authority and the manner and the justification of its working that the great religious differences arise. One religion holds that this authority centres in the personal head of the Church; another, that it centres in general councils; another, in the religious experience of those who have come together in community as faithful members of Christ's Church; and another, in the life of the individual himself when that life is set in a certain direction. Each one of these views of the nature of religious authority has to justify itself by an appeal to circumstances and principles which, strictly speaking, are not religious, but philosophic and scientific. Appeals are made to history, namely to what Christ and His apostles said and did. But