THE sensation produced in many circles by the new theology of Mr. R. J. Campbell, of the City Temple, London, has now considerably died down, and it might seem the wiser thing to take no further notice of Mr. Campbell or his theology, but allow both to fall into deserved obscurity, so far as our personal interest is concerned. The development, however, is a sign of the times in which we live, and calls for special comment as fraught with instruction and warning to many. It ought to make a vast number of men who are departing from the Reformed Faith pause and consider whither their new ideas may be leading them; and others, who profess to be orthodox but are sinfully silent in regard to the danger of heretical teachings, to arise out of their sleep and bear witness both in word and deed against all disloyalty to the truths of God’s Word. If men refuse to be stirred to alarm by the present bold proclamation of what can only be called blasphemous heresies, they may yet find out to their sorrow the incalculable evil they have done by their indifference to themselves and their children.
It is almost unnecessary to state by way of clearing the ground, that the ideas of the City Temple minister proceed upon an entire disbelief in the infallibility and supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures. The man has evidently shaken off any regard for the Bible as a specially inspired book, whose statements are to be received as unerring truth, if he ever did entertain such a high esteem of it. Now, at any rate, he feels himself at liberty to disown its authority on the most fundamental matters, and has, in fact, shaken himself clear of almost every article in “the faith once delivered unto the saints.” It appears a small matter to him to stand up and expressly reject the authority of the Apostle Paul. Accredited and inspired prophets and apostles, who have, through their heavenly writings, been messengers of salvation to immortal souls all down the ages must stand aside, and give place to this raw superficial upstart of the twentieth century, who deals forth, not the bread of God which has given life to the world, but the food of the serpent, a crude and poisonous hash of Pantheistic philosophy.
We may briefly touch on some of the specific errors in which this new teacher indulges. (1) He denies the Fall of man—a denial common enough, no doubt, though not always openly avouched, by many. He believes, like Drummond, in the “ascent” of man, and is a prey to some form of the progressive evolutionary idea which all history and observation belie. (2) He denies the supernatural birth of Christ by the Virgin Mary, and maintains that He was no more divine as to the constitution of His person than the rest of the world. “Jesus was divine and so are we.” This is one side of Unitarianism. (3) He rejects the doctrine of the atonement, and pours contempt on the faith that Christ took away sins by suffering their penalty on the Cross. (4) He maintains that all souls will be saved. But (5) the chief and most distinctive element in his erroneous system, if system it can be called, is its Pantheism; and from the moral standpoint this is the most deadly and pernicious part of it. It is not easy to give an exact and brief definition of Pantheism, but it might be summed up in the words “God is the universe, and the universe is God,” or more simply, “God is everything, and everything is God.” However much this form of belief has been gilded by the arts of philosophy and poetry, and made thus attractive to the human mind, it is a very gross and horrible one. It identifies the Creator with His own universe, and makes all finite existences, material and otherwise, a part of the Infinite Being. It degrades the infinitely transcendent Creator, and exalts and deifies the creature. This is the order of things that poor proud fallen humanity would like, and this was the kind of bait the serpent enticed our first parents with at the beginning, “Ye shall be as gods.” Sin is a fall upwards; sin is the quest after something better. In fact, under the Pantheistic system there is strictly speaking, no such thing as sin. Moral evil is only limitation or undeveloped good. The distinction between right and wrong is obliterated. As Dr. Charles Hodge states, the final step of Pantheism is the “deification of evil. That step Pantheists do not hesitate to take; so far as evil exists it is as truly a manifestation of God as good. The wicked are only one form of the self-manifestation of God; sin is only one form of the activity of God. This dreadful doctrine is explicitly avowed.” Now, it is very manifest that it is under the influence of this diabolical system that Mr. Campbell made the wild assertions in one of his discourses, quoted in last issue, that men in their sinful follies, their drunkenness, their atheism, their blasphemies, and other immoralities were “in quest of God.” It is no wonder that a German writer of sound opinions said that this system should be called Pandiabolism instead of Pantheism.
Such then is the new pagan theology of the man who now occupies the pulpit of the City Temple. Mr. Campbell may be a gentleman of most amiable character, but viewed in the light of his beliefs, he is a moral danger to the community, and the sooner he steps out of his present position the better for all concerned. His predecessor, Dr. Parker, was not, in our humble opinion, a model in everything of what a minister should be, but he was orthodoxy itself in comparison with Mr. Campbell. It appears also, that the original constitution of the City Temple is Calvinistic, and that the congregation is trust-bound to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Mr. Campbell has, therefore, no legal or moral standing ground in the City Temple, and it says little for his sense of honour or his theological ideas that he has not perceived this before now. Even outsiders of very broad creeds observe the moral inconsistency of his position. Dr. Robertson Nicoll, who is now one of his critics, declares:—”We have found that London journalists and men of letters outside churches and chapels, but interested, hold firmly that there has been a betrayal. Mr. Campbell was quite entitled in their view to deliver his opinions outside the City Temple, but not entitled to hold the City Temple, and turn it to ends for which it was never built. They think that he has acted as a general put in command of an army who has tried to lead the army over to the other side. The same view is taken by some Unitarians. A writer in the Inquirer says:—”I fear that the rock on which the new theology may split is the moral question. I do not think it is consistent with the higher ethics for representatives of this movement to remain in doctrinally trust-bound chapels.” The point here raised, we may remark, has significance for many Churches outside the City Temple. Many Nonconformist chapels in England were built in the days of the Puritans, and were never designed for the publication of false doctrine which issues from their pulpits to-day. There is plenty of work for the public prosecutor if he would only undertake it at the City Temple and elsewhere. And is not Scotland overrun with the same evil, churches built on the basis of the Confession of Faith, and now utilised for the proclamation of doctrines and ideas entirely contrary thereto? Men may try to blink the morality of this procedure, and make themselves believe all is well, but there will be a reckoning yet at the judgment seat. Mr. Campbell and others may talk at large about “working hard for a new revival,” but what they need is a revival of the holy law of God in their consciences that would make them at least honest before God and men, and give them a different view of sin and salvation from what they now possess.
A lamentable feature of the present sensational development is the feebleness of the protests that have been raised against Mr. Campbell’s teaching. Many have spoken against it, but there has been a deplorable want of thoroughness and decision about their words. Dr. Clifford, a leading Nonconformist, has acted the part of a defender of Mr. Campbell, though affirming that he does not agree with him. One of the poorest and most disappointing criticisms of the new theology we have seen is from the pen of Professor Stalker, Aberdeen, in the Scottish Review. Indeed, it would not take a very powerful gale of unbelief to drive many of our U.F. and Established professors openly into the same morass of corrupt theology with Mr. Campbell. The difference is more apparent than real. And this general declension from the faith, which is too patent in our country, in wrong views of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, the atonement, and future punishment, accounts for the pithless and inadequate protests that have been raised by many in the present case.
May the Lord, in infinite mercy, visit us as a nation with a day of His power, and check the current of apostacy from the faith of the gospel! Many, from whom better things might be expected, are blind to the downward progress of things. Others, who cannot but discern it, are stricken with the plague of dumbness for past unfaithfulness to the truth; they are dumb dogs that cannot bark. May the Lord graciously grant a speedy fulfilment of the promise in all its fulness of meaning:—”When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him”—a standard of victory, putting him to flight.
The “New Theology” versus The Holy Scriptures.
This is the title of a neat little tract written by our esteemed friend, Mr. J. K. Popham, Strict Baptist Minister, Brighton. Mr. Popham writes “a few plain words” for the benefit of “the poor of the flock of Christ who are not able to follow elaborate arguments” in regard to the “New Theology” proclaimed by Mr. R. J. Campbell; and he reduces the whole matter to the simple question—Is the Bible inspired or not? If the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then the “New Theology” is heresy of the most daring and blasphemous kind. Mr. Popham sums up the teaching of Scripture on the various points traversed by Mr. Campbell in a few pointed sentences, with opposite Scriptural references, and his tract is fitted to set at rest the mind of believers in God’s Word in regard to the heresies referred to. We hope it will have a large circulation. It may be had (50 copies, 1/; 100, 1/6, post free) from Mr. J. K. Popham, “Normandien,” Surrenden Road, Brighton; or of Farncombe & Son, 30 Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus, London, E.C.