A Christian Replies

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—In his criticism of Our Christians "M" accuses the S.C.M. and myself (as writer of an article in "The Student") of what may be conveniently labelled "spiritual appeasement." Let us admit at once that there is some truth in the general charge.

The whole liberal movement in theology has meant largely a willingness to meet secular thought more than halfway, rather than stand for the particular dogmas of the faith, and the general watering-down has satisfied no-one. It is even curiously possible to find the philosopher more orthodox than the theologian, i.e., while Harrison Elliott (a Professor of Theology) cannot admit "the low estimate of natural man and of his possibilities" that is characteristic of traditional Christianity, the Director of the Institute of Education in London University (F. Clarke) says, "Original sin may be more than an outworn theological dogma after all. . . . May not our happiness, as well as the saving grace of our education, consist in the end in a frank and humble recognition of the fact?"

But that an important reaction against the appeasement principle has taken place is of course evident. It appears in the work of Barth, Brunner, Niebuhr, etc., and is made very explicit in such a popular confession as Davies' "On to Orthodoxy." The S.C.M. must catch up.

It is regrettable to some readers either aim or execution was unsatisfactory, or damaging to the faith. I am grateful to "M" for his notice, and hope that I have not too obtusely failed to understand his objections.