Copyright © 2012 John Andrew Aloisi All Rights Reserved. the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Has Permission to Reproduce
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Copyright © 2012 John Andrew Aloisi All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including without limitation, preservation or instruction. AUGUSTUS HOPKINS STRONG AND ETHICAL MONISM AS A MEANS OF RECONCILING CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND MODERN THOUGHT __________________ A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy __________________ by John Andrew Aloisi December 2012 APPROVAL SHEET AUGUSTUS HOPKINS STRONG AND ETHICAL MONISM AS A MEANS OF RECONCILING CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY AND MODERN THOUGHT John Andrew Aloisi Read and Approved by: __________________________________________ Thomas J. Nettles (Chair) __________________________________________ Gregory A. Wills __________________________________________ Stephen J. Wellum Date ______________________________ To Marcia, my partner, friend, and tireless proofreader, and to Lydia, Micah, Liza, Susie, Kari, and Silas, who are almost as happy as Dad that this project is finally completed TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE . vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION . 1 The Riddle of Augustus Hopkins Strong . 3 Questions to Be Answered . 8 Statement of the Thesis . 8 Importance of the Study . 8 2. THE MAKING AND MINISTRY OF A THEOLOGIAN . 10 Strong’s Heritage . 11 Strong’s Early Life . 17 Strong’s College Days . 23 Strong’s Seminary Days . 35 Pastoral Ministry in Haverhill, Massachusetts . 43 Pastoral Ministry in Cleveland, Ohio . 50 Returning to Rochester . 57 3. PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF ETHICAL MONISM . 61 Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) . 61 Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775-1854) . 66 iv Chapter Page Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) . 69 Rudolf Hermann Lotze (1817-1881) . 73 Borden Parker Bowne (1847-1910) . 78 Josiah Royce (1855-1916) . 82 Conclusion . 87 4. ETHICAL MONISM AS BOTH A CONCLUSION AND A STARTING POINT FOR THEOLOGY. 89 Strong’s Early Rejection of All Types of Philosophical Monism . 90 Strong’s Continuing Theological Development Leading to His Embrace of Ethical Monism . 94 Strong’s Earliest Affirmations of Ethical Monism . 99 “Christ in Creation” Article (1892) . 99 “Ethical Monism” Articles (1894) . 101 “Ethical Monism Once More” Articles (1895) . 110 Early Responses to Strong’s Ethical Monism . 118 Ethical Monism in Strong’s Systematic Theology . 127 Metaphysical Monism Is Qualified by Psychological Dualism . 130 The Universe Is a Manifestation of the Divine Life . 131 Divine Immanence Guarantees Individuality in the Universe . 132 Christology Is the Key to Understanding the Universe . 133 5. ETHICAL MONISM AND ITS IMPACT ON OTHER AREAS OF STRONG’S THEOLOGY . 136 Ethical Monism and Strong’s View of Scripture and Experience . 136 v Chapter Page Strong’s Earlier Views on the Scriptures . 137 Strong’s Later Views on the Scriptures . 142 Experience and Ethical Monism . 147 Ethical Monism and Strong’s View of Evolution and Miracles . 151 Evolution as the Method of God . 151 Miracles More Accurately Defined . 157 Ethical Monism and Strong’s View of Sin and the Atonement . 162 Sin as a Corporate Responsibility . 163 The Atonement as a Necessary Suffering . 166 Conclusion . 171 6. CONTEMPORARY RESPONSES AND THE LEGACY OF STRONG’S ETHICAL MONISM . 173 Contemporary Responses to Strong’s Ethical Monism . 173 Strong’s Legacy . 185 John and Charles Strong . 186 Rockefeller and the Quest for a Baptist University . 193 Rochester after Strong . 199 Conclusion . 204 7. CONCLUSION . .. 205 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 211 vi PREFACE David Steinmetz once observed that the preface of a book is perhaps the most difficult part to write. This seems to me to be the case. It is hard to express in a few paragraphs my thankfulness to the many people who have supported and encouraged me in various ways during my doctoral work and especially during the past few years as this dissertation was being completed. When I began my doctoral studies in 2006, my wife, Marcia, and I moved to Louisville with two children in tow. As I come to the end of the doctoral program, our family has grown to include six children. Somewhat coincidentally, like Augustus and Harriet Strong, we have been blessed with four girls and two boys. Clearly, I have a very patient and supportive wife! Thank you, Marcia, for consistently encouraging me to keep moving forward. And thank you for reading each of my doctoral papers, and now this dissertation, with genuine interest and helpful insight. Many others have also provided support along the way. Dr. David Doran and the board of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary have generously ensured that I had the necessary time and resources to complete this project. My colleagues at DBTS have encouraged me at many points over the past several years. Dr. Mark Snoeberger, especially, has taken time out of his busy schedule to read the entire manuscript and has provided helpful comments that have improved it in many ways. Matt Gass and Andrea Miller of DBTS, along with the Inter-Library Loan staff of James P. Boyce Library at vii Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, have tracked down scores of articles and books for me and have done so with cheerfulness and efficiency. Dr. Tom Nettles has been a joy to work with over the past six years. His graciousness has been an example to me, and I consider his scholarship a model to follow. I could not have asked for a better doctoral mentor. John Andrew Aloisi Allen Park, Michigan December 2012 viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Nineteenth-century liberalism was characterized by a distinctive emphasis on the doctrine of divine immanence. Numerous writers at the end of the century and the beginning of the next observed as much. For example, reflecting on the theology of the nineteenth century, Arthur Cushman McGiffert identified divine immanence as the characteristic doctrine of the age.1 Standing just inside the doorstep of the twentieth century, Francis J. McConnell noted that the concept of divine immanence was the most absorbing theme in contemporary theology.2 And writing just a few years later in 1914, Hugh Ross Mackintosh remarked, “No conception has seized the modern mind more 1Arthur Cushman McGiffert, The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 189. See also, idem, “Immanence,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, vol. 7 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 168-69. Near the end of the nineteenth century another author wrote, “There is a very considerable hope abroad that we shall reach a higher conception of God by looking at Him as the immanent principle of all things. Some very harsh censures are passed at the same time on the contrary and older conception of the divine transcendence. The idea is gaining ground that we shall be brought a good deal on our way by discarding all language of the Creator as distinct and apart from the creature, and by cultivating a habit of religious speech in which, if they are not identified, they are at least brought very near together” (John Tunis, “The Doctrine of the Divine Immanence,” Andover Review 14 [October 1890]: 389). See also, Charles Howard Hopkins, The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism, 1865-1915 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1940), 123-25, 320. 2Francis J. McConnell, The Diviner Immanence (New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1906), 9. About a decade earlier, William N. Clarke noted a tendency in contemporary literature away from materialism and toward immanence, that is, toward a “recognition of spirit as pervading and giving character to all” (The Circle of Theology: An Introduction to Theological Study [Cambridge: University Press, 1897], 13). 1 powerfully than that of divine immanence.”3 Clearly the doctrine of divine immanence was a topic that captivated the minds of many theologians at the turn of the century. At the close of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, American theological liberals were busy carving out a “third way” between rationalistic atheism and orthodox Christianity by positing a new theology based largely on the twin ideas that divine authority is not tied to an inerrant book and that God should not be viewed as completely distinct from the material world. When put in positive terms, this latter concept was often expressed by the phrase “divine immanence.” Numerous books were written around the turn of the century arguing that the pressing theological need was to move forward toward a new understanding of God as immanent in the world and working in and through the physical universe in a way quite different from that taught by orthodox theology.4 Many conservatives firmly denounced liberal assertions about God’s immanence as heterodox and destructive to true religion.5 However, at least one conservative theologian, Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836-1921), attempted to wed orthodox theology to a new understanding of divine immanence. The result was something that Strong called ethical monism. 3Hugh Ross Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1914), 431. Henry Burton Trimble similarly spoke about the “present emphasis of the doctrine of the divine immanence” and described it as “the most significant development in the thinking of the modern religious world” (“Christ in the Light of the Divine Immanence,” Methodist Quarterly Review 75 [July 1926]: 404). 4E.g., J. R. Illingworth, Divine Immanence: An Essay on the Spiritual Significance of Matter (New York: Macmillan, 1898); Border P. Bowne, The Immanence of God (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1905); McConnell, Diviner Immanence. 5E.g., J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (1923; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 62-64. 2 The Riddle of Augustus Hopkins Strong Strong was in many ways a puzzling figure.6 As president and professor of biblical theology at Rochester Theological Seminary over the course of four decades, Strong shaped a generation of seminary students.7 As a leader among Northern Baptists, he played a significant role in the denomination during the years leading up to the fundamentalist-modernist controversy.