The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 27
Theology and Religion
![](/etexts/Stout27/Stout27P015004(w110).gif)
Theology and Religion.
It is these points in the Judge's lecture which I intend more particularly discussing this evening; and in order to prevent verbal confusion, I would like in the first place to distinguish between theology and religion. To me it seems, however paradoxical it may sound, that there is no necessary connection between religion and theology; and in any lectures I have had the honour of delivering from this platform. I have always studiously endeavoured to refrain from confounding the two. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that theology and religion are not in any way convertible terms; and that any points of agreement there may be between them (all except one) are accidental and not necessary. And this lies in the fact that theology has been a religion, but it has now fallen from that high pedestal. The one point of community between the two is that both entail the idea of worship. With modern theology, however, worship has sunk into an accident, a second place, while belief is tie essential element—belief in the existence of a divine architect and ruler of the universe, belief in the excellencies of creed and dogma pertaining to the antique-modern churches. Theology has faded from the rank of a religion, and fallen into that of a superstition. Vanished is the principle that ministered to her early welfare, and made her a power among men. That power she in part still jealously clings to, but the worship and devotion to a power higher and more noble than her devotees, that grand principle she has lost, and in its place can only be seen the stalking shadows, the ghostly mummies, the empty forms and hollow ceremonies that show that a religion was once there.
And, religion; what, then, is religion, and wherein does it differ from theology? Religion is the worship of ideals. "Worship" and "ideal" are both essentials of religion. When this proposition is clearly understood it will be seen that true religion, or what the distinguished author of Ecce Homo" has called" natural religion, has the very closest connection with man's individual and social welfare. Our shattered ideals mark the faltering footsteps of the world's progress. What would we be without them these ever-to-be-ruined idols, that are seen glittering on the horizon of hope? and even if when grasped they stand before us reft of their loveliness, unadorned with the glamour of longing, what then? If they have beckoned us onwards they have served their ends. Ideals must be set before us. ideals must be shattered and replaced by higher ones, if we wish to progress. The very possession of an ideal indicates the desire to rise to something higher—shows the desire to excel—shows dissatisfaction with present surroundings, the first element of success. Ideals indicate the intelligent recognition of a higher life. And worship is no less a necessity of the social medium. True worship is based upon the fundamental principle of sympathy, and entails the idea of love and affection. We love the bright visions that haunt us in our waking dreams. This worship, this sympathy, this love and affection, entail the idea of
page 5
something not ourselves—something with which we must strive to bring ourselves into harmony. This desire for harmony, this link of feeling between the me and the not-me between our grosser selves and what we may reach by striving, between the individual unit and the social medium that surrounds him, this is religion. And worship is the recognition of that feeling. Whenever this feeling is recognised, and that recognition influences the life of a man, there is religion; that man is a religious man, even although he has kicked off the traces of theology, and disbelieved all the miracles that wore ever packed into a superstitious world.
The shoemaker who, in spite of the frownings of fortune, manfully sticks to his last, and desires and endeavours to turn out good work, shows by his very endeavour that he has the element of religion in him. The desire of doing good work, in whatever department of life our sphere may be placed, is an ideal, and exemplifies the striving after that never-to-be-reached perfection, to which all our aims tend, and which forms the essence of religion. The ideal of the artist is beauty, and in the worship of beauty, and the burning ambition to pourtray her ever vanishing forms, is the delight and the absorbing passion of his life. There are ideals, there is worship — a worship no less pure and unselfish—no less lovely in its strength than the ideal of worship itself. The man of science too has his ideal—an ideal it may be, cold and impassive like a marble statue, not quivering with life and motion and feeling like that of the artist's. The Goddess of Truth uses no blandishments like the Goddess of Beauty: her eyes do not sparkle, nor her red lips quiver, nor her smile fascinate, nor her hair shimmer in the sunlight. like those of Beauty's Queen; but she allures, and enchants, and enraptures her devotees by the charm of her voice, by the sweet siren song she sings telling of the mystery of the world, and of how men may learn her secrets. And so we might go on to exhaust the different departments of life, and point out that in each there could and ought to be worship and therefore religion. The doctor, the lawyer, the schoolmaster, the mechanic, the tradesman, the labourer as well as the minister of a church, may each have his ideal; and in so far as he worships it and endeavours to act up to it, he is a religious man. But this worship of ideals, which you call religion," remarks an objector, "is too exclusive, it does not bring men together like the system of religion which you call theology does. It does not indicate any community between man and man, or between man and society—it is not religion, it is religions." This objection at first sight seems a grave one, but I hope to show you before this paper is brought to a close that it is in that direction that theology so censpicuously fails, and it is from that aspect we can see that a true or natural religion is absolutely necessary for the welfare of man and society.
From the distinction here drawn between theology and religion, it will be seen that there is no necessary connection between religion and any system that professes to account for and explain the origin and harmony of the universe. A disbelief in the existence of God, or in the excellence of the creeds and doctrines inculcated by the Churches, does not prevent a man from being religious; while on the other hand a man may be religious who does believe in these same creeds and doctrines; but if his only worship consists in the worship of these and their belongings, his religion will be of a much lower form than that of the other.