Christian Pragmatism : An Intellectual Biography of Edward Scribner Ames, 1870-1958 [1 ed.] 9781443832441, 9781443831987

Citation preview

Christian Pragmatism

Christian Pragmatism: An Intellectual Biography of Edward Scribner Ames, 1870–1958

By

W. Creighton Peden

Christian Pragmatism: An Intellectual Biography of Edward Scribner Ames, 1870–1958 by W. Creighton Peden This book first published 2011 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2011 by W. Creighton Peden All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-3198-0, ISBN (13): 078-1-4438-3198-7

IN MEMORIAM “Frissy” McKnight Peden 1944–2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................... ix Historical Context ....................................................................................... 1 Biographical ............................................................................................... 7 Theology from the Standpoint of Functional Psychology (1906)............. 23 Psychology of Religious Experience (1910) ............................................ 27 Divinity of Christ (1911) .......................................................................... 43 Mystic Knowledge (1914) ........................................................................ 51 The Higher Individualism (1915) ............................................................. 55 The New Orthodoxy (1918) ..................................................................... 63 Beyond Protestantism (1919) ................................................................... 71 Religion in the New Age (1920)............................................................... 73 Religion in Terms of Social Consciousness (1921) .................................. 75 Unsectarian Membership in the Local Congregation (1921) .................... 77 The Validity of the Idea of God (1921) .................................................... 79 Religious Values and the Practical Absolute (1922) ................................ 83 Letter to Alexander Campbell (1922) ....................................................... 87 What is Religion (1923) ........................................................................... 89 The Religion of Immanuel Kant (1924) ................................................... 91 Religion and Philosophy (1928) ............................................................... 93 What Salvation Can the Church Offer Today? (1928) ............................. 97 Locke (1928) ............................................................................................ 99 Religion (1929) ....................................................................................... 101 Religious Values and Philosophical Criticism (1929) ............................ 133 Imagery and Meaning in Religious Ideas (1932).................................... 137

viii

Contents

Letters to God and the Devil (1933) ....................................................... 141 Three Great Words of Religion (1933) ................................................... 153 Christianity and Scientific Thinking (1934) ........................................... 155 The Religious Response (1934) .............................................................. 157 Man Looks at Himself or Personality Pictures (1935)............................ 159 The Philosophical Background of the Disciples (1936) ......................... 161 A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion (1936) ....................................... 165 Liberalism in Religion (1936) ................................................................ 175 The Reasonableness of Christianity (1937) ............................................ 179 This Human Life (1937) ......................................................................... 183 The Philosophical Background of the Disciples (1937) ......................... 197 A New Interpretation of The Will to Believe (1937) .............................. 201 When Science Comes to Religion (1938) ............................................... 205 Religious Implications of John Dewey’s Philosophy (1939).................. 209 Training for Wisdom (1940)................................................................... 213 Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas ...................................................... 221 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 231 Notes....................................................................................................... 237 Bibliography ........................................................................................... 253 Books ...................................................................................................... 253 Index ....................................................................................................... 257

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this work is to expose the life and the philosophical and religious thought of Edward Scribner Ames. In order to see the development of Ames’ thought, we will consider his books according to when they were published. Selected articles will also appear according to their dates in order to broaden the scope of our understanding of the issues and concepts as they evolved throughout Ames’ career. The volume will end with a conclusion that encompasses the key concepts which Ames developed and an evaluation of his contribution. Ames was a significant churchman as well as a distinguished philosopher and administrator. Our primary focus will not include the hundreds of Ames’ writings which were published in Disciples’ periodicals, leaving these writings to a Disciple who can place Ames’ denominational contributions within the evolution of the Christian Church. For a complete list of Ames’ publications, check the web site: www.pragmatism.org. Superscript numbers in the text refer to endnotes. When a reference is made to a document for the first time, publication information is included in that endnote. Each referenced document is given a symbol, so that additional endnotes that refer to that same document will only give its symbol and the appropriate page number(s). For the past fifty plus years I have been working on the Chicago School in Theology and in Philosophy. Ames’ contributions are so varied and significant, that I have been amazed that so much could be accomplished in one life. As a graduate student at the University of Chicago and interested in the Chicago School in Philosophy and Religion, I was strongly influence by Edward Scribner Ames, Albert Eustace Haydon and Henry Nelson Wieman and find myself after these many years returning to these thinkers as I reflect on the development of my own thoughts. When one is old and travel is difficult, amassing research materials is dependent upon many people. I am especially indebted to Mary Ann Sloan of the Hudson Library in Highlands, NC, to Adam Bohanan of the Meadville/Lombard Theological Library for supplying the articles and books needed, and to Becky Bohanan, a divinity student, for photo copying the unpublished words of E. S. Ames. Appreciation is expressed for the assistance provided by the research librarians at the University of Chicago Library. I am also indebted to Karen Hawk for her editorial

x

Christian Pragmatism

efforts and to my close friend and computer guru John Gaston for his diverse contributions. In order to have the manuscript proofread by additional sets of eyes, friends have proofed one or more chapters: Peggy Smith, Don Pair, Vivian Brewer, Irvin Kagan, Edward Barrett, Lewis Doggett, Nancy Tarbox, Paul Stevens, Cedric Heppler, Lucinda Gaston, Donald Klinefelter, Beverlee Kritz, Peter Gorday, Donald Ott, Meredith York, Christina Vitaliano, Daniel and Betty Brown, Lucy Christopher, and Janis Fisher. I am especially appreciative of the assistance provided by Dr. Kris Culp of Disciples Divinity House and the University of Chicago and Christine Ames Cornish for permission to quote from and to publish Ames’ unpublished manuscripts and for furnishing the photograph of Ames used on the cover of this volume. W. Creighton Peden —Winter, 2011

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Disciples of Christ (Christian Church) emerged from similar movements in the early 1800s, one in Kentucky and another in western Pennsylvania that rebelled against the rigid denominationalism of that period. For example, a dogmatic sectarianism kept members from different denominations from sharing in a common communion service and often kept different groups within the same denomination from taking communion together. These movements also shared a rejection of the use of creeds for determining one’s membership or fellowship and the right to take communion. It is interesting to note that the leadership in both movements against dogmatic sectarianism shared a common Scots’ heritage. Barton W. Stone and Walter Scott were Presbyterian leaders of the movement in Kentucky, with Scott having been trained at the University of Edinburgh. Desiring to shed denominational labels, Stone and Scott favored a name for their movement that was scriptural and inclusive. They called themselves simply as “Christians.”1 Thomas and Alexander Campbell, a father and son team, were Baptist leaders of the movement in western Pennsylvania. Both men had trained at the University of Glasgow. Sharing similar reasons in selecting a name for their two groups, the Campbells simply called themselves Disciples of Christ, feeling that the name “Christian” was somewhat presumptuous.2 Although these movements can be described as American expressions of a frontier religion, they differed from other frontier religions in that their founders were educated as classical scholars who could read the New Testament in Greek. From time to time these founders also taught Greek and Latin, as well as French and German. They supported general education for all persons and considered higher education a necessity for the growth of their fellowships. From their beginnings, these movements sought to establish colleges. The first was Bacon College in Kentucky, which emphasized the sciences. Francis Bacon’s name was selected to reflect the beginning of the modern era, which these movements reflected. Bethany College in West Virginia was founded by Alexander Campbell and also emphasized science, as well as bringing Christian education to all students. The undergirding conviction of these colleges was that truth is to be found in all disciplines; therefore Disciples were encouraged to seek the

2

Christian Pragmatism

truth which sets us free in all areas of learning. This emphasis on higher education continued and by 1850 there were over ten colleges established to serve the expanding growth of the Disciples. The heritage of Disciples is seen in their considering themselves as reformers for a free non-creedal form of Christianity in which a union of all Christians was advocated. They preached an intelligible but simple form of faith which appealed to practical persons. Instead of condemning other interpretations as heresies, they viewed them as new expressions of faith. The dominant historical influence of Disciples was the Renaissance and not the Reformation. It was from the English Enlightenment, as seen in the contributions of Bacon, Locke, and Newton, that new ways of thinking enriched the foundation principles of Disciples who sought a religion based on a more intelligent and reasonable reading of the Bible. All books in the Bible were to be studied from the perspective of their dates, authorship, cultural context, style and purpose. This was the approach that is now known as “higher criticism.” This approach was illustrated in Alexander Campbell’s famous Sermon on the Law in which he postulated that the two Testaments represent different “dispensations.” These leaders were influenced by the Renaissance acceptance of the Greek notion of the dignity and worth of all citizens, which led them to reject human depravity and original sin. Ames later noted that “the doctrine of predestination and election was vigorously rejected in favor of individual moral responsibility and power of choice according to the opportunities, education, and ‘lights’ of each person.”3 Other doctrines flowed from human depravity, such as salvation being possible only by an act of divine grace. All these doctrines were rejected by Disciples, who focused on the life and teachings of Jesus. Whoever accepted Jesus’ teachings in faith and desired to pattern their lives after them was a Christian with the assurance of divine mercy and fidelity. Thus, individuals are involved in their own salvation based on intelligible action which provided greater incentives for living a Christian life. Conversion for them was more like become a citizen of a country. There were steps to be taken and allegiances to follow. When these occurred, one became an adopted member of the society with all rights, privileges, and responsibilities. The church was considered a voluntary association of those seeking to live by the teachings of Jesus. By establishing a voluntary association, no ecclesiastical structure could be accepted that tried to impose itself upon local authorities. Local initiatives and experimentations in an effort to promote religious ends were encouraged. The Disciples postulated a strong sense of individualism in line with the Protestant principle of the right to

Historical Context

3

private judgment and interpretation of the scriptures. Thus, the ideal for Disciples was a religious fellowship in which differences are not just tolerated but incorporated in the interest of growth and efficiency. The Disciples have been committed to the union of Protestant Christians so that they might present a firm institutional presence as does the Roman Catholic Church. It is questionable whether this dream was or could be a reality, given their strong emphasis on individualism, the right to private judgment, and local congregational control as a voluntary association. Loving ones enemies and those with whom one disagrees is a noble ideal, but it is questionable whether such love can provide enough practical agreement to sustain a voluntary association. The spirit of democracy evident in the Disciples’ movement was basically the same in the American political process, as both sought for the people to direct their own lives premised on the reasonableness and cooperation of the people. This democratic faith failed to support the traditional differences established between the specialized professional ministry and the laity. Although the Disciples in principle sought union with Protestant Christian churches, in reality they were seeking a reformation not of Catholicism but of Protestant churches. Their reformation would restore primitive Christianity with the focus on the spirit of Christ instead of a set of rules or forms. All doctrines and forms were rejected as essential for being a Christian. “No power of clergy, or of councils, of bishops or of secretaries, should rule over the conscience of the individual or of the local church.”4 This democratic religion premised on reasonableness and cooperation of people was strengthened by the rise of modern science, which Ames considered as the most striking fruit of the Renaissance. Francis Bacon supported the Disciples’ rejection of metaphysics and traditional theology, confident that we could control nature in order to serve our wants. What made this possible was the revolutionary method of modern science. Calvinism and Lutheranism were oriented to the medieval world view, but the founders of the Disciples employed higher criticism, modern science, and the common-sense philosophy of the Enlightenment, especially as presented by John Locke, as a basis for their interpreting religion. This renunciation of old forms of religious thought is more clearly seen in the Disciples understanding of what loyalty to Jesus meant. The traditional view was that Jesus must be conceived as supernaturally divine which is also revealed in his miraculous activities. The problem with traditional theology is that it began with an idea of a supernatural God which required a conception of Jesus which conformed to this perspective of God. The Disciples, in their practical, common-sense approach, began

4

Christian Pragmatism

with the person and life of Jesus and let this foundation determine the idea of God. The Disciples did not feel a cleavage between humans and God, as is evident in Calvin’s theology. Ames explained: “For them, in his natural state, man was not completely alienated from God; nor was God, in his holiness completely transcendent beyond man. It was a father and son relationship. God was thought able to make his will clear to man, and man was thought able to understand that will sufficiently to be guided by it and to follow it.”5 The Disciples rejected the separation of the sacred and the secular of traditional theology. They have always viewed nature and humans as God’s creation, with the laws of nature being just as divine as those of the spiritual realm. The contrast of the sacred and secular in modern times is due to the false secularism of science. If science is viewed properly as a method of understanding and controlling the forces of nature and human nature, science is understood as an ally in seeking the goods of life. Certainly science may be used for negative purposes, but increasing science promotes human welfare. If life can be integrated in support of constructive ideals, the best possible religion will occur. For the Disciples, an objective of religion should be enhancing the natural goods of life in abundance so that the life of all members of society would be enriched. The separation between the secular and the sacred is based on outmoded theology and inadequate ministers who fail to appreciate the power for good inherent in the vast number of educated and social enlightened men and women. It was a goal of Disciples to support in their interpretation of religion the social idealism related to the life and teachings of Jesus. The question of slavery was a crucial issue for Disciples. Alexander Campbell said the issue was one of opinion, since scripture did not make slavery incompatible with being either a master or a slave, although he considered it to be an economic evil. However, in time most Disciples rejected slavery because it violated “the principles and tendencies of the teaching of the New Testament.”6 Jesus had made clear the contrast between the old and new interpretation of moral obligations, noting that the old was fulfilled by the new. Disciples had a distinctive view of conversion as they considered it in a more practical and intelligible fashion as a change of direction, of purpose and of allegiance. The key is to what one is converted. The Disciples were primarily concerned with Christian union, but a union that would only be real when it is based on intelligence, mutual support and a free fellowship. Ames postulated that such a union could only be based on the quality of love. “That this quality of love may come to full flower in human life is proved by all those who manifest it, and that it is capable of being radiated and cultivated in further ranges of human life in the reasonable faith of all

Historical Context

5

who believe in its value and in the susceptibility of mankind to enlightenment and refinement. It is the soul of religion and the strength of every religious movement in the degree it is presented.”7 Before the Disciples can bring this union to others, it was essential that they experiment with union amongst themselves and gain an understanding of the practice and spirit of union. Ames suggested three ways for enhancing the spirit of union. One way was for the Disciples to engage in the great social causes of the time. A second way was to develop attitudes and conditions which strengthen the family in piety, forgiveness, and social idealism. A third way was for each Disciples church to evaluate their characteristics which may serve union. From early in the nineteenth century neo-orthodox theology repackaged the old theological tradition based on human depravity. It was impossible to develop a Christian union on the basis of this theology which holds as a basic assumption that humans are incapable of a committed and vital fellowship of love. Even divine grace cannot always make a saint out of a sinner. The neo-orthodox do not trust their own scholarship for understanding the intelligibility of the scriptures, proclaiming some scripture as mythology to cover their inability to determine its meaning. Neo-orthodoxy also fails to fully grasp the importance of science to modern people. As science reveals the secrets of nature, we begin to understand that humanitarianism provides more adequate understanding of humans and of God. God has provided humans with intelligence, which includes science. To reject science because of the world’s evils is to reject God who is the source of our intelligence and of the world. Disciples are neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian as they interpret God based on the personality and teaching of the historical Jesus. They made no distinction between clergy and laity, with any member able to administer any ordinance. Conversion is a natural process of turning to Christ. They employed the New Testament as the primary guide for Christians, while stressing the right to private interpretation of scriptures. Salvation is a process of growth, which encourages experimentation. On the basis of these points, Disciples were able to practice union within their congregations. They supported missionary activities and employed literature from different traditions when appropriate. They invited all to participate with them in communion and their practical activities in support of important social movements. The Disciples had an amazing growth from beginning with ten members in 1812. By 1822 the Disciples had reached 20,000 members; by 1850 there were 120,000 Disciples; by 1900 over one million persons had

6

Christian Pragmatism

become Disciples; and by 1940 Disciples included one million and eight hundred thousand members. It should be noted that young children were not included within these numbers. From these perspectives, we gain an understanding of the world into which Edward Scribner Ames was born and reared, and to which he provided important leadership in American philosophy and liberal religious thought.

BIOGRAPHICAL Edward Scribner Ames was born in Eau Claire, Wisconsin on April 21, 1870, the youngest of four children. His parents were from New England, where his father, Lucius Bowles Ames, was a shoemaker before attending New Hampton College in New Hampshire. To cover his expense while in college, Lucius Ames taught singing classes in various towns in the area. While teaching in Plattsburg, New York, one of his pupils was Adaline Scribner, with whom love flowered and they married. He became acquainted with the teachings of Alexander Campbell through the Disciples of Christ in West Rupert, Vermont. Taken with their freedom from creeds and sectarianism and their commonsense approach to understanding the Bible, he became the minister of the Disciples in West Rupert in 1864. Following the Civil War, the Ames family moved to Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The father held various jobs, such as a fruit farmer, in between serving small churches. His longest pastorate of four years was in Toulon, Illinois. Young Scribner remembers these four years as the happiest of his childhood, “where I learned to throw curves and to catch the ball with my bare hands.”8 It was in Toulon that he became aware of religious influences, recalling “that the greatest religious influence of my childhood was the mood of piety in home and church.”9 It was from his early childhood experiences that he gained the conviction “that religion bound people together in closer bonds than any other interest.”10 The Ames family of six was always confronting the threshold of poverty, but their economic situation did not detract from a happy home life. Young Ames recalled one of the great events of his life was when a small yellow dog, almost frozen, was whining and scratching at their front door. His mother let the dog inside and Ames and the dog immediately bonded as best friends. He recalled: “my dog, Trip filled a real place in my soul and remains yet the symbol of dumb affections and good fellowship.”11 At the age of eleven, Ames’ family settled in Davenport, Iowa. What impressed him most in this new environment were the river and the hills. Hours were spent with a friend watching the river and the men handling the various ships’ cargoes. One day the news spread that a ship had wrecked on stone piers with the crew lost. Young Ames stood by the river,

8

Christian Pragmatism

wondering and depressed by this tragic event. He was moved by the fact that life which had disappeared in the river made no difference to the stream. At this age he also discovered in his father’s library two volumes, entitled Arctic Explorations by Elisha Kent Kane. He noted that “the simple woodcuts stirred my soul: great ice fields and glaring snow, dog sleds and fur-covered men. The pictures bore out stories of hardship and privation.”12 When Ames was twelve he encountered death first hand, when his older sister brought her husband home to die. All accepted that this illness was God’s will, but to Ames this was a mystery which caused him to realize that tragedy could come to his own family. Another event that year brought a different experience of the realization that terrible things can happen to his family, and especially to him. An older boy provoked Ames into a fight where it was very obvious that he was beaten. The principal of the school sent a note home to his parents explaining the situation. Ames’ mother was brokenhearted with her sense of family pride wounded. He noted: “I felt I had brought disgrace upon us all. The immediate result was a little better control of a hasty temper and a more wholesome respect for the other fellow. Both these experiences helped me toward the next step.”13 In June at the age of twelve, Ames accompanied his father who was to preach in a small town where they had previously lived. On the ride to the town, Ames told his father that he had decided to join the church. He recalled: “As I sat by an open window in the church, the beauty of the world grew on me and a religious mood deepened in me… At the close of the sermon, when the customary ‘invitation’ was given, I went forward. He asked me the one simple question: ‘Do you believe in Jesus Christ?’… That afternoon we went out in the country where I had hunted, to the river where I had gone fishing and swimming, and I was baptized. Peace and happiness filled me, and a new comradeship with my father. My sins were washed away. Perhaps they were not great, but to me release from them was salvation… I felt closer to Christ and to all the good spirits who had fought and labored in his cause… I was setting forth upon a far journey.”14 When Ames was fourteen the family returned to Toulon where his father had been recalled for a second pastorate. He felt that he should have a job in order to contribute to the needs of the family. The job available was in a general store earning seventeen dollars a month. He opened in the morning, cleaned the store, delivered packages, as well as selling plugs of tobacco to farmers and calico to their wives and daughters. In the winter he was responsible for the furnace, which required many hours in the dark cellar. Ames considered selling to be fun and this job provided a sense of

Biographical

9

importance to him. The store remained a symbol for Ames of hard work, but he valued most the contact with a wide diversity of people. “I learned for the first time the most important lessons of enterprise, hard work, patience, and courtesy in practical dealings.”15 From that one year of work, while living at home, Ames had been able to save one hundred dollars, which enabled him to pay tuition at college for ten years. In the spring of his fifteenth year, the Ames family moved to Des Moines, Iowa, in order that young Scribner and his sister, Mattie, might attend Drake University. Having only the equivalent of one year of high school, he spent his first year at Drake in the preparatory department. During his five years at Drake he completed the college degree and took one year of graduate work. As with many college students, it was necessary for Ames to earn money during the summer in-between his course work and he gained experience in a variety of enterprises. One summer, he and a friend, Will Reynolds, decided to be traveling salesmen, with their product being Kilbourn Brothers’ stereoscopes and views. At first there were few sales, but in time they gained more confidence and skill and were able to secure larger orders. During another vacation period Ames sold two dollar memberships for a circulating library with over two hundred volumes. He later became a general agent for this library, with commissions received from other fellows working for him. In one town, a group of citizens became upset upon realizing that if they had pooled their money, they could have bought the books for their community, although they did not take into account that without the missionary sales agents they would have continued without the basic works of literature, the citizens’ indignation increased, and they sent word to the sheriff in the next town to arrest Ames. Fortunately, Ames had eluded the sheriff without knowing it. On July 6, 1887, a very important event occurred in Ames’ life. He had canvassed the village of De Soto for subscriptions where he had received the names of several families who lived out from the village who might subscribe. Ames got a ride on a hay wagon part way, and then started walking. As the road turned, he saw in the distance a brick home. After receiving a subscription from the lady of the house, he was introduced to her daughter, Mable Van Meter, who would enter Drake in the fall. “Three years of college courtship were to follow, then three years of engagement before we were married on July 6, 1893, in the Brick house.”16 At Drake, Ames took the classical course which focused on Greek, Latin, mathematics, history, literature, logic, morals and the history of philosophy. He noted that “the work was all very elementary, superficial, and hurried.”17 It was the activities outside of the classroom which were

10

Christian Pragmatism

most valuable for Ames’ education. The Philomathian Literary Society provided his most important educational experiences. The Society met every Saturday night with programs including orations, declamations, readings, speeches, music and a debate. Ames recalled: “The glorious Saturday nights in old Philo were the hot and formative times of our young lives. Studies in English were the only ones which had vital and constant significance for that real world.”18 With no organized athletics, the big event of the academic year was the oratorical contest, with the winner representing Drake in an interstate contest. Ames was editor of the Delphic, the college newspaper. Through the exchange department of the Delphic, the paper’s staff was in communication with many other colleges in different parts of the country. This exchange of information was important to Ames because it introduced him to Eastern universities which led to his resolution to do graduate studies at an Eastern school. Social life at Drake was limited due to dancing being prohibited. There were sleighing or skating parties and an occasional “social.” Of course there were favorite walks which were populated with strolling couples. There was daily chapel and church on Sunday which Ames attended, but he noted that “I was not especially concerned with religious thought and activity during the college years. I took no courses in religion…”19 He did sing in the church choir, along with Will, his summer business partner. During the sophomore year an evangelist came to Des Moines for special meetings for three months. Ames attended many sessions and found the evangelist to present a reasonable kind of religion but stressed that emotion could not serve as a test or guide. He viewed his religious and social attitudes to be very conservative, as is illustrated by his being disturbed with his bride-to-be returning on Sunday evening from a weekend at home and in the process often missing Sunday evening worship. Sometime at religious services he would be deeply moved, which he attributed to his reflecting on the practical enterprises of the church. The union of Christendom seemed a great and appealing task, as did missionary efforts. Ames realized that these tasks required intense preparation and wondered whether he was capable of such vast religious responsibility. While at Drake, Ames had profound experiences of nature. His spirit was often lifted by the vastness of the sky into wonder and awe. Ames recalled: “One evening I was waiting for a train at a little station out on the prairie. I was alone… Great white cloud banks covered the western sky. The sun went down, touching the rim of the clouds with bands of gold, as

Biographical

11

if they were the very isles of the blessed. Perhaps for all who had lived on earth it was given at such moments to see the glory of life beyond.”20 In 1889, at the age of nineteen, Ames graduated from Drake feeling impelled to continue his education. Being undecided about his future, he decided to do an additional year at Drake in order to focus on church history, Greek and Hebrew with the view of becoming either a teacher or preacher. An event occurred in January, 1890, which provided direction for his future. He had gone for the weekend to Prairie City, Iowa, where his father had taken a pastorate. When he arrived, he discovered that his father was ill. On an impulse, he asked his father if he could preach for him. His father had reservations, but sent him forth. He spoke in the morning mainly using what he could remember from a sermon recently presented in the college chapel. While in the pulpit that morning he realized that he would be expected to preach in the afternoon, so when the announcements came he gave the title, Hope, for the afternoon sermon. From this experience, he felt moved to become a preacher. Soon he was getting requests to preach at various churches without a minister. The church at Perry, Iowa, with over one hundred members was without a minister and to Ames’ surprise the church issued him a ministerial call. He decided to accept and was ordained in September, 1890. Ames had become engaged several months prior to the ordination. Shortly after ordination, Ames had two experiences of bronchial hemorrhaging which threatened his future. His fear was tuberculosis. On the advice of Dr. Wood Hutchinson, he went to Texas for the winter and lived outdoors. He settled in Burnet, Texas, and preached in neighboring towns. His days were spent walking in the healing sunshine. He encountered a young woman who had read Darwin and Spencer and decided she was an agnostic. One day the woman came to him and asked if when she died she would go to hell. Ames replied immediately, “Yes.” His answer shocked her to the extent that she converted and joined the church. In 1891, Ames went east for more graduate study. He was drawn to both Yale and Harvard, but his conservatism led him to Yale Divinity School, which was in the conservative Congregational tradition, whereas Harvard was considered a Unitarian institution. Unfortunately, the Disciples’ leadership provided little encouragement, probably because they could not see the need for additional education based on their personal experiences. He was able to borrow money from Minnie, his sister, and secured additional funds by filling the pulpit at the Central Christian Church in Des Moines that summer.

12

Christian Pragmatism

Because of previous graduate study and ministerial experience, Ames was placed in the senior class at Yale. He did not find the courses exacting. Philosophy of Religion, using Otto Pfleiderer’s The Philosophy of Religion on the Basis of Its History, proved to be most significant. Ames recalled: “There I wrote a paper which gave me a new outlook upon religion and upon the Hebrew religion in particular… I came upon the idea that this religion had developed through natural processes from the very humble beginnings to the heights of the great prophets. This revolutionary conception displaced in my mind the idea of a supernatural, miraculously inspired religion, providing instead the more interesting and fruitful notion of a religion growing up with the life of a people and being modified by their changing experiences.”21 Pfleiderer included all religions in this process of development without reducing them all to the same level due to their different environments. This approach to religion was radically different from Ames’ background, where it was assumed that there was one true religion, with the rest being at least faulty. This true religion was based on divine revelation and provided absolute and complete redemption to all who believed. Within this conception, the responsibility of the church is to evangelize and convert all people to the true Christian religion. Ames found himself challenged: “The idea that Christianity, too, was a natural religion seemed to destroy its significance as a soul-serving power and to suggest that it might also be infested with imperfections of doctrine and practice. If it were limited and imperfect in any respect, how could any of it be valuable?”22 Ames discovered that few students took Philosophy of Religion and that most considered philosophy to be dangerous if not useless for theological students. Even so, it was impossible to escape the evolutionary conception of religion as it was overtaking all the departments. William Sumner was also teaching on folkways, providing a revolutionary perspective of humans and society. William Rainey Harper has been teaching this new view of religion in his courses on the Hebrew language and literature, so the students had to come to terms in some way with this approach. Ames noted that Harper had left to become the president at the new University of Chicago. Although Ames’ readjustment to this new approach to religion was not easy, it did not cause him significant emotional strain. In the Disciples tradition, Alexander Campbell had stressed that the Old Testament inheritance had been superseded by the teachings of Jesus Christ, so applying the new method to the Hebrew Scriptures did not lessen their value. Disciples viewed themselves as dissenters from Protestantism by

Biographical

13

their encouraging liberty of opinion with only a few clearly established essentials. Ames was also helped in this adjustment by the Disciples tradition regarding devotion to the truth; “wherever the truth appears it must be acknowledged, whatever it commands must be done, whatever it reveals is at last harmonious with the divine mind and will.”23 Although Ames grew intellectually at Yale, he also grew through participation in religious activities. He preached often at Disciples Churches in Boston and New York and regularly filled the pulpit for Sterling Place Christian Church in Brooklyn where he gained new insights into the phases of human living. Ames explained the importance of these opportunities: “I have long been convinced that practical participation in religious work is a wholesome influence in keeping one’s religion vital in the midst of intellectual perplexities. Such participation emphasizes the deeper springs of the religious life and helps to keep in the foreground the practical value to which in the end all theoretical considerations must yield for their final test.”24 The year at Yale raised more questions for Ames than it settled. Holding the view that the significant questions in theology had been previously considered in philosophy, he was determined to return to Yale or go to Harvard the next year to study philosophy. Ames’ financial situation was helped by being invited to supply the pulpit of the South Broadway Christ Church in Denver. This was his first encounter with the Rocky Mountains which raised in him strong religious feelings. Ames recalled: “They overawe me. They make an impression of agelessness and unshaken strength. The sight of them gives me a sense of kinship with those who in contemplation of them find sublimity and peace.”25 Following his experiences in Denver, Ames went to Cambridge to begin his studies in philosophy. One reason for going to Harvard was to be closer to his fiancée who was doing graduate studies at Wellesley College. Shortly after arriving he discovered that William James would not be in residence that year. He then had an interview with Josiah Royce, who took it for granted that he would be studying metaphysics. With James not being in residence and Ames not feeling interested in, based on his Midwestern practicality, or prepared to devote himself to metaphysics, he returned to Yale. Here he took seminars on William James, Otto Pfleiderer, Immanuel Kant, and Arthur Schopenhauer with George T. Ladd. It was the study of James’ The Principles of Psychology which opened for Ames an understanding of the human mind. James had turned his back on metaphysics and approached “psychology without a soul” based on the living stream of experience. In light of James, he focused attention on the physical nature of the self, on the forces of human habits

14

Christian Pragmatism

and to innovative interpretations of the emotions and the will. No longer would he focus on the mysteries of our inner lives because James made “clear the growth of ideas through the functioning of the sense organs and the brain, in relation to things and events of the environment. The wonders of memory and imagination were put into terms of imagery derived from sense perception and the operation of the laws of the association of ideas.”26 In James, he found useful handles for the task of developing and reconstructing our human idealism. Ames found the study of Kant painful and laborious as Kant “uprooted naïve ideas of the customary common-sense view [and]… by making a cleavage between the physical and the spiritual realms, it left science free to pursue its quantitative, evolutionary hypotheses and opened an independent over world of moral and religious values. Above the levels of scientific demonstration it put the objects of faith and the realities discerned by intuition.”27 Many scientists and theologians felt that with this perspective the conflict between science and religion was over. Ames doubted whether many philosophers would in his day agree on the separation of knowledge and faith. “My own thought remained for years unsatisfied with this dualism until further explorations in other systems led to quite different interpretation of the nature of human knowledge and religious values.”28 Ames found the study of Schopenhauer not only challenged “all my traditional beliefs but attacked the very foundations of all moral and religious values.”29 Schopenhauer employed science primarily for the purpose of demonstrating that the world is evil and life tragic and futile. Humans have an insatiable desire which is but an expression of our blind will. “The deepest character of the world is not reason or intelligence but will, restless, capricious will… There is no cure for these evils of life, and the greatest possible wisdom is in seeking escape from them.”30 Humans are forced to make decisions based not on our mature judgment, but on impulse and illusion. The effect on Ames of studying Schopenhauer “was a deepening [sic] conviction… that the only serious enemy of religion is pessimism, for when a man turns completely sour on life there is no chance to get any leverage on his will or conduct… The problem is to live in such a way that life is good and satisfying in spite of all its pain and defeat.”31 Ames felt that Christianity has at times been too pessimistic, especially when it understood afflictions as judgments of God instead of being the results of human recklessness. Our faith does not require that we believe that the world is completely good, but it does require our recognition of values in life which can be amplified.

Biographical

15

In the summer of 1893, Ames visited the World’s Fair in Chicago with his bride-to-be and her mother. When the women returned to Iowa, Ames remained with Frank Morgan, his co-editor of the newspaper at Drake. On the third of July he wrote Mable Van Meter and proposed that they be married on July 6th. A license was secured and Morgan conducted the service. Following a short trip to Des Moines and St. Paul, the rest of the summer was spent at the Brick House. Later in the summer a reception was held for the new couple before they returned to New Haven. In the summer of 1894, Ames was offered a fellowship in philosophy at the University of Chicago by President Harper. During the year 1894– 95, Ames was able to complete the doctoral thesis he had begun at Yale. Ames found himself moving into a new world of philosophy led by James H. Tufts, George H. Mead, Addison W. Moore, and later John Dewey. From these thinkers emerged an American school of thought known as pragmatism or radical empiricism, which Ames also labeled as “practical idealism.” While working on his thesis, Ames took a seminar with Tufts on the writings of John Locke. He learned that the empiricism of Locke, modified and developed, was to be found in the philosophy of pragmatism. Ames opined: “His significance does not lie in any finished and formulated system of philosophy or of religion. It consists rather in his practical, experimental, and common-sense attitude on all questions which he discussed. It was above all a method, a method of patient and reverent inquiry, and a courageous dismissal of old traditions and superstitions which could not justify themselves in the light of practical reason.”32 Ames received from this study a new perspective for “promoting religion without creeds, in cultivating a simple, practical kind of faith, with the broadest tolerance, and in experimenting gradually with all matters of organization, of interpretation of forms of worship, and of methods of religious education.”33 Ames was convinced that this approach provided fruitful avenues for fulfilling the Disciples’ desire for Christian union with all religious people of all faiths. In 1895, Ames stood an oral examination for the Ph.D. degree in philosophy. This was his first introduction to John Dewey, who was the new head of the department. His thesis was “The History of Agnosticism,” which had little appeal to Dewey. The exam was searching enough, with the result that Ames was invited to become an assistant professor in the department. In associating with these pragmatists, Ames “found a point of view and a method of thinking which transformed my thought and made philosophy a living, practical way of life.”34 Ames noted that Dewey’s philosophy was not involved in intellectual abstractions but, rather, was an empirical method for understanding real

16

Christian Pragmatism

human problems and guidance for solving the problems. Our minds are not separated from our experiences but are part of the endeavor to control and direct activity to positive ends. His adjustment to Dewey’s thought was assisted by his teaching a course on William James’ Psychology. In January, 1896, Ames taught a course on the theology of Alexander Campbell for the Disciples Divinity House through the University Divinity School, with primary focus on the relation of Campbell’s thought to that of John Locke. Campbell rejected the assumptions and method undergirding traditional theology and speculative metaphysics. Both Locke and Campbell agreed on the possibility of revelation, but insisted that the revelation be tested by reason. They also agreed that Christianity was a layperson’s faith and not based on ecclesiastical authority and also agreed on the principle of biblical interpretation, which later became known as higher criticism. Locke sought a new way of ideas which “was the empirical and pragmatic temper applied in religious matters.”35 Ames became very involved with the effort to establish Disciples Divinity House as the first theological school for the Disciples’ denomination. The immediate task was raising ten thousand dollars to purchase land for the future Disciples Divinity House. The University of Chicago would teach the divinity courses “in a genuinely undenominational spirit… taught… as objectively and as free from theological bias as mathematics or biology.”36 Ames found fund raising very difficult. During this first year of teaching and fund raising, Ames preached on Sunday at a mission church in Evanston, Illinois. Evanston was an established community with well established churches. There were around forty people who came together at a revival and became the core of the mission church, which would attract potential members from the underprivileged members of the community. These people were not acquainted with each other and shared no common doctrines or ideas of organization. In time new people joined and there developed a religious fellowship. Ames had spent the year teaching, raising money, and starting a mission church. None of these efforts provided adequate remuneration and kept Ames doing three different things at the same time. Late in the year he received an invitation from Butler College to teach, with no other responsibilities. Just after he accepted the Butler offer, he learned that President Harper had intended to appoint him full time in the philosophy department with a minor administrative post. Ames had no regrets with the move to Butler, for it provided him a focused job teaching philosophy, his primary interest.

Biographical

17

Butler College, a Disciples related institution founded in 1850, was located in Irvington, a suburb of Indianapolis, Indiana. This provided a small town environment with the benefits of a larger city nearby. Ames’ appointment was as professor of philosophy and education, with the position combined because the resources of the college could not justify two different appointments. Ames’ first taste of the charge of heresy occurred shortly after taking up his position at Butler. He had recently published an article in the Christian Quarterly entitled “A New Epoch among the Disciples.” In this article Ames presented the import of higher criticism and evolution for the Disciples. A professor at Bethany College wrote long articles in the orthodox Christian Standard charging Ames “with infidelity and pantheism and disloyalty to the cause.”37 The charges had no impact on his position at Butler, but the event did impress him with the difference between teaching in a tolerant academic environment and being either a teacher or preacher under conservative constraints.38 His duties as a professor of education placed him in the role of a teacher without religious questions arising. In addressing various groups of teachers, he felt a common, public interest among open-minded and free professionals who were seeking facts and methods that would result in reasonable and practical value. Ames reflected: “The journey home on the train that night was strangely happy. I felt that I had found my way into an open world where we were dealing with vitally important human problems simply in the light of the best knowledge and experience available… We might be mistaken about many things, but in an enterprise like that of education we had a right to make mistakes if they were made in efforts to find better ideas and systems of work, and if we were willing to recognize the mistakes when found and to do what we could to correct them. This attitude brought the zest and incentive of genuine responsibility.”39 William James continued to be a dominant influence on Ames. He realized that James had unsettled the traditional conception of a soul, the common view of God, and the ordinary conception of human nature being ruled by a unyielding determinism. James rejected the claims of any external authority and focused on the usual experiences which provided an account of truth which could be tested. The test involved acting on an idea and if it provided satisfactory results the idea is true. James’ doctrine of the self provided Ames with a perspective for understanding his own experience. He had been reared in a reasonable kind of piety sheltered by traditional ideas. This became his ministerial self who placed great store in the value of preaching instead of experimenting and testing to determine “whether it would work effectively in

18

Christian Pragmatism

making religion a really useful and powerful agency in conquering the world, the flesh, and the devil.”40 Ames’ other self developed after graduation from the divinity school due to exploring the fields of science and being exposed to pragmatism and the thinkers developing this perspective. He explained: “This self looked out upon a different scene. It was the scene of an evolving human race endeavoring through adventures and experiments in all directions to find its way into better conditions and fuller understanding of the meaning and destiny of its life… That was a thrilling scene. There were confusion and tragedy enough, but there was no general and complete surrender or despair.”41 From the understanding of two selves, Ames considered the possibility of bringing the two together in mutual understanding. On the one hand, he would apply the scientific and philosophic method of criticism and experimentation to the interpretation of religion. On the other hand, he would apply the faith, hope, and love of the aspiring self in order to get below the surface claims of religion by applying native intelligence with an increase of skill and insight. “Why should not the genuine values of religion as well as of education be taken for what they are and dealt with the same spirit and with same gradual fruitfulness?”42 Ames suggested that if a minister could look upon the ministerial role as being engaged in a normal and reasonable job without claim to a special or mysterious call, the ministerial self could have an inner consistence with itself, regardless of the piety or patronizing efforts of members of the congregation. During Ames’ three years at Butler, in addition to his teaching he also took courses in biology. From this experience he gained an insight into the amazing microscopic world. Especially exciting was the growing realization of the ascending animal world leading to humans. “What a pity, it seemed to me that so many students go on, one college generation after another, spending all or most of their time on so-called classical studies, without the slightest awareness of these interesting and illuminating fields of the natural sciences.”43 Ames suggested that a primary aim of a college education is learning that one plays a part, however small, in the total drama of nature and society. In the summer of 1900, Ames was invited to give some courses in philosophy at the University of Chicago. During the summer, the Hyde Park Disciples Church found itself without a minister and invited Ames to become their pastor. He noted that, in the ten years since graduating from Drake College, he had been more or less a minister in filling short pastorates and supplying pulpits. Upon deciding to accept the position, Ames had no indication of any possibility of teaching philosophy at the

Biographical

19

University. He explained that he decide to make the change based on three reasons. The first was that he just liked the city of Chicago. The second reason was, being a founding member of the congregation who was present at the first service; he had previously formed a close association with the people. “The third reason… was an opportunity to carry forward the development of a Disciples church in the larger traditions of the Disciples, with awareness of the need for interpreting religion in keeping with the spirit of the new age of thought, and in recognition of the outlook and manner of life in a great and rising city.”44 Ames reflected on his childhood religious heritage. Since childhood, he had considered the Disciples as a very important religious movement which should appeal to all right-minded persons. He understood this perspective to be based on the view that the teachings of the Disciples were in conformity to the New Testament. The chief stress was on the conditions of salvation. One needed to be converted, which required, according to the New Testament, “faith, repentance, confession, and baptism.”45 Of course baptism was by immersion. Creeds and doctrines were replaced by one’s personal commitment to Christ. If the churches were united in this personal commitment, Christianity would rapidly convert the world. Some years after being at Yale and after reading widely in psychology and philosophy, Ames made a discovery about his Disciples heritage—“the discovery that there was back of the body of ideas and attitudes of the Disciples a very important and respectable philosophical interpretation of man and religion… It was the philosophy of empiricism… which gave me a new interest in religion and attracted me to accept the Chicago pastorate.”46 In October, 1900, Ames began his pastorate at The Hyde Park Church, which was six years in existence with less than 100 members.47 The church was a little brick building, located on the land of the Disciples Divinity House. The interior consisted of the sanctuary equipped with opera chairs. This room could also be arranged for church dinners and larger gatherings. There were three small rooms off the main room; the kitchen and two multi-purpose rooms. There was another large room at the back of the kitchen which could be shut off by folding doors. It also served multi-purposes as the library, committee room, and meeting place for prayer meetings and other small gatherings. The financial strength of the church was very limited, with a debt on the building and a salary for Ames of $1800 a year. Although their finances were limited, “from its beginning the church contributed generously to foreign missions.”48 Sermons were not the center of the life of this congregation, just as the historic churches gave little prominence to sermons. “They developed and maintained their

20

Christian Pragmatism

religion by dramatic, ritualistic services, by music and symbolism, and by the human associations and idealisms that envelop all religious institutions.”49 Ames found deciding on his sermon topic ten days in advance, for announcement in the calendar, to be a good discipline. He did not like the word “theology” and openly expressed that he did not want a theology. He had ideas about religion, but these ideas were always open to revision and certainly were not to be imposed upon others. His first printed sermon was “A Personal Confession of Faith,” in June 1902. He stressed that he did not want to represent a “devitalized orthodoxy”. “I wanted it to be understood that this would be a free pulpit, that the denomination to which I belonged had discarded creeds, encouraged by individual liberty, and taught that characteristic religious experiences, like conversion, are capable of rational statement and have their true significance in ethical and practical life.”50 Ames stressed that the process of evolution continues in the life of the church. Salvation was conscious participation in deed and thought in the holy life and was not an escape from the consequences of original sin. He opined: “Salvation is ethical. It means developed character. It is a life process and signifies the realization of the natural powers of the soul. I believe that heaven is this participation in the divine life and that it may be enjoyed here and now. I believe that hell is the failure to attain this realization of one’s powers… I believe that there are two essential conditions of salvation, faith and repentance. Faith is the recognition of the ideal, repentance is the adjustment to it. I believe that Jesus Christ is the proper object of faith because his words and example inspire men to the highest spiritual life.”51 Ames had little interest in traditional doctrines, like the trinity, the pre-existence of Christ, the virgin birth, miracles, and substitution atonement. He proposed two lines of evidence which he thought modern persons could entertain regarding the supremacy of Christ. One line was found in Jesus’ inspiring teachings and the other in the tremendous influence of Jesus for the past two thousand years. Ames stressed that the church is essential to the salvation of the world but not because it was founded by Jesus. “The redemption of men is a social as well as a religious problem, and it therefore requires a social institution. All the great, persistent interests of humanity embody themselves in social organizations.”52 The church is just the natural product of the religious life. All who possess religious truth have the responsibility to share it with others. Although Ames felt that the contemporary church still suffered from ascetic ideals, he believed that Christianity was entering upon the most profound transformation since the encounter with Greek thought. “It will be freed from many encumbrances,

Biographical

21

purified from practices no longer beneficial, and enabled to exalt with unparalleled energy the spiritual and ethical ideal of Christ.”53 Ames found the congregation to be tolerant of his sermons, as the Disciples’ tradition did not require theological commitments of their ministers and instead allowed all members the freedom of interpreting all theological matters. In his confessional sermon Ames had raised the issue of immersion for baptism and whether it should be optional for new members. The Hyde Park Church first tried making immersion optional as a social and religious experiment. At first un-immersed persons were made associate members. It took sixteen years before all persons who believe in the ideals of Christ were accepted as members, regardless of whether they had been baptized by immersion. The Disciples had given the local churches final authority in practical matters, granting the utmost freedom of belief to individual members. Loyalty to Christ was the foundation of their fellowship, with cooperation and fellowship being more important than any formulation of beliefs. Ames viewed religion as the natural growth in human life. The Hyde Park Church was a laboratory where modifications in doctrines occurred without destroying the bonds of peace and fellowship. He hoped that persons of all creeds could function together within the fellowship of a local congregation. “But this experiment contemplated also the introduction of a system which would gain the values that come from the comprehension of differences, not by suppression but by free expression.”54 In America, Christians for the first time found themselves under the influence of a democracy. The government is empirical and open to adjustments, which Ames contended should be the same for religion. “What is needed is an interpretation and practice of religion to bring all religious people together, not only tolerating differences but using them to vitalize religious life.”55 For a church to be free, it must welcome all peoples who believe in the ideal of Jesus regardless of creeds or traditions. Shortly after arriving at Hyde Park Church, Ames was invited to teach elementary courses in the department of philosophy, which also included psychology and education. Every year he would teach one or more courses on the introduction to psychology, generally following the lines of James’ Psychology. In 1905, Ames taught for the first time a course on the psychology of religion. In developing this course, he was influenced by James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience, as well as the works by G. Stanley Hall, E. D. Starbuck, G. A. Coe and others. He found an interesting problem in psychology to be the development and transformation of the Christian deity. One factor of this problem “is that of developing a generous understanding of the fact that ideas and values of

22

Christian Pragmatism

the highest importance may be wrought from the humblest and simplest patterns of experience.”56 Another aspect of the problem is that terms have been used regarding Jesus’ spiritual meaning in a literal and materialistic fashion. Ames contended that the psychology of religion and social psychology provided insights into the state of religion in the United States. In a free society, many varying faiths will be evident. Most of our beliefs are not based on reason and critical evaluation but have been passed on to us in adolescence from our ancestral traditions. Ames contended that what people really seek is a worthwhile life with enduring values. He opined: “Appreciation of these values and the willingness to work for them, against whatever obstacles, are sufficient tokens of the religious life. Wholehearted devotion to them is the acceptable service of God. Reverence for such values is the essence of piety.”57 The key to understanding the religious life is found in how one’s self relates to one’s associates. It is in these relationships that we encounter God, “that other and larger self in which each little self lives and moves and has its being.”58 To be unaware of the many influences of others is to lack an essential ingredient of being a real person. “In such reflections as these, psychology discovers the real living self and its relation to that indescribably great other self with which each individual is bound up.”59 Ames found in the church a laboratory for cultivating and observing the processes of religion, with the university providing a place for systematic study of these processes. His experiments and systematic study were based on the premise that “we have reason to believe that the vast whole of which we are a part is responsive to what we do.”60

THEOLOGY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FUNCTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY (1906)

Functional psychology considers consciousness from the biological perspective, with particular emphasis upon this function as part of the total process of life. This view is contrasted with structural psychology which seeks an analysis of our mental life in terms of states and forms without specific reference to the needs of the organism in its environment. Functional psychology is thoroughly evolutionary in understanding that our mental life has evolved by developing processes of adapting the psycho-physical organism to our physical and social environment. In our adapting, our functional efforts employ dynamic instead of static concepts. Ames opined: “There is in reality no mere passivity… the organism is continually developing new ‘situations’ and ‘problems,’ in reference to which constant adjustment is made. …These impressions lead in turn to modifications in the movements; and thus a circuit of reactions is maintained. The organization of his efforts in order to make his activity most effective, and to attain the fullest satisfaction of his various needs, is one of the great concerns, psychologically expressed, of the human being.”61 Ames suggested that the truths of science and of metaphysics are to be tested in terms of whether they aid the life process. Science and philosophy are judged by their results. The claims of functional psychology encompass the whole domain of experience and philosophy. He noted that ethics involved the psychology of desire and volition and is separated from functional psychology as a matter of convenience. If we were to pursue the psychology of religion to its full extent it would involve the recognition and investigation of the primary problems of theology. Studying the evolution of religious consciousness has lessened claims of there being an intellectualist’s understanding of specific religious ideas. Ames suggested that supernatural conceptions were not fundamental in the development of early religion and played only a secondary or incidental role. He noted that art did not develop from love of beauty but, rather, art itself stimulated our senses in order that we may enjoy art. Ames explained: “In the same way it may be said that the religious consciousness is built up in the course of certain activities performed by the social group with reference to needs which are often of a very material kind.

24

Christian Pragmatism

Gradually this attitude is detached from the setting in which it arose, and becomes in turn a standard and test by which to determine whether other given experiences are religious or have religious value.”62 We see this first level of religious consciousness in the child’s primary concern with forms and ceremonies and only in late adolescence does profound questioning arise concerning the meaning and value of religious ceremonies and theological conceptions. The functional approach stresses the genesis and evolution in actual experience of theological concepts, which must be tested in terms of our conduct. “The distinguishing feature of the conception, however, is the element of meaning, the expression of relations.”63 Conceptions grow based upon experience, as varied experiences involve new perspectives for conceiving the experience. Ames contended that all theological concepts relate to our conceptions of God. The idea of God is not innate but arose with the power of generalizing and unifying experiences of practical interest. As society evolves; its conception of God changes in imagery and meaning. This growth in the idea of God reflects the evolution of the social organization, for the success of one group meant the subjugation of the conquered gods which led to their final extinction. Ames considered the idea of God to be undergoing the most radical transformation in the history of religions. “The change is from transcendence to the immanence of God. It is due to the rise of democratic institutions and the birth of an intense social consciousness.”64 In a democracy the standard of law and consistency are of essential importance. The significance of the state is found in the inner experiences of the individual citizens who are mutually interrelated and conditioned. “In such a society the old conception of a transcendent God is out of place, just as much as is the idea of an autocratic, arbitrary monarch.”65 Democratic government and intelligent self-control have resulted in major changes in our social consciousness, which serve as the causes and justification for conceiving God as immanent. In considering the evolution of the conception of God, we must also deal with the question of the truth and validity of our conception. Functional psychology rejects metaphysics and postulates that the genesis and development of an idea carries its own support for the truth or reality of the idea we experience. Ideas are always relative and conditioned but remain just as real. But on this account, psychology has led us to the frontier of metaphysics, which becomes a different kind of inquiry. The theological problem becomes, from the standpoint of transcendence, a question of whether there is an actual, objective reality corresponding to our subjective idea of God. Ames reminded us that no one has ever

Theology from the Standpoint of Functional Psychology (1906)

25

produced a satisfactory answer to this question. We have no criterion for judging that beyond experience, which only leads to skepticism. Kant, on the grounds of pure reason, postulated the idea of God as a regulative conception that in a practical way serves to unite and guide experience. In functional terms truth means value. Thus, the question, “Is the idea of God true?” really asks whether this idea is of value in actual experience. Does it help us to formulate our highest interests and to stimulate us in controlling efficient reactions of our will? If it performs this function it is real. If the idea fails in this function it is untrue. Ames amplifies: “By the same criterion, that conception of God is truest which aids most in guiding, ennobling, comforting, and strengthening man in his devotion to moral ends. The idea of God in this view becomes the great ‘working hypotheses of religion. It guides activity and is progressively modified by the results.”66 Ames found many examples confirming this view in the teachings of Jesus that what one is and does determines one’s truth. He also suggested that in the unfolding of his will, we gain from Jesus our deepest understanding of the meaning and power of his conception of God. Ames contended that this same principle applies to all theological conceptions. “The acceptance of the functional psychology means, then, for religion the recognition and justification of the gradual and continuous modifications of doctrines. It does not mean that these doctrines are inherently false, illusory, or useless.”67 Ames postulated that if we viewed changes in theology as indications of our growing religious life, theology could take its place among the sciences; which neither claim any infallibility of knowledge or method nor claim any conclusions as final. Theology has to face its fear of science and free investigation if it is to take its place among the sciences. Ames opined: “Working in the spirit and with the methods of modern science, recognizing the tentative nature of its principles, and setting itself patiently but bravely to practical experiments, religion may yet hope to enter upon more secure and substantial progress, just as education and other forms of social activity have done.”68

PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (1910)

According to Ames, the purpose of religion is to obtain life abundantly. He approached the religious experience from the perspective of functional psychology, which encompassed both genetic and social factors. This approach is built on the hypothesis that religion is the consciousness of the highest social values which are idealized expressions of the most elemental and urgent life impulses. The psychology of religion began about the turn of the twentieth century in works by W. James, G. A. Coe, and E. D. Starbuck, who provided the foundation for the growing conviction that “many facts of religious experience might afford assistance in understanding the typical processes treated by general psychology, such as those of habit, attention, and emotion, both in normal and in abnormal forms.”69 In order to obtain this assistance, it was realized that we must understand the psychological processes in order to control and direct them. Focus was directed on historical and anthropological research which considered the diverse religions of early peoples and their customs—“of the nature and scope of custom, or social habit, in early society, and the relation to custom of ritual, sacrifice, prayer, taboo, magic, and myth.”70 This research revealed the striking uniformity in early religions as well as their diversity of content and formal expression, which led to the psychological questions of how religion arose and what are their psychological grounds, including their differences and likenesses. Ames opined: “The central problem here is the psychological problem concerning the nature and the significance of religious ideas, and whether, if they lose their value as knowledge, they may still retain importance in other aspects of experience, such as may be involved in the conservation of value.”71 Religion is a matter of a person’s point of view, which includes a common foundation of emotion. From a functional psychological view of the mental life of humans, we conceive of our minds as instruments of adaptation by which we adjust to our environment. This perspective emphasizes the actions and processes which relate to ends or adjustments to the physical or social environment and are registered by definite neural activity. “The conception of the mind as an instrument of adjustment and adaptation is a biological conception and marks the radical transformation which psychology has undergone through the influence of

28

Christian Pragmatism

the science of biology. This implies the general doctrine of evolution.”72 It is only in humans that the mind has evolved so as to effect preservation in spite of strange and variable conditions. It is this functioning which enables us to adjust to complex areas of our experience in society as well as nature. This understanding conforms to John Locke’s notion that one can only understand an idea within its history and effects. When we perceive an object, we perceive that object in a particular stage of its existence. Ames explained: “In psychology, in the same way, sensations, ideas, memories, and the rest are not taken as existences which can be treated primarily as to their own peculiar nature and secondarily as to their combination and operation in experience, but they are primarily phases of a going life, which becomes abstract and artificial when considered in piecemeal, frozen sections.”73 Another characteristic of functional psychology is that activity implicated in adjustments to ends, whether simple or complex, involves adjustment in the psycho-physical environment. These adjustments are the mind-body process correlating all mental and bodily states. Ideas are dynamic activities gained from sensations or feelings involved in the activities of bodily processes. Ames explained: “There is therefore no sharp break between mental and physical activity, between idea and deed. It is impossible to separate the ideational process from the bodily factors.”74 Ames noted implications of specific principles of functional psychology. One was that the will is voluntaristic, with ideation and feeling being secondary. The activity of the will is toward selected ends, but this activity is often involved in conflicting interests. Functional or voluntaristic psychology differs from rational psychology by providing a new sense of the depth of mental life which reveals instinctive thrusts of action, as well as the power of limitations, suggestions, and unclear halfconscious elements. In contrast to these rational elements which appear on the surface, experience also includes vast stratifications far below. Another implication is that there is no such thing as consciousness in general, for conscious is always specific. Function psychology demonstrates its pragmatic tendency by contending that consciousness grows through an increase in the wealth of particular experiences, their diversity, and the manner in which they organize and guide action. Ames noted that this insight also applies to moral and religious consciousness. He explained: “Each involves specific content and experience. Neither is inevitable. Persons exist without either, and each is attained, if at all, by gradual development and in degree.”75 Ames also applied functional psychology to philosophy, contending that psychology is part of the biological sciences but has a peculiar relation to

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

29

philosophy in that philosophical studies elaborate particular phases of psychology. Ethics centers on issues of volitions and makes these its chief concern, focusing the issues in relation to human history and social relations. Ames contended that this perspective also applies to aesthetics and to the relation of psychology and logic, epistemology and metaphysics, for these perspectives “are one in treating ideation in reference to practical activity.”76 All real ideas emerge from the bursting stream of concrete experience and retain this foundation so long as the experience retains its vitality. The function of these ideas is to mediate and to adapt to emerging concrete experiences. As we attempt to comprehend the nature and function of consciousness, we are without doubt forced to explore the nature of reality as essential to the process of our gaining knowledge. Ames, in his rejection of theology, argued that psychology of religious experiences functions as the science “which in its developed forms become theology or philosophy of religion.”77 Since psychology deals with the totality of human nature, it is also involved in religion in exploring its genetic and historical method. Through a study of the history of religion, especially of primitive people working out their psychology of religion, these psychical experiences and processes are explored in their physical environment and provide a fruitful method for dealing with reality, including the reality of religion. Ames opined: “But the importance of the early stages of mental development consists chiefly in making clear the processes through which the differentiation of consciousness arises, the course by which they move forward, and the relations which the various aspects bear to one another… [in order] that one may be able to dissociate the permanent principles of religion from its accidental content, and gain a perspective in which the developed, historical religions may be interpreted.”78 In Part II, Ames sought to explore the origin of religion in the human race: “the original driving impulses which resulted in social customs and institutions.”79 Of course food and sex were their greatest interest, with women limited in occupations by children which formed the essential social bond. With males attached to specific women and children, a basic social whole was established. Women, through their sexual orientation, became the center of the social group generating enterprise as well as warfare. On this point Ames was in agreement with John Dewey that the occupational activities afford the scheme or pattern of the structural organization. For earlier peoples the ceremonial or cult was the essential thing in their religion. In its first form, religion reflected the important group interests based on activities which involve social symbols and ceremo-

30

Christian Pragmatism

nials. Ames contended that the law of parallelism applies to early religion in that diverse groups exhibited essentially the same mental and social progress, which they follow unconsciously and without question. The other side of custom is taboo, which came to be identified with religion as rules from a divine being. “There is abundant evidence that primitive customs and taboos do not arise from ideas or from systems of belief, and modern psychology has made it possible to account for such usages upon other and far more convincing grounds.”80 Psychology affords the understanding that habits are often created by direct response to our needs without cognitive reflection. In Ames’ chapter on “Ceremonials and Magic” he explains that customs reflect the life-habits of a people and are equivalent to mores or folk-ways. The leaders established ceremonies to mark special events of the cultus. What interested Ames was the practical and emotional significances of these practices as illustrated in the behavior itself and its effects. He explained: “The proper question here is not what is believed or what is thought, but what is done, what is effected… what makes them religious acts is their public and social character.”81 As Irving King indicated, religion in primitive people was to control the actions of individuals and of the group, which strengthen tribal unity especially in time of crisis. The chief ceremonials related to the recurring cycle of the seasons. These ceremonials are magical and have reference to spirits. Ames noted that “the view set forth here is that magic and spiritism are characteristic features of all activities and interests of the savage and are not peculiar to his religion.”82 Spirits were modeled by humans based on their conception of their own souls, with the purpose being to explain nature based on their primitive theory that nature is totally animated. Ames opined: “It is therefore a fundamental fallacy to assume that the soul of primitive man became aware of its activity and spiritual character in any prior or independent way which would justify the statement that it served as a type or model for framing ideas of all other spirits.”83 However, no consistent distinction was made between humans and their spirits and other objects and its spirits. Their notion of spirits was not based on any conception of a spiritual being or supernatural agent. Primitive people did not distinguish between object and spirit. The spirits considered religious were those most important to the functions and interests of the group and to which the group responded with intensity and solidarity. Thus, it was essential to the life of the group that proper attention was given to an object or spirit. Ames explained: “The growth and objectification of the gods goes hand in hand with the social experiences and achievements of the nation. The life of the tribe is registered in its sacred object. When the

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

31

tribe attains some social history, preserved in oral traditions and various monuments, then the god is credited with long life in the past. …As the moral experiences of the people grow, the moral character of the tribal spirit improves; or, more accurately, as the moral sense of the controlling, dominant social forces improves, the spirit or god gradually takes on an exalted character.”84 Worship was derived from the ceremonial aspect of the cultus, with sacrifice and prayer being two factors important in the later development of religion. Ames focused on the role of sacrifice for the cultus in terms of the acts involved, with the most basic act being the ritual of eating sacrificial food. The food first was processed by complicated rites which involved magical elements that substituted the act of eating the food for the sacred object, resulting in the union of the eater and that which is eaten. Ames cautioned against viewing these rudimentary acts as being supported by complex intellectual presuppositions. Note should be given to the social nature of the food process and the sacrificial feast. In this early stage of religion, the blood was to convey the holy life being joined to the group and was not related to a cleansing of impurities by individuals or the group. As with everything mysterious, eating the sacrificial food was the most direct way of gaining the power of the sacred object. The notion of sacrifice as an atonement for sin is a very modern idea. For primitive people, there was no moral law in support of an individual act being a sin; there was only a breaking of a custom or taboo. Prayer was secondary in primitive religion, with language developing due to practical needs. Ames cautioned against the fallacy of inferring that the social character of language “is evidence of the presence of notions of ego and alter or of any idea of personality.”85 Although the people were constantly in conversation in their minds, prayer was basically a group affair. The improper use of prayer was considered dangerous, for prayer exerted magical influences. The efficacy of prayer related not so much to the words employed but to the magical power of the ceremony. The most spiritual and spontaneous prayers usually open and close with references to the name of the deity, which interestingly perpetuates the form at least of superstitious practices. Ames noted that with the scientific conception of nature, the magical element of prayer was gradually eliminated, and prayer became increasingly meditation and communion. Myths and mythology were equivalent to cult-lore in contrast to less sacred legends. The cult-lore was intimately related to the sacred ceremonials in which the stories of creation and other significant interests were reproduced. The actors are the gods, with legends and mystic tales as folk-lore. Ames noted several distinguishing marks that are evidences of

32

Christian Pragmatism

mysterious sacredness: “The cult-myths are not spoken of or repeated on ordinary occasions… When the myth proper is told it is preceded by fasting and prayer… told in an archaic or other strange language.”86 It is myths which provide psychological union to the ceremonial, for they express the social significance and value which makes the activity religious. Ames contended that our central nervous system enables us to have sensory and memory images, with our brain states involving some corresponding mental state. He explained: “The idea cannot be present without at least incipient action, and the action cannot occur, certainly not in situations where there is inhibition and obstruction, without ideation. The myths of the ceremonials are verbal expressions which disclose the ideational processes of the actors, just as their bodily movements in pantomime express the same meaning. Therefore, both the bodily movements and the verbal expressions of the ceremonial on the one side, and the corresponding mental imagery on the other, are to be understood as simultaneous and mutually determined effects of the underlying biological impulsive actions.”87 Adjusting to one’s environment was key to survival. The myths dealt chiefly with the experiences of the tribe seeking self-preservation. All primitive human experiences were conceived as anthropomorphic, suffused with warmth and intimacy. In later periods with closer social organization, mythology increasingly involved human characters, which reflected a transition in interests that led to the transformation of deities from animal to anthropomorphic gods. Under the influence of new people, adjustments were made to the rituals and myths, with changes occurring in myths earlier than in the cult. Ames suggested that in seeking a degree of reasonableness we have attributed to myths an unwarranted sophistication, as “everything known about the primitive mind supports the inference that to it there is little appreciation of cosmic distances or forces.”88 Ames contended that it is misleading to attribute to primitive myths generalizations which apply to modern times. Certainly primitive people evidenced great emotions, but great emotions do not necessarily produce great ideas. However, Ames suggested that “an instinctive sense of awe attends the contemplation of anything which passes the limits of our calculation, particularly if in some way there is at the same time some suggestive sensuous content.”89 It would be a mistake, on the basis of this instinctive sense of awe, to suggest that symbols employed in separate traditions share a common rational content. Ames opined: “But the similarity in myths of the different races is more directly due to the similar habits and customs arising in experience with similar environment and racial temper. This hypothesis also accounts for the variations.”90

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

33

Ames viewed the origin of religion to be sought in the origin of social consciousness. One’s religious consciousness is identified with the consciousness focused on what were considered the highest values. Certainly self preservation was such a value, but it applied essentially to the group and less to the individual. Religions change and develop when the social interests of the group, especially related to economic forces, expands by becoming more inclusive, with the result being a more esthetic ritual and a more moralized conception of human relations. “Unless there is development in social organization, and in methods of controlling nature, there can be no advance in religion.”91 This process applies to religion of the Hebrews, as well to the religion of the Snake Indians. As the Hebrew culture shifted from sheep to agriculture, it became settled in Palestine with Yahweh becoming more humanized with new customs and ceremonies. Over the centuries Yahweh was viewed as a mighty monarch and later as superior to other gods. Isaiah carried this conception to its farthest point by advocating that nothing but faith in Yahweh and conformity to the simplicity of the ancient religion are essential. The conception of Yahweh continued to change with the rise of Christianity. Instead of Yahweh being defeated by the Romans, Yahweh was said to be working out a plan as the god of nations. All one needed was faith, which involved an ethical inwardness, in Yahweh to be forgiven, blessed and a member of the spiritual kingdom. As Christianity has moved into a new age of science, it has been confronted by new types of social consciousness in which our view of human and divine are undergoing changes. Ames opined: “With the gradual working out of democratic ideals in society and the application of scientific methods and results to the whole round of human interests and endeavor there are hints of the rise of a religion of science and democracy… religion must continue to advance in the future, as in the past, in close relation with the concrete life of mankind.”92 Ames shifted his focus to the problem of the rise of religion in the individual, which he suggested could be resolved by dealing with the issue of the origin of social consciousness. Thus, the task of psychology, employing the method of observation, is to investigate the nature of the child in relation to social and religious ideas and their accompanying activities in order to determine when the child attains the capacities that enable one to share fully in the life of the community. According to modern psychology, only the mature individual is in possession of a soul “in the sense of a substantial and static entity within him and only accepts the term reluctantly when it is made synonymous with person or agent.”93 The child is not instinctively religious nor has a special endowment in

34

Christian Pragmatism

support of religion. Religion is a group experience in which participants cooperate to secure and preserve those ideals which possess for them the greatest value. The child must reach puberty before manifesting tendencies and attitudes social and religious in character. Ames explained: “It is this regard for the opinion of others which makes one amenable to the customs of society, and brings one into relation and cooperation with the conventions, fashions, duties, and ideals of society. Without this susceptibility to the opinion and example of others one is lacking in the essential quality of sociability.”94 Ames suggested that normal religious development for adolescents is a gradual process of growth which also includes spontaneous awakening. The process of growth differs with each individual depending on the temperament and experiences of the individual. Growth is not a process of regular movement. He noted: “The ideal growth in any organism is that which maintains proportion, fosters adaptability, and affords energy. The ideal religious development is that in which the individual progressively participates in the practical activities and ethical consciousness of the best of the race.”95 This growth implies an operational educational system which mediates the experiences and enthusiasm of society in order that the child can develop the fullest life at each stage of development. Ames protested against modern educational psychology in suggesting that education is not a preparation for life but rather is a means to a larger life as each stage unfolds. In theory the educational process is abstracted from the actual religious experience, enabling the quality of religion to be somehow transferred to the student. If the educational process is tied to a given historical tradition, religious education is inadequate. Ames opined: “So long as this fallacy persists the educational process cannot be fully accepted as the instrument of religious development. It is the task of the psychology of religion to discover the nature, genesis, and development of the religious consciousness, in terms of mental life of the race and the individual. In the light of its results it may determine whether the educational process is the natural and necessary method of cultivating religion in the individual.”96 Religion reveals the spirit of the people and no person in that society should be excluded from being considered religious. Each child is spontaneous, although different in temperament and energy, and focuses on instinctively selective activity, which should be the determining factor in selecting the materials needed to satisfy the growth of the child. Religious education must respect the nature of the child and each child’s individuality. This approach requires training in small groups, which includes more than an intellectual focus. There must be a diversity of

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

35

subjects which demonstrate valuable habits and enables the child to discover a sense of usefulness. “In this way his emotions are more likely to grow out of real interests, rather than to arise as detached experiences.”97 This approach will enable the child to continue the process of intellectual and religious growth beyond adolescent years. Ames considered conversion from the perspective of psychology of religion. He noted that the conversion process involves three stages. One moves from a sense of perplexity or sin to a turning point, which results in an intense relaxation and relief that enables one to focus toward a new life. Ames concluded that “unless conversion is preceded or followed by the effective development of habits belonging to good character, then conversion becomes a momentary emotion with no positive significance.”98 A defect of conversion is that it reinforces the need for the excitement and emotion of a revival. However, in religion as in medicine, the focus should be on prevention and proper development, which requires salvation by education instead of by conversion. In Part IV, Ames focused on the place of religion for the individual as well as for society, in light of the rapid advances in our increasingly technological, mass culture. He sought in this more complex society a return to natural religion which undergirds all socialized human experience. Such a focus requires overcoming the fallacy of identifying a stage of development with the whole process. Based on a critical perspective of customs which provide moral character through reflection and self-direction, religion is manifest in our moral ideals and rational process of control. This reflection will involve an imaginative understanding of the historical development of religion “in order to make it effective in a new environment.”99 Religion is in a continual process of adjustment and change which requires of us experimentation and progress as moral demands in all activities. In this process religious significance is involved in all activities. With the diversity of religious institutions in our society, there will be conflict among religions as with other types of social experience which can be overcome only by the onward movement of humanities’ social development. Ames contended that an understanding of the concrete relation of religion to our total life process affords a correction to the flawed view that an individual’s religion is due to a unique instinct or faculty. Early views of our human nature divided our mental capacity into reason, feeling, and volition. Our modern view of psychology combines these capacities into an alliance of complex functional activity. Religion is not to be viewed as separate from our habits and attitudes, as they only differ in method and emphasis from our other areas of interest. “The religious

36

Christian Pragmatism

nature is not something distinguishable and separable in any mechanical and exclusive way.”100 Many view faith as a special endowment or experience which is the instrument of religion, as knowledge is the instrument of science. Ames rejected this fallacy and suggested that both science and religion are involved in the total mental life. Emotion, imagination, reason and action are but differentiated centers of harmonizing interest which should not be confused with the piecemeal view of faith which involves many problems. Ames does not claim that functional psychology solves all these problems, but he does contend that it resolves many by focusing on faith as the purposive factor in activity. Ames opined: “It may be said that wherever there is an ideal of any kind, there is faith… It is the attitude which belongs to a live proposition accepted as a practical plan of action. Religious faith is differentiated from other types of faith simply by the ends or ideas which it seeks. Faith in ideals which are felt to be the highest, the most valuable, and the most essential, is religious faith. Religious faith is therefore only another term for the religious consciousness itself, since that consciousness is purposive and dynamic and centres in supreme ideal values.”101 In this fashion functional psychology reconciles faith and works. Ames focused on the new developments in psychology and the biological sciences which have revealed the great extent we are dominated by our instinct, desire, habit, and emotion, instead of being controlled by explicit ideas and methods of reasoning. He also noted that non-rational mob-reaction has increased in its social importance. Modern psychologists no longer consider there to be a radical difference between humans and other animals. Ames explained: “Man’s higher intelligence is directly related to his possession of more instincts than any other animal possesses… also that man has actually a greater number and variety of instincts, but also that it is in their conflict and tendency to inhibit each other that reflective, cognitive consciousness is called forth.”102 He relied on William James’ analysis of voluntary action which indicated that impulsive and involuntary activities are presupposed in the ideational processes—that the idea of an act is derived from the act. Ames opined: “Ideas or concepts may be regarded, then, as abbreviate shorthand symbols of the longer, more complete systems of motor activities and adjustments… It is particularly important to note here that so long as they remain normal and fulfill their true and proper functions, these ideas retain their dynamic character.”103 Ames suggested that one must appreciate their activities and tendencies in understanding religious ideas. He noted that forms of religious thought

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

37

directly reflect the pattern of social organization. Under monarchical systems the deity is conceived in transcendent and paternalistic terms. In a democracy, the deity is less paternal due to the primary focus being the ideal of justice and equality. He explained: “A person’s idea of God may be taken as comprehending the highest ideal interests known or felt by him. It stands therefore for concrete purposeful activity and effort in those directions… But where the idea of God is the embodiment of ideals arising from democratic social movements its presence in the mind expresses itself in motor reactions indicative of respect for the welfare of all members of society. The thought of God is then accompanied by impulses toward social conduct.”104 As society changes, so do the ideas and habits because they no longer fulfill the felt needs of society. The major problem related to the truth of ideas is that attempts are made to validate the ideas apart from the system of conduct in which they can be considered true or false. The idea of god, involves a living process in the working of which human needs are satisfied. “The reality answering to the idea of God, it may be said, must include, at its best, all that is involved in the deep instinctive historical and social consciousness of the race. It signifies the justice which government symbolizes, the truth which science unfolds, and the beauty which art strives to express.”105 The god-idea is not static but is generally conceived in terms of personality that is engaged in purposeful activity. If one conceives the god-idea as an existent person, one is confronted with abundant inconsistencies. For Ames, the god-idea should be considered as a teleological idea that shares fundamentally in the nature of all ideas, as all our ideas involve value. He noted that Christianity, with its doctrines more rigidly projected as fixed and final truths instead of as working hypotheses subject to constant revision in light of additional experience and reflection, had greater difficulty in adjusting its god-idea in light of our expanding knowledge. Ames rejected E. D. Starbuck’s view that religion is a feeling adjustment to the depth of life and the larger reality which confronts us—a feeling which cannot be explained in cognitive terms. He also rejected J. B. Platt’s contention that affective consciousness appears in three characteristic stages. Ames suggested that both scholars failed to discriminate adequately between feeling and the subconscious. He postulated that modern psychologists increasingly agreed that the most original and basic characteristic of human life is our dynamic, instinctive adjustment capacity without subordinating them to intellectual functions or by defining feeling with all that is considered non-rational. Ames preferred William James’ and C. L. Lange’s theory, with which John Dewey basically agreed, that “the emotion is the feeling involved in the different

38

Christian Pragmatism

types of action elicited in a given situation or with reference to a certain object. …The emotion therefore follows upon the activity and is the feeling of the bodily changes involved in the activity.”106 It is in complex situations that one experiences inner tension between fear and courage. As noted, feeling is secondary to the life process of adjustment; it is the background of instinctive, habitual and teleological action which causes adjustment to be more complex. Ames explained: “The function of feeling in the total experience may be stated as that of a sign of the value of the activity in which the organism is engaged.”107 Feeling is not an original factor of experience nor its proper end. Therefore, it is not a valid objective of conduct. However, feelings accompany the most vital experiences, which we often characterize as religious experiences. Ames stressed that “both intellectual and affective elements in religious experience are secondary to and conditioned upon instinctive activity—habit, custom, imitation—and the interplay of various types of such activity.”108 Ames viewed religion as the deepest phase of the social consciousness. In the higher religions, this phase of social consciousness is diverse and inclusive, being guided by intelligence and open to constant changes in light of our growing experiences. “In religion thus conceived there is that constant interplay of habit and attention, of the old and the new which belongs necessarily and inherently to vital processes.”109 This is the situation modern society confronts as it must change and face constant readjustment trying to figure out what is essential and what is nonessential in the religious experience. This adjustment for Christianity has been made more difficult by the emotion of pity conveyed in the image of an innocent Christ on the cross. He suggested further difficulties in what Ames describe as the brooding problems of Calvinism. The corrective to the perversions of feeling in Calvinism requires an objective and critical evaluation of conduct involved and replacing the perverse conduct with more serviceable activities supportive of humans’ social interests. Ames explained: “The most ideal affections and emotions are therefore those which spring from efforts to make actual and secure a thoroughly socialized human life constantly moving forward through the free and harmonized activity of the individual members of the society. Here is involved the highest practical task and the ultimate satisfaction of both religion and morality.”110 This is similar to Dewey’s view that one is happy because the action fulfills one’s life. Ames addressed the issue of genius and inspiration from the perspective of psychology. A person of notable achievement has often been viewed to have a unique or supernaturally inspired character not ruled by

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

39

the laws of common experience. In more modern times inspiration has been replaced in unique individuals by the term “genius.” The method of science requires that all factors and functions of the mental life be examined, with the result that claims of uniqueness are vitiated because the mind cannot involve factors which are radically different from ordinary experience. History has provided the understanding that our ideas are indebted to past generations who have faced similar situations. However, individuals with unique capacities and abilities are more likely to rise to eminence in spite of obstacles. Ames rejected the view of Sir Francis Galton that race is a dominant factor in the production of geniuses. Rather, geniuses arise to meet some vital crisis facing the entire social group. Ames explained: “The rapidly developing scientific spirit in all civilized countries furnishes cumulative evidence that great men are products of something more than original native endowment or racial inheritance. They come with the confluence of great economic and social interests which give a set to attention and furnish intense stimulation and a wealth of suggestion.”111 These persons of note are those who possess more fully the social consciousness and seek to increase its development. Religious prophets generally claim their message to be based on supernatural inspiration or revelation. Ames indicated that prophets were not limited to the Hebrew prophets, because it was universal for early humans to have unique persons who had experienced the phenomena of possession. The importance of prophets has been judged by their ethical appeal and by the group’s understanding of social judgment and conscience. Ames indicated that modern psychology has to some extent explained cases of inspiration. “The common factor in all these cases, including those of the prophetic experience, is the consciousness of being the more or less passive instrument or agent of forces outside one’s conscious self. This consciousness cannot be any proof that one is really subject to influences of a supernatural kind… this feeling of externality and urgency is no guarantee of the superior quality or wisdom of the message which it accompanies… It must therefore be regarded as an incidental and negligible phenomenon.”112 The truth or validity of any claim must be supported by objective and verifiable testing and whether it serves consistent action. Ames concluded: “The genius, whatever the sphere of his activity, is an individual of remarkable native ability profoundly saturated with the social consciousness, and operating effectively to bring that consciousness to greater clearness and efficiency.”113 In considering the topic of “nonreligious persons,” Ames supported the contention that all persons are incurably religious based on the psycholog-

40

Christian Pragmatism

ical premise “that man possesses no special instinct or endowment which makes him religious, but that he is capable of developing the attitudes and habits which are religious.”114 For early humans there could be no nonreligious persons because their customs were imperative and inexorable. It is the modern world of individualism that has loosened the bonds of group morality to the extent that many persons in civilized societies are not religious. “If religion is viewed as participation in the ideal values of the social consciousness, then those who do not share in this social consciousness are non-religious.”115 Ames noted that there are classes of nonreligious persons. One class would be those who lack the mental capacity or the organization of impulses that would enable them to appreciate and pursue ideals. Social life requires one having the imagination which would enable one to relate sensitively to the experiences of other people in a consistent and dependable fashion. “In this social world of the imagination exists the real commandments of the moral law and the duties of the spiritual life.”116 A second type of nonreligious persons are those, neither defective nor diseased, whose mental life is not organized to recognized the moral and social nature of the society. Ames viewed this type as irresponsible persons basically dominated by sensuous impulses. The third type of nonreligious persons is the criminal class which conceives other persons and society as subordinate to their interests and desires. Ames stressed that religious consciousness, like other attitudes, requires cultivation and growth instead of neglect. “It is dependent upon attention, association, and habit, and in a growing social order a process of readjustment and adaptation is as necessary in religion as in any other interest.”117 An issue of importance to liberal Protestants was that the evolving world order is so vast and undisciplined that we lack adequate and convincing symbols for dealing with this constant changing reality. A more crucial issue was the emergence of rationalistic and liberal social interests within Protestantism. Within this transition period a diverse variety of types of religious consciousness developed. “Among the most characteristic are those who live in the new world of business and social concerns but cling to the old religious terms and notions…”118 Being oriented toward ancient traditions and languages and splintered into separate denominational institutions, religion was effectively isolated. One could concentrate on business or social concerns during the week and on Sunday withdraw into one’s religious community. Modern ideals had not yet developed an adequate history and authority to give them religious value. To deal with our ever changing world of science and industry, Ames contended that religion must develop an appreciation for our social

Psychology of Religious Experience (1910)

41

reality in light of the evolutionary processes and the inherent ideals of our human moral order. From this expanded perspective religion would more adequately express “the feeling for reality and experience which is coming to be recognized as the substance of modern religious faith.”119

DIVINITY OF CHRIST (1911)

Ames contended that Christianity was founded on the personality, vision and example of Jesus. The church consists of those committed to Jesus and who followed him in service to God and humanity. Ames defined belief as conviction that controls our actions. He explained: “Therefore, to believe in Jesus meant to imitate his example, to enter into his sympathy with his purposes, to cooperate with him in establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth.”120 The favorite reference to Jesus was that he was the son of God. One became a disciple of Jesus by ordering one’s life by the spiritual standard of the kingdom of heaven— “to repent, to be faithful, to bear fruit, or to love one’s neighbor.”121 Belief in Jesus was another form of this test, as Jesus wanted to be known by deed rather than words. One’s faith was demonstrated by caring for those in need. Ames noted that we usually start with discussing the nature of God and from this position attempt to demonstrate that Jesus is God’s son. He suggested that the opposite approach was more historical; to start with the life of Jesus and from it to gain an insight into the nature of God with the key being that Jesus was the revelation of God. “In other words the reasonable and the satisfying thing to believe, and to act upon the belief, that God is as good and as gracious as Jesus Christ.”122 Ames found that thinking people were more troubled about the nature of God than about the nature of Jesus, for Jesus was a man born of the bosom of the earth with his personality formed by nature. His followers found it inspiring to believe that the spiritual qualities of Jesus belonged to the world itself. Ames opined: “To be convinced that the stars in their courses, and the tides of human history are guided by the same love of the truth, the same tender concern for human souls and the same indignation against all forms of evil and injustice, as are found in the pure heart of Jesus—this is to possess the highest form of religious faith.”123 The dominant quality of Jesus’ character was love, which serves to indicate how God may be interpreted through Christ. Ames contended that the world had never known such love before—a love that could overcome our bitter divisions. It was in this love of Jesus that his disciples began to envision a universal love of God for the world. Jesus demonstrated his spiritual sonship to God—his divinity—by the voluntary choice to do his Father’s will. Ames explained: “Nothing but this inner self surrender of

44

Christian Pragmatism

every lesser thing in order to give himself wholly to the purposes of the divine will, could surely establish his oneness with God. And this claim of divinity squares itself with the profoundest conceptions of morality and religion.”124 Ames dismissed the old arguments for the divinity of Christ as being scholastic and deductive instead of experimental and ethical, as evidenced in contemporary psychological and sociological studies of Jesus. Instead we should focus on the words and deeds of Jesus, which Ames suggested “are actual facts of history and are accessible to the strictest scientific investigation. They stand on their own truth and moral power… [and] remain the sharpest criticism, the highest moral teaching and the finest examples of spiritual faith and courage which the world has seen. They are therefore norms and standards for our ideas of God, of duty and destiny.”125 He also noted that Jesus was a most relentless critic of the church who urged upon it a more simple and vital faith and more complete devotion to the care of those in need. “He is divine if any being in all the known universe of human history is divine, for he himself has been the bearer of divine life to the world.”126 In Chapter Two, Ames dealt with “the Empirical View of Jesus” and found himself under attack for this position. In exploring this perspective, Ames stressed that the biblical record should be taken critically in order to discover the place of Christ in biblical cosmology. The Greek influences should be noted for they illustrate how custom and habit are accepted as divine revelation and final truth. He cautioned “that these miracles and this birth should still be regarded by informed men of the present day as actual, literal facts is striking evidence of how much of the primitive age of child wonder and savage credulity still survive in the world.”127 These miracles can only be taken for what they meant in the past. The issue of the divinity of Christ began in primitive mythology. A contemporary discussion of Christ’s divinity should exclude the old dualism of naturalism verses supernaturalism and in place of divinity the focus should be on Jesus’ goodness and worth, for in the modern world we judge people in terms of their intellectual, ethical and social contributions. Ames wrote: “The old metaphysical conceptions of personality with their vocabulary of indivisible substance and special endowments are passing away. God, as well as men, is subject to new tests—tests of an ethical sort.”128 Ames was not interested in ontology and whether Christ relates to the world of substance. His focus was on the personality of Jesus, which he considered to reveal the heart of the world. “In the same way a noble man is proof that the world, the material, mental, spiritual world, has expressed

Divinity of Christ (1911)

45

itself in him. He is a revelation of the world, of the nature of God… Jesus Christ seems to me to be a revelation of the best things we know about the world.”129 For Ames, Christ is a reality which combines the actual and the ideal. In light of the development of a more urban and technological society, Ames was aware of the importance of developing adequate social services in this rapidly changing environment, which led him to stress Jesus’ social teachings. He was convinced that Jesus Christ was a kind of pledge and promise of what humans may accomplish. Ames explained: “Christ is an imitable type, that his mind and will are increasingly reproduced and that in the far future it may be possible that society, even in commerce and business, shall be controlled by his will and move in harmony with his purposes. This seems to me the supreme empirical test of Christ… If so, then Jesus will be shown to be not an abnormality, but a normal product in our world… equal to the creation of a race of Christian men.”130 Christ is viewed as having presented a problem for our wills—what will we do about Christ’s example and ideal of a good life. If humans can develop a society that expresses the ideal of a good life, then Jesus will be proved good. If we fail, then Jesus’ ideal will be shown to be less than the best for our world. Ames next focused on “Why I am not a Unitarian.” He found Unitarians to be too negative and suggested that they did “not furnish the will the normal motives for action nor supply the emotions sufficient expression. It lacks great socializing tendencies…”131 For Ames, the Disciples provided the freedom to restate religious truth—more in terms of life than with doctrines—in the new way of thinking required in the age of scientific knowledge and social democracy. This new way of thinking is known as empiricism, pragmatism, and humanism. Ames noted that Unitarians remain concerned with the old Greek dilemma that substance must be either one or many, with their insisting that God is one. He found this view untenable because God, like any other reality, is both one and many. Ames further suggested that the modern focus on personality supported his position. He explained: “The doctrine that each person is in reality a congeries of many selves, or systems of habits, has the sanction of the highest authority in psychology… But when substance is taken dynamically and organically—the only way in which we can any longer think of personality—then it may be both one and many without contradiction or inconsistency. With the acceptance of this modern conception of personality, we do not so much solve the old dilemma. We escape it. It becomes unreal.”132

46

Christian Pragmatism

The second reason Ames was not a Unitarian was because it retained a dualism between the natural and the supernatural, with God being on the side of the supernatural and humans being on the side of the natural. He noted that later Unitarians identified Jesus as being on the human level as the greatest ethical teacher. “They insist that Christ has been too much identified with deity; man has been thought too sinful. But like the orthodox, the Unitarians were wrapt in the inexorable logic of a sharp contrast between the divine and the human.”133 It was this dualism with which Ames disagreed. He rejected there being a natural and a supernatural order with a human and divine sphere. For him, life was one, different only in degree of quality. Ames contended that scientific evolution confirmed his perspective on life. “Man stands in organic relation to all the orders below him, possessing not only a physical structure fundamentally like that of the earthworm, but a sentiency as well… He shares the image and likeness of God. What religion has long asserted, psychology is now demonstrating in reference to this likeness between God and man. For it is becoming clear that man cannot fashion any conception of God except by means of this likeness… But when He is conceived in terms of likeness, then He becomes great but not distant, wise but not unknowable, gracious but not without the quality of man’s purest love and justice. The most appealing passages of scripture employ this truth. God is the Father of man! …The issue is crucial in the deepest religious life of our time: either there exists this likeness or there is no God at all.”134 Ames postulated that Jesus’ greatness was found in his ethical and spiritual terms, rather than in a mysterious birth. According to the New Testament, Jesus spoke to our ordinary experiences which are essential to developing a moral character. Ames suggested that because Jesus loved his followers and sacrificed himself for them, he attained fully sonship to God. Ames third reason for rejecting Unitarianism was that he regarded the method of interpreting Christ through God to be a task impossible to accomplish. In Christianity, Christ and our experiences are given factors and God is the unknown factor. Ames noted that empiricism begins with facts of tangible experience and builds upon them while rejecting superstitions, miracles and magic. For Christians, God is conceived in general terms based on our experiences and the facts of history. It is in Jesus’ words and sacrifice that we begin to behold our God. All we can do is ask whether God’s heart is like the spirit of Jesus. Ames opined: “The significant thing finally is not so much whether Christ is divine, as whether God is Christlike! And the only way to determine this is by asking whether Christ is an exception or a normal product in the life of the world. If other lives like his are possible; if the social order is capable of

Divinity of Christ (1911)

47

incarnating his spirit; if a kingdom of Christlike men and women can be built in the world; then we may believe that the heart of the world beats true to the heart of Christ, and that God—the inmost Soul of all—is like the soul of Christ. This is the crux.”135 What is needed today is evidence that Christianity is capable of creating a better moral order. Ames reminded us that religion is not primarily an intellectual affair but related to our practical struggles for existence. Religion needs reason but it does not spring from reason. Ames also rejected Unitarianism because it treats orthodoxy as tied to its creeds and offers a religion of individualism and rationalism. He understood one’s Christian duty to be tied to a living communion between Jesus and his followers in which a divine presence was perceived. Psychology informs us that such a living companionship is of great value. In the Christian experience Christ walks with us, comforts and inspires us with the possibilities of new life. Ames addressed the issue of friendship and its importance in the life of Jesus, suggesting that Jesus encouraged a close companionship with his followers and addressed them as friends. In so doing, Jesus was rejecting the master-servant relationship and stressed a type of equality based on the universal fatherhood of God. Jesus demonstrated his friendship by being willing to sacrifice his life for his friends. Ames explained the authority of Christ as a friend: “Friendship excludes the very idea of authority based upon power or magic or secrets. It is incompatible with any external or arbitrary commands. It retains only the authority of the truth, of experience, of that which appeals to the conscience and reason… know the truth and the truth shall make you free! There is no spiritual freedom, and this must be won by each individual for himself. Even Jesus himself can exert no real influence over men except through the truth, and indeed through their perception of the truth… A new commandment, that ye love one another.”136 Jesus was able to relate to his followers as friends because he reflected a larger experience and clearer insight of the moral order. Jesus urged his followers to test his way of life and not to accept it on blind faith. The friendship Jesus taught has increasingly been understood as a conscious social ideal which can be tested by a standard of progress that precludes any external conditions of station, race or occupation. The worst enemy of friendship is hypocrisy. Gradually the church is embracing the inclusive love of Jesus. Although Jesus did not decry slavery, Ames contended that “he did undermine it and removed all but the name by enjoining kindness on the part of masters and faithfulness on the part of slaves.”137 Certainly great social problems continue, but Ames saw great

48

Christian Pragmatism

changes occurring in the churches as they increasingly experience the friendship of Jesus. In considering “The Reincarnation of Christ,” Ames considered it necessary to note Paul’s contribution that the presence of Christ is evident in a believer’s life. Proof of this presence was the expulsion of our carnal nature, as well as the willingness to suffer as Christ had suffered. The divine energy takes possession of one’s life by guiding one’s will and by providing the words for one to speak. Christ is not the only energy which can invade a person’s life, for evil spirits and Satan also possess this power. Paul was not totally successful in having Christ rule in his life, which he attributed to his carnal or sinful nature and to his being vulnerable to the influence of Satan and evil spirits. Paul postulated that it was necessary for Christ to die in order to conquer Satan. “But Christ’s death did not destroy the evil spirits; it only broke their power and made it possible for a man possessed by the good spirit of Christ to attain virtue and eternal life.”138 Humans are a battleground between Christ and Satan. If one is possessed by Christ, Christ dwells in you and protects you from the evil spirits and even from death, by the assurance that you will be raised from the dead by Christ. Paul lived in an age of miracles, with the resurrection from the dead being a great miracle. Good spirits could demonstrate greater power than evil spirits by performing more exceptional miracles. “It was perhaps on this account that the resurrection from the dead, which would everywhere be considered the greatest miracle, was made by Paul the central factor in the proof of Christ’s divinity.”139 The way Christ was able to come into a person’s life was by confessing the all powerful name of Christ. Confessing on the name was an act of faith. This faith in the name of Christ had a mystical meaning in the early church, as if it were an avenue through which divine favor might be secured. With this faith, one was superior to the evil world and its influences. The immersion of the believer was a symbol of one’s death and resurrection through Christ enabling one to become a new person. Ames noted that we no longer believe in mysterious means transforming our hearts and instead of treating miracles as evidence, we are seeking evidence to validate the supposed miracles. Having altered the efficacy of miracles, he raised the question of the meaning for today of this indwelling of Christ. Ames suggested that “we mean that when we commit ourselves unreservedly to his way of life, we try to possess ourselves of his thoughts, his feeling and his ambitions… to have his mind in us… a mind of humility, of love, of self-sacrifice… To have Christ dwelling in the heart means then, beside anything mystical or supernatural, the possession of his

Divinity of Christ (1911)

49

will and character in a very matter of fact way.”140 One can be sure that Christ dwells in one by the continuing efforts to live the best life possible. One denies Christ by failure to live in each act a Christlike life. Ames postulated that “this embodiment or reincarnation of Christ in men, may be freed entirely from the mystical idea that his soul or spirit enters the physical body.”141 When one lives a Christlike life in the midst of our increasing knowledge and all the struggles of life, Christ lives in and through this effort. Having Christ rule our hearts provides fresh growth in freedom and contentment. He explained: “He saw life in a clearer moral perspective than anyone who has ever lived. He put highest in the scale those human beings who were possessed of the unselfish ideals of love and who made all else subordinate to them… Again it was not the quantity so much as the quality of a man’s virtue which gained his approval.”142 If one refused the new duties of living a Christlike life, one would stifle one’s divine spirit. Ames postulated freedom as a third result of having the mind of Christ in us. In this process our Christian conscience is so permeated by the mind of Christ that one is able to judge for oneself what conduct is correct. Jesus did not provide specific rules but insisted that having the right disposition will enable one to respond to the good. Ames explained: “The freedom of the Christian is like the freedom of an experienced traveler… To be peaceable, and honest and sober belongs to his plan of life.”143 Ames found this freedom to be one of the great charms of the religious life, as he professed “that man is meant for happiness, and this happiness is in him, in the satisfaction of the daily needs of existence and that unhappiness is the fatal result, not of our need, but of our abundance.”144 For Ames, the test of Christ’s presence in one’s life was intensely practical, as the life we live is capable of objective realization. Ames opined: “Among these moral fruits of the spirit abiding in us, are the Christian’s interest in life, his sense of its eternal newness, its refreshing beauty and its inexhaustible resources. The true Christian is also a growing soul, constantly transformed from glory to glory, ever wrestling, battling and winning spiritual victories.”145

MYSTIC KNOWLEDGE (1914)

Mystics claim a special kind of knowledge or illumination which is different from our ordinary sensory or reasoned knowledge. A mystical experience can only be felt and only partially explained. “It is another sort of consciousness, another sense, beyond the normal qualities of the self.”146 This knowledge is attained by no ordinary means. The mystic employs common processes but seeks to transcend them in order to attain this specialized knowledge which is neither sensuous nor inferential but is immediate and absolute. Ames opined: “The psychological terms employed by the mystics and the descriptions given of their experiences betray the dominance of the older faulty psychology. Sense-perception is sharply marked off from judgment and reasoning. Thought, feeling, and will remain distinct, and beside these there exists the realm of illumination. Little account is taken of the influence of impulse and desire in relation to the higher functions of imagination and of organized habit. The consequence is an atomistic conception of the mental states, and a decidedly individualistic treatment of human beings.”147 Ames indicated that his purpose was to inquire how the fact of mystic experiences appears from the perspective of functional psychology. He noted several features of functional psychology which related to mysticism. First, functional psychology focuses on the original vitality of any form of experience by considering the foundations of desire and the undergirding will to live. Secondly, attention is focused on the development of the cognitive processes in relation to these impulses. He noted that the development of sense-perception was necessary for the welfare and happiness of those functioning in a society based on trade. Thirdly, the reasoning process stands in the same relation to the impulse and senseperception as in point two. This means that pure thought’s foundation is in visible and tangible sense-perception. Ames opined: “It is still more generally recognized that reason is dependent upon impulse and instinct. In a sense, man becomes rational through the operation of his instincts. The function of reason is not to displace impulse but to fulfill it, to illuminate it, to guide it… It is perhaps not so obvious that more subtle and abstract reflection, such as concerns itself with the fourth dimension of space, springs from instinctive needs… In any case, ‘pure reason’ has been largely relegated to the refuse heap of meaningless terms. Reason as

52

Christian Pragmatism

psychology knows it involves and is bound by indissoluble ties to every aspect of the mental life.”148 Fourthly, the mind develops as a social process. It is in our personal world of associations that we acquire an avenue through which we understand and interpret all forms of reality. When we try to reconstruct moral ideals, we do so in terms of the communal social values. Based on a psychological perspective, it is assumed that the processes by which we acquire knowledge are dynamic with an impulsive quality involving sensuous imagery that are social in character. The dominant concern of the mystic is to gain a sense of the reality of the Absolute which is accepted as existing as it is understood at that time in the social milieu. Ames confirmed: “His great passion is to find God, to ascend to his presence, to enter into communion with him. Occidental mysticism at least, from neo-Platonism on, has taken for granted the ontological validity of the idea of the Absolute.”149 They are not interested in the question of the reality of God. They emphasize the necessity of transcending our relative and particular focus in order to discover the totality. They are not interested in ideas or proofs relating to the Absolute, for they want to experience a relationship with the God. The most noted fact about the mystics as compared with non-mystics is their method of reaching the Absolute. Ames noted that mysticism flourishes in a society with a well developed and dominating idea of God, but one in which there is demand for a more satisfying relationship with the Absolute. “The great longing which the mystics felt was to make a practical demonstration of the possibility of a union of human nature with the ultimate Reality whose being seemed logically demonstrated.”150 The shattering of this speculative effort began with the Renaissance and has come to fruition in modern science. However, the old desire of a vital and fulfilling relation with supreme reality continues. Modern psychology is only in the beginning stage of adequately accounting for the fundamental social character of consciousness. Their studies are demonstrating that our mental lives are essentially social with our being dependent upon the social life of the group. Ames explained of the mystic: “The objects of the physical world are mediated to him through the experience of others… The value he thus attaches to things are largely predetermined. Now the living experience of all these ‘things’ of the environment and of these values is mediated to him by the persons about him, by the members of his family and tribe. These persons are therefore the fashioning forces of his mental states.”151 Psychology also confirms that in our imagination we are peopled with personal forms. We talk with imaginary people as well as with machines. Our ideas of Nature and Life are anthropomorphized, which marks them as

Mystic Knowledge (1914)

53

substantial reality with personal form. When this general notion is accepted by society, it enters the subconscious and is available for use by mystics. The mystic develops to an extreme degree what is experienced by others to a lesser extent. “But when these comprehensive concepts are honeycombed with doubt and are detached from the vital, ascendant interests of the times, then they are anthropomorphized and their reality is discredited.”152 One of the symbols most used to express mystic union is love and marriage. St. Theresa described the marriage of God with the soul of the mystic as a spiritual marriage in which the soul always dwells with God. Of course the manner in which the mystic describes this relationship largely depends on the general ideas of the time. To the observer, the mystic sees vision, hears voices and finds the Absolute according to the mystic’s general idea of reality. The mystic claims a supra-sensuous and supra-rational understanding, which is what is meant as “mystic knowledge.” Ames postulated that “modern psychology has afforded an explanation of this ‘knowledge’ by the discovery of the nature of suggestion and of the processes involved in hypnotism… and shows that by auto-suggestion the mystic induces a state in which he attains an immediate and vital experience of the reality those ideas designate.”153 This is a joyful experience for the mystic who now is “at home” in the universe. The mystic was seeking the Infinite, which is outside ordinary knowledge, and claims a non-sensuous, non-rational experience generally conceived as being outside all relations to the finite, which is also beyond ordinary knowledge. However, there is no way that this experience can be scientifically or systematically induced. Ames indicated that “modern psychologists agree with the mystic that this is not a rational process but they do not admit that it cannot be understood and induced. The study of it has shown that it is a process of hypnotism, and by deliberate experimentation it has been found possible to establish all of the phases of the mystical experience in the hypnotized individual…”154 Ames suggested opposition and what seems to be little choice between the irrational world of the mystic and the mechanical world of science. He pondered whether their root differences are due to a false view of each other’s position. If humans were correctly understood, our normal experience would involve knowledge gained from both the mystics and the sciences without friction or inconsistency. “The opposition is evidently that of the practical impulse over against the theoretical…”155 Ames noted that the mystic seeks a state closely related to aesthetic contemplation, with this experience being its own justification. The mystics are unlike the sciences which constantly employ the analytical and inferential process to

54

Christian Pragmatism

intrude into the state of feeling with demands for facts and proofs. Ames explained: “To the psychologist the difficulty here lies in abstracting two ‘moments’ from the total movement of experience and pitting them against each other… These conflicts between idea and act disappear, however, when human experience is taken in its full scope. The normal development in the higher forms of human conduct is from impulse through ideation to action, and from the reflex effects of this action through further ideation to other action, and so on continually.”156 The human life-circuit in securing knowledge and action has become so complicated that it is necessary for us to specialize in various aspects of inquiry. We become so specialized in the intellectual problem that we seldom are engaged in putting our knowledge into action. “When viewed in its entire setting, in this way knowledge is seen to be an integral part of the striving, passionate lifeprocess. It is the distinctly human means of meeting exigencies and emergencies in effecting adjustment to the environment or modification of the environment.”157 All knowledge or truth is dependent upon purpose and impulse, but these impulses and passions should not be independent of thought and reason. Certainly the general ideas and laws of science involve significant emotional and ideal values. Taking scientific concepts and impulses together one encounters the two primary elements of mysticism—the feeling of being in contact with actual reality and the sense of mystery. Ames indicated that modern thinking was primarily empirical. Even the social sciences focus only on the actual experiences of humans while they dream of utopia. “What is thus attained is not the ancient ‘mystic knowledge’, but a development of controlled and disciplined intelligence warm and vital with instinct, eagerly aspiring to fulfill man’s deep and growing needs and to illuminate his pathway.”158

THE HIGHER INDIVIDUALISM (1915)

In The Higher Individualism, Ames reflected on his experience as minister and teacher in a large, urban setting. From his psychological orientation, he viewed each person as having a will to live, meaning that we basically share a self-centered individualism. Our early human society was like that of other animals in that the strongest were the leaders, which supports the notion of the survival of the fittest. Ames also noted the individualism of renunciation is an aesthetic approach, employed by those who regarded the world as evil and human contact as contaminating. Today people are increasingly living among the masses in large cities, where for the most part they function as physical objects to each other. Ames called this the “boarding house attitude toward life… that one should develop his own personality and should cultivate originality and novelty more than is possible if one identifies oneself closely with social organizations and institutions. Modern civilization is represented as vulgarized by uniformity and monotony.”159 For these persons, life was controlled by machines. The church offered little escape from uniformity as it provided a set of doctrines and preconceived types of experience one is supposed to have. The only avenue open was isolation and increased unhappiness. Ames proposed a new type of individualism “achieved through interdependence and mutual support.”160 He was not suggesting that we must surrender our individuality to each other. Rather, Ames called for an “enrichment of the individual through social interaction.”161 In such interaction each retains one’s own individuality and function in order to contribute one’s specialized role. Ames contended that the specialist in today’s society represent this higher individualism, as one loses oneself and finds oneself anew in a common cause. He noted that Paul’s view of being a member of the body of Christ did not mean that one loses oneself in the whole. Ames suggested that Paul’s notion of being “members in particular” did not mean that one must surrender one to another. Rather, the individual is enriched through social interaction while retaining one’s individuality and function. “The Church thus conceived is a great dynamic society organized to overcome evil forces of the world, to battle against spiritual wickedness and the powers of darkness. In its warfare each member has his duty to perform.”162

56

Christian Pragmatism

Ames postulated that Jesus’ words were so true they could have been said by anyone. He further indicated that it was this obvious and convincing quality of his words which made Jesus unique. Ames considered Jesus to be “the embodiment of the genius of his people, the focus of a world of spiritual forces and the radiating center of creative moral energy and truth.”163 As the society becomes more complex, the greater will be the variations of this spiritual experience because each person differs according to the function being performed. Jesus provided friendship to diverse persons which enabled them to participate in a give and take of experiences. “It is only by this sense of organic relation to the whole of reality of life that a man feels his essential worth and dignity.”164 Ames contended that it is only in a fellowship of mutual service that we are losing our narrow and lesser selves and finding our larger and diviner selves. As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, the church provided social services for its members, which contributed to Christians being persecuted. Ames considered social Christianity to be the most biblical of all its historical forms. He suggested that in the 20th century the social worker replaced the theologian and preacher or priest, with foreign missionaries also engaged in social services. Although some believe social work not proper for the church, Ames considered it to be revitalizing the church. He explained: “Christianity is a home on this earth and in the flesh and is on terms of the finest cooperation with the great forces of society.”165 Ames conceived the job of ministers to be agents of social reform in fulfilling their primary responsibility of rescuing humans and their cultures in order to build the ideal of the Kingdom of God. We are beginning to realize that we should use our wealth to solve social problems, with governments being seen as agents for improving the human condition. For Ames, “these humane interests of our time are identical with the central purpose of Christianity.”166 Ames contended that modern psychology discovered that emotions accompany voluntary activity—that feeling is generated by activity. On this premise, he emphasized “the fact that social service generates religious feeling and conviction.”167 He also noted that the intensity of our emotions are in direct relation to the intensity of the experience. “By this principle we may understand more fully the conditions and process by which religious awakening occurs. All spiritual awakening… has a history.”168 We become religious by our participation in religious activities. Ames considered the spirit of Christianity to be generated like the spirit of a game. As we dedicate ourselves as Christians to social services,

The Higher Individualism (1915)

57

we are establishing a new apologetic for Christianity. Ames further contended that those Christians engaged in social services experience a mystic communion which enables them to know more deeply that God is love. He suggested that this ideal of service provides new hope for Christianity because “it is an ideal full of practical deeds and of sweet reasonableness, but full also of the romance and mystery of the infinite life manifest itself in the will and purpose of men.”169 Ames noted that the personality of Jesus was presented in the most intimate and sympathetic terms in the early twentieth century, with the discussion often focused on the joy of Jesus. Many considered it an unnatural joy as forces were plotting his death. Ames reminded us that words in the Bible mean the same as they do today. Insight into the joy of Jesus can be gained from our own experiences of joy. He suggested that the way we experience joy reveals the type of person we are. Jesus had an instinctive delight in natural things, but his greatest joy came from the tasks which confronted him—the task of defeating the devil and saving the moral universe. Ames opined: “For the building of a race of righteous men is the noblest possible adventure, and he who gives himself to it is sure of greater satisfaction than gladiators or warriors achieve.”170 Trusting humans’ natural reason and knowing that the truth sets us free, Jesus gave morality a new dimension in the charge that we are to love our enemies if we are to build the kingdom of God. He taught that in building the kingdom one will find all the qualities that are effective in the present world. Ames postulated that Jesus’ teaching that the humble shall be exalted in the kingdom of God was the intellectual conviction that transformed the cross. Thus, when we experience the cross as a sign of victory and immortal life we will understand better the joy of Jesus. Ames recognized the importance to us as social beings of our neighbor’s opinion. Our sense of honor is strengthened by the approval of others, for even when our peers are not around their approval influences our actions. Ames found the strength of the Jews to be in their ability to transcend the present and live in relation to the aims of the past. These ideals are passed on from one generation to the next through the stories of past heroes. This intellectual habit of the Jews was evident in the development of Christianity, as Christianity retained a respect for those who have gone before. Ames explained: “The first great step in the idealization and spiritualization of human life, then, we may say, is the release of man from his immediate environment and the reference of his conduct to the great lives of the past and to the heavenly company of those who have died in faith.”171 Those who accept their heritage and are

58

Christian Pragmatism

obedient to it possess a richer inner life than those who lack such a historical foundation. Ames recognized that in many respects the modern mind suffers spiritually from the encounter with many voices or traditions. Jesus was in a similar situation as he directed people to live beyond the old tradition. He came as a friend and teacher based on experience instead of some external authority. Paul understood that Jesus brought a new tradition that united people in spite of their traditional divisions. Ames noted: “When Jesus is thus understood, He becomes an inspiriting leader for an age in which the old traditions clash. He becomes the embodiment of the best element of all the streams of culture in the race… It is the fuller appreciation of this fact which is opening a new chapter in Christian missions.”172 Ames considered that this free spirit of Christ would help to overcome the contemporary impact of the sciences, which he considered to be a false conflict with religion based on a very narrow view of science and religion. Ames felt that Christianity in his day welcomed the findings of science, as we try to understand God and nature and our human existence. He postulated: “Religion needs the aid of science to abolish superstition and to refine the tools of progress; and science needs religion to keep alive the ideal meaning of our tasks, and to make luminous and resplendent, the social, spiritual goal of all our labor.”173 We may at times remain in bondage to tradition, but through his free spirit Jesus releases us from the limitations of our heritage so that we can appreciate the gifts of other people and cultures. Ames, recognizing that humans are weak in moral courage, contended we are aided in this effort by the realization of the host of witnesses to the faith. Ames shifted the focus to the idea of continuous regeneration or rebirth. The idea had developed that rebirth required a conversion experience, which was necessary for church membership. For those who lacked conversion, a half way covenant was reached which allowed their children to be raised in the faith but they could not take communion. Many without conversion were not granted membership. Ames indicated that this emphasis on conversion was based on an inadequate translation of the New Testament to mean that one must be converted instead of one must turn to God. Modern psychology, according to Ames, recognized that the soul does experience awakenings which may be crucial in developing one’s life. However, such experiences seldom provide complete satisfaction, for the stages of our religious life compares more with the stages of intellectual and professional growth. The key is that humans do confront crises which

The Higher Individualism (1915)

59

generate new energy and talent, as our religious life is a process of perpetual regeneration. Ames opined: “Therefore, it is the simplest and most natural statement of what is meant by religion to say that it is the life of Christ reproduced in the lives of men. It is affection to him, obedience to Him, and faithfulness to his spirit.”174 What is important in religion is that we follow vigorously our ideals that are alive and growing. Religion also emphasizes the spiritual qualities of the constructive interests of society and seeks to organize these interests into an inspiring unity. On this basis, Ames viewed religion as the deepest part of art, science and social relations. Religion in the Bible is presented as the tree of life, the quest for life, or self-fulfillment. Thus, all forms of worship, deeds, and doctrines reflect this seeking of meaning in life. “The deeds of religion are developed in terms of this desire.”175 In search of an abundant life, a person believes those things from experience which have provided satisfactory guidance in seeking ideal ways. We are reminded that these things change over time. For example, Jesus was the Lord of life for those who believed in his resurrection, but by medieval times Jesus was considered as a king, a conqueror. Ames noted: “Jesus becomes in this age one who must be believed in as a great teacher, as a man of fresh, moral insight, as a revealer of the kingdom of love and righteousness, and a guide to its fulfillment… Jesus is the one who proclaims anew the supremacy of truth, and declares it to the world now, as to his disciples of old.”176 These changing views of Jesus reflect our basic need now for knowledge and rational ideals of life. Ames understood that many today no longer view the scriptures as the word of God but understand them as providing spiritual experiences from which we can learn. It is in social relations that we discover more fully the idea of God that reaches our deepest needs and in which we may believe without doing harm to others. Ames suggested that we think of the church “as a company of people who are searching everywhere for those things that give the greatest health and power and efficiency to all human beings.”177 We reaffirm in worship the spiritual vision of the greatest and best minds, especially as we face death. None of our social institutions are adequate for meeting our most vital interests and thus require religion to unify them. Ames opined: “Were religion divorced from civic and patriotic interests it would become a meaningless travesty. These two things are one.”178 The good things we seek for our citizens are the objectives of religion. We need religion to inspire us anew to righteousness and love.

60

Christian Pragmatism

Ames addressed the common phrase “the word of God” and its limited use in reference to the scriptures. He noted that the Bible did not claim to present all truth nor was everything contained in the Bible true. This limitation of the scriptures is important because our age seeks practical, empirical tests which provide insights into reality even if these are only tentative and incomplete. Ames suggested that whatever word is intimate and vital and commanding is the true word—is the word of God because it seriously concerns our main purpose as humans. It is within the crises of life that we focus on this serious word which may come through a friend or parent helping us back to a better way. Ames postulated: “The word of God is a sane and solving word… It shows the way and reveals the path. On this account the Beatitudes are divine words… guides to happiness and blessedness… These words of Jesus are novel with the grace and simplicity and the charm of solving wisdom. They reaffirm the clearest lessons of experience… Christianity is itself good proof of the validity of these sayings, for it has always been most completely satisfying and most successful when it most adequately exemplified these principles.”179 The final test for deciding which words are the true words of God is experience. The word of God proves itself in the life of successive generations for having social validity. Those persons bearing genuine responsibilities are the ones to whom the word of God comes, for they are the bearers of revelation in religion, science, and social justice. “God’s truth emerges out of reasoned thoughts and out of disciplined efforts of will.”180 Ames concluded focusing on the mystical quality in religion by suggesting that “the mystical quality in life and religion is the charm, the glamour, the fresh depth and meaning which the world takes on at times.”181 This mystical quality relates to the religious life because religion is concerned with our deepest experiences. Religion stimulates our imagination and emotions by viewing little things, as well as highly valued interests, under the form of eternity. “It is more than aesthetic delight, for it suggests the presence of the infinite and the divine… This mystical quality flowers out of all experience which is vital and serves ideal ends.”182 Too often we search for inspiration beyond anything finite, which Ames considered a mistake. All persons are children of God, sharing in some way in God’s divinity. Ames explained: “The purity of heart, the patient love, the toiling energy of will which we see among the poor and humble, among the mighty men of earth, are the clear and shinning proofs that the divine nature does not hide itself or dwell apart from us. And this mystical quality is attainable through the normal powers and functions of

The Higher Individualism (1915)

61

our human nature… At most, the sense and the intellect furnish a kind of broken ladder from which a leap is made beyond the domain of reason.”183 We do not have to seek God beyond our normal capacities. Early religious mystics were driven by the notion of humans being totally depraved. Science, being more reliable than magic, has provided us with greater understanding of the moral laws of nature which has enabled us to extend our powers over the earth. To find pleasure in our extended powers, we must abandon ourselves to our tasks and to other people in order to be happy. Ames contended that there is no pleasure in isolation, which applies to the mystical experience. This mystical quality can be attained by any person seeking a noble ideal—a good soldier working for Christ. If one wants to be the greatest soldier for Christ, it depends upon one’s purpose, disposition, and deeds. Those who demonstrate this capacity have the sense of divine presence and become conscience of being citizens in the eternal kingdom. For Ames, Christianity is basically a matter of living a moral life and seeking to build a moral kingdom by knitting together believers from the past and the present in the spirit of goodness and love. Ames understood this spirit in his church being vitalized by the spirit of social justice. Life is less complex than the early mystics thought for knowledge of God requires no special sense or second sight. “Whoever has truly beheld the Christ of history, or the ideal Christ in any man, has seen him.”184

THE NEW ORTHODOXY (1918)

Certain attitudes and habits of thought common to the natural and social sciences constitute the new orthodoxy of method and spirit. It differs from the old orthodoxy as empirical, reasonable beliefs differ from traditional dogma claiming to be established by an eternal authority. This scientific approach provides the means for realizing the process in which traditional ceremonies and beliefs arose and were modified. “When thus seen religion discloses a deeper, more intimate, and more appealing character. As here conceived it is essentially the dramatic movement of the idealizing, outreaching life of man in the midst of his practical, social tasks.”185 For Ames, the twentieth century began with an enthusiasm for progress and new developments, but the Great War brought death and destruction to these promises. As Ford Maddox Ford in Parade’s End confronted us with the realization of the long and splendid procession of the Western nations coming to an end, he says: “There will be no more Hope, no more Glory. Not for the nation. Not for the world. I daresay. There will be no more parades.”186 With a future that must be created from an abyss of fire and death, Ames postulated that “only those things will be perpetuated which are renewed in the living experience of these coming days.”187 No longer will the rule of superstition or priest suffice. We seek to establish a society of love, justice and righteousness for all people without the dream of individual salvation. Ames found that new doctrines and new symbols were emerging reflecting the idealism and faith of those emancipated from irrational creed and magical rituals. However, this emerging hope for a new birth of Christianity cannot occur based on an emotional revival of traditions, forms and doctrines which are no longer relevant or intelligible in the age of the new science. Ames realized that, in spite the devastation unleashed by the Great War, a new spirit of Christianity was emerging in the form of a social Christianity and the religion of democracy. This new spirit requires that we “think of ourselves as perfectly free souls, unawed by any authority over us or by any superstition within us, yet reverent toward the things which experience has taught us and eagerly in quest of clearer perceptions of the ideal possibilities of life.”188 These ideal possibilities are expressed in the attitudes of reverence, love and faith which are demanded by our

64

Christian Pragmatism

experiences in light of science and by our ideals. Ames noted that these qualities were illuminated in the life of Jesus. Jesus called for a reverence for life, which relates to the scientific respect for the laws of nature. Ames contended that Jesus appears near to us because he shared the precise “attitude of a modern man who looks over the pictures of life in the newspapers or at the movies and recognizes the folly of the fool and the wisdom of the wise.”189 Ames stressed that the authority of Jesus’ message is to be found in the nature of experience itself and can be verified by us in our own experiences. In other words, the message of Jesus would be just as true if given by another person. The religion Jesus taught was maintaining an attitude of respect for life. Ames claimed anyone today who demonstrates “this reverence for life, respects its simple principles of industry, of generosity, of persistence, and of fidelity, possesses in this respect the Christian attitude and is to that extent and by that very fact a Christian.”190 Jesus’ attitude toward life was reverence for its moral distinctions and ethical values. He called his followers to love one another. Ames maintained that we wait on learning Jesus’ supreme ideal before we follow it. “The impressive fact is that they believe themselves to have found a principle which rests directly upon experience, one which carries its own justification in itself… it is identical with the feeling which Jesus had for his fellows just the same.”191 In the modern city, Ames contended, efforts are underway to expand the sense of neighborliness which Jesus sought. Parks and other opportunities for social interaction are being established in order to create the natural conditions which will support the highest moral qualities. The love we are called to share by Jesus is spontaneous in life and not some abstract dream. Jesus also called his followers to a life of faith in which we take the risks of loving each other—even those that despise us. If we negate our faith, we are done with that part of life to which our faith called us. Ames indicated this spiritual quality of life relates to our practical and physical conditions. This means we are increasing our faith by banishing diseases. By better education and working conditions we are enhancing the spiritual life. Ames opined: “The Christian attitude of faith is that the world has immense possibilities and that these may be realized through the industry, intelligence, and good-will of men working in harmony with the highest knowledge and the deepest convictions they possess.”192 When reverence, love and faith dominate, the Christian life is being expressed. In the United States, according to Ames, the distinguishing feature of religion is its concern for persons, which is transforming our devotion to human welfare into an expression of our religious commitment. In line

The New Orthodoxy (1918)

65

with Darwin’s emphasis that the survival of the species is primary, with examples of the species being secondary, Ames asserts that “the conservation of the race has come to be recognized as more important than the conservation of timber and minerals.”193 Since our highest duty is toward the survival of our own kind, we must acquire a more adequate social vision. Ames contended that this was precisely what consumed the mind and will of Jesus. Therefore, the leaders of social reform found themselves in accord with the intent of Jesus as they fostered a social religion which enjoined us and the personality of others in relation to God. Ames designated these “the dramatis personae.”194 Ames realized that the word self was more commonly used than the traditional concepts of soul or spirit. “The self is the being any man experiences himself to be.”195 We understand ourselves through our own experiences. Religion is vital when it is the most powerful interest of a self—to that which one devotes one’s time, thought and energy. Religion expands our better self when we are willing to sacrifice everything else for this special interest. “By the same principle the more vital relations a person has with the developed human world the larger self or personality he gains.”196 Ames understood this principle to suggest that the intimacy and affection felt in a local congregation relates to the invisible universal church, which is in accordance with Paul’s view of the church as a mystical and spiritual organic body that nurtures the growth of each member. The Roman Catholic Churchunfortunately separated its members from the cares of this world on the principle that the life of the spirit is basically incompatible with nature. Ames recognized that the Christian life requires growth. None of us are perfect and none are totally bad, as each of us is a mixture of both characteristics. A person is classified as good when they demonstrate reliable habits and desires for doing the correct thing. A person is considered bad who demonstrates wicked habits and desires that result in incorrect behavior. Since society is composed of imperfect individuals, society is mixed. Ames noted that the stories about Jesus were from his followers who considered him utterly divine.197 In these stories Jesus is pictured as a moral teacher who spoke as a free person against the narrow conventions and prejudices of his day. Ames considered that because of modern scholarship we are gaining in our understanding of Jesus’ mind and message. Because of this better understanding, there are signs that the masses are coming to realize that Jesus speaks to the heart of all people. “Nor is it difficult to believe that this urgent religious enthusiasm for moral ideals will keep him supreme among the religious leaders through

66

Christian Pragmatism

the ages. He will continue to be the living companion of those who come to know him, and the charm of his personality will continue to radiate itself through the world.”198 With Jesus as our companion, we understand anew that the Holy Spirit is our friend. We no longer think of the Holy Spirit as being outside the world, unknown and unknowable. Now we experience the Spirit in the life of humans, especially those who are aspiring and productive who know that God is the love that heals and binds us together. For Ames, God is the great Ideal Companion whose glory has been manifest in the face of Jesus Christ. “The warmth and comfort and contentment which Christianity affords may be found largely in that Fact. In him God comes near and takes the form we can grasp and utilize.”199 Many thought that with the development of modern biblical scholarship religion could not endure because of its superstitions and supernaturalism. Extreme conservatives argued that one must believe the entire Bible literally or reject it all. However, many trained in history and the social sciences find that superstitions and myths do not weaken their faith or their moral ideals. Ames opined: “Religion is at last seen to be greater than the traditions which have grown up with it… Therefore it does not have to be sheltered and hidden against investigation and criticism… As with all other big human concerns; religion is at its best where it is close to life, unhindered by authority and open to reasonable, sympathetic criticism.”200 Modern scholarship has revealed that the Bible is a collection of books which extend over centuries. What is necessary to keep in mind is that the church existed before its written documents and is responsible for them. With the Bible being available to people in their common language, miraculous influence was attributed to it. “Along with the book went the belief in its complete inspiration and in its efficacy to convert the souls of its humblest readers.”201 Part of this perspective was an understanding that the Bible was the complete and final revelation of God—a view that in Ames’ day was passing away. However, there was an increasing view among biblical scholars that the scriptures were the finest products of spiritual history in all ages. Scholars tended to focus on those passages which appealed to them the most. Luther treated the Jewish scriptures as an allegorical elaboration of the gospel of Christ. Calvin adopted fourth century theological doctrines and manipulated the Scriptures to support the doctrines. Different Scriptures were used to support different denominational positions. In this manner, the Bible became not only a collection of writings reflecting the history, growth and aspirations of a religiously

The New Orthodoxy (1918)

67

gifted people, but a vehicle for the growth of aspiring religious people and leaders. Ames noted that the Bible is a growing collection as it expands in the encompassing life of the church by assimilating other peoples’ religious literature and by including the contributions of new prophets and teachers. Modern Christianity, through its enlightened social and moral judgments, has included an appreciation for the best of the world’s literature. Ames explained: “God has not left himself without a witness among any people. It has come to be regarded as an immoral conception of the divine nature to attribute to him the kind of favoritism which has dominated the church in the past.”202 Scholars are combining the common elements of different traditions with the result being an enlarging vision and spiritual aspiration of the church. Ames postulated: “The divine volume enlarges with the coming of each new prophet. Inspired writers gather in growing companies to lift the light of wisdom and beauty upon the ascending path of man’s purer and more abundant life.”203 As Christianity in the early church evolved, the emphasis shifted from creating the kingdom of God on earth to creating lives of righteousness and love here and now with the promise of future participation in the kingdom of God in Heaven. This love caused one to forgive repeated offenders and to reconcile with enemies. Jesus’ followers were bound together by a loving bond which enabled them to extend their affection to strangers as well as to the invisible God. This love which Jesus stimulated led to their viewing all people as belonging to the family of God. “It was the fact that Christianity became a living communion as well as a doctrine which enabled it to strike root and to resist all opposition.”204 For Jesus and his followers the world was in close relation to God in Heaven. The hope of the early church was that they would be worthy to join Jesus and God in heaven for eternity. They had not grasped that “under fair conditions their religion would furnish them the most satisfying life for this present world as well as for the hereafter.”205 Ames noted that in the last century problems evolved with this hope of eternal life with God in heaven. Contemporary persons could not have the same intimate and vivid feeling for a literal heaven in the future, especially because it was so incongruous with the continuing discoveries of science. Ames contended that another and more attractive goal has developed for modern Christianity which is the enrichment of human life here and now with the conviction that such a goal would provide the most adequate preparation for any future. However, he asserted that it was possible to retain the dream of a future kingdom of love and not to lose faith in it entirely. Still he realized that this dream of a future kingdom of love is

68

Christian Pragmatism

rapidly losing favor. “That which is coming into favor is the hope of Christianizing the social order itself… taken into account the natural goodness and forward-moving tendency of human nature, its capacity for improvement.”206 This modern goal is based on our learning from experience—our own and the lives of noted persons and in scientific observation and experiment. Ames realized that for a long time Christ had seemed remote and unreal, but the hope of Christianizing the social order has caused him to become human and natural. God “is now drawing near even at the risk of seeming finite.”207 The former ideal of a good person was one who led a saintly life, but now the ideal person is conceived as one full of courage who attempts to solve human problems. Ames affirmed that the quest is no longer of the supernatural order. Rather, the quest now is for the flowering of natural goodness. “The task of religion then, is not that of cultivating a life apart from natural interests and practical concerns, but is rather the pursuit of such normal ideals with religious faith and enthusiasm.”208 Ames suggested that the church was essential to seeking the most adequate ideal life, for it could provide comprehensive programs in seeking the ideal. Such programs enable each member the opportunity to participate in a complex agency without having to know the details of each activity. In such a process, the individual is subject to the extended relations which a large group makes possible. “If he thinks of himself as helping in his sphere to the best of his ability to add to the intelligence and beauty and efficiency of the life of a great social order, he is religious… To be a Christian is to do them generously, with sympathy and intelligence for the ideal human value involved.”209 The goal of religion is fulfilling our normal social responsibilities, which means that we live our lives for all peoples and for God. The modern spirit provides a vision of a great future based on a process of growth and renewal in which the chief aim of a free society “shall be to furnish to all its members the greatest possible power of intelligence, and will, and sympathy, and capacity for social cooperation and progress.”210 We can no longer just trust that everything in the future will be alright, for we must anticipate it while we live in the present. Whether we recognize it or not, we are increasingly living in an interdependent world where what happens far away affects the welfare of all people. Ames contended that the new orthodoxy unveils a new drama, which is also required of modern religion. The parts of this drama must be fused as we seek to realize our national and cultural ideals. Neither a people nor their God can be understood without reference to each other. Ames opined: “God cannot be known outside of history and living experience…

The New Orthodoxy (1918)

69

No abstract arguments can demonstrate his being, but wherever you plunge into the red stream of history and enter the pulsing life of actual human beings bound together in great societies, there you find the name and will and power of God.”211 This new drama involves all of us as actors and observers, with our actions revealing the fundamental drama of human life as a mighty crisis to be resolved by the individuals involved. So long as the drama reflects the deep needs of the people, the ceremonies involved are an essential part of their lives. The older dramas of religion were significant works of the past, but for the modern person these dramas reflect the passivity and surrender of a dying age. The idea of worship being primarily praise and adulation of God is almost irreverent, for God in the scientific age must be regarded as immanent and dynamic and untouched by adoration and flattery. The new drama starts with humans’ life on earth and their sense of progress. We still seek a way of discovering the fuller meaning and large possibilities of our lives which requires intense activity and profound thoughtfulness. Ames opined: “This has quite changed the meaning of worship. It is no longer the contemplation of a series of celestial events in which man beholds himself the passive recipient of divine favor or wrath. It is rather the survey of the long path of past experience and the memory of the heroic actors who have toiled there and the anticipation of the further extension of that path by labor, intelligence, and unselfish devotion… It is this richness and inexhaustible nature of experience which constitutes its divine quality. But the divine is no more separate and aloof. It is within and organic with the human… by insisting that life as we find it has in it the warmth and intimacy of the human and also the dynamic and the outreach of the divine. Life is in this respect all of a piece, varied and intricate, but undivided.”212 The local church stands as a symbol for the whole social order which seeks to guide us by the ideals of a truly religious society. The success of the local church will depend upon the extent of participation of its members. Each church seeks to confront its members with the complicated implications of our lives, and the hope for a better future, and our being at home in the universe. In the old drama humans were dependent upon the condescension of heaven for their future, but in the new drama humans are involved in their becoming future. We are called to live, not for the passing hour, but for all that evolves from it. Our religious life should emphasize our being at home in the universe and our extending love to all persons, including the poor and lonely persons. Ames affirmed that no person can live alone, for all are dependent upon their group and their participation in its practical and ideal life. As the church seeks to support

70

Christian Pragmatism

the fulfillment of our hopes, the city is emerging as a symbol of our enlarging spiritual life as it increases our opportunity for companionship and broader human relations, intelligent action, and the means of solving our problems.

BEYOND PROTESTANTISM (1919)

Ames contended that contemporary humans are undergoing a spiritual revolution, comparable to the Protestant Reformation or the transformation of the primitive church by its acceptance of the approach of Greek philosophy. He noted two important legacies from Catholicism. One was the total depravity of humanity. The second was the conviction that the Church and its sacraments were means for salvation. Martin Luther took exception to salvation being possible through good works, the priestly offices, and the mortification of the flesh. The old doctrine of total depravity continued and even today is a key doctrine of orthodox Christianity. Orthodoxy is unable to accept that its old doctrines and practices are passing away due to the steady process of the secularization of religion. What is replacing orthodoxy is what some have called “the religion of the spirit.” “It accepts the view of modern psychology and ethics, both of which reject the doctrine of the innate sinfulness and evil disposition of the child. It holds that the infant should be regarded as an open possibility for good or for evil according to his environment, his education, and his experience in life… Growing up among earnest reasonable Christian people he will see the attractiveness of the character of Jesus and respond to his heroism and to his vision of human brotherhood.”213 By its appeal to total depravity, Protestantism has wasted time, energy, and emotion. In place of humans’ sinfulness, the religion of the spirit provides in its place a vital faith in the idealism and energy of unfallen humans. Ames considered this new form of Christianity to be free from the Church and the sacraments and free from the dependence upon a supernatural gift of grace. It is free from the bondage of the divine rights of kings by democracy which empowers all citizens. The religion of the spirit is also free from bondage to the Bible, as we now test all sayings by our more enlightened standards. This freedom is extended to include the literature of other traditions and scriptures. Traditional Christians rejected the integrative social order, but religion of the spirit regarded this encompassing “social order as itself sharing in the divine life. It regards patriotism and labor and art as inherently sacred, sacred because they contribute to the fulfillment of man’s larger and nobler life.”214 We are now free to negate the distinction between the sacred and the secular.

72

Christian Pragmatism

The religion of the spirit is free from the divisions between science and religion and can appreciate that science has made possible our modern social progress. It is free from the doctrine of Naturalism and Materialism. With the fall of Naturalism there was also the passing of Supernaturalism. The spirit religion is very much concerned with social progress and the improvement of humanity, which makes this religion very appreciative of the new world made possible by the sciences. We believe that we are free to work toward a world in which we can establish a divine kingdom of justice, love, and progress. Those with modern minds are in sympathy with modern natural and social sciences, as well as with the history of religions and social institutions. This new orientation is not a revival of the old intellectualism or rationalism. “This new movement has the fervor and piety of evangelical orthodoxy, but it is a social and not merely an individualistic enthusiasm.”215

RELIGION IN THE NEW AGE (1920)

Ames noted that in America it is difficult to engage in a scientific investigation of religion due to the strong emotional ties which make it difficult to achieve adequate detachment necessary for proper observations. So long as orthodox claims rest on uncritical customs and beliefs and the liberals remain as equally dogmatic, there seems little ground for constructive conceptions. However, in the past fifty years American scholars in different fields have provided fruitful insights, especially in textual and literary criticism of historical documents, in comparative religion, and in the history of Christianity. Ames found that the insights into our understanding of spiritual experiences have been greatly enriched by the psychology of religion, as well as by social psychology. Ames postulated that the history of science falls within the last twenty years. “The results already attained justify the conviction that religion is emerging from the pre-scientific stage of custom and authority into one of rationalized idealism and practice.”216 Just as science has impacted our understanding of ethics and morals, science applied to religion should provide similar liberation and illumination. He indicated the value of new insights, provided by Starbuck and Hall, regarding the period of adolescence which suggests that humans are most susceptible to the appeal of religion between the ages of twelve and twenty four years. When this occurs one is transformed by feelings of love and loyalty which provides a sense of a larger life. The religious impulse leads those transformed in the desire to save the whole world from suffering and to bring happiness. As Professor Cooley in “Social Process” indicated, one’s devotion to one’s country is almost indistinguishable from one’s devotion to God. From this perspective, religion arises from human nature itself. Ames suggested that an important insight gained concerns the relation in which thought stands to our instincts and impulses. Religious values are also transformed by these scientific investigations. Our social consciousness is increasingly understood to be generated by social experiences themselves. Ames postulated: “The development of personality—intelligent, sympathetic, vigorous personality, for all classes and conditions of people, is the coming conception of the religious ideal. And the value of this personality is not to be estimated in terms of its

74

Christian Pragmatism

perpetuation after death, but in terms of its fruitfulness and noble satisfactions in this present world. Such an empirical, practical religion draws strength from modern science and is one with social idealism at its best.”217 Unfortunately this ideal religion is not to be found in the traditional faiths, which become defensive when encountering the true modern spirit. Ames suggested that “liberal” religions are equally defensive as their power and numbers diminish. Even the uniquely American religions of Spiritualists, Mormons, and Christian Scientists are also defensive with scientific investigations. Christian Scientists are noted for their opposition to medical science and in reality belong to a prescientific era. Great hope is provided by progressive and constructive movements, which generally share higher criticism, evolution, and a common social idealism. We see this progressive movement in the federation of churches and scientifically based religious education. In conclusion, Ames noted four characteristics of religious idealism in America. Based upon deep foundations in human nature, the first characteristic is a sharp sense of reality. The second is the social and democratic environment which supports this religious idealism and the new dreams of social justice. The third characteristic is the commitment to education and to scientific knowledge. The fourth characteristic of religious idealism refers to the need for artistic and other forms expressing the practical implications for America’s religious idealism.

RELIGION IN TERMS OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS (1921)

Ames disagreed with James B. Pratt that the religious attitude only touches social quality in a merely incipient way. He considered this position as being the old individualistic type where the individual is considered as having certain instincts from birth which are oriented by the influence of society in terms of their expression and direction. Ames noted that Pratt employed William James’ list of instincts which belong to individuals as if they were discrete functions. “These tendencies are conceived and elicited and conditioned by social experience.”218 From this perspective, human nature always involves the interactions of social stimulations and responses. All people develop a scale of values based on particular interest being the most important and, thus, constitute their religious values. Ames postulated that we have not in the United States developed a national consciousness that adequately unifies us into a homogeneous people with clear and convincing evidence of America’s highest social consciousness. We still remain in a transition period with little agreement on what our religion is or should be. Without an adequate agreement, we have identified religion with morality. He explained: “Morality is enlarging into social idealism in the modern world and this social idealism is precisely the quality of religion.”219 The crux of the problem in determining what our religion should be centers on the issue of creation, which has been turned into mythology. He suggested that our modern attitude toward nature is that nature is instrumental to the traditional ideal ends of religion. As science informs us more about nature, we have begun to understand that nature is flexible and compliant to our social requirements. Ames opined: “The sense of participating in a social experience of this character and magnitude is not lacking in genuine religious significance. It generates an impressive mystical quality and furnishes the elements of a vital and reasonable faith… The meaning of God as the Common Will and the Great Companion furnish conceptions of the divine which are at once intimate and commanding.”220

UNSECTARIAN MEMBERSHIP IN THE LOCAL CONGREGATION (1921)

Ames noted that his congregation has received publicity over its practice of allowing un-immersed Christians into full fellowship. Alexander Campbell had allowed for open communion but closed baptism. However, there had been a few churches which allowed the un-immersed into fellowship, but the practice had not lasted longer than the minister’s local participation. It was in 1903 that the Hyde Park Church adopted a plan of “associate membership.” After one year the Church ended this experiment and accepted those not immersed into full fellowship. Ames noted that there were several churches—two in the Chicago area—which had some form of full membership for the un-immersed. The Hyde Park Church had received encouraging support from many ministers in favor of open baptism, especially recognizing that Hyde Park had expanded its membership, with one third of the members being un-immersed. Ames indicated the motives of the congregation in taking this position: “They conceive themselves to be guided both by the vision of the fathers and by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the word of God. They feel that this great religious movement is more and more sharply confronted every year by the searching question as to whether its mission to the world is to advocate Christian union or the doctrine of baptism by immersion.”221 Ames recognized that his generation had new light from the Bible due to the work by scholars using modern critical methods. This new light included more adequate understanding of the teachings of Christ, especially relating to his social message and his rejection of legalism and literalism. By gaining a more profound understanding of Christ’s teachings, the Hyde Park congregation was convinced that it had justification for its open baptism stance in seeking union with all Christians. Ames called on Disciples to maintain a ministry large enough and vital enough to provide leadership in Christian union.

THE VALIDITY OF THE IDEA OF GOD (1921)

Ames considered “the validity of the idea of God” in light of social and genetic points of view. We determine a thing of value based on experience instead of some metaphysical view of existence, with the history of an idea being important in determining its nature. Ames contended that this approach conceived of God, at the center of our interests, being social in nature. As the social organization centered upon human leaders, the gods took on the power of these leaders. As the power of these earthly leaders expanded so did the gods. As the gods took on more human characteristics in expressing our highest interest, they were elevated into a different sphere. Ames suggested that the symbol of Uncle Sam served two functions. On the one hand it was a means of conceiving of all the people in the United States. On the other hand, it references our collective attitudes and purposes, which can be cultivated. Ames opined: “The reality which the idea of God expresses… [is] the Common Will idealized and magnified and presented in personal symbolism. The whole of life, taken in a certain way is then the reality… When the idea of God is employed it implies a particular organization of reality in terms of the felt values of experience. God is felt to be the source and guardian of life and of good fortune… The concerns which are felt most acutely by the whole community are those with which God is associated.”222 The most successful leaders are the determiners of that which God is associated, but if the people fail to support their conception then it does not indicate God’s will. The importance of the groups’ view of God is that they have an intimate experience of God through the social structures to which they belong. The functioning of their institutional mind is mainly established by custom and precedent, as one becomes a different self in relation to the selves with which it is in contact. When their common concerns are important, Ames suggested “there is an elevation of mind and heart of the highest degree.”223 It was noted that Emerson considered the uplifting of their minds, when the noblest aspirations are at stake, to serve as a super mind or super spirit. All attempts to explain this interaction are inadequate, but the experience is of profound value. If God is the idealized Social Will, how can this social mind be superior to nature? It would seem to require a conception of God

80

Christian Pragmatism

preceding the universe and ordering the universal processes. Ames called this perspective a poetic fancy. He suggested that no proof for this mastercreator can be established, which Kant’s criticism supported. The association of perfection with God’s existence was supposed to be the guaranty of the truth of this notion. The perspective of the social psychologist also focuses on human experience, not primarily from a metaphysical or logical view, but according to their nature and functions. “The social group is a kind of protoplasm in which the individual is nourished and imbedded like a cell.”224 Ames considered this sense of the group to be one of the most persistent facts of human experience which profoundly determines our attitudes even if we cannot comprehend them. Certainly the cosmos appears to us as a social affair. The idealism of Kant would have us conceive the physical world, not in terms of things as they are in themselves, but based on our own intelligence. Viewing God as the Common Will or idealizing tendency elevates God as supreme over nature. “The conception of God in social terms is not inconsistent with the thought of him as also the God of nature when nature is thought of as socially conditioned.”225 This social view of religion fails to indicate the way humans impact the natural order. A study of the modifications made in society and nature in general by the social group indicate that the process of creation continues. Ames noted that when a society is disintegrating their God becomes unreal. He suggested that in light of the natural sciences, a new vision of humanity had emerged from the experience of the World War. At issue is how the natural sciences will affect the practice of religion. Religion is our quest for a more abundant life which requires growth. When we recognize that life creates a system of thought for its own assistance and is not imposed upon us, then the discussion makes a definite shift. We are no longer tied to supernaturalism but now find ourselves formulating new attitudes and ideals. William James formulated God as being finite, which supports the notion that God does not have to be conceived in terms of perfection. The issue of the validity of God may lead to a distinction between a critical and a religious attitude. Self-criticism leads to a consideration of ourselves as active agents or as impartial spectators. In this consideration one may come to the conclusion that God is the collective Spirit of the group, but this conclusion does not necessarily lessen our feeling for God who we had previously considered the supreme ruler of nature and humanity. Ames suggested that this changed view may be entertained by many so long as it does not include an attempt to change the fundamentals of the traditional faith. He contended that this scientific oriented view

The Validity of the Idea of God (1921)

81

would lead to greater social responsibility. “Possibly the idea of a powerful, finite, struggling, and growing God identified with the common will of society would make a profounder appeal and therefore have greater validity than any notion of a perfect and ineffable Being could have. …In other words, it may be possible to regard God from the analytical, critical standpoint as limited and developing and also maintain in action and sentiment the sense of the absolute… It affords comfort and restfulness by inducing relaxation, a sense of security and strength.”226 Ames noted the value of prayer as a means of illumination and direction, so long as one does not apply critical methods to prayer. He noted that worship involved two functions—educational and dramatizing the religious life. These functions aid us in facing the crises of life and provide the foundation for hope for a better future. Ames opined: “The sense of God is found in that sense of presence which comes with comradeship in a genial company of earnest, idealistic souls who are interested in no petty selfish ends, but in the common good… God becomes more real to those who in association with their fellows’ labor for the advancement of a social order in which there may be greater sympathy, wisdom, justice, and progress.”227

RELIGIOUS VALUES AND THE PRACTICAL ABSOLUTE (1922)

Ames presented these remarks as the President’s address at the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association. He noted that the developing science of psychology provides a working definition of religion which centers on the concept of values. Psychology was moving away from the faculty theories—from intellectualism which stressed belief and from feeling which conceived of religion to be a matter primarily of emotion. The contemporary perspective is seen in the application of functional psychology, as it regarded religion as an active striving for desired ends and felt values. He further noted that the ends are ideal and social in character. “Religion is therefore conceived as a practical interest as contrasted with science and philosophy which are reflective.”228 Religion has no values of its own but finds values in our actual, concrete experiences. As humans we respond to our environment in an organizing activity of appreciation and also display our emotional reactions to that which has vital experience. Of course the interest-patterns of people will differ, but the significant factor is that from their struggles emerges an organization of ends, conduct and values. Thus, religion is consciousness of our highest social values.229 Functional psychology recognized a general principle of explanation in its contention that our struggle for desired ends is influenced by our physical and social environment. A radical problem emerges when intellectual questioning begins to address the rule of customs. Ames described this process as “the deliverance of the human spirit from the bondage of blind custom and the assertion of a conscious, selective determination of values in the interest of a more rational and a nobler human existence.”230 We are aware that reason has not been able to abolish superstition and our obedience to customs but it has provided broader conceptions of nature and human cultural associations which have further stimulated our seeking larger ideals and more clearly conceived values. With the development of the scientific method and the application of scientific criticism to human experience, Ames suggested two important results. First, it adds a new dimension to human life. Those who engage in self and social analysis acquire knowledge which itself is considered a value. Second, this application of scientific criticism results in a new value

84

Christian Pragmatism

placed upon human life. Ames recognized that a human life guided by reason, temperate and justice, was the ideal of all schools of thought. He illustrated this point by noting that the Hebrew religion and Greek ethics “transcended the inherited mores by a new conscious attitude which rejected the external authority of tradition and magnified those ideals of conduct which were approved in the experience of the individual and the common life.”231 As reflective thought emerged in differing cultures, the ideas of a universal society and inclusive political organizations were conceived. When we consider that for centuries humans viewed their ideal to be an escape from this harsh, changing reality to an ideal existence in heaven, the significant thing is that humans gained a universal perspective and clung to it as the essence of life. It was in the Renaissance that the universal perspective was related to our concrete experiences as reason outshone supernatural traditions, which enabled a new set of values to replace our tribal systems. This new set of values ranked the social self higher than the material self, with the spiritual self being considered the most precious. The result is that the central aim of religion in the modern world focuses on social sympathy, mutual aid, and working together for the common good. Ames explained that “gradually the antagonism of body and soul relaxed under the genial influence of the new learning and the physical came to be regarded as at least a condition of mental and spiritual vitality.”232 When religion began to cultivate the use of science, it no longer sought the supreme good in the development of some hidden essence in humans but began to focus on the full development of all of our natural human powers. Ames explained: “Religion has learned to direct attention to the ideal of democracy, recognizing that this ideal fundamentally involves the qualities of neighborliness and genuine respect and love of fellow man… Therefore along with this social idealism of democracy there is demanded the scientific spirit of inquiry and experimentation. It is in this connection that religion is undergoing the greatest readjustment.”233 Modern religious leaders, in light of scientific criticism and the development of democracy, are coming to understand that all external authorities—whether of custom, institution or revelation—hinder our being responsible humans with the creative spirit. Modern religious thinkers also see a positive value in the realization that nothing is infallible. Christianity faces a new reality of supporting the highest values of science and democracy which requires our viewing religion as a practical attempt to realize values. This makes religion primarily a matter of action, as contrasted with the more reflective approach of philosophy. Ames explained that overt action requires our having a definite end or

Religious Values and the Practical Absolute (1922)

85

plan. If a person is unable to select an exclusive end or plan, that person is either unable to act or acts without force and effectiveness. When one is forced to act one has to abandon cherished potentials. Ames noted: “This line of inquiry has led me to the conception of the practical absolute, the absolute of the moment of action and the absolute of predominantly practical modes of life.”234 Ames postulated a deeper reason for the authority of religious attitudes, which supports his view that the nature of religion is a life in action. Historically, religion reflects our conflicts with ourselves, the world of nature, and the world of our imagination. Ames suggested that we are engaged in a war seeking a fuller life lived constantly in a state of absolute action. These actions reflect the values behind them which we consider of greatest importance. From this perspective, we gain a better understand of the conflict between science and religion in modern world. In its friendly mood science destroys our ideas based on superstition. Since religion has been so bound up with magic and tribal custom, many have thought science would be its death blow. Ames suggested that democracy appears closer to religion as we know it because democracy seeks the development of the individual which has been considered one of the highest values of religion. Science reflects positively on practical religious programs of good will and social amelioration. Science seeks also to apply its critical perspective to the ends themselves. This means that if religion incorporates as its own the highest values of society, it must accept both the method and results of science. No longer can religion impose a prescientific type of society as its final goal and be in tune with science, as science is a continuous process of growing experience. Ames considered there to be indications that religion may eventually reach an attitude in which the practical absolute of action incorporates a process of reflective reconstruction in support of an expansive social ideal. The scientific method has yielded encouraging results which social engineers are beginning to employ as guides in developing social values that are genuinely religious. When there is agreement on what is the right thing to do, it becomes a practical absolute. “It proclaims the sure way of salvation and discloses beyond doubt what must be taken as the categorical imperative of the divine will.”235

LETTER TO ALEXANDER CAMPBELL (1922)

Ames begins his letter to Alexander Campbell by reminding him how the Disciples are indebted to Campbell for each Sunday their sharing in communion as a voluntary reminder of Jesus Christ and for this communion service being open to all. He informs Campbell, whom he conceives as being in heaven, of the increasing numbers going to heaven because of his efforts on behalf of Disciples, with this denomination having grown to being fifth in size of Protestant bodies. He commends Campbell for insisting that his name not be associated with the churches he established. Although the people may not be familiar with his name, he assures Campbell that the people agree with his teachings on vital things. He explained: “They believe in practicing union, in having no creed, in adjusting the church to the growing demands of the city and of the age.”236 Ames especially appreciated that Campbell and the Disciples were not trapped in the old theological controversies of the past, having “found out that men can love Christ and be loyal to him without believing in his miraculous birth.”237

WHAT IS RELIGION (1923)

Ames supplied a long list of definitions of religion as an exercise to loosen the mind in order to adapt it to the magnitude of the divine. He noted that the focus of the mystical view of religion is apart from all forms of thought and reason. In orthodox Christianity the creeds are to be believed without investigation or verification, contending that the only test is direct experience and the effect it has on the believer. Ames postulated that the main question about God is whether we trust life and recognize that some things are better than others. He explained that worship involved two functions—educational and dramatizing the religious life. These functions aid us in facing the crisis of life and provide the foundation of hope for a better future. From this perspective, religion is a leveling experience in which all persons come before God in reverence and devotion to the claims of love and faith. The importance of such an experience is that it allows for differences of experience and belief while reinforcing the need of practical cooperation. The Bible provides a common view of a wonderful life in which all seek for a fuller life for oneself and for all people. In conclusion, Ames suggested four ways of promoting religion as a wonderful way of life in modern society. “First, in the public service I would develop a more impressive and appealing presentation of the great drama of the individual soul and of the society in which it lives… Second, I would have graduated classes of instruction in the outlines of religious history, the movements of the great religious cultures in relation to each other through missionary enterprise, and in the study of religious philosophies of life… Third, I would have a more adequate and a better organized social life for all classes and kinds of people… Fourth, I would have all members of the church engaged in some aspect of the practical promotion of Christian principles of living as applied to the relief and cure of poverty, crime, disease, and ignorance; as applied also to business and industry and politics and domestic life and education; and as applied to the extension of church enterprises in our own city and everywhere else around the world.”238

THE RELIGION OF IMMANUEL KANT (1924)

Immanuel Kant caused a revolution in philosophical thought by insisting that our minds give structure and laws to objects in space and time, which replaced the traditional view that we derive our ideas from objects. The impact of this view was to cause an even sharper separation between science and religion. “To science he allotted the field of sensuous experience. Whatever we can see, touch, and measure belongs to the physical world, but God, freedom, and immortality are not visible or tangible and therefore belong to the super-sensuous sphere of spiritual things.”239 Kant stressed the limitations of our knowledge of the present world and presented a meticulous negation of claims of religious knowledge. Kant’s purpose was to show that religion belongs to a higher realm of faith, which is beyond the limitations of reason and independent of it. Faith emerges from the region of spirit which is protected from being corrupted by our human senses and natural science. This dualism divided humans’ life into alien camps, within the limits of scientific demonstration. A second characteristic of Kant’s religion was identifying religion with the realm of values. “In other words, religion for him was something a man lived and did not merely think about.”240 Kant’s own religious experience led him to value religion as an inner spiritual life independent of our earthly knowledge. This inner experience was bound to our moral ideals and was the cause of our attempting to fulfill these ideals. This realm of values was of supreme concern to Kant in his life. He related to these values a sense of duty, the “ought.” This sense of duty is what everyone feels in the obligation to be a good person. This sense of duty is an inner voice in all people proclaiming the authority of the divine will without the help of science. Kant also held that this divine will is the same as our rational will. Ames noted: “The pure, moral law speaks with a categorical imperative which betokens its source in the super-sensuous realm. All worldly wisdom is cloyed with hesitating, empirical, prudential attitudes, but this voice commands without qualification or consideration of consequences.”241 For Kant, heaven is above and we have the universal, innate moral law within us. The significance of this view is that it provides basic assurance of the ends of the religious endeavor. This inner voice of duty Kant

92

Christian Pragmatism

postulated as our guaranty that we are free to obey it. Thus, we have free will, for which there is no theoretical proof, which we understand intuitively as an implication of our will. Of course humans are finite and only gradually able to fulfill the moral law. However, since the law requires perfection, being finite means the law can only be realized in infinite time. Kant claimed our sense of duty supports our hope of immortality. Our third quest, according to Kant, is for God, which he indicates is satisfied by the moral law. Kant explained: “…In a fair accounting, the good should attain happiness, but this requires an infinitely wise and powerful Ruler, or God. Here, then, in the super-scientific order, as implications of the feeling of duty, are found the great terms of religion. They are not proved, or inferred, or logically demonstrated. They are more immediately given than by any process of reasoning.”242 Many religious minds agree that religious faith is not dependent upon science but they do not agree with Kant’s method because we are learning so much about the empirical character of morality. We know that conscience speaks differently to people when action is required. Religious symbols, based on history and dogma, are employed and justified by reason. Ames considered this to be one of the most fruitful insights for present and future religion. Kant speaks of God, freedom and immortality, insisting that these concepts do not represent objects or realities that can be understood by our literal minds. Being beyond our comprehension of routine thinking, these concepts are employed in a poetic, figurative fashion to establish the value of religion in its ethical significance through its power over the will. Satan signifies the bad and Christ the good. When we believe in Christ we seek to realize the ideal nature which was in him and is in us. Ames noted that external dogmas or traditions are the death of religion, for everything of importance is found in our own spirit.

RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY (1928)

Ames contended that the nature of religion is revealed by comparing it with other interests and activities in the culture. “For example, there is at all stages some ideational experience involved for human beings, but in religion it is kept subject to the fulfillment of practical interests.”243 Early humans did not have mythology as their mainstream of thought, for they did not differentiate between the real and the imagined. They were facing the practical interest of survival, which limited thinking to their experiences and habits. Their ideational world came from the things with which they worked with their hands and from their experiences with the processes of nature. Ames noted that another tendency in the thought of these early people, which related to their religion, was rationalizing their experiences with prevailing customs. As cultures merged and became more complex over many thousands years, the process of rationalizing their religion became more systematic and formal, which we label as theology. Christian theology developed in order to organize and interpret the Bible as the foundation of its religion. In the modern world, advanced scholars are dealing with evolution, genetics, social justice and the scientific method, as they seek to make religion more intelligible and useful. In their rationalizing attempts, these scholars often function as apologists seeking to support their interpretation of religion. In philosophy of religion reflective thinkers, freed from practical and emotional experiences, fostered the attitude that they sought the Truth. Ames noted that William James was the exception, as he incorporated his concrete living experiences into the structure and complexity of his thought. He suggested that the development of psychology was more in support of James’ approach, with the unconscious, habit and impulse gaining new importance. Ames distinguished between philosophy and religion. Philosophers are more concerned with the stresses and strains in our experiences. Religion focuses on the ideals of life, the tragedies and struggles of existence, and the realization of our ultimate death. If we engage in philosophizing about religion, we are confronted with two profoundly opposing attitudes. Ames explained: “On the one side is the living, practical interests in the ends of consequences to be obtained. He wants his faith justified, his hopes assured, his wishes fulfilled. But satisfactory reflective thinking requires

94

Christian Pragmatism

detachment. It must be disinterested, cool, impersonal.”244 If we are detached how can we be sure we have absolved ourselves of interest in the outcome of our thought? If we are able to be detached, how can we be sure that we still have the “facts” of experience necessary for our reflection? Ames distinguished between thought and experience. Pure thought deals with unemotional description. Experience involves action seeking a desired satisfaction. Thought involves observation, analysis and logical relations. Our observations are influenced by our desires. Through analysis and establishing logical relations, “truth” is discovered. Such thinking enables us to solve practical problems, with pure thought limited to our unemotional description. Thinking for the sake of problem solving is known in the history of philosophy as empiricism, with pure thought known as rationalism. Ames opined: “The effort to see things as they are, independent of all feeling, leads to the Truth, capitalized and hypostatized. The treatment of concrete, motivated experience allows only for relative truth… It is an instrument for action, for use under the demands of the practical will.”245 If we hold to the reality of pure thought, we cannot associate or identify that reality with our emotionalized world of religious experience. Therefore, we must either seek a safe haven in a paradox such as intellectual love or we must downgrade religion to the realm of symbols and metaphors. Ames explained that “in all such positions there is cleavage between the sphere of emotionalized action and conceptual thought and no adequate or legitimate interaction is recognized.”246 Thought performs criticism and directs our activity based on a wider perspective of the situations in which conduct occurs. The scientists cannot establish what is really real any more than another person, for each of our points of view is established on the basis of our interests. One option we have is to accept the view established by persons considered more knowledgeable, keeping in mind that all judgments are based on our interests in specific situations. Our judgment’s limitations have positive as well as negative value, with some claiming this view is too subjective. Regardless of one’s view, our minds cannot deal with objects and things outside of our experiences. It is impossible for us to think independently. Ames explained: “The attempt to assume objectivity of this kind is like trying to get an up without a down, or an in which has no out. But on this account to deny meaning to these relations is to dismiss all possibilities of description or thought. To assume that there is some particular kind of knowledge, such as geology or of mathematics, which escapes this condition, is to set up certain relations of thinking as if they were independent of thought. It is no different with religious objects than with any others.”247

Religion and Philosophy (1922)

95

Thought is a shared experience. The nature of ideas is that they are part of a group process. Ideas exist along with other ideas as part of a continuum of experience and can only be described within a social process. When an idea is true, it is its shared nature which makes it an individual fact that is more than subjective. An idea is true if many persons in similar circumstances share it as a clue for similar acts. Its objectivity, reality, and validity is established by its being used by others as a guide for action. Percepts, memories and imagination function also as guides in the process of selection. Ames suggested that this understanding provides the field of social action a basis for establishing the truth or what is adequate and appropriate. One cannot establish knowledge in a vacuum, for all such attempts end in a kind of mysticism, “where the very processes of demonstration and argument are carried out beyond the only sphere in which they are capable of having meaning.”248 Ames included within his refinements of the senses an enlargement of sympathy which has deepened our insights into the social processes. He postulated that this refinement and enlargement of goals or ideals is the foundation of the spiritualization of our lives. If we assume that the spiritual is of a different order than what is practical and intelligible, a division is introduced into our conception of life which reduces our daily experiences to the humdrum. This places spiritual values outside of our reach. Ames contended: “Whoever accepts that dualism thereby creates the impossibility of regarding religion as something to be understood and developed by reasonable methods, and leaves the simple and fundamental life-process outside the pale. Then there appears the irreligious natural mind, and the unnatural religious man. In such a view, no development of science could be of any help or enlightenment to religion, and religion would be incapable of suggesting any ends capable of enlisting or utilizing the services of science.”249 What is required of religion in this modern age of science is that it be open to criticism and critical interpretations in order that it may provide the social idealism needed to remake the conception and symbols of Christianity. When religion focuses on practical goals, it will find scientific knowledge able to service spiritual ends. Satisfactory idealization begins with the concrete and the empirical but it requires religion to extend our frame of reference from the immediate to the sublime. It is this extensive relation of the humblest events which is an important function of knowledge. However, religion needs the sciences to undergird religious conceptions because our religious feelings are unable to establish realities other than those we actually experience. “Religion needs, therefore, the factual elements and relations of scientific thought and science needs the evaluation of religious attitudes. Neither one is

96

Christian Pragmatism

complete or adequate in itself.”250 Ames reminded us that all of our attitudes are social in nature and form the common basis of social life in which all knowledge extends and to which it returns. Apart from this cycle there is neither material for knowledge nor anyway of verifying knowledge apart from this social loop. Knowledge is stimulated by our appetites, curiosities and satisfactions, with our actions and emotions being illuminated and enlarged by this knowledge. The key to remember is that action precedes knowledge and when conflicts emerge our actions and impulses serve as “sources of reflections and the test of its value.”251 Humans created philosophy and constantly are seeking to make their philosophy account for its value and results. As with other forms of knowledge, philosophy is an instrument dependent upon our social interaction. Ames contended that it was philosophical knowledge which provided an enrichment that has enabled humans to advance their civilizations. Ames noted: “The attainment of the methods of accumulating knowledge, of making scientific discoveries, and of extending experimentation are the great agencies of progress and the enlargement of life. …Here lies his hope for further control in the future.”252 However, this hope was tempered by the realization that no amount of knowledge enables humans to meet their deepest needs. Ames saw our challenge being how we relate our knowledge to the great religious values and the reality of death.

WHAT SALVATION CAN THE CHURCH OFFER TODAY? (1928)

In this article, Ames uses the term “the church” in the same way one might use “the school” to refer to an educational institution. Thus, he defines the church as a social group with the function of advancing the religious life without implying the need of a determined pattern of governance or ecclesiastical system. Neither does his definition imply a universal agreement on beliefs and practices. His position briefly outlined, contends “that a church today offers a means of individual and social regeneration, of stimulus and support through institutional cooperation, and happy fellowship in an aspiring community life.”253 This regeneration occurs when members are stimulated by new hopes and resolutions for a more fulfilled life. When this transformation occurs, the forgiveness sought is offered. If this occurs through an extreme type of conversion experience, one may reach what has been described as ecstatic rapture. In the present climate this regeneration occurs through the educational programs provided for children, which are intended to help them attain a noble and happy life. Ames considered the result of this educational approach to be a more intelligent basis for faith—of keeping before the participants the possibilities of a richer and higher life. The church has a definite role in social regeneration. We are bound to our social group, so it is imperative that we develop an honorable and fruitful community life. In attempting to regenerate society, churches are confronted with the duty and opportunity to cure the ills of society. The church must foster its religious idealism in practical ways, with the ministers encouraging their participants to seek out and support the best programs for countering the evils of society. Another function of the church is to provide insight and stimulus for the good life. In its teaching, the church will show respect and gratitude for those who have gone before, yet look to the future and seek to project the consequences of its teachings and actions for society. To become engaged in the spirit and activities of the church, is to become open to a larger world of untold value where one begins to perceive that the events of the moment share the form of eternity. In order to perform its diverse functions adequately, the church must provide an accepting and sustaining fellowship undergirded by a deep

98

Christian Pragmatism

experience of comradeship. We must disassociate ourselves from the gloom and restraint of Protestant religion. We must demonstrate that the normal pleasures of life are legitimate for Christians to value. “The discovery is being made that Christianity is not in its essential spirit a doleful or negative faith… This does not mean that churches are less serious. It means that they are becoming more effective.”254

LOCKE (1928)

John Locke was born in 1632. He died in 1704, having lived through a time of conflict and struggle in England. “The political struggle was marked by the rise of the power of Parliament which transformed the monarchical government of England into a parliamentary government which developed into a democracy.”255 Locke was very much involved in the struggle for the rights of the people and with the rights of individuals’ conscience. He was a Puritan by birth and was very much involved in defense of religious liberty and the issue of religious toleration. It was his plan to become a clergyman but Locke could not bring himself to sign the thirty nine articles of the Westminster Confession. He retained his interest in a free, reasonable, simple, and vital faith. It was based on his experiences during these troubled times that Locke developed his philosophy, which he began to publish when he was almost sixty years old. The key to his philosophy lies in his view of humans as reasonable beings who should not be subjected to authority, or the routine of customs and institutions. His first major publication, at the age of fifty seven, was a letter on Toleration which supported religious toleration and freedom from political restraint for one’s religious opinion. What he sought was absolute and impartial liberty, contending that variety of opinion would be advantageous to society by developing our intellectual resources and for discovering the truth. Locke did limit his toleration of those who might subvert moral values, of a church being under the control of a prince, and of those that denied reason and the order in nature by proclaiming atheism. His next publication was the Essay on Human Understanding, in which he determined that the materials of our reason and knowledge are based on our experience. “Our observation employed either about external or sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds perceived and reflected on by our selves, is that which supplies our Understandings with all the materials of thinking.”256 Experience and observation are the two fountains of knowledge. Our senses are another source of knowledge, as the senses convey the Sensible Qualities of things to the mind. Locke labeled SENSATION those ideas which are solely based on our senses. Experience enables us to understand our ideas based on the operations of our mind within us, which when combined with the soul’s understanding

100

Christian Pragmatism

of ideas are not based on external experiences. Thus, perception involves thinking, doubting, believing, knowing, willing and all other activities of the mind undergirding our understandings as distinct ideas. “The Understanding seems to me not to have the least glimmering of any ideas which it doth not receive from one of these two. External objects furnish the mind with the ideas of sensible qualities, which are all those different perceptions they produce in us; and the mind furnishes the Understanding with ideas of its own operations.”257 Ames noted that although Locke cherished his faith, it is questionable whether his philosophy of religion would enable as full a religious faith as he cherished.

RELIGION (1929)

Ames noted that many people consider religion to be superstition and magic which our scientific age has outgrown. Certainly all phases of society suffer from the inertia of old customs, but religion is the most resistant to change because it deals with our most important and intimate values which are not as easily analyzed as other social values. “Religion may be said to be the last great human interest to feel the scrutiny of scientific method.”258 In old world religion all significant reality was thought to have a superhuman source. Religion viewed their leader to be supernaturally sent—as being accredited by divine revelation. If anything went wrong it was because the people misunderstood the revelation. If one followed the leader then one could receive the salvation offered. Ames postulated that the historical method of studying scriptures provided a better understanding of religions as the product of humans’ questing for satisfactory principles of thought and action. He proposed that psychology of religion has afforded an empirical and scientific knowledge of the sources and nature of religious traditions. “In particular it has shown that the most important single task is the discovery of the springs of human action, and the sources of those forms of human association through which fundamental needs have been mediated.”259 Previously instincts were thought of as being the source of our responses, but no instinct could be found to explain the complex nature of morality and religion. “The outcome has been the substitution of impulses and reflexes to indicate original tendencies to action.”260 Ames suggested that it was through education that we have been able to meet the changing needs of the physical and social world. What humans seek is satisfaction in maintaining life which in normal circumstances involves our fellow humans. He contended that no significant culture had evolved without some religion. A primary task of psychology of religion and the history of religions is to show how religion and religious institutions were created by human desires. This task requires that religions be studied in terms of their economic and social history, as well as in terms of their sacred places, sacred objects and ceremonials. The notion of sacrifice was not an offering to a deity, for the sacred object itself was a center of power which radiated to all who consumed it. Their

102

Christian Pragmatism

intimate oneness with God was based on offerings and “the literal assimilation of him into themselves.”261 It was the focus on a majestic deity that conveyed the impression that religion is derived from a supernatural source and revealed by this source to humans. From this perspective, humans do not grow their own religion out of their experiences but received it from an unknown and invisible source. Ames indicated that the human tendency is to substitute a symbol for what is symbolized. In this situation, religion develops out of a feeling of inferiority and becomes a religion of salvation which can save one from sin. Sin was conceived “as inherent, innate evil from which there could be no escape except through the ministrations of priests and ceremonials.”262 Since humans were incapable of saving themselves, it was natural that they look for the source of the good life beyond their limitations. “Man is ever striving for a fuller and better life, yet often attributes the very desire for improvement to some other source than himself.”263 Religion was a social process which, as culture religions, was constantly going through cycles of change. With the development of philosophy, critical thinking employed the method of analysis and proof to test the truth of religious ideas or claims. Often this critical process was in conflict with faith, with faith being subordinated to reason. In modern philosophy, conclusive knowledge of religious objects was sought through the power of pure reason. Bacon and Locke, being averse to metaphysics, appealed to commonsense and practical activities. Locke tried to hold to a revealed religion on the basis of an empirical philosophy, contending that all knowledge comes from and through experience. However, Locke realized that this knowledge could not provide certainty concerning the existence of God and other religious claims. Hume rejected causal connection between the objects of perception and the impressions of sense and claimed that “there remained no actual relations between them which could be proved by a scientific or rational knowledge.”264 For Hume the inner world of the self was chaotic and piecemeal. Humans appear to have no possibility of dependable knowledge. John Stuart Mill considered religion as a social process which could be more fruitfully interpreted from the perspective of experience. He asked what religion does for society and for the individual and suggested that it provided a source of personal satisfaction and feelings. At issue was whether obtaining this satisfaction and feeling required us to move beyond our empirical bounds to a poetic idealization of our earthly existence. Mill considered religion to provide direction of our emotions and desires toward an ideal object considered of the highest excellence. Ames indicated that although Mill could justify by his psychology the social attitudes he considered essential to morals and

Religion (1929)

103

religion, his social idealism was preparing the way for the modern view of scientific knowledge and method. Mill admitted the impossibility of justifying religion as a body of perfect and complete truth, but he claimed a place for religion in our lives as we search for ideas that promote the higher life for the individual and for society. In the nineteenth century, clarity and depth for Mill’s understanding of religion was supported by the historical method, the study of humans’ social nature, the conception of evolution, and the emergence of functional or behaviorist psychology. All these perspectives spring from human needs. Empiricism, with its experimental attitude, does not claim to be the absolute and final system. It became evident that religion can not claim any fixed or formal authority. Protestants, based on historical criticism, gave up an authoritative revelation in the Bible, surrendered the notion of an infallible church, and rejected the divinity of Christ while retaining the life of Jesus as capable of wielding power. William James was an important influence in this period with the claim that we do possess Truth but only particular truths in various fields of experience. James recognized that the will and subconscious motivations function to control our practical needs and changing emotional perspectives. James also stressed that we will to believe as we seek to fulfill our needs and wishes. All our knowledge of persons, social change and outreaching purpose, compel us to regard our constructs as partial, tentative, and provisional. Ames explained: “Refusing to accept the metaphysical, theological idea of the soul, he inquires what the self is in experience… finds that instead of a stable, uniform substance the self is flexible, shifting… then divided by conflict to a diffused multiplicity of impulses and emotions. He bravely takes the experience of apparent unity in states of mind as actual unity.”265 James also applied an empirical test to the problem of life after death, as well as to the nature of God. He envisioned God as an environing sea of consciousness which at times might invade receptive souls. He concluded that religion was part of the stream of life, which reflects our cherished values that are constantly evolving. “The attainment of knowledge, development of personality, and the enjoyment of the fullest possible experience are the characteristic religious values.”266 For James, religion was in a confused state because its ideas were still tied to past values and still retained a submissive faith with an otherworldly orientation. Ames contended that religious values are practical in that they indicate the goals and ideals for which religion strives. This practical aspect is best illustrated in the crises of life which are most religious. Ames noted that all religions are concerned with salvation from these crises. The contention

104

Christian Pragmatism

that religion is practical does not mean that it is necessarily efficacious; it is only that the believer feels it is efficacious. In higher cultures the practical nature of religion is increasingly dominant, with the good, moral life being the value sought. As society becomes more complex, the practical tasks of religion are sought though education and the promotion of social justice. “A second trait of religious values is their social character;”267 as we attain our ends most often in association with others. Problems arise when values have been tested in their traditional social setting but are problematic in their ever changing social environment. Ames rejected A. N. Whitehead’s notion that religion is what one does with one’s solitariness, contending that all religion is social for even in prayer there is social intercourse with ideal beings. Ames suggested that religion is social in several senses. “It is social in respect to institutional customs… in terms of cooperation… in the psychological meaning of a relationship between persons both actual and ideal… in every sense that indicates participation in the shared life of other persons… in which associated individuals are interdependent and reciprocally determining.”268 Ames postulated that religious values are inclusive, drawing from life their subject matter. He suggested that in religion more than anywhere else do we recognize our common life and mutual dependence. Ames contended that this inclusiveness illustrates its cosmic character. In religion we understand that we share existence with a vast set of relations which provide us with an infinite perspective through which we feel the presence of the infinite. In this process we gain dignity and moral worth as we realize that we are children of time and eternity. For Ames, all religions share this cosmic scope, as it awakens in us a “feeling of dependence.”269 However, non-religious persons fail to feel this larger aspect of experience. In religion we realize that our relation to the whole of creation is precarious as we experience both the love and wrath of God. However, we have the conviction that God is on our side in a world that includes a moral order or is capable of such an order. Religious persons believe that humans share a moral quality and the hope of better fulfilling this quality. Ames suggested that our seeking a more noble life is proof that we have greater things to achieve. In our religion, we are confident with a disciplined optimism that we are fighting for God and against evil. It is this confidence or faith which enables us “to believe in the perfect goodness of God in spite of all the suffering and shame of human life which they keenly feel.”270 Ames noted that this faith is usually without proof or experimental support.

Religion (1929)

105

The conviction that religion had a final destiny has changed over time, although there remains the conviction of the possibility of improvement in our lives with a possible long future. In the higher religions the individual, even amidst the flux of life, has a sense of intimacy and security. Jesus taught the worth of the individual by his stress on the kingdom of heaven being within us. If we develop this quality then we feel securely tied to God who guards and sustains us. Ames contended that “the tendency of modern society has been toward the acceptance of such an ideal, as is evidenced by the rise of democratic states, universal suffrage and education, property rights, and the administration of justice.”271 Many interpret God as mediating through the spirit of the communal life and that without this communal experience they would not have known God or participated in God’s bounty and goodness. When this popular experience of religion receives critical investigation, it tends to weaken the sense of personal intimacy and at-homeness in the world. Ames rejected Freud’s attempt to discredit the idea of the fatherhood of God because he considers Freud’s argument to be a rejection of the natural manner in which religious sentiments develop. “Religion may become more concrete and appealing by the discovery of such intelligible explanations of its attitudes, and there may be found here serviceable means for the more certain development of desirable emotional responses to justifiable religious values.”272 In addressing “religion and philosophy,” Ames recognized that there are stages of ideational experience which in religion are related to the fulfillment of practical interests. For early humans there was a mystical world that was parallel to the physical world. In primitive cults this led to the rise of mythologies. Religion also rationalized the customs of the group. Theology was the systematic rationalization of customs and other ideas practiced in the religion. Some contended that the Bible answered all religious questions by its systematic expositions, while others contended that an exposition of scripture always requires interpretation. Still others are influenced by the dominant spirit of the time and seek to make religion more intelligible. Philosophers engage in reflective thinking seeking Truth not dependent upon practical, emotional experiences. Although they strive for objectivity, they are “influenced by motivations and evaluations which are deeper than their thought.”273 Psychology has recently focused on the unconscious, as well as habits, impulses and the customs of the group. Ames reminded us that habits and ideas relate to action, even though the total tree of knowledge is mythical. Humans focus thinking on the strains and fears of our experiences, while their religion deals with the inclusive and pervasive ideals of life. Those engaged in the task of philosophy of religion are engaged in two opposing

106

Christian Pragmatism

attitudes. Ames explained: “On the one side is the living, practical interest in the ends or consequences to be obtained. He wants his faith justified, his hopes assured, his wishes fulfilled. But satisfactory reflective thinking requires detachment.”274 The problem is how to think without being dominated by one’s interest and emotional life. We live in the realm of experiences with appreciation and the realm of pure thought which engages us in unemotional description. Experience is on the plane of action toward ends which requires observation and analysis and is known in philosophy as empiricism. Pure thought is known as rationalism. One gains only relative truth from experience which serves as an instrument for action based on the demands of our practical will. Those supporting pure thought cannot identify that reality with the emotional world of religious experience. There is a strong disposition to regard the world of science as more real and objective than world of social interests. However, we know that every judgment is based on our interest and specific limitations, with our minds conditioned by our experience and character. Of course minds cannot deal with reality outside its experiences. Ames explained: “We get at past events through their relation to present events, and imagined future occurrences are projected upon the screen of the known. …The attempt to assume objectivity of this kind is like trying to get an up without a down, or an in which has no out. But on this account to deny meaning to the relations is to dismiss all possibilities of description or thought.”275 Ames stressed that religious objects are subject to the conditions of thought like all other conceptions of reality. However, he rejected the contention that an individual can impose exclusive relations and conditions of thought. Through language as a social fact we share experiences which bind us to a common history. “Each is an aspect of a flowing stream and can be singled out and described only within a social process.”276 An idea is true when it serves as a cue for many persons for similar acts. The reality and validity of an idea must be recognized by others for it to be convincing, which is the way truth is established in the field of social action. Ideas only have meaning when they are applied to practical action. Ames rejected the contention that the spiritual is essentially different from the practical and the intelligible because to do so would remove spiritual values from humans’ reach. “Whoever accepts that dualism thereby creates the impossibility of regarding religion as something to be understood and developed by reasonable methods, and leave the simple and fundamental life-process outside the pale.”277 He argued that a religion of social idealism was reshaping the conceptions and symbols of its churches. These ideals must deal with the concrete and the empirical, but

Religion (1929)

107

religion extends the thought and feeling to the most sublime as it incorporates the humblest events into the important functions of knowledge. “At every stage religion seeks the most inclusive and comprehensive frame of thought in which to set the lowliest experiences.”278 Ames suggested that both science and religion need each other because all knowledge extends from and returns to its common base of social life. However, he cautioned that no amount of knowledge is adequate to meet the deepest demands of human life. The question remains how to relate knowledge to the significant values and ends of life. “These values are the concomitants of social attitudes and these attitudes at their highest are the religious verities.”279 In considering the roles of religion and science, Ames noted that science is reflective like philosophy, but unlike philosophy in that it limits itself to specific problems. Science conveys that it has the right to investigate and its method is adequate for the task. There is a conflict between science and religion when religion manifests a dogmatic attitude concerning the facts of practical ends. Some claim there is no real conflict because religion deals with beliefs while science claims knowledge about the known. “There is thus a tendency to put the two interests in contrast by selecting extreme phases of each and making them stand for the entire procedure.”280 Ames suggested that a more adequate approach would be to consider science as the method of all possible knowledge and religion as one of the subjects to which such knowledge may apply. Religion withholds itself from science because of intense emotions caused when science is applied to religion. Religion claims ecstasies due to supernatural causes while science seeks natural causes thereby upsetting the religionists. Ames considered the work of social psychologists in investigating the nature of personality and its attitudes which are expressed as awe, reverence, and faith. As the social sciences become more skilful in dealing with institutions and attitudes which human nature exhibits, science should be able to advance our understanding of religious experiences. He noted that science has supported the good works of religion by increasing crop production, which has helped to alleviate human suffering. Science has also assisted religion in the field of contemplation, for example in that the telescope has increased our sense of awe. Science is also helping humans to understand their place in nature, as well as the power and forces of nature. Some consider the larger universe afforded by science to increase the intensities of religious emotion. Psychology of religion is revealing how the process of conversion occurs, especially in early adolescence as a response to the social attitudes

108

Christian Pragmatism

of the local group. Mysticism has been a particular feature of religion, with psychology of increasing our understanding of how mystical states relate to bodily and social changes. “These studies already make it possible to read in psychological terms the genesis and development of the phenomena which have heretofore been described only in the unscientific and conventional terms of devotional literature.”281 Studies have also been made of faith and other religious phenomena, as well as studies of particular belief such as belief in immortality and in God. Religious customs and values have been studied from the perspective that religious customs and values can no longer be based on the old ideas of instincts. We are confronted with the issue of religion without instincts; how do religious attitudes emerge? Ames suggested that “the answer is to be found in the conditions of the genesis of social values, and in the differentia which characterize those values which we call religious.”282 He raised the possibility that science may help to answer many religious questions such as creation and the nature of life itself. In focusing on religion and morality, Ames noted that the old view was that religion was based on revelation and morality was human-made. Religion brought conversion by divine grace, with morality being based on our imperfect reason and experience. However, at times morality can be an impediment to the work of grace by leading people to trust it instead of seeking true righteousness. Morality may be of value in this life but it provided no assurance of salvation in a future world. Immanuel Kant contended that the moral law is written into the nature of practical reason, with religion being the means of causing the will to fulfill the moral law. Doctrines and religious history only have value in illustrating and stimulating moral conduct. The importance of religious persons, like Jesus, lies solely in their obedience to what they considered to be their duty and has nothing to do with any attributed metaphysical nature. Religion is superfluous for those who can discern the moral law intuitively and follow it consistently. Knowledge deals only with phenomena reflected in the laws of nature in a rigid pattern of cause and effect. “Therefore, the three great ideas, God, freedom, and immortality, which religion employs, cannot scientifically be established.”283 John S. Mill’s ethical empiricism separated morality from traditional religion. In his theory of utilitarianism he called for the greatest good to greatest number of people, with the good being satisfaction of desires and the avoidance of pain. The way to advance morality in society was to advance the general welfare of all by developing an altruistic sense of duty toward one another. Mill was critical of religion in his day for being more concerned with problems of social amelioration but failing to deal with

Religion (1929)

109

these issues by wasting time with a fruitless worship of the supernatural, as well as doctrines about the supernatural which demonstrated little returns in terms of happiness and welfare. From the perspective of an expanding naturalistic scientific view, Ames postulated that all cultures have an evolutionary history and relate to the times and the people in question. He turned to John Dewey’s scientific view of morals in which humans start below the development of moral responsibility and through an evolving, based on trial and error, of impulses, habits and attitudes we determine that what we desire is good and what is unsatisfactory is bad. “Morality in this view is the criticized life, developing continually broader and finer ideals and find means to their fuller realization.”284 This type of morality, which effects change within the social order, does not require institutions, as older systems of morality do which locate the ends of conduct apart from the experience itself. “So long as the standards of morality lie outside the deliberations of the agent, they remain given and imposed, and the only work left for intelligence is that of conformity to fixed goals.”285 In considering morality and moral rules for religion in our scientific age, Ames noted that the Golden Rule provides no specific guidance for particular issues. Rules only provide general guidance while the demands of moral life are concrete and variable. Many concerned persons fail to be certain of what is the highest good required in a complex situation. What we consider morally appropriate in one situation may prove to be utterly unsatisfactory in another. Ames explained: “Morality consists in the fashioning of plans and purposes as much as in their realization, and unless both ends and means function in the same process of experience they lose their full moral quality.”286 With this perspective in mind, those seeking moral self-realization find much in contemporary religion to criticize. The traditional authority religions have the deity prescribing appropriate human conduct, which results in weak and sentimental persons. “True freedom in religion, as in morals, requires that the confusion and inconsistencies in practice and in theory be overcome by a thorough restatement of the place and function of reflection in all human conduct, and of the value of criticism and insight in the pursuit of all forms of the higher life.”287 Ames suggested that modern religion was taking charge of establishing its own standards of morality. As examples of this shift, he mentioned woman’s rights, prohibition and political democracy. Unless religion rejects having a ready-made moral system for all situations, Ames contended it could never gain approval in modern society.

110

Christian Pragmatism

What is needed is for morals and religion to be conceived naturalistically. All our deeds are thrust forward into an unknown future, which calls for a type of faith or commitment to the nature of reality. Religious persons consider that their actions are both for humans and for God, implying that morality has religious as well as social implications. This requires faith in the nature of the world. Ames contended that religion needs to focus on the nobler and more valuable aspects of experience which will expand our imagination, awaken our conscience, and establish the ideal beauty that emerges in a “spiritual fellowship whose inspiration to better living and to fullest satisfaction has diviner possibilities than any other experience of life. There man finds himself one with the divine and in possession of priceless happiness.”288 In considering “religion and art,” Ames noted that the religious celebrations for earlier people centered around the procession of seasons. He contended that art “furnishes the means and methods for the fullest and richest expression of man’s experience. It employs forms and symbols for putting the immediate and concrete events into settings and perspectives which are idealistic and imaginative.”289 Art is the artist’s interpretation and enlargement of the meaning of this ideal potency. Religion conceives of simple acts as operating in a broader context and encourages worship of them. “Art is therefore unifying: it orders and harmonizes the diverse and disparate elements of experience into forms and patterns which make them contributory to significant ends.”290 This unity provides a deeper appreciation of our attitudes and orientation of life. In times of change, art takes on a new role of providing prophetic ideals as well as providing stability to the ideal values experienced by the community. Ames indicated that the Hebraic-Puritan attitude limited the development of literature, music, and architecture because its impression was that the religious mind is lacking artistically. At its best, religion relates the small things in life to our expanding interest. Religious art at its best, “loses itself in the action for which it is employed, and is so much a part of the whole that it is discerned only with difficulty.”291 The artist must be continually and actively experiencing humans in their struggles or face the danger of being artificial and inadequate. Ames considered the “Gods of Religion,” noting that for early peoples there was no boundary between the real and the dream world. Nature as a law-abiding system did not exist for them. Spirits are generated by their imagination out of passing experiences. Ames explained: “This substance of spirits is a combination of the processes in the environment and the reaction of the human mind… Because of the intimate relation of such things to the deep and urgent interests of man, they live in his attention

Religion (1929)

111

and tend to become familiar and important spirits.”292 The principle supporting this position is that whatever occupies our attention tends to be treated as an important spirit. Ames also stressed that the mind, according to modern psychology, cannot be viewed as a separate entity that from time to time resides outside the body. Spirits are understood as substantial things but their substance is more elusive. He noted: “The things which possess this mana in greatest degree are the most important spirits; and the converse of this is true, that those objects which are felt to be most important are those that possess this mana in the greatest degree.”293 The greater spirits come to be designated gods. God is the spirit of the tribe, with the various gods designating different interests and functions of the group. There may be lesser gods with a grand divinity who are over the other gods. Ames noted two changes of special importance: “the humanizing and the universalizing of the God… the earlier divinities were species of animals… [when] attention centered more and more upon men, the pattern was set for anthropomorphic deities.”294 It is only when kings ruled, that the god was considered as a king and judge. The traits of justice, wisdom and mercy evolved as these traits become important to the group being ruled by an overlord. As Israel developed relations with other nations, the conception of Yahweh as a universal god emerged. The humanization of God reached its zenith for the Greeks in the doctrine that Reason is the supreme attribute. The Greeks conceived of god as the perfect philosopher and from their creative thinking emerged the idea of one god who had ruled the centuries of political and reflective endeavor. Ames noted that modern metaphysics, beginning with Descartes, entertained the idea of God as an independent object. Kant contended that human knowledge could not discover proof for the existence of God. Descartes assumed that the world of experience was split into two parts, with the soul or self on one side and the world of objects, excluding God and persons, on the other. For centuries thinkers have been trying to bridge these two parts, with idealists on the side of the self and materialists on the side of objects. The materialists tried to ignore the self and were able to dismiss the problem of God but for the idealists it remained a perplexing issue. Mystics found both reason and sensuous knowledge inadequate and claimed that the only access to God was through feeling and supra-rational means. Still other thinkers found their experience of God satisfying even though it lacked rational support. Many empiricists put the problem of God outside the scope of their method. It was radical empiricism which contended that this epistemological approach was unreal because its method was not limited to a study of the physical world. Human life involves impulses, reactions, imaginations and

112

Christian Pragmatism

associations which are open for study but with limited returns. Ames found advances in understanding gained through study of the evolution of the mind, death, and social institutions. Studies in social psychology found that people think of God being as real as they do their other experiences. It is in the empirical approach that Ames is most comfortable, for it focuses on the nature of God. “God is thus shown to be the Spirit of a people, and in so far as there is a world of humanity, God is the Spirit of the world.”295 With a modern scientific perspective of the universe, God is postulated as being the God of the universe. God becomes the symbol for our ideals, the soul of our social values, and the meaning of the world. This view of the nature of God side-stepped the old problem of existence by claiming that God is as demonstrable as is the world. Ames explained: “God is the Spirit of the world of living beings, taken in their associated and ideal experience. God includes the so-called material world which is the stage of their action and condition of their existence, and God signifies also the order of the intelligence and conduct. He is the grand total, living process, in which they live and move and have their being. …With every discovery of science and every increment of knowledge God is better known, more profoundly revered, more definitely vitally experienced.”296 In considering “God and the self,” Ames turned to social psychology, which he contended, was “working out a genetic account of the nature of the self which begins to afford light on the nature and function of God in human life.”297 The infant does not have a conception of the self or its world, which only emerges through a process of maturity dependent upon the development of language. Ames suggested that “perhaps the whole enrichment of personality through life is just the attainment of sympathetic understanding of other persons to the point of being able in imagination, if not in actual performance, to take their part in the living drama of real social relations.”298 We learn to know others as we learn about ourselves, which is a process that does not involve anything metaphysical or transcendent. All knowledge of the self is related to knowledge of other things at the same time, for we do not exist in isolation but in a network of relations. Ames recognized that we follow the manners and habits which we learned as children and the ways prescribed by the group with which we interact. We feel the guidance or pressure to conform to a common standard, with the same principle applying to adult life. Ames explained: “Every self is in reciprocal relations to this structure of action or habit. It is symbolized by the laws of a vocation, by the leaders of an industry or profession. …The self lives and grows in the midst of such social structures. Everywhere it is in reciprocal relation to organizations that

Religion (1929)

113

determine the direction and nature of action, and that are modified in turn by the personalities of the participants.”299 In this manner it is possible to have common experience and to identify ourselves with others, as well as discovering the feeling of a group. He called this process developing a “group-soul.” Ames opined: “It is the order and structure of the associated life of the individuals constituting the class. It is a work of the mutual interdependence and interaction of many persons woven together in a common tradition of customs and ideals… By the relatively feeble and dependent individual it is felt to be the enduring and supreme reality.”300 This process also applies to a larger social context, which Ames labeled “the genius of peoples.” There is an unconscious control by the common life based on a long history of cumulative experiences. In religion, Ames indicated, the self is related to the large whole, including the universe and God. This experience often occurs in a state of crises. However we explain this experience, it is based on our experience of our self and others. “In every case this other is reality functioning vitally and impressively in the behavior and emotions of the self. We love God as surely and as intelligently as we love our country…”301 God is not taken as everything that exists, but is the ideal being who seeks the realization of good and righteousness—“a living process incompletely manifest in the will and purpose of individual.”302 As a self, we participate in the life of the universal, great Other. Ames’ empirical estimate of life is based upon the conviction that the whole is modified by each factor. The nature and quality of feeling of a self depends upon its social order. How we think about the cosmos also reflects our social environment. Ames noted that in a society where the will of the citizens determines the final authority, a different pattern dominates. Ames explained: “Here the individual feels himself responsible, and tends to develop interest and knowledge with reference to the life of the whole. …No limit is fixed, outside his interest and disposition, to the extent of his participation… The self expands with this kind of sharing in corporate undertakings, and the world in which he lives is felt to be somewhat open and impressionable to his hand.”303 In considering God as idealized reality, Ames noted that the search for God as a definite object or observable fact in the world of phenomena has been fruitless. The inadequacy of this search has led the question to be restated as What is the nature of God? From modern science we have learned that the mind is not separable from the body, for it is a fact recognizable in the nature and behavior of people. Instead of mind, we speak of persons, as Ames explained: “The inclusive terms is: persons. A person is an organism which functions in complex and characteristic ways.

114

Christian Pragmatism

He is not merely a physical thing, nor purely a psychical reality. He is a manifold, plastic, adaptable being for whose experience neither the material nor the spiritual terms are adequate designation. Few scientific psychologists deny the reality of mind, but they now seek its nature in the concrete, describable experience of man’s life.”304 Ames proposed that, instead of trying to locate God as an object, we postulate God as a reality of the world in relation to specific aspects and functions characterized as reality idealized. Orderliness is one of these aspects. Some people project a supreme designer to account for the orderliness. The scientific interpretation considers the orderliness as an important characteristic of nature and life itself. Ames suggested that we must learn to be satisfied with the reality we have rather than by seeking that which is not possible to attain. Ames explained: “If the understanding of a thing is sought in the concrete relations which it bears, it has within itself and in these relations all the values and all the reality which it signified. The order and beauty found in the world and life are themselves inherent and actual and give reality meaning and significance. Reality is in so far good, beautiful, and divine. Doubtless the reality we experience is in these respects limited and finite, and we are, on these grounds, required to be content with a finite God… we either have a finite God or no God at all.”305 Ames suggested that we love life and if we understand God as the order and loveliness we find, then we may also love and reverence God. Our reality is characterized by love. Hate is also evident in reality, but love is primarily identified with God. This God cannot be identified with all of reality. We experience love; we experience God. Ames opined: “This love exists as personal, intelligent, and active in the living world of actual reality. Hence we say God is reality idealized. This idealization does not mean fabricated or imagined. It means selection. God is the world or life taken in certain of its aspects, in those aspects which are consonant with order, beauty, and expansion… Love is present in animals and men and these belong to reality. It is manifest in lovers and families, in states and in world-societies, and these belong to the world and to the cosmos. Therefore reality, taken in its most inclusive and far-reaching significance, manifest love, and this empirical fact is the ground for the religious interpretations of reality as God… it is not a world without love. In a similar way it may be shown that other attributes of reality are included in God.”306 Ames noted that God is also thought of as reality manifesting wisdom or intelligence. The fact that there is order in reality which manifests some degree of rationality justifies the claim that reality includes intelligence.

Religion (1929)

115

The idealization of reality is manifest by our tendency to enhance the significance of intelligence by including it in the nature of reality we identify as God. So conceived, God is found in our daily experiences of living as we understand reality “as loving and lovable, as known and knowing, as orderly and ordering.”307 Ames noted that religions have often been pessimistic about some aspects of life, but in general they project a more optimistic mood characterized by the will to live and by transforming nature and human nature in the interest of better living. All religions project the ideal of salvation. Jews and Christians view the world as manifesting a moral order which humans are to emulate for spiritual ends. Ames contended: “The impulses and desires of the hearts of men on behalf of moral ideals are evidences of the presence of God and the will of God. Because men are constantly striving for greater harmony, knowledge, and good will, they are by this very fact giving proof of the increasing realization of the divine in nature.”308 Ames suggested another type of idealization with reference to God which he designated as the emergence of absolute attitudes and judgments in practical situations. We arrive at these attitudes as if we have some absolute and decisive criterion. Ames called this “the practical absolute.”309 All moral situations must be empirically, though tentatively, evaluated, but the action decided is absolute since only one course is possible. He noted that in the history of religion it is in practical, often crises situations that God is most needed. The aid of God is sought and the answer is taken as the will of God. “So impressive does this aspect of experience become with some that they regard the divine as the one real actor in the drama.”310 The religious person employs personal and honorific terms in speaking of God to the extent that God is Reality idealized with flawless attributes. Ames opined: “Since God was first conceived in personal terms, he has been to religious souls the perfect Person. With the development of wisdom, mercy, justice, and love in the world, he has been the infinitely wise, merciful, just, and loving God. In spite of all evil in the world, regardless of the injustice, hatred, and falsehood which exist, God is to the hearts who love him, omniscient, omnipotent, complete and absolute perfection.”311 In considering “God and Personality,” Ames noted that personality is a difficult word. When applied to humans, it refers to the mentality displayed and how we engage in our social relations. All forms of social idealism seek the release and freeing of persons for greater fulfillment. Ames’ reasoning depends upon the theory of evolution and the empirical fact that humans are part of nature, in their body, mind and personality.

116

Christian Pragmatism

Since we are part of nature, to that extent nature is personal. He suggested that we have “the same ground for saying that God is order, intelligence, and love.”312 Ames follows the scientific method and takes humans as they are, with powers which unfold in the process of nature. Some scientists minimize the reality and significance of our intellectual and cultural life. Ames opined: “It would seem that here lies the whole problem of an empirical estimate of human nature. If it is granted that all that man develops and achieves belong to the nature within which he exists, then nature has the qualities which man has… It is the acceptance of the implication of this conception… maintained that since man is possessed of personality, the reality which we call nature, or the world, is to that extent personal. Therefore, God conceived as reality is so far personal.”313 For Ames, God is finite but still of great significance. When we accept that grandeur is compatible with finiteness, the suggestion of limits to God is not a rejection of God’s real values. He contended that “the conception of God as personal is the same in principles as the conception of a group as personal, for example, a corporation or a state.”314 For Ames, God is the world of nature and operates through humans and their institutions in establishing the conditions in which we may see ourselves in wider relations. The key is how we react to our experiences. If we take the empirical view of religion, we stress the importance of viewing the religious experience from this approach rather than in terms of its unanalyzable aspects. So long as we focus on the un-analyzable aspects for generating the religious feeling, the orderly events of life will be void of religious sentiment. In this case, religion will be limited to the mysterious and non-rational experiences and more easily dismissed. For Ames, “the inclusion of the human experience in the order of nature, and the use of it as the key to a personal attitude toward life, gives justification to the religious feeling of being in a friendly universe… we frankly make it (friendliness) the avenue to God.”315 If we allow ourselves to be limited to the quantitative view of reality, the tendency is to undervalue or treat as illusory the personal aspects of life—love, sympathy and significant values. Ames postulated that what disturbs humans most are our dreams of something better to come, in contrast to our inadequate and limited accomplishments. He called this our divine discontent and considered it both prophetic and inspiriting. When nature is understood to involve humans and their social processes, we gain a more legitimate picture of reality. Ames opined: “If we hold consistently to the facts of experience, empirically given, man has good ground for asserting the importance and the centrality of his feeling for himself and his kind. It is just one of the

Religion (1929)

117

interesting and impressive phenomena of human thought that it is able to take an outside look at the world, but that it is truer or more essential than the inside apprehension of reality through genuinely human estimates is a wholly gratuitous assumption.”316 However, if we limit ourselves to the external and purely objective material, we lose the empirical approach and the immediate and valuable forms in our experiences. When we interpret God through human experience, we recognize that we do so from a set of values. Each of us has our own pattern of interests which serves as the foundation for our selections and actions. We value morality and integrity from our own perspective, which attests that human conduct has some structure and constancy. Our judgments of morals and truth serves as the frame of reference though which we evaluate reality, including our conception of God. Ames explained: “At any stage of culture, what is good in man is good in his God… it is apparent that the character of God reflects the best as men feel it for themselves… Righteousness on earth called for goodness in heaven. As personality became clearer in human nature it defined more clearly a personal God as the Father and Friend of man.”317 Thus, it is through the insights and feelings of our ideal aspects of experience that God is known. Ames postulated: “God is not supernatural, but wholly natural, just as ideals are natural… real, can it be adequate to express all that is experienced; but when the natural is given this meaning it includes the ideal, the mental and the spiritual, as well as the so-called physical and material.”318 Ames rejected the approach of modern humanism because it commits the fallacy of dropping one aspect of a dualistic perspective while retaining the other. Humanists justify their naturalistic position on contention that only empirical values are discoverable. Holding this position requires their denial of the supernatural and the existence of God, leaving them with the lower half of the old dualistic order. The result is that they have separated humans from nature and suspended humanism between matter and the vacancy left by the supernatural deity. Ames explained that the logic of the change to an empirical view involved recognizing that life is expressed from lower to higher forms ever evolving into new creations, as is well illustrated in human development. When our blocked desires are hypostatized into other forms, our misunderstanding gives rise to the contrast between the supernatural and the natural. Ames argued that this “error cannot be corrected by assuming a static realm of physical nature on one side, and man as a helpless dreamer in an alien world on the other.”319 Continuing his discussion about God, Ames focused on how the concept “God” is used. He rejected the concept of God as only a subjective

118

Christian Pragmatism

experience, understood in a socialized manner, as developed by J. H. Leuba. Ames also rejected Mill’s view that religion may be a social process not generated from metaphysical concepts, but itself the occasion and source of certain ways of viewing reality. In contrast, Ames presented his own view: “The position here maintained is that the reality to which the term God applies… is not the word itself, nor the image it suggests, but the reality of a social process belonging to the actual world. …So the word God is not properly taken to mean a particular person, or single factual existence, but the order of nature including man and all the processes of an aspiring social life. In a sense, it is use which defines both concepts, as it is use which determines other concepts.”320 Ames reminded us that in practical life we are constantly using concepts which we do not totally understand. Science affords us insights by formulating conceptions of them in relation to their behavior and function. We develop attitudes without clearly understanding the events related to them. He suggested that religious experience is no exception, for its God is not an abstract, isolated entity but, rather, is not to be understood apart from experience. For Ames, God is Reality which we encounter in the outreaching of life itself and is not to be thought of apart from that Reality. He suggested that if Nature or Cosmos are concrete universals, it may be that God should also be considered a concrete universal, which simply means factors which are organized as a whole. Ames opined: “The term God expresses order and purpose and moral values in the great Reality which we call Life or the World. Reality conceived as friendly, as furnishing support for man’s existence and for the realization of ideal ends, is God. Accordingly God is used as the standard of reference for the adequacy of specific ideals.”321 Ames postulated that humans, seeking to understand life, base their activity on habit and partial experiences while making adjustments as required and ability allows. Science is of value in that it destroys superstitions, but it is not the source of human action or values. It is only when religion is considered an error or superstition that science becomes hostile to it. It is when religion is seen as the fullest and riches way of living that the method of science for solving problems becomes an aid in seeking the most effective way of living. In this context, Ames suggested that God is employed as the “frame of reference” in religious thinking that holds everything together. Things have moral significance only based on conscientious consideration and being put into proper perspective. Duty is part of the social order and serves as the formula of conduct related to some name or specific acts. Ames explained: “This is the way the religious man uses God. God is the

Religion (1929)

119

judge, the umpire, the referee. Only by such an objective standard and guide is it possible to gain the sense of the relation of things. The formulation of custom into law provides a generalized expression of experience by which particular acts may be judged, and this law is conceived as the will or thought of the divine mind.”322 The life of God is understood to include all time and space, with humans standing as a little part in relation to God, as the comprehending whole. It is the thought of God which serves as the rule for human conduct. In a society with the idea of an anthropomorphic God, God is thought of as a great person who is the source of all good things. “In such instances there may be little reflection upon the nature and existence of God, but there is the feeling of his immediate presence and help. There is comfort in this shared responsibility, in the sense that the agent does not assume to rely merely upon his own judgment.”323 The conception of God has gone through continuing reinterpretation, as illustrated in the history of religion. However, these changes have been attributed to the changing mind and will of humans, with God remaining unchanged and changeless. This has resulted in complete dependency on the part of humans as they must wait on God for direction. Ames rejected German “Crisis Theology” because of its view “that the function of religion becomes that of teaching humility and patient acceptance of events.”324 The empirical position offers a different view of humans— “that man has reason to believe that his knowledge and labor have some honor and significance in this precarious world. …The world is sufficiently supporting and consistent to enable man, to adapt himself to nature, and nature to his ends, enough to accomplish things which are marvelous in comparison with earlier stages of culture.”325 Humans have the ability to discover truths about the processes of nature which provide a new religious faith in life based on the character of God as being more flexible and modifiable than thought by later theologians. Ames noted that the conception of a “struggling God” has deep religious traditions, while others hold a vague idea of God. However, the tendency remains that everything else changes except God. We seek God as an intellectual possession in order to rationalize and give unity to our world. Ames suggested that God, thus possessed, may also be more effectively used in practical living and in aesthetic satisfaction. In focusing on “mysticism’s quest for God,” Ames defined mysticism as a feeling that through our experiences we can gain union with God. “According to this doctrine, it is an experience of the highest value affording intense satisfaction, but there is no known method by which it may be induced… It is part of the doctrine of mysticism that the reality

120

Christian Pragmatism

with which one seems to be in union, during the ecstatic moments is the divine Being.”326 The mystics take pride in their emotional experience being non-rational. When the experience reaches the stage of illumination or ecstasy, one has the experience of something being given to you. Modern psychology suggests that mysticism considers the phenomena of sensuous and rational experience in a non-empirical fashion. It treats the sense world as unreal and contends that it cannot be the source of great moods which humans can experience. However, modern psychology of emotion suggests that it is possible to relate very strong moods to seemingly small occasions. The problem is that “it is never possible to translate a vivid state of feeling into satisfactory scientific description.”327 It is not unusual for us to confuse intense feeling with having definite knowledge. Ames opined: “The doctrine of mysticism has its stronghold in the view that knowledge, being partial and limited, only obscures and misrepresent what it deals with… What they mean by ‘light in itself’ they can never explain except in the negative terms of denying that it is what they see and measure. This is a long-standing fallacy in human thought and it is the main weakness of the doctrine of mysticism.”328 He noted that if we considered the mystical quality of religious experience apart from the doctrine of mysticism, we would recognize the mystical quality in many experiences which are pleasurable or which provide a feeling of harmony. All aesthetic experiences which provide satisfaction of ideal ends possess this mystical quality as a fundamental and natural aspect of living. Having considered the topic of prayer in his Psychology of Religious Experience, Ames reminds us that when most persons pray they have an idea of a personal God to whom the prayer is directed. Buddhism is the exception to this view of prayer as it rejects the notion of personality to any supreme reality. He noted that modern psychology informs us that humans are relational animals—naturally expressive and from birth socially involved. However, “it is a psychological fallacy to conclude that because at higher levels speech may involve reference to minds or persons it is necessarily so at all levels.”329 In primitive societies, prayer was only involved in the total action of the ceremonials, with this communal effort remaining below the level of cognition. From social psychology we learn that each person is a community of selves through their imagination, which enables them to present themselves in a variety of roles. No person can escape into total solitude after becoming a person through the process of social interaction. Within this context, we can understand that prayer is more of a conversation with another who may be an idealized self. When this

Religion (1929)

121

conversation centers on an individual who represents God, prayer is communion with the symbolic representative or with God. Ames explained that in the depths of one’s mind “persists a form of converse in which his actual self wrestles with the ideal nature that he projects into some Other. He may call it his conscience, his better self, or God, but he cannot escape it or eliminate it from his inner world.”330 In our modern world, the dominance of the physical sciences has focused on the material facet of experience with the result that the human social phase becomes almost unreal or futile. Yet, prayer as a social experience does affect those who participate, as communion with an ideal person “may strengthen one’s morale; it may suggest useful ways of looking upon one’s self or the tasks of the day; it may yield the sense of companionship that is so essential to joyous living.”331 Ames recognized that it is difficult to show that prayer has objective results in nature and that prayer is seldom the sole factor in seeking the desired results. In reality prayers are only heard by humans and humans are the agents for answering prayers. The God-human relations depend on how one conceives God. If God is a reality with idealistic tendencies expressed as a personality, Ames suggests that prayer will be a vital and intelligible experience. Ames opined: “Prayer, thus conceived, has something in common with an address made directly to the thought and feeling of those present, but also has additional meaning. It is directed to that deeper nature which all share and in which they realize their profounder kinship. It is not so much in the form of speech intended to enlighten and convince others, but in the quest for a right attitude, for a more adequate point of view, for a submergence of selfish interest, for a clarifying and quickening of spirit.”332 If one rejects this experience as just being human and not integral with God, then one is left with no intelligible relations with the divine and with prayer just being meaningless words. Ames further suggested that this experience of prayer provides the foundation for one having a personal relationship with nature. He explained: “Nature, being now inclusive of known and experienced intelligence, becomes an object with which the individual may communicate, and toward which it is possible to feel the attitudes of intimate and tender relationships that are so vital of religious moods… nature viewed as the physical organism in which the life and thought and feeling exist inherently is more appealing than nature conceived as mere rocks and weather.”333 For Ames, prayer expresses one’s sense of being at home in the universe, which also requires that one be on good terms with one’s associates. It is natural of us to interpret reality in terms of an inclusive

122

Christian Pragmatism

Being and to assign personality to it. The more impressive we project this Being, the more meaningful our communication with it. Ames postulated: “If he attributes to the divine being sympathetic understanding, generous friendliness, interesting fullness and novelty of personality, he will be refreshed and find strength in the most intimate companionship with God. Prayer… is an attitude, a habit, a disposition in which is sought the fullest possible participation in that larger reality into which all significant thought and action radiate.”334 In considering “death and the future,” Ames recognized that modern persons have a changed attitude toward death. We use to think of death as due to Adam’s sin but now we view it as the natural result of disease or old age. This changed view has led to more restrained ceremonials at funerals, with the new emphasis being upon the quality and character of the person being remembered and not the person’s longevity. What overwhelms us about death is the loss of life’s work and our relationships with loved ones. We tend to focus on the future and only under intense pressure do we consider the risks and final end. Ames contended that “what is needed is an interpretation of life which recognizes the brevity of human life, yet affords appreciation of its dignity and value.”335 We see a development of immortality in the Judo-Christian tradition, beginning with the Hebraic perspective which failed to develop a view of personal immortality. Jesus taught about the security of a virtuous soul, but when Jesus did not return to establish the Kingdom of God on earth this security was questioned. Ames explained: “Forced by terrible experience to feel that it could not be at home in such a world, the leaders of the new religion turned their gaze toward the heavenly abode, and comforted themselves with the assurance that the sufferings of this present life were but for the moment and would work out for them a glorious destiny in an immortal life hereafter.”336 For Paul the heavenly home was the goal of faith and hope. The notion of the unity and indestructibility of the soul was taken from pagan literature. Ames postulated that in the modern world these doctrines had passed from favor, as Christian thinkers realized that a primary focus on a future life caused people to relax efforts to solve problems in this world. “No severer criticism is passed upon orthodox religion today from within and from without, than this, that the churches stress a sentimental, metaphysical notion of salvation and fail to deal vigorously with glaring mundane evils.”337 A major problem with the notion of immortality for Christians was the notion that immortality was awarded on the basis of a system of rewards and punishment. The situation became more complex with the notion that immortality was a gift of God, for there appeared to be no way of knowing what one must do to achieve

Religion (1929)

123

immortality. The notion that God required obedience to certain rules with no discernible moral quality violated human reason, as well as negating faith in God’s justice and goodness. Ames contended that popular religion still was involved in magical rites by contending that God elects those destined for immortality regardless of their character. Ames recognized that there was inadequate scientific knowledge to support belief in a future life even though there is intense emotional interest in the issue. He did indicate that “the reduction of the material world itself to non-substantial terms by physical science has opened the way to new hope of confirming the primacy of spiritual existence apart from material bodies, of its survival after death.”338 However, there remains no scientific justification for this hope. Ames did note that the conceptions of a future life have radically changed: “Instead of a place of infinite leisure and passive enjoyment, it is now conceived as a state of continued activity and growth of enlarging knowledge and achievement. …The stirring picture of a glorified, creative democratic society actively working out a higher order of intelligence and cooperative achievement is more appealing, and illustrates anew how men have always imaged the celestial life as an idealization of the values that they have treasured here below.”339 He suggested that we live on through our children, the work we have accomplished, and through our ideas and influences. Ames suggested, as a pathetic fact of history, that the continuance of the life and influence of Jesus throughout history has been identified with the idea of his being bodily resurrected. He explained: “No one can doubt the fact that he came to life in this world after he died on the cross. No argument is needed to prove that he rose from a grave of obscurity to a life of renown; from a grave of weakness and silence to a life of power; from a grave of ignominy to a place of love and honor. Already, in comparison with some thirty years of ordinary life, he has lived for nineteen hundred years beyond his death! And the secret of this conspicuous fact lies not in some miraculous magic but in the moral and spiritual quality of his character. It was the power of his living word and gracious spirit that carried him over the gulfs of death and gave him immortality.”340 For Ames, the vital energy of Jesus’ living presence in our midst is more essential and productive for humans than a Jesus existing in some silent and remote world. Perhaps this indicates that we are not as concerned about a future life as we are about life here and now with our associates. It is by our imagination that we live in the present and a possible future existence. Ames explained: “Constantly he transcends the moment of the present, and by the same power he oversteps the bounds of death. To some extent he anticipates what the future will be, and in it is part of his

124

Christian Pragmatism

privilege and duty to live in the light of that future as aiding in the determination of what is worth while in the present. Throughout the whole of experience there runs the limitation of man’s knowledge and power… There is no other kind of life available except that which his imagination conceives in terms of experience and reflection.”341 In examining “Creative Religious Behavior,” Ames postulated that civilizations have been responsible for negating their own economic foundations and left their once powerful people to face poverty or extinction. As new and great accomplishments occur humans have developed a greater sense of power. If we judge our mental life by the actual acts performed, we understand that knowledge is judged by our skill and resourcefulness in the use of tools. Mind is now understood as involving the total operation of the person in adapting to its environment. It is in our conscious life that the contributions of the mental life appears. Our thinking is measured in terms of correctness and adequacy of the actual outcome. If an idea fails, it fails only in that particular situation or environment. Ames suggested that thinking is involved in the use of language, as speech is the association of words with objects. Speech is a social process as our words are modified by other persons. Ames noted that “modern science began to make real progress when it discarded the notion of special forces and causes from the world of nature. It then conceived the order of physical things as under one law of cause and effect, held in equilibrium through the conversation and correlation of energy.”342 Previously humans had been thought to be in reaction to special agencies and supernatural invasions of the natural order, with the result of either denying mental life or making it insignificant to our actual world. This position evolved into a philosophy of determinism: “A man’s acts are not within the province of his will or choice; he is always subject to the compulsions of relentless forces, and has no more option as to the course of his conduct than has a stone to determine it course when thrown through the air.”343 Determinism takes the form of an external view, regarding the person as passive. Modern psychology understands the activities of the organism to be original and operative in seeking to fulfill the needs of life and action. Religion exhorts us to seek good and to reject evil. Ames thought that if religion could adopt the methods of modern psychology the old assumption that we are by nature bad would be recognized as outdated theology. Of course the problem is finding actual ways of changing habits and directing them to new interests. Only when this is accomplished will we have some chance of being responsible for our deeds—of becoming free to achieve a better self. Ames explained:

Religion (1929)

125

“Religious conduct is all of a piece with moral conduct, so far as the attainment of the good life is concerned, and the great instrument for this purpose is enlightenment with reference to the formulation and the realization of desirable ideals.”344 Modern moral theories provide an account of moral behavior in terms of impulse, habit and reflection. Through memory and imagination we are aware of our actions and chose paths of conduct that support our disciplined decisions which are modified by further insights. Ames contended that without the possibility of deliberation, gaining knowledge which we test in our memory and imagination, our freedom is limited to the range of our habits. The ends a person seeks reflect its character, which is not an unchangeable entity. We live in a changing world that precipitates moral problems. If our habits are rigid we will be unable to adapt to the changing social and material environment. “Thus is developed the most important habits, namely, the habit of modifying habits, of discarding baneful or useless ones, and forming new ones.”345 From this perspective, we understand the free impulses of childhood as providing opportunities for developing new insights and new forms of behavior. Since no two persons are the same, we each have to determine our conduct based on our capacity and judgment. Ames opined: “Hence the individual is responsible for his deed… Just as no one else can perform a moral act in his stead, so no one is able to take moral blame or reward for him. It is only by accepting the proper measure of responsibility for his acts that the individual can increase his realization of his own nature and that of the world in which he moves… It is only because he is able, as a conscious, reflective person, to exercise some estimate of his performance that he is a moral agent and the bearer of moral worth or guilt. …Without this assumption of the capacity of the individual to learn from the consequences of his conduct there could be no ground for moral judgment, but the assumption is the evidence of the responsibility, that is, the freedom of the person.”346 Thus for Ames, it is a fallacy to suppose that any one has an absolute standard of right and wrong. Certainly Socrates and Jesus had the courage of an adventuring and experimental mind which is essential to all moral conduct. In focusing on “good and evil,” Ames contended that no religious experience can determine an absolute standard of the nature of the good from revelation or any transcendental metaphysics. Such efforts lead to an ultimate skepticism based on mystical and unintelligible religious symbols. He suggested that modern psychology and the developing science of morals provide support for an understanding of religion in terms of natural spiritual life. Ames explained: “The measures of the good life

126

Christian Pragmatism

may be said to consist in the expansiveness, harmony, and happiness experienced. Fullness of life, variety of interest, depth of insight, scope of social participation, are the insignias of the good. Growth in sympathy, in understanding, in skill and power are characteristics by which life is made wrathful.”347 A problem in seeking the good life is the impossible conception of perfection as the goal of spiritual life. In place of this impossible standard is the understanding that one’s conduct is judged by what is done and the social customs in which it is done. He noted that trying to define the good by formal rules encounters the same problem. The good life demands shared responsibility for communal interests. Ames opined: “One of the greater evils of the present time is the narrow, specialized activity… withdrawing them from any significant part in the public affairs of their communities.”348 We cannot reach the supreme good without dealing with the conditions and relations which make it possible. Ames found that many modern intellectuals fail to participate in the common human tasks which enable the society to become a social whole. They act in this fashion on the pretext of seeking personal fulfillment through quest for pleasure and the joy of life. Humans cannot escape their social bonds and must accept responsibility for constructive social change. Ames noted that his generation was heir to new thought forms based on the new attitudes made possible by modern science. He considered it inevitable that our moral and spiritual life should be conceived in more practical and reasonable ways. “It is scarcely thinkable that religion should remain under the control of primitive ideas and practices when the rest of life is dominated by the self-vouching and fruitful experience of the more reflective and critical procedures.”349 In this rapidly changing social environment, Ames sought to identify guides for the good life. He suggested guides found in general principles of action and in the wisdom of others participating in the communal drama. Flexible principles are required for adapting to the changing conditions of society in order that these principles may serve to enjoin active conduct indicative of a thoughtful and expanding character. Ames explained: “It is scarcely thinkable that religion should remain under the control of primitive ideas and practices when the rest of life is dominated by the self-vouching and fruitful experience of the more reflective and critical procedures.”350 Ames suggested that we understand the nature of evil in light of our view of the good as constructive development of life. He explained evil as “the abstract of obstruction, disintegration, and therefore the negative phase… Evil things and acts are those which thwart or defeat the issues of plans and efforts.”351 The growth of character is positively supported by building quality in common, with bad actions weakening and undermining

Religion (1929)

127

qualitative social development. Physical evils can be destructive to the support of values. It is only when we seek the attainment of particular objectives that bad things can occur. As Ames noted: “Life is: plainly mixed, partial, and precarious. Everything pursues its way at some hazard, with risk and uncertainty.”252 Ames suggested that the very nature of moral acts lie in their problematic character. In themselves physical things are not evil or good. Only ideas put into action are properly good or bad. He rejected the assumption of the total depravity of humans as “a vicious inheritance for an old mythology.”353 Humans are not cruel by nature but learn these traits. For the formation of adequate moral judgments our impulses must be transformed through reflection and developed into conscious habits. Such transformation is possible through more adequate education of our children in support of good conduct and moral judgment. Ames considered the function of churches in the radically changing social environment. One function is to persistently present its form of faith and its ceremonials of worship. The study of religions has informed us that all moral, practical, and religious customs have a particular history which has undergone changes as has the general cultural processes. From history we also understand that religious movements generally failed to recognize their inherent limitations and instead blamed the weakness of the intended recipient. Ames recognized in his ministry that the old type of service was inadequate for integrating new members with older participants. “What is needed to make churches more flexible and more serviceable to changing populations is recognition of the fact that authority for their procedure lies not merely in the past, but also in the spiritual needs and aspirations of the people whom they seek to serve.”354 History does not support there being one continuous church pattern, any more than in one changeless and infallible scripture. Religion changes with the movement in society and is never a thing apart from the communal organization. What is required of the modern church is an experimental spirit, for “it is only by a wise and reasonable use of criticism and experiment that improvement is possible.”355 We must get over the notion that the church was divinely founded, as we now realize that the first religions were human creations. What is needed today is an empirical, realistic interpretation of the historic forms, with an estimate of their values and the ends served. Ames considered that Christianity was continuing as a farmer’s religion, but he recognized that the new social demands required new symbols. Community churches are emerging as a new stage in historic Christianity where for the first time “the traditional doctrinal standards

128

Christian Pragmatism

have been so modified as to be in effect abrogated.”356 Beliefs are held more lightly and future rewards are considered secondary to the demands of practical living in relation to changing social ideals. He sees a different attitude emerging in which the church responds to practical needs and to the wellbeing of its participants. Ames explained the implications of these shifts: “When this conception is made explicit it puts the standards of truth and value within experience, and makes them subject to the judgment and conscience of the churches themselves. By this means a complete release is won from the conventional forms of religious authority, and the way is opened for free experiment.”357 He suggested that it was in this latter direction that real solutions to the problems of Christian union may be resolved. However, he noted that within recent decades many practical movements have emerged which essentially ignored the more conventional paths for union. A good example of this movement was the YMCA. Ames considered Christian union to labor under two handicaps. The first was that the participants were inclined to place undue emphasis upon historical beliefs and practices. The second problem is there limited perspective, as they view the issue as cooperation between denominations. Ames suggested that the most important efforts towards union can be found in the free churches, where doctrinal issues are weakest and social cooperation the strongest. However, the free churches have influenced the creedal churches to the extent that they have placed less stress on traditional articles of faith and more emphasis upon the social values of religion. Ames noted that for most churches in America there was less emphasis on finding some kind of transcendental salvation and more on discovering ways for establishing more satisfactory aids for living in the present. Instead of focusing on doctrines, they were interested in the more practical implications of Jesus’ teachings. Ames explained that Jesus’ form of religion “gave room for the discovery of new and great forms of association, and impelled to the conception and invention of more adequate means for the realization of a society of justice and mercy. He was willing to rest the justification of his religion upon experience, to let it be tested by its fruits, and to encourage it to expand beyond anything which he had seen or done.”358 Ames stressed that every congregation has the responsibility to examine its methods and teaching in the light of our growing knowledge of ourselves and nature. He recognized that there will be many types of churches which will attract persons with similar stages of development. However, in time the old divisions of the churches will disappear with the emphasis being placed on the needs of the people. As the churches were going through these cultural and intellectual changes, religious education was facing similar challenges as it became

Religion (1929)

129

increasing evident that something more was required than traditional biblical stories and theological doctrines. Character education had been a theme in religious education with the goal being spontaneous expressions of positive behavior but the sought naturalness of behavior was negated by attempt to teach it. Unless one’s will and emotions are involved, the ideas taught will have little effect. Ames stressed that what is required is engaging the child in activities within its power and interest. Ames explained: “Knowledge is in a real sense a by-product and when it is obtained it becomes a tool, an instrument, in the system of activity through which it arose. When separated and abstracted from this concrete stream of interests it becomes dry and cold. Religious knowledge is no exception. The conceptions which have arisen through religious experience refer back to that experience and have no content or meaning apart from it. …Religion is a life-experience, and without sympathetic participation in that experience its dogmas and formulas are lifeless and unappealing.”359 The religious vocabulary of our ancestors is unreal to those living in the new age of science. From modern psychology we have learned that the particular attitude of the group—its evolving social ideal—is the key for attracting new participants. In this environment, “The task of religious education then becomes one of influencing people of all ages to share intelligently in this view, and in the effort to make it the chief end of thought and experimentation.”360 Of course the problem of how to instill this attitude remained a key issue. Ames postulated that such an effort required the cooperation of social leaders committed to creating an environment which supported religious education. Valid religious education supports the development of an aspiring religious life. Such a life requires that societies’ social leaders have strong religious convictions which will serve as an example for the people. These efforts in religious education are being supported by the research into the nature of religion and the foundations in human nature for religious experiences. Ames suggested: “When religion is seen to be not so much a theory as a way of living, a body of attitudes rather than a set of ideas, a system of values more than a deposit of symbols and ordinances, a different conception of its inculcation becomes possible… This learning came to be conceived in terms of attainment of efficient behavior in the satisfaction of wants.”361 All education in that period was viewed as conditioning, with the prevailing interest of the group dominating this process. If the prevailing interest is against religion, it is impossible to develop religious persons in a non-religious society. If religion is to be successful, it must cultivate those religious values inherent in their common experiences. Ames opined: “Society cannot long endure systems

130

Christian Pragmatism

of religious institutions that are out of harmony with its fundamental convictions and spirit. Education, for such alien and exclusive institutions, works against the stream. It is only such religion as is open to the light of day, and in unison with the basic ideals of the common life that can yield permanently satisfying religious education.”362 Ames was aware that the spirit of public education rejected the superstition and magic found in historical religions. In its place, public education stresses moral and practical values, especially important in developing a well rounded character. The development of science was so recent that it has not been fully assimilated into general education, but science has afforded education a method of critical, reflective thinking which many traditional religions found antagonistic to their view of faith. Ames contended that gradually the scientific method was being seen as liberating the ends sought by religion and offering the means for attaining the goals of an enlightened religious understanding and faith. It was seeking how to reach these goals that became the dominant concern of religious education. A curriculum was designed on the premise that religion is integral to the whole of life to the extent it supports the communal values. “The method is that of utilizing the current experiences of the individual, and of emphasizing in various ways those attitudes that are seen to be essential in promoting intelligent, harmonious, and joyous activity in the members of society.”363 The social experiences discussed at each grade must be appropriate to the experience level of the children in that culture. Ames held this position based on his view that “the religious life has no peculiar content of its own, for it is just a way of meeting and entering into all the basic relations of common life. It is differentiated by its approach and spirit, by its idealization and its evaluations.”364 The chief concern was developing adequate attitudes and forms of behavior. Ames concluded: “A genuine, intelligent, and spontaneous loyalty to the institution and its work is essential to the desired results… Unless religion has the respect and understanding support of the environing agencies with which it is thus related, it can only accomplish its ends partially and haltingly. The great religious concepts, such as righteousness, love, and God, have no content aside from socially conditioned emotions. They become meaningful and persuasive only where the lives of individuals are set in some group, be it large or small, where there is the sense of commanding values, the realization of which determines the success or failure of life itself. Mankind is now undergoing the profoundest intellectual revolution that it has ever experienced.”365 In considering “Religious Knowledge and Practice,” Ames understood that many in our age of science feared subjecting their faith to reflective

Religion (1929)

131

criticism. He contended that what is needed in religion is a new method that will enable us to become as intelligent about our religion as we are about other important concerns in our lives. Increasingly in America, we are living what Ames described as “associated lives.” By this he meant that we have become dependent upon experts and our felt needs for the good we enjoy. He suggested that religion is not limited from the need of those with specialized knowledge, which he explained: “The true expert does not claim esoteric knowledge, private and peculiar to himself… Experts in religion, so far as there are any, became such by similar processes, by study, observation, experiment, and long application. They no longer depend upon or claim special revelations, visions, auditions, psychic powers, or divine endowments.”366 Those who claim authority based on apostolic succession or supernatural gifts do not appear genuine or significant to intelligent modern persons. The degree that a religion considers these persons its leaders, such a religion will remain primitive and archaic in the modern age of science. Ames explained: “When sayings are received as true because he (Jesus) uttered them the effect is very different from that which flows from thinking that he said them because they were true. In the former attitude there resides a blind faith; in the latter, an intelligent faith. The difference lies in the verifiability of the latter in experience, while the former neither asks nor allows such verification.”367 Ames suggested one’s religious confusion in modern times is our acceptance of biblical writers as authorities on geology, history, morals and religious matters. A similar error is deducing from sayings attributed to Jesus regulations for all types of conduct. Certainly Jesus taught and illustrated in his life the basic attitudes of a thoughtful, devout person. However, Jesus also “illustrated the fact that such a life moves freely, interpreting and facing situations as they arise by means of clear insight and helpful sympathy.”368 Ames was astounded and found pathetic the concern with the occult and other magical devices in an age of general education and scientific method. He rejected the age of a belief and/or the number of believers as proof of the truth or value of a religion. “Religion is therefore of necessity experimental, lives forward, and is to be judged as much by the direction it is taking as by the way it has come.”369 Ames found the state of learning itself in America being a primary obstacle in keeping religion from attaining adequate knowledge for living in the modern world. It is difficult to make revolutionary ideas fit with traditional notions when the focus is upon seeking knowledge for its own sake. In this climate religious institutions have given limited attention to technical studies, with primary attention given to how people live daily.

132

Christian Pragmatism

Ames opined: “That position is a complete divorce between knowledge and practice, between doctrine and life, and it consigns religion to the limbo of authoritarianism and mysticism. It also separates religion from every other aspect of a man’s experience…”370 Ames suggested that the new knowledge of science will be appreciated by those who share in the values of modern secular culture. The biblical accounts of human origin, of language, and religion are replaced by scientific knowledge. Modern psychology was supporting greater selfrespect, as the utter sinfulness and depravity of humans was rejected. If one is to serve as a religious expert, it is necessary that one support open investigations and reasonableness in one’s claims. “The bane of religion has been the assumption on the part of its priests and prophets of some kind of inspiration not given to natural men and to ordinary mortals.”371 Ames admitted no difference between laity and clergy in seeking to understand religious claims of truth. The problem is that religion continues to treat the scientific revolution as a passing fancy. What is required are religious scholars attuned to the scientific method who can reinterpret religious concepts in order that we may “discern the moral and spiritual values in the daily life and social relations of normal human beings, and to enhance and beautify them with the weight and resource of public recognition and celebration.”372 To accomplish this goal, it is essential that we understand that the method of Jesus was to expose by parable and terse wisdom the ideal life in everyday living, the infinite value of the individual to God, and to call them to participate in communal relations with all peoples.

RELIGIOUS VALUES AND PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM (1929)

Ames began this discussion with a quotation from John Dewey which indicates that philosophic criticism is responsible for what lies outside its primary focus. Dewey explained: “It has to appraise values by taking cognizance of their causes and consequences; only by this straight and narrow path may it contribute to expansion and emancipation of values. For this reason the conclusions of science about matter-of-fact efficiencies of nature are its indispensable instruments.”373 Science seeks to make the goods more coherent and secure. It can only perform this task by making more explicit the subject-matter of existence. Ames postulated that the most cherished values of religion are inner peace, security, fellowship, and joy. It was understood that these values may not be realized fully in this life, but their faith in the unfailing character of God assured them of eventual justification in a future life. However, the only way of attaining these values was being obedient to God’s revelation in our conduct and devotion to the Church. The problem was that these traditional values and divine ordinances belonged to a static and unexamined world which was now being transformed by scientific knowledge as a vast evolutionary process with the hope of the eventual mastery of nature. A further problem was the discovery that the scriptures were not a revelation written by humans but were the established customs and taboos of the tribe. Ames opined: “With this discovery of the power of intelligence rightly applied to the concrete problems of living has come a different appraisal of the value of human nature and a disposition to stand erect in the face of the universe and to look about with intelligent caution and chastened assurance.”374 With the new spirit of science came new values which involved the discovery of natures’ secrets as well as experiments seeking to understand the material, social and moral ways of life. This exploration focused on the possibility of progressive achievement which would open humans to the possibility of indefinite growth and enrichment of life in this world. These changes raised new questions about the nature of value itself—whether value belongs to our experiences in this world or belongs to a transcendent realm. These changes led to the transition from natural to ethical religion, with the ethical values pertaining to our communal relations. Thus, values emerge in our

134

Christian Pragmatism

experiences and are of value as long as they last, even if there is no immortality. However, our needs and wishes grow, but with ethics becoming religion our values from experience are verifiable. The task, in light of the scientific revolution, is to discover what in historical religion appeals to modern minds. By intelligent observation we learn to cherish some values which support harmony, fruitfulness, and continued growth, as well as values which impede these cherished values and are to be discarded. Ames explained: “The ‘highest values,’ accordingly, are those which in the long run bear the best fruits in the life process… They are always the highest from the standpoint of the growing life itself and because they point forward to other values that may supersede them.”375 The role of religion is the integration of these concrete values in order that they may serve in supporting the fullest and most harmonious living. The problem is keeping these values in balance. For example, if religion is overly focused on self-sacrifice it becomes irreligious to the good life. We each live in a particular time under exacting circumstances. Therefore, our religion must be attuned to these conditions in order to project and fulfill our noblest ideals. Since all human experience involves values, Ames contended that our study of the history of religions enables us now to project what values ancient groups held. This study has revealed that the vast distances between cultures was not the intensity of their devotion. Rather, it was whether the culture had developed means of investigation, the conditions and consequences of selected value, in order to free itself from those values which impede their fulfilling our noblest ideals. A problem is that the ancient forms of religion are dominated by conservative attitudes. Ames suggested that modern religion was beginning to include scientific accounts based on free scientific inquiry which were negating old myths. This new faith is focusing on the functioning of human nature to experiment responsibly with life and to draw from experience those insights which enrich and further life itself. What is required is restating religion in terms of the inherent, urgent values of modern life. For Ames, religion is a kind of poetic interpretation of the supreme values in life, but it must be poetry based on reality. Certainly legends, parables, and dramatic stories will be retained so long as they serve a useful purpose. Creeds have historical value but should not be taken as containing absolute and final truth, since science continues to change our lives so that we are forced to question old values. For Ames, the key religious question of the day was whether we are to be controlled by machines and the need for money in place of our noble ideals. He noted that machines have been spiritualized by their positive

Religious Values and Philosophical Criticism (1929)

135

support of progress. Our scientifically oriented religious philosophy of life accepts the limited nature of human knowledge and achievement, which fact it claims to be of significant value. One such value is the thrill of adventure and exploration, while also being intrigued by our failures and successes. Our emotional excitement is enhanced by the nature of the world as we encounter it, which enhances our moral qualities of courage, patience, cooperation and sympathy. We stand humbled by the air of mystery with which the new world afforded by science confronts us. Ames opined: “To ignore either side of experience is to lose all one’s practical bearings in the depths of mysticism or despair, or to live in a false security with the illusions of vain, blind conceit. The wisdom of the wise is to cling to the values which prove themselves in the shifting scenes of life, and to labor for the conditions that give them greater accessibility, continuing growth, and new progeny in the colorful and thrilling life of man lived at its highest levels and fullest capacities.”376

IMAGERY AND MEANING IN RELIGIOUS IDEAS (1932)

We all engage in conventional exchanges of customary forms with our associates which are real and vital, but the meaning of these forms of exchange are not appropriate for technical scientific dialogue. Ames also noted that the words employed in such exchanges do not readily lend themselves to analysis for their meaning, as we realize that other forms of salutation would serve the purpose of a friendly recognition. Because we often use language in ways beyond the forms of words, these words must be understood only within the context of the customs and mores of the community. Religious terms are also employed in practical usage in ceremonies and seldom open to analysis and reflection. B. K. Malinowski is referred to as supporting his contentions regarding the practical use of language, noting that “the meaning of a thing is made up of experiences of its active use and not of intellectual contemplation… a word means to a native the proper use of the thing for which it stands…”377 Ames suggested that here we find the key to the meaning of personification: “Persons like other objects, mean their behavior, what they do, how they act.”378 In this process of personification, relevant things in the surroundings help release the same emotional response as to the person. Persons are objects that interest us and which are most important in our satisfactions and emotions. We combine the interaction of persons and other objects in our experiences although we agree with the behaviorists that non-living objects have no emotions. In early religion, deities were objects with which the group felt in close relations and were dependent upon for food. In more spiritualized religions the power of the deity remains through its name. This characteristic is evident in Judaism, Islam, Roman Catholicism, and to a lesser extent in Protestantism. Through ceremonies we recreate the key life-interests of the group, with the gods as the central objects which are taken as actual and real to the participants. In ceremonies, the language captures the moods, attitudes, and actions they arouse and is not meant as either descriptive or scientific. “The language of affections is not the language of matter of fact descriptions.”379 Ames referred to Frances Galton’s work on imagery in 1880. Galton discovered that many of his friends, who were scientists, did not have visual imagery of their morning breakfast experience. He then applied the

138

Christian Pragmatism

same test to members of the general public and discovered that more women than men retained mental imagery that was full of color. Edward B. Tichener confirmed that a difference in imagery may affect its meaning and influence the process of understanding. William James noted the great valuations in imagery without compromising it meanings. Prior to modern psychology, it was natural to think of reason involving abstract ideas as essentially different from normal sense perception and memory images. Immanuel Kant reconciled sense perception and pure reason. He held that pure reason existed in a realm ruled by the moral law which was beyond sense perception and imagination. One is obedient to the moral law by fulfilling one’s destiny through faith. Ames opined: “The influence of this division between the natural and the spiritual worlds has made a cleavage within man himself, between the body and the spirit, the material and the immaterial, the physical and the supernatural, between knowledge and faith.”380 Some words convey their meaning in the imagery employed even in the absence of the object. In this fashion the word defines the characteristics of the object. As we repeatedly use the word in this manner it recalls the image. “Even when the object is present in sensuous perception imagery functions to provide its meaning.”381 When we become familiar with the object, our thoughts become schematized; which enables us to require less references to our concrete impressions depending upon our interests. “It is thus apparent from many facts that the meanings of ideas hold no fixed and necessary relation to the character or the definiteness of the imagery present in thought.”382 The history of religions indicate that religion shares in the experiences of the general culture, as life-interests represent our pressing needs and the ceremonials reproduce our actual life processes. When the techniques of science are interjected, problems arise as we focus on more intricate factors involving subtle and more fully developed symbols. As our symbols become more specialized, they involve greater meanings than ordinary words. Charles K. Ogden and others have suggested that words and signs used scientifically are depersonalized from practical and emotional usage by careful definition. Ames contended that “if the reasons for the development and use of these abstract symbols of science were better understood it would aid greatly in solving the long drawn conflict between science and religion.”383 Science focuses on the causal relations of things and in this effort may employ concepts we would not normally use. However, this use by science does not negate our normal literary and religious use of terms. Ames focused on the history of the idea of the soul to illustrate different approaches. Plato employed images of dignity and permanence

Imagery and Meaning in Religious Ideas (1932)

139

and developed from them metaphysical arguments in support of establishing the transcendental reality and immortality of the soul. William James and many modern psychologists have developed a psychology without a soul. Unable to find the soul in the body, it becomes a mystical being or substance with no location that functions as a guarantee of an ontological reality. Max Otto added to this perspective the understanding that if we reject consideration of a soul metaphysically and psychologically, we still may employ it in literary and religious language even though we no longer believe in the soul as a central concept of life. For Otto, our claim of having a soul means that we share in the great spiritual assets our ancestors employed in order to rise above our immediate world of fact. Ames suggested that what has been done for the idea of the soul should be done for the idea of God. Humans have attempted to prove that a particular image of God is valid, when what we should recognize is that it is not the image but the meaning which is important. Modern science has negated traditional human images as being literal representations of God. Many assume it is futile to try to establish the reality of God by hyper establishing the image of God metaphysically or theologically. Ames indicated his view of God: “God is the world taken as a social object. God is reality idealized and personified. God means confidence in a friendly universe. He is the experienced goodness, love, and beauty of the world. He is the guarantor of our moral idealisms, of their fruition in significant results, as he gives assurance that seed sown in good soil will produce a harvest. This is religious, poetic, literary language, the language of human beings in their practical, idealistic, aspiring experiences.”384 He also noted that prayer was a type of conversation with God through which we gain a better self understanding. The physical and social sciences have greatly impacted religious symbols, and religion accordingly must make revision of its terms and symbols if it is to be vital in any society. However, religion must retain its moral orientation, function as religion, and not be replaced by science or metaphysics.

LETTERS TO GOD AND THE DEVIL (1933)

For forty years Edward Scribner Ames was minister of the University Church of Disciples in Chicago, while also serving on the faculty in philosophy at the University of Chicago. Here he demonstrated weekly “the mind of a scholar and the emotion of a preacher.”385 In Letters To God And The Devil Ames developed a “letter” as a sermon format. The first open-letter was to God in which he indicated that he has always thought of God as having great patience. Ames found this format to release his imagination. It also increased his sense of intimacy with his ideal companion and also afforded a new sense of his own nature as a child of God. He suggested that God is reflected in the world which God has created, from the blade of grass to the vast mysteries of nature. Because many names have been used to describe God, Ames postulated the term “experience” as a convenient concept, but insisted that God still desired a personal relation with all life and nature. Ames noted that previously he had found the idea of incarnation difficult but now realized that God is incarnate in many persons and is continually doing so. Ames proclaimed our conscience and our hopes and fears as proof of God’s presence. God appears in the common events of life, with God’s best representatives at the time being scientists. Ames considered the traditional attributes of God—infinite, omnipotence and omniscience—no longer to have much appeal. “But intimacy and concreteness, immanence and at-home-ness in our world, seem of utmost value… [and] I like to believe that it is impossible for you to do evil.”386 He indicated that he had become more fascinated with Jesus who had put aside his mystery and supernatural aids. As a result Jesus had gained more power over humans as a true representative of the divine, as well as the point of departure for a new faith in God. If we can believe that God is like Jesus; then our affection and devotion will increase to do God’s will. He expressed relief that it was no longer necessary to believe what traditions has proclaimed. However, he did mention that there was new interest in the Doctrine of the Trinity as providing a new perspective on God’s relation to the world. He concluded expressing his belief that God is involved in the struggles of peace and war. Ames accepted that nature operates on laws that apply to all alike, but he is appalled by the suffering of humanity, contending that “unless we can believe that our

142

Christian Pragmatism

lives do go forward, even through our failures, it is hard to have any faith at all.”387 In the second letter-sermon entitled “The Nature Of The Soul,” Ames rejected the old notion of the soul as a spirit inside a person which is released at death for a bodiless immortality and postulated an individual’s soul that cannot be considered apart from its experience. He explained that although knowledge is a matter of degree, we do have knowledge of ourselves and others by observing the things we do. Ames contended that our soul is our self, our personality which we observe in our habits, interest, and appreciation of other persons. In other words, Ames explained that “to be a soul means to be a being which develops feeling, knowledge, and will.”388 Animals also have souls, but the difference between our souls and other animals’ souls is one of degree. Whatever affects the person affects the soul since they are one and the same. Ames suggested that the soul is not a simple unity but is fluid and changing which we can feel in our changing moods and interests. He contended that we suffer the defects of our qualities, as our souls are imprinted with our experiences. This contention was significant to Ames for it meant “that there is a conviction that persons may be understood in this way and that it is by the improvement of intelligence tests and tests of skill and motivation that progress is to be made in rightly judging men, and in influencing and guiding them.”389 Based on this difference between persons, there have been new approaches into religious thought and practices. In the old view people were sinners via Adam and Eve, with salvation being as general as sin. The new view considers the diseases of the soul as specific as diseases of the body, with specific cures for the soul. Ames opined: “Churches still proceed too much upon the assumption that since sinners are all sick with sin they may all be healed by one general remedy such as that of accepting Christ or joining the church. But this conception of sick souls and their cure—which belonged to the old evangelistic religions—has rapidly given way to closer and more refined diagnosis of the soul, and to more specific methods of religious education and training.”390 Christianity needs to realize that its job is not saving souls through some mysterious process. Rather, its job is helping to build better lives through effective methods. Ames agreed with Rudolph Otto that through nurturing souls we resist the drift towards total secularization which threatens modern societies. In this way we fulfill our true task which is to minister to each other. Sermon number three focused on the “Growth of Soul Through Reflection.” By “reflection” we gain new ideas or new understanding about old ideas. He suggested that as the Hebrews developed their religion

Letters to God and the Devil (1933)

143

within the context of their social and political life, we should expect the same to have occurred in other situations. With this perspective, we should expect changes today in our religion “as we substitute democracy for monarchy, create scientific inventions… [and] adopt universal suffrage… Psychology gives us new views of the soul, and theology frames new conceptions of God. The doctrine of evolution has created new attitudes toward nature and toward all phases of human life. We face the future with expectancy of change…”391 Ames indicated that humans are just emerging out of childhood with before them a long period of growth and achievement. In his own growth, Ames had come to understand Jesus, no longer as a man of sorrows, but as one who taught a religion of joy confident in his message of love. All of us drift in the great stream of life, never sure of what we will encounter, and what will shape and mold our souls. Ames opined: “All these experiences are indicative of the sensitivity and susceptibility of the human soul. Instead of being stable and inelastic, the soul is as delicate and impressionable as the eye, or the ear, or the hand. These senses have been called the windows of the soul… For the soul is the man himself, his habits and emotions, his hopes and fears, his self-respect and his sense of power or weakness. The soul is as stable as the thoughts it has, and as the purposes which it follows, and it is always subject to change.”392 Ames recognized that all humans are dependent upon their environment and upon other people. He suggested that the same principle holds for a growing soul, which takes part in its own growth and destiny. “It is one of the vital contributions of modern psychology that it has confirmed the capacity of the mind to take some part in its own direction.”393 We talk to ourselves and in our imagination consider possible lines of conduct and their consequences. In this way our soul extends itself in imagination and gives direction to its own growth. When a person enters a church with an inquiring mind and a vulnerable spirit seeking sustenance for the soul, growth occurs. Ames found the new-thought cults to provide positive insights into the growth of the soul as they replace the idea that suffering ennobles the soul with the notion that cheerfulness provides peace of mind and trust in life which enables the soul to reach higher levels of growth— of strength and happiness. The fourth sermon dealt with the “Growth of Soul Through Adversity.” Our souls grow as we overcome tragic adversity. We know that it is possible to overcome serious handicaps in spite of hostile circumstances. “This is what the psychologists call compensatory effort to overcome inferiority and inferiority complexes, but the experience is often far more subtle than the general statement reveals…”394 Our own ambition is

144

Christian Pragmatism

essential to our success. Individuals come to see themselves in some larger role which gives direction to their efforts to overcome complicating odds, often confronting suffering and pain, to attain their unique achievement. Rejected is the mistaken notion that sorrows are divine gifts for chastisement. Sorrows are just part of human life. We are wrong to think that suffering itself is good. It is through hope, patience and courage that we wrestle with our adversities and transform them into something positive. We live forward with our hopes negating the cost of advance. Humans have an unconquerable discontent and a great desire to get beyond the conflicts of life. Ames postulated an even deeper adversity in human nature which is between the ideals of perfection and the realization of our limitations and failures. He noted that it was at this point that the moral problem becomes acute in religious life as we have before us the standard of a perfect life but even with our best efforts are unable to attain this life. At this stage, many want to seek divine forgiveness and hope for divine grace, which has the result of weakening their will. However, Ames indicated that many things are causing this doctrine and attitude to be altered. One cause is the emphasis upon the humanity of Jesus by interpreting his life and work. He explained: “Gradually it has been seen that he did not assume perfection and that if he had, it would have endangered his whole cause… Therefore there is a profound appeal in the conception of Jesus as possessing the fundamental limitations which we all share, and yet rising to heights of moral grandeur and leadership. There is a new possibility of moral leadership when we recognize that he had to grow in grace and in knowledge… If we think of Jesus as starting from the same beginnings as other men, his achievement takes on a new quality of significance and power.”395 In “Easter Secret,” Ames recognized that for many people Easter represents the triumph of Jesus Christ over death as providing the hope that we may share in his risen life. He rejected this understanding and claimed that “the survival of Jesus after death is the survival of the soul.”396 The proofs of this position, Ames claimed, are to be found in history, in the thousands of churches and the lives of followers. He has previously described the soul as one’s personality, including one’s ideas and attitudes. Ames claimed that “this personality is… so much more than the body that it may continue to live in very appreciable ways after the body has returned to dust and ashes.”397 In practical business relations, the essential information is to know what kind of a soul the person has. A person’s patterns of interest reveal the soul. He suggested that this method applied to the soul of Jesus whose primary interest was love of God and love of fellow humans. Ames

Letters to God and the Devil (1933)

145

explained: “He magnified the importance of the individual and saw in the poorest and lowliest the infinite worth and divine possibilities of a child of God.”398 Ames acknowledged the importance of our recognizing the understandable aspects of Christ’s resurrection in order to make it intelligible as possible to contemporary persons. He cautioned least we treat the sense of mystery and reverence as purely superstition and magic. Ames found it depressing the way most Christians placed such significant emphasis upon the external physical elements of Good Friday. For Ames, Jesus taught a reasonable spiritual religion in which people were to think for themselves as God’s children. He elevated women to a new dignity and sought “greater freedom for all human beings.”399 Ames contended that it is in the church that the soul of Jesus lives through his followers as they hear Jesus’ words anew and are in sympathy with his hopes and spirit. Ames suggested that “minds may share the same idea and emotion without any barrier of space and time.”400 A noted social psychologist suggested that it is through our imagination that we know persons, living or dead. Ames contended that Jesus remained a creative power in human life through the unexhausted resources in his soul. One of the great errors which blocks the growth of Christianity is assuming that Jesus’ teachings and examples are adequately depicted in ecclesiastical doctrines and devotional patterns. Ames contended that Jesus expected us to use our independence to engage in a cooperative relation to work out Jesus’ purposes. Jesus did not claim finality for his teachings and “his spirit still impels men to regard him as a teacher whose teaching at least must be tested by experience… It is the truth—experimental, practical, verifiable truth—that makes men free, and he urges men still to find their freedom through such truth.”401 Ames claimed that he knew “of no better way for us mortals to attain immortality than by participation in his life and work… He may rest assured that he gains for himself the best that life affords in whatever realms of existence open for his spirit.”402 Sermon six focused on “Invisible Companions.” All children have imaginary companions with whom they converse on a regular basis. “The conversations of children with imaginary companions… are the naïve expression of a socialization of the mind that is to be permanent and to underlie all later thinking.”403 Even as adults our minds are in constant conversation with some person present in our thought with whom we share our concerns and receive approval or dissent. Ames explained: “The psychologist concludes from all this that ‘there is no separation between real and imaginary persons; indeed, to be imagined is to become real… An

146

Christian Pragmatism

invisible person may easily be more real to an imaginative mind than a visible one.’ Imagination is not to be thought of as unreal or illusory. It is one of the great facts which people often miss that the imagination is constantly at work even in our most matter-of-fact experience.”404 He noted that mature minds move in memory between remembered and imaginary persons which form their invisible society. These imaginary persons have their own societies of the mind based on friendships and reading about these ideal persons. “In this realm of the imagination lies the greater part of the joys and consolations of our human life.”405 Ames considered the role of the imagination in relation to the issue of death. He opined: “I know of no greater comfort for those who have suffered the loss of loved ones in death than this; that the departed continue to live with all the reality of living persons in the inner shrine of loving memories.”406 He contended that these sentiments are not just mystical illusions. They describe real experiences which “prove that death does not annihilate those we love.”407 In death people are not obliterated or unavailable to us, for we can converse with them and receive their answers because we know their minds. Thus, the dead are not really dead when we remember them. The writer of Hebrews illustrated this point by stressing that the heroes of the faith live on when they are remembered and reverenced by converts through imaginative appreciation and kinship. Ames claimed that the most real and vital person of our religious imagination is Jesus. The early church sought to make the personality of Christ vibrant and foremost in the minds of Christians. Ames noted that “to many sincere souls he is the most intimate companion, the first to whom they turn in sorrow, or in perplexity, the first to be consulted as to what is the best and the highest way of life.”408 As the church has unveiled old doctrines about Jesus’ nature, his spirit and love of his followers and his unlimited faith in the world becoming a society of love and peace lives on in the minds of modern persons as our spiritual mentor. Ames contended that our modern world has turned the idea of God into a difficult problem by taking a very simple idea of God and applying to it inappropriate tests. He affirmed that “there is an invisible companion, a vital living presence in the souls of men, still more universal, more intimate, and more commanding. This is the spirit of the world itself. This that deeper self, that inescapable other within us, that oversoul who is partner in all our thoughts and the arbiter of all our questionings.”409 The Apostle said that God dwells in us as God’s temples. What is worthy to be called divine is our aspiring will, our unsatisfied longing which drives us to new creations. “It was this divine life within the life of every man which

Letters to God and the Devil (1933)

147

gave each human being infinite worth in the estimate of Jesus… By that aspiring, yearning hope for the ideal he saw God revealed.”410 Ames was convinced that whoever feels this yearning discontent and strives for the larger life demonstrates the witness of the presence of the Divine in our lives—that we are God’s children. The seventh sermon dealt with “God and Nature.” Ames noted that the idea of God was receiving searching inquiry at the beginning of the twentieth century. Scholars have a sharper understanding of the teachings of Jesus and the early church. In an age of science, Ames postulated “that religious people should be as free now to interpret and reconstruct their view of the world, of God… as people of any age.”411 From these efforts we have new conceptions of life and of religion transforming traditional ideas. The study of the history of religions has been a source of new ideas and wider knowledge which has made clear that religion has been molded within the context of humans interacting with their environment. In more organized societies, the gods were conceived in human form—“special objects, selected out of the natural world, and set over against it as its creators and rulers.”412 Once Newton conceived nature as a vast mechanism controlled by the law of cause and effect, a transcendent God became very difficult. The only alternative appeared to be a God outside of nature who invaded nature in order to further God’s moral purposes. “No special creator or sustainer of the world has been found, and the idea of God as a person in the ordinary conception of a person has been abandoned by many of the profoundest thinkers.”413 Evolution further complicated traditional doctrines with nature being viewed as a vast process with humans having evolved as part of nature. Ames explained: “There is no longer the old cleavage between the natural and the spiritual man, as if one belonged to earth and the other to heaven… but in man there is aspiration and struggle to nobler and richer forms of life. Nature so conceived is God… Nature, conceived in this way, is a great life in which we live and move and have our being. Not only are we born of nature through our human parentage, but we are dependent upon her in myriad ways…”414 When this God nature came to express its consciousness in humans, the self revelation of God appeared. What we interpret as good we defend as if called by God to do so. Nature speaking through our experiences is the voice of God. However, humans fail to respond to the good life to which we are called, but nature will not accept defeat. Ames explained: “These evils [war and crimes] are limitations upon God. They thwart His plans. They delay the cause of righteousness. They prove that the Nature God is not yet perfect, that He strives still against heavy odds, far from the goal of perfection. Here also it becomes plain that this God

148

Christian Pragmatism

fails because men fail Him.”415 However, the God nature does not have to be perfect to receive humans’ love. In the eighth sermon, entitled “God and the City,” Ames drew a comparison between God and the city. He again explained what he means by God: “…I conceive God to be vast order of nature, including man and human society… I am insisting that man, with all his highest thought and aspiration, all his idealism and spirituality, belongs to nature, and that therefore nature possesses as much mind and heart and soul as man exhibits. This all-inclusive nature is the great being we call God.”416 The city includes people who provide this reality with recognition and significance. Ames suggested that humans are more important than other elements in nature, as these elements are secondary means for the satisfaction of humans’ wants. Humans make nature significant and do this in the city by creating green areas and other opportunities for experiencing and being renewed by nature. Ames postulated that humans feel the great world’s heart encompassing them, but it is through our relations with other people that we feel the heart of the world, or in other words, the heart of God. As our ancestors sought to make intelligible the immanence of God, they conceived God as remote and transcendent and difficult to discover in the human relations on our planet. This view of a remote God led them to undervalue human intelligence and human relations. Ames regarded the city as a miniature universe marred by many evils. At the same time the city projects a moral order and an ideal good which it encourages its citizens to emulate. Certainly there are evil or negative forces in the city, but these are considered temporary which may be resolved with the next election. Ames opined: “I think this is the attitude which most men take toward the world itself. They see wrongs and injustices. They suffer from the misdeeds of others and from the pain of disease and want, but they seldom consider these the whole of it. These are transient conditions… The elements of beauty and love and intelligence are felt to have a deeper and more permanent reality. They belong to the nature of things, to the life of God. God is involved in a continual struggle with the evils of the world just as the city wages warfare with its criminals and its underworld.”417 This is also true of the city and the great reality of which it is a part and which is ever changing and creating new heavens and new earth. Ames stressed the importance of humans’ understanding “that this life of the city and of the world is a personal life and has personal relations with us… That was also the providence of God, for God… works through practical means and through human agents.”418 Certainly God does not always respond to our wishes and needs, but this

Letters to God and the Devil (1933)

149

does not alleviate our responsibility to seek justice and support God’s efforts through human agents. “God and Prayer” was the subject of sermon nine. He reminded us that he has identified God with nature and has stressed that humans and society are part of nature. It was the human manifestation of nature with which Ames was most concerned. We are born in need of constant care, which lessens through our growing years. The child in a religious home may be taught to talk with God in little prayers. God is another object with which the child converses. Ames explains: “Prayer, in some form, is universal in the religions of the world, and it rests upon the habitual, ceaseless use of speech. Prayer is the natural, spontaneous tendency of man to express his thoughts in words and to direct his words to the sacred beings around him. Whatever gods he may have… he talks to them, and this talk to the gods is prayer.”419 Ames stressed that our access to the nature of reality is through our experiences, for we are loving beings within the reality of God. It is God dwelling in us that makes possible our desires, knowledge, and love. Ames was careful to indicate that his view of God and humans is neither mystical nor mysterious. “It is the assertion that the life of nature is in us, a life which is at once mineral, vegetable, and animal, but which is also human, mental, emotional and creative.”420 A significant error in the history of religion was the condemnation of human nature as physical and evil. Humans are born in sin and depraved from birth until converted by a saving grace. This notion belongs to an outworn barbaric belief in an outworn mythology. Ames corrected this notion by insisting that the life of humans experiences good as well as evil things. Nature continues to grow through the development of each person, which Ames understood to mean that God endeavors us to greater fulfillment of our ever-enlarging purposes. Ames opined: “I would rather recognize the imperfections and evils of life as belonging to a nature which also manifests some struggle to overcome those evils, than to think of an all-wise, all-good, and allpowerful God who deliberately created a world in which there could be so much pain and tragedy as mortals witness in this life… I say God dwells in us and shows Himself through us and most of all when we seek the nobler and the more blessed ways of life. To such a God we can pray… God is the real Being of the world idealized and personified and with Him it is possible to have communion in prayer. It is also possible to have conversation with Him through other people, for He is in them, too. And it is possible to commune with Him in the depths of our own thought, for we are able to hold converse within ourselves.”421

150

Christian Pragmatism

Ames noted that God has left a witness in each human heart, which is our conscience. It is through this self-judgment that we receive God’s judgment. We build ourselves into better persons by participating in the communal life and being positively influenced by it to live in the fullest and finest way. He stressed that effective prayer is essential to this process. “It is the expression of the forward striving of the soul to understand the pilgrimage upon which it is set, and the means by which it may proceed. Prayer is a kind of constructive planning of life in its larger aspects and in its details. It is also a kind of social intercourse with life… In the same way, religion invites us to cooperate in practical enterprises…”422 Ames reminded us that all features of religion, including prayer, must be sincere and part of an earnest quest for the highest in life and nature, understanding that God is identified with nature. Sermon ten focused on “God and Security,” asking what security God as nature provides humans. He noted that it was in theology that a separation between nature and the spiritual world was established, with nature being of a lower status as merely being physical. Some contemporary thinkers, like J. W. Krutch, find no meaning in human life because they fail to include humans within nature. “Men are to them more absurd than ants because men think themselves more important.”423 Science, in its proper role, draws no such conclusion. Ames admitted the complete bankruptcy of traditional Christian theology as it attempts to explain the nature of God in relation to the world. He contended that unless religious people and institution accept the findings of modern science and rebuild a faith in accordance with the knowledge it provides, religion will become another thing we have outgrown. Our security depends on understanding and adjusting to the ways of God as nature. If we understand that God is in human life, then our acts are the acts of God. We all live in a web of relations which sustain us. The sense of security we attain implies a world of change and danger within this web. If we labor with care, foresight and patience it is possible for humans to attain some degree of safety and the joy of living. What sustains humans in their ceaseless quest of their best hopes is the instinctive love of life with its forward thrust and the things attained. A third factor in this effort “is in the conviction that the moral and esthetic values of life do not fail us, and that lives devoted to them through the institutions and association of society are redeemed from futility and death.”424 “Natural Mysticism” was the topic of the eleventh sermon. We all have experienced a magnificent sun rise or set which releases our response so that “we experience the sense of sharing the heights and depths of something wonderful and fathomless.”425 Our universe is expanded in our

Letters to God and the Devil (1933)

151

minds and hearts as we experience a sense of wonder and joy. Humans, and especially religion, cannot live adequately without this sense of wonder and adventure. Religion must engage in a mission of discovery with the purpose of recreating the world for humanity and for the sake of beauty. Ames indicated the mysticism seeks to interpret life through these moments of awe and wonder. There is a basic difference between our ordinary experiences and the mystical one. The ordinary refers to the world of human affairs, while the mystical enables one to experience the divine reality or provides access to God. Ames noted there were two types of mysticism: “Orthodox mysticism is supernatural mysticism, in the sense that the mystic states carry the soul into a transcendent and quite otherworldly sphere. Natural mysticism would recognize that all men have more or less of emotional elation and thrill, and that this is a part of normal living. What makes the important difference between the religious and the unreligious man is the direction of attention and interest. The religious man has this mystical thrill with reference to religious objects and activities; he responds to ideas, ceremonials, institutions and purposes of religion.”426 The degrees of difference between these two experiences vary widely. Ames suggested that natural mysticism occurs when we focus on a particular interest in any kind of experience. This natural mysticism can also be religious mysticism, when the experience is one of religious practices. “This mysticism is natural also in the sense that it develops in religion very much as it does in other matters.”427 He noted that religious mysticism is more important for one who highly values religion. Ames suggested that we test how important our religious experience is in terms of how much we get from it. A reasonable religion will allow a variety of interests for its participants. The religious experience is unreasonable when it is felt to be contrary to the religious ideal—when any particular pursuit so preoccupies a person’s life that it excludes a reasonable account of our larger life. Religion seeks for every person the most satisfying life possible and seeks these supreme experiences to develop naturally for all. The final sermon was “A Letter To The Devil.” He acknowledged that the seeds of hatred and suspicion have brought down civilizations and now fear is spreading that the inventions of science may be used to destroy other nations. He raised the issue of whether the Devil is an optimist or a pessimist and suggested that if the Devil is a pessimist and evil [then] “your happiest moments are when things go wrong.”428 However, when things go wrong the people are aroused against you. Their reaction must arouse in you a fear of failure.

152

Christian Pragmatism

Ames acknowledged that the Devil once had a special place in Heaven, but indicated that the Devil’s downfall was due to being over ambitious. “The scheme failed and you were hurled down to the depths of hell… Maybe that is the reason why your favorite device for compassing the downfall of mortals is to flatter and cajole them into cherishing vast plans and hopes, only to bring them down from high pride to base humiliation.”429 However, he reminded the Devil that without humans’ having desires the Devil is helpless. Ames indicated that the Devil likes it better when good people, out of fatigue and revulsion, turn from religion. He attributed to the Devil influence over sensitive souls so that they have difficulty working with others, with the result being many persons have adopted the practice of independent living as far as possible. “Your favorite method seems to be to take a capable person, train him in criticism and dissent, and then make him so conceited about himself that he does not believe it is good for him to associate with ordinary mortals.”430 Ames postulated that educated persons were realizing the danger of individualism due to the growing understanding that only collective effort can deal with the world’s problems. He imagined the world becoming more sober and feminine based on intelligence and idealism with these movements shaking the Devil’s throne. Ames recognized that humans dislike responsibility, but noted that when humans face the facts they take their affairs in hand and accept responsibility for the outcome, which is resulting in their becoming more resourceful and more confident. “And now that we have begun to learn how to think of an individual in terms of his environment and association we are becoming more hopeful of breaking your hold upon us.”431 Ames defined the Devil as the personification of the evil impulses that we experience when in conflict with the good. He suggested that we attribute too much influence to the Devil and recognized that the world is changing as we gain greater understanding of the ways that lead to fruitfulness and peace. Acknowledging that the Devil had power, Ames contended “that you cannot stand against the light of truth and the appeal of suffering love.”432

THREE GREAT WORDS OF RELIGION (1933)

Ames noted that the missionary movement in the nineteenth century led to the present enlarged ideal of social Christianity. This ideal has also been stimulated by the tragic nature of the world war. An important insight postulated was that there “is something vaster and more commanding in human life than intellectual formulations, however important they may be, and that is the urge of the will—the will to live, the will to love, the will to power.”433 We have too long assumed that assent to correct ideas is the primary thing in religion. Now we have learned that deeper than holding doctrines are our attitudes. Ames suggested that these attitudes are revealed in three words essential to religion—faith, hope, and love. These attitudes can be cultivated and shared in our communal behavior. Faith means confidence and trust in life, which Ames contended means faith in God. We have a religious outlook if we consider life to be worthwhile. If anyone asks, what it means to be fundamentally irreligious, the answer is that one is irreligious if one is pessimistic or cynical about life. There is no basic difference between religious faith and the faith we have in our daily functioning. Faith is aware of our precarious world but promises enough security for us to depend upon it, at least to some degree. This faith enables us to feel at home in the universe, recognizing the surprising and every changing reality of nature. Our faith provides us with the conviction that there is a best way to live and that it is best to live in that fashion. Hope reflects our desire for the good. Ames considered the stimulation of such hope to be the primary function of religion. The traditional way of viewing religion from the perspective of fear is rejected. It is this hope by which the church seeks to permeate society with kindliness and mercy. As our religious outlook on society becomes more realistic, we seek to stimulate this hope by education. Human redemption grows as we become more experienced with new insights and methods, especially supplied by the sciences. In this way the church will discover new agencies for reclaiming individuals and for transforming our society. Love is the greatest of the three words, for without this quality or attitude nothing else matters. Humans are social creatures and endowed with the capacity of sharing and assisting each other. These three words are not uniquely Christian but are manifest in the actions of diverse

154

Christian Pragmatism

peoples in totally different environments. The old approach considered some acts as merely animal in nature while being religious meant humans acting in non-animal ways. This approach is corrected if we follow the insights of modern psychology that spiritual growth is deep rooted in our universal human nature. “But when man is seen to be a child of God by nature as well as by grace, then the love within the human heart becomes itself the promise and hope of spiritual ascent.”434 It is a fallacy to separate love as religion experiences it from love as the world conceives it. However, we should not overlook that there are many public agencies, besides the church, which seek to direct an outgrowth of love and kindliness. We must also not overlook the way scientific knowledge and skills are motivated by the attitude of love. Love provides a sense of direction with objectives, purposes, and goals. Religious love is directed to social ends which involve the welfare and enterprise of the society. Science enables us to grasp more clearly our purposes and goals and to gain insights concerning when these purposes are inadequate or produce evil results. As Bertrand Russell proclaimed, “only kindliness can save the world.”435

CHRISTIANITY AND SCIENTIFIC THINKING (1934)

Ames noted that the Occidental world was confronting two clashing world views.436 One was the scientific, which held to a perspective of the geological processes and the evolving epochs. Traditional Christianity was based on the perspective that a supernatural deity was responsible for all the action in the universe. He noted that “the idea of the supernatural was born with the scientific conception of the natural, and it is this dualism which sets the frame for the contrasting views.”437 Science has felt no need to have its view reconciled with the traditional Christian perspective. However, when scholars began to apply the scientific method to scriptures, the employment of this method caused serious difficulty to traditional religionist by revealing that different authors with different temperaments wrote the Bible over long periods of time, with the result that the Bible was untenable in the traditional sense. The scientific study of the history of religions revealed that religion was involved in the total culture, rather than being imposed from beyond the human scene. Psychology of religion has led to the discovery of the inner sources of religious attitudes and behavior. This led to the conclusion that humans had no original endowment of an instinct, religious sense or faculty. It was also established that religion is in all cultures—a vital and universal aspect of human life. “Thus science is able to give an account of the nature and function of religion and to explain its ceremonials, its beliefs, and its significance, including the character of its deities.”438 Science also afforded a perspective of nature which no longer placed humans in a hostile universe. Science has also deeply influenced Christianity indirectly through its dominant influence in culture and life in general, probably more directly in this fashion than in modifications in particular religious beliefs. Science, in the form of the Industrial Revolution, affected the patterns of life from rural to an industrial setting, which also impacted on traditional religious beliefs. Although the majority of Christians were fundamentalists, some Christian thinkers, who were called Modernist, accepted the scientific attitude, higher criticism and evolution while at the same time holding to a theistic notion of God, to some form of divinity for Christ, and to the authority of the Bible. However, many Modernists did not thoroughly apply the scientific method. Ames noted two other groups, mystics and

156

Christian Pragmatism

institutionalists, who shared a common interest in the experience and practice of religion rather than in doctrines. “Efficiency may be said to be their standard of excellence.”439 The ministers sought to avoid issues which might upset their congregation, while the mystics sought fulfillment in emotional satisfaction. The fundamentalists are supernatural theists who claim a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. The humanists rejected fundamentalism out of hand because they rejected all forms of supernaturalism. They offered a humanitarian religion which simply focused upon the need and value of human life. Some students engaged in scientific study of religion have suggested that, with greater understanding of the natural history of religion in humans’ experiences, we will understand that science is compatible with religion as science is with art. Ames opined: “Religion might then consciously develop ideologies in place of creeds, social values and ideals in place of supernatural commands, dramatic ceremonials in place of ordinances and sacraments, history in place of myths, and reasonablyplanned social institutions instead of apocalyptic visions, and the recognition of order, intelligence, and beauty as marks of the sacred and divine qualities of the world at its best.”440 This approach would result in an interpretation of Christianity in terms of the natural processes of our spiritual life. At the same time, the approach may result in greater use of historical forms and symbols. When the great faiths are scientifically understood they will become intelligible to each other and hopefully more cooperative in fostering humanities’ spiritual life.

THE RELIGIOUS RESPONSE (1934)

Ames chose for his text the passage about “the lilies of the field,” as an indication that he will consider the religious response to natural beauty, love in human affection, and trust in God. He is reminded of the night blooming cereus in Honolulu which impressed him with its “indescribable beauty heightened by a poignant sense of the brevity of life of all this loveliness.”441 Ames suggested that this experience of awe and wonder is religious and universal—“a quality which genuine religion always possesses, and it may well be taken as an easily available and verifiable element by which anyone may enter upon an understanding of the religious attitude.”442 He is rejecting being religious on the basis of some doctrine to which you adhere and contended that religion is first an experience. Apart from the experience, any doctrine which one might postulate cannot be comprehended. Religion must be felt and lived as a matter of vital experience. This feeling of awe and wonder can be aroused by many things in nature, including little things like a blade of grass. This experience is not limited to nature or the arts, for it can be experienced in the fields of science or in flying an airplane. Although this experience is of the heart of religion, “the significance of a religion is largely, if not wholly, determined by the interests to which the response is directed.”443 In Christianity attention is focused on the human soul, which Ames described as the most wonderful and most appealing object of affection and mystery. Jesus’ greatness was in realizing that human life itself is primary for all persons, which results in the disposition of people to find love amongst their fellow humans. Jesus taught “that all institutions and regulations are to be judged in reference to the service they render to human beings.”444 Although a religious view celebrates the wonders of nature, our primary interest is with humans and the care given to human concerns. If we care more for other things than people, we miss religion at its best. Ames noted that care for other humans requires more than passive contemplation. Action is required with our children that enhances their health, education, growth and happiness. Of course our children will relate to other children; which extends our care to the broader community in which we live.

158

Christian Pragmatism

Ames contended that religion was experiencing a new birth by commitment to humanitarian ideals which are driven by neighborliness and friendships. This new birth was evident in the beginnings of social settlements, like Hull House in Chicago. This sentiment of social service was also evident in new forms of ritual for public use. He noted that the new hymnal in the Christian Church includes responsive reading which focused on “contemporary commandments for social righteousness” and included a statement that traditional individual morality is inadequate. For Ames, “religion must adventure forth into the social order.”445 Having spoken of the religious response of awe and wonder and of love for our associates, Ames turned to the third feature of the religious response which is trust in God. This trust is manifest when we first seek to be righteous. This is trust in the nature of things and the order of nature which is to be understood as trust in God. He recognized that many doctrines and conceptions of God were being radically altered or rejected by contemporary Christian scholars. Putting aside theological speculation, he stressed “that the religious attitude does not spring from definitions nor from argumentative proofs, and more than faith in our fellow men arises from understanding the nature of their personalities. We live with men first and speculate about them afterward, if at all.”446 We have a functional attitude towards people and life. Ames contended that God is the name we have given for life. “Thus the word God means Nature, including man and human society, with all the mighty processes in which we live and move and have our being… All the great concerns of life are projected upon this trust in the order and the dependability of the world and the cosmos itself for we do not live upon the earth alone.”447 We all feel dependent upon this great order of nature and trust that it will not fail us in the struggles of life.

MAN LOOKS AT HIMSELF OR PERSONALITY PICTURES (1935)

We have always been curious about ourselves and continue to seek and to follow Apollo’s injunction to “know thyself.” Ames suggested three ways of looking at ourselves with the hope that these might provide helpful observations of human nature. The first way is that of the ordinary camera. It provides isolated snapshots, having caught the subject in different postures and expressions with none of them being completely true to life. It has only provided a momentary or partial perspective of who we really are. However, if we apply this experience of looking at ourselves in a picture to humans in the aggregate, or what Plato called “the individual writ large,” we project ourselves on the vast scale of history. The fact is that single pictures cannot adequately and truly represent either the individual or society. A second way of looking at ourselves is by using the opera glass in reverse, causing everything to be diminished in size and giving the impression of lessened significance. Science has engaged in extending our natural world of normal perception, by Copernicus who saw the earth in motion and by Galileo who increased the evidence that heavenly bodies do move. Ames suggested that if we attach telescopic power to the opera glasses in reverse we will gain some insight into our spatial insignificance. “Add to this the new time scale which science has devised and think how momentary and evanescent the life of an individual becomes when placed against the age of the race.”448 Ames proposed the motion picture as a more satisfactory way of viewing ourselves. By joining single impressions we view our self as simulated continuous and natural action that shows us in the changing events of the day, with the reasons for the changes being intelligible. Ames explained: “The man and his moods are thus unified and made intelligible by the course and events of his daily life. He no longer is seen as a motionless, changeless being, with only one selected and fixed expression, but as a living, moving, complex agent, engaged in numerous situations and responding to a variety of influences.”449 Ames suggested that the motion picture enables us to escape from the seeming insignificance of humans and helps us grasp the immensities of space and time. He postulated that we gain a perspective of humans

160

Christian Pragmatism

greatness in reference to space and time. We can count and weigh the stars and tell their age and estimate their distances; in our imagination we can conceived of their birth and death. Because we have accomplished these feats, Ames claimed that in a very real sense we excel these objects. “It is a strange fact that the views of the world and man which science discovers should make man think less of himself when it is his own power and creative thought which develop those views.”450 The problem is that we have distorted our vision of ourselves and our great achievements by the Christian notion that we are inherently evil, which is expressed in the dogma of the total depravity of humans and have fallen from unspoiled innocence and purity. This old dogma has placed a paralyzing conviction on historical Christianity—a ready excuse for our failure. Ames contended that the doctrine of evolution, scientifically established, has provided a different estimate of humans and their possibilities by emphasizing humans’ great development, our power to learn, to experiment, to invent, to imagine and to realize better things for ourselves.451 It is this understanding of ourselves that gives us hope and courage in face of tremendous odds, for we have risen from our defeats seeking improvement with confidence. Ames opined: “The psychologists have shown both by theory and by practice that human nature can be changed, that ignorant people can be enlightened, that wild boys can be tamed sometimes, and everyone knows that a whole nation will make social experiments such as prohibition and the New Deal… [therefore] let us still believe that as man continues to look at himself, the reel will show him a better view of himself and of his world.”452

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISCIPLES (1936)

Ames in 1936 wrote a paper, for presentation before the Commission for the Restudy of the Disciples, entitled “The Philosophical Background of the Disciples.” It called attention to the specific philosophical background of Disciples and indicated the character and importance of this heritage with reference to current tendencies and problems of Disciples. As noted, Alexander Campbell is generally accepted as the primary founder of Disciples, which his many writings confirm. Campbell and his father were educated at the University of Glasgow where the philosophy of John Locke was dominant. Alexander Campbell recognized his indebtedness to Locke, who he proclaimed as “the great Christian philosopher” and from whom he adopted his central principles and religious ideas. When Campbell died in 1866, Locke’s philosophy provided the basis and structure of thinking among Disciples. Ames suggested two reasons why references to Locke soon disappeared from Disciples’ writings. The first reason had to do with Locke’s rejection of theology and metaphysics, which led some to think he had rejected philosophy itself. However, Locke never intended to identify philosophy with speculative metaphysics. Rather, his concern was to relieve philosophy of abstract and fruitless theories which he labeled metaphysics and to emphasize a practical philosophy of life. Disciples appreciated Locke’s commonsense and practical orientation to the extent that they came to believe they did not have or need a philosophy. The second influence of Locke centered on his idea that names and authority should not be employed in the essential things of religion. Alexander Campbell feared that the Disciples movement might become identified with a human leader, taking his name and forming another sect. Therefore, he stressed Locke’s idea that no name should be associated with essential things of religion. In contrast to other Protestant movements, Campbell was in favor of Christian union based on the New Testament and not other works by humans. Ames noted that there was no history of Disciples being taught in any related colleges. He recalled that he had never heard of Locke when he graduated from Drake. It was toward the end of his graduate study that he took a course in 18th century British philosophy in which he was

162

Christian Pragmatism

introduced to the thoughts of Locke. He soon realized that the basic ideas of Locke “were basic ideas in my earlier training at home and in church.”453 When Ames began to teach in the philosophy department at the University of Chicago in 1896, he also taught a course at the Disciples Divinity House on the “Theology of Alexander Campbell.” “It was in the Disciples Divinity House in the 1890s that the historical study of the Disciples and their philosophical background was first undertaken in regular university research and instruction.”454 Soon all Disciples’ colleges were offering such courses. Ames noted that Disciples have only begun to realize their great spiritual heritage and how valuable that tradition is to contemporary religious life. Ames noted that John Locke’s dates were 1632–1704. His father was a lawyer and Puritan, but Locke was more attracted by the Presbyterians and Independents. At Oxford, he rejected the medieval scholastic philosophy which was in vogue. Instead, he was attracted by an experimental and inquiring attitude which he applied to all courses. Locke is known as “the father of the English Enlightenment.” He embodied criticism of human knowledge, supported free inquiry and universal toleration. The experimental approach was new in European thought, having received an impetus in that direction by Descartes and Francis Bacon. Descartes is noted for his rigorous discipline of doubt which he applied to everything he thought and believed but doubt itself. Bacon, like Descartes, sought to escape from books to study the things around him and to gather practical knowledge of the real world through experiments. Locke found this practical knowledge appealing, having rejected the doctrine of innate ideas. He realized that our knowledge is limited and prone to error, but he thought that humans could greatly increase their knowledge by a better understanding of themselves, the world, and God. However, he contended that the scriptures offered no revelation that was not appropriate to human knowledge and contended that it must be supported by later thinkers for whom it is realized with devastating clearness. Locke’s theological views reflect the prevailing assumptions of his day. He showed no appreciation for the idea of the immanence of God. Faith in Christ was dependent upon Christ’s miracles, which led him to establish, by the rules of evidence and reason, the evidences in support of these miracles. The ideas Locke developed may not be adopted by anyone today, but he remains important because of certain attitudes he displayed in his thinking and exploration and because of his employing a definite method of inquiry which remains his great contribution. Ames contended that it was in his attitude and method that Locke remains important to

The Philosophical Background of the Disciples (1936)

163

Disciples. Locke’s attitude was a form of liberalism that shared the essential characteristics of genuine liberalism. His liberalism meant that humans seek to know the truth and to become free thereby. His political liberalism sought a better system of government which would afford fuller opportunities for citizens through intelligent and shared responsibility. His emphasis on education was essential for any liberal program. Religious liberalism “seeks to bring religion to the test of fulfilling the deepest spiritual needs of man through better understanding of these needs and through discoveries of suitable ideas, institutional forms, and procedures for their satisfaction.”455 Locke also supported tolerance given the fallible nature of human thought. Ames noted that liberalism can be viewed in terms of its scientific method, which in Locke’s term would be the method of reasonableness by which facts are studied and careful conclusions are based upon these facts. Locke had great respect for commonsense and for the ability of common people to understand the essential and religious qualities enough to be guided toward a good life. Today we have come to think of scientific thinking involving laboratory instruments and techniques, but in reality such thinking is careful analysis that indicates what is reasonable. We see in Disciples the influence of Locke in their commonsense reasonableness as opposed to dogmatism and mysticism. The Deists, Unitarians, and Universalists were influenced by this liberalism of Locke, although these groups differed in their emphasis of the tradition of Locke. They failed to keep in mind Locke’s emphasis upon the use of reason as an instrument for meeting our practical needs. Campbell believed he had pushed Disciples back to the foundation of Christianity as found in the New Testament. By releasing the Bible from theological bondage through the help of Locke, Disciples returned to the simple essentials of belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Those other denominations, especially Unitarians, have suffered by devoting great effort against orthodoxy while the Disciples have supported church union. Ames suggested that the future years will tell whether Disciples can fully retain their liberal heritage.

A PRAGMATIST’S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION (1936)

Lecture One Ames noted that pragmatism was based on the Greek word, pragma, meaning action, from which our words practice and practical come. It was first introduced by Charles Peirce in 1876. He suggested that pragmatism is destined to play a major role in religious and theological thought. “Pragmatism may prove to be particularly well equipped to correct tendencies in present day religious thinking toward old forms of metaphysical beliefs on the one hand, and of irreligious and atheistically [sic] reaction on the other?”456 The key to this position is that action, the interpretations of action, and beliefs are considered in terms of conduct. As Peirce indicated, the meaning of ideas is best understood in the consequences which they generate in practice. Thus all our ideas are derived from practice which we test in relation to the materials and conditions involved. Ames postulated that “the same is true of more general or abstract ideas such as those concerning social justice, or mathematical equations, or categories of logic.”457 Pragmatism focuses on the biological science and considers human life in terms of the process of evolution. John Dewey explained how this focus on change and process was a new revolutionary conception in contrast to the Newtonian world view. Ames suggested that this biological approach was more fully presented in G. H. Mead’s Mind, Self and Society. James, Dewey and the other pragmatists agreed that our organism is active from the first in contrast to the older psychological view that the mind is latent and passive until stimulated by the senses. All active organisms have a will-to-live and seek nourishment for this purpose. It is in this active process of surviving that we discover the function and meaning of ideas. The most significant means of adjustment to the wider world are through our ideas—ideas which at times are retained in our memory. It is through our ideas and imagination that we live beyond the moment by making plans on a large scale. Truth for the pragmatists is not always tested in utilitarian action or objective validity but by how the terms are employed in relation to matters of fact or practical modes of action. Ames opined: “In other words, there is no possibility of meaningful ideas in a complete vacuum or in a perfectly static medium. Ideas function normally and basically in what are ordinarily called practical situations, and when they

166

Christian Pragmatism

function in what are called ideal or aesthetic situation, they are only rarefied, not essentially changed in character. In all contexts the ideas are instrumental, instrumental for the guidance of conduct, for attaining satisfaction of the needs of the organism, or for guidance of reflection itself, in achieving real or imagined order and harmony.”458 He noted that ideas as guides in action at not purely intellectual but involve our emotions. There is no such thing as “pure thought” as all thinking is motivated by desire for particular ends. Pragmatism employs the method of science in keeping to the facts by observation, explaining and testing them. It is noted that there is a particular interest which determines the kind of facts to be observed, which is the empirical focus of pragmatism. Our focus is on concreteness and adequacy, as well as toward facts, action, and power. Pragmatism includes the principles of most of the social sciences, as it seeks to understand the individual within the social process and the social process in terms of the interaction and cooperation of individuals. Ames stressed that the self emerges in a social medium, with language and our interrelations with others being significant factors in our development. “This self is a social self in that it is conscious of itself in relation to other persons.”459 The theological implication of this view of the self challenges the old metaphysical idea of the “soul” and requires a complete revision of the doctrine of original sin. This empirical approach was in conflict with the idealistic tradition, with its focus on Absolutes and rationalistic thinking, which early Americans had brought from Europe. Ames explained: “A pragmatic philosophy of religion proceeding as it does with emphasis upon actual experience, upon processes of development, and endeavoring to see the vital meanings of all terms and symbols, requires a radical orientation of attitude and interpretation with reference to all religious phenomena. It conceives religious experience in terms of practical life… In keeping with the scientific spirit, pragmatism cannot allow the claims of any external authority, nor can it concede that any realm or kind of problem is exempt from inquiry.”460 .

Lecture Two In the second lecture Ames reaffirmed that pragmatism, by its emphasis on immediate experience and concrete and observable facts, begins with the basic religious attitudes. It seeks knowledge of how religion feels, works, and the difference it makes. “For pragmatism, therefore, religion is experience within the self, and it follows the unfolding of the self into its social and objective relations.”461 Pragmatic religion begins with religion from the perspective of the individual instead of the old traditional approach which began with a doctrine of humans. If we seek to study

A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion (1936)

167

religion, we should begin with our individual soul and discover what occurs there. If we take this approach, we face our will-to-live and our desire for self fulfillment. This quest for life is an inherent biological urge of the individual which occurs within a larger social organism. Pragmatism rejected the traditional metaphysical doctrine of the “soul” and in its place injects the notion of the “self.” He took from Max Otto the notion that the growth of our selves is the growth of our souls. “Growing a soul means increasing knowledge and wisdom, refining taste, expanding sympathy.”462 The soul, according to the pragmatists, is neither inherently evil nor good. This was a clear rejection of the doctrine of the depravity of the human soul as an unwarranted theological myth. Ames explained: “Human nature is mixed; it is in process; it is to be judged not wholesale but in specific situations and abilities. The idea of the fundamentally evil character of man is a false and vicious doctrine which perverts the interpretation of life and religion and gives rise to a correspondingly false doctrine of the necessity of miraculous divine grace and mysterious conversion.”463 Our will to live is self-evidencing and involves our seeking to understand ourselves and increasing the vitality of life. Thus, pragmatism focuses on values which reveal our desires and help set goals for our striving. In confronting life we are always selective according to what is most important to us. Any interest is a value, but we realize that some values are more important than others. “Pragmatism, consistently with its endeavor to be concrete and factual, finds all kinds of values within experience, and sees them characterized by the peculiarities of the situations in which they appear.”464 Ames postulated two distinguishing characteristics of religious values. One is their felt importance and the second is their inclusiveness of the totality of our interests. Our lives include several systems of interests or values which are essential to our well being. These involve health, work, play, love, knowledge, social organizations, morality, and religion. Religion is an organization which includes all values, having no special content of its own. Thus, religion functions to integrate our lives so that they give adequate emphasis to all interests. However, this integration is never adequately accomplished but is progressively realized through our action and imagination. Values live in our efforts to realize the results of our desires and aspirations. Religious values are real in the operations of all values. If we set up a special field of religious values, we make religion formal and abstract and apart from the concrete realization of natural values. Ames suggested this other-worldly approach to religion is a major

168

Christian Pragmatism

source of weakness in traditional religion. The value of religion is its celebration of the great values of our common experience. Ames reflected on John Dewey’s A Common Faith for insights into the religious quality of human experience. Dewey claimed that current religion is depressed because of its historic traditions which prevent our experiencing the religious quality of our common experiences. It was noted that the adjective religious does not imply a specific entity or institutional system of beliefs. Rather, it indicates attitudes that apply to every ideal. If we claim that there is a definite kind of experience called religious, it becomes the polar opposite of an experience that can exist by itself. “Pragmatism, then, may here be seen as the champion of the idea that the attitudes that lend deep and enduring support to the processes of living are religious.”465 He also noted that Dewey emphasized the religious attitude which includes our selves feeling harmonized with the universe. For Dewey, any activity in behalf of an ideal, even under threat of personal loss, considered an enduring value is religious in quality. This pragmatic view of religion operates in the field of natural human relations and the broad field in which these relations occur. Our destiny is so interwoven with forces beyond our control that our successes are dependent upon the cooperation of nature. This perspective reflects our natural piety, which takes into account intelligence, the significance of purpose and the conditions that may support what is desirable. In this way understanding and knowledge enter into the religious quality. “Faith in the continued disclosing of truth through directed cooperative human endeavor is more religious in quality than is any faith in a completed revelation.”466 Lecture Three In his third lecture, Ames focus was on the pragmatic conception of God. He noted that philosophy of religion traditionally was concerned with proofs for the existence of God, However, William James, with his empirical approach, indicated the inadequacy of the conception of God as the Absolute and concluded that humans can only at best sustain a conception of a “finite God.” James also recognized that all persons suffer from remoteness and from abstractness due to the rationalistic temper which rejects empiricism. While rationalism relies on logic and the sublime, empiricism is limited to our external senses. Pragmatism is willing to follow logic or the senses or even the claims of mystical experiences if they have practical consequences. However, in spite of James’ dissatisfaction with supernaturalism, he still represented God as a kind of sea of consciousness surrounding humans with which they have an effective relationship. We see here support for James’ interest in

A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion (1936)

169

conventional mysticism. Ames concluded that “James made his most lasting contribution to this idea of God by his criticism of the idealistic, rationalistic conception, and by insistence upon the importance of building a better idea nearer to the facts of experience.”467 John Dewey suggested a constructive interpretation of God which was more consistent with the method of pragmatism. Dewey suggested that the word God means the ideal ends which we acknowledge to have authority over our volition and action in this and other situations. Ames stressed the importance of understanding the reality of ideal ends which lie in their power in action. “The fact is that in common experience it is the possibilities of what we call actual situations that make them significant to us.”468 It is in the texture of situations of interest that the actual becomes an integrated whole with extended possibilities. What we truly value are the realities in the process being realized. Theology has too often identified God with the possible, leaving the actual negated by separating it from its ideal ends. In this way the spiritual and the material have been divided with the supernatural and the natural in different realms. The result of this division has been that attention has been misdirected to the divine to neglect of the human. Ames postulated a new chapter in religious thinking based on an organic union of the ideal and the actual, evident in Dewey’s definition of God as “this active relation between the ideal and actual to which I would give the name ‘God’.”469 Ames contended it was in the function of the working union of the ideal with the actual that the conception of God has been expressed in all spiritual religions. He further contended that this understanding of continuity between spiritual religions is important as evidence of the truth of this conception of God. This perspective also enables us to conceive of the universe as an imaginative whole. According to Dewey, our self is always directed to something beyond itself. The unification of our self and that which is beyond occurs in imaginative wholeness we call the universe. Ames opined: “We feel ourselves in a measure dependent upon it and yet find that we can to some extent cooperate with it. This I conceive to be the relation of the self with God; that is, with the Universe interpreted by us as the unification of the ideal ends and the values of life. I define God as reality idealized and personified. By idealization I mean the emphasis we give to those selected aspects of experience which we feel give support to our values. God is the Universe regarded as characterized by these values, and subordinating those elements which do not fit in and harmonize with what is for us the more satisfying and ideal features.”470 By identifying God with the whole of things, we gain a qualified optimism which supports our will-to-live. Ames suggested that George H. Mead’s conception of “the generalized

170

Christian Pragmatism

other,” understood in relation to the experience of playing games, provides a related means of understanding God. Ames also indicated that our tendency is to personalize emotional experiences, which he had often illustrated by employing the idea of Alma Mater in relation to our idea of the nature of God. He emphasized that the universe of reality is not pantheistic because it is not a mechanical whole but better understood as a process of growth. “God thus is conceived as the working system of values to which man owes reverence and devotion but which are at the same time open to question and criticism and reconstruction.”471 Lecture Four In the fourth lecture, Ames considered “further implications of Pragmatism.” He noted that the preexistence of the ideal was essential in supernaturalism for the ideal to be realized in our experience. Thus, the responsibility of religion is to bring the good to earth in order that we may experience the ideal preexisting in God. In pragmatism the emphasis is upon our growing these ideal values in our existing. The practical task of religion, for both positions, is to realize the divine possibilities of life. However, this task is undertaken by us with radically different attitudes. The super-naturalist waits on God’s acting while the pragmatist experiments in order to grow in relation with the divine. In trying to explain why waiting on God has not been more effective in our lives, the traditional answer has been that this is due to our total depravity based on the actions of Adam and Eve. Ames postulated: “The only hope lay in the conversion of men into humble and contrite penitents who would surrender their own wills and let God have his way. But nothing is more apparent in the history of religion than the sad confusion and conflict that has prevailed among these humble converts.”472 The real evil in supernaturalism is its authoritarianism, which has resulted in the defeat of the divine as the necessary religious quality in our experiences. Pragmatism’s positive factor is our being open to change that provides reasonable hope for a better future based on our intelligence, understood in an instrumental and scientific manner. Ames contended that pragmatism offered a satisfactory solution to the issues between science and religion by employing the scientific method and by viewing religion as growing the divine qualities in our lives. Traditional religion has been based on a rigid conception of truth while the scientific method offers the possibility of better ways of thinking and acting in order that we may be integrated with the whole of life. Ames considered the pragmatic view of religion as the only way of developing a faith that provides vital meaning in a becoming world. He suggested there to be an essential difference between a faith that requires

A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion (1936)

171

taking genuine chances than a faith which is based on instructions previously revealed by the divine. James, in the Will to Believe, emphasized that we live in a precarious world of “maybes” in which everything is open to being mistaken. It is only by risking ourselves in a consistent fashion that we live at all. In many situations a leap is required, based on the belief that a leap is really in line with our needs. James further contended that “God himself” draws vital strength and increase of being from our fidelity. Ames suggested that this approach required new meaning and significance for religion as a practical venture motivated by the will to change the universe. Churches become cooperatives to help build a divine order instead of being bound to tradition, enabling us to find value in experiences which were previously considered as only secular. Even commercial enterprises may be infused with idealistic or spiritual qualities so that it might contribute to a higher quality of life. Ames was not satisfied with using the word “spiritual” in this context because it is signified in popular minds with something desired that is intangible, vague and illusive. He found that many who considered themselves religious had great difficulty in relating the secular and the sacred. The YMCA, in employing recreation as a way of luring young men to a vital religion, was a good example of overcoming this separation between secular and religious activities. Pragmatism finds value in all human experiences based on its view that all values are religious values. Some values have a mystical quality “in terms of their own inherent quality of bringing fulfillment and satisfaction in experience itself.”473 He indicated that there is an intense emotional quality to every meaningful experience, whether we describe it as religious, patriotic, or dramatic. Art elicits this mystical quality by making symbols more meaningful in worship, with Ames unsatisfied with the term “worship” because of its close tie to traditional religion’s emphasis on human dependence. Although pragmatism recognizes our human situation, it understands humans as being creative participants in events. The ceremonies of religion celebrate the divine in our experiences, but they must do so without turning the divine into some supernatural figure. Ames added to his notion of the “practical absolute” the idea of the “honorific absolute.” He explained: “By this I mean that in our affection and devotion we ascribe perfection to objects of our love and admiration. It is through this process that the word divine has taken on through expressions and deeds of devotion the ascription of absolute perfection. The subject ‘divine’ has thus become the noun ‘Divine’.”474 Lecture Five In lecture five, Ames noted that, with the exception of William James, pragmatists had not applied their philosophy to the problems of religion

172

Christian Pragmatism

because there were so many other problems which they felt needed first to be considered. An example is seen in George H. Mead’s dealing with the relations between a self and others, as presented in his consideration of the “generalized other” and the “concrete universal.” Our self develops in relation to the generalized other, and it is through the generalized other that the society controls the behavior of individuals. When pragmatism was applied to religion, the empirical approach required a method, vocabulary, and tentativeness which was interpreted as being hostile to religion. However, when the scientific approach was applied to religious issues, Ames considered the results to be fruitful. To illustrate this application, Ames suggested William James’ conception of a “finite God.” This was part of James’ attack on absolutes, since he could not find an Absolute based on observed fact or inferences. A finite God seemed to James more adequately to fit the situation. “Nothing indicates better than this tendency toward new conceptions of God and the value of freedom to criticize and restate the most basic conceptions.”475 Considering that social processes are interrelated with the physical facts and process of the objective world, Ames suggested as an analogy our view of “Alma Mater” in reference to the idea of God. He explained: “It is evident that the reality is not the picture in the mind but the whole institution, including buildings and grounds, and a complex congeries of ‘natural’ phenomena. They have their place in the objective order, and are subject to the realm of fact and existence. In the same way I assert that God is Reality idealized and personified.”476 He had previously pointed to the source of the conception of absoluteness which relates to his conception of God in his discussion of the “practical absolute.” Religious values require action in order for them to be realized, as distinct from the reflective attitude of philosophy. When deciding on a course of action, we must make a decision to follow one approach and forsake all others. Such a decision requires one to act as if what has been selected is of absolute worth and validity, which is acting on the basis of a practical absolute. Pragmatism escapes many of the problems of tradition theologies based on its view of human nature. It rejects the mythological account of the fall of humans for the rise of humans by evolution. The evolutionary struggle of all animals is recognized. It was the manner in which humans have developed their living patterns which reveals their moral development. Pragmatism also rejected the notion of God electing some humans to salvation and rejecting others. Life and evolution are problematic, but there remains a core of stability in nature from which humans are able to establish a degree of satisfaction. Ames explained: “He is dependent upon processes of nature and yet is able to avail himself of her resources, and in

A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion (1936)

173

a scientific age to participate amazingly in her operations and creative force… It is by cooperative living that the great achievements in morality, science and art have been secured, and it is toward this social enterprise that his hopes turn in new visions. The religious spirit of love manifest in some degree in the most primitive life becomes embodied in larger and finer forms of endeavor and control.”477

LIBERALISM IN RELIGION (1936)

In approaching the development of liberalism in religion, Ames distinguished liberalism from modernism. Modernism held sway from around 1850 to the middle of the depression in the 1930s. They were biblically focused and accepted higher criticism, but they retained an authoritarianism which was not as excluding as fundamentalism. With the depression, many modernists turned to neo-orthodox theology, with Reinhold Niebuhr and Walter Marshall Horton being noted examples. Liberalism, as conceived by Ames, referred to a broader and more extensive social and political movement which was concerned with religion only in a secondary sense. Ames explained: “Its common characteristics in all these fields are the critical quest for liberty, for freedom, for growth in the capacity and power of individuals and societies to achieve more satisfying ways of living. The beginnings of this movement were in the rise of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation.”478 It is evident that the primary motive of liberalism was the demand for the rights of each individual, granting that rights were interpreted in relation to particular periods and changing conditions. John Locke provided the intellectual foundation for religious liberalism in his doctrine of the rights of the individual. He emphasized the reasonableness of religion which was more reasonable than the doctrines from which he began. Locke called for use of reason in determining the claims of revelation but it is necessary first to be sure it is valid revelation. “It was the assumption that if the trustworthiness of the messenger were proved, it would be reasonable to receive without question the message brought.”479 Locke was more oriented to empiricism than to rationalism, which led him to reject metaphysical and theological speculation. He sought to apply reason to problems in human relations and moral obligations. However, Locke’s practical reasonableness still retained the superstition, mysticism and emotionalism evident in the religion of his day. An important feature of his thought was designating the church only as a voluntary association. The analysis of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham led to a conception of the self no longer dependent upon some mysterious and theological soul. Now the self became a functional reality with its particular desires and satisfactions. Mill wanted to liberate religion from metaphysics and

176

Christian Pragmatism

dogmas and turn toward the idealization of our earthly life. Liberalism freed reason from being a mysterious faculty or power to being a process of practical operations for solving problems. By discovering that the complexities and capacities of the self are the basis for human rights, the liberal movement gave full recognition to social fulfillment involving a larger understanding and promotion of a free society. It was in William James’ religious liberalism that Ames felt most at home. James’s psychology excluded a soul, replacing it with the real self which he considered more worthy and more capable of freedom. James postulated that such a self would be better able to function in a religion of social idealism. The self was not an isolated entity, but was a part of a society of selves. The primary interest of the society of selves was the relation of living organisms to the life of the world. James also postulated the conception of God as finite, which was to release religion from the difficulties associated with traditional supernaturalism—its creeds and fixed doctrines. James contended: “If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight,—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem.”480 Ames found these words to express freedom of the will as we formulate in our imagination ends to be sought. John Dewey rejected supernaturalism and the obstacles it placed in the way of individual freedom. He argued that supernaturalism diverted our efforts from the quest of realizable goods to seeking proof of the existence of a supernatural God and how to conform to this God’s will. Dewey focused on the religious quality in experience and in this endeavor he employed the scientific method, which was already transforming humans’ understanding of nature and providing means for producing more of the necessities of life. The invention of machinery provided a more effective system of distribution of income in society. Liberalism was now confronted with new forms of injustices, but Ames suggested that it was too early to judge whether these injustices would be overcome by intelligent modifications of the system. A noted feature of the liberal attitude was the courage to explore new avenues, especially those customs and traditions which affected human welfare. This liberal attitude in religion was immediately concerned with the relation between religion and economics. The old individualism of the industrial revolution supported the fallacy that “business is business” with the result that free religious thought was intimidated by the influence of concentrated wealth. Religious idealism called for “a living wage” on the

Liberalism in Religion (1936)

177

premise that humans may justly demand humane treatment. This premise brought the sacred and the secular together, for “wherever men seek emancipation and release for the discovery and furtherance of a more ideal there is a religious quest.”481 The doctrine of original sin was rejected by religious liberals, contending that one could choose the good for one’s life and could nourish these choices into becoming higher goods. “This increment of values may be called the increment of the divine in life.”482 Establishing essential values and projecting them into a unified system becomes the basis for making such an ideal, divine reality. Such a perspective of God provides for growth and expansion of experiences. So conceived, religious liberalism is not a cult but an attitude; and is the method for our growth into becoming more significant individuals and a more encompassing human life. Ames also noted that the scholarship undergirding religious liberalism had provided greater insight into the personality and the spirit of the Jesus. He postulated that it was the quality of Jesus’ soul and his relation of friendship to his followers which was significant. Ames explained what makes Jesus divine: “It is the quality of his soul and his estimate of his fellow-men as worthy of a friendship unto death; it is his refusal to think of himself as their master, and his willingness to be their friend; it is most of all his readiness to subject himself with them to the freedom that comes by truth, and to the justification by which wisdom proves itself.”483

THE REASONABLENESS OF CHRISTIANITY (1937)

Lecture I was entitled “The Meaning of Reasonableness.” Ames noted that the nature and significance of reasonableness has always been an important problem to the major world’s religions. However, in a rapidly expanding scientific era the issue of reasonableness became an acute issue. In its common usage, reasonableness means fair-mindedness or a judgment made with consideration and without prejudice. Two source of reasonableness have been claimed. One source has reasonableness rooted in the faculty of “reason.” The other source claims reasonableness comes from reasoning, based on observation, comparison, and reflecting. Ames stressed that reasoning involves the whole organism and is not purely an activity of the mind. The issue is whether one is born with the ability to reason or if the capacity to reason is due to the character of the organism, such as a large brain and a central nervous system. In comparing psychoanalysis with laboratory psychology, the importance of motivation to reasonableness becomes clear. It is essential to take into account “the whole circuit from impulse through imaginative deliberative behavior.”484 Throughout the reasoning process our interests and emotions are actively involved. Of course there may be conflicts between one’s interests and one’s emotions. In Ames’s words: “Reasoning is a stage in the process of the passage of the impulse over into overt behavior, and into satisfaction or contentment… occasioned by conflict of interests, by uncertainty as to how to act.”485 Ames indicated that our basic interests and desires are based on our biological drives. When these drives come in conflict consciousness or reasoning is involved which often leads to action. However, at other times action is delayed until further insight is gained by remembering, comparing, and anticipating. The depth we explore in gaining further insights will indicate the reasonableness of our action. Ames suggested works by J. H. Robinson, Clarence Day, and William James for gaining insights from the perspective of biology and psychology. Ames contended that the primary motivation of Christianity is to gain the best way of life or righteousness. More primitive religions do not involve rational consideration of the life impulses. Christianity, and like forms of religion, focuses on reflection primarily oriented to the past and

180

Christian Pragmatism

dependent upon memory and precedent. Some of these religions are concerned with reasonableness and others are not. Lecture II was entitled “Christianity and Reasonableness.” Jesus is noted for his informal and homely insights rather than for a systematic method. His parables dealt with the common experiences of the people and stressed the importance of humans over things and traditions. Paul stressed revelation supported by miracles and prophecy and condemned “fleshly wisdom.” In the Medieval period reason was subordinated to the authority of revelation and theology, with faith being prior to knowledge. Much dissent and opposition were expressed during this process of rationalizing the revelation. Ames noted that “medieval mystics went further and held human reason impotent to attain knowledge of reality or to lead man to spiritual realities.”486 During the Protestant Reformation human knowledge received greater emphasis, as understanding revelation in a reasonable way became the goal. Stress was given to the “right of private Judgment” which led to many diverse systems, with some thinkers placing reason above revelation. Modernism arose in the nineteenth century with the application of critical reasoning to the Bible, which led to radical revisions in the Scriptures. There was discrimination between various parts of the Scriptures, with all revealing the circumstances and time in which they were written. S. J. Case was a leader in this study contending that the reports of Jesus’ teachings were influenced by Jews, Gentiles, and by whether he was talking to an urban individual or more sheltered persons. Modernism was influenced by the scientific method and the importance of using commonsense in considering nature or humans. These changes led to greater emphasis of the universe and put in question traditional notions regarding miracles and the idea of God. In this fashion, Modernism was a real challenge to supernaturalism; this contrast highlighted the differences between traditional and modern interpretations of the Scriptures as well as reconstructions under the influence of science and criticism. These constructions stressed naturalism, humanism and non-supernatural interpretations. From Ames’ perspective, religion was increasingly conceived as “a way of life” oriented not to the past but with a focus on the future, employing observation and experimentation in order that our overt behavior be more reasonable. The title of lecture III was “Rationalist and Empiricist View of Reasonableness.” Rationalism is the conception of reason as an endowment which yields absolute truth. Plato is the author of this tradition in which the imperfect, changing objects of our senses are contrasted with the perfect Ideas of a super sensuous realm. Only a few by intuition are able to

The Reasonableness of Christianity (1937)

181

participate in this super sensuous realm. Aristotle focused on the rational principles evident in deductive logic. “Throughout the history of philosophy this rationalism has constituted the ‘great tradition’ and is continued in various forms of Idealism.”487 Empiricism emphasized the scientific orientation which held that our sense perception and general conceptions are real thought changing. Ames suggested that Christian thought has focused, for the most part, on the traditions of rationalism and absolutism. Kant tried to make room for faith by locating knowledge in the sensuous and faith in the super sensuous realms. He noted that the division between rationalism and empiricism has become clearer in the twentieth century as the sciences have produced significant understanding of nature and humans place in nature. However, many thought the result of World War I was a failure of science to influence adequately morality and religion. Karl Barth, with his dialectical theology, symbolizes those who rejected modern science in relation to religion and held to some form of traditional authoritarianism and/or mysticism. For these persons, science is human-made or thisworldly and religiously impotent. Ames noted that those denominations that held to Calvinistic and Lutheran traditions held to a pre-scientific sixteenth century gulf between humans and God. However, Unitarians and Methodist, whose roots are in the Enlightenment, were more open to the scientific era. Modernism was in vogue modifying traditional orthodoxy, until the crisis of the Great War brought an emotional reaction which showed “that modernism was a recent and relatively superficial development which was not well enough grounded to stand the strain of the great world tragedy. Its ‘failure of nerve’ is evidence that it did not really understand itself.”488 Lecture IV focused on “Some Implications of This View of the Reasonableness of Christianity.” Ames recognized that Christianity means different things to different social classes, which are oriented to and conditioned by particular modes of life, work, and thought. Even denominations arise in relation to social groups and people of the same type. So long as the social order remains fairly stable, consciousness of these differences is unimportant. Protestantism has increased our consciousness of these differences by the creating of many sects and by the increased mobility of individuals resulting in greater contact across social lines. The reasonableness of religious and theological ideas depends upon one’s social and intellectual environment. One’s conception of God and salvation differed depending upon whether one lived in a monarchy or a democracy, whether one held a deterministic or mechanistic view of nature as opposed to the ideas of relativity in the new physics. In the

182

Christian Pragmatism

deterministic view salvation occurred only by grace but in the new view salvation is possible through education and growth. The absolutists, who rejected the significance of science, considered the changes revealed by science to be limited to the phenomenal realm and not to impact the essentials of Christianity. They also rejected insights provided by the social sciences. Ames postulated: “They hold that the genetic account of ideas has no bearing on the significance of those ideas. They reject the idea of progress in history, and make a sharp cleavage between the realms of the sacred and the secular, rejecting significance in the latter.”489 Reasonableness in the empirical sense includes insights from the sociology of knowledge, which emphasized that the absolutist position is conditioned by social forces. The Greeks rejected experimental science because this involved handling material things which was beneath the free citizens of Athens. This view served as an effective taboo against involvement with the physical world and by its depreciation of this world and mere human efforts. The criteria of reasonableness for empiricism are its comprehensiveness and fruitfulness in terms of natural values. Instead of truth being evidenced by ideas conforming to preconceived definition or system of logic, the reasonableness of ideas now depends on their effectiveness.

THIS HUMAN LIFE (1937)

Having retired from the University of Chicago in 1937, Ames was invited to give the Gates Memorial Lectures at the twenty-third Fellowship Conference of Ministers and Laymen held at Grinnell College. He suggested as title for these lectures “This Human Life,” with the first lecture entitled “Hunger and Hope.” Ames acknowledged that in the twentieth century we have come to focus attention on ourselves in light of the new resources of science, as we seek to understand our place in nature. His purpose in these remarks was to suggest different ways of looking at ourselves. Individual pictures or snapshots provide a perspective of ourselves. However, all snapshots are partial and to that extent untrue. If we apply the experience of a person viewing a personal snapshot and compare this individual with humanity, we arrive at what Plato called “the individual writ large.” This provides the general idea of looking at our individual self in the vast panorama of history. From this perspective we conclude that a single picture cannot adequately represent either the individual or society. A second way of looking at ourselves is to look through the opera glass in reverse. With everything being smaller, one gains the impression that things are of lesser significance. Ames suggested science has done something like this by extending, as well as miniaturizing, the world we naturally perceive. If we shift from the reversed opera glasses to the telescope, we project ourselves in relation to the history of the race. We feel insignificant. “Why take ourselves so seriously, as if anything we could think or do could make any difference among forces which are so vast, and in the stress of time, which so soon closes over every petty accomplishment?”490 Ames suggested motion picture films as a more satisfactory way of looking at ourselves. The film does away with the limitations of individual snapshots by showing them as aspects of a continuous experience. We gain a better perspective of how our daily moods and actions, although unified in the film, can change. We see ourselves no longer as changeless beings, but as vital, complex persons dealing with a variety of situations and having to respond to a complexity of influences. Ames contended that with the discovery of the immensities of space and time, we gain an insight that humans may be significant creatures. He explained: “If we

184

Christian Pragmatism

observe man in his physical proportions in relation to the world around and above his, he is indeed a pathetic object, but if we think of the fact that he can count and weigh the stars, tell their ages, and estimate their distances, then in a very real sense he excels them.”491 Ames postulated that we are obsessed by some deep and distorted presuppositions about ourselves which have led to a false depreciation of our greatest achievements. Our inferiority complex is based on the dogma of the total depravity of humankind. This dogma teaches that in the “fall” we have become lower than the animals. Our punishment for the acts of these mythical ancestors is to suffer and undergo defeat in all undertakings except when aided by divine grace. Ames suggested that this dogma has turned sensitive people into pessimists and cynics. It was the doctrine of evolution that afforded a different understanding of humans and their potentials. Ames explained: “…the really significant thing about the doctrine of evolution is that it emphasizes man’s own great development, his power to learn, to experiment, to invent, to imagine and to realize better things for himself.”492 Evolution provides hope and courage that we can deal with problems against odds. Certainly we continue to experience failures, but experience teaches that often we rise from our defeats with better wisdom and patience to realize our goals. We experience the possibility of improvement. The old dogma of human depravity condemned us to be vicious and selfish. However, the new psychology has shown in theory and practice that we can be changed. and that ignorance can be enlightened. We can engage in experiments, individually and as a nation, to overcome our limitations. Modern psychology has provided a more tested method into human life and into the depths of our feelings as well as their appearance. William James has opened for us our inward nature for exploration. Ames explained: “The great spirit of James’ work is that it puts the subject himself in the focus of consciousness. Instead of furnishing knowledge about the self, he enables his reader to be himself and to feel the currents of his life. He puts any understanding student in possession of the subjective world of impulses, ideas, purposes, conflicts, and integrations.”493 Although we feel, we never doubt that our feelings reveal the same world containing the same sensible things. From Johann Wolfgang Van Goethe and John Mill, we received a primary emphasis on work and the importance of common duties and goods. The stream of consciousness of one person does not fuse with the stream in another. We feel that our thoughts are our own. Insights are gained about another’s experiences, but it is a different type of knowledge. As we discover more about our inner worlds, it becomes evident that our

This Human Life (1937)

185

feelings of hunger are basic and tied to our will to live. We realize that all animals have this basic drive, but it is when the reality of lack of food hits our hunger drives that our understanding of this basic need is experienced. It is this striving for food which enables us to understand the key to our conduct and achievement. The old psychological view was that an organism is at rest until moved to action by an environmental stimulus. Modern psychology has radically changed that older perspective with the understanding that life itself is dynamic, has appetites and desires undergirding the will to live. Our bodies are in constant motion, which our blood systems reveal. As changes occur in our bodies, our streams of consciousness are altered. Arthur Schopenhauer addressed our struggles between balanced alternatives and postulated that lower forms of the will are blind, striving random impulses and animal craving. The insistent hunger of all creatures expresses the symbol of this universal will. Ames noted the amazing energy of atoms and molecules throughout nature and suggested a comparison between our atoms and the atoms with which the physicists measure. All of us have experiences within ourselves which have the potential for changing our world. In machines we find the vast energy of life at work, which can have positive as well as negative results for humanity. In our changing society, there developed a division of labor between those who do physical labor and those who work at desks. Ames maintained that “in every kind of work it is some hunger, some hope, which drives the machine. The mainspring of the human being is desire, desire for security, for adventure, for recognition, for love and understanding.”494 Ames recognized that contemporary psychology had demonstrated that we rationalize our wishes or desires more than previously thought. We need to realize that life is more than irrational impulses, but a worse mistake occurs when we assume that our lives are driven by pure intellect, reason, or logic. All people hunger for desires with the hope that the desires will be fulfilled. Certainly we cannot live by bread alone, but it is also true that we cannot live without adequate nourishment. In lecture two Ames addressed the topic of “Ways and Means” of conceiving the human life. Our lives are like mazes which are ever changing and ever projecting new paths and variations in many directions. In light of our situation, we seek the ways and means by which some order and control is possible in our world. Our ancestors’ early attempts are found in their discoveries and inventions of fire, the bow and arrow, pottery, weaving, domesticating animals, and the use of metals. Besides these, in addition, the development of language, and later writing, were essential in gaining control of our world. Ames suggested that the next

186

Christian Pragmatism

great discovery was the steam engine. He also noted one other device that elevated humans, which was the development of human associations with the enlargement of kinship groups or clans, as well as enhancing order and justice between members of the society. Ames was not suggesting that modern persons are more intelligent or gifted than our ancestors. However, he stressed that “it does mean that they have gradually accumulated knowledge, techniques, and methods of inquiry and discovery which have given great mastery over nature and human life.”495 Certainly there has been resistance to change, which is the reason that human life has been, to a degree, static for long periods. He noted other factors, unconscious and half-conscious methods, which have complicated our adjustment to reality. The first influence is the natural environment, which includes climate, soil, weather and the difference these factors make in our mental and emotional capacities. The changes due to increased population were significant and often resulted in large migrations of people. Wars have resulted in significant social transformation. He suggested that the types of adjustments required of humans at this stage were not essentially different from adjustments made by other animals. Yet, there were adjustments, such as speech and printing, which only affected humans. One of the results of printing was the preservation and more effective use of tradition. However, there was no guarantee what was written and printed was true. Religious rites were employed by our ancestors to solve problems and to deal with the tragedies of life. Ames explained: “Every religion is an effort to get into relations with the sources of power whether through natural objects or through special prophets or priests, or through some mode of thought or manner of life.”496 All peoples wanted to escape from their very limited existence. Although Christianity shares the view of the sufferings in this world, it developed a more positive conviction that the struggles of this life were a kind of preparation for a better future life. Ames suggested that an acute problem was the role and function of intellectual life for the individual and society. It may be that ideas were important for human advancement, but they probably were most important when related to our experiences. The value of the ideas depends upon whether they are an end in themselves or primarily means to ends. In discussing the effects of college upon young persons, Ames approached again the function of intellectual life and suggested that the issue depended upon whether knowledge and intellectual commotion are important in themselves as opposed to seeking knowledge as an instrument for living. When ideas are rightly used as tools for living they serve to guide and fulfill the rewarding activities of life. Ames indicated that the development

This Human Life (1937)

187

of speculative thought in great epochs of history has resulted in the possibility of misdirection, which when combined with the notion that knowledge is an end in itself has begun to plague the role and purpose of college education. When we explore the systems of noted philosophers in relation to actual life, we discover that these systems are the products of ideas, attitudes, and artistic expressions of generations of practical living. This notion of practical living viewed in the context of functioning nature and human impulsive acts was expressed in the idea of Fate to which God and humans were subject. Customs evolved through a long process of growth and were formulated by wise leaders and entered the popular domain as “dominant tendencies and standards of human life.”497 Ames insisted that the ways and means provided by intelligence are the most helpful in our dealing with the labyrinth of life. He considered philosophy and science to have been most helpful on our earthly journey because of their conscious and self-critical method of gaining knowledge. Plato was recognized for his contrast between the super-sensuous world of pure being and the world of earthly existence, which was a reflection of his aristocratic role in Athens. Plato and Aristotle advanced the method of deductive reasoning which supported the existence and nature of pure being and changeless truth. In time, this view was seen as an attempt at a method of rational investigation and proof that would retain the essential traditional beliefs, and place them on a firm footing. Metaphysics became the substitute for custom in supporting higher moral and social values. Bertrand Russell suggested that these traditions centered around the word “contemplation.” In contrast to intelligence being used to rationalize customs, the modern method of intelligence is investigating the facts of actual experience and by the method of induction to draw conclusions from this investigation. The new science begins with facts instead of uncivilized premises, and seeks to provide generalizations from these facts. Rene Descartes represented the human mind emerging from eons of withdrawal from the real world. Francis Bacon was a key thinker who focused on the real world of things and actual experience in order to acquire knowledge apart from revelation and abstract reasoning. Nature was the subject which was to be examined by careful experiments. Bacon sought knowledge as a source of power for controlling nature, while other scientists came to seek knowledge for the sake of understanding nature. It was the practical use of these sciences in the industrial revolution which have changed our relation to and understanding of nature. Today the method of science dominates in seeking knowledge and is beginning to be applied in the social sciences as a way of solving human problems. Ames employed the work in chemistry

188

Christian Pragmatism

of Louis Pasteur to illustrate the principle in all scientific effort, which in the last four hundred years has brought the greatest revolution in human life. Ames concluded: “Science devotes itself to the solution of the problems that press upon our human attention, and has not only provided significant solutions to specific questions, but offers its method as the hope of continuing to serve mankind in still more and larger ways.”498 In his third lecture, Ames’ subject was the emotional life expressed in anxiety and elation. Emotions arise in conditions of conflict where the outcome is uncertain. When the outcome refutes our expectations, the emotion of despair occurs. Ames suggested our “emotional experience is indicative of the kind of world we live in and of the kind of beings we humans are.”499 Life is an adventure in a dangerous world with occasional experiences that elate us. There is always an element of change in life. Ames noted causes of anxiety which he attributed to the age in which he lived. In America and Europe there is a revolution in the conditions of life which is the primary cause of a great deal of their pessimism. These conditions reflect the movement of persons in rural areas to the cities, where they find themselves less than satisfied with their adopted life. The ancestral traditions are reduced in importance which has resulted in a loss and depth in human sentiment. These changes in living conditions affect us deeply, including our foundations of moral and spiritual relations. Previously as people of the soil, we were dependent upon nature, but in the city we are dependent upon humans for whom we work. The tendency in the city is to rely upon secondary causes rather than upon God. “This may be one reason why many people, reared in religious customs, so easily neglect them now.”500 Ames indicated that even the sense of sin has faded, and the idea of immortality has lost support because the focus is on rewards in this life. The economic and social conditions have been so radically altered that the future of religion is in question. Ames recognized that the new economic climate had created classes between capital and labor. With cheap labor, cheap raw materials, and with the aid of tariffs and subsidies, great wealth has been generated for the capitalist class. As the owner class gained power, the workers joined unions to protect their interests, which increase the class struggle. Ames felt that the strain between these two classes threatened the future of democracy. There were other causes for anxiety in the industrial nations. War was considered a great threat to the civilized world, especially in light of the new machines of war. Ames noted that automobile accidents were another cause of anxiety. “These automobile catastrophes furnish a grim illustration of the sense of many of our human ills due to maladjustments

This Human Life (1937)

189

in the sudden changes of conditions.”501 Many have concluded that the machine is a threat to human well being, especially if the indirect effects on social disorganization are counted. In this scientific age, intellectual pursuits have been stressed with the general public becoming enthusiastic for popular education. However, the question was raised whether education could be overdone. Also raised was the question of whether the intellectuals themselves could benefit from an expanded intellectual life. Bertrand Russell noted inconsistency in the scientific outlook with its claim to accept nothing without evidence, and its dogmatic assumptions such as the validity of induction and the basic idea of causation. Another dilemma is knowledge not being used to solve practical problems which has led to seeking knowledge for its own sake. Ames reminded us that Kant indicated the fruitlessness of pure reason withdrawn upon itself and being isolated from solving the ultimate issues concerning God, freedom and immortality. Our conscience may be unable to lead us to any adequate mode of conduct apart from experience. However, Kant rejected including experience as the foundation for valid moral behavior. Kant, like many others, was schooled in the traditional belief that reason and sense, mind and body are separate and incompatible. Humans belong to their intellectual world as well as to the world of the senses, receiving insights into absolute knowledge which are veiled by the senses. These notions have greatly influenced religious thought by the supernatural being elevated as the most important source of values which is dependent upon blind faith. Such a demand causes increased anxiety for intelligent and honest persons. Practical persons find the scientific method an avenue by which their concerns are met, with intelligence being most fruitful when applied to practical ends. Yet, many proclaim that the aims of spiritual life are essentially different from the interests of science. Ames opined through the words of a young Chinese scholar: “…that civilization which makes the fullest possible use of human ingenuity and intelligence in search of truth in order to control nature and transform matter for the service of mankind, to liberate the human spirit from ignorance, superstition, and slavery to the forces of nature, and to reform social and political institutions for the benefit of the greatest number—such a civilization is highly idealistic and spiritual. This civilization will continue to grow and improve itself.”502 Such a buoyant faith with its confidence in intelligence applied to practical problems is based on the painstaking method of science and serves as the foundation for securing more adequate understanding and control over nature. Self-criticism has led to the efficiency of science in the use of machines and tools in relation to the events being studied.

190

Christian Pragmatism

Ames recognized that the method of applying our intelligence to the more complex issues facing the social sciences has already begun to bear fruit. Social improvement involves issues of health and economics, as well as education and religion. However, we note that science is cautious when applied beyond its specialty. Science has cured many ills, but most important in religion has been the reversion of the pre-scientific notion of human depravity. Ames suggested two things religion can do to make the resources of science more effective. One is to share the faith of the scientists and to support their work. “The other thing is to utilize more scientific method, especially through education, in cultivating and extending the spirit of good will, sympathy, and realistic experiments for cooperation throughout the world.”503 In the fourth lecture, Ames’ topic was “The Thick Web of Life,” with the focus on the fact of the individual in society and the society in the individual. Although we think of ourselves as independent of others, the influence of others is always with us. We may think that we act alone, but we do so in agreement with the thought and system of our culture. Ames suggested that this principle also applies to the large and more complex relations in life. Ames noted several elementary facts regarding our social solidarity. The first is the identification of an individual in terms of his or her social relations. The second fact recognizes that we are inevitably implicated in our personal society which is evident in the demands society makes upon us. A third contention is that, given the increasing complexity of contemporary life and the move toward specialization in employment, we have made evident the increase interdependency of individuals in all classes. Just walking through our houses, it is evident that many of the things we own are not totally our own because the lives of others are invested in these things. Ames contended that our interdependence with other peoples serves as a more adequate basis of increasing our social sympathy. Our realization of our interdependence does not set well with the American tradition of individualism. Employers are not sure what is proper pay for their workers. Most persons in power think they are in this position because of their superior endowment. “But the more closely society is organized, the more evident it becomes that no individual or class can assume independence or dictatorship.”504 In the modern world people are continually realizing that they are becoming more and more embedded in a collective system. Ames marveled that the will to live has survived when so much of the meaning and zest of life has been negated. Ames

This Human Life (1937)

191

postulated: “The individual is more and more organized into immense corporations and into huge labor unions. These define the nature and range of opportunity and the conditions of action.”505 We are all dependent upon the combinations which control markets, transportation, and distribution. Today our social web is being woven by industry and business. Much of modern education is specifically oriented toward the student attaining a more profitable occupation, while others continue the older cultural tradition of education appropriate to being a gentleman and scholar. Our new forms of collective life are based on a machine economy which displays limited concern with traditional human interest in education, the arts, and religion. “The result is that while the dominant stream of life is mechanized and collectivized around realistic concerns that are important to existence, these more idealistic things are still in the old tradition of individual interest.”506 One feature of the machine age suggests growth, which will increase the leisure of workers and consumers. How the society makes use of this leisure time is essential for growth, but Ames found that increased leisure time was left to old habits of waste and drift. He noted that most popular religion has retained its individualistic forms even as society is increasingly socialized. He explained: “The social order is conscious of new values in immediate experience, but religion is suspicious of these values because it has so long believed that the only genuine values descend from a supernatural realm and are gained through divine grace and not by human wisdom and labor… In its extreme forms religion renounces everything distinctive of the modern world of thought and achievement and aspires in different ways to recreate conviction on behalf of the old beliefs.”507 When all else seems to have failed, people seek help and comfort in a supernatural power. All secular values are rejected of being of value in religion because they are sinful. It is only divine wisdom and power which can provide salvation—a miraculous supernatural salvation. Ames noted that the Barthian theology essentially supported this supernatural view of religion as it rejected secularism and all attempts at human merit, and in general condemned modern society and relegated religion to an insignificant corner of human existence. Ames considered the various forms of fundamentalism to be corrupting cultivated people by making them indifferent to organized religion, with the result that church membership and attendance is being greatly reduced. We live in a collective age with an individualistic religion that separates our spiritual life from the vitally developing forms of society, with the result being an increasing tension in our life. Some are suggesting that religion is

192

Christian Pragmatism

incorporating the collective forms of secular life while still holding to the traditional forms. Ames illustrated this point by noting the growing tendency today of church unions as seen in the Federal Council of Churches. This unionizing process is patterned on the corporate structure of big business. The Federal Council reflects the new secularism which is mainly expressed in the “social gospel.” With the focus shifting to social interests, the older emphasis on personal and creedal religion is passing into the background. Ames and others had begun to wonder whether the churches would become secular or whether the churches would be able to Christianize the interests and processes dominant in an industrialized culture. In traditional religion, one was able to be good by a gift of grace from God. In a secular society, the good life is more complex. In the simpler society one gave aid to those who asked and were in need. Now charity is organized and is in danger of miscarriage unless it investigates the supplicant, with help being provided by institutional processes. This complexity reveals how contemporary life is both social and individual. In some relations the individual is democratic; in other fascist or communistic. Generally people stick together who hold similar views and modes of behavior. It is evident that the web of life has expanded in depth for all persons who are intellectually responsive to every changing reality. Our sense of moral responsibility has expanded, which Ames illustrated by our attempts to understand the causes and conditions which breed social ills. Ames opined: “In general the most significant advance is in concern for human interests, the growing realization that the first duty of a civilized society is to work for the human beings in it, and to labor for the creation of conditions and standards of life, economic and cultural, that will afford fair opportunity for the attainment of normal and vital personalities.”508 Reflecting on his thirty five years of teaching philosophy, Ames noted radical changes and the broadening of problems as part of a movement toward greater concreteness and complexity. During this period, he had witnessed a decline in interest in the history of philosophy for solving problems and a greater consideration given to the living issues facing humans. The tradition of Idealism had been replaced by pragmatism and realism as the primary philosophical focus. The building of dogmatic systems in philosophy has been replaced by criticizing and clarifying our view of humanity and this world in light of our increasing knowledge. In his final lecture entitled “The Quest of Quests,” Ames raised the question of how we can make intelligent and sensitive adjustments in this age of confusion which will enable us to integrate our personalities in a

This Human Life (1937)

193

harmonious fashion. He recognized that we understand that science is revealing a new order of nature without understanding the implications of this new order. Certainly, life in the United States has been one of constant change in facing new frontiers. We have faced the industrial revolution and the radical shift in population from rural to city living and now are trying to deal with the impact of the World War and the Depression. Our changing living conditions have brought with them a decline in parental authority, as well as in the authority of the church and other traditional institutional authorities. Ames contended that the dominant idea of our new society is that the secret of life lies in economic success. Certainly, this emphasis is, in part, caused by the relative poverty of the older generations. However, the depression has resulted in many people losing their life-savings. Fear has come to be the dominate attitude in the country, as the impact of loss is enhanced by our imagination. Ames was not suggesting that seeking money is evil, but that an overemphasis of money distorts our experiences to the exclusion of essential things. It is this search for a full and proportioned life that we engage in “the quest of quests.” This quest is stated most adequately as seeking a system of values, which Ames noted had been a primary concern in university departments of philosophy. The old tradition of Idealism has been replaced by a search for what people aspire to and work for in their daily living. Ames suggests seven kinds of values that relate to this search, including the major interests people follow. In exploring these kinds of values he hoped to provide a “picture of this whole in order to see the parts in their relations and interdependent… No one of them appears in actual life in full perfection, and the cultivation of any one may disturb the balance of the whole.”509 The first system of values concerns our seeking a vocation in life by over extending our imagination so that our efforts do not adequately relate to our potential. He used the training of an athlete to illustrate this effort. Health is the second value. Without adequate health, one cannot have the sustained energy necessary to undergird one’s efforts. Adequate health also provides a resilience of spirit and an upright view of life. The morality of health requires us to live by the laws of wholesome living, as marks of our intelligence and maturity. Love is the third value, which is a biological trait of nature which assures our self preservation and is essential for social solidarity. There is danger in love being distorted, which means that “it requires guidance and restraint and enlightenment.”510 The fourth value is knowledge. In moving into the scientific age, we have become aware of methods of discovering knowledge which have provided new insights into

194

Christian Pragmatism

our living patterns. Part of the methods we have learned from science is that acquiring knowledge requires a degree of detachment, as well as understanding that we cultivate knowledge for its own sake. However, knowledge as a value must be kept in relation to other values in order to adequately understand our experiences. The development of the community or state is the fifth value. We are communal animals and require some structure of order and cooperation for successful living. Democracy provides greater concern for human welfare by providing assistance for the fuller realization of all values of life, but to accomplish its assistance requires efficiency of the community or state. Moral value is the sixth value. Humans require “a long process of training which a person undergoes to achieve his place as a responsible moral agent and citizen.”511 In this fashion we become moral, for we cannot become moral by just accepting the standards of the group. However, the laws and customs of our society do furnish the pattern upon which the laws of the community are based. Ames suggested that our moral judgments are confused and conflicted now because our traditions and institutions are facing radical changes. Love of beauty in art is the seventh value, which Ames considered allied with play and recreation. Through art our meanings of experience are enhanced, as we understand these meanings in relation to their context. Ames contended that these seven systems of value include all our primary interests except religion. “The Quest of quests is to encompass life as a whole or in such inclusive perspectives as are possible in our finite minds… [which] in religion we endeavor to live it through.”512 The problem is how to realize some harmony and unification of our various interests which is required for our fulfillment. We seek a system of values which will provide a sense of worth and meaning in our lives. Perfection is not a possibility, for we cannot conceive perfection in ourselves, in God or a supernatural world. Our knowledge is limited and we cannot conceive that an all-good God could create a world with so much suffering. Some claim that our world is still being created and we should not expect a perfect world with humans involved. Our task, which is the religious task, is to coordinate these values into working relations. Religion combines all these seven values in harmonious relations which constitute the religious attitude. In faith, we view the future from the standpoint of the present, which Ames claimed is identical to the faith of science. The fruits of a disciplined mind and a fearless faith in the resources of nature make possible the harmonious relations we seek. Ames indicated that this faith applies also to the field of social problems, but he lamented that religion remained doubtful about faith being related to the physical and social

This Human Life (1937)

195

sciences. However, Ames saw “signs that we are entering upon a great constructive period which I believe will be a great religious era. It will be religious insofar as it gathers up all the values of life into a vital and expanding experience.”513

THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DISCIPLES (1937)

The aim of this paper was to call attention to the specific philosophical background of Disciples and to indicate the character and importance of this heritage with reference to current tendencies and problems of Disciples. Alexander Campbell is generally accepted as the primary founder of Disciples, which his many writings confirm. Campbell and his father were educated at the University of Glasgow where the philosophy of John Locke was dominant. Alexander Campbell recognized his indebtedness to Locke, who he proclaimed as “the great Christian philosopher” and from whom he adopted his central principles and religious ideas. When Campbell died in 1866, Locke’s philosophy provided the basis and structure of thinking among Disciples. Ames suggested two reasons why references to Locke soon disappeared from Disciples’ writings. The first reason had to do with Locke’s rejection of theology and metaphysics, which led some to think he had rejected philosophy itself. However, Locke never intended to identify philosophy with speculative metaphysics. Rather, his concern was to relieve philosophy of abstract and fruitless theories which he labeled metaphysics and to emphasize a practical philosophy of life. Disciples appreciated Locke’s commonsense and practical orientation to the extent that they came to believe they did not have or need a philosophy. The second influence of Locke centered on his idea that names and authority should not be employed in the essential things of religion. Alexander Campbell feared that the Disciples movement might become identified with a human leader, taking his name and forming another sect. Therefore, he stressed Locke’s idea that no name should be associated with essential things of religion. In contrast to other Protestant movements, Campbell was in favor of Christian union based on the New Testament and not other works by humans. Ames used his personal experience to illustrate the situation of second generation Disciples. He mentions the influence of his father, who was a Disciples minister, his educational experiences at Drake, Yale and the University of Chicago, and his experiences as a Disciples minister. There was no history of Disciples being taught in any related colleges, and Ames at that age had never heard of Locke. It was toward the end of his graduate

198

Christian Pragmatism

study that he took a course in 18th century British philosophy in which he was introduced to the thoughts of Locke. He soon realized that the basic ideas of Locke “were basic ideas in my earlier training at home and in church.”514 When Ames began to teach in the philosophy department at Chicago in 1896, he also taught a course at the Disciples Divinity House on the “Theology of Alexander Campbell.” “It was in the Disciples Divinity House in the 1890s that the historical study of the Disciples and their philosophical background was first undertaken in regular university research and instruction.”515 Soon all Disciples’ colleges were offering such courses. Ames noted that Disciples have only begun to realize their great spiritual heritage and how valuable that tradition is to contemporary religious life. Ames noted that John Locke’s dates were 1632–1704. His father was a lawyer and Puritan, but Locke was more attracted by the Presbyterians and Independents. At Oxford, he rejected the medieval scholastic philosophy which was in vogue. Instead, he was attracted by an experimental and inquiring attitude which he applied to all courses. Locke is known as “the father of the English Enlightenment.” He embodied criticism of human knowledge, supported free inquiry and universal toleration. The experimental approach was new in European thought, having received an impetus in that direction by Descartes and Francis Bacon. Descartes is noted for his rigorous discipline of doubt which he applied to everything he thought and believed but doubt itself. Bacon, like Rene Descartes, sought to escape from books to study the things around him and to gather practical knowledge of the real world through experiments. Locke found this practical knowledge appealing, having rejected the doctrine of innate ideas. He realized that our knowledge is limited and prone to error, but he thought that humans could greatly increase their knowledge by a better understanding of themselves, the world, and God. However, he contended that the scriptures offered no revelation which was not appropriate to human knowledge and contended that it must be supported by later thinkers for whom it is realized with devastating clearness. Locke’s theological views reflect the prevailing assumptions of his day. He showed no appreciation for the idea of the immanence of God. Faith in Christ was dependent upon Christ’s miracles, which led him to establish, by the rules of evidence and reason, the evidences in support of these miracles. The ideas he developed may not be adopted by anyone today, but he remains important because of certain attitudes he displayed in his thinking and exploration and because of his employing a definite method of inquiry which remains his great contribution. Ames contended

The Philosophical Background of the Disciples (1937)

199

that it was in his attitude and method that Locke remains important to Disciples. Locke’s attitude was a form of liberalism that shared the essential characteristics of genuine liberalism. His liberalism meant that humans seek to know the truth and to become free thereby. His political liberalism sought a better system of government which would afford fuller opportunities for citizens through intelligent and shared responsibility. His emphasis on education was essential for any liberal program. Religious liberalism “seeks to bring religion to the test of fulfilling the deepest spiritual needs of man through better understanding of these needs and through discoveries of suitable ideas, institutional forms, and procedures for their satisfaction.”516 Locke also supported tolerance given the fallible nature of human thought. Ames noted that liberalism can be viewed in terms of its scientific method, which in Locke’s term would be the method of reasonableness by which facts are studied and careful conclusions are based upon these facts. Locke had great respect for commonsense and for the ability of common people to understand the essential and religious qualities enough to be guided toward a good life. Today we have come to think of scientific thinking involving laboratory instruments and techniques, but in reality such thinking is careful analysis that indicates what is reasonable. We see in Disciples the influence of Locke in our commonsense reasonableness as opposed to dogmatism and mysticism. The Deists, Unitarians, and Universalists were influence by this liberalism of Locke, although these groups differ in their emphasis of the tradition of Locke. They fail to keep in mind Locke’s emphasis upon the use of reason as an instrument for meeting our practical needs. Campbell believed he had pushed Disciples back to the foundation of Christianity as found in the New Testament. By releasing the Bible from theological bondage through the help of Locke, Disciples returned to the simple essentials of belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Those other denominations, especially Unitarians, have suffered by devoting great effort against orthodoxy while the Disciples have supported church union. Ames suggested that the future years will tell whether Disciples can fully retain their liberal heritage.

A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE WILL TO BELIEVE (1937)

Ames reminded us of his lifetime spent as a minister of a church and a teacher of philosophy. As a minister he has faced all types of practical activities and dealt with diverse tensions of his people, from small personal affairs to problems with our increasingly interdependent world. However, when confronted with religious questions, he avoided theology and focused on philosophy and psychology. A philosopher requires some degree of detachment in order to examine the human and the universal with objectivity and impartiality. As a minister he had to be accessible to the stream of human life, with its suffering and hopes. Ames found these combined duties to provide a stimulating tension, as he moved from the heights of intellectual criticism to the valley of routine living. Ames found William James to provide a working perspective which included both the heights of speculative thought and the maze of practical life. However, it was Arthur Schopenhauer’s doctrine of the will which influenced Ames the most, for he saw the world as embodied will in all its strivings. For Schopenhauer the will functions not as a neat process of deliberations because it includes all the semi-conscious as well as the conscious impulses and desires an expression of the universal will. In these processes, the intellect plays a small part, for it is often self-deceived as to its role, “for nature drives toward her own ends which are summed up in the will to live, and this will to live wills the life of the species more than of the individual.”517 It is a rare occasion when a person of exceptional mental ability arises who is capable of discerning true reality from its deceptions and imposters. Schopenhauer’s emphasis on the primacy of the will and “his voluntarism changed the traditional conception of the relation of the intellect and the will.”518 Biological science has revealed our evolving from lower forms, which provided a different frame of reference for evaluating the nature and function of our intellect. However, our intellectual processes are partial and plagued by insecurity as we attempt to control events and laws in order to provide security and to gain a better understanding of our own progress in knowledge of ourselves and of our world, as we attempt to fulfill our goals and the cravings of our nature. It is essential that we not

202

Christian Pragmatism

believe anything without sufficient evidence, realizing that in spite of all our caution errors are certain to occur. In comparing the old and new psychology, it was noted that the old focused on momentary states such as sense qualities, while the new deals with expressions of basic and permanent human desires. The starting point for the new psychology is the conduct of the individual’s wants and impulses. This datum of the dynamic living self may be referred to as the Will to Live, as the Life-impulse. James is noted for having applied this will to live to the study of religious phenomena. Ames considered James’ position to be weakened “by undertaking to make it a justification for particular forms of belief, especially belief in a kind of theism. If James had held to the fact of the will to believe in life in the sense of seeking fulfillment of wants, needs, hopes and ambitions, he would have made a deeper appeal and carried greater conviction to more minds.”519 He agreed with James that we must believe we can succeed in order to do so. He disagreed with James’ contention that our faith in the seen world’s goodness is verified by our faith in an unseen world. He also disagreed with James’ assumption that it is necessary to conceive God as dwelling in the unseen world. “The God of James had become finite and dependent in some measure upon our human loyalty.”520 Ames proposed to omit James’ unseen world where God existed and instead focus on James’ suggestion: “Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact.”521 Ames supported coming to grips with the basic things of religion and morality in terms of our life as we experience it. It is the focus on faith in life itself that drew Ames’ attention. Ames attempted to illustrate the issue of faith in life in terms of his experience during the previous summer with the news being filled with tragedy, fear, and despair. “I gradually found my spirit weighted down with the horror and banalities of the world.”522 He mentioned a few: the Japanese invading China, the Italian expedition in Ethiopia, the civil war in Spain, the injustice to William Harris a negro, and automobile accidents. Instead of giving up on the world, he returned with a deepened sense of his ministry. However, there remained for him the problem of reconciling the discrepancy between this imperfect world with the traditional conception of God. How could a good God not stop the carnage of war or a God of infinite sympathy and love tolerate a world of suffering. He noted that Brightman in The Problem of God had confronted the difficulties in conceiving God as absolutely good and almighty, with the conclusion that God must be conceived as limited in power in order to save God’s goodness. If we take an empirical approach to the idea of God, we see life as involved in goods and evils based on our biological

A New Interpretation of the Will to Believe (1937)

203

structures and inheritance. Still the organism responds positively to pleasure and negatively to pain. “There is here seen the simplest form of selection, of what may, by a generous use of words, be called the will to believe.”523 In higher forms of life which develop memory, there is more consciousness in the selection process which reveal the choices involved in the will to live. This process involves a feeling of the possibility of better things, a kind of trust in life functioning in nature. This trust in life is evident in our belief in the possibility of changing objects and conditions to achieve the better, to achieve more adequate satisfaction. “This disposition to believe in life and to fashion nature, or parts of nature to his ends appears at its highest in man.”524 This will to believe in life believes in the power of intelligence to develop necessary inventions which has generalized into the general faith in inventing inventions. This will to believe has provided the confidence to apply the scientific method for the satisfaction of human interests and needs. Ames recognized that the social sciences are behind the physical sciences in the development and application of the scientific method. However, he contended that real progress is being made in the social sciences for social advancement. “Science has enabled us to have a far greater will to believe in life than was possible in the long age of pre-literacy and magic. I think we may look forward to a day when belief in life, in a genuinely religious sense, may be as reasonable and as intelligible as this belief in life scientifically.”525 Before religion can appeal to its idealism it must free itself from ideas and dreams of ages past. He saw religion making such necessary adjustments by discarding notions of infallibility, perfect saviors, ecstatic experiences, and eternal punishments or rewards. A more efficient religion will rely on new approaches to its problems and tasks, as happens in science.

WHEN SCIENCE COMES TO RELIGION (1938)

Religion is much older than science. Psychologists call this early religion a form of “associative thinking” in which objects of particular interest were regarded with awe and made the center of ritual and emotional life. In this fashion humans sought to ally with powers thought helpful in living and rejoicing. This type of associative living was a source of magic, as “powers were identified with bodily organs by which the powers were manifest.”526 Ames noted that, when associative thinking becomes part of the folk tradition and especially when written down, it is considered sacred and often becomes fixed beliefs. Science, as careful observation, analysis, inference, and verification, began with Francis Bacon in the sixteenth century. Ames explained: “It was a summons to go direct to nature, to the facts of life, and to observe and interpret these facts in common-sense and reasonable ways. Science claimed the right to its own approach to nature without regard to biblical or religious views.”527 It was a new way of thinking that focused on things instead of ideas, experience instead of books, without being dependent upon traditional authorities. A distinguishing characteristic of modern science is the use of the laboratory and statistics. Whereas the Greeks considered variations from the type without meaning because they did not conform to the rational scheme, the scientist today is sensitive to exceptions to general form and theory, which tends to expand and enrich scientific knowledge. When modern science confronted revealed religion, it was opposed with the greatest possible resistance. For Christians who considered the Bible as divine revelation, it was natural to consider this revelation as containing all essential moral and religious truth. This view of the Bible was reinforced by viewing humans as weak and corrupt. As a result, human thinking was regarded as foolishness. In other words, the word of God provides all knowledge but it is corrupted by humans’ sin. Another shock was felt by religion when modern science introduced the conception of evolution which revolutionized the entire system of nature. Evolution was strongly opposed, with professors in the United States being fired for supporting this conception and its implications for our understanding of nature and the role of humans. Ames suggested that if popular religion accepted this expanded view of nature and humans it would be enriched by

206

Christian Pragmatism

finding that the applications and spirit of science is in religious thought and practice. Religious opposition often claimed that science was materialistic and therefore unable to deal with non-material things such as the soul. Many religious thinkers do not even realize that biblical criticism is scientifically based. Ames explained: “The facts of biblical literature have been searchingly observed, analyzed, interpreted, subjected to new hypotheses, and the results critically tested and reviewed. These are the means which all sciences employ…”528 The impact of biblical criticism has resulted in radical changes in traditional conceptions of inspiration, revelation, and Word of God. Karl Barth served as an example of scholars who accept the empirical facts of historical revelations but fail to apply this method to transcendental claims about the Word of God. Ames considered Modernism to be another example of scholars who profess to accept science but only apply science to a limited degree. If they had adequately applied science to religion, it would mean greater change in their theological ideas. The idea of revelation might have to be negated, leaving us only with human insights and judgments. Modernism also emphasized the nature of humans. The corruption of human nature is not consistent with whatever free exercise of human intelligence we have. Ames contended that Biblical study has demonstrated that the teachings of Jesus are inconsistent with the view of human sinfulness. The doctrine of sin was provided by Paul, which along with his view of women demonstrate that he was mistaken about the human race. Of course those tied to the old school felt that this praise of human natural knowledge was evidence of the demonic character of humans. However, it should be noted that the religion of Greece was not fear oriented but held a more hopeful view for humans given the natural limitations of human nature. Ames contended that the work of scientists was a good illustration of the potential of human intelligence. As more theologians were convinced by the scientific evidence, they had to adjust their views accordingly. However, with the development of new sciences, such as biogenesis and psychology, are providing on the one hand new insight concerning the origin and on the other better understanding of human intelligence, points to the importance of education for human development. He suggested that advances in the social sciences are beginning to upset the old defenses of traditional religion. Scientists generally agree that the value of the truth discovered is to be found in its guiding further thought and action. Scientists are not discouraged that the truth discovered is not complete or absolute. Evolution opened new avenues of exploration which negate the old fatalism and indicated the possibility of control of health and

When Science Comes to Religion (1938)

207

longevity. We have begun to find ourselves feeling at home in nature by using our powers in seeking genuine satisfactions. It was noted that the advances in science may be related to traditional religious forms without causing a radical revolution in traditional religion. This relationship can be seen in the works in medicine, communication, and printing. The message of tradition has proclaimed and fostered the impotence of humans, but the sciences continue to demonstrate the power of human intelligence. Still, there are many religious thinkers who continue to view the sciences as completely unrelated to religion while holding to a transcendental, metaphysical nature of religion. Ames contended that psychology and the history of religion demonstrate the origin and development of religion based on the needs and aspirations in diverse cultures and peoples. Ames opined: “If religion is something transcendent, non-empirical, non-psychological, it is inconsistent to assume that it can be taught at all. If it can be taught, then it must pertain to interests which seize upon knowledge and skill as means for realizing those interests. Scientific work in the modern sense is motivated by the desire to solve problems, as in the search for the cause of cancer. The fruitful use of science in religion also requires the realization of problems to be solved and confidence in the possibility of solving them by intelligible methods.”529 Modern psychology has negated the old idea of reason. Reasonableness has been redefined as a quality based on the scientific method. When science came to religion it necessitated the rewriting of history based on a better understanding of nature. Darwinism negated the hard lines between the species and demonstrated the development of new forms. Ames recognized that this implication of Darwin’s insight was very difficult for the old logic which held that nothing new can proceed from a lesser thing. The result is that the old notions of cause and effect have giving way to the idea of laws of nature which are not established powers but conceived more as statistical insights into behavior based not on dogma but postulates and hypotheses. Ames considered that the conceptions of mechanism and teleology may provide a philosophy of religion consistent with the scientific method. He noted that President Conklin of Princeton University, who was a biologist, stressed the relation of science to ethics and our social welfare and appealed for complete freedom for scientific research as a social enterprise and a vital social resource. Conklin appealed for complete freedom for scientific research as a social enterprise and a vital social resource. Ames suggested that the conception of human welfare being the desired end of science was the same desired end for the great religions. He explained: “It means life and life more abundant which was seen by Jesus to express the

208

Christian Pragmatism

ultimate end of life itself. The necessary attitude is this view is love of life, love of neighbor, and love of family and friends, love of humanity itself… This may be taken to symbolize the possibility of an alliance of intelligence and love in new measure and with new promise of unprecedented fruitfulness. Love needs implementation by intelligence, and intelligence needs direction and enthusiasm through an ideal, practical cause.”530 Ames concluded his remarks with a focus on the idea of God. He thought it out of place to seek for a God as the cause of the origin of life since science is exploring our origin. What is required is our developing an idea of God consistent with our knowledge of the universe and our place in it. He suggested that we put under intense and objective scrutiny our experiences, for in so doing it will be revealed that a realistic view of reality is based on knowledge and love. Ames opined: “From an empirical approach, I conceive it possible to say that God is love, and God is wisdom. The godly life, which has been the familiar way of designating the religious life, becomes now a life characterized by the attitude of love, and implement by intelligence. In such a view of religion, dogmas are transformed into beliefs and revision, worship becomes celebration of the application and meaning of love and wisdom in the whole process of living, and churches become agencies for the interpretation, dramatization, symbolization, and proclamation of the ways of salvation, the way of truth that makes us free and the way of love that forever seeks and saves.”531

RELIGIOUS IMPLICATIONS OF JOHN DEWEY’S PHILOSOPHY (1939)

The lecture notes are in outline form. There is no surviving manuscript. The first lecture was entitled “What has the philosophy of John Dewey to say that bears upon the problems of religion today?” In these remarks, Ames recognized that the confusion in religious matters was part of the general confusion common to all our cultural interests. This increasing confusion led Dewey to seek an understanding of the causes in change and influence characteristic of that period. Basically his answer was that Americans had left the old traditions of Europe and entered the new age of science, industry, and politics. However, Americans have not yet fully adjusted to the new ideas and situations. Having noted the religious confusion in America, Ames briefly introduced Dewey and indicated why he is important. Dewey was born in Burlington, Vermont, in 1859, the year in which Darwin published On The Origin of Species, introducing the doctrine of evolution. In the Influence of Darwin, Dewey articulated Darwin’s new outlook on reality. Dewey was educated at the University of Vermont and Johns Hopkins, with teaching careers at the University of Michigan, Minnesota, Chicago (1894–1904), and Columbia. Dewey’s influence spread beyond the universities through his books in Psychology, Ethics, Education, Politics, Philosophy, Art, Religion, and Logic. Because of this wide influence, Dewey “has been called the Philosopher of the American continent.”532 In A Common Faith Dewey noted that historical religions reflects the social conditions in which peoples lived, which due to changing social patterns affected their understanding of human destiny and their attitudes towards these changes. Traditional or supernatural religions claim that changes in conception and action have ceased after the original supernatural revelations. This led to Dewey’s consideration of how much of the outgrown supernatural religions are accepted and acceptable in modern times. Lecture II was entitled “A Common Faith.” Dewey employed the adjective “religious” instead of the noun “religion” because religious denotes attitudes. Dewey objected to “religious experience” validating religious beliefs. This point was illustrated by the account of a person near a nervous breakdown who is cured by “drawing on God.” The conclusion

210

Christian Pragmatism

drawn is that God exists. However, Dewey explained that the experience only denotes the operation of some complex conditions. He explained that religious attitudes are the key, for these attitudes are concerned with our essential being in its totality. Religion did not cause these attitudes, but they are religious when they occur. Doctrines are secondary and only reflect the adventure of ideas in a particular period. Imagination is important in harmonizing the self. Ideals are projected which serve as the ends to be realized. These ideals were not preexisting in some supernatural realm, for so conceived their moral quality is destroyed. Neither are these ideals readymade, for they are dependent upon our imagination. Dewey defined faith as “the continued disclosing of truth through directed cooperative human endeavor.”533 He concluded that such faith is more religious than faith in a completed revelation. When we pursue an ideal because of its enduring value, even if it is to our determent, it is religious in quality. Traditional religious faith allows no fixed intellectual content. So long as this is the case, there can be no resolution to the conflict between science and religion. We have no sure road of access to truth, but new methods of inquiry and reflection have informed us that the most productive road is by “patient, cooperative inquiry operating by means of observation, experiment, and controlled reflection.”534 Mystical experience is considered normal but requires interpretation. In such experience, our idealizing imagination focuses on what is of greatest interest in the climatic moment and projects it. There are no external criteria or guarantees of this idealized projection, but those who have such a mystical experience use it to encompass their ideal ends. Dewey indicated that the idea of God “is one of ideal possibilities unified through imaginative realization and projection.”535 God is viewed as the dynamic relation between the ideal and the actual, which Dewey considered to be the fallacy and weakness of atheism. Originally religion was a community affair but today it has become identified with a special institution within a secular society. The church no longer has a say over secular issues, for secular interests and institutions now dominate to the detriment of religion. Lecture III was entitled “Scientific Method in Relation to Religious Attitudes and Values.” Although science has a long history, modern science begins with Francis Bacon and the development of the scientific method. This method involves conscious “observation of facts, experimentation, critical formulation of hypotheses, and systematic testing of results.”536 This method also rejects the fixed forms of Greek thought and medieval supernaturalism and makes clear the sharp division between our pre-scientific past and the present. We live at a time when science and technology have made possible more productive energies than at any other

Religious Implications of John Dewey’s Philosophy (1939)

211

time in human history. Bacon’s idea of controlling the forces of nature through application of the scientific method has been almost realized. The fruits of this method have increased our understanding of the workings of nature and have used this knowledge in imaginative ways for invention and construction in seeking to fulfill our social ideals. It is strange that we devote such care in forming ideas of physical things, while at the same time being content with unsubstantiated beliefs about the qualities of objects of our deepest interests. In science we apply our intelligence to problems in a manner that differs from traditional rationalism. Science is not a process of subjective thinking, as it involves our interaction with the objects of the environment. Science finds its problems in our conflicting experiences and seeks to reconcile these conflicts as a means of control. It looks to the concrete results and tests them to establish the “truths.” From the history of science, we have learned that the verifiability of hypotheses is not as important as their directive power to further experimentation and observation which may open up new fields to study. We realize values of human relations are verifiable by the experimental method and by applying the same method, are capable of expansion, so why not nurture and expand them? There is no conflict between our emotions and intelligence, so our responsibility is to expand the heritage of values we have received. The fourth lecture was entitled “View of Nature, Man, God, and Ideologies vs. Theologies.” We realize that we live in an environment of great risk and uncertainty. It is this predicament which gives rise to philosophy. We experience objects in nature which provide us with enjoyment. Dewey suggested these experiences are evidence that nature can produce objects which we conceive as ideal. In this way, nature supplies potential material for embodiment of our ideals. Humans are part of nature, which they modify and extend. Our biological nature has prepared us for deliberate inquiry, from which we have learned that we do not live in an environment but by means of an environment. For more complex organisms the patterns of behavior are flexible. Our reason grows out of organic activities without being identical with them. Development precludes the reduction of the higher to the lower, for it means generating something new and different. Humans’ early reaction to nature was one of seeking to survive. As their survival became more sustainable they formed associations and celebrated their shared life. Eventually reflective thought is undertaken as the beginning of philosophy. Religion was part of this shared existence, with its practices being magical and practical. In time theologies are developed which focus on these uncritical customs. The gods reflect the

212

Christian Pragmatism

cultures and often appear as animals, ancestors, and objects of nature. In this fashion anthropomorphic symbols represent the tribe and bear traits of the people. Eventually the gods are viewed as determiners of our destiny and the embodiments of our morals and ideals. This is evident in Greek philosophy and in supernatural conceptions. However, Dewey provides an empirical interpretation suggesting that God is the sum of conditions in which events of value occur. Dewey explained: “It is this active relation between ideal and actual to which I would give the name ‘God.’ It selects those factors in experience that generate and support our idea of good as an end to be striven for.”537

TRAINING FOR WISDOM (1940)

I wish to acknowledge the very great honor you have done me in inviting me to speak on this important occasion, the seventy-fifth anniversary of The College of the Bible, and the one hundred and fourth anniversary of Transylvania College. These institutions cover great spans in the history of the country, the one about half, and the other two thirds of this history. Both have made notable contributions at the highest levels of our culture training leaders for the church, for various professions, and for the general life of society. I find myself quite free in what I shall say here today since President McLain in extending his invitation mentioned the fact that seventy-fifth anniversary of the College of the Bible, and that the State Convention of the Churches is being held here in Lexington this week, suggested my address would be something other than theological, and added, “there will be a great deal of theology around here all the rest of the week.”538 I am entirely willing to leave theology to other people. There are plenty of other delicate and important subjects such as national politics, or America’s relation to the Wars in Europe and in Asia. I have in fact chosen a subject that touches all fronts of our social interests at once, the subject of education, education as training for wisdom. In Anne Morrow Lindbergh’s book, Listen the Wind, she tells the story of the airplane survey she and her husband made of the air routes of the North Atlantic Ocean in 1933. The flight began at New York, went along the coast of Labrador, crossed over to Europe, passed along the shores of Norway, Scotland, Spain and Portugal, to the Azores, then to Africa, and over the equator to South America. The book tells vividly the experience of these daring aviators in the harbor at Praia in the Cape Verde Islands. It proved to be a difficult place to bring down the plane in safety on the great rollers of the bay whipped by a fierce wind. The wind was to last six months and the resuming of their flight to South America became extremely hazardous because of the impossibility of taking off (from the rough water of the bay of Port Praia) with sufficient fuel for the long flight. It is the wisdom of Col. Lindbergh in managing that situation which illustrates my theme today. That wisdom was shown in the smallest details of anchoring the plane, of escaping the infested lodgings offered in the village, and finally returning two hundred miles up the coast to get started

214

Christian Pragmatism

with the necessary fuel for the sixteen hundred miles to South America. In this story, so simply and movingly told are illustrated the essential elements of the kind of wisdom I am commending today. There was the large and useful purpose of pioneering the great air routes between the continents, the swift intelligence of a keen intellect, the mastery of all pertinent information, and the relentless determination of a courageous and imaginative adventurer. Wisdom is a blending of these traits, intelligence, inspired by significant purpose, and equipped with knowledge. A person may have high intelligence and lack wisdom, he may have made much knowledge and not be wise, he may have noble intentions and acute convictions, and not be wise. Wisdom is a fusion of native smartness, acquired instruction, and desired values. The wise man is intelligent, but not every intelligent man is wise. The wise man is educated, but not every educated man is wise. The wise man has vision of good ends to be achieved, but not every man who has visions is wise. It should also be admitted once for all that the wisest of the wise, like Socrates, is aware that his wisdom is imperfect, shadowed by ignorance, and in need of further light. But in spite of all its imperfections, wisdom remains for the wise the greatest resource of human life, and its cultivation the means of growth, of human welfare, and of happiness. How may such wisdom be increased? The first problem concerns native intelligence. In spite of all the derogatory things that may be said about human beings, the fact remains that man is the smartest of all the animals. This superiority is no long attributed to an original endowment of “reason”, but to a larger brain, an erect posture, opposite thumb and fingers, and the use of language, but the superiority is still recognized. Those who delight in seeing how lowly and yet how exalted mankind is will enjoy reading a book such as This Simian World, by Clarence Day. Besides it is equally obvious that individuals differ in the degree of intelligence they possess, just as they differ in stature, in muscular strength, in metabolism, and sensitivity. Whatever defects our modern intelligence tests may have, they have clearly shown great variations in the IQ of both children and adults. This has led to a new appreciation for the need of different training for bright persons and for dull persons. It has brought a revision of the old doctrine that all men are created equal, and has led to the saner doctrine that all individuals should be given equality of opportunity. Mental testing and personality measurement are therefore taking on greater importance in vocational guidance and in entrance requirements in schools and colleges. The number of defective and seriously handicapped individuals in our society is shown to be appalling, and is presenting new and profound problems for

Training for Wisdom (1940)

215

the science of eugenics as well as for education and democracy. The most comprehensive mental tests, sampling the whole population in this country, revealed the startling fact that the average mental age of our citizens is that of the twelve year old child. But fortunately this grading of intelligence does not conform to any system of social classification. Bright persons are not found predominantly among the rich or the leisure class, in the urban or the rural areas, in the east or in the west. It is not so clear, however, as to how anything like equal opportunities for the cultivation of persons of different endowments can be given them. While it has been our boast in America that we have a free and classless society in which individuals of talent may make their way from less favored conditions to the heights of great wealth or office as so many have done in the past, it is no doubt true that a change has come over our land. The industrial revolution has resulted in greater privileges for the rich and corresponding difficulties for the very poor. But we do not have the barriers to individual advance which a caste system imposes, as in India, nor those created by hereditary social classes, as in England, of high moral standards, and opportunities for culture and education. The conclusion of the survey is significant. It is that, “despite the buffeting of the past decade and the siren songs of Utopian-minded radicals, the most universal American traits still remain: (1) a rejection of the idea that classes, proletarian or plutocratic, exists among us, (2) a sweeping confidence that for the individual the present is better than the past, that the future will be better than the present, (3) a greater devotion to intangible values as a heritage to be passed on to posterity.”539 If the first concern of our society in training its members for wisdom is to discover and access the native intelligence of individuals at every social level, and to guide them to tasks suited to their capacity, then the second concern may well be to emphasize more precisely the nature of the tasks to which intelligence should be directed. Without making the distinction too sharp and rigid, it may be said there are two sets of interest which the wise person cultivates One may be called the more immediate, personal concerns such as the vocation by which one gets one’s daily bread, health and comfort, family and friendships. The other would be community relations, cultural interest (history, literature and art), a sense of participating in the great life of nature, and efforts to understand the world and our place in it. It is evident that the personal matters mentioned tend to reach out into public and universal relations. If my family’s milk supply is cut off today by a strike of the union of drivers of milk wagons, my personal problem takes on civic proportions, involves the mayor and the

216

Christian Pragmatism

officers of the law, and fundamental question of the rights of citizens and the nature of justice in organized society. The ends of life that most fully satisfy us are thus seen to be many and complex for each individual. The experience of humankind proves that too much attention given to bodily pleasure, to the cultivation of merely sensuous desires, defeats its own satisfaction and issues in frustration and loss of interest in life itself. By a kind of ruthlessness nature makes reprisals on those who subordinate the powers of mind and will to selfindulgence. Pleasure sought as an end in itself turns sour. The same cycle of disillusionment occurs where money or material wealth is made the absorbing object. Tolstoy has a dramatic story on: How Much Land does a Man Need? In the story a man is offered all the land he can walk around in one day. So he sets out at dawn and walks as fast as he can through the morning and the hot afternoon, never stopping to eat or drink, thinking all the time how every step means the increase of his wealth. And then late in the evening, his strength exhausted, and his greed unsatisfied, he collapses under the exertion and drops dead. Then he needs only six feet of ground, just enough for his grave. Too often that tragedy is reenacted in our American life. Persons wear themselves out before their time in the mad rush for wealth, and then in what should be their prime, have no vitality left to use or enjoy their gains. Or what is more tragic still, have no capacity or developed interests with which to utilize what they have acquired. In Thomas Jefferson’s view education was essential to effective citizenship in a democracy. Universal education (that every individual should be given the opportunity to meet his immediate needs through gainful occupation) meant that everyone should be able to share in the process of self government at least by intelligently casting one’s vote. To vote intelligently puts upon each voter an appeal to participate in reasonability for the welfare and advancement of the whole social order. The prevailing sentiment of the American people favors that conception, though the complicated issues of a political campaign and the huge number of ballots carried into the election booths make its practical application extremely difficult. It is appalling to know how many voters simply mark the big circle at the top of the party ticket, or follow too easily partisan recommendations, or in so many cases lightly sell their vote to the highest bidder. One young woman I know, in voting for the first time, made her selection of candidates by her ability to pronounce their names, passing over all those of more familiar Anglo-Saxon lineage. In some of the city precincts that method would leave many offices vacant. These laxities and abuses of the democratic political system are so flagrant

Training for Wisdom (1940)

217

that they produce widespread cynicism and threaten still grave danger, the despair of democracy itself. The cure for the ills of democracy is to be found in the extension of the Jeffersonian principle. Democracy has worked amazingly well when all the factor in its history are considered. The United States is now the oldest government in point of continuous existence in the whole world, with but two or three exceptions, such as Japan and England. Italy, France and Russia, and China are more recent. But the hundred and fifty years of our national life have been the most eventful in all human history. A great continent has been settled with a heterogeneous population, profound industrial and social changes have occurred and new problems have arisen to challenge all our customs and institutions. Notwithstanding all these changes we still have an essentially classless society with great social mobility and with a greater freedom of thought than any other people. These are conditions necessary to the advancement of human life, and their further development is the proper goal of the highest wisdom. The responsibility for their preservation and wider appreciation rests with popular education. They need to be brought home to the 29 millions of young people enrolled in public schools. Approximately one fourth of the entire population of the United States is in school, and this “enthusiasm for education in the United States has led foreign observers to declare that it is the one interest which commands the unqualified support of the American people.”540 There is a third feature in the training for wisdom besides the discovery of native intelligence, and the direction of this intelligence to the great ends of human existence, and that is the method of developing wisdom itself. This is the method of modern science. It is one of the glories of Transylvania College that it began one hundred and four years ago under the name of a man who pioneered the new age of science, Francis Bacon. The inaugural address of the first President, Walter Scott, one of the founding fathers of the Disciples of Christ, was an exposition and interpretation of Bacon’s conception of science. Bacon’s slogan was, “Knowledge is power.” By that he meant that we should study nature and gain such an understanding of its phenomena and laws that we could discover ways by which to gain control of its secrets and utilize them for human needs. Referring to Bacon’s New Atlantis, Will Durant affirms the judgment of H. G. Wells in that “it was a royal act of imagination by which for three centuries one goal has been held in view by the great army of warriors in the battle of knowledge and invention against ignorance and poverty.”541 I make bold to predict that if these institutions whose anniversaries we celebrate today could recover the impulse that led to the

218

Christian Pragmatism

adoption of the name Bacon College and apply the spirit and method which it represents, to their research and instruction in the social, as well as in the natural sciences. It would open a new vista of promise and achievement for religious colleges. Training in wisdom today calls for education which turns attention to the concrete needs of humankind in a world like this. As Dean Henry W. Holmes has recently said, “So long as education continues to be viewed as if it were a bookish, cloistered, and scholastic process, by which the ‘faculties’ are trained, by which a thing called ‘culture’ very far removed from life is vaguely apprehended and perhaps resented, or certain fixed ideas, inert and disconnected with the world of action, are set up to serve as barriers to thought”–“so long will it fail in adjusting each succeeding generation to our civilization, with all its complexities.”542 One of our greatest scientists at the University of Chicago in an interview the other day said it is scarcely true to call this the age of science since the great mass of people are untouched by the spirit and method of science. He said science is more than inventions, more than gadgets, however useful. The method of science is the discovery and correlation of facts with reference to important interests of human life. Its spirit is as important as the method, for science demands disinterested search for the truth, utmost patience in its pursuit, absolute honesty and integrity, and endless industry. Science does not of itself make for war and violence. These come from the old jungle of greed, ignorance, and force. The direction of science is away from the jungle. It is a sad fact that these broader aspects of science are so little impressed upon the millions of youth in high school and college who take even the elementary scientific course. I once heard the philosopher, Josiah Royce, lecture before a body of university students. He said his subject would be, “How to Be a Cultivated Person through a Graduate Student.” His prescription was that students given attention to the personal lives and times of the great authorities in their special fields. When on realizes the patience of Charles Darwin in verifying his idea of evolution through twenty years of experimentation and observation, or follows the courageous and delicate work of Pasteur in the use of vaccines, antiseptics, and antitoxins, one gains a new sense of the human and beneficent spirit of science. College students might well be required to see the movie of pictures of Pasteur, Alexander Graham Bell, and other scientists at work in the dramatic crises and achievements of their careers. The exploits of modern medicine, chemistry, biology, and engineering make thrilling chapters in the romance of modern science. This broader appreciation of science makes of

Training for Wisdom (1940)

219

it as genuinely a cultural subject to promote the higher life for the individual and for society. Still more importantly for the development of wisdom in our time is the contribution that every course in science should make to the annihilation of superstition, magic, and propaganda which still survive from the jungle age. It would add enormously to the comfort and contentment of human life if the spirit of reasonableness, which is the spirit of science, could really possess the minds of all who enjoy its fruits in daily life whenever they eat or travel or telephone. The mastery of life which these fruits manifest, though yet imperfect, is already great enough to give people a new confidence in living and in possibilities still to be realized. The scientists are the real optimists of our time, cautious and conservative optimists, but optimists nevertheless. It should be the dominant concern of the national government to further popular education for more than it has ever done by expending more of the billions of its new appropriations upon its schools. “Relief and pensions are taking millions that might have gone into schools”543 says one of country’s leading educators. The kind of education I am advocating which is training for greater wisdom in the conduct of life in all its phases would in the long run eliminate much of the present need for pensions and relief. Members of the graduating classes, I congratulate you upon the training you have received, and upon the share you have gained in the advancing culture of humankind. You are going out into a troubled and tragic world, but you carry with you the surest cures for its ills. You will be in strategic positions, whether as leaders in churches, in schools, or other fields, to discover individuals of promising native intelligence, and to inspire them and all others, to the fullest of their ability to follow the highest ideals by the most effective methods of modern science. You will thus help to develop and radiate sound wisdom. Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, And the man that getteth understanding, For the gaining of it is better than the gaining of silver, And the profit thereof than fine gold, She is more precious than rubies: And none of the things thou canst desire are to be compared unto her, Length of days is in her right hand; In her left had are riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, And all her paths are peace. Wisdom is justified.

ENCOMPASSING AMES’ PRIMARY IDEAS In an attempt to encompass Ames’ primary ideas, we need to keep several factors in mind. As a Disciple, he shared the primary goal of bringing union to non-Roman Catholic Christianity primarily in America. Such a union would require a reformation in Christianity that went beyond theology and metaphysics based on the new world of science, which for Ames led to his approaching religion from the perspective of the psychology of our religious experiences. This approach is evident in Ames’ prepared comments to the graduation classes at The College of the Bible and Transylvania College: “…I am inclined to think that most of theology is like speculative metaphysics. A hunting around in the dark for a black cat that isn’t there.”544 This reformation was intended to return Christianity to its original New Testament roots, led in this effort by the philosophy of Francis Bacon and John Locke instead of the pre-scientific traditional theology with its foundation in human depravity seeking salvation through the supernatural grace of God. This effort required the recasting of Christianity in language appropriate and consistent with the new physics and extending into the social sciences. Having accepted as given the world of modern science, Ames focused on the process of evolution by which animals ascend, with this ascending animal world eventually leading to humans. Our early human society was like that of other animals in that the strongest were the leaders, which supports the notion of the survival of the fittest. The earlier divinities were considered species of animals. In time the focus was on humans, which eventually led to the transformation of deities from animal to anthropomorphic gods. Modern psychologists no longer consider there to be a radical difference between humans and other animals. Ames explained: “Man’s higher intelligence is directly related to his possession of more instincts than any other animal possesses… also that man has actually a greater number and variety of instincts, but also that it is in their conflict and tendency to inhibit each other that reflective, cognitive consciousness is called forth.”545 However, having ascended from other animals, humans share much in common with these other forms of life. We are relational animals that are naturally expressive and from birth socially involved. We are communal animals and require some structure of order and cooperation for successful living.

222

Christian Pragmatism

These characteristics apply to other animals in degrees appropriate to their needs. Love is present in the reality of all animals including humans. Animals and humans also have souls, but the difference between our souls and other animals’ souls is one of degree. Certainly humans are the smartest of all animals, not because of an original endowment but because of our larger brains, language, and physical characteristics. Ames asserted that the life of nature is in us; a life which is at once mineral, vegetable, and animal, and also human, mental, emotional and creative. In the traditions we have received from our ancestors, some acts of humans were considered to be merely animal in nature while being religious meant humans acting in non-animal ways. This dogma teaches that through an act of hubris humans have fallen from being God’s favored animals to being lower than the other animals. This perspective remains in contemporary thought, as expressed by Arthur Schopenhauer who addressed our struggles between balanced alternatives and postulated that lower forms of the will are blind striving random impulses and animal craving. Ames noted that this traditional fall of humans into total depravity, making them lower than all the animals, has been rejected as a mythology totally inadequate since the Enlightenment and the rise of modern science beginning with Francis Bacon. Ames found the concept of God as the Father of humans to be the most appealing passage in scripture. He suggested that either this conception represents the likeness of God or there is no God. For Christians, it is in Jesus’ words and deeds that they begin to understand God, which leads to the question of whether God’s heart is like the spirit of Jesus. Ames suggested that the issue is not so much whether Christ is divine, but whether God is Christ like! And the only way to determine this is by asking whether Christ is an exception or a normal product in the life of the world. The crux of the issue was whether the soul of God was like the soul of Christ. Ames designated belief as conviction that controls our actions. To believe in Jesus meant to imitate his example by sympathy with his purposes and to cooperate with Jesus in establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth. He noted that the favorite reference to Jesus was as the son of God. To be a disciple of Jesus meant that one had organized one’s life by the spiritual standards established by Jesus for the kingdom of heaven. These standards require one to repent and be faithful and fruitful in loving one’s neighbor. Instead of starting with a conception of God and asking whether Jesus fulfills it, Ames contended that we should begin with the life of Jesus and from it gain insights into the nature of God in order to determine whether

Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas

223

God is as good and gracious as Jesus Christ. Ames postulated love as the dominant quality expressed by Jesus, which indicates how we may interpret God through the example of Christ. Jesus demonstrated his divinity—his spiritual sonship to God—by his voluntary choice to do his Father’ will. Ames contended that Jesus, through his inner self, surrendered wholly to the divine will which established his oneness with God. He argued that this claim of divinity is in accord with the profoundest conceptions of religion and morality. According to Ames, our focus should be on the words and deeds of Jesus, which Ames considered to be actual facts of history that are accessible to the strictest scientific investigation. He opined: “They stand on their own truth and moral power [and] remain the sharpest criticism, the highest moral teaching and the finest examples of spiritual faith and courage which the world has seen. They are therefore norms and standards for our ideas of God, of duty and destiny.”546 If any person is divine, it is Jesus because he has been the bearer of divine life to the world. However, Ames noted that Jesus’ words were so true they could have been said by anyone. He further indicated that it was this obvious and convincing quality of his words that made Jesus unique. Ames considered Jesus to be “the embodiment of the genius of his people, the focus of a world of spiritual forces and the radiating center of creative moral energy and truth.”547 The issue of the divinity of Christ began in primitive theology. The contemporary discussion of this issue involves the old dualism between the supernatural and the natural. As this division has been settled by science with the rejection of a supernatural realm, the focus should not be on divinity but on Jesus’ goodness and worth. We judge people in the modern world in terms of their intellectual, ethical and social contributions, which is the way we should evaluate Jesus. Ames had no interest in ontology or whether Christ relates to the world of substance. It was the personality of Jesus in which is revealed the heart of the world. He viewed Christ as a reality that combines the actual and the ideal and that stands as a promise to humanity of what is possible to accomplish. Thus, Christ is the imitable type that in the future may be reproduced, even in commerce and business, to reflect Jesus’ will and purposes. Ames considered this to be the supreme empirical test that should determine that Jesus was not an abnormality but a normal product of nature equal to the evolving of humans. Ames considered Christ to present a problem for our wills to determine what to do about the example of Jesus Christ and the ideal of a good life that he projected. He suggested that if humans can develop a society that represents the ideal of a good life, Jesus will be proved good.

224

Christian Pragmatism

If we fail, then Jesus’ example will be proved inadequate or less than what is best for our world. For Ames, Jesus’ greatness is to be found in his ethical and spiritual teachings, rather than in a miraculous birth or claimed miracles. He considered Jesus to speak out of ordinary experiences, which the people shared, concerning what is essential to developing a moral character. Jesus called his followers friends, which encouraged a close companionship between them. The old master-servant relationship was rejected on the basis of an equality that encompassed the universal fatherhood of God. Jesus demonstrated his friendship by being willing to sacrifice his life for his friends. If one accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God, then Christ becomes evident in a believers life. The divine energy takes control of one’s life, guiding and providing the words for one to speak. One example of having the mind of Christ in us is the denial of our carnal nature. Another focuses on our willingness to suffer as did Christ. No longer can we believe in mysterious or supernatural transformations of our hearts and minds, for Christ indwelling means that his divine energy has taken possession of our lives, guiding our will and supplying the words we should speak. Ames postulated freedom as a third result of having the mind of Christ in us. He viewed these tests of Christ’s presence in our lives as intensely practical because our lives are capable of objective realization. A true Christian is a growing soul constantly being transformed for spiritual battles and spiritual victories. Shifting to the modern scientific perspective of the universe, God is postulated as the God of the universe, the symbol of our ideal, and the soul of our social values. God is the total living process, which encompasses our intelligence and conduct. This God is not supernatural but wholly natural, which includes the ideal, mental, and spiritual as well as the material realm. Ames explained that God has the reality of a social process to the actual world. He also viewed God as the order of nature including all humans and their aspirations. For Ames, it is use that defines God, just as use determines other concepts. It is God that provides order, purpose, and moral values in life as well as serving as the standard of reference for the adequacy of specific ideals. Within this perspective, God serves as that which holds everything together. Ames, considered the church, in this scientifically and democratic oriented world, as a company of searching people seeking that which will provide the greatest health, power, and efficiency to all persons. Ames postulated that the idea of God is not innate but arose with the power of generalizing and unifying our human experiences. Each person is a unique

Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas

225

self or soul, with God conceived as the larger self in which our individual selves move and have their being. As society evolves, our conception of God also evolves in imagery and meaning. Thus, our social evolving reflects the growth in the idea of God. Of course when one group is subjugated to another, its God is either assimilated or becomes extinct. In dealing with the evolution of the conception of God, it becomes necessary to determine the truth and validity of our conception. Having rejected metaphysics, Ames employed functional psychology from which to postulate that the genesis and development of an idea provides its own support for the truth or reality of the idea we experiences. He reminded us that ideas are always relative and conditioned but remain real. From a functional perspective, truth means value. Therefore the question is not “Is this idea of God true?” but should be “Is this idea of value in actual experience?” Ames suggested that the truest idea of God is that which ennobles, comforts, and strengthens us in our devotion to moral ends and which serves as the working hypothesis of religion that guides our activity and is progressively modified by the results. He also suggested that we gain from Jesus’ actions and teachings our deepest understanding of the power and meaning of his conception of God. From a transcendence perspective, the theological problem is whether there is an actual, objective reality corresponding to our subjective notion of God. Ames reminded us that no one has ever suggested a satisfactory answer to the question. In spite of lacking a satisfactory answer, if one appreciates the values associated with God and is willing to work for them against whatever obstacles, one engages in the religious life. Ames contended that the idea of God was going through the most radical transformation in the history of religions, which was a change from God being transcendent to the immanence of God. This radical shift is the result of modern science’s view of reality, the rise of democratic institutions, and the emergence of an intense social consciousness. He recognized that democratic government and intelligent self control had dramatically impacted our social consciousness toward conceiving God as immanent. Where the idea of God denotes ideals based on democratic social movements, emphasis is given to the welfare of all members of society as the thought of God involves impulses toward social conduct. In this fashion, the idea of God involves a living process in which our human needs are met. Ames opined: “The reality answering to the idea of God, it may be said, must include, at its best, all that is involved in the deep instinctive historical and social consciousness of the race. It signifies the

226

Christian Pragmatism

justice which government symbolizes, the truth which science unfolds, and the beauty which art strives to express.”548 Ames postulated that the influences of other people play an essential part in our growth as a real person. “In such reflections as these psychology discovers the real living self and its relation to that indescribably great other self with which each individual is bound up.”549 An individual’s view of God reflects an understanding of God as comprehending the highest ideal interest known or felt and which stands for purposeful activity and effort in their support. However, when the idea of God embodies the ideals of democratic social forces, it expresses itself in motor reactions which indicate respect for the well-being of all members of society. In this context, the thought of God includes impulses toward social conduct. In this fashion, the growth and objectification of the gods parallel the social experiences and achievements of the culture. For Ames, the idea of God evokes a living process functioning in support of human needs. This functioning God-idea must include the inherited historical and social consciousness of the people, which embrace social justice, the truths of science, and the beauty expressed in art. It is evident that this god-idea is not static but is usually conceived in terms of personality that is engaged in purposeful activity in support of human needs. In this fashion, God is the collective Spirit of the group—a growing God identified with the common will of society. The meaning of God for the society is as the Common Will and the Great Companion who is at the center of all our interests. The importance of the groups’ view of God is that they have an intimate experience of God through the social structures in which they belong. Viewing God as the Common Will or idealizing tendency elevates God over nature but is not inconsistent with the view of God when nature is considered as socially conditioned. Ames’ god-idea is also teleological as it shares in the nature of all ideas involving values. The problem for Christianity is that its doctrines are rigidly fixed and final truths. If Christians viewed these doctrines as working hypotheses subject to constant revision due to experience and reflection, they would have less trouble adjusting to the god-idea in light of our expanding scientific knowledge. According to Ames, religion is our quest for a more abundant life. Religion is not static and requires of each person growth, which has been greatly limited by the traditional doctrine of human depravity. He suggested that the old assumption, that we are by nature bad, would be recognized as outdated theology if religion could adopt the methods of modern psychology. Only when this is accomplished will we have some chance of being responsible for our deeds—of becoming free to achieve a

Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas

227

better self. Of course the problem is finding actual ways of changing habits and directing them to new interests. To enable this growth to occur, we must follow vigorously our ideals that are live and growing. In seeking ideals, religion emphasizes the spiritual qualities of the constructive interests of society and seeks to organize these interests into an inspiring unity. In so doing, we follow our ancestors in rationalizing our experiences with prevailing customs. Religion has no values of its own but finds values in our actual, concrete experiences. Religious values are also practical in that they indicate the goals and ideals for which religion strives. Therefore, the task of religion is not that of cultivating a life apart from natural interests and practical concerns, but is rather the pursuit of such normal ideals with religious faith and enthusiasm. This pursuit requires that religion focus on the nobler and more valuable aspects of experience which will expand our imagination, awaken our conscience, and establish the ideal beauty that emerges in a spiritual fellowship. This religion will inspire us to better living and to fullest satisfaction of diviner possibilities than any other experience of life. It will integrate concrete values in order that they may serve in supporting the fullest and most harmonious living. The problem is keeping these values in balance. For example, if religion is overly focused on self-sacrifice, it becomes irreligious to the good life. We each live in a particular time under exacting circumstances. Therefore, our religion must be attuned to these conditions in order to project and fulfill our noblest ideals. It is in seeking to fulfill these ideals that the great religious concepts, such as righteousness, love, and God are understood to have no content aside from socially conditioned emotions. Thus, every religion is an effort to get into relations with the sources of power, as all people desire to escape from their very limited existence. Ames’ understanding of the role of the modern church is as part of the greater social organization which is attempting to support the emergence of a new type of individualism that requires interdependence and mutual support. Individuals are enriched through social interaction while retaining their individuality and function. In the church as a fellowship of mutual service, we lose our narrow and lesser selves as we seek our larger and diviner selves. “The Church thus conceived is a great dynamic society organized to overcome evil forces of the world, to battle against spiritual wickedness and the powers of darkness. In its warfare each member has his duty to perform.”550 Using non-militarist language, Ames suggested that we think of the church “as a company of people who are searching everywhere for those things that give the greatest health and power and efficiency to all human beings.”551 Participants in the church seek to

228

Christian Pragmatism

establish a society of love, justice and righteousness for all people without the dream of individual salvation. Ames noted that in the last century problems have evolved with this hope of eternal life with God in heaven. Contemporary persons could not have the same intimate and vivid feeling for a literal heaven in the future, especially because it was so incongruous with the continuing discoveries of science. Ames contended that another and more attractive goal has developed for modern Christianity, which is the enrichment of human life here and now with the conviction that such a goal would provide the most adequate preparation for any future. Still, Ames contended that it is better to keep alive the dream of a future kingdom of love than to lose faith in it entirely. Ames suggested that the church was essential to seeking the most adequate ideal life, for it could provide comprehensive programs which focus on practical goals in seeking the ideal. These programs would form the religious education programs of the church, especially for its younger participants. The church is also a social group with the function of advancing the religious life without implying the need of a determined pattern of governance or ecclesiastical system. Neither does the church imply a universal agreement on beliefs and practices. Worship, which involved two functions, is also an essential part of the church. These functions are educational and dramatizing the religious life. These functions are essential for they aid us in facing the crises of life and provide the foundation for hope for a better future. The social responsibility of the church requires that it offer a means of individual and social regeneration, stimulus and support through institutional cooperation, and an enriching fellowship in an advancing ideal community. This regeneration occurs when we are stimulated by new hopes and resolutions for a more fulfilled life. Another function of the church is to provide insight and stimulus for the good life. All knowledge of the self is related to knowledge of other things at the same time, for we do not exist in isolation but in a network of relations. The self lives and grows in the midst of such social structures. It is in reciprocal relation to organizations that determine the direction and nature of action. The modern church, working with other social and political organizations, must foster its religious idealism in practical ways that negate the evils of society. In seeking to establish an ideal society, the church creates a “group-soul” through which the self is related to the large whole, including the universe and God. Prayer in some form has been a part of the religions of the world. The basis for prayer is found in the constant use of speech by humans, as they talked with themselves, other people, and things in their minds as well as

Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas

229

in audible exchanges. Early humans shared a spontaneous tendency to express their thoughts and desires to things around them, which they had come to consider as sacred. From social psychology we learn that each person is a community of selves based on their imagination, which allows them to function in a variety of roles. Within this context, prayer is more a conversation with another who may be an idealized self. When this conversation centers on an individual who represents God, prayer is communion with the symbolic representative or with God. It may be our conscience, our better self, or God speaking to us that causes us to wrestle with the idealized nature of some other that we have projected. Ames suggested that prayer in relation to God depends on how God is conceived. If God is conceived as a reality with idealistic tendencies expressed as a personality, prayer will be a vital and intelligible experience in which we related to that deeper nature that all share and in which all realize their profounder kinship. The purpose of this prayer is not to enlighten and convince others. Rather, it is a quest for a right attitude, a more adequate point of view in which our self interest is submerged resulting in a quickening of our spirit. If one rejects this experience as just being human and not integral with God, then one is left with no intelligible relations with the divine and with prayer just being meaningless words. Ames contended that this experience of prayer provides the foundation for one having a personal relationship with nature, as we conceive of nature as inclusive of known and experienced intelligence and to which we feel an intimate relationship that is vital to the religious moods. Thus, for Ames prayer expresses one’s sense of being at home in the universe, which also requires one being on good terms with one’s associates. Prayer is also an attitude in which we seek to participate in a larger reality. In this fashion we engage in a kind of constructive planning of life in its larger aspects and in its details. In earlier societies prayer was more often a group affair. One must be careful in prayer because its efficacy was not in the words used but involved in the magical power of the ceremony. With the scientific conception of nature, the magical element of prayer was gradually eliminated, and prayer became increasingly meditation and communion. It is near impossible to show that prayer has objective results in nature, if for no other reason than prayer being seldom the sole factor in the desired results. As Ames indicated, prayers are only heard by humans and humans are the agents for answering prayers.

EVALUATION Scribner Ames was able to perform a variety of very complicated tasks almost at the same time. We see him as a perpetual student, always seeking to expand his perspective and understanding of Christianity in relation to the new world of science and democracy. As a minister he created a laboratory environment in which his congregation sought to grow in its understanding of their responsibilities to creating a city in which diverse peoples can prosper, as well as their responsibility of supporting the efforts of two educational ministers in foreign missions. Ames, in his youth, experienced Christianity as a farmer’s religion that was very practical in its problem solving orientation and very supportive of those farmers’ families as a united family. It was fortunate that he grew up in a religious community that was free of creeds and doctrines and that insisted on the right of private interpretation of their religion. It was this religious freedom that enabled Ames to conceive Christianity from an empirical orientation, especially influenced by William James’ radical empiricism. This freedom also allowed Ames to broaden his task to capturing the true spirit of Jesus Christ in the New Testament, apart from centuries of theological baggage, and relating this spirit of Jesus Christ to the world of modern science. The scientific method was to be the basis for this free religion that Ames sought to explain through his psychological view of religious experiences. He was committed to the scientific method because it had increased our understanding of the workings of nature and we have used this knowledge in imaginative ways for invention and construction in seeking to fulfill our social ideals. Ames was committed to this method as the basis for religious liberalism, which he conceived as a broader and more extensive social and political movement that was concerned with religion only in a secondary sense. Ames sought a free religion committed to liberty and to growth, which would enhance the capacities of individuals and societies to achieve more satisfying ways of living. Ames was a builder. It was through his direct efforts that funds were raised to build a Disciples Divinity House, with Hyde Park Christian Church on the same property. He was also a builder of programs as is evident in the Church’s education program, which he designed in order that children dealt with material that was relevant to their age and interests. Ames served a Dean of the Disciples Divinity House, in addition

232

Christian Pragmatism

to his other responsibilities, and developed and taught courses related to the traditions of Disciples. When John Dewey left the University of Chicago in 1904, Ames’ duties in the philosophy department increased with his developing courses that reflected his empirical pragmatic orientation. His leadership in the University increased with his eventually retiring as departmental chairman. When Chancellor Robert M. Hutchins appointed Ames as chair of the department, someone asked him if he knew that Ames was also a preacher. Hutchins surprised reply was, “Well, he is a h--- of a preacher!” Ames was a scholar, preacher, and church leader who influenced the thought of a generation. He was part of a group of young Disciples ministers at the end of the eighteen century who continued their education, with most receiving doctoral degrees. It was Ames who led this group of young scholars into forming The Campbell Institute and The Scroll as the journal of the Institute, with Ames serving as editor during his professional career. Harold Fey reminds us that Ames was a churchman who cared more for people and their needs than for abstract ideas.552 He saw in every person a worthwhile personality with capacity for transcendence. Many Disciples disagreed with Ames with some questioning whether he was a valid Christian. He realized he had enemies within the Disciples, but he cared for them and became friends with many even though they disagreed. Regardless, Ames took his stand within the Christian community and spoke to it. Ames’ scholarship was highly regarded among pragmatist and modern psychologists of his day. He continued William James’ effort to develop a psychology with a limited God. Ames postulated God as the God of the universe, the symbol of our ideal, and the soul of our social values. God is the total living process which encompasses our intelligence and conduct. This God is not supernatural but wholly natural which includes the ideal, mental, and spiritual as well as the material realm. Ames explained that God has the reality of a social process to the actual world. He also viewed God as the order of nature including all humans and their aspirations. For Ames, it is use which defines God, just as use determines other concepts. Charles C. Morris noted that when John Dewey wrote A Common Faith he took a position that “is essentially the position which Ames had elaborated many years earlier in his major books, The Psychology of Religious Experience and Religion.”553 Ames was a preacher and teacher who did not expect or desire his congregation or students to hold a replica of his thoughts. He did proclaim that the church had a mission to the university—that faith and learning are not necessarily antagonistic but, rather, compliment each other. His classes were a common inquiry by teacher and

Evaluation

233

student, with both having their say. W. E. Garrison considered Ames to display “a special gift for encouraging and guiding young men preparing for the ministry. He stimulated their thinking and quickened at once their critical and their appreciative powers. He disturbed the complacency of those who needed this service, while deepening their understanding of the nature of religion and revealing to them the rich and rewarding possibilities of religious leadership.”554 Rabbi Louis L. Mann concluded his comments by referring to with the saying “the righteous are alive even after death—alive in the influence for the good.”555 The traditional religionists were not sure how to handle Ames who wore no religious symbols as a mark of submission and rejected all traditional religious vestments. W. Barnett Blackemore noted that “the source of his freedom was the knowledge that no term, no phrase, no thesis is truly understood until its practical implications have become crystal clear… Meaning is clear only in consequences.”556 All religious and philosophical authoritarianism were banished by Ames who always focused on the realm in which truth is tested. An interesting event occurred in the early 1930s over the publication of “A Humanist Manifesto” in 1933. Ames had written articles on why he was not a humanist or a Unitarian. In 1931, he lectured at the Chicago Literary Club on “Humanism,” presenting the literary humanist of the 1930s as “violently opposed not only to Rousseau but to Francis Bacon and John Dewey.”557 To those composing the Manifesto, Ames was recognized as a humanist having no metaphysical position and committed to the scientific method and the testing of all truth claims in human experience, even though Ames continued to use traditional Christian supernatural concepts such as God and Jesus Christ but redefined these concepts as a religious humanism. However, those composing the Manifesto “did not ask Edward Scribner Ames to sign because it was their view that any use of supernatural symbols or god language would open the door to a flood of theist apologists. An explicit nontheism refraining from the use of traditional theological language was the distinguishing feature of the newer humanists.”558 There is no indication that Ames was upset by not being invited to sign the Manifesto. Ames and friends, many in Hyde Park Christian Church, bought some land in Michigan on the shores of Lake Michigan. Parts of each summer were spent there, with Ames devoting much of the time to study and writing. After retirement more time was spent there, especially after the death of his wife. These years were not easy, having a leg amputated after retirement. Christine Ames Cornish, a granddaughter, explains: “He had Padget’s disease which weakened and deformed the bones of his legs.

234

Christian Pragmatism

When I knew him he always walked with a cane. Eventually the bones could not hold his weight. In the end he had a steel rod in one and the other was amputated following unsuccessful surgery. He never walked again.”559 Edwin Wilson recalled a visit to and comment by Ames during this time: “Here I sit, literally footless, wondering what it would be like if—as I do not believe—it were possible for me to rejoin the wife of my years in an existence other than this.”560 Wilson, a student of Ames, also recalled a comment by Ames to a young Disciples of Christ minister who had just lost his pulpit for refusing to use traditional terms: “If you had listened to me, you could still be there.”561 There is some question concerning the lasting influence of Ames and The Chicago School of Philosophy and Theology. Certainly Ames had a major influence with his associates in the Campbell Institute and to a much lesser degree with Disciples ministers who viewed their task to be primarily ministering to their members. The influence of the Chicago School continued at Chicago until a decision was reached, in the late 1950s, to terminate the empirical, naturalistic tradition of Ames and associates and to replace it with a faculty with a metaphysical orientation. This shift at the University of Chicago in regard to theological education is seen in Langdon Gilkey’s comment that Dean Brauer had brought him to the University of Chicago’s Divinity School “to destroy the old Chicago School.”562 Scribner Ames’ contribution to the Chicago School rests on his pragmatic understanding of religion in terms of its satisfactory cultivation of the highest social values. He pointed out that the supernatural concepts of old religion, supposedly based on divine revelation, were used in an attempt to deal with practical human problems. However, religion in the modern world must understand that problems change and that the social fabric of religion must constantly recreate values appropriate to dynamic cultural situations. Ames’ argument that these recreated values must be inclusive of and give unity to all experience was essential to understanding the social nature of religion. He also contributed to the critical study of religion and offered what he considered to be a biblically based view of God as finite and limited to the ideal spirit seeking the realization of good in the experience of the world. Ames applied the scientific approach to the study of Jesus and suggested an understanding of Jesus as a model in relation to the ideal of social service. His insights, on the way the church must function in order to assist people in discovering the best possible life, provided a direction by which modern religion can adapt from its old world conceptions. In summary, Ames’ postulated that the value system of modern religion must contain the hopes of humans and give unity to all

Evaluation

235

experience. Religion also required its being in harmony with the scientific method of inquiry and the value system of our democratic culture. Ames helped free modern religion from cult and theology and directed religion toward serving the vital needs of developing society.563

NOTES Historical Context 1. (EG) Errett Gates, The Disciples of Christ (1905), pp. 64–99. 2. EG. pp. 100–211. 3. (DCG) E. S. Ames, “The Disciples of Christ: Their Growth, Their Heritage, Their Timeless,” n. d., n. p. 20. 4. DCG. p. 9. 5. DCG. p. 29. 6. DCG. p. 33. 7. DCG. p. 37. Biographical 8. (A) E. S. Ames, Beyond Theology: The Autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. 9. A. p. 3. 10. A. p. 5. 11. A. p. 7. 12. A. p. 11. 13. A. p. 10. 14. A. p. 11. 15. A. p. 13. 16. A. p. 16. 17. A. p. 17. 18. A. p. 17. 19. A. p. 18. 20. A. p. 21. 21. A. p. 28. 22. A. p. 29. 23. A. p. 30. 24. A. p. 31. 25. A. pp. 34–5. 26. A. p. 38. 27. A. p. 38. 28. A. p. 38. 29. A. p. 38. 30. A. p. 39. 31. A. p. 40. 32. A. p. 43. 33. A. p. 43.

238

Christian Pragmatism

34. A. p. 45. 35. A. p. 46. 36. A. p. 4. 37. A. p. 56. 38. EG. p. 320. 39. A. p. 56. 40. A. p. 58. 41. A. p. 59. 42. A. p. 60. 43. A. p. 61. 44. A. p. 66. 45. A. p. 66. 46. A. p. 68. 47. (NS) Nathaniel S. Haynes, History of the Disciples in Illinois 1819–1914, p.160. 48. A. p. 71. 49. A. p. 72. 50. A. p. 75. 51. A. p. 76. 52. A. p. 76. 53. A. p. 77. 54. A. p. 81. 55. A. p. 82. 56. A. p. 90. 57. A. p. 92. 58. A. p. 93. 59. A. p. 93. 60. A. p. 97. Theology from the Standpoint of Functional Psychology 61. (a) E. S. Ames, “Theology from the Standpoint of Functional Psychology. American Journal of Theology, 1O:219–32, April, 1906. p. 220. 62. a. pp. 223–4. 63. A. p. 224. 64. A. p. 227. 65. a. pp. 227–8. 66. A. p. 229. 67. A. p. 231. 68. A. p. 232. Psychology of Religious Experience 69. (B) E. S. Ames, Psychology of Religious Experience. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1910, p. 4. 70. B. p. 7.

Notes 71. B. p. 10. 72. B. p. 15. 73. B. p. 18. 74. B. p. 19. 75. B. p. 22. 76. B. p. 24. 77. B. p. 26. 78. B. p. 29. 79. B. p. 33. 80. B. p. 54. 81. B. p. 72. 82. B. p. 76. 83. B. pp. 96–7. 84. B. p. 113. 85. B. p. 138. 86. B. p. 151. 87. B. pp. 153–4. 88. B. p. 163. 89. B. p. 166. 90. B. p. 167. 91. B. p. 190. 92. B. p. 190. 93. B. p. 198. 94. B. p. 227. 95. B. p. 247. 96. B. p. 249. 97. B. p. 251. 98. B. p. 272. 99. B. p. 281. 100. B. p. 290. 101. B. p. 297. 102. B. p. 304. 103. B. p. 308. 104. B. p. 313. 105. B. p. 318. 106. B. p. 326. 107. B. p. 328. 108. B. p. 330. 109. B. p. 333. 110. B. p. 336. 111. B. p. 345. 112. B. pp. 353–4. 113. B. p. 354. 114. B. pp. 355–6. 115. B. p. 356. 116. B. pp. 359–60.

239

240

Christian Pragmatism

117. B. p. 365. 118. B. p. 367. 119. B. p. 376. Divinity of Christ 120. C= E. S. Ames, The Divinity of Christ. Chicago: New Christian Century Co., 1911. p. 3. 121. C. p. 5. 122. C, p. 10. 123. C. pp. 11–2. 124. C. pp. 16–7. 125. C. p. 19. 126. C. p. 21. 127. C. p. 25. 128. C. p. 28. 129. C. p. 32. 130. C. p. 35. 131. C. p. 40. 132. C. pp. 43–4. 133. C. p. 45 134. C. pp. 47–8. 135. C. p. 52. 136. C. p. 68. 137. C. p. 75. 138. C. pp. 3–4. 139. C. p. 85. 140. C. p. 89. 141. C. p. 91. 142. C. p. 93. 143. C. p. 96. 144. C. p. 99. 145. C. p. 101. Mystic Knowledge 146. b = E. S. Ames, “Mystic Knowledge,” American Journal of Theology, 19:250–67. 1914. p. 250. 147. b. p. 251. 148. b. p. 253. 149. b. p. 254. 150. b. p. 255. 151. b. p. 256. 152. b. p. 257. 153. b. p. 259. 154. b. pp. 261–2.

Notes

241

155. b. p. 263. 156. b. p. 264. 157. b. pp. 275–6. 158. b. p. 267. The Higher Individualism 159. D= E. S. Ames, The Higher Individualism. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1915, p. 6. 160. D. p. 8. 161. D. p. 9. 162. D. P. 16. 163. D. pp. 12–3. 164. D. p. 16. 165. D. p. 28. 166. D. pp. 32–3. 167. D. p. 33. 168. D. p. 34. 169. D. p. 41. 170. D. p. 56. 171. D, pp. 75–6. 172. D. p. 82. 173. D. p. 83. 174. D. p. 102. 175. D. p. 112. 176. D. p. 116. 177. D. p. 118. 178. D. p. 123. 179. D. p. 136. 180. D. p. 142. 181. D. p. 147. 182. D. p. 150. 183. D. p. 152. 184. D. p. 162. The New Orthodoxy 185. E= E. S. Ames, The New Orthodoxy. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1918. pp. vi–vii. 186. MF= Ford Maddox Ford, Parade’s End. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. p. xxii. 187. E. p.2. 188. E. p. 11. 189. E. pp. 14–15. 190. E. p. 16. 191. E. p. 20.

242

Christian Pragmatism

192. E. p. 27. 193. E. p. 30. 194. E. p. 31. 195. E. p. 34. 196. E. p. 39. 197. E. p. 46. 198. E. p. 48. 199. E. pp. 51–2. 200. E. p. 56. 201. E. p. 64. 202. E. p. 78. 203. E. p. 82. 204. E. pp. 84–5. 205. E. p. 89. 206. E. pp. 90–1. 207. E. pp. 92–3. 208. E. p. 94. 209. E. p. 97. 210. E. p. 103. 211. E. p. 110. 212. E. pp. 120–1. Beyond Protestantism 213. c= E. S. Ames, “Beyond Protestantism”. p. 9. Open Court, 33:397–405. 1919. 214. c. p. 10. 215. c. p. 11. Religion in the New Age 216. d= “Religion in the New Age,” Christian Century, 6:24–20 and republished in America and the New Era ed. by Elisha M. Friedman, E. P. Dutton & Co. NY, 1920. p. 10. 217. d. p. 11. Religion in Terms of Social Consciousness 218. f= “Religion In Terms of Social Consciousness,” Journal of Religion, 2:264– 70, 1921, p. 265. 219. f. p. 267. 220. f. p. 27. Unsectarian Membership in the Local Congregation 221. g= “Unsectarian Membership in the Local Congregation,” Christian Century, Sept. 22, 1921, p. 13.

Notes

243

The Validity of the Idea of God 222. h= E. S. Ames, “The Validity of the Idea of God,” Journal of Religion, 2:462–81, 1921, p. 464. 223. h. p. 467. 224. h. p. 469. 225. h. p. 472. 226. h. pp. 479–80. 227. h. p. 481. Religious Values and the Practical Absolute 228. e= E. S. Ames, “Religious Values And The Practical Absolute,” International Journal of Ethics, 32:347–65. 1921, p. 347. 229. sy= “The Definition of Religion: A symposium,” The Journal of Religion, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 284–314. p. 296. 230. e. p. 351. 231. e. p. 355. 232. e. p. 357. 233. e. p, 358. 234. e. p. 361. 235. e. p. 365. Letter to Alexander Campbell 236. i= “Letter to Alexander Campbell,” Christian Century, Oct. 5, 1922. p. 221. 237. i, p. 102. What is Religion 238. j= “What Is Religion?”, Christian Century, May 17, 1923. p. 62. The Religion of Immanuel Kant 239. k= “The Religion of Immanuel Kant.” Journal of Religion, 5:172–77, 1924. p. 272. 240. k. p. 173. 241. k. p. 174. 242. k. p. 175. Religion and Philosophy 243. l= “Philosophy and Religion,” Journal of Religion, 8:13–29. 1928. p. 14. 244. l. p. 19. 245. l. p. 20.

244

Christian Pragmatism

246. l. p. 20. 247. l. pp. 22–3. 248. l. p. 24. 249. l. p. 25. 250. l. p. 26. 251. l. p. 28. 252. l. pp. 28–9. What Salvation Can the Church Offer Today? 253. m= “What Salvation Can The Church Offer Today,” Christian Century, Feb. 23, 1928. p. 234. 254. m. p. 235. Locke 255. n= “John Locke,” Lecture at the Art Institute, Chicago, 1928. p. 1. 256. n. p. 4. 257. n. pp. 4–5. Religion 258. F= Religion. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1929. p. 4. 259. F. p. 6. 260. F. p. 7. 261. F. p.14. 262. F. p. 16. 263. F. p. 17. 264. F. p. 22. 265. F. p. 30. 266. F. p. 33. 267. F. p. 38. 268. F. p. 40. 269. F. p. 43. 270. F. p. 45. 271. F. pp. 47–8. 272. F. p. 50. 273. F. p. 55. 274. F. p. 57. 275. F. p. 60. 276. F. p. 62. 277. F. p. 65. 278. F. p. 66. 279. F. p. 69. 280. F. p. 72. 281. F. p. 82.

Notes 282. F. p. 83. 283. F. p. 87. 284. F. p. 91. 285. F. p. 92. 286. F. p. 93. 287. F. p. 95. 288. F. p. 101. 289. F. p. 104. 290. F. p. 106. 291. F. p. 114. 292. F. pp. 120–1. 293. F. pp. 121–2. 294. F. p. 123. 295. F. p. 132. 296. F. p. 134. 297. F. p. 135. 298. F. p. 137. 299. F. pp. 140–1. 300. F. pp. 142–3. 301. F. p. 145. 302. F. p. 146. 303. F. p. 148. 304. F. pp. 150–1. 305. F. p. 153. 306. F. pp. 154–5. 307. F. p. 156. 308. F. pp. 158–9. 309. F. p. 159. 310. F. p. 160. 311. F. p. 162. 312. F. p. 164. 313. F. p. 165. 314. F. pp. 165–6. 315. F. p. 168. 316. F. p. 171. 317. F. p. 173. 318. F. p. 174. 319. F. p. 175. 320. F. pp. 176–7. 321. F. p. 178. 322. F. p. 181. 323. F. p. 183. 324. F. p. 184. 325. F. p. 185. 326. F. p. 189. 327. F. p. 191.

245

246 328. F. pp. 196–7. 329. F. p. 208. 330. F. p. 211. 331. F. p. 213. 332. F. p. 215. 333. F. pp. 216–7. 334. F. p. 219. 335. F. p. 222. 336. F. p. 223. 337. F. pp. 224–5. 338. F. p. 227. 339. F. p. 228. 340. F. pp. 229–30. 341. F. pp. 231–2. 342. F. p. 238. 343. F. p. 240. 344. F. p. 242. 345. F. pp. 245–6. 346. F. pp. 248–9. 347. F. p. 251. 348. F. p. 254. 349. F. p. 257. 350. F. p. 260. 351. F. p. 260. 352. F. p. 261. 353. F. p. 262. 354. F. p. 268. 355. F. p. 272. 356. F. p. 278. 357. F. pp. 278–9. 358. F. p. 282. 359. F. p. 286. 360. F. p. 288. 361. F. pp. 291–2. 362. F. p. 295. 363. F. p. 298. 364. F. p. 302. 365. F. pp. 303–4. 366. F. p. 307. 367. F. pp. 309–10. 368. F. p. 311. 369. F. p. 313. 370. F. p. 314. 371. F. p. 317. 372. F. p. 320.

Christian Pragmatism

Notes

247

Religious Values and Philosophical Criticism 373. o= “Religious Values And Philosophical Criticism,” Essays In Honor of John Dewey on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, Oct. 20, 1929. pp. 23–35. p. 23. 374. o. p. 25. 375. o. p. 28. 376. o. p. 35. Imagery and Meaning in Religious Ideas 377. y= “Images and Meaning in Religious Ideas.” Alumni Lecture at Yale Divinity School, 1932. p. 3. 378. y. p, 3 ½. 379. y. p. 7. 380. y. p. 12. 381. y. p. 13. 382. y. p. 14. 383. y. p. 17. 384. y. p. 23. Letters to God and the Devil 385. G=Letters To God And The Devil. New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1933. p. vii. 386. G. p. 8. 387. G. p. 10. 388. G. p. 16. 389. G. p. 18. 390. G. p. 18. 391. G. p. 24. 392. G. p. 28. 393. G. p. 29. 394. G. p. 35. 395. G. p. 41. 396. G. p. 43. 397. G. p. 43. 398. G. p. 45. 399. G. p. 46. 400. G. p. 47. 401. G. p. 49. 402. G. p. 50. 403. G. p. 51. 404. G. p. 54. 405. G. p. 56. 406. G. p. 56.

248

Christian Pragmatism

407. G. p. 57. 408. G. p. 60. 409. G. pp. 60–1. 410. G. p. 61. 411. G. pp. 63–4. 412. G. p. 64. 413. G. p. 66. 414. G. p. 66. 415. G. p. 68. 416. G. p. 70. 417. G. p. 74. 418. G. p. 76. 419. G. p. 79. 420. G. p. 80. 421. G. p. 81. 422. G. p. 84. 423. G. p. 87. 424. G. p. 93. 425. G. p. 95. 426. G. p. 97. 427. G. p. 99. 428. G. p. 104. 429. G. pp. 104–5. 430. G. p. 109. 431. G. p. 112. 432. G. p. 113. Three Great Words of Religion 433. p= “Three Great Words of Religion,” Christian Century, December 13, 1933. p. 1574. 434. p. p. 1576. 435. p. p. 1577. Christianity and Scientific Thinking 436. MT= A. E. Haydon (ed.), Modern Trends in World Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 25–33. 437. rs= “Christianity and Scientific Thinking,” Journal of Religion, 14:4–12, 1914. p. 5. 438. rs. p. 7. 439. rs. p. 10. 440. rs. p. 11.

Notes

249

The Religious Response 441. q= “The Religious Response” Sermon in the Chapel of the University of Chicago, July 23, 1934. p. 1. 442. q. p. 1. 443. q. p. 3. 444. q. p. 3. 445. q. p. 6. 446. q. p. 8. 447. q. p. 9. Man Looks at Himself or Personality Pictures 448. z= “Man Looks at Himself or Personality Pictures,” Commencement Address, Lynchburg College, 1935. p. 3. 449. z. p. 4. 450. z. p. 4. 451. z. p. 5. 452. z. p. 6. The Philosophical Background of the Disciples 453. pb=“The Philosophical Background of the Disciples.” Paper before the Commission for the Restudy of the Disciples, 1936. p. 3. 354. pb. p. 3. 455. pb. p. 8. A Pragmatist’s Philosophy of Religion 456. v= “A Pragmatist Philosophy of Religion,” Lectures at the Pastor’s Institute, University of Chicago, 1936. vI= lecture one; vII= lecture two; vIII= lecture three; vIV= lecture four; vV= lecture five. p. vI-p.1 457. vI-p.2. 458. vI-pp.3–4. 459. vI-p. 6. 460. vI-p. 7. 461. vII-p. 1. 462. vII-p. 2. 463. vII-p. 2. 464. vII-p. 2. 465. vII-p. 6. 466. vII-p. 7. 467. vIII-p. 2. 468. vIII-p. 2. 469. vIII-p. 4. 470. vIII-p. 5.

250

Christian Pragmatism

471. vIII-p. 7. 472. vIV-p. 1. 473. vIV-p. 6. 474. vIV-p. 7. 475. vV-p. 2. 476. vV-p. 3. 477. vV-p. 6. Liberalism in Religion 478. u= “Liberalism in Religion,“ reprint by Univ. Church of Disciples from The International Journal of Ethics, Vol. XLVI, No. 4, July, 1936. p. 3. 479. u. p. 5. 480. u. p. 9. 481. u. p. 13. 482. u. p. 14. 483. u. p. 16. The Reasonableness of Christianity 484. rc= The Reasonableness of Christianity, Lecture at the Pastor’s Institute, University of Chicago, 1937.rcI. p. 1. rcI= lecture one; rcII= lecture two; rcIII= lecture three; rcIV= lecture four. 485. rcI. p. 1. 486. rcII. p 1. 487. rcIII. p 1. 488. rcIII. p 1. 489. rcIV. p. 1. This Human Life 490. hl= This Human Life. Gates Memorial Lectures, Grinnell College, 1937. hlI. p. 4 hlI=lecture one; hlII=lecture two; hlIII=lecture three; hlIV=lecture four; hlV=lecture five. 491. hlI. p. 6. 492. hlI. p. 8. 493. hlI. p. 9–10. 494. hlI. p. 16. 495. hlII. p. 3. 496. hlII. p. 6. 497. hlII. p. 11. 498. hlII. p. 19. 499. hlIII. p. 1. 500. hlIII. p. 4. 501. hlIII. p. 7. 502. hlIII. pp. 16–7.

Notes

251

503. hlIII. p. 20. 504. hlIV. p. 6. 505. hlIV. p. 7. 506. hlIV. p. 8. 507. hlIV. p. 9–10. 508. hlIV. p. 18. 509. hlV. p. 5. 510. hlV. p. 8. 511. hlV. p. 11. 512. hlV. p. 13. 513. hlV. p. 19. 514. pb= “The Philosophical Background of the Disciples.” n.d.. p. 3. 515. pb. p. 3. 516. pb. p. 8. A New Interpretation of The Will to Believe 517. wb= “A New Interpretation of the Will To Believe.” Lecture at Northwestern University, Oct. 1937. p. 3. 518. wb. p. 4. 519. wb. p. 6. 520. wb. p. 7. 521. wb. p. 7. 522. wb. p. 8. 523. wb. p. 12. 524. wb pp.12–3. 525. wb. p. 13. When Science Comes to Religion 526. x= “When Science Comes to Religion.” Lectures at the Pastor’s Institute, University of Chicago, 1938. p. 1. 527. x. p. 3. 528. x. p. 7. 529. x. p. 15. 530. x. p. 18. 531. x. p. 19. Religious Implications of John Dewey’s Philosophy 532. s= “Religious Implications of John Dewey’s Philosophy” (outline form). 1939. p. 1. 533. s. p. 2. 534. s. p. 2. 535. s. p. 2. 536. s. p. 3.

252

Christian Pragmatism

537. s. p. 4. Training for Wisdom 538. t= “Training For Wisdom.” Commencement Address, Transylvania University of the College of the Bible, Lexington, Ky. 1940. p. 1. 539. t. p. 5. 540. t. p. 7. 541. t. p. 8. 542. t. p. 8. 543. t. p. 9. Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas 544. t. p. 1. Encompassing Ames’ Primary Ideas. 545. B. p. 304. 546. C. p. 19. 547. D. pp, 12–13. 548. B. p. 318. 549. A. p. 93. 550. D. p. 16. 551. D. p. 118. Evaluation 552. Sc= The Scroll, Vol. XLIV, No. 2. Autumn, 1958. p. 12. 553. sc. p 9. 554. sc. p 13. 555. sc. p 14. 556. sc. p 21. 557. EH. Edwin H. Wilson: Genesis of A Humanist Manifesto, Chapter 11 “Distinctions Between Literary and Religious Humanism.” p. 4. 558. EH. p. 6. 559. An email from Christine Ames Cornish to Creighton Peden, Jan. 11, 2011. 560. EH. p. 6. 561. EH. p. 3. 562. ET. p. 252. 563. pp. 245–6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ames, Edward Scribner. Beyond Theology: The Autobiography of Edward Scribner Ames. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. —. Letters To God And The Devil. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1933. —. Psychology of Religious Experience. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1910. —. Religion. New York: Henry Holt & Co,, 1929. —. The Divinity of Christ. Chicago: Bethany Press (Christian Century Co.). 1911. —. The Higher Individualism. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1915. —. The New Orthodoxy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918. —. The Psychology of Religion: A Professional Reading Course — The American Institute of Sacred Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917. Ford, Ford Maddox. Parade’s End. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961. Gates, Errett. The Disciples of Christ (1905). Haydon, Albert Eustace, ed. Modern Trends in World Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Haynes, Nathaniel Smith. History of the Disciples in Illinois 1819–1914. The Scroll.Autumn 1958. Wilson, Edwin H. “Distinctions Between Literary and Religious Humanism.” Chap. 11 in Genius of A Humanist Manifesto. Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1955. Journal Articles Ames, Edward Scribner. “Beyond Protestantism.” Open Court, no. 33 (1919): 397–405. —. “Christianity and Scientific Thinking.” Journal of Religion, a 1914: 4– 12. —. “Letter to Alexander Campbell.” Christian Century, October 5, 1922. —. “Liberalism in Religion.” International Journal of Ethics XLVI, no. 4 (July 1936).

254

Christian Pragmatism

—. “Mystic Knowledge.” American Journal of Theology, no. 19 (1914): 250–67. —. “Philosophy and Religion.” Journal of Religion, no. 8 (1928): 13–29. —. “Religion In Terms of Social Consciousness.” Journal of Religion, no. 2 (1921): 264–70. —. “Religion in the New Age.” Christian Century, no. 6 (1920): 24-30. Republished in America and the New Era, edited by Elisha M. Friedman. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1920. —. “Religious Values And The Practical Absolute.” International Journal of Ethics, no. 32 (1921): 347–65. —. “The Definition of Religion: A Symposium.” The Journal of Religion 7, no. 3: 284–314. —. “The Religion of Immanuel Kant.” Journal of Religion, no. 5 (1924): 172–77. —. “The Validity of the Idea of God.” Journal of Religion, no. 2 (1921): 462–81. —. “Theology from the Standpoint of Functional Psychology.” American Journal of Theology, no. 10 (April 1906): 219–32. —. “Three Great Words of Religion.” Christian Century, December 13, 1933. —. “Unsectarian Membership in the Local Congregation.” Christian Century, September 22, 1921. —. “What Is Religion?” Christian Century, May 17, 1923. —. “What Salvation Can The Church Offer Today?” Christian Century, February 23, 1928. Lectures Ames, Edward Scribner. “A New Interpretation of the Will To Believe.” Lecture at Northwestern University. October, 1937. —. “A Pragmatist Philosophy of Religion.” Lectures at the Pastor's Institute, University of Chicago. Chicago, 1936. —. “Images and Meaning in Religious Ideas.” Alumni Lecture at Yale Divinity School. 1932. —. “John Locke.” Lecture at the Art Institute. Chicago, 1928. —. “The Reasonableness of Christianity.” Lectures at the Pastor’s Institute, University of Chicago. Chicago, 1937. —. “This Human Life.” Gates Memorial Lectures, Grinnell College. 1937. —. “When Science Comes to Religion.” Lectures at the Pastor’s Institute, University of Chicago. Chicago, 1938.

Bibliography

255

Presentations and Sermons Ames, Edward Scribner. “Man Looks at Himself or Personality Pictures.” Commencement Address, Lynchburg College. 1935. —. “Religious Implications of John Dewey’s Philosophy.” 1939. —. “Religious Values And Philosophical Criticism.” Essays In Honor of John Dewey on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. October 20, 1929. 23–35. —. The Disciples of Christ: Their Growth, Their Heritage, Their Timelessness. —. “The Philosophical Background of the Disciples.” Paper before the Commission for the Restudy of the Disciples. 1936. —. “The Religious Response.” Sermon in the Chapel of the University of Chicago. Chicago, July 23, 1934. —. “Training For Wisdom.” Commencement Address, Transylvania University of the College of the Bible. Lexington, Kentucky, 1940. Other Gaston, John N. & Peden, W. Creighton, eds. Edward Scibner Ames’ Unpublished Manuscripts. Newcastle upon Tyne, GB: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011.

INDEX A Common Faith, 168, 209, 232 Absolute, 52 Alma Mater, 170, 172 America, 21, 73–5, 128, 131, 188, 209, 213, 215, 221, 242 American, 1, 3, 6, 15, 73–4, 190, 209, 215–7, 253 American Journal of Theology, 238, 240, 254 American Philosophical Association, 83 AMES Edward Scribner, ix–x, 2–25, 27–40, 43–49, 51–61, 63– 69, 71, 73–5, 77, 79–81, 83–5, 87, 89, 91–7, 100– 135, 137–9, 141–53, 155– 63, 165–72, 175–7, 179– 95, 197–203, 205–9, 221– 9, 231–5, 237–8, 240–3, 252–5 Lucius Bowles, 7 Mattie, 9 Minnie, 11 animals, 36, 55, 111, 114, 120, 142, 172, 184–6, 194, 212, 214, 221–2 Arctic Explorations, 8 ARISTOTLE, 181, 187 art, 23, 37, 59, 71, 110, 156, 171, 173, 194, 209, 215, 226, 254 associated lives, 131 associative thinking, 205 at home in the universe, 69, 121, 153, 229

authoritarianism, 132, 170, 175, 181, 233 authority, 16–7, 21, 40, 45, 47, 58, 63–4, 66, 73, 84–5, 91, 99, 103, 109, 113, 127–8, 131, 155, 161, 166, 169, 180, 193, 197 ecclesiastical, 16 external, 17, 58, 63, 84, 166 final, 113 fixed or formal, 103 of apostolic succession, 131 of Christ, 47 of Jesus, 64 of religious attitudes, 85 of revelation, 180 of the Bible, 155 of the church, 193 of the divine will, 91 of the truth, 47 parental, 193 religious, 128 traditional, 109 awe and wonder, 151, 157–8 Bacon College, 1, 218 BACON, Francis, 1–3, 102, 162, 187, 198, 205, 210–1, 217, 221–2, 233 baptism, 19, 21, 77 baptized, 8, 21 BARTH, Karl, 181, 206 beauty, 8, 23, 37, 49, 67–8, 110, 114, 139, 148, 151, 156–7, 194, 226–7 belief, 21, 30, 43, 66, 83, 89, 108, 123, 131, 141, 149, 163,

258

Christian Pragmatism

171, 189, 199, 202–3, 222 BELL, Alexander Graham, 218 BENTHAM, Jeremy, 175 Bethany College, 1, 17 Beyond Protestantism, 242, 253 Bible, 2, 7, 57, 59–60, 66–7, 71, 77, 89, 93, 103, 105, 155, 163, 180, 199, 205, 213 biological, 23, 27–8, 32, 36, 165, 167, 179, 193, 202, 211 Blackemore, W. Barnett, 233 BOHANAN Adam, ix Becky, ix BRAUER, Dean Gerald, 234 Brick House, 9, 15 BRIGHTMAN, Edgar Sheffield, 202 Buddhism, 120 Burlington, Vermont, 209 Burnet, Texas, 11 Butler College, 16–8 Calvinism, 3, 38 camera, 159 CAMPBELL, Alexander, 1, 2, 4, 7, 12, 16, 77, 87, 161–3, 197– 9, 243, 253 CAMPBELL, Thomas, 1, 161, 197 capitalist, 188 CASE, Shirley Jackson, 180 Central Christian Church, 11 character, 14, 20, 30–1, 34–6, 38, 43, 46, 49, 52, 63, 71, 75, 83, 92, 104, 106, 117, 119, 122–3, 125–7, 129–30, 133, 138, 155, 161, 166–7, 179, 197, 206, 224 character of God, 117, 119, 133 Chicago Literary Club, 233 Chicago School, ix, 234 Chicago School in Philosophy

and Religion, ix child, 24, 33–4, 44, 71, 129, 141, 145, 149, 154, 215 children of God, 60 CHRIST, 3, 5, 8, 12, 19–21, 38, 43–9, 55, 58–9, 61, 66, 68, 77, 87, 92, 103, 142, 144–6, 155, 162–3, 198–9, 222–4, 231, 233, 240, 253, See also Jesus authority of, 47 body of, 55 divinity of, 44, 46, 48, 103, 155, 222–3, 240, 253 free spirit of, 58 gospel of, 66 pre-existence of, 20 spirit of, 3 supremacy of, 20 teachings of, 77 Christian, ix, 1–5, 11–3, 15, 17, 21, 45, 47, 49, 58, 64–5, 68, 71, 74, 77, 89, 93, 122, 128, 150, 153, 155, 158, 160–1, 181, 197, 224, 231–3 Christian Century, 242–4, 248, 253–4 Christian Church, ix, 1, 3, 11, 13, 158, 231, 233 Christian Quarterly, 17 Christian Scientists, 74 Christian Standard, 17 Christianity, 2–3, 12, 14, 16, 19– 20, 33, 37–8, 43, 46–7, 56–8, 60–1, 63, 66–7, 71, 73, 84, 89, 95, 98, 127, 142, 145, 153, 155–7, 160, 163, 179, 180–2, 186, 199, 221, 226, 228, 231, 248, 250, 253–4 a layperson’s faith, 16 a new apologetic for, 57

Index

central purpose of, 56 doctrine of orthodox, 71 in the early church, 48, 67, 146–7 living a moral life, 61 primitive, 3 reasonableness of, 181, 250, 254 Church, ix, 1–3, 5, 7–8, 10–3, 16, 18–22, 43–4, 47–8, 55–6, 58–9, 61, 65–9, 71, 77, 87, 89, 97, 99, 103, 127–8, 133, 141–3, 145–7, 153–4, 158, 162–3, 175, 191–3, 198–9, 201, 210, 213, 224, 227–8, 231–4, 244, 250, 254 a means of individual and social regeneration, 97, 228 City, 148 Civil War, 7 COE, George Albert, 21, 27 Columbia University, 209 common-sense, 3, 14–5, 205 communion, 1, 5, 31, 47, 52, 57–8, 67, 77, 87, 121, 149, 229 conceptions, 23–5, 44, 73, 75, 83, 95, 106, 118, 123, 129, 143, 147, 158, 172, 181, 206– 7, 212, 223, 234 confession, 19 CONKLIN, Edwin Grant, 207 Conversion, 2, 5 COOLEY, Professor Charles Horton, 73 COPERNICUS, 159 CORNISH, Christine Ames, x, 233, 252 Crisis Theology, 119 CULP, Dr. Kris, x cult, 29, 31, 177, 235

259

customs, 27, 29–30, 32–5, 40, 73, 83, 93, 99, 101, 104–5, 108, 113, 126–7, 133, 137, 176, 187–8, 194, 211, 217, 227 DARWIN, Charles Robert, 11, 65, 207, 209, 218 Davenport, Iowa, 7 DAY, Clarence Shepard, Jr., 179, 214 death, 8, 48, 57, 59, 63, 74, 85, 92–3, 96, 103, 112, 122–3, 142, 144, 146, 150, 160, 177, 233 Deists, 163, 199 Delphic, 10 democracy, 3, 21, 24, 33, 37, 45, 63, 71, 84–5, 99, 109, 143, 181, 188, 215–7, 231 democratic faith, 3 democratic religion, 3 Denver, Colorado, 13 Depression, 175, 193 Des Moines, Iowa, 9 DESCARTES, René, 111, 162, 187, 198 determinism, 17, 124 DEVIL, 18, 57, 141, 151–2, 247, 253 DEWEY, John, 15–6, 29, 37–8, 109, 133, 165, 168–9, 176, 209–12, 232–3, 247, 251, 255 Disciples, ix, 1–7, 11–3, 15–9, 21, 45, 77, 87, 161–3, 197–9, 232, 234, 238, 249–51, 253, 255 Disciples Divinity House, x, 16, 19, 162, 198, 231 Disciples of Christ, 1, 7, 217, 234, 237, 253, 255, See also Disciples

260

Christian Pragmatism

divine, 2–3, 5, 12–3, 20, 30, 33, 44, 46–9, 60–1, 65, 67, 69, 71–2, 75, 85, 89, 91, 101, 108, 110, 114–6, 119–22, 131, 133, 141, 144–6, 151, 156, 167, 169–71, 177, 184, 191, 205, 222–4, 229, 234 divine grace, 2, 5, 108, 144, 167, 184, 191 divine revelation, 12, 44, 101, 205, 234 doctrine, 2–3, 12, 16–7, 19–21, 25, 28, 37, 45, 55, 59, 63, 66– 7, 71–2, 77, 109, 111, 119– 20, 122, 128–9, 132, 143–7, 153, 156–8, 160, 162, 166–7, 175–7, 184, 198, 201, 206, 209, 214, 226, 231 doctrines. See doctrine dogmas, 92, 129, 176, 208 Drake University, 9–11, 15, 18, 161, 197 dualism, 14, 44, 46, 91, 95, 106, 155, 223 DURANT, William James, 217 duty, 44, 47, 55, 65, 91, 97, 108, 118, 124, 192, 223, 227 Easter Secret, 144 Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 7 educational psychology, 34 EMERSON, Ralph Waldo, 79 emotion, 10, 27, 35–8, 71, 83, 107, 120, 141, 145, 188 emotional life, 106, 188, 205 empirical method, 15 empiricism, 15, 19, 45–6, 94, 103, 106, 108, 111, 168, 175, 181–2, 231 a new way of thinking, 45 ethical, 108 philosophy of, 19

radical, 15, 111, 231 English Enlightenment, 2, 162, 198 environment, 7, 14, 17, 23, 27– 9, 32, 35, 45, 52, 54, 57, 71, 74, 83, 104, 110, 113, 124–7, 129, 143, 147, 152, 181, 186, 211, 231 Essay on Human Understanding, 99 eternal life, 48, 67, 228 ethical, 20, 33–4, 39, 44, 46, 64, 92, 108, 133, 223–4 ethics, 23, 71, 73, 84, 134, 207 Evanston, Illinois, 16 evidence, 20, 30–1, 39, 44, 47– 8, 75, 125, 159, 162, 169, 181, 189, 198, 202, 206, 211 evil, 4, 14, 43, 48, 55, 71, 102, 104, 115, 124–7, 141, 148–9, 151–2, 154, 160, 167, 170, 193, 227 evolution, ix, 17, 20, 23–4, 28, 46, 74, 93, 103, 112, 115, 143, 155, 160, 165, 172, 184, 205, 209, 218, 221, 225 doctrine of, 28, 184 evolution of religious consciousness, 23 existence of God, 102, 111, 117, 119, 168 experience, 8–9, 11–3, 17–8, 22–5, 27–8, 32, 34–9, 41, 46– 7, 51–3, 55–61, 63–4, 66, 68– 9, 71, 75, 79–80, 83, 85, 89, 91, 93–5, 97–9, 102–6, 108– 22, 124–6, 128–32, 134–5, 137, 141–3, 145–6, 150–2, 156–7, 159, 166–71, 176, 183–4, 187–9, 191, 194–5, 197, 202, 205, 209, 211–3,

Index

216, 225–7, 229, 233–4 Experience and observation, foundations of knowledge, 99 experimentations, 2 facts, 17, 27, 44, 46, 54, 80, 94, 107, 116, 138, 146, 152, 163, 166, 169, 172, 187, 190, 199, 205–6, 210, 218, 223 concrete and observable, 166 faith, 2–4, 14–6, 18–20, 33, 36, 41, 43–4, 47–8, 57–8, 63–4, 66–8, 71, 75, 80, 89, 91–3, 97–100, 102–4, 106–8, 110, 119, 122, 127–8, 130, 133–4, 138, 141, 146, 150, 153, 158, 168, 170, 180–1, 189–90, 194, 202, 210, 223, 227–8, 232 without proof, 104 family of God, 67 fatherhood of God, 47, 105, 224 Federal Council of Churches, 192 feeling, function of, 38 fellowship, 1, 3, 5, 7, 15–6, 21, 56, 77, 97, 110, 133, 227–8 free fellowship, 4 freedom, 7, 21, 45, 47, 49, 71, 91–2, 99, 108–9, 125, 145, 172, 175–7, 189, 207, 217, 224, 231, 233 freedom of interpreting, 21 Freud, Sigmund, 105 functional psychology, 23–5, 27–8, 36, 51, 83, 225, 238, 254 GALILEO, 159 GALTON, Sir Francis, 39, 137 GARRISON, W. E., 233 Gates Memorial Lectures, 183, 250, 254

261

German, 1, 119 GILKEY, Langdon Brown, 234 GOD, 3–5, 8, 14, 17, 22, 24–5, 37, 43–7, 52–3, 57–61, 65–9, 73, 75, 77, 79–81, 89, 91–2, 102–5, 108, 110–23, 130, 132–3, 139, 141, 143–51, 153–5, 157–8, 162, 168–72, 176–7, 180–1, 187–9, 192, 194, 198, 202, 205–6, 208– 12, 221–9, 232–4, 243, 247, 253–4 a social process, 118, 224, 232 as idealized reality, 113 as the Common Will, 75, 79, 80–1, 226 as the Great Companion, 75, 226 character of, 117, 119, 133 children of, 60 existence of, 102, 111, 117, 119, 168 family of, 67 fatherhood of, 47, 105, 224 finite, 68, 80–1, 114, 116, 168, 172, 176, 234 grace of, 221 image of, 139 is reality, 114,–5, 118, 139, 172 Kingdom of, 56–7, 67, 122 nature of, 43, 45, 103, 112–3, 150, 170, 222 pragmatic conception of, 168 revelation of, 43, 66, 147 spirit of the tribe, 111 symbol for our ideals, 112 the collective Spirit of the group, 80, 226 the embodiment of ideals, 37

262

Christian Pragmatism

the Father, 46, 105, 117, 222 the idea of, 4, 24–5, 37, 52, 59, 79, 111, 119, 139, 146– 7, 169, 172, 180, 202, 208, 210, 224–6 the idealized Social Will, 79 the will of, 115 the wrath of, 104 trust in, 157–8 validity of the idea of, 79, 243, 254 word of, 59–60, 77, 205–6 god-idea, 37, 226 GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang Van, 184 Golden Rule, 109 good life, 45, 97, 102, 125–6, 134, 147, 163, 192, 199, 223, 227–8 grace of God, 221 Greek, 1–2, 9, 11, 20, 44–5, 71, 84, 165, 210, 212 Greeks, 111, 182, 205 Grinnell College, 183, 250, 254 growth, 1, 3, 5, 14, 21, 24, 30, 34, 40, 49, 58, 65–6, 68, 80, 123, 126, 133–5, 143, 145, 154, 157, 167, 170, 175, 177, 182, 187, 191, 214, 225–6, 231 process of, 5, 34, 68, 170, 187 HALL, Granville Stanley, 21, 73 happiness, 8, 49, 51, 60, 73, 92, 109–10, 126, 143, 157, 214 HARPER, William Rainey, 12, 15–6 Harvard University, 11, 13 hate, 114 HAYDON, Albert Eustace, ix, 248, 253 health, 59, 157, 167, 190, 193,

206, 215, 224, 227 Hebrew, 11–2, 33, 39, 84 higher criticism, 2–3, 16–7, 74, 155, 175 higher individualism, 55 higher religions, 38, 105 highest social values, 27, 83, 234 historical method, 29, 101, 103 history, 9, 11, 24, 28–9, 31, 40, 43–4, 46, 56, 61, 66, 68, 72– 3, 79, 89, 92, 94, 101, 106, 108–9, 113, 115, 119, 123, 127, 131, 134, 138, 144, 147, 149, 155–6, 159, 161, 170, 181–3, 187, 192, 197, 207, 210, 213, 215, 217, 223, 225 history of science, 211 HOLMES, Henry W., 218 HOLY SPIRIT, 66 honorific absolute, 171 hope, 11, 18, 25, 57, 63, 67–9, 74, 81, 89, 92, 96, 104, 122– 3, 133, 144, 147, 153–4, 159– 60, 170, 183–5, 188, 228 HORTON, Walter Marshall, 175 Hudson Library, Highlands, NC, ix Hull House, 158 human depravity, 2, 5, 184, 190, 221, 226 human life, 4, 21, 37–8, 54, 57, 67, 69, 83, 104, 107, 112, 122, 143–6, 150, 153, 155–7, 165, 177, 184–8, 201, 214, 217–9, 228 human nature, 4, 61, 107, 115–6, 129, 133, 149, 154, 206 humanism, 45, 117, 180, 233, 252–3 Humanist Manifesto, 233, 252–3

Index

humanitarianism, 5 humans, 4–5, 12, 18, 27, 30, 36, 38–40, 45–6, 53, 56–8, 60–1, 66, 69, 71, 73, 80, 83–4, 91– 3, 96, 99, 101–7, 109–10, 115–21, 123–4, 127, 132–3, 141, 143–4, 147–50, 152, 154–7, 159–63, 166, 168, 171–2, 176–7, 180–1, 183–4, 186–8, 192, 194, 197–9, 205– 7, 221–4, 228–9, 232, 234 HUME, David, 102 HUTCHINS, Robert Maynard, 232 HUTCHINSON, Dr. Wood, 11 Hyde Park Christian Church, 231, 233 Hyde Park Church, 19, 21, 77 Hyde Park Disciples Church, 18 hypnotism, 53 idea of God, 4, 24–5, 37, 52, 59, 79, 111, 119, 139, 14–7, 169, 172, 180, 202, 208, 210, 224– 6 ideal ends, 60, 75, 118, 120, 169, 210 idealism, 4–5, 14–5, 20, 63, 71, 73–5, 80, 84, 95, 97, 103, 106, 115, 139, 148, 152, 176, 181, 192–3, 203, 228 human, 14 moral, 139 practical, 15 rationalized, 73 religious, 74, 97, 176, 228 social, 4–5, 74–5, 84, 95, 103, 106, 115, 176 ideas, 14, 16–7, 19– 21, 23–4, 27–30, 32–3, 36–7, 39, 44, 52–4, 84–5, 91, 95, 99–100, 102–3, 105–6, 108, 123, 126–

263

7, 129, 131, 138, 142, 144, 147, 151, 153, 161–3, 165–6, 180–2, 184, 186–7, 197–9, 203, 205–6, 209–11, 218, 221, 223, 225–6, 232, 247, 252, 254 a social process, 95 meaning of, 106 practical action, 106 ideational process, 28 image of God, 139 imagery, 14, 24, 32, 52, 137, 138, 225, 247 imaginary companions, 145 imagination, 14, 36, 40, 51–2, 60, 85, 95, 110, 112, 120, 123, 125, 138, 141, 143, 145– 6, 160, 165, 167, 176, 193, 210, 217, 227, 229 immanence, 24, 141, 148, 162, 198, 225 immortality, 91–2, 108, 122–3, 134, 139, 142, 145, 188–9 individualism, 2–3, 40, 47, 55, 152, 176, 190, 227 infallibility, 25, 203 instincts, 36, 51, 73, 75, 101, 108, 221 instrumental, 75, 166, 170 intelligence, 4–5, 14, 18, 36, 38, 54, 64, 68–9, 80, 109, 112, 114, 116, 121, 123, 133, 142, 148, 152, 156, 168, 170, 187, 189–90, 193, 203, 206–8, 211, 214–5, 217, 219, 221, 224, 229, 232 interdependency, 190 International Journal of Ethics, 243, 253–4 intuition, 14, 180 JAMES, William, 13–4, 16, 17,

264

Christian Pragmatism

21, 27, 36,–7, 75, 80, 93, 103, 138–9, 165, 168–9, 171–2, 176, 179, 184, 201–2, 231–2 JEFFERSON, Thomas, 216 JESUS, 2–5, 8, 12, 20–2, 25, 43– 7, 49, 56–60, 64–7, 71, 77, 87, 103, 105, 108, 122–3, 125, 128, 131–2, 141, 143–7, 157, 163, 177, 180, 199, 206– 7, 222–5, 231, 233–4, See also Christ authority of, 64 bodily resurrected, 123 changing views of, 59 divinity of, 3, 43, 223 Empirical View of, 44 humanity of, 144 joy of, 57 method of, 132 supreme empirical test, 45, 223 teachings of, 2, 4, 12, 25, 44– 5, 57, 77, 132, 145, 147, 157, 206 Jews, 57, 115, 180 Journal of Religion, 242–3, 248, 253–4 KANE, Elisha Kent, 8 KANT, Immanuel, 13–4, 25, 80, 91–2, 108, 111, 138, 181, 189, 243, 254 KING, Irving, 30 Kingdom of God, 56–7, 67, 122 knowledge, 14, 17, 25, 27, 29, 36–7, 45, 49, 51–3, 59, 61, 64, 74, 83, 91, 94–6, 99, 101– 3, 105, 107, 111–3, 115, 119– 20, 123–5, 128–9, 131–3, 135, 138, 142, 144, 147, 149– 50, 154, 162, 166–8, 180–2, 184, 186–7, 189, 192–4, 198,

201, 205–8, 211, 214, 217, 226, 228, 231, 233 KRUTCH, Joseph Wood, 150 labor unions, 191 LADD, George Trumbull, 13 LANGE, C. L., 37 Letters To God And The Devil, 141, 247, 253 LEUBA, James Henry, 118 liberal attitude, 176 courage to explore, 176 Liberalism, 163, 175–7, 199, 231 LINDBERGH, Anne Morrow, 213 LINDBERGH, Col. Charles Augustus, 213 Listen the Wind, 213 local church, 3, 21, 69 LOCKE, John, 2–3, 15–6, 28, 99– 100, 102, 161–3, 175, 197–9, 221, 244, 254 love, 3–5, 7, 18, 23, 43, 46–9, 53, 57, 59–61, 63–4, 66–7, 69, 72–3, 84, 87, 89, 94, 104, 113,–6, 123, 130, 139, 143–4, 146, 148,–50, 152–4, 157–8, 167, 171, 173, 185, 193, 202, 208, 223, 227–8 LUTHER, Martin, 66, 71 Lutheranism, 3 Lynchburg College, 249 machines, 52, 55, 134, 185, 188–9 MALINOWSKI, Bronislaw Kasper, 137 MANN, Rabbi Louis L., 233 MEAD, George Herbert, 15, 165, 169, 172 Meadville/Lombard Theological Library, ix meaning, 5, 18, 22, 24–5, 32, 48,

Index

55, 58–60, 69, 75, 94–5, 104, 106, 110, 112, 114, 117, 121, 129, 137–9, 150, 165, 170–1, 179, 190, 194, 205, 208, 225– 6, 233, 247, 254 Medieval, 3, 59, 162, 180, 198, 210 medieval world view, 3 memory, 14, 32, 69, 125, 138, 146, 165, 180, 203 Messiah, 163, 199 metaphysics, 3, 13, 16, 23–4, 29, 102, 111, 125, 139, 161, 175, 187, 197, 221, 225 METER, Mable Van, 9 Methodist, 181 MILL, John Stuart, 102–3, 108, 118, 175, 184 mind, 12–3, 27–8, 32, 37, 39, 45, 48–9, 52, 58, 65–6, 79, 89, 94–5, 99, 103, 109–10, 112–3, 115, 119, 121, 124–5, 141, 143, 145, 148, 163, 165, 172, 179, 187, 189, 194, 199, 216, 221, 224 a social process, 52 minister, 7, 11, 18, 55, 77, 141– 2, 197, 201, 231, 234 ministers, 4, 21, 56, 77, 97, 156, 231–2, 234 agents of social reform, 56 miracles, 20, 44, 46, 48, 162, 180, 198, 224 miraculous birth, 87, 224 without beliving in, 87 modern church, 127, 227–8 an experimental spirit, 127 modern religion, 68, 109, 134, 234 modernism, 175, 180–1, 206 MOORE, Addison Webster, 15

265

moral universe, 57 moral values, 99, 118, 224 Morality, 40, 44, 57, 75, 92, 101, 108–10, 117, 158, 167, 173, 181, 193, 202, 223 empirical character of, 92 the ultimate satisfaction of, 38 MORGAN, Frank, 15 Mormons, 74 MORRIS, Charles C., 232 motion picture, 159, 183 mystic knowledge, 53–4 mysticism, 51–2, 54, 95, 119– 20, 132, 135, 151, 163, 169, 175, 181, 199 doctrine of, 119–20 functional psychology related to, 51 myths, 31 Natural Mysticism, 150–1 nature, 3–5, 10, 13–4, 17–8, 25, 27, 29–31, 33–5, 37, 40, 43, 45, 48, 52–3, 58, 6–1, 64–5, 67–9, 73–5, 79–80, 83, 85, 92–3, 95–6, 99, 101, 103–4, 107–8, 110, 112–9, 121, 124– 9, 133–5, 141, 143–4, 146– 50, 153–5, 157–60, 163, 167– 8, 170, 172, 176, 179–81, 183–9, 191, 193–4, 199, 201, 203, 205–7, 211, 215–7, 222– 4, 226, 228–9, 231–2, 234 modern attitude toward, 75 wonders of, 157 nature of God, 43, 45, 103, 112– 3, 150, 170, 222 neo-orthodox, 5, 175 New Atlantis, 217 new birth, 63, 158 humanitarian ideals, 158 of Christanity, 63

266

Christian Pragmatism

New Christian Century, 240 New England, 7 New Hampton College, 7 New Haven, Connecticut, 15 new orthodoxy, 63, 68, 241, 253 a new drama, 68 of method and spirit, 63 New Testament, 1, 4–5, 19, 46, 58, 161, 163, 197, 199, 221, 231 NEWTON, Sir Isaac, 2, 147 NIEBUHR, Karl Paul Reinhold, 175 non-creedal, 2 nonreligious persons, 39 Northwestern University, 251 Occidental, 52, 155 OGDEN, Charles Kay, 138 Old Testament, 12 On The Origin of Species, 209 Open Court, 242, 253 opera glass, 159, 183 ordained, 11 organism, 23, 34, 38, 113, 121, 124, 165, 167, 179, 185, 203 OTTO, Max Carl, 139, 167 OTTO, Rudolph, 142 Oxford University, 198 pain, 14, 108, 144, 148–9, 203 PASTEUR, Louis, 188, 218 PAUL, 48, 55, 58, 65, 122, 180, 206 PEDEN, W. Creighton, x PEIRCE, Charles Sanders, 165 perfection, 80, 92, 115, 126, 144, 147, 171, 193–4 Perry, Iowa, 11 PFLEIDERER, Otto, 12–3 Philomathian Literary Society, 10 philosophy, ix, 12, 209, 234,

243, 249, 251, 254–5 philosophy and religion, distinguished between, 93 philosophy of religion, 29, 93, 100, 105, 166, 168, 207 piety, 5, 7, 17–8, 22, 72, 168 PLATO, 138, 159, 180, 183, 187 Platonism, 52 PLATT, J. B., 37 Plattsburg, New York, 7 poverty, 7, 89, 124, 193, 217 practical absolute, 171–2 pragmatism, 15, 18, 45, 165–72, 192 Prairie City, Iowa, 11 prayer, 19, 27, 31–2, 81, 104, 120–1, 139, 149–50, 228–9 predestination, 2 doctrine of, 2 Presbyterian, 1 primitive, 3, 29–32, 44, 71, 105, 120, 126, 131, 173, 179, 223 primitive Christianity, 3 Princeton University, 207 private judgment, 3 process of growth, 5, 34, 68, 170, 187 prophets, 12, 39, 67, 132, 186 Protestant Christian church, 3 psychoanalysis, 179 psychology, 13, 16, 19, 21–5, 27–30, 33–6, 38–9, 45–7, 51– 3, 56, 58, 71, 73, 83, 93, 101– 3, 105, 107–8, 111–2, 120, 124–5, 129, 132, 138–9, 143, 154–5, 176, 179, 184–5, 201– 2, 206–7, 209, 221, 225–6, 229, 232, 238 educational, 34 functional, 23–5, 27–8, 36, 51, 83, 225, 238, 254

Index

of religion, 21–3, 27, 29, 34– 5, 73, 101, 107–8 structural, 23 task of, 33, 101 Psychology, 21 psychology of religion, 253 Psychology of Religious Experience, 120, 238, 253 pure reason, 25, 51, 102, 138, 189 quest, 59, 63, 68, 80, 92, 119, 121, 126, 150, 167, 175–7, 193, 226, 229 radical empiricism, 15, 111, 231 reason, 13–6, 19, 22, 35–6, 46– 7, 51, 54, 57, 61, 83–5, 89, 91–2, 99, 102, 108, 111, 119, 123, 133, 138, 152, 161–2, 175–6, 179–80, 185–6, 188– 9, 197–8, 207, 211, 214, 229 function of, 51 Reasonableness of Christianity, 181, 250, 254 reasoning, 36, 51, 92, 115, 179– 80, 187 rebirth, 58 Reformation, 2, 71, 175, 180 regeneration, 58–9, 97, 228 religion. See Religion Religion, ix, 1– 5, 7, 10, 12–5, 18–23, 25, 27, 29–31, 33–38, 40, 44, 46–7, 58–60, 63–8, 71–5, 80, 83–5, 89, 91–5, 98, 100–10, 113, 115–6, 118–9, 122, 124–34, 137–9, 142–3, 145, 147, 149–58, 161, 163, 166–8, 170–2, 175–6, 179– 81, 186, 188, 190–2, 194, 197, 199, 202–3, 205–11, 221, 223, 225–7, 231–5, 242– 4, 248–51, 253–4

267

a continual process of adjustment, 35 a social process, 102, 118 democratic, 3 goal of, 68 in the new age, 73 includes all values, 167 modern, 68, 109, 134, 234 needs science, 95 of social idealism, 4, 74, 103, 106, 176 of the spirit, 71–2 origin of, 29, 33 practical task of, 170 psychology of, 21–3, 27, 29, 34–5, 73, 101, 107–8, 253 the ultimate satisfaction of, 38 religious consciousness, 23–4, 28, 33–4, 36, 40 another term for, 36 development of, 34 evolution of, 23 types of, 40 religious education, 15, 34, 74, 128–30, 142, 228 religious experience, 27, 29, 34, 38, 91, 94, 106–7, 116, 118, 120, 125, 129, 151, 166, 209, 221, 231 religious faith, 36 religious love, 154 religious response, 157–8 religious values, 14, 73, 75, 96, 103–5, 129, 167, 171–2, 227, 243, 247, 254–5 Renaissance, 2–3, 52, 84, 175 repentance, 19–20 revelation, 12, 16, 39, 43, 45, 60, 66, 84, 101, 103, 108, 125, 133, 147, 162, 168, 175, 180, 187, 198, 205–6, 210

268

Christian Pragmatism

revelation of God, 43, 66, 147 REYNOLDS, Will, 9 righteousness, 59, 63, 67, 108, 113, 130, 147, 158, 179, 227– 8 ROBINSON, James Harvey, 179 Roman Catholic Church, 3, 65 Roman Empire, 56 ROUSSEAU, Henri Julien Félix, 233 ROYCE, Josiah, 13, 218 RUSSELL, Bertrand Arthur William, 154, 187, 189 sacred, 4, 30–1, 71, 101, 149, 156, 171, 177, 182, 205, 229 sacrifice, 27, 31, 46–8, 65, 101, 134, 224, 227 SAINT TERESA OF ÁVILA, 53 Salvation, 2, 8, 19–20, 35, 63, 71, 85, 101–3, 108, 115, 122, 128, 142, 172, 181–2, 191, 208, 221, 228 SATAN, 48, 92 SCHOPENHAUER, Arthur, 13–4, 185, 201, 222 science, 1, 3–5, 14, 18, 23, 25, 28–9, 33, 36–7, 39–40, 52–3, 58–60, 63–4, 67, 72–5, 83–5, 91–2, 95, 106–8, 112–3, 118, 123–6, 129–30, 132–5, 138– 9, 147, 150–1, 155–7, 159– 60, 165, 170, 173, 180–3, 187, 189–90, 193–4, 201, 203, 205–10, 215, 217–9, 221–3, 225–6, 228, 231 destroys superstitions, 118 history of, 211 science and religion, 36, 107, 138 the conflict between, 107, 138 scientific criticism, 83–4

scientific method, 33, 83, 85, 93, 101, 116, 130–2, 155, 163, 170, 176, 180, 189–90, 199, 203, 207, 210, 231, 233, 235 SCOTT, Sir Walter, 1, 217 SCRIBNER, Adaline, 7 Scriptures, 3, 5, 12, 59–60, 66, 71, 101, 133, 155–6, 162, 180, 198 not a revelation, 133 written by humans, 133 secret of life, 193 economic success, 193 sectarianism, 1, 7 secular, 4, 71, 132, 171, 177, 182, 191–2, 210 sermon. See sermons Sermon on the Law, 2 sermons, 8, 11, 19–21, 141–3, 147–51, 255 sin, 2, 20, 31, 35, 102, 122, 142, 149, 166, 177, 188, 205–6 Adam’s, 122 atonement for, 31 doctrine of, 206 humans born in, 149 original, 2, 20, 166, 177 sense of, 188 slavery, 4, 47, 189 social Christianity, 56, 63, 153 social consciousness, 24, 33, 37–40, 73, 75, 225–6, 242, 254 social justice, 60, 61, 74, 93, 104, 165, 226 social psychology, 22, 73, 112, 120, 229 social relations, 29, 59, 112, 115, 132, 190 social sciences, 54, 63, 66, 72, 107, 139, 166, 182, 187, 190,

Index

195, 203, 206, 221 SOCRATES, 125, 214 Soul, 5, 7–8, 12–3, 17, 20, 30, 33, 47, 49, 53, 58, 65, 84, 89, 99, 103, 111–3, 122, 138–9, 142–5, 148, 150–1, 157, 166– 7, 175–7, 206, 222, 224–5, 228, 232 growth of, 143 South Broadway Christ Church, 13 speech, 120–1, 124, 149, 186, 228 a social process, 124 SPENCER, Herbert, 11 spiritual, 4, 14, 20, 22, 30–1, 33, 40, 43–4, 46–7, 49, 53, 5–6, 58–9, 64–7, 70–1, 73, 84, 91, 95, 106, 110, 114–5, 117, 123, 125–7, 132, 138–9, 145– 7, 150, 154, 156, 162–3, 169, 171, 180, 188–9, 191, 198–9, 222–4, 227, 232 Spiritualists, 74 STARBUCK, Edwin Diller, 21, 27, 37, 73 Sterling Place Christian Church, 13 STONE, Barton Warren, 1 structural psychology, 23 Sumner, William Graham, 12 supernatural, 3, 12, 23, 30, 39, 46, 48, 68, 71, 84, 102, 107, 109, 117, 124, 131, 138, 141, 151, 155–6, 169, 171, 176, 180, 189, 191, 194, 209–10, 212, 221, 223–4, 232–4 superstitions, 15, 46, 66, 118 sympathy, 43, 68, 72, 81, 84, 95, 116, 126, 131, 135, 145, 167, 190, 202, 222

269

TERESA SÁNCHEZ DE CEPEDA Y AHUMADA. See Saint Teresa of Ávila The Campbell Institute, 232, 234 The College of the Bible, 213, 221 The History of Agnosticism, 15 The International Journal of Ethics, 250 the practical absolute, 85, 115, 243, 254 The Principles of Psychology, 13 The Problem of God, 202 The Psychology of Religious Experience, 232 The Scroll, 232, 252–3 The Varieties of Religious Experience, 21 theology, ix, 3–5, 13, 16, 20, 23, 25, 29, 93, 105, 119, 124, 143, 150, 161–2, 169, 175, 180–1, 191, 197–8, 201, 213, 221, 223, 226, 234–5, 237–8 This Simian World, 214 thought, ix, 3, 6, 10, 14–6, 19– 20, 30, 36, 46, 51, 54, 61, 63, 65–6, 73, 80, 84–5, 89, 91, 93–5, 101, 105–7, 114, 117– 22, 124, 126, 129, 138, 141– 3, 145, 148–9, 160, 162–3, 165–6, 175–6, 181, 185–7, 189–91, 198–9, 201, 205–6, 208, 210–1, 217–8, 222, 225– 6, 232 a shared experience, 95 TICHENER, Edward Bradford, 138 Toleration, 99 TOLSTOY, Leo Nikolayevich, 216

270

Christian Pragmatism

Toulon, Illinois, 7 traditional theology, 3, 16, 221 transcendence, 24, 225, 232 Transylvania College, 213, 217, 221 Transylvania University of the College of the Bible, 252, 255 Trinitarian, 5 Trinity, 20, 141 doctrine of, 20, 141 truth, 1, 13, 17, 20, 24–5, 37, 39, 43–7, 54, 56–7, 59–60, 80, 94–5, 99, 102, 106, 117, 128, 131–2, 134, 145, 152, 163, 168–70, 177, 180, 182, 187, 189, 199, 205–6, 208, 210, 218, 223, 225–6, 233 TUFTS, James Hayden, 15 two selves, 18 Uncle Sam, 79 union of Protestant Christians, 3 Unitarian, 5, 11, 45–6, 233 Unitarians, 45–6, 163, 181, 199 United States, 22, 64, 75, 79, 193, 205, 217 Universalists, 163, 199 University Church of Disciples, 141 University Divinity School, 16 University of Chicago, ix–x, 12, 15–6, 18, 141, 162, 183, 197, 209, 218, 232, 234, 241, 249, 250–1, 254–5 University of Edinburgh, 1 University of Glasgow, 1, 161, 197 University of Michigan, 209 University of Minnesota, 209

validity of the idea of God, 79, 243, 254 value, 5, 12–3, 17, 24–5, 27, 32– 4, 37–8, 40, 47, 52, 68, 73, 79, 81, 83–4, 91–2, 94, 96–8, 104, 108–9, 117–9, 122, 128, 131–5, 141, 156, 167–9, 171– 2, 186, 191, 193–4, 206, 210, 212, 225, 234 voluntary association, 2–3, 175 web of life, 192 Wellesley College, 13 WELLS, Herbert George, 217 West Rupert, Vermont, 7 Westminster Confession, 99 WHITEHEAD, Alfred North, 104 WIEMAN, Henry Nelson, ix will of God, 115 will to live, 51, 55, 115, 153, 167, 185, 190, 201–3 WILSON, Edwin, 234, 252–3 wisdom, 14, 39, 60, 64, 67, 81, 91, 111, 114–5, 126, 132, 135, 167, 177, 180, 184, 191, 208, 213, 215, 217–9 method of developing, 217 woman’s rights, 109 word of God, 59–60, 77, 205–6 World War, 80, 181, 193 worship, 10, 15, 59, 69, 81, 89, 109–10, 127, 171, 208 wrath of God, 104 YAHWEH, 33, 111 Yale Divinity School, 11, 247, 254 Yale University, 11–3, 15, 19, 197 YMCA, 128, 171