THEOLOGY AND THEORY
The Theology of the Beal. By, It Gordon Milburn. (Williams r I and Norgate, Ltd. 108. 6d. net.) A PHILOSOPHER is compelled to follow the custom of epic poets and to plunge in tnedias res." So says Mr. Santayana in a recent book, and this and a, certain brevity, not to say breathlessness of treatment, rather detract from the effect of the thoughtful treatise before us. Mr. Gordon Milburn, who has made a special study of Indian religious mysticism, almost disarms criticism by the modesty of his preface, bOt it seems to us that, after stating that his purpose is to contribute to the study of objectivity in theology, he attempti, to harness too many incompatible• steeds to his car. First of all, he makes objectivity and reality synonymous terms, which would have elicited a protest from the late Mr. Bradley, and in the next sentence he links together emotionalism and subjectivism as One and the same. Here is a wide field of dispute, on which we must not linger, but in any ca. se to include mystical and meta- physical theology under his category of objectivity seems to us a precarious process, though one that is worked out, granted his use of terms, with some skill and persuasiveness.
The latter quality is greatly enhanced by the method by which the writer approaches the immense and complex subject of mysticism. He makes a sketch of some typical forms of the consciousness of God, and analyses these intuitions in the form of a symposium, to which eight speakers contribute their experiences. These possess liveliness and variety, and Mr. Milburn's own conviction is expressed in the sentence ; "Let each feel free to follow his own light, and in the course of centuries the Spirit himself will effect a synthesis of our intuitions of him." The principle of the synthesis of intuition is insisted on in the Upanishads, where God is known as the ground of Reality, as the inmost self, and as as Adorable. " Ecclesiastical Christianity," we are told, " as presented in church services, seems to be almost totally devoid of any desire for a vision of God here on earth and to exhibit no consciousness of its possibility," a sentence which reveals in sudden and rather startling fashion the writer's limitations. There is some curious doctrine, too, as to " Apollyon, a psychic ffsrmation comparable to theoid centres, but of an opposite character," which may be hypostasized as an entity. " Certain partial trends, escaping integration, borrow a derived person- ality from the ego and subsist as a consolidated, pseudo- personal complex," which " seeks the destruction of the self, of other selves, and of all good." We have had to compress What is really a theory of the origin of evil, though Mr. Milburn disclaims any attempt towards such a theory. His main thesis here is that there is no reason to attribute destructive or punitive activities to that inward power, or Being, which we experience as God. He does not, however, any more than other theorists, escape the penalties of his speculation down such an avenue of vulnerable phrases, every one of which invites definition or defies scrutiny. Probably he would urge that all he does is to throw out a suggestion, but it is a sugges- tion which, if mad* at all, was, worthy of more attentive elaboration, and freedom from the dominance of a Freudian atmosphere, which is felt as a prevalent force in many of Mr. Milburn's pages.
The chapter on Moral Theology deals with adult ethics, and with problems -of sex, and has an interest of its own. The writer puts aside the principles of free sex and British conservatism as lacking the spiritual point of view which we expect from a religious ethic. He wants the principles of sueh a practice as shall render sexual life as intrinsically sacramental as possible. Sexual love must not be regarded as primarily a means for the propagation of the race. " It is a means for the development of the spirit and its release from the cramping and insulating influences of narcissistic and introvert attitudes ; it is the human sacrament of which all should partake." It Will come as something of a shock to Mr. Milburn's readers, attei this, to find-that lieappioVelof a liaison hetweeii equals=
wider either of trio- forms, the trial-marriage or the substitute for marriage—as not necessarily immoral ; " indeed, it may be definitely uplifting." " There is nothing in the New Testa- ment inconsistent with it," " nothing obviously incongruous with religion and devotion."
The whole subject is followed out to wider and more general issues, of which one, " there are persons who need the liaison in order to leara how to love—in- fact,- probably- many such persons," may be cited-as having a certain worldly 'wisdom. The -Scottish mediae 'al _custom of handfasting "—a trial.
union'of a year and a day—which, by the way, has. itsirregulat equivalent -in many partscof. Northern. England-at the- present
time, receives mention, and the reasons against such a practice are very fairly noted, though its actual purpose does not seem to be apparent to the writer. Nor does he refer to a habit not unknown in French society of condoning a regularized liaison before marriage, a practice which, again, judged only from the utilitarian point of view, often makes for after-happiness in the married life, though it scarcely conduces to the raising of the birth rate. Mr. Milburn discusses his difficult subject throughout with marked delicacy and elevation of purpose ; but he does not persuade us. Though we do not believe, any more than he does, that a general disintegration of morals would follow the adoption of his proposals, yet an enormous amount of legal. confusion and social embarrassment would result, and in spite of a pleading which, if not special pleading, is brief and perfunctory, we cannot hold that the practice is in accordance with the principles of Christianity. The certainty that it is not so would prevail with the vast majority of the community, and the author would be the first to recognize the dangers that attend a violated conscience in society at large.
It might seem that we have concentrated too much attention' on one section of a work whose sincerity of purpose—that of an investigator of the real truth, in all its depth and adequacy, whatever the truth may be—and. whose high moral intention are never for a moment in doubt. We do not 'think so. Ths recognition, of the propOsal we have criticized would be 'a breach in the walls of ChriStian ethics, as we understand Christianity, which might betray the fortress itself. We think the author must rest content-with his perilinis tede of a pioneer on a dubious track. Always he has courage, often a true prescience, and the longing which he expresses for the know- ledge of God through love is its own reward.
Previous page
