|
|
 F
D Maurice was born in 1805, the son of a Unitarian clergyman. He studied
civil law at Cambridge, but refused the degree in 1827 rather than declare
himself an Anglican. However, he was later converted, and in 1834 was
ordained to the priesthood.
In 1838, he published his major work, The Kingdom of Christ, a discussion of
the causes and cures of divisions within the Christian Church. He was much
concerned with the role of the Church in speaking to social questions,
speaking of "faith in a God who has redeemed mankind, in whom I may
vindicate my rights as a man." Together with his friends John Ludlow and
Charles Kingsley, he organized the Christian Socialist Movement, which, he
wrote, "will commit us at once to the conflict we must engage in sooner or
later with the unsocial Christians and unchristian Socialists." His work is
one of the reasons why Socialism in England has been largely devoid of the
avowedly anti-Christian overtones it had in many other countries. (In the
late 1940's the majority of the members of the British Cabinet, then
organized under the Labor Party, met regularly under the leadership of Sir
Stafford Cripps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for prayer, Bible study,
and discussion of the application of Christian principles to public life.)
Soon after his ordination, Maurice became Professor of English Literature
and History at King's College, London, and in 1846, Professor of Theology as
well. However, his book Theological Essays, published in 1853, was regarded
by many readers as doubtfully orthodox, and the resulting furor cost him his
professorships. In 1854, he founded the Working Men's College, and became
its first head. He was professor of Moral Theology at Cambridge from 1966
until his death in 1872.
A friend of mine, who has read considerably more of Maurice than I have,
says of the Theological Essays: "Maurice has a sneaky approach. He begins an
Essay by considering an objection to traditional Christian theology: for
example, the objection that the instructions supposedly given by God to the
Israelites to massacre the inhabitants of Canaan are morally indefensible.
He begins by conceding his opponent's assertion, by granting that indeed it
is preposterous to suppose that God would ever do anything of the kind. He
then invites his opponent to consider how it is that we come to believe that
the wholesale slaughter of defeated opponents in war is wrong. (A glance at
any history of the Pelopennesian War, by Thyucidides or another, will make
it clear that the Ancient Greeks did not share this view.) He explores with
his opponent the question of the role of Israel in the moral and spiritual
development of mankind -- the implications of the fact that the overwhelming
majority of those who believe that it is wrong to slaughter a defeated
people originally got that idea from sources traceable back to the religious
ideas of the ancient Israelites. He points out that, if there is a God and
He has revealed Himself, there is reason to suppose that the history of
Israel is a part of that revelation. And by the time he is done, he has won
more territory than he appeared at first to be losing."
That, at any rate, is what he finds in Maurice. Other readers give different
reports that leave me wondering whether they have read the same author. I
have not tackled the Theological Essays myself, and I should be interested
in the reactions of someone who has.
|
|
