Liberalism, Modernism and Tradition

I have endeavoured to define the essential values which such a Christology must preserve, rather than even to indicate any theory which would be capable of preserving them. It seems clear that the new theory is needed. But first should come preparatory study which sketches the limits within which it must work, and elicits the essential content of the Christian experience which it must work with. Insufficient preparation of this kind seems to be the cause of the really unorthodox element in modernism. All theology is fundamentally orthodox, which is built upon the Christian experience of God through Christ. But it must be an initial postulate that that experience, personal as it may and ought to be, is not a matter of merely private or subjective interpretation. We must, therefore, make dear some measure of agreement as to the immediate empirical meaning, which is also the limitation, of Christianity, before we can expect our Christologies to expand it by their mediation. Modernism, where it is unorthodox, is not unorthodox because it restates Christianity, but because it states something which is not Christian-and such statement is by no means peculiar to the school of churchman-ship called modernist. But what is Christianity? That is the first question. What I have chiefly sought to do, is neither to restate nor state any Christology, but to define the empirical data of Christianity from which all Christologies should start.

Finally, I am aware that my use of the terms " Liberal Protestantism " and " Modernism " may be criticized as arbitrary, and I am willing to plead guilty to the charge. But I hope I have sufficiently explained what I mean by the terms to prevent misunderstanding. I could not find any other labels which would suit my purpose better.

Oliver Chase Quick