DISORGANIZATION： THE CHURCH THE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW OF RELIGION -- THE NEED OF SOCIALSTRUCTURE -- CREEDS -- WHY SYMBOLS TEND TO BECOME FORMAL -- TRAITS OF AGOOD SYSTEM OF SYMBOLS -- CONTEMPORARY NEED OF RELIGION -- NEWER TENDENCIESIN THE CHURCH
IN religion， too， our day is one of confusion in institutions and falling back upon human nature. The most notable books of the day in this field are， first of all， studies in religious psychology. Perceiving that the question has come to be one of the very being and function of religion， they ignore the discussion of particular doctrines， polities or sacraments， and seek a foundation in the nature of the human mind.
I do not wish to follow these researches in detail： their general outcome is reassuring. They seem to show that religion is a need of human nature， centring， perhaps， in the craving to make life seem rational and good. As thought it is belief regarding the power underlying life and our relation to it； our conceptions of God and of other divine agents serving as symbols梒hanging like other symbols with the general state of thought梠f this hidden reality. As feeling it is a various body of passion and sentiment associated with this belief； such as the sense of sin and of reconciliation；dread， awe， reverence， love and (373) faith. And religious action is such as expresses， in one way or another， this sort of thought and feeling.
Like all our higher life， religion lives only by communication and influence. Its sentiments are planted in instinct， but the soil in which they grow is some sort of fostering community life. Higher thought梒all it intellectual， spiritual， or what you will梔oes not come to us by any short and easy road， its nature being to require preparation and outlay， to be the difficult and culminating product of human growth. And this is quite as much a growth of the social order as of individuals， for the individual cut off from that scaffolding of suggestion that the aspiration of the race has gradually prepared for him is sure to be lawless and sensual：
his spiritual impulse can hardly be more than a futile unrest， just as the untaught impulse of speech in a deaf person produces only inarticulate cries. Much has been said of natural religion； but if this means a religion achieved de novo by the individual mind， there is no such thing， all religion and religious sentiment being more or less distinctly traditional.
We find， then， that the religious life always rests upon a somewhat elaborate social structure梟ot necessarily a church， but something which does in fact what the church aims to do. The higher sentiments now possible to us are subtly evoked and nourished by language， music， ritual and other time-wrought symbols. And even more obviously are ideas梠f God and of the larger being， of religious observance， government and duty梞atters of communal and secular growth.
The root problem of the church梐s， in a sense， of all (374) organization梚s to get the use of the symbol without the abuse. We cannot hold our minds to the higher life without a form of thought； and forms of thought come by traditions and usages which are apt to enchain the spirit. "Woe unto thee thou stream of human custom"； cries St. Augustine， "Who shall stay thy course？ How long shall it be before thou art dried up ？ How long wilt thou carry down the sons of Eve into that huge and formidable ocean， which even those who are embarked on the Tree can scarce pass over？"[1]
The iconoclastic fervor against formalism that usefully breaks out from time to time should not make us imagine that religion can dispense with institutions. There is in religious thought at present much of a kind of anarchism which， in the justifiable revolt against the pretensions of authority， is inclined to overlook the importance of tradition and structure.
Perhaps we may cite Emerson as an anarchist of this sort； he saw the necessity of institutions， but was inclined by temperament and experience to distrust them， and to dwell almost wholly upon freedom.
Is it not the fact， however， that the progress of religion has been less in the perception of new truth than in bringing it home to the many by organization？ There is perhaps little in religious thought that was not adequately expressed by occasional thinkers millenniums ago；the gain has been in working this thought into the corporate life. The great religions桞uddhism， Judaism， Christianity， Mohammedanism梐re nothing if not systems； that is to say， although based on primary needs of human nature， their very being as widespread religions consists (375) in a social structure， adapted to the changing state of society， through which these needs are met and fostered. Thus the appeal of Christianity to the human mind may be said to have rested， in all periods partly on the symbolic power of a personality梥o idealized and interpreted as to be in effect a system as well as a man梐nd partly on a changing but always elaborate structure of doctrines， ritual， polity， preaching and the like. Take away these symbols and there is nothing distinctive left.
And if the whole is to go on， the system of symbols， again renewed， must go on， too. No more in religion than in any other phase of life can we have an inside without an outside， essence without form.
