So what is the answer? Professor Caird, in his Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers, his Gifford Lectures of 1900 & 1901, considered in his last chapter the effect of Greek thought on the Church. In particular he considered its effect on the debate in the early centuries of the Church about the relationship of human nature with the Divine nature. He says that in the Church this debate was necessarily limited to a consideration of the different conceptions of the personality of Christ. This had two disadvantages, he says; it was confined to the person of Christ alone, and never branched out to consider the personality of normal man; and it was a static rather than a dynamic unity. In other words, not a unity that provided a way of life, but rather a unity that was independent of process, or conduct. The Quaker idea of “that of God in everyman”, which is exactly the same as the Jewish idea of “we have Abraham for our Father”, is a good example of this defect; it is independent of conduct. A man only shares God’s nature in acts of right conduct. He shares God’s nature “briefly”.
If you want a dynamic unity with God, it means accepting the uncomfortable privilege of co-operating with any real or mythical God, in order to help create a slightly better world. It means forgetting about your own salvation, so long as you can do a little to accomplish the salvation of society, or the world. In Christian parlance, it means co-operating either with the Risen Christ, or with the Almighty, the Creator himself, and leaving the historical Jesus some way behind, because the problem facing us is different from the problem that faced him. St.Paul most assuredly left the historical Jesus behind; he never mentions him, and only preached Christ crucified. In doing so, he saved Christianity from being an obscure Jewish sect that would probably have died out in a generation, and turned it into a world religion.
Albert Schweitzer did likewise. He was moved to write The Quest of the Historical Jesus, one of the most famous theological texts of the modern era, in which he reviewed a hundred or more years of German theological scholarship, and concluded that Jesus was driven by his apocalyptic consciousness to his death, a forlorn death in which he felt forsaken by God. Schweitzer recognised in the second edition of his book that Jesus was one of those tremendous creative personalities in whom the eternal energies which move the world are revealed, who set world history in motion time and again, and who oblige mankind to follow the path to spiritual advancement. But Schweitzer also agreed with the view that Jesus was completely mistaken about the timing of his Second Coming, and possibly about its manner; and he himself then felt driven from the study of theology to practical love, and went to Lambarene as a doctor.
The disadvantages in being wedded to the past can easily be illustrated. When the Chinese began trading with other nations, they had to consider Charter-parties for the carriage of goods by sea. So they looked up to see what Confucius had to say about it. Now Confucius had probably never seen the sea, and does not mention Charter-parties in his Analects. So naturally what Confucius had to say was not much help. Going to the historical Jesus, to seek help in trying to help solve today’s problems, is as foolish as that! So you have to go to a God who understands the modern world, as I have said. Of course if you are only thinking of yourself, and how you can scramble into heaven, then it may help to study in minute detail what the historic Jesus said. But my opinion is that if Jesus saved the world he did it by giving anyone with any character the courage to follow his example, and that means being willing to think things out for yourself, as well as teaching us that the divine love extends to the outcast and the forlorn. Another way of expressing it is to say, that it means continuing the Evolution, which Jesus fulfilled. And that, as Cranmer says, is an “inestimable benefit”.