During the first semester of DeWolf's Seminar in Systematic Theology, students were required to give a twenty- to thirty-minute oral report on a religious journal, chosen from a list of twelve journals compiled by DeWolf, and to submit a one-page typed review. In preparation for the review King had contacted his former Crozer professor, Morton S. Enslin, editor of the Crozer Quarterly. In his summary King uses some of the information Enslin provided and comments on an article by his former professor, George W. Davis. King reveals a dissatisfaction with liberalism's doctrine of man: "Any theology which does not have an adequate anthropology is not worth the name." King's analysis of Davis was considerably longer in the draft of this report (see below, note 2); he shortened his critique owing to length limitations.

1. The Crozer Quarterly was begun in 1924. It was the result of a feeling by the faculty at that time, under the direction of Dr. Milton G. Evans, that such a journal was needed. Andover Theological Seminary was invited to join in the project but found it impossible to accept. Accordingly Crozer has continued it alone from the start. The journal has had several editors, namely, Edward B. Pollard, A. S. Woodburn, R. E. E. Harkness, and Morton S. Enslin.

2. Subscription rate for the Crozer Quarterly is $2.50 per year; single copies are $.75. Publishers: Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa.

3. The journal is intended chiefly for professional students of religion and also for intelligent laymen.

4. The literary style is of the highest quality with few typographical errors. The type is small.

5. Dr. Morton Scott Enslin is the editor of the journal. He is Prof. of N. T. Literature at Crozer Seminary. b. March 8, 1897, Somerville, Mass. Educated Harvard College, B.A., 1919, Newton, B.D., 1922; Harvard U., Th.D. Author: "The Ethics of Paul, 1930; Christian Beginnings, 1938.

6. Typical contributors include, Vergilius Ferm (Philosopher), Edwin E. Aubrey (Theologian), Albert C. Knudson (Dean emeritus of B.U. School of Theology).

7. Fields of interest other than theology: (1) Biblical Lit., (2) Psychology of Religion, (3) Pastoral Counseling, (4) Worship, (5) Religious Education, (6) Church History.

8. Regular features--Five or six articles. A number of book reviews (usually about 20). Several shorter notices and a list of books received. Identification of current contributors and reviewers.

9. Dominant point of View--Liberalism is definitely the dominant point of view. Occasionally very controversial issues are discussed with opposing views represented.

10. Values appreciated: Its many articles representing profound scholarship. Its superb book reviews.

11. Defects: None

12. Fifteen to twenty book reviews and notices of the highest quality.

13. Summary of "Liberalism and a Theology of Depth" by George W. Davis in The Crozer Quarterly, Vol XXVIII, No. 3, July, 1951.

Dr. Davis begins his challeging article with the affirmation that Christianity is a religion of depth. By depth as here employed, he means that Christianity breaks through the surface phenomena of reality, bringing an apprehension of what lies beyond these phenomena. He admits that Christianity has its surface and subsurface phenomena, but interest in these must never obscure the significance of depth phenomena. Liberalism, with its emphasis on higher criticism, important as this emphasis is, has devoted much to the surface and subsurface factors to the complete concealment of the depth phenomena originally responsible for biblical religion. If liberalism is to produce anything more than a secular and surface arrangement of intellectual propositions, it must explore and recognize the depths in Christianity. Some of the depths in Christianity which liberalism must recognize are: (1) The Moral foundations of Reality, (2) Spiritual Control, (3) Specific Action, i.e. the faith that specific divine action for human redemption occurred in Jesus of Nazareth, (4) Continuing Divine Concern and Human Opportunity. Can liberal theology, now on the defensive, experience a rebirth? Dr. Davis feels that it can if it takes full cognizance of the depths of the Christian faith.

Critical Comment: I feel that Dr. Davis is grappling with a profound problem and one that all liberals should take cognizance of. It seems to me, however, that Dr. Davis fails to even mention one aspect of a theology of depth which is all important namely, the doctrine of man. Any theology which does not have an adequate anthropology is not worth the name. It is essentially at this point that liberalism has been criticised for being all too shallow. How Dr. Davis could overlook the significance of an adequate anthropology in a theology of depth is quite incomprehensible to me.

TD. MLKP-MBU: Box 114, folder 26.

Back to Top