was abundantly true. It is the fashion to denounce some of the councils
of the old church which shaped the creeds. It is often said that these
creedal councils were moved by considerations of low-grade expediency.
The councils, however, knew what the people were thinking of, and
managed to get the popular thought into expression measurably
satisfactory to the people themselves.

In this doctrine of the church as interpreter of scriptural truth we can
be sure that the emphasis will remain on the elements which make for
enlarging human life if the church keeps true to the spirit of the Bible
itself. The aspirations of humanity, the longings of masses of men, find
utterance in the great popular spiritual demands all the more
effectively because such demands override and nullify the insistence of
an individualistic point of view which might easily become selfish. We
have said that this democratic interpretation is final so long as it
keeps itself in line with the biblical purpose. There are some dangers,
however, against which we must be on our guard. First is the danger of
identifying the church with those who actually belong to an
organization. When we think of the church we have in mind not merely
formal organizations, but all men who are really working in the spirit
of the biblical ideals. There are many persons who really act according
to the biblical revelation without technically uniting with a church. It
may be that such persons do not accept the intellectual puttings of
biblical doctrine, but that they nevertheless live in the spirit of that
doctrine. It might be conceivably possible that a church organization
would stand for an interpretation of truth which would be rejected by
the general good sense of a larger community. In such a case the larger
community would be the interpreter. Another danger in an interpreting
body is that of traditionalism. The native conservatism of many minds
stands against innovation. If, however, the innovation is in the