| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Social Principles of Jesus
Author: Rauschenbusch, Walter, 1861-1918
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Social Principles of Jesus" ***
College Voluntary Study Courses
Fourth Year—Part 1
The Social Principles Of Jesus
By
Walter Rauschenbusch
Professor of Church History, Rochester Theological Seminary
Written under the Direction of Sub-Committee on College Courses, Sunday
School Council of Evangelical Denominations, and Committee on Voluntary
Study, Council of North American Student Movements
The Woman’s Press
600 Lexington Avenue
New York City
1917
Copyright, 1916, by
The International Committee of Young Men’s Christian Associations
Entered at Stationers’ Hall, London, 1916
All Rights Reserved
CONTENTS
Introduction
Part I. The Axiomatic Social Convictions Of Jesus
Chapter I. The Value Of Life
Chapter II. The Solidarity Of The Human Family
Chapter III. Standing With The People
Part II. The Social Ideal Of Jesus
Chapter IV. The Kingdom Of God: Its Values
Chapter V. The Kingdom Of God: Its Tasks
Chapter VI. A New Age And New Standards
Part III. The Recalcitrant Social Forces
Chapter VII. Leadership For Service
Chapter VIII. Private Property And The Common Good
Chapter IX. The Social Test Of Religion
Part IV. Conquest By Conflict
Chapter X. The Conflict With Evil
Chapter XI. The Cross As A Social Principle
Chapter XII. A Review And A Challenge
Footnotes
COLLEGE VOLUNTARY STUDY COURSES
“The Social Principles of Jesus” takes seventh place in a series of
text-books known as College Voluntary Study Courses. The general outline
of the Council of North American Student Movements, representing the
Student Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Associations and the
Student Volunteer Movement, and the Sub-Committee on College Courses of
the Sunday School Council of Evangelical Denominations, representing
twenty-nine communions. Therefore the text-books are planned for the use
of student classes in the Sunday School, as well as for the supplementary
groups on the campus. The present text-book has been written under the
direction of these Committees.
The text-books are not suitable for use in the academic curriculum, as
they have been definitely planned for voluntary study groups.
This series, covering four years, is designed to form a minimum curriculum
for the voluntary study of the Bible, foreign missions, and North American
problems. Daily Bible Readings are printed with each text-book. The
student viewpoint is given first emphasis—what are the student interests?
what are the student problems?
The Bible text printed in short measure (indented both sides) is
taken from the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible,
copyright, 1901, by Thomas Nelson & Sons, and is used by
permission.
INTRODUCTION
This book is not a life of Christ, nor an exposition of his religious
teachings, nor a doctrinal statement about his person and work. It is an
attempt to formulate in simple propositions the fundamental convictions of
Jesus about the social and ethical relations and duties of men.
Our generation is profoundly troubled by the problems of organized
society. The most active interest of serious men and women in the colleges
is concentrated on them. We know that we are in deep need of moral light
and spiritual inspiration in our gropings. There is an increasing
realization, too, that the salvation of society lies in the direction
toward which Jesus led. And yet there is no clear understanding of what he
stood for. Those who have grown up under Christian teaching can sum up the
doctrines of the Church readily, but the principles which we must
understand if we are to follow Jesus in the way of life, seem enveloped in
a haze. The ordinary man sees clearly only Christ’s law of love and the
golden rule. This book seeks to bring to a point what we all vaguely know.
It does not undertake to furnish predigested material, or to impose
conclusions. It spreads out the most important source passages for
personal study, points out the connection between the principles of Jesus
and modern social problems, and raises questions for discussion. It was
written primarily for voluntary study groups of college seniors, and their
intellectual and spiritual needs are not like those of an average church
audience. It challenges college men and women to face the social
convictions of Jesus and to make their own adjustments.
PART I. THE AXIOMATIC SOCIAL CONVICTIONS OF JESUS
Chapter I. The Value Of Life
Whatever our present conceptions of Jesus Christ may be, we ought to
approach our study of his teachings with a sense of reverence. With the
slenderest human means at his disposal, within a brief span of time, he
raised our understanding of God and of human life to new levels forever,
and set forces in motion which revolutionized history.
Of his teachings we have only fragments, but they have an inexhaustible
vitality. In this course we are to examine these as our source material in
order to discover, if possible, what fundamental ethical principles were
in the mind of Jesus. This part of his thought has been less understood
and appropriated than other parts, and it is more needed today than ever.
Let us go at this study with the sense of handling something great, which
may have guiding force for our own lives. Let us work out for ourselves
the social meaning of the personality and thought of Jesus Christ, and be
prepared to face his challenge to the present social and economic order of
which we are part.
How did Jesus view the life and personality of the men about him? How did
he see the social relation which binds people together? What was the
reaction of his mind in face of the inequalities and sufferings of actual
society? If we can get hold of the convictions which were axiomatic and
immediate with him on these three questions, we shall have the key to his
social principles. We shall take them up in the first three chapters.
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Worth of a Child
And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should
touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it,
he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the
little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such
belongeth the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall
in no wise enter therein. And he took them in his arms, and
blessed them, laying his hands upon them.—Mark 10:13-16.
The child is humanity reduced to its simplest terms. Affectionate joy in
children is perhaps the purest expression of social feeling. Jesus was
indignant when the disciples thought children were not of sufficient
importance to occupy his attention. Compared with the selfish ambition of
grown-ups he felt something heavenly in children, a breath of the Kingdom
of God. They are nearer the Kingdom than those whom the world has smudged.
To inflict any spiritual injury on one of these little ones seemed to him
an inexpressible guilt. See Matthew 18:1-6.
_Can the moral standing of a community be fairly judged by the statistics
of child labor and infant mortality?_
_What prompts some young men to tyrannize over their younger brothers?_
_How does this passage and the principle of the sacredness of life bear on
the problem of eugenics?_
Second Day: The Humanity of a Leper
And when he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes
followed him. And behold, there came to him a leper, and
worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me
clean. And he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I
will; be thou made clean. And straightway his leprosy was
cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go,
show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them.—Matt. 8:1-4.
Whenever Jesus healed he rendered a social service to his fellows. The
spontaneous tenderness which he put into his contact with the sick was an
expression of his sense of the sacredness of life. A leper with fingerless
hands and decaying joints was repulsive to the æsthetic feelings and a
menace to selfish fear of infection. The community quarantined the lepers
in waste places by stoning them when they crossed bounds. (Remember Ben
Hur’s mother and sister.) Jesus not only healed this man, but his sense of
humanity so went out to him that “he stretched forth his hand and touched
him.” Even the most wretched specimen of humanity still had value to him.
_What is the social and moral importance of those professions which cure
or prevent sickness?_
_How would a strong religious sense of the sacredness of life affect
members of these professions?_
Third Day: The Moral Quality of Contempt
Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not
kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother
shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of
fire.—Matt. 5:21, 22.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus demanded that the standards of social
morality be raised to a new level. He proposed that the feeling of anger
and hate be treated as seriously as murder had been treated under the old
code, and if anyone went so far as to use hateful and contemptuous
expressions toward a fellow-man, it ought to be a case for the supreme
court. Of course this was simply a vivid form of putting it. The important
point is that Jesus ranged hate and contempt under the category of murder.
To abuse a man with words of contempt denies his worth, breaks down his
self-respect, and robs him of the regard of others. It is an attempt to
murder his soul. The horror which Jesus feels for such action is an
expression of his own respect for the worth of personality.
_How is the self-respect and sense of personal worth of men built up or
broken down in college communities?_
_How in industrial communities?_
Fourth Day: Bringing Back the Outcast
Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to
hear him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying,
This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man of you,
having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not
leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that
which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he
layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he
calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them,
Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say
unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one
sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous
persons, who need no repentance.
Or what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,
doth not light a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently
until she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth
together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, for I
have found the piece which I had lost. Even so, I say unto you,
there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner
that repenteth.—Luke 15:1-10.
Every Jewish community had a fringe of unchurched people, who could not
keep up the strict observance of the Law and had given up trying. The
pious people, just because they were pious, felt they must cold-shoulder
such. Jesus walked across the lines established. What seems to have been
the motive that prompted him? Why did the Pharisee withdraw, and why did
Jesus mix with the publicans?
_What groups in our own communities correspond to the __“__publicans and
sinners,__”__ and what is the attitude of religious people toward them?_
_What social groups in college towns are spoken of with contempt by
college men, and why?_
_Is there a Pharisaism of education? Define and locate it._
Fifth Day: The Problem of the Delinquents
For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was
lost.—Luke 19:10.
Here Jesus formulates the inner meaning and mission of his life as he
himself felt it. He was here for social restoration and moral salvage. No
human being should go to pieces if he could help it. He was not only
willing to help people who came to him for help, but he proposed to go
after them. The “lost” man was too valuable and sacred to be lost.
_How does the Christian impulse of salvation connect with the activities
represented in the National Conference of Charities and Correction?_
_How does a college community regard its __“__sinners__”__?_ Suppose a man
has an instinct for low amusements and a yellow sense of honor, how do the
higher forces in college life get at that man to set him right?
Sixth Day: Going Beyond Justice
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that was a
householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers
into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a
shilling a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out
about the third hour, and saw others standing in the marketplace
idle; and to them he said, Go ye also into the vineyard, and
whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.
Again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did
likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others
standing: and he saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day
idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He said
unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard. And when even was come,
the lord of the vineyard said unto his steward, Call the laborers,
and pay them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they
received every man a shilling. And when the first came, they
supposed that they would receive more; and they likewise received
every man a shilling. And when they received it, they murmured
against the householder, saying, These last have spent but one
hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, who have borne the
burden of the day and the scorching heat. But he answered and said
to one of them, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree
with me for a shilling? Take up that which is thine, and go thy
way; it is my will to give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? or is thine
eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the
first last.—Matt. 20:1-16.
Judaism rested on legality. So much obedience to the law earned so much
reward, according to the contract between God and Israel. Theoretically
this was just; practically it gave the inside track to the respectable and
well to do, for it took leisure and money to obey the minutiæ of the Law.
In this parable the employer rises from the level of justice to the higher
plane of human fellow-feeling. These eleventh-hour men had been ready to
work; they had to eat and live; he proposed to give them a living wage
because he felt an inner prompting to do so. In the parable of the
Prodigal Son the father does more for his son than justice required,
because he was a father. Here the employer does more because he is a man.
Each acted from a sense of the worth of the human life with which he was
dealing. It was the same sense of worth and sacredness in Jesus which
prompted him to invent these parables.
_Do we find ourselves valuing people according to their utility to us, or
do we have an active feeling of their human interest and worth?_ Let us
run over in our minds our family and relatives, our professors and
friends, and the people in town who serve us, and see with whom we are on
a human footing.
Seventh Day: The Courtesy of Jesus
And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all
the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And
the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and
having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this
woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law
Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?
And this they said, trying him that they might have whereof to
accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on
the ground. But when they continued asking him, he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let
him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down and with
his finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went
out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and
Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst.
And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are
they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And
Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth
sin no more.—John 8:2-11.
Was there ever a more gentlemanly handling of a raw situation? This woman
was going through one of the most harrowing experiences conceivable,
exposed to the gaze of a leering and scornful crowd, her good name torn
away, her self-respect crushed. Jesus shielded her from stoning by the
power of his personality and his consummate skill in handling men. He got
inside their guard, aroused their own sense of past guilt, and so awakened
some human fellow-feeling for the woman. When he was alone with her, what
a mingling of kindness and severity! Surely she would carry away the
memory of a wonderful friend who came to her in her dire need. Why did
Jesus twice turn his eyes away to the ground? Was he ashamed to look at
her shame?
Such a sudden, tragic happening is a severe test of a man’s qualities. It
brought out the courtesy of Jesus, his respect for human personality even
in its shame. _How can we train ourselves so that we may be equal to such
emergencies?_ Would continued spiritual contact with Jesus be likely to
make a difference?
Study for the Week
The passages we have studied are inductive material. Can there be any
doubt that Jesus had a spontaneous love for his fellow-men and a deep
sense of the sacredness of human personality? Physical deformity and moral
guilt could not obscure the divine worth of human life to him. To cause
any soul to stumble and go down, or to express contempt for any human
being, was to him a horrible guilt.
I
This regard for human life was based on the same social instinct which
every normal man possesses. But with Jesus it was so strong that it
determined all his viewpoints and activities. He affirmed the humane
instinct consciously and intelligently, and raised it to the dignity of a
social principle. This alone would be enough to mark him out as a new
type, prophetic and creative of a new development of the race.
Whence did Jesus derive the strength and purity of his social feeling? Was
it simply the endowment of a finely attuned nature? Other fine minds of
the ancient world valued men according to their wealth, their rank, their
power, their education, their beauty. Jesus valued men as such, apart from
any attractive equipment. Why? “The deeper our insight into human destiny
becomes, the more sacred does every individual human being seem to us”
(Lotze). The respect of Jesus for every concrete person whom he met was
due to his religious insight into human life and destiny. But how did he
get his insight?
Love and religion have the power of idealistic interpretation. To a mother
her child is a wonderful being. To a true lover the girl he loves has
sacredness. With Jesus the consciousness of a God of love revealed the
beauty of men. The old gods were despotic supermen, mythical duplicates of
the human kings and conquerors. The God of Jesus was the great Father who
lets his light shine on the just and the unjust, and offers forgiveness
and love to all. Jesus lived in the spiritual atmosphere of that faith.
Consequently he saw men from that point of view. They were to him children
of that God. Even the lowliest was high. The light that shone on him from
the face of God shed a splendor on the prosaic ranks of men. In this way
religion enriches and illuminates social feeling.
Jesus succeeded in transmitting something of his own sense of the
sacredness of life to his followers. As Wundt says: “Humanity in this
highest sense was brought into the world by Christianity.” The love of men
became a social dogma of the Church. Some other convictions of Jesus left
few traces on the common thought of Christendom, but the Church has always
stood for a high estimate of the potential worth of the soul of man. It
has always taught that man was made in God’s image and that he is destined
to share in the holiness and eternal life of God.
II
What effects has this registered on social conduct? Has the Church
intelligently resisted social forces or conditions which brutalized or
shamed men?
It is most difficult to estimate accurately the historic influence of
religious ideas. They are subtle and hard to trace. But we can justly
reason from our own observations in evangelism and foreign mission work.
Those of us who have gone through a clearly marked conversion to
Christianity will probably remember that we realized our fellow-men with a
new warmth and closeness, and under higher points of view. We were then
entering into the Christian valuation of human life. In foreign missions
the influence of Christianity can be contrasted with non-Christian social
life, and there is often a striking rise in the respect for life and
personality as compared with the hardness and callousness of heathen
society. This is one of the distinctive marks of the modern and Western
world compared with the ancient and the Oriental. Those individuals among
us who have really duplicated something of the spirit of Jesus are always
marked by their loving regard for human life, even its wreckage. That
sense of sacredness is the basis for the whole missionary and
philanthropic activity of Christian men and women.
It is also an important force in the social movements. Have there been any
widespread, continuous, and successful movements for social justice
outside of the territory influenced by Christianity? Was there any causal
connection between the historic reformation and purification of
Christianity since the sixteenth century and the rise of civil and social
democracy? Does the spread of Christian ideas and feelings predispose the
powerful classes to make concessions? What contribution did the Wesleyan
revival among the working people of England make toward the rise of the
trade union movement, the education of stable leaders, and the faith in
democracy? It takes idealistic convictions a long time to permeate large
social classes, but they often spring into effectiveness suddenly.
Certainly a belief in the worth and capacity of the common man is a
spiritual support of democratic institutions, and where the Church really
spread the Christian sense of the worth and sacredness of human life, it
has been a great stabilizer of civil liberty.
Jesus asserted with religious power what all men feel. Sometimes it
requires the solemn presence of death to brush aside the artificial
distinctions of society and to make us realize that a life is a life, and
precious as such. But when we are at our best, we do feel the sacredness
of human life.
III
Does our present social order develop or neutralize that feeling in us?
Presumably it works both ways. For those who want to spread the spirit of
Christ, it becomes important to inquire at what points our social
institutions cheapen life and take the value out of personality.
The class differences inherited from the past are designed to hedge the
upper classes about with honor, but they necessarily depreciate the lower
classes by contrast and neutralize the tie of the common blood. In some
countries the self-respect of the lower classes is affronted by degrading
forms of legal punishment reserved for them. Forms of servility are
exacted from servants and peasants. The practical working of class
differences is most clearly seen in the relation of the sexes. Love is a
great equalizer; hence it clashes with class pride. The plot of
innumerable dramas and novels turns on the efforts of love to overcome the
laws of social caste. Where class spirit is traditional and fully
developed, men have a double code for the women of their own class, and
those of the lower classes. It is a far greater offense for a gentleman to
marry a girl of the lower class than to ruin her.
It is the glory of America that our laws do not intend to recognize class
differences. The conditions of life on a raw continent and the principles
embodied in religious and political idealism fortunately cooperated. Will
this last, or are the great differences in wealth once more resulting in
definite class lines and in class pride and contempt? What does the phrase
“of good family” imply by contrast? What evidence does college fraternity
life offer as to the existence of social classes? How is immigration
likely to increase the cleavages by adding differences of race and color,
religion, language, and manners? What light does the history of
immigration in America cast on our valuation of human life in strangers?
Political oligarchies have usually defended their rule by the assumption
that the masses are incapable and the few are superior. The laws made by
them, however, have usually shown ignorance and indifference as to the
human needs of the working masses. The same fundamental adjustment exists
in industry. It is not an expression of the worth of the working people if
they have no right to organize or to share in governing the conditions
under which they work, and if years of good work earn a man no ownership
or equity, no legal standing or even tenure of employment in a business.
Is the right to petition for a redress of grievances an adequate
industrial expression of the Christian doctrine of the worth and
sacredness of personality? Is not property essential to the real freedom
and self-expression of a human personality?
War and prostitution are the most flagrant offenses against this social
principle. War is a wholesale waster of life. Prostitution is the worst
form of contempt for personality.
Does our intellectual and scientific work ever tend to chill the warm
sense of human values? Do we acquire something of the impassiveness of
Nature in studying her enormous waste of life? Do we transfer to human
affairs her readiness to use up the masses in order to produce a higher
type? Jesus did not talk about eliminating the unfit. He talked about
saving them, which requires greater constructive energy if it is really to
be done. It also requires a higher faith in the latent recuperative
capacities of human nature. The detached attitude of scientific study may
combine with our plentiful natural egotism to create a cold indifference
toward the less attractive masses of humanity. We need the glow of
Christ’s feeling for men to come unharmed out of this intellectual
temptation.
IV
Doubtless the objection has arisen in our minds that it is not in the
interest of the future of the race that religious pity shall coddle and
multiply the weak, or put them in control of society.
But did Jesus want the weak to stay weak? Was his social feeling ever
maudlin? He was himself a powerful and free personality, who refused to be
suppressed or conformed to the dominant type. He challenged the existing
authorities, one against the field. Even in the slender record we have of
him we can see him running the gamut of emotions from wrath and invective
to tenderness and humor. It was precisely his own powerful individuality
which made him demand for others the right to become free and strong
souls. Other powerful individuals have used up the rest as means to their
end. What human life or character did Jesus weaken or break down? He was
an emancipator, a creator of strong men. His followers in later times did
lay a new yoke on the spirits of men and denied them the right to think
their own thoughts and be themselves. But the spirit of Jesus is an
awakening force. Even the down-and-out brace up when they come in contact
with him, and feel that they are still good for something.
“Jesus Christ was the first to bring the value of every human soul to
light, and what he did no one can any more undo” (Harnack). But it remains
for every individual to accept and reaffirm that religious faith as his
own guiding principle according to which he proposes to live. We shall be
at one with the spirit of Christianity and of modern civilization if we
approach all men with the expectation of finding beneath commonplace,
sordid, or even repulsive externals some qualities of love, loyalty,
heroism, aspiration, or repentance, which prove the divine in man. Kant
expressed that reverence for personality in his doctrine that we must
never treat a man as a means only, but always as an end in himself. So far
as our civilization treats men merely as labor force, fit to produce
wealth for the few, it is not yet Christian. Any man who treats his
fellows in that way, blunts his higher nature; as Fichte says, whoever
treats another as a slave, becomes a slave. We might add, whoever treats
him as a child of God, becomes a child of God and learns to know God.
“The principle of reverence for personality is the ruling principle in
ethics, and in religion; it constitutes, therefore, the truest and highest
test of either an individual or a civilization; it has been, even
unconsciously, the guiding and determining principle in all human
progress; and in its religious interpretation, it is, indeed, the one
faith that keeps meaning and value for life” (President Henry C. King).
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Ordinary Estimate of Men_
1. How much do we care for a man if he is of no practical use to us?
2. On what basis do we ordinarily value men?
II. _Jesus’ Estimate of Men_
1. Which source passages in the daily readings seemed to put the feeling
of Jesus in the clearest light?
2. How did the religious insight of Jesus reenforce his social feeling?
3. To what extent is it possible to duplicate his sense of humanity
without his consciousness of God?
III. _The Valuation of the Individual in Modern Life_
1. List the evidences that modern society values men as such apart from
economic utility or standing, or show that it does not so value them.
2. Is the tendency in modern life toward a lower or higher valuation of
the individual? To what extent is this due to the influence of
Christianity?
3. How do the statistics of industrial accidents agree with our Christian
valuation of life?
IV. _The Test of History_
1. What widespread and successful movements for social justice have there
been outside the territory influenced by Christianity?
2. How do modern missions serve as an experiment station for the problem
of this chapter?
3. What connection was there between the Wesleyan revival and the rise of
the trade union movement in England?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. Do permanent class differences necessarily result in a slighter social
feeling for the inferior class?
2. Describe the class lines drawn in your home town.
3. Did you feel these lines more or less when you entered college?
4. Does college life tend to make us callous or sympathetic?
5. Does life in social settlements seem to increase or decrease respect
for human nature in college men and women?
6. How would you preserve your self-respect if you were a working man
placed in degrading labor conditions?
7. Does an honor system build up self-respect?
8. Have your scientific studies, and especially evolutionary teachings,
increased your regard for humanity in the mass?
9. According to your observation, does religion make a man a stronger or
weaker personality?
Chapter II. The Solidarity Of The Human Family
Every man has worth and sacredness as a man. We fixed on that as the
simplest and most fundamental social principle of Jesus. The second
question is, What relation do men bear to each other?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Social Impulse and the Law of Christ
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him:
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said
unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and
first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole
law hangeth, and the prophets.—Matt. 22:35-40.
Which among the multitudinous prescriptions of the Jewish law ought to
take precedence of the rest? It was a fine academic question for church
lawyers to discuss. Jesus passed by all ceremonial and ecclesiastical
requirements, and put his hand on love as the central law of life, both in
religion and ethics. It was a great simplification and spiritualization of
religion. But love is the social instinct which binds man and man together
and makes them indispensable to one another. Whoever demands love, demands
solidarity. Whoever sets love first, sets fellowship high.
_When Jesus speaks of love, what more than mere emotion does he mean?_
_Is love really the highest thing?_
_What do you think of the epigram of Augustine:_ AMA ET FAC QUOD VIS?
Second Day: Jesus Craving Friendship
Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and
saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I go yonder and pray.
And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began
to be sorrowful and sore troubled. Then saith he unto them, My
soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: abide ye here, and
watch with me. And he went forward a little, and fell on his face,
and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.
And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them sleeping, and
saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch
and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is weak. Again a second time he went away,
and prayed, saying, My Father, if this cannot pass away, except I
drink it, thy will be done. And he came again and found them
sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And he left them again, and
went away, and prayed a third time, saying again the same words.
Then cometh he to the disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on
now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son
of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be
going: behold, he is at hand that betrayeth me.—Matt. 26:36-46.
Jesus was personally very sociable. He evidently enjoyed mixing with
people. He liked the give-and-take of life. He had friendships. A group of
men and women gathered around him who gave him their devoted loyalty. He
in turn needed them. The denial of Peter and the betrayal of Judas hurt
him, partly because they were defections from the comradeship of his
group. In Gethsemane he craved friendship. He prayed to God, but he
reached out for Peter and John. The longing for friendship and the unrest
of loneliness are proof of a truly human and social nature.
_In how far is a need for others a sign of strength or of weakness?_
_What connection has the spirit of a team, or the loyalty of a college
class, with the Christian law of love?_
Third Day: Restoring Solidarity
Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother
sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? Jesus saith
unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until
seventy times seven.—Matt. 18:21-22.
Love binds together; hate and anger cut apart. They destroy fellowship.
Therefore the chief effort of the Christian spirit must be to reestablish
fellowship wherever men have been sundered by ill-will. This is done by
confession and forgiveness. Forgiveness was so important to Jesus because
social unity was so important to him. In the Lord’s Prayer he makes full
fellowship with men a condition of full fellowship with God: “Forgive us
our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors.”
Are there any personal injuries which are beyond forgiveness?
_Think back to any striking experience of forgiving or being forgiven.
What was the religious and moral reaction on your life?_
Fourth Day: The Christian Intensification of Love
Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us: and we
ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath the
world’s goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up
his compassion from him, how doth the love of God abide in him? My
little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue;
but in deed and truth.—1 John 3:16-18.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every
one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that
loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. Herein was the love
of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son
into the world that we might live through him.—1 John 4:7-9.
Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No
man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God
abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us.—1 John 4:11-12.
These are quotations from one of the early Christian writings. They are
evidence of the emphasis put on love as a distinctive doctrine of the new
religion. Note how the natural social instinct of human affection is
intensified and uplifted by religious motives and forces. Which of these
motives are directly taken from the personality and life of Christ?
_Do you remember any quotations from non-Christian literature in which a
similar love for love is expressed?_
Fifth Day: Solidaristic Responsibility
Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty
works were done, because they repented not. Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had
been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would
have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you,
it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of
judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted
unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: for if the mighty
works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would
have remained until this day. But I say unto you that it shall be
more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than
for thee.—Matt. 11:20-24.
We know that by constant common action a social group develops a common
spirit and common standards of action, which then assimilate and
standardize the actions of its members. Jesus felt the solidarity of the
neighborhood groups in Galilee with whom he mingled. He treated them as
composite personalities, jointly responsible for their moral decisions.
_What groups of which we have been a part in the past have stamped us with
the group character for good or evil? How about those of which we are now
a part?_
_What have we learned from the Great War about national solidarity?_
Sixth Day: The Solidarity of the Generations
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the
sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the
righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we
should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the
prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of
them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your
fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape
the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets,
and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify;
and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the
righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye
slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you,
All these things shall come upon this generation.—Matt. 23:29-36.
Jesus saw a moral solidarity existing, not only between contemporaries who
act together, but between generations that act alike. Every generation
clings to its profitable wrongs and tries to silence those who stand for
higher righteousness. Posterity takes comfort in being fairer about the
dead issues, but is just as hot and bad about present issues. The sons
reenact the old tragedies on a new stage, and so line up with their
fathers. In looking back over the history of his nation, Jesus saw a
continuity of wrong which bound the generations together in a solidarity
of guilt.
_Does the connection consist only in similarity of action, or is there a
causal continuity of wrong in the life of a community?_
_Is there anything in our personal family history or family wealth and
business which threatens to line us up with past evils?_
Seventh Day: Social Consciousness in the Lord’s Prayer
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in
heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive
us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And bring us
not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.—Matt.
6:9-13.
_Is there anything more solitary than a human soul calling to the
invisible Presence? Is there anything more social in consciousness than
the Lord’s Prayer?_
_Where in these petitions do you feel the sense of social coherence as the
unspoken presupposition of the thought?_(_1_)
_Could Jesus have thought this prayer if the unity of the race had not
been both an instinctive reality and a clear social principle with him?_
Study for the Week
That man is a social being is the fundamental fact with which all social
sciences have to deal. We may like or dislike people; we can not well be
indifferent to them if they get close to us. As Sartor Resartus puts it:
“In vain thou deniest it; thou _art_ my brother. Thy very hatred, thy very
envy, those foolish lies thou tellest of me in thy splenetic humour; what
is all this but an inverted sympathy? Were I a steam-engine, wouldst thou
take the trouble to tell lies of me?”
Sex admiration, parental love, “the dear love of comrades,” the thrill of
patriotism, the joy of play, are all forms of fellowship. They give us
happiness because they satisfy our social instinct. To realize our unity
gives relish to life. To be thrust out of fellowship is the great pain.
Many evil things get their attractiveness mainly through the fact that
they create a bit of fellowship—such as it is. The slender thread of good
in the saloon is comradeship. (See Jack London, “John Barleycorn.”)
I
None ever felt this social unity of our race more deeply than Jesus. To
him it was sacred and divine. Hence his emphasis on love and forgiveness.
He put his personality behind the natural instinct of social attraction
and encouraged it. He swung the great force of religion around to bear on
it and drive it home. Anything that substitutes antagonism for fraternity
is evil to him. Just as in the case of the natural respect for human life
and personality, so in the case of the natural social cohesion of men, he
lifted the blind instinct of human nature by the insight of religion and
constituted it a fundamental principle of life. It is the business of
Christianity to widen the area of comradeship.
Common human judgment assents to the valuation of Jesus. Wherever an
effective and stable form of fellowship has been created, a sense of
sacredness begins to attach to it, and men defend it as a sort of shrine
of the divine in man. Wherever men are striving to create a larger
fellowship, they have religious enthusiasm as if they were building a
temple for God. This is the heart of church loyalty.
The family is the most striking case of solidarity. It is first formed of
two units at opposite poles in point of sex, experience, taste, need, and
aims; and when they form it, they usually have as much sense of sacredness
as their character is capable of feeling. When children are added, more
divergences of age, capacity, and need are injected. Yet out of these
contradictory elements a social fellowship is built up, which, in the
immense majority of cases, defies the shocks of life and the strain of
changing moods and needs, forms the chief source of contentment for the
majority of men and women, and, when conspicuously successful, wins the
spontaneous tribute of reverence from all right-thinking persons. In using
the equipment of the home, in standing by one another in time of sickness
and trouble, and in spiritual sympathy, a true family practices solidarity
of interests, and furnishes the chief education in cooperation.
Political unity was at first an expansion of family unity. The passionate
loyalty with which a nation defends its country and its freedom, is not
simply a defence of real estate and livestock, but of its national
brotherhood and solidarity. The devotion with which people suffer and die
for their State is all the more remarkable because all States hitherto
have been largely organizations for coercion and exploitation, and only in
part real fraternal communities. Patriotism hitherto has been largely a
prophetic outreaching toward a great fellowship nowhere realized. The
peoples walk by faith.
What evidence does college life furnish us of the fact that social unity
is realized with some sense of sacredness? Why do the years in college
stand out in the later memories of graduates with such a glamour? Why do
students devote so much unpaid service to their teams and fraternities? Is
it for the selfish advantages they hope to get, or because they feel they
are realizing the best of life in being part of a solidaristic group? Do
the dangers of college organizations prove or disprove the principle that
fellowship is felt to be something sacred?
Any historical event in which men stood by their group through suffering
or to death is remembered with pride. Any case of desertion or betrayal is
remembered with shame. No group forgives those who sell out its solidarity
for private safety or profit.
Insurance and cooperation are two great demonstrations of the power of
solidarity. In insurance we bear one another’s burdens, “and so fulfil the
law of Christ.” The cooperative associations, which have had such enormous
success in Europe, succeed only where neighborhood or common idealistic
conviction has previously established a consciousness of social unity.
They have to overcome the most adverse conditions in achieving success.
When they do, the effect on the economic prosperity of the people and on
their moral stability and progressiveness is remarkable.
II
Thus the instincts of the race assent to the social principle of Jesus,
that fellowship is sacred. The chief law of Christianity does not
contradict the social nature of man but expresses and reenforces it. It is
the special function of Christians to promote social unity and expand its
blessings. To do this intelligently we should take note where, at present,
solidarity is frustrated.
For instance, it is important to inquire how social unity is negatived in
commercial life. Is competition necessarily unfraternal? Would a Socialist
organization of society necessarily be fraternal? Is it a denial of
fellowship to exact monopoly profit from consumers, or to take advantage
of the ignorance or necessities of a buyer? Is the law of the market
compatible with a fraternal conception of society?
Where can you trace the principle of solidarity actually at work in
industrial life? Give cases where you have observed a real sense of human
coherence and loyalty between employer and employes. How had the feeling
been promoted in those cases and what effect did it have on the economic
relations of the two groups? Why is the feeling of antagonism between
these groups so common? Does the wages system make this inevitable? How
ought we to value the willingness of organized labor to stand together,
especially on strike, and what connection does the bitterness toward
“scabs” have with our subject?
War is a rupture of fellowship on a large scale. The Great War of 1914 has
been the most extensive demonstration of the collapse of love which any of
us wants to see. As soon as one nation no longer recognizes its social
unity with another nation, all morality collapses, and a deluge of hate,
cruelty, and lies follows. The problem of international peace is the
problem of expanding the area of love and social unity. It is the sin of
Christendom that so few took this problem seriously until we were
chastised for our moral stupidity and inertia. The young men and women of
today will have to take this problem on their intellect and conscience for
their lifetime, and propose to see it through.
III
Does religion create social unity or neutralize it? Does prayer isolate or
connect? Has the force of religion in human history done more to divide or
to consolidate men?
Evidently religion may work both ways, and all who are interested in it
must see to it that their religion does not escape control and wreck
fraternity. Even mystic prayer and contemplation, which is commonly
regarded as the flower of religious life, may make men indifferent to
their fellows.
It is worth noting that the prayer experiences of Jesus were not ascetic
or unsocial. They prepared him for action. When he went into the desert
after his baptism it was to settle the principles on which his Messianic
work was to be done; his temptations prove that. When he went out from
Capernaum to pray “a great while before day,” it was to launch his
aggressive missionary campaign among the Galilæan villages. Prayer may be
an emotional dissipation. Prayer is Christian only if it makes us realize
our fellows more keenly and affectionately.
It is one thing to praise love and another thing to practice it. We may
theorize about society and ourselves be contrary and selfish units in it.
Social unity is an achievement. A loving mind toward our fellows, even the
cranky, is the prize of a lifetime. How can it be evoked and cultivated in
us? That is one of the most important problems in education. Can it be
solved without religious influences? Love will not up at the bidding. We
can observe the fact that personal discipleship of Christ has given some
persons in our acquaintance a rare capacity for love, for social sympathy,
for peaceableness, for all the society-making qualities. We can make test
of the fact for ourselves that every real contact with him gives us an
accession of fraternity and greater fitness for nobler social unity. It
makes us good fellows.
IV
The man who intelligently realizes the Chinese and the Zulu as his
brothers with whom he must share the earth, is an ampler mind—other things
being equal—than the man who can think of humanity only in terms of
pale-faces. The consciousness of humanity will have to be wrought out just
as the consciousness of nationality was gradually acquired. He who has it
is ahead of his time and a pioneer of the future. The missionary puts
himself in the position to acquire that wider sense of solidarity. By
becoming a neighbor to remote people he broadens their conception of
humanity and his own, and then can be an interpreter of his new friends to
his old friends. The interest in foreign missions has, in fact, been a
prime educational force, carrying a world-wide consciousness of solidarity
into thousands of plain minds and hones that would otherwise have been
provincial in their horizon.
A world-wide civilization must have a common monotheistic faith as its
spiritual basis. Such a faith must be unitive and not divisive. What the
world needs is a religion with a powerful sense of solidarity.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _Solidarity in Human Life_
1. Are comradeship and team-work instinctive, or must they be learned?
2. Do the symptoms of hatred prove or disprove social unity?
3. Does a strong sense of social unity make a vigorous individualism
harder to maintain?
II. _Christianity and Solidarity_
1. Give proof that Jesus felt a human hunger for companionship.
2. How does the place assigned to love in the teachings of Jesus bear on
solidarity? How does the duty of forgiveness connect with this?
3. How does the spirit of the Lord’s Prayer prove the place of solidarity
in Christianity?
III. _Jesus and the Social Groups_
1. Where did Jesus treat communities as composite personalities? Would it
be equally just today to hold cities responsible as moral units?
2. How did Jesus trace a moral solidarity between generations?
IV. _Solidarity in Modern Life_
1. Where do you see the principle of solidarity accepted and where do you
see it denied in modern social life?
2. In what way does war outrage Jesus’ principles of social unity? Does it
ever promote fraternity and solidarity? If so how?
3. Is class consciousness a denial of social solidarity or an approach to
it? How can group loyalty be made to contribute to the common weal?
4. How should we value the willingness of organized labor to stand
together, particularly on strike? What light does bitterness toward scabs
throw on social solidarity?
5. Why is the feeling of antagonism between employer and employe so
common? Does a wage system make this inevitable? Can a real sense of
cooperation be secured? If so how?
6. If a manufacturer has a monopoly, how much profit will loyalty to
Christian principles permit him to make?
7. When is competition unfraternal? Would socialism insure fraternity?
8. Do college fraternities practice fraternity?
V. _Strengthening Solidarity_
1. How can the law of love be made the basis of modern business?
2. Does religion create social unity or neutralize it? How about prayer?
3. How does the Christian law of love bear on the relations of the races
in America?
4. What have Christian missions done to lead society from the
nationalistic to the international and inter-racial stage?
5. Can world-wide social unity be secured without the influence of
Christianity?
VI. _For Special Discussion_
1. To what extent does our present commercial and industrial organization
furnish a basis for experience of solidarity and education in it?
2. What aspects of modern advertising are Christian and which are
non-Christian?
3. To what extent is the law of the market compatible with a fraternal
conception of society?
4. Would a successful socialist organization create a stronger sense of
solidarity or would divisive interests get in by new ways?
5. Which has the better inducements to loyalty, a college, or a trade
union? Which has more of it?
6. How does the team spirit go wrong among students?
Chapter III. Standing With The People
We have found two simple and axiomatic social principles in the
fundamental convictions of Jesus: The sacredness of life and personality,
and the spiritual solidarity of men. Now confront a mind mastered by these
convictions with the actual conditions of society, with the contempt for
life and the denial of social obligation existing, and how will he react?
How will he see the duty of the strong, and his own duty?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Social Platform of Jesus
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and he
entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue on the sabbath day,
and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of
the prophet Isaiah. And he opened the book, and found the place
where it was written,
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor:
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovering of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty them that are bruised,
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat
down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him.
And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been
fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at
the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth: and they
said, Is not this Joseph’s son?—Luke 4:16-22.
Luke evidently felt that this appearance of Jesus in the synagogue of his
home city at the outset of his public work was a significant occasion. The
passage from Isaiah (61:1f) was doubtless one of the favorite quotations
of Jesus. He saw his own aims summarized in it and he now announced it as
his program. Its promises were now about to be realized. What were they?
Glad tidings for the poor, release for the imprisoned, sight for the
blind, freedom for the oppressed, and a “year of Jehovah.” If this was an
allusion to the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25), it involved a revolutionary
“shedding of burdens,” such as Solon brought about at Athens. At any rate,
social and religious emancipation are woven together in these phrases.
Plainly Jesus saw his mission in raising to free and full life those whom
life had held down and hurt.
“As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them.” Must the
platform of Jesus be our platform and program?
Second Day: The Social Test of the Messiah
And the disciples of John told him of all these things. And John
calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to the Lord,
saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? And when
the men were come unto him, they said, John the Baptist hath sent
us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for
another? In that hour he cured many of diseases and plagues and
evil spirits; and on many that were blind he bestowed sight. And
he answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which
ye have seen and heard; the blind receive their sight, the lame
walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are
raised up, the poor have good tidings preached to them. And
blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in
me. Luke 7:18-23.
Was Jesus the Coming One? He did not quite measure up to John’s
expectations. The Messiah was to purge the people of evil elements,
winnowing the chaff from the wheat and burning it. His symbol was the axe.
Jesus was manifesting no such spirit. Was he then the Messiah?
Jesus shifted the test to another field. Human suffering was being
relieved and the poor were having glad news proclaimed to them. Sympathy
for the people was the assured common ground between Jesus and John. Jesus
felt that John would recognize the dawn of the reign of God by the
evidence which he offered him.
What, then, would be proper evidence that the reign of God is gaining
ground in our intellect and feeling?
Third Day: The Church, a Product of Social Feeling
And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in
their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and
healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness. But when
he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them,
because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a
shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest indeed is
plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of
the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest. And he
called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over
unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of
disease and all manner of sickness.—Matt. 9:35-10:1.
The selection of the Twelve, their grouping by twos, and their employment
as independent messengers, was the most important organizing act of Jesus.
Out of it ultimately grew the Christian Church. Now note what motives led
to it. Jesus was relieving social misery. He was oppressed by the sense of
it. The Greek verbs are very inadequately rendered by “distressed and
scattered.” The first means “skinned, harried”; the second means “flung
down, prostrate.” The people were like a flock of sheep after the wolves
are through with them. There was dearth of true leaders. So Jesus took the
material he had and organized the apostolate—for what? The Church grew out
of the social feeling of Jesus for the sufferings of the common people.
To what extent, in your judgment, does the Church today share the feeling
of Jesus about the condition of the people and fulfil the purpose for
which he organized the apostolate? Or has the condition of the people
changed so that their social needs are less urgent?
Fourth Day: Jesus Took Sides
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed are
ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that
hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now:
for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and
when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you,
and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Rejoice
in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in
heaven; for in the same manner did their fathers unto the
prophets. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received
your consolation. Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall
hunger. Woe unto you, ye that laugh now for ye shall mourn and
weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for in
the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.—Luke
6:20-26.
In these Beatitudes, as Luke reports them, Jesus clearly takes sides with
the lowly. He says God and the future are not on the side of the rich, the
satiated; the devotees of pleasure, the people who take the popular side
on everything. Ultimately the verdict will be for those who are now poor
and underfed, who carry the heavy end of things, and who have to stand for
the unpopular side. In the report of the Beatitudes given by Matthew
(5:3-12) the terms are less social and more spiritual, and the contrast
between the upper and lower classes is not marked; but even there the
promise of the great reversal of things is to the humble and peaceable
folk, the hard hit and unpopular; they are to inherit the earth, and also
God’s kingdom.
Would it make Jesus a wiser teacher and nobler figure if he had reversed
his sympathies?
Fifth Day: Salvation through the Common People
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst
hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst
reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing
in thy sight.—Luke 10:21.
For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God chose
the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them
that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he
might put to shame the things that are strong; and the base things
of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose,
yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the
things that are: that no flesh should glory before God.—1 Cor
1:26-29.
The actual results of his work proved to Jesus that his success was to be
with the simple-minded, and not with the pundit class. He accepted the
fact with a thrill of joy, and praised God for making it so. Paul verified
the same alignment in the early Church. The upper classes held back
through pride of birth or education, or through the timidity of wealth. In
bringing in a new order of things, God had to use plain people to get a
leverage.
_What really was it that Jesus saw in the lowly to attract him?_
Sixth Day: Jesus, a Man of the People
And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and came unto Bethphage,
unto the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying
unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and
straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose
them, and bring them unto me. And if any one say aught unto you,
ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will
send them. Now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken through the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Zion,
Behold, thy King cometh unto thee,
Meek, and riding upon an ass,
And upon a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did even as Jesus appointed them, and
brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and
he sat thereon. And the most part of the multitude spread their
garments in the way; and others cut branches from the trees, and
spread them in the way. And the multitudes that went before him,
and that followed, cried saying, Hosanna to the son of David:
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the
highest. And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was
stirred, saying, Who is this? And the multitudes said, This is the
prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee.—Matt. 21:1-11.
Here was a democratic procession! No caparisoned charger, but a
burro—though a young and frisky one, carefully selected—no military escort
with a brass band and a drum major, but a throng of peasants, shouting the
psalms of their fathers and the hope of a good time coming; no costly rugs
to carpet the way of the King, but the sweat-stained garments of working
people and branches wrenched off by Galilæan fists. What was he, this King
of the future, ridiculous or sublime?
If Jesus is ever to make his entry into the spiritual sovereignty of
humanity, will the social classes line up as they did at Jerusalem?
Seventh Day: The Final Test for All
But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the
angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and
before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall
separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the
sheep from the goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right
hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them
on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I
was hungry, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed
me; I was sick, and ye visited me; I was in prison, and ye came
unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when
saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or athirst, and gave thee drink?
And when saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and
clothed thee? And when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came
unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I
say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren,
even these least, ye did it unto me. Then shall he say also unto
them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal
fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was
hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave
me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and
ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in
prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them,
saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one
of these least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away
into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal
life.—Matt. 25:31-46.
“Whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” Think of
it—absolute justice done at last, by an all-knowing Judge, where no
earthly pull of birth, wealth, learning, or power will count, and where
all masks fall! By what code of law and what standard shall we be judged
there? Here is the answer of Jesus: Not by creed and church questions, but
by our human relations; by the reality of our social feeling; by our
practical solidarity with our fellow-men. If we lived in the presence of
hunger, loneliness, and oppression, in the same country with child labor,
race contempt, the long day, rack rents, prostitution, just earnings
withheld by power, the price of living raised to swell swollen profit—if
we saw such things and remained apathetic, out we go.
_You and I—to the right or the left?_
Study for the Week
No one can turn from a frank reading of the Gospels without realizing that
Jesus had a deep fellow-feeling, not only for suffering and handicapped
individuals, but for the mass of the poorer people of his country, the
peasants, the fishermen, the artisans. He declared that it was his mission
to bring glad tidings to this class; and not only glad words, but happy
realities. Evidently the expectation of the coming Reign of God to his
mind signified some substantial relief and release to the submerged and
oppressed. Our modern human feeling glories in this side of our Saviour’s
work. Art and literature love to see him from this angle.
I
His concern for the poor was the necessary result of the two fundamental
convictions discussed by us in the previous chapters. If he felt the
sacredness of life, even in its humble and hardworn forms, and if he felt
the family unity of all men in such a way that the sorrows of the poor
were his sorrows, then, of course, he could not be at ease while the
people were “skinned and prostrate,” “like sheep without a shepherd.”
Wherever any group has developed real solidarity, its best attention is
always given to those who are most in need. “The whole have no need of a
physician,” said Jesus; the strong can take care of themselves.
So he cast in his lot with the people consciously. He slept in their
homes, healed their diseases, ate their bread, and shared his own with
them. He gave them a faith, a hope of better days, and a sense that God
was on their side. Such a faith is more than meat and drink. In turn they
rallied around him, and could not get enough of him. “The common people
heard him gladly.”
Furthermore, the feeling of Jesus for “the poor” was not the sort of
compassion we feel for the hopelessly crippled in body or mind. His
feeling was one of love and trust. The Galilæan peasants, from whom Peter
and John sprang, were not morons, or the sodden dregs of city slums. They
were the patient, hard-working folks who have always made up the rank and
file of all peoples. They had their faults, and Jesus must have known
them. But did he ever denounce them, or call them “offspring of vipers”?
Did he ever indicate that their special vices were frustrating the Kingdom
of God? They needed spiritual impulse and leadership, but their nature was
sound and they were the raw material for the redeemed humanity which he
strove to create.
II
There is one more quality which we shall have to recognize in the attitude
of Jesus to “the poor.” He saw them over against “the rich.” Amid all the
variations of human society these two groups always reappear—those who
live by their own productive labor, and those who live on the productive
labor of others whom they control. Practically they overlap and blend, but
when our perspective is distant enough, we can distinguish them. In Greek
and Roman society, in medieval life, and in all civilized nations of
today—barring, of course, our own—we can see them side by side. Each
conditions the other; neither would exist without the other. Each class
develops its own moral and spiritual habits, its own set of virtues and
vices. Some of us were born in the upper class, some in the lower; and in
college groups the majority come from the border line. By instinct, by the
experiences of life, or by national reflection, we usually give our moral
allegiance to one or the other, and are then apt to lean to that side in
every question arising.
Now, Jesus took sides with the group of toil. He stood up for them. He
stood with them. We can not help seeing him with his arm thrown in
protection about the poor man, and his other hand raised in warning to the
rich. If we are in any doubt about this, we can let his contemporaries
decide it for us. Plainly the common people claimed him as their friend.
Did the governing classes have the same feeling for him? It seems hard to
escape the conclusion that Jesus was not impartial between the two. Was he
nevertheless just? To the æsthetic sense, and also to a superficial moral
judgment, the upper classes are everywhere more congenial and attractive.
To the moral judgment of Jesus, as we shall see more fully in a later
chapter, there was something disquieting and dangerous about the spiritual
qualities of “the rich,” and something lovable and hopeful about the
qualities of the common man. Was he right? This is a very important
practical question for all who are disposed to follow his moral
leadership.
The perception that Jesus championed the people can be found throughout
literature and art. Our own Lowell has expressed it in his “Parable” in
which he describes Jesus coming back to earth to see “how the men, my
brethren, believe in me.”
“Have ye founded your thrones and altars, then,
On the bodies and souls of living men?
And think ye that building shall endure,
Which shelters the noble and crushes the poor?
“With gates of silver and bars of gold
Ye have fenced my sheep from their Father’s fold;
I have heard the dropping of their tears
In heaven these eighteen hundred years.
“Then Christ sought out an artisan,
A low-browed, stunted, haggard man,
And a motherless girl, whose fingers thin,
Pushed from her faintly want and sin.
“These set he in the midst of them,
And as they drew back their garment-hem
For fear of defilement, “Lo, here,” said he,
‘The images ye have made of me.’ ”
III
We shall get the historical setting for Christ’s championship of the
people by going back to the Old Testament prophets. They were his
spiritual forebears. He nourished his mind on their writings and loved to
quote them. Now, the Hebrew prophets with one accord stood up for the
common people and laid the blame for social wrong on the powerful classes.
They underlined no other sin with such scarlet marks as the sins of
injustice, oppression, and the corruption of judges. But these are the
sins which bear down the lowly, and have always been practiced and hushed
up by the powerful. “Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that oppress the
poor, that crush the needy.... Ye trample upon the poor, and take
exactions from him of wheat; ... ye that afflict the just, that take a
bribe, and that turn aside the needy in the gate from their right.... For
three transgressions of Israel, yea, for four, I will not turn away the
punishment thereof; because they have sold the righteous for silver, and
the needy for a pair of shoes; they that pant after the dust of the earth
on the head of the poor” (Amos 4:1; 5:11-12; 2:6-7). Micah describes the
strong and crafty crowding the peasant from his ancestral holding and the
mother from her home by the devices always used for such ends, exorbitant
interest on loans, foreclosure in times of distress, “seeing the judge”
before the trial, and hardness of heart toward broken life and happiness
(Micah 2:1-2; 2:9; 3:1-2). We cannot belittle the moral insight of that
unique succession of men. Their spiritual force is still hard at work in
our Christian civilization, especially in the contribution which the
Jewish people are making to the labor movement.
IV
Among the Greeks and Romans political and literary life was so completely
dominated by the aristocratic class that no such succession of champions
of the common man could well arise. Yet some of the men of whom posterity
thinks with most veneration were upper-class champions of the common
people—Solon, for instance, Manlius, and the Gracchi.
In recent centuries the vast forces of social evolution seem to have set
in the direction toward which Jesus faced. Since the Reformation the
institutions of religion have been more or less democratized. The common
people have secured some participation in political power and have been
able to use it somewhat for their economic betterment. They share much
more fully in education than formerly. Before the outbreak of the Great
War it seemed safe to anticipate that the working people would secure an
increasing share of the social wealth, the security, the opportunities for
health, for artistic enjoyment, and of all that makes life worth living.
Today the future is heavily clouded and uncertain; but our faith still
holds that even the great disaster will help ultimately to weaken the
despotic and exploiting forces, and make the condition of the common
people more than ever the chief concern of science and statesmanship.
Jesus was on the side of the common people long before democracy was on
the ascendant. He loved them, felt their worth, trusted their latent
capacities, and promised them the Kingdom of God. The religion he founded,
even when impure and under the control of the upper classes, has been the
historical basis for the aspirations of the common people and has readily
united with democratic movements. His personality and spirit has remained
an impelling and directing force in the minds of many individuals who have
“gone to the people” because they know Jesus is with them. In fact we can
look for more direct social effectiveness of Jesus in the future, because
the new historical interpretation of the Bible helps us to see him more
plainly amid the social life of his own people.
V
So we must add a third social principle to the first two. The first was
that life and personality are sacred; the second that men belong together;
the third is that the strong must stand with the weak and defend their
cause. In his description of the Messianic Judgment, Jesus proposed to
recognize as his followers only those who had responded to the call of
human need and solidarity. He created the apostleship and therewith the
germ of the Church in order to serve the people whose needs he saw and
felt.
How does this concern college men and women? By our opportunities and
equipment we rank with the strong. Disciplined intellect is armor and
sword. Many of us have inherited social standing and some wealth; it may
not be much, but it raises us above the terrible push of immediate need.
What relation do we propose to have with the great mass of men and women
who were born without the chances which have fallen to us without
exertion? Do we propose to serve them or to ride on them? Will we seek to
gain some form of power by means of which we can live in plenty, with only
slight and pleasurable exertion? In that case we can hardly return to our
fellow-men in work as much as we take from them in enjoyment and luxury.
We shall be part of that dead weight which has always bent the back of the
poor. Is that an honorable ambition? Or do we propose to enter the working
team of humanity and to hold up our end? Our end ought to be heavier than
the average because we have had longer and better training. “To whomsoever
much is given, of him shall much be required.”
The moral problem for college communities is accentuated when we remember
that few students pay fully for what they get. Whether our institutions
are supported from taxation or from endowments, a large part of their
incomes are derived from the annual labor of society; tuitions pay only a
fraction of the running expenses and of the interest on the plant. Even if
a student pays all charges, he is in part a pensioner on the public. The
working people in the last resort support us; the same people who are
often so eager for education, and who can not get it. Some of them would
feel rich if they had the leavings of knowledge which we throw to the
floor and tread upon in our spirit of surfeit. To take our education at
their hands and use it to devise ways by which we can continue to live on
them, seems disquieting even to a pagan conscience. It ought to be
insufferable to a sense of social responsibility trained under Christian
influences.
Here is a test for college communities more searching than the physical
test of athletics, or the intellectual tests of scholarship. Do we feel
our social unity with the people who work for their living, and do we
propose to use our special privileges and capacities for their social
redemption?
“When wilt Thou save the people?
O God of Mercy, when?
Not kings and lords, but nations,
Not thrones and crowns, but men.
Flowers of Thy heart, O God, are they.
Let them not pass like weeds away,
Let them not fade in sunless day!
God save the people!”—EBENEZER ELLIOTT.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Partisanship of Jesus_
1. Did Jesus really take sides with the poor? Prove it.
2. Try to prove the other side.
3. Which would be safer evidence: single sayings, or the total impression
of his life and teachings?
4. What do you conclude regarding the attitude of Jesus?
II. _The Church and the People_
1. What motives led Jesus to organize and send out the twelve? What was
the historical significance of that action?
2. When and how did the Church lose its working class character?
3. Does the Church today share Jesus’ feelings about the condition of the
people? Sum up evidence for and against.
4. What is the true function of the Church in society so far as the poor
are concerned?
III. _Standing up for the People Today_
1. Is it a superficial or profound test to range a man according to his
sympathy with the common people?
2. What does it involve to stand up for the people today? How does it
differ from charity and relief work?
3. Name some men and women in our own times who seem to have stood up for
them most wisely and effectively.
4. What are the vices of social reformers?
IV. _The Concern of College Men and Women_
1. How can college men and women make a just return for their special
opportunities?
2. What movements in college and university life in recent years are in
line with this social principle of Jesus?
3. What part have the university students of Russia, Austria, Germany, and
England taken in social movements? Have American students ever taken a
similar interest in working class movements? If not, why not?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. Is it an advantage or disadvantage to Christianity that it began among
the working class? What effects did that have on its ethical points of
view and its impulses?
2. Why did the regeneration of ancient society have to come through the
lowly? Will it have to come the same way today?
3. Is it ethical to live without productive labor? Is it morally tolerable
to enjoy excessive leisure purchased by the excessive toil of others?
4. Is there any clear conviction on this question in the Christian Church
today?
5. Is the fact that a person has sprung from the working-class a guarantee
that he will have the working-class sympathies?
6. Who seem to have more natural democratic feeling, the men or the women
of the upper classes?
PART II. THE SOCIAL IDEAL OF JESUS
Chapter IV. The Kingdom Of God: Its Values
_The Right Social Order is the Highest Good for All_
The first three chapters dealt with simple human principles which are
common and instinctive with all real men. Jesus simply expanded the range
of their application, clarified our comprehension of them, placed them in
the very center of religious duty, and so lifted them to the high level of
great social and religious principles.
In the next three chapters we shall take up a conception which is not
universally human, but which Jesus derived from the historic life of the
Hebrew people—the idea of the “Kingdom of God.” A better translation would
be “the Reign of God.” This conception embodied the social ideal and
purpose of the best minds of one of the few creative nations of history.
How did Jesus interpret this inherited social ideal? What did the Kingdom
of God seem to him to offer men? What did it demand of them? What
immediate ethical duty did this social ideal involve? Our inquiry will
move along these lines in the next three chapters.
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Main Chance
The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field;
which a man found, and hid; and in his joy he goeth and selleth
all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a merchant
seeking goodly pearls: and having found one pearl of great price,
he went and sold all that he had, and bought it.—Matt. 13:44-46.
When war was common, property insecure, and safe deposit vaults were
scarce, it was common for men to bury treasure in time of trouble and to
forget it when they were dead. Whoever accidentally found it “struck pay
dirt” and hastened to locate his claim. An extraordinary jewel, too, was a
bonanza. The infant capitalists of that day were wise enough to liquidate
their other holdings and invest everything in the main chance. Jesus calls
for the application of the same method on the higher level. The Kingdom of
God is the highest good of all; why not stake all on the chance of that?
These parables were spoken out of his own experience. He was gladly
surrendering home, comfort, public approval, and life itself to realize
the Reign of God in humanity.
Imagine that Jesus had surrendered his religious idealism, had gained
wealth and official standing, and died of old age. Would he have gained?
What would the world have lost?
Second Day: The Master Fact
From that time began Jesus to preach, and to say, Repent ye; for
the kingdom of heaven is at hand.—Matt. 4:17.
The Kingdom of God is a master fact. It takes control. When the Kingdom
becomes a reality to us, we can not live on in the old way. We must
repent, begin over, overhaul the values of life and put them down at their
true price, and so readjust our fundamental directions. The conduct of the
individual must rise in response to higher conceptions of the meaning and
possibilities of the life of humanity. Tolstoi has described his
conversion in the simplest terms in the introduction to “My Religion:”
“Five years ago faith came to me; I believed in the doctrine of
Jesus, and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation. What I
had once wished for I wished for no longer, and I began to desire
what I had never desired before. What had once appeared to me
right now became wrong, and the wrong of the past I beheld as
right. My condition was like that of a man who goes forth upon
some errand, and having traversed a portion of the road, decides
that the matter is of no importance, and turns back. What was at
first on his right hand is now on his left, and what was at his
left hand is now on his right; instead of going away from his
abode, he desires to get back to it as soon as possible. My life
and my desires were completely changed; good and evil interchanged
meanings. Why so? Because I understood the doctrine of Jesus in a
different way from that in which I had understood it before.” ...
“I understood the words of Jesus, and life and death ceased to be
evil; instead of despair, I tasted joy and happiness.”
Some seek religion to escape hell and attain heaven; some to attain a
perfect personality; some to bring in the Reign of God. Give cases.
Estimate the relative religious and social significance of these different
spiritual experiences.
Third Day: Baptism and the New Order
Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
Who shall prepare thy way;
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of the Lord,
Make his paths straight;
John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism
of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him
all the country of Judæa, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were
baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And
John was clothed with camel’s hair, and had a leathern girdle
about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. And he
preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than
I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
unloose. I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the
Holy Spirit.—Mark 1:2-8.
The men who were baptized by John were not looking forward to death and to
salvation after death, but to the coming of the Kingdom of God and of his
Messiah. They repented and accepted the badge of baptism in order to have
a share in the blessings of the Kingdom and to escape the imminent
judgment of the Messiah. Baptism was then the mark of a national and
social movement toward a new era, and was a personal dedication to a
righteous social order. This original idea of baptism was practically lost
to the Christian consciousness in later times. Every man who today
realizes the Kingdom of God as the supreme good, can reaffirm his own
baptism as a dedication to the social ideal and to the leadership of Jesus
who initiated it. Such a social interpretation of our personal
discipleship will bring us into closer spiritual agreement with the
original aim of Christianity.
_Has our baptism ever had a social significance to us?_
Fourth Day: The Way to Happiness
Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye
shall put on. Is not the life more than the food, and the body
than the raiment? Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow
not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and your
heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not ye of much more value than
they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto the
measure of his life? And why are ye anxious concerning raiment?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not,
neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all
his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God doth so
clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is
cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of
little faith? Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat?
or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For
after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye
first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things
shall be added unto you. Be not therefore anxious for the morrow:
for the morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof.—Matt. 6:25-34.
This is a song of divine carelessness; not the recklessness of a tramp who
has lost his self-respect and his capacity for long outlooks, but the
carelessness of an aristocratic spirit, conscious of his high human
dignity. God has given us life; will he not give what life needs? If the
birds and the lilies can make a living, can not we? It is pagan and
low-bred to wear out our souls with worry about minor needs.
The key to this passage lies in the words “your Father,” and “his
Kingdom.” Man is a child of God, and that dignity gives some calm and
assurance amid the worries of life. If we set our life toward the Kingdom
as the supreme aim, all the lesser interests will drop to their proper
place. In the measure in which the will of God is done and his
righteousness practiced among men, the satisfaction of the main material
wants will be easy. The Kingdom, the true social order, is the highest
good; all other good things are contained in it.
To worry or not to worry, that is the question. _Have we ever tried the
adoption of a high aim as the way to happiness?_
Fifth Day: Sunny Religion
And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come
and say unto him, Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the
Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto
them, Can the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom
is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they
cannot fast. But the days will come, when the bridegroom shalt be
taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day. No man
seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that
which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and
a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into old
wine-skins; else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine
perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh
wine-skins.—Mark 2:18-22.
Fasting was an important part of piety with strict Jews. It was an
expression of religious sorrow and self-abasement. Afflicting the body
intensified this spiritual emotion. The disciples of the Pharisees and of
John were surprised and shocked by the fact that Jesus and his group
disregarded this custom. The reply of Jesus shows the religious temper of
Jesus in a new light. He says his disciples were happy, like guests at a
wedding; why should they act as if they were mournful? Fasting was alien
to the spirit which ruled in his company. It would be just as
inappropriate as to patch a piece of unshrunken stuff on an old garment,
or to put fermenting wine in old and brittle skin bottles. The religion of
Jesus, then, was distinguished from other earnest religion by its happy
and sunny character. See also the sharp distinction he makes between the
ascetic life of John and his own enjoyment of social life (Matt.
11:16-19). Yet Jesus was a homeless man, moving toward death.
There seems to be a difference between the self-denial of ascetic
religion, and the surrender of self to the Kingdom of God. What is it?
Sixth Day: The Poise of Expectancy
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who
took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five
of them were foolish, and five were wise. For the foolish, when
they took their lamps, took no oil with them: but the wise took
oil in their vessels with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom
tarried, they all slumbered and slept. But at midnight there is a
cry, Behold, the bridegroom! Come ye forth to meet him. Then all
those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said
unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are going out.
But the wise answered, saying, Peradventure there will not be
enough for us and you: go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
yourselves. And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came;
and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage feast:
and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins,
saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I
say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know not the
day nor the hour.—Matt. 25:1-13.
The Lord was to return soon and consummate the establishment of his
Kingdom. The first two generations of Christians took this hope very
seriously. Expectancy was the true pose of Christians. Under the
conditions of that time this was their way of declaring that the Kingdom
of God is the highest good and that all our life should be concentrated on
it. If Jesus lived today he could find even more effective exhortations to
look sharp and not get left. But is the constant expectation of a divine
catastrophe from heaven possible for modern minds? Must we translate that
expectation into the hope of moral and social development? By doing so,
can we still have a religious sense of a great and divine future
overhanging humanity which will give to our life the same value and
solemnity which the first generation felt?
_Explain what a strong social hope and faith would contribute to a
person’s life in the course of years._
How do faith and practical social effort react on each other?
Seventh Day: The Coming Joys
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for
they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’
sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.—Matt.
5:5-10.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus formally outlined his conceptions of
ethical and religious life as distinguished from those then current. It
was the platform of the Kingdom of God. We might expect it to begin with
denunciation. Instead it opens with a spontaneous burst of joy. A great
good was coming. It would bring a store of blessings to all who had the
inward qualifications to receive them. All who felt the divine
dissatisfaction with themselves and the craving for social justice and
righteousness, would get their satisfaction (v. 3, 4, 6). The higher
social virtues, gentleness, purity of heart, peaceableness, would get
recognition and gain ascendancy (v. 5, 7, 8, 9). But the climax of praise
and promise is for those who propagated righteousness where it was not
wanted, and suffered for it (v. 10-12). “These words belong to the
greatest ever uttered” (Hegel). They are pure religion, and they were
called forth by religious faith in a social ideal.
Have we known men and women who had some of these qualities, who lived
within the Kingdom of God, and who enjoyed its blessings? If they have
ennobled our life, let us think of them a moment with a silent
benediction.
Study for the Week
We see from the passages we have studied that the mind of Jesus was
centered on a great hope which was just ahead. It was so beautiful that
even in anticipation it was filling his soul with joy and he knew it would
bless all who shared in it. It seemed to him so valuable and engrossing
that a man ought to stake his whole life on attaining it, and subordinate
all other aims to this dominant desire.
I
He spoke of this great good as “the Kingdom of God.” Even a superficial
reading of the first three Gospels shows that this was the pivot of his
teaching. Yet he nowhere defines the phrase. He took an understanding of
it for granted with his hearers, and simply announced that it was now
close at hand, and they must act accordingly. What did the words mean to
them? The idea covered by the phrase was an historic product of the Jewish
people, and we shall have to understand it as such.
The Hebrew prophets had concentrated their incomparable religious energy
on the simple demand for righteousness, especially in social and national
life. The actual life of the nation, especially of its ruling classes, of
course never squared with the religious ideal. The injustice and
oppression around them seemed intolerable to the prophets, just because
the ethical imperative within them was so strong. So their unsatisfied
desire for righteousness took the form of an ardent expectation of a
coming day when things would be as they ought to be. God would make bare
his holy arm to punish the wicked, to sift the good, to establish his law,
and to vindicate the rights of the oppressed. This great “day of Jehovah”
would inaugurate a new age, the Kingdom of God, the Reign of God. The
phrase, then, embodies the social ideal of the finest religious minds of a
unique people. The essential thing in it is the projection into the future
of the demand for a just social order. The prophets looked to a direct
miraculous act of God to realize their vision, but they were in close
touch with the facts of political life and always demanded social action
on the human side.
Plato’s Republic and More’s Utopia are intellectual productions which have
appealed to single idealistic minds. The Hebrew prophets succeeded in
socializing their ideal. By the force of religion they wrought the
conception of the Kingdom of God into the common mind of a nation as a
traditional conviction which was assimilated by every new generation.
But when a great idea is appropriated by the masses, it is sure to become
cruder to suit their intellect and their need; and when a national ideal
is handed on for centuries, it will change with the changing fortunes of
the people that holds it. When the Hebrew nation came under the foreign
rule of the Assyrians, Persians, and finally the Romans, its freedom and
chance for political action were lost, and its political ideals, too,
deteriorated. The Kingdom hope became theological, artificial, a scheme of
epochs of predetermined length and of marvelous stage settings. Yet, even
in this form, it was a splendid hope of emancipation, of national
greatness, and of future justice and fraternity, and it helped to keep the
nation’s soul alive amid crushing sorrows.
The people at the time of Jesus in the main held this apocalyptic
conception of the Kingdom. It was to come as a divine catastrophe,
beginning with an act of judgment and resulting in a glorious Jewish
imperialism. Jesus shared the substance of the expectation, but as a true
spiritual leader he reconstructed, clarified, and elevated the hope of the
masses. He would have nothing to do with any plans involving blood-shed
and force revolution. The Hebrew Jehovah became "our Father in heaven" and
this democratized the Reign of Jehovah. The pious Jew expected God to
enforce the ceremonial laws; Jesus had little to say about religious
ceremonial, and a great deal about righteousness and love. Under his hands
the Jewish imperialistic dream changed into a call for universal human
fraternity. He repeatedly and emphatically explained the coming of the
Kingdom in terms taken from biological growth, and his thoughts seem to
have verged away from the popular catastrophic ideas toward ideas of
organic development. These changes—if we have correctly interpreted
them—represent Jesus’ own contribution to the history of the Kingdom
ideal, and they are all in the same direction in which the modern mind has
moved. (For a fuller statement of these modifications see Rauschenbusch,
“Christianizing the Social Order,” p. 48-68.)
II
So much by way of historical information. Now let us emphasize again that
this social ideal seemed to Jesus so fair and fine that he gave his whole
soul to it. Naturally he would. Since he loved men and believed in their
solidarity, the conception of a God-filled humanity living in a righteous
social order, which would give free play to love and would bind all in
close ties, would be the only satisfying outlook for him. He promised that
all who hungered and thirsted after righteousness would be satisfied in
the Kingdom, and he was himself the chief of these. The Kingdom of God was
his fatherland, in which his spirit lived with God; and with that vision
of perfect humanity before him, he kept its calm and tranquillity amid the
enmity of men as he sought to win men to its better ways.
The Kingdom of God is the highest good. The idea of God is the highest and
most comprehensive conception in philosophy; the idea of the Kingdom of
God is the highest and broadest idea in sociology and ethics. It is so
high and broad that many find it hard even to grasp the idea. Just as a
barbaric tribe of hunters or fishermen would find it impossible to
comprehend the social coherence and the patriotism of a nation of a
hundred millions; just as the narrow nationalist of today falls down
intellectually and morally when he confronts world-forces and relations:
so we who are trained to think in terms of family and State, give out when
we are to treat the Kingdom of God as a reality. It takes faith of the
intellect to comprehend a stage of evolution before it is reached. It
takes faith of character to launch yourself toward a great moral goal
before its tangible and profitable elements are within reach. It takes
more moral daring today than for a century past to believe in the
reemergence and final victory of God’s social order. But this is the time
for all true believers to square their shoulders and say with Galileo,
“And yet it moves.”
Any man whose soul is kindled by the conception of the Kingdom of God is a
real man. Whoever loves the idea, must turn it into reality as far as life
lets him. Whoever tries it, will suffer. But even if he suffers, he will
be more blessed and more truly a man than he would be if he did not try.
In seeking the Kingdom he realizes himself. “He that loseth his life for
my sake, shall find it.”
III
Jesus bade us “seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,” and
he obeyed his own call. The main object of his life was the ideal social
order and the perfect ethic. Now if Jesus is our ideal of human goodness,
is any goodness good unless it works in the same direction? If a man is of
flawless private life, but is indifferent to any social ideal, or even
hostile to all attempts at better justice and greater fraternity, is he
really good? Even a strong desire for personal perfection, if there is no
desire for a regeneration of society in it, must be rated as sub-Christian
because it is lacking in the sense of solidarity and may be lacking in
love.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Power of a Great Idea_
1. Did the idea of the Kingdom of God ever play a part in your religious
education?
2. Did you feel any response to it in studying this lesson? Does it have
reality?
3. Suppose an entire study group should fail to see anything in it, would
that prove it valueless?
II. _Historical Changes in the Kingdom Ideal_
1. How did the Kingdom ideal take shape in the minds of the Hebrew
prophets?
2. Explain the nature of the apocalyptic hope and its divergence from the
prophetic ideal.
3. What passages seem to throw the most light on Jesus’ conception of it,
and his feeling about it? What do you think about the Beatitudes from this
point of view?
4. At what points did Jesus clarify and elevate the hereditary hope of his
nation? Summarize the conception of the Kingdom as it lay in the mind of
Jesus.
III. _Present Possibilities of the Kingdom Idea_
1. What value would the preaching of the Kingdom of God have in
evangelistic work today?
2. How would it affect religious education and the moral outlook of the
young?
3. How would the possession of the Kingdom faith equip the Church for
leadership in an age of social movements and unrest?
4. How does the Kingdom hope add to the joyousness of the Christian life?
5. How does Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God connect with the great
social and national hopes of today?
IV. _For Special Discussion_
1. How does a man realize himself in seeking the Kingdom? How does a man
realize the Kingdom in developing himself?
2. Does the idea seem to offer a religious vehicle for conceptions you
have derived from sociological work?
3. Does a social concept like the “Kingdom of God” gain anything for its
practical efficiency today from being ancient, and from being religious?
4. Will such a concept ever be effective with the masses unless it is
essentially religious?
Chapter V. The Kingdom Of God: Its Tasks
_The Right Social Order is the Supreme Task for Each_
The perfect social order is the highest good. In so far as it is a gift of
God, offered to the individual like the fertile earth and the oxygen of
the air, we must appropriate it and enjoy every approximation to the
perfect society. But what is the responsibility of the individual toward
the achievement of the ideal social order? What task does it lay on him?
How did Jesus see this problem? It is finely stated in the words with
which Émile de Laveleye closes his book “Sur la propriété”: “There is a
social order which is the best. Necessarily it is not always the present
order. Else why should we seek to change the latter? But it is that order
which ought to exist to realize the greatest good for humanity. God knows
it and wills it. It is for man to discover and establish it.”
What, then, is the responsibility of the individual with regard to the
achievement of this highest good?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Kingdom of Hard Work
For it is as when a man, going into another country, called his
own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he
gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each
according to his several ability; and he went on his journey.
Straightway he that received the five talents went and traded with
them, and made other five talents. In like manner he also that
received the two gained other two. But he that received the one
went away and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. Now
after a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a
reckoning with them. And he that received the five talents came
and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst
unto me five talents: lo, I have gained other five talents. His
lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many
things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And he also that
received the two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst
unto me two talents: lo, I have gained other two talents. His lord
said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast
been faithful over a few things, I will set thee over many things;
enter thou into the joy of thy lord. And he also that had received
the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art a
hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering where
thou didst not scatter; and I was afraid, and went away and hid
thy talent in the earth: lo, thou hast thine own. But his lord
answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou
knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I did not
scatter; thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
bankers, and at my coming I should have received back mine own
with interest. Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and
give it unto him that hath the ten talents. For unto every one
that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from
him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.
And cast ye out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness:
there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth.—Matt.
25:14-30.
Evidently the sympathy of Jesus was with the two men who hustled, and not
with the fellow who took it out in growling and blaming the boss. Jesus
would have agreed to the proposition that to live an unproductive life is
one of the cardinal sins. Evolution and Christianity agree on that. This
exhortation to do good work was given when Jesus was looking forward to
his death and his absence. He would leave the Kingdom of God as an
unfinished task. He wanted his disciples to carry forward their Master’s
business under their own initiative when he was not there to direct them.
The new conditions would throw even heavier responsibilities on them.
Can you translate this parable into terms of college life and sketch three
college students as companion pieces to the three business men?
Second Day: The Call to Action
And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew
the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were
fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will
make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they left the
nets, and followed him. And going on a little further, he saw
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in
the boat mending the nets. And straightway he called them: and
they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired
servants, and went after him.—Mark 1:16-20.
-------------------------------------
And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew,
sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me.
And he arose and followed him.—Matt. 9:9.
-------------------------------------
And as they went on the way, a certain man said unto him, I will
follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus said unto him, The
foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven have nests; but the
Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And he said unto
another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and
bury my father. But he said unto him, Leave the dead to bury their
own dead; but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God. And
another also said, I will follow thee, Lord; but first suffer me
to bid farewell to them that are at my house. But Jesus said unto
him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is
fit for the kingdom of God.—Luke 9:57-62.
The way in which Jesus called his disciples shows that he felt he had a
big business in hand. It was a call to action, to conflict and loss, and
there was snap in it. Leaving their boats and nets doubtless seemed a big
proposition to these four fishermen; but they did it. Matthew had to give
up a government job with pickings. These five rose to their chance with
courageous decision, and their names are still borne by millions of boys
today. The names of the other three are lost to fame. One of them gushed
and Jesus cooled off his emotions. The second and third wanted to
procrastinate and hid behind social obligations. Note that epigram about
the ploughman. It is a splendid expression of intelligent and concentrated
energy. You can’t drive a straight furrow while you “rubber.” You’ve got
to “tend to your job.”
Four of the first five are said to have died a violent death. Would they
have been wiser if they had looked out for Number One?
Third Day: The Futility of Talk
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is
in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy
name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, and doeth
them, shall be likened unto a wise man, who built his house upon
the rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was
founded upon the rock. And every one that heareth these words of
mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who
built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended, and the
floods came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it
fell: and great was the fall thereof.—Matt. 7:21-27.
Jesus evidently felt deeply the emptiness and futility of much of the
religious talk. He was interested only in those emotions and professions
which could get themselves translated into character and action. Words
have always been the bane of religion as well as its vehicle. Religious
emotion has enormous motive force, but it is the easiest thing in the
world for it to sizzle away in high professions and wordy prayers. In that
case it is a substitute and counterfeit, and a damage to the Reign of God
among men.
How about our own religious talk?
Would it be better, then, to give up preaching and public prayer?
_What has the utterance of religion done for us?_
Fourth Day: This Camel Passed Through
And he entered and was passing through Jericho. And behold, a man
called by name Zacchæus; and he was a chief publican, and he was
rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the
crowd, because he was little of stature. And he ran on before, and
climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass
that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and said
unto him, Zacchæus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must
abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received
him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, He
is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner. And Zacchæus
stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods
I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any
man, I restore fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, To-day is
salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of
Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which
was lost.—Luke 19:1-10.
Zacchæus was engaged in the profitable but shady business of farming the
Roman taxing system in one of the richest districts of Palestine. He was a
politician and business man combined, and the kind of man that is “bound
to land.” Being only five feet one he had no chance amid a crowd in a
narrow street watching a procession. So he climbed a tree. Imagine a
corporation president climbing a telegraph post to see Jesus! This spirit
of determination appealed to Jesus and he promptly made friends with him,
though he well knew he would lose some more of his reputation by
identifying himself with a publican. Zacchæus proved his fitness for the
Kingdom of God by parting with his accumulated graft at a single sweep.
Fifty per cent of his property given away outright; the balance used to
make restitution at the rate of four hundred per cent—how much was left?
Here a camel passed through the needle’s eye, and Jesus stood and cheered.
At what points is the moral energy of college men and women most severely
tested? Where do they meet their great spiritual decisions?
Fifth Day: Will in Prayer
And he spake a parable unto them to the end that they ought always
to pray, and not to faint; saying, There was in a city a judge,
who feared not God, and regarded not man: and there was a widow in
that city; and she came oft unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine
adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said
within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; yet because
this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest she wear me out
by her continual coming. And the Lord said, Hear what the
unrighteous judge saith. And shall not God avenge his elect, that
cry to him day and night, and yet he is longsuffering over
them?—Luke 18:1-7.
In most of his sayings on prayer Jesus either objected to the wordiness of
prayers (Matt. 6:5-13), or he demanded more will and persistence. In the
story of the widow and the judge the odds were against the widow. Being
only a widow she had no pull and no vote. The judge was frankly a tough
case, untouched by religion and conscience, and thick-skinned as to public
opinion. Yet the widow won out by sheer doggedness. Surely the mind that
sketched the reiterating widow and the collapsing politician had an
admiring eye for energy of action. Jesus wanted that spirit and
determination put into prayer. But note that he was thinking, not of
personal edification, nor of private benefits to be obtained, but of the
“avenging of God’s elect”; that is, of straightening out the affairs of
the world so that the wrongs of the righteous would be redressed. A keen
social consciousness about the condition of God’s people, coupled with
“hunger and thirst for justice,” can turn prayer into action.
_Have we any experience of prayer concentrated on great public evils?_ How
does that differ from prayers centering about our own interests? (See
Fosdick, “The Meaning of Prayer,” Chapter X.)
Sixth Day: Twelve against the Field
And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out
demons: freely ye received, freely give. Get you no gold; nor
silver, nor brass in your purses: no wallet for your journey,
neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy
of his food. And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter,
search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go
forth.... And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your
words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off
the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of
judgment, than for that city.... And be not afraid of them that
kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul.—Matt. 10:7-11,
14-15, 28a.
This whole chapter expresses with immense vitality the heroic spirit
called forth by the Kingdom propaganda. Jesus sent these twelve men
through the villages of Galilee to duplicate and multiply what he was
doing. The natural leaders of society, the able, the educated, the
powerful, were concerned in setting up their own kingdom and enslaving
their fellows to serve them. So Jesus took what material he had, peasants
and fishermen, and created a new leadership. He flung them against
existing society, knowing well that they would have to face opposition. In
fact, they were destined, one by one, to go to death for their cause. He
tells them not to mind a little thing like death, but to do their work and
rally the people around the idea of the Reign of God.
Can the men and women who are today trying to rebuild human society on a
basis of social justice and fraternity claim any right of succession in
the sending of the Twelve?
Seventh Day: Doing All, and Then Some
But who is there of you, having a servant plowing or keeping
sheep, that will say unto him, when he is come in from the field,
Come straightway and sit down to meat; and will not rather say
unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and
serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt
eat and drink? Doth he thank the servant because he did the things
that were commanded? Even so ye also, when ye shall have done all
the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable
servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do.—Luke
17:7-10.
Jesus often boldly took his illustrations from the facts of life even when
they were repellent to him. Here he holds up the joyless life of a Syrian
agricultural laborer. After plodding all day in the field, this man comes
home, tired and hungry. Is he promptly cared for? No, he must first cook
and serve his master’s meal. Then he can eat what’s left. Does he get any
thanks for working overtime? Not a thank. Now, says Jesus, what this man
does under the hard coercion of his lot, you and I must do of our own free
will. After we have done a man’s work, let us go and do some more for the
sake of the cause, and disclaim praise. That spirit of utter service is,
in fact, the spirit in which men work when the Kingdom vision gets hold of
them. They become greedy for work and can not satisfy themselves. The
strong and inspired men always feel at the end that they have not done
half they ought to have done. The last words of Martin Luther, scribbled
on a scrap of paper, were: “We are beggars. That’s true.”
What would Jesus say to a college student who is chronically tired and who
feels that he is laying his professors and his father under heavy
obligation by working at all?
Study for the Week
Is it not a strange fate that down to the most recent times art has
pictured Jesus all meek and gentle, and theology has emphasized his
passive suffering? Yet he was high-power energy. His epigrams and
hyperboles crack like a whip-lash. He was up before dawn. He always rose
to the sight of human need. To do the will of his Father was meat and
drink to him. His life was a combat. He faced opposition without flinching
and “stedfastly set his face to go up to Jerusalem” when he knew it meant
death. Even when he stood silent before the court and when he hung nailed
to the gallows, he was a spiritual force in action and men were disturbed
and afraid before him.
I
He communicated energy to others. He hated mere talk and discouraged
fruitless theorizing. He praised energetic action when he found it, as in
the case of Zacchæus, and of the men who climbed the roof with a paralytic
man and dug up the roofing to let him down to Jesus. He called that sort
of thing “faith.” Faith, in Jesus’ use of the word, did not mean shutting
your eyes and folding your hands. He said it was an explosive that could
remove mountains. He gave three of his disciples nicknames, and they were
all given to express forcefulness; Simon he called Peter, the Rock; and
James and John he called Boanerges, the sons of thunder. He sent his
disciples open-eyed to face trouble; he told them the wolves were waiting
for them, but to rejoice and be exceeding glad for the chance of lining up
against them. Let us clear our minds forever of the idea that Jesus was a
mild and innocuous person who parted his hair and beard in the middle, and
turned his disciples into mollycoddles. Away with it!
Though the spirit of Jesus has never had more than half a chance in
historic Christianity, yet it is demonstrable that the total efficiency of
humanity, the bulk of work done, and the capacity for heroic tension of
energies have been greatly increased by it. Taking it on the smallest
scale—every real conversion means a break with debasing habits, with
alcoholism, with the waste of sexual energies; it means more self-control,
more responsiveness to duty, more capacity to take a long outlook, and
consequently better work. We can observe this in ourselves and others. We
still need the coercion of stern necessity and of public opinion to keep
us straight, but an inward compulsion is added. A Christian carries his
policeman around inside of him. Where Christianity gets a really firm hold
on men or women, especially if there is a basis of natural ability, it
pushes them on to lead in moral movements and they break away for human
progress.
When Christianity multiplies such cases, and makes soberness, duty, and
hard work the habit of entire communities, we have a social fact of
first-class importance; for the human animal is naturally lazy, sluggish,
and inclined to live for today. The capacity to subordinate immediate
gratification for a future good is scarce; the capacity to subordinate
selfish advantage to a great common and moral good is scarcer still.
We can see this force working on a larger scale on the foreign mission
field where Christianity is a new social energy. There it is easier to
disentangle it from other social forces. What are the comparative results
when it gets a lodgment in a single social class or tribal group? This
question will bear watching during the next fifty years. The full social
results of Christianity will not show till the third generation.
We get another demonstration of increased working efficiency in humanity
wherever Christianity has passed through an internal purification which
has set free more of its spiritual energies. What, for instance, has been
the historic connection between the development of capitalistic industry
in Holland, England, and France, and the sober and frugal piety and
patient laboriousness created in the Calvinists of Holland, the Puritans
of England, and the Huguenots of France?
II
The contributions made by Christianity to the working efficiency and the
constructive social abilities of humanity in the past have been mainly
indirect. The main aim set before Christians was to save their souls from
eternal woe, to have communion with God now and hereafter, and to live
God-fearing lives. It was individualistic religion, concentrated on the
life to come. Its social effectiveness was largely a by-product. What,
now, would have been the result if Christianity had placed an equally
strong emphasis on the Kingdom of God, the ideal social order? Other
things being equal, a Christian father and mother are better parents than
others because they have more sense of duty, more love, and a higher
valuation of spiritual things. But if, in addition, they have a religious
desire for a higher social order and realize that noble children are a
splendid contribution to it, how will that affect their parenthood? A
teacher, artist, or scientist who is also a religious man, will do
conscientious work if he works under the motives of individualistic
religion. But if he has a vision of the Kingdom of God on earth and sees
the contributions he can make to it, will not that raise the character of
his output? A business man of strong Christian character will work hard,
keep his word in business, and deal fairly with employes and customers.
But would not a new direction be given to his moral energies if his
religion taught him that he must help to shape the workings of industry
and trade so that hereafter there will be no fundamental clash between
business and the morals of Christianity?
What the world of Christian men and women needs is to have a great social
objective set before them and laid on their conscience with the authority
of religion. Then religion would get behind social evolution in earnest.
This would be no new and foreign element imported into our religion. It
would be a modern revival of the doctrine of Jesus himself, which has been
too long submerged and neglected. One chief reason why it was side-tracked
is that no despotic State and no society dominated by a predatory class
ever wanted religion applied to a reconstruction of the social order. The
idea of the Kingdom of God reawoke with the rise of modern democracy. Now
is the time for it.
III
The idea of the Kingdom of God is not identified with any special social
theory. It means justice, freedom, fraternity, labor, joy. Let each social
system and movement show us what it can contribute and we will weigh its
claims. We want the old ideal defined in modern terms, in the terms of
modern democracy, of the power machine, of international peace, and of
evolutionary science. But we want to embrace it with the old religious
faith and ardor, so that we can pray over it.
This great task of establishing a righteous social life on earth embraces
all minor tasks in so far as they are good. The mother who tries to make a
good home, the farmer who feeds the people, the teacher who trains them,
the scientist who gets the facts for all, the merchant, the workingman,
the artist, the leader in play—they are all contributing to the Kingdom,
provided they view their work so, and are trying to put an evolutionary
_plus_ into it which will lift the total nearer to the divine will. The
Kingdom is the supreme task, and all small tasks are part of it. That
gives every man a place in it who works—where is the idler’s place in
it?—and it hallows all good work with religious glory.
It may seem as if this social aim of religion may depreciate the aim of
developing our own personality and of saving our souls. It ought not.
Sometimes it does for a time. But we are each so enormously important to
ourselves that we are not likely to forget ourselves, and the practical
struggle with temptation and sorrow will teach us to seek strength for our
personal needs from Christ. In time we shall learn to say with Jesus, “For
their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified.” In time
surrender to the Kingdom ideal, toil for it, self-denial for it,
cooperation with others for it, will have the strongest kind of reactions
on ourselves and our moral fiber. Gymnasium work is all right, but real
work in the open is better. We are most durably saved by putting in hard
work for the Kingdom of God.
In every great task a religious man is consciously thrown back on the aid
of God—most of all in the greatest task of all. Eternal powers are
cooperating with our puny efforts. That alone guarantees that our work is
not wasted. We plant and water, but unless God’s sun shines upon it, our
work is nothing. He is a fool that is not reverent and humble. We sorely
need this faith in the collaboration and patience of God today when so
much of the best spiritual achievement of mankind is swept away, and we
seem far away from a kingdom of love. “As the heavens are higher than the
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your
thoughts.”
IV
Here, then, we have another social principle of Jesus. A collective moral
ideal is a necessity for the individual and the race. Every man must have
a conscious determination to help in his own place to work out a righteous
social order for and with God. The race must increasingly turn its own
evolution into a conscious process. It owes that duty to itself and to God
who seeks an habitation in it. It must seek to realize its divine destiny.
“Thy kingdom come! Thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven!”
This is the conscious evolutionary program of Jesus. It combines religion,
social science, and ethical action in a perfect synthesis.
What has this to say to students? Everything, it seems.
First, whatever is to be our particular job, we must relate it to the
supreme common task at which God and all good men are working. Unless we
see and assert that relation, we are mere day-laborers or slaves, with
neither intelligence nor enthusiasm.
Second, anyone who, instead of loyally relating his life-work to God’s
work, pursues his own ambition at the expense of the Kingdom and damages
it to make profit for himself, is like a man who takes pay to damage his
country. He makes the work harder for all who are more faithful than he,
and their blood will be upon him.
Third, “_noblesse oblige_.” If we belong to the republic of learning and
education, something extra is justly due from us. Here, for instance, is
the evangelization of the world in this generation. An organization has
been created to accomplish it. Heroic pioneers have died, preparing the
way for larger forces. Is our life fit and good enough to put into that?
Here is the Christianization of the social order in the next two
generations. What have all our social studies been for in the design of
God? To fit ourselves for exploiting our fellows or to show them the way
to the Kingdom of God?
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _Our Untapped Reserves_
1. How far is a person who produces nothing, of use to the community? Is
increase of productive efficiency the test of progress?
2. Does religion help to call out reserves of energy in human nature?
II. _The Energy of Jesus_
1. How far did Jesus give evidence of audacity and high power energy? Has
the Christian Church realized this? How about the portrayals of him in
art?
2. Furnish evidence that Jesus demanded sincere work. How was this
connected with the Kingdom of God in his mind?
3. Give proof that he demanded heroism of his followers as a commonplace
thing.
4. How did this temper affect his view of prayer?
III. _Christianity and Work_
1. Has Christianity ever promoted idleness? If so, what type of
Christianity was it?
2. Taken as a whole has Christianity increased the amount of work done, or
lessened it? Give historical proof.
3. Would it raise the economic efficiency of an African tribe to become
Christians? Would it raise the efficiency of the Mexican people if they
adopted a purer type of Christianity? How?
4. Where is the idler’s place in the Kingdom of God?
IV. _The Reenforcement of Christianity by the Kingdom Ideal_
1. Is a call to be converted a call to enjoy spiritual peace or to exert
spiritual energy?
2. How has the idea arisen that Christianity is a "dope" to make people
contented amid wrong conditions?
3. How would the Kingdom faith give religious quality to the plain man’s
job?
4. Other things being equal, has a religious man more or less fighting
energy against wrong than a non-religious man?
5. If a man passes from an individualistic to a social conception of
religion, what change will it make in moral action?
6. To what extent is the enterprise of the Kingdom of God a dynamic
expression of accepted sociological principles?
7. What is the special obligation of college men and women to the Kingdom
of God?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. Is the Kingdom of God to be brought about by an act of God in the
future or by the work of men in the present? Does the one exclude the
other?
2. Does our social order call out the full energy and intelligence of the
working people?
3. Can an overworked and underpaid workman feel that _he is working_ for
the Kingdom of God?
4. Does the Kingdom of God necessarily involve elements of social
readjustment and change?
5. Would a predatory governing class in the past have allowed the
preaching of a social conception of the Kingdom of God?
Chapter VI. A New Age And New Standards
_As the Kingdom Comes Ethical Standards Must Advance_
Every approximation to the Reign of God in humanity demands an advance in
the social relations of men, that is, an advance in ethics. Every really
epochal advance must have it or slip back. There must be, first, better
obedience to the moral principles already recognized and accepted by
society; second, an expansion of the sway of ethical duty to new fields
and wider groups of humanity; and third, a recognition of new duties and
the assimilation of new and higher ethical conceptions.
To what extent did Jesus appreciate these supreme needs?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: Living up to the Old Standards
In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came
unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into
all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of
repentance unto remission of sins; as it is written in the book of
the words of Isaiah the prophet,
The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of the Lord,
Make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled,
And every mountain and hill shall be brought low;
And the crooked shall become straight,
And the rough ways smooth;
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
He said therefore to the multitudes that went out to be baptized
of him, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,
and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our
father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to
raise up children unto Abraham. And even now the axe also lieth at
the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not
forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.—Luke 3:2-9.
The ABC of social renewal and moral advance is for each of us to face our
sins sincerely and get on a basis of frankness with God and ourselves.
Therefore Christianity set out with a call for personal repentance. If we
only acted up to what we know to be right, this world would be a different
place. But we fool ourselves with protective coloring devices in order to
keep our own self-respect. Take our language, for instance; it reeks with
evasive euphemisms intended to make nasty sins look prettier. We call
stealing “swiping” and cheating “cribbing.” When we have been drunk we say
we were “squiffy.” As soon as we face the facts, we realize that what we
call peccadilloes in ourselves are the black sins that have slain the
innocents and have hag ridden humanity through all its history. That is
the beginning of social vision. Personal repentance is a social advance.
What equivalent have college men and women for the plea of the Pharisees
that they were Abraham’s children and had a pull with God?
Second Day: Expanding the Area of Obligation
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him,
saying, Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And he
said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And
he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with
all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him,
Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he,
desiring to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my
neighbor? Jesus made answer and said, A certain man was going down
from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both
stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance a certain priest was going down that way: and when
he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And in like manner a
Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on
the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came
where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion,
and came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and
wine; and he set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn,
and took care of him. And on the morrow he took out two shillings,
and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and
whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will
repay thee. Which of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor
unto him that fell among the robbers? And he said, He that showed
mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do thou
likewise.—Luke 10:25-37.
A meaty story and a famous one. The lawyer found his own answer
uncomfortably simple when it was taken up in such a matter-of-fact way. It
was suddenly up to him to act on his own advice. He tried to hedge by
raising a new question: “Love my neighbor? Certainly. But who is my
neighbor?” Who is within the cordon of fraternal fellowship with me? All
men of my people and religion? Or only the good and desirable people?
Where do you draw the line? Follows the story of the Good Samaritan. “Your
neighbor? The alien and the heretic.” The logic of the reply demanded that
some good Jew would be shown caring for a wounded Samaritan. Jesus gives
it a smashing effectiveness by reversing the role and showing the hated
Samaritan as the heroic lover of his kind. To get the situation we must
remember the historic enmity between the Jews and the half-breed aliens
who had stolen their land and their religion while they were exiled. If we
substitute Spaniard and Moor, Kurd and Armenian, Serb and Bulgar, we may
get the tension.
_Who are our American Samaritans?_
Third Day: Raising the Standards
We must live up to what we know is right, and we must expand the area of
ethical obligation to take in even men of alien race and hostile religion.
But beyond that, we need a conscious advance in the ethical standards
themselves. Jesus worked out this principle with perfect clearness in a
part of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:17-48. He states the need, and
then shows in six cases how such an advance would work out. We shall take
these up in their order. Matthew has introduced scattered sayings of Jesus
which serve as corollaries, but which do not bear directly on the real
course of the argument; for instance, Matthew 5:23-26; 29-30. In our
quotations in this and the following days we shall confine ourselves to
the main line of thought in order to concentrate attention on that.
Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came
not to destroy, but to fulfil.... For I say unto you, that except
your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes
and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of
heaven.—Matt. 5:17, 20.
Apparently conservative Jews soon felt the spiritual freedom and force in
the teachings of Jesus. He seemed to them to be attacking the sacred Law,
the foundation of morality and religion. Jesus mentions the charge but
denies it. His purpose was not destructive but constructive. He demanded
not less righteousness but more. The lines of right living needed to be
prolonged. The traditional standards were no longer adequate. A man might
obey them and yet not be a good man. The scribes and Pharisees were the
model church members of Judaism and experts in piety, yet they were not
qualified to enter the Kingdom of God.
_Are we also good people who are not good enough?_
Fourth Day: The Sins of Hate
Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not
kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother
shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of
fire.—Matt. 5:21, 22.
The Law of Moses forbade murder; a man-slayer was amenable in the ordinary
court. Was this an adequate expression of the sacredness of human life and
personality? It never even scratched a man or woman who assaulted the soul
of another with anger and curses. Jesus proposed that these sins be
restandardized. Plain anger ought to be valued about as murder used to be.
And if anybody went so far as to revile a brother and deny his moral or
intellectual worth, the Supreme Court and Gehenna would be about right for
him. The lawyers’ gauge of culpability can not get down to the subtler
expressions of lovelessness which break the prime law of the Kingdom.
_By what methods is contempt expressed in our own social life?_
_How highly do we rate the moral value of self-respect?_
Fifth Day: The Sins of Sex
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart....
It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give
her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, that every one
that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
maketh her an adulteress; and whosoever shall marry her when she
is put away committeth adultery.—Matt. 5:27, 28; 31, 32.
These two cases deal with sex. The old law forbade adultery, the
infringement of family life, and stopped there. Jesus goes back of the act
to the lustful imaginations and the wandering eye, which may lack
opportunity but which are the real spring of all uncleanness. He runs the
line of ethical obligation farther back.
The law of divorce (Deut. 24:1), especially as interpreted by the scribes,
was very comfortable—for the male. He could divorce his wife for almost
any cause. Her only protection was that a formal paper had to be given her
which enabled her to marry again. As a woman’s economic and social
standing in that age depended almost wholly on her family relations, she
was at the mercy of the man. Jesus demanded more protection for her. To
him the relation was indissoluble. The Mosaic provision for divorce was a
concession to the low moral level of the people. The ideal was the “one
man, one woman” provision of the Creator. (See Matt. 19:3-8). The
disciples ruefully remarked that such a strengthening of the bond did not
add to the attractiveness of marriage—for the male (19:10).
Where do we draw the line between the rightful, natural desire of sex and
lawless predatory lust?
Sixth Day: The Sins of Words
Again, ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine
oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by the
heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is
the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of
the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, for thou
canst not make one hair white or black. But let your speech be,
Yea, yea; Nay, nay: and whatsoever is more than these is of the
evil one.—Matt. 5:33-37.
Current morality had reached the point of insisting on truthfulness when a
man was under oath. Solemnly to call God to witness a statement and yet to
fool your neighbor by it, was downright wicked. But it was very handy. So
they developed a joyful lot of casuistical distinctions as to which kind
of oaths were binding and which didn’t count. See how Jesus ridiculed this
(Matt. 23:16-22). Here he proposed that the obligation of veracity be
extended to all statements. A truthful man needs no oaths to assure a
doubting world that this time he is really telling what is so. Oaths are a
device of the devil to limit the amount of truth in the world.
How about oaths for legal purposes? Could they be dispensed with? Have
they done more good or harm?
Seventh Day: The Sins of Strife
Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth: but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but
whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee
to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him that asketh thee, and
from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and
hate thine enemy: but I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray
for them that persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father
who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and
the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye
love them that love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do
ye more than others? do not even the Gentiles the same? Ye
therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is
perfect.—Matt. 5:38-48.
The Law restricted the natural desire for revenge to the limit of a strict
equivalent. If a man knocked out your tooth, you could knock out one for
him, but not two teeth, nor all he had. Of course retaliation never heals
a feud. Jesus proposes to limit revenge still farther and to retaliate
only by acts of kindness. That is, in fact, the only way to end a quarrel
completely and victoriously. It reestablishes fellowship and kills an
enemy.
The Law called for love for one’s neighbors; the scribes had added the
permission to hate one’s enemies. Jesus raises the standards of good-will.
The law of love applies to all. There is nothing great in loving those who
love us. Anybody can do that. Heroic love begins where no love comes to
meet it. Those who can win that triumph show the true family likeness of
God, and are now living in his Kingdom.
_What are our personal experiences as to the utility of revenge?_
_What is the difference between the non-resistance which Jesus proposed,
and cowardice?_
_Is there such a thing in fact as loving your enemies?_
Study for the Week
I
The Hebrew religion was an unfinished religion. That is one of the best
proofs of its divine inspiration. The prophets had the forward look. Great
things were yet to come. As one of the most daring expressed it, the old
and hallowed covenant, made by God at the Exodus, would be superseded by a
new and higher relation; God would write his law into the hearts of the
people; the old drill in outward statutes would disappear, for all men
would know God by an inward experience of forgiveness and love (Jeremiah
31:31-34).
Jesus not only shared this expectation of a new religious era, but set it
in the center of his teaching. Religion to him was not static. He lived in
a moving world. A new age was coming, and he would be the initiator of it.
“From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of God suffereth
violence, and men of violence take it by force.” John had been the
greatest of the prophets; with him a new swift movement had begun; but
something far greater was coming; even the least in the new age would have
an advantage over John (Matt. 11:11-19).
The popular conception expected the new age to come by divine miraculous
interference simply. The Messiah would descend from heaven with angelic
legions, expel the Romans, judge the nation, punish the apostate Jews, and
then the new Jerusalem, which was already complete and waiting in heaven,
would descend from above. That was the Utopia of Jewish apocalypticism.
Jesus never eliminated the direct acts of God and the significance of
divine catastrophes from his outlook. But in his parables taken from
biological processes (see especially Matthew 13) he developed a conception
of continuous and quiet growth, culminating at last in the judgment act of
God. The Kingdom of God, he said, is like a farmer who sows his grain and
lets the forces of nature work; he goes about his daily tasks, and all the
time the tiny blades come up, the ear forms and gets heavy, and then comes
the harvest (Mark 4:26-29). Jesus was working his way toward evolutionary
conceptions. They were so new to his followers that he put them in parable
form to avoid antagonism.
Such a conception of the Kingdom brought it closer to human action. It was
already at work; it was in one sense already present (Luke 17:20-21). It
was possible then to help it along.
The most obvious duty was for every man to clean up his own backyard and
repent of his sins. Every one should approximate the life of the Kingdom
by living now as he would expect to live then. But, as we have seen from
his sayings, Jesus went far beyond this. He demanded an elevation of the
accepted ethical standards. It was not simply a matter of erring and
lagging individuals, but of the socialized norms of conduct. He had deep
reverence and loyalty for the religion of his nation, and never told his
followers to break with it. But he asserted boldly that the customary
ethics of Judaism, based on the Decalogue and its interpretation by the
Jewish theologians, was not good enough. It was good as far as it went,
and he had no destructive criticism of it, but it needed to be “fulfilled”
and to have its lines prolonged.
We have studied the six sample instances which he offered in order to
explain his principle of moral and social progress. In each case he
accepts the law as it stood, but asks for more of the same thing, more
respect for personality, more reverence for womanhood, more stability for
the home, more truthfulness, more peacefulness, more love. Thus he
combined continuity with progress, conservatism with radicalism.
II
The platform for ethical progress laid down in the Sermon on the Mount is
a great platform. When Tolstoi first realized the social significance of
these simple sentences, it acted as a revelation which changed his life.
Even men who reject the supernatural claims of Christianity uncover before
the Sermon on the Mount. Yet its fate is tragic. It has not been “damned
with faint praise,” but made ineffective by universal praise. Its
commandments are lifted so high that nobody feels under obligations to act
on them. Only small sections of the Christian Church have taken the
sayings on oaths, non-resistance, and love of enemies to mean what they
say and to be obligatory. Yet all feel that the line of ethical and social
advance must lie in the direction traced by Jesus, and if society could
only climb out of the present pit of predatory selfishness and meanness to
that level, it would be heaven.
Do you and I believe in it? Do we believe that it is not enough to keep
out of the spiritual hell and damnation of adultery, but that a clean mind
would be the most efficient and cheerful mind? Do we believe that a man
who forgives and keeps sweet is happier and safer than a man who always
resents things and stirs the witches’ caldron of hate in his soul? If a
man loved his enemy and turned the other cheek, would he be everybody’s
door-mat or everybody’s temple of refuge?
Suppose we mark for the present those parts which we are willing to accept
as our own standards of action. If there are portions which do not seem
practicable, let us post them in our minds as debatable propositions, as
points to be tested by the experience of coming years, or as working
hypotheses in the science of living.
But whatever we may think of single points, let us stick to the leading
thought of Jesus, that every advance toward the Kingdom of God, that is,
toward the true social order, involves a raising of the ethical standards
accepted by society. This is a principle of social progress which every
leading intellect ought to know by heart.
III
When Jesus offered his six sample cases of ethical progress, he had no
intention of exhausting the principle of advance which he laid down. There
was more to say about the Jewish law. It is now for his followers to treat
the inherited ethical conceptions of traditional Christianity with the
same combination of reverence and courage with which he treated the Jewish
law.
From the beginning Christianity taught self-control and the mastery of the
spirit over physical desires. It always condemned drunkenness. But ancient
Christianity never demanded abstinence from fermented drink. With modern
methods of manufacturing alcoholic drinks and modern capitalistic methods
of pushing their sale, the danger has become more pressing. With modern
scientific knowledge the physiological and social problems of drink have
become clearer. Modern life demands an undrugged nervous system for quick
and steady reactions. It was said of old time, “Thou shalt not get drunk”;
but today the spirit of Christianity and modern life says, “Thou shalt not
drink nor sell intoxicants at all.”
In every case in which the interests of woman came before Jesus, he took
her side. At that time woman was the suppressed half of humanity. The
attitude of historic Christianity has been a mixture between his spirit
and the spirit of the patriarchal family. Today Christianity is plainly
prolonging the line of respect and spiritual valuation to the point of
equality between men and women—and beyond.
From the beginning an emancipating force resided in Christianity which was
bound to register its effects in political life. But in an age of
despotism it might have to confine its political morality to the duty of
patient submission, and content itself with offering little sanctuaries of
freedom to the oppressed in the Christian fraternities. Today, in the age
of democracy, it has become immoral to endure private ownership of
government. It is no longer a sufficient righteousness to live a good life
in private. Christianity needs an ethic of public life.
It was said of old “Thou shalt not commit murder.” It is said to us, “Ye
shall not wear down life in the young by premature hard labor; nor let the
fear of poverty freeze the fountain of life; and ye shall put a stop to
war.”
It was said of old, “Thou shalt not steal.” It is said to us, “Ye shall
take no unearned gain from your fellows, but pay to society in productive
labor what ye take from it in goods.”
IV
This matter of raising the moral standards of society is preeminently an
affair of the young. They must do it or it will never be done. The Sermon
on the Mount was spoken by a young man, and it moves with the impetuous
virility of youth. The old are water-logged physically. They are mentally
bound up with the institutions inside of which they have spent a lifetime,
and they want to enjoy in peace the wealth and position they have
attained. We shall be just the same forty years from now. But while we are
young is the time to make a forward run with the flag of Christ, the
banner of justice and love, and plant it on the heights yonder. We must
not only be better men and women than we are now. We must leave a better
world behind us when we are through with it. Whatever we affirm in our
growing years will work out in some fashion in our years of maturity and
power. If fifty thousand college men and women a year would range
themselves alongside of Jesus Christ, look at our present world as
open-eyed as he looked at his world, see where the social standards of
conduct are in contradiction with his spirit and with modern need, and
work to raise them, the world would feel the effect in ten years. And
those who would strive in that way would live by faith in the higher
commonwealth of God and have some of its nobility of spirit.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _Living Up to the Old Standards_
1. What would happen if a college community began to live up to the
standards of work and honor which all acknowledge?
2. Does human nature welcome a moral advance?
II. _The Ethical Program of Jesus_
1. What advance does Jesus’ program make necessary? State the main
principle in Matt. 5:17-48, and the six applications made by Jesus
himself. How was this principle connected with his idea of the Kingdom?
2. Can we agree with the principle? How far can we go with Jesus in his
application?
3. Would a man get more or less satisfaction out of life if he obeyed
these maxims in private life?
4. How far could a man hold his own if he obeyed them in a reasonable way
in business or in public life? If a man loved his enemies and turned the
other cheek, would he be everybody’s doormat or everybody’s friend and
refuge?
III. _Raising the Standards Today_
1. On what ethical questions have we come to the point where the moral
standards accepted by society can be and must be raised?
2. If you could purchase one single advance by your life, what would you
choose?
3. How does an expansion of the area of full social obligation operate to
raise the standards of conduct? Who is my neighbor, and who is not?
IV. _For Special Discussion_
1. A new intellectual age has opened with the rise of modern science; what
new moral standards should be the result of our new knowledge?
2. A new economic age opened with the invention of power machinery and the
social organization of labor; what new moral standards should have been
the result of the new wealth of civilization?
3. A new political era opened with the rise of democracy; what new moral
standards should be achieved in the life of States and cities?
4. A new era began in world-wide relations with the beginning of
steam-carried commerce; what new standards are needed for international
and inter-racial relations?
PART III. THE RECALCITRANT SOCIAL FORCES
Chapter VII. Leadership For Service
_Ambition Must Get Its Satisfaction by Serving Humanity_
The Kingdom of God was an ideal. If it was to be turned into concrete
realities, it would encounter the recalcitrant and stubborn instincts of
human nature and the conservative forces of society. Where did Jesus
locate the obstacles? At what points was he aware of resistance? Did he
realize the force of ambition and the love of power? Did he gauge the pull
of the property instinct? Did he feel religion as a help or a hindrance in
realizing the Kingdom of God? These questions we shall follow up in three
lessons.
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Trustee
And Peter said, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even
unto all? And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise
steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them
their portion of food in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom
his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto
you, that he will set him over all that he hath. But if that
servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and
shall begin to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to
eat and drink, and to be drunken; the lord of that servant shall
come in a day when he expecteth not, and in an hour when he
knoweth not, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint his portion
with the unfaithful. And that servant, who knew his lord’s will,
and made not ready, nor did according to his will, shall be beaten
with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And to whomsoever much
is given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they commit
much, of him will they ask the more.—Luke 12:41-48.
The preceding verses (v. 35-40) dealt with the faithfulness of the rank
and file; this parable deals with the responsibility of official position
and sketches the alternative of selfish and serviceable leadership. The
head steward had charge of a great estate, directing the labor of workmen
and maids, dealing out supplies, and controlling the welfare and happiness
of all. The absence of the master made his authority for the time
absolute. Would he use it for the good of all? If so, wider scope and
higher honor would come to him. Or would he become intoxicated with power,
take things easy, boss his fellow-servants around, and become a petty
tyrant? If so, he would get what was coming to him. Every man’s duty is
measured by his knowledge and by his power. If, therefore, a man rises to
leadership, and finds his elbow-room enlarging, let him stiffen his sense
of duty to correspond, or there will be trouble. Degeneration by power is
written all over history.
The functions of a head steward belong to the age of great landowners. How
would you modernize this parable to express the same ideas?
Second Day: Preparing for the Use of Power
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty
nights, he afterward hungered. And the tempter came and said unto
him, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become
bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth
of God. Then the devil taketh him into the holy city; and he set
him on the pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou art
the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written,
He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and,
On their hands they shall bear thee up,
Lest haply thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not make
trial of the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him unto an
exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the
world, and the glory of them; and he said unto him, All these
things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt
thou serve.—Matt.4:1-10.
The baptism of Jesus was an act of dedication to the coming reign of God,
and it brought him a deep spiritual experience. He came out of it with the
sense of an immediate mission, of being called to a supreme leadership,
and with the consciousness of power to correspond with his destiny. At
once he confronted the question: How would he employ his Messianic power?
By what means would he obtain leadership? In the desert his mind was
concentrated on these problems. This story displays the temptations of a
leader, and sums up his settlement on three points: first, he realized
that he must not swerve aside for personal gratification, but must serve
the will of God only; second, he must not debase his power by playing for
popularity by means of spectacular, miraculous display; third, he must not
win his leadership by methods that would mortgage him to the prince of
this world, for instance by the use of force.
How would these points apply to a young man seeking political office,
intellectual eminence, or artistic achievement?
_Have we ever had a time of religious concentration to consider the
problems of our future leadership?_
Third Day: The New Principle of Leadership
Then came to him the mother of the sons of Zebedee with her sons,
worshipping him, and asking a certain thing of him. And he said
unto her, What wouldest thou? She saith unto him, Command that
these my two sons may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy
left hand, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know
not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to
drink? They say unto him, We are able. He saith unto them, My cup
indeed ye shall drink: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left
hand, is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath
been prepared of my Father. And when the ten heard it, they were
moved with indignation concerning the two brethren. But Jesus
called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise
authority over them. Not so shall it be among you: but whosoever
would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever
would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of
man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give
his life a ransom for many.—Matt. 20:20-28.
This passage is fundamental for our subject. It is the clearest
formulation of the social principle involved in leadership. It contrasts
two opposite types of leadership throughout human history. Salome and her
sons thought Jesus was going to Jerusalem to inaugurate his Kingdom. They
asked for an advance pledge assuring them of the chief place. Jesus
replied that that place would not go by favoritism. There is a price to be
paid for leadership in his reign, and God alone will allot the final
honors. He felt in their request a relapse into conceptions that he
detested. In all political organizations he saw the tyrannical use of
power over the people. There must be an end of that in the new social
order. Ambition must seek its satisfaction by distinguished service, and
only extra-hazardous service shall win honor. He himself proposed to be a
leader of that new type, and to give his life as a ransom for the
emancipation of the people.
Our Master here offers each of us the conscious choice between two
principles of action. _Have we made our choice?_
He offers a norm for estimating the real value of men in public life.
_Have we ever tried to apply it?_
Fourth Day: The History of a Governing Class
Hear another parable: There was a man that was a householder, who
planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a
winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen,
and went into another country. And when the season of the fruits
drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, to receive his
fruits. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and
killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants
more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner. But
afterward he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence
my son. But the husbandmen, when they saw the son, said among
themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and take his
inheritance. And they took him, and cast him forth out of the
vineyard, and killed him. When therefore the lord of the vineyard
shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto
him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let
out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the
fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read
in the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner;
This was from the Lord,
And it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The
kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And he that falleth on
this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall
fall, it will scatter him as dust. And when the chief priests and
the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of
them. And when they sought to lay hold on him, they feared the
multitudes, because they took him for a prophet.—Matt. 21:33-46.
A delegation of the chief priests, lawyers, and elders challenged the
authority of Jesus to act as he did. He replied by challenging their
authority to act as they did. The vineyard parable sums up his view of the
moral history of the governing class in his nation. It was like a group of
men who had rented a vineyard on shares, but took advantage of the owner’s
absence to embezzle his share, insolently to beat up his representatives,
and to put themselves in possession of the farm. Every demand of God for
righteousness in the history of Israel had been resisted by those in
power. What title, then, did they have to the rights they claimed? Unless
they fulfilled the function of true leaders, why should they not be put
out of power and brought to justice? In this passage, then, we have a
characterization of leaders who take the profits and honors of leadership,
without performing its higher duties to God and humanity.
Is there any connection between this challenge of Jesus, and the
functional theories of society and the evolutionary conception of history?
Fifth Day: An Indictment of a Governing Class
Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying,
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, all things
therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do
not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yea, they bind
heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s
shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their
finger. But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they
make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their
garments, and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats
in the synagogues, and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to
be called of men, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is
your teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father
on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.
Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the
Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever
shall humble himself shall be exalted.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye
shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in
yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to
enter.—Matt. 23:1-13.
The invective against the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23) is a
characterization of selfish leadership in the field of religion. Its
fundamental elements have remained the same in all religions and through
all history: fine talk and little action; religion turned into a law and a
burden, in order to hold the people in obedience to the interests of the
leaders; pride and ambition exploiting religion to get honors. Jesus tells
the people to revolt against the titles in which this domination had found
decorative satisfaction. He demands democracy, humility, brotherliness.
Does this description justly apply to the Christian ministry today, or has
there been a great historical change by which that profession has become a
profession of service?
Where in modern social life would the invective of Jesus against selfish
leadership still be true?
Sixth Day: The Lost Leader
And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and
said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together,
about a hundred and twenty), Brethren, it was needful that the
scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before
by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that
took Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and received his portion
in this ministry. (Now this man obtained a field with the reward
of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the
midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all
the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that
field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.) For it is
written in the book of Psalms,
Let his habitation be made desolate,
And let no man dwell therein:
and,
His office let another take.—Acts 1:15-20.
The character and motives of Judas remain an unsolved riddle. The Gospels
leave no doubt that money played a part with him. But could a man whom
Jesus selected and trusted be actuated by so sordid a motive alone? Was he
perhaps embittered because he had staked his ambition on the Galilean
Messiah and Jesus failed to act the part assigned to him? Was he hoping to
force him to revolutionary action? We may be sure that Judas was no
slinking thief only. In Rubens’ picture of the Last Supper at Milano Judas
has a strong and noble face, but troubled and restless eyes, telling of a
hurt soul. The other disciples were deeply impressed by his betrayal of
the Master and of the common cause. Judas is the type of the lost leader.
“Just for a handful of silver he left us, just for a ribbon to stick in
his coat.” Some leaders blunder and learn better; some sag to lower levels
but plod on; some sell out. Judas could not bear to live. Read James
Russell Lowell’s “Extreme Unction.”
Have you known of cases today of men who have abandoned or betrayed a
cause to get office or income? Any who abandon humanity itself to get
thirty pieces for themselves?
Seventh Day: The New Order of Leaders
And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, teaching in
their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and
healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness. But when
he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion for them,
because they were distressed and scattered, as sheep not having a
shepherd. Then saith he unto his disciples, The harvest indeed is
plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of
the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his harvest.
And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them
authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all
manner of disease and all manner of sickness.
Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon,
who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of
Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas,
and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphæus, and Thaddæus;
Simon the Cananæan, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed
him.—Matt. 9:35-10:4.
We have studied part of this passage before as an expression of the social
feeling of Jesus. Note now that it was their leaderless condition which
impressed him. Plenty of priests, lawyers, and experts on the Bible, but
no friendly shepherds for the people. When he created the apostolate, he
initiated a new order of leadership, a band of men who would serve and not
exploit. Read the instructions he gave them (Chap. 10), and see how
carefully he fences out selfish gain. Service versus exploitation, that is
one of the tests of all who claim leadership in his name. We realize that
in the field of religion. But why should not the same test be made in
professional, political, and business life? Predatory action may not be as
glaringly shameful there, but is it any the more moral?
_Now what about you and me?_
Study for the Week
I
The desire to lead and excel is natural and right. Because men are
gregarious, they need leadership for their social groups, and social
progress depends largely on securing adequate leaders. Those who have the
natural gifts for leadership—and also those who merely think they
have—usually have a keen desire for its satisfactions. College life is a
miniature world of criss-cross ambitions and of contrivances for trying
out leaders.
Jesus did not demand self-effacement and the suppression of ability. He
welcomed evidences of noble self-assertion. His own Messianic call was a
summons to the highest leadership. His temptations were the settlement of
leadership problems. His final lament over the city of Jerusalem was a
burst of sorrow because he had failed to win his people to follow him.
Now, in moving about among men to win them for the Kingdom, Jesus
encountered the leaders who were on deck before he came—the wealthy men
who controlled the economic outfit; the official groups who held what
political power was left to the Jews; and the lawyers, theologians,
priests, and zealots who dominated the religious life of a very religious
people. These classes overlapped; together they constituted the oligarchy
of his nation. Both sides soon realized that there were fundamental
antagonisms between them. The conflict grew acute, until it headed up in
the great duel of the last days at Jerusalem. His experiences in this
conflict with hostile leadership are recorded in the passages which we
have studied and others like them.
II
In the fundamental reply to James and John he formulated his observations
in a great political generalization: “Ye know that the rulers of the
nations lord it over them and their great men hold down the rest by
force.” In its earlier and cruder forms, the State is a contrivance of a
victorious group to hold down the conquered, and exploit them. If anyone
has not yet read political history as an account of systematic
exploitation of nation by nation and class by class, he has some education
still coming to him.
Even where political leadership has not been plainly predatory but rested
on real service, humanity has often had a heavy price to pay for it.
Successful military leaders were able to perpetuate a royal dynasty and
perhaps fasten a race of hereditary incapables on a nation, to be
maintained in royal splendor. The feudal nobility performed useful work in
the earlier, turbulent times, but it continued to take rent and tribute
for centuries after its useful functions had lapsed. Modern business men
who have organized public service corporations have often served the
nation well, but they now own the highways and fundamental outfit of the
nation, and if their descendants or assignees collect tribute, perhaps on
inflated capitalization, for generations to come, it looks like rather
costly service. The obligations of power have a curious way of getting
lost in the shuffle of time, but titles, rank, legal privileges, rent, and
interest are carefully groomed. If one man loses them, some other man
nurses them, and the people always pay.
The Kingdom of God sets a fraternal and righteous social order against the
predatory and unrighteous order which humanity has inherited from the
past. The new order must have a new dynasty of leaders, for every social
order has its own kind of aristocracy. Jesus does not propose to abolish
leadership, but he proposes a new basis for greatness which is sharply
opposed to the old: “Whoever has ambition to be a great man among you, let
him be your servant; and whoever is ambitious to rank first among you, let
him be your bondservant. Just as the Son of Man did not come to have
others serve him, but to render service and to give his life as a ransom
for many.” Ability and ambition are still to lead, but they are to be
yoked to the service of all. Not he who kills and subjugates, but he who
makes life safe and happy, shall have the statue set up in his honor. Not
the great warrior and killer, but the great healer and the man who
multiplies the blades of grass and the ears of wheat and the size of
potatoes shall be the great names treasured. The higher the honor craved,
the more strenuous must be the service; if a man wants first prize, he
must get down to voluntary slavery. The old way to leadership was to knock
others down and climb up on them; the new way is to get underneath and
boost.
III
Jesus put himself under this law of leadership. We see from his words that
the cross was the outcome of a consistent principle adopted by him. The
rules he laid down for his apostolate were meant to bar out selfish
acquisition: “Freely ye received, freely give. Get you no gold, nor
silver, nor brass in your purses; no wallet for your journey, neither two
coats, nor shoes, nor staff; for the laborer is worthy of his food.” It is
a significant fact that again and again religious leaders who really cared
for the condition of the people, have tried to create a genuine leadership
for them along the same lines; Francis of Assisi gathered his “little
brothers”; Peter Waldus his Bible teachers; Wycliffe his “poor preachers”;
John Wesley his local preachers and itinerants; William Booth his ensigns
and captains with the big bass drum; and the entire foreign mission
propaganda calls for leaders who will go to the people and offers them
nothing but enough to live in health. Today practically the entire
Christian ministry, one of the most important bodies of men, has come
under the law of leadership for service. It was once, at least in its
upper-class sections, rich with unearned incomes, pervaded by graft, and
domineering in spirit; it is now a clean and plain-living profession;
whatever its shortcomings, graft and extortion are not of them.
The question is now, whether other professions will go through the same
historical process of cleansing. The religious spirit has pioneering
qualities; under its impulse men blaze the trail which broad social
movements or historical developments follow later. Greedy leadership first
seemed intolerable in the Church; after a time it may become intolerable
in politics and business. The trend of civilization is toward intelligent
service on plain pay. Educators, judges, scientists, doctors are on that
basis now. It has become dishonorable for them to use their positions for
a holdup. The great discoverers in the line of sero-therapy might have
taken toll in golden streams, but they did not. It would have been
contrary to the ethics of their profession. That means that their
profession is on a Christian basis. Where graft is taken out of politics,
officials become devoted public servants. The reproach has been made
against a man of great ability that at the end of his life his name is not
connected with any great cause or measure for the welfare of the people.
Whether the judgment was just or not, that point of view is the one to
take.
Can business be brought under the law of service? Or is commerce
constitutionally incapable of it? There are many indications that a
conscious spiritual change is coming over those men in business who have
enough intellect and character to look beyond immediate needs. The type of
business leadership which took millions out of filthy factory towns, wore
out women and took the youth out of children, cleared twelve per cent from
slum tenements, kept men and women from marriage by underpayment, and kept
the cradle empty by high prices and fear of the future—this type of
leadership is antiquated. It belongs to a pre-Christian and pagan age. It
is only a question whether business leaders will voluntarily turn their
back on such misuse of power or have a change forced on them. Those who
mark time on the old methods will become moral derelicts, and their wealth
will not forever screen their moral obtuseness.
The nation needs leaders who will persuade conservative farmers to use
scientific methods; who will teach our wasteful people the value of
self-restraint, and the beauty of cooperative buying and selling; who will
teach our communities that it is a sin to rob our own children by leaving
soil, water, and forests poorer than we found them; who will give the
people good housing without taking the unearned increment; who will
organize the dangerous industries for safety; who will place the relations
of leaders and workers in industry on a basis of justice and goodwill so
that industrial peace can be attained. Is such an object satisfying to a
young man of business capacity, or does he want to build a million dollar
house and populate it with one child? It is confessed that civilization
has been succeeding on the technical side and failing on the ethical. The
more the machinery of life is concentrated in the hands of a limited group
of business leaders, the more important does the social enlightenment and
moral objective of these leaders become to society. To which of the two
types do we belong?
IV
Will a life of service satisfy the capable and call out their best powers
for the service of humanity? Men will play the game according to the rules
of the game. If humanity changes the rules, its strong men will still let
out their energies, because they can not help it, and they will like
themselves all the better for being on the side of their fellow-men. There
is no pleasure in being isolated, eyed with resentment, and conscious of
hardness. If ten per cent net means long hours, low wages, and repression,
and if six per cent would mean good will and contentment, it might pay the
leaders of industry to take less in dividends and take it out in the
higher satisfactions.
For men of great ability this is the chance for enduring fame. Who will
remember the men that did nothing but amass wealth? Who of our presidents
are remembered and loved? Those who suffered with and for the people.
The leadership of service validates its rightness by its intellectual
results. Predatory and parasitic classes become intellectually sterile and
ignorant of real life. A man who wants to serve men, must get close to
them. If we carry a load uphill, we have to choose our footing, and will
perforce become intimately acquainted with the law of gravitation. Nothing
develops the intellect like heading a just cause and fighting for it.
Here, then, we have another social principle of Jesus. The ambition of the
strong must be yoked to the service of society. Power and honor must be
earned by distinguished and costly service. Progress along this direction
marks the progress of the Kingdom of God. Extortionate and domineering
leadership must be superseded where the Kingdom of God moves forward.
V
Does the life of our colleges and universities square with this principle?
College men and women crave honor from their fellows, or their
fraternities crave it for them vicariously. How do the “big men” in
college win it? Do they win it by raising the standards of intellectual
work for all? By making fun clean and honorable through the power of a
clean public opinion? By creating a college spirit which will put manhood
into every generation of Freshmen that plunges into it? Or do they win
honor by organizing parties, by intoxicating themselves and others with
frothy “social” successes, by acting for the gallery to see and applaud,
and by wasting the dynamics of youth on shooting rockets that look like
stars and come down like sticks? Such men are essentially selfish; even
their service is self-seeking and deserves no honor from others. The more
talented and attractive they are, the more damage do they do. They
perpetuate their kind. If fraternities or honorary societies honor and
reward that sort of leadership, they force individuals into futility, and
reenforce the natural temptation to shallow work and display by the
powerful pressure of socialized public opinion.
What has just been said applies to the inner life of the college group
during its brief command over young men and women. But meanwhile the
outside life is waiting for them. Society creates and finances the
colleges and universities from the social fund created by those who work.
A college man who toys with his work and fights those who want to make him
work, ought to be demoted and his chance given to some workingman who has
intellectual hunger and would use it. But even of the able and efficient
college men society has a right to inquire whether it is training enemies
and exploiters or friends and leaders. This question will be asked more
and more insistently by democracy as it becomes intelligent. Christianity
anticipates this inquiry by its appeal to the individual conscience. Every
college man and woman should choose the principle on which he proposes to
exercise leadership in case he wins it. Are we willing to gain wealth by
impoverishing others? Are we willing to get pleasure by degrading others?
Are we willing to gain power and freedom for ourselves by making others
powerless and unfree? Jesus distinguishes three kinds of men who are
interested in the sheep—the robber, the hireling, and the shepherd. You
can tell the presence of the robber by the death of the sheep; the
hireling by his cowardice; the true leader by his valor and love.
A special word should be said to college women. In her book on “Woman and
Labor,” Olive Schreiner has pointed out that as families rise to wealth,
the women slip into parasitism more readily than the men. They cease to do
productive work, accept the luxuries of life as their right, and fall in
with upper-class pretensions. The means of leadership—time, wealth, social
resources—are at their command. How will they use them? The number of
women with unearned incomes is increasing rapidly in America. Now, if much
is given them, much will be required. Can they produce enough social
values to justify what they consume? The least we can do is to give as
much as we get. Anything less is immoral.
What kind of influence do college girls exert on able young men who turn
toward them in love? Nothing will shrivel the idealistic conceptions of
life in a young man as thoroughly as love for a selfish woman. The world
is full of eyeless Samsons, grinding the money-mills, and whipped to a
quicker pace by smiling grafters—who would not recognize this description
of them if they saw it.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Need of Leadership_
1. Does the need of leadership diminish with the spread of democracy? With
the growth of education?
2. Do we need leadership more or less in America today than fifty years
ago?
II. _Jesus on the Problems of Leadership_
1. Give proof that Jesus consciously confronted the problem of social
leadership.
2. What elements did he condemn in the old leadership of his nation?
3. What principle of leadership did he lay down for the new social order?
4. What body of leaders did he create, and what standards of special honor
did he impose on them?
5. What do we think of the historic effectiveness of the leadership he
created? What is the true interpretation of Judas Iscariot?
6. What evidences are there in Jesus’ career that he was true to his
ideals of leadership?
III. _The Problem of Leadership in History_
1. How have the great leaders in the field of religion attacked the
problem of leadership in the Church? What does the Protestant Reformation
signify from this point of view?
2. How have the landed aristocrats of the past met the Christian test of
leadership?
3. Give examples from history and from modern life of men who exercised
power in the way Christ condemned. Give examples of others who exercised
it according to Christ’s law.
IV. _The Problem of Leadership in Modern Life_
1. In what professions is ambition now securely tied up with service, so
that a man must serve well in order to rise?
2. In what positions can a man still gain power and wealth by exploiting
society?
3. Is the consciousness that they are public servants spreading among
business men? If so, to what is this due?
4. Is society paying too big a price for the leadership of the industrial
aristocracy today?
5. When the interests of the stockholders are set over against the health
of women and children, and the safety of employes, which consideration
determines the wages paid?
6. How have the social leaders of the past mortgaged the economic
resources of nations to their own families? To what extent is this true of
our country?
7. How can society protect itself against exploitation under present
conditions?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. A corporation has averaged 24 per cent to its stockholders. It pays
twelve dollars a week to its ordinary workmen. Would you call this
predatory leadership? Where do you draw the line?
2. Does the salary of teachers in our country indicate that we give honor
according to service rendered?
3. How does the increasing size of business undertakings and their
importance for public welfare emphasize the ethical importance of right
leadership?
Chapter VIII. Private Property And The Common Good
_Private Property Must Serve Social Welfare_
A glance across history or a simple acquaintance with human life in any
community will show us that private property is at the same time a
necessary expression of personality and stimulator of character, and, on
the other hand, a chief outlet and fortification of selfishness. Every
reformatory effort must aim to conserve and spread the blessings of
property, and every step toward a better social order will be pugnaciously
blocked by its selfish beneficiaries.
What were Jesus’ convictions about private property?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Rival Interest
And he spake to them many things in parables, saying, Behold, the
sower went forth to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell by the
way side, and the birds came and devoured them: and others fell
upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth: and
straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth:
and when the sun was risen, they were scorched; and because they
had no root, they withered away. And others fell upon the thorns;
and the thorns grew up and choked them: and others fell upon the
good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty,
some thirty.... When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and
understandeth it not, then cometh the evil one, and snatcheth away
that which hath been sown in his heart. This is he that was sown
by the way side. And he that was sown upon the rocky places, this
is he that heareth the word, and straight-way with joy receiveth
it; yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and
when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word,
straightway he stumbleth. And he that was sown among the thorns,
this is he that heareth the word; and the care of the world, and
the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh
unfruitful. And he that was sown upon the good ground, this is he
that heareth the word, and understandeth it; who verily beareth
fruit, and bringeth forth, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some
thirty.—Matt. 13:3-8; 19-23.
This parable was intended to explain to the disciples why the Kingdom was
not coming with a rush, as they expected. The story embodies the practical
experiences of Jesus in his propaganda. He saw his work as a duplication
of the sower’s work on a higher level. The success of both depends on the
receptiveness of the soil. The sower encounters hard trodden ground, rocky
patches, and spots where hardy thorns or thistles drain the soil and where
his work produces only empty ears and futile beginnings. So Jesus met the
stolid conservative and also the emotional type. But the climax of his
difficulties was a mind preoccupied by property worries, or lured by the
illusions of wealth. He early found, then, that devotion to property is
likely to be a rival to the higher interests and the common good.
How do modern social groups line up when measured by spiritual
receptiveness?
Second Day: The Accumulator
And one out of the multitude said unto him, Teacher, bid my
brother divide the inheritance with me. But he said unto him, Man,
who made me a judge or a divider over you? And he said unto them,
Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness: for a man’s
life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he
possesseth. And he spoke a parable unto them, saying, The ground
of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully; and he reasoned
within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have not where
to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down
my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my grain
and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much
goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be
merry. But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy
soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared,
whose shall they be? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself,
and is not rich toward God.—Luke 12:13-21.
Most men today would have no fault to find with this man. He was only
doing what the modern world is unanimously trying to do. Having made a
pile, he proposed to make a bigger pile. Meanwhile he slapped his soul on
the back and smacked his lips in anticipation. To Jesus the fat farmer was
a tragic comedy. In the first place, an unseen hand was waiting to snuff
out his candle. To plan life as if it consisted in an abundance of
material wealth is something of a miscalculation in a world where death is
part of the scheme of things. In the second place, Jesus saw no higher
purpose in the man’s aim and outlook to redeem his acquisitiveness. The
man was a sublimated chipmunk, gloating over bushels of pignuts. If wealth
is saved to raise and educate children, or achieve some social good, it
deserves moral respect or admiration. But if the acquisitive instinct is
without social feeling or vision, and centered on self, it gets no
respect, at least from Jesus.
Unlimited acquisition used to be considered immoral and dishonorable. How
and when did public opinion change on this?
Third Day: Quit Grafting
And the multitudes asked him, saying, What then must we do? And he
answered and said unto them, He that hath two coats, let him
impart to him that hath none; and he that hath food, let him do
likewise. And there came also publicans to be baptized, and they
said unto him, Teacher, what must we do? And he said unto them,
Extort no more than that which is appointed you. And soldiers also
asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them,
Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse any one wrongfully;
and be content with your wages.—Luke 3:10-14.
The social teachings of John the Baptist were so close to those of Jesus
that we can safely draw on them in this passage.
John told the people that a new era was coming and they would have to get
a new mind and manner of life as an outfit for it. The people asked for
specifications. John’s suggestions ran along two lines. He encouraged the
plain working people to be neighborly and friendly, and share with a man
who was hard up. With powerful individuals, like hired soldiers and Roman
tax-farmers, he insisted that they must quit using their physical force
and legal power as a cinch to extort money. In other words, they must quit
grafting. In the Kingdom of God the “big, black book of graft” will be
closed, and men will no longer eat their protesting fellow-men. The more
we realize that some form of graft is at the bottom of most easy incomes,
the more good sense will we see in this kind of evangelism.
Have we ever been a victim of extortion? How did it feel? Did it sour the
milk of human kindness in us?
Fourth Day: God versus Mammon
Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and
rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay
up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust
doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
for where thy treasure is there will thy heart be also. The lamp
of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy
whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy
whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that
is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness! No man can
serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon.—Matt. 6:19-24.
Acquisition may operate on different planes. A man may accumulate material
stuff, or he may acquire spiritual faculties, memories, and relations. In
a balanced life the two work side by side in peace, and each may aid the
other. But the experience of all spiritual teachers shows that practically
the acquisition of property often becomes a passion which absorbs the man
and leaves little energy for the higher pursuits. Most men who have used
up their life to acquire wealth look back with homesickness to some
idealistic aspiration of their youth as to a lost Edenland. Jesus felt the
antagonism of private wealth and the Kingdom of God so keenly that he set
God and Mammon over against each other, and warned us that we must choose
between them. Placed in this connection, the saying about the darkening of
the inner light seems to refer to the influence of money-getting on the
higher vision of the soul. This entire passage is fundamental and will
explain other sayings which follow.
Do God and money come into flat collision in college life?
Fifth Day: The Divisive Influence of Riches
Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and
fine linen, faring sumptuously every day: and a certain beggar
named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to
be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table; yea,
even the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that
the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into
Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. And
in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth
Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said,
Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may
dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am
in anguish in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that
thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in
like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted, and thou
art in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you there is
a great gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you
may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us.
And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest
send him to my father’s house; for I have five brethren; that he
may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of
torment. But Abraham saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let
them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to
them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If
they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be
persuaded, if one rise from the dead.—Luke 16:19-31.
Why does Jesus send the rich man to hell as if it were a matter of course?
No crimes or vices are alleged. It must be that a life given over to
sumptuous living and indifferent to the want and misery of a fellow-man at
the doorstep seemed to Jesus a deeply immoral and sinful life. Jesus
exerted all his energies to bring men close together in love. But wealth
divides. It creates semi-human relations between social classes, so that a
small dole seems to be a full discharge of obligations toward the poor,
and manly independence and virtue may be resented as offensive. The sting
of this parable is in the reference to the five brothers who were still
living as Dives had lived, and whom he was vainly trying to reach by
wireless. See verse 14 in explanation.
Is it fair to call the relations between the selfish rich and the
dependent poor “semi-human relations”?
Sixth Day: Get a Plank for the Deluge
And he said also unto the disciples, There was a certain rich man,
who had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he was
wasting his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, What is
this that I hear of thee? render the account of thy stewardship;
for thou canst be no longer steward. And the steward said within
himself, What shall I do, seeing that my lord taketh away the
stewardship from me? I have not strength to dig; to beg I am
ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the
stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. And calling to
him each one of his lord’s debtors, he said to the first, How much
owest thou unto my lord? And he said, A hundred measures of oil.
And he said unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down quickly and
write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And
he said, A hundred measures of wheat. He saith unto him, Take thy
bond, and write fourscore. And his lord commended the unrighteous
steward because he had done wisely: for the sons of this world are
for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light. And I
say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of
unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you
into the eternal tabernacles.—Luke 16:1-9.
This is one of the wittiest stories in the Bible and must be read with
some sense of humor. The tenant farmers of a great estate paid their rent
in shares of the produce. This elastic system offered the steward a chance
to make something on the side. He was found out and discharged, but while
he was closing up his accounts he still had a short spell of authority.
Things looked dark. He did not care to blister his white hands with a
hoe-handle, nor his social pride by begging. So he grafted one last graft,
but on so large a scale that the tenants would be under lasting
obligations to him. The scamp was a crook, but at least he was
long-headed. Jesus wished the children of light were as clever in taking a
long look ahead as the children of this world. In that case men would get
ready for the new age, in which mammon loses its buying power, by making
friends with it now, and their friends would take them in as guests after
the great reversal.
How do you like the humorous independence of Jesus?
Seventh Day: Stranded on His Wealth
And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I
do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest
thou me good? none is good, save one, even God. Thou knowest the
commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal,
Do not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother. And he
said, All these things have I observed from my youth up. And when
Jesus heard it, he said unto him, One thing thou lackest yet: sell
all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when he heard
these things, he became exceeding sorrowful; for he was very rich.
And Jesus seeing him said, How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to
enter in through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God.—Luke 18:18-25.
A fine young man, of clean and conscientious life, but with unsatisfied
aspirations in his soul. Jesus invites him to a more heroic type of
excellence, cutting loose from his wealth and devoting himself to the
apostolate of the Kingdom of God. It was a great chance for a great life.
He might have stood for God before kings and mobs, and ranked with Peter,
John, and Paul as a household name. He did not rise to his chance. What
held him? Jesus felt it was his wealth. A poor man would have had less to
leave, and might have left it cheerfully. So Jesus sums up the
psychological situation in the saddened exclamation that it is exceedingly
hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom where men live in justice,
fraternity, and idealism.
Have you noticed that in recent years an increasing number of this man’s
grandsons are trying to cut loose and find the real life, eternal life?
Can you name any?
Study for the Week
Evidently the dangers connected with property were much in the mind of
Jesus. He seems to have emphasized them more fully and frequently than the
evils of licentiousness or drunkenness. The modern Church has reversed the
relative emphasis. Why?
Of course we must not look for the methods or viewpoints of political
economy in his teachings. His concern was for the spiritual vitality and
soundness of the individual, and for the human relations existing among
men. He was interested in property only in so far as it corrupted the
higher nature or made fraternity difficult. But let no one underestimate
the importance of these considerations. These things are the real end of
life. All the rest is scaffolding. We should be farther along if the
economic and social sciences had kept these fundamental questions more
sternly in sight.
I
Plainly Jesus felt that the acquisitive instinct, like the sex instinct,
easily breaks bounds and becomes ravenous; there is even less natural
limit to it. It absorbs the energies of intellect and will. As with the
rich fool, the horizon of life is filled with chances to make the pile
grow bigger. Life seems to consist of money, and the problems of money.
People are valued according to that standard. Marriages are arranged for
it. Politics is run for it. Wars are begun for it. Creative artistic and
intellectual impulses are shouldered aside, fall asleep, or die of
inanition. Property is intended to secure freedom of action and
self-development; in fact, it often chains men and clips their wings. This
is what Jesus calls “the deceitfulness of riches” and “the darkening of
the inner eye.”(2)
In addition to the blight of character, wealth exerts a desocializing and
divisive influence. It wedges apart groups that belong together. Dives and
Lazarus may live in the front and rear of the same block, but with no
sense of solidarity. Dives would have been deeply moved, perhaps, if one
of his own class had punctured a tire in the Philistian desert and gone
for two days without any food except crumbs. The separation of humanity
into classes on the lines of wealth is so universal and so orthodox that
few of us ever realize that it flouts all the principles of Christianity
and humanity.
In the case of the young ruler Jesus encountered the fact that wealth bars
men out of the world of their ideals. The question was not whether the
young man could get to heaven, but whether he could have a share in the
real life, in the kingdom of right relations. It is hard to acquire great
wealth without doing injustice to others; it is hard to possess it and yet
deal with others on the basis of equal humanity; it is hard to give it
away even without doing mischief.
We have seen that Jesus believed profoundly in the value and dignity of
human life; that he sought to create solidarity; that he was chiefly
concerned for the saving of the lowly; and that he demanded an heroic life
in the service of the Kingdom of God. But wealth, as he saw it, flouted
the value of life, dissolved the spiritual solidarity of whole classes,
and kept the lowly low; the wealthy had lost the capacity for an heroic
life.
This is radical teaching. What shall we say to it? Jesus is backed by the
Old Testament prophets and the most spiritual teaching of the Hebrew
people, which condemned injustice and extortionate money-making even more
energetically than did Jesus. Medieval Christianity sincerely assented to
the principle that private property is a danger to the soul and a
neutralizer of love. Every monastic community tried to cut under sex
dangers by celibacy, and property dangers by communism. This was an
enormous misinterpretation of Christianity, but it shows that men took the
teachings on the dangers of private property seriously. The modern
Christian world does not. It has quietly set aside the ideas of Jesus on
this subject, lives its life without much influence from them, and
contents itself with emphasizing other aspects.
Has the teaching of Jesus on private property been superseded by a better
understanding of the social value of property? Or has his teaching been
suppressed and swamped by the universal covetousness of modern life? “Our
moral pace-setters strike at bad personal habits, but act as if there was
something sacred about money-getting; and, _seeing that the master
iniquities of our time are connected with money-making_, they do not get
into the fight at all. The child-drivers, monopoly-builders, and crooked
financiers have no fear of men whose thought is run in the moulds of their
grandfathers. Go to the tainted-money colleges, and you will learn that
Drink, not Graft, is the nation’s bane” (Edward A. Ross, “Sin and Society,
an Analysis of Latter-day Iniquity,” p. 97—the italics are his).
II
The machinery for making money which Jesus knew, was simple, crude, and
puny compared with the complicated and pervasive system which the magnates
of modern industry have built up. There was probably not a millionaire in
all Palestine. What would he have said to our great cities?
We need a Christian ethics of property, more perhaps than anything else.
The wrongs connected with wealth are the most vulnerable point of our
civilization. Unless we can make that crooked place straight, all our
charities and religion are involved in hypocrisy.
We have to harmonize the two facts, that wealth is good and necessary, and
that wealth is a danger to its possessor and to society. On the one hand
property is indispensable to personal freedom, to all higher
individuality, and to self-realization; the right to property is a
corollary of the right to life; without property men are at the mercy of
nature and in bondage to those who have property. On the other hand
property is used as a means of collecting tribute and private taxes, as a
club with which to extort unearned gain from laborers and consumers, and
as the fundamental tool of oppression.
Where do we draw the line? Is it true that property created by productive
labor is a great moralizer, and that property acquired without productive
labor is the great demoralizer? Is it correct that property for use is on
the whole good, and property for power is a menace?
What is the relation between property and self-development? At what point
does property become excessive? At what point does food become excessive
and poisonous? At what point does fertilizer begin to kill a plant? Would
any real social values be lost if incomes averaged $2,000 and none
exceeded $10,000?
To what extent does a moral purpose take the dangers out of acquisition?
Is any life moral in which the natural capacities are not sincerely taxed
to do productive work? If a man’s wealth is destined to cut his
descendants off from productive labor, is it a blessing? What is the moral
difference between strenuous occupation and labor? How large a proportion
of our time and energy can be devoted to play and leisure without
softening our moral fiber?
At what points does private property come to be anti-social? If we could
eliminate the monopoly elements and the capacity to levy tribute, would
there be much danger in the remainder?
Does private property, in the enormous aggregations of today and in
control of the essential outfit of society, still correspond to the
essential theoretical conception of private property, or have public
properties and public functions fallen under private control? “Much that
we are accustomed to hear called legitimate insistence upon the rights of
property, the Old Testament would seem to call the robbery of God, and
grinding the faces of the poor” (The Bishop of Oxford).
III
The religious spirit will always have to call the individual farther than
the law can compel him to go. After all unjust and tainted portions have
been eliminated from our property, religion lays its hands on the rest and
says, “You are only a steward over this.” In the parables of the talents,
the pounds, and the unjust steward, Jesus argues on the assumption that
our resources are a trust, and not absolute property. We manage and
control them, but always under responsibility. We hold them from God, and
his will has eminent domain. But the will of God is identical with the
good of mankind. When we hold property in trust for God, we hold it for
humanity, of which we are part. We misuse the trust if by it we deprive
others of health, freedom, joy, hope, or efficiency, for instance, by
overworking others and underworking our own children.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Love of Money_
1. Define graft. What is wrong in it? Where do we see it? Where are we
myopic about it?
2. Why did Jesus have so much to say about money and so little about
drink? Why does Paul call the love of money “the root of all evil”?
II. _Jesus’ Fear of Riches_
1. On what ground does Jesus fear the influence of riches and of their
accumulation?
2. Summarize Jesus’ teachings regarding wealth.
3. In what respects is his attitude different from the ordinary viewpoint
of the modern world?
4. Was Jesus opposed to the owning of farming tools or fishing smacks?
Where would he draw the line between honest earnings and dangerous wealth?
5. Was his teaching on wealth ascetic? Was it socialistic?
6. To what extent should we recognize his insight on this question as
authority for us?
III. _The Problem of Wealth in the Modern World_
I. Are the "master iniquities" of our age located in sex life, politics,
or business?
2. Distinguish between “property for use” and “property for power.”
3. What are the moral evils created by mass poverty? By aggregations of
wealthy families?
4. Why has the modern world set aside Jesus’ teachings about wealth? To
what extent have we substituted a better understanding of the social value
of property? How far should we be satisfied with our present adjustment of
the property question?
5. What methods of money making are condemned by the common sentiment of
the Church? Is there anything which ought to be included in this
condemnation? If so, what?
IV. _The Christian Attitude Toward Property and Wealth Under Modern
Conditions_
1. At what point does the amassing of private property become contrary to
the principles of Jesus?
2. What legalized property rights are antagonistic to Jesus’ principles?
3. How can society accumulate wealth without the injustice and social
divisions which now accompany the amassing of private fortunes?
4. If a man has an invested income, has he the right to live a life of
leisure? When is it right to be a non-producer?
5. How rich has a Christian a right to be? In a Christian society what is
the minimum limit of income?
6. Would economic democracy eliminate or enforce the doctrine of
stewardship?
7. How can we pluck the sting of sin out of private property?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. Are millionaires a symptom of social disease or a triumph of
civilization?
2. Should social science reckon with the influence of wealth on personal
character?
3. What moral conviction is expressed in the condemnation of usurious
interest and of rack-rent? Should excessive profit be included?
4. How could industry be financed if there were no wealthy investors with
accumulations?
5. When is a college student a parasite?
6. If college communities had less money would they breed better men and
women?
7. How have the successes of predatory finance affected the outlook and
morality of college students?
Chapter IX. The Social Test Of Religion
_Religion Must be Socially Efficient_
The teaching of Jesus dealt with three recalcitrant forces, which easily
escape from the control of social duty and become a clog to spiritual
progress: ambition for power and leadership, and the love of property,
have been considered. How about religion? Is it a help or a hindrance in
the progress of humanity? Opinions are very much divided today. No student
of society can neglect religion as a social force. What did Jesus think of
it?
DAILY READINGS
First Day: Worship is not Enough
What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I
have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed
beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs,
or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath
required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more
vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and
sabbath, the calling of assemblies,—I cannot away with iniquity
and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary of bearing
them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes
from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your
hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the
evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn
to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the
fatherless, plead for the widow.—Isa. 1:11-17.
Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the
high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with
calves a year old? will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams,
or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born
for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah
require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to
walk humbly with thy God?—Micah 6:6-8.
These two passages are classical expressions of a note which runs through
all the prophetic teaching of the Old Testament. There was a fundamental
antagonism between those who saw the service of God in the inherited
ritual and sacrificial action, and those who felt that the essential
service of God is righteousness of life. The prophets wanted a religion
that would change social conduct, and repudiated religious doings that had
no ethical value. They held that worship alone is not enough. God wants
life and conduct.
Suggest parallels from the history of the Christian or the non-Christian
religions.
Second Day: The Test of Social Value
And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through
the grainfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck
the ears. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on
the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them,
Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was
hungry, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the
house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread,
which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also
to them that were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was
made for man; and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man
is lord even of the sabbath.
And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there
who had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would
heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he
saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he
saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to
do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being
grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man,
Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand
was restored.—Mark 2:23-3:5.
The Mosaic law intended the Sabbath to be a haven of rest for all who were
driven, the slave, the immigrant, even the cattle. It was a precious
institution of social protection. But the strict religionists of Jesus’
time had made a yoke of tyranny of it, so that hungry men could not rub
the kernels from ears of grain without being charged with threshing, and
Jesus could not heal a poor paralytic without getting black looks. A fine
institution of social welfare and relief had been turned into an
anti-social regulation. Jesus fell back on the fundamental maxim of the
prophets, “I desire kindness and not sacrifice,” and laid down the
principle that “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the
Sabbath.” The religious institution of the Sabbath must have social value;
this is the essential test even in religion.
Is the Sabbath more useful to society now than in Puritan times?
From which do we suffer more today, from excessive strictness or excessive
looseness in Sabbath observance?
How is the social value of the rest-day frustrated for the working class?
Third Day: Natural Duty above Artificial
And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy
disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their
bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah
prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoreth me with their lips,
But their heart is far from me.
But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.
Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of
men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment
of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy
father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or
mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to
his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been
profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no
longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making
void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered:
and many such like things ye do.—Mark 7:5-13.
Contemporary Jewish religion was full of taboos, defilements, and
purifications. Read Mark 7:1-23. Jesus was so indifferent about the
religious ablutions that he was brought to book for it by the pious. He
replied that these regulations were not part of the divine law, but later
accretions the product of theological casuistry, and that they tended to
obscure the real divine duties. He cited a flagrant case. By eternal and
divine law a man owes love and support to his parents. But the scribes
held that if a man vowed to give money to the temple, this obligation,
being toward God, superseded the obligation to his parents, which was
merely human. To Jesus this seemed a perversion of religion.
Ecclesiastical claims were made to stifle fundamental social duty. To
Jesus the latter had incomparably higher value. Religion had become a
social danger through such teaching.
Give proof from modern history that religious institutions may become
injurious to social morality and welfare.
Fourth Day: Religion Which Obscured Duty
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint
and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters
of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to
have done, and not to have left the other undone. Ye blind guides,
that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse
the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are
full from extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first
the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof
may become clean also.—Matt. 23:23-26.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass
sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, ye
make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves.—Matt. 23:15.
The great invective of Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew
23) deals wholly with the perversions of religion. In these verses he
emphasizes the fact that the solemn importance attached to external
minutiæ turned the attention of men from the really fundamental spiritual
duties, such as justice, mercy, and good faith. As the blood was supposed
to be the sacred element of life, it had to be drained off in butchering,
and a drowned animal could not be eaten. Jesus wittily describes the
Pharisee filtering out drowned gnats from the drinking water, but bolting
some camel of a sin without blinking. The outside of the cup was kept
scrupulously scoured, but the inside was filled with the products of
rapacity and the material for luxurious excess. When religion had become
of such a sort, even missionary activity became an actual damage, for the
converts were turned into fanatical sticklers on trifles. In all this we
can see him striking out for a kind of religion that would result in
righteous conduct and have social value.
_Have we had any experience of religion which obscured duty to us? Have we
had any experience of religion which revealed duty to us?_
Fifth Day: Religious Wonders and Social Realities
And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and trying him asked him to
show them a sign from heaven. But he answered and said unto them,
When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the
heaven is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day:
for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye know how to discern the
face of the heaven; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times.
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there
shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of Jonah. And he left
them, and departed.—Matt. 16:1-4.
This demand for a miracle pursued Jesus all through his teaching activity.
He settled with it on principle in his desert temptation; he would not
leap from the pinnacles of the temple, or do anything to turn his work
into a holy circus. But the demand followed him to his death: “If thou art
the Son of God, come down from the cross.” A good, stunning miracle seemed
a short cut to faith, the most convincing way of furnishing proof of his
divine mission. Also, it would be mighty interesting. But he never catered
to the demand. His power was only for the relief of suffering. He tried to
keep his acts of healing private. In this passage he advised his opponents
to use their intellect in more useful directions than stargazing for signs
from heaven. They were weather-wise. Let them read the signs of the times.
Storms were brewing on the horizon. Forty years later Titus destroyed
Jerusalem and broke the back of the Jewish nation. The prophetic mind of
Jesus saw it coming (Luke 19:41-44).
If they had accepted his teaching of peace instead of getting intoxicated
by the visions of revolutionary apocalypticism, the doom might have been
averted. He was trying to bring their feet to the ground, turn their mind
to realities, and make their religion socially efficient.
Would the sight of a miracle have effected a moral change in a Pharisee?
How would religion be affected, if miraculous demonstrations could be
furnished at will?
Sixth Day: When Religion Separates Men
And as Jesus passed by from thence, he saw a man, called Matthew,
sitting at the place of toll: and he saith unto him, Follow me.
And he arose, and followed him.
And it came to pass, as he sat at meat in the house, behold, many
publicans and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his
disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his
disciples, Why eateth your Teacher with the publicans and sinners?
But when he heard it, he said, They that are whole have no need of
a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what this
meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice: for I came not to call
the righteous, but sinners.—Matt. 9:9-13.
The Jewish community, religious at the core, had a fringe of people who
had failed to live up to the requirements of the Law. They came under the
condemnation of the respectable people and of their own conscience, and
drifted into the despised and vicious occupations. These were the
“publicans and sinners,” the “publicans and harlots,” to whom the Gospels
refer. A socially efficient religion would have prompted the good people
to establish loving and saving contact with these people. Actually
religion so accentuated the social divergence that the Pharisees were
shocked when Jesus mingled in a friendly way with this class and even
added one of them to his traveling companions. The parables of the lost
coin, lost sheep, and prodigal son were spoken in reply to the slur, “This
man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15). The elder brother
of the prodigal pictures this loveless and censorious religion.
Jesus crossed the line of demarcation and established social contact and
friendliness, through which salvation could come to these religious
derelicts. He quoted again the old saying of the prophets, “I desire
mercy, and not sacrifice.” God was not as much concerned about correct
religious performances as the Pharisees thought, and a great deal more
concerned about mercy for the fallen, and the simple human qualities which
bring the strong and the weak together.
What experiences have we had of refusal to associate? Was the cleavage
along lines of race, wealth, education, morals, or religion?
_Has religion with us been an impulse toward men, or away from men?_
Seventh Day: Be Useful or Die
And he spake this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in
his vineyard; and he came seeking fruit thereon, and found none.
And he said unto the vinedresser, Behold, these three years I come
seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why
doth it also cumber the ground? And he answering saith unto him,
Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and
dung it: and if it bear fruit thenceforth, well; but if not, thou
shalt cut it down.—Luke 13:6-9.
Jesus evidently had some interest in scientific agriculture. Both the
owner and the vine-dresser in this parable were out for agricultural
efficiency. The owner hated to see soil and space wasted; the vine-dresser
was reluctant to sacrifice a tree, and proposed better tillage and more
fertilizer. Taking this parable in connection with what precedes, we see
that Jesus was concerned about the future of his nation and its religion.
Both would have to validate their right to exist; God could not have them
cumber the ground. They must make good. This is the stern urge of the God
whom we know in history and evolution, with the voice of Christ pleading
for patience. But it is agreed between them that ultimately the law of
fitness must rule. Religion can not bank on claims of antiquity alone.
Every generation must find it newly efficient to create the social virtues
then needed. Remember that this was spoken by a Jewish patriot and the
supreme exponent of the Hebrew religion.
Give historical instances of the permanent downfall or decline of nations.
Trace the connection between their fate and their religion.
Study for the Week
Jesus Christ was the founder of the highest religion; he was himself the
purest religious spirit known to us. Why, then, was he in opposition to
religion? The clash between him and the representatives of organized
religion was not occasional or superficial. It ran through his whole
activity, was one of the dominant notes in his teaching, culminated in the
great spiritual duel between him and the Jewish hierarchy in the last days
at Jerusalem, and led directly to his crucifixion.
I
The opposition of Jesus was not, of course, against religion itself, but
against religion as he found it. It was not directed against any departure
from the legitimate order of the priesthood; nor against an improper
ritual or wrong doctrine of sacrifices. In fact, it did not turn on any of
the issues which were of such importance to the Church in later times. He
criticized the most earnest religious men of his day because their
religion harmed men instead of helping them. It was unsocial, or
anti-social.
The Old Testament prophets also were in opposition to the priestly system
of their time because it used up the religious interest of the people in
ceremonial performances without ethical outcome. It diverted spiritual
energy, by substituting lower religious requirements for the one
fundamental thing which God required—righteousness in social and political
life. They insisted over and over that Jehovah wants righteousness and
wants nothing else. Their aim was to make religion and ethics one and
inseparable. They struck for the social efficiency of religion.
At the time of Jesus the Jewish sacrifices had lost much of their
religious importance. During the Exile they had lapsed. They were
professional performances of one class. The numerous Jews scattered in
other countries perhaps saw the temple once in a lifetime. Modern feeling
in the first century was against bloody sacrifices. The recorded sayings
of Jesus hardly mention them. On the other hand the daily life of the
people was pervaded by little prescribed religious actions. The Sabbath
with its ritual was punctiliously observed.(3) There were frequent days of
fasting, religious ablutions and baths, long prayers to be recited several
times daily, with prayer straps around the arm and forehead, and a
tasseled cloth over the head. The exact performance of these things seemed
an essential part of religion to the most earnest men.
We have seen how Jesus collided with these religious requirements and on
what grounds. If men were deeply concerned about the taboo food that went
into their bodies, they would not be concerned about the evil thoughts
that arose in their souls. If they were taught to focus on petty duties,
such as tithing, the great ethical principles and obligations moved to the
outer field of vision and became blurred. The Sabbath, which had
originated in merciful purpose toward the poor, had been turned into
another burden. Religion, which ought to bring good men into saving
contact with the wayward by love, actually resulted in separating the two
by a chasm of religious pride and censoriousness. A man-made and
artificial religious performance, such as giving toward the support of the
temple, crowded aside fundamental obligations written deep in the
constitution of human society, such as filial reverence and family
solidarity.
Other reformers have condemned religious practices because they were
departures from the holy Book or from primitive custom. Jesus, too,
pointed out that some of these regulations were recent innovations. But
the real standard by which he judged current religious questions was not
ancient authority but the present good of men. The spiritual center on
which he took his stand and from which he judged all things, was the
Kingdom of God, the perfect social order. Even the ordinances of religion
must justify themselves by making an effective contribution to the Kingdom
of God. The Sabbath was made for man, and its observance must meet the
test of service to man’s welfare. It must function wholesomely. The candle
must give light, or what is the use of it? The salt must be salty and
preserve from decay, or it will be thrown out and trodden under foot. If
the fig-tree bears no fruit, why is it allowed to use up space and crowd
better plants off the soil? This, then, is Christ’s test in matters of
institutional religion. The Church and all its doings must serve the
Kingdom of God.
II
The social efficiency of religion is a permanent social problem. What is
the annual expense of maintaining the churches in the United States? How
much capital is invested in the church buildings? (See U. S. Census
Bulletin No. 103, of 1906.) How much care and interest and loving
free-will labor does an average village community bestow on religion as
compared with other objects? All men feel instinctively that religion
exerts a profound and subtle influence on the springs of conduct. Even
those who denounce it, acknowledge at least its power for harm. Most of us
know it as a power for good. But all history shows that this great
spiritual force easily deteriorates. _Corruptio optimi pessima._
Religion may develop an elaborate social apparatus of its own, wheels
within wheels, and instead of being a dynamic of righteousness in the
natural social relations of men, its energies may be consumed in driving
its own machinery. Instead of being the power-house supplying the Kingdom
of God among men with power and light, the Church may exist for its own
sake. It then may become an expensive consumer of social wealth, a
conservative clog, and a real hindrance of social progress.
Live religion gives proof of its value by the sense of freedom, peace, and
elation which it creates. We feel we are right with the holy Power which
is behind, and beneath, and above all things. It gives a satisfying
interpretation of life and of our own place in it. It moves our aims
higher up, draws our fellow-men closer, and invigorates our will.
But our growth sets a problem for our religion. The religion of childhood
will not satisfy adolescent youth, and the religion of youth ought not to
satisfy a mature man or woman. Our soul must build statelier mansions for
itself. Religion must continue to answer all our present needs and inspire
all our present functions. A person who has failed to adjust his religion
to his growing powers and his intellectual horizon, has failed in one of
the most important functions of growth, just as if his cranium failed to
expand and to give room to his brain. Being microcephalous is a
misfortune, and nothing to boast of.
Precisely the same problem arises when society passes through eras of
growth. Religion must keep pace. The Church must pass the burning torch of
religious experience from age to age, transmitting the faith of the
fathers to the children, and not allowing any spiritual values to perish.
But it must allow and aid religion to adjust itself. Its inspiring
teaching must meet the new social problems so effectively that no evil can
last long or grow beyond remedy. In every new age religion must stand the
test of social efficiency. Is it passing that test in Western
civilization?
Religion is a bond of social coherence. It creates loyalty. But it may
teach loyalty to antiquated observances or a dwarfed system of truth. Have
you ever seen believers rallying around a lost cause in religion? Yet
these relics were once a live issue, and full of thrilling religious
vitality.
Society changes. Will religion change with it? If society passes from
agriculture and rural settlements to industry and urban conditions, can
the customary practices of religion remain unchanged? Give some instances
where prescientific conceptions of the universe, embodied in religion,
have blocked the spread of scientific knowledge among the people. The
caste distinctions of Hinduism were the product of a combination between
religion and the social organization of the people; can they last when
industrialism and democracy are pervading India? The clerical attitude of
authority was natural when the Catholic clergy were the only educated
class in the community; is it justified today? Protestantism won the
allegiance of industrial communities when the young business class was
struggling to emancipate itself from the feudal system. It developed an
individualistic philosophy of ethics. Today society tends toward
solidaristic organization. How will that affect religion and its scheme of
duty? Thus religion, by its very virtues of loyalty and reverence, may
fall behind and lose its full social efficiency. It must be geared to the
big live issues of today if it is to manifest its full saving energies.
How does this problem of the efficiency of religion bear on the foreign
missionary movement? How will backward or stationary civilizations be
affected by the introduction of a modern and enthusiastic religion?
We may feel the defects of our church life at home, but there is no doubt
that the young men and women who go out from our colleges under religious
impulses, are felt as a virile and modernizing force when they settle to
their work in Turkey or Persia. Christian educational institutions and
medical missions have raised the intellectual and humane standards of
young China. Buddhism in Japan has felt the challenge of competition and
is readjusting its ethics and philosophy to connect with modern social
ideals. The historical effects of our religious colonization will not
mature for several generations, but they are bound to be very great. The
nations and races are drawing together. They need a monotheistic religion
as a spiritual basis for their sense of human unity. This is a big,
modern, social task. It makes its claim on men and women who have youth,
education, and spiritual power. Is the religious life of our colleges and
universities efficient enough to meet the need?
Here are the enormous tasks of international relations, which the Great
War has forced us to realize—the prevention of armed conflicts, the
elimination of the irritant causes of war, the protection of the small
nations which possess what the big nations covet, the freedom of the seas
as the common highway of God, fair and free interchange in commerce
without any effort to set up monopoly rights and the privilege of
extortionate gain, the creation of an institutional basis for a great
family of nations in days to come. These are some of the tasks which the
men and women who are now young must take on their mind and conscience for
life, and leave to their children to finish. What contributions, in your
opinion, could the spirit of the Christian religion make to such a
program, if it were realized intelligently and pressed home through the
agencies of the Christian Church? In what ways has American religion shown
its efficiency since the war broke out?
Christianity has been a great power in our country to cleanse and
fraternalize the social life of simple communities. Can it meet the
complex needs of modern industrialism in the same way? It can not
truthfully be claimed that it has done so in any industrial country. Its
immense spiritual forces might be the decisive element, but they have been
effectively organized against a few only of the great modern evils. On the
fundamental ethical questions of capitalism the Church has not yet made up
its own mind—not to speak of enforcing the mind of Christ. Nor have the
specialists in the universities and colleges supplied the leaders of the
Church with clear information and guidance on these questions. We can not
make much permanent progress toward a just social order as long as the
masses of the working people in the industrial nations continue in
economic poverty and political helplessness, and as long as a minority
controls the land, the tools, and the political power. We shall linger on
the borders of the Inferno until a new accession of moral insight and
spiritual power comes to the nations. How will it come?
III
What could the churches in an average village community accomplish if they
intelligently directed the power of religion to foster the sense of
fraternal unity and to promote the institutions which make for unity? How
could they draw the new, the strange, and the irregular families into the
circle of neighborly feeling? In what way could they help to assimilate
immigrants and to prevent the formation of several communities in the same
section, overlapping, alien, and perhaps hostile? How would it affect the
recreational situation if the churches took a constructive rather than a
prohibitive attitude toward amusements, and if they promoted the
sociability of the community rather than that of church groups?
With the rise of land prices and the control of transportation and
markets, the rural population is moving toward a social crisis like that
which transformed the urban population in the industrial revolution.
Agriculture will become capitalistic, and the weaker families will drop to
the position of tenants and agricultural laborers. Cooperation is their
way of salvation. Its effectiveness has been amply demonstrated in older
countries. It requires a strong sense of solidarity, loyalty, and good
faith to succeed. It has made so little headway in America because our
national character has not been developed in these directions. What could
the churches do to save the weaker families from social submergence by
backing cooperation and developing the moral qualities needed for it?
The strong religious life of our people might be more effective if the
churches were less divided. Their economic and human resources are partly
wasted by useless competition. Our denominational divisions are nearly all
an historical heritage, imported from Europe, and coming down from a
controversial age. Their issues all meant something vital and socially
important in the midst of the social order of that day; but in many cases
the real significance has quietly crumbled away, and they are not really
the same issues that deeply engaged our forefathers. We are all “tithing
mint, anise, and cummin,” and forgetting the weighty matters, such as
social justice and Christian fraternity. Everybody is ready to acknowledge
this about every denomination except his own. We need a revaluation of our
religious issues from the point of view of the Kingdom of God. That would
bring us into harmony with the judgment of Jesus. Nothing else will.
IV
The social efficiency of religion—what call is there in that to the
college men and women of this generation? Shall they cease to worship and
pray, seek the salvation of society in ethics and sociology, and abandon
religion to stagnation? Or shall they seek a new experience of religion in
full sight of the modern world, and work by faith toward that reign of God
in which his will shall be done?
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _When the Salt Loses its Savor_
1. What is the individual to do when religion becomes a hindrance to
religion?
2. What types of revolt against inherited religion have you met in
college?
II. _Prophetic Religion Against Traditional Religion_
1. What did the prophets criticize in the religion of their day?
2. What was Jesus’ test of religion?
3. Give instances in which he found religion to be a hindrance to the
highest welfare. How did religion obscure duty?
4. What was the essential cause of the clash between Jesus and the
religious leaders of his day?
III. _The Historic Reformation of Religion_
1. In studying history, what sins or failures of the Church have impressed
you most?
2. What did the Protestant Reformation contribute to make religion
efficient?
3. Has the Church been a rival or a feeder of the Kingdom of God?
4. Give historical examples of the failure of religion to meet the changed
requirements of a new epoch.
5. What contributions has the Church made to social progress?
IV. _Religion Today_
1. What have Christian missions done to change the social conditions in
non-Christian countries?
2. How do you rate the social service value of a first-class minister in a
community? On what does his value depend?
3. Of what social value to a community is a costly and beautiful church
building?
4. What investment in capital and annual expenditure does the maintenance
of the churches in your community entail? Does the social return to the
community justify the investment?
5. Are the issues which divided the Protestant denominations in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries still vital enough to justify the
continuance of the divisions? Summarize the evils of the divisions and
their counter-balancing good.
6. Is the ordinary criticism of the churches fair? Are ministers overpaid
or underpaid? Do the churches graft? How do the churches compare in social
efficiency with other similar social institutions?
V. _For Special Discussion_
1. Why did the reformation of the Church historically precede the reform
of politics and industry?
2. Do the unsolved social problems of Christian nations prove the social
inefficiency of religion? Could religion alone change the maladjustment of
society?
3. Why has religion been more effective in the field of private life than
of public life?
4. If you had full control of the churches in a given country or village
community, on what aims would you concentrate their forces?
PART IV. CONQUEST BY CONFLICT
Chapter X. The Conflict With Evil
_The Kingdom of God Will Have to Fight for Its Advance_
The great objective is the Kingdom of God. In realizing the Reign of God
on earth three recalcitrant forces have to be brought into obedience to
God’s law: the desire for power, the love of property, and unsocial
religion. We have studied Christ’s thought concerning these in the
foregoing chapters. The advance of the Kingdom of God is not simply a
process of social education, but a conflict with hostile forces which
resist, neutralize, and defy whatever works toward the true social order.
The strategy of the Kingdom of God, therefore, involves a study of the
social problem of evil.
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Consciousness of Sin in the Lord’s Prayer
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil
one.—Matt. 6:12, 13.
The Lord’s Prayer expresses the very mind and spirit of the Master. It
begins with the Kingdom of God; it ends with the problem of sin. As we
stand before God, we realize that we have loaded up our life with debts we
can never pay. We have wasted our time, and the powers of body and soul.
We have left black marks of contagion on some whose path we have crossed.
We have hurt even those who loved us by our ill-temper, thoughtlessness,
and selfishness.
We can only ask God to forgive and give us another chance: “Forgive us our
debts.” Looking forward we see the possibility of fatal temptations. We
know how fragile our power of resistance is. “Lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.” Thus the consciousness of sin is written across
this greatest of all prayers.
Is a sense of unworthiness an indication of moral strength or of weakness?
_Where do we draw the line between a normal and abnormal sense of sin?_
Second Day: Evil Embodied in Character
Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree
corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its
fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good
things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things:
and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil
things. And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall
speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For
by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned.—Matt. 12:33-37.
Character is formed by action, but after it is formed, it determines
action. What a man says and does, he becomes; and what he has become, he
says and does. An honest and clean-minded man instinctively does what is
kind and honorable. But when a man for years has gone for profit and
selfish power, you can trust him as a general thing to do what is
underhanded and mean. Since selfish ability elbows its way to controlling
positions in business, politics, and society, the character reactions of
such men are a force with which the Kingdom of God must reckon. They are
the personal equipment of the kingdom of evil, and the more respectable,
well-dressed, and clever they are, the worse it is.
What man or woman of our acquaintance would we single out as the clearest
case of an evil character?
Why do we so judge him?
Third Day: The Social Pressure of Evil
And he said unto his disciples, It is impossible but that
occasions of stumbling should come; but woe unto him, through whom
they come! It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he
should cause one of these little ones to stumble.—Luke 17:1, 2.
A sex story lodging in a young mind, an invitation to companionship and a
drink, a sneer at religion which makes faith look silly—such things trip
us up. They are stumbling-blocks, like wires stretched across a path in
the dark. Just because we are social and easily influenced by friendship,
admiration, or persuasion, one man’s suggestion or example draws the other
man on. Jesus knew that social solicitation and pressure toward sin was
inevitable. It is the price we pay for our social nature. But, all the
same, it is a terrible thing to contaminate a soul or steer a life toward
its ruin. This saying about the millstone is one of the sternest words
ever uttered.
“Three men went out one summer night,
No care they had or aim,
And dined and drank. “Ere we go home
We’ll have,” they said, “a game.”
Three girls began that summer night
A life of endless shame,
And went through drink, disease, and death,
As swift as racing flame.
Lawless and homeless, foul they died;
Rich, loved, and praised the men;
But when they all shall meet with God,
And justice speaks—what then?”
Let us enumerate to our own minds cases where others drew us into wrong,
and cases where we were a cause of evil for others. About which do we feel
sorest now? Why?
Fourth Day: Moral Laziness
No man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old
is good.—Luke 5:39.
This is a chance remark, but a keen observation. In wine-raising countries
an expert tongue and nice discrimination between the fifty-seven varieties
is one of the most coveted talents. A man who would prefer some recent
stuff to the celebrated vintage of 18—, would commit intellectual
_hari-kari_. It is said that in some of the celebrated vaults of France
they breed spiders to cover the bottles with webs and dust to convey the
delicious suggestion of antiquity. Jesus uses the preference for old
vintage to characterize the conservative instinct in human nature. This is
one of the stickiest impediments to progress, one of the most respectable
forms of evil-mindedness. “The hereditary tiger is in us all, also the
hereditary oyster and clam. Indifference is the largest factor, though not
the ugliest form, in the production of evil” (President Hyde). Men are
morally lazy; they have to be pushed into what is good for them, and the
“pushee” is almost sure to resent the pushing. The idea that men ardently
desire what is rational and noble is pernicious fiction. They want to be
let alone. This is part of original sin.
Was the above written in haste, or will it stand?
Fifth Day: Satanic Frustration of Good
Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven
is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: but while
men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat,
and went away. But when the blade sprang up and brought forth
fruit, then appeared the tares also. And the servants of the
householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good
seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? And he said unto
them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt
thou then that we go and gather them up? But he saith, Nay; lest
haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with
them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of
the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares,
and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into
my barn.—Matt. 13:24-30.
Here we encounter the devil. There is more in sin than our own frailty and
stupidity, and the bad influence of other individuals. There is a
permanent force of organized evil which vitiates every higher movement and
sows tares among the grain over night. You work hard on some law to reform
the ballot or the primary in order to protect the freedom and rights of
the people, and after three years your device has become a favorite tool
of the interests. You found a benevolent institution, and after you are
dead it becomes a nest of graft. Even the Church of Jesus was for
centuries so corrupt that all good men felt its reform in head and members
to be the greatest desideratum in Christendom. Evil is more durable and
versatile than youth and optimism imagine. The belief in a satanic power
of evil expresses the conviction of the permanent power of evil. In early
Christianity the belief in the devil was closely connected with the
Christian opposition to the idolatrous and wicked social order of
heathenism. In the Apocalypse the dragon who stands for Satan, and the
beasts who stand for the despotic Roman Empire, are in close alliance.
What are the satanic social forces today?
The parable of the tares grew out of a personal experience. _Has our
observation ever furnished anything similar?_
Sixth Day: The Irrepressible Conflict
Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man’s foes shall
be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter
more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his
cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth
his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake
shall find it.—Matt. 10:34-39.
Into a world controlled by sin was launched the life of Christ. The more
completely he embodied the divine character and will, the more certain and
intense would be the conflict between him and the powers dominating the
old order. He accepted this fight, not only for himself but for his
followers. It would follow them up into the intimacies of their homes. Any
faith that takes the Kingdom of God seriously, has its fight cut out for
it. Unless we accept our share of it, we are playing with our
discipleship. But when the fight is for the Kingdom of God, those who
dodge, lose; and those who lose, win.
Which involves more conflict, a life set on the Kingdom of God on earth,
or a faith set on the life to come?
_Does the idea of a fighting faith attract us?_
_Would this serve as a __“__substitute for war__”__?_
Seventh Day: Militant Gentleness
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that
persecute you; that ye may be sons of your Father who is in
heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust.—Matt. 5:44, 45.
Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable
in the sight of all men. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if
he thirst, give him to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap
coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome
evil with good.—Rom. 12:17, 20, 21.
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been
born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear
witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice.—John 18:36, 37.
When we call out the militant spirit in religion, we summon a dangerous
power. It has bred grimness and cruelty. Crusaders and inquisitors did
their work in the name of Jesus, but not in his spirit. We must saturate
ourselves with the spirit of our Master if our fighting is to further his
Kingdom. Hate breeds hate; force challenges force. Only love disarms; only
forgiveness kills an enemy and leaves a friend. Jesus blended gentleness
and virility, forgiving love and uncompromising boldness. He offered it as
a mark of his Kingdom that his followers used no force to defend him.
Wherever they have done so, the Kingdom of heaven has dropped to the level
of the brutal empires. His attack is by the truth; whoever is won by that,
is conquered for good. Force merely changes the form of evil. When we
“overcome evil with good,” we eliminate it.
What did Paul mean by saying that acts of kindness to an enemy heap coals
of fire on his head?
How about moral crusades that aim to put joint-keepers and pimps in
prison?
Study for the Week
All great religious teachers have had a deep sense of the power of evil in
human life. Jesus apparently was not interested in the philosophical
question of the origin of evil, but accepted the fact of evil in a
pragmatic way, and saw his own life as a conflict with sin and wrong.
Some facts, as we have seen, were clearly written in his consciousness:
the frailty of our will; the consolidation of evil in men of bad character
and the automatic output of lies and distortions coming from such; the
power of social pressure by which the weak are made to trip and fall; and
the pervasive satanic power of evil which purposely neutralizes the
efforts leading toward the Reign of God.
The fact that Jesus realized evil in individuals and society, that he
reckoned with it practically, and that he set himself against it with
singleness of purpose, constitutes another of his social principles. Any
view of life which blurs the fact of evil would have seemed to him an
illusion. He would have foretold failure for any policy based on it. His
great social problem was redemption from evil. Every step of approach
toward the Kingdom of God must be won by conflict.
Modern science explains evil along totally different lines, but as to the
main facts it agrees with the spiritual insight of Jesus. Psychology
recognizes that the higher desires are usually sluggish and faint, while
the animal appetites are strong and clamorous. Our will tires easily and
readily yields to social pressure. In many individuals the raw material of
character is terribly flawed by inheritance. So the young, with a maximum
of desire and a minimum of self-restraint, slip into folly, and the aging
backslide into shame. Human nature needs a strong reenforcement to rouse
it from its inherited lethargy and put it on the toilsome upward track. It
needs redemption, emancipation from slavery, a breaking of bonds.
I
Evangelism is the attack of redemptive energy in the sphere of personal
life. It comes to a man shamed by the sense of guilt and baffled by moral
failure, and rouses him to a consciousness of his high worth and eternal
destiny. It transmits the faith of the Christian Church in a loving and
gracious God who is willing to forgive and powerful to save. It teaches a
man to pray, curing his soul by affirming over and over a triumphant
faith, and throwing it open to mysterious spiritual powers which bring
joy, peace, and strength beyond himself. It sets before him a code of
moral duty to quicken and guide his conscience. It puts him inside of a
group of like-minded people who exercise social restraint and urge him on.
When all this is wisely combined, it constitutes a spiritual reenforcement
of incomparable energy. It acts like an emancipation. It gives a sense of
freedom and newness. The untrained observer sees it mainly in those cases
where the turn has come in some dramatic form and where the contrast
between the old and new life is most demonstrable. But the saving force is
at work even when it seeps in through home influences so quietly that the
beneficiary of it does not realize what a great thing has been done for
him.
The saving force has to attack the powers in possession. Only those who
have helped in wresting men free from sin can tell what a stiff fight it
often is. Here is an intellectual professional man who goes off for a
secret spree about once in sixty days; a respectable woman who has come
under the opium habit; a boy who is both a cigarette fiend and sexually
weak; a man who domineers and cows his wife and family; a woman who has
reduced her husband to slavery to supply her expensive tastes; a girl who
shirks all work and throws the burden of her selfish life on a hard-worked
mother; a college man whose parents are straining all their resources and
using up their security for old age to keep him at college, and who
gambles—complete the catalogue for yourself. To make these individuals
over into true citizens of the Kingdom of God and loyal fellow-workers of
their fellow-men means constructive conflict of a high order. It has been
done.(4)
II
The problem of evil becomes far more complicated when evil is socialized.
The simplest and most familiar form of that is the boys’ gang. Here is a
group of young humans who get their fun and adventure by pulling the
whiskers of the law. They idealize vice and crime. Leadership in their
group is won by proficiency in profanity, gambling, obscenity, and
slugging. The gang assimilates its members; there is regimentation of
evil. It acts as a channel of tradition; the boy of fifteen teaches the
boy of twelve what he has learned from the boy of eighteen.
How is the problem of evil affected when the powers of human society,
which usually restrain the individual from vice and rebellion, are used to
urge him into it? Should the strategy of the Kingdom of God be adjusted to
that situation? It is not enough to win individuals away from the gangs.
Can the gang spirit itself be christianized and used to restrain and
stimulate the young for good? Has this been done, and where, and how? Is
Christian institutional work sufficient to cope with the problem? What
readjustments in the recreational and educational outfit of our American
communities are needed to give a wholesome outlet to the spirit of play
and adventure, and to train the young for their life work? Would such an
outfit do the work without personal leadership inspired by religion?
Christian evangelism in the past has not had an adequate understanding of
the power of the group. In what connections has the Church shown a true
valuation of the social factor in sin and redemption? At what points has
its strategy been ineffective in dealing with socialized evil? What
contributions can social science make to the efficiency of evangelism?
Would a correct scientific analysis of the constructive and disintegrating
forces in society be enough to do saving work?
III
The bad gangs of the young are usually held together by a misdirected love
of play and adventure. The dangerous combinations of adults are
consolidated by “the cohesive power of plunder.” That makes them a far
more difficult proposition.
Any local attack on saloons and vice resorts furnishes a laboratory
demonstration of socialized evil. The object of both kinds of institutions
is to make big profit by catering to desires which induce men to spend
freely. Music and sociability are used as a bait. The people who profit by
this trade are held together by the fear of a common danger. Since the
community uses political means of curbing or suppressing the vice
business, the vice group goes into politics to prevent it. It seeks to
control the police, the courts, the political machines by sharing part of
its profits. Lawyers, officials, newspaper proprietors, and real estate
men are linked up and summoned like a feudal levy in case of danger.
Drugstores, doctors, chauffeurs, messenger boys, and all kinds of people
are used to bring in trade and make it secure. The exploded fictions of
alcoholism are kept circulating. Like a tape-worm in the intestines, these
articulated and many-jointed parasitic organizations of vice make our
communities sick, dirty, and decadent.
We have learned to read the sordid trail of the drink and vice traffic in
American communities. There is another kind of organized evil, even more
ancient, pervasive, and deadly, which few understand, though it has left a
trail sufficiently terrible.
Wherever we look in the history of the older nations, we see an alignment
of two fundamental classes. The one is born to toil, stunted by toil, and
gets its class characteristics by toil. The other is characterized by the
pleasures and arts of leisure, is physically and mentally developed by
leisure, and proud and jealous of its leisure. This class is always
class-conscious; its groups, however antagonistic, always stand together
against the class of toil. Its combination of leisure and wealth is
conditioned on the power of taking tribute from the labor of many. In
order to do this with safety, it must control political power, the
military outfit, the power of making, interpreting and executing the laws,
and the forces forming public opinion.
Before the advent of industrialism and political democracy, it secured its
income by controlling the land and the government of nations; and the
effects of its control can be read in the condition of the rural
population of Russia, Austria, Eastern Germany, Italy, France before the
Revolution, England, and especially Ireland. The development of industry
has changed the problem of economic and political control; but the
essentials remain, as we can see in the condition of industrial
communities and the history of labor legislation.
The fundamental sin of all dominant classes has been the taking of
unearned incomes. Political oppression has always been a corollary of
economic parasitism, a means to an end. The combination of the two
constitutes the largest and most continuous form of organized evil in
human history.
Jesus used the illustration of pegs maliciously driven into the path to
make men stumble and fall. It would require some illustration drawn from
modern machinery to express the wholesale prostration of bodies and souls
where covetousness has secured continuous power and has been able to get
in its full work. Anyone who has ever looked with human understanding at
the undersized and stupid peasants of countries ruled by their landlord
class, or at the sordid homes and pleasures of miners or industrial
workers where some corporation feared neither God nor the law, ought to
get a comprehension of the power of evil that has rested like an iron yoke
on humanity.
We think most readily of the children of the poor as a product of
exploitation; underfed and overstimulated, cut off from the clean
pleasures of nature, often tainted with vice before knowledge has come,
and urged along by the appetites and cruel selfishness of older persons,
they are a standing accusation against society itself.(5) Jesus would have
felt that the children of the rich are an even worse product of
exploitation than the poor. When “society” plays, it burns up the labor of
thousands like fireworks. The only possible justification for the
aggregations of wealth is that the rich are to act as the trustees and
directors of the wealth of society; but their children—except in
conspicuous and fine exceptions—are put out of contact with the people
whom they must know if they are to serve them, so that it takes heroic
effort on the part of noble exceptions to get in contact with the people
once more, and to discover how they live. In all nations the atmosphere of
the aristocratic groups drugs the sense of obligation, and possesses the
mind with the notion that the life and labor of men are made to play
tennis with. The existence of great permanent groups, feeding but not
producing, dominating and directing the life of whole nations according to
their own needs, may well seem a supreme proof of the power of evil in
humanity.
IV
If evil is socialized, salvation must be socialized. The organization of
the Christian Church is a recognition of the social factor in salvation.
It is not enough to have God, and Christ, and the Bible. A group is
needed, organized on Christian principles, and expressing the Christian
spirit, which will assimilate the individual and gradually make him over
into a citizen of the Kingdom of God. Salvation will rarely come to anyone
without the mediation of some individual or group which already has
salvation. It may be very small and simple. “Where two or three are
gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” That saying
recognizes that an additional force is given to religion by its embodiment
in a group of believers. Professor Royce has recently reasserted in modern
terms the old doctrine that “there is no salvation outside of the Church,”
calling the Church “the beloved community.” Of course the question is how
intensively Christian the Church can make its members. That will depend on
the question how Christian the Church itself is, and there’s the rub.
The Church is the permanent social factor in salvation. But it has cause
to realize that many social forces outside its immediate organization must
be used, if the entire community is to be christianized.
In the earliest centuries Christianity was practically limited to the life
within the Church. Being surrounded by a hostile social order, and
compelled to fence off its members, it created a little duplicate social
order within the churches where it sought to realize the distinctively
Christian social life. Its influence there was necessarily restricted
mainly to individual morality, family life, and neighborly intercourse,
and here it did fundamental work in raising the moral standards. On the
other hand, it failed to reorganize industry, property, and the State.
Even if Christians had had an intelligent social and political outlook,
any interference with the Roman Empire by the low-class adherents of a
forbidden religion was out of the question. When the Church was recognized
and favored under Constantine and his successors, it had lost its
democratic composition and spirit, and the persons who controlled it were
the same sort of men who controlled the State.
The early age of the Church has had a profound influence in fixing the
ideals and aims of later times. The compulsory seclusion and confinement
of the age of persecution are supposed to mark the mission of the Church.
As long as the social life in our country was simple and rural, the
churches, when well led, were able to control the moral life of entire
communities. But as social organization became complex and the solidarity
of neighborhood life was left behind, the situation got beyond the
institutional influence of the churches. Evidently the fighting energies
of Christianity will have to make their attack on broader lines, and
utilize the scientific knowledge of society, which is now for the first
time at the command of religion, and the forces set free by political and
social democracy. We can not restrict the modern conflict with evil to the
defensive tactics of a wholly different age. Wherever organized evil
opposes the advance of the Kingdom of God, there is the battle-front.
Wherever there is any saving to be done, Christianity ought to be in it.
The intensive economic and sociological studies of the present generation
of college students are a preparation for this larger warfare with evil.
These studies will receive their moral dignity and religious consecration
when they are put at the service of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Natural Drift_
1. If left alone, which way do we tend? Does a normal and sound individual
need spiritual reinforcement to live a good life?
2. How do you account for the fact that the noblest movements are so
easily debased?
II. _Jesus and Human Sin_
1. Did Jesus take a friendly or a gloomy view of human nature? How did the
fact of sin in humanity impress him?
2. Why did he condemn so sternly those who caused the weak to stumble?
Estimate the relative force of the natural weakness of human nature, and
of the pressure of socialized evil, when individuals go wrong.
3. Do you agree with the exposition in the Daily Reading for the Fourth
Day? Do men want to be let alone? Is this an evidence of sinful tendency?
4. What personal experiences of Jesus prompted the parable of the tares?
Was the conception of Satan in Jewish religion of individual or social
origin? When did it have political significance?
III. _The Irrepressible Conflict_
1. Why did Jesus foresee an inevitable conflict if the Kingdom of God was
to come? Has history borne him out?
2. Does mystical religion involve a man in conflict? Does ascetic
religion? Which books him for more conflict with social evil—a life set on
the Kingdom of God on earth, or a faith set on the life to come?
3. What form does the conflict with evil take in our personal life? What
reinforcement does the Christian religion as a spiritual faith offer us?
What personal experience have we of its failure or its effectiveness?
4. What is meant by evil being socialized? In what ways does this increase
the ability of evil to defend and propagate itself?
5. What are the most dangerous forms of organized evil today? How do they
work?
6. What are the most disastrous “stumbling blocks” today for working
people? For business men? For students?
7. The Church sings many militant hymns. Is the Church as a whole a
fighting force today?
IV. _For Special Discussion_
1. How should an individual go about it to fight concrete and socialized
evils in a community?
2. How can a church get into the fight? Should the Church go into
politics? Why, or why not?
3. Would Christianity be just as influential as a social power of
salvation if the Christian Church did not exist?
4. Will the fight against evil ever be won? If not, is it worth fighting?
Chapter XI. The Cross As A Social Principle
_Social Redemption is Wrought by Vicarious Suffering_
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Prophetic Succession
And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a
vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the
winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and
went into another country. And at the season he sent to the
husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of
the fruits of the vineyard. And they took him, and beat him, and
sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant;
and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. And he
sent another; and him they killed: and many others; beating some,
and killing some. He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last
unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those
husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us
kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him,
and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard. What
therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and
destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto
others.—Mark 12:1-9.
The vineyard parable was meant as an epitome of Jewish history. By the
servants who came to summon the nation to obedience, Jesus meant the
prophets. The history of the Hebrew people was marked by a unique
succession of men who had experienced God, who lived in the consciousness
of the Eternal, who judged the national life by the standard of divine
righteousness, and who spoke to their generation as representatives of
God.(6) The spirit of these men and the indirect permanent influence they
gained in their nation give the Old Testament its incomparable power to
impel and inspire us. They were the moving force in the spiritual progress
of their nation. Yet Jesus here sketches their fate as one of suffering
and rejection.
Have other nations had a succession of men corresponding to the Hebrew
prophets?
Are there any in our own national history?
Second Day: The Suffering Servant of Jehovah
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we
did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was
wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities;
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes
we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned
every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his
mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that
before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By
oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his
generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of
the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom
the stroke was due?—Isaiah 53:4-8.
In the latter part of Isaiah are a number of sections describing the
character and mission of “the servant of Jehovah.” Whom did the writer
mean? A single great personality? The suffering and exiled Hebrew nation?
A godly and inspired group of prophets within the nation? The Christian
Church has always seen in this servant of Jehovah a striking prophecy of
Christ. The fact that the interpretation has long been in question
indicates that the characteristics of the servant of Jehovah can be traced
in varying degrees in the nation, in the prophetic order, in single
prophets, and preeminently in the great culminating figure of all
prophethood. Isaiah 53 describes the servant of Jehovah as rejected and
despised, misunderstood, bearing the transgressions and chastisement of
all. It is the first great formulation of the fact of vicarious suffering
in humanity.
Why and how can the sins of a group fall on one?
Third Day: A Contemporary Prophet
And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the
multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness
to behold? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went ye out to
see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft
raiment are in kings’ houses. But wherefore went ye out? to see a
prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. This
is he, of whom it is written,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
Who shall prepare thy way before thee....
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto
children sitting in the marketplaces, who call unto their fellows
and say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and
ye did not mourn.
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a
demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say,
Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans
and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works.—Matt. 11:7-10;
16-19.
To Jesus prophetism was not merely an historic fact, but a living reality.
He believed in present-day inspiration. He and his contemporaries had seen
one great prophet, fearless, heroic, with all the marks of the type, a
messenger of God inaugurating a new era of spiritual ferment (vs. 12, 13).
But John had to bear the prophet’s lot. He was then in prison for the
crime of telling a king the truth, and was soon to die to please a
vindictive woman. The people, too, had wagged their heads over him. Like
pouting children on the public square, who “won’t play,” whether the game
proposed is a wedding or a funeral, the people had criticized John for
being a gloomy ascetic, and found fault with Jesus for his shocking
cheerfulness. There was no way of suiting them, and no way of making them
take the call of God to heart. Long before electricity was invented, human
nature knew all about interposing nonconductors between itself and the
truth.
_Have we ever noticed students interposing a general criticism between
themselves and a particular obligation?_
Can it be that one of the uses of a higher education is to furnish greater
facility in fuddling inconvenient truth?
Fourth Day: Looking Forward to the Cross
And it came to pass, when the days were well-nigh come that he
should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to
Jerusalem.—Luke 9:51.
In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get
thee out, and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee. And he
said unto them, Go and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out demons
and perform cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I am
perfected. Nevertheless I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow
and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out
of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets,
and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her own
brood under her wings, and ye would not!—Luke 13:31-34.
Jesus early knew that the decision was going against him. He saw the cross
on the horizon of his life long before others saw it. Painters have
pictured him in his father’s carpenter shop, with tools on his shoulder,
gazing down at his shadow shaped like a cross. He accepted death
consciously and “stedfastly set his face to go up to Jerusalem,” though he
knew what was awaiting him. Jerusalem had acquired a sad preeminence as
the place where the struggles between the prophets and the heads of the
nation were settled. He saw his own death as part of the prophetic
succession. He went to it, not as a driven slave, but as a free spirit.
That jackal of a king, Herod, could not scare him out of Galilee. His time
was in his Father’s hand. Today, tomorrow, and the day following, he would
work, and then he would be perfected.
Fifth Day: New Prophets to Follow
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye build the
sepulchres of the prophets, and garnish the tombs of the
righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we
should not have been partakers with them in the blood of the
prophets. Wherefore ye witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of
them that slew the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your
fathers. Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape
the judgment of hell? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets,
and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall ye kill and crucify;
and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the
righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the
righteous unto the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom ye
slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you,
All these things shall come upon this generation.—Matt. 23:29-36.
This is the climax of the great invective against the religious leaders of
the nation. The last count in the indictment is that they were about to
complete the record of their fathers by rejecting and persecuting the
prophets of their generation. The fact had sunk into the public mind that
former generations had been guilty of this. “If we had been in the days of
our fathers, we should not have been partakers with them in the blood of
the prophets.” Jesus promises to make a test of this and foretells that
they will go the old way and so declare their spiritual solidarity with
the sins of the past. We see here that he thought of his disciples as
moving in the prophetic succession.
“Hast thou chosen, O my people, on whose party thou shalt stand,
Ere the Doom from its worn sandals shakes the dust against the
land?”
“Never shows the choice momentous till the judgment hath passed
by.”
Sixth Day: The Cross for All
From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he
must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be
raised up. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be
it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee. But he
turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a
stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God,
but the things of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any
man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose
it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find
it.—Matt. 16:21-25.
When the tide was turning against Jesus, he tested the attitude of the
inner circles of his disciples, and drew from Peter on behalf of all a
ringing declaration of faith and loyalty (vs. 13-16). “From that time”
Jesus began to share with them his outlook toward death. Peter expressed
the shock which all felt and protested against the possibility. The
vehemence with which Jesus repelled Peter’s suggestion gives us a glimpse
of the inner struggles in his mind, of which we get a fuller revelation in
his prayer in Gethsemane. But instead of receding from his prediction of
the cross, he expanded it by laying the obligation of prophetic suffering
on all his disciples. Their adjustment toward that destiny would at the
same time be the settlement of their own salvation. When the Kingdom of
God is at stake, a man saves his life by losing it and loses his life by
saving it, and the loss of his higher self can not be offset by any amount
of external gain.
_Looking ahead to the profession which we expect to enter, where do we
foresee the possibility of losing our lives by trying to save them, or of
saving our lives by apparently losing them?_
Seventh Day: The Consolations of the Prophet
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye
therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of
men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in their
synagogues they will scourge you; yea and before governors and
kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and
to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up be not anxious how
or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour
what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit
of your Father that speaketh in you.—Matt. 10:16-20.
Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read the scriptures,
The stone which the builders rejected,
The same was made the head of the corner;
This was from the Lord,
And it is marvellous in our eyes?—Matt. 21:42.
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’
sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men
shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad:
for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the
prophets that were before you.—Matt. 5:10-12.
These three passages express three great consolations for those who share
prophetic opposition with Christ. They will have to face great odds;
numbers and weight will be against them. But there will be a quiet voice
within to prompt them and sustain them: “It is not ye that speak, but the
Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
The second consolation is that the higher court will reverse the verdict
of the lower. The stonemasons may look a stone over and conclude that it
will not fit into the building; but the architect may have reserved that
stone for the head of the corner. The prophet rarely lives to see his own
historical vindication, but faith knows it is inevitable.
The third consolation is contained in the last of the Beatitudes. Those
who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake may well rejoice for the
company they are in, for the Leader whose name they bear, and for the
Kingdom of God which is now and ever shall be their heritage.
Imagine two classmates in the same profession, reaching the end of their
career. The one has attained success, wealth, eminence, together with a
reputation of never having done a courageous and self-sacrificing action,
and with the consciousness that his soul has grown small as he has grown
old. The other has been a fighter for the right, a conspicuous man, but
has kept out of office, tasting poverty and opposition with his family,
yet with the consciousness that he has had the salt of the earth for his
friends and that he has put in some mighty good licks for righteousness.
_Which would we rather be?_
Study for the Week
Christian men have differed widely in interpreting the significance of
Christ’s suffering and death, but all have agreed that the cross was the
effective culmination of his work and the key which unlocks the meaning of
his whole life. The Church has always felt that the death of Christ was an
event of eternal importance for the salvation of mankind, unique and
without a parallel. It has an almost inexhaustible many-sidedness. We are
examining here but one aspect. We have seen in the passages studied this
week that Jesus himself linked his own suffering and rejection with the
fate of the prophets who were before him and with the fate of his
disciples who would come after him. He saw a red line running through
history, and his own life and death were part of it. He himself
generalized the social value of his peculiar experience, and taught us to
see the cross as a great social principle of the Kingdom of God. He saw
his death as the highest demonstration of a permanent law of human life.
I
Evil is socialized, institutionalized, and militant. The Kingdom of God
and its higher laws can displace it only by conflict. “Truth forever on
the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.” This clash involves suffering.
This suffering will fall most heavily on those who most completely embody
the spirit and ideas of the Kingdom, and who have the necessary boldness
to make the fight.
In most men the eternal moral conflict gets only confused understanding.
Sometimes they are aroused by sentimental pity or indignation, but soon
tire again. If their own interests are affected they fight well. But there
are men and women whose minds have been made so sensitive by personal
experiences or so cleansed by right education and by the spirit of God
that they take hold of the moral issues with a really adequate
understanding. Living somehow on the outskirts of the Kingdom of Heaven,
they have learned to think and feel according to its higher ways, and when
they turn toward things as they now are, of course there is a collision;
not this time a collision of interests, but a clash of principles, of
justice with wrong, of truth with crafty subterfuges, or of solidarity
with predatory selfishness.
The life and fate of these individuals anticipates the issues of history.
This is the prophetic quality of their lives. Working out the moral and
intellectual problems in their minds before the masses have realized them,
they become the natural leaders in the fight, clarify the minds of others,
and thus become, not only forerunners, but invaluable personal factors in
the moral progress of the race. “The single living spirits are the
effective units in shaping history; all common tendencies working toward
realization must first be condensed as personal forces in such minds, and
then by interaction between them work their way to general recognition”
(Lotze). Lowell’s “Present Crisis” is perhaps the most powerful poetical
expression of the prophetic function in history.
“Count me o’er earth’s chosen heroes—they were souls that stood
alone,
While the men they agonized for hurled the contumelious stone,
Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith divine,
By one man’s plain truth to manhood and to God’s supreme design.
"By the light of burning heretics Christ’s bleeding feet I track,
Toiling up new Calvaries ever with the cross that turns not back,
And these mounts of anguish number how each generation learned
One new word of that grand Credo which in prophet-hearts hath
burned
Since the first man stood God-conquered with his face to heaven
upturned.”
II
During the centuries when the Church was herself in need of redemption and
her purification was resisted by the dominant ecclesiastical interests,
such prophetic spirits as Arnold of Brescia, Wycliffe, Huss, and
Savonarola were most frequently found battling for the freedom of the
Church from the despotic grafters inside and outside of the hierarchy, and
for the purity of the gospel. The Church was a chief part of the social
order, and the reform of the Church was the preeminent social problem.
Today the Church is on the whole free from graft, and as openminded as the
state of public intelligence permits it to be. Therefore the prophet minds
are now set free to fight for the freedom of the people in political
government and for the substitution of cooperation for predatory methods
in industry, and the clash is most felt on that field.
The law of prophetic suffering holds true as much as ever. Probably no
group of men have ever undertaken to cleanse a city of profit-making vice
without being made to suffer for it. In the last thirty years this country
has watched eminent men in public life in various great cities making a
sincere drive to break the grip of a grafting police machine, or of a
political clique, or of public service corporations. For a while such a
man has public sentiment with him, for all communities have a desire to be
moral. But when it becomes clear that he really means what he says, and
that important incomes will be hurt, powerful forces set on him with abuse
and ridicule, try to wreck his business or health, and sidetrack his
political ambitions. An eminent editor in the Middle West, speaking before
the Press Association of his State several years ago, said: “There is not
a man in the United States today who has tried honestly to do anything to
change the fundamental conditions that make for poverty, disease, vice,
and crime in our great cities, in our courts and in our legislatures, who,
at the very time at which his efforts seemed most likely to succeed, has
not been suddenly turned upon and rent by the great newspaper
publications.” A volume of truthful biographical sketches of such leaders
would give us a history of the cross in politics, and would tell us more
about Christianity as an effective force in our country than some church
statistics.
III
Jesus took the sin of throttling the prophets very seriously. It is sin on
a higher level than the side-stepping of frail human nature, or the wrongs
done in private grievances. Since the Kingdom of God is the highest thing
there is, an attempt to block it or ruin it is the worst sin. Our hope for
the advance of the race and its escape from its permanent evils is
conditioned on keeping our moral perceptions clear and strong. Suffocating
the best specimens of moral intelligence and intimidating the rest by
their fate quenches the guiding light of mankind. Is anything worse?
Jesus held that the rejection of the prophets might involve the whole
nation in guilt and doom. How does the action of Caiaphas and a handful of
other men involve all the rest? By virtue of human solidarity. One sins
and all suffer, because all are bound together. A dominant group acts for
all, and drags all into disaster. This points to the moral importance of
good government. If exploiters and oppressors are in control of society,
its collective actions will be guided and determined by the very men who
have most to fear from the Kingdom of God and most inclination to stifle
the prophetic voices.
But the same solidarity which acts as a conductor of sin will also serve
as a basis to make the attack of the righteous few effective for all. If
the suffering of good men puts a just issue where all can see and
understand, it intensifies and consolidates the right feeling of the
community. The suffering of a leader calls out passionate sympathy and
loyalty, sometimes in a dangerous degree. In the labor movement almost any
fault is forgiven to a man who has been in prison for the cause of labor,
and death for a popular cause will idealize the memory of very ordinary or
questionable characters. But if the character of a leader is pure,
suffering accredits him and gives him power. The cross had an incomparable
value in putting the cause of Christianity before the world. It placed
Jesus where mankind could never forget him, and it lit up the whole
problem of sin and redemption with the fire of the greatest of all
tragedies.
“The cross, bold type of shame to homage turned,
Of an unfinished life that sways the world.”
IV
But not all righteous suffering is socially effective. A good man may be
suppressed before he has won a following, or even before he has wrought
out his message in his own mind, and his suppression leaves only a few
bubbles on the waters of oblivion. In that case his life has failed to
discharge the redemptive force contained in it. It only adds a little more
to the horror and tragedy of a sinful, deaf, and blood-stained world. Many
of the men whose lives ebbed away behind the cruel silence of the walls of
the Spanish Inquisition, were such men as Spain needed most. What saving
effect did their death exercise? The uncounted patriots whose chains have
clanked on the march to Siberian exile, have not yet freed Russia from its
blind oligarchy. Our faith is that their lives were dear to God, and that
their sorrows and the bitter tears of those who loved them are somehow
part of an accumulating force which will one day save Russia. But this is
religious faith, “a conviction of things not seen.” We can not prove it.
We can only trust.
Meanwhile it is our business to see that no innocent blood is wasted. Pain
is a merciful and redemptive institution of nature when pain acts as an
alarm-bell to direct intelligent attention to the cause of the pain. If
pain does not force the elimination of its own cause, it is an added evil.
The death of the innocent, through oppression, child labor, dirt diseases,
or airless tenements, ought to arrest the attention of the community and
put the social cause of their death in the limelight. In that case they
have died a vicarious death which helps to redeem the rest from a social
evil, and anyone who utilizes their suffering for that end, shows his
reverence for their death. We owe that duty in even higher measure to the
prophets, who are not passive and unconscious victims, but who set
themselves intelligently in opposition to evil. The moral soundness of a
nation can be measured by the swiftness and accuracy with which it
understands its prophetic voices, or personalities, or events. The next
best thing to being a prophet is to interpret a prophet. This is one of
the proper functions of trained and idealistic minds, such as college men
and women should possess. The more the Kingdom of God is present, the less
will prophets be allowed to suffer. When it is fully come, the cross will
disappear.
V
The social principle of the cross contains a challenge to all who are
conscious of qualities of leadership. Let the average man do average
duties, but let the strong man shoulder the heavy pack. It is no more than
fair that persons of great natural power should deliberately choose work
involving social hardships. At present the theory seems to be that the
strong have a right to secure places where they will be freed from the
necessity of exerting themselves, and can lay their support on the
shoulders of the poor. That is the law of the cross reversed. Our
semi-pagan society has always practiced vicarious suffering by letting the
poor bear the burdens of the rich in addition to their own. Instead of
encouraging the capable to hunt after predatory profit and entrusting
public powers to those who have been most successful in preying, we ought
to encourage solidaristic feeling, and give both power and honor to those
who are ready to serve the commonwealth at severe cost to themselves.
What has the principle of the cross to say to college men and women? If
they have an exceptional outfit, let them do exceptional work. A knight in
armor was expected to charge where others could not venture. A college
education entitles a Christian man to some hard knocks. It seems
contemptible for us to walk off with the pleasures and powers of
intellectual training, and to leave the work of protecting children and
working girls against exploitation to men and women without education,
without leisure, and without social standing, who will have to pay double
the tale of effort for every bit of success they win. In some European
countries foreign mission service has been left mainly to men and women of
the artisan class. In our country college men and women have volunteered
for it. That is as it ought to be. On the other hand, in the struggle for
political liberty the European universities have taken a braver and more
sacrificial part than has ever fallen to our lot.
Those who are conscious of a prophetic mission have a redoubled motive for
a clean, sober, and sincere life. Especially in its initial stages an
ethical movement is identified with its leaders and tested by their
character. A good man can get a hearing for an unpopular cause by the
trust he inspires. His cause banks on his credit. The flawed private
character or dubious history of a leader is a drag. It is worse yet if a
man whose name has long been a guarantee for his message, backslides and
brings doubt upon all his previous professions. Cases could be mentioned
where noble movements were wrecked for years because a leader forfeited
his honor. Constant fighting against evil involves subtle temptations. To
stand alone, to set your own conviction against the majority, to challenge
what is supposed to be final, to disregard the conventional standards—this
may lead to dangerous habits of mind. If we propose to spread a lot of
canvas in a high wind, we need the more ballast in the hold. Through the
thin partitions of a summer hotel, a man heard Moody praying God to save
him from Moody. Imagine what it must be to lose standing and honor among
your fellow men by secret weakness. Imagine also the poignant pain if your
disgrace pulls down a cause which you have loved for years and which in
purer days you vowed to follow to its coronation.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _Vicarious Suffering and Social Progress_
1. Does suffering benefit humanity? Titus crucified thousands of Jews
during the destruction of Jerusalem. Did their death have any saving
effect?
2. What is the connection between vicarious suffering and social
salvation?
II. _Prophetic Suffering_
1. What was the fate of the Old Testament prophets? What was their
influence in the life of Israel? To what extent is Mark 12:1-9 a fair
epitome of the treatment of the prophets by the Hebrew nation?
2. What is the significance of Isa. 53:4-8? Why and how can the sins of a
group fall on another?
3. Where did Jesus see the continuity of prophetic suffering in his own
times?
4. What place did he give to vicarious suffering in the life of his
followers and in the conquest of the Kingdom? How does the law of the
Cross connect with the fact of solidarity?
5. In what respects was Christ’s Cross unique? In what respects does it
express a general spiritual law?
III. _Vicarious Suffering Today_
1. Give instances of persons in public life today whose careers were
wrecked because they assailed socialized evil or graft. How does this
differ from the fate of the prophets?
2. Are the sacrifices of prophetic leaders ever useless and actually
ineffective? Do you feel an inward protest against that? On what ground?
3. To what extent is the call to be a Christian a challenge to vicarious
suffering? What social significance, then, would Christian baptism have?
4. Is there anything wrong with a Christian life which does not incur
suffering?
5. Would suffering be normal in the religious life of the young?
6. Why does this social principle apply especially to college men and
women?
IV. _For Special Discussion_
1. What qualities constitute a man a prophet?
2. Are there embryonic prophets? Or spent prophets? Is a prophet
necessarily a saint?
3. Do prophets arise where religion deals with private life only? What is
the social value of prophetic personalities?
4. Name men in secular history and literature who have the marks of the
prophet. Any in recent times?
5. Does learning create prophetic vision or blur it?
6. Does the ordinary religion today put a man in line for the Cross or for
a job as a bank director?
7. Can you think of anything that would bring the Cross back into the life
of the churches today?
8. Would vicarious suffering diminish if society became Christianized?
Chapter XII. A Review And A Challenge
_The Social Principles of Jesus Demand Personal Allegiance and Social
Action_
DAILY READINGS
First Day: The Social Mission of Christians
Ye are the salt of the earth.... Ye are the light of the
world.—Matt. 5:13, 14.
“Jesus speaks here with the consciousness of an historic mission to the
whole of humanity. Yet it was a Nazarene carpenter speaking to a group of
Galilean peasants and fishermen. Under the circumstances, and at the time,
it was an utterance of the most daring faith—faith in himself, faith in
them, faith in what he was putting into them, faith in faith. Jesus failed
and was crucified, first his body by his enemies, and then his spirit by
the men who bore his name. But that failure was so amazing a success that
today it takes an effort on our part to realize that it required any faith
on his part to inaugurate the Kingdom of God and to send out his
apostolate.”(7)
If the antiseptic and enlightening influence of the sincere followers of
Jesus were eliminated from our American communities, what would be the
presumable social effects?
Second Day: The Great Initiator of the Kingdom of God
At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father,
Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from
the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea,
Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. All things have
been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son,
save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him. Come unto me,
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in
heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is
easy, and my burden is light.—Matt. 11:25-30.
This is one of the most thrilling passages in the Bible. It has always
been understood as a call to intimate religion, as the appeal of a
personal Saviour to those who are loaded with sin and weary of
worldliness. But in fact it expresses the sense of a revolutionary mission
to society.
Jesus had the consciousness of a unique relation to the Father, which made
him the mediator of a new understanding of God and of life (v. 27). This
new insight was making a new intellectual alignment, leaving the
philosophers and scholars as they were, and fertilizing the minds of
simple people (v. 25). It is an historical fact that the brilliant body of
intellectuals of the first and second centuries was blind to what proved
to be the most fruitful and influential movement of all times, and it was
left to slaves and working men to transmit it and save it from suppression
at the cost of their lives.
Then Jesus turns to the toiling and heavy laden people about him with the
offer of a new kind of leadership—none of the brutal self-assertion of the
Cæsars and of all conquerors here, but a gentle and humble spirit, and an
obedience which was pleasure and brought release to the soul.
These words express his consciousness of being different, and of bearing
within him the beginnings of a new spiritual constitution of humanity.
When individuals have really come under the new law of Christ, does Jesus
make good?
Would he also make good if humanity based its collective life on the
social principles which we have studied?
If the choice is between Cæsar and Christ, which shall it be?
Third Day: The Kingdom of Truth
Pilate therefore entered again into the Prætorium, and called
Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus
answered, Sayest thou this of thyself, or did others tell it thee
concerning me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and
the chief priests, delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from
hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end have I been
born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear
witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice. Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and
saith unto them, I find no crime in him.—John 18:33-38.
All kingdoms rest on force; formerly on swords and bayonets, now on big
guns. To overthrow them you must prepare more force, bigger guns. Jesus
was accused before Pilate of being leader of a force revolution aiming to
make him king. He claimed the kingship, but repudiated the force. To his
mind the absence of force resistance was characteristic of his whole
undertaking. Instead, his power was based on the appeal and attractiveness
of truth. When Pilate heard about “truth” he thought he had a sophist
before him, one more builder of metaphysical systems, and expressed the
skepticism of the man on the street: “What is truth?” But Jesus was not a
teacher of abstract doctrine, whatever his expounders have made of him.
His mind was bent on realities. If we substitute “reality” for “truth” in
his saying here, we shall get near his thought.
Which is more durable, power based on force, or power based on spiritual
coherence?
Fourth Day: A Mental Transformation
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God,
which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to
this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,
that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will
of God.—Rom. 12:1, 2.
In the first century the Christians were a new social group, confronting
the social order of the Roman Empire with a new religious faith, a
revolutionary hope, and a powerful impulse of fraternity. Those who had
come out of pagan society still felt the pull of its loose pleasures and
moral maxims, and of its idolatry. Paul here challenges them to submit
fully to the social assimilation of the new group. It involved an
intellectual renewal, a new spiritual orientation, which must have been
searching and painful. It involved the loss of many social pleasures, of
business profit and civic honor, and it might at any time mean banishment,
torture, and death. The altar symbol of sacrifice might become a scarlet
reality. Yet see with what triumphant joy and assurance Paul speaks.
If a student should dedicate himself to the creation of a Christian social
order today, would it still require an intellectual renewing?
Would it cramp him or enlarge him?
Fifth Day: The Distinctive Contribution of Christ
There was the true light, even the light which lighteth every man,
coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and
they that were his own received him not. But as many as received
him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to
them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the
Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and
truth. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ.—John 1:9-14, 17.
Here is the tragedy of the Gospel story, seen from a long perspective and
stated in terms of Greek philosophy. The Light which lighteth every man,
the _Logos_ through whom God had created the _kosmos_, had come to this
world in human form, and been rejected. But some had received him, and
these had received a new life through him, which made them children of
God. They had discovered in him a new kind of spiritual splendor,
characterized by “grace and truth.” Even Moses had contributed only law to
humanity; Christ was identified with grace and truth.
How would you paraphrase the statements of John to express the attitude of
nineteen centuries to Christ?
What has he in fact done for those who have received him?
What would be the modern equivalent of “grace and truth” to express the
distinctive contribution of Christ to human history?
Sixth Day: The Master of the Greatest Game
Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great
a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which
doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race
that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter
of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the
cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the
throne of God. For consider him that hath endured such gainsaying
of sinners against himself, that ye wax not weary, fainting in
your souls.—Heb. 12:1-3.
The man who wrote the little treatise from which this is quoted saw the
history of humanity summed up in the live spirits who had the power of
projection into the future. Faith is the quality of mind which sees things
before they are visible, which acts on ideals before they are realities,
and which feels the distant city of God to be more dear, substantial, and
attractive than the edible and profitable present. Read Hebrews 11. So he
calls on Christians to take up the same manner of life, and compares them
with men running a race in an amphitheatre packed with all the generations
of the past who are watching them make their record. But he bids them keep
their eye on Jesus who starts them at the line and will meet them at the
goal, and who has set the pace for good and fleet men for all time.
What is the social and evolutionary value of the men of “faith” in the
sense of Hebrews 11?
_Have we left Jesus behind us by this time?_
Seventh Day: The Beginning of the Greatest Movement in History
Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee,
preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled,
and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the
gospel.
And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew
the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were
fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will
make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they left the
nets, and followed him. And going on a little further, he saw
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in
the boat mending the nets. And straightway he called them: and
they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired
servants, and went after him.—Mark 1:14-20.
Here we have the beginning of organized Christianity. This is the germinal
cell of that vast social movement of which foreign missions, the
establishment of the American Republic, and the modern labor movement are
products. It began with repentance, faith, and self-sacrificing action,
and it will always have to advance by the same means. To those four men
Jesus was an incarnate challenge. He dared them to come, and promised to
put their lives on a higher level. He stands over against us with the same
challenge. He points to the blackened fields of battle, to the economic
injustice and exploitation of industry, to the paganism and sexualism of
our life. Is this old order of things to go on forever? Will our children,
and their children, still be ground through the hopper? Or have we faith
to adventure our life in a new order, the Kingdom of God?
Study for the Week
Has our study of the “Social Principles of Jesus” revealed a clear and
consistent scheme of life, worthy of our respect?
I
We have seen that three convictions were axiomatic within Jesus, so that
all his reasoning and his moral imperatives were based on them, just as
all thought and work in physics is based on gravitation. These convictions
were the sacredness of life and personality, the solidarity of the human
family, and the obligation of the strong to stand up for all whose life is
impaired or whose place within humanity is denied.
It can not be questioned that these convictions were a tremendous and
spontaneous force in the spirit of Jesus. That alone suffices to align him
with all idealistic minds, to whom man is more than matter, more than
labor force, a mysterious participant of the spiritual powers of the
universe. It aligns him with all men of solidaristic conviction, who are
working for genuine community life in village and city, for a nation with
fraternal institutions and fraternal national consciousness, and for a
coming family of nations and races. It aligns him with all exponents of
the democratic social spirit of our day, who feel the wrongs of the common
people and are trying to make the world juster and more fraternal.
The best forces of modern life are converging along these lines. There is
no contradiction between them and the spirit of Jesus. On the contrary,
they are largely the product of his spirit, diffused and organized in the
Western world. He was the initiator; we are the interpreters and agents.
Nor has he been outstripped like an early inventor and discoverer whose
crude work is honored only because others were able to improve on it.
Quite the contrary; the more vividly these spiritual convictions glow in
the heart of any man, the more will he feel that Jesus is still ahead,
still the inspiring force. As soon as we get beyond theory to life and
action, we know that we are dependent for the spiritual powers in modern
life on the continued influence of Jesus Christ over the lives of others.
II
We saw in the second place that Jesus had a social ideal, the Reign of God
on earth, in which God’s will would be done. This ideal with him was not a
Utopian and academic fancy, but the great prize and task of life toward
which he launched all his energies. He called men to turn away from the
evil ways of the old order, and to get a mind fit for the new. He set the
able individuals to work, and put the spirit of intense labor and devotion
into them. He proposed to effect the transition from the old order to the
new by expanding the area of moral obligation and raising the standards of
moral relationships.
By having such a social ideal at all, he draws away from all who are
stationary and anchored in the world as it is; from all who locate the
possibility of growth and progress in the individual only; and from all
whose desire for perfection runs away from this world to a world beyond
the grave.
By moving toward the new social order of the Kingdom of God with such
wholeness of determination, he is the constant rebuke for all of us who
are trying to live with a “divided allegiance,” straddling between the
iniquities of force, profit, and inhumanity, and the fraternal
righteousness of the Gospel we profess to believe. Jesus at least was no
time-server, no Mr. Facing-both-ways, no hypocrite; and whenever we touch
his elbow by inadvertence, a shiver of reality and self-contempt runs
through us.
III
We saw in the third place that Jesus dealt with serious intelligence with
the great human instincts that go wrong.
The capacity for leadership and the desire for it have fastened the
damning institutions of tyranny and oppression on humanity and tied us up
so completely that the rare historical chances of freedom and progress
have been like a tumultuous and brief escape. Yet Jesus saw that ambition
was not to be suppressed, but to be yoked to the service of society. In
the past, society was allowed to advance and prosper only if this advanced
the prosperity and security of its ruling classes. Jesus proposed that
this be reversed, so that the leaders would have to earn power and honor
by advancing the welfare of society by distinguished service at cost to
themselves.
The desire for private property has been the chief outlet for selfish
impulses antagonistic to public welfare. To gain private wealth men have
slaughtered the forests, contaminated the rivers, drained the fertility of
the soil, monopolized the mineral wealth of the country, enslaved
childhood, double-yoked motherhood, exhausted manhood, hog-tied community
undertakings, and generally acted as the dog in the manger toward
humanity. Jesus opposed accumulation without moral purpose, the inhumanity
of property differences, and the fatal absorption of money-making. Yet he
was not ascetic. It is probably safe to say that he would not be against
private property in so far as it serves the common good, and not against
public property at all.
Like ambition and the property instinct, the religious impulse may go
wrong, and subject society to its distortions or tyranny. Jesus always
stood for an ethical and social outcome of religion. He sought to harness
the great power of religion to righteousness and love. With a mind so
purely religious we might expect that he would make all earthly and social
interests subservient to personal religion. The fact that he reversed it,
seems clear proof that he was socially minded and that the Kingdom of God
as a right social organism was the really vital thing to him.
IV
We have seen, finally, that Jesus had a deep sense of the sin and evil in
the world. Human nature is frail; men of evil will are powerful; organized
evil is in practical control. Consequently social regeneration involves
not only growth but conflict. The way to the Kingdom of God always has
been and always will be a _via dolorosa_. The cross is not accidental, but
is a law of social progress.
These conceptions together seem to shape up into a consistent conception
of social life. It is not the modern scientific scheme, but a religious
view of life. But it blends incomparably better with modern science than
the scholastic philosophy or theology of an age far nearer to us than
Jesus. It is strange how little modern knowledge has to discount in the
teachings of Jesus. As Romanes once pointed out,(8) Plato followed
Socrates and lived amidst a blaze of genius never since equalled; he is
the greatest representative of human reason in the direction of
spirituality unaided by revelation; “but the errors in the dialogues reach
to absurdity in reason and to sayings shocking to the moral sense.”
The writer of this little book has come back to an intensive study of
Jesus at intervals of years, and every time it was like a fresh
revelation, leaving a sense of mental exhilaration and a new sense of joy
in truth. Never was there a feeling that Jesus was exhausted and had
nothing more to say.
For a true valuation of his intellectual contribution to mankind we must
remember that we have not a page of his own writing. We are dependent on
the verbal memory of his disciples; so far as we know, nothing was written
down for years. The fragments which survived probably had to stand the
ordeal of translation from the Aramaic to the Greek. Simply from the point
of view of literature, it is an amazing thing that anything characteristic
in Jesus survived at all. But it did. His sayings have the sparkle of
genius and personality; the illustrations and epigrams which he threw off
in fertile profusion are still clinchers; even his humor plays around
them. Critics undertake to fix on the genuine sayings by internal
evidence. Only a mind of transcendent originality could win its way to
posterity through such obstructions.
But we ought not to forget the brevity of our material when we try to
build up a coherent conception of his outlook on society. There is little
use in stickling on details. The main thing is the personality of Jesus,
his religious and ethical insight into the nature and needs of the social
life of mankind, the vital power of religious conviction which he was able
to put behind righteousness, and the historical force which he set going
through history.
From the indirect influences which Jesus Christ set in motion, no man or
woman or child in America can escape. We live on him. Even those who
attack the Christian Church, or who repudiate what they suppose Christ to
stand for, do so with spiritual weapons which they have borrowed from him.
But it does make a great difference whether the young men and women of our
day give their conscious and intelligent allegiance to Christianity or
hold aloof in misunderstanding. Without them the Christian movement will
mark time on old issues. With them it will dig new irrigation channels and
string the wires for new power transmission.
In return, Christianity can do more for students than they themselves are
likely to realize in youth. Men grow tired. Their moral enthusiasm flags.
Scientific sociology may remain academic, cold, and ineffective. We need
inspiration, impulse, will power, and nothing can furnish such steady
accessions of moral energy as living religion. Science and the Christian
faith combined are strong. Those who succeed in effecting a combination of
these two without insincerity or cowardice are the coming leaders.
If a student’s mind has given inward consent to the teachings of Jesus in
this course of study, that constitutes an appeal for personal
discipleship. Can we go with Christ in living out these principles, and
meanwhile draw on his spiritual wealth to build up our growing life? If
there is a student who can not at present affirm all that the Christian
Church holds concerning the nature of Christ, why should he not approach
him as the earliest disciples did, by personal love and obedience,
following him and cooperating with him in the business of the Kingdom of
God, and arriving in time at full faith in his Messiahship? A great and
firm faith is the product and prize of a lifetime of prayer and loving
action. “Light is sown to the righteous.” As we gather the wisdom of life,
and find that while we move from knowledge to knowledge, we are also
advancing from mystery to mystery, many of us will be ready and glad to
join in the highest affirmation of faith about Jesus Christ, in whom we
have learned to see God.
“If Jesus Christ is a man,
And only a man, I say
That of all mankind I cleave to him,
And to him I cleave alway.
“If Jesus Christ is a God,
And the only God, I swear
I will follow him through heaven and hell,
The earth, the sea, and the air.”
—RICHARD WATSON GILDER.
If Christianity henceforth is to discharge its full energy in the
regeneration of social life, it especially needs the allegiance of college
men and women who have learned to understand to some degree the facts and
laws of human society. The development of what is called “Social
Christianity” or “the social gospel,” is a fusion between the new
understanding created by the social sciences, and the teachings and moral
ideals of Christianity. This combination was inevitable; it has already
registered social effects of the highest importance; if it can win the
active minds of the present generation of college students, it will swing
a part of the enormous organized forces of the Christian Church to bear on
the social tasks of our American communities, and that will help to create
the nobler America which we see by faith.
Christians have never fully understood Christianity. A purer comprehension
of its tremendous contents is always necessary. Think what it would
signify to a local community if all sincere Christian people in it should
interpret their obligation in the social terms which we have been using;
if they should seek not only their own salvation, but the reign of God in
their own town; if they should cultivate the habit of seeing a divine
sacredness in every personality, should assist in creating the economic
foundations for fraternal solidarity, and if, as Christians, they should
champion the weak in their own community. We need a power of renewal in
our American communities that will carry us across the coming social
transition, and social Christianity can supply it by directing the plastic
force of the old faith of our fathers to the new social tasks.
Jesus was the initiator of the Kingdom of God. It is a real thing, now in
operation. It is within us, and among us, gaining ground in our
intellectual life and in our social institutions. It overlaps and
interpenetrates all existing organizations, raising them to a higher level
when they are good, resisting them when they are evil, quietly
revolutionizing the old social order and changing it into the new. It
suffers terrible reverses; we are in the midst of one now; but after a
time it may become apparent that a master hand has turned the situation
and laid the basis of victory on the wrecks of defeat. The Kingdom of God
is always coming; you can never lay your hand on it and say, “It is here.”
But such fragmentary realizations of it as we have, alone make life worth
living. The memories which are still sweet and dear when the fire begins
to die in the ashes, are the memories of days when we lived fully in the
Kingdom of Heaven, toiling for it, suffering for it, and feeling the
stirring of the godlike and eternal life within us. The most humiliating
and crushing realization is that we have betrayed our heavenly Fatherland
and sold out for thirty pieces of silver. We often mistake it. We think we
see its banner in the distance, when it is only the bloody flag of the old
order. But a man learns. He comes to know whether he is in God’s country,
especially if he sees the great Leader near him.
Suggestions for Thought and Discussion
I. _The Social Principles of Jesus_
1. Sum up the social principles of Jesus which we have worked out in this
course.
2. Do they seem incisive? Would they demand far-reaching social changes?
What changes?
3. What conceptions acquired in philosophical and social science studies
connect fruitfully with the principles of Jesus? Do any scientific
conceptions conflict with the essential ideas of Jesus?
II. _Social Salvation_
1. What is your frank estimate of the value of the social principles of
Jesus as a religious and ethical basis for the regeneration of society?
2. Does the spiritual development of modern life tend toward the position
of Jesus or away from it?
3. What opportunities and methods does modern life offer for carrying out
these principles in our social order?
4. If society cannot be saved under the spiritual leadership of Jesus, how
can it be saved?
III. _The Leader_
1. As this course proceeded, has our respect or reverence for Jesus Christ
increased or diminished? In what ways?
2. Would it be possible to join the forward Christian forces in working
for the Kingdom of God even if the theological questions are still
unsolved in our minds?
3. What seem now the best methods of carrying out these principles in our
own community and in the world?
IV. _For Special Discussion_
1. Does the salvation of society seem to make the salvation of the
individual unnecessary or trivial? Have you lost interest in it?
2. How should social and personal salvation connect?
3. What would a loyal religious dedication to Christ and Christianity mean
to our scientific social intelligence?
4. What would it mean to the course of our life?
FOOTNOTES
1 Rauschenbusch, “Prayers of the Social Awakening,” p. 15, on “The
Social Meaning of the Lord’s Prayer.”
2 See the chapter on “The Tragedy of Dives” in Rauschenbusch,
“Christianizing the Social Order,” p. 291.
3 Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah,” Appendix XVII,
give a detailed account of Sabbath regulations.
4 See, for instance, Begbie, “Twice Born Men.”
5 See Jane Addams, “A New Conscience and an Ancient Evil.”
6 Why not give a fresh reading to the Hebrew prophets? Read them as if
they had just been dug up in the East. Read them with the insight
into social life developed by economic and sociological work in
college. Read them with the critical social and political situations
in mind. Read entire books at a sitting to absorb the spiritual
valor of the prophets and their sense of God and of righteousness.
George Adam Smith’s “The Book of the Twelve Prophets” has fine
social understanding, and gives the necessary historical background.
7 “Christianity and the Social Crisis,” p. 415.
8 G. J. Romanes, “Thoughts on Religion,” p. 157.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Social Principles of Jesus" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.