The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 8

Our partic.i.p.ation in the Great War of 1914 was forced upon us, and was amply justifiable, both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature.

When Germany sunk our s.h.i.+ps on the high seas, it struck at our independence as a nation, as vitally as though it had invaded and seized a part of our territory. On this issue we had waged war with England in 1812, and with the Algerine pirates in 1815. To have yielded this point to Germany would have been the first step toward international slavery.

But the war itself was utterly unjustifiable. The fact that it could occur nearly 2,000 years after the death of Jesus, only ill.u.s.trates how little actual progress the teachings of Jesus inculcating peace had made against the forces of nature urging nations into conflict with each other.

To the impartial student of our history, it must be apparent that the Sermon on the Mount, so far as preventing wars, has been practically a dead letter. The condemnation of war has been superficial and insincere--nothing better than simple hypocrisy. It has been a service of the lip and not of the heart. The outside of the cup has been kept clean with a great parade of n.o.ble humanitarian sentiments, but the inside has been full of corruption.

Except among some numerically small bodies like the Quakers and a few others, there has never been any strong living, effective public sentiment in the United States condemning wars as unrighteous, save as a last extremity. This is well ill.u.s.trated by our two disputes with England over the Maine and Oregon boundaries. These boundary disputes were most intricate and complicated, the evidence was uncertain and conflicting, no question of principle was involved, and they were eminently matters to be settled by negotiation, mutual compromise, or arbitration. But in each case the Jingo clamor for war spread over the whole country. Polk's campaign cry in 1844 was, "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." But there was no organized, effective opposition on the ground that this war would be unrighteous and un-Christian. If England had been as weak as Mexico, or if Tyler and Polk had been "fire-eaters," like Andrew Jackson, we would, beyond doubt, have had war in each case, although there could have been no justification for it in the court of Jesus.

Every war, whether right or wrong, has been not merely condoned, but fully approved by the vast majority of the religious people of our country. Success in war has been the best stepping stone to the Presidency, as is shown by the instances of Jackson, Harrison, Taylor and Grant. There is no record of any Jingo statesman being punished by his const.i.tuents for precipitating the United States into unnecessary and unrighteous wars, and the supreme hypocrisy of all is, that, in every war, whether morally justifiable or not, the followers of Jesus crowd the churches to pray for His a.s.sistance, and to thank Him for victory when won, as though He were sanctioning these infractions of His Sermon on the Mount.

The late President Roosevelt has expressed his views on our wars, and he may certainly be taken as fairly representative of a large portion of the American people. He was a devout Christian, but singularly free from hypocrisy. He was given to "speakin' out in meetin'," on occasions with a frankness that was embarra.s.sing to his followers, and even later to himself.[57]

In his life of Thomas H. Benton, American Statesmen Series, page 261, he says, in treating of this boundary dispute with Canada:

"The matter was sure to be decided in favor of the strongest; and, say what we will about the justice and right of the various claims, _the honest truth_ is, that the comparative _might_ of the different nations, and not the comparative _righteousness_ of their several causes, was the determining factor in the settlement. Mexico lost her northern provinces by no law of right, but simply by the law of the longest sword--the same law that gave India to England."[58]

On page 262 he says: "It would be untrue to say that Nations have not at times proved themselves capable of acting with great disinterestedness and generosity towards other peoples; but such conduct is not very common at the best, and although it often may be desirable, _it certainly is not always so_. If the matter in dispute is of _great importance_, and if there is a _doubt_ as to which side is right, then the strongest party to the controversy is pretty sure to give itself the benefit of that doubt; and international morality will have to take tremendous strides in advance before this ceases to be the case."[59]

On page 268 he says: "No foot of soil to which we had any t.i.tle[60] in the Northwest should have been given up; we were the people who could use it best, and _we ought to have taken it all_. The prize was well worth winning, and would warrant a good deal of risk being run."

On page 289, in speaking of the final compromise and settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute, he says: "Yet as there was no particular reason why we should show any generosity in our diplomatic dealings with England, it may well be questioned whether it would not have been better to have left things as they were until we could have taken all. Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided, but they are far better than certain kinds of peace. Every war in which we have been engaged, except the one with Mexico, has been justifiable in its origin, and each one, without any exception whatever, has left us better off, taking both moral[61] and material considerations into account, than we should have been if we had not waged it."

These citations, reflecting, as they undoubtedly do, prevalent American sentiment in the past and present, establish the utter hypocrisy of any claim that the Sermon on the Mount has had any practical, effective power in determining the actions of our nation concerning wars, whether justifiable or not.

(b) SUNDAY AND THE SABBATH

It is uncertain just when Sunday (the first day of the week) began to be generally observed among Christians as a holy day. The early Gentile converts were naturally averse to all Jewish rites and ceremonies, including circ.u.mcision, Sabbath-day observances, etc. It would seem that, in St. Paul's time, more or less of them held the position that all days of the week were alike, and no one of them especially holy (Romans XIV:5, 6; Col. II:16, 17). But at least two or three centuries had elapsed after Jesus' death, before Sunday was established as a day holy to the Lord, and began to have attributed to it the sanct.i.ty with which the Jews surrounded their Mosaic Sabbath.

Jesus never sanctioned the observance of the first day of the week as a holy day. No text can be cited from the Old Testament, or the four Gospels, that gives even color of authority to this observance. Sunday is a purely human inst.i.tution, established by the Christians of the first five centuries, to suit their own convenience, or satisfy their anti-Jewish prejudices. As a Biblical festival, it is no more sacred than Monday or Tuesday, or any other day.

This matter is not commented on because of its practical importance, since it would now be inadvisable to change our legal day of rest to correspond with the Biblical Sabbath. But it affords a fair ill.u.s.tration of the prevalent cant and hypocrisy of the day. How frequently do the modern Pharisees denounce the man, who, for instance, goes fis.h.i.+ng or hunting on Sunday, instead of going to church, as a contemner of Jesus, a violator of G.o.d's holy laws, etc., when in fact they have not the slightest authority from Jesus to do so. Would it not be well for them to consider the beam in their own eye? On this point, the Seventh-day Baptists and others like them are the consistent followers of Jesus, and not the Roman Catholics and the great bulk of the Protestants.

(c) THE HYPOCRISY OF DIVORCE

Under the Mosaic law a husband, dissatisfied with his wife, could "write her a bill of a divorcement" if he had found "some uncleanness in her"

(Deut. XXIV:1; Matt. XIX:7).

According to Matthew, Jesus condemned divorce except for the cause of "fornication" (Matt. V:32; XIX:9).

According to Mark and Luke, He condemned divorce for any cause (Mark X:11; Luke XVI:18).

All the States of our Union, except New York and South Carolina, authorize divorce on other grounds than adultery. In New York divorces are granted only on the ground of adultery, and in South Carolina no divorces are granted. (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 369-371.)

In 1916, there were 1,040,778 marriages and 112,036 divorces in the United States, of which about 11 per cent were on the ground of "unfaithful." (World's Almanac, 1920, pp. 151-152.)

But the marriages of the Roman Catholics, about 1-7 of our population (World's Almanac, p. 484), should fairly be excluded, since divorce is practically non-existent among them. This would leave 890,000 marriages to 112,000 divorces.

There was then, in 1916, something more than one divorce to every ten marriages among our total population, or, excluding Roman Catholics, something more than one divorce to every eight marriages.

In the face of these figures, it must be conceded that this prohibition of Jesus has become practically a dead letter among the Protestant Christians of the United States.

To the innocent party to a divorce, little, if any, stigma attaches either in business, social or religious circles, and nothing but a temporary condemnation is visited on the guilty party. The plain truth is, that divorce has become a matter of everyday life, regrettable but not sinful, and that, on this point, the followers of Jesus (excepting the Roman Catholics) have simply subst.i.tuted their ideas of right and wrong for His.

It should be added again, to avoid misunderstanding, that it is not the intention hereby to condemn our present divorce laws. On the contrary, it is quite probable that, if Jesus were legislating for the complex societies of today, instead of for the comparatively simpler civilization of His day, He would materially modify His stringent views on divorce, in a sane concession to the weakness and frailty of human nature. Certainly, to one who has seen many ill-mated couples seeking relief in the divorce courts, and subsequently making happy marriages, to the mutual benefit of themselves, their children, their friends and society in general, divorce laws cannot seem all evil. The children, if there are any, are the main factor to be considered, and no conditions of life are likely to be much worse for them than to be brought up by two mutually unloving, unsympathetic parents, and, as usually happens, in an atmosphere of continual bickering and quarreling.

(d) THE HYPOCRISY OF PRAYER

This subject has already been treated under Note 22, _supra_, page 23, and it has been shown that Jesus clearly condemned public prayers, long prayers and frequent prayers (Matt. VI: 5, 8).

The evils of the prayer-habit (as a public ceremony) are many and obvious.

(1) It is a useless waste of time and energy that had better be expended on works of mercy. G.o.d already knows what things we need, and will grant them, if advisable, without prayer (Matt. VI:8). For instance, how much time has been spent by the human race in praying for things which subsequent events proved were, or would have been, injurious instead of beneficial? How many there are, who, in looking back over their lives, can see that the realization of one of their (at the time) dearest wishes turned out later to be the most unfortunate thing that ever happened to them.

(2) It encourages the formation of a low and unworthy conception of G.o.d as a being to be propitiated and placated, like the deities of barbarous peoples. Insensibly the idea grows that the more frequent and the more zealous the prayers, the more likely they are to be granted. An instance of this will be found in the custom started during the Great War of every one on the streets and everywhere, praying exactly at noon for the success of our armies. The idea underlying this was apparently that of "a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together," although the latter requirement was hardly fulfilled, since the prayers in New York were several hours old before those in San Francisco were begun. Nothing could be imagined much more inconsistent with Jesus' regulations on the subject of prayer.

Furthermore, the prayer-habit begets a sickening tone of servility in the wors.h.i.+pper, coupled with the ascription to the Deity of an equally sickening love of adulation. In many prayer meetings the speakers seem to vie with each other in seeking terms of humility and self abas.e.m.e.nt for themselves (miserable worms being rather a favorite) and the most exaggerated t.i.tles of honor for the Deity. One would think they were a lot of grovelling slaves, prostrating themselves before the throne of some barbaric despot. Take the "Te Deum," which is a prayer in the form of a hymn. Can it be supposed that the fulsome adulation with which it is filled can be pleasing to the G.o.d of the universe? And yet, why is it sung, except on that supposition? What respect would we have for an earthly father who delighted in having his children a.s.semble every morning, and chant their praises of his goodness, his excellence, his power, etc.? And yet should not the ideal of the heavenly Father be higher than that of the earthly father?

(3) The prayer-habit tends to emasculate the moral strength of its devotees. It is much easier to pray to G.o.d for help and, so to speak, s.h.i.+ft the responsibility on Him, than to work out one's own troubles by one-self. There is an old saying--Pray, but with thy hand on the plough.

Too much praying tends towards neglect of the plough, or, to use Cromwell's phrase, the keeping one's powder dry.

(4) Another evil is that it tends to encourage a self-righteousness on the part of its devotees (Luke XVIII:11). When prayer is regarded as a duty, the sequel to a prayer-meeting is a feeling of satisfaction in duty well performed. G.o.d has not only been well pleased by a display of humility on the part of His wors.h.i.+ppers, but has also been intelligently advised on a variety of subjects, about which He may have been in uncertainty.

Compare the prayer meeting of today with one according to Jesus'

precepts. There would be no long prayers (Matt. XXIII:14; Luke XX:47).

The meeting would open with the Lord's Prayer. Then, as each one thought over his various sins of omission and commission, and repented of them, he would arise and say, "G.o.d be merciful to me, a sinner" (Luke XVIII:13). The peace and silent meditation of such a gathering would tend to produce the humble and contrite heart, which is the offering pleasing to G.o.d.

(5) But the worst evil, as pointed out by Jesus, is that of subst.i.tuting a false standard of righteousness, words for acts, sacrifice for mercy (Matt. XII:7). When prayers are regarded as a duty and their performance a meritorious act, their devotees are quite apt to become like the Pharisees, who paid "t.i.the of mint, anise and c.u.mmin," but neglected "judgment, mercy and faith" (Matt. XXIII:23).

The average, easy-going Christian can without difficulty square his account with G.o.d through numerous prayers, or even rest easy in his conscience with a slight balance in his favor. But it must be almost impossible for the believer in, and faithful adherent of, prayer-meetings to rise to the sublime conception of the Almighty, voiced not only by Jesus, but by the later prophets of the Old Testament.

"Bring no more vain oblations (prayers or fasting): incense (prayers and fasting) is an abomination to me. The new moons and Sabbaths (ceremonial church services), the calling of a.s.semblies (prayer-meetings), I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts, my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them."

"Learn to _do_ well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow" (Isaiah I:13, 14, 17).

"And what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G.o.d" (Micah VI:8).

(e) THE HYPOCRISY OF FASTING

This subject also, has already been discussed under note 20, _supra_, but for convenience, reference is again made to the pa.s.sages in which Jesus condemns public fasting, or fasting as a ceremony (Matt. VI:16, 17, 18; Matt. IX:14; Mark II:18; Luke V:33; Luke X:7).

Nearly everything which has been said under the last subhead concerning public prayers applies with equal force to ceremonial fasting, and need not be repeated here.

(f) SUNDAY BLUE LAWS