The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 6

THE NECESSITY OF COMPROMISE

In Physics a body acted on by two divergent forces takes a course which is the resultant of (a compromise between) the two different forces. So, if Christianity is to survive as an efficient force in man's evolution, compromises must be made between the ideals of Jesus and the natural forces expressed in the terms of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. It is possible that the day may come, when all nations of our planet may be converted, to put into practical operation in international affairs the ideals of Jesus. But the experience of the world during 1914 shows that little, if any, progress has been made in that direction since the Crucifixion. Suppose the Christian nations of Europe and America should announce today the doctrine of non-resistance, dismantle their fleets and dismiss their armies, how long would it be before the Moslems, or the "yellow hordes" of Asia, would enslave them and exterminate all Christian religion and civilization? Fortunately, such a result is unthinkable, and the Christian nations will, until some unknown time in the future, continue their compromise with Jesus'

ideals. The unspeakable Turk will continue to understand that, if he ma.s.sacres some Christian villages, the other cheek will not be turned to him, but, on the contrary, a righteous retribution of bayonet and sh.e.l.l will be meted out to him.

A superficial glance at history ill.u.s.trates the necessity of national compromise.

If Moses had preached, and the Jews had put in practice, the doctrine of non-resistance, they would soon have been exterminated by their Philistine neighbors, and the Jesus that was would never have been.

If the tribes of the northern barbarians in the first thousand years of our era had put into practical effect the Sermon on the Mount, as soon as they accepted Christianity, there would have been no Anglo-Saxon England and United States, as they are today.

If Ferdinand and Isabella had not relied on their earthly weapons, Spain would probably have been Moslem to this day.

If the Christian powers had not warred against the Turks in the sixteenth century, the greater part of Europe would have bowed the knee to Mahomet, and the Mosque would have superseded the Church as the authorized place of worship.

If our colonial ancestors had obeyed the injunction, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," there would have been no American Revolution.

If the "conscientious objectors" had swayed the councils of the North in 1861, we would now have a divided country, with slavery firmly established in one-half of it.

As with the nation, so with the individual, a compromise between Jesus'

ideals and the forces of nature is a necessity, at least until evolution has produced some fundamental change in human nature.

It is related that when the mother and brethren of Jesus sought to speak with Him, He repudiated their special claims of relationship on Him, and said: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister and mother" (Matt. XII:50; Mark III:31; Luke VIII:19).

In another place He says: "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" (Matt. X:37).

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke XIV:26).

"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt.

XIX:29).

"And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

"Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and preach the kingdom of G.o.d" (Luke IX:59, 60).

Now, no sane man would advocate that doctrines such as these should be put into general, practical operation under the present const.i.tution of human nature. Their practice would make of man a selfish ascetic, would disintegrate the family into its individual units, like animals when the breeding season is past, would discourage human progress and development, and would eventually lead to the degradation or extinction of any society which attempted to consistently enforce them. Of course the individual man or woman may abjure family ties altogether, without serious loss to the community and even perhaps with some gain, just as the drones have a function to perform in a community of bees. But the universal adoption of this practice by a human community would mean its speedy death. With those who would regard this as a desirable outcome of Jesus' teachings, we have no argument.

There is, however, no danger of such a condition of affairs coming to pa.s.s. For untold ages before these utterances of Jesus, nature had been developing the family affections in man. It had made the family the fundamental unit of the tribe, the clan, the race, the nation. These family affections, so planted by nature in man, must, in society as a whole, override the ethical idea of a general philanthropy, as embodied in these utterances of Jesus. The normal man has always, and does now, rank the duties to his family as paramount over those of general philanthropy.

Man will continue to marry and have children in the future, as he has in the past. He will continue to regard his obligations to his family as superior and prior to those he owes to mankind in general. He will feel within himself the urge, not merely to satisfy the need of the day, but also to provide for the future. He will look forward to the education and outfitting of his children. He will guard against the contingencies of sickness and the probabilities of old age coming upon himself and those dependent on him. He will engage with all his energy in the struggle with his fellow men for the acquisition of property. He will practice industry, thrift and economy, and take every fair means to push his own business at the expense of his compet.i.tors.

But in all this, even allowing that he has reasonably practiced the virtues of generosity, charity and philanthropy, there is no disguising the plain, naked truth that is all the time making compromises with the ideals of Jesus. His actions simply do not square with the maxims: Give all thy goods to the poor; take no thought for the morrow; every one who does the will of G.o.d is the same to you as your brother and sister and mother; resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain; give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you; lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth; take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.

It is difficult to conceive how, at the present stage of man's evolution, any community of considerable size, even if we a.s.sume all external hostile interference eliminated, could put these ideals into practical effect without disaster. As we know man, he has become what he is only through strife and contest, through the survival of the strong, the industrious, the provident over the weak, the lazy, the improvident.

If the struggle for existence is eliminated, is there not every reason to expect that progress will be arrested, and the nation's civilization will decay and finally disappear, as has been the case so many times in the past history of the world? The desire for the acquisition of private property and the l.u.s.t for power have been the two dominant motives impelling men to raise themselves from a stage of barbarism to a stage of civilization. What motives can be subst.i.tuted for those that will have the same compelling, driving force? It is only by long centuries of hard fighting with material weapons that the powers of good have so far subdued the powers of evil as to establish our present standard of humanitarianism. But if the good are to be confined to the weapon of moral suasion, how long will it be until the powers of evil are in full control?

But, further, even if we a.s.sume that all evil-doers are converted from the error of their ways, the economic problem for a community working under these ideals seems insoluble. Even under the grinding necessities of the struggle for existence, the tendency of human populations to increase beyond their means of subsistence is an indisputable fact, as soon as they develop a civilization where peace and security of private property are measurably a.s.sured, and especially where manufacturing centers with large industrial populations are established. The many ancient civilizations that have arisen, flourished and decayed attest the truth of this fact. In the seventeenth century England was confronted with the problem of inadequate means of subsistence, and met it by spreading over the whole globe. What the history of the English people would have been if they had been confined to their native island, would afford an interesting subject for abstract philosophical speculation. Thus far, the vast undeveloped territories of the United States have furnished an outlet for its surplus population. But the time may not be far distant when the problem of subsistence may be a serious one with us. In modern times, nearly all the great nations have been struggling for the acquisition of new territories as an outlet for their expanding populations. Germany's economic needs were undoubtedly one of the strongest motives urging her onward in her fateful dream of world empire. France attempts to meet the difficulty by voluntary, individual action in limiting the birth rate. This remedy will always be resorted to in highly civilized nations, as the pressure of population on subsistence becomes more severe. But the decrease of population means the arrest of growth and progress in the national organism, and eventual decadence.

Thus dark and uncertain is the economic outlook for nations where the compet.i.tive struggle for existence is in full sway, where the acquisition and acc.u.mulation of private property are fostered and encouraged, where thrift, industry and saving are ranked as cardinal virtues, and where proper provision for oneself and one's family is even enforced by law against the indolent and shiftless. What must be the economic future of a community from which these incentives and restraints are banished, and where sympathy for the unfortunate and the criminal, regardless of merit or desert, is to be the governing principle?

It follows, then, first, that the nation, in its international relations, must compromise with the ideals of Jesus in order to preserve its national existence, and to safeguard Christianity against the attacks of its external foes; and second, that the individual, in his daily life, must compromise with these ideals to preserve the well-being and continuity of the family and to ensure the progress of mankind in happiness, morality and material prosperity.

COMPROMISE IS JUSTIFIABLE

The Crucifixion was but a few years old when those two old enemies whom Jesus had fought so persistently--creeds and ceremonies--began to be active among the early Christians. _Right theological thinking_ began to a.s.sert its supremacy over the _right practical living_, taught by Jesus as the first essential of His professed followers. The outside of the cup was being carefully polished up, although the inside might be unclean. Paul, who had never had any personal intercourse with Jesus, was the protagonist of this retrograde movement. Zealous, energetic, a ready writer and a subtile dialectician, his numerous epistles furnished an a.r.s.enal of weapons for all future controversial theologians. His arrogance in defining the tenets of the rapidly growing Gentile Church was not one whit abated by the fact that he had never been in personal contact with Jesus, and that in his views he was opposed to those who had been the most intimate a.s.sociates of Jesus during his entire prophetic career. Quite early in his ministration, Paul has a bitter quarrel with Peter, James, Cephas, John (the pillars) and other disciples of Jesus over some question of circ.u.mcision, and has no hesitation in telling Peter (the "rock" of the new Church) to his face that "he was to be blamed" for his views (Galatians II:11 et seq.).

It is not too much to say that he took the fair, smiling child of religion, as left by Jesus, and transformed it into a misshapen dwarf, with twisted and contorted limbs, and upon its face a frown of almost malevolent austerity.

When right theological thinking became established as the primary essential of a Christian, and especially when Christianity acquired temporal power, it was inevitable that there should be extracted from Paul's militant writings that most abominable doctrine of "No compromise with evil." In company with dogmatic distinctions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, it has inflicted its full quota of misery and suffering upon the human race. It formed the justification of the cruelties of the Inquisition, the religious persecutions and wars of the Middle Ages, the conversion of savages by fire and sword, the extermination of so-called witches, and the burning at the stake of countless advanced thinkers in science and religion, and other so-called heretics.

Probably the unrecorded suffering which the advocates of this doctrine have inflicted in the domestic and social sphere would equal that which is written in political history. The possession of, and disposition to put into practical operation, this dogma presupposes sublime egoism, coupled with a narrowness of mind easily running into extreme bigotry.

For the slightest study of history will show that the error and evil of one age becomes the truth and good of a succeeding age. But the non-compromiser ignores any consideration of that sort. If he has decided that this and that are evil, they must necessarily be evil without argument or appeal. He is the legitimate descendant of the old inquisitors, and, if he had the temporal power, would today enforce his ideas as ruthlessly throughout the nation as they did in the Middle Ages. Confined to the narrower limits of the domestic and social circle, he plays the autocrat so far as he can. Without sympathy or toleration for differing opinions and tastes, as husband, father, priest, officer, or citizen, the non-compromiser seeks to fit every one to his own _narrow_ Procrustean bed.

Closely allied to the non-compromisers are the sacro-sancts, or those who would be holier than Jesus.

This cla.s.s is well ill.u.s.trated in an incident taken from a recent novel.

The heroine consults her married sister about the heroine's contemplated marriage with a man who has divorced his wife on the ground of her adultery. The sister declares that such a marriage would be no better than prost.i.tution. "But he is legally divorced" says the heroine. "Yes, according to man's law, but not according to G.o.d's law," says the sister. Now, considering that divorce was permitted under G.o.d's law, as recorded in the Old Testament, that Matthew twice clearly and explicitly states that Jesus sanctioned divorce on the ground of adultery, and that John mentions no condemnation of divorce by Jesus, it would seem that there was at least a fair doubt as to whether the heroine's proposed marriage was contrary to G.o.d's law. But the sister, like other sacro-sancts and non-compromisers, arrogates to herself infallibility in interpreting the divine will, and will not admit argument as to her possible inaccuracy.

Other examples are those who would fear to contaminate their holiness by following their Master's example in eating and a.s.sociating with publicans and sinners (Matt. IX:10); who would shudder at being anointed by a prost.i.tute (Luke VII:37); who would think the Sabbath desecrated by pleasant walks in the fields, or by feasting and joyous meetings with one's friends (Matt. XII:1; Luke XIV:1), and who in general insist on the observance of religious rites and symbols, similar to those which Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.

One of the x.x.xIX Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church takes a slap at these sacro-sancts (Book of Common Prayers, Article XIV). It condemns, as marks of "arrogancy and impiety," works of supererogation--that is, works over and above G.o.d's commandments.

Undoubtedly the meaning here is, not to condemn excess in acts of mercy and charity, but excess in the same acts of ceremonial worship which Jesus condemned in the Pharisees: Long prayers, "standing in the synagogues" (churches), instead of in their "closet"; public fasting with "a sad countenance," so that they "disfigure their faces," instead of anointing their heads and washing their faces "that they appear not unto men to fast," making "broad their phylacteries" and giving ostentatiously their "t.i.the of mint and anise and c.u.mmin" (Matt. VI:1-7, 16, 17, 18; XXIII:4-7, 23).

The dogma of non-compromise finds no support in the teaching and practice of Jesus. He pictured the highest ideals for mankind. But He was no bigot in demanding that fallible human beings should live up to these ideals on pain of d.a.m.nation. With His wonderful tolerance and broadminded sympathy, He recognized that the happiness and progress of the human race, in its present state of evolution, necessitated certain compromises with evil. "As between two evils, choose the less," would be much nearer His position than "no compromise with evil." A short study of some of the episodes of His life will place this beyond dispute.

Jesus undoubtedly considered that riches were an evil (Matt. XIX:23, 24; XIII:22; Mark X:23, 24; Luke XVIII:24, 25). He knows the "deceitfulness"

of riches, and that the temptations attending the possession of wealth do not ordinarily make for righteousness. He advises that one should lay up treasure in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. VI:19, 20; Luke XII:33).

Riches, then, being an evil, the non-compromiser should logically regard the rich man as a persistent evil-doer. He should constantly denounce his evil ways, as those of any other malefactor. He should refuse him his public a.s.sociation and friendship, since thereby he would be gilding his misconduct with the gold of his own sanct.i.ty. If a priest, he should charge his congregation to abstain from those habits of thrift and economy which will result in bringing upon them this evil of wealth.

But Jesus was too sane and broad-minded not to see that the happiness of mankind demanded a compromise with this evil. While warning against the temptations of riches, He preached poverty, not as a necessity to salvation, but as an ideal, to be attained and practiced by but a few.

Thus, in the case of the young man with "great possessions," Jesus, according to Matthew prefaces His counsel to sell his goods and give to the poor with the significant condition, "if thou wilt be perfect"

(Matt. XIX:21). To the same effect are the accounts of Mark and Luke.

"One thing thou lackest," viz., in order to be perfect (Mark X:21; Luke XVIII:22). Evidently Jesus took the concrete case of the young man to impress on His hearers one of His ideals--the high standard He set for those who aspired to be His immediate followers and the ministers of His Word. In His instructions to the twelve and the seventy, He laid down rules of conduct which practically eliminated the acquisition or possession of wealth (Matt. X:2, 9, 10; Mark VI:8, 9; Luke IX: 3; X:4).

But He set no such severe standard for the rank and file of His followers, nor did He withhold His favor and countenance from the possessors of riches, as though they were evil doers.

Nearly all the persons named in the Gospels as intimate friends and a.s.sociates of Jesus (outside of the apostles) were, apparently, more or less prominent, and belonged at least to the well-to-do cla.s.s. Joseph of Arimathaea, a disciple of Jesus, and one "waiting for the Kingdom of G.o.d," and who placed His body in the sepulchre, was a rich man (Matt.

XXVII:57; Luke XXIII:50, 51). Nicodemus, who a.s.sisted Joseph in the burial, brought a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes indicating that he was not a poor man (John XIX:39). According to John he was the man who came to Jesus by night and was a "ruler" of the Jews (John III:1, 2; VII:50). Lazarus, whom Jesus "loved" and with whose family He was very intimate (John XI:5; Luke X:38), could not have been a poor man, since his sister anointed Jesus with an ointment "very precious"

and worth more than three hundred pence (Mark XIV:3, 4, 5).

On one occasion Jesus invites Himself to visit in the house of Zacchaeus, who was "chief among the publicans," rich, and a "sinner"

(Luke XIX:1-7). Levi, the publican, gives a "great feast" for Jesus, which He approves by His presence (Luke V:29). On another occasion He goes to the house of one of the "chief Pharisees" to eat bread on the Sabbath day (Luke XIV:1).

Several times He commends the qualities of thrift and economy (Matt.

XXV:21, 23; Luke XII:42-44; Matt. XXV:3, 4; XXIV:45, 46; Luke XIX:17, 19). He constantly extols charity--the generous giving to the poor--as one of the chief virtues, but the practice of this virtue on a considerable scale necessarily implies the prior acc.u.mulation of riches.

The evidence of the four Gospels proves that Jesus, without hesitation, compromised with the evil of riches. He praised voluntary poverty as an ideal for those who were supposing themselves to be already perfect, and, perhaps, demanded it of His apostles and those who a.s.sumed to be the ministers of His Word. But He imposed no such hard and fast rule for the rank and file of His followers. He did not go about fanatically denouncing the rich men as evil-doers and malefactors. On the contrary, He made them His friends, singled them out for special marks of His favor and regard, though constantly urging on them the deceitfulness of riches and the necessity of generous giving to the poor. His friendship for Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so great that in her case He even condoned the use of the precious ointment for a purpose which He must have regarded as superfluous, instead of its being given to the poor (Matt. XXVI:6; Mark XIV:3; John XII:3).