informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/politics/INGERSOLL/reformer.d

1301 lines
73 KiB
D
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 11:31:59 -07:00
20 page printout
Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship.
This disk, its printout, or copies of either
are to be copied and given away, but NOT sold.
Bank of Wisdom, Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
**** ****
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
BY
CHARLES WATTS
(Vice-President of the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.
**** ****
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
ALTHOUGH Thomas Carlyle has said that "in these days it is
professed that hero-worship has gone out and finally ceased,"
thousands of the professed followers of Christ idolize his memory
to such an extent that they appear to be entirely oblivious of any
defect either in his character or in his teachings. They regard
their hero as having been the very embodiment of truth, virtue, and
perfection; and those persons who are compelled to doubt the
correctness of these assumptions are regarded by orthodox believers
as most unreasonable and perverse members of society. Probably the
principal cause why such erroneous and extravagant notions are
entertained of one who, according to the New Testament, was very
little, if at all, superior to other religious heroes can be
accounted for by the fact that the worshippers of Christ were
taught in their childhood to reverence him as an absolutely perfect
character, and as being beyond criticism. Thus youthful impressions
resulted in fancied creations which, in matured life, have been
accepted as realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook recognized this
truth, for in the preface to his work, 'The Founders of
Christianity' (page 5), he observes: "Our own idealizations have
invested him (Jesus) with a halo of spiritual glory, that by the
intensity of its brightness conceals from us the real figure
presented in the Gospels. We see him, not as he is described, but
as the ideally perfect man our own fancies have conceived. But let
any one sit down and critically analyses the sayings and doings
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels -- let him divest his mind of the
superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask himself whether all
those sayings and doings are in harmony with the highest wisdom
speaking for all ages and races of mankind, and with the
conceptions of an perfect human nature, and I am mistaken if he
will not find a very great deal he will be forced to condemn."
Even the sons of Labor, the apostles of Democracy, and the
advocates of Socialism appear disposed to adopt Jesus as their
Patron Saint. Conjectures are being constantly made by professed
modern reformers as to what the Carpenter of Nazareth would say
upon the many political and social questions that agitate the
public mind in this the latter half of the nineteenth century.
These hero-worshippers seem to overlook the apathy of Jesus in
respect to the evils of his own time. Of course, it is not
difficult for an impartial observer to learn why the name of Christ
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
1
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
is invoked to support the various schemes that are now put forward
to aid the regeneration of society. However little Christianity is
practiced among us, it is extensively professed, and it is thought
by many a virtue to assume a belief, whether there are sufficient
grounds for doing so or not. This slavish adherence to fashion is
an undignified prostration of mental freedom and independence, and
it is also a fruitful source of the perpetuation of error. My
purpose in examining the claims set up for Jesus as a political and
social reformer is to ascertain if the records of his life, doings,
and teachings justify such claims. If Jesus were judged as an
ordinary man, living nearly two thousand years ago, my present task
would be unnecessary. If we assume that such a man once lived, and
that what he said and did is accurately reported, he should, in my
opinion, be considered as a youth possessing but limited education,
surrounded by unfavorable influences for intellectual acquirements,
belonging to a race not very remarkable for literary culture,
retaining many of the failings of his progenitors, and having but
little regard for the world or the things of the world. Viewed
under these circumstances, I could, while excusing many of his
errors, recognize and admire something that is praiseworthy in the
life of "Jesus of Nazareth." But when he is raised upon a pinnacle
of greatness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, surpassing the
production of any age or country, he is then exalted to a position
which he does not merit, and which, to my mind, deprives him of
that credit which otherwise he would, perhaps, be entitled to.
The contentions which it is my purpose to dissipate are: that
Jesus was a political and social reformer, and that his alleged
teachings contain the remedies for the wrongs of modern society.
Before directly dealing with these points it ma be necessary to
glance at the various aspects of reform that have, at different
times in our national history, been presented to the community;
also to briefly consider the nature of the required reforms, and
some of the principal methods that have been adopted to secure
them.
In quite primitive ages important struggles took place to
establish greater equality in the conditions of life. In the time
of Moses, according to the Bible, the land, for instance, was not
merely the subject of "tracts for the times," but the laws and
regulations relating to it were practically dealt with. It did not,
however, cease to be property, and its inheritance was recognized
as a rightful thing. The stock-in-trade of many modern reformers is
the denunciation of those who "add house to house, field to field,
and grind the faces of the poor." If this condemnation is one of
the many features of Socialism, then Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
may, in this particular, be fairly termed Socialists -- a name
foreign to their language and to the ideas of their day.
The contention with some is, that Christ was a successor to
all these prophets, that he took the same kind of objection as they
did to the then existing state of things, and that he used the same
form of speech in denouncing them. The general reply to this is,
that Christ was, if anything only a prophetic reformer, not a real
one. In proof of this many facts in his alleged history may be
cited. For instance, he did not rescue the land from the control of
the Romans, who held it from the people very much in the same way
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
2
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
as landholders do now he did not attempt to render any aid to the
laborers of Rome, who in his day were resisting the injustice of
the capitalists he did not deliver his brethren of "the royal
house" from their foreign rulers; he did not redeem the Jews from
their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a word,
he entirely failed to do the reforming work that was expected of
him. About the year 1825 the "Christian Socialists of London"
called special attention to the question of land as regulated by
Moses, and the living in common by the early Christians; but no
practical issue arose out of the discussion. From that period down
to the present the same subject has been more or less agitated, and
still the matter is very far from being settled. Now, if it is
alleged that Christ sought to bring about a just settlement of the
land problem, then the existence of the present oppressive land
laws proves that he failed, and that his most devout followers have
been equally unfortunate. If Christ had been a practical reformer,
We should not have in our midst the deplorable injustice, the
wrongs, and the inequalities that now afflict society. These evils
and drawbacks -- the growth of centuries during which Christianity
was in power -- will doubtless be lessened, if not altogether
destroyed; but the work will be achieved by a moral revolution,
inaugurated and conducted by men who will possess ability and
experience that it is evident Jesus never had.
It must be borne in mind that there are two kinds of
revolution -- one that is gradual and intellectual, and therefore
useful; the other that is sudden, born of passion, and therefore
often useless as an important factor in securing permanent reforms.
We know that every change of thought, or condition of things,
involves a revolution which, if controlled by reason and regulated
by the lessons of experience, must aid rational progress, and tend
to build up a State, and secure its permanence. But there is
another kind of revolution, which is sought to be produced by
Nihilism and Anarchism, both of which aim at the destruction of the
State. I am not in favor of either of these "isms," believing, as
I do, that in our present condition of society some form of
government is necessary. Law and order, based upon the national
will, and the principle of justice, appear to me to be essential in
any scheme that is accepted for the purpose of furthering the
political and social progress of the world. Then we have Socialism,
which concerns itself with economic, ethical, political, and
industrial questions. The principal subject, however, dealt with by
Socialists is the accumulation and distribution of wealth. State
Socialism dates from the time of the eminent French writer, Claude,
H. Count de St. Simon, whose works were published in 1831. He tried
to secure the amelioration of the condition of the poor, and aimed
at the organization of labor and the distribution of the fruits of
industry, upon the principle of every man being rewarded according
to his works. Socialism is, in fact, an attempt (whether it is the
best that could be made is with some persons a debateable point) to
regulate the social relations, making them more equal than they are
at present, either by individual combination, by municipal or
cooperative action, by a philanthropic policy of the Church, or by
the control of the State. This last phase of the Socialistic scheme
means the complete regulation by law of the equality of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
3
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
individuals, the State being the owner of the land, and of all the
instruments of industry that are at present possessed by
individuals, public companies, etc., who now regulate, in their own
interest, production and distribution.
Having thus briefly stated the general conceptions and aims of
political and social reformers, the next step is to inquire in what
relation Jesus stands to any or all of them. Of course there is
only one source of information upon the subject at our command --
that of the four Gospels. From these it will not be difficult to
demonstrate that Jesus was no mundane reformer. Although he was
surrounded by poverty, slavery, oppression, and mental degradation,
he made no effort to rid society of these curses to humanity. As
John Stuart Mill observes, in his work upon Liberty (pp. 28, 29),
in referring to Christian morality: "I do not scruple to say of it
that it is, in many important points, incomplete and one-sided, and
that, unless ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had
contributed to the formation of European life and character, human
affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now are."
Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century, No. 144, pp.
178-186, point; out that Christians have no right to force their
idealistic portraits of Jesus on the unbiased scientific world,
whose business it is to study realities and to separate fiction
from fact. The Professor's words are: "In the course of other
inquiries, I have had to do with fossil remains, which looked quite
plain at a distance, and became more and more indistinct as I tried
to define their outline by close inspection. There was something
there -- something which, if I could win assurance about it, might
mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as long as
I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it been with me in my
efforts to define the grand figure of Jesus as it lies in the
primitive strata of Christian literature. Is he the kindly,
peaceful Christ depicted in the catacombs? Or is he the stern judge
who frowns above the altar of Saints Cosmas and Damianus? Or can he
be rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic broken down by
physical pain of too many medieval pictures? Are we to accept the
Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth Gospel as the true
Jesus? What did he really say and do? and how much that is
attributed to him in speech and action is the embroidery of the
various parties into which his followers tended to split themselves
within twenty years of his death, when even the three-fold
tradition was only nascent? .... If a man can find a friend, the
hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in
the Jesus of any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith in
that ideal. Who shall, or can, forbid him? But let him not delude
himself that his faith is evidence of the objective reality of that
in which he trusts. Such evidence is to be obtained only by the use
of the methods of science as applied to history and to literature,
and it amounts, at present, to very little."
Equally emphatic are the remarks of John Vickers, the author
of The New Koran, etc., who, in his work, The Real Jesus, on
pp. 160, 161, writes: "Many popular preachers at the present
day are accustomed to hold Jesus up to admiration as the
special friend of the poor -- that is, as the benefactor of
the humble working class, and their representations to this
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
4
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
effect are doubtless very generally believed. But a greater
delusion respecting him than this can scarcely be imagined;
for, however much he may have been disposed to favor those who
forsook their industrial calling and led a vagrant life, his
preaching and the course which be took were prejudicial to all
who honestly earned their bread. He did nothing with his
superior wisdom to develop the resources of the country and
provide employment for the poor; all his efforts were directed
to the unhinging of industry, the diminution of wealth, and
the promotion of universal idleness and beggary. It was no
part of his endeavor to see the peasant and the artisan better
remunerated and more comfortably housed, for he despised
domestic comforts as much as Diogenes, and believed that their
enjoyment would disqualify people for obtaining the
everlasting pleasures of Paradise. A provident working man who
had managed to save enough for a few months' subsistence he
would have classed with the covetous rich, and required him to
give away in alms all that he had treasured as the
indispensable condition of discipleship. On one occasion he is
said to have distributed food liberally to the hungry
multitude; but the food was none of his providing, since he
was himself dependent on alms. Moreover, the recipients of his
bounty were not a band of illfed laborers returning from work,
not a number of distressed farmers who had suffered heavy
losses from murrain or drought, but a loafing crowd who had
followed him about from place to place, and spent the day in
idleness. Such bestowment of largess would only tend to
produce a further relaxation of industrial effort; it would
induce credulous peasants to throw down their tools and follow
the wonder-working prophet for the chance of a meal; they
would see little wisdom in plodding at their tasks from day to
day, like the ants and the bees, if people were to be fed by
wandering about trustfully for what should turn up, as the
idle, improvident ravens (Prov. vi. 6; Luke xii. 24),"
Many eminent Christian writers maintain that Jesus was a
social reformer, because he is represented as having been in favor
of dispensing with the private ownership of property, and also of
people living together, enjoying what is called "a common repast."
Professor Graetz, in the second volume of his able 'History of the
Jews,' devotes a chapter to the social practices which prevailed at
the time when Jesus is alleged to have lived. On page 117 he states
that Christianity was really an offshoot from the principles held
by the Essenes, and that Christ inherited their aversion to
Pharisaical laws, while he approved of their practice of putting
their all into the common treasury. Farther, like them, Jesus
highly esteemed self-imposed poverty, and despised riches. In fact,
we are told that the "community of goods, which was a peculiar
doctrine of the Essenes, was not only approved, but enforced ...
the repasts they shared in common formed, as it were, the
connecting link which attached the followers of Jesus to one
another; and the alms distributed by the rich publicans relieved
the poor disciples of the fear of hunger; and this bound them still
more strongly to Jesus." But Graetz also adds that Christ
thoroughly shared the narrow views held by the Judaeans of his
time, and that he despised the heathen world. Thus he said: "Give
not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
5
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you " (Matt. vii. 6). If this is "Christian
Socialism," it is far from being catholic in its nature. The
Socialistic element of having "all things in common" was limited by
Christ to one particular community; it lacked that universality
necessary to all real social reforms. It was similar to his idea of
the brotherhood of man. Those only were his brothers who believed
in him. He desired no fellowship with those who did not accept his
faith; hence he exclaimed: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them, and cast
them into the fire, and they the burned " (John xi,. 6); "I pray
not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" (John
xvii. 9) ; "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied
before the angels of God (Luke xii. 9); "He that believeth not
shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 16). This may be the teaching of
theology, but it is not indicative of a broad humanity, neither
would it, if acted upon, tend to promote the social welfare of
mankind.
Professor Graham, M.A., of Belfast College, contends, in his
work, Socialism: Old and New, that Christ taught "Communism" when
he preached "Blessed be ye poor," when "he repeatedly denounced"
the rich, and when he recommended the wealthy young man to
voluntarily surrender his property to the poor. The Professor also
says: "In spite of certain passages to the contrary, pointing in a
different direction, the Gospels are pervaded with the spirit of
Socialism but be adds: "It is not quite State Socialism, because
the better society was to be brought about by the voluntary union
of believers." He admits, however, that "the ideal has hitherto
been found impossible; but let not any say that it does not exist
in the Gospels -- that Christ did not contemplate an earthly
society." Now this last point is just what could be fairly urged,
if the Gospels were trustworthy. There can be no reasonable doubt
that the disregard of mundane duties would be the logical sequence
of acting up to many of the teachings ascribed to Jesus. For
instance, he said, "My kingdom is not of this world " (John xviii.
36). "He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hatoth his
life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal" (John xii. 25).
"I am not of the world" (John xvii. 9). "Take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your
body what ye shall put on. ... Take therefore no thought for the
morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself"
(Matthew vi. 25, 34). "If an man comes to me and hate not his
father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and
sisters, yea, and his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke
xiv. 26). "Ever 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 an hundred fold, and shall inherit
everlasting life" (Matthew xix. 29). Even the disciple who wished
to bury his father was advised by Christ to forego that duty of
affection, for "Jesus said, Follow me; let the dead bury the dead."
The fact is, Christ was a spiritualiser, and not a social
reformer. If he had been to his age what Bacon and Newton were to
theirs, and what Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall have been to
the present generation; if he had written a book teaching men how
to avoid the miseries of life; if he had revealed the mysteries of
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
6
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
nature, and exhibited the beauties of the arts and sciences, what
an advantage he would have conferred upon mankind, and what an
important contribution he would have given to the world towards
solving the problems of our present social wrongs and inequalities.
But the usefulness of Jesus was impaired by the idea which he
entertained, that this world was but a state of probation, wherein
the human family were to be prepared for another and a better home,
where "the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest."
We have thus seen the views of the scientist, the historian,
and the professor, upon the subject under consideration; it will
now be interesting to learn what one of the successors to the
apostles has to say in reference to the same question. B.F.
Westcott, D.D., the present Bishop of Durham, in his work, Social
Aspects of Christianity, says: "Of all places in the world, the
Abbey, I think, proclaims the social gospel of Christ with the most
touching eloquence. ... if I am a Christian, I must bring within
the range of my religion every interest and difficulty of man, for
other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ."
This is not by any means correct, for many other
"foundations," which have nothing to do with Christ, have been
laid, and upon them systems, some good and some bad, have been
built. For instance, there are Individualism, Socialism, material
standards of progress, unlimited competition, and the application
of science. These are "other foundations" that men have had apart
altogether from Christ. But the solution to present social evils,
Dr. Westeott considers, is to be found only in the Christian faith.
He says: "We need to show the world the reality of spiritual power.
We need to gain and exhibit the idea that satisfies the thoughts,
the aspirations, the aims of men straining towards the light." He
admits that science has increased our power and resources; but, he
adds, it "cannot open the heavens and show the glory of God, and
Jesus standing at the right hand of God." Of course it cannot for
science has nothing to do with the impossible, or with the wild
speculations of theology. In the 'Social Aspects of Christianity,'
as presented by the Bishop, it would be difficult, indeed, to
recognize the principles of true Socialism. Moreover, as it is
admitted by him that science has increased our "power and
resources," it is a proof that Jesus must have been a poor
reformer, when we remember that he did nothing what ever to aid
this strong element of modern progress.
From the references which I have here made to some of the
ablest writers of to-day, it will be seen how Jesus is estimated by
them. I now propose to analyses the various statements which,
according to the Four Gospels, were uttered by him, that have any
bearing upon the political and social questions of our time. It
will then be seen whether Christ has any claim to be considered a
political and social reformer.
That the political views held by Jesus were exceedingly crude
is evident from the circumstance recorded in Matthew xxii. It is
there stated that, on finding a coin of the realm bearing the
superscription of Caesar, Jesus declared that both Caesar and God
were to have their due. The very pertinent question put by the
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
7
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
disciples afforded a good opportunity for some sound advice to be
given upon the political subjection in which the people to whom
Christ was talking were living. They were in bondage to a foreign
power, and were anxious to know if it were "lawful to give tribute
to Caesar or not." Instead of returning a clear and intelligible
answer, Jesus replied in words which were evasive and meaningless,
so far as the information sought for was concerned. If he had any
desire to alter the then existing political relations, or to
suggest any improvement, he might have given a practical lesson
upon the duties and obligations of the ruled to the rulers. Another
opportunity was lost when, Pilate having asked Christ an important
question, "Jesus gave him no answer" (John xix. 9).
Subsequently, however, Jesus recognized the "divine
government," for he said: "Thou couldst have no power at all
against me, except it were given thee from above" (John xix. 11).
He also, having stated, "My kingdom is not of this world," added:
"If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight,
that I should not be delivered to the Jew." Christ's notions of
government were similar to those of St. Paul, who said: "The powers
that be are ordained of God. ... and they that resist shall receive
to themselves damnation" (Romans xiii. 1, 2).
Now, in the very face of these scriptural utterances, we have
men to-day who allege that Christ is their hero of democracy. The
belief that he ever intended to improve the government of this
world by secular means is utterly groundless. His negligence in
this particular cannot be explained away by saying that society was
not ripe for reform, and that Jesus lacked the power to
revolutionize the institutions of his time. There is truth, no
doubt, in the latter allegation, for the power of Christ for all
practical work seems to have been very limited indeed, He did not
attempt any political reform, as other men in all ages have done;
he did not make honest endeavors to inaugurate improvements which,
under happier circumstances, might have been carried out. There is
no evidence that Christ ever concerned himself with such reforms as
civil and religious liberty, the freedom of the slaves, the
equality of human rights, the emancipation of women, the spread of
science and of education, the proper use of the land, and the
fostering of the fundamental elements of human progress. His
language was: "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not,
neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly
Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? And why take
ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they
grow; they toil not neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you,
That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothes 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? But seek ye first the
kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be
added unto you."
Christ's declaration that his kingdom was not of this world
may be taken as a reason why he made no adequate provision for
secular government; but those who worship him assert that his pain
is the only one that can be successfully adopted to secure the
desired reforms, and that he really did contemplate a better state
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
8
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
of society on earth than the one that then obtained. Where is the
evidence that this was so? Not in the New Testament, for it is
nowhere recorded therein that such was his mission. With him the
question was: For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the
whole world and lose his own soul" Even Renan, who is so frequently
quoted by Christian advocates as extolling Jesus, admits that he
lacked the qualities of a great political and social reformer. In
his 'Life of Jesus' Renan says that Christ had "no knowledge of the
general condition of the world" (p. 78); he was unacquainted with
science, "believed in the devil, and that diseases were the work of
demons" (pp. 79, 80) he was "harsh" towards his family, and was "no
philosopher" (pp. 81-83); he went to excess" (p. 174) he "aimed
less at logical conviction than at enthusiasm"; "sometimes his
intolerance of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and
apparently absurd" (pp. 274, 275); and "bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart" (p. 278.)
But let us further consider what it is said that he taught in
reference to life's social requirements, and also what was his
estimate of the world and the things of the world. Under any system
conducted upon rational principles the first social requirement is
to provide for sufficient food, clothes, and shelter; for to talk
of comfort and progress without these requisites is absurd. Now, it
was about these very things that Jesus, as it has already been
shown, taught that we should take no thought. In Matthew (e. vi.)
special reference is made to the Gentiles who did take Thought as
to the necessities of life; but other people were not to be anxious
upon the subject, "for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have
need of all these things," and a promise is given that he will
provide them as he "feedeth" "the fowls of the air." Poverty and
idleness were essentials to Christ's idea of a social state, as is
proved by his advice to the rich young man, to whom he said: "If
thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor" (Matthew xix. 21). In John (vi. 27) it is also said: "Labor
not for the meat which perisheth." What wealthy Christian will sell
what he has and give to the poor, and thus carry out Christ's idea
of social duties? And if the toiling millions did not labor for
their meat, they would get but little of it. It is not overlooked
that Jesus said to the young man, "and follow me"; which meant, I
presume, that he was to join the Christian society in which they
had "all things common" (Acts iv.). But this state of existence
could only be maintained by giving up all one's possessions and
adding them to the general stock. If all did this, the stock would
be soon exhausted. And the point here to be noted is, that in
Christ's scheme no provision is made to provide for a permanent
mode of living, except by prayer or miracle.
Surely it must be obvious to most people that a communion of
saints, fed directly by God, could not be any solution of the
social problem for those outside such communities Besides, there is
little prospect of outsiders being made partakers with the saints,
unless God the Father draws them unto Christ (John vi. 44); but no
one can go to the Father except by Christ (.John xiv. 6). Thus our
chances of admission into the Christian fold are very remote, for
if we are admitted it must be through Christ, to whom we cannot go
unless the Father draws us; but then we cannot go to the Father
except by Christ. This is a theological puzzle, which must be left
for a "Christian Socialist" to unravel if he can.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
9
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
The belief that a social condition of society is sustained by
an invisible power, where no labor is performed, and where no
interest is taken in its progress, or in the dignity and personal
independence of its members, is the height of folly. It implies the
destruction of all human institutions, and the substitution of a
"divinely-ordered state of things," such as some of Christ's
followers allege they are now hourly expecting. Well might the late
Bishop of Peterborough say: "It is not possible for the State to
carry out all the precepts of Christ. A State that attempted to do
so could not exist for a week. If there be any person who maintains
the contrary, his proper place is in a lunatic asylum"
(Fortnightly, January, 1890).
The Sermon on the Mount, or "in the plain," as stated by Luke
(vi. 17), has been called the Magna Charta of the kingdom of God,
proclaimed by Christ, although it has never been made the basis of
any human government. Its injunctions are so impracticable and
antagonistic to the requirements of modern civilization that no
serious attempt has ever been made to put them in practice. It may
be mentioned that the genuineness of the "Sermon has been boldly
questioned. Professor Huxley writes: "I am of opinion that there is
the gravest reason for doubting whether the Sermon on the Mount was
ever preached, and whether the so-called Lord's Prayer was ever
prayed by Jesus of Nazareth" (Controverted Questions, p. 415). The
Professor then gives his reasons for arriving at this conclusion.
The Rev. Dr. Giles, in his 'Christian Records, speaking of the
Sermon on the Mount, says: "There is good ground for believing that
such a collective body of maxims was never, at any time, delivered
from the lips of oar Lord"; and Milman declares that scarcely any
passage is more perplexing to the harmonist of the Gospels than
this sermon, which, according to Matthew and Luke, appears to have
been delivered at two different places.
Mr. Charles B. Cooper, a very able American writer, aptly
observes: "If this discourse is so important, as Christians profess
to believe -- the sum of all the teachings of Jesus, and the
sufficient source of all morality -- it is curious that Mark and
John knew nothing about it, and that Luke should dismiss it with
such a short report. Luke, omitting the larger part of the matter,
takes only one page to tell what occupies three pages in Matthew;
and to find any parallel to much of Matthew we have to go to other
chapters of Luke and to other occasions. In addition to which, they
disagree as to whether it was given on a mountain or in a plain."
Taking a broad view of the teachings as ascribed to Christ, I
should describe most of them as being the result of emotion rather
than the outcome of matured reflection. They are based upon faith,
not upon knowledge, trust in Providence being the cornerstone of
his system, so far as his fragmentary utterances can be
systematized. In my opinion, the idea of his being a political and
social reformer rests upon an entirely mistaken view of the union
of what are termed temporal and spiritual things. Examples of this
may be seen in such injunctions as "Love one another" and "Love
your neighbor as yourself." The first was clearly applicable to the
followers of Christ, for he expressly states, "By this shall all
men know that ye are my disciples" (John xiii, 35); and the second
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
10
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
command applied only to the Jewish community, not to strangers who
lived outside. These injunctions did not mean that those who heard
them were to love all mankind. Christ himself divided those who
were for him from those who were against him. To the first he said,
"Come, ye blessed of my father"; to the other, "Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels."
It has always appeared to me to be remarkably strange that
Christ should be regarded as the exemplar of universal love.
Neither his own words, nor the conduct of his followers, justify
such a belief. It is, of course, desirable that a social state of
society should be based upon love and the universal brotherhood of
man. This is the avowed foundation of the religion of the
Positivists, their motto being, "Love our basis, order our method,
and progress our end"; but no such commendable features are to be
found in the Gospel of Christ, or in the history of the Church.
Jesus declared that his mission was only to "the lost sheep of the
house of Israel" (Matthew xv. 24). Moreover, the conditions of
discipleship which he imposed would, if complied with, exclude the
possibility of love among all men (Luke xiv. 26); as would also his
avowed object of breaking the peace and harmony of the domestic
circle (Matthew x. 34, 35). It may be said that such are the
contingencies attending the belief and adoption of a new religion.
Be it so; but that only shows the futility of the contention that
Christ established universal brotherhood. It is absurd to argue
that he did so, when we are told in the Gospels that his mission
was to the Jews only (Matthew xv. 24); that he would have no
fellowship with unbelievers (Matthew xv. 26); that he threatened to
have his revenge upon those who denied him (Matthew x. 33); that he
instructed his disciples to "go not into the way of the Gentiles,
and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matthew x. 5);
and, finally, that he commanded those disciples, when they were
about to start on a preaching expedition, that "Whosoever shall not
receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house
or 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" (Matthew x. 14, 15). Shaking
the dust from the feet, be it remembered, was an Oriental custom of
exhibiting hatred towards those against whom the act was performed.
And surely the punishment that it is said was to follow the refusal
of the disciples' administration was the very opposite of the
manifestation of love. This accords with the non-loving
announcement that the lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with
his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power " (2 Thess.
i. 7, 8, 9).
These references ought to be sufficient to convince any one
that Jesus cannot be reasonably credited with a feeling of
unqualified love for the whole of the human race. His conduct, and
the general spirit of his teachings towards those who differed from
him, forbid such a supposition. His injunctions, if acted upon,
would annul the influence of the ancient maxim of "doing unto
others as you would they should do to you." Certainly he failed to
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
11
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
set a personal example by complying with this rule, as his harsh
language to those who did not accept his authority amply proves. It
is reported that Jesus said (Matthew v. 22), "Whosoever shall say
Thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire"; yet we find him
exclaiming, "Ye fools, ye fools and blind" (Lake xi. 40; Matthew
xxiii. 17). He advised others to "Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you," while he himself addressed those who were not his
friend's as "hypocrites" (Matthew vii. 5); "ye serpents, ye
generation of vipers" (Matthew xxiii. 33). We may here apply
Christ's own words to himself: "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" (Matthew xii. 36, 37). In Luke (vi.
37) he counsels us to "forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"; but in
Mark (iii. 29) it is stated, "He that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal
damnation." The unfortunate point here is, that we are not told
what constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
From these cases, and there are many more in the Gospels of
like nature, it is clear that Jesus taught one thing and practiced
another -- a course of conduct which his followers have not been
slow to emulate. But such an inconsistent trait of character
disqualifies those in whom it is found from being the best of
social reformers. Example is higher than precept.
Whatever may be urged in favor of Christ's supposed "spiritual
kingdom," his teachings have but little value in regulating the
political and social affairs of daily life, using those terms in
the modern and legitimate sense, inasmuch as he has given the world
no practical information upon either the science of politics or of
sociology. The affairs of this world had but little interest with
Christ. With him preeminence was given to the soul over the body.
We are not to fear him who can kill the body only, but rather fear
him "who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Matthew x.
28). Here we recognize the great defect in Jesus as a sectarian
reformer. He treats this world as if it were of secondary
importance, and he furnishes no useful rules for its practical
government. True he says, "Blessed are the poor" and Woe unto you
that are rich"; but what does this amount to? These empty
exclamations will not abolish pauperism, neither will they produce
the organization of honest industry, whereby human wants can be
supplied and social comforts secured. Would it not have been better
if Jesus had devised some plan whereby poverty should become
extinct?
To talk, as Professor Graham does, about producing a better
state, of society by a "union of believers" is, in my opinion,
folly. How is it to be done? Every member of "the union" would have
to live on the alms of the wealthy members. It would, in fact, be
a society of the destitute supported by voluntary contributions.
Surely no sane Socialists ever proposed to divide mankind into two
classes -- i.e., Paupers And those who feed them. We know what the
result of such a policy was in the case of the Church. As the
Professor says, the Church obtained the funds of the rich in return
for certain considerations which were supposed to affect them in
this world and in the next; and out of such proceeds the clergy
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
12
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
distributed bread to the poor and kept something better for
themselves. Thus Europe for centuries was infested by fat, idle
monks and an army of miserable beggars. A more detestable condition
of society to men of honor and independent spirit never existed.
Yet this "Christian Plan" finds favor, as we have seen, in "the
Abbey," and is really the necessary outcome of Christ's mendicant
teachings. For did he not allege that the poor were blessed, and
that "ye hath the poor always with you" (Matthew xxvi. 11)? If he
contemplated that the period would arrive when "it should be
impossible for men to be poor," Why did he not give some practical
instructions to hasten its advent? This would have been a grand
contribution to social reform. But his overwhelming anxiety about
another life, was, with him, the "one thing needful" and to it
every other consideration had to give way.
I am quite unable to understand how anyone can mistake the
obvious meaning of the parable in which the rich man appears in
hell and the poor man in heaven (Luke xvi. 19-26). The only
assigned reason is that the one was well-to-do in this life, while
the other suffered privations. This is no justification for either
of the men being where they are represented to have been. For
poverty is no virtue, neither is it a crime to be rich. Men of
wealth can be worthy characters, and poverty may be allied with
much rascality. The wrong does not consist in possessing riches,
but rather in the misuse of them; and, therefore, to be poor does
not seem the highest qualification for future bliss, and to be rich
is not a sufficient cause for anyone being excluded from an abode
of happiness. But this parable is another illustration of Christ's
exaltation of poverty. He even dispatched his disciples on a
mission of propaganda, without scrip, money, or purse, to beg their
way through the world (Luke, x. 7-10). Is this the highest model
that can be given for a mission to the poor? It is thought so
little of to-day, even by professed Christians, that they never
adopt the plan suggested by their "Master." They may preach
"Blessed be ye poor," but they have no desire to be one of them.
They read the warning, "Woe unto you that are rich; for ye have
received your consolation" (Luke vi. 24); but they appear to be
exceedingly comfortable with their material consolation. "A bird in
the hand is worth two in the bush," and they are consoled more with
the riches of this world than with the chance of having a harp in
the next. In the case of the rich voting man (Luke xviii.) it is
true Christ advised the giving up of private property; but it is
also true that the advice was not deemed practical, for the young
man "went away sorrowful (Matthew xix. 22). Supposing he had
accepted the advice, he would then have swelled the ranks of the
poor unemployed, and thereby have become the recipient rather than
the benefactor, although it is recorded that "it is more blessed to
give than to receive" (Acts xx. 35). The giving up all one's
possessions would be as injurious to a community as the amassing of
wealth by the few is pernicious.
What is required is a social arrangement whereby all members
of the community shall have their fair share of the necessities and
comforts of life; and this arrangement Christ did not understand,
or, if he did, he made no effort to bring it into force, and
consequently he lacked the elements of a true social reformer.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
13
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
There is an incident recorded in Luke (xii.) which shows that
Christ refused to say anything upon the subjects of property, civil
rights, and law and government. "One of the company said unto him,
Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with
me. And he said unto him, Man, Who made me a judge, or a divider
over you?" Here Jesus had an opportunity, as a social reformer, to
give the world an important lesson upon the duty of one man to
another; but he did not avail himself of it. He acted more like a
modern lawyer would do, who, when asked by a stranger to give him
advice, would reply: "I am not your appointed solicitor if you want
information, you must consult your own legal adviser."
The parable of "the rich man who set up greater barns,"
related in Luke (xii.), is another illustration of Christ's
defective teachings in reference to the affairs of this life. The
man in the parable proposed to enlarge his premises so that he
might be able to put by increased stock of fruits and goods, and
thus be in a position to take his "ease, eat, drink, and be merry."
There does not appear to be any great crime in this, for he lacked
room wherein to bestow his fruits, etc. (v. 17). Surely there could
be no serious objection to making such careful provision for "a
rainy day." Such conduct is frequent necessary to the advancement
of personal comfort and general civilization. Have not Christians
in all ages, since their advent, done the same thing, when they
have had the opportunity? Laying up treasures on earth, although
forbidden by Christ, is often an effective precaution against
starvation, and again in old age the slave of charity. But for
doing this very thing the man was told: "Thou fool, this night thy
soul shall be required of thee; then whose shall those things be
which thou hast provided?" (v. 20). Jesus then said, "Therefore I
sty unto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,"
etc. Here we have the prominent Christian requirement of making the
duties of this world subservient to the demands of a future
existence put forth by one who is claimed as being a model social
reformer. If it is alleged that Christ meant that the man in the
parable should have distributed his fruits and goods rather than
store them up, the reply is, the account does not say so. Why did
not Christ, instead of making heaven the principal consideration,
point out the evil influence of the monopoly of wealth upon human
society? The social problems cannot be solved by indulging in
speculations as to another world, of which we have had no
experience. The principle sought to be enforced in this parable is
evidently that the soul is of more importance than the body, and
that heaven is of greater value than earth. Thoughtlessness of the
things of time is directly encouraged by reference to the ravens:
"For they neither sow nor reap; which neither have store-house nor
barn; and God feedeth them" (v. 24).
It is worthy of note that Jesus never once intimated
throughout his career, either by direct statement or illustration,
that this world was the noblest and most desirable dwelling place
for man, and that it was the home of social felicity and mutual
happiness. His heart and home were in his Father's house, whither
he went to prepare a place for his followers, to whom he gave a
promise that he would come and receive them unto himself (John xiv.
2, 3). So little did Christ understand the philosophy of secular
reform that when he condemned covetousness (which was very laudable
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
14
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
upon his part) it was because he thought it interfered with the
preparation for inhabiting "mansions in the skies," rather than in
consequence of its effects upon homes on earth. He entirely
overlooked the agencies that promote human comfort. The means that
have been employed to produce and to advance civilization received
from him no matured consideration. If every word attributed to him
had been left unuttered, not one feature of modern progress would
be missing to-day. Let anyone carefully read, with an unbiased
mind, the four Gospels, and then ask himself the questions: What
philosophic truth did Jesus propound? What scientific fact did he
explain? What social problem did he solve? What political scheme
did he unfold? The New Testament does not inform us. On the
contrary, while other men, with less pretensions than himself, were
active in giving the world their thoughts upon these great
questions, Jesus remained silent in reference to them. It is no
answer to say that to deal with the subjects was not his mission.
For, if he came simply to talk about another world, at the
sacrifice of the requirements of this, then my contention is made
good that, whatever else he was, he certainly was no political and
social reformer.
It appears to me that the gospel of Christ is a very poor one
for any practical purposes, inasmuch as it never deals with the
material comforts of human beings. It does not suggest any means by
which the poor could obtain that power by which they could secure
the amelioration of their sad condition. It is not here overlooked
that Christ is credited with saying that those who sought the
"Kingdom of God" should have food, drink, etc., added unto them
(Luke xii.). But, unfortunately, experience teaches that such a
promise cannot be relied upon, for it is too well known that many
of those persons who occupied much of their time in seeking the
kingdom of God remained destitute of the necessaries of life. It
was during the prevalence of this superstitious belief, and of an
unreasonable reliance upon Christ, that personal misery and
intellectual sterility prevailed throughout the land. For many
generations the indiscriminate followers of Jesus failed to give
the world any new thought, or to establish any new political or
social institution; and from the Church nothing of practical
secular value emanated during the fifteen centuries of its
uninterrupted reign. This, however, is not all that can be fairly
urged upon this point. The followers of Christ not only failed to
originate any social scheme for the good of general society
themselves, but they did their utmost to crush those who did. It
appears almost incredible that such persistent efforts were ever
made to extinguish every new thought as those recorded of
Christians, when they had the power to do as they pleased. New
books were despised and destroyed, and new inventions were said to
be the work of the Devil. True happiness cannot coexist with
physical slavery and, mental serfdom, and yet, it must be repeated,
Jesus did nothing to remove these evils. His apathy towards the
institution of slavery is the more strange if we accept the
authority of Gratz, that Christ was connected with the Essenes, and
that, to some extent, he founded his system upon theirs. By that
community slavery, we are told, was prohibited; yet we read that
both bond and free were one in Christ Jesus. Is not this striking
evidence that Jesus had no intention to seek the removal of this
inhuman blot from the history of our race?
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
15
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
Those persons to-day who desire to establish a relationship
between Socialism and Christianity dwell with much persistency upon
Christ's views as to the division of property. But let us see what
are the facts of the case. Jesus told those who were willing to
leave their homes, families, and lands for his "sake and the
Gospels" (Mark x.), that they should receive "an hundredfold" of
each in this world, besides "eternal life in the world to come.
Now, this is ridiculous in the extreme; for what possible advantage
could it be to any one to have his or her relatives multiplied a
hundredfold? Besides, where could Christ get either a hundred
mothers to replace ever one that had been forsaken, or a hundred
acres of land to compensate for each one that had been given up?
And even supposing he could do this, what becomes of the theory of
despising landed possessions? Moreover, if the smaller number and
quantity were a drawback, the larger must be more so. Further,
there is but little self-denial involved in parting with ten acres
of land to secure a thousand. It is really surprising that the Jews
did not "catch on" in this matter. Probably they saw that it was
all a sham, because Christ had no means of keeping his promise.
Where were the houses, land, etc., to come from? Evidently Christ
had none, for he appears to have been entirely destitute of all
worldly goods, having "not where to lay his head" (Matthew viii.
20). Would not such an augmentation of property be antagonistic to
the principle Jesus taught on another occasion, when he said "lay
not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" (Matthew vi.)? No
marvel that his friends thought he was "beside himself" (Mark iii.
21), or that the Jews considered "he hath a devil, and is mad"
(John x. 20), and that "neither did his brethren believe in him"
(John vii. 5). If any man at the present time dealt with the
question of property in the same way as Christ is here represented
to have done, he would not be, regarded as a social reformer, but
rather as a man whose intellect was far from being brilliant, and
whose ideas were exceedingly confused. Christ's reply to the high
priest, who asked him the question, "Art thou the Christ, the Son
of the Blessed?" (Mark xiv. 61), is, to my mind, clear evidence
that he was neither the political nor the social Messiah that some
persons allege him to have been. His reply was, "I am; and he shall
see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming
in the clouds of heaven." Does not this accord with his statement,
"I am not of the world," and "my kingdom is not of this world"?
Should not this settle at once, as a fact, that the mission of
Jesus was not to be the founder of an earthly government, or the
promoter of a mundane social system?
As to the idea that Christ will come, as he said, "in the
clouds," that relates to the future, and has no bearing upon the
present inquiry, the results of which will not be affected by
either the fulfillment or the failure of that prediction. The
question is not what will be, but rather what Christ did to entitle
him to be classified as a secular reformer. Professor Graham, as we
have seen, admits that Christ did not inaugurate State Socialism,
but that he only proposed a sort of friendly society among
Christians themselves. In doing even this, however, he showed
himself sadly defective in the knowledge necessary to a real
reformer. There exists to-day in this country an old-established
Christian sect, termed Quakers, who keep a common treasury for the
purpose of aiding those of their numbers who are in need. But, be
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
16
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
it observed, they fill their treasury by industry and the result of
laboring "for the meat which perisheth," the very thing that Jesus
forbade. The method of the Quakers is a very charitable one, for it
prevents their poorer members from going to the workhouse, or from
begging in the streets, as other Christians are so often forced to
do. They are enabled, by this plan of industry and of "taking
thought for the morrow," to preserve their dignity and self-
respect, and to receive all the advantages of assistance without
being branded as paupers, who have to forfeit many rights in
consequence of their poverty. This scheme of mutual aid is not
based upon Christ's advice to "forsake all," under the insane idea
that they will be kept alive, upon the same principle that the
ravens and the lilies of the field are; on the contrary, among the
Quakers all who can both "toil and spin." Jesus, in his method,
counselled no sort of thrift, nor made any provision for the time
of need. There is no record, that I am aware of, that any society
of men ever lived upon help from heaven without labor, and due care
being taken for the requirements of life. Certainly such a society
does not exist in "Christian England."
The burden of Christ's preaching was, "Repent, for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand." What was meant by this kingdom it is rather
difficult to decide, for it is variously described in the Gospels.
It is certain, however, that whether it signified the reign of
peace and justice on earth, or the appearance of Jesus "in the
clouds"' neither event has taken place up to date, although Christ
said that in his time the kingdom was "at hand." In Luke (xvii. 21)
it is stated "the kingdom of God is within you"; but that does not
quite harmonize with the description given of it in Matthew (xiii.
47-50), where it is alleged that the kingdom of heaven is "like
unto a net that was cast into the sea," which, when full, had the
good of its contents retained, and the bad cast away. "So shall it
be at the end of the world," when the angels are to "sever the
wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of
fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Now, if this
refers to a condition upon earth, it is not a very happy one. And
in neither case is there any light thrown upon the rational conduct
of men, either politically or socially. Besides, the repeated
references made by Christ to the approaching end of all earthly
institutions render the idea of his being a reformer of this world
altogether meaningless. The termination of mundane affairs was to
occur in the presence of those to whom Jesus was speaking (Matthew
xvi. 28). Whatever other texts may be cited to the contrary, the
meaning here is clear, that no opportunity was to be given, and no
provisions made, to reform the political and social conditions of
earth. Let any one read the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and
try to harmonize the declarations there ascribed to Christ with the
belief that his mission was to reform the world, and the
impossibility of the task will soon be evident. True, in Matthew
(xxv.) works of utility are required to secure a place at the
"right hand" of God. But what does this involve? Uniformity of
belief (Mark xvi. 16), and only the relief, not the cure, of
poverty. No scheme was even hinted at by Christ whereby the, great
army of the poor and depraved should be impossible. He was inferior
to the French philosopher, who aimed at providing a condition of
society wherein men should be neither depraved nor poor.
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
17
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
To pat the matter concisely, what are the factors of political
and social progress? Briefly, they are these: The cultivation of
the intellect, the extension of physical and mental freedom, the
recognition and the application of the principle of justice and
liberty to all members of the community, regardless of their belief
or non-belief in theology, the knowledge and application of science
and art, the organization of labor and the proper cultivation of
the soil, the possession of political power, the understanding of
the true value and use of wealth, and, finally, the persistent
study of, and the constant struggling against, the numerous evils,
wrongs, and injustice that now rob life of its comforts and real
worth. These are the agencies that all men, who claim to be
political and social reformers, should support and cultivate. Not
one of these originated with Jesus, and throughout his career he
never availed himself of these essentials of all progress. Thus, to
designate him as the great social redeemer is entirely
unjustifiable. His very mode of living was the opposite to that of
a practical reformer. He was an ascetic, and avoided as much as
possible the turmoil of public life, from which he might have
learnt something of what was necessary to adjust the social
relations. Prayer, not work, was his habit. In the day, and at
night, would he retire to the solitude of the mountain, and there
pray to his father (Luke vi. 12 and xxi. 37). So far did he believe
in the efficacy of supplications to God that he frequently told his
disciples that whatever they asked of his father he would grant the
request (Matthew xviii. 19; xxi. 22; John xvi. 23). That this was
a delusion is clear from the fact that he prayed himself for the
unity of Christendom, that his followers might be one (John xvii.
21); yet from his time down to the present divisions have always
existed among Christians. He distinctly promised that "Whatsoever
ye shall ask in my name that will I do" (John xiv. 13, 14). Relying
upon this, the Church for centuries has been asking that unbelief
should cease, and yet we find it more extensive to-day than it ever
was. The lesson learnt from experience is, that all reforms are the
result of active work, not the outcome of prayerful meditations.
With all these drawbacks in the character of Jesus, it is to
me marvelous how he can be accepted as a model for us in the
present age. But thousands of his devotees insist upon claiming him
as their Ideal, although they cannot regulate their conduct by such
a standard. Such persons overlook the fact that, if the better
parts of an Ideal are marred by that which is erroneous and
impracticable, it is comparatively useless as a guide in life. That
Christ's alleged teachings are so marred the Gospels amply testify.
His conduct, on several occasions, was such as his followers would
not attempt to emulate to day. Such, for instance, as his treatment
of his parents (Luke ii. 43-49 John ii. 4); his cursing of the fig-
tree (Matthew xxi. 18, 19); his driving the money changers from the
temple with "a scourge of small cards" (John ii. 15); his
possession of an ass and a colt, which evidently did not belong to
him, and riding upon both of them into Jerusalem (Matthew xxi.
2-11); his expletives to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 37-44); his
breaking up the peace of the domestic circle (Matthew x. 34-36).
Judged by the New Testament, Christ was certainly not "The
Light of the World," for he revealed nothing of practical value,
and he taught no virtues that were before unknown. No doubt in his
life, supposing he ever lived, there were many commendable
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
18
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
features; but he was far from being perfect. While he might have
been well-meaning, he was in belief superstitious, in conduct
inconsistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbitrary, in
knowledge deficient, in faith vacillating, and in pretensions
great. He taught false notions of existence, had no knowledge of
science; he misled his followers by claiming to be what he was not,
and he deceived himself by his own credulity. He lacked
experimental force, frequently living a life of isolation, and
taking but slight interest in the affairs of this world. It is this
lack of experimental force throughout the career of Christ that
renders his notions of domestic duties so thoroughly imperfect. The
happiness of a family, according to his teaching, was to be
impaired before his doctrines could be accepted. So far as we know,
he was never a husband or a father; and he did not aspire to be a
statesman, a man of science, or a politician. Now, a person who
lacks experience in these phases of life is not in the best
position to give practical and satisfactory lessons thereon. Even
in the conditions of life he is said to have filled, this "Light of
the World" failed to exhibit any high degree of excellence,
discrimination, or manly courage. As a son, he lacked affection and
consideration for the feelings of his parents. As a teacher, he was
mystical and rude; and as a reasoner, he was defective and
illogical. Lacking a true method of reasoning, possessing no
uniformity of character, Christ exhibited a strange example -- an
example injudicious to exalt and dangerous to emulate. At times he
was severe when he should have been gentle. When he might have
reasoned he frequently rebuked. When he ought to have been firm and
resolute he was vacillating. When he should have been happy he was
sorrowful and desponding. After preaching faith as the one thing
needful, he himself lacked it when he required it the most. Thus,
on the cross, when a knowledge of a life of integrity, a
sensibility of the fulfillment of a good mission, a conviction that
he was dying for a good and righteous cause, and fulfilling the
object of his life -- when all these should have given him moral
strength, we find him giving vent to utter despair. So overwhelmed
was he with grief and anxiety of mind that he "began to be
sorrowful and very heavy." "My soul," he exclaimed, "is sorrowful
even unto death." At last, overcome with grief, he implores his
father to rescue him from the death which was then awaiting him.
Christ is paraded as the one redeemer of the world, but his
system lacks such essentials of all reform as worldly ambition, and
reliance upon the human power of regeneration. If we lament the
poverty and wretchedness we behold, we are told by Christians that
"the poor shall never cease out of the land." If we seek to remove
the sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded that
they were "appointed curses to the sons of Adam." If we work to
improve our condition, we are taught that we should remain "in that
state of life in which it has pleased God to call us." When we
endeavor to improve our minds and to cultivate our intellects, we
are informed that "we are of ourselves unable to do any good
thing." if we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that "faith in Christ is of more importance than labor for
man." We to-day have but a vague idea of the extent of the
influence such teachings once exercised over the minds of those who
believed them. These teachings have permeated the minds of orthodox
Christians, stifling their reason and perverting their judgment,
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
19
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REFORMER?
till they cherish the delusion that the reasonings of philosophers,
the eloquence of poets, and the struggles of patriots are all worse
than useless unless purified by the "Spirit of Christ." It is such
delusions which foster the erroneous and retarding belief that
every thought which does not aspire to the throne of Christ, every
action which is not sanctioned by him, and every motive which does
not proceed from a love for him should be discouraged as
antagonistic to our real progress in life.
It is contended by some that, although Christ did not give
detailed remedies for existing evils, he taught "general
principles" which would, if acted upon, prove a panacea for the
wrongs of life. This was not so, for his "general principles"
lacked the saving power that was desired. What were those
"principles" as laid down in the Gospels? So far as they can be
understood, they were as follows: Absolute trust in God; implicit
belief in himself reliance upon the prayer of supplication;
disregard of the world; taking no anxious thought for the morrow;
encouragement of poverty, and contempt of riches; obedience to the
law of the Old Testament neglect of home and families; non-
resistance of evil; that persecution in this world and punishment
in some other would follow the rejection of Christianity and that
sickness was caused by the possession of devils. These are among
the leading "principles" taught by Christ; and, if they were acted
upon, there would be an end of all progress, harmony, and self-
reliance. But even if the "general principles" propounded by Jesus
were good, that would not be enough to make him the greatest
reformer. It is necessary, in addition to knowing what is to be
done, to have the knowledge of how it is to be done. And this is
just what Jesus has not taught us. Principles do not aid progress
unless they can be applied; and, whatever value his teachings may
have as matters of belief, they are incapable of application in the
great cause of political and social advancement in the nineteenth
century.
Judged from the Secular standpoint, the real redeemers of the
world are those who study the great facts of nature, learning her
secrets, and revealing her power and value to the human family.
While Christ devoted himself to the mysteries of theology, such
reformers as Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, and subsequently Newton,
Locke, Darwin, and a host of other servants of humanity, endeavored
to the best of their ability to ascertain the truths of existence,
and to vindicate the principle of freedom. Copernicus and his
immediate successors redeemed the world from errors which for ages
had been nursed by the Church; Locke based his philosophy upon
knowledge, not upon the faiths of theology; Newton contended that
the universe was regulated by natural law, not by supernatural
power; and Darwin exploded the Bible error of creation. These
redeemers rescued mankind from the burden of ignorance and
superstition that had so long prevented the recognition of truth
and the advancement of knowledge. Shakespeare contributed more to
the enlightenment of the human race than Christ was capable of
doing; Darwin far surpassed St. Paul in bringing to view the great
forces of nature, and the Freethought heroes and martyrs aided the
emancipation of intellect to a far higher degree than either the
"Carpenter of Nazareth" or the whole of his followers. The power
that has enabled these secular redeemers of the world to achieve
their glorious results was found, not in perplexing theologies, but
in the principles of Science and Liberty -- the true saviors of
men.
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
20