To Infidelity and Back Part 5

CHAPTER IV.

LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLa.s.sES.

Differences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our Att.i.tude Toward Those Who Differ from Us?

The above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to bring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will learn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was prepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and pray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching for truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who differ from us.

I have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among the best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What was said in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices of the different parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed study of these factors in leading people to error and therefore into divisions.

Learning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily lead to a perversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there is no norm of truth and therefore that people cannot see alike. Indeed, the differences of opinion in religion and other matters are often condoned by the a.s.sertion that "people cannot see alike." Is this true, and, if so, how far?

Over against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put the indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things _unlike_ if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as red, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it at all, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to every mind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical mind will come to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any other conclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based upon this fact, and without it no science or order would be possible.

We will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to be ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and sensibilities.

We wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of opinion, and the only one that involves blame; viz.: the human will. Mult.i.tudes of people are divided who see things alike and are of the same opinion so far as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble lies in the will power. They deliberately do that which they know is not right, for selfish reasons. If this were the only cause of division, our problem would be an easy one. For then the only proper att.i.tude of the righteous towards those who differ from them, would be that of unqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to act on this basis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and treating those who differ from us as wrong and guilty and as deserving nothing but our condemnation. If guilt were the only cause of division, we would have but two political parties, the one containing all the righteous and the other all the wicked. From a religious standpoint there would be but two cla.s.ses; viz., saints and sinners. But the problem before us is not such an easy one. The causes that lead to differences of opinion are numerous and complex. It is not an easy matter to get at the truth, although we might think at first thought that it is. Every one seems to be surrounded by an atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists, distorts and colors the rays of truth as they come to him.

Neither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a man error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For the people around us who possess these qualities are divided among all the different religious and political parties. And when people are divided into different parties, that teach contradictory doctrines, they cannot possibly all be right, although they may all be wrong.

Inquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion, aside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them: finite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through heredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.

In the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two extremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those who are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination. They are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

At the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous bigots who absolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth they do not already possess. They know it all without finding it out. It matters not whether you speak of politics, religion or anything else, they know all about it without investigation. They never read any but their own party papers and books and never hear any but their own speakers and preachers.

It is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The father was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to Christianity.

They argued and argued until midnight. Finally the father said, "Son, there is no use talking, you can't convert me if you argue all night; I am established." The next morning they went for a load of wood, and as they left the woods the horse got balky and wouldn't move an inch.

"What is the matter with this horse, anyway?" asked the father. "Why,"

replied the son, "he is established." The Bible says, "Be ye not as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding." It is bad enough for a mule to get balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image of G.o.d, should become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make for his peace and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of heaven.

An Arabic proverb says: "Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows that he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows not that he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows that he knows; he is wise, follow him." The trouble is to know who "knows not and knows not that he knows not," and who "knows and knows that he knows." For they both speak with absolute a.s.surance that they are right.

Ill.u.s.trations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found in the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach India and that the Indians planted gunpowder.

It is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows so constructed that if you look out through the one you see a snowstorm; through another, you see it raining; while through a third, the sun is s.h.i.+ning. Thus it is that we look at truth through the colored gla.s.ses of prejudice and selfish interests, and see what is not.

Probably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a fist-fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read "Ivory Soap,"

and the other, "It Floats." They saw it from a different angle, and that often accounts for differences of opinion.

How expectant attention can deceive us was ill.u.s.trated a few years ago when Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of people were in distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on the roof. The monkey was later found safe in an adjoining building. It was an old coat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed into a monkey.

Thus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything they are looking for, through a vivid imagination.

In mult.i.tudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a different sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when I was keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a bright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were both fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we debated on "Woman suffrage." I opened up on the subject and as I proceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor he exploded something as follows: "I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age'

with every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand, tongue and purse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so bitterly opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason that I don't want women to suffer." I said, "Amen!" and we were agreed for once. You smile, and yet three-fourths of our differences would vanish if we patiently conferred together long enough to understand each other clearly.

The courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their own interests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who expects parents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when their own children are involved?

The difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a matter of geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the political or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the one to which our a.s.sociations or environment drew us. Had we been born in the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful Catholics, as all history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other directions abundantly prove. In a series of articles ent.i.tled "Why I Am What I Am," one of the most noted preachers in this country candidly admits that his church relations.h.i.+p is a mere matter of birth. This truth is not very congenial to our boasted independence of thought and investigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The power of the above-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is ill.u.s.trated in all history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about ten years after Pentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to see that Gentiles were _creatures_ as well as Jews, and that therefore he was commissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the pious, earnest and conscientious, "verily thought he was doing G.o.d service" in persecuting the Saviour who had been pointed out as the Christ by many infallible proofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of glory largely through ignorance, due to their being blinded by their traditions, or inherited religious ideas, and therefore Jesus prayed on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Luther was mighty in throwing off his inherited ideas, and yet he retained so many of them that any church that would to-day practise and teach just as Luther did, would be considered very near to the Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one of the most enlightened men that ever lived, believed in witches and hung them, and many of the pious and enlightened people of New England shared this belief with him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony in court, as to what they saw and heard, of the most contradictory character. In nine cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we bring to it; and thus the most pious and best educated see the most contradictory doctrines in the same pa.s.sages of Scripture and fight for them with the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the saddest thing about it all is that all these people show by their consecrated lives that they love G.o.d and are sincerely trying to serve him. In politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896 about one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of silver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold standard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to prove that at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance and party bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of them were. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be thus divided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering each other, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply neutralize each other's influence and power, while the enemy of right runs off with the victory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good with the bad in two political parties that enables evil to hold its own; while if all the good were united, through the truth, into one political party, arrayed against all the bad in another political party, they could carry this country for Jesus Christ at every election.

Having considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion, how, in the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ from us?

In the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see how the great and good men of all history have been hindered from seeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and preconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us very fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For it is to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is aware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal application, when he said, "I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord, that you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken." Not only is it possible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many of our ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble, teachable spirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat those who differ from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.

And that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from us, with love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers have been crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any other way. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and bad character of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. G.o.d gives a vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example, the prohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of G.o.d's people on the primitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on our way with great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert everybody to our righteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that people will not convert very fast. Our argument seems to us more clear and infallible every time we repeat it, and yet the people fail to come to our position. And so we are likely to lose faith in the people, and come to the conclusion that it is nothing but sin and guilt that causes them to reject our message. The next step is to forget our own weaknesses, trust in ourselves that we are right, and treat with hate and contempt those who differ from us. Treating our opponents with hate and scorn, we lose both our humility and Christian character, and develop into the most hideous and unG.o.dly characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees.

And so it happens that we reformers often need reformation worse than those whom we seek to reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the Apostles severely denounce sinners? Yes, but they always first made sure that they were sinners. Jesus could read men's hearts and, therefore, made no mistake, while Paul always reasoned with his opponents out of the Scriptures in love and humility, and only condemned them after clear and positive evidence that the fault was in their motive. Paul says, in writing to Timothy, "the servant of the Lord must not strive; but must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if G.o.d peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." And, where he exhorts to "reprove" and "rebuke," it is with "all longsuffering." James says, "The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of G.o.d" We are never commanded to despise, hate or denounce any man; but, on the other hand, we are to love every one, even our enemies.

We are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we have the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to cut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do it?

Do we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now seems so clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with children, "we should remember that they are left-handed," and this is certainly true of people in their relation to truth. The slowness with which people take up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We could have no stability and progress anywhere if it were not for this inertia in convictions. "The Athenians and strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing," and if we would all be occupied in that way, not much would be accomplished in the world. If we would become disciples of every propagandist whose arguments we cannot answer on the spur of the moment, there would be nothing but change and confusion. Realizing the difficulties in the way of finding truth, and observing how even the wisest and best have been deceived and ensnared in error, naturally ought to make people conservative in accepting new ideas, and the same reasons should make us patient with those who differ from us. They usually need our patient and sympathetic instruction more than our contempt, hatred and denunciation.

All this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our sacred duty to treat those who differ from us, _in truth_. There are two att.i.tudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our differences with childish sentimentalism, saying, "Peace, peace," when there is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and abuse those who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as beneath our contempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the whole truth, as we see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are under obligation to tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may be. To those who threaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we must reply in the language of Peter and John: "Whether it be right in the sight of G.o.d to hearken unto you more than unto G.o.d, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." When people cry, "Peace, peace," at the expense of truth and right, and want us to speak "smooth things" instead of G.o.d's Word, we must take warning from G.o.d's words to Ezekiel, which apply to every preacher of truth, "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Paul went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead them into the full truth, although he raised strife and contention in so doing, and even suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a large per cent. of Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on matters in which they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ that we cannot even talk over our differences without getting angry and exhibiting the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, "We will agree to disagree," and we continue to nourish, pet and wors.h.i.+p our differences as if they were G.o.ds. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the unity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the Apostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament conception of the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among G.o.d's people.

And while we recognize the fact that there will always be differences of opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and weak, nevertheless it is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort to diminish and remove these differences. There always will be sin in this world but we dare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but, on the other hand, we must fight it with all the power we possess. The same is true with divisions and differences of opinion.

We must, however, not overlook the important differences between matters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly revealed in the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must agree as soon as they get a fair look at them. While matters of opinion, which are not directly revealed in the Bible, but are inferred from things revealed, are important, they are not all important, like matters of faith. But the more we overcome the hindrances to finding truth, of which we have spoken, the more we will be of the same mind and judgment in all things. For truth is not divided, and we will all see it alike in so far as we see clearly. As a rule, we can readily unite on the most important truths, and therefore on those we need to unite on for our present duty. While, if, through lack of faith, we turn away from the clear duty to seek one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice, we usually become hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.

In conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous effect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful causes which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us, let us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth ourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the truth, we shall, with "one mind" and "one soul," go conquering and to conquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his kingdom of love, peace and joy.

PART II.

HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH

CHAPTER I.

SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.

One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the people working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to baptism.

Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the main key to the question of Christian union. We can differ on questions of theoretical theology and still work together in harmony in practical Christian activities. But if we differ on the question of baptism, we cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and in leading souls to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting into conflict. The only way that union meetings of different denominations have been at all possible, has been by ignoring the plain teaching and practice of the Apostles on the question of baptism. We never can have Christian union in the authority of Christ, which is the only union which will satisfy his prayer and demand, until we agree on the two simple ordinances which are the forms in which the gospel embodies itself to bless our souls. And, fortunately, these are the easiest things to unite on. When free from prejudice, there is no question on which Christians can more easily agree than that of baptism, as the testimony of the scholars and churches that follow in this chapter abundantly demonstrate. The consummation of Christian union will have to patiently wait until inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently allayed so that all Christians can look at the question of baptism dispa.s.sionately. Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this question and the main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In our weakness we want to procure Christian union without giving up our sectarian ideas that have been superadded to the New Testament teaching, and that have caused our division. And so we try to compromise by "agreeing to disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of the New Testament. But such efforts must be futile and disappointing.

We can never unite on the gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching.

We can never unite in obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions as to what the Master has commanded us to do. But, thank G.o.d, the field is rapidly ripening for this agreement and consequent union.

As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject. The religious people with whom I was a.s.sociated in my early life taught and practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I a.s.sumed that they must be right in the matter. Although I read the Bible through several times, I did not see its teaching on this subject, as I was not particularly interested in it. For reasons explained in previous chapters--that we look through colored gla.s.ses--mult.i.tudes of people daily read their Bible who never see what is in it; but imagine, as a matter of course, that it teaches what they bring to it through hereditary and preconceived ideas.

As already stated, I was first led to think on this subject while I studied New Testament Greek under President Cary, of the Meadville Theological School. When we came to the word _baptizoo_, Dr. Cary told the cla.s.s that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_. This statement was a great surprise to me, and I decided to discover for myself whether this was the fact or not. This was the beginning of my investigation of the subject of baptism. I found that Dr. Cary was correct in his statement.

What influenced me greatly was the fact that the German rationalists, who are recognized as among the best scholars of the world, and who are perfectly impartial on this subject, as they do not care what the Bible teaches about baptism, all say that baptism is immersion, without ever hinting at a possibility for difference of opinion. I investigated the matter for several years, as I found opportunity, until there was not the shadow of a doubt left in my mind that immersion is New Testament baptism.

While a student at Oberlin Theological Seminary, I found that all the authorities they used in New Testament Greek, taught immersion, while their churches practise sprinkling. In studying Hebrews in the Greek, we used Dr. Westcott's commentary. When we came to Heb. 10:22, "having our bodies washed with pure water," Dr. Westcott said this referred to the "laver of regeneration" or the primitive practice of immersion.

When we studied Romans in Greek, we used Dr. Sanday's International Critical Commentary. The professor told us it was the very best and probably would be for years to come. When we came to Rom. 6:4, "buried with him through baptism," Dr. Sanday never raised a doubt about the meaning, but in eloquent words spoke about the beautiful representation of burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism. This astonished me very much, as Drs. Westcott and Sanday were noted Episcopalian scholars, and the Episcopal churches practise sprinkling. We used Dr.

Thayer's New Testament Greek lexicon, which the professor informed us was the very best in the English language. This lexicon defined _baptizoo_ as meaning _to dip_, and never hinted that sprinkling or pouring might be its meaning. As I said above, I found Dr. Cary correct in claiming that all Greek scholars of note agree that the meaning of the word in the mouth of Jesus was _to immerse_, and I have never been able to get hold of a single New Testament lexicon that defines _baptizoo_ as ever meaning to sprinkle or pour.

The following chart and facts will help us to get at the truth about the meaning of the Greek word _baptizoo_ without quoting from a long list of lexicons:

[Ill.u.s.tration: A STUDY IN MEANING OF WORDS.]

You notice in the chart that we have three separate and distinct words in the Greek for immersion, sprinkling and pouring; and these words have their primary or proper, secondary or tropical meanings, all of which must be differentiated. The primary or proper meaning has reference to specific acts, the secondary meaning refers to things done by means of these specific acts, while the tropical or metaphorical meaning departs from the specific meaning of the words and therefore cannot have reference to the specific outward acts indicated by the words. For this reason it is a law of language, recognized by all scholars, that you must give a word its primary or proper meaning when it is employed in commanding an outward act, unless the context demands another meaning.