The Real Jesus of the Four Gospels Part 7

Other instances ill.u.s.trate the readiness of Jesus to compromise with evil--to choose the less of two evils--when the conditions of practical human life demanded it. A notable instance of this was in the matter of paying tribute to the Romans. Undoubtedly Jesus, like all the other Jews, regarded the imposition on them of Roman sovereignty as an injustice--as a very great evil. But, under existing conditions, resistance to the Roman power was hopeless. A refusal to pay tribute by the Jews would have brought on them imprisonment, death and countless sufferings, and, if persisted in, would have resulted in the enslavement or extermination of the race. In putting to Jesus the question: "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?" the Pharisees thought they had framed a dilemma from which He could not escape. If He had been a fanatical non-compromiser, He could only have answered the question in the negative. The Pharisees would then have denounced Him to the Romans, and thereby compa.s.sed His immediate death before His mission was completed.

His answer, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto G.o.d the things that are G.o.d's"--is pregnant with meaning to all religious bigots and fanatics if they could only open their minds to its significance. This earth is not a heaven, and cannot be made one so long as human beings are fallible and imperfect. Concessions and compromises must be constantly made between the material necessities of the body and the ethical ideals of the spirit. The economic ideal of the "greatest good to the greatest number" can no more be ignored by the theologian of today in formulating rules of conduct for humanity, than it was by Jesus in His time. However wrong and unjust in theory it was for the Jews to be subject to an alien race, still in practice the Roman rule was reasonably mild and humane. As between resistance and obedience to this rule, the latter was much the less evil. Consequently, Jesus wisely and sanely compromised with this evil and both paid tribute Himself (Matt.

XVII:24-27), and advised His disciples to do likewise (Matt. XXII:21; Mark XII:17; Luke XX:25).

Again, carrying out the same idea of compromising with the existing evils of government, Jesus commands His disciples to "observe and do"

whatsoever is bidden by the scribes and Pharisees, who "sit in Moses'

seat," at the same time warning them not to imitate or follow the Pharisees' "works" (Matt. XXIII:2, 3).

Undoubtedly Jesus considered it an evil "to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. X:35). He could foresee that this evil would result from the preaching of His Gospel.

But better this evil, even, if it sent a "sword" on earth, than the greater evil that His Gospel should not be preached.

Unchast.i.ty in a woman is surely a most grievous evil. To the non-compromiser, the "scarlet woman" is a symbol of the lowest depth of vice, and no condemnation is too severe for her. But, on two occasions, Jesus dismissed the erring woman with His forgiveness (John VIII:11; Luke VII:47).

In fact, the two utterances of Jesus--"he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John VIII:7), and "why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye" (Matt. VII:2)--cut at the very root of the non-compromiser's position. For, in carrying on his crusade against his pet evil-doers, it would be fatal to be obliged to stop to answer objections that he may not be infallible in deciding what is evil, and that he may himself have habits considered by others as evil as the one he is denouncing. For instance, many a prominent non-compromiser among the clergy is living in comparative ease, if not luxury. When he reads the standard of living set by Jesus for the ministers of His Word (Matt.

X:9; Mark VI:8; Luke IX:3; X:4; XXII:35), he must admit that he is every day compromising with the ideals of Jesus--with the evil of riches.

Compromise is the rule of human life. Each individual, as he tries to follow the Socratic advice, "know thyself," finds that most of his actions are a compromise between his good impulses and his evil impulses. Few men are a Dr. Jekyll during the day and a Mr. Hyde during the night. Most men are partly Jekyls and partly Hydes all the time. As the individual makes his way in business and society, he learns more and more every day, if he has common sense, the wisdom and advisability of compromise. He that is always bent on "having his own way" will usually find that his way does not go far, and results in unhappiness for himself and others. Happy marriages are founded on a compromise of individual tastes, habits and opinions. Parents win and retain the affection of their children, not by imposing on them their own inflexible laws of right and wrong, but by modifying these laws to meet the different tastes, habits and opinions of the children. Success in business, in law, in politics, is usually a.s.sociated with the faculty of making reasonable compromises. The wisest legislation is usually a compromise between conflicting interests and opinions.

It is not too much to say that compromise is the corner stone of every modern democratic society. It is a necessary consequence of the "rule of the majority," since the majority of today may be the minority of tomorrow. To find a society of his taste, the non-compromiser should seek some negro tribe in darkest Africa, where the witch-doctors permit no deviations from the prescribed theological cult. Or, in matters political, he might find much to admire in the administrative system of Louis the XIVth, with his famous aphorism, "L'Etat, C'est Moi."

In international affairs every treaty of peace, unless its terms are dictated by a strong power to a weak one, is a compromise between the opposing views of right and wrong held by the parties. Logically, the non-compromiser should be generally opposed to treaties, as involving necessarily some sacrifice of his principles of right to the demands of the other party. In the period from 1844 to 1846, we narrowly escaped war with England in the dispute over the boundary between ourselves and Canada, because a strong Jingo, non-compromising party started the popular cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." This cla.s.s of thinkers would undoubtedly have opposed the celebrated compromises of Henry Clay, which, whatever might have been said against them at the time, have, in the light of history, the incalculable merit of having postponed the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, until the former had so grown in population and resources that it could preserve the unity of the nation. Considering the hard, and sometimes doubtful struggle, which the North went through in winning victory in the sixties, there can be little doubt that the result would have been two divided nations if the issues between the two sections had been submitted to the arbitrament of arms in 1820, in 1832, or even in 1850.

As the intolerance of the non-compromisers will lead some of them to oppose treaties of peace, so the same quality in others will lead them to make nuisances of themselves in war.

During the Great War, the nations, especially England and the United States, had considerable trouble with the "conscientious objector," who is really a non-compromiser under a different name. Supposing him to be honest in his opinions (as some of them were), the logic of his position was unanswerable from the view-point of the non-compromiser. War is unquestionably a great evil, and most obnoxious to the doctrines of the Sermon on the Mount. If there is to be no compromise with evil, then a Christian magistrate has no warrant to compel the conscientious objector to go out and slaughter, or give his help, directly or indirectly, towards the slaughter of his fellow Christians.

The true answer to this argument is, of course, obvious, although the magistrates, themselves infected with this pernicious, non-compromise doctrine, did not always make it.

In this fallible, imperfect human life, it is often necessary to compromise with evil--that is, as between two evils, to choose the less.

Jesus both preached and practiced the doctrine of choosing the less evil, even in the extreme case of war. For He urged the spreading of His Gospel, although He foresaw that it would divide father from son and bring "fire" and a "sword" upon earth (Matt. X:34; Mark XIII:8; Luke XII:49). Now, in the case of this war, the vast majority of the nation has decided that it is a less evil to go to war than to be enslaved by Germany. So, war it is to be. But it is unjust--an evil of the greatest magnitude--that a few individuals should reap all the benefits of preserving the nation from German slavery, without bearing the corresponding burdens. Consequently, the conscientious objectors must either submit to the decision of the majority or seek some other country, following the example of the Puritans, Huguenots and other "conscientious objectors" of past times.

It is apparent that if the door is once opened to allow people to s.h.i.+rk the civil duties imposed upon them by the society in which they live, the exemption cannot be limited to the case of war alone on the ground of their conscientious convictions. In the Supreme Court records of one of our States (possibly in several), there will be found a case where a man and woman (apparently respectable and generally law-abiding citizens) suffered a criminal conviction, because they had "conscientious objections" to legalizing their union by a conventional marriage ceremony. It is easy to imagine a man having conscientious objections to jury duty--the condemning men to death or imprisonment, or the transferring of property from one to another on account of the "technicalities" of the law. Or, why should a man not have conscientious objections to paying his taxes if they are to be used, in part at least, for a purpose which he considers evil? Evidently the field for evasion is a large one, and the only protection for society is to rigidly insist that the "conscientious objector," whether the case in hand be war or something else, either submit himself to the will of the majority or seek some other country more congenial to his peculiar ideas.

At the risk of repet.i.tion, we will collect again some of the utterances of Jesus which seem irreconcilable with the narrow, intolerant ideas of the non-compromisers and the sacro-sancts: Judge not, that ye be not judged; he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her; how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine eye, and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye; blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of G.o.d; whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance; on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, viz., Love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thy heart, soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself.

HYPOCRISY OR TRUTH

Hypocrisy did not die with the Pharisees. To an observer of modern life, it might seem as if it has as rank and luxuriant growth today as in the time of Jesus. The modern Christian must apparently keep up the hypocrisy that he is always following Jesus, when, as a matter of fact, he is every day making compromises with Jesus' ideals, in some instances deviating widely from His teachings, and, in others, going diametrically against them. The question is, if, in these points of divergence, it is not better to speak the plain truth than to indulge in the hypocrisy of "following Jesus." For instance, take the case of divorce laws. Jesus explicitly condemned all divorces, except possibly on the ground of adultery. His language is so definite, repeated in all three of the Synoptics, that no quibbling over words or casuistry of logic can escape the result. Consequently, when a Christian state authorizes divorce for desertion, cruelty, drunkenness, etc., it is not following Jesus, but going directly contrary to His laws. In this matter the Roman Catholics are the orthodox Christians and most of the Protestants are heterodox.

The point here made has nothing to do with the expediency of these divorce laws. The conditions of human life have so vastly changed--it is quite possible that Jesus, speaking today, might lay down much less stringent rules on this subject than He did two thousand years ago. The important fact is that we have here an undeniable instance of Christians, not only making a compromise with the acknowledged evil of divorce, but also completely ignoring the views of Jesus in making the compromise. Those who condone, or tacitly approve, these divorce laws (as do the great majority of the Protestants in the United States) should certainly be slow, in the matter of other evils, to urge "no compromise with evil," or bring forward some utterances of Jesus as the final argument on the subject. Let them first consider the beam in their own eye.

It would probably surprise the professed follower of Jesus in present times to realize in just how many matters he is not, in fact, following Jesus. It may be well to enumerate a few of these important matters.

This is not done in a spirit of criticizing the weakness and shortcomings of Christians, but because some of the questions involved vitally affect the present and future welfare of society. In the discussion of these questions the name and authority of Jesus are frequently invoked, and very justly so. For, even those who do not concede His parentage by the Holy Ghost, admire and revere Him as the Greatest Teacher. His word or example on one side of a question is not lightly to be disregarded. But, if it is found that, in some matters, the followers of Jesus do compromise with, diverge from, or directly contradict Jesus' teachings, then the ultimate query, becomes, not whether Jesus said yes or no to the question in hand, but, conceding that He said yes or no, Is there sufficient justification for departing from His teaching in this matter, as has been done in other important matters? Without noticing individual short-comings, sins of omission, etc., which may be left to the individual conscience and its G.o.d, we will take up only questions of wide import, affecting the present and future welfare of societies and nations. Nor will we enter into the field of theological disputation over conflicting or ambiguous texts, but will cite no instance where Jesus has not made His position so clear that there can be no dispute over it.

The following are instances where modern Christian communities compromise with, diverge from, or go directly opposite to the teachings of Jesus.

(a) Wars between two Christian nations where each invokes the a.s.sistance of Jesus in the slaughtering of its enemies, and the victor thanks Jesus for its success in the blood-thirsty game.

(b) The subst.i.tution of the first day of the week for the seventh, as the Sabbath day.

(c) Divorces (at least for any cause except adultery).

(d) Public prayers and long prayers.

(e) Public fasting.

(f) Sunday Blue Laws.

(g) Prohibition as against Temperance.

(h) Creeds, articles of religion, pomp and ceremony in church services, and other observances, which Jesus included in the word "sacrifice," as opposed to "mercy."

(a) WAR

It is unnecessary to waste words in proving that war (at least between two Christian nations) is utterly irreconcilable with the Sermon on the Mount. But, as has been shown, it may, in any given case, be the less of two evils, and therefore, justifiable, as a compromise. As to a defensive war against a Moslem, Oriental or other infidel invasion, which seeks to uproot the Christian faith and subjugate a Christian nation, Jesus has apparently given His sanction to such a war (Matt.

X:34, 35, 36; Luke XII:51, 52, 53). It might, perhaps, even be argued that this sanction covered an offensive war, the purpose of which was to establish Christianity among an infidel people.

But, beyond this, some wars must be justifiable, as the less of two evils, under Jesus' sane practice of compromising with evil. If the independence (the life) of a nation is attacked, there is no warrant in the four Gospels for supposing that Jesus would advise a policy of pa.s.sive non-resistance. Just as when the life of the individual, or the life or honor of his mother, sister, or daughter are threatened by some beast in human form, he is justified in resistance, although the taking of human life results. A standard of ethics countenancing such a surrender of the primary instincts of self-preservation might be suited to a race of spineless invertebrates, but could never be accepted by human beings, who are the evolutionary product of countless ages of a struggle for existence.

But, conceding that some wars may be justifiable, the general rule holds good that wars are un-Christian. The exception must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. As between two Christian nations, the one attacked can usually plead self-defense in at least partial justification, but the aggressor must always have a difficult case to maintain before the judgment seat of Jesus.

Looking back over the wars of the United States, there are few that would stand the acid test of Jesus' judgment.

The war of the Revolution was due, in the last a.n.a.lysis, to the fact that there were a large number of prominent men in the colonies determined on independence at any cost. If war was a necessary means to attain that end, these leaders were for war, without s.h.i.+lly-shallying over the moral justification for the conflict. The men of that generation were rather fond of att.i.tudinizing, and were p.r.o.ne to the use of high-sounding phrases like "no taxation without representation,"

"give me liberty or give me death," etc. The Declaration of Independence starts out with one of those phrases--"All men are created equal, and endowed with inalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This was at that time such a palpable untruth and hypocrisy, that one wonders if our forefathers had no sense of humor. Of course, to be true, the sentence should have been added, "except certain persons of African descent, whom we hold and propose to hold as slaves."[56]

Stripping the grievances of the colonists of their heated and declamatory rhetoric, their real sufferings under the misrule of Great Britain were far less than those of the Jews under the Romans, when Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." Many of the foremost statesmen in England supported the justness of the colonists'

claims, and most of the obnoxious taxes were repealed before the Declaration of Independence. With time and patience the difficulties between the two countries could probably have been adjusted without war, as was the case with Canada, except for the underlying desire of the Americans for independence.

To avoid misunderstanding, it should be added, that, before the bar of Nature--under the laws of the struggle for existence and survival of the fittest--the colonies were fully justified in taking up arms when they did. The pigheaded obstinacy of George III in insisting on his "prerogatives," and the blind stupidity of his ministers in urging measures of little value to England, but irritating to the colonies, wounding their pride and making them apprehensive of future, more serious encroachments on their liberties, furnished ample warrant for ceasing longer to turn the other cheek.

Furthermore, before Nature's forum, the plea that the end justifies the means, is always of controlling force. History proves that the independence of the United States was sure to come sooner or later, and that it was better for both countries and for the world that the two nations should be under separate governments, and each work out its own destiny.

The war of 1812 was, before the bar of Jesus, without any excuse, and, like the Crimean war, was futile of results. The main questions at issue between the United States and England, and about which the war started, were not even mentioned in the final treaty of peace. The American grievances were real enough, but a very moderate exercise of Christian forbearance on England's part would have avoided any necessity of war.

These grievances, bad as they were, had been endured by the United States for some twelve years, and a delay of some two years more would have brought a natural end to them with the fall of Napoleon. This war should never have occurred between two Christian peoples, and is unjustified by any good results that followed from it.

The war with Mexico in 1848 was simply an aggressive, land-grabbing, politicians' war, and will always be a blot on the Christianity of the United States. The lands of which Mexico was robbed were of course of great material value to the United States, but the less said about the justness of their acquisition the better.

The question of the Civil War is complicated by the moral issue of the abolition of slavery, underlying the political issue of the right of the South to secede, which was the ostensible cause of the war. Slavery in the United States was an evil, both ethically and economically, and, as its abolition was a result of the war, that war is justifiable both in the court of Jesus and in that of Nature. But that result was an incident of the war, and the North would never have taken up arms on the simple issue of forcing the abolition of slavery on the South.

On the ostensible, political issue which started the war--the right of the South to secede from the Union--there is room for much difference of opinion. Despite the technical and labored const.i.tutional arguments of Von Holst and others, it is rather difficult to understand why, if the South believed that its happiness and prosperity were being imperiled by a further continuance of its union with the North, it had not the same right to break that union in 1861 as the colonies had the right to break their union with England in 1776. At the outbreak of the war, there were many in the North, beside Horace Greeley and Vallandingham, who thought it morally wrong to compel the South by force to remain in a union that had become hateful to it.

A great writer on American history (Sumner) has said that whenever some geographical section of our country becomes saturated with the idea that its material interests are being sacrificed to the interests of other parts of the country, and it sees no hope of redress, it will begin to talk secession. It was true of New England at the time of the Hartford Convention. It was true of the South in 1820, 1831 and 1860. It was true of the Pacific States shortly after the Civil War, when they feared that Congress would not pa.s.s their desired Chinese Exclusion Acts.

It would be difficult to justify the Spanish War of 1898, in the court of Jesus. It was mostly the work of the newspapers and politicians.

Nine-tenths of the people of the United States were ignorant of suffering great grievances from Spain, until the Jingo journals demonstrated the fact to them. It is safe to say that this war would never have occurred if Spain had been a great naval power like Germany or Great Britain. The same a.s.sertion may be made of the war against Mexico in 1848. In studying the Jingo spirit which encourages wars, it will usually be found that the strength of this spirit varies in the inverse ratio to the supposed war-strength of the other party to the fight. Nations are much like school boys in this respect. It is quite probable that the war of 1812 would not have been brought on, except for the mistaken idea of Henry Clay and his hot-headed followers from the West that the United States could easily overrun Canada, and dictate peace to England in Halifax.