22. Chapter 22: Did Jesus Appeal To The Native Reactions?
Chapter 22 Did Jesus Appeal To The Native Reactions? This question means, did Jesus stimulate the instincts and innate tendencies of man? If so, he touched the primordial springs of all action, he sounded the depths of human nature. If not, his appeal does not reach down to the oldest elements in the human frame. The question is important, for it helps us to understand whether Jesus released all the energies of human nature, and in what sense, and so we may see whether and to what extent his teachings meet the profoundest needs and demands of human nature.
What are these native reactions? According to James,[1] they are:
Fear; Love; Curiosity [or “Wonder”]; Imitation; Emulation; Ambition; Pugnacity; Pride (these four are called “the ambitious impulses”); Ownership; Constructiveness.
[1]“Talks to Teachers,” Chap. VII. N.Y. 1899.
According to MacDougall,[2] the instincts and innate tendencies are: Fear; Disgust; Curiosity; Pugnacity; Self-Assertion (“Pride”); Self-Abasement; Parental (“Love”); Sex; Gregariousness; Acquisition (“Ownership”); Construction; Sympathy; Suggestion; Imitation; Play; Rivalry (“Emulation”); Habit; Temperament.
[2] “Social Psychology”Chaps. III. and IV. Boston, 1918. In MacDougall’s list, based on very careful analysis, the innate tendencies, which are non-specific in character in contrast with the specific instincts, begin with sympathy.
Whether Jesus himself evinced all the instincts of man we cannot now consider, having treated this question elsewhere.[3] And it would take us too far afield now to treat exhaustively the present question, and show from the gospels all the appeals to each of the native reactions of man.
[3] Cf. the author’s book: “Jesus—Our Standard,” pp. 73-75, N.Y. 1918.
It will be noted that MacDougall’s list includes all of James’s, unless it be ambition, which is very complex and involves considerable ideation. At this point, go carefully through MacDougall’s list and check every entry to which upon reflection you think Jesus did appeal. Are there any omissions? If so, which? Are you fairly sure about the entries checked? If you are not quite clear what is meant by any entry, look it up in James or MacDougall. Of course, it is a new question, this reading of the teachings of Jesus in terms of biology, and one probably very far from his own consciousness, but it is one in which our day is very much interested. Yet there can be but little objection to raising such a question, for one good way to test how far ahead of his age a teacher was is to apply the standards of a later age. So we will follow through MacDougall’s list, with a few hints about each entry.
Fear. This was not the primary appeal of Jesus. And he never appealed to slavish fear, as perhaps Jonathan Edwards did in his sermon on “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” Yet Jesus did appeal to fear in the sense of reverential awe, perhaps in the same sense in which Solomon had taught: “The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.” Thus Jesus says: “Be not afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do nothing further. I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who after killing has power to throw into Gehenna: yes, I say to you, fear him. [Does this refer to God or the devil? Read on.] Are not five sparrows sold for a penny? and yet not one of them is a thing forgotten in God’s sight. But the very hairs on your heads are all counted. Away with fear: you are more precious than a multitude of sparrows” (Luke 12:4-7, Weymouth). This teaching was given to his friends, not to the many. Likewise to his disciples he said: “Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:27).
Yet his teaching constantly made reference to the house built on the sands whose fall was great, to weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, to the undying worm and the unquenched fire, to the outer darkness, to the broad way leading to destruction and to the many going in thereat, and to those who at the judgment would call on the rocks and hills to fall on them, and to the wicked who, separated from the righteous, should go away into “the punishment of the ages.”
We conclude then that, while the motive of fear is not the biggest thing in the appeal of Jesus (what is?), yet he did use the native fear reaction. Especially are fleeing and hiding, which he associates with the last judgment, expressions of fear. When has the Church made the motive of fear the main appeal?
Disgust. A characteristic expression of the feeling of disgust, which is the affective phase of the instinct of repulsion, is to remove or reject the offending object. It is probable that Jesus appeals to this feeling in commanding (is it an hyperbole ?) that the offending eye be plucked out and that the offending hand be cut of and cast away. Likewise, in warning the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. This vice, which masquerades as virtue, seemed to incense Jesus as did nothing else, except attributing his good works, done by the power of God, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Revelation 3:16 is a good illustration of an appeal to this reaction. Can you think of still other illustrations? To what extent do we reject evil because it is disgusting?
Curiosity, and Wonder. The figure of Jesus was constantly the center of curiosity, wonder, amazement, astonishment, caused now by his physical presence, as when going up to Jerusalem for the last time; now by some teaching, as by the Sermon on the Mount; and now by some work of healing. But we cannot say Jesus ever worked a miracle in order to amaze people. That would have been like casting himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, which he regarded as a temptation from the evil one. One of the reputed sayings of Jesus, newly discovered, exactly covers the point: “Wonder at what you see!” Zaccheus was curious to see Jesus. Herod was curious to see some miracle at his hands. The emotion of wonder clearly enters into the beholding of the lilies of the field, clothed of God. What we wonder at we tend to approach and examine. So the response of Jesus to the inquiry of the two disciples of John as to his abode, “Come and see,” is not only companionable, but strictly scientific. The promise of Jesus to Nathanael; “Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man,” must have awakened a wondering interest. Have you still other illustrations?
Pugnacity. Much debate has raged around the Christian appeal to this instinct during these recent years of war.[4] Relatively few Christians prefer peace at the price of national honor to war. Confucianism and Buddhism have probably made less appeal to the fighting instinct and Mohammedanism more than Christianity. But the fighting instinct may be directed against overcoming social evils by other methods than war. Paul catches the idea exactly when he urges: “Fight the good fight of faith.” Jesus probably never appealed directly to the impulse to go to war (“If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews,” John 18:36), though some of his teachings may consistently involve going to war (“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”—one of which was military service—Mark 12:17). Jesus felt that he was manifested to destroy the works of the devil. This warfare he conducted, and commissioned his disciples to conduct. He himself was angered, which is the fighting feeling, when his critics objected to his healing on the Sabbath. So the characteristic thing that Jesus does to the fighting instinct is to sublimate it, to give it “a moral equivalent,” to redirect it. So far from allowing murderous killing was he that he forbade even its cause, saying: “Every one who becomes angry with his brother shall be answerable to the magistrate” (Matthew 5:22, Weymouth). What else would you say about the appeal of Jesus to pugnacity?
[4] Cf. the author’s “Modern Problems as Jesus Saw Them”Chap. I, N.Y., 1918.
Self-Assertion and Pride. This instinct is the basis of all self-display. It presupposes spectators, for whose admiration one cares, even while they may be regarded as inferiors. Peacocks, pigeons, stallions, some children, some vain adults, some megalomaniacs, and some hypocritical Pharisees show it. Jesus recognized it in others; he did not exemplify it in himself; there is nothing to indicate that he appealed to it in others. Or, do you dissent from this view? Of course the name of the instinct must not mislead us, we must look at its meaning. Jesus often asserted himself in expressing unpopular views, but upon such self-assertion he did not pride himself. Had you thought we should find direct appeals to all our native reactions in the teachings of Jesus? There are phases of human nature to which he makes no appeal. Can you now anticipate others?
Self-Abusement. if there is no appeal to self-display, there is much appeal to self-abasement, submission, and humility. ‘When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants” (Luke 17:10). The disciples were not permitted to rejoice because the demons were subject to them, but rather because their names were written in heaven. Jesus would have the disciples imitate his example in washing each others’ feet. They are not to imitate the rulers of the Gentiles who lord it over their subjects. Because of this appeal to self-abasement, Nietzsche called the Christian virtues slavish. “I can of myself do nothing,” Jesus taught. It was because of his consciousness of the Father’s presence, power, Justice, and holiness that he was always so humble. Are we right in saying that Jesus appealed to the instinct of self-abasement?
Love. Here perhaps we come upon the main appeal of Jesus. It was to the hearts of men. Jesus himself had the parental instinct keenly developed, due possibly in a measure to his guardianship over the younger children in the Nazareth home. His was the tender emotion, he was moved by compassion at any distress, he put his arms about children, he protected even the guilty. He could go no further in his appeal than when he included even one’s enemies in the scope of one’s love. It was to him, as to others, the great commandment in the law. The law had enjoined equality of love between self and neighbor—“as thyself”; Jesus extended the commandment in his new form to the point of sacrifice of physical life—“as I have loved you.” This is both the novelty and the core of his teaching. Why, then, does he say one must “hate his father and his mother”?
Sex. Is there any appeal in the teachings of Jesus to the sex instinct? He recognized it, did not forbid marriage, taught purity of thought as a preventive of adulterous acts, and allowed that for the sake of the kingdom of heaven some might make themselves eunuchs. But there is no direct or indirect appeal of Jesus to the sex nature of man. He appeals rather to its restraint, except in the general sense that any appeal to the energies of men meets a more effective response under natural and wholesome conditions of sex life. In the presence of Jesus sinful women found the higher love—not the physical amor, but the spiritual caritas. Because of the connection, perhaps innate, between the parental and sex instincts, we may say that the prime appeal of Jesus to love would be relatively inefficacious without presupposing sex. So sex is something recognized by Jesus, whose restraint he taught, whose energy his message utilizes, but to which he makes no direct appeal. Is this conclusion correct?
Gregariousness. The company of the disciples with Jesus their leader, sending them forth two by two, the founding of the Church, the free association with men, the rejection of the ascetic life of John the Baptist, all show the recognition of and the appeal to this instinct.
Acquisition (Ownership). One of the fundamental objections to any form of the communistic state, in contrast with the cooperative or the competitive state, is that it runs counter to the instinct of acquisition in man, on which the right of private ownership rests. Did Jesus appeal to this instinct? No, not directly, but he sublimated it, that is, he redirected it to spiritual instead of material ends.[5] He urged that treasures be not laid up on earth, but in heaven. The trouble with the Rich Fool in the parable was that he provided only material things for his soul. The trouble with Dives was that he made no heavenly friends, such as Lazarus, with his mammon of unrighteousness. The trouble with the Rich Young Ruler was that his affection, possibly not realized by himself until his conversation with Jesus, had been set on things on the earth. Lands and houses are to be forsaken for the Kingdom’s sake. Merchandise and oxen are not to stand between the invited guest and the marriage supper.
[5] Cf. the author’s book, “Modern Problems as Jesus Saw Them,” Chap. IV, on Wealth. In all this teaching the acquisitive instinct is centered on things above, not on things on the earth. Yet Jesus did not negate the acquisitive instinct for material things, he only subordinated it. Thus he taught that when the interests of the Kingdom had been placed first, all these things of earth—food, drink, clothing—should be added (Matthew 6:33). Besides, he taught that all forms of sacrifice were returned a hundred times even in this present world. “I tell you truly, no one has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the sake of the gospel, who does not get a hundred times as much—in this present world homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and lands, together with persecutions, and in the world to come life eternal” (Mark 10:29-30, Moffatt. Cf. also Luke 18:28-29). In what sense is this true?
We conclude, then, that Jesus did appeal to the acquisitive instinct for material things, but only in an indirect and subordinate way, while directing it mainly to the attainment of spiritual goods. Would you modify this conclusion?
Construction. Beavers build, and so do children. Even pulling down the house of blocks is not so much destruction as a phase of constructing again. All men are builders —of roads, bridges, houses, and ships, and even systems of thought. Jesus during his young manhood had been a worker in wood. Upon the rock of Peter’s faith he would build his church. His followers have built churches, cathedrals, monasteries, hospitals, asylums. They have organized plans for spiritualizing society according to the Sermon on the Mount. The constructive instinct released by Jesus, as in the case of the others, is directed rather to spiritual than material ends, tie material being rather the means. Have you something to add on this point?
Sympathy. The sharing of feeling is natural. We become affected by the feelings of others and they are affected by ours. This applies to feelings not only of sorrow, but also of joy, fear, anger, curiosity. Sympathy thus is social and it is assimilative. It covers so many emotional states and is induced in us by so many different emotions in others that it is better to regard it as a general or “non-specific innate tendency” rather than an instinct. Did Jesus appeal to this tendency? Inevitably. Only an isolated hermit could fail to do so. Jesus shared the emotions of others, as at the gate of Nain, the tomb of Lazarus, and in the home of Jairus, He recognized and commended sympathy in the parable of the Good Samaritan. He taught that the companions of the Bridegroom should not fast and be sad in his presence. Can we imagine Jesus at the wedding feast of Cana being emotionally apart from the festive company? Can you recall other pertinent incidents from the gospels? To what extent do you suppose the disciples shared the anger of Jesus in the synagogue when the paralytic was healed? or his righteous indignation at the cleansing of the Temple? or his amazement in the Garden?
Suggestion. Sympathy is emotional, suggestion is intellectual, while imitation is volitional. These are the differences between these three general tendencies.
Suggestion is the tendency to believe in and act on any given idea. Did Jesus use suggestion? Few figures even compare remotely with that of Jesus in suggestiveness. Western mankind has shown suggestibility to his ideas; Eastern mankind is showing the same. Suggestion has played a large role in healing, and Jesus as the Great Physician also utilized it. His presence inspired confidence. “Believe ye that I am able to do this?” he would say, as to the two blind men (Matthew 9:28). He would touch the eyes of the blind, or anoint them with clay made with spittle (John 9:6; John 9:15), and would put his fingers in the ears of the deaf, or touch with saliva the tongue of a stammerer (Mark 7:33-34). These things quickened the belief of the afflicted ones. If such belief were lacking, Jesus was unable to heal (Matthew 13:58), as in Nazareth. Can you find other instances of the use of suggestion by Jesus? Is his divine power of healing to be regarded as any the less because he used suggestion? To what extent is the use of suggestion in healing still open to the Christian Church? Compare the work of Drs. McComb and Worcester in Boston (the Emmanuel Movement).
Imitation. We sympathize with feelings, we suggest ideas, we imitate acts. Invention marks Jesus rather than imitation. Yet he does imitate and he does especially appeal to the instinct of imitation. He imitated John in having disciples; he imitated the prophets in speaking parables, though he improved upon his models; he followed custom in sitting to teach; and naturally he acquired the Aramaic speech in childhood by imitation, as well as the art of the carpenter. Of course, imitation may be unintentional as well as intentional. Do you hesitate to think of Jesus as under the influence of imitation? Why?
Jesus makes special appeal to the instinct of imitation in his disciples, sensing himself as their model. “Follow me”; “let him take up his cross”; “it is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher and the servant as his lord”; “if I then, your lord and master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”; “I have given you an example” (John 13:15). Note especially this instance: “Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), coming at the end of a description of the Father’s impartiality.
What other illustrations have you in mind?
Play. The role of play in modern education and life is so large and so valuable that we should like to find that Jesus appealed to the impulse of play in man. But the evidence is remote and indirect. Jesus must have played as a boy, for (1) no boy that does not play can have the social development that Jesus later exemplified; (2) as a man he attracted children, which no man without play in his nature can do; (3) he later recalled the refusal to play of petulant children (Matthew 11:17); and (4) he contrasted himself with the ascetic John. This evidence is not conclusive, but it is strongly circumstantial. Can you add other items? or would you subtract from these? But when we pass out of the physical into the mental, it is clear that Jesus had play of the imagination, using wonderful imagery, exhibiting a sense of humor, and using wit, raillery, and satire.[6] [6] Cf. the author’s book: “Jesus—Our Standard,” pp. 150-154.
Regret it as we may, I can think of no evidence at all that Jesus appealed to the physical play instinct in man. This is very far from meaning that he condemned it. The simple fact is that our games and athletic contests come to us from the Hellenes and the Romans, not the Hebrews. But we hold today that play is necessary to make the body the fit temple of the spirit, which Jesus said it was (John 2:21).
Rivalry (Emulation). Jesus did not think of himself as the rival of any, but modestly named himself “the Son of Man” the appellation by which the Spirit was accustomed to speak to Ezekiel. To avoid any clash or competition in baptizing with the disciples of John, Jesus withdrew from Judea into Galilee (John 4:1-3). He checked ambitious rivalry in the group of the disciples, especially between Boanerges and the others, teaching that the greatest is the servant of all. In the Kingdom there are appeals to do one’s duty and rewards for doing it, but there is no appeal to outstrip another. Jesus disclaimed the power to assign right and left hand seats: It “is not mine to give, but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared” (Mark 10:40). See taken until one is bidden to come up higher. One is to strive to enter in at the strait gate, but not to get in ahead of another. Paul uses the appeal to ambition three or more times, e.g., “be ambitious to be quiet” (1 Thessalonians 4:11, revised version, margin), but not once does this word appear in the gospels. Emulation is closely connected with pride and the fighting instinct. The omission of Jesus to appeal to it is no doubt connected with his omission to appeal to pride and his sublimation of the fighting instinct.
Habit. The tendency to repeat an act once done is characteristic of all living tissue. No teacher could even by effort fail to utilize it, though Rousseau said the only habit that should be formed is to have no habit. Jesus himself acquired habits—for example, attendance at the synagogue service on the Sabbath, “as his custom was.” And certain of the virtues he extolled presuppose the formation of habit, e.g. putting one’s hand to the plough and not looking back. Can you illustrate further?
Temperament. No two people have exactly the same temperament, because their bodily organs, such as the thyroid gland, do not function exactly alike, and their nervous systems have peculiarities all their own, e.g., the degree of excitability. Temperament is the effect of these constitutional conditions on our mental life, especially on its affective tone. It is to some extent alterable by such influences as climate, food, and disease. Of course, Jesus had temperament, and so did each of the disciples, and so did all the others of the gospel narrative. But all attempts at classifying temperaments are baffled by the complexity of the facts, though we still speak of a “phlegmatic” temperament and other kinds. Though we think of Peter as impetuous, James and John as ambitious “sons of thunder,” Thomas as doubting, Andrew as practical, Judas as earth-bound, Nathanael as meditative, and the others in still more nebulous ways, we hardly know their temperaments well enough to say whether Jesus appealed to them so or not. In a general way we do know that he ultimately satisfied eleven of them, that Peter became rock-like, and John an apostle of love, and that persons of diverse temperaments, except pessimists, have been Christians. In general, we conclude that the evidence is lacking to answer the question whether Jesus utilized the temperaments of men in his appeals.
Or, would you say differently?
Reviewing, is there more in this matter of the appeal of Jesus to the native reactions of man than you had supposed? Of the possible eighteen, the evidence is lacking for two, to three he did not appeal, three he largely sublimated, and ten he utilized in unmodified form. Can you single these out now from the list?
What significance have these facts for you?
How close to the bed-rock of human nature do they show Jesus to have been? Yet, how far removed from original human nature in his goal? Of course, no one would think of claiming that Jesus consciously made all these appeals to the specific and general tendencies of men.[7] The only claim is that his teaching, when analyzed, contains these appeals.
[7] See MacDougall, “Social Psychology” for the instincts.