IX. IS CHRISTIANITY IMPRACTICAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL?
CHAPTER IX IS CHRISTIANITY IMPRACTICAL AND ANTI-SOCIAL?
In a world in which there is much emphasis on the practical and on the improvement of social conditions, there are unbelievers who think that Christianity is impractical and anti-social and that therefore it is both out-of-date and false. The individualism of the gospel makes it anti-social in a generation which needs social cooperation, they reason.
I. IS CHRISTIANITY IMPRACTICAL?
Of those who reject Christianity because they say that it is impractical and will not work in the twentieth century, we ask Just what is practical? And, to be specific, just what is it about the Christian faith that is impractical? Also what has been so practical about the way of life which has been lived by multitudes, apart from Christianity, up to now? The mess that the world is in; the danger in which man constantly stands in the presence of selfishness and greed; are all these things practical? Is hate of man for man; is lust; is dissipation; is jealousy; is envy; is blind wrath; is greed; is sin--which covers all the above and more too, practical?
It is true that to the man who wants to live for himself, or even for others while leaving God out of his life, Christianity cannot be very practical. As long as a man is unwilling to leave the lower for the highest; sin for holiness; the non-Christian life for the Christian life; it is impractical. Multitudes, however, testify that it has been the practical way to peace of heart; hope, strength of character; and purpose in life. There are many others, who do not profess to be Christians, who maintain that unless we are willing to put into practice at least some of the principles for which Christianity stands, that more trouble and sorrow awaits the world; sorrow and trouble which the practice of Christianity would enable man to avert.
It is true of course, that men who choose to live the Christian life in a non-Christian world will have to pay whatever cost is involved. But anything is not discredited just because it costs something. And even as Christians pay that cost they are being spent in the service of humanity endeavoring to save and elevate them; they are reaping strength of character; and they are sustained by the hope of the life to come. The real question, however, is not does it cost something to be a Christian, but is Christianity true? Is it sustained by evidence? If it is, then the sincere and morally sensitive individual recognizes that he has an obligation to accept and abide by it regardless of whether or not he can see how it will work out in every possible situation in life. And even the unbeliever must concede that if there is any such thing as duty that one ought to do his duty when he see it regardless of whether or not it seems to be the practical thing at the moment. If Christianity is true it places man under obligation and presents both duties and privileges which cannot be turned aside from by a person with a snap judgement that Christianity is impractical. The facts are that no other way of life is really practical for both the life which now is and the assurance of the life which is to come.
The fact that the Bible emphasizes the practical aspects of things is seen in the use which is made of one of the distinctive Christian doctrines, i. e., that Jesus had once existed in the form of God, but that He was made in the likeness of man and died for us. The Bible sets this doctrine before us not for the purpose of satisfying our curiosity or giving Christians a subject for speculation. It is set before Christians for the very practical purpose of giving them an example of humility and service which encourges the like characteristics in them. After exhorting the brethren to unity and humility Paul said: "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himsef, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." (Php 2:5-7) To some people this may seem to be a lot of theoretical ideas, but not so to Paul or other Christians even unto this day.
Those who have studied the Bible recognize that the emphasis in the word of God is on that which is really practical for man. This fact has been admirably shown by Dr. Richard Whately in Essays on Some of the Pecularities of the Christian Faith. In his essay on the "Practical Nature of Revelation," Whately has shown that not only is the Bible such a book, but that it is in this respect in striking contrast with the false revelations given in other religions. It is also contrary in this emphasis, to a tendency in unregenerate human nature, and a tendency which is often evident even in the life of some believers., to theorize rather than walk in and practice the truth. In fact, in many cases, the perversions of Christianity have been in this direction, i.e., away from the practical to the speculative.
II. IS THE GOSPEL TOO INDIVIDUALISTIC?
There are unbelievers who justify their unbelief by maintaining that the gospel of Christ is too individualistic, that it is interested in individual salvation, whereas the world today is in dire need of social salvation. Thus it is out of date. Although we commend efforts to improve the social welfare of man, we deny that it can be done except as individuals are improved. That is to say, as individuals are improved they will want to improve the lot of their fellowman; and so on until society as a whole feels the impact of the reformation which started in an individual soul. Lamont is right when he writes that "there has been much misconception about Christian 'individualism.' No doubt there have been people, claiming the name of Christians, who have lived selfcontained lives; but a self-contained Christian is a contradiction in terms. If a man is not working for the highest good of his fellowman, it is safe to say of him that he is not in process of salvation. A follower of Christ has a heart which is filled with love to all men, and he cannot help doing his best for those whom he can influence. He witnesses for his Lord wherever he goes. It ought to be said boldly that a man like this is doing more to bring in a better social order than any reformer who cries aloud for some new system but who shows no kindness to his own poor neighbour. Robert Blatchford said long ago that when he was writing on the slums he liked to have a little slum child upon his knee. Academic theories of social improvement may be all very well, but commend me to the people who are shedding light and love around their own doorsteps. The Good Samaritan is a more effective social reformer than the priest or the Levite or even the soap-box orator."
"It is to the New Testament and its heirs that we should turn if we would know the meaning of the 'individualism' of the Gospel. In point of fact nothing among us but the Gospel is universal, except it be sin and death for which the Gospel is the only remedy. It is instructive to note how there came to the ethical prophets of Israel the twofold Revelation that the One Righteous God was the God of all, and that because He was God of the whole earth He cared for each soul singly and alone. The Gospel is the completion of that Revelation. The rightful Lord of every man. The individual and universal aspects of His Lordship dare not be separated for God has joined them. It is grotesque to speak of a social gospel as if this were something apart from the Gospel of Love which is the only Gospel there is. The Gospel of Jesus Christ must find its lodgment in the individual heart if it is to appear on earth at all, and any social gospel which takes no account of the love-filled heart is a sham and no gospel. If the adjective is meant to emphasize the fact that the Gospel of Christ cannot be other than social, seeing it is the Gospel of Love, that is a different matter. But even so the adjective is apt to mislead."3 In dealing with the social condition of others one must not forget the primacy of the spiritual, nor leave the impression on the financially poor that their only problem is a material one.
No one who knows much about the New Testament can make the objection, and reject the New Testament on the basis of it, that it is so individualistic that it is not interested in the welfare of others. Was not the first commandment that men should love God with all their being, and the second one, like unto it, that they should love their neighbor as themselves? Did not John say that it was impossible to love God whom we have not seen and to hate our brother whom we have seen? "Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso bath the world's goods, and beholdeth his brother in need, and shutteth up his compassion from him, how cloth the love of God abide in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither with the tongue; but in deed and truth." (1 John 3:16-18) Did not Jesus say that the question of our conduct towards our fellows will be considered in judgment day? "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall I answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me. And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:41-46)
The New Testament holds up Christ the way, the truth, and the life. If men refuse to come to Him, what program can Christianity give to men who are content to remain on the lower level, to remain in sin. Even then, however, Christians help those very people who refuse to accept the highest standard. As leaven their teaching and good deeds work for the betterment of society. But Christianity has no program to recommend for man and for a good world apart from God and submission to the will of God. Christianity has no program for sinful men, who want to remain in sin, to make the world a paradise. This is not to deny, of course, that the gospel works for the good or even for those who reject it. It does work as leaven and elevate the standards of even unbelievers, as we have shown in the chapter dealing with the conduct of Christians. It can have no such program for sin is the reason that this world is not a paradise. How, then, if Christianity is from God, could it deal with the social problems of men, and work for the betterment of humanity, if it did not deal with the problem of sin which is the cause of which our social disorders are the symptoms. This sin is not only a sin of commission but also sin of omission. Not merely the sin of people doing that which is wrong, but the sin of failing to do that which is right. Men want a program which will make them comfortable in sin, but God has no such program for them. If there was such a program that program would be the worst thing that could be proposed, for men who were comfortable in sin would remain in sin and be damned by sin. It is only when they recognize that sin cannot bring true peace and joy that they are willing to accept Him who can forgive sin and cleanse them and place them on a higher level.
These individuals who condemn the gospel for being, as they call it, individualistic, and for not having the kind of social program which they want, really do not want to investigate and be influenced by the social implications of the gospel. No, they had rather hide behind their terms of contempt and justify their own unbelief by a process of rationalization. The main reason they do not like the social program of the gospel is that that program starts with them. They want sin's wages to be removed from the world, but sin and its pleasures they want. And when the gospel starts with them, it starts with them at their sore spot, i, e. their sinful selfishness. This sinful selfish in some cases may not always be manifested toward man, although in a measure it usually is, but it may be manifested toward God in that the individual is too self-willed to want to submit his life to the direction of God. He does not want to acknowledge his own incapacity and turn the direction of his life over to God. He thinks too much of himself to submit to such a surrender, and to stand the blow to his pride which the gospel brings by pointing out that he is a sinner and that one of the things that is wrong with the world is him and the sin which is in him. The gospel wants to start with the basic, primary, fundamental things--sin and sin in the life of each individual person--but sinful man wants to start with everything else; he wants to change systems without changing himself. And so, whether the unbeliever is always conscious of it or not, one of the ways in which sinful man hides from himself the truth about himself, (and hides his real reason for his antagonism to the gospel) is by trying to prove that the fault is with the gospel and that he himself is in the right. He is right because he sees the need for social reform; the gospel is wrong for it demands that first of all the reformer be reformed!
It is gratifying to hear corroboration of the fact that our primary problem is spiritual. It is from an unexpected source, a military one. General Douglas MacArthur said: "Military alliance, balances of power, League of Nations all in turn failed . . . We have had our last chance. If we do not now devise some greater, and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advance in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh."
The problem is basically theological because our attitude toward our fellowman is determined, in the long run, by our conception of God. Strange as it may seem, man must reach to man through God if he is to reach man and to be at real lasting peace with man. To save the flesh we must go through the spirit. These words are filled with meaning. May men be stimulated by them to think. Man, of course, must desire God himself and not merely His gifts. In other words, we cannot say that we need God to make this thing work and therefore we shall put God into it that God may work for us. Instead our recognition of the inability on our part, and the recognition of our utter dependence upon God, should lead us to seek Him. We seek Him because we realize that we cannot live without Him. We acknowledge our need. We seek refuge in Him. We see not to use Him but to be used by Him. We seek not to make Him work for us but to give our lives to Him to work for Him; for the results of man's unaided efforts emphasize that He alone can make things work right. We surrender ourselves to Him for we recognize that we have lost the way and that we cannot find it in ourselves and by ourselves.
Even apart from the above facts, the following consideration alone disproves the accusation that Christianity is too individualistic. The Christian sees other men not merely as fellowmen with whom he should deal according to the Golden Rule, but as men for whom Jesus Christ died. He sees them not as objects of hate; or lust; or selfish advancement; but as objects of redemption; men who are lost; who need Christ; and for whom Christ died. Loving them, he is filled with unbounded good will toward them, because Jesus Christ commended His love for them and for us in that He died for all. No one who understands this can ever accuse the gospel of being too individualistic. The real trouble is that men have allowed selfish individualism and narrow, blind nationalism to come between them and the implications of the gospel of Christ; implications which show that the eternal good of all men is to be sought after by Christians.
The Golden Rule also proves that the Christian must be interested in the welfare of other people. It is not a negative rule which keeps one from hurting another, but at the same time remaining unconcerned as to what happens to his fellowman; but is a rule which calls on Christians to be aggressive in goodness and take the initiative in helping others be what we are trying to be. "All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12). Of this John Dewey said over halfcentury ago: "The Golden Rule because it is positive, 'not attempting to define any specific act, covers in its range all relations of man to man. It is indeed only a concrete and forcible statement of the ethical principle itself, the idea of a common good, or a community of persons.' "
Those individuals who are too proud to admit humbly their sinfulness and their ignorance, and lack of lasting power, may perhaps be led to turn from their condemnation of the gospel as too individualistic if they will consider not only what has been said, but also the evidence of the leaven of faith in Christ where He has been preached. Such studies as the following show the social impact of faith in Christ, faith which in some instances was beclouded by some of the traditions of men, but which still produced many socially and morally desirable results. James S. Dennis' monumental three volume work on Christian Missions and Social Progress (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1897); Charles Loring Brace, Gesta Christi: or A History of Humane Progress Under Christianity (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1883): and D. Coates, et al., Christianity The Means of Civilization "shown in the evidence given before a committee of the House of Commons on Aborigines (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1837). There are many other books on the subject, but Dennis' alone will contain enough evidence to convince the most doubtful that faith in Christ has exercised a tremendous leavening influence for good in the world.