II. THE CONDUCT OF PROFESSED CHRISTIANS AS A CAUSE OF UNBELIEF
CHAPTER II THE CONDUCT OF PROFESSED CHRISTIANS AS A CAUSE OF UNBELIEF
The conduct of some professed Christians has been a stumbling block in the path of some unbelievers. It is a justification, through rationalization, of their failure to believe. "An elder founded our Infidel Club," a young man in England replied to the question concerning the founder of their club. "We all know what a humbug he is, and yet he is one of the big religious men in town." They refused to have anything to do with Christianity because the elder's life had discredited it in their minds. There are others who call to one's attention the crimes which have been done in the name of Christianity. The Inquisition, they say, is a sample of what Christianity does when it gains the upper hand. Others point to the division among Christians and claim that the Bible cannot be true for it supports such conflicting doctrines as are advocated by various religious bodies; all of which claim that the Bible teaches their doctrines. Others identify, and thus reject, Christianity with the superstition of professed Christians in the mediaeval period. "Mrs. Humphry Ward has traced her departure from the orthodox fold to the studies of Spanish ecclesiastical history in which she was engaged on behalf of Dr. Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, and in the course of which her mind was shocked by the discovery of the superstitions and legends which had grown up in the Mediaveal Church.'
The criticisms will now be considered to see whether they are fair criticisms of Christianity, or whether unbelievers have failed to distinguish between Christianity and perversions of it, or lack of it. If these things are not a part of Christianity then no informed critic will identify them with Christianity and criticize Christian ity on the basis of that identification. Neither would an informed critic, in such a case, justify himself by making such charges against Christianity: nor would he permit these perversions of Christianity to hide from his view or keep him back from an earnest consideration of the evidences for Christianity.
IT WAS CERTAIN THAT CHRISTIANITY WOULD BE CORRUPTED
"The best of things in this world are liable to be perverted and abused. Good is often made to assume the shape of evil, and then to be evil spoken of. Christianity is the very last system that could be anticipated to escape corruptions. Its doctrinal truths are so elevating in their character, and humbling to the pride of the human intellect, that man would be sure to distort their simple grandeur, and bring them down to the level of their own enfeebled perceptions. Its morality is so strict and pure.--being a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the hearts, and, admitting of no compromise with aught that is unholy,--as to induce those who are unwilling to follow its dictates, and yet anxious to have its sanction, to bend it to their own prevailing inclinations. Its rites are so few, simple, and destitute of attractions to the carnal mind, as to make it no matter of surprise that men who seek righteousness in mere outward observances, should add to their number, and render them meet for the lust of the eye. Christianity has been frequently so much corrupted in its doctrines, morals, and institutions, as to have rendered it somewhat difficult to trace any resemblance between the blotched copy and the fair original."
OTHER THINGS HAVE BEEN CORRUPTED
"Every system of truth has been more or less corrupted under human influence. The sublime science of astronomy has appeared in the somewhat ridiculous shape of astrology. The simple science of chemistry, in the hands of the alchemists, was a science of sheer extravagancies. Natural philosophy was once represented by magic. Jurisprudence, rightly understood and applied, protects the helpless, shields the innocent, and promotes the liberty and prosperity of a state; but it has often been systematized into an engine of lawless oppression. If these earthly things, which are by no means uncongenial to human nature, or to variance with its predominating tendencies, have been corrupted in the hands of men, it is not wonderful that heavenly things, in coming down to the earth, should have been subjected to a similar influence. It might rather have been anticipated, that, in proportion as the revelation from above was purer and loftier than the principles of human conduct, would men endeavor to distort and corrupt it.
"It is divinely promised that Christianity should never be destroyed, but there is no promise that it shall, in every case, be kept free from corruptions. So far from this, that, even under the watchful presidency of inspired men, there were false teachers who crept into the church and endeavored to pervert the Gospel of Christ . . . the most influential and extensively spread form of corrupt Christianity that ever existed, was clearly foretold in the apostolical writings. They speak of damnable heresies, of a falling away, of the man of sin being revealed and of the working of the mystery of iniquity. Christianity is not, however, to be confounded with its corruptions, or made responsible for them."
I. THE SUPERSTITION OF SOME PROFESSED CHRISTIANS
It is true that the "Mediaeval Church," as well as the modern Roman Catholic Church, and certain other groups, had a great deal of superstition. And yet, one who can read the New Testament and compare its teaching with that of these churches knows that these superstitions are one thing and the teaching of the New Testament is another entirely different thing. Faith is not blind credulity or vain superstition. These things flourish only as people get away from the Bible, as did the Mediaeval Church. As men return to the Bible they drop these superstitions as is evidenced by what happened when men during the Reformation started back to the Bible they began to drop superstitions. Christianity calls on men to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21). They are cautioned against believing everyone who professes to be a prophet of God; instead they are to try those who profess to be of God (1 John 4:1-2; Revelation 2:2) . Paul told Christians to "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:8) . "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh," (Colossians 2:20-23). "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God bath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." (1 Tim. 4:1.4) .
These passages recognized that superstitions would come and they warned Christians against the traditions of men; against the will-worship which has no higher origin than the mind of men. And those who will take the trouble, and certainly they should take the trouble before basing an argument against Christianity on it, to trace the superstitions of the Roman Catholic Church to their origin will find that they did not have their origin in the Bible. Can a fair, and informed, person condemn Christianity for something which had its origin not in a knowledge in the Bible but in a lack of such knowledge of and obedience to the Bible?
We shall present one example of the superstition of the Roman Catholic Church, and show how it is contrary to the Bible. She teaches that in the Lord's Supper the fruit of the vine and the bread become the literal blood and body of Christ. The superstition is without authority in God's word, as two considerations make evidence. First, if such change actually takes place it constitutes a physical miracle; and you will find in the New Testament that physical miracles were discernible by physical senses. The Roman Catholic Church, however, admits that neither blood nor flesh, in the Lord's Supper, can be discerned by the physical senses. Therefore, we conclude that no miracle has been wrought for they still have all the properties of the fruit of the vine and of bread. Second, after Jesus had called the cup his blood (Matthew 26:27-28); He called it the fruit of the vine: "I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom." So it was still the fruit of the vine even after He called it blood. This makes it evident that Jesus no more meant that it was His literal blood and body, than He meant that He was a vine when He said that I am the vine (John 15).
The Bible is also contrary to the superstitious practices which are bound up in spiritualism. God said to Israel: "When thou art come into the land which the Lord Thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are abomination unto the Lord; and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." (Deuteronomy 18:9-12).
These considerations, combined with the fact that where the Bible is read and followed by the people superstition wanes and is driven away, make it evident that no fair investigator can charge Christianity with the superstitious practices of some professed believers who have wandered from the Bible.
II. CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY
Christianity, some unbelievers maintain, has been responsible for religious wars and for the horrors of the Inquisition. Again they have overlooked what should be obvious, i. e. that all that people profess to do in the name of Christ is not necessarily actually done by His authority. Only that can be done in the name of Christ which has been sanctioned by Christ. These deeds of horrors were done in the time when Christianity was covered over with a garb of paganism. They can happen only after men have committed the sin of going astray from the world and the spirit of the New Testament.
Can any one seriously think that following Jesus Christ resulted in these crimes? How could such be inspired by Him who taught love for both friend and foe? "Ye have heard," He said, "that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been. said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in Heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:38-48). Do men really believe that following in the steps of that Master who spoke these things, led to the Inquisition and religious wars? The apostle Paul wrote in the same spirit of the Master and said: "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not." "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in doing so thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:14; Romans 12:17-21). No person of discernment could maintain for one minute that the Inquisition and religious wars are the fruits of which the above teaching is the root. Even the Roman Catholic Church, that practiced, and still justifies, the Inquisition, admits that the New Testament did not teach that heretics were to be treated in such a manner and that the church of the first three centuries did not practice the Inquisition.'
The death of Christ and of Stephen set forth the spirit of Christianity and not the death-dealing spirit of the Inquisition and religious wars. Jesus said, of His persecutors and slayers, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23; Luke 24). As they stoned Stephen he prayed for them saying, "Lord lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (Acts 8:60).
III. DIVISION AMONG PROFESSED BELIEVERS
That a lack of unity is a cause of unbelief, has been recognized by many professing Christians. Thomas Pearson wrote: "The world has, in these conflicting sects and divisions, a hold which it had not in the primitive age of Christianity; and, without assigning to the unity of the church that efficiency as a cause which some (with a view of precluding a higher agency) have done (Gibbon), we cannot doubt that its visible unity, short though its continuance was, has a strong subordinate influence in recommending the Christian cause, any more than we can doubt that the return of peace and unity will be powerfully instrumental in the conversions of the latter day. 'Nothing,' says Lord Bacon, `cloth so much keep men out of the church, and drive men out of the church, as a breach of unity.' And, as Isaac Taylor remarks, 'if we could only bring to view the secret causes of that infidelity which, it is to be feared, prevails among the educated classes, this now named--the scandal arising from religious dissensions --would probably appear to be one of the most frequent and determinative.' "
There is a division, of course, which is right. It is right that truth be separated from error and for holiness to be separated from unholinesss. This is right in order that the approved be made manifest and that the corrupt may not contaminate the good. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Corinthians 11:19). Paul told them also to withdraw from a brother who had become a fornicator, for "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." "Purge out therefore the old leaven" (1 Corinthians 5:6-7).
But through a failure to understand the will of the Lord Jesus Christ there are people who maintain that the divided condition of the religious world is a good thing. There are others who maintain that it is not. Is there in this a contradiction, a contradiction originated and perpetuated by the Bible itself? Does it support these conflicting positions, and many other conflicting doctrines which some believers in the Bible hold? Not at all. The contradiction is not in the Bible but in the misunderstanding of the Bible by those who believe it. This is more of an argument against the truth of the Bible than against the truth of anything else which people misunderstand. The causes of religious division, however, are overlooked by those who maintain that the Bible cannot be the word of God, because they say, it teaches all of the conflicting doctrines which are held by the Bible believers.
The divisions and conflicting doctrines cannot be charged to the Bible; there are other things to which they are chargeable. Among the causes of division are such things as the violation of the fundamental rules of Bible study; an unscriptural loyalty to men which builds up a spirit of faction; the effort to be wise above what is written; the unwillingness to be bound by what the Bible says; the failure to cultivate the scriptural kind of long suffering and tolerance; the lack of love; the failure to study the Bible; and the setting up of authorities other than the Bible; these things, and not the Bible, are causes of division and contradictory doctrines.
Jesus Christ recognized that division would hinder faith, and thus He taught His followers to be one. In His Prayer to the Father, He said: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou host sent me." (John 17:20-21) Division has been both an active and a passive cause of unbelief. An active cause in that people have blamed division on the Bible and have considered the Bible as an uninspired book because they conclude that the Bible supports divisions and conflicting doctrines. It has been a passive cause of unbelief in that religious division has tied up men, materials and time, which could have been used to preach the gospel to those who have never yet had an opportunity to hear and believe. They do not believe because division keeps them from having an opportunity to believe.
Anyone who can read, or who can listen while someone else reads, can read the above statement from the lips of Jesus and recognize that the Bible teaches unity. It teaches a unity that people can see and be influenced by; for Jesus prayed for unity that the world might believe and they would have to be able to know about the unity before it could influence them to believe. The high ideal of that unity is expressed when Jesus likens what He prays for unto that unity which exists between Christ and God. How, in view of these facts, can one blame the Bible with the religious division which exists today? The lack of the knowledge and practice of the Bible, and not the Bible, has been responsible for the division. Let not unbelievers condemn Christianity for that which Christianity itself condemns.
1. ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH DIVISION HAS FOSTERED UNBELIEF
If one asks why it is that the public schools, especially the Universities and Colleges, often have an anti-Christian influence the answer must be sought in the history of education in America. When America was first settled schools were established by the religious groups which had founded the various settlements. For example, in New England the Puritans established schools to help provide, among other things, instruction so that the children would know how to read the Bible. Harvard was established in order to provide training which would enable the colonists to have educated ministers after the ministers, which came with them from England, were lying in the dust. All of the first Universities and Colleges were established by religious people.
As time went on, the State saw the need for public education. If education was to be public and state supported it had to be non-sectarian. Members of one denomination would not pay tax money to support schools in which members of other denominations taught their denominational doctrines to the students. There was no state religion so there could be no state school in which some particular denominational doctrine was instilled. And thus denominationalism was one of the things which has kept the Bible, and the teaching of the Bible, out of the public schools. And it still keeps it out. As George U. Wenner wrote, "Even if Protestants could agree on some ground, which is improbable, what kind of a conglomerate would that be which would be acceptable alike to Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Agnostics? The thing is inconceivable.
Of course, the inroad of the doctrine of evolution, and of materialism, through teachers who gradually took over the guidance of American Education; as well as the exclusion of the Bible; has resulted in the great increase in agnosticism and other forms of unbelief.
The American people who are religious, and they are still in the majority, should insist that since the Bible cannot be taught in the schools as such, that nothing that is anti-Christian should be taught. And yet, although one cannot teach the Bible there today it is permissible in most states to teach doctrines which undermine Christianity. Professors who admit that evolution had not been proved, are yet permitted to teach it as an established fact and to say or imply that all who do not accept it are ignorant or dishonest in rejecting evidence. To attack the Christian faith, or the institution of marriage, in many Universities, would not bring as great a reaction among the Professors as would an attack on evolution.
With the attacks, sometimes direct and sometimes indirect, on the basis of Christian faith, and the exclusion of religious instruction it is no wonder that many of the American young people are subjected to a severe strain on their faith and at the very period that many of them are going through a reaction against authority and restraint which extends even to the authority of religion.
IV. THE CORRUPTION IN THE LIVES OF SOME PROFESSED CHRISTIANS
The immorality of some nominal Christians, as contrasted with the good moral lives of some unbelievers, has caused some so to stumble that they reject the Christian faith without an adequate examination of it. They identify the faith with the lives of persons who misrepresent or betray the faith. Before clearly setting forth the fact that these people do misrepresent the faith, and that it is unfair to judge Christianity by them, let us see how that many of the moral unbelievers are indebted to Christianity for these high moral standards. Just as certain as some professed Christians live far below their creed, just so some sceptics live far above their creed.
1. THE UNBELIEVER LIVES ABOVE HIS CREEDS
Concerning the morality of unbelievers, the first question one should ask himself is: Was the character of the unbeliever shaped by his present world outlook? Did scepticism give birth to his code of morality and his commendable course of conduct? One of the close friends of the author may be characterized as a man who has the head of an agnostic and the heart of an orthodox believer. He was brought up in a religious background and for awhile he followed in the footsteps of his father who was a preacher. He finally lost faith and although he intellectually gave up the Christian faith he never gave up in his life the moral principles which had been woven into the fabric of his character by his faith. The man of no faith is the child of centuries of faith. Even those who were not brought up in a religious family have, in the majority of civilized countries, been brought up in a general environment which is religious. Certain principles of the Christian faith, as applied to morality, have found their way into the moral fiber of our social structure and thus have become a part of the code of conduct of the majority of people, unbelievers as well as believers, for most people conform to the general level of society.
There are numerous examples of the control that Christianity maintains over the moral life of individuals who have renounced it intellectually. In Thomas Carlyle's Sartor Resartus one of the reasons a character advanced as to why he had not committed suicide was the influence of Christianity. "From Suicide a certain aftershine (Nachschein) of Christianity withheld me."
The "aftershine" influences many. Comte "the founder of Positivism studied and prized no book more than the Imitatio Christi (also George Eliot's chief companion); and his altruism is only a poorer name for Christian love." "
One is reminded of the spies who brought back a bad report of the land of Canaan, while all the time they bore on their shoulders burdens of rich grapes plucked from its vines, belying their report. Good sceptics bear in their lives and homes the fruits of the Christian soil which they depreciate. Their personal and domestic virtues, when rightly viewed, are a tribute and testimony in no small measure to Christianity, which still girds them though they may not know it.
'You criticise the soil? It reared this tree -- This broad life and whatever fruit it bears.' "
And thus their lives acknowledge the validity of the virtues of Christianity.
Andrew Fuller well stated, concerning some moral deists of his day, "the Scriptures having diffused the light, they have insensibly imbibed it; and finding it to accord with reason, they flatter themselves that their reason has discovered it. 'After grazing,' as one expresses it, 'in the pastures of revelation, they boast of having grown fat by nature.' And it is the same with regard to their sobriety. So long as they reside among people whose ideas of right and wrong are formed by the morality of the gospel they must, unless they wish to be stigmatized as profligates, behave with some degree of decorum."
These as Renan wrote, have been nourished by the moral sap of the old faith.
Russell Lowell, in his Letters, well wrote that "I fear that when we indulge ourselves with the amusement of going without a religion, we are not, perhaps, aware of how much we are sustained by an enormous mass of religious feeling and religious conviction, so that, whatever it may be safe for us to think, for us who have had great advantages, and have been brought up in such a way that a certain moral direction has been given to our character, I do not know what would become of the less favoured classes of mankind, if they undertook to play the same game." In spite of defects, any system of religion related to Christianity, is "infinitely preferable to any form of polite and polished scepticism, which gathers as its vortaries the degenerate sons of heroic ancestors, who, having been trained in a society and educated in schools, the foundations of which were laid by men of faith and piety, now turn and kick down the ladder by which they have climbed up, and persuade men to live without God and leave them to die without hope. These men, indulging themselves in the amusement of going without a religion, may be thankful that they live in lands where the Gospel they neglect has tamed the beastliness and ferocity of the men who, but for Christianity, might long ago have eaten their carcases like the South Sea Islanders, or cut off their heads and tanned their hides like the monsters of the French Revolution."
When the sceptic "has found a place on this planet, ten miles square, where a decent man can live in decency, comfort, and security, supporting and educating his children unspoiled and unpolluted, a place where age is reverenced, infancy respected, womanhood honoured, and human life held in due regard,--when sceptics can find such a place, ten miles square, on this globe, where the Gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way and laid the foundations, and made decency and security possible, it will then be in order for the sceptical literati to move thither, and then ventilate their views. But so long as these men are very dependent on the religion which they discard for every privilege they enjoy, they may well hesitate a little before they seek to rob a Christian of his hope and humanity of its faith in that Saviour who alone has given to men that hope of eternal life which makes life tolerable and society possible, and robs death of its terrors and the grave of its gloom."
We do not make the mistake, of course, of assuming that where Christianity has not gone there are no moral principles. There are certain laws of moral life and some of these can be discerned by mankind through its own experience. As Paul pointed out those who were without the light of revelation were still not without the light of conscience for in their own hearts they were able to discern some of the laws of moral life (Romans 2:13-15). Then, too, it is the contention of the Christian that from God's original revelation to man there has lingered at least fragments of those moral principles in the traditions of mankind. Nevertheless, it is still true that in countries in which the Bible exercises a great deal of influence, that sceptics generally derive their moral principles, insofar as they are commendable, from the influence of the Bible.
Those who point to good sceptics and to bad Christians have failed, in the second place, to recognize that the true nature of sceptism and its influence on morality cannot be fully tested in, the life of one individual or of one generation. As pointed out the man of this generation who is a sceptic may have been at first a believer. To adequately test the moral fruits of unbelief one would have a generation which had been reared on unbelief, and whose environment unbelief had created. What if a person, after residing a few years in Africa, wrote home: "You affirm that the inhabitants of Central Africa are dark-skinned. I have lived here for years and am not black!" "No! but even you are tanned! Is it much more rational for a man to say, 'I live without Christ and without prayer, and yet I think I am not less moral that average Christians.' Perhaps so--though one would need to see to your spirit's core to determine what is happening under the crust of moral habit. But bring up your children on that principle. Let society at large, also, dispense with the spiritual supports of Christianity." Then after a few generations are passed, after you have a generation which has been brought up on the creed of unbelief, then and only then have you the true product of unbelief. Then, and only then, can many full fledged sceptics be found to compare with the true disciples of Christ. Even now, however, it is possible to find sceptics who live down to their creed, but the unbelievers generally do not want to put these individuals forward as representatives of unbelief. They pay unconscious tribute to Christianity in that they select sceptic who are as near like a true Christian, in morality, that they can find. This sceptic they often compare with a bad Christian.
There are professed believers who live immoral lives, this we recognized. But we do not agree that these individuals are representative of the Christian faith; instead they misrepresent it. One may point to such characters to prove that some professed Christians need to possess in their lives the principles of Christ, but he cannot fairly point to them as products of Christianity. Their very desire to appear, or to try to appear, Christian is a testimony that they recognize that there is value in Christianity. They are not real sons of God, any more so than those who commit crimes in the name of liberty are the the true sons of liberty. And although we cannot keep these folks from calling themselves Christians, we stoutly maintain that one must be Christian, and not merely be called by the name Christian.
It might be well to remind a certain type of unbeliever, those who are determinists, that according to their theory these immoral Christians are not really immoral. They cannot help being what they are for their conduct is determined by non-moral laws with which no freedom of will interferes. Furthermore, these individuals are a product of strict determinism, of which the unbelievers also are products. So why criticize these men who cannot do otherwise than they do, according to the determinist's theory. It is also well to point out to the relativist in morality that according to his theory these immoral Christians are not really immoral for all morality, on this theory, is in a state of flux. And they have as much right, on the unbeliever's own theory, to justify their pretense to live the Christian life, as the unbeliever has for his failure to pretend to live a Christian life.
The fact that unbelievers call these immoral Christians hypocrites indicates that they know that Christianity did not produce such a life. If they thought that it had they would call these people true Christians instead of hypocrite, which term means someone who is pretending to be what he is not. Thus they should not stumble and turn away from Christian faith because of the lives of some professing Christians. The fact that some unbelievers have recognized that these are not true Christians is made evident when some of them say that in attacking "Christianity" they do not intend to attack Christ. But if they are not attacking Christ they are not attacking true Christianity for Christianity, briefly put, is following the Lord Jesus Christ. And that is all that we defend; we do not defend the lives of mere professed Christians, or of even sincere Christians whenever they fall short of the standard of Christianity because of their weaknesses.
It will be helpful if the unbeliever will remember that the Lord Jesus denounced hypocrisy long before this generation of unbelievers saw the light of day. No more severe words, with reference to hypocrisy, have come from the lips of any person than those that came from the lips of Jesus in the twenty-third chapter of Matthew. Let the unbeliever read that chapter to see how far Christ is from recommending or tolerating hypocrisy. No one had pronounced the doom of "unchristian Christians" more emphatically than has the Bible. How, then, can one find in the lives of professed Christians a cause of unbelief? Their immorality does furnish cause for a lack of confidence in departures from the Christian life, but it calls for an application of Christianity and not for a renunciation of it. And how inconsistent are those who condemn Christians, who are Christians in word only, with moral standards which they have borrowed from the Christian faith, and yet renounce the faith itself and think that these immoral Christians are an argument against the faith.
The real test, then, is not found in the life of an unbeliever who lives above his creed, and a Christian who lives below his, but between two individuals who are the product of their respective creeds. In such a fair test men will not blame on Christianity that which had its origin in a lack of Christianity. In such a fair test the Christian will shine, for one of the potent arguments for the Christian faith is to be found in the fruit it bears with reference to character. As Daniel Webster said, one of the strongest arguments for the Christian faith was the godly life which his mother lived. Carlyle maintained that "as to the people I see, the best class of all are the religious people--It teaches me again that the best of this class is the best that one will find in any class whatsoever." Yes, it is the best by test, and those who argue against the Christian life are arguing against the very incarnation of goodness, honesty, love, loyalty, gentleness, and all of the other virtues that make up the life that is truly good.
2. UNBELIEF As A REACTION TO A PERSONAL GRIEVANCE
There are cases where an unfortunate personal contact with a professed Christian has driven some into unbelief. Dr. Thouless (in the Pyschology of Religion, p. 82) told of a Sundayschool teacher who became an atheist after his fiancee eloped with another teacher. The resentment against the person is turned toward the belief which the individual holds.
3. AN UNFAIR SUSPICION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS
There is an attitude which leads some to say, when one presents the case for Christianity, that "naturally he would say that it is true since he makes his living by it;" or "since he is converted to it; he is a partisan who cannot be trusted with an unbiased judgment in these matters." Clement F. Rogers once had a man to shout at him, while lecturing in England, that he would never believe a man who wore a clergyman's collar.
To such individuals we would say: "Just whom do you think should present the case for Christianity? Those who believe it or those who do not? In fact, who would present the case for Christianity, and maintain that it is established, unless he is a believer in it?" When put in this way they should be able to see the fallacy of asking for someone who does not believe--and supposedly has no prejudice in the matter, but surely such a man would have a bias against it--to present Christian evidence. Of course, the man who presents this evidence is a convert. He believes that it is true, otherwise he would not argue that it is true. So instead of suspecting him one should conclude that he is convinced that it is true; and that he therefore earnestly desires that others believe it for there is much at stake. The listener should then examine the case to see whether or not it is sustained. But let no man suspect Christianity just because it is advocated by those who accept it and spend their lives teaching it. For no one but a hypocrite would advocate something which he did not believe. Would the unbeliever think that we were reasonable if we met their arguments by saying: "Well, you fellows would naturally be expected to justify your course of conduct; and unless you can find an unbiased believer arguing for unbelief we shall not notice the arguments for all other advocates of unbelief --being unbelievers--are biased.
In a recent fine work of apologetics, Hammond noticed and answered the same tendency to discredit the advocates of Christianity. "A very common criticism of apologists, particularly of the theological apologists, is that they are 'special pleaders.' The illustration is taken from the Law Courts. A barrister or councel is supplied with a brief, and he does his best for his client. Most business men who have the misfortune to be involved in a trade dispute do their best to secure a 'special pleader' of this kind. They would feel very helpless if they had to present their argument before the court without this trained assistance. Yet somehow or other the term 'special pleader' is regarded as invidious. The implication here is like that to which we have referred already, in which the scientist is presented as a truth-seeker, and the poor theologian as a fanatical upholder of outworn conceptions. It is obvious, of course, that when a man is defending a belief which means much to him he is always in danger of manipulating evidence. This danger is not confined to theological beliefs. But, on the other hand, it is usually the interested man of this type who advances knowledge. Just because he is possessed of strong convictions he marshals his evidence in an orderly and convincing manner. It is not fair to assume that because his beliefs mean much to him he will become intentionally dishonest. If his mistakes in this direction are due solely to everzeal, there will be plenty of others to try out his conclusions whose competing beliefs will reduce the possible danger to a minimum. Also, the careful student is fully sensible of the danger of a retort of this kind, and proceeds with the more caution because he is aware that over-statement may prejudice even a good cause."
In conclusion let us observe that although no informed individual who is fair can blame these departures from, or lacks of, Christianity on Christianity itself, it is yet the business of every Christian to try to see to it that his own faith and life is in harmony with the teaching of Christ. In this way one's life becomes an invitation to, and an argument for, the Christian faith and not a stumbling-block in the path of some who may be seeking for the way, the truth, and the life.
Let us now consider how some unbelievers miss the truth because they begin in the wrong place.