Book: Religious Reality

A >> A.E.J. Rawlinson >> Religious Reality




It is nevertheless sufficiently obvious that the future of
civilization after the war will be largely in the hands (or at the
mercy) of organized Labour. And it is worth remembering that our
Saviour died not for the rich only, but for the poor, having moreover
Himself lived and worked as a labouring Man. There are those who
regard the spirit of idealism and world-wide brotherhood by which the
Labour Movement is inspired as the most profoundly Christian element
in the life of the modern world, and the existing cleavage between
Labour and the Church as a tragedy comparable only to the tragedy of
the war. It is the plain duty of a Christian man to do what in him
lies to remedy this cleavage, to think hard and honestly about social
problems from a Christian point of view, and to make it his business
to have an adequate understanding and sympathy with the real character
and motives of Labour aspirations and ideals.




CHAPTER VIII

CHRISTIANITY AND POLITICS


Politics at their worst are a discreditable struggle between parties
and groups for selfish, and sectional ends, full of dishonesty and
chicanery and corruption. It is often recognized at the present time
as desirable that none should be for party, but all for the state. The
Christian ideal goes further than this: it is that none should be for
party, but all for the Kingdom of GOD, and for the state only in so
far as the state is capable of being made the instrument of that
higher ideal. The Christian man is not to hold aloof from political
life, but to seek, so far as his personal effort and influence can be
made to tell, to Christianize the political struggle. In every
contested election he is bound to think out in the light of Christian
ideals the issues which are at stake, without either prejudice or
heat, and to register his vote in accordance with his conscience under
the most solemn sense of responsibility before GOD. He is bound, of
course, to be a reformer, standing for cleanness of methods, probity
of motives, honest thinking, class unselfishness, and the elimination
of abuses and malpractices. He will tend in most cases to be a cross-
bencher, in the sense of being independent of party caucuses and
concerned only for social and political righteousness.

A Christian man who has leisure and opportunity can render enormous
service by going into politics, more especially into municipal
politics, which are too often surrendered to the tender mercies of
corrupt, narrow-minded, or interested local wire-pullers. There is an
enormous field of unselfish social service and opportunity lying open
to Christian laymen in this connexion. There can be no truer form of
work for the Church of GOD than the work of a municipal councillor who
seeks not popularity but righteousness.

The carrying over of Christian ideals into national and international
politics is equally indispensable. In the sphere of international
affairs in particular, while other nations have, for the most part,
rendered official lip-service from time to time to ideals of
international morality, it has been reserved for Germany to declare
openly for the repudiation of "sentiment," and for a policy of
undisguised cynicism and _real-politik_. The doctrine that the state
as such is exempt from moral obligation towards its neighbours, and
that the whole political duty of man is exhausted in the service of
his country and the promotion of her purely selfish interests and
"will to power," has been exhibited in action by the Prussian
Government in such a fashion as to incur the moral reprobation of the
world. The cynical doctrines of _real-politik_, the belief that the
"interests" of the state are in politics and diplomacy paramount, and
that "the foreigner" is a natural enemy, the belief that in all
international relationships selfish and self-interested considerations
must really determine policy, are unfortunately by no means
unrepresented, though they are not unchallenged, in the political life
of other countries besides Germany. There are influential publicists
in England to-day the _principles_ of whose political thinking are
really Prussian. It remains to be seen whether, when the time comes
for peace to be made between the nations, the forces of international
idealism will prove strong enough to carry the day, or whether we
shall have a merely vindictive and "realist" peace which will contain
within itself the seeds of future wars. There can be no question but
that a Christian man is bound to stand both for the freedom of
oppressed nationalities and for the right of all peoples freely to
determine their own affairs, and also for the duty of nations as of
individuals to love their neighbours as themselves, and to seek
primarily not their own but each other's good. If these professions
are to be more than nominal they must mean a readiness for national
sacrifices and for national unselfishness in time of peace as in time
of war.




CHAPTER IX

CHRISTIANITY AND WAR


Christianity is opposed to war, in the sense that if men and nations
universally behaved as Christians, wars would cease. The ideal of the
Kingdom of GOD involves the reign upon earth of universal peace. War
is, therefore, in itself, an unchristian thing. It is, moreover, a
barbarous and irrational method of determining disputes, since the
factors which humanly speaking are decisive for success in war, viz.
the organized and unflinching use of superior physical force, are in
principle irrelevant to the rights or wrongs of the cause which may be
at stake. The victories of might and right do not invariably coincide.

It is not surprising, therefore, that a certain proportion of
Christians--the Quakers, for example, and many individuals who have
either been influenced by the teaching of Tolstoy, or else, thinking
the matter out for themselves, have arrived at similar conclusions to
those of Tolstoy and the Quakers--should hold that in the event of war
a man's loyalty to his earthly city must give way to his loyalty to
his heavenly King in this matter. Experience shows that there are men
who are prepared to suffer persecution, imprisonment, or death itself
rather than violate their principles by service in the armed forces of
the Crown.

There are obviously circumstances conceivable in which it would be the
duty of all Christians to become "Conscientious Objectors." Such
circumstances would arise in any case in which the state endeavoured
to compel men's services in a war which their conscience disapproved.
In the present European War it so happens that there are probably no
Englishmen who regard the German cause as righteous and the Allies'
cause as wrong. The problem of Conscientious Objection has, therefore,
only arisen in the case of those Christians who hold the abstract
doctrine of the absolute wrongness, in whatever circumstances, of all
war as such.

There are those who, though personally rejecting this doctrine,
consider that those who hold it are wrong only in that they are
spiritually in advance of their time. The majority, however, of
Christians have felt that the Pacifist or Quaker doctrine is not
merely impracticable under present conditions, but that it rests upon
a fallacious principle. For it appears to deny that physical force can
ever be rightfully employed as the instrument of a moral purpose. In
the last resort it is akin to the anti-sacramental doctrine which
regards what is material as essentially opposed to what is spiritual.

The questions at issue are not really to be solved by the quotation of
isolated texts or sayings of our Lord from the Gospels. What is really
in dispute is the question of the form which, in the context of a
given set of national and political circumstances, may rightfully be
given to the application of the Christian principle of universal,
righteous, and self-sacrificing Love. No one can dispute the fact that
in certain circumstances Christianity may demand the readiness to die
for others. Are there any circumstances in which Christianity may
demand the readiness to _slay_ for others, either personally, or
mediately through service in a military machine which as a whole is
the instrument of a national purpose only to be achieved through the
slaughter of those in the ranks of the opposing armies?

The majority of Christians have answered this question in the
affirmative. They have held that there are circumstances in which the
claims of Love are more genuinely and adequately acknowledged by
taking part in warfare than by abstaining from it. They have insisted
that there are circumstances in which it is no true act of love, even
towards the aggressor, or perhaps towards the aggressor least of all,
to permit him to achieve an evil purpose unchecked: that resistance,
even by force of arms, may be in the truest interests of the enemy
himself. They have maintained that it is possible to fight in a
Christian temper and spirit, without either personal malice or hatred
of the foe: that not all killing is murder, and that to rob a man of
physical life, as an incident in the assertion of the claims of
righteousness, is not, from the point of view of those who believe in
human immortality, to do him that ultimate and essential injury which
it might otherwise be held to be.

No one, however, who has had anything to do with modern war can doubt
that it is intrinsically beastly and devilish, or that it is apt to
arouse passions, in all but the saintliest of men, which are of an
extremely ugly kind. To affirm that it is possible, as a matter of
theory, to fight in a wholly Christian spirit and temper, is not to
assert that in actual practice more than a small minority of soldiers
succeed in doing so. It is possible to be devoutly thankful that when
the issue was posed by the conduct of the Germanic powers in the
August of 1914 the British Empire replied by entering upon war, to
hold that it was emphatically the right thing to do, and that it
represented a course of conduct more intrinsically Christian than
neutrality would have been. But it is not possible to maintain with
truth that the British nation as a whole has been fighting either in a
Christian temper or from Christian motives. It is undeniable that
uglier motives and passions have crept in. Sermons in Christian
pulpits upon such themes as the duty of forgiveness or the Christian
ideal of love towards the enemy have been neither frequent nor
popular. Undoubtedly the German Government in its general policy, and
particular units of the German Army and Navy upon many occasions, have
acted in such a way as to give provocation of the very strongest kind
to the unregenerate human impulses of hatred and of revenge. It is not
surprising, though it is regrettable, that under the influence of this
provocation many persons, otherwise Christian, have either frankly
abandoned the Christian doctrine of human brotherhood, or else have
denied that the Germans are to be regarded as human beings. On the
whole, and speaking very broadly, it may be said that the troops have
shown themselves more Christian in these respects than have the civil
population, though there are many exceptions upon both sides. It is to
be feared that the Church, in so far as she has been represented by
her clergy (though here, again, there are many exceptions), has been
too anxious to be identified with a merely Jingo patriotism to
exercise any very appreciable influence in restraint of unchristian
passions. It is to be hoped and anticipated that there will be a
strong reaction after the war both against militarism and the less
desirable aspects of the military mind, and also against the
belligerent temper and spirit--especially, perhaps, on the part of the
men who have themselves served and suffered in the field.




CHAPTER X

LOVE, COURTSHIP, AND MARRIAGE


No element in Christian practice has been more widely challenged in
modern times than the Christian ideal of marriage. Our Lord's standard
in these matters was simple and austere. "Whoso looketh on a woman to
lust after her hath committed adultery already in his heart."
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication" (the exceptive clause is of disputed authenticity)
"causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is
divorced committeth adultery."

The _State_ in certain cases gives legal sanction to "adultery" in
this latter sense, and there is a vocal and probably increasing demand
that legal facilities for divorce upon various pretexts, with liberty
of remarriage, shall be further extended. The Divorce Law Reform Union
has announced its intention to promote in Parliament a Bill which, if
carried, would have the effect of reducing legal marriage to a
contract terminable after three years' voluntary separation by the
will of either party. Doubtless a robust opposition will be offered by
Christian people to the adoption of so lax a conception of marriage
even by the State. Experience in other countries seems to show that
unlimited facilities for divorce do not tend to the promotion either
of happiness or of morals. But it needs to be recognized that the
State, as such, is concerned only with the legal aspect of marriage as
a civil contract, and that it has to legislate for citizens not all of
whom profess Christian standards even in theory. The law of the State
may well diverge from that of the Church with regard to this matter,
though it does not follow that so lax a standard as that which is now
proposed would be in the best interests even of the State.

The Church regards Christian marriage as indissoluble. In cases of
adultery she counsels reconciliation, wherever possible, upon the
basis of repentance on the part of the guilty and forgiveness on the
part of the injured partner. If this is not possible the Church
sanctions, if need so require, separation, but not remarriage. There
are also unfortunately other cases in which the married relationship
proves so intolerable as to render a temporary or permanent separation
admissible as a last resort. The remarriage of either party during the
lifetime of the other is nevertheless held to be unchristian. With the
practical difficulties which beset the Church in the attempt to
maintain within the circle of her own membership a stricter standard
than that which is recognized by the Civil Law and by society at large
we are not here concerned. Our concern is with the Christian standard
as a positive ideal, on the effective maintenance of which, as
Christians believe, depends the stability of the home and the
Christian family, and the redemption of sex-relations from mere
animalism and grossness.

A Christian husband takes his wife in matrimony "for better for worse,
for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to
cherish, till death them do part, according to GOD'S holy ordinance."
The step is irrevocable. The union is intended to be life-long. It
has, moreover, in view not only "the mutual society, help, and comfort
that the one ought to have of the other," but also "the procreation of
children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to
the praise of His holy Name." A few words may usefully be said under
these heads.

(i) Marriage ought to be based upon love; and love, though naturally
and normally involving the element of sexual attraction, ought to
include also other and deeper elements. A Christian man who has lived
a clean and disciplined life ought to be sufficiently master of his
passions to avoid mistaking a merely temporary infatuation for such a
genuine spiritual affinity as will survive the satisfaction of
immediate desires and prove the stable basis of a life-companionship.
Hasty marriages are a common and avoidable cause of subsequent
unhappiness. It is obviously undesirable that couples should enter
upon matrimony until there has been a sufficiently prolonged and
intimate acquaintance to enable them to become reasonably sure both of
themselves and of one another. In many cases there is much to be said
for regarding betrothals in the first instance as provisional. It is
better to break them off at the last moment than to marry the wrong
person.

The Victorian conventions with regard to all these matters were
thoroughly bad. Girls were brought up in carefully-guarded ignorance
of the implications of matrimony and shielded by perpetual chaperonage
from anything approaching comradeship with the opposite sex.
Eventually they were in many cases stampeded into a marriage which had
its origin either in a clandestine flirtation or in the designing
operations of some match-making relative, who made it her business
first to "throw the young people together" and then to suggest that
they were virtually committed to one another by the mere fact of
having met.

The reaction which has taken place against all this is upon the whole
salutary. The new social tradition which is growing up makes it
possible for the unmarried of both sexes to meet one another with
comparative freedom, and to establish relations of friendship, which
may subsequently ripen into love, unhampered by any such morbidly
exciting atmosphere of intrigue and suggestion on the part of
relatives and friends. But the new freedom of social intercourse, if
it is not in its turn to prove disastrous, demands on the part of the
young of both sexes a higher standard both of responsibility and self-
control, and of knowledge of what is implied in the fact of sex. The
experience of married life is, moreover, not likely to prove a
success, save in rare instances, unless there is between the parties a
real community of interests and tastes, unanimity, so far as may be,
of ideals and of religious convictions, and at least no very great
disparity of educational and intellectual equipment.

(ii) A Christian marriage includes among its purposes the procreation
of children. It is here most of all that unanimity of ideal and of
conviction between husband and wife is essential. A man and a woman
ought not to take one another in marriage without first being assured
of each other's mind upon this subject. "If marriage is to be a
success each must learn respect for the other's personality, real give
and take, and the horror of treating the other just as a means to his
own pleasure, whether spiritual, intellectual, or physical: and both
must think seriously of the responsibilities of parenthood. Husband
and wife must work out their ideals together, in perfect frankness and
sincerity, and it is impossible to have true and sacred ideals of
their joint physical life unless there is the same openness and
understanding and sympathy on this point as on all others." [Footnote:
_Ideals of Home_, by Gemma Bailey (National Mission Paper, No. 43).]
There must be mutual consideration and self-control: the need for
self-restraint and continence does not disappear with the entry upon
marital relations: it is if anything intensified.

There is a real problem here which needs to be thought out. To the
practice of "race-suicide," by which is meant the artificial
restriction of parentage by the use of mechanical or other
"preventives," Christian morality is violently opposed. On the other
hand, it may reasonably be held that people ought not to bring
children into the world in numbers which are wholly out of relation to
their capacity to feed, clothe, educate, and train them. "The enormous
families of which we hear in early Victorian times were not quite
ideal for the mother or the children, nor for the father if he were
not well off." [Footnote: _Ibid_] It may be found necessary in
practice to limit the size of the family either upon economic grounds
or (in particular instances) in the interest of the mother's health.

It is to be feared, however, that the modern tendency in both respects
is to shirk the responsibilities of parenthood on grounds which are
thoroughly selfish. The Victorian doctrine that "when GOD sends mouths
He sends food to fill them" may have been unduly happy-go-lucky. The
recent remark of an officer in a certain British regiment, that since
he and his wife had only L8000 a year between them, he felt that he
could not afford to have more than one child, was entirely shameless.
It would seem, moreover, that the comparative childlessness of modern
marriages is sometimes due not to the husband's reluctance, upon
economic grounds, to beget children, but to the wife's reluctance to
bear them, a reluctance which in some cases arises either from such
shrinking from the physical pain and sacrifice of motherhood as goes
beyond what is really justified, or from mere self-indulgent
absorption in social pursuits and pleasures. There ought to be in a
Christian marriage more of the true spirit of adventure and romance, a
greater readiness for sacrifice, a more willing acceptance of parental
responsibilities, and of the obligation of self-denial for the
children's sake. There can be no question but that modern families--
with the paradoxical exception of the families of the very poor--have
been tending to be smaller than they either need be or ought to be.

At the same time it is generally conceded that _some_ measure of
limitation is in most cases reasonable and necessary. The vitally
important thing is that such necessary and reasonable limitation
should be secured not by artificial evasion of the consequences of
intercourse, but by self-control and deliberate temporary abstinence
at certain periods from the intercourse of sex. [Footnote: It may be
suggested that in cases of genuine perplexity it is advisable to
consult, as occasion may require, either a medical man who is also a
Christian, or a wise--and preferably a married--spiritual guide.]

For the union of the sexes in marriage is according to the mind of the
Christian Church an essentially pure and holy thing. It is a sacrament
of the fusion of two personalities, whereby they are at once
individually and mutually enriched, and at the same time mystically
and spiritually knit together in such a way as to become in the sight
of GOD indissolubly one: the unity of husband and wife being
comparable, according to a famous saying of S. Paul, to the unity
which exists between Christ and His Church. Now, although, from this
point of view, the significance of married life is to a great extent
impoverished and frustrated, if intercourse is so regulated as to
render the marriage childless not in fact merely, but in intention,
yet it does not follow that procreation must be directly in view on
every individual occasion, since the mystical value of intercourse as
a spiritual sacrament of love may still exist in independence of such
intention. It is nevertheless, surely, clear that a Christian man and
his wife are morally precluded from coming together except with a deep
sense of the sacredness of what they do and of its intimate connexion
with the mysteries of life and birth, and a corresponding readiness,
in the event of conception taking place, to accept the ensuing
responsibility for the child as a sacred trust from GOD, "the Father
from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named." With the
use of "preventives" and other devices, which degrade into a mere
means of carnal satisfaction an act which is meant to bear a deeply
spiritual and religious meaning, the Christian interpretation of
marriage seems plainly and obviously incompatible.

A few words may be added with regard to the upbringing and education
of children. Here, again, there has been a reaction--which upon the
whole is good--from the unduly rigorous disciplinary methods of the
past. It may be doubted, however, whether the reaction has not in some
cases been carried too far. Children ought to be controlled and
disciplined by their parents, and no expenditure of care and thought
and tact is too great to devote to the rightful training of their
characters. But experience seems to show that parents sometimes fail
to recognize that their children grow up. It is important that in
proportion as they grow towards maturity of character and independence
of personality the strictness of parental discipline should be
gradually relaxed. At a certain stage the real influence of parents
upon their children will depend upon their refusal to assert direct
authority. Not a few of the minor tragedies of home life arise from
the ill-judged action of parents who treat as children sons and
daughters who are virtually grown up.

The problem of the religious education of children cannot here be
discussed in detail, but three or four leading principles may be
suggested.

(1) It ought not to be necessary to say that children should not be
taught to regard as true statements or doctrines which their parents
believe to be in fact false. This applies in particular to certain
views of the Bible. The ideal should be so to teach the child that in
later life he may have nothing to unlearn.

(2) When children are old enough to read they should be encouraged to
read the Gospels. They ought not, however, to read the Old Testament,
with the exception of certain Psalms and other specially selected
passages, until they are of an age to distinguish what is Christian
from what is Jewish, and to recognize the principle of religious
development.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.