In Physics a body acted on by two divergent forces takes a course which
is the resultant of (a compromise between) the two different forces. So,
if Christianity is to survive as an efficient force in man's evolution,
compromises must be made between the ideals of Jesus and the natural
forces expressed in the terms of the struggle for existence and the
survival of the fittest. It is possible that the day may come, when all
nations of our planet may be converted, to put into practical operation
in international affairs the ideals of Jesus. But the experience of the
world during 1914 shows that little, if any, progress has been made in
that direction since the Crucifixion. Suppose the Christian nations of
Europe and America should announce today the doctrine of non-resistance,
dismantle their fleets and dismiss their armies, how long would it be
before the Moslems, or the "yellow hordes" of Asia, would enslave them
and exterminate all Christian religion and civilization? Fortunately,
such a result is unthinkable, and the Christian nations will, until some
unknown time in the future, continue their compromise with Jesus'
ideals. The unspeakable Turk will continue to understand that, if he
massacres some Christian villages, the other cheek will not be turned to
him, but, on the contrary, a righteous retribution of bayonet and shell
will be meted out to him.
A superficial glance at history illustrates the necessity of national
compromise.
If Moses had preached, and the Jews had put in practice, the doctrine of
non-resistance, they would soon have been exterminated by their
Philistine neighbors, and the Jesus that was would never have been.
If the tribes of the northern barbarians in the first thousand years of
our era had put into practical effect the Sermon on the Mount, as soon
as they accepted Christianity, there would have been no Anglo-Saxon
England and United States, as they are today.
If Ferdinand and Isabella had not relied on their earthly weapons, Spain
would probably have been Moslem to this day.
If the Christian powers had not warred against the Turks in the
sixteenth century, the greater part of Europe would have bowed the knee
to Mahomet, and the Mosque would have superseded the Church as the
authorized place of worship.
If our colonial ancestors had obeyed the injunction, "Render to Cæsar
the things that are Cæsar's," there would have been no American
Revolution.
If the "conscientious objectors" had swayed the councils of the North in
1861, we would now have a divided country, with slavery firmly
established in one-half of it.
As with the nation, so with the individual, a compromise between Jesus'
ideals and the forces of nature is a necessity, at least until evolution
has produced some fundamental change in human nature.
It is related that when the mother and brethren of Jesus sought to speak
with Him, He repudiated their special claims of relationship on Him, and
said: "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven,
the same is my brother, and sister and mother" (Matt. XII:50; Mark
III:31; Luke VIII:19).
In another place He says: "He that loveth father or mother more than me
is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is
not worthy of me" (Matt. X:37).
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife,
and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple" (Luke XIV:26).
"And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake,
shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life" (Matt.
XIX:29).
"And He said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first
to go and bury my father.
"Jesus said unto him, let the dead bury their dead; but go thou and
preach the kingdom of God" (Luke IX:59, 60).
Now, no sane man would advocate that doctrines such as these should be
put into general, practical operation under the present constitution of
human nature. Their practice would make of man a selfish ascetic, would
disintegrate the family into its individual units, like animals when the
breeding season is past, would discourage human progress and
development, and would eventually lead to the degradation or extinction
of any society which attempted to consistently enforce them. Of course
the individual man or woman may abjure family ties altogether, without
serious loss to the community and even perhaps with some gain, just as
the drones have a function to perform in a community of bees. But the
universal adoption of this practice by a human community would mean its
speedy death. With those who would regard this as a desirable outcome of
Jesus' teachings, we have no argument.
There is, however, no danger of such a condition of affairs coming to
pass. For untold ages before these utterances of Jesus, nature had been
developing the family affections in man. It had made the family the
fundamental unit of the tribe, the clan, the race, the nation. These
family affections, so planted by nature in man, must, in society as a
whole, override the ethical idea of a general philanthropy, as embodied
in these utterances of Jesus. The normal man has always, and does now,
rank the duties to his family as paramount over those of general
philanthropy.
Man will continue to marry and have children in the future, as he has in
the past. He will continue to regard his obligations to his family as
superior and prior to those he owes to mankind in general. He will feel
within himself the urge, not merely to satisfy the need of the day, but
also to provide for the future. He will look forward to the education
and outfitting of his children. He will guard against the contingencies
of sickness and the probabilities of old age coming upon himself and
those dependent on him. He will engage with all his energy in the
struggle with his fellow men for the acquisition of property. He will
practice industry, thrift and economy, and take every fair means to push
his own business at the expense of his competitors.
But in all this, even allowing that he has reasonably practiced the
virtues of generosity, charity and philanthropy, there is no disguising
the plain, naked truth that is all the time making compromises with the
ideals of Jesus. His actions simply do not square with the maxims: Give
all thy goods to the poor; take no thought for the morrow; every one who
does the will of God is the same to you as your brother and sister and
mother; resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also; whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain; give to every man that asketh of thee, and of
him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again; love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you; lay not up for
yourselves treasures upon earth; take no thought, saying, What shall we
eat? Or, What shall we drink? Or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? He
that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.
It is difficult to conceive how, at the present stage of man's
evolution, any community of considerable size, even if we assume all
external hostile interference eliminated, could put these ideals into
practical effect without disaster. As we know man, he has become what he
is only through strife and contest, through the survival of the strong,
the industrious, the provident over the weak, the lazy, the improvident.
If the struggle for existence is eliminated, is there not every reason
to expect that progress will be arrested, and the nation's civilization
will decay and finally disappear, as has been the case so many times in
the past history of the world? The desire for the acquisition of private
property and the lust for power have been the two dominant motives
impelling men to raise themselves from a stage of barbarism to a stage
of civilization. What motives can be substituted for those that will
have the same compelling, driving force? It is only by long centuries of
hard fighting with material weapons that the powers of good have so far
subdued the powers of evil as to establish our present standard of
humanitarianism. But if the good are to be confined to the weapon of
moral suasion, how long will it be until the powers of evil are in full
control?
But, further, even if we assume that all evil-doers are converted from
the error of their ways, the economic problem for a community working
under these ideals seems insoluble. Even under the grinding necessities
of the struggle for existence, the tendency of human populations to
increase beyond their means of subsistence is an indisputable fact, as
soon as they develop a civilization where peace and security of private
property are measurably assured, and especially where manufacturing
centers with large industrial populations are established. The many
ancient civilizations that have arisen, flourished and decayed attest
the truth of this fact. In the seventeenth century England was
confronted with the problem of inadequate means of subsistence, and met
it by spreading over the whole globe. What the history of the English
people would have been if they had been confined to their native island,
would afford an interesting subject for abstract philosophical
speculation. Thus far, the vast undeveloped territories of the United
States have furnished an outlet for its surplus population. But the time
may not be far distant when the problem of subsistence may be a serious
one with us. In modern times, nearly all the great nations have been
struggling for the acquisition of new territories as an outlet for their
expanding populations. Germany's economic needs were undoubtedly one of
the strongest motives urging her onward in her fateful dream of world
empire. France attempts to meet the difficulty by voluntary, individual
action in limiting the birth rate. This remedy will always be resorted
to in highly civilized nations, as the pressure of population on
subsistence becomes more severe. But the decrease of population means
the arrest of growth and progress in the national organism, and eventual
decadence.
Thus dark and uncertain is the economic outlook for nations where the
competitive struggle for existence is in full sway, where the
acquisition and accumulation of private property are fostered and
encouraged, where thrift, industry and saving are ranked as cardinal
virtues, and where proper provision for oneself and one's family is even
enforced by law against the indolent and shiftless. What must be the
economic future of a community from which these incentives and
restraints are banished, and where sympathy for the unfortunate and the
criminal, regardless of merit or desert, is to be the governing
principle?
It follows, then, first, that the nation, in its international
relations, must compromise with the ideals of Jesus in order to preserve
its national existence, and to safeguard Christianity against the
attacks of its external foes; and second, that the individual, in his
daily life, must compromise with these ideals to preserve the well-being
and continuity of the family and to ensure the progress of mankind in
happiness, morality and material prosperity.