The Crucifixion was but a few years old when those two old enemies whom
Jesus had fought so persistently--creeds and ceremonies--began to be
active among the early Christians. _Right theological thinking_ began to
assert its supremacy over the _right practical living_, taught by Jesus
as the first essential of His professed followers. The outside of the
cup was being carefully polished up, although the inside might be
unclean. Paul, who had never had any personal intercourse with Jesus,
was the protagonist of this retrograde movement. Zealous, energetic, a
ready writer and a subtile dialectician, his numerous epistles furnished
an arsenal of weapons for all future controversial theologians. His
arrogance in defining the tenets of the rapidly growing Gentile Church
was not one whit abated by the fact that he had never been in personal
contact with Jesus, and that in his views he was opposed to those who
had been the most intimate associates of Jesus during his entire
prophetic career. Quite early in his ministration, Paul has a bitter
quarrel with Peter, James, Cephas, John (the pillars) and other
disciples of Jesus over some question of circumcision, and has no
hesitation in telling Peter (the "rock" of the new Church) to his face
that "he was to be blamed" for his views (Galatians II:11 et seq.).
It is not too much to say that he took the fair, smiling child of
religion, as left by Jesus, and transformed it into a misshapen dwarf,
with twisted and contorted limbs, and upon its face a frown of almost
malevolent austerity.
When right theological thinking became established as the primary
essential of a Christian, and especially when Christianity acquired
temporal power, it was inevitable that there should be extracted from
Paul's militant writings that most abominable doctrine of "No compromise
with evil." In company with dogmatic distinctions of orthodoxy and
heterodoxy, it has inflicted its full quota of misery and suffering upon
the human race. It formed the justification of the cruelties of the
Inquisition, the religious persecutions and wars of the Middle Ages, the
conversion of savages by fire and sword, the extermination of so-called
witches, and the burning at the stake of countless advanced thinkers in
science and religion, and other so-called heretics.
Probably the unrecorded suffering which the advocates of this doctrine
have inflicted in the domestic and social sphere would equal that which
is written in political history. The possession of, and disposition to
put into practical operation, this dogma presupposes sublime egoism,
coupled with a narrowness of mind easily running into extreme bigotry.
For the slightest study of history will show that the error and evil of
one age becomes the truth and good of a succeeding age. But the
non-compromiser ignores any consideration of that sort. If he has
decided that this and that are evil, they must necessarily be evil
without argument or appeal. He is the legitimate descendant of the old
inquisitors, and, if he had the temporal power, would today enforce his
ideas as ruthlessly throughout the nation as they did in the Middle
Ages. Confined to the narrower limits of the domestic and social circle,
he plays the autocrat so far as he can. Without sympathy or toleration
for differing opinions and tastes, as husband, father, priest, officer,
or citizen, the non-compromiser seeks to fit every one to his own
_narrow_ Procrustean bed.
Closely allied to the non-compromisers are the sacro-sancts, or those
who would be holier than Jesus.
This class is well illustrated in an incident taken from a recent novel.
The heroine consults her married sister about the heroine's contemplated
marriage with a man who has divorced his wife on the ground of her
adultery. The sister declares that such a marriage would be no better
than prostitution. "But he is legally divorced" says the heroine. "Yes,
according to man's law, but not according to God's law," says the
sister. Now, considering that divorce was permitted under God's law, as
recorded in the Old Testament, that Matthew twice clearly and explicitly
states that Jesus sanctioned divorce on the ground of adultery, and that
John mentions no condemnation of divorce by Jesus, it would seem that
there was at least a fair doubt as to whether the heroine's proposed
marriage was contrary to God's law. But the sister, like other
sacro-sancts and non-compromisers, arrogates to herself infallibility in
interpreting the divine will, and will not admit argument as to her
possible inaccuracy.
Other examples are those who would fear to contaminate their holiness by
following their Master's example in eating and associating with
publicans and sinners (Matt. IX:10); who would shudder at being anointed
by a prostitute (Luke VII:37); who would think the Sabbath desecrated by
pleasant walks in the fields, or by feasting and joyous meetings with
one's friends (Matt. XII:1; Luke XIV:1), and who in general insist on
the observance of religious rites and symbols, similar to those which
Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.
One of the XXXIX Articles of the Protestant Episcopal Church takes
a slap at these sacro-sancts (Book of Common Prayers, Article
XIV). It condemns, as marks of "arrogancy and impiety," works of
supererogation--that is, works over and above God's commandments.
Undoubtedly the meaning here is, not to condemn excess in acts of mercy
and charity, but excess in the same acts of ceremonial worship which
Jesus condemned in the Pharisees: Long prayers, "standing in the
synagogues" (churches), instead of in their "closet"; public fasting
with "a sad countenance," so that they "disfigure their faces," instead
of anointing their heads and washing their faces "that they appear not
unto men to fast," making "broad their phylacteries" and giving
ostentatiously their "tithe of mint and anise and cummin" (Matt. VI:1-7,
16, 17, 18; XXIII:4-7, 23).
The dogma of non-compromise finds no support in the teaching and
practice of Jesus. He pictured the highest ideals for mankind. But He
was no bigot in demanding that fallible human beings should live up to
these ideals on pain of damnation. With His wonderful tolerance and
broadminded sympathy, He recognized that the happiness and progress of
the human race, in its present state of evolution, necessitated certain
compromises with evil. "As between two evils, choose the less," would be
much nearer His position than "no compromise with evil." A short study
of some of the episodes of His life will place this beyond dispute.
Jesus undoubtedly considered that riches were an evil (Matt. XIX:23, 24;
XIII:22; Mark X:23, 24; Luke XVIII:24, 25). He knows the "deceitfulness"
of riches, and that the temptations attending the possession of wealth
do not ordinarily make for righteousness. He advises that one should lay
up treasure in heaven rather than on earth (Matt. VI:19, 20; Luke
XII:33).
Riches, then, being an evil, the non-compromiser should logically regard
the rich man as a persistent evil-doer. He should constantly denounce
his evil ways, as those of any other malefactor. He should refuse him
his public association and friendship, since thereby he would be gilding
his misconduct with the gold of his own sanctity. If a priest, he should
charge his congregation to abstain from those habits of thrift and
economy which will result in bringing upon them this evil of wealth.
But Jesus was too sane and broad-minded not to see that the happiness of
mankind demanded a compromise with this evil. While warning against the
temptations of riches, He preached poverty, not as a necessity to
salvation, but as an ideal, to be attained and practiced by but a few.
Thus, in the case of the young man with "great possessions," Jesus,
according to Matthew prefaces His counsel to sell his goods and give to
the poor with the significant condition, "if thou wilt be perfect"
(Matt. XIX:21). To the same effect are the accounts of Mark and Luke.
"One thing thou lackest," viz., in order to be perfect (Mark X:21; Luke
XVIII:22). Evidently Jesus took the concrete case of the young man to
impress on His hearers one of His ideals--the high standard He set for
those who aspired to be His immediate followers and the ministers of His
Word. In His instructions to the twelve and the seventy, He laid down
rules of conduct which practically eliminated the acquisition or
possession of wealth (Matt. X:2, 9, 10; Mark VI:8, 9; Luke IX: 3; X:4).
But He set no such severe standard for the rank and file of His
followers, nor did He withhold His favor and countenance from the
possessors of riches, as though they were evil doers.
Nearly all the persons named in the Gospels as intimate friends and
associates of Jesus (outside of the apostles) were, apparently, more or
less prominent, and belonged at least to the well-to-do class. Joseph of
Arimathæa, a disciple of Jesus, and one "waiting for the Kingdom of
God," and who placed His body in the sepulchre, was a rich man (Matt.
XXVII:57; Luke XXIII:50, 51). Nicodemus, who assisted Joseph in the
burial, brought a hundred pound weight of myrrh and aloes indicating
that he was not a poor man (John XIX:39). According to John he was the
man who came to Jesus by night and was a "ruler" of the Jews (John
III:1, 2; VII:50). Lazarus, whom Jesus "loved" and with whose family He
was very intimate (John XI:5; Luke X:38), could not have been a poor
man, since his sister anointed Jesus with an ointment "very precious"
and worth more than three hundred pence (Mark XIV:3, 4, 5).
On one occasion Jesus invites Himself to visit in the house of
Zacchaeus, who was "chief among the publicans," rich, and a "sinner"
(Luke XIX:1-7). Levi, the publican, gives a "great feast" for Jesus,
which He approves by His presence (Luke V:29). On another occasion He
goes to the house of one of the "chief Pharisees" to eat bread on the
Sabbath day (Luke XIV:1).
Several times He commends the qualities of thrift and economy (Matt.
XXV:21, 23; Luke XII:42-44; Matt. XXV:3, 4; XXIV:45, 46; Luke XIX:17,
19). He constantly extols charity--the generous giving to the poor--as
one of the chief virtues, but the practice of this virtue on a
considerable scale necessarily implies the prior accumulation of riches.
The evidence of the four Gospels proves that Jesus, without hesitation,
compromised with the evil of riches. He praised voluntary poverty as an
ideal for those who were supposing themselves to be already perfect,
and, perhaps, demanded it of His apostles and those who assumed to be
the ministers of His Word. But He imposed no such hard and fast rule for
the rank and file of His followers. He did not go about fanatically
denouncing the rich men as evil-doers and malefactors. On the contrary,
He made them His friends, singled them out for special marks of His
favor and regard, though constantly urging on them the deceitfulness of
riches and the necessity of generous giving to the poor. His friendship
for Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so great that in her case He even
condoned the use of the precious ointment for a purpose which He must
have regarded as superfluous, instead of its being given to the poor
(Matt. XXVI:6; Mark XIV:3; John XII:3).
Other instances illustrate the readiness of Jesus to compromise with
evil--to choose the less of two evils--when the conditions of practical
human life demanded it. A notable instance of this was in the matter of
paying tribute to the Romans. Undoubtedly Jesus, like all the other
Jews, regarded the imposition on them of Roman sovereignty as an
injustice--as a very great evil. But, under existing conditions,
resistance to the Roman power was hopeless. A refusal to pay tribute by
the Jews would have brought on them imprisonment, death and countless
sufferings, and, if persisted in, would have resulted in the enslavement
or extermination of the race. In putting to Jesus the question: "Is it
lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not?" the Pharisees thought they
had framed a dilemma from which He could not escape. If He had been a
fanatical non-compromiser, He could only have answered the question in
the negative. The Pharisees would then have denounced Him to the Romans,
and thereby compassed His immediate death before His mission was
completed.
His answer, "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's,
and unto God the things that are God's"--is pregnant with meaning to all
religious bigots and fanatics if they could only open their minds to its
significance. This earth is not a heaven, and cannot be made one so long
as human beings are fallible and imperfect. Concessions and compromises
must be constantly made between the material necessities of the body and
the ethical ideals of the spirit. The economic ideal of the "greatest
good to the greatest number" can no more be ignored by the theologian of
today in formulating rules of conduct for humanity, than it was by Jesus
in His time. However wrong and unjust in theory it was for the Jews to
be subject to an alien race, still in practice the Roman rule was
reasonably mild and humane. As between resistance and obedience to this
rule, the latter was much the less evil. Consequently, Jesus wisely and
sanely compromised with this evil and both paid tribute Himself (Matt.
XVII:24-27), and advised His disciples to do likewise (Matt. XXII:21;
Mark XII:17; Luke XX:25).
Again, carrying out the same idea of compromising with the existing
evils of government, Jesus commands His disciples to "observe and do"
whatsoever is bidden by the scribes and Pharisees, who "sit in Moses'
seat," at the same time warning them not to imitate or follow the
Pharisees' "works" (Matt. XXIII:2, 3).
Undoubtedly Jesus considered it an evil "to set a man at variance
against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matt. X:35). He could
foresee that this evil would result from the preaching of His Gospel.
But better this evil, even, if it sent a "sword" on earth, than the
greater evil that His Gospel should not be preached.
Unchastity in a woman is surely a most grievous evil. To the
non-compromiser, the "scarlet woman" is a symbol of the lowest depth of
vice, and no condemnation is too severe for her. But, on two occasions,
Jesus dismissed the erring woman with His forgiveness (John VIII:11;
Luke VII:47).
In fact, the two utterances of Jesus--"he that is without sin among you,
let him first cast a stone at her" (John VIII:7), and "why beholdest
thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam
that is in thine own eye" (Matt. VII:2)--cut at the very root of the
non-compromiser's position. For, in carrying on his crusade against his
pet evil-doers, it would be fatal to be obliged to stop to answer
objections that he may not be infallible in deciding what is evil, and
that he may himself have habits considered by others as evil as the one
he is denouncing. For instance, many a prominent non-compromiser among
the clergy is living in comparative ease, if not luxury. When he reads
the standard of living set by Jesus for the ministers of His Word (Matt.
X:9; Mark VI:8; Luke IX:3; X:4; XXII:35), he must admit that he is every
day compromising with the ideals of Jesus--with the evil of riches.
Compromise is the rule of human life. Each individual, as he tries to
follow the Socratic advice, "know thyself," finds that most of his
actions are a compromise between his good impulses and his evil
impulses. Few men are a Dr. Jekyll during the day and a Mr. Hyde during
the night. Most men are partly Jekyls and partly Hydes all the time. As
the individual makes his way in business and society, he learns more and
more every day, if he has common sense, the wisdom and advisability of
compromise. He that is always bent on "having his own way" will usually
find that his way does not go far, and results in unhappiness for
himself and others. Happy marriages are founded on a compromise of
individual tastes, habits and opinions. Parents win and retain the
affection of their children, not by imposing on them their own
inflexible laws of right and wrong, but by modifying these laws to meet
the different tastes, habits and opinions of the children. Success in
business, in law, in politics, is usually associated with the faculty of
making reasonable compromises. The wisest legislation is usually a
compromise between conflicting interests and opinions.
It is not too much to say that compromise is the corner stone of every
modern democratic society. It is a necessary consequence of the "rule of
the majority," since the majority of today may be the minority of
tomorrow. To find a society of his taste, the non-compromiser should
seek some negro tribe in darkest Africa, where the witch-doctors permit
no deviations from the prescribed theological cult. Or, in matters
political, he might find much to admire in the administrative system of
Louis the XIVth, with his famous aphorism, "L'Etat, C'est Moi."
In international affairs every treaty of peace, unless its terms are
dictated by a strong power to a weak one, is a compromise between the
opposing views of right and wrong held by the parties. Logically, the
non-compromiser should be generally opposed to treaties, as involving
necessarily some sacrifice of his principles of right to the demands of
the other party. In the period from 1844 to 1846, we narrowly escaped
war with England in the dispute over the boundary between ourselves and
Canada, because a strong Jingo, non-compromising party started the
popular cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight." This class of thinkers would
undoubtedly have opposed the celebrated compromises of Henry Clay,
which, whatever might have been said against them at the time, have, in
the light of history, the incalculable merit of having postponed the
inevitable conflict between the North and the South, until the former
had so grown in population and resources that it could preserve the
unity of the nation. Considering the hard, and sometimes doubtful
struggle, which the North went through in winning victory in the
sixties, there can be little doubt that the result would have been two
divided nations if the issues between the two sections had been
submitted to the arbitrament of arms in 1820, in 1832, or even in 1850.
As the intolerance of the non-compromisers will lead some of them to
oppose treaties of peace, so the same quality in others will lead them
to make nuisances of themselves in war.
During the Great War, the nations, especially England and the United
States, had considerable trouble with the "conscientious objector," who
is really a non-compromiser under a different name. Supposing him to be
honest in his opinions (as some of them were), the logic of his position
was unanswerable from the view-point of the non-compromiser. War is
unquestionably a great evil, and most obnoxious to the doctrines of the
Sermon on the Mount. If there is to be no compromise with evil, then a
Christian magistrate has no warrant to compel the conscientious objector
to go out and slaughter, or give his help, directly or indirectly,
towards the slaughter of his fellow Christians.
The true answer to this argument is, of course, obvious, although the
magistrates, themselves infected with this pernicious, non-compromise
doctrine, did not always make it.
In this fallible, imperfect human life, it is often necessary to
compromise with evil--that is, as between two evils, to choose the less.
Jesus both preached and practiced the doctrine of choosing the less
evil, even in the extreme case of war. For He urged the spreading of His
Gospel, although He foresaw that it would divide father from son and
bring "fire" and a "sword" upon earth (Matt. X:34; Mark XIII:8; Luke
XII:49). Now, in the case of this war, the vast majority of the nation
has decided that it is a less evil to go to war than to be enslaved by
Germany. So, war it is to be. But it is unjust--an evil of the greatest
magnitude--that a few individuals should reap all the benefits of
preserving the nation from German slavery, without bearing the
corresponding burdens. Consequently, the conscientious objectors must
either submit to the decision of the majority or seek some other
country, following the example of the Puritans, Huguenots and other
"conscientious objectors" of past times.
It is apparent that if the door is once opened to allow people to shirk
the civil duties imposed upon them by the society in which they live,
the exemption cannot be limited to the case of war alone on the ground
of their conscientious convictions. In the Supreme Court records
of one of our States (possibly in several), there will be found
a case where a man and woman (apparently respectable and generally
law-abiding citizens) suffered a criminal conviction, because they had
"conscientious objections" to legalizing their union by a conventional
marriage ceremony. It is easy to imagine a man having conscientious
objections to jury duty--the condemning men to death or imprisonment, or
the transferring of property from one to another on account of the
"technicalities" of the law. Or, why should a man not have conscientious
objections to paying his taxes if they are to be used, in part at least,
for a purpose which he considers evil? Evidently the field for evasion
is a large one, and the only protection for society is to rigidly insist
that the "conscientious objector," whether the case in hand be war or
something else, either submit himself to the will of the majority or
seek some other country more congenial to his peculiar ideas.
At the risk of repetition, we will collect again some of the utterances
of Jesus which seem irreconcilable with the narrow, intolerant ideas of
the non-compromisers and the sacro-sancts: Judge not, that ye be not
judged; he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her; how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull the mote out of thine
eye, and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye; blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy; blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall
be called the children of God; whosoever, therefore, shall humble
himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of
heaven; joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than
over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance; on these
two commandments hang all the law and the prophets, viz., Love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as
thyself.