The Great War has brought about a wondrous upheaval in the society of
the world. Nearly every phase of mental and physical activity in man is
in a process of transformation. Government, religion, labor, pleasure,
business, finance, international relations--all are on a shifting basis,
seeking readjustment to new ideas and new conditions. To cling to
worn-out conceptions of life--to worn-out ideas and phrases is mere
folly. These new problems can only be met and settled with a "_tabula
rasa_." We must wipe out the old prejudices, the old accepted canons,
and above all the old hypocrisies and cant.
If Christianity is to be a living, efficient force in the coming
readjustment, it must cleanse itself of some of these old barnacles of
hypocrisy now clinging to it. Not that hypocrisy will be less prevalent
under the new regime than under the old. Human nature will remain
essentially the same, but it will demand new forms of hypocrisy. The
specious, shallow reasoning of the charlatan, the fulsome adulation and
extravagant promises of the demagogue, and other forms of humbuggery
will still attract their thousands. Patient merit will still suffer its
many spurns from the unworthy. But the followers of Jesus, if they will
throw overboard their useless ecclesiastical and theological lumber, and
return to the simple teachings and example of the Great Teacher, are
sure to win.
The first and most important matter is to get rid of the hypocrisy of
war. War is the most direful menace to the happiness and prosperity of
mankind and, notwithstanding the bitter lessons of the Great War, little
progress has been made towards averting it in the future.
And no permanent progress in that direction will be made until the
Christian peoples of the world reject, root and branch, such views of
national wars as are expressed by the late President Roosevelt in the
quotations from his works already given (see (a) War, _supra_). The
underlying principle of this war philosophy is the same as that of the
modern Germans, Treitschke, Nietzsche and Bernhardi, except that they
express themselves with more brutal frankness. It was preached long ago
by Machiavelli, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Eichte, Hegel and others. It is
in substance that the State, although all its component units are
sincere followers of Jesus, should not be governed by any moral laws in
its dealings with other States. The State can do no wrong. It should
pursue its ends with utter, callous selfishness, and its only law is
that might makes right.
President Roosevelt has been quoted, because, in his views, he
unquestionably voiced the sentiments of the great majority of past and
present Americans. If this be true, should we not look for the beam in
our own eye, before we criticize Germany for starting the Great War? She
was simply applying the law that might makes right, except that she
underestimated the might of the enemies she was arraying against
herself. If she had been successful (as she probably would have been
except for the unexpected valor and self-sacrifice of the Belgians),
would she have been any worse sinner (barring some barbarous details of
her warfare) than the United States with its condonation and approval of
the Mexican and Spanish wars? Both of these were wars of aggression
against weaker nations, and the Mexican war, at least, is admitted on
all hands to have been morally unjustifiable, even by such stalwart
Americans as President Roosevelt. More than a hundred years ago, a
distinguished admiral of the United States Navy is reported to have
said: "Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong." Now, this is a
high-sounding phrase and is a great refuge for Jingo politicians when
they have precipitated the country into an unrighteous war. But before
the bar of Jesus it is the veriest clap-trap. The sincere follower of
Jesus should insist that we be sure we are right in the first instance,
and, if it is discovered that we have been misled into a by-way of wrong
and injustice, that we get back at once to the straight and narrow way
of right and justice.
Our churches must denounce these Rooseveltian doctrines early and late,
as a perversion of Jesus' laws. They must insist that opposition to wars
becomes a service of the heart and not of the lip. They must mould us
into a nation of sincere "conscientious objectors," condemning all wars
as un-Christian, judging every aggressive war as _prima facie_
unjustifiable, and insisting that the advocates of any war prove the
justness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Let our politicians
and leaders understand that if they plunge us into an unjust war, they
are to be punished, and not rewarded by the Presidency, as was Roosevelt
after the Spanish war, and Taylor after the Mexican war. How many of our
wars would have lacked advocates, if they had been obliged to plead
their cause under the principles of the Sermon on the Mount?
As long as the people of the United States are animated by, and their
conduct based on, the war philosophy of Roosevelt, it is hard to see how
any League of Nations could be anything but a farce--a mere "scrap of
paper." On the other hand, if all the Christian nations were sincere,
ardent "conscientious objectors," wars would be avoided without the need
of any League of Nations. If the Christian people of Germany had been
"conscientious objectors" in this sense, there would not have been a
Great War. But unfortunately they were of a different faith, and
according to German writers still cling to that faith, after all their
bitter experiences. (Germany since the Revolution. Yale Review, Jan.,
1921). Nor may we flatter ourselves that we are free from the same
views. For instance, there is apparently, at the present time (as there
was before the Spanish war) a Jingo junto of politicians and newspapers
who seize every opportunity to stir up prejudice and hostility against
Japan, although it has always acted towards us as a peace-loving,
neighborly nation. If it were as vulnerable to our attack as Mexico or
Spain, these Hotspurs might quite likely drag us into a war, but the
uncertainty of the contest in this case must give them pause.
Another field for church action is in working towards making Sunday like
the Sabbath of Jesus' time--a day of joyous relaxation and recreation,
but always remembering that deeds of mercy and the promotion of the
happiness of others, are to feature the day, as the offering acceptable
to God. One of the marked features of the time is the growing spirit of
unrest and discontent among the mass of the people. This spirit of
unrest manifests itself, in part, by an increasing appetite for
amusement. While this outlet for people's uneasiness may perhaps not be
of the highest, it is much preferable to others, to which their
discontent might turn. The churches should recognize this present need
of man, realize the truth of Jesus saying that the Sabbath was made for
man, oppose all new Sunday Blue Laws, and seek the repeal of those now
existing. Instead of putting the ban of the church on all Sunday
amusements, it should encourage such harmless recreations as it can well
sanction under the example of Jesus. There should be meetings in the
churches, as in the synagogue in Jesus' time, but as an incident, and
not the chief end, of the day.
In the matter of temperance vs. prohibition, a great Christian nation
has, for the first time in history, recently inaugurated the experiment
of a general prohibition law. What the results of this policy may be,
remains an uncertain question for the future to decide. Certain it is
that the Anglo-Saxon race has reached its present stage of progress and
civilization under a regime of practically unrestricted use of alcoholic
drinks. Of the eminent names in its history--in government, war,
literature, arts, sciences, industrial work and invention--the
percentage of those who all their lives have been consistent abstainers
from liquor must be exceedingly small. The prohibitionist will say that
all this progress has been made in spite of the evils of drink. But that
can only be proved by generations of experience under prohibition laws.
The other hypothesis is, _prima facie_, equally tenable, that this
progress has been due in part to the stimulus which the temperate use of
liquor undoubtedly does, at least temporarily, give to the physical and
mental activity of man. The thirteen centuries of experience of the
followers of Mahomet demonstrate that prohibition does not of itself
produce great men, or general virtue, progress or prosperity.
Theoretically the success of prohibition is handicapped by the fact that
it is opposed to the evolutionary processes of nature. The basic idea of
prohibition is to improve man by removing the cause of evil. For no one
can deny that excess of drinking is an evil, just as is excess of
eating, of fasting, of prayer, or any other form of human activity. Even
excess of charity may be an evil, if it results in impoverishing one's
family. But nature works on the contrary idea. It develops its highest
types by exposing them to evil, and teaching them to conquer it. Take
the matter of climate, for instance. _A priori_ one might have reasoned
that a mild, equable climate, like that of the South Sea Islands, where
the means of subsistence are easily obtained, would be the best for the
human race. It could plausibly be argued that man would have more time
and energy for his intellectual development if he were not absorbed in a
continuous, laborious struggle for his physical existence. But
experience has shown that just this contest with the extremes of heat
and cold--this continual battle for subsistence under uncongenial
conditions--has produced not only the most efficient workers in material
progress, but also the highest types of intellectual development.
Whether the prohibition theory of wrapping men in lamb's wool, instead
of putting them out to fight the battle of life, will not produce more
evil than good, is at least uncertain. It may be that, after some time
of experimenting, men may come back to the idea that Jesus was right in
thinking that temperance is better for the human race than prohibition.
Furthermore, prohibition, besides being opposed both to the laws of
Jesus and the laws of nature, has the essential weakness, as a remedy
for intemperance, that it attacks the means or rather one of the means,
of intemperance, and not the cause--the _causa efficiens_, as the
logicians would say. The Anglo-Saxons have for centuries been
meat-eaters and liquor-drinkers. What end they would have attained on a
diet of vegetables and cold water, we can only guess, but all science is
wrong if it would not have been some end quite different. Now, this
appetite for stimulants--the growth of centuries--is not to be
eradicated by prohibiting the use of alcoholic drinks, any more than the
appetite for fornication can be eradicated by the suppression of houses
of prostitution. In spite of all the prohibition laws in the world, the
appetite for stimulants will continue to exist in the Anglo-Saxon race,
and will seek its gratification in one way, if not in another. Whether
these substitutes may not be worse in the end than alcohol, remains to
be seen. Suppose, for instance, that accustomed liquor-drinkers should
now substitute, as their stimulant, large quantities of strong tea or
coffee, or, possibly, some concentrated product of one or the other of
those plants. Probably nine-tenths of our medical authorities would
agree that the change would be, generally speaking, undoubtedly for the
worse.
It is to be observed that never in the United States has there been
made any general systematic effort towards temperance, such as is now
being made towards prohibition. No greater hypocrisy has ever been
worked off on the American people than that under the name of
"Temperance." Societies have labeled themselves with that name, orators
and prominent leaders have paraded under that name, when, in
fact, it was a mere subterfuge, and the bearers of it were really
prohibitionists. Probably no one who has ever worked for real temperance
measures in any of our large cities but would testify that his work has
been seriously hampered by the entire lack of interest, if not by the
actual hostility, of these so-called temperance reformers and societies.
In fact, many of them would make no scruple in openly avowing that they
were opposed to any practical temperance measure, because it would
retard the coming prohibition. With the hearty support of the
prohibitionists, there is no reason today why scientific temperance
measures should not be put in force throughout the United States, that
would do away with at least seventy-five per cent of the evils of
drunkenness.
Our present Federal prohibition law is still on trial. It never would
have been enacted unless we had been precipitated into the Great War. It
has never been submitted to a plebiscite of the people. In one respect,
it has done much evil in increasing the unrest and discontent of a large
part of our population, who regard malt liquors as comparatively
innocuous, and as necessary to their comfort and health, and who regard
the deprivation of them as an invasion of their personal liberty. When
Rome was threatened, as we are now, by a rising tide of unrest and
discontent, the rulers of that day advised "_panem et circenses_"--food
and amusement. Many of the thinkers of today neglect this sage, old
maxim in depriving the people of their beer, in urging more stringent
Sunday Blue Laws, and, generally, in restricting or prohibiting popular
amusements, on one pretext or the other. In reading some of the proposed
restrictions on minors, one sometimes wonders how it is supposed that
stalwart, young lads from sixteen to twenty-one are to spend their
evenings. They most assuredly will not spend them at home reading the
Bible.
In the future consideration of temperance vs. prohibition, it will be
well for the followers of Jesus to weigh maturely His position on the
question. His precept and example are not lightly to be disregarded,
especially where, as here, they harmonize with the laws of nature,
instead of, as in the case of war, being opposed to them. If all
hypocrisy were eliminated, and the non-compromisers and sacro-sancts
kept out of the discussion, there is no reason why the opposing forces
of temperance and prohibition could not arrive at a compromise, which
would reduce the evil of drunkenness to a minimum, and, at the same
time, not rob life of the joy and good cheer that comes from a temperate
enjoyment of the "fruit of the vine." If it is to be a part of the
heavenly life (Matt. XXVI:29; Mark XIV:25; Luke XXII:30), let it be also
a part of the earthly life.
In the matters of prayer, fasting and ceremonial worship, the churches
must make radical changes in their practice, if they are to win back
their influence over the masses of the people--an influence which, it is
generally admitted, has been on the wane during the past few decades.
The contrast is altogether too glaring between the simple form of
worship, practiced and preached by Jesus, and that of most of our modern
religious denominations. The luxury of modern living is a favorite
subject of invective by essayists and philosophical writers. But it is
little wonder that the layman runs to this extreme, when he has before
him the example set by many of the successors of Jesus' apostles--popes,
bishops, cardinals, ministers of wealthy parishes, etc. And, in saying
this, the fact is not overlooked that many ministers of the Gospel are
worthy, self-denying, conscientious followers of Jesus in these matters,
but the exceptions are too numerous. The conduct of a class is usually
judged by that of its most prominent representatives.
As to creeds, theological disputes and sectarian differences, the common
people are more and more acting on the lines of Pope's couplet:
"_For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;
His can't be wrong, whose life is in the right.
In faith and hope the world will disagree;
But all mankind's concern is charity._"
_After the death of Mr. Atwater it developed that he had instructed
the Trust Company having his affairs in charge to make money gifts
to about one hundred of his friends._
_A few of those so remembered have published the accompanying book
for distribution among Mr. Atwater's intimate acquaintances. The
text is that of a pamphlet which he published just before his
death._
_Inside this leaflet are reproduced copies of a letter to the Trust
Company regarding the gifts and a memorandum, found in his desk, as
to the disposition of his remains._
Minneapolis, Minn.
Sept. 1/15
Minneapolis Trust Company,
115 South Fifth Street,
City.