If we review hastily these principles of personal action which
are really the summary of the most important of Jesus' social
teachings, we note that in enunciating these principles Jesus laid
the foundations of democracy. He dealt the death-blow to imperialism,
even to a benevolent despotism. When the mature individuals in a
community deal truthfully and frankly with one another, when they
feel a keen sense of individual responsibility for their actions,
judging those actions with independence of spirit, with tolerance
for the same independent judgment on the part of others, with the
consciousness that they must study and prepare themselves for the
bearing of their responsibilities, and when they also feel that they
must devote themselves with all that they have and all that they are
to the promotion of the welfare of the community at large, we have
the ideal democracy. Is not this true? I have asked many thoughtful
students of government whether or not these principles are the
fundamental principles of popular self-government, and whether any
other principles besides these are needed to be brought into play
in order to give us popular self-government of the best type; and
so far I have found no one who denied these to be the principles of
democracy or who had anything to add to these principles. If, then,
these are the principles of Christianity, if these are the complete
summary of Jesus' fundamental teachings, is it not the fact that
Jesus, although not dealing directly with government, is nevertheless
the founder of democracy, of self-government? It is certainly true
that before his day the various attempts that had been made toward
the establishment of republics or of democratic governments did not
recognize the worth of the common man. In all of the earlier attempts
that had been made there was a substantial equality of rights among
the so-called better classes in the community; but the great masses
of the serving classes, of the working classes, if not slaves were
at least not supposed to bear the responsibilities of guiding the
affairs of the community. Even in Great Britain, until after the
great reform acts of the middle of the last century, there was no
real democracy.
Moreover, the chief difficulties in democracy arise from the fact
that we do not have in the great mass of our citizens in any
community by any means a universal acceptance of these principles
of Jesus. Although these are the principles of the ideal democracy,
not until these principles are accepted and acted upon by the great
masses of individuals in the community shall we have a perfect
democracy. To improve our governments, therefore, if we are to
accept Jesus' guidance in our actions, our efforts should be devoted
primarily not so much to increasing the power of individuals in the
community or to weakening the power of leaders, as to increasing,
on the part of our individual citizens, the capacity for wise,
independent self-judgment and bearing of responsibility through
increase of knowledge and increase of the spirit of unselfishness.
This leads us naturally to a brief consideration of the principle
of self-determination on the part of nations and peoples, which has
been so much discussed since the Great War. Perhaps there has been
no other watchword that has been more misused in its application to
governments and peoples than that of self-determination, but if we
note carefully the way in which Jesus applied these rules that have
been enunciated, we shall find the key to a wise and just application
of this principle of self-determination. What limitations did Jesus
place upon the principle?
When he said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid
them not; for to such belongeth the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:14,
15); and again (Mark 9:35-37), "If any man would be first, he shall
be last of all, and servant of all. And he took a little child, and
set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said
unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in
my name, receiveth me: and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not
me, but him that sent me"--he clearly had in mind the humility and
receptivity of children, their eagerness to learn, and had no thought
at all that they should decide for themselves what to do. He seems
throughout his teachings quite in accord with the teachings of Paul
in his epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, that children should
obey their parents, and that it took mature men, measuring up to
the spiritual stature of Christians, to decide their own beliefs
and actions. It is, of course, recognized in the laws and customs,
as well as in the good judgment of all peoples, that children are
not yet persons in the legal sense of the word. The same principle
applies to weak-minded individuals. One of the great problems of
self-government is to determine at what age or at what stage of
development people are to be considered competent to make decisions
for themselves, and, in governmental matters, for other members of
the community. In America we have assumed that at twenty-one years of
age people may properly be asked to take that responsibility. In some
other countries twenty-five years is assumed as the proper age. In
most countries, before people are allowed to act as representatives
to pass on the making of laws, a still more advanced age, and, in
consequence, a greater degree of maturity, is required.
What is only good judgment and common sense as applied to children
is also good judgment and common sense, and good Christianity, in
accordance with the teachings of both Jesus and St. Paul, as applied
to certain peoples where the majority are so untrained or incapable
that they cannot judge. It is not at all a question of social status.
The extreme radical change that Jesus made was in that field. Jesus
taught that there were no people born better than others, or in a
ruling class, who could remove responsibility from any individual
for deciding his own beliefs and determining his own actions. On
the other hand, there is no reason for thinking that Jesus in any
particular fostered the doctrine that any individual or small group
of whatever degree of immaturity of judgment should under all
circumstances be allowed to determine their own acts or their own
form of government, and especially to control their relations with
other peoples.
A second limitation upon the privilege of self-determination is, of
course, the rights and the welfare of others. While we are to decide
our own actions in accordance with the spirit of Jesus, we should
impose upon ourselves the limitation that we will not act contrary to
the interests of others or contrary to the welfare of the community,
and this same principle would properly apply in any democratic
community or state. While it is right for them to seek their own
development, people should avoid injury to other peoples or races,
and resistance to such injury is justified. Jesus did not hesitate
to denounce the Pharisees for their unjust treatment of others, nor
to expel forcibly from the Temple those who were desecrating its
precincts to the detriment of the faithful.
I have heard the parable of the Good Samaritan cited by extreme
pacifists as an argument against all war, and have heard Jesus
characterized as "The Great Pacifist." In addition to the present
parable, I have sometimes wished that he could have left us another
in which he depicted the scene a little earlier, just at the time
when the wayfarer was struggling in the hands of the robbers. The
priest might well have shrunk from a contest. Pleading to himself
that it would ill become one of his cloth to be involved in a wayside
brawl, he would pass by on the other side. The Levite, too, arguing
to his conscience that the victim was a stranger to whom he was under
no obligation, and that, at any rate, the robbers were too many,
would pass by on the other side. But the Good Samaritan, seeing only
a neighbor--though a total stranger--in dire distress at the hands
of scoundrels, would hurl himself like a bolt into the fray. And if,
after deadly conflict, he too lay robbed, bleeding, and sore by his
neighbor's side, there would be no glimmer of regret in his heart;
but as each helped the other to bind up his wounds, their hearts
would rejoice that each had found a friend in a good fight for the
right.
The main difficulty in the application of the principle of
self-determination is, of course, the apparent conflict of interests
and benefits that occurs at times. Judgment should be rendered as
nearly as possible by a consensus of opinion of the least prejudiced
and best informed and most unselfish, disinterested observers.
It is in exactly this field that we look forward to an ultimate
international court of nations to which such questions as are
formally justiciable may be put, and to a council of nations that
may discuss, determine, and formulate the opinions of the nations
on questions that are political in their nature. We may look forward
to a time when such a decision rendered by such a court or such
a council will be practically self-enforcing through the public
opinion of the world. In the meantime, however, it should be a
matter for the consciences of the statesmen of all of the different
nations to settle this question with the spirit of Jesus and in the
light of experience. Most thoughtful people of the present day, if
their interests are not immediately concerned, would concede that
the welfare of humanity and the progressive development, not only
materially but also intellectually and spiritually, of the most
backward individuals and peoples would be furthered by limiting the
extent to which they may determine their own actions, especially so
far as they concern other peoples through international relations.
Heretofore such questions have been decided by the nations that had
the greater power to enforce their will. Cases could be selected
where the nation from whom the right of self-determination has
been taken was probably better able to judge wisely its own acts
than the dominating power. On the other hand, probably far more
instances could be cited where the limitation for a time of the
self-determining power in international matters has been beneficial
to humanity. The right principle and the Christian principle would
seem to be that an effort should be made to develop the capacity for
self-determination on the part of backward peoples, and to withhold
the power of self-determination in matters which involve deeply the
interests of others, until such self-determining capacity has been
developed to a degree to make its use safe for other peoples and
nations. Doubtless as a practical matter for some time to come it
will be the will of the stronger power in individual instances that
will settle this question of the degree of self-determination that
shall be granted and its application; but eventually the world court
or council which has been mentioned may determine such matters in
default of agreement among the peoples immediately concerned.