Efforts to Attract Working Men to the Church--Restoration Would Largely
Solve the Difficulty--Common Sense of Working Men--Glorious Expansion
of Truth--Recasting Traditional Views--The True Basis for Unity.
There is one aspect of this question that is of vast importance, but
which, so far as I know, has not been recognized. I mean its bearing on
the relation of working men to the church.
It has to be admitted that working men in general are shy of the church.
Yet almost every expedient has been resorted to in order to make the
church attractive to them; and still they do not go. Some ministers
think that working men are to be caught by secular preaching, and so the
Gospel of success has in certain instances almost displaced the Gospel
of salvation. Other ministers, and earnest ones, give a Gospel talk in
workshops and factories during the dinner hour. The men civilly attend
and listen, but they do not go to church. Other ministers assume a
forced familiarity of manner with the men, in order to create the
impression of equality. Some actively engage in sports in order to come
into closer contact with working men; and still the working men do not
go to church. Why?
I believe that a candid and outspoken avowal of a belief in a process
of purification beyond death would go a long way in solving the whole
difficulty. For sensible working men see very clearly that such a
process of purification is necessary for all, whether they are Christian
or non-Christian. Working men know beyond all doubt that there are in
their own ranks many men of far higher character than the average
nominal Christian. Yet it is taught that the Christian, however low in
character he may be, goes straight to everlasting bliss; while the
non-Christian, though of the noblest character, is consigned to
everlasting torment. Common sense, and justice, and fitness, all rebel
at such a dictum. This is especially the case with those who have not
been early instilled with orthodox doctrines, as many of the working men
have not. This is the real equality of man--the fact that all men are
sinners, and that all need purification. Only let these facts be
honestly and definitely avowed, and I believe the chasm would largely be
bridged over.
Of course common sense and observation would recognize a marvellous
difference in men as to their need of purification. It would be
conceived that some would suffer but very slightly, or not at all; but
their eyes would be opened to see truth of which they had never dreamed.
Others might need a long and painful discipline to purge them of evil
habits which they had contracted through long years. But equality would
consist in the fact that all need to be purified in a greater or less
degree, to fit them for a higher or lower place in the better world.
Would not this be a wholesome Gospel for working men, and for all men?
Would it not be a powerful appeal to any man to be able to say to him,
"You must repent, and leave off your sins now; for if you don't do it
now, you will surely do it in the life to come?"
I do not believe that working men are specially averse to spiritual
ideas. But they are amenable to common sense, and justice, and the
general fitness of things. Let them know that we are all on the same
plane as sinners; be very emphatic that Christ died for the whole race;
that the plans and purposes of God are not limited to the present life;
that somehow and at some time grace will completely triumph over sin;
and I venture to think that working men will be responsive. And in my
view, this will be no curtailment of the truth, but a glorious
expansion of it.
Surely none of the evangelical churches would treat such a Gospel as
heresy. Even if they did, I do not think that the truth would suffer in
the long run. Special attention would thus be called to the truth with
the result, I believe, that the world would take a step forward into
the light.
We read that "all Scripture is profitable for doctrine." Now is the
doctrine of everlasting punishment profitable? If it is true it must be
profitable. But is it? Possibly it may be claimed that it is profitable
on certain occasions. Then on what occasions? I never heard it directly
preached on any occasion since I was a child. It may be hinted at, or
implied in some vague way; but so far as I know, it is never insisted on
as a vital and saving truth. Yet, it is of such tremendous import that
the fair inference is, that the preacher himself does not believe it, or
that he is afraid to avow his belief of it, or that he has an
instinctive feeling that to proclaim it clearly is never "profitable."
Yet, if it is not profitable, it is not "doctrine," but error. And if it
be error, it is the most dark and dismal error that ever found its way
into this sinning and suffering world.
And if this doctrine is not preached in this Christian land, is it
preached in heathen lands? I do not positively know; but I have a strong
conviction that it is not. I would challenge any missionary to say that
it is. Then why not, if it is "doctrine" and therefore "profitable?"
I can well believe that hosts of so-called converts might be frightened
into an avowal of Christianity by such preaching. If a simple heathen
could really believe it, would he not at once adopt Christianity as a
means of escape from everlasting fire? But what would such a so-called
conversion be worth?
I have more faith in missionaries than to believe that they would be so
insane. They would realize that such a doctrine would either repel the
heathen, or win them to an unreal acceptance of Christianity. In either
case, what would be accomplished? So the missionary would naturally
postpone this "profitable" doctrine until some more convenient season,
and probably that more convenient season would never come.
I have heard many missionaries speaking of their work among the heathen;
but not once did I ever hear of the "doctrine" of everlasting fire being
used as a converting power. Yet the Scripture declares that all doctrine
is "profitable." If it cannot be used, the inevitable inference is that
it is not doctrine, and is not true.
Here then is an idea for the Layman's Missionary Movement. How many men
in that movement really believe in eternal torment? Like myself, many of
them may have been taught the catechism which speaks of "God's wrath and
curse both in this life, and that which is to come;" also "the pains of
hell forever." But what is their belief now? In many cases do they not
utterly repudiate such ideas? In other cases, and I think the great
majority, they may not have seriously thought of the matter at all. But
their instincts would strongly favor the more liberal view.
Ought not all men in that great movement seriously think of the matter
now? Are they satisfied that such a doctrine should still remain in our
creeds. For it does certainly remain in the creeds of the Methodist and
Presbyterian Churches. Surely it is not enough to say that it is not
preached. Any very zealous missionary might preach it, and you could not
forbid him. And when some cultured heathen would find out that such a
doctrine is in our creed, would it suffice to tell him that we do not
preach it? When he would realize that on a matter of such awful import,
we really professed one thing, and believed another would he have any
use for our Christianity? Besides; if the Spirit of Truth has taught us
the truth in our inmost souls, and yet if we repudiate that truth, how
shall we give our account? We quoted Carlyle, who has a most scathing
warning for all those who act such a double part.
* * * * *
It seems to me then that the Laymen in this Movement should prepare the
way for an honest and candid world-wide mission. Let them give
themselves no rest until this doctrine of eternal torment is expunged
from the creed of both the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. If it is
false, and known to be false, no worldly wisdom should be allowed to
retain it. Apparent missionary results might be slower, but would they
not be more real, and in the end far more numerous? And what a boon it
would be, not to have to suppress or disguise the Eternal wisdom, the
Eternal Power, the Eternal Love!
This reformation seems to me to be specially laid at the door of the
Laymen's Missionary Movement. It will readily be understood how
ministers of undoubted ability and consecration, are backward to
inaugurate such a movement. That many are in hearty sympathy with such a
reformation, I know well. Only let the men in the Missionary Movement
take a constitutional initiative in the matter, and they will be
surprised how many ministers will be with them. I know for a fact that
many are longing for just such a reformation.
I believe the time will come--perhaps has come--when the evangelical
churches will recast their traditional opinions on these doctrines. And
in recasting their opinions, who knows to what extent they may further
the spirit of unity? May the glorious day be hastened!
I can fancy that some will say that throughout this whole treatise I
have appealed too much to reason, and have not given sufficient
prominence to Scripture. I think any such charge would be unfair. Look
back and see if it is just. I have taken Scripture and reason combined;
and let it ever be borne in mind that both are equally divine gifts. On
the highest plane they are in perfect unison.
I have dealt with the plainer passages of Scripture especially, and
chiefly with those that combine with reason. This is a common sense
treatise. I deemed it better, therefore, to make essential matters
plain, even to repetition, than to indulge in long disquisitions about
mistranslations, and such like matters, which in the case of many would
only leave the question in a haze. Besides; we have to remember that
truth is truth, and will never contradict itself. It is for opponents,
therefore, to controvert the positions I have taken, rather than to
criticise what I have omitted. If the latter course would hold in
argument, it would be easy enough to make out a case for anything.
I would ask you personally then to think over the entire question for
yourself. Do not suppose that the matter is too high for you. I think it
is, in the main, quite on the level with any ordinarily intelligent
mind. Of course, it involves some deep problems; but these can be
postponed for the present; it is the main question that claims paramount
attention.
Some preachers delicately approach the idea with hints and inuendos and
mild threatenings, which are really worse than utter silence. I heard a
preacher speaking lately of men as "utter failures, going out into the
darkness." Now what did he mean, or did he mean anything? Again;
preachers speak of "eternal death," which might mean eternal extinction
or eternal fire. And yet that vague phrase is actually proposed as one
of the bases of union of the churches.
A short time ago I wrote _The Toronto Star_ somewhat along these lines.
The editor wrote a most responsive article, concluding with these
strong words:
"This question and all that hangs upon it must be faced. A man has a
right to know what his church teaches. The man in the pew--the man even
who is not in the pew but who might be--has a right to expect that the
man in the pulpit not only believes what he preaches, but preaches what
he believes. A religion made up of hidden folds and mental reservations,
a creed marked by evasions and ambiguities, cannot reach and warm the
heart of the world."
There is hardly a more vital truth known to us than the one I have tried
to commend. For its candid consideration we need the illumination of the
Holy Ghost. But we have the promise that if we ask for Him He will be
given. We have also the Word of God. And then we have reason. It is a
divine gift, never to be despised. With these sources of illumination we
have the twilight now. Yes; but it is the twilight of the
eternal morning!