MEN'S FAITH AND WOMEN'S FAITH.
There is a faith--Judaism--which originated so far back that we have
only a legendary account of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation
whose ideal was bravery and whose glory was war, who considered the rest
of the world as Philistines and treated them ruthlessly, who kept
themselves as a nation apart.
Nineteen hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet, said to be
of the ancient kingly house. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as
the rule of life mildness and self-denial, renunciation of this world;
who denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment
heaven, which is the peace of God.
This Prophet, The Christ, was executed, but He left behind Him disciples
who spread His religion widely. Amongst His own people it never attained
great strength, and in time it died away and disappeared. There are no
Christians among the Jews. All Semitic nations have rejected this
faith. But it spread far to the west, and is now in one form or another
the accepted faith of the half world to the west of Palestine. It never
spread east.
* * * * *
There is a faith--Brahminism--which originated so far back that we have
but legendary accounts of it. It was the cult of a warrior nation whose
ideal was courage and whose glory was war, who considered the rest of
the world as outcasts and treated them ruthlessly, who kept themselves
as a nation apart.
Two thousand five hundred years ago there arose among them a prophet,
the son of the Royal House. He preached a doctrine which prescribed as a
rule of life meekness and self-denial, renunciation of the world. He
denounced war and conquest, and held out as a goal for attainment the
Great Peace.
This prophet, the Buddha, was rejected by all the higher castes and he
died, having made but little way. But his disciples spread his religion
widely. Amongst his own people it never attained great strength, and in
time it died away and disappeared. There are no Buddhists in Oude, and,
with perhaps a slight exception, there are no Buddhists at all in India.
But it has spread far to the east, and is now in one form or another
the accepted faith of nearly all people east of the Bay of Bengal, and
also of Ceylon. It never spread west.
* * * * *
I do not say that Christianity and Buddhism are the same, for although
in some ways, especially in conduct, their teaching is almost identical,
and in others--such as Heaven and Nirvana--though differently expressed,
the idea is almost the same, yet in certain theories they differ very
greatly. Yet, however they may differ, the above parallel cannot but
strike one as extraordinary. Indeed, the parallel might have been very
largely augmented, but it suffices for the purpose of this chapter; and
that is to enquire why each teacher's doctrine was rejected by his own
people and accepted by others.
It is no answer to say that no one is a prophet in his own country. All
the Jewish prophets, from Moses to Isaiah, _were_ prophets in their own
country. Christ alone was not. Mahommed was a prophet to the Arabs,
Zoroaster to the Persians, Confucius and Laotze to the Chinese. All
teachers of Hinduism have been native born Hindus. In Buddhist countries
it is the same. Luther was a prophet to the Germans, Loyola to the
Spaniards. The rule is otherwise. A prophet is never a prophet to any
_but_ his own people, except the two greatest Prophets in the world,
Christ and Buddha. They alone were rejected by their own and accepted
elsewhere. They almost divide the world between them. Hinduism, from
which Buddhism arose, still exists untouched by either; Judaism, from
which Christianity arose, and its near kin Mahommedanism, exist
untouched by either; but most of the rest of the world is either
Christian or Buddhist. These are very astonishing facts, and must have
some very strong reasons to cause them. The question is, What are the
reasons, and are they the same in each case? Was it a similar cause that
occasioned such similar effects? What quality was it in the Jews and
Hindus that led them to reject their prophets, and what are the
qualities in the converted nations that led them to accept these
prophets?
It might seem at first as if the clue was contained in the first
sentence of each paragraph, that the reason was because both Jews and
Hindus, especially the higher caste Hindus, were warrior nations. The
rule of life preached by each teacher was absolutely against all that
they had revered so far, hence that each rejected it. The fact, of
course, is true. Each nation had up to the coming of the Teacher learned
a rule of life hopelessly in contrast to the new teaching. The ideals
of Christ and Buddha were absolutely opposed to those a fierce, warlike,
exclusive people could maintain. They could not accept them without
throwing to the winds all their past. This is true, but is it an
explanation? It is certainly not a full one. The Jews were warriors,
bitter, terrible, ruthless fighters, and they rejected Christ. But they
are no longer a nation of warriors, and they still reject Him.
The world has never seen keener soldiers than those of western Europe,
but these nations accept Him.
The Hindu warrior caste are warriors to the bitter end. They rejected
Buddha, but so did many peoples of India; the Bengalees, for instance,
who are not fighters.
Where can you find stronger warrior spirit than has always existed in
Japan? Yet Buddhism is the prevailing religion there. It is evident, I
think, that this explanation will not suffice. It may in addition be
asserted that the men of Latin nations are usually frankly atheistic,
and the Teutonic nations, though theoretically Christian, yet
practically when they want to fight they forget Christ and fall back to
the Jehovah of the Jews. The Puritans and the Boers are cases in point.
They get their fighting faith out of the Old Testament, not the New. But
still they accept Christ, and though they may find it impossible, like
all nations, to follow His teaching, they do not reject it, or deny it.
With Buddhism in the further East the parallel does not last, because
Buddhism in ethical teaching stands alone. The Buddhist who wants to
fight cannot fall back on the original faith. He has simply to go
without a faith at all. He has not the advantage of a double set of
conduct, one of which can always be trusted to fit anything he wants to
do He has to go without a faith when he fights. Still he does so.
I confess that for a long time I seemed to find no answer, and at length
it came not through studying out this question, but in observing other
phenomena of religion altogether.
To one coming to Europe after years in the East and visiting the
churches nothing is more striking than the enormous preponderance of
women there. It is immaterial whether the church be in England or in
France, whether it be Anglican or Roman Catholic or Dissenter. The
result is always the same. Women outnumber the men as two to one, as
three to one, sometimes as ten to one. Even of the men that are there,
how many go there from other motives than personal desire to hear the
service? Men go because their wives take them, boys go with their
mothers or sisters, old men with their daughters. Professional men are
there because it would injure them among their women clients to be
absent. Women go because they desire to do so; nine out of ten even of
these few men who do go are taken by their women folk. They admit it
readily. And more, when they are away from these women they do not enter
the churches. It is borne in upon an observer, especially an observer
who has been long enough away from Europe to become depolarised, to what
an enormous extent the observance of religious duty in Europe among
Christian nations is due to women. It is they only who care for, who are
in full sympathy with the teaching of Christ; for men when they are
religious, and in certain cases they are so, take their religion of
conduct much more from the Old Testament than the New.
In Burma it is not otherwise. The deeper the tenets of Buddhism are
observed, the more the women are concerned in it. Who lights the candles
at the pagoda, who contribute the daily food to the monks, who attend
the Sunday meetings in the rest houses? Nearly all of them are women.
Even in Burma, where the devotional instinct is so strong and so deeply
held, the immense influence of women is manifest. In Christian and
Buddhist countries the women are free to attend the services; they are
free, to a greater or lesser extent, in all matters, and in religion
they are conspicuous--they rule it, they form it to suit themselves.
But in the races that rejected Christianity, that rejected Buddhism, it
is otherwise. The Hindu women keep themselves in zenanas. They are not
allowed in the temples, or only in special parts. They can take no part
in the public services. They cannot combine to influence religious
matters. At the time the Buddha lived women were very much freer than
they are now, and this accounts for its initial partial success at home.
But as waves of conquest, the incessant rigorous struggle for existence
deepened and circumstances contracted that liberty, so as it contracted
did Buddhism die. Till at length the women remained immured, and
Buddhism fled to countries where women had still some freedom.
It is the same with Christianity. The Jewish women, if not quite so
secluded as Hindu women, were yet never openly allowed to join in the
synagogues. They, too, as the Mahommedan even, had their "grille" apart.
The Jewish men and the Mahommedan men kept their religion for
themselves, a virile religion, where women had little place. It may be
the fact--I think in another chapter I have shewn that it is a
fact--that women seek after religion far more than men But they must
have a religion to suit them. The tenets of Christ and of Buddha do
appeal to them, do come nearer to them than they do to the generality of
men. And so where women have been free to make their influence felt, to
impress their views upon the faith of a country, the mild beliefs of
non-resistance, of peace, of meekness and submission have obtained.
Whereas in the countries and nations where for one cause or another
women are not free to make their combined influence felt, where they
remain under the greater dominance of man in all matters, the faiths
that retain the stronger and more virile codes of conduct have remained.
I am not sure that there have not been other influences also at work. I
can, I think, see another strong influence that has worked to the same
end. There may be many reasons. But that would not alter the fact that
the influence of women has been a main force, that they have greatly
been concerned in the change of faith.