II

Another result of our superficial confidence in the idea of progress is

reliance upon social palliatives instead of radical cures for our

public maladies. We are so predisposed to think that the world

inherently wants to be better, is inwardly straining to be better, that

we are easily fooled into supposing that some slight easement of

external circumstance will at once release the progressive forces of

mankind and save the race. When, for example, one compares the immense

amount of optimistic expectancy about a warless world with the small

amount of radical thinking as to what really is the matter with us, he

may well be amazed at the unfounded regnancy of the idea of progress.

We rejoice over some slight disarmament as though that were the cure of

our international shame, whereas always one can better trust a real

Quaker with a gun than a thug without one. So the needs of our

international situation, involving external disarmament, to be sure,

involve also regenerations of thought and spirit much more radical than

any rearrangement of outward circumstance. To forget that is to lose

the possibility of real progress; and insight into these deep-seated

needs is often dimmed by our too amiable and innocent belief in

automatic social advance waiting to take place on the slightest excuse.

To take but a single illustration of a radical change in men's

thinking, difficult to achieve and yet indispensable to a decent world,

consider the group of prejudices and passions which center about

nationalism and which impede the real progress of international

fraternity. What if all Christians took Jesus in earnest in his

attitude that only one object on earth is worthy of the absolute

devotion of a man--the will of God for all mankind--and that therefore

no nationality nor patriotism whatsoever should be the highest object

of man's loyalty? That ought to be an axiom to us, who stood with the

Allies against Germany. Certainly, we condemned Germany roundly enough

because so many of her teachers exalted the state as an object of

absolute loyalty. When in Japan one sees certain classes of people

regarding the Mikado as divine and rating loyalty to him as their

highest duty, it is easy to condemn that. When, however, a man says in

plain English: I am an American but I am a Christian first and I am an

American only in the sense in which I can be an American, being first

of all a Christian, and my loyalty to America does not begin to compare

with my superior loyalty to God's will for all mankind and, if ever

national action makes these two things conflict, I must choose God and

not America--to the ears of many that plain statement has a tang of

newness and danger. In the background of even Christian minds, Jesus

to the contrary notwithstanding, one finds the tacit assumption,

counted almost too sacred to be examined, that of course a man's first

loyalty is to his nation.

Indeed, we Protestants ought to feel a special responsibility for this

nationalism that so takes the place of God. In medieval and Catholic

Europe folk did not so think of nationalism. Folk in medieval Europe

were taught that their highest obligation was to God or, as they would

have phrased it, to the Church; that the Church could at any time

dispense them from any obligation to king or nation; that the Church

could even make the king, the symbol of the nation, stand three days in

the snow outside the Pope's door at Canossa. Every boy and girl in

medieval Europe was taught that his first duty was spiritual and that

no nationality nor patriotism could compare with that. Then we

Protestants began our battle for spiritual liberty against the tyranny

of Rome, and as one of the most potent agencies in the winning of our

battle we helped to develop the spirit of nationality. In place of the

Holy Roman Church we put state churches. In place of devotion to the

Vatican we were tempted to put devotion to the nation. Luther did more

than write spiritual treatises; he sent out ringing, patriotic appeals

to the German nobility against Rome. It is not an accident that

absolute nationalism came to its climacteric in Germany where

Protestantism began. For Protestantism, without ever intending it, as

an unexpected by-product of its fight for spiritual liberty, helped to

break up western Europe into nations, where nationalism absorbed the

loyalty of the people. And now that little tiger cub we helped to rear

has become a great beast and its roaring shakes the earth.

A superficial confidence in automatic progress, therefore, which

neglects an elemental fact like this at the root of our whole

international problem is futile; it leads nowhere; it is rose water

prescribed for leprosy. The trouble with nationalism is profound and

this is the gist of it: we may be unselfish personally, but we group

ourselves into social units called nations, where we, being

individually unselfish with reference to the group, are satisfied with

ourselves, but where all the time the group itself is not unselfish,

but, it may be, is aggressively and violently avaricious. Yet to most

people our sacrificial loyalty to the nation would pass for virtue,

even though the nation as a whole were exploiting its neighbours or

waging a useless, unjust war. The loyalty of Germans to Germany may be

rated as the loftiest goodness no matter what Germany as a whole is

doing, and the loyalty of Americans to America may be praised as the

very passport to heaven while America as a whole may be engaged in a

nationally unworthy enterprise. The fine spirit of men's devotion

within the limits of the group disguises the ultimate selfishness of

the whole procedure and cloaks a huge sin under a comparatively small

unselfishness.

We can see that same principle at work in our industrial situation. We

break up into two groups; we are trades unionists or associated

employers. We are unselfish so far as our group is concerned; we make

it a point of honour to support our economic class; it is part of our

code of duty to be loyal there. But while we are thus unselfish with

reference to the group, the group itself is not unselfish; the group

itself is fighting a bitter and selfish conflict, avaricious and often

cruel. There is no ultimate way out of this situation which does not

include the activity of people who have a loyalty that is greater than

their groups. Henry George was once introduced at Cooper Institute,

New York City, by a chairman who, wishing to curry favour with the

crowd, called out with a loud voice, "Henry George, the friend of the

workingman." George stood up and sternly began, "I am not the friend

of the workingman"; then after a strained silence, "and I am not the

friend of the capitalist"; then after another silence, "I am for men;

men simply as men, regardless of any accidental or superficial

distinctions of race, creed, colour, class, or yet function or

employment." Until we can get that larger loyalty into the hearts of

men, all the committees on earth cannot solve our industrial problems.

Nor can anything else make it possible to solve our international

problem. The curse of nationalism is that, having pooled the

unselfishness of persons in one group under one national name and of

persons in another group under another national name, it uses this

beautiful unselfishness of patriotism to carry out national enterprises

that are fundamentally selfish. One element, therefore, is

indispensable in any solution: enough Christians, whether they call

themselves by that name or not, who have caught Jesus' point of view

that only one loyalty on earth is absolute--the will of God for all

mankind. This last summer I spent one Sunday night in the home of Mr.

Ozaki, perhaps the leading liberal of Japan, a man who stands in danger

of assassination any day for his international attitude. Suddenly he

turned on me and said, "If the United States should go into a war which

you regarded as unjust and wrong, what would you do?" I had to answer

him swiftly and I had to give him the only answer that a Christian

minister could give and keep his self-respect. I said, "If the United

States goes into a war which I think is unjust and wrong, I will go

into my pulpit the next Sunday morning and in the name of God denounce

that war and take the consequence." Surely, a man does not have to be

a theoretical pacifist, which I am not, to see how indispensable that

attitude is to a Christian. There is hardly anything more needed now

in the international situation than a multitude of people who will sit

in radical judgment on the actions of their governments, so that when

the governments of the world begin to talk war they will know that

surely they must face a mass of people rising up to say: War? Why war?

We are no longer dumb beasts to be led to the slaughter; we no longer

think that any state on earth is God Almighty. If, however, we are to

have that attitude strong enough so that it will stand the strain of

mob psychology and the fear of consequences, it must be founded deep,

as was Jesus' attitude: one absolute loyalty to the will of God for all

mankind. So far from hurting true patriotism, this attitude would be

the making of patriotism. It would purge patriotism from all its

peril, would exalt it, purify it, make of it a blessing, not a curse.

But whatever be the effect upon patriotism, the Christian is committed

by the Master to a prior loyalty; he is a citizen of the Kingdom of God

in all the earth.

An easy-going belief in inherent and inevitable progress, therefore, is

positively perilous in the manifoldly complex social situation, from

which only the most careful thinking and the most courageous living

will ever rescue us. The Christian Church is indeed entrusted, in the

message of Jesus, with the basic principles of life which the world

needs, but the clarity of vision which sees their meaning and the

courage of heart which will apply them are not easy to achieve. Some

of us have felt that acutely these last few years; all of us should

have learned that whatever progress is wrought out upon this planet

will be sternly fought for and hardly won. Belief in the idea of

progress does not mean that this earth is predestined to drift into

Paradise like thistledown before an inevitable wind.