True worship of God consists, very simply, in doing God's will.
But that kind of divine service has never suited man's wishes.
That which occupies man's mind at all times, that which gives
rise to science[11] and makes science spread into many, many
sciences, and into interminable detail; that of which, and for
which, thousands of clergymen and professors live, that which
forms the contents of the history of Christendom, by the study
of which the clergyman or the professor is to be trained--is
to get a different kind of worship arranged, the main point of
which would be: to do what one pleases, but in such fashion that
the name of God and the invocation of God be brought into connection
therewith; by which arrangement man imagines himself safeguarded
against ungodliness--whereas, alas! just this procedure is the
most unqualified ungodliness.
For example: a man has the intention to make his living by killing
people. To be sure, he knows from the Word of God that this is
not permissible, that God's will is: thou shalt not kill! "All
right," thinks he, "but this way of serving God will not serve
my purposes--at the same time I don't care to be among the ungodly
ones, either." So what does he do but get hold of some priest who
in God's name blesses his dagger. Ah, _c'est bien autre chose!_
In the Scriptures the single state is recommended. "But," says
man, "that kind of worship really does not serve my purposes--and
surely, you can't say that I am an ungodly person; and such an
important step as marriage (which _nota bene_ God counsels against,
His opinion being, in fact, that the important thing is not to
take "this important step")--should I take such an important step
without making sure of God's blessing?" Bravo! "That is what we
have the priest for, that man of God, he will bestow the blessing
on this important step (_nota bene_ concerning which the most
important thing was not to take it at all) and so it will be
acceptable to God"--and so I have my own way; and my own way
becomes the way of worshipping God; and the priest has his own
way and gets his ten dollars, which are not earned in such a
simple way as, for example, by brushing people's clothes, or
by serving out beer and brandy--oh no! Was he not active on
behalf of God? To earn ten dollars in this fashion is: serving
God. Bravissimo!
What depth of nonsense and abomination! If something is not
pleasing to God, does it perhaps become pleasing to Him by having--why,
that is aggravating the mischief!--by having a clergyman along
who--why, that is aggravating the mischief still more!--who gets
ten dollars for declaring it pleasant to God?
Let us consider the marriage ceremony still further! In His
word God recommends the single state. Now suppose two young
people want to be married. To be sure, they ought certainly
to know, themselves, what Christianity is, seeing that they
call themselves Christians; but never mind that now. The lovers
then apply to--the clergyman; and the clergyman is, we remember,
pledged by his oath on the New Testament (which _nota bene_
recommends the single state). Now, if he is not a liar and a
perjurer who makes his money in the very shabbiest fashion,
he would be bound to take the following course: at most he could,
with human compassion for this human condition of being in love,
say to them: "Dear children, I am the one to whom you should
turn last of all; to turn to me on this occasion is, indeed,
as strange as if one should turn to the chief of police and
ask him how best to steal. My duty is to employ all means to
restrain you. At most, I can say, with the words of the Apostle
(for they are not the words of Our Lord), I can say to you:
well, if it must be, and you cannot contain, why, then find
some way of getting together; for fit is better to marry than
to burn.'[12] I know very well that you will be likely to shudder
when I speak in this manner about what you think is the most
beautiful thing in life; but I must do my duty. And it is therefore
I said to you that to me you should have applied last of all."
It is different in "Christendom." The priest--oh dear me!--if
there are but two to clap together, why certainly! Indeed, if
the persons concerned turned to a midwife they would perhaps
not be as sure to be confirmed in their conviction that their
intention is pleasing to God.
And so they are married; i.e. man has his own way, and this
having his own way strategically serves at the same time as
divine worship, God's name being connected with it. They are
married--by the priest! Ah, for having the clergyman along is
just what reassures one--the man who, to be sure, is pledged
by his oath to preach the New Testament, but who for a consideration
of ten dollars is the pleasantest company one could desire--that
man he guarantees that this act is true worship of God.
In a Christian sense one ought to say: precisely the fact that
a priest is in it, precisely that is the worst thing about the
whole business. If you want to be married you ought, rather,
be married by a smith; for then--if it were admissible to speak
in this fashion--then it might possibly escape God's attention;
whereas, if there is a priest along it can certainly not escape
His attention. Precisely the fact of the clergyman's being there
makes it as criminal an affair as possible--call to mind what
was said to a man who in a storm at sea invoked the gods: "By
all means do not let the gods notice that you are aboard!" Thus
one might say here also: By all means try to avoid calling in
a priest. The others, the smith and the lovers, have not pledged
themselves by an oath on the New Testament, so matters are not
as bad--if it be admissible to speak in this fashion--as when
the priest assists with his--holy presence.