Books: To Infidelity and Back
H >>
Henry F. Lutz >> To Infidelity and Back
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 | 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12
If we take the consensus of all the mental faculties, we have the
wonderful human intelligence created but little lower than the angels
and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Created in the very image
of God himself (Gen. 1:27), man is an intelligence with the threefold
guidance of intellect, conscience and sentiments which give him
abundant light for his daily walk in the fear of the Lord. But even
our so-called "consciousness," including all these powers, is
fallible and subject to deception, perversion and delusion and
therefore it needs the help of the truth revealed in the Bible and
the help of all the truth we can learn from life and science to
enable us to fulfill our highest destiny and to continue to progress
Godward and heavenward.
Let us remember that love is the arch that unites and supports all
the mental faculties and all the operations of the mind. On it hang
all the law and prophets, and the gospel as well. Let us rejoice and
glory in our wonderful heritage of intelligence, but, knowing the
limitations of our finite minds, let us walk humbly before God and
our fellow-men.
CHAPTER IV.
LOOKING THROUGH COLORED GLASSES.
Differences of Opinion; the Cause and Cure. What Should Be Our
Attitude Toward Those Who Differ from Us?
The above headings will give you some idea of the matter I wish to
bring before you in this chapter. From the previous chapters you will
learn that it was through years of bitter experience that I was
prepared to write this chapter. I write it in love and humility and
pray that it may be blessed in warning many of pitfalls in searching
for truth and may lead to more charity in dealing with those who
differ from us.
I have spoken of the sad and lamentable differences of opinion among
the best people on earth during all times and on all subjects. What
was said in the previous chapter about the fallible, variable voices
of the different parts of the mind blazes the way for a more detailed
study of these factors in leading people to error and therefore into
divisions. Learning of these weaknesses of the mind, that so easily
lead to a perversion of truth, one might hastily conclude that there
is no norm of truth and therefore that people cannot see alike.
Indeed, the differences of opinion in religion and other matters are
often condoned by the assertion that "people cannot see alike." Is
this true, and, if so, how far?
Over against the statement that people cannot see things alike, I put
the indisputable statement that they cannot possibly see things
_unlike_ if they see them at all. Every person on earth sees red as
red, unless, indeed, he is color blind, and then he does not see it
at all, in the proper sense of the word. Two and two make four to
every mind in the universe. Given the same premises, every logical
mind will come to the same conclusion and cannot possibly come to any
other conclusion. The whole law and order of the universe is based
upon this fact, and without it no science or order would be possible.
We will discover that the differences of opinion among men are not to
be ascribed to the intellect so much as to the will and
sensibilities. We wish to refer now to a chief cause of division of
opinion, and the only one that involves blame; viz.: the human will.
Multitudes of people are divided who see things alike and are of the
same opinion so far as the intellect is concerned, but the trouble
lies in the will power. They deliberately do that which they know is
not right, for selfish reasons. If this were the only cause of
division, our problem would be an easy one. For then the only proper
attitude of the righteous towards those who differ from them, would
be that of unqualified opposition. Indeed, we are always tempted to
act on this basis by trusting in ourselves that we are right, and
treating those who differ from us as wrong and guilty and as
deserving nothing but our condemnation. If guilt were the only cause
of division, we would have but two political parties, the one
containing all the righteous and the other all the wicked. From a
religious standpoint there would be but two classes; viz., saints and
sinners. But the problem before us is not such an easy one. The
causes that lead to differences of opinion are numerous and complex.
It is not an easy matter to get at the truth, although we might think
at first thought that it is. Every one seems to be surrounded by an
atmosphere that reflects, refracts, bends, twists, distorts and
colors the rays of truth as they come to him.
Neither age, talent, experience, education, piety nor honesty make a
man error-proof; as may be readily discovered even by a child. For
the people around us who possess these qualities are divided among
all the different religious and political parties. And when people
are divided into different parties, that teach contradictory
doctrines, they cannot possibly all be right, although they may all
be wrong.
Inquiring more particularly into the causes of division of opinion,
aside from guilt, we shall discover the following to be among them:
finite, limited faculties, limited and false ideas, obtained through
heredity and ignorance, preconceived ideas and prejudices.
In the search for truth, as in almost everything else, there are two
extremes, both of which should be avoided. On the one hand are those
who are too ready to accept new ideas without proper examination.
They are "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine." At the other extreme stand the narrow, self-righteous
bigots who absolutely refuse to even examine the claim of any truth
they do not already possess. They know it all without finding it out.
It matters not whether you speak of politics, religion or anything
else, they know all about it without investigation. They never read
any but their own party papers and books and never hear any but their
own speakers and preachers.
It is said that a father and son got into a religious discussion. The
father was an infidel and the son tried to convert him to
Christianity. They argued and argued until midnight. Finally the
father said, "Son, there is no use talking, you can't convert me if
you argue all night; I am established." The next morning they went
for a load of wood, and as they left the woods the horse got balky
and wouldn't move an inch. "What is the matter with this horse,
anyway?" asked the father. "Why," replied the son, "he is
established." The Bible says, "Be ye not as the horse or as the mule,
which have no understanding." It is bad enough for a mule to get
balky, but what a pity that man, created in the image of God, should
become balky and refuse to learn the truths that make for his peace
and progress and for the enlargement of the kingdom of heaven.
An Arabic proverb says: "Mankind are four. He who knows not and knows
not he knows not; he is a fool, shun him. He who knows not and knows
that he knows not; he is simple, teach him. He who knows and knows
not that he knows; he is asleep, wake him. And he who knows and knows
that he knows; he is wise, follow him." The trouble is to know who
"knows not and knows not that he knows not," and who "knows and knows
that he knows." For they both speak with absolute assurance that they
are right.
Illustrations of how blissfully ignorant of truth we can be are found
in the facts that Capt. John Smith sailed up the James River to reach
India and that the Indians planted gunpowder.
It is said that on Lookout Mountain there is a building with windows
so constructed that if you look out through the one you see a
snowstorm; through another, you see it raining; while through a
third, the sun is shining. Thus it is that we look at truth through
the colored glasses of prejudice and selfish interests, and see what
is not.
Probably you have heard about the two Irishmen who get into a fist-
fight over a soap sign. One insisted that it read "Ivory Soap," and
the other, "It Floats." They saw it from a different angle, and that
often accounts for differences of opinion.
How expectant attention can deceive us was illustrated a few years
ago when Crystal Palace, London, was on fire. A large throng of
people were in distress because they saw a favorite monkey burning on
the roof. The monkey was later found safe in an adjoining building.
It was an old coat that the imagination of the crowd had transformed
into a monkey. Thus it is that people see ghosts, and almost anything
they are looking for, through a vivid imagination.
In multitudes of cases people are divided because they use words in a
different sense, or misunderstand their significance. Years ago, when
I was keeping my father's books, there used to come into the office a
bright young man who had more natural ability than education. We were
both fond of discussion, and often had informal debates. One day we
debated on "Woman suffrage." I opened up on the subject and as I
proceeded my opponent got restless to reply. When he took the floor
he exploded something as follows: "I am opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-
age' with every drop of vitality within my skin. I will use hand,
tongue and purse against 'Woman Suf-fer-age.' In short, I am so
bitterly opposed to 'Woman Suf-fer-age' for the all-sufficing reason
that I don't want women to suffer." I said, "Amen!" and we were
agreed for once. You smile, and yet three-fourths of our differences
would vanish if we patiently conferred together long enough to
understand each other clearly.
The courts recognize that the best of people are blinded when their
own interests are involved, and reject jurymen on this basis. Who
expects parents to be perfectly impartial in their judgment when
their own children are involved?
The difference of opinion on the slavery question was largely a
matter of geographical location, and 90 per cent, of us belong to the
political or religious party to which our parents belonged or to the
one to which our associations or environment drew us. Had we been
born in the Catholic Church most of us would be good, faithful
Catholics, as all history demonstrates, and as our own lives in other
directions abundantly prove. In a series of articles entitled "Why I
Am What I Am," one of the most noted preachers in this country
candidly admits that his church relationship is a mere matter of
birth. This truth is not very congenial to our boasted independence
of thought and investigation, but it is the truth nevertheless. The
power of the above-named fetters to hold us in bondage to error is
illustrated in all history, sacred and secular. It took Peter about
ten years after Pentecost, with special miraculous manifestations, to
see that Gentiles were _creatures_ as well as Jews, and that
therefore he was commissioned to preach to them also. Paul, the
pious, earnest and conscientious, "verily thought he was doing God
service" in persecuting the Saviour who had been pointed out as the
Christ by many infallible proofs. The Jews crucified the Lord of
glory largely through ignorance, due to their being blinded by their
traditions, or inherited religious ideas, and therefore Jesus prayed
on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Luther was mighty in throwing off his inherited ideas, and yet he
retained so many of them that any church that would to-day practise
and teach just as Luther did, would be considered very near to the
Roman Catholic Church. Cotton Mather, one of the most enlightened men
that ever lived, believed in witches and hung them, and many of the
pious and enlightened people of New England shared this belief with
him. Good, pious neighbors will give testimony in court, as to what
they saw and heard, of the most contradictory character. In nine
cases out of ten, we find in the Bible just what we bring to it; and
thus the most pious and best educated see the most contradictory
doctrines in the same passages of Scripture and fight for them with
the greatest tenacity, all in the name of conscience. And the saddest
thing about it all is that all these people show by their consecrated
lives that they love God and are sincerely trying to serve him. In
politics, we see the same pitiable state of affairs. In 1896 about
one-half of our good Christian men voted for the free coinage of
silver to save their country, and the other half voted for a gold
standard for the same reason. It does not require any argument to
prove that at least half of these voters were so blinded by ignorance
and party bias that they did not see the truth, and possibly all of
them were. What a great pity that the good Christian people should be
thus divided through party bias and prejudice and go to slaughtering
each other, like the enemies of Israel; so that they simply
neutralize each other's influence and power, while the enemy of right
runs off with the victory and spoil. It is this mixture of the good
with the bad in two political parties that enables evil to hold its
own; while if all the good were united, through the truth, into one
political party, arrayed against all the bad in another political
party, they could carry this country for Jesus Christ at every
election.
Having considered the causes that lead to differences of opinion,
how, in the light of these facts, should we treat those who differ
from us?
In the first place, we should deal with them in humility. When we see
how the great and good men of all history have been hindered from
seeing the plainest and simplest truths by their inherited and
preconceived ideas, it should take the conceit out of us and make us
very fearful lest we are suffering with the same dread disease. For
it is to be noted that hardly any one who suffers from this malady is
aware of it. Cromwell's words to Parliament will bear a universal
application, when he said, "I beseech you, by the bowels of the Lord,
that you conceive it possible that you may be mistaken." Not only is
it possible, but it is probable, that we are mistaken in a great many
of our ideas. Therefore we should approach others in an humble,
teachable spirit. Let us not imagine that we know it all, and treat
those who differ from us with self-righteous scorn and contempt.
And that leads me to say that we should treat those who differ from
us, with love, respect and sympathy. I believe that more reformers
have been crippled in their efforts by failing in this than in any
other way. We are likely to attribute all our failures to the sin and
bad character of others, when the fault often lies in ourselves. God
gives a vision of some great truth or needed reform; as, for example,
the prohibition of the liquor traffic, or the union of God's people
on the primitive gospel. The message is sweet to us, and so we go on
our way with great joy, feeling sure that we will soon convert
everybody to our righteous cause. But, alas! we soon discover that
people will not convert very fast. Our argument seems to us more
clear and infallible every time we repeat it, and yet the people fail
to come to our position. And so we are likely to lose faith in the
people, and come to the conclusion that it is nothing but sin and
guilt that causes them to reject our message. The next step is to
forget our own weaknesses, trust in ourselves that we are right, and
treat with hate and contempt those who differ from us. Treating our
opponents with hate and scorn, we lose both our humility and
Christian character, and develop into the most hideous and ungodly
characters on earth, self-righteous Pharisees. And so it happens that
we reformers often need reformation worse than those whom we seek to
reform. But you say, did not Jesus and the Apostles severely denounce
sinners? Yes, but they always first made sure that they were sinners.
Jesus could read men's hearts and, therefore, made no mistake, while
Paul always reasoned with his opponents out of the Scriptures in love
and humility, and only condemned them after clear and positive
evidence that the fault was in their motive. Paul says, in writing to
Timothy, "the servant of the Lord must not strive; but must be gentle
unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those
that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance
to the acknowledging of the truth." And, where he exhorts to
"reprove" and "rebuke," it is with "all longsuffering." James says,
"The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God" We are never
commanded to despise, hate or denounce any man; but, on the other
hand, we are to love every one, even our enemies.
We are all human, and when it is as clear as daylight to us that we
have the truth and argument on our side, it is a great temptation to
cut to pieces and roast our opponents. But is it Christ-like to do
it? Do we forget how long it took us to come to the position that now
seems so clear to us? Some one has said that, in dealing with
children, "we should remember that they are left-handed," and this is
certainly true of people in their relation to truth. The slowness
with which people take up new ideas is a merit as well as a fault. We
could have no stability and progress anywhere if it were not for this
inertia in convictions. "The Athenians and strangers sojourning there
spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some
new thing," and if we would all be occupied in that way, not much
would be accomplished in the world. If we would become disciples of
every propagandist whose arguments we cannot answer on the spur of
the moment, there would be nothing but change and confusion.
Realizing the difficulties in the way of finding truth, and observing
how even the wisest and best have been deceived and ensnared in
error, naturally ought to make people conservative in accepting new
ideas, and the same reasons should make us patient with those who
differ from us. They usually need our patient and sympathetic
instruction more than our contempt, hatred and denunciation.
All this being true, we should never forget, however, that it is our
sacred duty to treat those who differ from us, _in truth_. There are
two attitudes that are very easy to take. The one is to treat our
differences with childish sentimentalism, saying, "Peace, peace,"
when there is or ought not to be any peace. The other is to hate and
abuse those who differ from us, and to treat their opinions as
beneath our contempt. But the difficult thing to do is to tell the
whole truth, as we see it, and to do it in love and humility. We are
under obligation to tell the truth boldly whatever the outcome may
be. To those who threaten us and command us not to tell the truth, we
must reply in the language of Peter and John: "Whether it be right in
the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."
When people cry, "Peace, peace," at the expense of truth and right,
and want us to speak "smooth things" instead of God's Word, we must
take warning from God's words to Ezekiel, which apply to every
preacher of truth, "When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely
die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked
from his wicked way, to save his life: the same wicked man shall die
in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand." Paul
went into the Jewish synagogues repeatedly to lead them into the full
truth, although he raised strife and contention in so doing, and even
suffered violence at their hands. Unfortunately, a large per cent. of
Christians have formed a conspiracy of silence on matters in which
they differ. We have so little of the Spirit of Christ that we cannot
even talk over our differences without getting angry and exhibiting
the fruits of the flesh. And so we say, "We will agree to disagree,"
and we continue to nourish, pet and worship our differences as if
they were gods. This puts a mighty padlock on the growth into the
unity of the faith and knowledge and judgment which Christ and the
Apostles enjoined upon us. We need to get the New Testament
conception of the hideousness and sinfulness of all divisions among
God's people. And while we recognize the fact that there will always
be differences of opinion as long as we are ignorant and sinful and
weak, nevertheless it is our Christian duty to use our utmost effort
to diminish and remove these differences. There always will be sin in
this world but we dare not be satisfied with it or abide in it; but,
on the other hand, we must fight it with all the power we possess.
The same is true with divisions and differences of opinion.
We must, however, not overlook the important differences between
matters of faith and of opinion. Matters of faith are directly
revealed in the Bible, and upon these all Christians can and must
agree as soon as they get a fair look at them. While matters of
opinion, which are not directly revealed in the Bible, but are
inferred from things revealed, are important, they are not all
important, like matters of faith. But the more we overcome the
hindrances to finding truth, of which we have spoken, the more we
will be of the same mind and judgment in all things. For truth is not
divided, and we will all see it alike in so far as we see clearly. As
a rule, we can readily unite on the most important truths, and
therefore on those we need to unite on for our present duty. While,
if, through lack of faith, we turn away from the clear duty to seek
one that is easier, and requires less sacrifice, we usually become
hopelessly divided and thus fail in our effort.
In conclusion, having a clear conception of the baneful and ruinous
effect of differences of opinion, and being aware of the powerful
causes which hinder us from getting at the truth and thus divide us,
let us strive day and night, in prayer and labor, to get the truth
ourselves and to lead others into the truth. For in and through the
truth, we shall, with "one mind" and "one soul," go conquering and to
conquer, in the name of King Jesus, for the enlargement of his
kingdom of love, peace and joy.
PART II.
HOW I FOUND CHRIST'S CHURCH
CHAPTER I.
SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM.
One of the chief things that led me to identify myself with the
people working for Christian union, was my experience with regard to
baptism. Indeed, I am more and more convinced that baptism is the
main key to the question of Christian union. We can differ on
questions of theoretical theology and still work together in harmony
in practical Christian activities. But if we differ on the question
of baptism, we cannot take the first step in preaching the gospel and
in leading souls to Christ, in the New Testament way, without getting
into conflict. The only way that union meetings of different
denominations have been at all possible, has been by ignoring the
plain teaching and practice of the Apostles on the question of
baptism. We never can have Christian union in the authority of
Christ, which is the only union which will satisfy his prayer and
demand, until we agree on the two simple ordinances which are the
forms in which the gospel embodies itself to bless our souls. And,
fortunately, these are the easiest things to unite on. When free from
prejudice, there is no question on which Christians can more easily
agree than that of baptism, as the testimony of the scholars and
churches that follow in this chapter abundantly demonstrate. The
consummation of Christian union will have to patiently wait until
inherited and acquired prejudices become sufficiently allayed so that
all Christians can look at the question of baptism dispassionately.
Then it will be discovered that we all agree on this question and the
main barrier to Christian union will be removed. In our weakness we
want to procure Christian union without giving up our sectarian ideas
that have been superadded to the New Testament teaching, and that
have caused our division. And so we try to compromise by "agreeing to
disagree" or by ignoring the teachings of the New Testament. But such
efforts must be futile and disappointing. We can never unite on the
gospel until we agree in the gospel teaching. We can never unite in
obeying the Master until we unite in our opinions as to what the
Master has commanded us to do. But, thank God, the field is rapidly
ripening for this agreement and consequent union.
As is usually the case, I received my early ideas on baptism by
heredity and environment, so far as I had any ideas on the subject.
The religious people with whom I was associated in my early life
taught and practiced sprinkling and infant baptism, and, of course, I
assumed that they must be right in the matter. Although I read the
Bible through several times, I did not see its teaching on this
subject, as I was not particularly interested in it. For reasons
explained in previous chapters--that we look through colored glasses
--multitudes of people daily read their Bible who never see what is in
it; but imagine, as a matter of course, that it teaches what they
bring to it through hereditary and preconceived ideas.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 | 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12