The church and the ever-coming kingdom of God

Front matter

Class BR 1 15

COfXRICHT DEPOSeC

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Chapter Four

The Church and the Intensive Growth of the Kingdom — OR THE Problems of Christianization . . . 171

CHAPTER FIVE lE-TKODUCTION

W£ are living in the morning twilight of a new age. There are indications of a change in the weather later in the day, although at this early hour the weather prophets cannot foretell with certainty how decided the change will be, or how soon it will come. Some things, however, are reasonably sure. There will be certain reconstructions in our social life — in government, in industry, in education, and in religion. And it is clear also that the reconstruction will proceed in accordance with the principles of a social idealism which is reacting against the individualism of the old order.

The Christian church should be one of the vital factors in the work of reconstruction. But if the church shall assume moral leadership in the new age there is need, first of all, of a reconstruction of her own program — of her theology and of her practice. The individualistic program of salvation which was worked out in the individualistic ages of the past, and to which the church has steadfastly adhered all through the centuries, cannot meet the requirements of the new age. That a social Gospel is demanded in our day is clear to any one who can read the signs of the times. 'No other Gospel will get and hold the ear of the age. But the only Scriptural basis from which the social Gospel can consistently be preached are the ideals and principles which cluster about the prophetic conception of the kingdom of God. There is no other Scriptural material that will give adequate support to the message which the church must deliver. But this is the material which has been most neglected in our study of the Scriptures ; and to this neglect, more than

ix

X Introduction

to any other factor, must be attributed the social inefficiency of historical Christianity.

The most urgent challenge, therefore, that comes to the church in this day of social rebuilding is the call for the program which is implied in the ideals and the motives which center in the Kingdom-conception of Jesus and the prophets. The church must rediscover the prophetic conception of the kingdom of God or fail in the mission that was entrusted to her. Her theology must be rethought and her mission restudied from the view-point of the righteous social order which is implied in the fundamental principles of the kingdom of God. This book is but a feeble voice joining in the summons to the church to make the kingdom of God and its social implications the central or governing principle of her thought and her labors.

In these discussions I shall endeavor to show the church's mission in the difficult task that has been entrusted to her as the specially ordained servant of the kingdom of God. I shall frankly state the issues as I see them and understand them. I shall not hesitate to criticize the church where I feel convinced that she deserves criticism. It may appear to some that I unduly criticize her for her failure to establish the kingdom of God ; that I fail to appreciate the difficulties that have beset her in her labors; that I see only the duty that has been left undone. But this is not the case: I deeply appreciate the service which the church has rendered in an evil and unappreciative world ; and I am keenly aware of the difficulties that have beset her in her labors. But it is not my purpose to speak of these things, for they are matters of common knowledge. My purpose is to show: 1, that the social conception of the kingdom of God — i.e., the idea of a world-order regenerated by justice and brotherly love — is fundamental in the religion of the great prophets and of Jesus of iJ^azareth; 2, how the

Introduction xi

church came to depart from this idea of the kingdom; 3, that the weaknesses and failures of the church are largely due to this departure; and 4, that the salvation of the church as well as the salvation of society will depend upon her return to the ideals and purposes from which she has departed.

The church's departure from that which was most fundamental in her Master was due to circumstances rather than to willful disloyalty. The church never meant to be disloyal or untrue to the will and purpose of her Lord. Least of all does the church of to-day mean to be disloyal. There is more of the spirit of the Master in the church to-day than at any other time of history. But our devotion to the church must not blind us to her shortcomings. When the ostrich pokes his head into the sand he does not obliterate the things aroimd him; he merely deceives himself. 'Nov will the closing of our eyes and refusing to see change the facts of history. That the church has departed from the ideals and purposes that were most fundamental in the life and teachings of her Master is a plain fact of history. And that she has failed to adjust and to readjust her message and her ministry to the changes that have been wrought in the life of a growing world is also a plain fact of history. The church is face to face with the need of a radical readjustment right now. If she should fail to readjust herself to her changing environment, as she did in certain similar situations in the past, the tragedy would be doubly sad. It would be a sad thing for the world, and sad for the church herself.

It would be a sad thing for the world, for there is no other organization or agency that is in the least prepared to render the service which the church, as the special instrument of the kingdom of God, is supposed to render and is capable of rendering. Under the spell of temporary insanity from which many were suffering during the war, some otherwise reasonable people prophesied that xii Introduction

the church would speedily pass away, and that the Y. M. C. A., or the Red Cross Society, or some humane agency patterned after the war-service of these societies, would take her place. 'No one should be so ungrateful as to miminize the war-service of the Y. M. C. A., much less that of the Eed Cross Society. E'er should any one assume the role of a prophet who is so plainly lacking in common-sense judgment as to feel that the war-service which these organizations rendered, or that the service which they are at all prepared to render, could satisfy the religious or the social requirements of our age. What the world needs, and what it is unconsciously demanding, is the message and ministry which the prophetic conception of the kingdom of God implies; and the Christian church is the only organization that is prepared with the traditions, and with the men and the machinery, to render this service. !N'ot the passing away of the church, but her awakening to a sense of her full duty and opportunity is the thing that we need and want.

On the other hand, it would be a tragedy for the church herself if she could not be inspired to readjust herself to the demands which the new age is making upon her. It would not necessarily mean that the present organization would pass away, — at least not for a long time to come. The church, as she now is, would no doubt continue to live, and would do much good. She would continue to appeal to a certain class of people — to pious souls who are barren of the social passion. But if the church should fail to readjust herself to the new environment; if she should fail to adapt her message and her ministry to the intellectual world that has come into existence since the days of Copernicus and Bruno, and to the still greater changes that are at this very hour being wrought in the political and industrial world, she would lose her power to appeal to the class of men and women who will shape the policy

Introduction xiii

and determine the destiny of the social order of the future. She would, for this reason, fail to be a vital factor in the social rebuilding of the new age. She would, for this reason, sacrifice her supreme opportunity to serye. And what kind of church would it be that appealed only to the type of men and women who take more interest in the golden streets of the 'New Jerusalem than in the unsanitary streets of the city in which they and their neighbors are living? May God spare the world and the church from such a fate !

How will the church meet the crisis ? Will she give the kingdom of God the central place in her program? Will she make the ideals and purposes of the kingdom the governing idea in her message and her ministry? This is the paramount question. The real significance of everything that the church will attempt to do will depend upon whether or not the establishing of the kingdom of God is the controlling motive. The real significance of Missions — whether Home or Foreign Missions — depends upon the end or purpose that we have in view. If Foreign Missions merely mean the saving of the poor heathen from hell hereafter, they lose their primal significance. If Foreign Missions do not mean an effort to save the heathen from their social hell here on this earth ; and if Home Missions do not mean an effort to make life in all its departments and relationships livable for all the people, they lose their real significance. The prophetic doctrine of the kingdom of God, or the idea of a social order regenerated by justice and brotherly love, must be made the way of approach to all our problems — our individual and our social problems, — the problems of evangelization and the problems of christianization. It is this conviction — a conviction that has grown with experience and study — that has impelled me to give to the writing of this book the scattered moments which I could spare from my busy ministry, and no little physical energy which I could ill afford to give. The many errors xiv Introduction

and weaknesses are matters of the head and not of the heart; and I pray that the good God may overrule them all for the good of His kingdom, or the righteous social order.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my indebtedness and my gratitude to Professor George Albert Coe, of the Department of Religious Education in the Union Theological Seminary, ISTew York City, who read the manuscript and offered a number of very valuable suggestions and criticisms.

E. E. Keesgei.

Allentown, Pa.

THE :t^ATUEE OF THE KII^GDOM OF GOD

CHAPTER 0]vrE

THE NATURE OF THE KIITGDOM OF GOD

What then is the kingdom of God in compliance with whose ideals and purposes all our church activities should be attempted?

THE TEEM KIIsTGDOM OF GOD NOT CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES

WHEN" Jesus announced at the opening of his public ministry that the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God, was at hand, he coined no new theological term. He simply made use of a phrase that had been in common usage among his people for several centuries. His audience was perfectly familiar with the term. It was a term, however, that had not been defined by Israel's religious teachers in such a way as to convey the same meaning to all the people.

The Old Testament Use of the Term. — The idea of an earthly reign of Jehovah was vaguely present in Israel's religious thought from the earliest times. The idea was thoroughly ethicized by the social prophets who flourished during the eighth and the seventh centuries. According to the teaching of these men the reign of Jehovah implied a righteous social order — a social order in which justice, mercy, and peace would prevail for all classes in Israel. These great preachers had faith that this righteous social order would be ushered in through ethical and social forces that were resident in Israel. This was the conception of Amos and Micah, the first Isaiah and the unknown authors of the humanitarian laws in Deuteronomy.

But the destruction of the nation by an alien foe, and the enforced subjugation of the people under foreign rulers, revolutionized Hebrew thought. Both their theology and their religious practice adapted themselves to the changed conditions. The hope of the advent of the kingdom of God was not destroyed. It shone all the brighter after the national sun had set. But the former hope of the evolution of the kingdom through ethical forces in Israel was gone. Eeligious thought became more and more apocalyptic. Hope became focused upon a direct divine intervention in the interest of the kingdom. The God of heaven would set up a kingdom that would never be destroyed, and that would break in pieces and destroy all other kingdoms.^ The Lord would raise up a divine king, or one unto the son of man, who would gather together a holy people, who would destroy the ungodly nations, and of whose dominion there would be no end.^ The longer the enforced subjugation of the nation continued, the more the emphasis was shifted from the thought of a kingdom of God growing out of the existing Hebrew state by evolutionary forces, to the thought of a kingdom of God miraculously super-imposed on the remnant of the old Jewish state. But this renewed state, although supernaturally inaugurated, was still conceived of as essentially political in content, in spirit, and in purpose.

To the contemporaries of Jesus the term kingdom of God conveyed a variety of meanings and aroused different reactions, as the term socialism does in our own day.

1 cf . Daniel 2/ 44.

2cf. The Psalms of Solomon, 17/23; also Daniel, 7/13, 14.

In the opinion of the zealots, or the ardent Jewish patriots, it signified the literal restoration of the old Jewish state with its capital at Jerusalem. It would conquer and absorb the Roman empire. In them the term inspired revolutionary ambitions. They were ready to take up arms against Rome in order speedily to bring about the intensely longed-for vindication of Jehovah and His people. This may be one reason why Jesus used the term sparingly, even cautiously, in the earlier part of his ministry, and always in the vicinity of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the more religiously inclined Pharisees, and the wiser Jewish patriots who saw the folly of an attempt to throw off the Roman yoke by resort to physical force, emphasized the other-world aspect of this inherited hope. They promulgated the belief that the kingdom of God was a super-earthly state, and that it would be miraculously established. Some of them taught that God Himself would interfere and would suddenly establish His kingdom, while others of their party taught that the Messiah, for whose advent they were waiting, would be the divine agent who would inaugurate the new era. But Jerusalem would still be the center of the new universe. The Pharisaic conception dominated the religious thought of the times.

The influence of the old social prophets however had not died out altogether. The noted Rabbi Hillel, who died a few years after the beginning of the Christian era, seems to have held the view of the social prophets of the eighth and the seventh centuries rather than that of the orthodox Pharisees of the Post-Maccabean period. Prom some of his reputed sayings it appears that he taught that the kingdom of God denotes social righteousness, and that the new era would be ushered in by natural and evolutionary forces — through education and through the social endeavor of a righteous people — rather than through miraculous interventions.

John the Baptist, although of priestly extraction, and in spite of tlie ascetic bias of his nature, represented the view of his older contemporary, Hillel. His theme was: The kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and enroll as citizens. When the excited multitudes asked him: what do you mean by repentance? what must we do to enroll as citizens of the kingdom? his answer was: cease to exploit one another ; cease to tyrannize one another ; be just and merciful.^ According to the Gospels, John came to grief because he publicly denounced Herod Antipas for his illegal marriage with Herodias. According to Josephus,^ John was imprisoned because Herod feared that he might precipitate a revolution among the masses. Both explanations indicate very forcibly that in the judgment of John the religion of the kingdom of God must deal with our social relationships. The kingdom which he announced as close at hand was the old social hope of a reign of justice and mercy, and of the triimaph of ethical religion.

It is quite probable that the multitudes who came to hear Jesus preach had no consistent opinion on the subject. They had never analyzed either their religious faith or their social hope. In so far as the masses, including the immediate followers of Jesus, had any definite opinion on the subject at all, it meant a restored Jewish state, somewhat refined and spiritualized, but with its headquarters still at Jerusalem. The Lord's Messiah, for whose advent they were waiting, would be the divine instrument or agent to bring about this much-desired restoration.

There is something fascinating and inspiring about the term. Even its vagueness does not destroy its fascination, for through all the confused and contradictory mass of current opinion runs a common element, just as there is a common thread running through all the con-

8 Antiquities XVIII, 5, 2.

fused and conflicting present-day thought on the nature of the coming social order. This common element is a deep-rooted desire and an undying hope for a better society — a social order in which righteousness, justice, mercy, and peace would prevail for all Israelites. For some it was essentially an earthly hope; for others it was essentially a heavenly hope ; but for all it was the hope of a better world to come somehow^ sometime. It is this deep-rooted desire — this undying hope — in spite of the conflicting and contradictory ideas as to the when and the how of its realization, that gives permanent interest and value to the Old Testament conception of the reign or kingdom of God. It is the term around which clustered the inarticulate social aspirations of one of the greatest races of history. It represents Israel's collective hope which persisted in some form or other all through their history.

Jesus' lose of the Term. — Such, in brief, was the term that Jesus found, and of which he made constant use. 'No other term occurs so frequently in his discourses. No less than one hundred and eleven passages in the first three Gospels refer to some aspect of the kingdom. But Jesus was no systematic thinker. He was neither philosopher nor theologian, whose purpose was to put upon the market a finished philosophy of life. He was a man possessed by a consuming passion for righteousness — a consuming love for God and for humanity — ^but he lacked the philosophic interest to define his terms or to systematize his thought. There is no evidence of any special effort to clarify the confused notion which his audience had inherited. He delivered no prepared lectures on the kingdom. Most of his allusions to the subject were incidental. He referred to the kingdom as the occasions arose to demand it. And, quite naturally, one occasion demanded reference to one aspect of the kingdom, while another occasion demanded reference to an altogether different aspect of it. This accounts for the many seemingly irreconcilable elements in the teachings of Jesus on the subject. And much of his teaching was put into parabolic form, a method of instruction that is very stimulating and suggestive, but not at all conducive to uniformity of opinion. There is no evidence that Jesus at any time made an effort to derive a conception of social organization from the motives which he declared must control life. He declared the principles and the motives that must control us, but the derivation of any specific social organization from these principles remains the duty of his followers..

I We should bear in mind also that only the most frag- • mentary records were kept of the literal sayings of Jesus. We do not have the record of one entire sermon or address that he ever delivered. And even these very fragmentary records were not put into the form in which we now have them until long after the death of Jesus. And when they finally were put into form for general use no special care was shown for either logical or chronological order. The authors of the Gospels selected only what suited their i immediate purpose. And upon the material which they did select they stamped the impress of their own thought and feeling.

There is a quite large apocalyptic element in the Synoptic records of Jesus' teaching. As to the source of this material the New Testament critics have not been agreed. Some have attributed it to Jesus himself, while others have attributed it to the Judaizing influence which made itself felt in the Apostolic circle before the Gospels assumed their present form. But no matter what the source of this material may be, we must acknowledge its presence. This explains why some have constructed an apocalyptic or super-mundane theory of the kingdom of God, and have been able to support their claim with texts taken literally from the Gospel records of the sayings of Jesus; while others have supported the prophetic or social theory of the kingdom with an equally formidable array of proof-texts from the same records. The prooftext method of exegesis has resulted in much confusion of honest thought on this most fundamental and important of all religious subjects.

In this discussion I shall proceed on the assumption that Jesus revealed the nature of the kingdom of God by his attitude toward men and life, rather than through his random allusions to the subject. In the plain carpenter from ISTazareth of Galilee we see what citizenship in the kingdom implies. In him the kingdom of God as it is to come here on this earth clothed itself in real flesh and blood, and expressed itself in terms of actual life. We are safe to say that the kingdom of God is a social order made up of citizens who are controlled in all their relationships by the principles and motives that controlled Jesus. Instead of constructing my theory of the kingdom of God from a number of proof-texts I shall deduce it from the ethical ideals and principles which were incarnated in Jesus. I shall derive my theory of social organization from the motives which we know controlled Jesus' life, rather than from certain things that he is reported to have said. This method of exegesis will give us a theory of the kingdom of God that is true to revelation and that is at the same time pertinent to our age.

Of this one thing there can be no doubt : that the fundamental principles and motives of Jesus have social implications which we cannot escape. The principles which are embodied in the teachings of Jesus and which were incarnated in his life concern, first of all, "the life that now is." Right now is the time, and right here is the place, to apply them, although the full and complete realization of all their implications will extend far into the unknown future.

II

THE NATUEE OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD AS DETERMINED BY THE MOTIVES AND IDEALS OF JESUS

The Kingdom of God is a Social Order Animated hy the Spirit of Service.* — The key-note in the life of Jesus was service. "I came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister.". . ."I am in the midst of you as one who serves." That expresses the controlling motive of his life. Everything else was subordinated to the unselfish desire to serve God and man. If Jesus had been animated by selfish motives he would have gained a place in "The Who's Who" of contemporary public opinion. The words of the wily tempter: "All these things — and the glory of them — will I give thee if thou wilt serve me," represented something real and possible. Jesus could have become the equivalent of the modern millionnaire in that ancient social order if he would have devoted his superior powers to gain wealth. He could have become a popular hero, the idol of the market-place, if he would have used his unique power over men for selfish ends. But none of these things, which appeal so strongly to the average man, could move Jesus from the noble purpose to serve rather than to be served. He did not come among us to get out of us all that he could for himself, but to give himself for our welfare and happiness. The absence of materia] reward did not change his purpose. Even the absence of appreciation and gratitude could not destroy in him the holy passion to serve rather than to be served.

In this unique desire to serve Jesus reveals the first qualification for citizenship in the kingdom of God. 'No , one can claim citizenship in the kingdom until the un-: selfish desire to serve becomes the controlling motive of his life. So long as a man is governed by the desire to get personal gain out of the community rather than by the desire to serve the community he is a citizen of the world, and not of tlie kingdom of God. So long as a man places profits, or dividends, or honor, or personal power, or any other thing, above the desire to be of service to society, he is not a citizen of the kingdom of God. Church membership, baptism, prayers, fastings, liberal offerings for benevolence, and such like, cannot be accepted as substitutes for this holy passion to serve.

This desire to serve must become the controlling motive not only of individuals, but also of organized groups of individuals. The kingdom of God implies that communities and nations, and that all organized groups of individuals within the community and the nation such as corporations, stock-companies, political parties, etc., govern themselves by this Christ-like passion for service. Every department of our individual and social life must be leavened by this fundamental Christian motive. Keligion, education, art, science, literature, business, politics, everything, must be governed by the desire to serve rather than by the desire for personal gain or personal advantage. No one can claim a place in the kingdom of God until the selfish desire for personal gain becomes subordinated to the unselfish desire to serve.

The Kingdom of God is a Social Order that Values Man and His Welfare Above Everything Else. — Jesus was bom into a world that placed a very low value upon the individual man. Few commodities were cheaper in that ancient social order than the life of the individual citizen. Material things were valued more highly than men. One class of citizens was constantly being sacrificed in the interest of things for another class. It was a bold stroke of radicalism to take man from the circumference of the universe and place him in the center. But that is what Jesus did. He was the source of a social evolution, the far-reaching effects of which we are feeling at this very hour, when he taught that the social order must be made to revolve around man and his welfare and not around things and profit in things. Jesus was the uncompromising enemy of every tendency to sacrifice man in the interest of things. He never became reconciled to any practice whether religious, political, or industrial, that subordinated the welfare and the happiness of man to any other consideration. He was unsparing in his criticism of the sheep industry of Palestine, because it placed a higher value upon the sheep than it did upon the men who took care of them. He was severe in his criticism of the orthodox religion of his day because it placed a higher value upon an institution like the Sabbath, or a thing like the altar, than it did upon men. The priest and the Levite, in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, became the target of his censure because they placed the formal worship of God above service to a needy human being. In his efforts to emphasize the supreme value of human life Jesus, on one occasion, made the seemingly extravagant statement that one soul is worth more than the whole material universe. Though a man should succeed in gaining the whole material world for his possession, but should lose his soul in the transaction, it would be a poor bargain. 'No other system of religion or of ethics places so high a value upon the life of the individual as does the religion of Jesus Christ.

But Jesus was no ascetic like John the Baptist. He did not despise things. He simply assigned things their proper place in the economy of life. He valued things very highly, but only as they had value for human life. He came among us as our servant; but the object of his service was life, rather than things. He did not come that we might have more things, but that we might have more life. His purpose was not to show us how to raise fifty sheep instead of twenty five on an acre of ground; but to inspire us to relate our sheep and all other things to the living of a worth-while life. He was interested in things, not for the sake of things, but because of their value for human life.