Trouble has
been the lot of man from the earliest times. He shivers in
winter's blasts and is smitten by the summer's heat. His frame
is withered by sickness and worn by toil and anxiety. Famine
dogs his steps and the wild, red eyes of war stare at him
through the darkness of fear and uncertainty. Evil and short
are his days, and death relentlessly trails him with the gloom
of nameless fears of the night that will follow earth's early
sunset.
Once a boy held a conch [conch = a thick heavy spiral
seashell] to his ear to hear what was said to be the roar of a
distant sea. Most of the great literature of the world is such
a conch in which one hears the never-ending moan of the
troubled sea of human misery. "Man," writes Job, "is born unto
trouble, as the sparks fly upward" (Job 5:7).
It's not necessary to agree with the philosophy of
Schopenhauer to admit that he's painted a striking, if
one-sided, view of human life when he says: "Let's now add the
consideration of the human race. Here also life presents
itself by no means as a gift for enjoyment, but as a task,
drudgery to be performed; and in accordance with this we see,
in great and small, universal need, ceaseless wars, cares,
constant pressure, endless strife, compulsory activity, with
extreme exertion of all the powers of mind and body. Many
millions, united into nations, strive for the common good,
each individual on account of his own; but many thousands fall
as a sacrifice for it. Now senseless delusion, now intriguing
politics, excite them to wars with each other; then the sweat
and the blood of the great multitude must flow, to carry out
the ideas of individuals, or to expiate their faults. In
peace, industry and trade are active, inventions work
miracles, delicacies are called from all ends of the world,
the waves engulf thousands. All strive, some planning, some
acting; the tumult is indescribable. But the ultimate aim of
it all -- what is it? To sustain ephemeral and tormented
individuals through a short span of life, in the most
fortunate case with endurable want and comparative freedom
from pain, which, however, is at once attended with ennui;
then the reproduction of this race and its striving. In this
evident disproportion between the trouble and the reward, the
will to live appears to us from this point of view, if taken
objectively, as a fool, or subjectively, as a delusion, seized
by which everything living works with the utmost exertion of
its strength, for something that is of no value." [3]
It was the remark of Josiah Royce that Schopenhauer only
re-echoed the pessimism of Thomas a Kempis' famous Christian
classic The Imitation of Christ. [4] Accordingly we find
Thomas a Kempis (1380-1471) writing as follows:
"Ah! fool, why dost thou think to live long, when thou
canst not promise to thyself one day?
"How many have been deceived and suddenly snatched away!
"How often dost thou hear these reports: Such a man is
slain, another man is drowned, a third breaks his neck with a
fall from some high place, this man died eating, and that man
playing!
"One perished by fire, another by the sword, another of the
plague, another was slain by thieves. Thus death is the end of
all, and man's life suddenly passeth away like a shadow." [5]
It was to be expected that John Milton (1608-1674),
greatest religious poet who ever used the English language,
should describe human misery with powerful effect. After
Adam's fall, the angel Michael shows him in vision the future
fate of mankind, and as he gazes with saddened eyes his
angelic guide describes the gloomy scene. "Death thou hast
seen In his first shape on Man; but many shapes Of Death, and
many are the ways that lead To his grim cave -- dismal, yet to
sense More terrible at the entrance than within. Some, as thou
saw'st, by violent stroke shall die, By fire, flood, famine;
by intemperance more In meats and drinks, which on the Earth
shall bring Diseases dire, of which a monstrous crew Before
thee shall appear, that thou may'st know What misery the
inabstinence of Eve Shall bring on men." Immediately a place
Before his eyes appeared, sad, noisome, dark; A lazar house it
seemed' wherein were laid Numbers of all diseased maladies Of
ghastly spasm, of racking torture, qualms Of heart-sick agony,
all feverous kinds, Convulsions, epilepsies, fierce catarrhs,
Intestine stone and ulcer, colic pangs, Demoniac frenzy,
moping melancholy, And moon-struck madness, pining atrophy,
Marasmus, and wide-wasting pestilence, Dropsies and asthmas,
and joint-racking rheums. Dire was the tossing, deep the
groans; Despair Tended the sick, busiest from couch to couch;
And over them triumphant Death his dart Shook, but delayed to
strike, though oft invoked With vows, as their chief good and
final hope. Sight so deform what heart of rock could long
Dry-eyed behold? [6]
We might change the figure and say that this misery of
mankind is the deep slough of despond in which the great
seventeenth-century English writer, John Bunyan, struggled so
long. In his The Pilgrim's Progress Bunyan writes: "Wherefore
Christian was left to tumble in the Slough of Despond alone;
but still he endeavored to struggle to that side of the Slough
that was still further from his own house, and next to the
Wicket-gate; the which he did, but could not get out, because
of the Burden that was upon his back: But I beheld in my
Dream, that a man came to him, whose name was Help, and asked
him, What he did there?" [7]
It's from this dismal swamp that Paul heard the age-long
cry of distress which forever clamors for deliverance.
"For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for
the revealing of the sons of God For we know that the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now"
(Rom. 8:19, 22, A.R.V.).
PROBLEM OF HUMAN SUFFERING
Paul sees religion as an answer to man's pathetic cry for
help in the midst of his suffering and anxiety, and
observation confirms the statement that all religion of which
history gives us any record whatever is an attempt to answer
the cry of distress which arises from the vast swamp of human
misery.
Buddhism arose in this way. Buddha Gautama, so the story
goes, was a prince of India, living a life of luxury
surrounded with all that could gratify sensuality and please
the natural man; and yet in this condition he found himself
unhappy. Moreover, he was smitten with compunction as he
regarded the accumulated misery of the world around him.
It is a dramatic story which tells how he left all his
earthly glory behind and, walking softly lest he waken the
sleeping dancing girls, fled the palace and went out to be a
homeless ascetic devoting every waking hour of the day to the
contemplation of the mystery of human suffering. Thus was
Buddhism born, and a little reflection will convince any man
that all philosophy and all religion, regardless of origin,
exist in history for the purpose of furnishing a satisfactory
solution of the problem of misery and human suffering.
What's the Nature of Man's Misery?
Nearly all historic interpretations of the problem of human
suffering have been rendered futile and misleading by reason
of the fact that they have been oversimplified. The brilliant
thinkers of the world feel happy when they can gather all the
threads of a difficult subject into one compact cord -- when
they can explain all the complex phenomena of human life by
one simple formula. And so the meaning of man's misery has
been oversimplified.
In his book, The Idea of the Holy, a deep and searching
inquiry into the foundations of religious feeling in human
nature, Rudolph Otto has shown that the very first effort
which mankind made in history to understand the meaning of
life was an attempt to attribute all suffering and all
misfortune to an incomprehensible, fearful mystery which later
men called God.
At the beginning, good and evil were not differentiated in
this mystery, but were considered as the source of both the
sin and the suffering as well as the goodness and the joy of
human life.
The earliest Hindu literature gives us pictures of the gods
as being the source of human misery. In the Bhagavad-Gita, one
of the scriptures of Hinduism, dating from the third century
or earlier, is a passage boldly attributing the sufferings of
humanity to the incomprehensible will of God. In the story,
Prince Arjuna is being served by the supreme god, Vishnu,
incarnated as Krishna, disguised as a charioteer. Suddenly the
humble charioteer throws off all camouflage and reveals
himself with blazing brilliance as the highest god before the
wondering eyes of the prince, who chants:
Thou Refuge of the World! Lo! to the cavern hurled Of Thy
wide-opened throat, and lips white-tushed, I see our noblest
ones, Great Dhritarashtra's sons, Bhishma, Drona, and Karna,
caught and crushed! The Kings and Chiefs drawn in, That gaping
gorge within; The best of all both armies torn and riven!
Between Thy jaws they lie Mangled fell bloodily, Ground into
dust and death! Like streams down driven With helpless haste,
which go In headlong furious flow Straight to the gulfing maw
of the unfilled ocean, So to that flaming cave These heroes
great and brave Pour, in unending streams, with helpless
motion! Like moths which in the night Flutter towards a light,
Drawn to their fiery doom, flying and dying, So to their death
still throng, Blind, dazzled, borne along Ceaselessly, all
these multitudes, wild flying! Thou, that has fashioned men,
Devourest them again, One with another, great and small,
alike! The creatures whom Thou makest, With fining jaws Thou
takest, Lapping them up! Lord God! Thy terrors strike.
At sight of this dreadful mystery, Prince Arjuna raises
again the eternal question which philosophy and religion have
long tried to answer: From end to end of earth Filling life
full, from birth To death, with deadly, burning, lurid dread!
Ah, Vishnu! Make me know Why is Thy visage so? Who art Thou,
feasting thus upon Thy dead? O Mightiest Lord! rehearse Why
hast Thou face so fierce? Whence did this aspect horrible
proceed? [8]
The answer of the Bhagavad-Gita remains still one of the
classical attempts to solve the problem of human misery: man
is a victim of the inexplicable and incomprehensible movement
of the will of God. Strange as it may seem, this was
substantially the doctrine of Augustine and Calvin. In
Christianity this belief is called predestination, and in
secular language it is termed fate.
At the same time it must be born in mind that this is
likewise the essential answer of scientific materialism,
namely, man suffers as he does through the operation of
nature, which acts blindly and remorselessly without
intelligence and without heart. We believe the solution is too
simple, as is also the theory of Buddhism and of Schopenhauer
that misery springs from desire.
There are many Christians who believe that man's misery
arises from the fact that he's now living in a world resting
under a permanent curse from God. This wouldn't be an
unreasonable belief for a devout Hindu worshipping Kali, the
goddess of fury, or Vishnu who grinds the skulls of earth's
noblest heroes between his teeth; but it's not an easy
doctrine for a Christian to defend.
The doctrine is based upon the story of the curse
pronounced against Adam:
"Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou
eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles
shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of
the field" (Gen. 3:17-18).
I don't deny that the ground was cursed for Adam's sake.
That was a temporary sentence upon him personally, for it
specifically identifies him as the one to suffer the penalty.
But those who claim that this is the devil's world and that
the earth and nature are resting under the curse of God must
have neglected reading the following verses:
"And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in
his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for
man's sake; neither will I again smite any more every thing
living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime
and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day
and night shall not cease" (Gen. 8:21-22).
An abnormal Christian asceticism has throughout many weary
centuries unnecessarily embittered the lives of good people by
confusing the world of nature which God pronounced good with
the world of moral evil which Christians must forever fight.
That God pronounced the earth good when he made it is plainly
a part of the record:
"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good" (Gen. 1:31).
Indeed, there's a sense in which all nature is holy, for a
holy thing is a thing which God owns, and "the earth is the
Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (Ps. 24:1; I Cor. 10:26-28).
Of course, we don't mean by this that the earth and nature
are holy in the moral and spiritual sense of a purified
Christian soul, for obviously nature is not capable of any
such purity, being without will or any spiritual quality. We
simply mean that the earth is holy in the scriptural sense
that things that belong to God are holy. It's not too much to
say that all attempts to account for man's misery and sin by
reference to the supposedly uncongenial nature of his physical
environment in this world are a reflection upon the infinite
wisdom and goodness that placed man in the midst of a world
best adapted to minister to his happiness as planned and built
by the infinite wisdom of God. Many years ago that vigorous
evangelist Sam Jones poured contempt upon whining Christians
who sing: This world's a howling wilderness of woe, This world
is not my home.
"You old hypocrites, you," cried the fiery orator, "if
there's any howling you're the ones who're doing it; but this
world is not a wilderness of woe: this is God's world."
The most pronounced religious conservative must concede
that modern research has proved one phase of liberalistic
optimism, namely, that the control of nature as revealed by
science is placing in man's hands almost infinite
possibilities of progress and happiness. Through science man
is entering into an age when it seems not unreasonable to hope
for the cure of all diseases, or at least an antidote to all
pain and suffering which human nature is called upon to
endure.
Looking at the surface of things it seems perfectly
feasible that we should within one generation become able to
feed adequately, clothe comfortably, and house in a sanitary
manner every human being in the world; furnish suitable
employment to every adult on earth, and cure all diseases. We
ought to be able soon to control heredity so skillfully that
no more inherited diseases and deformities will be transmitted
to posterity; in so doing we should eliminate insanity,
feeblemindedness, and all types of crime which arise from
inherited handicaps. We should be able to secure justice for
every man and education for every child and youth. Sickness,
war, and crime would be eliminated. In this way we could
easily build a world which would hold no jails, no hospitals,
no insane asylums, and which supported no navies and no
armies. Some might think this is a flight of fancy, but I
believe that every first-rate scientist in the world will
agree that these utopian gains are easily within the scope of
man's scientific and inventive grasp at the present time -- if
it were not for the contradictory intractable quality of human
nature itself. Therefore, sadly, like Adam of old, we are
driven away by a flaming sword from this scientific paradise
of the future -- driven away, however, not by the evil quality
of the physical universe but by the impossibility of ordering
the world of mankind into any such rational pattern of life.
THE SPRINGS OF MAN'S MISERY ARE IN HIMSELF
While we admit that the world of physical nature has been a
hard school -- it has goaded man with heat and with cold and
burdened him with toilsome labor -- yet we deny that his
misery springs from the physical nature of the world. For us
there is good doctrine in the old English folk song:
"I am Myself, My Own Fever and Pain."
The paradox inevitable in all thinking about the mental,
moral, and spiritual nature of man has been well expressed by
Dr. Harold Rugg as follows: Every man is a deep dichotomy ...
he is Two Men In every man there is authoritarian ...
democrat,pragmatist ... and poet, exploiter ... and
sustainer-of-the-yield. there is a pride of Self . . . and a
sense of neighbor -- a practical opportunism... and an adamant
idealism. there is the aggrandizing I ... and the balancing
We. But to make these two men one -- That is the eternal
problem. Because of this split in Every man, Every
Mediterranean culture is a corresponding dichotomy. Within
each one two rival traditions contend for supremacy: -- The
Exploitive Tradition of the Individualist. -- The Great
Tradition of the Person. [9]
One of the most able modern exponents of this
interpretation of human nature is Prof. Reinhold Niebuhr, of
Union Theological Seminary, New York City. Dr. Niebuhr has
expounded this Christian interpretation of human nature in two
scholarly volumes: The Nature and Destiny of Man: Vol. I,
Human Nature; and Vol. II, Human Destiny. It would be beyond
the scope of this book to specify the many points in which I
disagree with Dr. Niebuhr, but as against scientific
materialism and liberal modernism, I am free to say that Dr.
Niebuhr has written the most brilliant and discriminating
analysis of human nature to appear in America in many years.
Nevertheless he is merely, along with many other able modern
thinkers, returning to the traditional Christian doctrine of
the nature of man. He is writing in the tradition of Martin
Luther, Blaise Pascal, Augustine, and Paul. These have all
focused attention upon the double and contradictory quality of
human nature. The best and simplest explanation of this
standing contradict ion in man's life which I have seen is
given by Prof. Karl Heim, of the University of Tubingen, in
his great book, God Transcendent, Foundation for a Christian
Metaphysic. The idea is worked out on many pages, but is
brought to a focus in the following illustration:
"Two straight lines of infinite length and of different
directions intersect in a point. Two infinite planes, inclined
at an angle to each other, intersect in a straight line. The
result presented by this intersection of two infinite
magnitudes can be described only paradoxically. The point of
intersection O, in which two straight lines, AB and CD meet,
belongs to the line AB and also to the line CD. But the
remarkable thing is that the two lines do not divide this
point between them nor compete for the possession of it. The
point O belongs wholly and completely to the line AB, and it
belongs also wholly and completely to the line CD. The same is
true of the line of intersection between two planes. It
belongs as much to the one as to the other." [10]
To summarize the illustration, we might imagine the
horizontal line representing nature, matter, science, and
time, the nature of the physical elements of man. Then
intersect this at right angles by a vertical line representing
mind, thought, spirit, conscience, and eternity. And at the
point where these two lines intersect there is generated the
strange, perverse, self-contradictory, and restless nature of
man. He does not belong wholly to either world alone, and yet
there are times when he may imagine himself belonging wholly
to either one or the other of these worlds.
At the time when he thinks of himself as an animal he
resents the tantalizing and disturbing thought that he is a
spirit. And sometimes when he dwells in thought upon the
buoyant and unconquerable nature of his spirit, he resents the
fact that he is an animal, and seeks to deny it.
It's a strange fact that nearly all philosophy is
strenuously engaged in the heartbreaking task of bending these
two lines to make them come together into one. Materialism and
naturalism seek to bend the vertical line of spirit down to
the level of the horizontal line of matter and nature.
Students who are drilled in this fantastic exercise for eight
or ten years sometimes become so maimed and deformed in their
thinking that they cannot any longer conceive and understand
the spiritual quality of man's nature.
Philosophical idealism, on the other hand, is engaged in
bending the horizontal line of matter and nature to a complete
parallel and identification with the vertical line of mind and
spirit, thus tending to deny the reality of nature and of
matter. This also produces an artificial abnormality in human
thinking which tends to make the reception of the truth
impossible. Advocates of each of these philosophies stigmatize
the Christian view as dualism. Nevertheless, the view which we
advocate is not dualism, properly speaking, because dualism
implies the existence of two parallel lines running side by
side, and that is the very theory of the universe which we
deny. We deny that God and spirit run side by side with nature
and matter. We assert that God and spirit cross nature and
matter just as the vertical line crosses the horizontal line,
and yet one does not destroy the other.
I've emphasized this idea because once this viewpoint is
gained the student will be amazed at the way in which his
conception of the nature of man is clarified and made to
correspond with reality. He will discover. that while
scientists are correct in describing the physical and animal
nature of man, at every point the description falls short of
the real man because that can only be understood by a
recognition and appreciation of his spiritual capacities. One
must understand the way in which this creature of time
partakes of the august quality of eternity. And here, too, the
inquirer finds himself thinking in the pattern of Holy
Scripture, which says: "He hath made everything beautiful in
its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so
that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the
beginning even to the end" (Eccles. 3:11, A.R.V.).
This stereoscopic vision of human nature is the truest and
best because it sees man as a creature of two worlds and thus
is able to describe him in a manner truly scientific, in a
perfectly proper meaning of that word. Even worldly men of
genius have been able to see this truth when not blinded by
dogmatism. Shakespeare has expressed it thus:
"What a piece of work is man! how noble in reason! how
infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and
admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how
like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!
And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" [11]
This is man as the greatest English poet saw him, now like
an animal, now like God.
It has been 2,900 years since that famous Greek man of
genius, Homer, explained how man's spiritual nature may be
hypnotized into a stupor which leaves him predominately an
animal. Homer illustrated this by the myth of the sorceress
Circe who, when the sailors of Ulysses had gorged themselves
with feasting and with wine, touched them one by one with her
wand and turned them into swine:
" ... then instantly she touched them with a wand, and shut
them up in sties, transformed to swine in head and voice,
bristles and shape, though still the human mind remained to
them." [12]
We might say that the sorcery of Circe and the genius of
Homer made these men miserable by an illuminating revelation
of their true condition so that they saw, as never before,
that they were animals in a pigsty, yet gifted with the lofty
intelligence of the human mind which saw clearly their
condition but felt itself utterly unable to escape from its
animal limitations.
"The one party is brought back to the other in an endless
circle," says Pascal, the great seventeenth century French
philosopher, "it being certain that in proportion as men
possess light they discover both the greatness and the
wretchedness of man. In a word, man knows that he is wretched.
He is therefore wretched because he is so, but he is really
great because he knows it." Chaos of thought and passion, all
confused; Still by himself abused and disabused; Created half
to rise, and half to fall; Great lord of all things, yet a
prey to all; Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled; The
glory, jest, and riddle of the world! [13]
And thus we have seen that man is a bundle of
contradictions, miserable and creating misery. Let us go on to
see why it is so.
WHY MAN'S A MISFIT IN NATURE
In things of the spirit wise men don't seek for glaring
incontrovertible proofs which shall fatally stab the very
mystery of life with unanswerable logic. Rather are wise men
like the Indian guides of frontier legends who search
carefully for the slightest displacement of a fallen twig, or
perhaps the faint bruise of the grass by a footfall, or a
pebble turned out of its place, in order to trace the way
their quarry has taken through the pathless wilderness. Such
things are not proved. They're surmised by minds made
sensitive to the smallest indications of hidden truth.
Therefore we don't imagine that we can prove that man's a
misfit in his universe. Neither do we seek to give such proof.
We do, however, believe that there are bent twigs, crushed
grass, and misplaced pebbles which suggest to the thoughtful
that man is indeed a misfit in nature and it is from this fact
that his misery arises. Christian thinkers who have followed
the trail of man through history for centuries have a very
definite interpretation of the origin and nature of man's
misery and of the reason why he is a misfit in 'the universe
where he lives. That doctrine is that man is a misfit because
he has lost adjustment in the spiritual phases of his life. He
is miserable because he is out of harmony with God, and that
is the meaning of sin.
We admit that this is not the current, popular
interpretation of the modern world, yet even in our times it
is conceded that most of man's misery comes from
maladjustment. Indeed, the whole modern science of psychiatry
is built around that one word "maladjustment." More than any
other single term perhaps "maladjustment" describes the theory
and technique of abnormal psychology in understanding the
mental ills of men. Psychiatrists believe that a large part of
insanity and many forms of mental derangement are caused by
the failure of the afflicted person to adjust himself to his
environment, in some manner. Now Christians have no fault with
any constructive science which seeks to better the lot of
mankind; but it is to be remembered that all of the so-called
sciences dealing with human nature, such as politics,
economics, sociology, and psychology are, in fact, mixtures of
science and philosophy, being in most cases more philosophical
than scientific. It would be easy to show that in the
composition of each of these sciences there is more of the
value judgments of philosophy than of the experimental facts
of science. These social sciences, also, are nearly always
tendency driven or dogmatic in that they proceed upon certain
philosophical suppositions to a foregone conclusion. Many
psychiatrists, for example, do not believe in the spiritual
nature of man. Consequently all their efforts at adjustments
are bent toward ignoring and paralyzing the spiritual
qualities of man's nature to a point where he will be
satisfied with himself as a mere animal.
This is the kind of cure that's worse than the disease.
It's as if a man living near a junk yard should become
depressed by constantly gazing on disorderly piles of scrap
and at last his dejection grew so great that he would consult
a physician. The physician would offer to cure him by blinding
his eyes so that he could no longer see the junk pile. Such a
treatment might cure the patient of one form of depression but
it would certainly leave him in a worse condition; and
likewise there's no doubt that some unbelieving psychiatrists
have wrought a similar injury in the spiritual life of their
patients. The universal experience of mankind has constantly
shown that, broadly speaking, it is impossible for the normal
man to become so adjusted to mere physical nature that he
finds peace and satisfaction. This is a subject worthy of
contemplation by a thoughtful person. Animals do become
adjusted to their environment, and while they may not know any
ecstasy of happiness, it's certainly true that under normal
conditions they do not suffer anything like the common misery
of human life. Even Darwin, who first popularized the theory
of "nature, red in tooth and claw," took pains in his famous
Origin of Species to emphasize the fact that, for the most
part, the life of animals is pleasant.
"When we reflect on this struggle," he says, "we may
console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature
is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is
generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the
happy survive and multiply." [14]
That's to say the great naturalist believed the life of
animals to be on the whole a pleasant one. They don't suffer
from fear and anxiety and dread of the future; and especially
they don't suffer from the fear of death. And all the
philosophers, economists, politicians, physicians, and
philanthropists of the world could not, by putting their
efforts together, produce for mankind such a great relief as
that. Reinhold Niebuhr, in The Nature and Destiny of Man, [15]
points out that the fact that man fears death while the lower
animals do not is evidence of man's being of another order of
nature. I might add that herein man is like Benjamin Franklin
when, sending his kite beyond his view and above the clouds,
he felt the sharp tingle of the electric current which came
from that distant source down to him. So man lives in two
dimensions of life -- spirit and animal. As an animal he would
be satisfied with earthly comfort except that he is connected
with this vertical line of spiritual reality reaching out into
eternity, and from eternity that line brings to him from time
to time the sharp lightning strokes of the fear of death which
prove his connection with another world.
It's just because his relations with that other world are
disordered by sin that he cannot find the conditions of peace
in this world. All of his progress in science and the control
of nature are thwarted and prevented from fulfilling their
rational possibilities by the irrational and destructive
element of sin in the life of mankind.
In the prosecution of the first world war, the United
States spent enough money to buy every scrap of property and
every inch of land from the Mississippi River to the Pacific
Coast When we think of this and then remember the multiplied
billions of dollars spent in the second world war, it is
easily apparent that our country is rich enough to give every
family a good home, abundant food, education, and all the
advantages of a comfortable life. There is only one thing
which makes this impossible despite the dreams of idealists:
namely, the sinful quality of human nature which will
frustrate any such generous purpose. We create inventions
which would lighten the toil and increase the comfort of
mankind. But great corporations buy up these inventions and
hide them away so that their use can't be enjoyed by the
public. Inventions which do reach the public and which promise
to make the earth a paradise are soon grasped by warring
nations and used to destroy the life of mankind in ways of
which even Milton never dreamed. In fact, the famous Russian
philosopher, Nicholas Berdyev, denies that any social reform
has ever achieved its end.
It's not necessary to go that far in order to understand
that man can't achieve his object of making a secular paradise
of this world as long as he is working at cross-purposes with
God. The increasing realization of this fact is sending the
greatest thinkers and scholars of the Christian world back to
the fundamental doctrine of the nature of man. This movement
began in Europe at the end of the first world war, where the
hard facts of history moving on the minds of able and
brilliant men began to counteract the false theories of
religious liberalism which, assuming the perfectibility of
human nature, had thrown overboard the Christian doctrine of
the sinfulness of man's heart and for generations prophesied
that man could by his own effort transcend his fate as a
miserable sinner.
The reaction against religious liberalism and modernism was
much later in reaching America. In this country, at the close
of the first world war, the false prophets of religious
liberalism began again to lift the optimistic chant of man's
self-redemption which they had been singing in this country
for some fifty years.
Following is an example of this optimism written by a
famous religious liberal in 1921. Under the caption, "Twenty
Years from Now," by Dr. Frank Crane: "Europe will have righted
itself; Germany, pruned of her destructive militarism will
flourish in newness of strength and with kindness once more
minister to the world; in Russia will be one of the mightiest
democracies purged of Czarism and Bolshevism. Ireland will
have settled down; the Balkan States will have got over the
initial difficulties of their young democracies, and this part
of Europe will be the paradise of tourists; Mexico will be our
well-beloved neighbor; war will have disappeared from the
horizon of the world, a whole generation of men will have come
to maturity, with their bodies unimpaired and their
imaginations unpolluted by alcohol; the labor movement will
have outgrown its bitter phase of class warfare and brought on
a world-wide sweep of industrial democracy; children will be
happier, homes brighter, ignorance less, blatherskites less
blustering, useless talk) -- twenty years from now."
We must confess to a sense of nostalgia at the sweet music
of Dr. Crane's optimism, for although the writer was not a
religious liberal, he was nevertheless able to admire the
famous commentator and to appreciate the bold, if diluted,
testimony he bore to Christianity in the public press of those
days. Of course, we have never expected his prophecy to be
fulfilled, but we must say that we wish it had been. Perhaps
the keenest of all disappointments is the failure of Dr.
Crane's prophecy that the blatherskites would be less in the
modern age. The good doctor has defined blatherskites as
people given to "blustering, useless talk." So it comes to
pass that while the good doctor is now in heaven, doubtless
having his theology duly corrected, the blatherskites are
still with us on earth, promising the millennium in the
1980's, whereas all Christian realism must insist that the
sinful quality of human nature will work in the future as in
the past to frustrate the wisest science of the best and
strongest men and continue in the life of human society the
sin and misery which has been the age-old inheritance of the
human race.
Fourteen hundred years ago Augustine wrote: "And Thee would
man praise; man, but a particle of Thy creation; man, that
bears about him his mortality, the witness of his sin, the
witness that Thou resistest the proud: yet would man praise
Thee; he, but a particle of Thy creation. Thou awakest us to
delight in Thy praise; for Thou madest us for Thyself, and our
heart is restless, until it repose in Thee." [16]
And this will certainly be as true twenty years from now as
it was in the days when Christianity was
young.