CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM

Evening Star, Issue 12397, 10 January 1905, Page 8

CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM

♦ , [BY A. PBOTJifetANT.] The definition. Las already been given of Christianity with which its latest apologist opened hds discourse—" nothing more or less than the life and teaching of Christ."' Toward the end of the "debate" he treated bis audience'to another definition—" Christianity is Socialism plus humanitarian! sm at the present time." It would seem to follow that Jesus was a Socialist. When it is added that "Ohrist was a laborer and he dignified labor, and he would have no parasitical class—no class living on others —that He was the founder of Democracy . ... He was the son of a carpenter " —when all these features are added we hare what might pass for the picture of a New Zealand demagogue, or, we might say, a professional politician, except that it might be suggested that- professional politicians belong to the parasitical class—"those who live upon others"—<ind that would never do. . Mr Wilson, the avowed enemy of Christianity, must have been considerably surprised when ho was training his heavy siege guns against what he considered a stronghold of ignorance and bigotry to find that it had been converted into a Socialistic fortress, and that the gallant defender had evacuated it and gone up in a balloon, and 1 was diverting the attention of the spectators from the bombardment by treating them to a display of Socialistic fireworks. The spectators appear to have been quite pleased with the performance. Mr Wilson had the satisfaction of demolishing the undefended fortress and pocketing half of the proceeds of the entertainment, and the balloonist had the honor of saving Christianity by carrying it away with him in the balInon amidst "hearty applause-" If such a performance as this "debate" appears to have been is seriously regarded jm a defence of Christianity, the fact fimolv shows what an invertebrate, eviscerated affair Christianity must have become—a mere iridescent soap bubble floating in the thin air it' "hnmanitarianism" and Socialistic sentiment, and mere moonshine. It seems to roe that the spread of such a conception of Christianity in the community must prove more dangerous to that religion than such direct and open assaults as those made by Mr Wilson. If any avowed Agnostic or "Atheist" had ventured to dwny in so many words that Jesus was God incarnate, and that He had died as an atonement for sin, he would probably have been howled down; but when a sentimental Socialist, posing as a defender of Christianity, tells a large audience that it was- by reason <-f Jesus being a carpenter and the son of a carpenter (not the Son of Godl that He produced such a tremendous effect on the world, he is frreeted with "loud applause." The same Jrsns who said "My kingdom is not of this world is represented as a sort of Socialistic Labor leader—a sublimated Keir ITardie—a political and social reformer whose denunciations are reserved for landowners and capitalists (the parasites of society), instead of being poured upon the beads of liars, hypocrites, and extortioners, the latter having all become Christians nowadays. We are reminded of a storv that appeared in the democratic papers at tho time of the dockers' strike. A wellknown Labor leader, Tom Mann, addressing a crowd of strikers, began talking to them about the "man of Nazareth." He told them some things the man of Nazareth said when he was upon the earth, some things the man of Nazareth did when he was upon the earth, and told them what he believed the man of Nazareth would do and say were He once more to sojourn amongst men. As he warmed with his subject he pictured the man of Nazareth taking up the cause of the strikers, putting Himself at their head, constituting Himself their champion against the employers—the parasites—denouncing capitalistic greed as he denounced rich hypocrites 2.000 years ago, until the crowd, in a transport of enthusiasm, called for " three cheers for the man of Nazarath," and sent a thousand caps into the air. This is the same man of Nazareth whose life and teachings were described as the only real ChnVtinaity by Mr Bedford, and one wonders whether the churches are prepared to accept .this materialised Christ as representing the evolution of their historic ideal. If so, the sooner the sacred edifices are turned into Socialistic lecture-halls the better, so that we may know where wc are. This pictnre of Jesus and of Christianity represents "that moral crudeness, that sordidness of motive, that insensibility to the peculiar beauty of the man of Nazareth which turns adulation into humiliation and glory into disgrace, and scarce permits the mantle of most clumsv honors to hide the crimson flushes of His shame. Caliban does not yet pray to Prospero, but merely hip-hip-hurrahs him as a consummate Caliban, as a leader and champion of Calibans. It is undeniable that whatever enthusiasm for Jesus exists in the ranks of Socialists is connected with His tera-noral leadership rather than His spiritual Kingship, and does not differ greatly from that which South African speculators might feel towards Cecil Rhodes or London dockers towards Tom Mann" or New Zealand old age pensioners for "Good Old Dick:" In its negative aspects it is exhibited by a very scanty appreciation of Jesus as a reformer of moral habits, like gambling and drunkenness, or a teacher of spiritual qualities, such as holiness, meekness and patience. It is not as the Man of Sorrows, or the spiritual regenerator, but as the political and social propagandist who is to give the Socialistic worker a good time by abolishing parasites, such as landowners and capitalists, that He is patronised by Socialistic politicians. Wo have always understood that the New Testament presentation of Jesus is that of one wbosousrht to bring men to the.Kingdom of -God by the supply of motives and ideals, rather than one who hoped to secure His ends by political agencies ; not as the democrat and domaeogue, but as the Saviour and Redeemer. But now it appears that His secret was social improvement by means of that democracy of which He was the founder. This cannot be the same Jeans that said "My kingdom is not of this world." In that kingdom, H> is true, the greater were to serve the less, and the rich, the poor; but we are not told that this state of things was to be brought about bv robbing tho rich, nor even Dy rationalising the land. If Christianity has had such wonderful influence in the course of ages, it is not such a materialistic conception of it as this that has formed tb© leaven. The Kinedom of God is to be estabh'shed by votes cast for a social programme, whose note is food and drink, a minimum wage, and abundant holidays or double pay, as distinguished from an effete programme whose- not© was merely justice and freedom. " Once more we are invited, in face of the unvarying warning of history, to barter the commanding principles of life for the elusive promise of immediate physical satisfaction, to exchange the higher and further things of the soul for the lower and nearer things of the hod v." We read that when the crowds ■that were following Him, and who had been fed on the miraculous loaves and fishes, discovered that no more were forthcoming, they left Him. Carpenter as He was, and people's man, it was to be expected that the common people would hear Him gladly; and so they did for a while, until the true inwardness of the salvation He offered them became plain, then they streamed away in numbers such as to provoke a momentary doubt even of "the Twelve: "Will ye also go away?" Their answer is Significant, and marks the. eternal distinction between the material and the spiritual motives of disciplesbip: "Thou hast the words of eternal life." It -was precisely because He would not take up their programme and play the part of the democrat that the people forsook Him • and it. was the same people who not long afterwards shouted: " Away with him! Give us Barabbas!" Whv! Because Barabbas was much more likely to play the part of opportunist and demagogue by taking up any political programme they wanted. It has always been so. N<v Jesus was not -a Socialist, and CJhrUtianity is not Socialism plus humanitarianism, or pins anything else, any more than Socialism is Christaanitv. But of tiiis there can be no doubt: t&at Socialism (Le., true Socialism, not the namby-pamby, aootuneotoi- ft»mg soma people jnxtaik»fm

Socialism, compounded of sentamentahsm and moonshine) is essentially anti-Chris-tian, and it behoves the churches to consider whether they are acting wisely in facilitating, as they have been doing in\ various ways of late, the spread of £ Socialism. We know that in Australia it k has been found necessary to establish a f crusade against the Socialism of Tom Mann, > and tho time is approaching when in New j Zealand also the division of political parties will be between the Socialists and the antit Socialists. It suits the Socialists to idenj tify Christianity with Socialism, and we j may be quite certain that political opporj tunists will not be wanting who will avail t themselves of the advantage to be derived s from such an alliance; and at the present ' r moment the Leader of the Socialistic Labor , party in the Commonwealth Parliament is engaged in a campaign, having for its object to convince the people that Socialism and Christianity are identical.. Mr Wat- ' son is the opportunist of Socialism, and he realises'what af "pull" it would give him ' and his party if he could produce the'im- " pression in the minds of the people that ' a campaign against Socialism is a campaign against Christianity. There can be no doubt that Tom Mann and J. M. Wilson " represent the true, attitude of Socialism. towards Christianity, but for political pur- • poses it is necessary to tone them down; and this is Mr Watson's object at present. " In England the counterparts of Tom Mann and J. M. Watson are Mr Hyndman and « Bfelfort Bax, for there is no opportunism about them; they are earnest men, not ', mere professional politicians, and speak • out what- they mean. According to Mr ! Hyndman, " Christianity i:j the chloroform 1 of the comfortable classes." Mr Bax ■ says: "Socialism is neither religious nor '- irreligious. ... It utterly despises - the other world with all its stage properr. ties." In all the utterances of Socialists - the leading idea is that men should only t concern themselves with how best to secure a life of material comfort. This is the 1 dominant note of Socialism in all its forms, f even in the sentimental variety of profesr sional politicians, although they try to ■ subdue it, just as some of them try to conf ceal the real aims and teachings of ■ Socialism in a haze of pseudo-Christian 3 sentiment. It behoves the churches to be E on their guard against this insidious move- » menb for the identification of Christianity i and Socialism. Many thinking people are ' coming to the conclusion that we have had r quite enough of Christianity, a la Ladv > Henry Somerset. There is reason to be- , lieve that the series of services held in the r Garrison Hall not long ago, at which I Socialism was preached to large audienees, , did more for Socialism than they did for ? Christianity, and the same is true of tho [ recent " debate." Socialism is a form of ) fanaticism that tends inevitably to take the i place of religion, and to displace Christii anity. Neither its aim nor; its method is i that of the Founder of Christianity. ; " One of the company said unto the E Master, speak unto my "brother that he I divide the inheritance with me. But He • (Jesus) said: Man, who made me a judge • or divider over you ? Take heed of cove- ■ tousness; for a man's life consisteth not in I the abundance of things he possesseth." s This is the true note of the teaching of Him , who said "My kingdom is not of this ( world," and this is the very antipodes of ' the teaching of Socialism. i