ROGUES AND HONEST MEN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19802, 29 May 1926, Page 2

ROGUES AND HONEST MEN

A WAY 01' LIFE. Written for tlie Otago Daily Times. By the Rev. D. Gardner Miller. That which holds the _ world together is “human society.” It is the final and ever-renewing product of history. Man prates about his freedom, hut he is never really free. His will is moved in one direction and another by the society he has helped to create and of which he is a member. He may rebel and fume and kick and scream, but society pulls him up short—his freedom is the length of his rope. No man can live unto himself. His life is intertwined and interlaced with the multitude of other lives around him. The man who is nearest to the “summum bonum” of life is the man who, recognising the limits of his freedom, gladly acknowledges the claims of his fellows upon himself and thus carves out a way of life. It is “the way of life” you follow, or, in other words, how you look at men, how you think of them, the place you give them, that marks you out as a cynic or a generous-hearted man. It is in the nature .qf their approach to men that distinguishes one religion from another. “What think ye of men?” might well be the test of any system of thought, or any form of religion, that would seek the allegiance of men. And when you take a wide survey of society, noting the attitude of man to man and of class to class, one realises that the categories into which men are placed are really very few. For instance, the attitude of society as a whole is to regard every man a rogue until he has proved himself honest. That such an attitude is general no one will deny. That it is cruel and unjust is not recognised and admitted by the majority. There is no surer ■ way of making men rogues than to treat them as if they were incapable of being honest. Then there is. that hardened form of society we call the “law.” Its “way of life” is to regard every man as honest until it has proved hipi a rogue. On the surface it looks a much finer attitude to the human units, which in their interactions upon each other constitute society, than the loosely-held dictum that every man is a rogue until he is proved otherwise. But it is a moot point whether it is an advance. The obvious danger that lies inherent in the “law” is that it looks askance at honesty in the hope of finding lurking roguery. The difference between the two views is one of degree, not of nature. Were society to be ruled by one or the other, or a combination of both, honesty would become too rare for ordinary achievement, for men become ultimately what you teach them to become. But there is another “way of life,” a much finer way. It is the “way” that arises from THE INSANITY OF FAITH. It is “the way of life” that regards every man as honest even though you have proved him a rogue. The sceptical scorn this way. The materialist has no use for it. It is unworkable! It is Utopian! But is it? To have faith that a man is always capable of being better than he is, is to evoke the latent goodness -within him. The story of the old bishop in Hugo’s masterpiece, “ Les Miserables,” in . his treatment of the escaped convict, stands out as one of the greatest illustrations of the insanity of faith. It is paradoxical, but true, that the sanity of faith is proved by its insanity. To appeal to the goodness in a man that is not discernible must produce, in the long run, positive goodness. To reckon to men virtues beyond their seeming attainments is the surest way of producing these virtues. Such an attitude to men is really a reformative principle capable of wide application. It is such a “way of 'life” that is distinctive of Christianity. If all the religions that hold sway over the minds of men were to be tested by the way they regard men, the religion of Jesus Christ would tower above all others. No other religion sees in men potential gods. Christianity alone pins its faith not on what men are but on what they might become. No truer statement was ever made than that Jesus knew WHAT WAS IN MAN. His insight was as clear as crystal. The trouble is that so many people read that statement as though it meant that Jesus was referring only to the wickedness of man, his bias and perversions. It is not truer reading to hold that the knowledge Jesus Christ had of man was not onesided? If He knew what was in man — and history has not evolved his peer m this connection—He knew the aspirations to goodness, the hopes and endeavours towards something higher than himself in every man. He looked upon man as a bundle of potentialities—for good. In practically every contact He made with individuals, Ho probed right down through the seeming to the unrealised possibility. Zaccheus was a “got rich-quick” man, a social outsider, but Jesus touched the unsuspected magnanimity and honesty in the man. Ho showed Zaccheus the kind of man he might be. A woman was brought to Him. She had become the plaything of men. He revealed to her the possibility of hqcoming a lady and she went out to realise it. If Christ tore the outward cover into shreds it was not to reveal the hkleousness underneath, but to show the hidden and _ unsuspected beauties. This “way of life”—this attitude towards men, this new rule of society—is what He bequeathed to His followers. The pity of it is that so few carry it out to the uttermost. It is not a thing to be done in a half-hearted manner. To be effective as a conviction and as_ a builder up of society, it must be carried out with a recklessness that defies the consequences. After all, the only way to redeem society from its callousness and wickedness is to love men —all out—not for what they arc but for what they shall become.