John 18:36

NOT IF THIS WORLD

‘My kingdom is not of this world.’

John 18:36

It is time that defenders of the Christian Faith gave up apologising for it. If Christians are to conquer, it will be in the sign of the Cross; not by adopting the principles of their adversaries, but by the compelling audacity with which they display their own.

I. The reproach of other-worldliness is inevitable.—It is natural for writers like George Eliot or Cotter Morrison, whose horizon is limited by death, to be distressed when they see some of the best men occupied in matters which appear, and must appear, to them as futile—in prayer, which they must deem elaborate triviality, or in preaching a repentance which is only by fits and starts socially beneficent. It is not, of course, the worse but the better Christians whom altruists grudge to the service of God. ‘Other-worldliness’ may mean worldliness of the worst kind. You may talk of the value of treasure in heaven when you merely mean that you do not desire to be disturbed in the enjoyment of your treasure on earth. It is mere hypocrisy to say that suffering is a means of grace and comfort does not matter, when you mean that it does matter to you, and does not to those who have to endure the results of your selfishness. If our critics force us to the question, how far the Cross is anything real to us, or how we fulfil the duty of brotherhood, we ought only to thank them in deep penitence.

II. Still, though the reproach may be true in detail, taken as a whole it has no grounds.—Christianity is other-worldly. It is not merely a system of thought, or a moral code, or a philanthropy, or a romance, or all of these added together, that render it a mystery so ‘rich and strange.’ It is something unique. It attracts alike and repels men because it is itself, and not anything else. Alike in basis and nature, in motive and method, in ideal and result, the Christian Faith differs from all its rivals far more than it resembles them. This is the very reason why it always eludes and yet evokes their criticism. From the non-Christian standpoint we are bound to appear irrational, quixotic, futile, silly. If we do not appear so, it is because we have lowered the flag, and are striving to fight the world with its own weapons—a course which nothing could redeem from insincerity save its inherent stupidity. For the children of this world are, in their generation, wiser—very much wiser—than the children of light.

III. Christianity is not in its basis of this world.—It is no mere system of thought based upon reflection. It is a life rooted in faith. Thus a supernatural grace, a gift from beyond, is its foundation; for faith is more than an intellectual conviction. It is, of course, arguable that we are under a delusion in claiming this high prerogative; it is not arguable that having made the claim we are free to discuss the creed, as though it rested on some foundation other than faith, such as reasoning or historical criticism. The Creed may well find illumination in many different philosophies, which will vary with the temper of the time and the temperament of the individual. But it can never be identified with any one of them without ceasing to be itself.

IV. It is God we are seeking for.—The other world, which alone can give reality to this, alone can invest duty with enduring meaning, can find for beneficence a certain value, for knowledge an ordered place, and flash upon the shows of earthly beauty some hint at least of the eternal. Men bid us limit our aims and hopes to this life, and turn from the dazzling mirage of the other. Our answer is that we cannot. We may try, try hard, try—as a race—for generations, for centuries; but we cannot do it. God is calling us. In all ages He calls men to their home. More than ever are the signs of His call apparent in the restless, childish, pathetically eager world in which we live. ‘For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come.’ It is not so much impious or sinful to seek to chain to earth beings born to give gladness to angels, or to treat as things of this world only spirits who may be the friends of God, as it is futile. It is impossible. It may not be. ‘For God created man to be immortal, and made him an image of His own eternity.’

—Rev. J. Neville Figgis.

Illustration

‘The Christian is gay. Was there ever a more unconventionally joyful spirit than St. Paul, or any schoolboy so playful as St. Francis? Not peace nor unison, not joy, not strength nor earnestness is the cachet of the Christian, but gaiety. He is ever shocking worldly men, strenuous moralists, by some play of the spirit which seems sacrilegious. This gaiety is other-worldly in origin—it comes from the love of One unseen; it is grounded on the belief that nothing really matters if all this works together for good to them that love God, and it is nurtured by the daily denial and sacrifice which is the inevitable and invariable consequence of love. There is no true love, earthly or heavenly, which does not issue in sacrifice and giving. And the suffering inherent is its glory and its crown, and the Cross its symbol. It is this eternal romanticism, this paradox of the Crucifix, that makes Christians incomprehensible to every one else—now as ever, to the Jews a stumblingblock, to the Greeks foolishness. Like the poet whose heart dances with the daffodils, the Christian delights in the world of things and events with a sense of their inner glory, that seems all but blasphemous to the serious moralist, and the educated worldling, who associate gaiety with the frivolous and are staggered by a religion so light-hearted and full of colour, so passionate and reckless.’

(SECOND OUTLINE)

THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

This text is frequently persistently and mischievously misquoted and misapplied.

I. It is alleged that in and by these words our Lord condemned any union between Church and State.—Neither in the words of our Lord, nor in the circumstances which called them forth, nor in the objects which He appears to have had in view, nor in the false charge made against our Lord which His words were intended to meet and refute, was there anything to show that when our Lord spake these words He intended to condemn any union between Church and State, or that when He spake them, He had any possible future relations of Church and State in His mind. Yet these words of our Lord are quoted, and have been traditionally quoted, as if He had uttered them as condemnatory of what are called ‘Established Churches,’ or as if they were expressive of some fundamental principle incompatible with any settled arrangement or alliance between the spiritual and civil powers. For all this neither in the text nor context is there an atom of foundation. Our Lord was accused of trying to make Himself a king, and of endeavouring to set up a kingdom in opposition to Cæsar. His answer was thus: He did not deny that He was a King. He did not disclaim the idea of His purpose to set up a kingdom. But He affirmed that His kingdom was of such a nature that Cæsar had no reason to fear competition or rivalry for earthly dominion from Him, because His Kingdom was ‘not of this world.’ It is only a slavish parrot-like repetition of the traditional misinterpretation and misquotation of this passage that could find in it any logical reference to the relations between Church and State.

II. So far as the Church of England is concerned, as a Church having some relations with the State, we have never understood her in any way to say or claim anything contrary to these words of our Lord. She claims to be—and is primarily as her distinguishing characteristic—a purely spiritual and ecclesiastical body. As to her spiritual authority for her orders, faith, and essential principles of worship and government, she is certainly ‘not of this world.’ All these are of Divine origin. Much that is human may mingle with them, and so far defects and abuses may manifest themselves as human excrescences adhering to things of Divine origin; but these do not alter the foundations on which the Church is built, nor the source whence she sprang, nor her essentially spiritual character.

III. It is impossible for anything in the shape of an institution, however Divine it may be, having for its members imperfect men and women, not to have human relations, and not to exhibit some imperfections in these relations. It is beyond the reach of possibility for any religious society, whether it is what is called established, or unestablished, or disestablished, if it claims the protection of the State in which it exists, and if the State grants such protection, not to be to some extent in one way or another recognised by the State, privileged by the State, regulated by the State, and controlled by the State. Hence, of necessity, at once some kind of relation or union between such a society and the State is immediately established. The question then is what kind of relation or union is it to be? It is not a mere question of relation or no relation, or union, or non-union between Church and State, for relation and union of some kind there must be.

The question is, what form shall this union or mere relation assume? There may be some things, or indeed many things, in the long existing and gradually extending relations between the Church and the State in this country which it is not only expedient but necessary that we should revise, modify, and readjust; but there is nothing in the requirements of our Lord’s teaching to render an absolute abolition of the relations between Church and State necessary, nor is such an abolition as is regarded as freeing the Church from State control in matters of religion possible.

Rev. Thomas Moore.

Illustration

‘Let us never be ashamed to maintain that no Government can expect to prosper which refuses to recognise religion, which deals with its subjects as if they had no souls, and cares not whether they serve God, or Baal, or no God at all. Such a Government will find, sooner or later, that its line of policy is suicidal, and damaging to its best interests. No doubt the kings of this world cannot make men Christians by laws and statutes. But they can encourage and support Christianity, and they will do so if they are wise. The kingdom where there is the most industry, temperance, truthfulness, and honesty, will always be the most prosperous of kingdoms. The king who wants to see these things abound among his subjects, should do all that lies in his power to help Christianity and to discourage irreligion.’