After the tragic death of the recent president of the National Conference of Christians and Agnostics, Hollis Ferloren, certain papers were found in his breast pocket. We pass their contents on to you. Mr. Ferloren is survived by his widow, the former Hope Flickering of Toledo, Ohio.
As Christianity has been accused of excessive fondness for antiquated ideas, it is my responsibility to present it to you in terms pleasing to the modern mind. Surely such a worn-out phrase as “Sell all you have and give to the poor” would explode with new force were we to say, “Translate your bonds and debentures into ready capital to provide an upgraded standard of living for the lower-lower class”; “Love thy neighbor” could become “Display empathy in a psychic ethnocentricity”; and “Fear not: I have overcome the world” could ring clear as a bell as, “Unblock your libido: the existential predicament has been transcended.” Just a little thought and Christianity can be lifted out of the coarse fabric of everyday life and given, along with human engineering, archery, and training in running a slide-projector, academic respectability.
If I am to do my part in making Christianity acceptable to everybody, I must give you the true modern meanings of five traditional terms. For it is the old-fashioned vocabulary that is responsible for the impression that Christianity is a difficult religion, demanding a specific behavior from its adherents without an iron-clad guarantee of fame, riches, and the presidency of Rotary International. If I can explain what these five terms mean in modern language, and do it to your satisfaction, I am confident that within a month the present handful of hypocrites within the church will be joined by millions of their brothers at the moment outside.
First, then, we meet the expression “The Kingdom of God.” Surely the modern American equivalent of this is “the Democracy of God.” Who, in these United States, can tolerate that word “kingdom?” Is it not much more pleasant to send pious thoughts soaring to the democracy of heaven, so that we may meditate upon the angels as a Senate, the saints as a House of Representatives, and the apostles as a slightly enlarged, and therefore even more democratic, Supreme Court? Old-fashioned Christianity, in those days when most nations were also kingdoms, perhaps could rest content with a God whose will was absolute, but is it not heartwarming to think that in Heaven, as in our country, if the executive says, “In every part of our territory you are to love your enemies, so I cannot sign your weak civil rights bill,” it will be possible to override his veto? Surely if we stress the democratic spirit of Christianity, many will enlist in its ranks who were before frightened out by the prospect of submitting their wills to the dictates of an absolute monarch. Therefore I advocate that the old Kingdom of God be henceforth always referred to as the democracy of God, and the expression, “Thy will be done,” be removed from all seals, church bulletins, stone doorways, and monuments, to be replaced by the phrase “Remember the veto.” As to the objection that if this expedient be followed we should have to speak not of the democracy of God but the democracy of Us, I regard this as a mere quibble since, as the apostle says, “If God be for Us, who can be against Us?”
Second, I should like to take up that antique word, Disciple. Although it be true that this word is near-allied to another word, namely, discipline, one must proceed to point out that the best discipline is self-discipline, and that self-discipline exists merely to make effective self-expression possible, and that therefore a true disciple is one who is dedicated to self-expression. An understanding in depth of this factor is sufficient impetus to throw at once into the trash-heap all morbid superstitions like self-denial, prayer, Bible-reading, church attendance, politeness, respect, and modesty. How greatly the art of finger-painting would advance were not art students forcibly exposed to the tedious discipline of learning to use a brush! How much time would be saved getting from place to place did not young man feel a gnawing compunction to hold the car door open for his mother, date, or fiancée! How rapidly Christianity would spread were all college students convinced that the heart of the Gospel lay not in a book but in their most ardent desires! Think of the unnecessary arguments that could be cut off before they started could we avoid such phrases as, “I think this is what the Bible means,” and say instead, “This is what Christianity means, and my proof, sir, is this: that is what I say it means!” When self-expression beckons, what Ulysses would keep the plugs of old-fashioned discipleship in his ears?
We move naturally then to our third term, the authority of Scripture. At first this may appear to be in opposition to our second point, self-expression; but when one reflects that the Scriptures contain man’s best wisdom, it becomes clear that “authority of Scripture” is merely a veiled expression for “sovereignty of individual conscience.” For nothing could be plainer than that “man’s best wisdom” means the best wisdom a man can produce, and that in proceeding immediately to our consciences, and thus omitting the laborious searching of Scripture, we can procure immense gain by the kicking out of a pesky intermediate step. It is the same thing as dealing directly with the wholesaler, and thus avoiding the middleman. Of course in cases of this sort one does not get the lifetime guarantee, but what does this matter if one does get a workable product? You must then be informed that the authority of Scripture is merely a fancy phrase for the authority of the individual conscience. I should like to write a panegyric in praise of this understanding, but time limits me to pointing out that while the Bible commands us not to do certain things, conscience only gives us a kick in the shins or a dig in the stomach after we have done them. Thus we are no longer forced to obey the moral law so long as we still acknowledge it, and like young children we can deal with a stomachache when it comes in exchange for a pound of candy right now. Who will kick against conscience as an unreasonable tyrant when he reflects that conscience allowed the English to burn St. Joan and Hitler to destroy 4 million Jews?
But as conscience does at times produce that latter twinge, after the act, we are led to our fourth old term, forgiveness. If you will allow me to refer to the Bible, which, if unnecessary, is still interesting, our Old Testament reveals to us that one Hebrew word for forgive literally means “to cover.” What greater proof is needed that the main meaning of “to forgive” is “to excuse?” Therefore you should know that when the Church talks of God forgiving you for what you have done, its plain intention is to show you that you may always make excuses for what you have done. What burdens this knowledge can remove from troubled shoulders! For when excuses are available for our misdemeanors, like glass milk-containers they can be used again and again. Has not one of the omnipresent barriers to the acceptance of divine forgiveness been the gnawing suspicion that God might say, “Go, and sin no more?” But that comes from a first century story, and we are living in the twentieth: with our modern comprehension that forgiveness means the right to make excuses, can we not afford an almost imperceptible change in emphasis and say, “Go, and mourn no sin?” Surely it is useless to extinguish our transgressions with repentance when we are able to distinguish them with excuses.
Our fifth old term is sanctification, the ancient synonym for which was “growing in grace.” This term stood for the idea that God’s grace enabled a man to grow in his capacity to follow the biblical precepts through the activity of the Spirit of God within. Now I hardly need remind an intelligent public that to a realist growth in character is only possible for a few rich executives and their wives who can wage the battle through the aid, at $125 per week, of their analyst, onto whom they can unload their aggressions, suppressions, anxieties, hostilities, repressions, and libido blockings. For the ordinary man naturally such growth in character is impossible. But this does not mean that we should be victimized by despair. When it is realized that the true and contemporary meaning of sanctification is not growth in the ability to do the will of God but rather growth in the ability to theorize about the will of God, it will be seen that from high school age up all men are professionals at the trade. For who is without a viewpoint on predestination? Who, from Plato to Bertrand Russell, is not competent to create a better world in his mind than the one God gave us on earth? Who does not know, better than the pastor, what he should have said in his sermon? Is it not clear that if sanctification means “the ability to theorize about the faith,” we are all steadily growing in grace, day by day?
There are the five points of up-to-date Christianity, or a religion for everyone. There is a sixth point, but it is hardly worth mentioning. However, perhaps I should put it in. Antiquated Christianity used to talk of its teachings as leading to eternal life. In our modern version that expression has been changed to eternal death. A small point, but perhaps worth mentioning.
Associate Professor of English
Muskingum College
New Concord, Ohio
