|
CSEC ON-LINE REFERENCE LIBRARY |
|
REV. LANSON P. NORCROSS, CSB Outline
of a sermon preached in Chickering Hall, by the Pastor If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 JOHN i. 10, 11. From many quarters comes the charge that Christian Scientists are altogether too narrow; that they are exclusive and sectarian; that they are not willing to allow those who differ from themselves a chance. It is also alleged that, with all our claims to Christlike charity and humility, we are equally as narrow and intolerant as are those in the most ultra of Orthodox churches; that with all our talk against the strait-laced opinions and views of members of these churches we ourselves are more bitter and intolerant than it is possible for them to be. This, of course, is regarded as sheer hypocrisy, since if true, we are not putting into practice what we preach; and we are told that we should not decry exaction and intolerance in others, when we mean to be more exacting and intolerant than they are, or can be. These are grave charges which should be met. If substantiable, our course should at once be altered. Suppose we scan that course in the light of Principle, and see what are the facts concerning it. Three minor points, considered first, may aid us somewhat in definitely presenting the main question. FIRST: Is it not just possible that too much may be said concerning breadth, charity and toleration, to the exclusion of other graces? Are these the only Christian virtues to be cultivated? It has become a disease, an intemperance, to prate about toleration and liberality as if these were the only requisites either to be considered or attained. It is literally become the "cant" of the age, one would fancy, on being set down in the midst of the American people, that breadth and tolerance were the principal if not the sole cardinal virtues. In this easy-going age, there lurks great danger of losing sight of the essential distinction that forever runs like a line of fire between virtue and vice, between Truth and error. Breadth, liberality, charity, are commendable qualities to possess—provided we get the genuine article, that which has the true ring in it; but the questionable sort that masquerades in borrowed clothes, is, of all cheats, the worst. One who habitually agrees with every wind of doctrine that blows, is frequently termed a broad minded, tolerant man, when he is nothing of the sort; but instead, is merely a "trimmer" trying to curry favor for popularity's sake. Genuine breadth, toleration, catholicity, is often most clearly seen in staunch and rugged adherence to Principle, the righteous courage that stands for the Truth at all hazards. Those who can thus intelligently stand may be called narrow and bigoted, but they will have a clear conscience and the protection of God. SECOND: Are Christian Scientists intolerant and bigoted, harsh and unreasonable? With the emphasis of calmness let it be said at the outset, that Christian Science itself is not narrow; though it may be true that some who are endeavoring to lead the life of a Christian Scientist are, on the mortal mind plane, narrow and intolerant. There are Congregationalists who are narrow and intolerant. There are Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians who never seem broad and liberal. There are Unitarians who are very intolerant. There are—shall I say it?—there are the so-called liberals themselves who are just as intolerant as are those whom it is the fashion for them to declaim against. The converse of all this is equally true. In all these Communions there are those who are very catholic minded; for breadth and liberality belong specially to no particular church, sect or party, but is a quality of mind,—the result of education. The truth is, man on the side of personality is never large hearted or catholic minded. The grace of charity (Agape) is not one that belongs to mortal mind at all; so the facts indicate that, in this particular, Christian Scientists really are no more derelict than are others in the world in general. As has been stated in this pulpit on previous occasions, we all came into Christian Science with the old bias, early tendencies and lifelong habits fastened upon us—or only partially shaken off. If abnormally disposed to be exacting, bigoted, intolerant before we became Christian Scientists, this is the condition of mortal mind against which we now need to be on our guard,—just as one formerly addicted to the use of ardent spirits has to watch himself, lest he sin in that particular; just as one before given to sharp practices has to be on his guard against dishonesty; just as one impure has to see to it that his besetting sin does not carry him away. In just this way, those who are predisposed to be intolerant and harsh in their judgment of others—whether of other Christian Scientist, members of orthodox churches or of no church at all—should now be on the watch to give no occasion for just criticism in this direction. The ability to patiently, impersonally listen to all sides of a question without being disturbed by an honest difference, is a rare gift,—a gift that few possess, and one to be earnestly cultivated. THIRD: Those who alike are in the darkness of mortal mind, should treat each other with consideration and forbearance. No other course is consistent, seeing that no one can yet say he knows whereof he speaks. Suppose a number of people were to waken tomorrow morning to find themselves unexpectedly in a vast and dense forest having no path leading out of it in any direction. Would it not be the height of presumption and folly for them to wrangle amongst themselves as to the best way out! But, let one be lifted high enough above the treetops to clearly see the right direction to take, would it then be intolerance or pride that would lead that one to point out firmly and clearly to his comrades the way out of the gloom? Indeed, not to be faithful to the trust which his elevation and clear vision gives him would be cruel and criminal. It should be tacitly understood, that for all those who have not demonstrated the great facts of immortal Life and Truth, it is simply just to be tolerant and charitable toward each other, since all alike are in the darkness of mortal mind opinions and beliefs; but, should the light of Principle dawn upon us in demonstration—the only way it can dawn—then adherence to Principle, or Truth, becomes an imperative duty. We are now prepared for the main point at issue, viz: Truth, or Principle, has nothing to do with breadth, toleration or catholicity, but can only be true to Itself. In other words: Truth, or Principle, never knows aught of breadth or narrowness, never considers toleration or its opposite, has nothing to do with leniency or want of leniency; it can only know Itself. All that the mariner's compass can do, is to point steadily toward the pole. In like manner the Truth is steadily pointing to Itself, and knows nothing aside from Itself. Can the Truth be tolerant to a lie? What has Principle to do with that which is without Principle? Principle doesn't pare off this statement, or whittle down that vital fact to suit some belated follower who cannot keep pace with it. It never swerves one jot or tittle from its unerring course to save this or that one, but keeps steadily on its stately way,—and this is its eternal beneficence: that all may know where to find it, and, sooner or later, place themselves in legitimate and harmonious adjustment to it. Those who gradually gain a clearer understanding of Truth, or Principle, become larger minded and broader in forbearance and charity; but the Truth itself has nothing to do with breadth or kindred virtues, and has just as little to do with their opposites. As light is light, so is Truth, Truth, whatever its special statement. Truth is just as imperative in what we blindly term secular matters, as in those of an acknowledged spiritual nature; for in truth there is no secular—nothing but the spiritual and divine. Suppose a company of boys, sent to school to study mathematics, gather in the anteroom previous to the teacher's arrival; and, having gained from parents and elders certain notions as to what they are to be taught, begin to fall out among themselves, and to call hard names because of conflicting preconceived notions as to what they are to learn. What does it all amount to? When the teacher arrives, he does not seek to settle their differences—he doesn't even know of them—but he simply and effectively says: "Boys, this is the rule, and you must abide by it if you would gain right results." He doesn't talk to them continually about its broad applications; but he simply gives them the correct rule, and knowledge of that correct rule, of itself, renders the incorrect powerless to deceive and decoy. Again, of two music teachers, which would a sensible parent choose as instructor for his child: one perpetually descanting upon the various theories of the art, and rehearsing the opinions of different theorists concerning these theories, or one whose main object would be to thoroughly ground his child in the practice and principle of music? Solid, practical men of affairs, be it noticed, waste little time in discussing mere theories, or in indiscriminate extolling of toleration and liberality. However much they admire sentiment in the Sunday sermon, in their daily business they insist upon getting at the fundamental principle, from which to gain correct and desirable results—and, moreover, take pains to employ men able to arrive at logical and legitimate conclusions. Like Tennyson, they say: Like some of the simple great ones gone Forever and ever by; One still, strong man in a blatant land, Whatever they call him, what care I? Aristocrat, autocrat, democrat,—one! One who can rule and dare not lie." There is such a thing as real breadth of vision. It is never to be found on the material or mortal mind plane however, but is to be gained only as we leave the lower and reach the higher point of view. Real breadth is not born of ignorance nor sentiment, but of extended knowledge—of understanding. Do we discover that there is not one among the students of Christian Science who has yet gone high enough to be broad minded and comprehensive in the true sense of the word? There is a fact not yet fully recognized by us, viz: At our present stage of growth, the main requisite is not comprehensiveness or breadth of vision, so much as a right start from a foundation in Principle. We have not yet gotten enough dust out of these material eyes, to enable us to make use of Truth's most powerful telescopes in our survey of the heavens. Ours, at present, is the position of the neophyte, the learner on the lowest form in the schoolroom. Does the teacher of Greek attempt at the outset to make his pupil broad and comprehensive, or does he begin with the alphabet of the language? Some come to us with much of this world's wisdom and culture, who bitterly resent the intimation that they also are but learners in this school of Christian Science; that they cannot comprehend it all, but, like the simplest ones among us, must enter the preparatory class. It wounds their pride of religious attainment, that we do not at once recognize the superior wisdom of which they feel themselves to be possessed. Ah, indeed! have we not each one much to unlearn in order to enter into this heavenly way?—all the old habits and moods and manners which cling to and about us, even while striving toward the pure and the spiritual? Instead of diversified views and comprehensive outlooks, the real need, then, is for that humble and teachable spirit which enables us to be meek and willing to learn by unlearning the falsities of the prison house in which, by mortal mind education, we have been environed. Were an American to decide that he would go to China, and acquire the language and habits of the race that inhabits that flowery kingdom, to wisely facilitate his work he would, as nearly as possible, cut loose from every reminder of America. What folly it would be to engage a half dozen teachers—a German, a Spaniard, a Frenchman, and so on—to impart to him their knowledge of their countries, to enable him to know more of China! Instead, he confines himself exclusively to that which pertains directly to the Chinese nation; and thus he becomes broad and comprehensive in his knowledge of it. This breadth never can precede, but is the legitimate result of much systematic effort in the one direction—not of sitting at the feet of many teachers of the languages and customs of other countries. It is impossible for us to adhere to Christian Science, and at the same time bid welcome to all the opposing theories which make clamorous claim either to be Christian Science, or to be as good, if not better. If Christian Science is demonstrably based upon Principle, we must strictly adhere to it and not to something else, even though it claims to be Christian Science. The closer counterfeit this something else not demonstrably founded on Principle is, the more misleading it is, and the more we need to detect and avoid it. The statements presented in SCIENCE AND HEALTH are not mere untested theories, but have, time and again, been successfully demonstrated. To bid some form of error God speed, however plausible and beautiful it appears per se, is to become partaker with it in its evil deeds. The teacher who permits his pupils to imbibe the pernicious notion that any theory in music or mathematics will bring him correct and desirable results does nothing more subversive of truth, than the pretended teacher of Christian Science who fosters the idea that countenancing everything that passes under the name of Christian Science is serving the cause of humanity in Truth. The true and honest Christian Scientist is no more tolerant toward the error he sees in himself or in his brethren, than toward that which he sees in people of the world. We are not to be intolerant towards people themselves, but are to attack error in its every guise in behalf of humanity. Adherence to Principle makes one firm against error in whomsoever seen. In making practical application of this sermon, we find the lesson to be this: that Christian Science implies and demands strict adherence to demonstrable Principle, and one important step in this direction is to discountenance everything opposed to Truth. We may and should have toleration for those who seem out of the way, but never for the error that blinds them. In closing, there seems a word of caution needed, viz: In opposing error, wherever found, it should be done with the greatest love and forbearance toward individuals. It is more than possible that many have been driven away—not because we have bravely stood upon Principle; for the most open and violent opposer of Truth will respect and love one who steadfastly adheres to Principle—but because we have allowed anger or personal intolerance to gain the mastery, and thus have wounded and repelled where we might have healed and won. Possibly, ere long, there may be some new departure in regard to receiving to our Communion those who should be of us. I have at present no idea what it will be. Still, I am strongly convinced that it will be coupled with rare tenderness and grace, so that all present will see for themselves that it is not men we antagonize, but error; that it will be manifest in such a way that we shall unconsciously, steadily and lovingly draw all men to the Truth.
The Christian Science Journal, June, 1892 |
Copyright
© 1996-2002 CSEC