Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

V.

PROHIBITION AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

BY THE REV. A. ZIMMERMAN, S.T.D.

Every movement has its underlying principles. There is either some reason or some pretense which calls it into existence. Each organization has its character. That character depends largely on the underlying principles and also largely on the character of the men who guide and direct the movement, for it is impossible to take an active part in any movement without giving it some of our own personality and strengthening or weakening it according as our personal influence and individuality have a tendency to inspire men to aim after the lofty and pure ideals of life, or to contaminate those things we touch. On the other hand we cannot fail to be affected in our personality and made stronger or weaker according to our conceptions of the work in which we are engaged. There is then a twofold influence. The one proceeds from the man and effects the movement in which he is engaged. The other is the reflex influence of the movement on the man. The value of the former depends on his personal character, and that of the latter chiefly on his own conceptions or ideas of the work in which he is engaged and the manner in which it should be carried on. But it should not be overlooked that even the latter is eventually the outcome of personality. So it may be said that man moulds and shapes the movements in which he takes part by his personal character.

The world rightly judges a movement very largely by the men who are leading it. The underlying principles come in for their share of consideration. But for the majority of men and women principles have very little influence except

as they are seen in personalities, as they are seen to affect those who profess adherence to the principles. If the principles of a movement or of an organization are said to have a beneficent and an uplifting influence, we have a right to inquire whether those who accept them and who labor for their promotion have been beneficently affected thereby and whether they have been lifted to a plane of higher and nobler living because they have accepted them. A principle in the abstract does not appeal to the average man. We want to know how it works in the concrete. Thus, Paul preached a new doctrine to the people of his times. He preached the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ Jesus, and announced to the world that Christ died for our sins and rose again from the dead for our justification, and ascended to the right hand of the Father for our redemption. How did these principles affect the man Paul? They made him more willing to bow at the foot of the cross, confessing his sins, more desirous to forsake the ways of unrighteousness, more ready to labor in behalf of the redemption of his fellow men. In short, the acceptance of these principles changed Saul the persecutor to Paul the preacher of the cross. John B. Gough accepted the principles of temperance. By accepting these principles he was changed from Gough the drunkard to Gough the "apostle of cold water." These principles not only changed his way of thinking, but also, and here is the vital point, his way of living. Being renewed in character, incarnating the principles he advocated, John B. Gough could plead so eloquently with men and women to leave the vile stuff alone. The power of his eloquence was enhanced by the force of his character.

The two institutions under consideration must be subjected to these principles. If the Christian church is to press its claims upon those who have not accepted its tenets and to hold its own ground, the men who lead in the church must show an embodiment of the principles which underlie it in the working

out of their own salvation from the shackles of sin and defilement. If the Prohibition party in American politics claims, as it does claim, that the working out of its principles in national affairs would regenerate the nation and free us from the curse of the rum traffic and with that curse removed would bring a new life and untold blessings to mortal man, then those who would be considered leaders, and followers too, must convince the world by the concrete example of their own redemption. Before we have a right to expect general acceptance of our principles, we must answer the question of the world, What influence has Prohibition on you, has it made you more of a Christian gentleman, more of a loyal citizen, more of a patriot, a better neighbor, a more active worker in the advancement of God's kingdom, under whose banner you are pretending to labor? Another important question which we are expected to answer is this, What inspiration have you to impart to the Prohibition movement and what inspiration do you carry away from it and transfer within yourself into the other channels of life? Here lie the strength and weakness of Prohibition and of the Christian church. Here is to

be found the strength or weakness of every organization or institution.

To understand more clearly the place of Prohibition and the church as well as their relation, we want to see what each is not as well as what each is. But we want to keep the idea of personality and personal influence in mind.

In this world there are misconceptions as well as conceptions. But the misconceptions are not altogether on the side of the opponents of a movement, but often on the side of the friends. For this reason we want to study these two institutions from the negative and the positive sides.

1. Prohibition is not supremely a moral issue. Some advocates of Prohibition wish to leave the impression that it is a moral issue. This is clearly a misconception. Prohibition is a political issue. When the opponents of the liquor traffic agitated the subject of total abstinence and set forth the

viciousness and evil influence of drink on men, women and children, there was presented a moral issue. But when the question was transferred into the domain of politics it became a political issue. A political party was formed. The shiboleth of this party was and to-day is: The abolition of the liquor traffic. And a laudable enterprise it is indeed. But the fact that the question has moral bearings does not make it a moral issue. Moral issues must be decided outside the domain of politics. When once the rightness or wrongness of a question is accepted it becomes the duty of the politicians to act accordingly. There are other questions outside of the liquor traffic that have a moral bearing and are related to the moral side of life. But that does not make them moral issues. Temperance is a moral issue, but Prohibition is a political issue. This does not change its value nor its force as a reformatory movement. But it is reformatory only from a legal side, because it reforms by enacting appropriate legislation. This is only legal reformation, and it may or it may not have a moral influence. The man who does not drink simply because he can not obtain liquor by virtue of certain legislation, is not necessarily improved in morals, nor is he necessarily a better man; he may be a meaner man for all that he ceases to get drunk. Only when a man chooses the right can it be said that the act is moral and beneficent. Only those acts are morally right which result in a right choice deliberately exercised by the man who chooses. Men may be prevented from doing evil by the enforcement of appropriate legislation, which legislation is the outcome of agitation in politics, but that does not say that the man has been made morally better. And the enactment of such legislation is the object of the Prohibition party. Hence, it must be regarded as a misconception of the true situation to maintain that Prohibition is a moral issue. It is a political issue pure and simple, endeavoring to bring about a reformation by means of political motives. This a political party can do, but as a party in the field of politics it is all that it can do.

2. Prohibition is not a religion but is politics. Here is the source of gross misconceptions and hence of a false and pernicious doctrine. When a political party is made to look like a religious body and when the tenets of that party are exalted into a religious creed, it is no wonder that people begin to wonder what all this means and refuse to accept its precepts. Originally Prohibition made no such claims. It was not founded with any such object in view. It was not to run counter to the Christian religion nor was it meant to usurp the authority of divine revelation. But some of the leaders of late years have been endeavoring to inculcate the idea that a man can only be religious by being a Prohibitionist. In this way it was made to appear that Prohibition embraces the whole of religion, and by accepting the tenets of this party and carrying its issues to successful completion, the religious life will be renewed and the reign of Jesus Christ will be at hand. Such a doctrine would be more plausible if every Prohibitionist were a real believer in Jesus the Christ, and if they could show that the Word of God is utterly false when it declares that Jesus Christ is the source of all spiritual life and light and that we can be saved only by believing on His name. But it certainly is mere presumption on the part of any party to claim that it holds the whole truth in its hands and everywhere else there is nothing but error and superstition. Prohibition has placed itself on a level with the other political parties when it aims to accomplish an end in precisely the same way as these other parties accomplish theirs. They seek to gain adherents to their ideas and voters at the ballot box. So does the Prohibition party. They seek to elect legislators to pass laws in accordance with their views of government. So does Prohibition. They use their political prerogatives to further party ends. So does Prohibition. Prohibition shows more interst in purity of the home and is more keenly awake to the enormous evils of the rum traffic than any other party. Still this does not alter the real case in hand. It has entered the domain of politics and there it seeks to fight its

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »