VI. THE MORAL NATURE OF FAITH

CHAPTER VI THE MORAL NATURE OF FAITH

The fact that one must love the truth indicates that the attitude of heart has something to do with whether or not one will believe. This was also brought out in the parable of the sower. Moral qualities, and not merely exernal evidence, are involved. The person who does not love the truth, and who takes pleasure in unrighteousness, will not be very willing to receive the message which emphasizes love for the truth, and which strongly condemns unrighteousness. The person who is unwilling seriously to consider the meaning and destiny of life, the person who lightly throws away his marvelous moral and spiritual capacities, this person will not find himself in a frame of mind to weigh the evidence for the message which holds life to be the most serious trust which has ever been committed to man. He who wants a careless, immoral life, will not want the faith which is a constant rebuke to such a life. Those, however, who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled for they not only fairly examine the evidence, but they will see in the Christian faith the answer to the deeper needs of the human soul.'

Bishop Butler, in his famous Analogy, has emphasized that even the difficulties involved in believing are just those difficulties which bring out what is really in us and what we really want to continue to do in life. Because he has something important to say on this subject, the author is reprinting in the appendix some material from his pen. Admittedly it is difficult reading at times, but who wants easy reading all of the time? Concentrate on it, stop and think about what you have read, and you will find it most stimulating. Without endorsing every word in it, it is commended to you for your consideration.

I. SAVING FAITH IS VOLUNTARY

"Saving faith is voluntary. Had the revelation been so strong that anyone beholding it could not disbelieve, any more than he could dissent from a mathematical demonstration, that would have been no recommendation; for it would have overridden moral freedom, and would have been a kind of evidence unsuitable to moral subjects. That it is possible for a man, by diverting his attention, by wilfully perverting his judgment, by sinister misapprehension, by disingenuous examination, by giving exclusive welcome to agreeable fallacies, or by culpable ignorance to refuse both the salvation and the light which reveals it, and also possible, by an opposite treatment, to realize the opposite result, corresponds with the moral nature to which revelation appeals, and which makes the individual the arbiter of his own character and destiny. 'There is light enough for those whose sincere wish is to see, and darkness enough to confound those of an opposite disposition.' (Pascal) . The most central and impressive of all revelations was the word of Jesus Christ; but that was moral and resistible, for many who heard it 'were offended.' In like manner, resistance and disbelief of His written message is no proof of its insufficiency."

II. THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE BRINGS OUT WHAT IS IN A PERSON

"Whereas, may it not be said, that irresistible evidence would confound all characters and all dispositions? Would subvert, rather than promote, the true purpose of the divine counsels; which is, not to produce obedience by a force little short of mechanical constraint, (which obedience would be regularity, not virtue, and would hardly perhaps differ from that which inanimate bodies pay to the laws impressed upon their nature,) but to treat moral agents agreeably to what they are: which is done, when light and motives are of such kinds, and are imparted in such measure, that influence on them depends upon the recipients themselves?"

III. FAITH MAY BE BLOCKED BY PRIDE

The quotation from Dr. Micklen is an excellent illustration of the fact that the gospel does bring out what is in a man. If man does not want the truth, if he holds something else more precious than the truth, that man will not believe the gospel, and the cause of his unbelief reveals that the trouble is with man and not with the gospel. The gospel is too great a blow to man's pride for some to accept it. "The Christian gospel is this, that when man by searching could not find God, and when man by striving could not find peace, and when human life was like an agonized question to the sullen, lowering heavens, then God spoke. More, in our extremity and desperate need, he came himself. The majesty of God took the form of a Servant. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; he was crucified for our sins, and rose for our justification. That is the mystery of the incarnation.

0 loving wisdom of our God! When all was sin and shame, A second Adam to the fight, And to the rescue came.

'When all was sin and shame'--that is the crux! It is the recognition of a sore wound at the heart of humanity, which no earthly balm could ever stanch; it implies that all men, even the emancipated and the cultivated, are lost without a Savior, and that redemption is not to be achieved by our fumbling efforts and our ineffectual regret. The ultimate scandal of evangelical religion (which in this connection includes both historic Protestantism and the Church of Rome but excludes much of modern Protestantism) lies not in dogma or symbolism but in its intolerable offense to human pride.

Nothing in my hand I bring; -- Simply to thy cross I cling

It is that which the man of taste and culture cannot bring himself to say; he feels no need of so utter a salvation; to him therefore it is nonsense or mere mythology that the majesty of God should take a Servant's form."

IV. ONE MUST EXAMINE HIMSELF AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE

Those who overlook the moral nature of faith are apt to conclude quickly that the reason they do not believe in Christ is due to a lack of evidence, or because the evidence, in other words, does not meet a standard which they in their own minds have determined that it must meet if they are to believe. They ought to ask themselves several searching questions. First, have I really weighed the evidence of Christianity? Second, have I demanded that the evidence meet standards which are not at all suitable to type of evidence that a historical religion would be bound to have? Third, if it did conform to the standard would I immediately accept Christ, and endeavor to change my life wherein it is out of harmony with His will? Would I leave all to follow him, or would I "promptly raise the required standard of evidence or find some other point to argue about? This is the issue, and to focus attention on the absolute validity or otherwise of Christian evidence is to practice self-deception. The Christian does not stand for a religion which can answer every objection that the wit of man can raise, but for the teaching of Jesus Christ that all who are of the Truth find in Him their Saviour, Lord and God."

Of those who think that the evidence is insufficient we may also ask: If the Gospels are historical would that be enough evidence? If they say no, then it is clear that it is not evidence that they lack but the willingness to receive evidence. The Gospels are historical, as has been shown in many works on Christian evidence and as the present author plans to establish in one of the volumes in this series. If the Gospels are not historical documents how can one establish any other documents as historical? They can be established in the same way that any documents of antiquity can be established; and the rejection of them is for reasons other than the idea that they are not historical. Some of those who maintain that the documents are not historical maintain it because their theory or theories demand such a verdict concerning the Gospels and not because historical research demands it. As Dr. John A. Scott wrote: "Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Director of the British Museum, said that in excellence, in antiquity, and in closeness of time to the original issue, the manuscripts of the New Testament are in a class entirely by themselves."

V. IN CONCLUSION

It is clear that the evidence for Christianity is of such a nature that it does bring to the surface what is in a man. If one is unwilling to follow Christ--because of the demand which such would make on his life--he can think up "reasons" to justify his failure to follow Christ. The real reason--his unwillingness--will be hidden from others by these reasons and finally even from himself because he does not think beyond these "reasons". Jesus, of course, has informed us that the Christian life involves effort. He has told men to count the cost, and of course one ought to count the cost of not following Christ. "Never once did He lure anyone to follow Him with promises of ease. Was it not that which kept men from following Him then, and is is not the same that keeps men from following Him now? In spite of all that is said to the contrary, the natural man has the lurking feeling that it would be too great a strain to follow Christ. Certainly our Lord once said and often implied that His yoke was easy and His burden light, but then He was calling men to take His yoke upon them, which meant that they were to follow him and risk everything which such following would entail. They would then find that the burdens they would have to bear, though heavy in themselves, would really be light and easy because He would be bearing the heavy end."'

Those who do not want to put forth the effort which is necessary to follow Christ will not be compelled by the evidences of Christianity. They will find it possible to rationalize and to attribute the fault to the evidences of Christianity instead of to themselves. And in doing so they not only reveal that they do not put the spiritual uppermost, but that they want to continue in the contrary attitude of life.