Page:Southern Presbyterian Journal, Volume 13.djvu/980



Otherworldliness is a reproach frequently brought against Christianity. Belief in heaven is crudely ridiculed as "pie in the sky." Distinguished leaders of American education use more dignified language. For example, one professor writes that the humanism which he advocates "means that the comforting faith in some guarantee of human values is replaced by a resolute readiness to face the tragedies and crises of life in terms of our knowledge of their naturalness and probability, finding in the sense of friendly comradeship with our fellows a more than satisfying compensation for loss of the cozy but illusory feeling that underneath are the everlasting arms of a divine protector." Another humanist is more forthright in stating that theistic religion is "the most active and pervasive menace to civilization which confronts us today."

In the same vein left wing religious liberals fill their periodicals and sermons with socialistic politics and confine their hopes to this world. No otherworldliness for them. Insofar as this type of accusation against historic Christianity is made to imply that the orthodox are "socially irresponsible" and have no interest in present human ills, it is a propaganda device to conceal the fact that theological conservatives are very much concerned with present human misery and are concerned not to increase it by subjecting the nation to secularistic socialism; but insofar as it reproaches us for having our citizenship in heaven, it should not so much be borne in silence as proclaimed proudly, publicly, and with vigor.

Those who deny the life beyond the grave should be forced, by insistent challenge, to face the implications of their thought. Although they have a program of socialization, which no doubt they sincerely believe will improve the conditions of humanity, they should be made to explain how their philosophic naturalism can logically support no matter what program of improvement. They should be questioned pointedly how secularism can furnish a basis for morality. Frequently they speak of morality as a social code; sometimes they speak of it as an individual emotional reaction. In any case there is no "cosmic guarantee" that the effort expended in advancing their program will be rewarded and that opposition to it will be punished. Do not history and observable facts show that devotion to the good (whatever anyone thinks the good is) is worth the trouble. On naturalistic assumptions therefore, no reason can be given for choosing a life of honesty and truth rather than a life devoted to becoming a communistic dictator. Honor and truth may offer lesser risks with mediocre rewards; Stalin's choice brought immense rewards even though the risk was great. Because secularism and left wing politics provide no logical ground for choosing a life of honesty and truth, the theological conservatives are justified in suspecting that totalitarianism will be the actual result.

For that matter, can humanism give a reason for not committing suicide? Of course, when things go well with us and we are enjoying ourselves, we may prefer to live a little while longer. But this is only a personal preference; it is not a moral duty binding all men. Humanism can motivate neither morality nor life itself.

Not so with a consistent Christian theism. Not so with the Biblical view that includes heaven and hell. Although observable history shows that good people have endured pain and persecution, although it cannot be proved by this life that honesty is invariably the best policy, a future life with rewards and punishments meted out by an omnipotent and omniscient Sovereign clearly provides logical justification for choosing a life of righteousness at Whatever temporal cost.

How selfish! the secularists deride; we always have said that Christianity is egoistic.

At this point the secularist must be brought back forcefully to his own position. How is it that he uses egoism as an accusation of moral inferiority? On humanistic principles what is wrong with egoism? Since a naturalistic worldview cannot justify any type of life, or even life itself, except as an expression of irrational personal preference, it has no more ground for objecting to Christianity than to communism.

The Christian view, however, includes much more than a bare belief in some sort of future rewards and punishments. It even goes beyond the notion of the immortality of the soul. Christianity teaches the resurrection of the body—a doctrine doubly based on information given us by God and an exemplification of it in the historic event of Christ's rising from the tomb.

Then at that great future day all the dead, both small and great, shall stand before the PAGE 6