But Jesus does teach his disciples that they must not, in extending his kingdom, depend upon learning, upon mere force of intellect and argument. If they did this they would fail. So he taught them, and history makes it plain to us that his disciples have failed when they have forgotten his teachings. Alas! that it is so easy to pervert great gifts. It seems to be almost as difficult not to trust in great gifts of genius as it is to possess great wealth without loving it.
With the end Jesus had in view he could not depend upon mere learning, mental gifts, and force of argument. For the essential trouble is not with men’s intellects, but their hearts. It is not that opinions are so wrong; it is that dispositions are so alienated from God. Man needs not a new opinion, but a new love. The task of Jesus was a far harder one than the correction of errors; it was the winning of hearts. Love is free; men may be convinced against their will, but love consents.
CHAPTER XII.
JESUS NEITHER THEOLOGIAN NOR ECCLESIASTIC.
Jesus did none of the things a man would do who proposed to establish and perpetuate any sort of kingdom, or school of beliefs, even in this world.
He established no institutions with formal constitutions. He did not draw up a code—not so much as a system of moral philosophy. He left no “theological institutes,” with precise definitions and exact limitations. Some of his true friends have done their best at such work; he did not. Theirs is a man’s way; his was not.
He left no formal creed; he never mentioned such a thing; he did not seem to think of it at all. It is so much a man’s way to do such things that we are not yet familiar with the idea that Jesus did not. It comes to many with a sudden surprise when they discover that Jesus said not a word about systematic theology, that to many is so precious. In all his words are no “articles of religion;” not a hint of them. He did not so much as put into form a doctrine of his own nature and person. Very often and in many ways he spoke of himself and God, and of his relation to the eternal Father, but he made no definition. Often he spoke of himself, of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, but he said not a word of the “hypostatic union” of three persons in one Godhead; not a word of the “economic relations” of the Holy Trinity.
Some good people, if they chance to read what is here put down, will be so certain in their own minds that Jesus did employ some of the methods of a mere man, in order to preserve his teachings in the world, that they will suspect the writer of irreverence; at least of indifference, if not of something they think less of, in what is said concerning “creeds” and “theologies.” They will be in error, as is common with them on such questions; the writer is only stating facts that no man can deny as to what Jesus did and did not do. Some admirable and good people have not yet learned the difference between arguing for their Church and pleading for Christianity; between defending their own notions and expounding the teachings of Jesus. And not a few confound their notions about God with the fact of his existence, as others mistake their theory of inspiration for the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures.
Our way of teaching is a man’s way. If it is the best we can do let us be content; if not, let us amend our way. But let us not defend our way by pleading his example; let us follow our way because it is our way, if there be no better reason. Certain it is that the way Jesus took of teaching and perpetuating his doctrines was not a man’s way in any respect whatever.