The unhallowed harvest

by Homer Greene

They dissected the doctrine of the materialistic conception of history, the doctrine of surplus values, of collective ownership, of the distribution of wealth among the workers, in short all of the material doctrines predicated on socialism. But there was little yielding on either side, and they found little common ground. When they advanced, in the argument, to that modified form of socialism advocated by some Christian workers, including Farrar himself, they found still fewer points of agreement. The rector contended that the ideals of socialism were entirely consistent with, and simply an evolution of the doctrines propounded by the Founder of Christianity who was, Himself, distinctly of the leveling type; that the materialism which had been injected into the socialistic philosophy was due entirely to the personal prejudices, and these in turn to the environment, of some of the great leaders of the movement, and was not inherent in the philosophy itself. He insisted that the anti-religious and unmoral, if not immoral, vagaries that had attached themselves to the socialistic faith could and eventually would be swept away, leaving a body of doctrine which might and ought to be adopted by every sincere advocate of the coming of the kingdom of Christ.

To which Westgate replied that Jesus Christ was not a socialist, that while the government of His time and country was honeycombed with corruption, and brutal in its oppression of the common people, He neither attacked it, nor made any attempt to reform existing political or social conditions. He condemned the rich because the riches of His day were mostly ill-gotten, and He pitied and tried to comfort the poor because they were, of all men of His generation, most miserable. But His chief concern, and His constant plea, was for the spiritual regeneration of the individual man. Moreover, that, since socialism declared the evils of society to be solely the product of blind economic forces, and not, in any sense, the result of individual unrighteousness, and since it denied any spiritual incentive to good behavior, and made economic justice the sole factor in the establishment of right relations between man and man, it was therefore, and must of necessity be, diametrically opposed, not only to Christianity but to all religions. And its advocacy of freedom from certain moral restraints, particularly the avowed doctrine of practically all of its great propagandists—a doctrine flowing naturally and necessarily from its basic theory—to the effect that the bonds of marriage should be assumed and thrown off, as the amorous fancy of those concerned might dictate, that divorce should be granted freely, without stated cause, at the will of the parties; this in itself was sufficient to put socialism, in any form, outside the pale of the Church, and make it abhorrent to Christian civilization.

So they talked and argued, always in perfect good nature, always with a feeling of personal friendliness, but they reached no common ground. The rector would not yield his idealism. Westgate would not yield his conservatism. Then they came directly to the question of the trouble in the Church. Again Mr. Farrar explained his ambition to make Christ Church a church of the people. He had the kindliest feeling toward all of his parishioners. He would not offend nor hurt any man willingly or wantonly. But his whole heart went out to the hundreds and thousands in the city who were deprived of the benefits and comforts of religion because of the social attitude toward them of those in the churches. There must come a change in Christ Church. He prayed that it might be a peaceful one; but if a conflict should be necessary in order to effect it, then he would welcome the conflict.

Westgate assured him that so far as his concern for the poor and the churchless was concerned he did not stand alone; that he himself was ready to adopt any course that would permanently better their condition, either religious or secular, so long as it did not conflict with the rights and the welfare of the parish at large; but that he was not willing to sacrifice the mental and physical comfort and self-respect of the bulk of the parishioners for the sake of temporarily gratifying the class-consciousness of a portion of the community that Christ Church could never hope to retain. He pointed out, moreover, in plain terms, the probable result of persistence by the rector in the course which he had marked out. The financial supporters of the church would become lukewarm, or openly antagonistic. The revenues would decrease. The proper work of the church would languish. If the conflict continued, enmity would be aroused, hatred would be engendered, the parish would be split into warring factions, a breach would be opened that years would not serve to close.

“It was proof of the true Messiah,” replied the rector, “that the poor had the gospel preached to them. Would you, because of these material dangers which I grant you are imminent, have me fail to do my duty to the poor whom Christ loved?”

“By no means,” said Westgate. “But your proper duty to the poor can be performed without sacrificing the interests of the rich and the well-to-do, to whom you also owe a duty, and whose souls may be as precious in the sight of the Almighty as are the souls of the destitute. A soul is a soul, regardless of its physical environment.”

“But Christ was the Master and the Judge of souls. And He did not favor the rich. His entire concern was for the poor. I consider my paramount duty, in accordance with His teaching, to be to the poor.”

“And in the performance of that supposed duty you are willing to bring about the destruction of Christ Church?”

“My purpose is not to bring about the destruction of Christ Church, but to bring about the destruction of that spirit of selfishness and exclusiveness in the church which is even now destroying it.”

It was plain to Westgate that the rector would not listen to reason, and that argument must give way to action. When he next spoke it was with determination.