God The Invisible King, H. G. Wells [best self help books to read txt] 📗
- Author: H. G. Wells
- Performer: -
Book online «God The Invisible King, H. G. Wells [best self help books to read txt] 📗». Author H. G. Wells
One sort of heresies stands apart from the rest. It is infinitely
the most various sort. It includes all those heresies which result
from wrong-headed mental elaboration, as distinguished from those
which are the result of hasty and imperfect apprehension, the
heresies of the clever rather than the heresies of the obtuse. The
former are of endless variety and complexity; the latter are in
comparison natural, simple confusions. The former are the errors of
the study, the latter the superstitions that spring by the wayside,
or are brought down to us in our social structure out of a barbaric
past.
To the heresies of thought and speculation belong the elaborate
doctrine of the Trinity, dogmas about God’s absolute qualities, such
odd deductions as the accepted Christian teachings about the
virginity of Mary and Joseph, and the like. All these things are
parts of orthodox Christianity. Yet none of them did Christ, even
by the Christian account, expound or recommend. He treated them as
negligible. It was left for the Alexandrians, for Alexander, for
little, red-haired, busy, wire-pulling Athanasius to find out
exactly what their Master was driving at, three centuries after
their Master was dead… .
Men still sit at little desks remote from God or life, and rack
their inadequate brains to meet fancied difficulties and state
unnecessary perfections. They seek God by logic, ignoring the
marginal error that creeps into every syllogism. Their conceit
blinds them to the limitations upon their thinking. They weave
spider-like webs of muddle and disputation across the path by which
men come to God. It would not matter very much if it were not that
simpler souls are caught in these webs. Every great religious
system in the world is choked by such webs; each system has its own.
Of all the blood-stained tangled heresies which make up doctrinal
Christianity and imprison the mind of the western world to-day, not
one seems to have been known to the nominal founder of Christianity.
Jesus Christ never certainly claimed to be the Messiah; never spoke
clearly of the Trinity; was vague upon the scheme of salvation and
the significance of his martyrdom. We are asked to suppose that he
left his apostles without instructions, that were necessary to their
eternal happiness, that he could give them the Lord’s Prayer but
leave them to guess at the all-important Creed,* and that the Church
staggered along blindly, putting its foot in and out of damnation,
until the “experts” of Nicaea, that “garland of priests,” marshalled
by Constantine’s officials, came to its rescue… . From the
conversion of Paul onward, the heresies of the intellect multiplied
about Christ’s memory and hid him from the sight of men. We are no
longer clear about the doctrine he taught nor about the things he
said and did… .
* Even the “Apostles’ Creed” is not traceable earlier than the
fourth century. It is manifestly an old, patched formulary.
Rutinius explains that it was not written down for a long time, but
transmitted orally, kept secret, and used as a sort of password
among the elect.
We are all so weary of this theology of the Christians, we are all
at heart so sceptical about their Triune God, that it is needless
here to spend any time or space upon the twenty thousand different
formulae in which the orthodox have attempted to believe in
something of the sort. There are several useful encyclopaedias of
sects and heresies, compact, but still bulky, to which the curious
may go. There are ten thousand different expositions of orthodoxy.
No one who really seeks God thinks of the Trinity, either the
Trinity of the Trinitarian or the Trinity of the Sabellian or the
Trinity of the Arian, any more than one thinks of those theories
made stone, those gods with three heads and seven hands, who sit on
lotus leaves and flourish lingams and what not, in the temples of
India. Let us leave, therefore, these morbid elaborations of the
human intelligence to drift to limbo, and come rather to the natural
heresies that spring from fundamental weaknesses of the human
character, and which are common to all religions. Against these it
is necessary to keep constant watch. They return very insidiously.
3. GOD IS NOT MAGIC
One of the most universal of these natural misconceptions of God is
to consider him as something magic serving the ends of men.
It is not easy for us to grasp at first the full meaning of giving
our souls to God. The missionary and teacher of any creed is all
too apt to hawk God for what he will fetch; he is greedy for the
poor triumph of acquiescence; and so it comes about that many people
who have been led to believe themselves religious, are in reality
still keeping back their own souls and trying to use God for their
own purposes. God is nothing more for them as yet than a
magnificent Fetish. They did not really want him, but they have
heard that he is potent stuff; their unripe souls think to make use
of him. They call upon his name, they do certain things that are
supposed to be peculiarly influential with him, such as saying
prayers and repeating gross praises of him, or reading in a blind,
industrious way that strange miscellany of Jewish and early
Christian literature, the Bible, and suchlike mental mortification,
or making the Sabbath dull and uncomfortable. In return for these
fetishistic propitiations God is supposed to interfere with the
normal course of causation in their favour. He becomes a celestial
log-roller. He remedies unfavourable accidents, cures petty
ailments, contrives unexpected gifts of medicine, money, or the
like, he averts bankruptcies, arranges profitable transactions, and
does a thousand such services for his little clique of faithful
people. The pious are represented as being constantly delighted by
these little surprises, these bouquets and chocolate boxes from the
divinity. Or contrawise he contrives spiteful turns for those who
fail in their religious attentions. He murders Sabbath-breaking
children, or disorganises the careful business schemes of the
ungodly. He is represented as going Sabbath-breakering on Sunday
morning as a Staffordshire worker goes ratting. Ordinary everyday
Christianity is saturated with this fetishistic conception of God.
It may be disowned in THE HIBBERT JOURNAL, but it is unblushingly
advocated in the parish magazine. It is an idea taken over by
Christianity with the rest of the qualities of the Hebrew God. It
is natural enough in minds so self-centred that their recognition of
weakness and need brings with it no real self-surrender, but it is
entirely inconsistent with the modern conception of the true God.
There has dropped upon the table as I write a modest periodical
called THE NORTHERN BRITISH ISRAEL REVIEW, illustrated with
portraits of various clergymen of the Church of England, and of
ladies and gentlemen who belong to the little school of thought
which this magazine represents; it is, I should judge, a subsect
entirely within the Established Church of England, that is to say
within the Anglican communion of the Trinitarian Christians. It
contains among other papers a very entertaining summary by a
gentleman entitled—I cite the unusual title-page of the periodical—
“Landseer Mackenzie, Esq.,” of the views of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and
Obadiah upon the Kaiser William. They are distinctly hostile views.
Mr. Landseer Mackenzie discourses not only upon these anticipatory
condemnations but also upon the relations of the weather to this
war. He is convinced quite simply and honestly that God has been
persistently rigging the weather against the Germans. He points out
that the absence of mist on the North Sea was of great help to the
British in the autumn of 1914, and declares that it was the wet
state of the country that really held up the Germans in Flanders in
the winter of 1914-15. He ignores the part played by the weather in
delaying the relief of Kut-el-Amara, and he has not thought of the
difficult question why the Deity, having once decided upon
intervention, did not, instead of this comparatively trivial
meteorological assistance, adopt the more effective course of, for
example, exploding or spoiling the German stores of ammunition by
some simple atomic miracle, or misdirecting their gunfire by a
sudden local modification of the laws of refraction or gravitation.
Since these views of God come from Anglican vicarages I can only
conclude that this kind of belief is quite orthodox and permissible
in the established church, and that I am charging orthodox
Christianity here with nothing that has ever been officially
repudiated. I find indeed the essential assumptions of Mr. Landseer
Mackenzie repeated in endless official Christian utterances on the
part of German and British and Russian divines. The Bishop of
Chelmsford, for example, has recently ascribed our difficulties in
the war to our impatience with long sermons—among other similar
causes. Such Christians are manifestly convinced that God can be
invoked by ritual—for example by special days of national prayer or
an increased observance of Sunday—or made malignant by neglect or
levity. It is almost fundamental in their idea of him. The
ordinary Mohammedan seems as confident of this magic pettiness of
God, and the belief of China in the magic propitiations and
resentments of “Heaven” is at least equally strong.
But the true God as those of the new religion know him is no such
God of luck and intervention. He is not to serve men’s ends or the
ends of nations or associations of men; he is careless of our
ceremonies and invocations. He does not lose his temper with our
follies and weaknesses. It is for us to serve Him. He captains us,
he does not coddle us. He has his own ends for which he needs
us… .
4. GOD IS NOT PROVIDENCE
Closely related to this heresy that God is magic, is the heresy that
calls him Providence, that declares the apparent adequacy of cause
and effect to be a sham, and that all the time, incalculably, he is
pulling about the order of events for our personal advantages.
The idea of Providence was very gaily travested by Daudet in
“Tartarin in the Alps.” You will remember how Tartarin’s friend
assured him that all Switzerland was one great Trust, intent upon
attracting tourists and far too wise and kind to permit them to
venture into real danger, that all the precipices were netted
invisibly, and all the loose rocks guarded against falling, that
avalanches were prearranged spectacles and the crevasses at their
worst slippery ways down into kindly catchment bags. If the
mountaineer tried to get into real danger he was turned back by
specious excuses. Inspired by this persuasion Tartarin behaved with
incredible daring… . That is exactly the Providence theory of
the whole world. There can be no doubt that it does enable many a
timid soul to get through life with a certain recklessness. And
provided there is no slip into a crevasse, the Providence theory
works well. It would work altogether well if there were no
crevasses.
Tartarin was reckless because of his faith in Providence, and
escaped. But what would have happened to him if he had fallen into
a crevasse?
There exists a very touching and remarkable book by Sir Francis
Younghusband called “Within.” [Williams and Norgate, 1912.] It is
the confession of a man who lived with a complete confidence in
Providence until he was already well advanced in years. He went
through battles and campaigns, he filled positions of great honour
and responsibility, he saw much of the life of men, without
altogether losing his faith. The loss of a child, an Indian famine,
could shake it but not overthrow it. Then coming back one day from
some races in France, he was knocked down by an automobile and hurt
very cruelly. He suffered terribly in body and mind.
Comments (0)