A DM A RELIGION,— W I T H A MINUS SIGN An Open Letter to Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. BY REVEREND JOSEPH P. CONROY, S. J. L O Y O L A U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1918 I m p r i m i potest A . J . BURROWES, S . J . Praep. Prov. Nihil o b s t a t J O H N B . F U R AY, S . J . Censor Depùtatus I m p r i m a t u r •J< GEORGE W I L L I A M MUNDELEIN Archbishop of Chicago An Open Letter to Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Dear Sir ¡—Through the courtesy of your firm, I have before me the booklet reprinted from 'your ar- ticle in the Saturday Evening Post of recent date. The pains you are taking to present your views to V the clergy of the country make me feel that you will welcome a discussion of those views by any one who has given them thoughtful consideration. Relying upon this• certainty, I beg to present to you some brief comments upon your article, follow- ing its trend of thought as I proceed. I shall offer a view of your argument throughout from the stand- point of a Catholic. Rev. Joseph P. Conroy, S. J. 4 A RELIGION,-gl A RELIGION,— W I T H A MINUS SIGN Not many weeks or months had elapsed a f t e r the enemies of Christ had determined upon His destrue-. tion before there was presented to the vision of the world a picture so horrible it hardly seemed t h a t it could be true. I t appeared that hell had broken loose and t h a t a multitude of evil spirits had become incarnate in human form. Christ was hanging upon the cross, all torn and bloody and crowned with thorns amid the jeers of a people cruel beyond belief. I n the face of this a w f u l picture his disciples heard it said on every hand, " C h r i s t i a n i t y has failed. He saved others. Himself He cannot s a v e ! " The world went on for one hundred, two hundred, three hundred years, and t h e n — a f t e r burrowing in the catacombs all t h a t time, apparently annihilated and hopelessly degraded and oppressed, another pic- ture comes before our eyes. I n it we see millions of men and women rising as though f r o m the dust, ex- emplifying in their daily lives characteristics and qualities which command the admiration of the world. Such is the lesson of history. The Church of Christ had seemed to fail. I n reality it had sent its roots ineradicably deep into the hearts of men. The rock upon which Christ had built His Church was still there! These opening sentences, you will perceive, parallel your own, and f r o m the same premises draw a con- clusion exactly the opposite of- yours—a conclusion, too, which the facts of history prove to be correct. I t seems to me t h a t you should a t once have sensed the initial fallacy underlying your entire thesis that WITH A MINUS SIGN 5 4 4 t h e Church has f a i l e d . " You argue t h a t *4hell had broken loose, millions of evil spirits h a d become in- carnate 11; t h a t | | atrocities and acts of cruelty be- yond b e l i e f " are committed. Therefore, you con- clude, the Church has failed. B u t these very things happened to Christ himself and f o r three hundred years a f t e r to His Church, and nevertheless we know f r o m history t h a t the Church did not fail, but arose f r o m the trial stronger than ever. As a matter of fact, war proves nothing against the C h u r c h ; nor " e v i l s p i r i t s , " nor " a t r o c i t i e s , " nor | ' cruelties beyond belief,' f any more than they proved anything against Christ himself. These are common- places in the history of the Church and she will reckon with, them as long as man has f r e e will in this world. A wicked son may disgrace an u p r i g h t father, but cannot dispossess him of his virtue. A good govern- ment may have evil doers among its citizens, b u t t h a t does not convict i t of unworthiness. Evil spirits broke out among the angels, b u t it proved nothing against God. The problem of evil is as old as Adam and Eve. Christ recognized i t always. He looked down upon evil f r o m His cross and you surely do not blame Him f o r the evil He saw around Him. Neither can you accuse the Church of f a i l u r e if evils are around her. H a d Christ caused the evil in the souls around Him, He could be accused of failure. I n like man- ner, had you shown, as you have not shown, t h a t the Church, in principle or in practice, had been false to her trust, that she had connived a t evil, or tolerated it, t h a t she had not denounced i t and f o u g h t against it, then you had advanced your thesis toward a proof. B u t it is plainly bad logic to assert, as you do, t h a t 6 A RELIGION,-gl a terrible war exists and t h a t therefore the Catholic Church has failed. I consider, then, your f u n d a m e n t a l proposition as entirely unproven. Beyond this point you have no logical right to take a single step. However, evi- dently fancying yourself secure, you set to work to erect your new "Religion of the Inarticulate'1 over what you blandly assume are the ruins of the old Church. Let us follow your f u r t h e r process. A f t e r brushing the old Church aside in a para- graph, you become immediately possessed with the spirit of optimism. You discover wonderful virtues practiced steadily by these warring peoples through the f o u r years of the 'war. We quote: Rockefeller—First of all is a spirit of self-sacrifice and unselfishness. . . . We see charity exhibited, brotherly love, as it has never been manifested be- fore. . . . And we see beautiful and countless examples of humility. Comment—Where did all this unselfishness, this c h a r i t y ; this humility, come f r o m ? The Church was dead. You proved t h a t by the f a c t t h a t a terrible war was on us. A n d right in the midst of the war you discover all of a sudden this tremendous output of virtue. Where did this virtue come f r o m ? F r o m the w a r ? Then the war i s n ' t a terrible thing a t all., If it gives rise to such glorious virtues, we ought to have war all the time. If you have studied the history of mankind you will know that virtues are not planted like potatoes. I t is impossible t h a t such difficult virtues as you men- tion should be developed in whole peoples in the short space of f o u r years. These virtues, in fact, appeared in them in the very first days of the war. Did they spring u p over n i g h t ? Has i t never occurred to you t h a t these virtues WITH A MINUS SIGN 7 which you see practiced so perfectly, spontaneously and " c h e e r f u l l y , " are merely the visible result of the long and solid Church training these peoples have had? J u s t as an individual shows his l a t e n t powers in a crisis, so does a nation. B u t the power must be there beforehand. W h y , then, did you not argue t h a t these countless examples of v i r t u e rising so suddenly before your astonished vision were simply the steady outpouring of the treasure long laid away in their souls through the ministrations of their Church? T h a t is the logical, the human conclusion, but you seem to have missed it. Rockefeller—Who will f o r g e t the story of the titled Belgian women . . . or of the son of the noble- man bivouacing with the son of the peasant, and each finding t h a t under the coat of the other beats an honest and manly h e a r t ? We ask, " O f what church are t h e y ? " Comment—If you ask the " t i t l e d Belgian w o m e n " they will tell you they are of the Catholic Church. I t is an even bet t h a t the others are Catholics also. Rockefeller—But the very thought gives them pause, for they regard the Church as the abode of the " B e t - ter-than-thous. g| Comment—How do you know they do ? Are you so ungallant as to assert, without proof, t h a t titled Bel- gian women accuse the millions of their country people of Pharisaism? And is it your experience that " h o n e s t and manly h e a r t s " easily attribute hypocrisy to their fellow men? I n the Catholic Church, no man or woman, priest or layman, dares to take any such at- titude of personal superiority toward their fellow man. Catholics are in the Church to be saved, and no one who is a pleader f o r salvation presumes to any such snobbery. The " h u m i l i t y " which you so much 8 A RELIGION,-gl admire is taught as the basic virtue of the Catholic life. Rockefeller—An organization in which men and women are gathered together who profess one thing and f r o m which they go f o r t h to practice another. Comment-^-Is not this a most reckless and un- c h r i s t i a n charge to make against hundreds of mil- lions of souls who are t r y i n g their best to follow Christ? A n d without a semblance of proof to back it ? Are you not here practicing the " B e t t e r - t h a n - t h o u " religion yourself? Catholics are taught, and trained, never to " g o f o r t h ' ' f r o m their Church in practical life, not even by the smallest thought. And if they u n f o r t u n a t e l y do so, they r e t u r n with sorrow to confess it and to promise t h a t they will not do so again. The Catholic confessional is the answer to your assertion. If such an assertion is a sample of the " b r o t h e r l y l o v e " of the new Religion of the Inarticulate, d o n ' t you think it had better remain inarticulate—and invisible? Rockefeller—The church is, f r o m their viewpoint, an institution which has little sympathy with them or understanding of their problems. I t does not speak their language. Comment—That explains, perhaps, why the Cath- olic soldiers in our army and our navy are calling insistently f o r Catholic chaplains and more chaplains. I t explains why Catholic priests are answering the call all over the world and flocking to the trenches by the hundreds and thousands. " L a c k of s y m p a t h y " is what has started Catholic hospitals, orphan asylums, relief associations, homes f o r the poor, the deaf and dumb i n . e v e r y p a r t of the e a r t h ; has sent mission- aries to the savages, the lepers, the heathens f o r the p a s t nineteen h u n d r e d y e a r s ! . " L i t t l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of their p r o b l e m s " is what WITH A MINUS SIGN 9 has opened Catholic schools f o r the young everywhere and kept them-open in the face of appalling difficul- ties. The sick and the. dying call, f o r the priest be- cause he doesn't understand their need; the troubled hearts bring their burden of sorrow to him in the con- fessional because he " d o e s not speak their l a n g u a g e . ' , Does it not strike you as strange t h a t a Church of so " l i t t l e understanding of and sympathy with hu- man problems'' has maintained herself as a compact social organization through all these centuries? The Church of the poor, without army or navy or politi- cal representation or money or any kind of physical force to propel her or sustain her? Whence the vi- tality t h a t has preserved her f r o m disintegration? And does this vitality not suggest to you t h a t a mighty spiritual force abides in her and is being p u t f o r t h constantly by her, in spite of every obstacle? Is it not the reason t h a t the Church is resting on, is iden- tified with, Christ in the souls of her children and t h a t she is still as close to them as H e ? The think- ing mind must come to this conclusion. Rockefeller—Broadly speaking, this great host did not come f o r t h f r o m the church, although directly or indirectly all have been more or less influenced by it. Comment—So, despite the complete failure which you insinuate above, the Church has been able to in- fluence, " m o r e or less," all this " g r e a t h o s t " who " d i d not come f o r t h f r o m h e r . " Well, if she can so influence even those who are not her own children, a fortiori she must be able t o . influence powerfully those who are within her fold. Then why not gather that great host of outsiders into the Church so that she may have her f u l l and legitimate influence over them? Rockefeller—Will these people find in the Church 10 A RELIGION,-gl as it exists today the leadership they need? Regret- f u l l y we answer, " N o . " Comment—Why not? If the Church, as you ad- mit, has influenced them while outside her, why can she not be a leader f o r them when they are inside? A t this point you begin to diagram your new Re- ligion of the Inarticulate. (By the way, is " i n a r - ticulate ' ' synonymous with 1 ' d i s j o i n t e d " f ) You wish " l e a d e r s chosen f r o m among the l a i t y ' ' and doubt- less you will be one of them yourself. Shall those leaders be self-appointed or shall they be elected ? I n either case one scents grave difficulties. B u t to pro- ceed. Having decreed the Church out of existence, you begin to build u p a church of your own. Un- like most beginners, you find a great deal of ready material to assimilate offhand. Rockefeller—This unorganized spiritual force which is silently dominating millions of lives. . . . Comment—For a dead Church she seems to have l e f t quite a legacy in the shape of " s p i r i t u a l f o r c e " in those "millions of lives t h a t had been more or less influenced by h e r . " Though you do not respect her, she has been very good to you. Rockefeller—Let us picture f o r a moment what this reborn church would be. Comment—Not entirely reborn, do you think? Be- cause it would have as initial capital those "millions of lives'' with their " s p i r i t u a l f o r c e ' ' l e f t by the " C h u r c h t h a t f a i l e d . " Rockefeller—It would be called the Church of tfie Livipg God. Comment—The words have in them the orotund of the oratorical, but the idea is as old as St. Peter, at least. The Catholic Church has been such a church all the time. , WITH A MINUS SIGN 11 Rockefeller—The Church must have a new birth and be reorganized. Comment—You say the Church has died! W h a t of Christ's promise: " U p o n this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against i t " ? Accordi ng to you, the power of hell has pre- vailed. Rockefeller—The Church may have failed, but Christianity has not failed. Never in the history of the world was Christianity a more vital force than it is today. Comment—Why, let me ask, do these men see Christ so quickly in their trouble ? W h y are they t u r n i n g to Christ in such large numbers and so readily? Is it not because the idea of Christ has been kept near, to them, has not been allowed to die out of their lives? A n d what has kept Him near them so vividly if not the Church? Rockefeller—Let us picture for a moment, what this reborn church would be. Its terms of admission would "be love for God, as He is revealed in Christ and His living spirit, and the vital translation of this love into a Christian life. Comment—You italicize this p a r a g r a p h as though it were (a) new and (b) important. I t is not new. I t is as old as the words of Christ: " T h o u shalt love the Lord thy God with t h y whole heart. . . . And thy neighbor as t h y s e l f . ' ' As to its importance, t h a t depends upon the inter- pretation you choose to p u t upon it. You evolve your religion out of it in a series of assertions t h a t have no authoritative force outside your ow!n " i p s e d i x i t . ' ' By what authority do you propose these statements? Where is your commission f o r this new work? And why should any one take the mere word of an in- 12 A RELIGION,-gl dividual t h a t this is the new religion we are all sup- posed to be looking f o r ? If Christ's Church died, how are we to believe t h a t Mr. Rockefeller's is a l i v e ? " Even if you say t h a t Christ has inspired you to this and if we take your word f o r that, how can we t r u s t Him, since He has failed in His first attempt ? B u t let us look at the new religion as it grows u n d e r your prestidigitating hand, your picturing imagina- tion. Rockefeller—Its atmosphere would be one of warmth, freedom and joy. Comment—"Warm a t m o s p h e r e " the first t h i n g ! Boys, in their downright directness, commonly say, " H o t a i r ! " Rockefeller—A religion of warmth, freedom and joy. Comment—A sort of continuous hallelujah chorus. " W a r m t h , freedom, j o y " — w h a t is the meaning of such vague, rhapsodic words? W a r m t h of what? Freedom from what? Joy at what? The sons of Belial promise us the very same. B u t you are calling for a Christ-like life. Was Christ's life one of warmth, freedom and joy? Born in a cold stable, living as a poor laborer, a fugitive, a calumniated man, a prisoner without a friend, and dying nailed to a cross—is this warmth, freedom, joy? W h a t about Christ's words to His followers to take up the cross and follow him under penalty of not entering the kingdom of heaven? Or His, " A m e n I say to you, you shall lament and weep, but the world shall r e j o i c e " ? Or, " T h e S o n . of Man h a t h not whereon to lay His h e a d " ? Not much warmth, freedom and joy about those words! Rockefeller—It would pronounce ordinance, ritual, creed, all non-essential. WITH A MINUS SIGN 13 Comment—If creed is not essential to religion, why do you enunciate one? Your formula is nothing else. A creed is a belief formulated into words. Your italicized formula calls f o r 4 4 l o v e of G o d . " Hence belief in God. Your formula says, also, t h a t God was revealed in Christ. Therefore, whether you really be- lieve t h a t Christ was God or not, you a t least want us to believe t h a t God spoke through Him. And finally, your formula asserts a belief in the necessity of 1f a vital t r a n s l a t i o n ' ' of the love bf God into a "Christ-like l i f e . " This implies a whole host of beliefs.. I t makes a long creed out of your formula. F o r example, if we wish to lead a Christ-like-life, we must know how Christ lived. Where do you find out how Christ lived ? You must point to the Bible. Then you must believe in the Bible. Where did you get the Bible? F r o m the Catholic Church. Therefore you must be- lieve in the Catholic Church. Or, if you say you do not believe in the Catholic Church, if you say she is a false Church, then you must hesitate about ac- cepting the Bible. Because she wrote it and had it in her keeping all the time. If she is false, she may have tampered, and very likely did tamper, with t h a t Bible. A n d so you are not certain whether you have the real life of Christ or not. If you are not sure t h a t you have the real life of Christ to offer for a model, you have lost all certain base f o r your for- mula and you cannot go an inch ahead with your new religion. You first throw out creed as a necessity f o r reli- gion, and the very next thing you do is to construct a complicated creed of your own. And you have to go to the Catholic Church to get i t ! Rockefeller—Ordinance, creed, ritual, all are non- essential. 14 A RELIGION,-gl Comment—You say t h a t your new religion is to be an " o r g a n i z a t i o n . " Now I ask you to name any pos- sible organization of human beings in which " o r - dinance, ritual, c r e e d " are not absolutely required. Ordinance is another word f o r r u l e ; r i t u a l is eti- quette; creed is belief. You could not successfully conduct a p e a n u t stand without these three. With- out rules of sale and purchase you would go bank- r u p t in a month; without manners you would soon be located in the hospital; without belief in your peanuts, namely, t h a t they were real peanuts and worth the selling, you would reveal yourself mentally deficient in starting the business at all. How would your own business organization go with- out ordinance, ritual or creed? Suppose your office boy were to bring a football into your private office and begin to drop-kick it through the f u r n i t u r e . You would protest and emphasize the rules, the ordinances of the house. B u t little "Willie Wildfire is. a shrewd boy. He has read the " b o s s ' s " booklet on the Chris- tian Church, and he speaks as follows: " F a d e away, sire. I just read your book about the ' Church of the Living God,' a great big proposition, to have millions of men in it. You are getting i t u p and you say in your book t h a t one of the things i t m u s t n ' t have is rules. Say, if there a r e n ' t any rules in t h a t big af- f a i r , you c a n ' t want any rules in this little thing you call your business." The answer is, of course, t h a t Willie loses his job. B u t is t h a t a logical an- swer? Or suppose one of your office force should fail in due courtesy toward a client or a customer, would you not rigidly enforce the etiquette of business and read him a lesson out of your business r i t u a l ? Or if a member of your firm refused to believe in your business, its stability, its honesty, its f u t u r e , WITH A MINUS SIGN 15 would you not eliminate him as a hindrance to its progress, telling him t h a t he must hold your business creed or retire? Yet you desire to launch a complicated organiza- tion like a world religion, with a membership of hun- dreds of millions, minus ordinance, minus ritual, minus creed. Religion, in the very etymology of the word, means a binding together. Where is the possible binding together in your concept of religion.? Surely you have named your religion well-r^the Religion of the Inarticulate, the Dislocated! Rockefeller—A life, not a creed, would be its test. Comment—Your church, then, is to apply a test to its members. You say here, definitely, t h a t the test is not to be a creed. Then why did you estab- lish a creed f o r your own church? I t was the very first move you made. Go back to your italicized pass- age: "Its terms of admission would he (a) love for God, (b) as He is revealed in Christ and His living spirit, and (c) the vital translation of this love into a Christian life." There is your creed. A n d you won't let a man p u t a foot into your church until he subscribes to it. You define for him the 4 * terms of admission.'I He must believe in those terms and accept them. Yet in the next breath you assert t h a t creed is not to be the test f o r prospective members of your church. Rockefeller—Its object would be to promote ap- plied religion, not theoretical religion. Comment—If you are pretending to talk with any accuracy here you must be aware of the meaning of the words you are usitag. You must know t h a t theory means the principles underlying a body of concrete facts. "Theoretical religion," therefore, as compared 16 A RELIGION,-gl with - " a p p l i e d religion,'' means the principles of re- ligion underlying t h a t same religion in practice. Now every school boy knows t h a t you cannot prac- tice religion, or music, or mechanics or anything else and ignore the principles underlying it. Yet you ad- vertise as the slogan of your New Religion: "'Go ahead and practice religion and never mind its prin- ciples." And this f r o m a man who is promoting a new organization and who has j u s t announced its principles in italics! F r o m a man too, who writes and distributes broadcast a booklet telling all about the " t h e o r y " of his new religion! A n d his theory is t h a t " W e won't have any t h e o r y ! " Somebody is t r y i n g to eat his cake and have it. Rockefeller—This would involve its sympathetic in- terest . . . in social and moral problems, those of industry and business, the civil and educational prob- lems. Comment—A problem is something that requires solution. Did you ever know of any problem in any field of life or thought t h a t was solved without re- curring to principles? The very, word,-problem, im- plies t h a t a principle is necessary for its solution. And you said j u s t now t h a t your religion is not to be one based on principles. You propose to tackle all kinds of world-wide problems and neglect their un- derlying principles. By. its very n a t u r e your religion is incapable of solving any problem. You have cut the ground f r o m beneath your own feet. Thus f a r in your new career as the founder of a religion you have, verbally, done away with creed, made rule and religious etiquette merely an optional affair, and finally you oust principle. This is a p r e t t y good record in j u s t eleven little pages of a brochure. A good deal of tearing down in this new building WITH A MINUS SIGN 17 process. A n d i t would not be so bad if you would only cast away the wreckage. B u t you keep coming out when you think no one is looking and sneaking it back to use in erecting your own " o r i g i n a l " plant. Rockefeller—It would encourage Christian living seven days a week, fifty-two weeks in the year. . . . Comment—Why s t a r t a new religion f o r t h a t ? The Catholic Church has been doing t h a t work f o r nine- teen hundred years. W e j u s t told you not to be pilfering other people's building material. J u s t in passing, let me ask you what is your theory as to what constitutes " C h r i s t i a n l i v i n g ? " Rockefeller—. . . r a t h e r than speculation on the hereafter. Comment—Do you believe in a h e r e a f t e r ? If you do, d o n ' t you think it is important enough a matter to speculate upon a t least ? As a plain business propo- sition would you invest money in any enterprise with- out " s p e c u l a t i n g on the h e r e a f t e r " of t h a t money? And do you expect a man to enter upon the business of moral living, and to invest all his actions in t h a t business without considering the " h e r e a f t e r " to which t h a t moral life is directed? Is not the moral life directed to God, and is not the one great p u r - pose of that life to be with God in the h e r e a f t e r ? And you wish to hear nothing about the h e r e a f t e r ! No man will p e r f o r m even a single intelligent ac- tion without forecasting the " h e r e a f t e r " of t h a t ac- tion, the end i t is intended to reach. No traveler will board a t r a i n without finding out its destination. No architect will plan a building without knowing what it is to be used for. No army will s t a r t a drive without an objective. These are the very things t h a t determine their actions and direct them. You discount the intelligence of your proposed fol- lowers by asking them to join you in a " C h r i s t i a n - 18 A RELIGION,-gl living " proposition a n a telling them at the same time that it i s n ' t worth while even speculating on the " h e r e a f t e r " of it. Why, the only reason anyone takes u p a moral life is the hereafter, and he wishes to know all he can about it. You call o u t 4 ' J o i n m e ! ' " and when asked whither bound, you answer, " O h , let's not think about t h a t ! " When your first congregation assembles, may I suggest as an appropriate—though perhaps a some- what rollicking—hymn, " W e d o n ' t know where we're going, but we're on our w a y " ? There is a disdainful fillip in your curt dismissal of " t h e h e r e a f t e r " as though there were in your mind a doubt about there being a hereafter. As you make much of a Christ-like life, you doubtless value highly the words of Christ. Take, then, and read those tremendous chapters of Matthew, the twenty- f o u r t h and the twenty-fifth—the very words of Christ. See how he " s p e c u l a t e s " on the hereafter. Definite, absolute, final, he gives us the last alternative: " C p m e . . '. possess the kingdom prepared f o r y o u , " or " D e p a r t f r o m me, you cursed into everlasting fire." I n the face of such a certain and terrible alternative whose outcome means so much to every one' of us, can anyone who really believes in Christ talk lightly of I' speculating on the hereafter ? " Or should not every action of life be closely measured by t h a t end, defi- nitely fixed upon it as a constant s t a n d a r d ? Rockefeller—It would be the church of all the peo- ple, of everyone who is fighting sin and trying to establish righteousness; the church of the rich and the poor, the wise and the ignorant, the high and low —a t r u e democracy. Comment—A very good description of the Catholic Church! W h y do you pass by that open door so often and not go into it and study it better? WITH A MINUS SIGN 19 I note t h a t you admit to your church only those who are | 4 fighting sin.' | You are under the neces- sity, therefore, of finding out f r o m each applicant f o r admission whether he knows what " s i n " is. Sup- pose his definition of sin disagreed with yours, who would then settle the question? Suppose he said: " M y definition of sin is, the possession of riches. I n the true church there must be no 4 r i c h and poor.' I demand t h a t each man fol- low the words of Christ : 4 Sell all thou hast and give to the poor. Then come, follow me.' " Would you let t h a t man in? If you admit him, you assent to his definition as correct. If his definition is correct, you are f u r t h e r bound to two other things. You are bound, under pain of sin, to distribute everything you^ have your- self ; and y<*i are also bound not to allow-into your church anyone who will refuse to do likewise. If you do not admit him, on what theory will you reject him? W h a t principle will you lay down t h a t will keep him out? B u t in your religion you have already stated t h a t you do not " p r o m o t e " theory, principle. You d o n ' t consider that. Even if, contrary to the spirit of your religion, you did enunciate your principle of rejection, and the candidate then demanded, " B y what authority do you assert that as a principle? My word is as good as y o u r s " — w h a t would you answer? The only possible solution is to call in a t h i r d p a r t y to settle it. Then suppose neither of you two agreed with the t h i r d ? This is a miserable mess. B u t it is logically rea- soned out f r o m your own premises. Your " t r u e democracy" begins to look like anarchy. And if you will ponder it carefully you will come to the only real solution—the P o p e ! 20 A RELIGION,-gl Rockefeller—Its ministers would be trained not only in the seminary but quite as much in life, with' the supreme emphasis on litV. • Comment—You have already tossed aside creed from your religion; you have said that theory is negligible, rule and etiquette optional. You now roll u p your sleeves for a bout with the ministers. Poor ministers! All priests pity them. Every revivalist and promoter takes a savage pleasure in whacking them. ' 4 S w a t the m i n i s t e r ! " is their war cry. He seems to have no friends. B u t why attack the ministers? Only a few para- graphs back you said the church of the f u t u r e would find its 4 4 leaders among the l a i t y . ' ' If the laity are to be your 4 4 leaders/£ why bother about the min- isters ? They are to be merely followers. Then why pick on them and incarcerate them in ^seminaries ? This is adding insult to i n j u r y . Do they have to take a seminary course to learn the game of "follow the l e a d e r s ? " Rockefeller—It would be an important p a r t of the preparation of each that he should spend months, years possibly, working with his hands in the fields or the shop, doing business in the store or office, so t h a t he might not have merely a laboratory acquaint- ance with the problems of human life, b u t the prac- tical knowledge which alone comes f r o m actual ex- perience and contact with them. Comment—If this is the course you evolve f o r the ministers, what course do you contemplate f o r the really important men of your religion, the ' ' leaders chosen f r o m among the l a i t y " ? Are they not to be p u t to work among the masses to learn by " a c t u a l c o n t a c t " ? You neglect to mention what you have in store f o r them, but we anticipate with lively interest a WITH A MINUS SIGN 21 prescribed * course in ground and lofty tumbling that will be memorable in its mirthfulness. Meantime we can watch your ministers. I t seems you allow them a very short, 4 4 unemphasized|| semi- n a r y course. Why .any seminary course a t all ? "What wTill they study there? Not religious creed, rule, etiquette. Not religious principle or theory of any kind. All these you have, in one way or another, tabooed. You are not " p r o m o t i n g " thesfc. True, you speak of " l a b o r a t o r y acquaintance with the problems of human l i f e . " B u t how do laboratory work without formulae? How solve problems with- out a principle? How direct human life toward a goal when all idea of the hereafter is mere useless speculation ? Rockefeller—He should spend months, years pos- sibly, working with his hands in the fields or the shop. Comment—Evidently there w a s n ' t much in the seminary f o r the minister's head to do, so you p u t him to work " w i t h his h a n d s " in the fields or the shop. A n d you do this with " s u p r e m e emphasis." So we may be on the lookout f o r results here if no- where else. The idea in itself is hardly original. A certain Mr. Squeers used i t years ago in Dotheboys Hall. I t did not succeed notably with children but it may with ministers. Let us see. A p p a r e n t l y we are to have, in this arrangement, " s p e c i a l t y " ministers of a highly concentrated type. A few difficulties suggest themselves. How do you propose to select your ministers for their respective spheres of operation? Will it be according to set physical, mental, moral tests? Or as your church is to be a " t r u e democracy," will you let them choose what they like? 22 A RELIGION,-gl If you use the test system, how will you establish rules, ordinances f o r its observance? Ordinances are ' 4 v o l u n t a r y r a t h e r t h a n obligatory'' as to their ob- servance in your church. B u t conceding the rules established, who is bound to believe in them? Creed is not a test in your church. Even granting t h a t the candidate believed in the rules, suppose he refuses to obey—refuses defiantly and most impolitely—what principle would you in- voke to compel him ? Suppose, f o r example, that your completed tests resulted in sending a minister out to be a glassblower, and he insisted on working at horticulture, upon what theory could you force him to follow the test decision ? Theory is not ' ' pro- m o t e d " in your church. And as all ritual, or religious etiquette, is merely a " s a c r e d privilege," he could be quite b l u n t in his refusal, too. On the other hand, if you follow the- go-as-you- please system, and allow your ministers to choose what they like, would there not be danger of choking traffic along some of your lines? The very human tendency would be to choose the light occupations and to avoid the more strenuous, especially as this is not to be their real life work, but only to give them the | | vital touch.' * A n embarrassing congestion might be expected, say in the bank clerks' or the window dressers' section, while it would be difficult to recruit men f o r the drop-forge and soap factory divisions. Would you use ordinance here, or would you sim- ply give u p ? Moreover, to do your work thoroughfy, with " s u - preme emphasis," in order to get into " v i t a l t o u c h " with every variety of difficulty, you must send min- isters into every branch of industry. The difficulties WITH A MINUS SIGN 23 of a laundryman are not those of a rancher. A puddler faces obstacles unknown to a d r u g clerk. A n d so throughout the various occupations. To attain 4 4 practical knowledge f r o m actual c o n t a c t / | ministers must be sent into each different field. Accordingly, you must provide your circus, vaude- ville, baseball ministers f o r the bright and chatty side of life as well as your chain-gang and your under- taker ministers f o r its m o u r n f u l and penitential side. A n d between these extremes of black and white there should be ministers f o r every color of the spectrum of life. . Considerably more than fifty-seven varieties of ministers! Then as to the practical working out of the plan. How would you group and distribute your ministers? F o r example, if a lay member of the teamsters asked f o r spiritual help, he would not wish sent to him the minister who specialized in millinery. If a concert pianist called f o r soul aid, he would fiercely reject the specialist f o r sewer builders. Neither min- ister would have j u s t the " v i t a l touch"-required. B u t the whole thing t u r n s to burlesque.* W h a t you have really planned is a comic " m o v i e ' I scenario. The films would reap a harvest f r o m this Gargantuan extravaganza. If laughter be the end you aim at, you have achieved a Horatian success. B u t to offer such travesty as a sincere and genuine religion is to make religion a byword among those who do not care f o r it, and to suppose all sense of humor lost among those who do. "Why has it not occurred to you t h a t the Catholic Church has possibly solved all your prob- lems. All through your planning you have been passing up and down before her open door. W h y not look in and consider her work? She has always been the church of the laborer and the poor. A n d 24 A RELIGION,-gl those who have best done her work have not, as a prerequisite, been laborers themselves at any time. St. Peter Claver was the greatest f r i e n d the slaves ever had and he was never a'slave. St. Elizabeth was a queen and the historic f r i e n d of t h e . p o o r . The f a m o u s Cure of A r s never studied a n y t h i n g outside his priestly curriculum, and he was consulted by hun- dreds of thousands of every degree f r o m all over the world. This is but a random mention of names t h a t fill the pages of her history. Why do these Catholic leaders get their results with an equipment, the very opposite of your prescrip- tions? Because they lay " s u p r e m e e m p h a s i s " upon things which you never mention through all your u p l i f t i n g scheme—the grace of God, prayer, a strict observance of the commandments in their personal lives, p r o f o u n d study and discipline of their own hearts. These, based upon, and vivified by, a creed which they believe divine, have given them t h a t per- sonal power you vainly crave to " m o u l d the thought of the w o r l d . ' ' Spiritual difficulties are not in the hands, but in the heart. A n d once a man understands and tames and purifies his own h e a r t under the fixed guidance of God, he knows what to tell to any man by way of help and direction, whether t h a t man be the humblest artisan or the ruler of an empire. Rockefeller—Would that I had the power to bring to your minds the vision as it unfolds before me. Comment—After the recent ministerial brainstorm, a pathologist would, we suspect, predict the next de- velopment to be some sort of Iivisions.'| Unfold, ye portals! Rockefeller—I see all denominational emphasis set aside. WITH A MINUS SIGN 25 Comment—That i s n ' t necessarily a vision. The Catholic Church sees the same thing as a sober fact. Rockefeller—I see co-operation, not competition. Comment—You are looking at the Catholic Church. Rockefeller—I see strong churches, great economy in plant, in money, in service, in leadership. Comment—For a person who gives theory the cold shoulder, you show quite a warmth of enthusiasm over visions. I t may appear crude, right in the midst of a vision, to i n t e r r u p t with a practical question. B u t one should like to know whether in this Plant-Money- Service-Leadership combination there are to be any ordinances, etiquette, principles, beliefs. If not, how weld your organization into one piece? How conserve the plant, invest the money? How determine who are to be in the 4 ' l e a d e r s h i p , ' ' who in the " s e r v i c e " ? Must there not be constitutional voting, and therefore constitutional principles? Or will you simply appoint to office? W h a t would be your rule of appointment in the latter instance? These things.are essential to t h e idea of any prac- tical organization. If you do not have them you can- not go an inch ahead. Christ himself, you recollect, began with an ordinance: " T h o u a r t P e t e r . " If you do have these, how can you pronounce 4 ' ordi- nance, ritual, creed, all non-essential''? Rockefeller—Shall this vision be realized? Comment—Regretfully we answer, " N o . " How could you expect it to be realized if you are going ahead without any belief in your p l a n t ? Rockefeller—To build u p an internal rather than an external religion was Christ's mission on earth. Comment—Do you mean to say t h a t there must be no externals ? If so, what about your Plant-Money- Service-Leadership idea? Externals are p r e t t y evi- dent in that. 26 A RELIGION,-gl Christ's mission on earth was, as He said Himself, to establish a Church, t h a t is to say, an internal re- ligion which was necessarily to manifest itself ex- ternally, visibly; was to have a body as well as a soul. Christ was a visible person: He propagated his re- ligion by external methods, preaching, teaching, miracles. He taught us to practice our religion ex- ternally by praying orally and with external rever- ence of body. H e founded His Church on a visible person, 4 4 T h o u a r t P e t e r , ' ' and He sent His apostles f o r t h to generate religion in the world by external methods, 4 4 Go, teach all nations, baptizing them.' f Ex- ternal religion is necessary to internal, as the tree t r u n k is necessary f o r the sap t h a t r u n s through it. Rockefeller—Few and simple were the forms Christ set u p or sanctioned, such as baptism and the Lord's Supper, but they were wonderfully beautiful and filled with sacred inspiration. Comment—Getting ready to slay a few more " n o n - essentials" to the string accompaniment of a wonder- f u l l y beautiful phraseology. Rockefeller^-13.e (Christ) did not make baptism a condition of church membership, as is commonly as- sumed. Baptism was made the door of the church by man, such action being based on inferences f r o m the words of Christ. Comment—This ft a cool piece of dogmatism f r o m a man who scouts dogma. Where is your proof f o r this assertion? Or are we to take i t as revelation? You say t h a t it is "commonly a s s u m e d " as a result of " i n f e r e n c e s " t h a t Christ made baptism the door of the church. By what inferences do you uncom- monly assume t h a t man made baptism the door 1 Rockefeller—The L o r d ' s Supper is an ordinance rich in symbolic beauty. CommevM^li Christ ever taught anything plainly WITH A MINUS SIGN 27 in His whole career, it was the doctrine of the Eucharist recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John. You say i t is a negligible affair, being merely a rule made by Christ—covering u p your denial of Christ's teaching under the " f a r - b e - i t - f r o m - m e " phraseology. W h a t is your proof t h a t the L o r d ' s Supper is a non- essential to the true Church? Rockefeller—Can we imagine t h a t if Christ came to earth again he would regard the observance of these individual beliefs as of sufficient importance to j u s t i f y controversy among good men about doctrines? Comment—If Christ came to earth again He would expect to find the Church which H e established, and which He solemnly promised that the power of hell should not undermine. And He would find you send- ing out on all sides a proclamation t h a t His Church had failed and that His word was not worth anything. H e would also find you engaged in controversy with " g o o d m e n " and inculcating a doctrine t h a t all doctrines are absurd. Rockefeller—Let ordinance, creed, ritual, form, biblical interpretation, theology, all be used to enrich worship as each individual or separate church may find them helpful. Comment-^-This is the big drive. Everything goes under here. F i r s t ordinance, creed, ritual were lopped off f r o m religion; next, f u n d a m e n t a l principles, theory, went by the board; then the Sacraments dis- appeared in a wave of gushing sentiment. A n d now the Bible and all theology go u p as the magazine finally explodes. B u t there is still hope! J u s t as the ship is engulfed in the billows, u p f r o m t h e foam of the sea arises our salvation—Mr. J o h n D. Rockefeller, J r . , solemnly announcing the new gospel of Plant- Money-Service-Leadership, a gospel minus a creed minus a rule, minus a theology, minus a Bible! 28 A RELIGION,-gl I t were tedious to point out in detail all the con- tradictions in your latest assertion. I shall mention but one self-destructive bit. Rockefeller—Let biblical interpretation be used as each individual or each separate church may find i t helpful to a f u l l e r understanding of God. Comment—It seems incredible t h a t anyone who has even cursorily read the history of Protestantism f o r f o u r hundred years and witnessed the steady dis- integration of all religion l e f t in the path of the 41 free b i b l e " should have the temerity to introduce that very element into any organization t h a t expects to be born alive. B u t you are trying it. Let us consider how the New Religion would stand u p in practice against the " h e l p f u l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " idea. Suppose the Plant-Money-Service-Leadership Re- ligion f a i r l y launched and a week old. Suppose the P l a n t is up, the Money down, the Service standing at attention, His Leadership in the chair. Suddenly, out from the service ranks steps a person bearing an open Bible in his hands. He speaks as follows I " Y o u r Leadership, I have assimilated your rule on bible reading. The rule i s : Let each individual use biblical interpretation as he may find it h e l p f u l to a f u l l e r understanding of God. I am an individual. I have i n t e r p r e t e d m y Bible and now I u n d e r s t a n d exactly what will be h e l p f u l in my work f o r God. I r e f u s e any longer to be a Service man. I must be a Leader. I prove my r i g h t to the position f r o m these helpful words taken verbatim f r o m the holy book, words ' w o n d e r f u l l y beautiful and filled with sacred inspiration.' Here they a r e : " I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. Although I be rude in speech yet not in knowledge. WITH A MINUS SIGN 29 The t r u t h of Christ is in me. A n d I live, no, not I, but Christ liveth in m e . " " I am therefore 'another Christ.' A n d as the first Christ was a Leader, I cannot be anything else, and I will n o t . " A low m u r m u r r u n s through the ranks of the Serv- ice. I t rises steadily to a prolonged howl as they increasingly realize the " h e l p f u l " meaning of those biblical words, " r i c h in symbolic b e a u t y . " t 4 Neither will we be Service people any more,' I they cry. | ' We 're all made to be Leaders and we 're going to be. We find it so h e l p f u l . " Query: If you happened to be His Leadership, how would you solve this situation? ' Do not say it is an imaginary situation. Protest- antism has been doing nothing else but this in her churches f o r the past f o u r hundred years. Would you use a h e l p f u l bible quotation against them,, and rising in your place say to the tempestuous multitude, "Peace, be s t i l l " ? They would help themselves to the same quotation and retort i t on you. Would you give orders that the P l a n t be closed ? B u t it would hardly seem to be " t r u e democracy" to close the P l a n t because of a h e l p f u l biblical quota- tion. Besides, who would obey you? Each of these individuals has discovered the Bible telling him i t is h e l p f u l to be a Leader, and Leaders d o n ' t obey orders. The P l a n t might be closed, indeed, but with His Leadership on the outside and the " L e a d e r s " inside fighting it out in a battle royal. Would you offer them money to retain your leader- ship ? Money might help, b u t only for a while. They would s t a r t another riot f o r more money, taking it f r o m you f o r your soul's good, since the Bible would tell them that "Money is the root of all e v i l . " And 30 A RELIGION,-gl a f t e r another while there Would be no more money to give. P e r h a p s entering yourself as a Service man would settle it. B u t what is the use of one Service man in a church where all the others are leaders? You would die of clashing orders and consequent overwork. I n any alternative we should have a beautifully wonderful " m o v i e " scenario. Or, with music, a very comic opera. If you can find your way out of this bewildering, yet strictly " b i b l i c a l " labyrinth, you have m y con- gratulations. Rockefeller—But God forbid t h a t they should ever, any of them, be regarded as a substitute f o r t h a t per- sonal, spiritual relation between the soul and its God which is the essence of t r u e religion. Comment—A p e r s o n a l ' relation between the soul and its God is not an abstract thing. I t means t h a t the living soul must act, and act rightly, in God's service. B u t it cannot act without a belief and it cannot act rightly without the t r u e belief. Such t r u e belief is a creed. Creed, thereiore, is a prerequisite to and an accompaniment of all correct action of the soul toward God, and consequently creed cannot be a " s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h a t personal relation of the soul to its G o d " because creed is a component p a r t of the very relation itself and belongs to its essence. The whole question is—and you evade all discussion of this point throughout—what is the true belief, the true creed? W i t h o u t t h a t there is evidently no pos- sibility of proceeding to correct action, since all moral action is founded upon belief. j Yet you call f o r cor- rect action and discount creed. That is, you throw creed out f r o m every organiza- tion except your own projected organization. B u t in starting your own, the very first thing you do is to WITH A MINUS SIGN 31 establish a creed, and dictate i t as your " t e r m s of admission.'g You declare ordinances optional of observance in every other church, but in your own church you visualize a plant, to be r u n on system, which is only another name f o r ordinances. You make light of all theoretical religion, and your- self evolve a theory ending in a " v i s i o n . " You relegate ritual, or religious etiquette, to the background in other churches. I n your own church you emphasize " s e r v i c e , " which is unthinkable with- out etiquette, without ritual. You take anything you please away f r o m other churches, on the ground t h a t they have no right to them. And then, like the jackdaw with the borrowed plumage, you use those very things yourself, call your performance a " v i s i o n , " and in Delphic tones ask people to " c a t c h the v i s i o n " as you throw it out to them in a shower of a million booklets. By what authority do you act thus ? Wherfe is your proof f o r a single thing you say? Where are your credentials, your divine commission f o r this series of oracular pronouncements? W h y have you been se- lected as the one herald of this visionary " n e w e r a " ? And who is it t h a t has selected you ? These questions will be asked by any one not too dazed at the highhandedness of your whole proceed- ing. B u t they are questions t h a t a million showers of booklets will not answer.