ideal of the Kingdom would bring conflict among men. The tyrannies, cruelties, selfishness of human life will not yield without a struggle. He strikingly declared that he had come to set a man at variance against the members of his family (Matt 10. 34-36; Luke 12. 51, 53). He himself experienced want of sympathy among his brothers (Mark 3. 20f.; John 7. 3-5). They did not believe in what he was trying to do. Evidently, there may be higher duty than family loyalty, and when these clash the man who weakly chooses the easier part is unworthy. So men have left fathers who were engaged in unsocial business; they have left home and fortune for some great social crusade; they have taken sides opposed to family interests on questions of social reform. Out of such sacrifice the world has grown better. In the greater movements of social righteousness that are before us in the future it is altogether likely that sacrifice of the same kind will often be required. It was no disparagement of his family when Jesus found his true kindred not in those of his flesh and blood, but in the companions of the spirit (Matt 12. 46-50; Mark 3. 31-35; Luke 8. 19-21).

DIRECTIONS FOR STUDY

1. Review the chapter on "The Family," and consider what kind of institution it had come to be in Jesus's day. What were its points of excellence? In what respects was it unsatisfactory?

2. In what particulars did Jesus use the analogy of the family to illustrate the character of the kingdom of God?

3. Read Rauschenbusch, Christianizing the Social Order, Part III, Chapter II, for a discussion of the way in which the family has reached a marked degree of socialization.

4. To whom did Jesus address his teachings on the subject of marriage? to mankind generally, or to those who were willing to make choice of the kingdom of God? Upon what grounds do you hold your view? What does your view involve as to the significance of Jesus's teaching for modern life?

5. Are those who wish to be followers of Jesus justified in per

mitting legislation such as that of divorce which they consider contrary to his view of the sanctity of marriage? 6. What would you think of the consistency of a person who, although very unhappily married, should refrain from divorce, and yet should approve of divorce in the case of another person equally unfortunate? Are there any principles which we must apply to ourselves more rigidly than to others?

7. If for reasons which seem socially necessary the state permits divorce, should the church refuse the sanction of its ceremony to divorced persons desiring to remarry? Should the church teach such persons that they are breaking the seventh commandment?

8. Consider the bearing on the subject of divorce of such words of Jesus as Matt 5. 9, 43f.; 6. 14; 7. 1-5, 12; 18. 21-35; Luke 17. 4.

9. Consider the problem of conflicting loyalties to a sociallyminded son going into business with a father whose factory employed little children for long hours and in unhealthy conditions.

10.

Does the teaching of Jesus upon the family provide us with a social program, or are we still left to study our own problems by the best scientific methods that we can evolve? If the latter is true, what contribution does Jesus make to the modern social problem of the family?

CHAPTER XXXIV

WEALTH AND POVERTY

SI. THE ABSence of an ECONOMIC PROGRAM MANY Schools of economic philosophy have claimed Jesus as their own. Because he told the rich young man to sell everything and give to the poor it has been held that he was a communist. Because he said, "How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God," he has been regarded as an opponent of private ownership of property, and reckoned a socialist. Because, in the parable of the pounds he noted the reward of industry, he has been regarded as a champion of capitalism. Because he said, "The poor ye have always with you," he has been considered an apologist for the inequalities of economic life. But, of course, all these were incidental sayings applicable to the particular circumstances in which they were spoken.

Jesus was not an economic philosopher. He was a religious teacher seeking to show men how to live together, and recognizing the stupendous difficulties in the way of social living which economic conditions create. As in every other case, he went to the heart of the problem and made no effort to settle its special phases.

Jesus accepted the social conditions of his time. He dined with the rich who were highly esteemed (Luke 14. 1), with those also whose wealth was not reckoned respectable (19. 1-10). He was a friend of those of moderate means (Matt 26. 6ff.), even when they were of the despised classes (Luke 5. 29). He accepted financial help from well-to-do women (8. 1-3), and made no suggestion to any of them that they should give up their wealth. There were rich friends to

minister to him at the last (Matt 27. 57f.). He himself earned money and knew the responsibilities of economic life. The apostolic band had a common purse in which they kept their funds for their necessary expenses, and out of which there was always something for the poor (John 13. 29).

The relation of wealth to the kingdom of God was, of course, a most important consideration, and Jesus clearly presented the principles which must control those who are seeking this condition of social righteousness.

§ 2. WEALTH A SECONDARY GOOD

His most fundamental principle was that wealth is not a primary object of desire. He saw in his own day what is so evident in ours, that a large part of the tyranny, cruelty, bitterness, misery, that brutalize society arises from the fact that wealth is regarded as a primary good. Of course when men say they do not want money for its own sake but for what it can procure they are only confusing the issue. Wealth is not gold and silver and bank notes. Wealth is what money procures. Men and women greatly desire good things-houses, lands, furniture, jewels, comforts, luxuries. Jesus insisted that life does not consist of things (Luke 12. 15); they are secondary. We want to be served, and money can procure all kinds of service, removing the disagreeables from our path, supplying us with all those conditions that make life easy and pleasant. Jesus found for himself and taught out of his experience that the richest blessing of life consists in rendering service rather than in securing it (Matt 20. 26-28).

It is important to remember that Jesus's teaching about wealth was not directed toward millionaires. There were probably none such in Palestine. He was speaking to prosperous farmers (Luke 12. 13-21), to men who could afford to live well (Luke 16. 19-31), to theologians who were money-lovers (16. 14). He was speaking quite as much to

people who greatly desired money as to people who possessed it (Matt 6. 24-34; Luke 12. 22-34). He said that the kingdom of God does not come-that is to say, the right social order does not come-because men are so engrossed with money-getting that they are not willing to give attention to preparing for it. The supreme good is lost because we are so busy about subordinate goods (Matt 13. 22).

Wealth was not the great object of Jesus's own life. He spent himself in the endeavor to bring men into such relations with one another and with God that love should obtain among them, and all the fruits of selfishness should disappear. He urged as the supreme end, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness" (6. 33).

It is for each generation to decide what is involved in a social order founded on the great principle of love and then to bend every effort to bring it to pass. We cannot go to the teaching of Jesus to find out how industry should be organized, but we can derive from his life and words that the supreme considerations must not be dividends, but must be the manhood of the workers, the sweetness of their homes, the womanliness of their wives, the hopefulness of their children. We can quote no teaching of Jesus on the subject of the tenure of land, but the principles of generous justice and of love make it clear that we must use the land to grow men, while speculative profits to a few people are unimportant.

In general, wherever a human good and an economic good are in opposition, Jesus's own practice was to choose the human good. That is his teaching to the men of to-day. He believed that this would prove a practical doctrine. It is important to remember the second member of the great sentence, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." He expected that the kingdom of God would have an economic basis. He knew that people required food and clothing. He reminded them that God also knew it. He insisted that