Reform and Popularity by Alonzo T. Jones

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Oct 30, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 41.

Reform and Popularity.

By Alonzo T. Jones

"It is the universal law that whatever pursuit, whatever doctrine, becomes fashionable, shall lose a portion of that dignity which it had possessed while it was confined to a small but earnest minority, and was loved for its own sake alone."—Macaulay's England, Chapter 3, Paragraph 136.

A short study of the history of reforms, will be sufficient to convince any one of the truth of this observation. Fashionableness, popularity, is the one great danger of every reform. For just as soon as, from pure love of the principle, by self-denial, sacrifice, and faithful endeavor, it has been carried to that point where it compels recognition, and begins to grow popular, it receives accessions because of its popularity, and not because of its truth; because of its fashionableness, and not because it is loved; and this, as expressed above, inevitably detracts from that dignity which it possessed when it was loved for its own sake alone. This spirit soon pervades the whole body, leaders and all, and then the leaders dare not press anything upon the people, more than they accepted because of its popularity, and soon, "like people like priest" (Hos. 4:9), it reaches the point where the special reform which they represent, cannot itself be preached in the simplicity and dignity with which it arose, because even that has become unpopular. And just as surely as one begins to press these things upon their notice, he will be slighted; and if he persists in it, he will as surely be accounted a "troubler of Israel," and will be ostracized, and if his work goes on, it must do so outside of the communion with which he has hitherto been connected. It must begin again in weakness, in humility, in self-denial, in reproach, and in separation, because it is unpopular.

In this very thing lies the reason and the philosophy of the fact stated by Wendell Phillips: "No reform, moral or intellectual, ever came down from the upper classes of society. Each and all came up from the protest of martyr and victim."

Again Mr. Phillips says: "No man, in the pulpit or on the platform, can be true to the truth, and at the same time be popular with his generation." The tendency of the truth, either moral or intellectual, is to reform, and no reform is ever popular. When it becomes popular, truth is compromised and loses its power. Whosoever, therefore, will love the truth must do so at the expense of his popularity. Christ illustrated these principles, in his choice of his disciples. The Pharisees, also, at the same time gave an illustration of the principles here evolved. When the officers had returned, not bringing Christ as they had been ordered, to their "Never man spake like this man," the answer was made, "Have any of the rulers or the Pharisees believed on him?" And when Nicodemus simply called their attention to a principle of justice and the law, which, if allowed, they knew must be in Jesus' favor, they cried out, "Art thou also of Galilee?" John 7:45-52. And although even among the chief rulers, there were some who believed in the truth he taught, and the evidences of his mission, they would not confess him, because of the Pharisees, and lest they should be put out of the synagogue. Then the apostle gives the gist of this whole subject: "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." John 12:42, 43. They loved popularity more than they loved the truth, and that, too, which they really believed to be the truth.

Yet "the common people heard him gladly;" because, as is well expressed by Robertson Smith: "The religious life of Israel was truer than the teaching of the Pharisees."—Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lecture 5, last paragraph but one. They were willing to believe on him, to love him, and to the efforts of the Pharisees to take him, they very pertinently asked, "When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?" The Pharisees could not avoid seeing the force of this argument, for they could not deny that Messiah would certainly come; well, then, if when he should come he should do no more miracles than those which he had done, why was not this he? But no; all questions, all reasonings must be set aside because he did not foster their pride, nor promote their popularity. If he had gone to them, every part of his doctrine would have been by them warped into conformity with their proud lives; and so, if he would have his mission prove a success, if he would have the truth grow, in its purity, he was compelled to go to the common people, to those who would receive the truth, and the love of it for its own sake alone, to those who would conform their lives to the perfect form of the doctrine, and not seek to bend the doctrine into the imperfect shape of their evil lives.

This work of Christ, in his immediate presence on the earth, was not an exception to the rule by which the progress of his truth has been worked out. It was rather the laying down of the rule itself. Prof. Robertson Smith truly says: "Throughout the history of the church, it has always been found that the silent experience of the pious people of God has been truer, and has led the church in a safer path, than the public decrees of those who claim to be authoritative leaders of theological thought."—Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lecture 5, last sentence. And so again we are brought to the truth that no reform has ever come down from the upper classes of society. And coming up from the protest of martyr and victim it has to meet all the pride of place and power of popularity, and with only the simple truth it overcomes all. The truth and the love of it is the reformer's "shield and buckler." The truth will reach the conscience and compel assent. Then the individual must make his choice, whether he will love the praise of men more than the praise of God, whether he loves popularity more than he loves truth. Truth is demonstrable, and even when a person decides against it in his practice, he cannot deny the evidence upon which the proposition is based. The only way in which he can justify his opposition is to destroy the evidence.

To illustrate: When many of the people believed on Jesus, basing their faith in his Messiahship on the fact that he had raised Lazarus from the dead, then the chief priests "consulted that they might put Lazarus to death." John 12:10, 11. Exactly: the only way they could evade the truth was to destroy the evidence by killing Lazarus. They would go to the length of committing murder, rather than to acknowledge what they could not deny. The papal persecutions, and all others, have been carried on in the same channel. When the Bible was appealed to, it was destroyed. Then when the heretic in his words and his life gave evidence to the truth, his life was destroyed.

Opposition to the Third Angel's Message is conducted on the same principle. The substance of that message is reform on the ten commandments, particularly the fourth. Without special reference to that commandment, we may ask the "chief rulers" of any orthodox church in all the land, whether the ten commandments are the law of God; whether they are every one binding on all people; whether they are immutable, unchangeable; whether that is the fundamental law; whether it is the constitution of the moral world; whether it is the truth; whether the fourth commandment is as binding as the first or the seventh, or any other one? and to every one of these questions they will answer emphatically, Yes. Then we may turn to the fourth commandment and read, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work;" and ask them to obey it, and what do they do? They attempt to destroy the evidence by abolishing the law. And from the positions taken by the National Reform Party, as well as from the message itself, we are assured that their endeavors will not be confined to the law, but that when they get the power, it will be extended against those who respect and maintain the obligation of the law. And still they will call that reform, which in every feature is contrary to the word of God, the truth, the basis of all reform. But in no single point does it agree with the principles of true reform. It arose and is carried on by those who claim to be authoritative leaders of theological thought, who, as quoted above, have never been safe guides. It comes down from the upper classes of society, which no reform has ever done, and which we have seen it can never do. Those who advocate it are popular, which Wendell Phillips declared no man can be "and be true to the truth." More than all these, the fundamental principle of the whole cause, viz., the Sunday sabbath, is a falsehood from its very inception. They may call it National Reform all they please, but the more it is examined in the light of truth, the more plainly it appears that there is not a single element of reform in the whole movement.