Conformity

Conformity By Lewis J. Wallace THERE is a growing tendency in some circles to criticise the "Church" on the ground that its laws and regulations are too rigid, the arguments being that there is no virtue in conforming strictly to all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. In short, it is said, "there is too much mcthodism in the Church." The ob- jection is raised that many of the doctrines are merely outward forms unrelated to any inward grace, compliance with which is not at all essential to salvation. The answer, perhaps, depends upon the meaning of the word "salvation." Baptism comes in for its share of criticism along with tithing, prayer, the Word of Wisdom, attendance at Sabbath services, sanctity of the Sabbath, eternal marriage, temple work for the dead, and many other commandments and fundamental principles of the Church. It is argued that baptism, for example, is a formal requirement adhered to by the unthinking, that no change results from its ad- ministration and that therefore no efficacy attaches to it. Tithing is heard to be a burden too heavy to bear, and for that reason is said to be of little consequence, a matter purely discretionary with each individual; others find comfortable refuge in the suggestion that it is a man-made, and not a divine, law. Some of the so-called students of psychology denounce prayer as being but a childish gesture, fraught with meaning only in so far as the individual en- courages himself in the belief that he will receive divine assistance. The sanctity of the Sabbath is flouted on the ground that the "day of rest" is simply an age-old custom, coming down to us through years and years of tradition, and that, as a matter of reason, purely, the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Eternal marriage, temple work for the dead and other similar doctrines are lightly dismissed as being something about which we know nothing. And so on down the list, no single principle or doctrine being able to claim the distinction of satisfying all of the critics. With these objections prevalent among us, it would seem time really to determine exactly where we, as individuals, stand. It should not be a difficult task. Either Christianity is a myth or it is not. If it is a myth, we should admit it at once and frankly assert that the Bible is no more than a book of moral teachings. Moreover, if we do not profess to be Christians we cannot be expected to adhere to its precepts. But if, on the other hand, we

470 IMPROVEMENT ERA acknowledge Christianity and hold ourselves out to be believers in the divine mission of the Savior, then let us stand on both feet and bear testimony to its truth by living in accordance with his divine teachings and commandments. Let us not act like pampered children and accept one or two doctrines today, as it pleases us, and discard them for a few others on the morrow. Christianity is not a selective religion, nor is it a weak, "psalm-singing Sunday re- ligion," so-called. It is an every-day religion, vital, vigorous and all-embracing in its mandates and its injunctions. On the one band, it says, "Do these things;" and, on the other, "Do not these (other) things." It does not say, pick and choose according to your fancy — or, select whichever doctrines you may please. If we accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, then we accept the fact that he was and is divine and we accept the conviction that God lives. Accepting these fundamentals, we cannot logically deny that God is an orderly being and that heaven is an orderly place; nor can we deny that all nature is subject to law and order. The whole universe, as man knows it, is governed by certain definite, fixed and unchanging laws. Not only are things of nature and the universe subject to irrevocable laws, but man himself has found it necessary and advisable to institute laws regulating and ordering his own conduct. These laws which men set up are usually firm and explicit and very often demand positive action on the part of those who are subject to them, to say nothing of the countless restraints which they impose. How long would our social structure endure if we could obey those laws which pleased us and ignore all the others? How long would our governments (federal, state, county, city and town) exist if we paid taxes as loosely and as irregularly as we pay our tithing? The answer is obvious. Suppose a native-born American citizen in one of our states presents himself at the voting polls, along with other citizens, and seeks to cast his ballot for a public officer. He is told that he cannot vote because he has not yet reached a certain age. He is furious. What qualification is there in age? Hasn't he had more education and experience than his older brother? Or, suppose he is told that he has failed to go through the formal procedure of registering at the proper time and place before the election and is therefore not entitled to vote. He is indignant and rages and storms about. Isn't he a property holder? Isn't he as good a man as his neighbor who is casting his ballot? Doesn't he pay taxes and conduct himself in an orderly fashion? Yes. Then why can't he vote? Why all this formality? Why must he conform to a particular procedure? He punctuates his remarks, perhaps, with

CONFORMITY 471 some strong and vindictive adjectives about the unfairness and in- justice of the whole governmental structure and leaves the building in a smoldering heat. Does any one sympathize with him? Does any one say, "Ah, let him vote. What difference does it make? After all, he is as good as we are; he is a citizen; he is a taxpayer; and he is a mighty good man?" If so, it is to no avail. The man doesn't vote. Society must conduct itself in an orderly manner if it expects to function properly; it must have rules and regulations for individual conduct, and each individual must accept his responsibility as a mem- ber of that society. An alien comes to our shores, seeking admission into what he thinks is the "land of the free and the home of the brave." The port officials tell him he cannot enter because the quota of im- migrants from the country whence he came has been filled. They tell him that he might possibly be admitted if he possessed a non- quota immigrant vise. He must return. With a heavy heart and a burning contempt for so incredulous formalities, the immigrant is forced to accept this seemingly bitter decision. All he needs is a certain paper, he reflects. What an unreasoning country to set up a rule, to which he must conform, requiring him to return across the seas, procure if he can a small piece of paper, return again over the ocean and present the paper to this same official. Why not simply let him in now? Or, suppose the alien is admitted. He soon learns that he must take certain steps, formal perhaps, if he desires to become an American citizen. He does not bother to do so; it is too much trouble. Later he gets into legal difficulties and finds, to his dismay, that he is not accorded all the rights, privileges and immunities of an American citizen; his status is different; he is still an alien. He declares his disgust for so rigid and formal rules. It is absurd to be forced to sign certain prescribed papers, to be acquainted with certain facts to be a citizen of this new country. Is he not as good as the other immigrant with whom he journeyed? Just because that man conformed, he says scornfully, to a certain routine, he has more rights than I have. Again, our various governments exact from us annually, not one, but many taxes which we pay, or for the neglect of which we subject ourselves to penalties, usually in the form of distraint pro- ceedings against our property. In some cases the penalty is a prison sentence, as where fraudulent tax returns are filed. These taxes are really tremendous when we stop to recount them. There are taxes on the land we own, on our homes and our household furni- ture, on our automobiles, and on other numerous items of personal

472 IMPROVEMENT ERA property; taxes on our income, sometimes both to the state and the federal government; estate and inheritance taxes, payable often- times both to the state and the federal government; taxes for imports and exports; sales taxes; taxes for paving new roads, building new bridges and schools, constructing highways and for numerous other improvements, in addition to which are the taxes for the annual maintenance of these institutions and improvements, and so on al- most ad infinitum. Do we conform to these legal demands upon our purse? Do we pay all of these taxes? We most assuredly do. They might be ever so heavy, and we might protest ever so loudly, but never- theless we conform — we pay them. If these examples are not sufficient to point out the extent to which we conform to rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, laws, constitutions and other binding limitations and prohibitions pre- scribed by our governments, attention might be called to the thou- sands of city ordinances and state and federal constitutions and statutes under which we live. Added to these are the regulations for administering these laws, the regulations of other governmental departments and bureaus, and the great body of decided cases form- ing the precedents for what we call our common law. Countless other examples of our daily conformity with the legal requirements and restrictions and formalities of our various governmental agencies can be cited. And it is needless to say that we do conform to those requirements or suffer the consequences, whether justly or unjustly. If a man-made government cannot be a selective one, permitting each citizen to pick and choose the laws he prefers to obey, how can we logically criticise a divine govern- ment because it does not permit such selection? The answer to all this, you may say, lies in the fact that we have the right to change our civil laws if we do not like them. We can repeal those which become distasteful or cumbersome and enact new ones to replace them, or we can modify them from time to time as our fancy dictates. We are, in reality, therefore, conforming only to those laws which please us. But is that really true? A law once established is most dif- ficult to discard, and this very difficulty results in the long-continued existence of laws we would like changed but which remain in force from year to year as though by sufferance purely. On the other hand, a bare majority might institute laws or effect changes, thus forcing upon the large minority limitations most obnoxious and unde- sirable. So that, as a matter of fact, we do conform to many laws which are contrary to our ideals, our sense of justice and our moral comfort. However, aside from all this, the best reply is that we

CONFORMITY 473 do not break the laws first and repeal them afterwards; we conform to the existing laws, or should do, so long as they remain in force and until they arc actually repealed through the proper channels and by the proper authority. Why then do we distinguish between the church and the state when it comes to obedience? Why do we scoff at what we like to call "rigid conformity" to divine injunctions, while we accept unquestioningly restrictions and prohibitions much more tedious and severe imposed by our social order? Why is one a burden and the other a civic duty? Docs the state have more claim to us and to our services and our property than the God who gave us life? Without him there would be no state; in fact, there would be no life, no earth, and, so far as we know, there would be no universe. Are we not short-sighted and blind? Is not our perspective wrong? The man who stands within a few inches of the base of a towering monument cannot see or appreciate its height, nor can he measure its relative size with the surrounding landmarks. He is too close to it; his perspective is dwarfed. Similarly, the man who shuts himself off from the world and buries his nose in the books of his library becomes blind to the ideas, feelings, needs, desires, ambitions and experiences of his fellow-men. Were he to judge them he would do so unwisely and unfairly. Let us not lack wisdom and fairmindedness. The laws of heaven are few in number and simple of understanding, and they arc as essential to God's divine purpose as are the laws of men to theirs. Let us not nullify them by disobedience. Let us get the proper perspective and purpose of his kingdom, realizing that it must be subject to law and order, as is our own imperfect man-made gov- ernment, and that we must learn the first law of heaven, just as we learn to be law-abiding citizens. If we profess to be Christians, then let us be Christians in very deed, living God's laws and com- mandments and responding to his teachings, not through any childish fear of hell-fire and damnation, but because we want to be good Christians, because we have faith and confidence that he will not mislead us and that one day we will understand and appreciate his love for us. And, meanwhile, let us not be blinded by some in- consequential suggestion that he asks us to "conform" too much. Washington, D. C. A Fable Justice and Mercy went trafficking in the market-place. Justice sought to weigh men's souls. He drew from his cloak the scales that weigh and measure sunbeams or a baby's sigh. Mercy begged for power to adjust those scales. But Justice would not. Then Mercy began her plea, and the angels listened. She said that Justice measured only acts and sure results; while she would take account of motive and of purpose. So Mercy had her way. And from that day, the angels take two measurements of the souls of men. — Susa Young Gates.