have said about Christ; it does not believe what Christ himself said.  It does not accept the practical rule of life which he has laid down.  It does not believe that the Golden Rule is workable in modern life.  It does not believe that it is feasible to love our neighbors as ourselves.  It does not believe in the kingdom of heaven as a present possibility.  It expects that Christ will come, by and by, in person, with miraculous power, to revolutionize society, and that after that it will be practicable to follow the law of love, in all our human relations; but, for the present, we must let the law of competition control all our practical affairs.

Of course it is not often that the teachings of Christ are directly controverted; they are generally ignored, or passed by, as “counsels of perfection” which we are to admire rather than obey.  But we sometimes find arguments in which disbelief in the teachings of Jesus is distinctly justified.  In a late volume, one of the great leaders of the German church elaborately contends that we cannot follow Jesus in his social teachings.  “Our attitude toward the world,” says Herrmann, “cannot be that of Jesus; even the purpose to will that it should be so is stifled in the air that we breathe to-day.  The state of affairs is very clearly described by Naumann, who says with truth:  ’Therefore we do not seek Jesus’ advice on points connected with the management of the state and political economy.’  But when he goes on to say:  ’I give my vote and I canvass for the fleet, not because I am a Christian, but because I am a citizen, and because I have learned to renounce all hope of finding fundamental questions of state determined in the Sermon on the Mount,’ we can detect a fallacy.  He regards as painful renunciation what ought, on the part of the Christian, to be a free, decisive, and voluntary act."[19]

Naumann repudiates, rather regretfully, the counsels of Jesus about economic and civil affairs, but Herrmann says that he does it light-heartedly, because he has found out that these counsels are not applicable to existing conditions.

It is evident that these counsels must be rationally applied,—­the spirit and not the letter of them is the essential thing; but what these teachers mean is more than this.  How far they have departed from the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount is indicated by the words already quoted.  The reason why Naumann does not seek the advice of Jesus in questions of public concern is that he is determined to give his vote and influence for the German fleet; and Herrmann is following the same impulse when he characterizes the call for the disarmament of the nations as a “noble folly.”  It is evident that the reason why these teachers feel that the way of Jesus is impracticable is that they are fully committed to the ideas of German imperialism.  To conceive that nations could dispense with war is a “noble folly.”  And, for the same reason, they conceive that any attempt to substitute cooeperation for competition in the industrial world would be disastrous to modern society.  The morality of strife outranks, in their judgment, the morality of service and sacrifice.  The law of Jesus may be permitted to hold some subordinate place; it will be found useful in mitigating the savagery of strife; but as the regulative principle of the industrial order it is not to be considered.