Part 2

I am well aware of the practical difficulty of maintaining the distinction. In many things the world conforms to the Church, as the Church does to the world; and the line is so shaded off on both sides, that it is almost beyond man’s power to trace it. The state of things is very much like two dissolving views at the time when they are passing from one to the other. There is a faint sketch of both, but no clear outline to either. Then, again, the last thing that we desire is to see our young people assuming to themselves a spiritual superiority, and saying to others, ‘Stand aside, for I am holier than thou.’ But still the distinction is drawn by God in His Word, and we are guilty of thorough conformity to the world if we set it aside. Happily, we are not called to decide where each individual stands; and I know few things more painful than to hear persons discussing whether individuals are converted or not. But still the existence of the distinction in its broad outlines must lie at the basis of a great deal of our practical conduct, and must not be allowed to disappear from our guiding principles. If we are in Christ, adopted as His own holy family, we must not be afraid of acknowledging Him, or ashamed of being identified with His people.

DRESS.

We are conformed to the world _when we adopt the dress and appearance of the world_. I do not mean to say that Christians are called to make themselves eccentric in their appearance, or altogether to ignore the changing fashions of the country. I do not believe that worldliness is avoided by having a stereotyped dress like nuns or Quakers. The principle by which, I think, we ought to be guided, is never to be either in the advance of the fashion, or the extreme of it; but, when it has become the costume of the country, to adopt it in moderation. There is no risk of eccentricity if a person abstains from a new fashion until it has become so common as to be a part of the national costume, and if it is then adopted in great moderation there will be nothing at any time to attract attention.

I know that some take a different line, on the plea, as they say, that it is necessary to dress according to their station, and that the style of the dress should be regulated by the income of the wearer. Thus, I have known some cases of palpable inconsistency in mistresses, and even Sunday-school teachers, who have gravely exhorted their servants or scholars against a style of dress which they themselves were wearing at the time. But, if the quality varies with the income, which I quite admit, does it follow that the style should? What is not modest apparel for the maid, is no better surely for the mistress: and if it is wrong for the scholar to be showy, it is wrong likewise for the teacher. Others I have known who have professedly dressed in the height of the fashion in order to increase their influence with worldly persons; but surely this is a low and human policy, and it would be far better for all parties simply to adhere to Scripture. Human nature has always been the same, and women loved smart dressing 1800 years ago just as much as they do now. The costume, of course, was different, so that the actual directions of those days will not apply to our own; but the taste was the same, and the Scripture teaches us plainly that Christian women ought, for the Lord’s sake, to keep that taste in subjection and restraint. The language of St. Paul is, ‘In like manner also that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but, which becometh women professing godliness, with good works.’ He considered modest apparel to be the true adornment of a Christian woman, and surely any deviation from it is a direct act of conformity to the world. The words of St. Peter are to the same effect, ‘Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which in the sight of God is of great price.’ (1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.) Surely such passages show that there is a sin in stylish dressing, and that the Christian lady will be distinguished from the fashionable world by the quiet modesty and becoming simplicity of her appearance.

SOCIETY.

We may be conformed to the world _in our intercourse with society_. As long as we are in this life we are thrown into the midst of other men; and, as members of society, we are bound by the duties of social life. There are kind neighbours all around us, many of whom, we may fear, are still men of the world, but who are associated with us through business and the ties of neighbourhood. How, then, should we act in society when we really desire not to be conformed to the world? I do not think that the Christian is to show himself an exclusive man. ‘He that hath friends must show himself friendly;’ and there are many things which he may, and even ought to do, to all around him.

He should be in all cases a friendly, obliging, and unselfish neighbour.

He should be open at any time to kind and friendly intercourse.

He should be ever ready to help his neighbours in all that concerns either them or their families.

He should be diligently seeking to promote the happiness of all who are brought into contact with him.

And all this without ever stopping to consider whether they are the children of God or not.

I believe, also, that he may safely join with them in social life. Our Lord did it, and therefore they who desire to follow Him may do it likewise. But let us all remember, what we are sometimes apt to forget when we look to His example, that we must be prepared to follow Him _throughout_, and go, as He went, wherever we go, as faithful witnesses for God. Our Lord accepted the invitation of Simon the Pharisee; but He never forgot His character or mission; and before He left the dinner-table He both reproved Simon, and saved the poor sinner that came trembling to His feet. My belief is that this is the true solution of all the questions that arise respecting social intercourse with men of the world. I see great difficulty in artificial rules; but I believe that, when Christian men seek for God’s grace to adorn the Gospel wherever they are, they will soon find that society sorts itself. If Simon the Pharisee, or Zaccheus the Publican, ask them to dinner, let them go, and let them recognise the hospitality of their friend. But let them be sure they first seek God’s grace that they go as Christian witnesses, and they will find practically that, unless their Master is welcomed as well as themselves, they will not be perplexed by many more invitations. If they go on the principle of leaving all their Christianity at home, the case is of course different. They will then be sought for by the world, for the simple reason that they are conformed to it; for nothing do worldly men prize more than the implied sanction of those who bear a high name as religious characters. ‘We cannot be wrong,’ say they, ‘for Mr. So-and-So was here; and we all know what an excellent man he is.’ Conformity to the world does not consist in going to the dinner, but in changing our character as well as our dress, and going there as men of the world, without letting it be felt that we have sought the Master’s presence, and are anxious for the Master’s glory.

FRIENDS.

There is conformity to the world in our _choice of friends_.

I say ‘our choice of friends,’ because there are many given us by God without any choice of our own. There are often dearly-beloved relations respecting whom we may feel a deep anxiety; but that anxiety must not deaden the affections, or take away the natural love which God Himself has planted towards them. But these are not our chosen friends, not those whom we have sought out or made for ourselves. But there is probably scarcely anything that marks a character more than its friendships. Nothing can be stronger than the Scripture is upon this subject, ‘Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity against God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.’ (James, iv. 4.) Thus there is a direct act of conformity to the world in the cultivation of worldly friendships. If the people of God are thought dull, and are therefore disregarded, while we seek our friendships from those who belong to the world, it shows that there is no affinity with the people of God, and I fear we must go one step further, and say, no real love for God Himself; for the words of Scripture are perfectly plain, ‘Every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him.’ (1 John, v. 1.)

AMUSEMENTS.

But now I come to that which, I am inclined to think, is the most difficult portion of our whole subject, viz.—_amusements_. We are conformed to the world when we go into _many of the amusements of the world_. I say ‘into many,’ because I cannot say all, as many do not belong exclusively to the world, but are a legitimate source of recreation to the children of God; and this it is that makes the subject so pre-eminently difficult.

There are, however, a few general principles which may help to guide us.

(1.) The Christian man has no place in those amusements _which have become practically connected with immorality and open wickedness_.

This principle will clear off a great many at once; such, for example, as theatres, operas, and races. There is no harm in racing a horse, acting a play, or the performance of beautiful music, regarded in the abstract; but in practical life they are mixed up with gambling, fraud, profligacy, and the degradation of female character. The mischief has become part and parcel of the system, so that the Christian man has nothing to do but to withdraw. He is not called to reform the racecourse, the ballet, or the stage, so that his only course is to have nothing whatever to do with them.

(2.) But, further still. There is conformity to the world when we go into those amusements which are _decidedly worldly in their character_. As I have already shown, there may be thorough worldliness where there is no profligacy; and in such a case it is for the people of God to keep clear. On this principle, I believe we should abstain from balls. There is no denying that the fashionable ball is altogether of the world. The dress, the flirtation, the excitement, the late hours, are all of the world; and the moral sense is sufficient to decide that any thing savouring of the Gospel, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, is utterly out of place in such a scene. If balls are not worldly, I cannot imagine what is. I went to some in early life—sober, quiet, well-conducted family balls, and I do not hesitate to express my conviction that I never met with anything in which I have seen so complete a combination as in the ball-room of the three things mentioned by St. John, ‘The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life,’ which are ‘not of the Father, but of the world.’ Some dances, such as polkas and waltzes, I believe to be objectionable on moral grounds; and I have known instances in which perfectly steady young men have been exposed to great temptation through them. I can quite believe, however, that this is not the case with all, and therefore it is not the point on which I rest my chief objection. It is the thorough, avowed, open worldliness of all balls that I think should lead the Christian to abstain. The whole thing is of the world. The conversation is of the world; the gratifications are all of the world; the excitement is altogether of the world; the society assembled there is, for the most part, of the world; and, therefore, I cannot believe that they are the fitting enjoyments for those who wish to carry out the Apostolic precept, ‘Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.’

(3.) Surely the Christian is out of place _where he cannot reasonably hope to enjoy the presence and companionship of God_.

If the whole scene is of such a character that it would be clearly out of place to speak of the things of His kingdom, and if the effect of the whole is likely to be such as to forbid secret communion at the time, or to unfit us for stated prayer afterwards, it is surely a clear case that such is not the amusement for those whose earnest desire it is to walk with God, and to do His will.

(4.) So further, I think we may conclude that, as a general rule, it is safer and wiser _to be guided by the experience and common practice of the people of God_. I do not mean to say that Christian people are infallible, or that they may not in some cases draw the line too tight. They are but men, and they are liable to human failures. But still they are much more likely to be right in such matters than those are who have never sought counsel from God upon the subject. If therefore we see that the most decided Christians have as a body been led to abstain from a certain class of amusements, it is surely wise to believe that they have seen some good reason for doing so, and the prudent course for the young Christian is to endeavour to avail himself of their experience, instead of relying on his own wisdom, and so striking out a new course for himself. This lesson is well taught us in the Song of Solomon (chap. i. 7, 8). The Bride there says, ‘Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?’ Her desire was to be near to the Lord, and not to turn aside to strangers. Now mark well the answer: ‘If thou know not, O thou fairest among women,’ if thou know not, that is, where to find the beloved, ‘go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the shepherds’ tents.’ In order to find the chief shepherd she was to trace the footsteps of the flock that followed him, and tracing those footsteps, she would be guided to her Lord Himself. So if we want to live near to the Lord, I am persuaded we must not be ashamed of tracing the footsteps of His people. We must be prepared to identify ourselves with them; we must not set aside their experience as a thing of nought; and must so far yield our own will as to be guided by their concurrent judgment. When, therefore, a young person finds that all the most decidedly serious persons of his acquaintance have thought it best to abstain from any particular amusement, I am persuaded that he is more likely to enjoy the presence of his Lord if he decides on abstaining with them, even though he may not see their reasons, than if he sets aside their experience, and follows in the steps of those whose boast it is that they make no profession.

(5.) There is another practical suggestion with reference to amusements, though I cannot urge it as one of principle; viz., this: _There is great risk in adopting_, _or introducing_, _an amusement_, _if it is likely to lead on to something further_, _and you cannot draw any clear line at which you mean to stop_. There are some things perfectly unobjectionable in themselves, but which become most objectionable when carried to the extent to which the world carries them. But yet the shades of difference are so delicate that it is almost impossible to draw any line that shall form a stopping point between the innocent beginning and the objectionable end. Take dancing as an illustration. In itself, it is a natural, cheerful, innocent amusement, and a great deal better, in my opinion, than many others which are substituted for it. But those others have this advantage, that, when they reach a certain point, they cease of themselves; whereas, dancing leads straight on to the ball-room, and you cannot tell your sons or daughters where to stop. It is offensive to your friends to say that your young people may dance in your own home, but not in theirs. Then, again, it is impossible to persuade a young person that the question of conformity to the world depends on whether the carpet is taken up or not. You cannot turn the carpet into a test, as I have known some attempt to do, and say that it is all right if the carpet is down, but wrong if it is taken up. Nor can you make the time of leaving off a test, and say that it is right till eleven, and wrong if it goes on till twelve; or right till twelve, and wrong if it goes on till one. The result is that those who begin with what they call family dances find in most cases that their young people end in being habitual ball-goers; and very frequently the parents themselves are so drawn along down the sliding scale that they give up most of their early principles, and become with their young people, in such matters, thoroughly conformed to the world. Thus, many a young person has been like those unfortunate travellers who perished when crossing the Col de Géant. They found the narrow ridge of rough rock was difficult and fatiguing, so they turned aside a few paces in order to find an easier path on the smooth surface of the sloping snow. Of course they had no idea of doing anything but keep safely along the upper part of the slope, close to the rocky ridge. But it was not in their power to choose their own path when once on the slope. In a fatal moment one slipped, and drew the others with him. There was no stopping point then, and they were dashed to atoms over the tremendous precipice below. I am not surprised, therefore, that most Christian parents have considered it wiser and safer for their children to keep strictly to the rocky ridge.

But in saying this I think we must bear in mind that it is rather a point of Christian prudence than of Christian principle, and be therefore extremely careful in condemning the conduct of those who differ from us. It is possible that a truly Christian person may think that he has discovered a safe stopping place in the sliding scale; and, if so, we must be careful how we blame him for conformity to the world, if he goes up to what he considers the safe limit. We may entirely differ from him, and believe that he is walking on very dangerous ground. But he may still be sound in principle, and sincerely anxious not to be conformed to the world.

(6.) But the next suggestion is one of principle, and of the utmost importance to the practical consideration of the subject; viz., this: _That no amusement should be entered into by young persons without the full and hearty concurrence of their parents_. By ‘full and hearty concurrence’ I do not mean reluctant permission, almost extorted from them by the fear of paining their children; but I mean that real approval which makes the young persons’ pleasure theirs. I am persuaded that in such matters the young Christian cannot well make too much of his parents’ wishes. I am prepared to adhere to this even in those cases in which I believe the young person to be right, and the parent mistaken. Of course if a clear command from God were involved, the authority of God must overrule that of a parent; but if the question turn on some point which the Word of God has left undecided, then surely the young person is called to yield. To take an example. A daughter is convinced of the great Scriptural principle, ‘Be not conformed to this world,’ and on the strength of it wishes to give up balls. But her mother wishes her to accept an invitation to one, and there is a collision between the judgment of the child and the will of the mother. How, then, should that young person act? It is an open question so far as the Scripture is concerned, whether going to balls is conformity to the world. The young person thinks it is, as I do. But after all, this is human opinion; whereas it is a Divine command to honour the father and the mother. But in all cases the human opinion must give way to the Divine authority, and therefore the right course appears to be for the young Christian, under such circumstances, to say to her mother with the utmost affection and most dutiful respect, that she wishes from a sense of duty to abstain from such amusements; but that, if her mother requires it as an act of filial obedience, she is ready as a child to obey. I have given this advice to many young persons, and I never knew an instance in which I had occasion to regret it. But surely the same advice must be given when it acts in the contrary direction, and, as long as young people are under their parents’ roof, even though they may differ from them, the parents’ wish must be held supreme.

We must not, however, forget that the same principle which calls for obedience in the young calls likewise for fidelity in the parent. The parents have a responsibility laid upon them so long as the young people are inmates of their home, a responsibility which the young person is bound to acknowledge, and of which the parents cannot divest themselves. Parents therefore are bound to be faithful, as well as the children to be submissive. If they consider a particular course of conduct to be conformity to the world, it is their duty as Christian parents plainly to say so. They should let their minds be known, and let it be an understood thing that the course adopted is opposed to their judgments and their wish. There are very few Christian families in which the knowledge of the parents’ wish is not sufficient; and when young persons are ready to submit to the judgment of their parents, it is clearly due to them that the parent should not shrink from the responsibility of decision. It is an easy thing to get rid of a difficulty by saying that at their age young persons must do as they like; but it is not fair to do so when the young persons are dutifully disposed, and perfectly ready to yield to their parents’ judgment. In such a case the son or daughter has a right to look to the parent for a decided expression of his opinion and wish. When things are as they ought to be in a Christian home, the parents’ wish is followed at once. If that wish is clearly expressed, and then disregarded, the blame lies on the young people; but if, from any motive, the parents withhold the expression of their wish, then they must be held responsible, and they have no right to express regret at the worldly conformity of their children.

But, besides the duty towards the children, it is important not to forget the responsible position which the parent occupies in society; for, as a general rule, parents are held to a great extent responsible for the amusements adopted by the young people under their roof. If we could get behind the scenes we should often hear it argued that Mr. A. allows his daughters to adopt a certain line of conduct, or that Mr. B. makes no objection; whereas it is not impossible that they have both objected strongly, but have not had the moral courage to take the responsibility of withholding their consent. The result is, that they are thought by their friends to sanction that which they disapprove, and they practically throw the weight of their influence into the support of that which they think undesirable.

But let it not be supposed, that in saying this, I do not enter into the anxieties of parents, for I have seen too much of life not to know how great they are, and how strong are the considerations which sometimes make many waver when deciding for their children, who would never hesitate as to their own conduct.