Kirby Page Quotes

Another serious charge against Jesus was that of treason to his country. His admonition to refrain from hatred and retaliation and instead to love the Romans seemed to the patriots of the day nothing less than disloyalty and treachery to his native land... There is little doubt as to what would have happened to an American citizen early in 1918 if he had arisen in a Liberty Loan mass meeting and pleaded for the immediate cessation of hostilities and protested against the hatred being manifested toward the Germans.

Was Tolstoy justified in interpreting the Sermon on the Mount in anarchistic terms? The answer cannot be found in isolated texts or combinations thereof, but rather in consideration of the basic elements which together constitute the religion of Jesus. ...The Golden Rule of conduct was phrased in terms of mutuality: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The true criterion of every thought and deed must, therefore, be found in its effects upon human personality, human relations, and communion between man and God.

The third reference is to Matthew 22:21 and to the 13th chapter of Romans. It is said that Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the state, and since the state rests upon force and war, the Christian must likewise accept these. It is quite true that Jesus recognized the sphere of the state, in the statement, "Give Caesar what belongs to Caesar." He paid taxes and never renounced the authority of the state. But this is only a half-truth. He likewise said, "Give God what belongs to God," and "Seek ye first the kingdom of God." St. Paul also upholds the state, especially in the thirteenth chapter of Romans. Upon close inspection of the teaching of St. Paul, however, the most that can be said in this connection is that the authority of the state is to be recognized and obeyed in so far as it does not conflict with the higher law of God. ...The New Testament is filled with instances where the disciples refused to obey the government authorities, and many times they were imprisoned for disobedience. When commanded by the officials to cease their Christian activity, they replied, "We must obey God rather than man."

Those persons who were responsible for his tragic death had only the faintest understanding of what he was seeking to accomplish. Even his own disciples so completely misinterpreted his teaching that at the very end they argued among themselves as to who should have the chief places. ...they still visualized twelve thrones of solid gold and quarreled among themselves over the seats of honor on the right and left of the king. How much less able to fathom the meaning of his words and deeds were the ecclesiastical leaders.

Countless numbers of people have justified war on grounds of the end in view and the spirit of the combatants.

If Christians give their consent and support to preparedness to wage war with atomic bombs and other weapons of annihilation and devastation, they will thereby repudiate the way of Jesus.

In former days the struggle for existence was chiefly a struggle against nature, today it is primarily a struggle against other human beings.

The belief that the gods delighted especially in the gift of human blood was responsible for the widespread custom of offering up captured enemies, and sometimes even friends and relatives, upon the alter. A vast chasm separates this conception from the present belief in God as an ethical person, holy and righteous beyond comparison, who has boundless affection for his children, who seeks in every way possible to help them, and who longs to enter into a deeper companionship with them.

We find the verses, "I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. 10:34), and "Let him sell his cloak and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36), which are used as proof that Jesus wanted his disciples to be prepared for war. ...in Matthew, we find that the very next verse reads: "For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. ...If one means that Jesus came to bring a literal sword then the next means that he came as a great home-wrecker, setting the members thereof one against the other. Such a literal interpretation prevents any clear understanding of the words of Jesus. Surely his words, "I came not to send peace but a sword," mean that he came to bring about a sharp division between those who do right and those who do wrong. In Kent's translation of the New Testament, these words read: "I did not come to bring peace, but a struggle. For I came to make a man disagree with his father, a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law. It is to be doubted if a single reputable Biblical scholar can be found who will interpret these words to mean that Jesus had reference to a literal sword as a means of accomplishing a desired end. With reference to the passage in Luke, one has only to read the verses that follow to see that Jesus could not have meant these words as a sanction of war. It was the last evening of Jesus life... He himself was about to be reckoned with transgressors and surely his disciples would have to encounter bitter opposition. They must therefore be prepared must be armed must have swords. ...the disciples, promptly misunderstanding Jesus' reference to a sword, reminded him that they had two, and he replied, "It is enough" or according to Moffatt's translation, "Enough! Enough!"). But obviously, two swords were not enough to defend his life from his strong and determined foes; two swords were not enough for war. They were, however, enough and even one was enough, to convey his thought of being prepared for the time of stress that was approaching. Professor Hastings Rashdall, the eminent theologian and philosopher, says in this connection: "More probably the words were 'a piece of ironical foreboding,' which the disciples took literally. The 'it is enough' will then mean, 'Drop that idea: my words were not meant seriously."

If we insist upon being a law unto ourselves, we make it easier for other nations to do likewise.

Communists have nothing but contempt for religion and for pacifism. They use the united front as a means of boring from within.

Why should men and women work efficiently under socialization? First, because they receive... a minimum income as high as the prevailing level of productivity permits. Second, because faithfulness, efficiency and special ability are rewarded with higher income. ...Third, because security is provided through a minimum or differential income or through social insurance. Fourth, because higher capabilities and deeper loyalties to the social good are rewarded with wider opportunities to administer responsibility and to wield power. ...Fifth, because increased economic security affords added opportunities for creative expression along numerous lines. Sixth, because social approval and applause are bestowed upon those members of the community who are carrying the heaviest burdens for the social welfare. Seventh, because social disapproval and social penalties are imposed upon members of the community who are chronically unwilling to carry a fair share of the cooperate load. Eighth, because a sense of duty and patriotic duty increases zest for socially useful activities. Ninth, because among truly religious people passionate concern for the common good transcends less worthy incentives, and diminishes the significance of other motivations.

Dwight L. Moody was changed from a shoe salesman into an evangelist whose influence has reached around the world. In all parts of the earth are men and women whose characters were transformed as a direct result of contact with the changed Moody.

As was the case with him [Jesus], the Christian militant should lose sight of temporary suffering and persecution in seeking to advance the ultimate well-being of mankind. He should recognize that it was this long distance view of time that compelled Jesus to refuse the sword and to make no military effort to bring about the immediate political freedom of his people, and that it was this same vision that caused him to choose the way of the cross and to go down in defeat, as the world measures success. And if the Christian militant is to be true to the Master, he must also choose the way of the cross and must follow Jesus even though the path lead to seeming defeat.

The loyal follower of Jesus will stand in opposition to war as a means of settling differences between nations. He will be unalterably opposed to the ruthless competition and merciless rivalry of our present autocratic and capitalistic system. He will condemn vigorously the enslaving of the poor by the rich, the oppression of the weak by the strong. He will seek to replace the present Kingdom of Competition and Profits by the ideal Kingdom of Cooperation and Service.