is a secular idea, because the Church, as an organised body, has virtually given up the struggle against evil, and no longer plays an effective part in the work-a-day world. I think I have known two judges who believed their duty was to be the servant of everyone in Court, rather like the duty of an abbot in his monastery. One succeeded, and was one of the best judges on the bench; no-one took liberties in his court. The other failed as a judge, but succeeded as a man. Does every child know that this is the attitude which the Church commends to those, who have to cope with the problems of the use and abuse of power? If not, why not? I have already commented at length on the unique opportunity the Church had to advise the secular State on the problems of marriage and divorce. What a mess it made. It is left to individual men and women inside and outside the church to put standards of honour and honesty into practice, and so keep the community reasonably healthy. This then was his greatest achievement. He showed men and women that, though it may cost you your earthly life, evil is powerless before goodness. You surrender to evil only because you want to do so.
On the social level, he had scathing comments to make on the existing social order (see Mathew Chapter 23); and by his death he showed the essential rottenness of the society in which he lived. If a community cannot continue its existence without murdering an innocent man, it is about time it packed up. On the national level he taught men to look forward and hope for the kingdom of heaven on earth. This is good psychology. Mankind must look forward in hope, however slender the odds. A man must hope for some kind of immortality in this world, even if it is only metaphorical. To fail to do so is living death.
Christ therefore has a great deal to say to people who have not the slightest intention of sharing his beliefs. His life demonstrates the essential…