To maintain an absolute inner integrity is to think and act like a god, which explains why Bach’s B minor Mass is one of the greatest Protestant works of art, and ensures its future. Without art religion dies: to which the Lollards eloquently bear witness.
Most men find such inner integrity beyond their powers. As the writer of Genesis saw, most men’s hearts are inclined towards wickedness, and only have a flawed integrity. Without Jesus, in practice there is little hope for most of us having anything else; but with Jesus’ indwelling spirit, there is the prospect of everyman having this integrity at least for a time. One way of describing his having saved the world is to say he enables men to overcome the limitations in themselves, which they see they could not possibly overcome without him. The great leaders of the world may have been able to do without Christ’s indwelling spirit. Our leaders in the last War, Winston Churchill and General Brooke, broadly were religious men, General Brooke deeply so; but I do not think either was a regular church-goer. So maybe they had to cope without the “inestimable benefit” of his spirit; or maybe so much was at stake, they enjoyed it anyway despite the absence of the Church’s blessing. Suffice it to say Christ did not go around saying he was a miserable sinner; he had no such doubts. Similarly leaders in war cannot afford to indulge in too much soul-searching, when one serious mistake can precipitate the catastrophe of defeat. Anyone who is in a position of authority knows this. If a religion insists on abject penitence without end, then it must remain a religion for the underdog, and influence authority only by cynical calculation.
Whereas if integrity is the guide, religion allows one’s character to reach its full stature, without fault or flaw, though it does not necessarily do so. Better to allow one’s character to reach its potential even if flawed, than submit to the yoke of the clergy; because no-one is fit for high authority if he has too many doubts, just as Jesus rode roughshod over the scruples of the Pharisees. And someone has to keep the secular world going. Long ago, in the Middle Ages, when the Roman Church tried to wield supreme power in Europe, it ended in a corruption so evil that it split the Church, and brought on the Thirty Years War. It is unlikely to be given such a chance again. Maybe many men are not so much evil as hopelessly inadequate to cope with life’s problems, so they resort to evil in order to do so, as in Conrad’s novel Almayer’s Folly. They have to: or else give up. How can Christ save them from the consequences of their inadequacy? Through his example, he teaches them that God is prepared to come down to their level, and be not only their friend, but their companion through every vicissitude; He condescends almost to be their equal in every danger, in order to win their heart’s devotion. I believe no other religion accepts or preaches that the Divine generosity extends so far. Not even the poet who wrote the 139th psalm went as far as this. Whether God achieves this by standing beside man, or by dwelling in man, hardly matters.
Does this companionship extend to War? The psalmist thought so, and wrote about the Lord of Hosts. What about Jesus, who spoke about turning the other cheek? The slaughter on the Somme in 1916, I believe, had many consequences. It destroyed respect for authority, and that includes the Church’s authority. The men involved had splendid faces; I have some photographs. They were men who respected authority, and perhaps were better for it. But that respect was destroyed. In future a leader had to show he was competent, before he earned the respect of the men. How does a clergyman show he was competent? By taking a good service? By preaching well? By having sympathy and compassion for those suffering? Worthy as these virtues are, there is much more to life than this. But Jesus was different; the Gospels say he was able to heal. And this demonstration of his using his extraordinary power only for good, gave an authenticity to everything he did, and an authority to everything he said. Never mind that it does not seem possible to reproduce this today; it impressed the people he mixed with. If he were in the world today, I do not think his authority would be undermined by the slaughter on the Somme.