But the false prophets of equality would say, I expect, that they are not proclaiming the multicultural society, but something much more fundamental. They want a society in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither bond nor free; the Kingdom of Heaven would descend, and that would arouse people’s loyalty. Well, the nearest attempt we have had to achieve that state of affairs was William Penn’s attempt to govern Pennsylvania in its early years on Quaker principles. It was called “The Holy Experiment”, and its declared purpose was to found the kingdom of God on earth. So they took themselves seriously. They were much criticised, by Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin as you might expect, but also by a respected Quaker elder in London, Dr. John Fothergill. He told the American Quakers, “You are unfit for government. You accept our public trust, which at the same time you acknowledge you cannot discharge. You owe the people protection, & yet withhold them from protecting themselves. Will not all the blood that is spilt lye at your door? And can we..sit still and see the province in danger of being given up to a merciless enemy without endeavouring a rescue?” Harsh words, but fully justified? A compromise was reached whereby a Deputy Governor was appointed, who was not a Quaker, but sympathetic to Quaker principles; his job was to hang the murderers and robbers, and do the dirty work, while the true Quakers kept their lily-white hands clean. Gradually the colony passed to government by non-Quakers; and The Holy Experiment came to an end. Compared with Pericles or Julius Caesar, they were a lot of ignorant clowns.
Exactly the same would happen today, if the false prophets of equality got their way. Criminals are more sophisticated today; and within months there would be chaos and terror. The human race has been through this debate before, in China five centuries before Jesus was born. The Analects of Confucius have an ethos strikingly similar to the Sermon on the Mount; a good example avoids the need for coercion. But along came the Legalists, who said that Confucius’ principles was all very well for the few who were up to them, but the Governor had to consider the whole population, and as some people only understood the language of fear, coercion and war were both legitimate, provided the aim was to abolish them! It was a language we understand today. One should think carefully before trying to be wiser than the experience of mankind.
In summary, insofar as the Sermon on the Mount is a blueprint for men becoming whole, the companionship of the Deity is far better. As a blueprint for political action, it would lead to chaos within months. Re-creating a vision of a world created by God, based on science, is far better. In my Religion Rewritten, I recommend the one, and re-create the other.
What do we do about the present situation? I suggest we use the meaning Jesus achieved in his life and death as the point of departure, rather than follow slavishly in the Master’s footprints; set a good example oneself; cherish fiercely the freedoms and privileges we have won, since Edward I wisely respected the privileges won by Parliament in his day; and hope that the Divine Unfathomable Mystery which is the Creator will somehow revive His wretched Church.