Morals of Church Members and Nonmembers

WHEN Nazi bombs and rockets began falling on England during World War II, the people of Great Britain could rightly question the morals of the German church members who were dropping those bombs and firing those rockets. The same could be said about residents in German towns. They could question the morals of Allied church members who demolished their towns, killing men, women and children.

It seems that many people consider church members, as a class, to be the personification of civilization and high morals. Nonchurch members are looked upon as being unmoral and uncivilized. This was what Dr. George W. Crane implied when he said: “We have the paradox of 100,000,000 moral moderns living in the same towns with 70,000,000 Stone Agers. We can trust 60 percent of our fellow men even in the dark. But we dare not trust the other 40 percent even in daylight.” That 40 percent of the American population are the nonchurchgoers.

Dr. Crane went on to argue that if everyone belonged to either a Jewish, Catholic or Protestant sect of religion there would be no crime. But how can this be said in view of what church members did during World War II and what so many of them are doing today? Why, one of the biggest embezzlers of modern times, Minnie Mangum, was a very devout and respected church member. Her dishonesty was a lack of good morals. She did something many nonchurch members would never think of doing.

The mass murders of Jews and dissenters during the Middle Ages give no recommendation to the morals of church members. Surely these and the other crimes committed during the Inquisition by church members at the instigation of church leaders cannot be classed as moral. Neither can the fighting between Protestant and Catholic church members during the Reformation, which fighting tore Europe to bloody shreds, be classed as moral. Let those who think church membership prevents crime consider these facts of history.

Let them also ponder the reason why prisons are filled with religious criminals. United States prison officials announce that while 60 percent of the people in the United States claim some religious faith, 85 percent of convicted criminals profess some religion.

In its issue of September 4, 1957, The Christian Century reported what was found in just one institute of detention. It said: “After making a statistical survey of inmates, Arthur Tenario, staff psychologist at the New Mexico Boys School, reports that 85 percent of the boys committed to that institution are of Spanish American background and 71 percent are Roman Catholics.”

In George Washington’s day 5 percent of the people claimed some church affiliation. Today some 60 percent claim it. Surely no one would contend that Americans today are twelve times more moral and more civilized than the people of Washington’s time. If anything, the reverse is closer to the truth. Morals have deteriorated greatly since the days of the first United States president.

Modern church leaders frequently lament over the fact that crime increases accompany church increases. Every time religious memberships climb one percent the national crime rate climbs 8 percent. Could this be due to church failure to instill Christian principles in its members?

In view of an unenviable record of unmoral actions by church members, it is wrong to contend that there would be no crime if everyone belonged to a church. It is also wrong to claim that church members can be trusted, whereas nonchurch members cannot. Membership in a church does not necessarily mean a person lives by good morals. It is easier to put on an appearance of respecting good morals than it is actually to live by them.

In many respects the church members of Christendom are similar to the religious people of Jesus’ day. Those people were zealous for their religious traditions and put on an outward appearance of being righteous; but when it came to practicing the high moral principles of the Scriptures, that was quite another matter. Jesus appropriately quoted what God had said through the prophet Isaiah: “This people honors me with their lips, yet their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep paying respect to me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.”—Matt. 15:8, 9.

Those people had an outward appearance of devotion to God, but their actions of persecuting and finally killing Christ showed that their devotion did not come from the heart. What was true of these Jewish church members is also true of many of Christendom’s churchgoers. Their devotion does not come from the heart. If it did, they would respect God’s righteous laws and principles. They would not hate persons of a different race or nationality; they would not lie, cheat and steal, and they would not shoot or bomb one another.

What the apostle Paul said to the Jews of his day can be addressed to Christendom’s church members: “For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching ‘Do not steal’, do you steal? You, the one saying ‘Do not commit adultery’, do you commit adultery? You, the one expressing abhorrence of the idols, do you rob temples? You, who take pride in law, do you by your transgressing of the Law dishonor God? For ‘the name of God is being blasphemed on account of you people among the nations’.”—Rom. 2:13, 21-24.

Because some church members take a “holier than thou” attitude toward nonchurchgoers, that does not mean they are morally superior and more civilized. They are really more reprehensible in the eyes of God because, like the Pharisees, they are not what they pretend to be. It is not membership in a church that makes a civilized person with good morals but rather the application of the principles of God’s Word.

Not everyone saying to me, ‘Master, Master,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.—Matt. 7:21.