One of the most unfortunate circumstances of the Christian era was the inculcation of the doctrine of vicarious atonement. This doctrine was first taught to invest power in the Church, after it had been corrupted by the Emperor Constantine. It never, in any form, was a part of the original teaching of the Nazarene or of His disciples. All these taught a dynamic philosophy designed to lead men to Godhood and to make them strong, independent, a power for good in the world.

However, when those, who were not willing to live the life necessary to so elevate themselves, took over the temporal Church by force, the dynamic teachings were replaced by creeds that made the individual Christian dependent on the Church for salvation and, therefore, dependent on the usurpers. As the emasculating doctrine of salvation by faith alone (together with the favor of the Church leadership, of course) took root, the mass slowly sank into a morass of negativeness and pious hypocrisy. As the church became more and more corrupt, rebellion was inevitable. Surely Martin Luther was not the first to consider such a Reformation, but he was the first to take the initiative and make the break. Unfortunately, by the time of Luther the doctrine of vicarious atonement was so thoroughly entrenched in the subconscious of the religious leaders that even he included it as a central part of his reform.

Once this opportunity was missed, there was little chance that later Protestant movements would be able to divest the Church of this albatross of mental and Spiritual slavery. Such certainly proved to be the case. If anything, each succeeding fractionalization of the Protestant faith increasingly emphasized man's position as an unworthy "worm in the dust." Of course, as always, it turned out that the denomination's leaders were a little less unworthy than the followers. In all fairness, many outstanding leaders then, as now, sincerely believed in these doctrines and did not comprehend the incalculable injury they were doing and have done to the human race over the last two thousand years.

MAN'S DESTINY

In the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God spoke and said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them." If we are made in the image of God, how could we be a worm in the dust? The Nazarene came not to die for our sins, but to teach us to so live that we might, with the help of God, learn to overcome these self-same sins and thereby through faith and works honestly gain our salvation. This was the message He taught throughout His ministry, both to His disciples and to the people who flocked to hear Him. This was the massage His disciples spread until the time of the usurper Constantine.

Why, you may ask, has the doctrine of vicarious atonement become such a centerstone of the modern "Christian" belief, if there is so little value or authenticity to it? The answer is all too clear. It appeals to the indolent human nature of man and to the desire for power possessed by the Church. Admittedly, those who first put together this perversion of the teaching of the Nazarene were masters of human psychology. This doctrine allows man to give full vent to most heinous carnal desires and then through a mere profession of faith, at the last minute, gain eternal peace and favor while those he has wronged, if not by nature so dishonest, burn in hell. I am no salesman, but I believe even I could go out and sell such a bargain if only I could convince myself of its validity.

In recent years this doctrine has somewhat softened and some Churches even go so far as to recommend that good works are an important part of salvation. The true Law of Life as taught by Saint Paul, "As ye sow, so shall ye surely reap," however, is rarely if ever encountered in even the most liberal of today's Churches. The reason is simple. If it were taught, most of the congregation would go elsewhere, because they are satisfied with the teaching they now have despite the fact that it began as a purposeful adulteration of the teaching of Jesus Christ.

The dogma of vicarious atonement has lasted these centuries because it plays upon some of the most inherent weaknesses of human nature, instead of helping man find his strengths, as the Church should. The major weakness here is the desire to obtain much for little. An understandable wish, But one that in the long run destroys most of the better qualities of both men and women. Until a human being is willing and eager to make an equal exchange for all he may desire, be it material or Spiritual, he cannot be said to be a honest man.

Returning to the subject of personal responsibility, how is it possible for a man to truly accept full responsibility for all his actions if he believes that these same actions will not be judged by the Law but can be taken upon the shoulders of someone else? The Nazarene said that no man can serve two masters. But are we not asking that of our belief here? The false doctrine of vicarious atonement must, for once and all, be left where it began, on the doorstep of those members of the Church hierarchy who would enslave humanity rather than lead them to the Light.

Once this millstone of ignorance and deceit is removed, the individual is free to seek the Truth and by learning to live the life of full personal responsibility become a fit citizen of the New Renaissance.

Under the Law of Personal Responsibility not only is an individual willing to accept the fact that he and he alone is responsible for all debts, both material and Spiritual, which he incurs, but he understands that he is also responsible for the eventual good or harm that might ensue from each thought, word, or feeling that may emanate from him. For the one who is by nature fair and just, this doctrine comes as a great relief, for man's moral and ethical beliefs can now for the first time agree with his Spiritual teachings.

The Law of that great early Master, Hermes, states: "As above; so below. As in the outer; so in the inner. As in the greater; so in the lesser." This Law teaches us the WHY of such a feeling on the part of many thinking people. How, they ask, are we to have faith in a religion the tenants of which stand in direct opposition to all we know to be just and fair in all other forms of human endeavor?

The truth, of course, is that one concept or the other must be wrong, if we are to accept the Hermetic Law. We all know it would be unthinkable to apply the doctrine of vicarious atonement to our material life; any attempt to do so would soon bring the world of commerce to a screeching halt. If we are allowed but one Law, and all the natural evidence is weighted toward that conclusion, there is little doubt that we are more inclined to be justified in assuming that the Spiritual Life is governed by the same understandable processes as the material, rather than the other way around.

Once a person is able to accept the Law of Personal Responsibility, he is a long way on the road to becoming a free individual. We can be free only when we control our fate and destiny by our own thoughts and actions. It may be a comforting thought that others may take our responsibilities upon their shoulders; but, under such circumstances, there is always, the inward uneasiness concerning just how much of our life we are responsible for and how much others are. In such cases, we try to serve two masters. Ninety-five percent of the mischief in the world would cease if all men fully realized that they alone are responsible for the events that befall them, and it is they who must change, not the world.

THE DIMENSIONS OF CHARITY

The nature of the New Renaissance is such that those who are not willing to accept the Law of Personal Responsibility will find it difficult to survive should they have the good fortune to make it through to that time. Although charity will not be dead, it will be governed by the Divine Law under which certain specific requirements must be met before such largess can be given.

These requirements might be called the ANA principles. ANA stands for ask, need, able. For charity to come under the Divine Law it must first be ASKED for. This is true even in those cases where it is badly needed, but the individual is too proud to cry for help. That is one's RIGHT. We have no right to force such needed help upon another. No one can tell what Karma another person has to pay or the mode he may use to pay it; therefore, we have no right to interfere in the life of another unless he asks for such help.

There is only one exception to this rule. Only if the person who needs the help is not conscious, or is mentally or emotionally incapable of making such a decision, can we give unasked-for aid to another. This same exception extends to children who are in need or in danger but are unable to respond intelligently because of their young age.

The second vital factor that must be present before charity should be given is true NEED. It must be established prior to the aid being supplied. Under the Divine Law the criteria of need is clear. The person must require help that he is incapable of providing by himself. The fact that he does not or will not is unacceptable. To do that for another which he has the ability to do for himself but will not is to beggar this person. Each time we do for another that which he has the ability to do for himself we weaken him further and in the end make him a parasitic slave of the state.

If we look around today, we can readily see that this has been done to millions of citizens. Unfortunately, as the scythe of the Law continues to separate the wheat from the tares, these will be looking for someone to protect them from this Law. No one will be found, for others will, in the language of the streets, "be looking out for their own necks."

Charity in the New Renaissance, therefore, will be extended only to those individuals who truly cannot help themselves by reasonable effort of their own.

ABLE is the last of the requirements. Our first responsibility is to ourselves and to those directly under our personal responsibility. Those who most commonly fall under this category are dependent children, wives, and parents who are no longer able to take care of themselves.

If we are able to meet these responsibilities properly and have a desire to help others, we may do so, provided the other two essentials, ASK and NEED, are also met. To those who usually give a few dollars to the United Fund this concern about how charity is given must seem unnecessarily complicated, but such fine distinction of the Law is what makes the difference between those who inhabit the New Renaissance or become the chaff to be figuratively burnt.

The Biblical story of the Good Samaritan is the perfect example of this Law in action. The Good Samaritan story contains all the elements mentioned above. A certain merchant was set upon by robbers, beaten, and all his possessions stolen. Many of his own people saw him and heard his cries for help but paid no attention, Finally, a Samaritan, who was the traditional enemy of this man, came by - much in the same way that an Arab might today come upon an injured Israeli. Hearing the man's call for help, this good man found that the first requirement for charity was met. As he approached the battered individual, it was obvious that he was, at that time, in no position to help himself. Thus, the second tenet was confirmed. The Samaritan had the time and materials present to help without sacrificing his own personal responsibilities; therefore, the third precept was fulfilled, and the good man set about binding up the wounds of the robbers' victim. Once this was taken care of, he put the beaten merchant on an animal and proceeded to the nearest inn. Here the innkeeper was given enough money to care for the merchant until he would be able to make his way under his own power.

In this last act two facets of the Law should be noted: (1) The Samaritan did not take the wounded man home with him. Instead he took him to an impartial third party. It is frequently a mistake to become too personally involved with those we may wish to help. (2) The Samaritan provided only enough support to allow the man to "get back on his feet." To do more would be to break the law of NEED as presented above.

A SUMMARY OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

The Law quoted by St. Paul, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," is the byword of the New Renaissance. Only those individuals who are willing to accept the full responsibility for their own acts will be welcome to this New World.

The principle upon which this is based is simple. The only way a country can prosper is if every possible citizen of that country is a producer. Growth can be accomplished only when the output of a people is greater than their consumption. When anyone in such a state consumes more than he produces, either someone else must produce more to make up for that loss or eventually the country will go into a negative state and perish.

Because this cannot be allowed to happen in the New Renaissance, such parasites will soon find they must either become producers or perish. Which occurs is of great importance to the individual, but to the Law it matters little, for in either circumstance the order of the New Renaissance is preserved.

President Theodore Roosevelt said it succinctly: "Each citizen must be willing to pull his own weight."
|Top|