In Christianity and the Machine Age, Eric Gill attempts to prove that Christianity is true. Gill turns not to philosophers, theologians, or archaeologists, but to his own consciousness to answer this question. If there is God, if there is Christ, it is to man, to the individual man that He calls.
Gill bases his argument on the presumption that truth is the correspondence of thought with thing. In Christianity, thought and thing correspond, and it is in that sense that we say Christianity is true. Gill says that what he knows of Christ corresponds with what he knows, desires, and loves as a human. He also asserts that he has no reason to suppose that he is any different in kind, powers, or experience from other men. (Gill, 219)
Gill (219) argues that Christianity is true for him and therefore must be true for all men. He asserts that those who do not accept Christianity are wrong and that other faiths, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, are lesser because they are more partial and less profound. However, this argument is weak, as Christians were a minority group for thousands of years. While Gill acknowledges that other faiths are not necessarily untrue, he claims that Christianity is the only faith with a clear view of reality.
Observe an object under a microscope and attempt to focus on it. However, unless the object is completely flat, you will only be able to focus on one level at a time. You will not be able to see the entire object at once, and you may even miss some levels altogether (Gill, 219). This metaphor is an excellent way to explain why there are so many different religions when there is only one truth.
Gill does not, however, provide any reason to assume that Christianity is seeing the truth any more clearly than the other major world religions. The argument that Christianity is more correct because it affirms more sets Christianity as the lowest common denominator. This does not prove that the truth as seen through the Christian microscope is any clearer than when the truth is viewed through any other religion’s microscope. Gill’s point about denials is well made, however. The only thing to beware of is denial. It is on the plane of denials that we fall foul of one another.
I agree with Gill that it is more productive to examine the commonalities than the conflicts when comparing religions. Gill’s purpose in attempting to answer such a profound question is tied to his definition of proper work in the Age of Machines. Christianity must imply something as to the object of human life and the object of human work. Gill says that if Christianity is removed from the process of work, the worker will be lowered to a subhuman condition by degrading labor and focusing on profit-gaining ends.
For Gill, the true threat of the Machine Age is its effect on human life, secularizing it and abolishing the Christian criterion of holiness, both morally and intellectually (Gill, 235). While machines may alleviate some suffering, Gill lacks confidence that capitalist industrialism’s influence will be overcome. The spirit driving merchants, industrialists, and financiers since the beginning of the Machine Age, whether in big business or small, is not social amenity or relief of suffering, but self-aggrandizement (Gill, 235). Gill believes that the only hope for humanity is the creation of a Christian world, based on Christian faith, ruled by Christian thought, and moved by a Christian will (Gill, 236). I agree with many of Gill’s values and ideals.
It is obvious that something must change, particularly with regard to the overemphasis on the profit motive. However, I disagree with his notion that these ideals can only be applied through the template of Christianity. Christian leaders have shown themselves to be no more fair or humane than non-Christians. Neither has the influence of Christian religious leaders, particularly Catholic leaders, been proven superior. In fact, the countries most deeply entrenched in industrial capitalism are predominantly Christian. Any challenge to the status quo, whether issued by a Buddhist or a Christian, would be an excellent start in the effort to change the way the world views work and working people.
Gill’s presumption that only Christianity holds the answer is misguided.
