that religious people have been aware that individual emotions are no more capable of being fitted into a neat prescribed mold than is individual thought: and very many are still unwilling to accept this fact.

For the Christian, the supreme revelation of God is in Christ. The man Jesus conveyed God to human beings in human terms. Until recently, it has been assumed by most denominations most of the time that the revelation took the form of specific statements of metaphysical truth and specific rules for conduct, applicable to everyone, and expressed in an infallible Bible safeguarded by the dogmatic formulae of the Church. When some of the metaphysical statements were seen in fact to be pseudo-scientific in character, and inaccurate at that, the Church's intransigence led to the head-on conflict between science and religion. This conflict has been resolved through Christians becoming aware that the truth which Christ revealed was not a series of propositions but "truth" in the Hebraic sense of steadfast reliability and integrity of character, which could not be shaken by condemnation and crucifixion. In other words Jesus showed that God is Truth, and he himself was completely true as a person. But he was not a kind of glorified encyclopaedia or information bureau; and when a person seeks truth through his intellect, whatever conclusions he comes to, he is adopting the attitude of mind which is right for a Christian and which is part of a right understanding of God.

What has not yet been fully appreciated is that Jesus no more tried to lay down a series of moral dogmas than he did of intellectual dogmas. His two specific commandments, which were not original, were to love God and your neighbour. And he himself revealed the character of God by doing just that. His love of people

one

(agape) showed itself in the way he could accept people as they were, without posing as a sort of judge or moralist. If one reads the Gospels while trying to forget what the Church has made of them, one is struck by the fact that the only type of person whom Jesus invariably condemned was the hypocrite. The religious leaders disapproved of him because he not only spoke to prostitutes and publicans, but mixed with them and ate and drank with them. This does not mean that he approved of their way of life: but then I don't think he thought in terms of approval and disapproval. He accepted people as they were, but he also saw them as they could be. Where possible, he showed them what they could be, and he did this as much by example and inspiration as by anything he said. And so he revealed God on the one hand as truth, of which intellectual integrity forms part, and on the other hand as love, of which morality in its widest sense forms part. And a Christian sees in his resurrection the ultimate triumph of those qualities, because they are of the very nature of God.

When Jesus did comment on specific relations or types of behaviour, he did so by way of illustrations, and the ethics he put forward were the perfect ethics of the Kingdom of God. They were not rules, but ideals. I think his pronouncement about man. and woman being one flesh, and the bond indissoluble, showed his awareness of the complete union of a man with a woman which a marraige based on real love and full sexual compatibility can bring. Such a relationship is by its very nature unbreakable, and attempts to destroy it by divorce or adultery are horrible not in themselves but because of what they are destroying. But this pronouncement was simply a statement of an attainable ideal, not a command that it should be attained.

22