A RADICAL by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Dec 15, 1887

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 13, No. 48.

A RADICAL.

By Editor

WE believe in the exercise of a necessary amount of caution and prudence; but there is such a thing as being too cautious, and there are times when to move promptly, and to go ahead boldly, are the most prudent things that can be done. To those who have a dread of everything that is radical, we commend the following, which we clip from the Occident. It is good for any place, and will apply to every reform:—

“I don't like Peter Jones; he is too radical.” The speaker was one of my very conservative neighbors who always goes with the majority, takes things as they are, floats with the current, reflects other people's opinions like a cameleon, never antagonizes anybody, because he has no principles to fight for. He would be a contented monarchist if the government was monarchical. He would be a zealous Romanist if this was a Papal country. Perhaps he would even be a good Mormon, and marry as many wives as he could support or get to unite in supporting him if he lived in Utah. Such men are annoyed by those of us who have decided opinions as to what is right and wrong, and who insist upon doing all that we can to get the world right side up by turning it upside down. I said to him, “Do you know what radical means?” “Yes; it means a man that is always trying to root up something like a hog in a potato patch.”

“Don't be too fast.” The English word radical, I know, comes from the Latin word, radix, a root. But it does not follow that a radical is merely an uprooter. On the contrary, he is a root man in the largest sense. Webster's definition of radical is, “Proceeding directly from the root.” And among the secondary meanings that he gives are such as these: “Reaching to the principles; thoroughgoing; fundamental.” In order to be “thoroughgoing,” a man must sometimes uproot as well as plant. Let us suppose that you and Peter Jones are farming side by side. You are a conservative. You believe in letting what you call “well enough,” alone. The fall rains come. The thistles sprout all over your fields. You say: “This is a natural growth. I don't see that it does any harm. I won't disturb it, therefore, but will go out and sow my wheat and barley on it. To plow this soil, so richly carpeted with green, would be hard work, and it looks kind of cruel, too.” But Peter is a radical. He believes in uprooting what is unprofitable, and in giving the good seed a chance to root itself in a fresh and mellow soil. So while you are scattering seed on beds of thistles, he plows up the thistles. He tries to plow deep enough to kill all their roots; and then he sows his wheat and barley, and harrows it in, that it may germinate and grow vigorously. Which is the wiser of you two?

“Of course, it would not do to let thistles grow in our fields. We have to plow them under.”

But are not all errors and all evil customs like thistles? If they are left to themselves they will grow fast and strong, and will choke and kill all that is good. If we would have any plants of righteousness blooming and bearing fruit on this sin-cursed earth, we must make room for them by cutting down and digging up the upas trees of sin.

“But you remember that the Saviour said, ‘Let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest.’ Don't that mean that we are not to uproot what is evil, but leave it for the Lord himself to destroy in his own good time?”

I thought you would bring that in. I never knew a lazy, cowardly conservative yet who was not familiar with the parable of the tares and the wheat. He passes over that of the barren fig tree. He does not read John's declaration: “Now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit, is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” Matt. 3:10. But observe, in regard to these tares, they were sown after the wheat. . . . Planting is hard work, and it must be done thoroughly, or the scion will droop and die. You, with your shiftless ideas of moral progress, would merely set up your good ideas and institutions here and there, like a child's Christmas tree. But we radicals know that we must dig deep if we would secure permanent results. We may be a little rough sometimes in our efforts to break through the hard crust of human selfishness, and reach the mellower heart soil beneath; but if we fail to get down to that soil, all our labor will be in vain. Superficial work always fails. It is only the man who is determined to make room for the truth, and to plant it deep as the good seed of the kingdom, who will ever really help his fellow-men, or promote the glory of God on the earth.