Evil Not a Qualification for Good

WHEN the apostle Paul returned from Damascus to Jerusalem, he was very anxious to preach the gospel upon the very ground where he had formerly persecuted the followers of Christ. He no doubt felt that it was due to the cause he had so bitterly opposed, to the Master he had so flagrantly dishonored, and to the people he had so cruelly persecuted, that he should bear the cross, acknowledge his error, and as far as possible counteract his former influence by laboring to build up that which he had endeavored to pull down. He seems also to have had the impression that his former course and position would add to his influence amongst the people when he should appear as an advocate of the way he had so fiercely denounced.

But the Lord regarded the matter in a different light. He cautioned the apostle, "Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem; for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me." Paul was disposed to argue the case, and presented the fact that they knew how he had imprisoned believers and beat them in the synagogues, and the part he bad acted in the death of Stephen. But an all-wise God did not recognize this as a qualification for the ministry. This was the very reason that the Jews would not hear his testimony—they regarded him as a traitor. And the sequel proved that, to the end of his career, even the Christian Jews entertained strong prejudice against him.

It is not uncommon in modern times for "reformed" culprits or drunkards to be pressed to the front, or themselves seek prominence because of their former wickedness. To reform is commendable, and a self-sacrificing labor in behalf of right is fitting for any one who has been addicted to vice of whatever character; but to suppose that they are better fitted for usefulness, or better calculated to have a good influence in the world, is a great mistake. A career of viciousness can in no way qualify a man for good works or good influence. Wicked men have reformed and led lives of usefulness, but they have all experienced the fact that their former wrong-doing was a bar to their peace and a detriment to their success. Every one of them have realized that lives of uprightness would have been far preferable in the way of preparation for useful labor.

There have been instances of so-called "reformed" individuals being thrust upon the public for speculative purposes, who would "draw" large audiences and pass for successful reformers; but they have generally left behind but little evidence of good results. In such cases a maudlin sympathy has been aroused by advertising, and the people have supposed that they were encouraging reform by listening to the details of infamous lives; while the multitudes gathered out of curiosity would be hailed as a token of success on the part of the hero of the hour. But it is a false notion of encouragement to a life of rectitude, when the wicked experiences of the "reformed" are made the object of popular recognition and applause.

A few years ago a "reformed" circus manager imposed upon the good people of California as a temperance lecturer, and regaled many audiences with stories of his brutality when under the influence of alcohol. These were his only qualifications, yet he succeeded in getting a license to preach. But his career was short; he proved a defaulter with funds collected ostensibly for benevolent purposes, and finally went back to the circus. It is doubtful if, with all his sensational demonstrations, a single trace of good accomplished by him can be found.

Another case was that of a "reformed convict" who was "encouraged" to make a lecturing tour of the State. The inducement offered to the public was that he had been an inmate of fifteen prisons, and his "lecture" was comprised of the particulars of his evil deeds. As might have been expected, his "reformation" soon ended; but there were many people who thought that he might be the means of doing much good, on account of his practical knowledge of evil.

These cases are not cited as being at all similar to that of Paul. But when men send out reformers whose qualifications are largely based upon past wickedness, they invariably cite the case of Paul as a precedent. This is a mistake, and is not only an insult to the wisdom of God, but a positive injury to the cause of reform. The great apostle's wrong-doing was not through wantonness, but through ignorance. His cruelty was actuated by a zeal for what he supposed to be the honor of God. He had been devoutly religious and exceedingly earnest; and could not have been induced to pursue the course he did if he had not thought it was pleasing to God. It was for these traits that God denominated him a "chosen vessel."

When, in after years, Paul made selection of fellow-workers, we do not read that he chose those who had been notoriously wicked. The case of Timothy is in point. He was "well reported of by the brethren, was possessed of unfeigned faith," and had been taught the Scriptures from his youth by his grandmother and mother. It matters not how thorough may be the change of heart in a wicked man, the results of a vicious course will follow him to his grave. It will be a blur upon his capabilities and a drag upon his efforts. No matter how faithful his labors, they would have been better without the taint of "wicked lewdness." One does not need indulgence in sin to realize its horror. It shows for itself. No teacher was ever so successful as the sinless One.