iness for instance--where our goodness can command the
most shrewdness and the most technique--and we will do what we can
slowly--one industry at a time, to remove the slander on goodness that
goodness is not inefficient, and the slander on the world that goodness
cannot be self-supporting, self-respecting (and without disgrace), even
comfortable in it.

The old hymn with which many of us are familiar is well and true enough.
But it does not seem that standing up for Jesus is the most important
point in the world just now. A great many people are doing it. What we
need more is people who will stand up for the world. When people who are
standing up for the world stand and sing "Stand up for Jesus" it will
begin to count. Let four hundred Nons sing it; and we will all go to
church.

If nine of the people out of ten who are singing "Stand up for Jesus"
would stand up for the world, that is, if they would stop trading with
their grocer when they find he slides in regularly one bad orange out of
twelve and promptly look up a grocer who does not do such things, and
trade with him, it would not be necessary for people to do as they so
often do nowadays, fall back on a little wistful half discouraged last
resort like "standing up for Jesus."

Standing up for the world means standing by men who believe in it,
standing by men who make everything they do in business a declaration of
their faith in God and their faith in the credit of human nature, men
who put up money daily in their advertising, their buying and selling,
on the loyalty, common sense, brains, courage, goodness, and righteous
indignation of the people.

The idea that goodness is sweet and helpless and that Jesus was meek and
lowly and has to be stood up for is now and always has been a slander.
It does not seem to some of us that He would want to be stood up for and
we do not like the way some people call Him meek and lowly. It would be
more true to say that He merely looks meek and lowly; that is, if most
men had done or not done or had said or not said things in the way he
did, they would have been considered meek and lowly for it. He had a way
of using a soft answer to turn away wrath. But there was not anything
really meek and lowly about his giving the soft answer. No meek and
lowly man would ever have thought of such a thing as turning away wrath
with a soft answer. He would have been afraid of looking weak. He would
not have had the energy or the honesty