Morning journal and courier., 1883-03-13
"The Indifferent Things"
Replies to the Congregational Pastor
 Replies"

To the Editor of the JOURNAL COURIER:
 The ''Congregational Pastor says in his communication of March 3rd: ''The point endeavored to make clear in my former ar' ticle, but which MT. H. fails to grasp, is that Christianity consists in the principle of love to God and man, and the test of that prin- l ciple ruling the heart is not the practice or non-practice of indifferent things" The funny thing about this is that he uses the 1 words of my former letter instead of his own
 in statement of the very principle which he
 says he "tried to make clear" and I ''failed
 to grasp" Probably both letters and mine
 were before him, and he assumed that the dearest statement must be his own, most
 natural thing. for which I excuse him, and
 even thank him for a compliment which is the more appreciated because given under
 such mistake not only gave the largest
 and dearest statement of the principle re- ferred to, but asserted it to be fundamental t'of prime consequence, and hence demand ing reiteration and constant emphasis but l
 claimed then and claim now that "because personal Christianity is an inward life, it by no means follows that all outward actions
 are things indifferent, but that all such ac-
 tions including those taken in the way of
 amusement are to be judged of and approved
 or condemned on their merits"
 There is another point made very 'clear" by the ''Congregational Pastor'' which do
 not ''fail to grasp" viz , that in assuming the practices in dispute to be indifferent
 things," he avaiIs himself again of his favor ite fallacy and begs the question. He finds
 it convenient also to forget that Land, so far as I have noted, all others who have written on the same side with me in this discussion,
 distinctly and constantly avow by statement or plainest inference that we do not speak of
 any practice as sin In itself, but of
 some specified so-called "amusements"
 as of dangerous and un-Christian tendencies. My own language, quo- ted from my former letter, is as follows s'The discussion of the amusement question is
 often confused by failure to discriminate between that which is 8 sin in itself and that which is usually harmful in tendency The real question is, What is the general effect and tendency of indulgence in that class of amusements which Is under chal- Ienge? There is, however, another more radi
 cal one standing just behind this, viz: What elements of the nature are exercised, gratified
 and stimulated by the amusement itself and
 it's accessions. and by the associations to
 which it invites ?' In the same letter I com
 mend the practice of those families where
 these dangerous pleasures interdicted
 ttand the reason is kindly and repeatedly urged that it is not because they are in and
 of themselves sinful, but because they culti-
 vate by exercise, stimulation and association parts of our nature which need to bs restrain
 ed and kept under watch and guard and
 that those who indulge in practices which find
 and rouse certain of the propensities are
 tempting the devil to tempt them.'" In view of this our unmistakable and easily
 derstood position, 1t is @ noteworthy and
 peculiarly suggestive fact that not ouly the
 ''Congregational Pastor" but all who have
 entered the lists with him, have constantly
 assumed that we were condemning certain
 amusements as sins per se and have made their battle almost entirely on that ground
 If the gentlemen care to continue the dis
 eussion let them understand once for all that
 when they strike in that place they sm1te, as
 they have from the beginning, on empty ar.
 The Congregational Pastor" says he ob-
 iects to my use of the term the world, as
 .sunscriptural, narrow and injurious lm- sgine my relief when turning to my paper,
 which fortunately had preserved, l found I had not used the term ''the world'' at all.
 The nearest approach I had made to it was when asked him if he considered dancing, theater-going and card playing to be worldly amusements according to his understanding of St. Paul in Rom 2:2. It must therefore be the venerable apostles use of the term according to his-the ''Congregational Pas tors"-understanding of it to which he ob
 jects as ''unscriptural, narrow and injurious I had presumed from the beginning that the pastor had such objections. If I had used the term in this controversy would have meant the world" to which Paul exhorts the Christian not to be stconformed," to which James refers when he says that true religion consists in part of keeping oneself s.unspotted