The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1896-06-27
and die out altogether" Has not
this been too true in many cases7

Is GnlS an lG6m OF VICIOUS pOllcy III
herent in our church, and which can
not be remedied?
If it is, then we are incapable of
doing what the Catholics do-what
the Methodists do. They organize
no churches to neglect them. They
do not suffer their churches to die,
or to become dormant. Substant-
tally, every pastor has church, and
every church has pastor.
No matter how weak or obscure a
church is, no matter how small or
unimportant the community in which
that church is located, that church is
looked after, it is kept going, it is not
neglected any more than the most
important city church. Substantially
this is practically and largely true
also of other orthodox churches-of
the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the
Congregationalists. 1t seems to be
so because it is made a matter of es-
tablished church policy.
Now are we incapable of taking
hold of this policy and working it?
If we had all the churches we have
lost from this policy of the take hold
and let go, perhaps we should have
three or four times as many churches
as we now have, and possible be ten
fold stronger and more influential
than we now are.
Is it possible for us to change this
policy to that of take hold and keep
hold, and compel every minister and
every parish to practice this wiser
policy9
At least, is it not possible for all to
aim at the better policy, and thus to
diminish greatly the evils arising
from vicious and foolish policy9 If
we cannot do this, then we are des-
tined never to grow very much-al
ways to remain small and weak, and
possibly sometime to dwindle out of
existence. Of what avail is it that
our good brother Shinn, and other
earnest and devoted missionaries of
our church, are planting and organ
izing our church in many communi-
ties in all parts of the country, if after
awhile these movements are stopped,
neglected, and finally abandoned? :?
1t seems to me that we ought to be
capable of abandoning this vicious
policy, and of adopting and working
a policy that will enable us to keep
all that we get, and to keep it grow
ing stronger and better, instead of
working policy which results in
our losses being almost, if not quite,
equal to our gains.
Can this important change in our
policy be accomplished, SO that we
can say with others that we lose moth
ing that we create7 And how is this
important change to be brought
about?
There may be those who will say
we are looking on the dark side of
things; we are following phantom;
we are indulging in pessimistic
dreams; we are picturing a state of
things which does not really exist.
They may say we are no worse off
than other denominations in the mat
ter treated of.
But our word is not word of des-
pair or Encouragement. 1t is word
of fact, word of caution, encourage
ment and counsel. 1t seems to us
undeniably true that in the regard
spoken of, our policy as church is
widely different from that of many
other churches-that it is the weak
est and the worst in this regard of
perhaps any other church in exist
ence. 1t entails upon us great weak
ness and loss. 1t is policy which
ought to be and might be aban-
doned, repudiated, destroyed.
AS result of this vicious policy
we have scores of dormant or dead
churches all over the country, that
ought now to be living churches, and
would be, if we had had right
policy or mode of administration.
And Universalist churches are des-
tined to continue to die almost or
quite as fast as we can create them,
unless we can develop a policy of
take hold and keep hold that shall
apply to every parish in the land,
however weak or unimportant it may
seem to be. A church that is not
worth keeping in existence is not
worth bringing into existence at all.
Let us take care not to create what
we can not take care of, nourish and
perpetuate.
CHICAGO, June 10.
Each for All and All for Each" is