The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-10-28

knows little Of the real needs OF life. he
talks great deal about sin IN the alb
stract, but OF actual personal sins he
knows as little as child. The minister
is cossetted. shut round by artificial re-
restrictions, kept by conyentionalities from
minglng freely with men in the world,
and he teaches shut-in, churchly. clois-
tered and unnatural religion, under the
name o. spirituality"
We would like for this writer to cite
one single Instance where the cause Of
religion has been helped, where church
has prospered in the spiritual sense, or
in any sense. by a departure on the part
of the preacher from gospel preaching.
Some preachers have gone into the Sums,
have seen the deformed side Of life, have
acquainted themselves with the actual
personal sins Of men and women and
by and by have gotten up in their pulpits
and related their experiences to the con-
gTegation.
cal harangues from their pulpits; have
talked about corruption in politics and the
duty of citizens to vote this way and that
and have received the applause of their
hearers. Such preachers have indeed at
tracted men for the time, and have had
large congregations, but if any church has
prospered by that sort of preaching we
do not know where It is. If the preaching
of the gospel in its simplicity and purity
and spirituality is not enough to draw
men to church, the cause of religion must
fail. The church cannot be helped by lug
ging foreign topics into the pulpit. When.
ever it shall be determined to convert the
church into a place of amusement, the
death knelI of the spiritual church will
have been sounded.
Further on in the discussion, the Trans
cript writer suggests to the preachers
and the church authorities thai they care
fully consider why it Is that men throng
into the. social and fratcrnal orders and
stay away from churches. He asserts that
with the growth of individualism in the
churches, the spirit Of fraternity has de-
parted, and that it has been compelled
~
TO seek expression under forms not dis
tinctly religious.
Here again we disagree with the Boston
reformer. The church is, in certain
sense, fraternal organization, and we
know of no organization that is more
diligent in looking after its unfortunate
members, comforting the distressed and
relieving the afflicted. But these are mere
incidents In it's work. The church is not
primarily an organization for the pro-
motion of good fellowship. Its great pur-
pose Is to develop Christian character,
and the individualism, of which the Boston
critic complains, is its very life. It is
this that differentiates the church of to-
day from the church of former times.
That same individualism which character
ICES our republican form of government
is the distinguishing characteristic of the
modern church. The church, as an organi-
cation, counts for naught, except so far
as it may by organized work arouse each
individual member to a sense of his per-
sonal responsibility, and all it's energies
and agencies are directed towards the
promotion of personal piety among the
individual members of the organization.
If the church fails in this, it fails in
everything. Individualism, we repeat, is
its very life.