The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-25


ing his Chicago ministerial brethren what
some Of their weaknesses are. He did not
get up in his pulpit and describe these
faults and foibles for the public at large to
wonder at, but called attention to them in
that family gathering. the weekly minis
ters' meeting. The papers printed his re-
marks, and so ii happens that the public
learns that ministers do not observe all the
minor morals. Mr.. Rondthaler told them
that among their faults are petty jealous
les, clannishness and the launching of lit
tie darts that bear just tinge of dis
paragement; also, that they indulge In
faint-hearted praise. which is worse than
no praise at all. Professional jealousy
among lawyers, he assured his hearers.
almost minus QUANTITIES. statement
which Is open to some modification. how
ever, and indicates that members of the
legal fraternity have conducted themselves
with discretion in his presence With the
exception of musicians, he declared. very
truly. that doctors were the most jealous
of all professional men. This is notorious
fact, doctor who loses an opportunity to
give rival a verbal stab being rare
creature. Musicians" said the speaker,
especially church musicians. defy all clas-
sification either in the list of virtue or of
vice." This information, both as to musi-
clans and preachers, is of interest. coming
from so authoritative a source. 1t is, of
course, an old story that church singers
are ike Betsy and t. always "out,'' yet
some who have not had dealings with
them in their professional capacity may
have thought them misrepresented by the
tradition. But Mr.. Rondthaler, who has
had long experience with them, knows
that they have no love for each other and
are at no pains to conceal the lack. And it
is somewhere between musicians and doc
tors, he says, that ministers are to be
classed.
Who that has not studied the profession
would have thought It? Most persons num-
Der among their acquaintances quite a list
of lawyers, not a few doctors, and more
musicians than they can count at the first
attempt; while, as a rule, they know but
one minister at a time and are perhaps not
favored with his society frequently. Con-
sequently, they less familiar with the
foibles peculiar to men of his calling than
might be the case and may even regard
such men as free from the little weaknesses
common among followers of other profess
sions. But when they come to reflect upon
the subject. possibly they will recall that
these spiritual pastors and masters as they
come along, one by one. have at least not
OIL 10
the cloth. and that it is most difficult to Sc
cure from one of them a distinct approval
Of fellow-minister who may be under
consideration as the occupant of a rival
pulpit. Mr.. Rondthaler is quoted as say
ing that he is not animated by personal
feeling, for so far as he knows he never
suffered from the faint praise which con-
dennis, and never but once asked the aid
of another minister in opening the way to
church. He adds however, with consid-
cradle significance: 81 will never make
such request again." This inference that
ministers do not help each others advance
ment is more severe than the other ar
raignment, for even doctors and musicians
will work for the promotion of members
of their respective Professionalism they
do not want the place themselves. There is
a professional clannishness with them that
overcomes personal jealousies.
Perhaps the outside public has no rightful
concern with professional weaknesses that
affect only the brethren themselves, but
such disclosures are at least interesting
and will serve as the basis of some specu-
lation. The reflective and curious will ask.
for instance, If the limitations of the call
ing, the absence of rough contact with the
world, give to ministers a narrowness of
vision that binders them from discovering
or overcoming their own weaknesses; also.
If these limitations tend to the develop
ment Of the feminine quality which puts
a personal measure upon all the events of
life. 1t is worth while to note that these
sins of the parsons, as pointed out by one
of their number. belong to Chicago breth-
rem. The speaker, who spent many years
as the incumbent of an Indianapolis pulpit,
was not moved to such rebuke while here.