New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-04-02
THE SHELDON EXPERIMENT.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CLERGYMAN
AND HIS CRITICS

To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: have just read your editorial article in the
Tri-Weeky of the Goth inst in which YOU place
the Rev. c. NJ. Sheldon in such unenviable light
before your readers and confess myself greatly as
tonished expect TO see ignorant and prejudiced
people mislnterpret such men Mr.. Sheldon. but
have not expected il in the Editor of The Tribune
Of course. Mr. Sheldons experiment was doomed
TO failure from the on account of the short
ness of time allowed for making it, for no other
reason. No man could run daily newspaper for a
single week any entirely basis and establish
anything except his own folly in attempting i'm
possible, but this does not justify the severity
| of your editorial.
In writing his book I'm His Steps" and in MAX
| ing his experiment Mr.. Sheldon commits two errors.
IN the first instance he assumes that his readers
are in possession of common sense and therefore
neglects to explain his position clearly as he
should, and in the last instance he undertakes to
do in week that which could not be done in a
year, If it be done all.
The point make against your editorial Is that r.
Is based upon an utter Misrepresentation of Mr.
Sheldon's position. Mr. Sheldon's one idea from
first to last is that every Christian should do at all
tunes precisely as he believes Jesus would in the
same circumstances. He nowhere assumes nor
asserts that any man can do this perfectly nor
does he anywhere teach or even imply that he or
any other Christian is possessed of omnscence or
any other divine attribute. He did set out to
run paper Jesus would do it. but as he he
heved Jesus would do it. He made no claim to in
erIancy like that of the divine Son of God which
"ouid preserve MIN from the possibility O over
sght or mistake. Your query, Does he mean us
to understand that Christ would have been guilty
Of an oversight" is simply childish, If IL is not
insinCere, and your assertion that "he must either
take that ground and describe the Son of God as
ignorant and fallbie-whch would be blasphenous
admit that he did not edit the paper as Christ
would have done it," is airy bugaboo of your
own ina gination.
believe that Mr. Sheldon's attempt to demon
strate method of newspaper MANAGEMENT in a
single
bic, but his assumption that daily, secular news
paper can and ought be conducted in harmony
with Christian principles and that an editor ought
TO carry his religion into the sanctum is perfectly
sound and demonstrabe, however absurd and con-
Ieeiinptlpie IL may be IN the eyes of the average
The fact of the matter is that the whole outcry
on the part OF the secular press far as it
ton on the part Of Mr.. Sheldon, is a fauitless
eeer foos IN th5e Az politicians
teen Christian ministers to be in regard politics
Of PeTnaPs you VIII reply that Il Interpretation
0i Hir- Sneddon Is correct he is teaching nothing
G9sgel idea that We as CHRISTIANS bound
81 Jesus 1the human life of jesus and live toward
Is ii a fact Nj. Editor that daily. secular
he@ saper cannot be run on Christian principles?
Of so many daily newspapers necessary or insti
liable? DO you not believe that it would have been
rh eo many Of our daes had printed the
alyyay nLe 70 rend h ot me asI three months?
and can get through the columns OF The Tribune
very comfortably but when ! open some of the
daiiies find the search for truth like searching
I9r a kernel Of wheat in bushel of chaff and /
often wonder If the editors really believe that ali
fully believe there has been a greater number
% IIs run on the secular press in the last nine
" 49, A0t H4'H
And now. Mr.. Editor | would like to ask Won
IL IS as absurd. ridiculous. contemptible and
plasphemous to undertake to a daily as one
oeiePes Jesus would do IL 0nfaIIbility apart of
ssou.iS') as IL Is successfully TO run precisely
as me =yil would do IT? p. X. SHELDON
Aitay. y. Y. March 2S 1900