The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1901-11-13
THE VOLUNTARY CHURCH
Separation Between Church and
State Brought New Order of
Things.

State Brought a New Order
Things.
Richmond Times.
In an article on the voluntary churc
published recently in The Indepe,
dent, Prof. Chs rles W. Eliot saws th;
those who are Democrats In ment,
habit cannot easily realize what a
immense change has taken plac
throughout the civilized world in r,
gard TO both the theological and prat
tical relation of the church 20 th
State. "The practice of cutting off a
churches from support by or throug
The State" he proceed, sis America
in origin and has been wrought out il
greatest perfection in the Unite,
states, Tor the most part within
hundred years. To detach rellglou
institutions from all reliance on public
taxation was certainly formidable ex
pertinent, but il has been In progress
long enough in this country to prOvid,
the world with demonstration of sue
| cess in certain particulars. A hundred
years ago one might reasonably have
feared that churches in sufficient mum
Der would not be provided by volnn.
tary contributions. The experience OF
the United States has allayed that ap
prehension."
That statement is only partially true.
This apprehension has not been en-
tirely allayed, otherwise the churches
of the country would not ask for ex-
emptlon from taxation. But as far as
the experiment has been tined, it has
proven to be eminently satisfactory
and successful. The very life of the
church to-day is in its independence.
in its separation from State. This is
true because the life of the church IS
in the spirituality of Its membership,
in personal piety. Under the old re-
gime the church was great organiza-
tion and its aim was TO eXalt and ex-
plot the organization without taking
much account of the individual mem.
bers of the church. The individuals
counted only so far as they helped TO
form the organization, and even at that
the individual counted for little be.
cause the church was not dependent
upon its membership for material sup.
port, enjoying as it did liberal appro-
from the government.
But with complete separation be-
tween church and State an entirely
new order of things has come. The
church of to-day has an entirely new
incentive of octlon. The great aim of
The church is to promote individual
piety, and the preacher OF to-day
breaches TO individuals, breaches IN
iividual responsibility and llnpresses
upon his hearers that no member of
,he church may shift his responsibility
10 the shoulders of the church. 1t has
been discovered also that giving is a
means of grace, and so each and every
member of the church of to-day is
lrged TO give something every week,
rs the Lord has prospered him, for his
own spiritual benefit. This of itself
creates individual interest And so
voluntary contribution has added zest
md JUNCTION to church work More
over, there is stimulus in this system
o the preacher himself. The preacher
IF old, who had fat living" from
he government, and who was in no
sense dependent upon the members of
he congregation to sustain him, could
hardly be expected to be so fully alive
o the interests of individual members
rs the preacher who is dependent upon
he contributions Of individual mem
oers for his support. The difference
s the difference between monarchy
md democracy. Under the demo-
cratic system the preacher necessarily
.eels greater interest in his members,
who pay his salary, and tho members
necessarily feel greater interest i'm
heir preacher when they contribute to-
ward his support. In short we have
applied our democratic principles in
our church government and they have
proven to be as successful in religious
life as IN political life.
1t has always been the contention of
his paper in discussing the question
of taxing churches that the church
would gain far more than it would lose
by declining to accept such exemption
as favor of government-in asserting
its absolute Independence, in relying
upon the voluntary contribu,
ton of it's members to support the
preacher and all its institutions. The
great question, therefore, is not wheth-
er or not the government should ex-
empt the churches from taxation, but
from the church's point of view,
whether or not the church should re-
ceive tins appropriation, for in effect
1T is an appropriation, or any benefits
whatever from government which are
not accorded to all other institutions
and organizations of whatever charac-
ter. 1t has been abundantly demon
strated, as Prof. Eliot says, that sepa-
ration has been the salvation and the
life of the church; we say that complete
separation would bring greater benefits
yet. 1t is puzzling TO us how any
American churchman can entertain a
different view.