The evening times., 1901-05-06

Orthodoxy and the Money Question.
The Church Economist contains a
paragraph which is rather stunning in
its frankness, for nothing just like it
has been said by any churchman be-
fore. and it is a candid statement Of q
fact which has been stated with some
freedom by the Iaity, who have been
criticised for their irTeveTenCe on that
account This is the paragraph:
.'Tfe fact that the Iaity hold the purse Of the
church Is saving many iinpulsive ministers from
wandering on into all sorts Of tOpsy-tuTyy
Theology. This Is a day o. the widest and
crudeSt guesSes in the Interpretation OF Scrip
ture and as 70 the very fundamentals OF the
Christian faith The ar IS filed with confusion
and contradiction And IN our judgment II Is a
wholesome force which suggests 10 a preacher.
beVItehed with the latest novelty IN biblical
speculation, that It would be Just as well TO 20
a little slowly IN uutTOdden paths
This is a perfectly plain admission Of
the fact that money rules the average
church It does, but the average
churchman IS not willing 10 admit It.
Since money, at the bottom, rules pret-
ty nearly everything IN this world. it is
not surprising that the church should
not be exempt from its sway, but some
people like to pretend that it is. Here.
however, Is the argument clearly and
explicitly stated. that the pewhoIders
decide how far the clergyman shall be
allowed 10 go in freedom Of thought,
and that 1t Is . good thing that they do
so limit him through their control Of his
salary In other words, It Is d good
thing that If the clergyman IS too pro
gressive, his bread and butter will be
taken from him and his influence dis
credited by members Of his congresa-
tion who may or may not know as
much as he does about either theolo-v.
science, or religion.
There was time in Eew England
when the minister Of a parish was con
sIdered 10 be the superior of anv other
u=an in 1t, except possibly the leading
lawyer. OF some aristocratIc land
holder The old Puritans had an idea
Of making every community a sort of
Jheocracy- with the minister as vice
serent. To certain extent they did
it. but the experiment did not last long.
because its success was impossible. and
that was a good thing. But this latest
argument seems 10 take the other ex-
tren1e. and so far from the minister be-
ing the head Of his congregation. he
seems to be designed for its football.
The impartial observer might ask why.
If the communicating are supposed 10
know more than the clergyman about
spiritual matters, so that they can re-
strain him from going Of on taugents
in fashion too progressive. they
should select him as their guide and
teacher. Why should they not do the
preaching themselves Moreover. how
much IS the teaching Of any man worth
If he refrains from telling what he be
lieves IN his heart TO be the truth be-
cause his salary viii be safer If he tells
a lie?
The fact is that the business Of
preaching and teaching religion IS es-
sentiaIly different from other bust
nesses. and the world has not yet fully
realized how II is so. IN ordinary COM
mereiaI transactions man may be dis
honest, and the result viii be that he
wiz simply lose his own reputation, bat
if clergyman. OF religious ran. be
dishonest, he not only hurts himself.
but he leads others to disBeHeye not
only in him. but in the genuineness Of
the religion which he processes. Il IS
such disbelief which has done the
churches of aH ages more harm than