The Washington times., 1904-05-16
CHURCH FORGETS
DUTY TO WEALTH
Rich Neglected as Not
Within Reach.
DR.. LUCIEN CLARK'S VIEWS
POssessOrs of Money Apt to Forget the
Churck-Better Interests
Stultifed.

The views o. Bishop Henry Y. Satter-
lee on the subject OF the forgetfulness
of duty and surrender to folly among
certain sections Of the idle rich" as
published in The Times yesterday, have
attracted wide attention. The subject
is one that has come to occupy, in large
measure the public mind.
pr. Lucien Clark, pastor of Hamline
Methodist Episcopal Church, has decid-
ed views on this question, the products
of a ministerial career extending over
more than forty years spent in
number Of churches in a number of diff
ferent cities Of the country
Church Is for All.
THE benefits of religion-of Christian
ity''-said DR.. Clark were designed
neither for the poor nor for the rich.
as separate classes. but for all Gods
people. I have no patience with the
theory that seeks 10 build churches for
special classes, though in some cases,
where the conditions of the people liv-
ing In neighborhood make it impera-
tive such concessions to circumstances
may be both wise and proper.
But the ideal church is that in which
the rich and poor meet together
cend above I have been pastor of such
churches. one which I remember espe-
cially. OF which a great number Of mill
operatives and a small number of mill
owners were members Whatever dis
tincuons existed outside. there was none
in the church; for myself looked upon
all alike and treated all alike.
ITO make distinctions of classes in
spreading the gospel of salvation is IN
righteous and un-Christjan, opposed to
both the letter and the spirit OF Gods
word. I am sometimes afraid the church
forgets its duty in the matter. and in
many cases fails TO extend it's arms to
the rich, in the belief they cannot be
reached. Such belief has its origin in one
of the very facts that make the evange-
hzation of the rich largely necessary
the self-cOntent that comes with wealt
and the fond delusion held by many rich
persons that they have no need of the
eternal comfort the church offers Tbs
church observes this attitude and sim
ply gives up these members Of society
as a bad Job.
$50 much for the attitude Of the
church toward the rich: perhaps there
IS equal cause for criticism or sorrow In
the attitude Of the rich toward the
church
Rich Forget the Church.
Wealth is neither moral nor immoral
in itself; its good Of bad effects upon its
possessOr depends upon the manner II
which il is used II is undoubtedly
true. though that its influence is too
often stultifying of the better instincts
He who has no need 10 think OF thu
morrow or of creature comforts be
comes stepped in selhshness. without
heed either Of his own spiritual welfar.
or that OF the great world OF his fell
lows He abandons himself wholly Il
the pursuit Of ambition or the increas,
OF his wealth or the enjoyment Of sense
less pleasures He thinks of himself
merely or OF the little circle in which
he revolves.
FOR this reason I believe the ricf
man 10 be harder 10 reach by the agen-
Cies of the church than the man of less
or means. who IS brought 10 a more init
mate understanding of the great de
pendence he must place in God. But
certainly. the church should not sus
spend or decrease, for any such reason
rs this its efforts TO bring those Wh'
possess much within the radius Of il
influence.
The Faults of the Wealthy.
There are some faults that belong
especially 20 the richer class. They in
clude the practice of vulgar and osten
tatious display. total abandonment L
worldly pleasures, q selfish indifference
TO their own responsibilities-to the dis
charge of the stewardship with which
they are inTusted. The fact is few Of
us are lit 70 be the pOssessors Of larg
wealth. and there is little reason 70
surprise that many Of those we SCI
around US fail 10 stand the test. w
might not do better or as well wer
positions reversed.
I'm addition 10 this the rich contribute
10 the worlds supply a full share o