The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-13


Two recent occurrences in New York city
have caused considerable discussion in local
church circles and aroused no little feeling.
~Singularly enough, the pastors of the two
churches were brothers, one a Congrega-
tionalist and the other a Methodist. One of
the cases was stated in a dispatch in the
Journal a few days ago as follows:
Rather than to countenance in church
membership a man engaged in the liquor
business, the Rev. Edwin NJ. Martin, assist
ant pastor OF the Lewts-avenue Congrega-
tiOnal Church, Brooklyn, has resigned. He
came to the Brooklyn church from Rich
land Center, Wis, "A year ago. Two deacons
also resigned. The cause Of the trouble IS
a wealthy wine merchant. With his family
he has attended the church many years and
recently he decided TO become formally en-
rolled. When his name was presented there
was warm opposition on the part of Mr..
Martin, backed by several deaconesses and
two deacons, but the merchant was adj
mitted.
This case, IL will be noticed, resulted in
the resignation of the assistant pastor and
two of the deacons. The pastor, the Rev.
Robert ]. Kent, favored admitting the wine
merchant to the church, thereby mourning
the censure and hostility of some of the
members. Tn pastor is said to be a fine
preacher and earnest worker, and has built
up the church remarkably. The wine mer-
chant had attended the church regularly
with his family for several years, and his
children attended the Sunday school. He
was personally popular and no objection
was raised to him until he asked to be taken
into the church. His contributions during
several years Of regular attendance were
thankfully received.
The presentation by the pastor of the wine
merchants name for membership precip-
itated a hot discussion and some tempers
were lost. The assistant pastor led the OPP
position. The pastor vouched for the wine
merchant being a good Christian man and
that he sold only pure wines. The assistant
retorted that men could get drunk as easily
on pure wine as they could on impure. to
which the pastor replied that he did not
advocate nor approve of drunkenness under
any circumstances. When the vote was
taken a majority of the deacons present
voted in favor of the applicant, whereupon
nine of the opposition deaeons left the hall.
Probably there will be as much difference
of opinion among people in general as to
the propriety of admitting a wine mer-
chant to church membership as there was
among the officers and members of this
church. But one might ask, was it hon
orable or consistent to accept this mans
generous contributions to the church for
years and then oppose his becoming a
member? 1t is probable. also, that among
the wealthy and fashionable members Of
the church there were not a few who drank
wine frequently, perhaps regularly, at their
homes, and one might ask if it is any worse
case raises nice questions on which casuists
might differ.
The other incident occurred in a Methodist
church of which DR.. Charles Kent, brother
of DIR. Robert ]. Kent. is pastor. This i'm
cident consisted in the pastor and many
members of the church attending an en-
tertainment given by the wife and daughter
of a saloon keeper in rooms over his saloon.
The saloon keeper is a member of the
New York Board of Aldermen and person.
ally is popular and respected. He is not a
member of the church, but his wife,
daughter and sister are. and are active
workers. Last fall when he ran for alder
man on the Republican ticket the Repub-
lican members of the church turned out
and worked for him so effectively that he
was elected when all the other Republicans
on the ticket were defeated. In this case
the members of the Epworth League at
tended in a body the entertainment given by
the saloon keepers wife and daughter, while
in the other case the members of the
Christian Endeavor Society took sides
against admitting the wine merchant to
membership in the church.
Perhaps the true rule of conduct in all
such cases depends whether more good than
harm is likely to come from a certain line
of action. If the wine merchant believed
in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity
and could be benefited by becoming a mem
Der of the church, why not admit him, and
if the alderman-saloon keepers wife and
daughter were consistent Christians why
should acceptance of their hospitality be
condemned, even though it was dispensed in
a room over the saloon? These are ques-
tons for c~asuists, but there is good au-
thority for saying, Judge not that We be
not judged"