The San Francisco call., 1905-05-15
CONSIDERS GIFT
OF ROCKEFELLER
Rey.H. j. Vosburgh Advances
Suggestion About Accept
ing Money for Church
LAYS DOWN PRINCIPLES
Giver's Acts Must Not Be
condoned in Taking Coin
Offered for Lords Treasury

OlIClC Cu lOl Lulu llCQSul.5 y
OAKLAND, May 14.-Rev. H. j.
Vosburgh, pastor of the First Baptist
Church, preached this morning upon
the controversy that has arisen over
the Rockefeller gift to the foreign mis-
slonary representatives of the Congre-
gational church. Mr.. vosburgh re-
viewed the entire situation, and his
sermon is of more than usual interest,
coming from minister of the denomi-
nation to which Mr.. Rockefeller be-
longs Mr.. Vosburgh would not have
the church condone Mr.. Rockefeller's
business methods. and in the course
OF his sermon he said:
, The question of what Is known as tainted
money has been forced upon for consdera-
ton by the widely discussed relation between
John ID. Rockefeller and the foreign missionary
representatives of the congregational church.
The controversy has been widely discussed
that 1t Is unnecessary to repeat its details. On
the one hand those who seem to favor the
, sideraton for the moral character or business
methods of the donors. On the other hand
protection must be placed about the contribu.
ton box.
The argument in favor of the reception Of
, all gifts is easy and apparently conclusive. 1t
runs as foliows Glvers will not submit to an
examination INTO their characters and business
methods and will resent ii as an unwarrantable
system OF ecclesiastical espionage; committees
cannot be found who able and willing to
discharge the delicate duty Of determining the
moral status OF givers; the Lord can use
money from any source. causing the money
| as well the wrath of evil men to praise
him.
These cogent reasonings seem to close the
question. and yet the Christian conscience in
structlvcly feels that something more needs to
be said, although the moral judgment may be
unable to formulate its utterances in a con-
sistent manner. We are reminded that great
questions are often settled not by the clash of
arguments at given point, but by combining
the results that come from surveying the en-
tire field from different points of view for no
point of view Is sufficiently commanding to
give complete perspective. AS soon as We
survey the. field from different point of view.
we observe that the Christian church in its
highest moods has always felt that some re-
striction should be placed upon the reception
of gifts
RECONCILING PRINCIPLE.
We no longer take money made in lottery.
Evangelical churches will not receive money
that comes frons the liquor traffic. IL the ac-
| business The money of the church and the
message of the church have always remained
IN close afntiation. Shareholders nave never
given money in large amounts to support an
abolition campaign. Liquor dealers do not
furnish the funds for the prohibition of their
business. The race track gamblers did not
send u lobbyist to Sacramento last winter to
aid in securing the passage OF the Espey Dill
reception of the Rockefeuer donation, does not
indorse the principle of the ndiscriminate re-
eeption of gifts. for It says: Money obtained
donor provided 1t can be returned to the
owner. nor money obtained by fraud under
circumstances which implies approval of his
| methods. For this reason It may well be
affirmed that money may not be solicited by
| religious organizations from men whose meth
ods justly subject to general public con-
demnation.''
1t is evident then, on the one hand. that to
investigate all gifts is an impertinence and an
| impossibii;ty and on the other hand, to re-
ceive ali gifts may weaken the testimony of
the church to Righteousness. Can any reconcile
ing principle be found? l think so, and sug--
general gene adoption: Money ought not to be in
| weaksns the testimony OF the church 10 the
great ethical principles that 1t is established to
theflss tse position Of the church il gambler drops
money into the contribution box but X the
| that the church is to moderate It's tone toward
his business, then the taking of his money is
| a moral offense.
HONOR OF CHURCH.
In the application of this principle the honor
| of the church may be protected in two ways.
First. by care In soliciting and receiving gifts.
| The representatives of the American Board did
secure secure a large contribution from one who in
| the language of the Outlook is IAN tllustrious
example of a perncious SYSTEM Second. by
| declaring its attitude toward business methods
| that are Justly subject to general pubic con-
| demnation.' Between fifty and seventy five
years ago similar controversy was waged
| over tn ereception Of money from Shareholders
| The American Board finally settled its attitude
tnat mat IN into the motives Of s
| ers but that it could have no dealings with
slavery that involved appreciation IL Is necd-
| less to say that IT was not long troubled with
! questions concerning the reception OF money
! from that source
| A similar attitude is demanded to-day. The
| church should say to Mr. Rockefeller and other
| men who represent the same business methods
| that Il cannot approve of their principles. IL
| they wish to give, 1t must be with the distinct
/ understanding that the church does not en-
| dorse their business transactiQns, that 1t re-
hncf To- IN he
| Christ and as doing in the world exactly what
/ the church was established to oppose. II
! should be Enthusiastically clear that In Its Efforts
4 to Christianlze the heathen the church does
!, not endorse methods that are heathenizins
| Christendom. The church should cease its un-
! wise and insistent efforts TO secure money from
] these men Our trust magnates are warranted
| in fpferrine that the church approves their
| methods when 1t is so ready to share their Ill
| soften gains The Baptist denomination has a
/ peculiar responsibility in this matter. con-
! ing the past twenty-five years that involves
| us before the public In completely with one of
| the offensive combinations of capital. Many
| norauce for the past and are desirous OF squar-
| ing themselves with the enhshtened conscience
!, OF to-day with regard to the great moral prob
/, lem OF the hour. The bapust churcn Is not
| for any similar monopoly. II representatives
| of these systems contribute money to the Bap-
fist freaslry 1t will be with the distinct knowl-
edge that many Bap,ists @ osapprovs tp Us sne,r
! tives Of our great missionary organizations
| will take an attitude that viii render unmis-
taxable the position OF the denomination
PAINTERS ENJOY