The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-07-02

the Church Go Into Politics?' appeared in The Age Herald and Mobile Register. reply to the same was made by Dr. Brooks Lawrence. Some may think that nothing further from me is necessary. But as others may expect an answer from me, I have decided to say few things by way of rejonder. l have been so busy during the last month or two that 1t nas not been convenient fol, me to reply until now. Besides this fact, l thought 1t might be well for me to wait until others had been given full opportunity to express
 the views, and then reply to all of them
 at once.
 pr. Lawrence says that my communi-
 cation made an attack on the Anti-SaIoon
 league. This is rather singular charge.
 In the article l stated that I had done
 one of the things which I had criticized,
 and I suggested that, as the people of a large part of Alabama were about to enter
 upon an important political campaign, we
 should all refrain from. doing in the fu-
 ture the things 1 had criticized With the
 exception just mentioned, my formed
 communication was certainly impersonal.
 
 persons or secular organizations I sim ply suggested that as the temperance question was about to take on political, shapes, the church, as an organization,
 should not espouse any political side of
 the question. No charge was made that
 anybody except the writer had done the
 thing complained or or warned against.
 The communication did not advocate
 either dispensary or prohibition. Now
 comes pr. Lawrence and says that the ar
 ticle was an attack on the Anti-Saloon
 league. It was manifestly not an attack
 on the Anti-Saloon league, unless the
 Anti-Saloon league had been doing or
 proposed to do the things to which the pa-
 per objected. When Dr. Lawrence de-
 clares that the communication was an att tack on the Anti-Saloon league he thereby admits in open terms that the Anti Saloon
 league had done the thing charged to be
 improper. But the fact that the Anti-Sa- loon league had done these things does no prove that the things were correct. Dr. Lawrence suggests that l consider
 the dispensary solution of the liquor
 problem. He was authorized to make
 this statement. My position on the sub ject does not affect the merits of the ques- tions as to what should be the status of the church. My individual position Is
 matter that is foreign to the merits of this controversy. The doctor may have
 made the statement with a hope of di- verting the minds of the people from the true issue. His statement is simply an at tempt to evade the argument or escape it's force As my position on that ques- ton Is not in issue, I neither admit nor deny the correctness of the doctors state ment. If at some future time my friends should wish me to say something in ref erence to the political side of the temper | ance question, may perhaps consent to | do so. l once heard an Anti-Saloon league preacher say on the pulpit that he would | take text for a pretext. Whatever | may do in the future iu reference to such I mea sures, l propose for the present at 1 least to stick quite close to my text, l Shall the Church Go Into Politics? A careful reading of my communication | will show that l laid down two premises. My argument, if put in the form of syllogism, would read somewhat as fol- lows: q. The church should not go into
 politics." or in other words, "There should be no union of church and state 2 An attempt on the part of the church, as d church, to nominate candidates for point ical offices, to espouse and actively adVo- cate, as an organization, any political issue and to take up collections in church on Sunday for campaign purposes, is pro tanto a comingling of church and state. I took it for granted that there would be no contention about the first propos- ton. The attitude of Dr. Lawrence on the first proposition is peculiar He says: Shall the church go into politics! The
 Baptist church. the Methodist Episcopal church. south, the Presbyterian church all churches. Shall they go into poll
 ties as church organizations? No, thousand times mo-" This thousandtoid negation sounds beautiful and emphatic. One negation, however, would have been sufficient if the doctor had only stuck to 1t. But after making thousand nesa- tons he branches out Into an affirmation. A large part of hls article is a contention that the church take an active hand in great political activities" Of course, if the church started on this line 1t would be hard to say, in view Of the fact that nearly all great questions have moral
 side. wher 1t would stop. In process or time nearly all great political questions
 would be handled by the church. Trying to Justify his contention the doctor makes some strange remarks. He seems to as- sume that the country Is run by 'polit- cal agitators." a class of men whom he decrles. Perhaps he considers me
 political agitator" In reply, l will con fess that whenever I have contended for the adoption of dispensary law or prohibition law, I have been an "agita- tor" But will say that Dr. Lawrence Is himself an "agitator." l will say fur
 ther that when he contends for prohibi-
 ton he is a political agitator,' and when he contends that the church itself should make prohibition a part of its creed and
 preach it from the pulpit, then he IS an ecclesiastico- political agitator.
 I do not criticise the doctor for being "poitical agitator. But I object that ne should make political agtator' out Of the church itself As if to justify ms position he refers to the theocracy which existed among the Jews in the tune or Samuel, the prophet, several thousand years ago. and seems to like that sys- tenn of government as a means Of work-
 ing out civic righteousness, pure govern
 ment and religious truth. He quotes rom
 Gladstone and Cromwell, citizens Of country which for centuries has mad
 an open union of church and state. Not
 withstanding his multitudnous negatons,
 his reference to these men would indi-
 cate that he was on the side of the af-
 frmative. The doctor says that the
 devil sometimes quotes scripture. The doctor himself undertakes to make some
 scriptural quotations. But there is statement in the scriptures bearing on the
 union of church and state to which the doctor makes no allusion when speaking
 of the theocratic government The two
 .anc of the pronhet Sa plIlpl seem have