The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-08-05
The Church in Politics

Almost every time there is a political campaign,
hue and cry is raised against Protestant churches
for meddling in politics. The alleged medders are
reminded constantly that this nation is founded on
the principle of separation Of church and state. This
criticism is beginning to get the nerves OF the
church leaders.
Hence the widely reported speech of Bishop
Francis J. Mcconnell president Of the Federal Coun-
Gil Of Churches of Christ in America, opening the
Institute of Public Affairs at the University of
Virginia.
The church is not to be criticised for taking part
as a church in the discussion of public questions;
it has as much right to discuss such questions as
any individual" said the bishop.
We agree with that statement. We would go
farther and say that, in addition to its right, the
church has positive duty to its religion to discuss
public affairs. ANY. church which is deaf and blind
to social njustices which no longer works for its
ideal of the kingdom of God on earth, is untrue to
its prophets and is unworthy of its name
There is nothing in the letter or the spirit Of
the American government to restrict that reform
function of the church. BY separating church and
state we have prevented ecclesiastical dictatorship
but we properly have given to the church an abso-
lutte equality with any other organization, party or
individual in political activity. The church has
more rights than other organizations, but it also
has no less
That however is not the question at issue in this
country today
The most effective criticism of the church is not
the fact that it has exercised its political right but
the manner in which. at times. it has done SO.
The mderhand tactics of some Protestant church
leaders in starting campaign of lies and bigotry
against Al Smith in the 1928 election is notorious
example. 1t is the right of any Protestant who so
desires to try to amend the laws to exclude Catholics
as it is the right of any Catholic to work for any
kind of law he desires.
But when any church leader tries to accomplish
by dirty politics. by subterfuge and by trckery that
which he is too cowardly to advocate openly and
when he thereby jeopardizes the political rights of
another citizen-as in the of Al Snlith-he be-
trays good government. And, it is to be assumed.
he at the same time betrays the religious principles
Of his church
So with prohibition. There can be legitimate
objection to the church which believes in prohibition
organizing to support that political project But there
is legitimate objection when certain church leaders
try by unfair and political deals to perpetuate
the viii of the dry minority in states where the
majority is wet.
And there is legitimate objection when certain
church leaders fail to report political campaign
penditures and otherwise resort to shady practices
not even tolerated by nonchurch politicians.
Perhaps the best example of great public service
by the church is its splendid work during the last
decade for international peace. 1t is respected uni
versay this political service because its methods
we're worthy.
Even those citizens and organizations which OPP
posed the Kellogg anti-war pact and the London
naval treaty admire the church for the high plane
upon which it conducts its political peace crusade
Whatever its political reform" Of the moment may
be- and regardless of whether that particular project
Is supported by the majority Of citizens, the church
with fearless social gospel viii always be one Of
the most valuable assets Of democrscy-so long as
the churchs methods are open and honorable.