The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-08-16
The Parsons In Politics

Can the church with prppriety both save our
souls from heThre and tell how to vote on lhe
tariff This question Of church and state was oe-
hated holly from the time that Bishop Ambrose OF
Milan Inundated the powerful Roman Emperor Ineo
dosius to the days when Nogaret the emissary OF
King Philip Of France. struck Pope Boniiace VII III
the face with his mailed glove.
It has been contested within Professionalism from
Calyin's efforts to run complete theocracy IN
Geneva to Bismarcks attempt to subject the church
10 the state in his Kulturkampf. when ne clasned
with the Catholic church in Germany.
The Issue has been raised in our own country
with heat and intensity a result OF proninition'
censorship and opposition to birth control Ihere
has been not little inconsistency. The same peope
who Landed the church for entering politics during
the world war and appauded severe treatment OF
conscientious directors since have denounced II LOT
supporting prohibition. Those who opposed the >ec5
cIesiasticaI support of now praise the religious
approval Of prohibition
The question is of major Importance ana never
more so than today Hence Stanley Highs new book
'rThe Church in Politics. is both timely ana I'M
nortant 1t is the work of enthusiastic but reia
4ivsIv enlightened churchman who warmly defends
the nartcipation of the church in politics and pubic
affairs.
The whole issue now must be re-examned IN the
iight of the rapidly changing attitude toward the
nature and function of religion. In the old DAYS the
theoretical problem was easy to solve. Inc cnuioA
was concerned with things spiritual and OF the otnel
world The state was temporal and OF this world
zach should be supreme in its sphere and there
should be no intrusion Of on the other In prac
tice this clear division Of powers always was olcu'
10 maintain
Nv and large then there inyinciole argu-
,nent Tor the exclusion of the old-time religion from
TT had m
tors of this earth No fundamentals logically can
argue that the church egtmately may enter actively
into nolitical support Of prohibition or opposition 10
birth control.
Mr. High can defend his position only by conced-
ing that the church no longer is spiritual organlza
tion concerned with the future destinies OF man IN
a world to come.
With the decline of fundamentahsm the advanced
leaders of the church losing interest IN the
snirit,,a world and doubling the existence OF 1u-
ture life. They are becoming more ana more CON-
cerned with making happier here ana now
In due time the modernized church must sur
roer all sniritua interests and become wholly secu-
lar Then what about separation of church and state?
when the church comes to be as much interested
IN od-aee pensions as Billy Sunday now assumes 10
o in rescing lost souls from the clutches Oh Lucnel
can it remain out Of politics?
We doubt it. We must face the fact that the
logic of the issue completely changes as the cnurcn
becomes secular in outlook and program The church
can Justify its existence only by working Tor a pet
torment Of human life here this earth This i'm
provement must be achieved in large part through
politics
The church of the future will of necessity De
thrown into the midst of the political maelstrom.
will be effective chiefly to the degree in which It Is
able to influence politics.
But these considerations are no Justification LOT
the present antics of fundamentals 7ealot In oooy
ing against liquor trying to pass laws 70 pan
cigsrets