Christian Benevolence vs. Church Gambling.
By J. H. Waggoner
THE proceedings of the “State Christian Convention,” lately held in East Saginaw, Mich., as reported in the Detroit Tribune, contain some stirring testimonies on this subject. The essay, read by Mr. Bangs, of Ionia, plead for the Bible system of tithing, and deprecated the modern expedients of festivals, socials, &c., for raising means to support the gospel. The following extracts are interesting:— “Man is God’s steward; he can claim nothing as his right. Tithes and sacrifices were rendered to God in the patriarchal age. The firstlings of the flocks, and the first fruit of the field, with one-tenth of all the increase, belonged to the service of God, and his approval is recorded for our instruction. . . . According to the Mosaic law, the least asked was one-tenth, while the wealthy were required to give according to the wants and necessities of the church. “True, this law was proclaimed under the Jewish dispensation; yet it is still in force. The proper rule of Christian benevolence is, ‘Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him.’ This simple plan secures the object designed by God, secures an abundance of money for all the purposes of Christ’s cause, and develops the benevolence of the church, while it subdues the selfishness of human nature. The tendency of the plan is to secure an honest calculation of the amount; an important consideration when we remember the power of human selfishness to pervert the judgment. The apostolic rule requires that every one give something; the rich from their abundance; the poor, their mites. “Other expedients assume multitudinous forms, such as festivals, oyster suppers, ice-cream, strawberry and neck-tie socials, etc., ad infinitum. I do not object to the rich feeding the poor, but this modern plan makes the whole thing irregular; some are compelled to pay too much, while many others pay nothing. These plans ignore the idea of rendering to God what is his due. Every one expects a compensation for what he gives, and grumbles if he does not get it. [Modern benevolence.] A few do the work, and pay the expenses. This creates more selfishness than benevolence. . . . Each does not give as God has prospered him. The poor must give as much as the rich, or be excluded from the privilege of giving at all, or from the enjoyment of the gathering. There can be no difference in the prices of suppers or neck-ties. No one gives; each expects an equivalent. . . . What can be done to remedy the evil? The answer is, to educate the people according to the Scriptures on the subject of benevolence. Distinguish properly between self-interest, personal or community profit, and pure benevolence. Thus, and thus only, shall we give a right direction to legitimate efforts.” Instead of a few short extracts, as I intended, I have given most of the essay; but I think this will not be regretted by the readers of the REVIEW, and especially by those who love the Scripture rule of systematic benevolence. The “discussion of the topic” elicited some rich things. “Rev. Geo. Jachin, of Washtenaw county, thought that all grab-bag socials, &c., were no better than gambling.” And such must be the decision of all who candidly view the matter in the light of principles and true piety. But, when we consider that these expedients are adopted by the body of American Protestant churches—that they are their chief means of supporting the gospel, as they hold it, what a scene is presented! The great religious, aye, Christian bodies of the day, in this most Christian land, sustaining their worship by gambling! And must we still be blamed for saying that they are fallen? Is it not nearly time to raise the cry, “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and receive not of her plagues”? “Rev. J. H. McCarty, of Adrian, thought that it was doubtful whether the State could be brought up to that high standard. He presented for the edification and instruction of the convention, some figures. Fifty members giving fifty cents a week, and one hundred members giving twenty-five cents a week, and fifty giving ten cents a week, for a year, would make $3,120 from a church of two hundred members. A church of three hundred members giving fifty cents a week, would raise $7,800 in a year. He said that the experience of church socials had, in East Saginaw, been the almost total destruction of theatrical and minstrel shows. The young would rather go to these socials than to the public halls. He was not sure that it would be good policy to give up these socials.” Mr. McCarty’s figures certainly afford a strong argument in favor of systematic benevolence; showing what may be done by small sums given regularly or by method. This is proof that the only remedy for the selfishness so largely prevailing among professed Christians, is found in obedience to the Bible rule of giving. Some seem to overlook the fact that it is a Bible rule, and stigmatize it as a “rigid law of taxing,” and they thereby show a large development of stinginess or impiety. But the plea offered by Mr. McCarty in favor of socials seems not quite satisfactory. My last quotation is in answer to that point. It sounds like the utterance of a true heart. “Rev. Geo. Duffield, of Saginaw City, said that they should ask twice; first of God, and second, of man in Christ’s name. While we have church socials, how is it with the social prayer-meeting? When the church social empties the theater by taking its place, he must protest against it in God’s name. The stumbling-block in the way of many sinners is the fact that professing Christians are not willing to use their money for God.” If we note the faults of others to find fault with them, or to boast of ourselves, they will condemn us as well as them. There is a lesson in this report for all who believe that “the end of all things is at hand,” and who expect soon to give an account of their stewardship. J. H. WAGGONER.
Newton, Mich., March 5, 1871.