p. 9 | Exclusiveness in Schools and Churches by M. G. Conger

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 20, 1916

Exclusiveness in Schools and Churches

By M. G. Conger

M. G. CONGER

BOUND by superstition, ignorance, and caste, the vast population of India are groping in darkness. For no reason are the members allowed to venture outside of the iron-clad rules of caste. In this country and in our Christian schools similar principles are working, which tend to segregate classes into exclusive circles. The well-to-do form a set by themselves; the brighter students, the unconverted students, the juniors, and the seniors, each form a distinct circle. It often seems that an entire school is divided into cliques, outside of which the members move only by necessity. If possible, they room together, eat together, walk arm in arm about the school, sit side by side in the classrooms, and in general act very much as Hindus, who are bound by superstition and caste, might act.

Those who are inclined to such exclusive associations do not stop the practice when their course in school is completed, but the same clannish ideas are likely to be taken with them to their homes, and shown in their choice of friends. If church members, their ideas are manifested in connection with the church. How often churches are broken into factions because of this element! Take divisions, factions, from the churches, and the problem of many church troubles will be solved. If persons who promote such divisions chance to be given larger positions of trust, they carry their exclusiveness with them, and may cause similar trouble in the conference or elsewhere. Instead of always striving to have one's personal ideas carried out; instead of seeking the highest position, whether it be in school, church, or conference; instead of using one's influence to secure positions of responsibility and honor for personal friends, not considering whether they are qualified to fill the position or whether they are the best that may be secured, instead of this, would it not be better to give God an opportunity to work, and allow him to carry out his own righteous plans?

Christian young people should beware of cliques, but this does not mean that they should have no intimate friends. As we have so often heard, “one may have intimate but not exclusive friends.” Deep-seated, hearty friendships have proved a great help to many. Friends point out one's mistakes, and help to overcome them. Friends encourage one in every good work. Sometimes the reason that a person has many oddities is because he has no friend. May God bless the friends, intimate friends! But do not allow yourself to have a certain select few who claim all your attention, with whom you live in a greater or less degree of constant exclusiveness, barring all others, or admitting others only by necessity.

There are many reasons why Christian young people should not sanction such a practice. Some of them are:—

1. Christians ought not to form cliques, because it is not right. “Caste is hateful to God. He ignores everything of this character. In his sight the souls of all men are of equal value.” See Acts 17:26. It is not right to be actuated by the spirit of exclusiveness, for it breeds pride and love of distinction. “Lucifer sought for himself the highest place, and every being who is actuated by his spirit will do the same.” One should not indulge a narrow, bigoted spirit, but rather manifest the all-inclusive spirit exemplified in the gospel.

2. Christians should not be actuated by the clique spirit, because it limits the sphere of one's usefulness and hinders one's influence for good. There is a wide field of usefulness outside of one's coterie of friends. There are souls bearing sorrows in the midst of perplexities and difficulties sometimes unknown to the more favored. There are hearts longing for help, groping for the light which we might give them. It is not in keeping with our profession to limit our influence to a select few. The gospel teaches a love for all the human family. It lifts men from the narrow circle which selfishness prescribes, and abolishes artificial distinctions of society.

3. Exclusiveness speaks ill of the religion of Christ, for it places likes and dislikes above the principles of the Bible. Jesus did not choose a favored few with whom to associate, and ignore all others. He chose intimate friends, to be sure, but never did he have exclusive friends. He did not mingle with men for the benefit he could secure, but he associated with those who needed his help. He taught that “the love which gives kindness to only a few is not love, but selfishness. Those who possess large affections are under obligations to God to bestow them not merely on their friends, but on all who need their help. Those who leave their Master's talents unimproved are even more guilty than the ones for whom they feel such contempt.”

If all would draw nearer the Perfect Man, distinctions of wealth, education, and attainments would be obliterated. Cliques would be unknown, and men would cease to separate themselves from their fellows. Like Jesus, who visited with the Samaritans and ate with the publicans, all would feel free to associate with rich and poor, learned and ignorant.

Says the apostle, “If ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” James 2:9. Again, “If ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?” Matt. 5:46. Here it is plain that those who confine themselves to a set circle,—“love them which love you,”—and those who are narrow,—“salute your brethren only,”—are deserving of no praise or reward. Such action shows the actor to be selfish; not disinterested, not possessing a genuine regard for real worth and value or a love for character, but having a desire for the benefits he may secure. The basest of men, the publicans, the Saviour says will do as much. Christians ought to do more. Christians should not allow themselves to be won, nor seek to win others, to a small circle because of position, wealth, education, or any other attainment. Whether a person wears fine clothes, converses fluently, has as much education as I, or agrees with me in my oddities, hobbies, and opinions, matters little. What does matter is his real worth and character. These are the factors which one should consider when choosing friends and associates.