INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY.
By W. N. G.
Occasionally we are given an inkling of what political Christianity would do if fully endowed with political control. On the 10th inst. the annual convention of the Alameda County Christian Endeavor Union was held in one of the churches in this city. An address by the pastor of the church in which the convention was held was a leading feature of the program, the subject being, “In His Steps.” That such a subject should be made a pretext for urging Christians to take a more active part in politics, must ever appear a strange and illogical proceeding to those students of the life and teaching of Christ who intelligently walk “in His steps.” But activity in politics seems to have been the animus of the address, for local political matters, especially the censure of certain public officials, was given a prominent place. The facts that a majority of the city council had voted contrary to the wishes and expectations of the people in fixing water rates, and that one of the offending members was a recent appointee of the mayor, were evidently deemed a matter calling for caustic religious treatment; for the speaker had used it as a topic in his previous Sunday-evening discourse. The Endeavorers were urged to be more awake to their civic as well as to their religious duties. It was argued that “when Christian men consider it as much a part of their duty to attend the primaries as it is to be faithful in attendance at prayer-meeting,” there will be no such men in office as the present mayor and the member of the council whom he recently appointed. It was further stated that when that time comes, “no police officer will be called upon to escort drunken councilmen to their homes to protect them from their outraged constituents.” Logically that leaves us to understand that under the benign influence of the Christian vote a drunken councilman would be given over to the fury of the crowds that would seek to wreak summary vengeance upon him. It is a stock-in-trade argument with religious politicians that if the Christians would all vote at every election there would be nothing to complain of in the administration of public affairs. But this particular instance furnishes a refutation of the claim; for the mayor in question was the particular favorite of the church political element in the municipal campaign one year ago. He was the candidate which they indorsed and supported, and after the election they boasted of their influence because of his success over all other candidates. Another object lesson was overlooked by the speaker in his claim that the grievances of which church-members are wont to complain could be assuaged by means of the ballot, and that is, their disappointment in the men whom they elected to the previous council. They secured in that body a majority who were pledged to a certain so-called reform, but enough members went back on their pledges to defeat the coveted end. True, the men had good reason to change their minds, because they were plainly shown that the measure was one which they had no right to adopt; but that does not alter the fact that the results of the ballot are as uncertain when cast by professing Christians as when cast by other people. It is also a well-known fact that when church-members are elected to office they are as apt to become corrupt as any other class. Therefore the political ballot will always prove a very rotten stick when used as a Christian dependence. The only safe course for the Christian to pursue is to follow Him who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world.” W. N. G.