“MUNICIPAL REFORM AND THE CHURCHES.”
We have received from Mr. Clinton Rogers Woodruff, chairman of the Publication Committee of the National Municipal League, Philadelphia, an article prepared for the National Municipal League, with the above title. It is written by Thomas N. Strong, the third vice-president of the national organization. Mr. Strong first sets forth the crying need of a reform in municipal government, a need which will be admitted by all. But while the need is admitted and realized, beyond a few ante-election promises, its admission thus far amounts to practically nothing. Mr. Strong says [Italics ours]:— Local experience in Portland, Or., has been that boards of our best citizens, selected and appointed as public-spirited and disinterested men and taxpayers, for the carrying on of work in which every one was directly interested, have perhaps as often as our elected Common Council betrayed the interests of the city and used the powers given to them, not for the public good but for selfish interests, and this with rare exceptions is the common experience of cities with legislative boards and commissioners. However much the voters may be interested in selecting proper officials, can they guard against this abuse of power? Can they in any way compel their officers to do their duty? By a single deal the large taxpayers on the municipal board or committee can make directly or indirectly more money than the increase in their taxes so brought about would amount to in fifty years, and hence on such boards the pecuniary and personal interest of its members not only utterly fails to act as a check upon extravagance and corruption, but only promotes it, while the public, however keen its interest in the work may be, can not put intelligence and honesty into its servants, and only very rarely can discover, expose, or punish its guilty officers. Is then the case hopeless? Or can we bring into play some other agency or power commensurate with the evil sought to be removed? Mr. Strong further points out a fact which the thoughtful observer will recognize, and that is the low political standard recognized as legitimate in American politics. He tells us that in America there has been developed a great deal of unreasoning admiration for the ward politician who in common parlance “gets there” by fair means or by foul, and there has also been developed an impression which largely possesses the public mind that to be successful as a politician it is not only necessary but right to be corrupt and dishonest, and that even upon these terms the “game is worth the candle.” Therefore he concludes that “the disease is a moral one and must be met with moral remedies.” After raising the question whether there is an organization in this country that can grapple with the problem, he replies:— Only one has the power. . . . The church membership and following is sufficiently numerous to impose its united will upon any political or municipal party in any city of the United States. It could, if united and determined, set up a political or a municipal ideal and compel politicians of every party to conform to it, and could so establish that ideal that all men would in municipal affairs live up to it. . . . The power existing and being adequate, it becomes a very practical problem of sociological engineering to determine how these reservoirs of moral power shall be brought to bear upon corrupt political traditions and ideals. In the first place there is a churchly tradition coming down from the Dark Ages that the priest and minister must not concern himself too much with earthly affairs. This must be worn or cut away and the priest and minister ceasing to be of that fabled third sex must become a man of affairs and of the world. He must place himself under his share of the political burden, and as a teacher of the truth must speak fearlessly and apply the truth to modern conditions and necessities. . . . As suggested before, the church has a different standard of morals from either the merchant or the politician, and with this anomalous condition of the three existing moral standards [religious, business, political] the church is too well contented. The political standard sanctions bribery, corruption, theft, and violence so long as they prevail, and holds him a successful politician who so adroitly practises them as to keep out of the penitentiary and carry the day, and the church in practise as a whole really holds the same view, and makes no warfare upon its influential pew-holders who govern their public lives by such low maxims. Recognizing this false standard to be in existence, recognizing its baleful influence, recognizing it to be one of the great strongholds of evil, the church is withheld by man-made barriers from attacking it with full power. And yet Mr. Strong hopes that by the “good engineering to control these great reservoirs of moral power,” a reform may be accomplished. He sees evidences of this:— Nor are there wanting very plain signs that the church is awakening to its mission. In the movements of the last fifty years no modern sociological tendency is more marked than that which has been going on within the churches tending to withdraw them from merely theoretical into practical Christianity. There has been everywhere a wearing down of the barriers between the church and the world, and both have been gainers by the process. The extracts quoted above give the gist of Mr. Strong’s essay. We admit the evil. We recognize the responsibility of the church with reference to much of the existing evil; but we believe that Mr. Strong and those working on the same lines are terribly mistaken in the application of the remedies. Consider— 1. Nearly all the men prominent in politics are members or pew-holders in some professedly “Christian” church. They are retained in these churches notwithstanding their political standard and practises. They are not only retained, but are flattered and honored. If the church in her inner life, where principles of truth, righteousness, and integrity alone should bear sway, can not effect reform in these men, how can she do it in the field of politics where expediency and policy bear sway? 2. “Our best citizens” in all cities are presumably church members, or men of high standing in church circles. If they now “betray the interests of the city,” and use “the powers given to them” “for selfish interests,” what reason have we to hope that they will not do the same if the church as a church place them in office? What additional moral power would the church in politics put into these “best citizens”? 3. If the pulpits of Christendom have done their duty in the past in proclaiming righteousness in view of eternal judgment, and this has been ineffectual to prevent fraud and betrayal of trusts on the part of her members, what right have we to expect that it will be more effectual when proclaimed from the rostrum than from the pulpit? 4. If “our best citizens,” church members, betray sacred trusts to further “selfish interests,” as Mr. Strong says they do, what right have we to expect that the other church members, when launched on the political sea, will do otherwise than our best citizens? 5. Whose “ideal” would be “set up”? On what ideal could all religious parties unite? And if the churches were united on a municipal ideal, what would prevent the scheming politicians every one from professing admiration to that ideal, swearing by it, professing the strictest sort of devotion to the church and political righteousness, and then after election do “practical politics” instead of carrying out, to their minds, impractical ideals? 6. Mr. Strong claims that “the church has a different standard of morals” from the men of the world, and yet he admits that “the church in practise” holds the political standard; and3still he sees signs of hope in the “wearing down of the barriers between the church and the world.” We confess we do not understand the ground of this reformer’s hope. The higher standard of the church seems to be that which pertains to the church alone, while the church at the same time holds another standard for the politician. To reform politics, therefore, the church must take control of municipal affairs as a church, with the municipal council as church wardens, deacons, or stewards. This is evident from the fact that in church capacity only is the high standard of morals held; for as soon as her children step outside of the church fold into the political field, she acquiesces in the standard of morals which there prevails and to which her children submit. Worse than this, the barriers between these standards are wearing down. The world with its motives and morals is in the church. In this we have Church and State union of the worst sort. We might say much more along the same line. There was once a time when the elders and presbyters, the preachers and priests, left the pulpit, the ministry given of God (Matt. 28:19, 20; 2 Tim. 4:1–5) and concerned themselves with “earthly affairs.” The minister took upon himself “his share of the political burden.” He endeavored to put into the politics of government the moral standard of the church. The barriers wore down “between the church and the world.” The result was the disgraceful proceedings of the third and fourth centuries of the church, the corrupting of Christianity, and the fearful history of the Dark Ages. Are not the great denominations treading the same paths trodden by the bishops and their factions of the earlier centuries? Certainly the church and world are coming nearer together, there is “everywhere a wearing down of the barriers.” What is the effect? Let Dr. Moore, bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, editor of the Western Christian Advocate, of Cincinnati, Ohio, answer (we have not space to quote all):— The class books are filled with names of unconverted men and women. Official members are to be found in box, dress circle, and parquet of opera and theater. Communicants take in the races, and give and attend card parties and dances. The distinction between the inside and outside is so obscure that men smile when asked to unite with the church, and sometimes tell us that they find the best men outside. This witness is true; and the Methodist Church is no worse, we are constrained to believe, than others. But can a church of the above description reform the world? Nay, the world is deforming, has deformed, the church. Mingling in politics, out of her sphere, the church will rapidly grow worse, and partake more and more of the life of the world. Could the church help in political matters?—Yes, but indirectly always. Let her do her appointed work. Let her ministers do theirs. Let them “preach the Word,” “preach the Gospel,” “preach Christ.” Let them follow the light of God’s word. Let them leave the criticism of the Old Book for the salvation of men. Let them enlist the church in this work. Let them warn against sin of every form and kind in view of the judgment to come. Such preaching will be the power of God unto the righteousness of salvation to all who believe, and it will have a restraining, holy influence upon those who do not believe a thousand times greater than a political church can have. Those who trust to political reform through the church will be terribly disappointed. Read its history in the Jewish nation, in the apostasy of the first centuries. The only true reform in which the church can take place and part is on Gospel lines according to the Word of God.