OUR MISSION NOT POLITICAL.
By S.
WE are hearing more and more of the civil and political duties of the clergy of to-day and less and less of the Gospel phase of the work to which they are called. Preaching the true Gospel recedes from view as the political duties of the representatives of the cross of Christ loom up larger before them. In not every instance is this seen; but the great popular trend and drift are in that direction. An instance in point was seen in the address of Rev. Chas. H. Brent, of Boston, bishop in the Philippines, when he made declaration of his policy and purpose. That the new bishop is a convert to the idea of the union of church and state, in effect, if not in outward form, is seen from his published declaration, which reads as follows: The bishop who goes to the Philippine Islands goes to stand for righteousness in civil life, to make civil service what it should be there, to promote Christian education, to further the interests of American civilization in that country, which is now our responsibility, and foster the true elements of our own civilization. It is no longer a question of imperialism or anti-imperialism. We have our duty to perform. It is to give these people—for they are ours now—all that we are capable of giving them. It has been argued by some members of our church that because the Roman Catholic Church is established in that country, we have no business there. Do not think that the bishop goes to the Philippines as the enemy of the Roman Catholic Church. He goes as the enemy of their enemies—of lust, extortion, dishonor, and oppression. If the last sentence of the quotation could be shown to be true, the "lust, extortion, dishonor, and oppression" must all have been perpetrated by the Filipinos. But we had understood that those were the things from which the Filipinos have been struggling for release for centuries; that they were the ones who had suffered those things, suffered them at the hands of a religious despotism. It is difficult to understand how the bishop can go there as the enemy of that despotism’s enemies, and still be the friend and well-wisher of the Filipino. It was the oppression, distortion, and dishonor which the Filipinos suffered at the hands of the friars that finally resulted in the loss of the islands to Spain. The church used the state for its own ends, for the enforcement of its own demands. The result was continued rebellion against the government, and its final expulsion; but the "church" is still there—and so are its enemies. The bishop who goes there as the enemy of those enemies goes there as the friend of Rome, an apologist for all she has done in those islands, standing for the principles that lost those islands to the Spanish crown. This bishop will stand for "righteousness in civil life," and will seek to "make civil service what it should be there." But how about the "great commission"? There is no word in regard to that. How about preaching the Gospel there? Purifying the civil service would seem to take precedence over that. The idea of promulgating the Gospel seems to have been buried under the glittering phraseology of a political religion. It is the "civil service" and "American civilization" that are to be the burden of the bishop in his mission to the Philippines—the very duties which the government has placed upon its accredited representatives there. Thus, gradually and almost imperceptibly, the doctrine of the duty of the church to interfere in political affairs is gaining adherents and influence throughout the country. The great church body is being swept from its moorings on the rising tide of a political religion. Here in the home land "civic righteousness" and "American civilization" are usurping the place of the true Gospel in the popular pulpits, till almost every religious duty is given a political turn by such misguided teachers. The truth of God is thus smitten in the house of its supposed friends. The kingdom of God, which Christ declared was "not of this world," is made to appear of this world wholly, with a bare tinge of religious sentiment. It is hardly supposable that a missionary who goes to a foreign people with such a commission in one hand and flaunting a deed of ownership in the other will ever fitly represent Christ, or win for Him the sincere worship of that people. The "missionary" who goes forth with that idea of a missionary’s work is unfitted for the high calling, and might better ask the government to do the work while he remains at home and seeks to learn from the Word of God what his duty is. So with the clergyman who is imbued with political ideas. It were better for the cause of Christ that he remain out of the pulpit until he be endued with a power that is not human and has a message that is not political. There is nothing to indicate, however, that the popular trend will ever be in that direction. The form of godliness is retained; but the power to convert souls is lacking; and the message of God is not in the message that is given by such teachers. It is a sign of our times, and it has its lessons for us.