THE LARGE GIFTS OF THE RICH.
By G.
THE donation of $100,000 to the foreign mission cause by Mr. Rockefeller, of Standard Oil fame, and its acceptance by the Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, has given rise to much discussion of the propriety, or impropriety, of accepting money for church purposes that was acquired by the questionable means generally imputed to Standard Oil Trust methods. According to the discussion it would seem that the whole subject hinges on the principle of Christianity's obligation to people who donate to its cause. Now this recognition of an obligation on the part of the church to any one who donates a large sum to the work is the root evil of the whole matter. And about every one who has publicly discussed the subject has recognized this obligation, the question being as to whom or to what class of givers the church can afford to be obliged. Without exception, there is not a denomination of Christians, or a Christian association of any kind, that has not in some way lauded the big givers, thereby acknowledging an obligation. There is not a denomination that has not, in some way, at some time, held up the large donations of the well-to-do as incentives to the poor to give more. It has always been a rare exception when it was not aimed to head a subscription or pledge paper with the larger sums. It has ever been that the common people were urged to give, and to give more, as a matter of duty, without an intimation of obligation to the givers; but the moment a wealthy man adds a large sum, altho small in comparison, the "bouquets" are thrown. It is this very thing that often discourages poor people from giving what they can, yet every one knows that it is the aggregate of small donations by the poor, given in a spirit of self-denial, that swells the treasury of the Christian cause. This voluntary recognition of obligation to large donors has encouraged rich men, and men seeking popular influence, to give largely to professedly Christian enterprises. The church has, altho unwittingly, encouraged the hope that money will buy Christian recognition and Christian support, and that it will also act as a bar to adverse criticism of methods. In other words, the idea has been encouraged that large donations would work out the practical indulgence of questionable ways. This has been especially demonstrated in the illicit intercourse of the liquor traffic with the church. The Rockefeller and kindred examples are simply the climax of acknowledging a false obligation to human donors to the church treasury. If the cause is simply the cause of the church members, then they may acknowledge obligation to whomsoever is willing to help them; but if it be God's cause, He is not under obligation to any one. All that is given by rich or poor is but a return of His own; and we have no right to give the glory to any human being. Were it not for the folly of giving praise to men for their gifts toward religious work, there would be no Rockefeller incidents to discuss. If any class are to receive commendation for their donations, it is the "poor-widow" class, who, in their poverty, make real sacrifice. Christ has set us an example in this. G.