Newspaper Page Text
2 E
TTEARSTS
MDAV AMERICAN’, ATLANTA. ('A. Sl'XDAY, DECEMBER 21 1113
\
By Frederick Townsend Martin.
T HE children of the super-rich are crea
tures of an ahnormaJ environment which
superinduces in them the growth of ir-
rn! llty. Everything ahoi them Is ov-*-
done. too elaborate, even their clothing. They
sec., like little waxen figures, fort d
out in finery In which they ara r-ver comfort
able.
The children of the poor are exposed to the
".eases of poverty, but they are free from the
of prosperity. Money can provide
expert medical ... won erful nurseries,
French and German governesses, splendid
tutors and a rotmue of serv nts. Money may
procure everything that make.^for health a~d
perhaps even beauty, and a degree of culture,
ood traits, rational habits, a bal— d
character, a sweet and wholesome disposition,
cannot be bought any vuere r any price.
Only a simple, rational environment can make
for the development of a rational character.
They are over-stocked with too many things
o interest and amuse them. They become
sated. As a result, their Interest is so dulled
that they do not know- real pleasure. Lite
Is often made monotonous for these little folk.
At the very outset of their lives interest In the
ji'aln and the wholesome Is destroyed. I’pon
them are showered a multitude of strange and
startling devices, so that they literally surfeit
in a sea of evervthanglng extravagance, and
the I- f lid life Is a perpetual debauch In loy-
dom. This fosters In them a false taste, a
craving for reaseleets novelty, everything new
every day, every hour, and each surprise on’v
sharpens their appetites for a greater surprise,
and as they go trom toy to toy they become
utterly tv-ary. Their craving for novelty is so
stimulated that reaction Is inevitable and
becomes stale and flat.
They are over-stimulated and are intoxicated
VInil the strange, the absurd, the extraordinary.
They have no chance to live close to the
common things of Me They do not know v
L ! i^ h r nJoy . th \ s,mple !,nd tL > nPar hand
Everything In their environment fosters a
craving for novelty that normal life cannot
satisfy. And we wonder why they lack poise!
this corrupting of their innocence Is the great
v-st crime of the rich. It is this that develops
In their children a disease that finally gives
t se to a self-indulgent society
It were better by far that they were like
the children of the poor, who have but few toys,
and those home made. If a boy wants a kite,
let him learn how to mako one. He learns
many things in learning how to make a kite.
The boy who Is forced to make his own play
things Is making something out of himself—
Is building his own character by giving ex
presslon to the constructive principle in his
life. Moreover, the boy who makes his own
plavthings not only enjoys, but he earns them.
1 he children of the rich do not earn their
playthings, for they have no hand In making
them: That Is why they do not really enjoy
them. The boy that makes his own playthings
sees in them the expression of his life, his
dreams, his aspirations. He experiences the
ecstasy of the builder, the artist! .The love of
art kindled in his soul, he grows into a beau-
tiful adult life, a factor for good to mankind.
I he environment of all children should tend
to educate their senses, promote a joyous, whole
some interest in simple things, and prepare
them for a life of usefulness. Bii with the
eons of millionaires, who are rlchfy endowed
by the accident of birth, and are brought up In
the midst of great luxury, everything that
forces its way into their consciousness is a
lesson In glittering, material ostentation. They
are trained to a life of Indolence from child
hood, In households conspicuous by money,
where extravagance reigns supreme. By the
time they reach college life they are bent
solely upon pleasure. How can we blame them
for leading the lives of their elders?
Colleges and universities deplore' their Influ
ence. While many of the sons of the less for-
lunate work their way through college, as
waiters, bookkeepers and secretaries, the sons
of the rich are occupied in spending their
abnormal allowances. They ransack the shops
or their college town for the finest of every
thing, and they soon tire of these things, u.s-
card them and make new purchases. They
study the fashion plates more studiously than
science, literature and history. Tailors are
kept busy designing and making all (sorts of
eccentric clothing.
I have heard some of them remark, "No gen
tleman can wear the same suit twice," though
we know that only a gentleman can wear an
old coat gracefully. They must have the fast
est and the most cosily automobiles, and with
these they risk their lives and menace the lives
or others in a drunken frenzy for speed. Thev
lead a life of Intemperance* and in their
drunken brawls they often smash the furnish
ings of the drinking shops they visit. They
do not fear prosecution, b ause they have
the price to pay the cost, and feel themselveJ
above the law.
They are on the down-grade all the time,
while all around them the sons of the merely
well-off, or even nf the poor, are gathering
knowledge, and rise above them and outshine
w.em In learning.
It Is a common place that, some of these
poor boys find relief from their financial strug
gles In the ignorance and the drunken stupid
Ity of the rich, for they often support them
selves by coaching these "gentlemen." Intem
perance is the keynote of their life. They are
Intemperate in eierything, in pleasure. In what
they eat, in their wearing apparel, in thrir
habits, even in their hopes. Thy forever con
template themselves above others, although
they lack the Intelligence as well ds the stick-
to-itlveneas of those they deem their inferiors.
Their snobbishness is born of such stupidity
that It causes them to look down upon their
betters. They seem to be incapable of realiz
ing that they themselves are the Inferiors.
What an awful environment is that which
causes people to think tnemselves gupe-
rior simply because of their material
po slons! What a tragedy it Is to have
more honor than he deserves! I blame (hem
not. I merely explain and call atten
tion to the causes of their downfall.
I condemn their environment, for I fully
realize that they are victims. What else can
be expected from young men that have ob
served parents In their lavishness erect a
theatre lor a single performance, only to have
it torn down the next day, or a ballroom at a
cost of *o0,000, torn down after a single er
ing's entertainment.
To them the all-important fact in life is that
are the sons of magnates, destined to In
' ""It an inexhaustible fortune. It is this, in
their consciousness, that makes them so seu-
satlsfled that they come out of college emptv-
headed, vain and vacant-minded, gullible and
easily fooled. Ever fawned upon, their ego be
comes so enormously inflamed that they s -ffer
from exaggerated silliness. They give a ready
- to every flattering tongue, and become tne
of toadies. They succumb easily to all
' of snares openly spread at their feet by
those that live upon the stupidity of the rich-
sponges, blackmailers, gamblers, chorus girls ’
Then comes the great fortune bequeathed hv
their fathers, which only aggravates their
spending proclivities until their vocation of
spending money degenerates into a ir-»--la
Spending money Is under certain circumstances
a necessity as well as an interesting occupa
tion. I regard It as a task of selection to
which great powers may be devoted with
effect of forming out of the chaos of the world’s
i' ■ *-
M
■fxr '
Mr. Frederick Townsend Mertin.
Copyright by Puffer.
materials a desirable and ordered property, or
of wresting rare experiences from the world.
That was the task of their fathers, but the
splendid qualities that made it possible lor
them to amass their great fortunes, those
qualities are dissipated In their sons, who are
mere debauchees, crazed by their abnormal
pc tsslons.
The enormous wealth wrested from the work
ers of the nations and showered upon these
young coxcombs but engrosses them in a lue-
destroying pursuit of spending their inexhaust
ible treasures. The moral fiber of the best can
hardly withstand the deteriorating effects of
luxurious living. What qf those that are con
stantly puzzled to discover novel forms of
''cormously costly amusement? Tn them every
good Impulse is strangled, every high hope
blighted, every noble aspiration crushed. They
can but crave to be fashionable, and only that
Is recognized by them as fashionable whl'h
must necessarily be expensive.
Lacking good sense, they lack good taste.
They see beauty only in glittering display and
the vulgar and the spectacular. They get hap
piness only out of enormous lavishness. It
hurts me to think of the sordid details of what
are considered by the richest as magnificent
functions, for it always brings before my
mind’s eye the indescribable sufferings of the
poor.
I never see their millton-dollar mansions,
most of the time unoccupied, In charge of a
retinue of servants, without recalling the
wretched derelicts of humanity whose only
- and place of rest is a bench In a city
"ark. «
- ns In their childhood they regarded the
worlu as a mere toy shop, so everything in
their environment up from their childhood has
brought them to a "manhood” which causes
then to regard life as mere play, and the world
as a mere playground made for their especial
amusement. If they could but pluck the stars
out of the heavens!
They must have enormous yachts, practi
cally ocean steamships—floating temples of
gastronomy—with all the luxuriouso"-* of
Fifth avenue mansions; expensive banquets,
the best and purest and most expensive wines,
-itric meals, preposterous feasts, exquisite
decorations, elaborate service, lavish entertain
ments, flowers by the boatloads; mere favors
to guests at a single yacht fete may easily
cost $10,000. Private cars are insufficient.
They must have special trains, marvelously
upholstered motor cars. One well-known young
millionaire of sporting proclivities considers
that he is economical when he keeps In use
but seven automobiles. Indeed, with a less
number he would feel himself somewhat at a
loss to meet his dally requirements of trans-
-tation and amusement.
- of the cars are racing mr" v >'nes, pur
chased at thirteen and sixteen thousand
lars, respectively; the latter Is of grfeater horse
power. One, a $30,000 touring car, |;as a suite,
a completely equipped lavatory, wasns.and,'
running water, supplied from a tank: —
quarters in the form of seats which are con
vertible into beds, and into the walls are in
serted mirrors, shallow cupboards to contain
brushes, combs and towels, a cigar case and
- lighter, and there are also an eseri'Mre,
a place for blankets and linen, and also an ica
chest—literally a palace on wheels.
I know another who maintains thirty auto-
. discards several of them every year
■ new ones that are spick and span, manned
with flunkies dressed in crimson satin, white
- -tackings, golden knee buckles and pow-
dered wigs.
The sentiments wh. give rise to such
boundless luxury are vanity, sensuality and an
exaggerated instinct of adornment, but the
greatest of these is vanity, the desire to
be talked about, and to appear of more im
portance than others. They 'orever flaunt
their luxurious possessions In the face of the
less fortunate, In whose minds they create
Imaginary needs, exaggerating their real wants,
diverting them from thelr*true needs, fostering
prodigality In society, offering through the
senses a satisfaction of self-love that puffs up,
but does not nourish the heart, and which
presents to others a picture of happiness to
which they can never attain. I know of one
couple (he with an Income of $50,000 and she
of $320,000) who admitted that they could
scarcely make both. ends meet on $1,000 a day,
and were so desperately driven to pay the
bills that they actually issued a statement
through the newspapers to appease the clamor
ing of the shopkeepers.
This absurd and .needless extravagance re
sults In the expenditure of vast sums of money
to no rational purpose. It destroys dally the
product of years of labor without bri"-;lng any
real satisfaction to the owner. This deplorable
pitch of luxury and flagrant misuse of wealth
always has its counterpart In obvious misery.
The people are bled to the bone to furnish the
means of ostentation, only to be made mad by
the sight of luxury which taunts their misery.
All this lavish expenditure is born of a snob
bishness at once contemptible and the enemy
of all progress. Th'- snobbishness has eiven
rise to i. hierarchy of ostentation wich dazzles
the Imagination with a magnificence greater
than any that can be found in the courts of
kings. A splendor such as man has not wit
nessed sin. the fall of Rome.
^ hy Preachers Go Wrong?”—Reprinted from the Baptist Standard
1 his Rather Surprising Article, Under the Title of “Whv
I)o Preachers Go Wrong?” Was Printed in the Baptist
Standard of ( hicago. one of the Leading Religious Or-
gans of the Baptist Church, with the Editorial Announce-
^ h at the Article Was Written hy a Contributor
W ho Is Himself a Preacher.” v
By A Preacher.
Reprinted from (he Baptist Standard.
D O ministers of the churches, that 1*.
clergymen, priest* and preachers, go
wrong in any greater proportions than
do doctors, lawyers or teachers? If one an
swers the question mathematically, no; If one
a-swer* the question In the light of i
standards for ministers of the gospel, the nega
tive answer will not be so readily and decided
ly given. There are few issues of the daily
newspaper w-lthout at least a single item nar
rating the fall of a clergyman. It would be
hard to find a man or a woman who has not at
some time In life become personally acquainted
with a professed exponent of rellgiouR truths
and high moral Ideals who has demonstrated
the depths of human depravity.
Yet the Indictment against the profession Is
of a much more subtle character than that
found In journalistic annals of crime or even
In personal knowledge of gross faults on the
part of clergymen. It would be folly to deny
that, taken as a class, ministers live lives as
pure and as free from criminal or grossly Im
moral taint as any other class of persons. The
indictment takes rather the form of a general
impression, amounting almost to n convlctli m
that the minister does not have the clear r.
and high standards which the business wo
demands.
Business men feel that there Is somet:
about the "cloth'' that makes Its wearer'll
' uoubtful proposition” when it comes to square
dealing between men. A prominent lawyer in
Chicago said, only the other day, "I dread see
ing a clergyman enter my office; I do not want
bis business; he does not have the commer
cial honor of the man of affairs." He went on
to give Instances of ministers who disregarded
th"lr business obligations and even Ignored Ihe
sanctity of the oath at the bar of justice.
it is a well-knoVn fact among houses ac
customed to extend credit that ministers are
the slowest to pay and the most difficult from
whom to collect. In the smaller tow-ns it
would be difficult to find a grocer without an
ected account against some minister who
had left the place. Over five years ago such
a preacher boasted in his farewell sermon that
all his bills were paid In the village, and he
owed not any man '; he should have said that
he had paid not any man, and some of hii
tills are still unpaid.
A charitable organization in Chicago allowed
a minister in a village nearby to become In
ti-hted to it. He promised to pay the small
account at a certain date; but a year from tuat
i.me. although many letters had been written,
jhe bill was unpaid. Nor was settlement made
until this prominent minister on a good salary
W.-3 sent a sight draft for the amount.
A struggling professor in an Eastern citv
coaientea to pick out a few books for a
preacher up state and to have them charged to
nli own account, being assured that payment
would be made at once. The books were sent
Du: the cash never was forthcoming, and, after
a lengthy correspondence. In which many ex
cuses were offered, the professor had to cc - •
ins loss at the price he had paid for a lesson
in trusting the "cloth.”
Such evidence could be extended indefinitely
The facts back of it. with the many other In
stances of which these few are hut slightly in
d:native, have produced the decided opinir-i In
the business world that the minister is unre
liable and that the ministry does not stand of
r "ssity for admirable manliness.
There are many exceptions. The manly,
f — --v.-are mlnlste-s are u,r mere noticeable
because they are exceptional. There ar -.1,1
more Ministers who are warmly admired by
their congregations, hut they are admired
rather for professional traits and pulpit graces
than for the rugged virtues that count on the
street and In the store and office. On the
whole men of honor feel that to-day it Is no
honor to he entitled "Reverend * 1 * * * ; the average
man looks somewhat askance at the clergy
man.
Berhaps this Is nowhere better Illustrated
,rrn when a minister leaves his profession and
desires to enter business. He finds there a
strong prejudice against his past; it Is regard
ed as unfitting him for work. When such a
man goes Into an office experience shows that
he Is likely to lack the qualities that make for
trustworthiness In details in the individual and
for harmony In a large force of employes.
N’ow If the business of the minister Is to
teach the people how to live he ought at least
to know how to do it himself. His principles
\ r « V “ ,U *'* 8S . lf fhev will not stand the wear
ofda »Y llfe - Is the trouble with the teachings,
with the message, or Is it with the man him-
sell?
The first reason ministers go wrong Is be
cause they are men. They are not angels;
hey are not the reincarnated Ideal saints that
tne sisters and the sisterly brethren like to
think they are. Because they are men they
have human frailties. But, while that does ac
count for the fact that ministers steal and
break the express commandments the same as
other men. It does not account for the fact that
they are held below par In commercial esteem,
the hypocrite. So long as there are the Inten
tional pretenders and the unconscious hypo
crites In the church they will enjoy the min
istry of the pretender and hypocrite. So long
as the churches say, "There's notuing either
gt 1 or 111 but seeming makes It so.” the man
w ho can-emcceed In fooling the people with ap
pearances of virtues, with saintly air and pious
phrase will be the man who reaches the top
of his profession.
Then no mortal being can stand for long the
fawning and adulation which the preacher is
likely to receive, especially from foolish and
emotional women. He Is sure to come to be
lieve that he is a superior being, one wno
either can do no wrong or can do only right.
Steady feeding on flattery unfits him for sound
counsel regarding his shortcomings; he gets
into the habit of Judging his own actions, not
hy any undeviating principles, but by the
measure of praise they receive.
There are peculiar temptations Incident to
the work of any man who appears to weak
minds as a demi-god on- occasions, w-h-s* work
makes unusual demands on his nerve forces,
and who Is obliged to work almost exclusively
with women. There is not only the temptation
to llceflse In personal virtue coupled with op
portunity In pastoral visitation, there is the
tendency to conformity to feminine standards,
so that the man becomes womanly and usually
a poor kind of an old woman at that.
Mere preaching puts a tremendous strain on
a man s moral fibre. It is the habitual state
ment of duties and ideals w-hich the preacher
knows he does not reach and do. It is the
e-oression of the phrases of character, not
necessarily accompanied with their expression
in living and doing. It results in the mental
habit of considering a duty done as soon as it
is declared. It exhausts the moral iiynetu3
in phrases. It makes the man act the lie.
Intellectual dishonesty results from habitual
standing as a special pleader; as the defender
or ground which has not been honestly, can
didly examined. The preacher seldom goes
bac» to the evidence; he argues from the con
clusions of others. He stands as an authority
in that in which he frequently has made no
original, unprejudiced examination.
Intellectual dishonesty comes as a result of
cowardice in regard to the declaration of his
own honest convictions. He is perhaps uncon
sciously persuaded to tiach what the church
teaches rather than what he would teach if
he gave himself a chance to think. Creeds
may be small matters, after all. but the teach
ing of a creed in xvhlch we do not believe is no
small matter in Its effects on the teacher.
There are many- potent reasons for fearing a
heresy trial—often the thought of his children’s
hungry mouths and bare backs Is one reason.
It is a good deal easier to admire the men who
went to the stake for a conviction than it is to
follow them. The truth is, no minister who Is
honest with himself and who declares what he
fully believes will have any reason to fear.
The church may cast him out, but he will
find a thousand voices and hearts to echo to
any honest truth In his own.
Often the preacher is so dead ^iure that his
motive Is right that he does not stop to ex
amine sufficiently his method. He wants to
save souls, and lf he can Go It, as It seems
to him, by crooked means more quickly than
by straight ones, then he takes the crooked
wav. He wants to build a church—lf he can
build it quicker by misrepresentation, by
double dealing, by beating any one, he thinks
Mr. Chesterton Disputes Bernard Shaw’s Code of Morals.
George Bernard Shaw, in the Magazine
Section last week, gave a lively defense
of the plays and dances on the London
„ M.r.ca Lie Bishop of Kensington de
nounced. Gilbert K. Chesterton now en
ters the lists.
By GILBERT K. CHESTERTON.
T HE boards of the music hall stage are
still shaking with the extraordinary
dance of those three highly incongru
ous characters who ha\e recently performed
a pas de trois before the footllght—Miss Gaby
Deslys, Mr. Bernard Shaw and the Bishop of
Kensington, lf I myself mount the stage and
join the dance, it is largely in the hope that lf
I do the whole stage will collapse.
1 do not particularly agree, or even disagree,
with anybody In the discussion. To tell the
truth, I never heard of Miss Gaby Deslys,
which shows the narrow sphere In which each
of us moves; and 1 think it very probable t' t
she never heard of me or of Mr. Bernard Shaw,
either; still less of the Bishop of Kensington
I do not mention the probability as any intel
lectual disparagement of her. but merely as
an act of moral chastisement for myself. But
1 should like to say something about the ethi
cal attitudes of tile other parties, so far as I
think I comprehend them.
So far as 1 understand the Bishop of Ken
sington's line of argument (and I admit I have
not followed it carefully), he holds, very right
ly, that the Church should watch against an.v-
think likely to lower the moral standard of
human dignity and decency; and also that it
should appeal to what used to be called the
Secular Arm. the civil Institutions of the State,
such as the Censor, to avenge any such inva
slons of civilized reticence.
So far as 1 understand Mr. Shaw’s position.
It is that the Christian Church Is bound, of
course, to criticise and Inspire, but that, In par
ticular and practical Instances. It Is very diffi
cult to decide whether the effects of any per
formance are moral or Immoral, because all
A Playful Caricature of Bernard Shaw
human beings vary. Good things can be abused,
and even bad things can be used—which
is a yet more confusing fact He compares
sexual excitement to religious excitement, and
suggests that It would be extremely difficult
to disentangle the really devout persons to
whom a religion had done good, from the mere
ly hysterical people to whom it had done harm.
Those seem to be the positious. roughly
speaking, of the Bishop and the dramatist.
With the philosophy and moral theories of
Miss Deslys 1 am not acquainted; but if (as Is
barely possible) she would regard both these
two moral theories by themselves, as unsatis
fying, I think she would he right. I never saw
Le.r much-discussed performance, but it seems
to me quite tenable that she Is the best moral
ist of the three.
With the most genuine respect for the
Bishop, and wjth an inexhaustible admiration
for Mr. Shaw, | wish to tell them that thev uo
not realize the time thev are living in. It Is
not a nice time; but it is frightfully exciting,
ft only started being exciting a few years ago.
And a few years hence we shall be killed or
cured. Very probably half of us will be killed
and the rest cured, as has happened often
enough in the hlstorv of our comic but coura
geous species. But 1 am quite certain of n--e
thing that the crisis that is coming, in art
and sex as much as everything else, cannot be
dealt with either by the mere Puritan legal!" >
of the Bishop of Kensington or bv the mere
artistic anarchism of the atfthor of ‘ You Never
Oan Tel!.’’
Take Mr. Bernard Shaw- first. When he' savs
In substance; “It is very difficult to distinguish
between healthy and dirty sex sentiment; but
so It Is to distinguish between heroic religion
and hysteric religion,” 1 should answer “G. B.
S.” somewhat thus: Yes; It is very difficult;
hut especially difficult when you have deliber
ately abolished all the weights and measure,
denied the existence of any tables or standards,
torn up all the ready-reckoners and smashed
all the working instruments that the practical
wit of man has made.
It Is especially difficult if you have begun
by writing “Quintessence of.Ibsenism.” It Is
especially difficult if you have started by
saying "The Golden Rule Is that there is no
Golden Rule.” It is especially difficult if you
start with the assumption that all your an
cestors were wild asses in a desert of how” g
ignorance, and all their ideals were fetishes and
fanciful taboos. It Is especially difficult if
you systematically leave out the possibility
that humanity may have had a little experience
of morality—especially of bad morality. This
seems to me carrying too far the principle of
A'ou Never Can Tell.”
Human codes are faulty, like human clocks.
But to smash all the clocks and then say, dog
matically, “You never can tell the time.” affects
me as unreasonable. Ideals may be doubtful,
as the stars may be dim. But to blacken all
the stars out, and then declare that no one
has ever steered a boat by them Is slightly fal
lacious. There was a French atheist, I think,
who recently informed the Chamber that he
had succeeded in putting out all the lights of
heaven. I think he must have made a mis
take somewhere, for T have seen stars on sev
eral subsequent occasions.
But I do not think even that atheist would
have been so little of a rationalist as to re
duce the dome of heaven to everlasting dark
ness, and then say it was beyond human intel
ligence to distinguish between the sun and the
moon. So It is with the really indecent art or
the really insane religion. All those compli
cated moral tests of which "G. B. S.” has al
ways complained were a part of the science of
morality. The object of them was to distin
guish between decent and indecent sex senti
ment. The whole of those theological tests to
which he objects were part of the science of
religion. The object of them was to distin
guish between sincere and hysterical religion.
I deny that you never can tell. I deny that
nobody can draw- the line between fan and
. Priapus. between Rabelais and Zoia. But I say
that wherever you draw a line you must write
a line. It must be a clear definition, and.
therefore, a creed. It is growing more neces
sary with every step of the modern peril. There
have been rare royal courts (fortunately rare)
where men were as irresponsible as Nero. There
have been despotisms without discipline. But
nobody has ever managed to have a revolution
without discipline.
But if the artist is not to be trusted, still less
is the censor. That is where the Bishop does
not know the time he lives in. He calls on Gov.
ernment and the panic-stricken, compromising
creatures of modern government. He appeals
to Caesar to defend morality. Well, he is ap
pealing to Nero to defend morality. If the
modern State did really intervene to impose a
standard of sex-discussion It would be the
standard now existing among mosj statesmen.
It would be based on the way in which poli
ticians of both parties talk to each other. At
its best It would be the music hall song and the
smoking room story. At its worst it would be
things that justify the parallel with Nero.
The Bishop must be made to understand that
his religion has returned to its best and noblest
and most disagreeable days. It Is not appeal
ing to a Christian society; it is defying a pagan
one. But It has this enormous advantage on its
side, as it had In the time of Nero: that Chris
tianity has something to say, and paganism has
nothin; to say. The Bishop, I am sure, will act
on Christian principles. The censor, I am cer-
tain, will act on pagan ones.
only of the church, and that overweighs any
other consideration.
Take the matter of ministers (and others,
too) lying in the stories and illustrations they
tell. We have all heard preachers tell as hap
pening to them some incident which we rc:..i
when we were boys; perhaps before they were
born. The man is so carried aw-ay with de
sire to impress the truth on you that he con
sents to lie to make the illustration more per
sonal and forceful. That makes It none tne
less a lie; but after he has told it that wav a
lew times he forgets that it is a lie.
One of the principal reasons for the disre
spect in which the preacher is often regarded
by the business world lies In the shamefully
unbusinesslike manner in which the preacher
has been treated in regard to compensation for
his work. If his work is worthless why not
say so and tell him to get out. and do some
thing worth while? If it is worth doing then
he ought to be paid sufficient for a living with
out being compelled to become a cadger and a
pauper.
The old donation party may have had a good
beginning, but it has had a'bad effect on the
minister’s character. Add to the moral results
of being compelled to digest frozen potatoes,
wooden turnips and other donation specimens
the experience of being forced into the atti
tude, at least annually, of a beggar, and one
will begin to appreciate the difficulty lie
preacher has in maintaining his self-respect.
When one makes it hard for a man to respect
him self, how long is one likely to resr--^ him
When the man in the pulpit Is dependent for
his daily bread on the tolerance and ood will
of the man in the pew; when he feels that he
may get butter on his bread or even a little
cake now and then if he can only get In the
good graces of that smug old sinner sitting
down there, it Is easy to see how he has been
tempted to fawn on him, how he has been
tempted to speak of the old humbug’s robbery
of the widow and the orphan as one of the
achievements of modern commerce and civil
ization. It has always been “hard hitting the
devil over the back If you are feeding under
his belly.”
The preacher In the country and in the old
days could get along very well between the
neighborly gifts he received and the produce
of his little farm or garden when these were
added to his small salary. But when, without
■increase of salary that same man is placed in
the city in our days of swollen prices for neces-
"ies ne is bard put to It to keep out of deui
remain honest in the ministry. TT„ao r the
pressure some men have turned to crooked
schemes, to selling mining stock and otaer
bogus Investments, and some have gone out of
the ministry. But the greater number have
stayed in and are working hard to make ends
meet and to stay straight.
Ministers have gone "wrong because thev
have not been trained right in their profes
sional schools; they have been educated only
for oratorical labor, and that with the intent
of persuading men to certain things by dint
of tneir eloquence. What seminaries are gl*
Jr courses corresponding to those In other
professional schools on professional ethics?
They have gone wrong in instances because
their employers, the people, have not tr-—*' 1
them right, have not given them a fair —'-e
to live right; they have paid f hem. and are
paying them, less than we pay mechanics and
clerks, and yet they expect the minister to live
according to their social standards.
When the people who employ the ministers
will give them an honest return for their
work, when they will also encourage them to be
honest in their preaching and teaching, there
will be fewer unworthy ministers. When the
theological schools get out of their shells and
Into the cities, and the preachers get out of
their cloth and among folk, when they take
off their garments of sanctimoniousness anu
get busy helping and leading others to better
living, and to making this world a better place
to live in, the ministers will be a good many
notches higher In the world’s esteem. It is'
needless to say there are a great many min-
)' '••ev have made good in these ways.
; 1
l
B| (
;
» (*