POLITICS IN THE PULPIT.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE " 11/PECTATOE.")
SIR,—I heartily concur with some of your remarks in the Spectator of February 13th upon this question. Certainly the clergy do not cease to be citizens by reason of their ministerial character, and therefore they are entitled to their opinions on political matters equally with other citizens. Moreover, being guardians of the morality as well as of the faith of their people, there are times, no doubt, when they ought to declare boldly what they believe to be the side of right, if politics and morals seem to be in collision. And when they do thus speak out, the public are often most unreasonable in their denunciations of them for travelling, as it is said, out of their proper province.
Nevertheless, I believe that, as a general rule, we clergy do wisely and rightly in confining ourselves to clear declarations of the principles of Christian conduct, without indicating the particular way in which, in any given case, these prin- ciples are to be applied. For it is just the method of application which has often to be decided upon economical or political considerations, of which the clergy are not authoritative arbiters, and which form the subject of hot party dispute. "Master," said a man to our Lord, "speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me." "Man," was the reply, "who made me a judge or a divider over you ? And he said unto them, Take heed and beware of covetousness." Here he uttered a warning which strikes at the root of most quarrels concerning property. So in disputes between employers and employed, capitalists and workmen; it is surely not the business of the clergy to pre- scribe the exact way or the best way of adjusting wrongs, but to say to both sides : Take heed, beware of covetousness : ye are brethren, and brotherhood must be mutual : let there be forbearance and generosity on both sides: let those who de- claim against the avarice and selfishness of the rich, and cry Divide,' consider whether they themselves would be leer; selfish and less avaricious if they were to get what they ask for: otherwise nothing would be gained.' In like manner, let us on every opportunity earnestly urge upon rulers in the State (whatever the form of government may be, or whatever party is in power), the duty of promoting temperance, purity, and thrift; but the particular methods by which this duty may be best performed, and which must vary according to the circumstances of time and place, it is not the vocation of the clergy to decide. These are not the subjects upon which we have received authority to speak from the pulpit, although in other places we may have as good a right to express our opinions as our fellow-citizens. So, again, to electors we may say : 'Vote honestly for that party or that man which you believe in your conscience to be the best, without yielding to bribery or intimidation ; but which party or which man is really the best, we as clergymen have no authority to deter- mine.'
Moreover, we clergy have to remember that we are the pastors and spiritual teachers of the whole flock committed to our charge, which will probably include persons of all shades of political opinion; and if we were to use our pulpits (without great caution and reserve) as organs of instruction upon questions on which political parties were divided and party feeling ran high, it is only too probable that those members of our congregation who disagreed with us would cease to listen to us when we spoke of more important things,—the moral and spiritual truths which we are commissioned to teach.—I am, Sir, &c., itV. R. W. STEPHENS. Wool beding Rectory, February 15th.
Previous page
