THE CHURCH
Relief agents working in our great cities usually find that, in answer
to direct questions, the poor are likely to claim connection with some
one of the large denominations, though further acquaintance will often
reveal the fact that this connection is merely nominal. There are, of
course, many poor people that are active church members, but in spite
of the wonderful activity of all branches of the Christian church
during the last fifty years, in spite of the multiplication of missions
and the devotion of many good men and women to their upbuilding, the
fact remains that many of the very poor are still outside the churches.
In trying to explain this, we have to take into account certain
external conditions, such as the natural shrinking of the less
fortunate from social contact, and the migratory habits of the poor;
{167} but another very important factor in this alienation is, I
believe, the preoccupation of the church with material relief and with
those who clamor for it.
Some of the very poor are ready enough to connect themselves with the
church, but, attending its services and receiving its ministrations
with the one idea of getting assistance, it is not too much to say of
them that they are "pious for revenue only." And yet, in saying this,
it is necessary to qualify it at once by the statement that the fault
rests not so much with the ignorant poor as with the multiplied and
rival church agencies that tempt them to hypocrisy and deceit. If the
church could only have a good, wholesome, terrifying vision, and see
itself as the poor see it!
"A friend of mine," writes a London charity worker, "heard two very
respectable women talking. One said, 'Well, Mrs. Smith, how have you
fared this Christmas?' 'Oh, very badly; I had very little relief.'
The other replied: 'Well, Mrs. Smith, it is all your own fault; you
will go and sit in the side aisle of the church, where nobody ever sees
you. If {168} you would sit in front, you would be helped as we all
are.'" Writing of conditions too common in America, Rev. George B.
afford says: "Families transfer their connection from one church to
another, or, with an impartiality rare in other relations, distribute
their representatives among several Sunday-schools or churches, gaining
by pseudo-devout arts what they can from each: Methodist clothing;
Baptist groceries; Presbyterian meat; Episcopalian potatoes; Roman
Catholic rent; Universalist cash, available for 'sundries,'--all are
acceptable to the mendicant pensioner of religious charity. One
family, now at last well advertised, in an eastern city found its
numerous youthful progeny effective leeches as applied to the several
Sunday-schools among which they were distributed. The 'widowed' mother
underwent frequent conversion; the children enjoyed the benefit of as
frequent baptism. On a certain gathering of clergymen of different
churches, when one after another had told the story of his
discomfiture, all joined to congratulate the single representative of
the Baptist denomination present on his happy escape {169} from the
imposture, under which several others had in turn baptized the
children. But from him came the sad confession that he had baptized
the woman herself." [1] In my own city, a family made a small child
not their own a source of income by having it baptized frequently in
different churches, so that three charitable members of three Episcopal
churches were astonished to find, on comparing notes, that they shared
the responsibility of being the child's godmothers.
But it is needless to multiply illustrations; almost every church has a
collection of such experiences, and the bad effects of successful
deception upon the deceivers are apparent enough. I pass to the
important fact that this class of the poor, though numerically
insignificant by comparison with the poor in general, are yet so much
in evidence as the objects of Christian zeal, and the church wastes so
much time in coddling them, that the self-respecting poor often hold
aloof. It is a common thing to hear a poor man say that he is not
going to attend church, and be suspected of {170} trying to get
something. It does not increase his respect for Christians to find
them easily deceived, and it outrages his sense of justice to see that
laziness, drunkenness, and vice are rewarded by church workers. Even
among tramps, the variety known as the "mission bum" is looked down
upon by his fellows, and there is a lesson for the mission worker in
this simple fact.
In writing thus frankly of home missionary work, I am not unmindful of
all the difficulties with which Christian ministers have to contend.
Many of them are as much alive to the dangers of indiscriminate relief
as any one can be, and many of them have risked unpopularity and
misunderstanding to lift their churches out of the tread-mill of
ineffectual, dole-dispensing charities into vital contact with the
needs of the poor. The difficulties of Christian ministers are
twofold. Their first duty is to develop the charitable instincts of
church members, to overcome the selfishness and inertia of the natural
man. When they have succeeded in arousing a desire to do something for
somebody else, they must also furnish ample opportunity for {171} the
exercise of this newly awakened impulse. Now the charitable
development of the individual follows the development of the race; the
individual outgrows slowly, if at all, the sentimental and patronizing
view of poverty. To carry church members beyond this phase and make
them effective workers, genuine powers of leadership are needed, and it
is much easier to let them follow their own devices. We have seen in
the last chapter that relief work, if well done, is the most difficult
of all charitable work, but nine inexperienced workers out of every ten
will think it the best and easiest means of helping the poor--the only
means, in fact.
A difficulty to be reckoned with, and yet one with which it is hard to
have any patience, is the rank materialism that regards relief as a
legitimate means of attracting people to the church. Relief as a
gospel agency has done far more harm than good: you cannot buy a
Christian without getting a bad bargain, and yet, competition among
rival churches working in the same poor neighborhood is so sharp that
even now, in these days of coöperative {172} effort, we find that the
sordid appeal is made. "I call it waste," wrote the late Archbishop of
Canterbury, "when money is laid out upon instinct which ought to be
laid out upon principle, and waste of the worst possible kind when two
or three religious bodies are working with one eye to the improvement
of the condition of those whom they help, and with another eye directed
to getting them within the circle of their own organization. When each
of those religious bodies does so work, say upon a single large family,
and, feeling quite sure of one member of the family, nourishes great
hopes of the rest of the members of the family that they will become
true and orthodox members of their own community, I call that not only
waste--I call it demoralization of the worst conceivable kind, for a
reason which the poet puts thus, 'What shall bless when holy water
banes?' The demoralization produced is the worst possible, because the
highest possible thoughts are used as mere instruments for low ends."
[2]
{173}
One result of using relief as a bribe is that the gift no longer has
for its sole object the relief of distress, or the restoration of the
receiver to independence, and is likely, therefore, to be inadequate.
"One clergyman with whom I remonstrated on the uselessness of giving
1s. when 20s. was needed, said it was impossible for him to do as we
did and give adequate relief, as it would cause jealousy amongst both
district visitors and parishioners if he gave more to one case than to
another, so 2s. 6d. was generally the limit." [3]
In enumerating the natural sources of relief, I have mentioned the
church after relatives, friends, and neighbors. The church is not a
natural source of relief when it becomes a general relief agency,
giving inadequate doles to large numbers of dependents. It is a
natural source of relief for those who have sought its ministrations
from religious motives; when these become dependent, it is the church's
privilege to aid them privately, {174} tenderly, and adequately. Even
beyond its own membership, the church can safely undertake the giving
of material relief, when this is incidental to the carrying out of
other plans for the benefit of the poor; incidental, for instance, to
the work of friendly visiting, with a view to furthering a visitor's
plans for improving a family's condition. But the gift must be free
from the suspicion of proselytizing.
Protestants often criticise the Roman Catholic church for expecting the
very poor to pay toward the support of the church. They criticise, in
their ignorance, one of the wisest measures taken by the Church of Rome
for strengthening its hold upon the people. Poor Roman Catholics are
far more likely than poor Protestants to think of the church as
belonging to them, as a power which exists not only for them but
through them. Wherever the Protestant church has gained an equally
strong hold upon the poor, it has made equal demands upon their loyalty
and self-sacrifice.
After all has been said in objection to past {175} and present methods
of church charity, we must realize that, if the poor are to be
effectually helped by charity, the inspiration must come from the
church. The church has always been and will continue to be the chief
source of charitable energy; and I believe that, to an increasing
degree, the church will be the leader in charitable experiment and in
the extension of the scope of charitable endeavor. In the church or
nowhere we must find acceptance for the methods advocated in this book.
In the church or nowhere we must seek the organized devotion that shall
protect the children of the poor from greed and neglect, that shall
advance sanitary and educational reforms, that shall supply purer and
higher amusements for the people, and shall bring to them more and
more, as time goes on, of the advantages of modern life. The church
has already been the pioneer in such work. In cities where
kindergartens are now a part of the public school system, the first
free kindergartens were supported by the churches, and large charities,
now secularized, were supported by {176} churches until they had passed
the stage of experiment. Secular agencies are still dependent upon the
churches for workers that can bring the right spirit to charitable work.
Instead of multiplying agencies needlessly, the city churches will find
it to the advantage of their spiritual work to keep up vital connection
with city charities. A clergyman who has an active church in one of
our eastern cities, has abandoned the plan of starting separate church
schools, societies, or institutions, realizing that many of these are
unnecessary, and that many others, necessary in themselves, are
inadequately supported. His people are sent instead, according to
their aptitudes, to hospitals, children's charities, societies for
visiting the needy, alms-houses, and homes for the aged. It may be
objected that the shoulder-to-shoulder contact, the strength of
concentration, is lacking in such a plan. But the church holds
frequent congregational meetings, where all who have been detailed to
serve as friendly visitors, hospital workers, etc., report to the
church and to the minister. Each one learns in {177} this way from the
work of the others; weak points in the city's plans for dealing with
the poor are made apparent; and the church is able by united effort to
obtain needed reforms. The work is understood to be a practical
application of the gospel as taught from the church pulpit, and there
is a natural and vital connection between the spiritual and social life
of the church community. Two other advantages are apparent. The
elasticity of the plan makes it possible to find work adapted to many
varying capacities, and all denominational rivalry, all petty jealousy
is avoided.
The friendly visitor from such a church will not visit the poor with a
view to winning them away from other churches to his own. On the other
hand, he will see the importance of some church connection, and will
strive to restore church relations, if they have been severed, by
urging attendance upon the services of the church and Sunday-school to
which the family naturally belongs. He will seek the help of this
church's minister in any plans he may make for furthering the family
{178} welfare, and, in this way, a spirit of coöperation between
churches of different denominations will be encouraged.
I cannot leave this part of my subject without mentioning one other
matter, though it is only indirectly connected with friendly visiting.
The training of ministers in our theological seminaries should include
a thorough course of instruction in charitable work. This would enable
ministers to guide the work of their people in the best channels, and
it would save them, moreover, from the discouragements of the
conscientious worker who is striving to improve social conditions
without any clear conception of the scope and limitations of such
service. There are many clergymen whose experience and opportunities
for study fit them for leadership in an attempt to establish systematic
training, in the seminaries. A demand from the laity for more
experienced direction in church charity would also help to hasten the
introduction of regular seminary courses in applied philanthropy.
[1] "Charities Review," Vol. II, pp. 26 _sq_.
[2] "Occasional Papers of the London Charity Organization Society," p.
35.
[3] Miss Pickton in London "Charity Organization Review," Vol. X, p.
538.
{179}