By CLINTON ROGERS WOODRUFF

ERVICE, service to man is the keynote of the social service movement, which is really as old as the Christian Church. Jesus Christ came to disclose to men the principles and eternal truth of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of men; to show to men the way to their Father; but He came to do very much more, and while on earth He constantly occupied Himself with those things which had to do with the amelioration of human suffering and the uplifting of human society. When the first disciple, imprisoned and discouraged, sent to inquire whether He were indeed the Christ, He did not reply by reminding him that He Himself had seen the Spirit of God descending in bodily shape upon Him, that he had heard a voice from the clouds saying "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,' but He sent back the answer: "Go and show John these things which ye do see and hear; the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached unto them." His few years of life on earth were constantly occupied in work for the help of his fellowmen. St. John had told the publican his duty as an officer of the civil government; he had told the soldier what he should do as an employee of the state; Jesus did more, He told the rich young ruler, who from his youth up had obeyed the existing civil and social law and lived in accordance with its precepts, what he must do to be perfect, and that command involved action not apparently of a spiritual but of a social nature.

And if His church is indeed organized to do His work, that church unless it is utterly faithless to and forgetful of her purposes must not only teach the individual to realize his personal relation to God, and his personal duty towards the man who stands next him, but his duty as a member of the society in which he lives.' How is the Church to do this asks Senator Gardner in the pamphlet to which I have just referred. First, she must cultivate the wish to help all men and in every way, and convince men that she really means it. The Church must study and learn how to help.

In this connection it may be interesting to quote the resolution which Mr. Gardner introduced and which General Convention (I think it was that of 1916, or was it 1913?) passed. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS, The moral and spiritual welfare of the people demands that the highest possible standard of living should everywhere be maintained and that all conduct of industry should emphasize the search for such higher and more human forms of organization as will genuinely elicit the personal definite stake in the system of production to which the worker's life is given; and

WHEREAS, Injustice and disproportionate inequality as well as misunderstanding, prejudice, and mutual distrust as between employer and employee are widespread in our social and industrial life today:

Therefore, Be It Resolved, The House of Bishops concurring, that we, the members of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church, do hereby affirm that the Church stands for the ideal of social justice, and that it demands the achievement of a social order in which the social

1 See address of Hon. Rathbone Gardner, "Social Righteousness and the Power of the Church to Proclaim," Christian Social Union Publication, No. 35, 1897.

cause of poverty and the gross human waste of the present order shall be eliminated, and in which every member shall have a just return for what he produces, a free opportunity for self-development, and a fair share in all the gains of progress. And since such a social order can only be achieved progressively by the efforts of men and women who in the spirit of Christ put the common welfare above private gain, the Church calls upon every communicant, clerical and lay, seriously to take part in the study of the complex conditions under which we are called upon to live, and so to act that the present prejudice and injustice may be supplanted by mutual understanding, sympathy, and just dealing, that the ideal of a thoroughgoing democracy may be fully realized in our land.

In these resolutions, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, we have one of those concise statements of fundamental principles that spring out of profound conviction and represent a milestone on the path of progress. They embody a social gospel that our priests should preach on every suitable occasion and which our social service departments-general, provincial and diocesan-should make the basis of their work. On analysis they will be found to be sufficiently broad and comprehensive to cover all practicable propaganda work. "The highest possible living standards" -how far reaching in its significance! How much it involves! If the church could but establish them forthwith, how far we would have progressed! It involves housing, city planning, child welfare, insurance (old age, sickness, accident), and all the lengthening list of welfare activities to which fortunately so much attention is being given, and especially by church agencies.

To return to our main argument: the church must teach that Christianity is not a state of mind, but a life. The clergy in addressing their parishioners must not allow them to rest under the delusion that by leading a blameless personal life, by being assiduous in their attendance upon the services of the church, by refraining from wronging other men, they are doing their whole duty as the followers of Jesus Christ; they must teach them that it is only by action, action following the example of their divine Master, action along the lines of bettering the condition and broadening the lives of every child of God who lives on earth today, by the methods by which today this work must be done, that they can hope to receive the commendation "Well done," which will secure to them a life of happiness in the world to

come.

In commenting on the recent report on the steel strike issued by the Interchurch Federation, The Outlook had this to say:

It has always been easy for the Church to persuade itself that it is exceptionally well fitted to assume the judge's robe; but experience has repeatedly shown that when the Church has attempted to do this it has brought injury not only upon itself but upon the cause for which it exists. It has failed when it has attempted to exercise the judicial function even in the field that would seem to be peculiarly its own-the field of faith and moral conduct. It failed when it had behind it the power of the state— whether it was a Roman Catholic state in Europe or a Puritan state in America. It failed because it is not the business of the members of the Church as such to judge their fellowmen. This the Church might have learned from its Master. "And one of the company said unto him, 'Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me.' And he said unto him, 'Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" When the Church assumes the judgeship, it attempts a function which its Master himself disclaimed.

In a case like that of the steel strike, the Church, in attempting to judge, is starting to do something it has no power to complete. It has no power

to summon or swear witnesses or to compel answers. The evidence it gathers is only such as those will accept who will to believe it. It cannot provide means for the cross-examination of witnesses except as means are voluntarily provided by those whom it purports to try. It has no power to enforce its decision and no right to expect that its decision will be accepted as just. It has no ground even for its assumption of the role of judge except its belief in its own impartiality and its own motives-an assumption that is perilously near to self-righteousness.

The late Dr. Amory H. Bradford illustrated this idea in a somewhat different way.' He related that one of the Swamis, who was in the United States in 1897, acknowledged to him that there are immoralities and vices connected with the temple worship in India; but he added: "The temple worship is one thing and religious teaching is another thing." "That is precisely my point," replied Dr. Bradford, "Jesus identified religion and life. A man may hold all the creeds, but he might better hold none, if he is envious, cruel or impure. An orthodox creed is the condemnation, not the salvation, of a bad man. If worship is one thing and conduct another, all the animal tendencies will befoul action; if worship and ethics are bound together as the roots and branches of a tree, religion will always bear fruit in righteous character."

Christianity's superiority to other religions, he continued to point out, is manifest in what it does for the temporal life of man. The difference between the people of Japan, China, India, Africa, and the semi-Christian nations is sometimes ascribed to the influence of physical environment. Climate counts for much. Sustained effort in the tropics is difficult. Indolence and vice seem to be peculiar to sunny lands. Large parts of China, Japan and Africa, where the

2 "Does the World Need Christianity?"