During several weeks recently Elizabeth City was set on its ears by a controversy between W.O. Saunders, editor of the Independent, and Rev. M.F. Ham, revivalist.
The revivalist set out to defame Julius Rosenwald, the eminent philanthropist of Chicago. Saunders produced a mass of evidence to prove that Ham’s accusations were false, and he carried through the exposure in thorough fashion.
It is noteworthy that some of the most outspoken supporters of the editor are prominent Baptists. The head of the Baptist ministers’ organization in Chicago made a statement that Ham’s statements were cruel and untrue. Collier Cobb, a leading member of the Baptist church here in Chapel Hill, wrote the following letter to the Elizabeth City Editor:
“I wish to thank you for the good service you have rendered to the cause of true religion by showing up the chicanery of the evangelist (Heaven save the name from such as he!) who has been afflicting the state and your city with his ‘revivals.’”
And in the first issue of Charity and Children after the close of Ham meetings in Elizabeth City, Archibald Johnson, a Baptist who is admired and respected throughout the state, published a scathing criticism of what he called “professional evangelism.” Mr. Johnson did not mention anybody by name but there can be no doubt that Ham was one of those he had in mind. He wrote:
“For a quarter of a century or more professional evangelism has been a business of large profits. A bright man with a big tent needed no other capital to make excellent dividends. Quite a number of brethren have grown rich, and others would have been independent but for habits of extravagance which they learned in the opulent and prosperous circles in which they moved. “Of course there have been failures by men who did not have the mental capacity to hold the job down. It takes a man of parts to sustain himself in a series of sermons delivered to great multitudes from day to day for a period of six weeks or two months.
“However, the signs point to a turning of the tide against the profession. The evangelist had the advantage of the prestige of the Christian ministry to back him in the early years of the profession. Everybody respected the preacher, and their high regard for the sacred calling shielded him from criticism and gave him wide liberty to say and do just about what he pleased. Some of them abused this confidence by transgressing the bounds of propriety and becoming censors of not only the sins of men, but of their habits and customs as well.
“As an instance, an evangelist well known in North Carolina in a Washington church rudely reproved a group of young ladies and impaled them before a great congregation for appearing in public with their hair bobbed. Now the way these girls wore their hair was none of that preacher’s business. He went entirely out of his domain to humiliate them for wearing their hair according to their own taste; and they warmly resented his meddling in their business.
“This way of dipping into the private affairs of people by these self appointed ‘higher critics’ has disgusted the public, and the day of the tent evangelist with his expensive retinue is about over.
“As a general thing, the professional evangelist is a poor preacher. They are fine entertainers, but they know little and care less about unfolding a text and discovering its inner meaning. They are past masters at lambasting somebody, and for the most part this is the core of the sermon. They are also quite humorous and their sermons are spiced with wit. They prefer the language of the street to the language of Zion.
“They have done more to lower the tone of the ministry than all the scorners and skeptics who ever lived. The church or the community that invites one of these high rolling preachers usually does not get the worth of their money. Thousands of dollars are spent and precious few join the churches and enlist in active service. Pastors should call brother pastors to their assistance when they need it, and let professionals severely alone.”
From the editorial page of The Chapel Hill Weekly, Thursday, Dec. 11, 1924. Louis Graves, Editor.
newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/sn92073229/1924-12-11/ed-1/seq-2/
No comments:
Post a Comment