Preface
It goes without saying that the minister is a Christian and it goes with this saying that he is a gentleman. This is the base line of the code which we propose to assemble in the following pages. We accept it as an axiom that every minister is a Christian gentleman.
It has long been a belief of the writer that the true Christian will always know how to conduct himself everywhere. We do not mean that the moment a man or minister is consecrated to God he will automatically know ‘‘which fork to use first,’’ or “‘what is wrong with this picture.’’ The fashion of this world changeth, and so do the pretty—and petty—little customs that prevail among ladies and gentlemen. But beneath the whole gamut of matters discussed in the ‘Blue -Book’’—knives and forks, soup and fish, the cutting of cabbages and the treatment of kings—there are a few deep principles, and these principles, the postulates upon which gentlemen act, are not far from a Christian ethic. A gentleman may not be a Christian, but a Christian must be a gentleman. If worldly-wise sinners can achieve a high plane of courtesy and honor, surely the men of God can do no less. We have seen old mountain preachers, ignorant of all the usages of polite society, but, saturated with the grace of God through years of service, they showed forth in face and bearing a graceful tenderness and air of Christian courtliness that the halls of Versailles might well have envied. Unselfishness, or a pretense at it, underlies the whole code of proper conduct in the “‘ Blue Book”’;
but with the Christian it may not be pretense. Taking thought for others is the essence of ministerial ethics and etiquette.
Perhaps it was the instinctive and hopeful desire to realize this ideal which prevented until quite recently any appearance of a specific formulary or outward code of ministerial ethics. Certainly there has never been any binding code of ethical conduct drawn up for the ministry, and in the nature of things perhaps there never can be. ‘It (the ministry) is the oldest profession in the history of mankind, and yet has no carefully worked-out schedule of professional work nor of ministerial ethics. There is no profession in which his relations to his fellow men and coworkers is so loosely defined.”! Rev. S. Z. Batten, D.D., explained this as due to the fact that the ministry is more of a calling than a profession. ‘‘The standards of the ministry include the personal and private life, whereas professional codes deal primarily with professional conduct.”’ This is entirely true, and yet we believe the objection to a binding code of ministerial ethics goes far deeper. The following reasons briefly stated will be clearly recognized as sufficient to block any attempt to establish a general binding code of ministerial ethics, and will make any work upon the subject merely suggestive.
1. It is impossible to get general agreement among ministers on points having to do with ethics and morals. We have many churches and sects to-day which cannot agree on some of the greater moral questions. How then may we expect them to agree
1 Leach, ‘Church Administration,”’ p. 24.
PREFACE 9 upon minor matters having to do with moot points of ethical conduct or, in some cases, mere etiquette?
2. There is not and cannot be any interdenominational court or tribunal to enforce upon any minister a system governing his morals or his conduct. He is a law unto himself. If his fathers went to war to prevent men from telling them how they should kneel or stand or sit at Communion, he is not going to let anyone tell him to-day how to make a pastoral call or what church publicity he may use. The whole system of Protestantism is wound up with the individual’s rights in this matter.
3. The denominations have their individual regulations governing their own ministers on many questions having'to do with ethical conduct, and they leave other matters to the obligation every minister is under to keep the moral law and live as a Christian. The Protestant Episcopal Church, for instance, has its Canon Law; the Methodist Episcopal Churches, their “‘Discipline,’’ and to these the men of the respective churches look for guidance and authority upon many questions of ethical procedure.
4. The minister himself is supposed to be an arbiter in the field of morals and ethics: and since he is personally regarded as a judge and divider in such matters, he is trusted to regulate his own personal conduct properly. As soon expect—it might be argued —a medical association to draw up health rules for physicians or to issue a book on what medicine is good for a doctor, as to expect ministers to tell each other what courses of moral and ethical conduct are proper.
5. Furthermore the matters involved are not of great moment. They have to do with jots and tittles and scarcely ever touch the inflexible bulwarks and buttresses of the moral law. When a matter does go over into a question of morals, then the minister's conscience, not to say his church, speaks up. But many courses of conduct can be rightly classed as matters of small importance.
Nevertheless, and in spite of all the above, there has gradually evolved through the years a ministerial consciousness. Perhaps this is not well. Henry Ward Beecher, it may be guessed, would not have thought so, as he did not believe the ministry should stick together asa unit. But call it by what name we will, this vague, intangible, interdenominational professional consciousness is alive among the ministry to-day, and it is our purpose in this work to try to establish its sanctions and codify its findings. These sanctions, it is admitted, cannot be enforced by physical means, but by general opinion and the consensus of ministerial approval or disapproval. Like international law, ministerial ethical judgments must get force and power from public opinion and not from ‘‘armed forces.’’ A suggestive value is all that we may claim for our codification.
However, against the belief that many of the points of ministerial etiquette are unimportant trifles, we should like to quote Bishop Ames of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The Bishop had been addressing preachers on the importance of the “‘little ways of gentleness that endear preachers to people,” and concluded: ‘‘Although these things may not come up to the dignity of minor morals, I submit to you that this is one of the cases where it does well to tithe mint and anise and cumen. If by attention to these things
PREFACE 11 we can make ourselves more useful, it is well worth while to attend to them. Of course a minister does not forfeit his soul because he does not know how to enter and leave a parlor; he has not committed a mortal sin because he cannot make a graceful bow; he has not offended against the Holy Ghost because he always wears a somber countenance instead of a smiling face. But if these things have so much to do with our success as ministers of Christ, I submit to you if our text (Rom. 16: 1-15) teaches no other lesson but that of courtesy, it is well worth our learning.”
Of late 1t has been shown that there is need for a more comprehensive outline of ministerial ethics. At least four brief codes have been brought out and adopted by ministerial bodies. We shall place these codes foremost among our references and cite them at many points throughout this work. It was the attempt of the writer to catch together in this book all suggestions, thoughts, and directions which might be obtained from the writings or expressed judgments of ministers bearing on the points at issue. We have endeavored to give the most space to the most debatable questions, and while attempting to make the work comprehensive have tried to omit the trite and dismiss with a bare mention the obvious. We have had to draw upon the general Christian consciousness for many sanctions where we were not able to cite the mind of another. It was of course impossible to cover all relationships, nor do we feel that all have been correctly classified by chapter and division, as this was an arbitrary matter. Above all, the author wishes it understood that in no way does he set himself up as an arbiter elegantiarum, but simply as one who is glad to assemble the thoughts of many ministers, weld them together in the heat of the Christian consciousness, and let it go as a work of brotherly love. Our references follow.
As our general reference throughout this work we reprint the separate items of the codes of ministerial ethics which have appeared to date. Since these were adopted by ministerial bodies more or less large, they have therefore a greater weight than the judgment of an individual minister. In our scheme we print the items of these codes throughout the work at those points where each item applies to the question at issue. The complete codes will be found printed i in the appendix to this volume.
The Congregational Code, cited item by item hereafter, was adopted by the New Haven (Conn.) Association of Congregational Ministers. It is found reprinted in its entirety on pages 24-27 of ‘‘Church Administration’’ by William H. Leach.
The Methodist Code—as we call it—cited herein is said to have been adopted by a conference of Methodist ministers at Rockford, Ill., in 1926. Its reprint is taken from the Christian Century of December 16, 1926. This code is almost identical with the Congregational Code, wording and phraseology being the same except in one or two items. We make no judgment as to priority between these codes. This code was printed with no numbered sections.
The Presbyterian Code we take from its reprint as given in an article by William H. Leach in the Methodist Quarterly Review of July, 1927. This code is said to have been adopted by the Presbytery of New ee ee ee ee
PREFACE 13
York. Dr. Leach holds that it is based on the earlier ethical codes shown in this volume, and we have not therefore printed its separate items throughout our work except the one or two which make distinctive contributions beyond the other codes.
The Unitarian Code is said to have received denominational sanction. It is to be found printed in the August, 1926, number of Church Management. ‘It was drafted by Charles R. Joy, of Dedham, Mass., and was adopted with few dissenting votes by the Unitarian Ministerial Union.”
Two compositions on this subject have also been cited by us for more or less general treatment of the theme. They are: “Ministerial Ethics,” an article by Rev. S. Z. Batten, D.D., of the American Baptist Publication Society, published in the Journal of the American Society of Political and Social Sciences in May, 1922; and “‘ Ministerial Ethics,’’ an address by Bishop Charles Betts Galloway, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, delivered before the School of Theology of Boston University, February 26, 1894, and printed in ‘‘Great Men and Great Movements”’ by the Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
Reference has also been made to the following works for many points involved in ministerial ethics and etiquette: “‘The Technique of a Minister,’ Rev. Bernard C. Clausen, D.D.; ‘‘The Christian Pastor and the Working Church,” Rev. Washington Gladden, D.D.; “The Minister and His Parish,’’ Rev. Henry Wilder Foote, D.D.; ‘‘The Minister’s Everyday Life,” Rev. Lloyd C. Douglas, D.D.; ‘‘Church Administration,’ Rev. William H. Leach, D.D.; ‘‘Lamps, Pitchers, and Trumpets,” Rev. E. Paxton Hood; “Vale Lectures on Preaching,’’ Rev. Henry Ward Beecher; ‘‘HTomiletics,’’ Rev. Daniel P. Kidder; “‘The Christian Pastorate,’’ Rev. Daniel P. Kidder; “‘Homiletics and Pastoral Theology,’ Rev. William G. T. Shedd; “The Worshiping Congregation,’’ Rev. Lucius C. Clark, D.D.; ‘‘That the Ministry Be Not Blamed,” Rev. John A. Hutton, D.D.; ‘‘The Minister as Shepherd,’’ Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, D.D.; “In Pulpit and Parish,” Rev. Nathaniel J. Burton, D.D., “‘The Making of a Minister,’’ Rev. Charles R. Brown, D.D.; “The Way of a Preacher,” Rev. John A. Kern, D.D.; “The Ministry to the Congregation,” Rev. John A. Kern, D.D.; ‘‘The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons,”’ Rev. John A. Broadus, D.D.; ‘““The Building of the Church,” Rev. Charles E. Jefferson, D.D.; ‘‘The Book of Weddings,’ Mrs. Burton Kingsland; “The Rites and Ritual of Episcopal Methodism,” Rev. Nolan B. Harmon, Jr.
In addition to the above several articles appearing in Church Management, a magazine edited by Rev. William H. Leach, have been of material assistance. A recent series on points of ministerial procedure, written by Rev. James Elmer Russell, D.D., of Binghamton, N. Y., has been especially valuable.
Ne BEL ik
Chapter I The Profession
By common consent the Christian ministry is esteemed the noblest of the professions. Some may object to this classification, and some may wish it qualified by affirming that by the Christian ministry is meant a real ministry and not a counterfeit one. General consent, however, does give to the ministry primacy among the noble callings. If this much be accorded by persons other than the minister, he himself ought certainly to hold his profession in as high regard as does the world. Many ministers believe it to be higher in kind as well as degree, but they never press this upon others. They take the recognition of their ‘‘high calling” not as a mark of personal honor to themselves, but as an honor to That One who first called them. Like the Apostle, the best minister strives to apprehend that for which he was himself apprehended.
The Christian minister, therefore, will always uphold the nobility of his profession. There are certain broad aspects of ministerial life, certain temptations and even pitfalls which must be observed by him. It is our purpose in this chapter to outline some of these larger problems that affect the ministry as a profession before we go on to discuss in succeeding chapters many minor points of ministerial procedure. Our main thesis has been outlined above and shall be adhered to throughout this entire writing: The Christian ministry is and
2 (17)
ought to be where popular thought is inclined to put it—the highest form of professional service.
With this as an introduction we lay down our first general professional rule: The minister must keep the nobility of his calling uppermost in his own mind. Should he fail to do this, he had better take up some other form of work. If for any cause he begins to look down upon his profession, or feel that for him its glory has departed, he is lost. The temptation may come to him, for instance, to measure the ministry by some of the standards which apply to the work of other professions—by temporal influence, by cultural values, by that ubiquitous and omnipresent measure of all things in our day and time—money. But should he attempt to use any of these things as a measure for his work, failure will come to him. The Christian ministry can no more be measured by these values than time may be measured by the mile or space by the pound. The professional standards of the ministry belong to another category, a spiritual one, nevertheless a very real one. Any effort to force a comparison with other professions will fail. The Christian minister must know this. He who commiserates his profession in his own mind or who doubts its value isin a bad way. Let the story of Sir Launcelot and the lions be recalled. When, as Tennyson gives it to us, the beasts uprose and grasped the knight each by a shoulder, a voice came saying:
Doubt not, go forward; if thou doubt, the beasts Will tear thee piecemeal.
So the man who doubts in his own mind the mission and work of his own calling, is in a fair way to be torn piecemeal between the twin lions of hopelessness and despair. But he who doubts not, but goes forward believing, will find the world believing with him.!
The next principle is: Hold high in outward acts the established reputation of the Christian ministry. There is a popular esteem in which the ministry is held, a popular regard, estimation, and measure, not the making of one generation but of all generations. It is entirely possible for some one minister to lower or injure this popular estimation. When this happens, a man’s excuse may be that prevalent conceptions as to ministerial rights and privileges are wrong, and therefore he is engaged in an attempt to set them right. Or he may say that new occasions teach new duties, etc., but every minister should weigh very carefully his own thought and intent against the practice of the ages. Just as no reputable lawyer ever breaks the traditions of his ancient and honorable calling, just as no physician departs from but holds in the highest respect his own professional ethics and methods, so the ministry should preserve and guard those traits which by a common consent belong to the highest type of ministerial service.
It will be impossible here to outline the various ways in which ministers may lower the popular estimation in which their profession is held, but that it can be lowered allknow. Perhaps ministers should have some such custom as prevails among army officers. There is an offense for which military officers are sometimes court-martialed known as ‘‘conduct unbecoming an
1“The minister should never speak disparagingly of his Church or his profession.” (Unitarian Code, I, 6.)
officer and a gentleman.’ What this conduct is cannot beforehand be specified—each case is brought to trial upon its own merits. Sometimes it is for one thing, sometimes for another, occasionally even for unprecedented breaches in official bearing. On all such occasions the officers themselves act as the judges of this vague, intangible, but all-embracing law. Cannot the same standard be applied to the conduct of ministers; for there are acts which are unbecoming a minister as well as those unbecoming a gentleman?
For instance, in the name of “‘ pulpit freedom’’ some ministers have become publicity seekers. The minister who thus breaks a thousand years of pulpit tradition (and this can be done in a thousand ways) may receive “‘two sticks’’ notice in all the papers and be flattered as one “free from ancient shackles,” but it is the part of wisdom to await the final fruits of this man’s life and act. We do not plead for a narrow-grooved ministry, nor for conformity to traditionalism as such, but we have our suspicions of the brother who is so anxious to show himself ‘‘free’’ that he wears the clothes of a clown in order that he may not be taken for a ‘‘gentleman of the cloth,”’ or who turns his pulpit into a vaudeville stage to show that no bondage of pulpit formality is binding on him. Such men more often than not give the impression that they are lovers of publicity more than lovers of God. Care should be taken by each minister that his public and private conduct be not unbecoming to the best traditions of his profession.
The story is told that a minister once decided that he would go upon the grounds of a certain university in Pennsylvania, a university whose charter, as is well
THE PROFESSION aL known, prohibits any minister of the gospel from setting foot upon its grounds. The minister in question disguised himself and achievéd his object—he got in. But here is the point: he had to sail under false colors to do it, and ministers everywhere, universally, refuse to forswear their calling for a moment. On the contrary they are proud of their profession, nor is there any special regret among them because they are forbidden to visit the university in question. No gentleman ever cares to go where not wanted. Conduct unbecoming a gentleman is always conduct unbecoming a minister, but conduct sometimes not unbecoming in other gentlemen may be unbecoming in the minister. Dr. Henry Wilder Foote well says in his ‘‘The Minister and His Parish’’ that the community expects a closer adherence to moral standards on the part of the minister than from the ordinary man; that there are ‘‘courses of conduct which, while all right for others, are unbecoming in him.’’ This is true and must be noted here in our discussion. A different ethical sense governs the minister from that which the ordinary gentleman recognizes. A minister may rebel, and with good logic too, at the implications of this statement. He may affirm that he has a perfect right to do what any other Christian has the right to do—and theoretically he has. Practically, however, he is going to find, as Dr. Lloyd C. Douglas expressed it, that the people will make a priest out of him whether he likes it or not. He will discover that he is bound not only by the law of the gentleman, but by something more. We might call this by various names, but we have a perfect warrant for affixing the Scriptural term expediency to this hd MINISTERIAL ETHICS principle which, while not always binding upon others, must always be considered by him. Saint Paul expressed this apropos of his own Christian right: “‘All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.’”’ (1 Cor. 6: 12.) We need not push into the Apostle’s deeper meaning here, but we will suggest that the successful pastor is going to learn that while certain customs, habits, manners, and viewpoints of his own may be logical, sane, and ‘correct, it will not always be expedient for him to thrust them forward as such. We do not mean that principles must be toned down, or that expediency itself may not sometimes be made an excuse for moral cowardice and compromise, but it is true that things which for the man may be lawful, may not be for the minister expedient.
For instance, the writer knew of a minister who was a great smoker of tobacco. After service one Sunday evening he walked home with one of his leading men. As the pair approached the house the layman turned to his pastor and said: “‘Brother N—, if you will not be offended at my request, I am going to ask that you do not let my boys see you smoking. They admire you very much and I do not wish them to be influenced by your example and, while they are young, learn the use of tobacco.’’ Now the pastor might have entered upon a strong argument in defense of his right to smoke, and perhaps proved his case. He might have gone into a dissertation upon tobacco as something lawful if lawfully used. As a matter of fact he said nothing, but did as he was asked. He threw away his cigar and “‘quit’”’ from then on. He said later that if he had any habit which prevented him from throwing the best sort of influence over the young men of his church, that habit was wrong—and his statement, we say, was right.
So with many points of conduct. It is perfectly lawful for a minister to associate himself with a social group which has nothing in common with his own flock—but the time will come when he will find that it was not so expedient. It is perhaps lawful for the minister to tell the loudest and best of all his jokes at the Sunday dinner table when he is “company” somewhere—but when that man again stands in his pulpit and reads the ‘‘watch and be sober” phrases which were written, not at a Roman banquet but in the lurid glow of persecution throwing its shadows against an eternal background, he is going to find that it was not expedient. A great many practices may be defended on the score of lawfulness which must be rejected on the ground of expediency. Dr. Foote had it right—whether we like it or not, the people demand a higher standard from the minister than from the ordinary man.
Another inflexible rule of professional conduct may here be stated: The minister may never for reasons of personal safety desert his parish and people when some great, universal danger wmpends, such asa hostile invasion, avirulent epidemic, or natural disaster. Thissituation happily seldom ever arises—has arisen only a few times in our own land—but the unanimous voice of the ministers of all the ages has declared that the pastor may not leave his people and fly to safety when the people themselves are in some epochal danger. His own family he may send to safety or protect when he can, but for himself there must be faithfulness unto death. It is in times of natural disaster, floods, epidemics, earthquakes, bloodshed, that the pastor may prove a tower of strength to his flock. If the captain of the ship is the last man to step into the lifeboat; if the engineer, grimy with soot, makes it his first consideration to save the train, let what will happen to the locomotive, surely ministers of Christ can stay at their posts during times that try their people’s souls, giving comfort and help and rescue.
This question we remember to have been discussed at great length in Possidius’s ‘‘Life of Saint Augustine.”’ It seems that the barbarians were laying waste all North Africa and were advancing to besiege Hippo. The ministers with others were deserting the churches and fleeing before them. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was asked by many priests what course they should pursue. They were not cowards, but doubted the wisdom of remaining and giving their lives for a problematical good. Many persons had fled, though some refused to leave. Augustine, the great church father, sat down and wrote a letter about it. It is solid Latin (and Augustine could write some of the meanest Latin ever composed by mortal man) and the writer once had to stumble through it, but out of the uncouth language of a bygone age a mighty spirit and a great man makes himself entirely clear. It is not right, said Augustine, to close the churches; it is not right for the shepherd to flee when the flock is to be left—the priest of God must stay at his post. To-day the universal voice of the Christian ministry says he was right.?
2It may be interesting to know that on the occasion of the visit of Cardinal Mercier of Belgium to Princeton University some little
The proper utilization of his time is another matter affecting the minister. Like other professions, the ministry is not a matter of eight working hours with pay-and-a-half for overtime, but of life service. The minister therefore gives himself completely to his profession. Of course this does not preclude days off, vacation periods, etc., which belong to all professional men; but the minister feels that his profession demands his all. To engage for a certain part of his time in other remunerative work would, he believes, break into the usefulness of his calling. He would consider it a lowering of the legal profession should he learn that a certain lawyer acted as night watchman during part of his time; or a letting down of the medical_/ profession if he found that a physician in off hours acted as bookkeeper for a manufacturing concern. Not that these other occupations are not eminently worthy and fully as estimable as are the professions mentioned above if engaged in honorably, as they should be—but professional men universally hold that their profession demands their all.’
The ministry is often tempted to depart from this professional rule. Salaries are low and in some places time after the World War, this letter of St. Augustine was, if I recall rightly, transcribed and presented to him by Dean A. F. West of the Graduate College of Princeton. It was felt that Cardinal Mercier, too, was a Bishop who had not left his post in time of invasion.
3‘*As a professional man the minister should make his service primary and the remuneration secondary. His efficiency, however, demands that he should receive a salary adequate to the work he is expected to do and commensurate with the scale of living in that parish which he serves.”’ (Congregational Code, II, 2. The Methodist Code is practically identical.)
ea ie it becomes almost a necessity for the minister to help ‘‘make the pot boil’’ by engaging in other occupations. This is bad—bad for the man, bad for the calling, and bad for the people. Where there is any other choice this should not be done. We are aware, however, of the hard but unanswerable fact that sometimes it must be done. But consequences take no thought of excuses. The preacher who is compelled to buy and sell on the side, or to teach school for a remuneration, will find that his ministerial standing suffers, no matter how good may be the reasons which impel him to divide his work. The minister will do well to avoid any work outside his own professional labor. In case he must engage in other remunerative work, however, he should have a clear understanding about this matter with the officials of his local church.*
Using the ministerial or priestly position to get financial gain for one’s self has long been known as Simony. This of course has always been despised by the true men of the ministry. However, the man who measures every bit of professional service by its monetary equivalent, or who thinks in terms of money, is not far removed from the one who would sell spiritual gifts for silver or gold.®
There is, however, a subtle form of ministerial danger in which not a few have become involved in
Te should be conscientious in giving full time and strength to the work of his Church, engaging in avocations and other occupations in such a way and to such a degree as not to infringe unduly upon that work unless some definite arrangement for part-time service is made with the Church.” (Unitarian Code, I, 2.)
The opening of the book is shown; the full text loads in the reader.
Loading the full text…
The end
You’ve reached the end of Ministerial ethics and etiquette.