Do Churches Exert Significant Influence on Public Morality?
| Author | F. Ernest Johnson |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271625228000117 |
| Published date | 01 March 1952 |
| Date | 01 March 1952 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
125
Do
Churches
Exert
Significant
Influence
on
Public
Morality?
BY
F.
ERNEST
JOHNSON
L ET
it
be
granted
at
once
that
the
question
propounded
in
my
title
admits
of
no
categorical
answer.
The
causes
of
human
conduct
and
of
social
phenomena
are
multiple,
and
an
ap-
praisal
of
any one
factor
must
be
based
on
broad
inference,
not
on
conclusive
proof.
My
interest
in
the
topic
is
not
forensic,
but
exploratory.
I
should
like
to
indicate
some
of
the
areas
in
which
the
churches
may
be
assumed
to
be
influential
in
developing
sanc-
tions
for
public
conduct
and
to
make
some
appraisal
of
the
quality
of
such
influence
as
they
exert.
To
this
end
it
is
important
to
consider
from
a
socio-
logical
viewpoint
the
nature
and
the
limits
of
the
influence
of
organized
re-
ligion
on
social
standards.
Although
the
generalizations
offered
will
have
primary
reference
to
Protestant
Christi-
anity,
I
believe
they
are
susceptible
of
wider
application.
SCOPE
OF
PUBLIC
MORALITY
I
am
asuming
that
the
term
&dquo;public
morality&dquo;
is
to
be
taken
as
meaning
more
than
the
morality
of
the
public.
It
is,
to
be
sure,
related
to
the
sum
of
the
personal
morals
of
the
citizenry
of
the
nation.
But
public
morality
de-
notes
the
quality
of
all
conduct
that
is
public
in
character,
conduct
in
which
the
community
has
a
recognized
stake.
Indeed,
it
is
basic
to
this
discussion
that
public
morality
is
much
more
than
a
projection
of
the
standards
of
private
conduct.
Those
who
see
in
the
con-
temporary
&dquo;wave
of
corruption&dquo;
merely
the
reflection
of
a
degradation
of
per-
sonal
standards
are,
it
seems
to
me,
missing
the
central
fact,
namely,
that
a
cultural
crisis
is
upon
us
in
which
no
clear
picture
of
what
public
responsi-
bility
means
can
be
discerned.
I
doubt
that
there
is
any
such
phenomenon
as
a
general
moral
disintegration.
What
confronts
all
our
institutions,
especially
those
of
education
and
religion,
is
the
necessity
of
making
our
heritage
of
be-
liefs
and
loyalties
relevant
to
a
rapidly
changing
social
structure.
The
temptation
to
explain
our
present
situation
in
terms
of
a
character
debacle
is
a
natural
one,
but
the
explanation
is
too
facile.
It
is
a
melancholy
fact
that
standards
of
personal
morals
do
not
always
reflect
comparable
standards
of
public
behavior.
Men
who
keep
their
pledged
word
and
pay
their
debts
may
participate
without
compunction
in
op-
pressive
political
practices.
Generous
persons
who
readily
give
to
charity
are
sometimes
insensitive
to
the
antisocial
consequences
of
business
policies
that
are
maintained
by
their
own
proxies
in
stockholders’
meetings.
Rackets
are
carried
on
by
men
who
seem
to
be
ex-
emplary
in
their
private
lives.
All
this
means
that
it
is
not
enough
to
teach
conventional
morals
if
we
are
seeking
to
raise
the
level
of
community
life.
To
the
extent,
therefore,
that
the
churches
and
synagogues
fail
in
their
educational
programs
to
direct
their
attention
to
public
morality
as
such,
they
may
be
assumed
to
have
little
in-
fluence
on
its
standards.
It
follows
that,
reluctant
as
we
of
the
churches
may
be
to
acknowledge
it,
the
churches
have
not
been
conspicu-
ously
successful
in
raising
the
stand-
ards
of
public
morality;
for
the
pre-
vailing
preoccupation
of
the
churches
To continue reading
Request your trial