THE Bazaar, as our readers know, is a popular device employed for the purpose of raising money in support of religious and other objects. It is not a commendable method in our opinion, even in connection with a secular scheme; but it calls, we think, for special condemnation when it forms a part of the work of a professing Church of Christ. The design of the present article therefore is to expose the unscriptural character of the Church Bazaar, and the unwholesome influence it exercises on the moral and spiritual tone of the community.
It may be stated by way of preface that the proper and divinely appointed method of obtaining money for the benefit of the Church is presented to us in Scripture, and consists in a simple appeal, enforced by Christian arguments, to the ability and liberality of the people. There is no other method open to the Church of Christ, and there is none other employed or needed, as long as the Church is faithful to her trust. But when spiritual life ebbs away, faithfulness to truth languishes; and then the tendency is to introduce schemes that are pleasing to carnal reason and taste irrespective of the approval or disapproval of God’s Word. The Bazaar is one of these unscriptural schemes. It is a form of merchandise in the house of God; and merchandise in this house, whatever the object, is to be condemned.
The first argument against the Bazaar is that there is no example of it in Scripture. In Old Testament times the people were commanded to give a tenth of their possessions to the Lord. There were no cunning devices used to entice them to an artificial benevolence. Similarly in the New Dispensation, the believing people were encouraged and exhorted to give under a sense of obligation to Christ, who though He was rich for their sakes became poor, that they through His poverty might be rich. We are certainly told that after Pentecost, “as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” —(Acts iv. 34-35.) But it is clear that the early Christians did
not turn the Church into a saleroom or a market; they sold their possessions in the ordinary lawful way, and then presented the money to the apostles.
The second argument is that merchandise in the house of God is expressly condemned by Christ. The Bazaar, as already stated, is a form of this merchandise. On one occasion Jesus “found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting; and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.”—(John ii. 14-16.) Jesus does not condemn merchandise in its own place—in the market or the shop; it is because it is out of its proper place that He condemns it here. He does not cast out the merchants from the temple because they were carrying on commerce for their own personal benefit, or because they were extortioners, but He drove them forth, according to His own express testimony, because they were making “His Father’s house a house of merchandise.” He expels all worldly commerce whatsoever from the house of God. The temple was not built to supply accommodation for shops and markets within its precincts; it was built solely for the worship of God. So in like manner the visible Church of Christ in New Testament times is not set up to be a house of common business; its special function is, even in a still higher degree than that of the temple, the spiritual worship of God. The Lord, therefore, has appointed His Church for spiritual service, and if it is devoted to a lower purpose, it is subjected to a degradation that dishonours God and injures society. It is clear then, we affirm, that the Bazaar has no place in the Church of Christ. To introduce the ordinary merchandise of life into this Church is to desecrate the temple of God. Some may suppose that if the Bazaar is not held in the place specially dedicated to divine worship, but in some other building, the business is quite lawful. Let it be noted, however, that if it is held in formal connection with the Church, that constitutes it a part of Church work, and relegates it to the category of merchandise in the house of God.
A third argument against the Bazaar (which has been already alluded to) is that it introduces a worldly appliance for the procuring of money in the Church and thus contemns the divine method of exclusive appeal to Christian obligation. The apostle who spoke as moved by the Holy Ghost, said, “Freely ye have received, freely give.” The money was not to be extracted out of the pockets of the people by roundabout methods which would appeal as much to their covetousness as to their liberality. They were to give with hearty willingness, not looking for any material recompense for their money. Such is not the case at the Bazaar. The buyer is tempted to purchase oftentimes far beyond his original intentions by the sensuous display of attractive articles. He is not
coerced with the whip into buying, but he is allured by a deceptive fascination into it. Can such a process of stimulating benevolence be for a moment associated with the name of Christ? We trow not; Satan is rather the author of it. Again, there is a contempt in the whole business of the divine and spiritual method. The Lord appeals to spiritual motives. Is He not the author of our being, the preserver of our life, the provider of our temporal mercies, and if we be in Christ, the gracious giver of our spiritual and eternal mercies? All these considerations are fitted to stir up a spirit of liberality to His cause, and these are the considerations that His ambassadors are called upon to impress upon their hearers. Is it not mockery then in the highest degree to bring in as a supplement to such high and blessed inducements to give to the cause of Christ, the petty allurements of material finery at a Bazaar? To a spiritual mind, the idea is disgusting in the extreme. It shows to what a low ebb religious bodies have come at the present day when one of their chief springs of Christian benevolence is the Bazaar.
Many may object to our argument by saying that the object of the Bazaar is the furtherance of the cause of Christ, and that the work may be engaged in as a piece of service to Him. In reply, it may be answered that the end does not justify the means; we are expressly forbidden to do evil that good may come. To say that the end justifies the means is to adopt one of the leading pleas of Romanists for their unhallowed works. God has appointed means as well as ends, and if we employ means He does not prescribe we may expect to hear Him say with holy indignation, “Who hath required this at your hands?” Others again employ the following plea. They say—”There are many people who cannot give money to any considerable extent to the Church, but they can work with their hands; and surely it cannot be wrong to allow these persons to contribute their own handiwork to the financial support of the Church. The best way to dispose of this work is by a Bazaar.” We have not the slightest objection to persons making useful articles with a view to the assistance of the Church, but where the fallacy comes in is in asserting that the best way of disposing of these is by a Bazaar. Let the persons who have made these articles go in the ordinary way and sell their goods to those who are in a position to buy them, and let them then give the proceeds to the Church through its regularly appointed channels of receiving the offerings of the people. This is a perfectly lawful way of helping financially the Church of Christ; but it is not a showy and vain-glorious way, and so it is not adopted by the persons who prefer the Bazaar. Further, it does not justify the business to say that any particular Bazaar is conducted on the plainest possible system, without, for example, raffles, showy articles of sale, or foolish amusements. “The sale of work,” which is the simplest form of this kind of commerce, may consist in the selling and buying of very useful goods, but that does
not justify the device, it is merchandise in the house of God all the same, and it is the adoption of a method for cultivating benevolence that has no authority from the Word of God.
A fourth and last point against the Bazaar—and it is not a little one—is the unwholesome influence the institution has on the moral and spiritual tone of society. We believe it is a veritable hot-bed of moral evil. It is carnal in its origin and spirit, and therefore it is also carnal in its fruits. For one thing it is a vain-glorious display of supposed good works. The command of Christ, “Let not your left hand know what your right hand doeth,” has no place within its precincts. The benevolence is of a very open and self-righteous kind. A second feature is that extortion, which is just another word for theft, is largely practised. The articles are in many cases over-priced. That the buyer is an abettor of this breach of the moral law does not justify it. Can Christ not maintain His own Church without breaking His own commandments? A third circumstance is that there is nothing almost equal to a Bazaar for stirring up the basest rivalries and dissensions among the workers at it. And the last point we notice is that it invariably introduces a frivolous and carnal spirit into the Church. We do not say that all such concerns are equally demoralising, but the majority of them, we have reason to believe, are nurseries of corruption to a degree scarcely apprehended by many.
The King’s Embassy to the Pope.—At the present time the Pope is holding the Jubilee of his Pontificate, and is receiving the congratulations of his religious subjects. It is matter of profound regret and humiliation that the King of this Protestant realm has sent an embassy to join in these congratulations. No doubt the event is partly political, and the hand of the Government is in it; but that in no way lessens the guilt and shame. The constitution of this kingdom recognises neither the temporal nor the spiritual sovereignty of the Pope—it positively disclaims both; and so the action of our rulers in this matter is utterly to be condemned as subversive of the fundamental statutes on which the nation stands. The ambassador was, of course, an ardent Papist, the president of the “Catholic Association,” the Earl of Denbigh; and it is stated that when he proceeded (on 8th March) towards the Pope’s throne, bending the knee thrice, as is the custom, he offered to kiss the Pope’s foot, but the Pope presented his hand to be kissed, thus politically averting what might give rise to popular indignation in this country. Truly things are at a terrible pass in this once strongly Protestant nation; and it is more than time there was an uprising in the strength of the Lord against the advent of a fearful slavery. The King of Italy teaches us an admirable lesson. He does not recognise the temporal power of the Pope, though himself a Roman Catholic, and therefore, on the advice of his ministers, has sent no special embassy of congratulation.