aid and is still being said in regard
to the work of the country church, especially by those who are not
clergymen and not responsible for the directing of church activity, that
one may well hesitate to express another opinion. And yet the tolerance
of those who have in charge the policy of the country church is in
itself significant and invites additional suggestions regarding the
function of the Christian Church in country places. It is significant
because it discloses that the church leaders know that the rural
churches have serious problems. It invites suggestions because it
reveals that the leaders are in some measure perplexed as to what is
required in our day of the country church, and are therefore not hostile
to any contribution that has a constructive purpose.

Institutions tend to be self-satisfied and self-protecting. A religious
institution especially is in danger of becoming content and resentful
of criticism because, by its nature, it deals with matters that seem
beyond the investigation that man prescribes for ordinary things, and
therefore secure from the scrutiny and criticism given to common,
everyday interests. Of course the Church has no right to protect itself
from criticism with respect to its efficiency of service by asking that
it be treated as if it were itself religion.

The fact that the leaders of the rural church are not taking this
attitude is of all things most helpful. It proves that their eyes are
directed outward toward their responsibilities and that the rural
churches are not in danger of the greatest evil that ever befalls a
religious institution--a blind leadership which cannot distinguish
between success and failure and is therefore well content when it ought
to be most dissatisfied.

Whether rural church leadership is willing to consider radical changes
in methods of social and moral service is a question time alone can
answer. The test has not yet been made; whether serious changes should
be considered can at present be only a matter of opinion. At present the
usual attitude seems to be that the rural church needs more skill--new
methods--in the doing of what it has always been doing. There appears as
yet to be little disposition to ask whether modern life requires of the
rural church that it change in large measure its form of service.

With its history of past success by the use of present methods deep in
its consciousness, it is certainly difficult for the rural church to