Newspapers / The University of North … / April 16, 1919, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
\ The news in this publica tion is released tor the press on receipt. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA NEWS LETTER Published weekly by the University of North Carolina for its Bureau of Extension. APRIL 16, 1919 CHAPEL HILL, N. C. VOL. V, NO. 21 Editorial Board i E. C. Branson, .T. G. deR. Hamilton, L. R. Wilson, D. D. Carroll, G. M. MoKie Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1914, at the Postofllce at Chapel Hill, N, C., under the act of August 24,1912. OUR HOME MISSION FIELDS WHAT DOES IT MEAN? This is a question that is being asked with reference to the membership reports from the Churches this year. The Meth odist Episcopal Churcli in its work in tlie United States lias exiierienced a falling off in membership of something more than 8,000. The mission fields, particularly in India, have done better, so that tlie de nomination as a whole will show a gain. Our own church has not yet made its re- .port, but tlie indications are that there will be a very small gain in our member ship. In our own conference the net gain in membership was only 463. In the Western Nortli Carolina Conference the net gain was 1,281, making a total for our Cliurch in the State of 1,744. That is a distressingly small percentage on a total membership of 205,000. We do not take statistics too seriously, for strange results are very frequently found in tliem; l)ut it is well for the Church to take stock of itself and see if it is delivering itself as it should upon the great work of saving souls. If the Church fails here, it is a dead failure. Every success that it may ob tain is valuable only as it contributes to success at this point. Our vast financial ventures, our Church building and paying of pastors, our Sunday-schools and Ep- worth Leagues, and all the rest, amount to nothing if the fact still confronts us in face of the fact that men and women are mot being saved. The remedy for this is more prayer and a deeper consecration.— Ilaletgb Christain Advocate, department of the universty, declared that “the average town in North Carolina appropriates its funds and incurs obliga tions without a comprehensive and detail ed survey of needs and an estimation of costs reduced to clear and unmistakable units.” Following L)r. Carroll, William M. York of High Point, and Daniel L. Grant, of Sneads Ferry, students, engaged in an interesting debate on the question of “Separation of State and Ix)cal Sources of Revenue. ” Dr. Carroll in the course of his dis cussion pointed out an admirable plan for popularizing city finance. The av erage citizen is too busy, he showed, to attempt to determine where his taxes go and what he must get with them. The budget must be simplified thru charts, diagrams, bulletin boards, reports, news papers, and so on.—R. W. Madry. WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY? A question which all Protestant ■Churches of the nation must face is the fixing of responsibility for the reli gious education of high school and col lege students in tax-supported institu tions. At a recent joint session of the ■Ooimeil of Church Boards of Education and the Association of Church Workers in Universities this entire field of reli gious work was fully and freely dis cussed. The resolutions there proposed and adopted recognize most clearly the responsibility of the Churches for train ing a Christian citizenship and leader ship, and they set forth a definite pro gram of cooperation of all Christian agencies at work at each center. In presenting these resolutions Dr. Tlichard C. Hughes, of the Board of Edu cation of the Presbyterian Church says: “The Ciiurches have apparently taken it for granterl tliat the responsibility for the moral and religious life of the pupils belongs to the school. Church people acting as citizens will tax themselves freely to build a modem high school, ■with library, laboratories, and separate looms for all classes, and then erect a costly cluirch with a large auditorium for the preaching service without a sin gle classroom for the high-school youth of the congregation. Churcliea in uni versity centers where there are from one to eight thousand students seem sat isfied if they provide one or two mea- geily famished classrooms. If the Church is to retain and increase her infiaence during these coming years, she must go into the business of religious education as seriously as the community has gone into that of secular education. If she cannot do this within her own bull ling, she must make other provisions ■or join with a community school of relig ion. ’ ’ 'I'he tax-supported school very prop erly expects the Churches to take the lead in religious education, and during Hio past ten years a beginning has been anade. But unless each denomination goes into tills business much more seri ously in the next ten years than it has in the past, all arguments against com munity scliools of religion will lose their force. What will he the future policy of the Churches may he a more oi>eii question than we now think.—Nash ville Christian Advocate. A NEW UNIVERSITY And now, fired with the living spir it of those master men we knew and loved so well, we dedicate ourselves to the completion of their unfinislied tasks. Theirs to plan; ours to build. And let the structure fling to the heavens the loftiest of spires, lest any should say: ‘ ‘They have lost the flame; tliey are toiling in the dark.” For out of the tumult of this hour there is shortly to emerge a new University, finer than any yet dreamed of amongst us, and radiant and glowing with the fire of freedom.—TheN. C. University Magazine. THE NORTH CAROLINA CLUB Speaking before the regular fortnightly nisotiag of the North Carolina Club here last night on Municipal Finance, Dr. D. 1). Carroll, a member of the economics OUTSIDE THE CHRCH IN 1916 Elsewhere in this issue appears a table ranking the counties of North Carolina according to the ratios of non-cluirch membership among people ten years of age and over. It is figured out of the ad vance sheets of the Federal Census of Re ligious Bodies in the United States in 1916 and the Census estimates of population in the same year, by Rev. A. W. Craw ford, the home mission secretary of the Synod of North Carolina, and Miss Er nestine Noa, in the department of rural economics and sociology, University of North Carolina. The figures cover (1) both races, (2) people of responsible age, ten years old and older—around 72 percent of the total population in North Carolina, and (3) the people of this age group outside of our 50 different religious organizations in 1916. A similar table for 1906 was worked out by Rev. Walter Patten, pastor of the Chapel Hill Methodist Church, and given to the public in the University News Let ter, Volume I, No. 28. The figures of these two tables are com parable, and when put side by side they show (1) which counties have been mov ing ahead briskly in church membership during these ten years. They are 75 in number. (2) Which counties have been marking time. They are three, Perquim ans, Mecklenburg, and Jackson; and (3) which counties have been losing ground. They are twelve, as follows: Vance 1 point, Warren, Pamlico, Sampson, Beau fort, and Burke 2 points each, Cleveland and Hertford 3 points each, Greene 5, Hyde 6, Duplin 7, and Yancey 8 points. Reminders and Cautions Two extremes are to be avoided in statistical studies: 1. Pinning faith blindly to figures. The data used in these tables were gathered by the Census Bureau in Washington from the authorities in charge of the in dividual churches, and the tables have been again and again checked by the published minutes of the various church bodies. The calculations in the headquar ters of the North Carolina Club at the University were made l>y Messrs. Patten and Crawford, and repeatedly verified by office assistants. Nevertheless there is always the possi bility of error, and we call attention to some of these possibilities in the accom panying table. Thus, the Census re ports tliat church members in Bertie are 313 more that the total population ten years old and over. This county made the best showing m 1906, but the 1916 showing looks too wonderful to be true, yet so reads the report. Nearly two-thirds of church membership in Bertie is col ored, and perhaps the figures turned in by the negro churches are excessive. And it looks equally impossible for Guil ford to fall from 43 to 40 percent in cliurcli membership when rated against general population, and to rise one point when church members are rated against the population ten years old and over. However, Guilford leads the state in pop ulation increases, and the new-comers are largely mill villagers with maximum birthrates and large families.. There seems to be no other explanation. Or for Caswell county to move up 26 points in church membership and Yancey down 8 points in a single decade. It indicates a sort of Pentecostal revival in Casw'ell and a sad decline in Yancey where nearly ex actly half the population of responsible age is outside the church. But right or wrong, these figures are the very best obtainable, and it behooves the good people of every county to take stock of their church assets and neither to suffer the devil’s paralysis of undis turbed complacency on the one hand, nor on the other to accept a sorry UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION LETTER SERIES NO. 164 THE TEACHERS’ BUDGET Did you ever hear of the budget system? The recent legislature provided for a county budget system for schools in this state. The several items are interesting. Business houses have long realized the value of budgets and the items to be in cluded as expenditures in different busi nesses are interesting. Has Mr. Business man ever tried to make out the expense budget for the public school teachers? Let us suggest the items and let him fill in the amounts. The Items Item 1. Food, clothing, housing, laundry. Item 2. Medical, dental, surg ical care. Item 3. Insurance. Item 4. Church and charity. Item 5. Invest ments, (W. S. S. and Liberty Bonds). Item fi. Seif-improvements; (a) Books, magazines, newspapers, (b) entertain ment, (c) travel, (d) dues, fees in pro fessional organizations, (e) summer school expense. Item 7. Incidental expenses and purchases. Try to Do It Now take your pencil and divide the salary paid to each of the teachers in your school among these several items and see how much you can give to each item. Are you proud of the showing? Would you feel that you were getting a good living if these amounts were your annual income? Would you pay more or less to a man you hired to train your mule colt? A Minus Quantity It is no joke when a school teacher will reply as did one to whom the bank cash ier apologized for paying her check with soiled bills—“There’s no danger, no mi crobe could live on my salary.’ ’ ’Tis true ’tis pity, and pity ’tis, ’tis true. Public school teachers are makers of democracy in a very real sense and the laborer is worthy of his hire. fact is, nearly a third of the people of responsible ages in our good brother’s county are outside the various churches— more than 16,000 in all. We must re- showing without girding up their loins for ; build the walls of Zion as Nehemiah re- mightier efforts. I built the walls of Jerusalem. First of all 2. Tlie other extreme is dismissing sta tistics with a snort of skepticism. Really sensible people know that statistics at best offer nothing more than a basis for approximate guessing, but that without carefully gathered data they are guessing in the dark—a thing that foolish people have always been satisfied to do, but wise people never. The Facts in 1916 In 1916 there were 649,237 people in North Carolina, ten years old and older, who were not on the rolls of any church of any name, sect, or sort. They were 38 percent of this age group; which means tliat at least one person in every three the state over belongs to the big church of all-out-doors. In exactly half the counties of the state two-fifths or more of all the people of re sponsible ages are outside the churches; in 15 of these counties the non-church members are more than half of this age group; in two these counties—Jackson and Wilson—they are more than three- fifths, and in Edgecombe nearly seven in every ten people are outside the church. These ratios are amazing, but the to tals are even more amazing. The people of responsible ages who are outside the church in some of our leading counties are as follows: Beaufort 11,526 Buncombe 15,572 Durham 11,060 Edgecombe 17,551 Forsyth 11,252 Gaston 12,938 Guilford .22,447 Halifax 11,680 Haywood 10,262 Johnston 18,900 Mecklenburg 16,278 Nash 14,291 Pitt 15,520 Rockingham 15,465 Surry 11,177 Union 10,632 Wake 14,991 Wayne 11,263 Wilkes 10,615 Wilson 14,884 Tiiese ratios and totals afford something like an adequate conception of our home mission task. With more than half of our people outside the church in sixteen counties and more than a third of them outside in fifty-three counties, it seems clear that the Church of the Living God is dwelling still a stranger in a land that is not yet her own. How can she have the heathen for an inheritance and the utter most parts of the earth for a possession unless she can conquer the homeland? Our home mission enterprises have limped along lamely because for the most part our church folks have not known the hard facts. No great while ago we heard this report at presbytery; ‘ ‘No accessions by profession of faith; no available ma terial; nearly everybody in the communi ty belongs to some church. ’ ’ For long years we have all heard such reports. The we have got to know our job down to the last detail, and then we must build after Nehemiah’8 fashion—every man over against his own house. Gains and Losses However, the churches have been mak ing gains tiiese ten years. In 1906, for ty-four percent of our people of responsi ble ages were not on the roll of any church whatsoever; in 1916, the ratio fell to 38 percent. Here was a ten-year gain of six points. All told 75 counties made gains ranging from one point each in sev en counties to 26 points in Caswell. In 25 counties the gains fell below the state average of six points, while in 43 counties the gains were very considerable. The gains were 15 points or more in 12 coun ties and 20 points or more in 7 counties, as follows; in Tyrrell, Iredell, and Alle ghany 20 points each, in Richmond 22 points, in Ashe and Forsyth 23 points each, and in Caswell 26 points. If there is any general interest in it or demand for it we shall publish in an early issue of the News Letter a graduated list ranking the counties of the state in the order of ten-year gains and losses in church membership. NON-CHURCH MEMBERSHIP IN NORTH CAROLINA-1916 REV. A. W. CRAWFORD, Greensboro, and MISS ERNESTINE NOA, University of North Carolina. Counties ranked according to percent of people ten years old and over who were not church members in 1916; with totals of non-church members of responsible ages. Based on the 1916 Census of Religious Bodies and the Census Bureau esti mates of Population in 1916. State average 38 percent. Total non-church members, ten years old and over, 649,237. Rank Counties Percent Number Rank Counties Percent Number 1. Bertie .. 0 ... —313 46. Durham .... 38.. ...11,060 2. Gates .. 3... .. 192 46. Macon 38.. . .. 3,392 3. Northampton ... .. 12... .. 1,947 46. Montgomery... .... 38.. ... 4,201 4. Hertford .. 13... .. 1,550 49. Halifax .... 39.. ....11,680 4. Tyrrell .. 13... .. 505 50. Columbus 40.. . ... 9.332 6. Chowan .. 15... .. 1,314 50. Union 40.. ....10,632 7. Camden .. 17... .. 700 52. Alamance 41.. .... 8,987 8. Richmond ... 22... .. 3,564 52. Carteret 41.. ... 4,424 9. Pasquotank . . 24... .. 3,280 52. Greene 41 . .... 4,083 9. Rowan .. 24... .. 7,154 52. Wayne ...... 41.. ....11,263 11. Alexander .. 25... ... 2,170 52. AVilkes 41.. ....10,615 11. Caswell ... 25... ... 2,650 57. Duplin 42.. .... 8,253 13. Bladen ... 26... . 3,460 57. Gaston 42 . ....12,938 13. Dare ... 26... ... 908 57. Guilford 42.. ....22,447 1,3. Iredell ... 26... ,.. 7,045 57. Hyde 42.. .... 2,687 13. Lincoln ... 26... ... 3,415 57. Polk 42. . . ... 2,442 13. Washington ... 26,.. ... 2,125 57. Randolph 42. . .... 9,232 18. Forsyth .. 28... ...11,252 57. Sampson 42. . .... 9,821 18. Granville ... 28... ... 5,639 57. "Yadkin 42.. ... 4,948 18. Vance ... 28... ... 4,329 65. Ashe 43.. .... 5,956 21. Catawba ... 29... ... 6,649 65. Clav 43.. 1,222 21. Franklin ... 29.- . ... 5,068 67. Brunswick 44.. 4,890 21. Pender ... 29... ... 3,504 67. Harnett 44.. 8,313 24. New Hanover ... 30.... .... 7,708 69. Cherokee 45.. .... 4,990 24. Perquimans ... 30... ... 2,498 69. I.«noir 45.. .... 8,245 24. Wake ..; 30... ...14,992 71. McDowell 47.. .... 4,799 27. Cabarrus ... 31... ... 6,477 72. Beaufort 48.. . .. 11,526 27. Currituck ... 31... ... 1,900 72. Surry 48.. . ...11,177 27. Transylvania ... 31... ... 1,709 74. Yancey 49.. 4,400 27. Warren ... 31... ... 4,769 75. Burke 51.. .. .. 8,732 31. Cleveland ... 32... ... 7,328 75. Nash ... ....14,291 31. Craven ... 32... ... 6,154 77. Alleghany 53. .... 2,954 31. Mecklenburg ... 32... ...16,278 77. Graham .. .. 53. .... 1,922 34. Buncombe ... 33... ...12,572 77. Madison .... 7,741 34. Henderson .... 33... ... 4,165 77. Onslow 53. 5,901 34. Rutherford ... 33... ... 7,262 ,81. I’itt 54. ....15,520 34. Scotland.. ... 33... ... 4,081 S2. Johnston 56. .... 18,900 38. Anson ... 34... ... 6,882 83. Martin 56. .... 7,752 38. Davie 34... ... 3,494 82. Rockingham .. 56. ....15,465 40. Jones ... 35... ... 2,302 85. Swain 58. 4,872 40. Orange ... 35.. ... 3,866 86. Haywood 59. ....10,262 40. Person ... 35... ... 4,436 87. Stokes 62. .... 9,091 43. Davidson ....... ... 36.. ... 8,704 88. Jackson 64. 44. Pamlico ... 37,. ... 3,008 89. Wilson 66. 14,884 44. Stanly ... 37.. ... 6,028 90. Edgecombe .. 17,551 The following 10 counties are omitted for lack of authoritative population figures: Avery, Hoke, Lee, Moore, Robeson, and Watauga. Caldwell, Chatham, Cumberland, Mitchell,
The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 16, 1919, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75