THE BISHOP’S SERMON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15810, 28 December 1911, Page 2

THE BISHOP’S SERMON.

DISCUSSED IN AUCKLAND. [From Our. Correspondent.] AUCKLAND, December 27

The remarks made by Bishop Julius iu the course of his sermon on Christmas Day regarding the divinity of Christ and the trashy nature of many modem hymns has aroused much inter, est in Auckland. The local papers published the Press Association message with flaring headlines, and the “ Star’ to-night gives the opinion of many leading local churchmen. Bishop Crcssley was first approached with a view to securing some statement from him as to the remarks passed. by Bishop Julius concerning “ the many in the Church who had very grave doubts about the divinity of Christ-/’ and “the false setting of the divine truth from the false amount, of what was called Jesus worship.' 1 Bishop Crossley, however, while expressing thanks for the opportunity given him of expressing an opinion, stated that he would prefer not to be put in the -position of appearing to criticise the opinions of a brother Bishop, and he begged to be excused. The Rev R. ti. Knowles Kempton, of the Tabernacle, said that as he read the message he found himself to be in entire sympathy with the views of Bishop Julius, for ho understood that the Bishop was contending for the divinity of Christ. Bishop Julius had said. “ The divinity of Christ is an essential part of the Christian belief,” and Mr Kempton went on to say: "There has been, and must he, progress in theology, but the divinity of Christ is oiie of its immovable foundations. I understand,” Mr Kempton continued, “that Bishop Julius is referring to the mediating theology with which every Christian minister is familiar. and also, of course; many among our people. The revival of this mediating theology is largely due to the teachings of Ritschl, a Prussian theologian, who was born in Berlin in 1822, and earlier than that to the teachings of Schleirmaeher and Hegel at the beginning of last century. The views obtaining in many quarters to-day are to the effect that the difference between Christ and ourselves is in Tlegree, and not- in kind. In Him the divino element had the ascendancy, and in us it had not. These views have communicated themselves to those who think that Christ’s type of goodness is not a human typo, that His life affords no oxample because of His remoteness from us. But this type is-essentially, a human type ; for sin is not an inherent characteristic of human nature; it is an intrusion. History shows that the intermediate views of Christ’s person have never l>een able to survive the real issue, which, as Dr Orr says, is between a truly divine Christ and pure humanitarianism. Belief in God can only secure itself through belief in Christ.

B°v A. C. Lawry, of St John’s Methodist Church, when askod his opinion of Bishop Julius’s sermon, said that the Press Association message had presumably only given some extracts from the Bishop’s sermon, and it was hardly fair to criticise when the full context was not before them. It was safe to assert, however, that the hymn books .used by the Methodist Church did not contain any hymns of the kind referred to bv Bishop Julius. In all their hymn books the divinity of Christ was very clearly taught and strongly supported. What the Bishop meant when he said that “if he could only speak what was down in the heart of him ho would make people jump” Mr Lawry said he was somewhat at a loss to understand, but he took it that the Bishop meant that on so solemn and important a subject it was impossible under our present limitations to actually find words of expression. Personally, added Mr Lawry, he held strongly to the truth of the divinity of Christ. Until he was in possession of a fuller report of Bishop Julius’s remarks he did not care to give a further expression of opinion, beyond saying that the Bishop was no doubt referring to his owii Church onlv.

The Rev Isaao Jolly, in reply to a reporter, said: “Judging the remarks of Bishop Julius from the Press Association report I would say they aro distinctly unwise. Of course the doctrine of the Deity of our Lord is an essential article of the Christian faith, and I presume Bishop Julius means the Deity of our Lord when he says ‘ the divinity of Christ is an essential part of the Christian belief,’ although the word ‘ divinity ’ is sometimes used in an ambiguous sense. Viewed in that way Bishop i J ulius’s statement will be regarded as a, commonplace by earnest Christian thinkers. Bishop Julius was also right in warning his hearers of the folly of throwing away a belief that has stood the test of experience and examination as faith in the Deity of our Lord has done, and this warning is certainly needed by many half educated thinkers in New Zealand. As to the dangers of ‘ Jesuolatry, that is the separate worship of tile man Jesus’ (to borrow a sentence from ‘ Sabatier’), I do not think there is any danger of that among Protestant Christians, ;and I am not in a position to say whether -the danger is real with the less instructed adherents of modern Romanism. Christians in worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ do not worship the man Jesus but the Divine Lord, and such worship follows inevitably from the frank acceptance of the belief in our Lord’s Deity. Wo find it in the New Testament, as when Stephen prayed ‘ Lord Jesus receive my spirit.’ We find it also in the worship of the early Church. In an oft-quoted passage Pliny sneaks of Christians singing hymns of praise to Christ as God. We havo it in some of the greatest hymns of all ages, as in Bernard of Clairvaux’s ‘Jesus Thou Joy of Loving Plcarts ’ and in Wesley’s ‘Jesus t Lover of My Soul.’ Ido not think it is true that Christians are in danger of worshipping ‘ the man Jesus,’ and it is certainly not true that only hymns that aro ‘a sort of sentimental trash’ give the worship of our Lord and Saviour.. It is true that wo draw near to the Father through Him, but it is not true that we aro never to offer Him direct, worship. It seems to me that tlio statement of Bishop Julius is far more likely to cause perplexity than to allay it. It seems to savour of the sensational.”

Mr G. A. Aldridge, pastor of the West Street Church, Newton, who recently lectured on the subject under review, when interviewed said:—“l think that the Bishop is right concerning the attitude of his own people regarding the divinity of Christ. I judge this from the readiness with which the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is being tossed aside by many Anglican writers, and I also think that the reason why the doctrine is held with laxity is because the Church, as a whole, has failed to grasp the full significance of the doctrine of the Kingdom of God as set forth in the Scriptures. I should like, of course, to know why the Bishop thinks the doctrine is essential in that fact. I myself believe that it is, but that it is equally essential to state the humanity of Christ Jesns. I do not know whether the Bishop means to insist unon the Deity of Christ .when he speaks of divinity. There are Many in the Church who make a very clear distinction between the two.”