Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18537, 24 April 1922, Page 9

CHURCH UNION AND ECONOMICS.- 1 ' TO THE EDITOB. - . Sib, —‘“Scrutator” writes in a fine bold style and with a candour which many timid y Christians might with advantage imitate. Christianity will never become,na liidr.g reality without a strong conviction,fa-fear-: -. less courage, and completely disinterested.-, motives, and these pictures are ajqiarently well indicated in “Scutator s” letters. Where one might differ with him is rather ir. his methods and in some of his conclusions, than in his purpose, which is tines-, ceptionally Christian. ‘g The first and central question with wHittlf; all Christians are most deeply concerned l is r to get unity. At the start we must agree that in the practice of the Christian virtues lies the foundation upon which .the reconstruction of society must rest... If, we ' accept this fact, we at once bring, tinychurch into tho forefront as a social .reformer. This will naturally expose the; . church to criticism, but it is really 'in HiS . attempt to enforce the Christian ■■'vii'fhdab that opposition is aroused. The datura!' bend of the human mind is strongly ’sel-/ 1 fish, and from this innate propensity arises? the external necessity of, controlling; the,;iriv dividual with a restraining force which njaj:? take different forms, but which, under. Christian conception, constantly, aims at voluntary enforcement and is always- devqid of retaliatory action. The Christian Church, can therefore with perfect assurance claim, that it. and it alone, has the, plan, of man’s salvation. Now it is.thesofacts that arouse a fooling of antagfinifim towards churchgoers, because they do, not attempt to realise Christianity, but within the mind of many churchgoers it is a moot point whether the Christian ethical-bode is really practical. It has negay been explained by the clergy, and the dm-*? sions that rend the church are certainly not,, on account of any difference of qpipiqn on tho moral code. We may, therefore, ask. What is it that divides the Christian clergy? ““Scrutator” seemingly blames the people, for he writes: "I. without hesitation, .saw. that the. responsibility rests upon ' the people who employ the clergy and upon all who have departed from the Apostles.’ teaching.” This statement can hardly be' said to be correct, because it iinp.lcs..ythat there are no Christians to be fonud in any--of the churches. Will “Scrutator” plmL;© name one church that has not' 'departed from the Apostles’ leaching, or 'will*' he l ' name one church that truly practice ChfWtfc teaching? This would give us -emetjiitig? tangible to examine in proof of,: his, fon>, tentions. In the' meantime we know:!hafc; it is the clergy who proclaim that “Where'., the spirit of Christ abided complete unity of hearts prevail.” This statement. . which” is indisputably true, puts a differentHoltnplcxiou upon “Scrutator s' unhesitated declaration, because it proves that,.the divi-.j sion among the clergy can only the absence of Christ's spirit, and this removes the responsibility from the congregation and proves “Scrutator” to be' in er>-or. At present the church cannot lead because the heads of the different denominations cannot agree, and here I would ask again. Will the clergy inform their gations why they cannot agree? Aariated clergy would at once produce a- tinited v church, and with a united cliurch.it would 1 matter'very little to the clergy what people outside the church thought or said about -: them. The economic side of the question-, need not be entered into until thc:clsrgy,h; hare come to an understanding “among-,V themselves as to whether can 1» applied apart from a of the present economics.—l ami otesc. . ■,>. 17 Wj, Smnsui.