DO WE BELIEVE ?

Otago Witness, Issue 2652, 11 January 1905, Page 14

DO WE BELIEVE ?

(A Digest of a Series of Letters in the London

Daily Telegraph.)

By L. C. F

There was opened on September 29, in the columns of the Daily Telegraph, a cozTespondence, which has proved of such absorbing interest, that the pape* is still (November 10) devoting four leading columns daily to it ; and that last Sunday, five weeks after the opening of the correspondence, 80 sermons were preached bearing upon the question. The correspondence was opened by a letter signed " Oxoniensis," and pointing out that, in view of the approaching Church Congress on October 1, and the probable discussion of minor points of church doctrine and ritual, it would be well to aslc whether we believe in the fundamentals of a religion of which these things are but the outward show. This letter rings throughout with the question — Do we believe? Do we believe what is taught us by all the churches : that there is a life to come, for which this life is but a preparation? Do we accept the Christian standard of morals laid down in the Semion on the Mount, or do we only repeat those Avords with our lips, living with our lives the world's standard ; seeking wealth instead of poverty ; self -ad van cement instead of self-sacrifice ; getting the best of our enemies instead of doing good to^ them? We cannot deny that in all great cities of the world the counsel of perfection is not the one which prevails. "Is our Christianity a splendid hypocrisy?" What is it? What do we believe?

Such was the question. It was no challenge, no attack ; it was not intended to be made a question of morals, of the con-" sistency of practice and belief, nor of church systems ; but simply a probing, an examination of the national faith. Do we, individually, believe in God .and a life to come? Is Christianity with us a dead letter or a living faith? This opening letter caused the widest interest, and though, naturally, a large part of the following correspondence emanated from the clergy, yet all classes of the community contributed to it. Probably the ablest letter of the series is that which appeared the following day, opening with the lines : " The human heart is ceasing to be dogmatic, but it is hot ceasing to be devout. Modern intelligence will not consent to be cramped by the precise catechism of .any creed, or to be fettered in thought and spirit by the sixteenth century formulas upon which all the churches are in reality founded." This writer states, the. case of those who, though "religious by instinct," are yet " sceptical by intelligence towards all the systems of all the sects " — that everincreasing body of people who yearn to be able to place their belief in the God of the churches, yet whose intellects cannot permit them to accept the concomitant doctrines that those churches demand of them. Such lead, perhaps, less happy lives, because of this " reluctant disbelief," but not necessarily worse lives from an ethical point of view. They are in a case to deserve pity, rather than to be branded as wicked. Many of these are earnest inquirers after truth, who have nevertheless not been able to find in the churches adequate fuel for the dying, fire of their faith. Too often, alas ! the weak inefficacy of the modern pulpit offers stones for bread to the starving soul. That cry rings sadly in some of these letters ; the pathos in them is itself an argument for faith when contrasted with the clear tone of joy pervading the letters of those believers who have taken part in the correspondence. Even these, be it noticed, hold widely diverse views; they count with those who believe still in the infallibility of the Scriptures, also these whose worship goes out "to the Unknown God," and those who have found the great power of the Holy Spirit to be the '■'Indwelling God," whose temples are our bodies. By the Church of England itself this correspondence has been welcomed : the Dean of Westminster expresses "an increasing sense of the timeliness of the question " ; Archdeacon Sinclair points out that it is being more widely read than sermons or books, and that by it we learn to understand the difficulties of others, at the same time gaining strength for our own faith. The Bishop of London admits that the Christian faith was never more severely tried or attacked than at present, and that there are thousands in London who do not believe ; but he affirms emphatically the belief of millions. He points to the progressive work of missionaries, the power of Christianity and its increasing influence, even in the unspeakably sad quarters of East London. Many of the letters show a turning away from complex doctrine and dogmas : in several of them is expressed a longing that was expressed first in the words, " Can we find new formulas to express again the living faith of one great church distinguishing all who believe in the Divine interpretation of things from those who are content with the theory of mechanical materialism?" For such a church, however, the world is not ready yet; too many of us are still material, even in our worship, and need a concrete expression of our holy things. In that lies the strength of the Roman Catholic Church. And, until the time is ripe, it is perhaps well that the two forms of worship — may they be called the ethereal and the substantial? — should exist side by side.

Perhaps, to those who once fall into doubt, the great difficulty of faith lies in its very simplicity. The man who is steeped in science and rationalism finds it difficult to become as a little child. For he forgets that he is not asked to accept bard doctrines. "What Christ required of men while He was on earth was that they should follow Him. He did not require that men should accept a certain number of propositions concerning Him. Never was His own liberal rule more in need of application. Even though a man did not §c© his way to follow closely with

the Church, yet. if he showed that to him Christ was* the highest authority, his true guide in all moral and spiritual matters, that man was a Christian. If men could be induced to look away from and beyond churches and institutions, dogmas and creeds, and grasp the idea that Jesus Christ was the world's Saviour, many difficulties in the way would be removed."

It is not possible to argue belief into people. But if the existence of God be accepted, is it not natural that He should reveal Himself to His creature, man, and that He should do it through man, through the Old Testament fathers, through all great leaders of religion, through His own Son?

Perhaps the greatest argument for Christianity is its regenerating influence on the world : ' ever, when it has been most nearly followed, the world has been at its best. But faith is rarely won through such arguments ; it is that intangible gift of God, priceless and yefc without price, since it is to be had for the asking. _^_ Is this, after all, a useless inquiry? Must the answer to this great question always be, as these widely differing letters have shown it, " Some believe, some do not ; some do not — some do not know what to believe " ? The good of such a discussion is that it may bring help or strength to all three of these classes ; the evil, that it may but engender polemic argument. There can be no conclusive " Yes " or "No " to such a question : it can but be left, as the Dean of Westminster leaves it — "Do ire believe? Yes, at bottom many of us do. We believe, and at the same moment ask help for our

unbelief. . . . Others of us cannot saythus much — perhaps the majority of us at present."