WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CHURCH?

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 30, Issue 22, 19 March 1918, Page 6

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CHURCH?

(By H. Lefroy Yorko, M.A., 8.D., in Bibby's Annual.) During the past tlirco years the Church has been the subject of much adverse criticism. Before the War it was accused of opposition to progress and enlightenment, but now a more serious charge is preferred against it, involving a failure of influence and character. It has been urged that after nineteen centuries the Church has been unable to redeem the world from the most cruel and devastating war known to history. It was to be expected, it is said, that the religion of love and goodwill, with its tens of thousands of preachers and exponents in the great countries of Europe, would by this time have sufficiently leavened society with Christian ideals to make world-wide hatred and strife impossible.

It is urged, again, that the Church, by insisting upon exemption from the Military Service Act, has failed to take its fair share in the burdens and sacrifices of the country. Numerous letters have appeared in the Press complaining that so many of the young-clergy and ministers are staying at homo in comfort and peace, while their comrades in medicine, in law, in teaching, and commerce, endure the dangers and hardships of the trenches. Emphatic expression was given to this view at the last Trades Union Congress, when it was said; “These men preach sacrifice, and leave others to practise it." Mr H. G. Wells goes so far as to say: “I think that the world is finding its way to God in spite of the intervention of the Churches.'' The writer of the Student in Anns, a brave soldier as well as a loyal Churchman, speaking from a wide knowledge of men, complains that the Church is out of touch with life, that it lacks reality, and fails to interpret the needs and aspirations of men. These reflections, though not palatable, are entirely wholesome; for, as Maeterlinck says: “A truth that disheartens because it is true, is still of more value than the most stimulating of falsehoods.” Is there anything in the teaching of the Church which would help to explain its declining influence? For some reason or other, the Church has failed to unite men; it has often been the great promoter of strife. The bitterest wars in history have been fought at its instigation; sectarian quarrels over dogmas have thrown back the education of our country for a quarter of a century. At the present moment it is dividing our kinsmen across the Irish Channel, and keeping alive antagonisms that statesmen cannot heal. Before the outbreak of the War, Christendom was shaken to its centre, and the Church filled with acrimonious disputes, because Christian brethren in Africa, who were not confirmed, were permitted to share the Sacrament of brotherhood. In social life the Church creates class distinctions, and forms opposing societies and cliques. It would appear as if the forces that made for union were outside the Churches. Men will make common cause in the affairs of the nation, in the pursuit of knowledge, or philanthropy, or social betterment. Even commerce, or sport, will unite them in honourable rivalry. But let the Church enter in, with its sharply defined dogmas and creeds, and there is estrangement, even to. the division of families. This result is inevitable so long as beliefs and opinions are held to bo of paramount importance. If salvation depends upon the acceptance of particular dogmas, it is natural that the denial of those dogmas should call forth the severest condemnation. The Roman Catholic Church quite logically defends persecution on that very ground. It is argued that it is good for the heretic to suffer in his body, that his soul may be saved. Such views have shocked and alienated from the Church many of the foremost minds. Huxley declared that Heathenism knew nothing so cruel, and unjust, as the teaching that men would be lost because they could not accept a certain form of belief. Tennyson said it was inconceivable that the Almighty should ask us at the last what our religious opinions were, and not rather “Have you been true to yourself, and given a cup of cold water to a disciple in My name ? ” It is usually contended that particular dogmas are essential to the making of character. Experience disproves this. By transferring the emphasis from life to creed, a fictitious value is given to religious opinions, which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred are simply inherited. To profess a faith is accounted a more religious act than to be faithful. To bo in the “apostolic succession” is thought to be more essential to one's sacred vocation than to behave ns ,a gentleman. The truth is, doctrines and dogmas have little effect upon character. Wo are formed by the “atmosphere” in which we live. In the home, or in the school, whore there is a fine spirit, children instinctively to it. In our public schools boys will seldom act meanly, because they belong to a community whore noble conduct is expected of them. To “play the game” is a code of honour more potent than much moralising. It belongs to those in authority in the Church to create the right atmosphere by cultivating a noble and generous spirit. Let them avoid small, sectarian disputations, and embue the minds of the community with larger thoughts of truth, duty, and love. If only the Church in Europe during the last fifty years had left alone the things that divide men, and had given all its onorgy to the forming of an atmosphere of charity and goodwill, it is impossible to believe that the present worldwar would have been upon us. Insistence upon dogmatic beliefs is a source of weakness to the Church in another direction, because the advance of intelligence and research has made those beliefs increasingly difficult. As a result, there has arisen an atmosphere of unreality, of which laymen so often complain. The service has no positive note, for the preacher himself is not convinced; there is no response by the people for the teaching has nothing in common with their life. A doctrinal sermon is a synonym of dullness. The Master spoke with an authority that was owned of all, for He affirmed His freedom from tradition, and addressed the living heart of man. God, He declared, was not the God of the dead, but of the living, and was to be found in the actual experiences of men to-day. It is the dead hand of antiquity that | Is paralysing the Church’s energies. *

Sacred learning is for the most part concerned with dates and authorship and ancient authority. Immense labour and research are bestowed upon the_ endeavour to prove that certain sayings and events took place some thousands of years ago; but of what use can those words and events be to us, unless they reveal a law that is constant, and whose operation may be discovered in the facts of life as they are known today? When critics were discussing whether a certain picture of St. John was by Fra Angelico, or not, its history was scarcely mentioned; the question turned almost entirely upon the qualities of the painting. And if the Church is to regain its influence, the authority of its teaching must depend not upon tradition, but upon its own inherent truth and beauty, and upon its appeal to the reason and conscience of men. The historian and the grammarian must give place to the Seer and the Prophet. It will be found, then, that the truths which are vital are common to au, and that the things which divide men are trivial and futile. This thought was nobly expressed by John Wesley, whose name is sometimes invoked in support of narrow and reactionary views: “Give me thine hand. I do not mean be of my opinion; you need not, I do not expect, or desire it, neither do I mean I will be of your opinion. I cannot; it docs not depend on my choice. I can no more think that I can see or hear as I will. Keep your opinion and I mine as steadily as ever. Only give me thine hand. Ido not mean embrace my modes of worship, or I will embrace yours. I have no desire to dispute with you one moment; lot all matters stand aside, let them never come into sight. If thine heart is my heart, if thou love God and all mankind, I ask no more, give me thine hand.” If only the Church could unite in this spirit how incalculable might be its power! It would establish a brotherhood which men would everywhere recognise and honour. It would open to clergy and ministers a broader outlook upon the world, and remove the reproach of narrowness and selfcomplacency that are’born of exclusiveness.

The trouble is, that religious teachers are committed beforehand to creeds and formularies from which they are not permitted to depart, under pains i and penalties. In youth they are segregated in colleges, and screened from the contagion of “disturbing” thought. The first lesson in theology received by the writer, and remembered now, after many years, contained the ominous words: “We come here as men pledged to a creed, not as men seeking one; if afterwards you find reason to change your views, you will retire quietly, and give the Committee no trouble.” The warning was legally correct, for the dead hand w r as there; but how can minds grow, or truth bo discovered, in an atmosphere of threatening and repression? During a crisis in the Am 1 erican Civil War, President Lincoln was accused of changing his mind. He replied: “I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. ’ ’ But in the Church a new view can scarcely lift up its head unless it is introduced by some ancient authority. It is our boast that the present worldconflict is a fight for freedom, a struggle to throw off an intolerable despotism. But if the wider freedom is to be won, it is not only Czars and Kaisers that must be overthrown, but all who aim at imposing their mind and will upon the conscience of others. The worst tyranny is not that of the temporal ruler, but that which seeks to lord it over others in the region of the spirit. Nations are born in war, and this mighty conflict, which has shaken the religious life of Europe to its foundations, is shattering old prejudices and beliefs. Is it too much to hope that the Church will renew its life, and, casting off its subservience to tradition, affirm that all men are free to believe and worship as it is revealed to them of the spirit, and that sincerity and charity alone admit to the fellowship of the righteous?