RELIGION.

Southland Times, Issue 21576, 14 December 1931, Page 4

RELIGION.

To the Editor.

Sir, —Your contributor, Mr Arthur E. Sykes, is to be commended and congratulated on his able treatise dealing with “Religion—are we tired of it ?” Such a subject is of the greatest vital interest to all your readers, and as opinions are so diverse, ranging from antipathetic to sympathetic, Mr Sykes’s entry into the field reflects great credit upon him. Mr Sykes deals with the question from Religion’s point of view and one is apt to construe his remarks into laying the blame at the door of Religion itself or rather perhaps of those responsible for disseminating its truths and dogmas. His attitude may be the correct one, and I am not at all prepared to offer opposition to the product of his mature wisdom, but I am constrained to express the view that the world at large is more blameworthy than our pastors and teachers. False prophets, and instructors in false creeds, are now no more rife than in past centuries: even during the life of our Lord upon this earth there was considerable organized antagonism from “quack saviours of mankind,” and I think that the greater enlightenment and higher education of the masses of the present age contribute more to discouraging rather than encouraging illogical and illfounded programmes of salvation. The religion of Jesus Christ has altered not one whit since his crucifixion, and despite tho distorted view's preached from some pulpits, I consider that in the main its inherent power and grace are in no way lessened. That the appeal has depreciated there is no doubt, but to my mind that is attributable to the taught (or rather untaught) and not to the teachers. The present age is one of bluff and abuse. Dealing with bluff, let me observe that this is due to the lack of honesty of expression: “poker faces” are the fashion: if a man can convince his fellow that he is thinking something entirely different from his real thoughts he is doing “good business”: to keep your acquaintances guessing as to what your “line” is, is to have the advantage of him. This is productive of only suspicion. Can a man love his neighbour if this same neighbour is camouflaging his real inclinations towards him? And if Man No. 1 is honest, how can Neighbour know this if all around him are practising duplicity? I say, Sir, that honesty of expression is scoffed at as an attribute and a virtue, with the result that the players in this world-stage have turned to poker and relegated to history the acts from childhood to childishness Can Religion be blamed for this?

The depravity of the various forms of life is, I think, sufficient evidence to support my statement that this is an age ol abuse. Music has degenerated to jazz, the stage has fallen to the level of vaudeville and passion pictures, sport is no longer feats of strength and human skill but a succession of daredevil stunts on artificial machines, literature descends from the plane of uplifting thought to the “thrill on every page” turn which discounts any regard for decency of style or material. And then conies Religion and where do we find that? As Mr Sykes has pointed out it is no longer Christianity but Churchianity.

This abuse is, I fear, the rule rather than the exception, but as with all things we find the exceptions in every phase to a greater or lesser degree. Honest and able musicians are still producing something infinitely higher than a syncopated arrangement of jangled noises, good and wholesome plays and pictures may still be enjoyed, a fair minority of writers are publishing material that encourages thought rather than thrill, and honest preachers of John 3: 16 are yet to be found. I have made these observations with an idea to illustrate that Religion has not suffered alone. Pure Religion has lost its appeal to a grievous degree but not entirely through any failing inherent in itself. It’s fall can be attributed more to the trend of modern depraved taste and the decline is therefore a result and not a cause of a general trend towards things superficial and gilt bedaubed. Mr Sykes blames Religion while this humble scribe attacks the world, and I think neither is right to the absolute, exclusion of the other. I do not wish to derogate from the force of Mr Sykes’s reasoning, but to assist him in his cause of having Refigion recognized and practised for what it is, which is best described by the words of the late Arthur Christopher Benson in his essaj' on that subject “ the power, whatever it be, which makes a man choose what is hard rather than that which is easy, what is lofty and noble rather than what is mean and selfish ; that puts courage into timorous hearts, and gladness into clouded spirits; that consoles men in grief, misfortune, and disappointment; that makes them joyfully accept a heavy burden; that, in a word, uplifts men out of the dominion of material things, and sets their feet in a purer and simpler region.” I am, etc., RUFUS.