OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY

Taranaki Daily News, 5 July 1929, Page 13

OBSERVANCE OF SUNDAY

DEBATE BY WAIKATO SYNOD CHANGES IN CUSTOMS TRACED. BISHOP QUERIES "DESECRATION” (By Wire—Special Reporter.) Hamilton, Last Night. Sunday observance was the subject of an interesting discussion in the Waikato Anglican Synod to-day. lhe debate arose when Bishop Clienington moved “that due observance of the Lord’s Day is a matter affecting the simplicity and freedom of the gospe . Tho bishop said attacks on institutional religion were becoming stronger and stronger and they must gird up thenloins. From time to time it became necessary to strip off accretions that became attached to'the simplicity of the gospel. The central truth of Christianity was the resurrection of Christ. He-had endeavoured to put it forward that the Lord’s Day stood as pre-emin-ent evidence of the resurrection. Without any direct command early Christians had changed from the observance of one day to tho observance of another day in a totally different manner for a totally different reason. This was of the greatest significance. The fact underlying the change was the resurrection. Most people would agree that tho Old Testament as such had nothing to -do with the Christian religion. The bishop quoted New Testament passages pointing to the change in the observance of the first day. of the week as the Lord’s Day. So far as tho Anglican Church was concerned there was no obligation to observe the day as some people imagined. There was nothing in the Book of Common Prayer prohibiting the doing of this or that on the Lord s Day. In no way could the observance or nonobservance of the day affect the nioial law or the salvation of anyone. Such, observances were merely aids to the living of a Christian life. To some people certain modes of observance might be a hindrance to Christian living. The bishop said those who believed ho advocated churchmen's attendance at holy communion and doing what they liked the rest of the day had not fully understood him. If they had arrived at the ideal of worship it did not matter whether people worked or played on Sunday. Tho simplicity and freedom of the, n-ospel should not be obscured or overloaded with prejudices and practices. It did not matter which day of the week was set aside for worship.

"TEACHING SOMETHING UNTRUE.” When he wrote his much-discussed article, the bishop eaid, he had no reason to suppose he was writing anything more than he had always held and thought. In their mistaken identification of the Lord’s Day with the Sabbath they had been teaching something which was untrue. , Many of the present generation had realised this mistake and had thrown over the sacredness of the Lord’s Day. This increasing “desecration of tho Lord’s Day” was commonplace. Why?— Because they had been teaching wrong notions and had only themselves to blame. , . - s If they went back to the first principles laid down at the Reformation, or even as far back as the primitive practices of Clu’istendom, they would find how the present viewpoint came to be adapted. They should be clear and consistent in their teaching and reconcile what they taught with the facts on which the teaching was based. . Seconding the motion Mr. D. Hay said the expressions of the bishop were very welcome to him. He had been taught that any game could be played on .Sunday so long as those who did not care to do so were not disturbed. The' bishop/ view might come as a shock to some people who had been taught from infancy on hard and fast principles.' It was time churchmen considered the subject on the right lines. “I am satisfied that if the Waikato churchmen knew the bishop’s views a few years ago the bishop would not occupy the position he does to-day, declared Mr. G. Gibson (Okato). Canon J. L. A. Kayll rose to a point of order. He considered such an opinion most unseemly. The traditions of hundreds of years were not easily set aside, added Mr. Gibson. The idea was getting around that one should not obey the law unless one agreed with it. This was a very dangerous tendency. If the bishop did not agree with the generally-recognised laws of the church he should try to have them altered and not defy them. They wanted to get simplicity, said Mr. Gibson. Why not go farther and say they could do without churches and clergy also? He strongly protested against the bishop’s words. THANKFUL FOR LORD’S DAY. Archdeacon Cowie said all who knew about the Lordjs Day were thankful to have it. He pointed out that this had no connection with the Jewish Sabbath. In his childhood his parents had tried to make the day one of joy and had had special toys for the day. For the first 500 years of Christianity there was no confusion between the two days. The archdeacon said the bishop might have been a little unguarded regarding the Prayer Book side of the question. The Prayer Book definitely laid down services which could be observed on the' Lord’s Day. Mr. A. N. Del Willis (Cambridge) considered the unlimited license allowed in the bishop’s article should be avoided. No one should dictate as to how .Sunday should be spent but the commandment “Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy” should not be forgotten. Picnics, golf and other amusements were certainly a lure but he felt the day should be spent more profitably. It would be a great mistake if people were to follow the bishop’s views word for word. He suggested an amendment “that the views of the bishop regarding the question are contrary tv the feeling of this synod.” The Rev. J. N. Thompson (Inglewood) spoke of the Continental Sunday and expressed the view that the Mass in the Roman Catholic Church and the Communion in the Anglican church were two entirely different things producing different results. He did not think a person entering fully into the fellowship of the Holy Communion would disgrace himself during the rest of the day. The spirit that what was right on Monday was wrong on Sunday was quite opposite to the spirit of the Lord, “SECULARIST NEEDS NO LEAD.” That he could not understand tho meaning of the bishop’s motion was

stated by the Rev. R. L. Connolly (Ta -'z; Aroha). The idea of Sunday was that - a segment of time should be given to y> God. The bishop of London had said.y-y Sunday was useless unless there were -y some sacrifice on the part of the church people. • . * ' -• “We can leave it to the secularist to look after the holiday part of it;- Jw </• does not need the bishop to lead Ipm in that,” Mr. Connolly added. “T lievo Sunday, or part of it, .should be.-y?’® devoted to serious study as there is no other time of the week for this.” (This was greeted with applause). < '• • As an amendment Mr. Connolly yy moved: “That in the opinion of-synod the proper observance of the Lord’s Day-.‘.y is a matter affecting the spiritual and-yg national life of the people and. synod calls upon all churchmen to. give tho matter more serious thought.” Mr. J. G. Wynard seconded. ' : . Mr. H. Seddon Hills (Taumarunui) said the purpose of the motion appeared ■ to be an attack on those who pared to. go beyond the bishop’s These people should be encouraged rather than attacked. At this stage the debate was adyvyJ journed. ’ h 0