HAS THE CHURCH FAILED?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18311, 12 November 1927, Page 4

HAS THE CHURCH FAILED?

To The Editor. Sin—Not desiring to burden your columns with repetitions, I would respectfully suggest to your correspon» dent. Mr C. J. Lee. that he carciully re-read the first paragraph of my last letter. on November 5. I trust that your correspondent will then observe that when Gibbon stated that “Eusev hius suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion." Gibbon utter: ed what logicians call a “universal’ statement. which needs only one exception to refute it; and that. when I stated that Gibbon was guilty of an‘ injustice to Eusebius. I made a “particular” statement which a single in—l stance would sufice to prove. I subsuit that the single instance of the candour of Eusebius to which I have already twice referred. both proves my statement and wrecks Gibbon’s. This is ABC. logic. and all the flumxnery in the world about “warped." mmds is unavailing against it. Your correspondent quotes Milrnan. and his very quoting of Miiman in this connection involves the same fallacy, or lam much mistaken. I would suggest to your correspondent that he keep his eyes on the words " some other" in his quotation from Milrnan, “ That he (Milman)‘ would further observe with regard to some other ob jectionable passages," etc. Your correspondent refers to how " Gibbon brought all his influential opponents to the floor without changing his views or one word of his history.” If this reference is relevant to the issue. then on the same basis of reasoning, H. G. Wells's statement to the efiect that Gladstone was an ignorant man. must be accepted: for. notwithstanding Wells’s quarrel with his “influential ” coeditors, he “ neither changed his views or one word of his history." I think your correspondent has been fallacious again. But we cannot go on debating this point forever. even if your valuable space were available. lam content to let your readers pass judgment. Mr Lee says that the falling o’fi with respect to church attendance is evidence of the church declining. I sub-‘ mit that his conclusion is fallacious. in‘ so far as large congregations are not‘ always indicative of spiritual power; and in so far as. in history. a falling 05 of the influence of the church has.‘ at least once. preceded a great revival. 1 Mr Lee seems to argue that Christian‘ity is a myth since. if it is not, 810 imillions of adherents of Polytheism will be condemned to hell. I look at it this way: if so many able minds were not combating the Christian religion, ‘its influence would have reached much ‘farther than it has, and the greatest ‘blarne attaches to those who, instead lof helping the spread of the Gospel. have done the very opposite. By the way. the Bible does not teach that all lost persons will sufier alike, but clearly teaches a gradation of sufiering: as, for example. in the words, “therefore they (pharisees and their ,like) shall receive the greater damnation.” At all events, the heathen shall not know the misery of remorse that shall come to those who lost salvation even though they " knew the way."' But I candidly confess that I do not know what I would like to with respect to the heathen: yet this I know. that whatever shall happen to them. " the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogather?

Furthermore. sir. I think'that your correspondent has definitely shown that he cannot define a Christian. He considers that perfection should be the mark of a Christian. But Christ said, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The Sermon on the Mount is the most terrible law sermon that has ever been preached, and utterly condemns every one of us. The truths uttered there. couched in exquisite phrase. pierce the heart of sinful man like a cold, deadly blade~ The object of that sermon is to show us the need of a. Saviour by making ‘us feel how crushingly great is the distance that lies between us and the ideal man. Your correspondent should, therefore, not quote from that sermon in order to show us what a Christian should be like: the sermon has an entirely different object. Your corresa pendent also overlooks the fact that‘ while there is one “Spirit," there are} " diversities of gifts " (I. Con. 12, 4).} Each Christian should therefore not be expected to be able to do what some‘ have done. It should be noted furthermore that the Scriptures do not promise that the special powers which were to be given to some Christians were to be given in every age. It should furthermore be noted that there is a twofold faith—justifying faith. which is absolute. and the faith which. at its best. will ‘remove pacuntans." i.e., great obstacles figuretwely speaking, this faith being relative: Justify» in: faith, if present at 111, is present in full measure: but the other faith may be present in greater or less rheasure. and if week may not manifest to others its presence at all. Your correspondent's reference to Isaiah. 45, 7. is in a measure very pertinent. But as the question involved would take pages rather than columns

to discuss, I have refrained from atr‘ tempting to answer it. I think your correspondent. however. knows that the teaching of the Bible with regard to the “evil " (national calamities) that God " creates " is that God's punishments in this life are corrective tether than punitive. and that they are never punitive before they have been corregtive: __ _ _ A A_ _

I welcome Mr Cox's challenge of my statement having reference to Darwin. Nothing is further from my mind than any desire to do Darwin or his memory an injustie, even though I believe that he has done the human race a great dis-service. \Vhen I referred to his returning to belief in the Bible. I merely quoted what I had rend bled: on white. I thank Mr Cox for his lucid rejoinder. He must not think. however. that the law of evidence is quite satisfied. The lady concerned states that she was quite alone with Darwin when he made his so-cdled confession. Her evidence is direct. although not substantiated. The other evidence is circumstantial. with its in~ herent weakness. But I In: satisfied to let the matter pass. .I do not mind losing an argument. The field: is pregnant with other nemes that one might substitute for that of Darwin,‘ 0! men who beat a hasty retreat hack‘ to the Bible. after having zttem ted} to discredit it for many a day. gust think, to give one example, of the bn'l—li'ant poet Heine. ‘ The reference of Mr Cox to Mr‘ Rockefeller is a joke, and as there is no true analogy between his case and‘ Voltaire's. and as my argument is‘ therefore undisturbed, we shall smile at the joke. bow, and retire— I am. am. (Rev) H. BRUIIN.