SUNDAY SERVICE FOR SPORTSMEN IS NOT APPROVED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18939, 9 December 1929, Page 16

SUNDAY SERVICE FOR SPORTSMEN IS NOT APPROVED.

AUCKLAND MINISTER DESCRIBES IT AS AN “ ACT OF INSOLENCE.” (Special to the “ Star.”) AUCKLAND, December 7. In the course of a lengthy contribution to the Sunday observance question. the Rev Isaac Jolly, formerly minister of St Stephen's Presbyterian Church, says:— “ It is but too clear that in the conditions laid down for Canon James’s half-hour service for sportsmen at 9.30 a.m., God and His glory and honour do not come first. In the whole arrangement for this service the primary considerations are. to be the recreations and amusements of the sportsmen, and what is fitting and reverent lor the worship of God must take a very subordinate place and be treated as entirely of secondary importance, compared with the recreations and amusements of the sportsmen. Christian worshippers have regarded as fitting that they meet for worship in a dress which marks the solemnity of the occasion, but in this service that which is usually considered fitting for the worship of God is to be set aside, and tennis flannels substituted. The time at which the service is to be held and the length of the service are to be entirely subordinate to the sportsmen’s recreation. “ Supposing these sportsmen were seeking, instead of an audience with Almighty God, merely an audience with a fellow-mortal, like our Sovereign, Xing George, or his Excellency the Governor-General, in what ligflvt would these conditions appear? Supposing these sportsmen sent a reque'st to his Excellency for an audience, and said, ‘ As it would be inconvenient for us to come in more suitable clothing, we propose to come to meet you in tennis flannels, and as we cannot allow an audience with you to interfere with our recreation, we ask you to meet us at 9.30 a.m., and as a lengthy audience might interfere -with our sport, we propose that the audience shall not be longer than half an hour.’ Now, how would a request of that kind addressed to his Excellency impress any seriousminded citizen? It would certainly be stigmatised as a piece of unpardonable insolence. But what are we to think of it when it is seriously proposed that the service for the worship of Almighty God is to be held under those conditions? “ The word irreverent must be felt to be far too mild ,to be applied to such' a proposal. To me the fitting description of it would be insolence to Almighty God. That sportsmen or any others should arrange for an act of divine worship on the Lord’s Day, and should make it so very clear that God and His worship do not hold the place of supreme importance which is their due in their regard, but are to be entirely subordinated to Sunday sport, must by seripus-minded men be regarded as very shocking. That such a proposal should come from a wellknown clergyman of the Anglican Church is more than surprising. Let us hope that the sense of reverence is not so entirely dead in the minds of New Zealand sportsmen that they will agree with this proposal.”