SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
THE BISHOP’S VIEWS
DISCUSSION BY SYNOD. AN INTERESTING DEBATE. Sunday observance was the subject of an interesting discussion at this afternoon's session of the Waikato Anglican Synod. The Bishop, Rt. Rev. C. A. Cherrington, moved: “That the due observance of the. Lord’s Day is a matter affecting the simplicity and freedom of the Gospel.’’ The Bishop said the attacks on institutional religion were becoming stronger and stronger, and they must gird up their loins. From time to time it became necessary to strip off the 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 a pre-eminent evidence of the resurrection. "Without any direct command t‘he early Christians had changed from the observance of one day to the observance of another day in a totally different manner for a totally different reason. This was of the greatest significance. The fast underlying the change was the resurrection. .Most people would agree that the Old Testament as such had nothing to do with the Christian religion. The real reason for the institution of the Jewish Sabbath Day was to bind the Jews in exile more closely to one another. Two different reasons were given in the Old Testament for the Sabbath —one that it was God's commemoration of the comnlelmn nr the work of creation; the other that it was in commemoration of the passing of the children of Israel across the Red Sea. Not Commanded. His Lordship quoted New Testament passages pointing to [he change to observance of the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day. The Apostles had emphasised that nothing Jewish was to be expected of Gentile converts to Christianity. The observance of the Lord’s Day was thus dissociated from the Jewish Sabbath. Its observance was not commanded as an obligation, but was natural ,to Christians in celebration of the resurrection, because they could not do otherwise. So far as the Anglican Church 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 the non-observance of a day r affect the moral law or the salvation of anyone. Such observances were merely aids to the living of the Christian life. To some people certain modes of observance might be a hindrance to Christian living.
Not Fully Understood
Tlie Bishop said those who believed he advocated churchmen attending 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 didn’t matter whether people worked or played on Sunday. The simplicity and freedom of the Gospel should not be obscured or overloaded with prejudices and practices. It did not matter which . day of the week was set aside for worship. When he wrote his muchdiscussed article he had no reason to suppose he was writing anything more than he had always held and thought. In our mistaken identification of the Lord’s Day with the Sabbath we 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 the Lord’s Day ” was a commonplace. YVhy? Because they had been teaching wrong notions and only had themselves to blame. If they went back to the first principles laid down at the Reformation or even as far back as the primitive practices of Christendom, they would find how the present viewpoint came to be adopted. They should be clear and consistent in their teaching and reconcile what they taught vyith 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's views 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 right lines. Opposition Expressed.
“I • am satisfied' that if 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 Kayll rose to ihe point of order and considered such an opinion was 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 a law unless one agreed with it. This was a very dangerous tendency. If His Lordship did not agree with the generally recognised laws of the church, he should try to get them altered and not defy them. If Ihey wanted to get simplicity, why not go farther and say they could do without churches and clergy also? He strongly protested against His Lordship’s words. (Proceeding.)
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19290703.2.55.5
Bibliographic details
Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17753, 3 July 1929, Page 8
Word Count
855SUNDAY OBSERVANCE. Waikato Times, Volume 105, Issue 17753, 3 July 1929, Page 8
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Waikato Times. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.