MENACE OF ATHEISM.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19314, 21 July 1934, Page 9

MENACE OF ATHEISM.

(To the Editor.) i Sir, —The report in flic Waikato : Times of the statements of Dr. H. • Grotty, of tlib Methodist Church, deserves some comment. I happen to have in my possession Professor Flint’s "'Theism” and "Anti-Theislie Theories.” As is well known, I hose hooks have been for many years standard works- on theology in the -Free Church colleges.

Respecting atheism, Professor 'Flint says: “Before a man can he warranted to atllrm that nowhere throughout, all this territory is then; any trace of God’s existence he must have seen it. all and comprehended il all, which would I’cipiire omnipresence and omniscience, or. in other words, would imply that be himself is Hod." "’his is a perfectly sound argument, as a retort to anyone who dogmatically declares that he knows that there is no Hod, hul, as Professor Flint, further says: "Many have certainly been railed atheists unjustly and ea luminously.” If many Ghrislian ministers would hear this statement in mind and displa y a FI I to more of wha I Ma I hew Arnold himself an agnostic) spoke of as "the sweet reasonableness of Christ's character” they might, lie less prone to d"no"ince as atheists those who I'aii'iul accept their pat'HeuLii’ conception of (bid. Hr. Ci'oßy is reported as saying: "There is an atheism abroad among Hie socially well-ordered portion of Hie community which in another way. and from another angle, is helping lo pull down the safeguards of Christian i n II Hence.” This seems unite a needless statement and entirely larking in clarity of thought. Fifty years ago, in various pads of the world, there was a deiinile and dogmatic attack on Christian faith by many ver> aide men who proclaimed themselves atheists: hut il is many vears since there has been any such pronounced public effort lo oppose faith in Cod.

If, then, there. Is “an atheism abroad . . helping fo pull down the safeguards of Christian inlhience” there must, be some other reason for il than dogmatic public antagonism to theism. May il. not bo that what, Dr. Grotty calls atheism is merely rebellion against the smug complacency of so many of the churches? Dr. Grotty himself suggests this when lie says: “The altitude in many of our .Methodist churches has been one of smug satisfaction with things as they are. There has been too much of the spirit of the social Hub, and sometimes of Hie mutual admiration society in our utterances and gestures." This is so true that one might almost lie .instilled in saying that many of the churches may justly he. charged with “helping to pull down the safeguards of Christian inllueiiee.” Here is a trenrhant statement by (lie Bov. Dr. Norwood: ”1 do not see how a Christian ran he otherwise than a rebel. Complacency nl a Lime like this is betrayal. The people who let! us Hint Glri'isil.anity has broken down are doing better service Ilian those who assure us that il is all for the best..” That is a very grave sl.ifemeni. from a noted preacher, hut he gives reasons in support of his stalemenl, and here is line: “At the present lime no sane person would expert a frontal attack by |ho whole Church against a world system which is frankly based upon money and war.” And again: ”1 ran see no worthy future for religion unless she ran discover and apply her principles lo world conditions, which are driven lo seek for speedv and farreaching alterations."

Instead of declaiming against the spread of atheism (often unjustly, as Professor Flint said), Christian minlsj (era would show more loyalty to the truth they arc presumed to proclaim if they would face as boldly as has Dr. Norwood the implications'involved In Christ’s teachings. Here is a concrele example of a conception of Cod which at the risk of lining called an atheist I personally refuse to accept. It is from Hie Methodist Church, loo: “In a recent Home paper one of the leading Wesleyan ministers speaks in unctions praise of a member of Hie Wesleyan Church who is reputed lo lie Hie richest man in England. He is sup- • posed lo possess from £20,000.000 to £25.000,000. This individual has given to Hie 'Wesleyan Church in various sums £1,000.000. We are told that “lie made his many millions by haial work and inlegrily,” which is so ridiculous that one wonders at Hie nienlalily of a Christian minister who would make such a statement. Hill the point I wish lo emphasise is that llils niiiili-milliouaire alfribules his possession of lliis fabulous wealth I o j “Cod’s goodness lo him." 'The con- j caption of an all-powerful Divine being who deliberately decides that one man shall possess £25,000,000, and millions of olhers be in abject ! want, is ropellenl to one’s reason, and I. for one. say: “If Dial be your Cod, I then count me an unbeliever.’’ The above incident, in less degree. J could be repealed a million times, and j if there is an ever-increasing number i who refuse In believe ill such a (iod j Ihe churches are lo blame for creeling | wind they so frequency unjustly speak of as atheists. There are a few

(very few, unfortunately) noble preachers who have spoken out boldly and courageously. Dr. Norwood Is one. Tho Archbishop of York is another. A few months ago the Archbishop of York wrote to the London Times urging that, any surplus from Hie April budget lie applied to the restoration of cuts in unemployment relief rather than to a reduction in income lax, and said: “Christian regard for our neighbours requires us lo seek first Hie good of those who are in Ihe greatest need.” The Archbishop was promptly rebuked by Mr Neville Chamberlain for not minding his own business, and Mr Walter Huncimun said “there was no need for Hie unemployed lo go to the nrehiepiscopal palace for sympalhy.” When a few thousand more Christian ministers speak out boldly as lo Hie social implications of the teachings of Chris!, (here will he no need lo talk of “helping to pull down the safeguards of Christian influence." •May 1 lie allowed, Sir, to close lliis rather long loiter willi a quotation from Dr. Hernard Dell as follows - /: “The Church should leach |hat as long as any person is selilshly opposing, or -through indifference preventing, such readjustments In our society as will remove from all men Hie burden and threat of poverty, he is a sinner unrepentant, a violutor of a fundamental law of Cod." if ihe | rarrehes n\ their mind's on lliis splendid I i'ii I h I hey will ho so busy carrying lo fruition Ihe concepts involved Hint they will have lill.'e time In bewail Ihe spread of atheism. I am, (‘lt*., •JOHN SYKCS. j Hamilton, July 20, 103-i,