The Club Smoking Room

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXIX, Issue 22, 30 November 1907, Page 25

The Club Smoking Room

By

HAVANA

■ST SEE that H. A. Jones lias produced ' ■ another of his satirical dramas,” . I said the journalist. ‘‘The chances I are that the censor will prevent B its production in England, so we

shall not be able .to judge of its effect on religious, circles there, but it seems-; to have created a sensation in New York. The theme of his new play would appear to be the interminable squabble between various religious -bod.ies, and the great importance they attach to shibboleths to the neglect of the real practical work of religion. I ’never could understand the difference between -the various sects, nor why it should lie necessary to have half a dozen different places of worship in small .country settlements. , I could easily understand, of -.course, people joining issue on the broad question of Bible reading in schools, but in England the battle raged round the question of doctrines as taught by the hundred and one religious denominations rather than over the question of secular or religious (education in general. I believe a lot of people would sooner see education made purely secular rather than see it in the hands of any other religious body .than their own. I don’t wonder that a clever satirist like H. A. Jones has seized upon this-as a motif for a new play. people are most horribly conservative, and Tight like cats over the most unimportant details. Surely all the evangelical churches could find some way of working together. There must be a most horrible waste of both energy and money in keeping up the present idiotic system of innumerable sects and parties.” © © © “I have always been a member of -the Established Church,” replied a wellknown business man, ‘‘and I firmly believe .in the advantages of a State establishment, hut I must say that I view with great regret the tendency so manifest at present to narrow the limits of our national church. Instead of representing the views of all sections of the community, it seems to aim at being catholic in the narrow rather than the wide sense of the term. The people of ’England are protestant to the core; no power on earth will ever make them Anything else. But they are also intensely loyal, and they will Stick to their church as long as they can. They will tolerate for the sake of peace a great many things of which they do not altogether approve; but the extreme ritualists at Home will find that the laity ■will not follow them in all their vagaries. As it is, the Church of England is rapidly losing its hold on thinking men, who view the party headed by Lord ‘Halifax with suspicion and mistrust. A friend of mine wrote to me recently that good preachers are becoming 'scarcer every year, and that nrost sermons nowadays consist of dictatorial enunciations of dry-as-du'st church dogmas. The best preachers are to be found in the ranks of the Nonconformists.” © © © ‘‘The great trouble,” suggested the parson, “is to keep a balance of power in the church, AH' religion needs eerri--Inonial, speculation and enthusiasm, and the national church should represent all the different forms of religions thought. The High Chureh party has undoubtedly gained an ascendency amongst the clergy, but the laity still incline more towards the Broad Church or the Evangelicals. The failure of the last two is to a great extent their own fault. They-nre not feood at organisation, nor do they stick together like the others; they have not done much for foreign missions, and they Are not always easy to work with. A great many men support Lord Halifax’s party for the sake of the greater Sense of unity and corporate fellowship

that animates it. Then the laity who belong to this section of the church, if few, are devoted. You can always rely on them for active parish work. You see the same thing amongst • Roman Catholics. They are one and all zealous supporters of their church. But it is a bad thing for a national church to narrow its limits even for the sake of greater unity amongst its members, and we certainly want a more even balance of power amongst all three parties. The time has come when we should try and minimise our differences, not only between ourselves, but between us and the other Christian bodies. It is a sad thing to see religious people more concerned in fighting each other than in fighting evil.” © © . © ‘‘lt always seems to me,” said the lawyer, “that the differences between most of the protestant sects are like the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Why. cannot. they all agree to amalgamate instead of cutting- each other’s throats as at present? In many small townships' you will find half a dozen different' sects each supporting its own little church, and none of- the churches' more than half filled. What is wanted is a sort of national congress, iii which the heads of all these different bodies can lay down points on which they all agre'e. They would be far more numerous than many people suppose. Then a really national church could be formed with the widest possible limits'of toleration. . A united church would be an immense power for good; lack--of union means lack of strength.” © © © “ The matter is not one to be so easily settled offhand,” 1 remarked a prominent Methodist, . ‘ e We differ in totq from, many of the doctrines of the Anglican Church so taught, by most of its adherents. We repudiate entirely a large part of its teaching on sacraments ,and apostolical succession. We regard a good many of its doctrines as being too mechanical. These points on which we differ are vital to us, and vital to them, and 1 must say that I cannot see how any union is possible without some -sacrifice of principles on both sides; A Church with a diluted,-backboneless creed would never be a source of strength. It would be a far greater cause of weakness than even our present lack of unity. A man with definite convictions can do much, but a man with acorn yiction worth speaking of must always remain ineffective. I would be very sorry to see a -sort of hotch-potch in wjiich nobody believed very much in anything.” © © © “ I must say that in that I thoroughly agree with you,” answered a member of the Anglican Church. “Many points on which we differ from Nonconformists are with both of fis points of fundamental importance. It would be impossible for us to work wit’n any prospect of success if we abandoned all forms of definite belief for the sake of a so-called unity. But I do think we often exaggerate non-es-sentials. 1 am certain that many people promote discord by laying stress on minor details --at are comparatively unimportant. If we could have a congress of all the churches. 1 believe good would come of it, because we would get to understand each other better. The main thing is to avoid sectarian bitterness. Let us agree to differ when we cannot agree, but let us respect the conviction! of others as well as our own.” © © © “ I believe,” said the politician, “ that in politics there will soon be a coalition between the Liberal* and Conservatives to light * he forces of revolution, and 1

also believe that there will be -a- coalition between all religious bodies to light the forces of afneism and unbelief. The coming battle will be between religion and no religion, not between different schools of religious thought. If Church people are wise they will close up the gaps in their ranks in order to present a united front to the foe. In calm weather the Steer-age and saloon can keep to their own part of the-ship, but when the ship is in danger they inust work together if they hope to save it.”