Whose the Secure and Happy Homes?

White Ribbon, Volume 22, Issue 4, 1 May 1950, Page 5

Whose the Secure and Happy Homes?

By REV. W. H. GREENSLADE

The following: note* of the sermon preached by Rev. W. H. Greenslade at the broadcast 2YA service from Wesley, and printed in the “ N.Z. Methodist Times.** are printed in the “White Ribbon” by special permission. THE HOME NEEDS THE CHURCH Whose, The*e Broken Home*? From a secular journal: “It seems undeniable that there is a great difference between the divorce rate of Church-goers and the populace which lias no effective contact with the Church. Current New Zealand ratio of persons obtaining divorce equals 125 per 100. When applications for separation are added to divorces the broken marriages increase from 125 per 100 to 29 per 100. One in every 35 marriages in New Zealand breaks up.” This is more than arresting, it is staggering. |The most recent official figures we can obtain are for 1947, when 2117 decrees absolute and one separation were granted, and 18,000 marriages were solemnised. Thus for every nine marriages taking place that vear there was one dissolved. That was for 1947, and we know (from official sources) that the divorce rate has been increasing by approximately 400 more each vear—i.e., 400 more in 1948 than in 1947 and 800 more in 1947 than in 1946.) Then follows “ Ratio of Durham Street, Church Marriages obtaining divorce equals 1909 to 1949, 3 per cent.; 1929-1949, 2f pet cent.; 19391949 If per cent. Most Ministers would be able to say that among their regular congregations the broken marriage rate is . . . practically nil.” Whichever figures you accept, this last statement is true to the experience of every minister we have questioned, and it does seem undeniable that there is a great difference between the divorce rate of Church people and that of non-Church people. Why? Whence the»e Delinquent*?

From the Superintendent of a New Zealand Borstal: “Tn the past five vears almost 1000 votiths have passed through this Institution, and of these 1 could count on the fingers of one hand the number who have had any close contact with any Church. 1 am in the habit of savino publicly, that there are four conditions, a combination of the first two of which is almost certain to keep young people away from delinquent behaviour: 1 A stable home where parents have Christian standards and character. 2 A close affiliation with a Church. 3 Satisfactory work experience and adequate outlets for recreation 4 Three years’ High School education. . . .

Covered by all four conditions, vou can het your life, he won’t go wrong” “Why should we, anyway?” If marriage is on’y a civil contract if parenthood has but human significance, if families are no more than social institutions, if conception, birth.

life, death, have no Divine ends, whv not separation, divorce, abortion, promiscuity and all the rest ? If homes are no more than human social institutions, why protest against their submergence before overruling needs of race and totalitarian state?

The age-long union between home and religion began when men asked the why and wherefrom of merely things: a new life born, two lives made one, the passing of loved ones beyond the bourne of time and space. Over the centuries religion gave an ever-increasing sacredness to life, and in the fulness of time came Christianity giving the full answer. The fundamental origin of the family is Divine. The model of the earthly home is in heaven (Eph. 3:15). Parents do not create life, they are agents of God who merely transmit the life they have received. Children are not their property, they are theirs in trust for the purposes of God. Wc are horn that we might become “children of God.” Human lives are sacred. Sex has a halo round it. It is God’s gift whereby we may work with Him, and in which the standards of behaviour are His, not ours. Petting parties, divorces, illegitimacies, the breakdown in respect of personality (and property), broken homes —these are what take place when we displace or forget God. The homes of men and the Church of Jesus Christ—this, beyond all doubt, was one of life’s Godintended alliances. Respectable Without Religion “But is not the possession of family standards enough?” Character training which lacks religious imperatives may avert tragic blunders in conduct . . . but such negative virtue is maintained only by dangerous internal conflict between native impulses and traditional ideals. For positives, more is needed. Nothing short of a vita l religious experience is sufficient. And while the Spirit of God is not limited to the Church, the Church is not a human association which men have the option of joining; it is the Body of Christ to which God intended men to belong and by which God made provision for His meeting of their need. The marriage service, wherewith a home begins, assumes baptised Christians and members of the worshipping fellowship and serving community who will always act within the Church. One generation may get hv on moral standards inherited from sires who had personal relationships with Christ, hut what of the next, the third generation’ How long can a home run on moral left-overs’ How long produce decent fruitage without intended rootage ? Neutrality is Impossible Every home is society in small where life’s great problems to be met tomorrow present themselves for solu-

tion (in practice, not theory) today. The tensions between, and attitudes toward, the sexes, the generations, the strong and the weak gain the life direction here. Outlooks, attitudes and values are adopted which will determine thought, feeling and action over the entire course of life. That Johnme should or could he left until he is able to make an intelligent decision as to whether Jesus Christ has anything to do with these matters is arrant nonsense. Willy-nilly, Johnnie began arranging his values the moment his eyes began following his mum and dad round the nursery. • If in the parents’ scheme of things the Christ and His Church have no place or are treated as inconsequential extras, what of John Jnr. ? There can be no neutrality. Either conditions are being set negatively, or they are being set positively. Either within the community of the Church—the home, or homes—the child is being schooled in Christian relationships to outsiders and is being developed and prepared for the still wider community—or he is being denied this fore\er. There is no neutrality.

“The connection between religion and the home is mutual. On the one hand, religion gives the home its supreme purpose and sanction, to rear families for God. On the other hand, the home can provide religion with the first place where the authentic voice of God is heard in the hearts of men.”

I am not pleading for the Church. It is almost 2.000 years old, and has seen empires .and systems rise and fall away, and it lives and grows. I am thinking of your young people, your home, and the citizens of tomorrow. Your home needs the Church.