THE CHURCHES AND BROADCASTING.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19178, 8 December 1927, Page 11

THE CHURCHES AND BROADCASTING.

TO THE FDITOB 01 TBI PBESS. Sir,—Yesterday afternoon, as reported by your paper, a conference was held between the Radio Company and representatives of different denominations. A resolution, approving of the broadcasting of church services, was carried unanimously. Does this resolution express the opinion merely of the representatives, or is it the official opinion of the bodies represented? The point is an important one. A further resolution was passed that the service broadcast be the ordinary Sunday evening service or a studio service at church service time. The Presbyterian ministers alone dissented. The Anglican representatives apparently consented. These representatives were nominated by Standing Committee. Does this me'an that the Anglican Church has officially approved of broadcasting services at the regular service time? Anglican services have occasionally been broadcast at the ordinary service time, but this has been the action of individual vicars. The Standing Committee needs to walk warily. Money is urgently needed for the orphanages, the missionary quota, for many parochial needs. The Standing Committee makes its assessment demands on the parishes. By giving official sanction to the broadcasting of church services at regular service time it is bringing an authorised Anglican service into competition with all the parishes. It is giving its approval to the principle that it is right to stay at home and "listen-in" as a substitute for worship. It is striking a blow at one of the main sources of parochial revenue. It is largely rendering ineffective its work of pastoral visitation by its clergy. Sick and isolated people could quite well receive services during the week. Sunday broadcasting, especially at service time, is not to be justified in view of the almost certain consequences. The usual reply to the opinions expressed above is that radio has "come to stay," that they "do it in England," and so forth. That may bo so. It does not get rid of the fact, however, that there is an enormous and ever r increasing body of habitual "listeners-in." These people constitute a new type. Not only have they no thought of attending church services, but, in many cases, they hold themselves serenely aloof from Christian fellowship. The affairs of the parish in which they live have little or no interest for them. They are not church-goer3—they are listeners-in they will tell you. Is the Church going to sanction this attitude? Is it going to scrap its ideal of public worship, not only as an act of witness and Christian fellowship, but as the visible expression of the Church's corporate life? The Church is going too fast in this matter. She is in peril of being stampeded into a course of action which she may bitterly rue in • the not far distant future—Yours, etc., CONCERNED. Christchurch, December 7th.