The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1910. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 894, 13 August 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1910. THE CHURCH AND THE PEOPLE

The keen newspaper correspondence and vigorous pulpit utterances arising out of the production in. Wellington of "The Girl From Rector's" are interesting and instructive from more than one point of view. Tbe controversy suggests important .questions' regarding the existing moral standards of the community and the prevailing relations between the Christian Churches and the general public. Tho present outlook cannot be said to be wholly satisfactory, but, on the other.hand, there are certain/ aspects , of the matter which are, decidedly encouraging •to those who have the moral welfare of the country at heart. /It is, for instance, a distinctly hopeful sign that in this local disputation both sides have admitted the claims of Christian, morality as the rule of., conduct, the matter in dispute being whether m .this particular instance this mutually accepted ethical standard has been violated. It is quite conceivable that the reply to the protesting clergymen might have been in effect: "What is Christian'ethics to us; it is not our business to teach murals, but to make money. In any case we accept the maxims of the new'natur.alism: 'Back to Nature; Christianity is the enemy.' 'Nature knows nothing of chastity.'" This aspect of the question is clearly stated by a very able Oxford scholar, the Rev. P. N. Wagoett, in a remarkably interesting paper on "Science and Conduct." He writes:

In the old debate there was a fixed point which all men took for settled—the [■radical authority of Christian ethics. . . . All this has been changed in'certain quarters. That which- was once the' solid-'pivot of debate becomes the object (o be attacked, crushed, removed. . . . Now it is the ethics which are on trial. The traditional morality, is the enemy to be destroyed. . . . . Not faith this time, but conduct, is the deadly foe of freedom and joy.. It must be attacked in its two main branches. Or. the one hand, mercy, toleration, the preservation of the■weak, charity, philanthropy,—these must go; they-are treason to the best interests of the race. On the other hand, temperance, moderation, chastity, self-denial —all these, under the suspect names of asceticism, are v to be driven out as the I riest-forged' fetters of the individual. In view of the.fact that this new school of thought has arisen, which challenges not only all religious beliefs, but also the traditional morality, the general recognition of and appeal to Christian moral standards by both parties in the controversy which has just been receiving so much attention in Wellington is certainjy an encouraging: fact. , Opinions will of course differ as to -now,'far' the attack made by the Rev. Dr. GiBB/the Rev. J. J , . North, and others on "The Girl 'From as produced in Wellington was justified by facts. We ourselves do not think the terms in which the play ■ has, been described from'the pulpit,were warranted ii they are weighed in'j their application to the performances here. It is open to question also whether the methods pursued. by those who attacked this play were the most effective and most likely to appeal to the great bulk of the ; community. Few people, however, will deny-that on questions concerning the morals of the community it is not merely the-right, but it is the'plain "duty, of the Church to speak.with no uncertain', voice. It is bound unflinch-

■■qly to hold aloft the standard of Christian morality,, and in coming forward whenever circumstances call for its intervention it renders an incalculably great service to the country. In no ago moro than in the present 1 has the world needed courageous prophets of righteousness. In days gone by great Churchmen did not fear to rebuke kings to their face; and.equal courage is required in.our own timo candidly and truthfully to tell the democracy of its sins and shortcomings. No thoughtful person could view without serious misgivings the weakening of thc.t Church's witness on social and -ethical questions; but on the other hand it .would bo a great mistake for the Church to allow itself to be captured by thy extreme section.of the community or to become enmeshed in the net of party politics. It jshould stand outside and independent of .all party and sectional interests, and fearlessly insist on the great moral principles which should guide and ,inspire the conduct of the individual and of society as_ a whole. It would be nothing; short of a moral disaster if religion ceased fco count as a factor in the social life of the people, for the wisest of men, even if they cannot always endorse fche dogmatic theology of the day, are the first to emphasise the inestimable influence for good which religion has exer-

cised in the history of mankind, and are quite at a loss to find an adequate substitute for it.

While this is generally recognised it. must be admitted that thore does exist at tho present time a serious estrangement between the Churches and a very large section of the people. What is the cause of this? In the first place there are a considerable number of thoughtful people who are reluctantly compelled by intellectual reasons to withhold their assent to the Christian faith; but it is doubtful if the hostility to religious institutions of the. more cultured section of. the community is as great to-day as it was in tho eighteenth century. Then some have been alienated because they consider that the Churches have not taken sufficient interest in social and political questions, while others again are standing aloof because they think tho religious bodies are fast becoming mere political machines. A further cause of .alienation is. to be found in the fact that the evolutionary science and philosophy of thirty and forty years ago have now filtered down to the man-in-the-street, and tend to create an impression amongst many unthinking people that the foundations of religion ha've been undermined and the mysteries of the universe explained.. • Such views, were J strongly held by many of the leaders of thought during part of the nineteenth century; but since then there has been a great reaction among philosophic thinkers from this purely intellectualist position, though the change has not yet reached the average man. William James at Harvard, F. C.. S. Schiller at Oxford, Beegson in France, A. J. Balfotjr, and many others have in recent years attack-' ed the very foun-dtitions on which the whole structure of modern science has been built. Peofessoe James tells us that when he places himself in the "sectarian scientist's" attitude and imagines that the world of scientific laws and objects may be all, an inward monitor' whispers "bosh." The total expression of human experience invincibly urges him beyond , the narrow-scien-tific' bounds. Ho.w can we, as" Me. Balfoub asks, trust our- reason if it is merely the product of irrational causes, and nothing more than one among many expedients by which Nature has blindly enabled an insignificant number of living organisms to adapt themselves somewhat better to.their surroundings?' And if this reason of ours is discredited the fabric of science falls with the reason which creates it. The best modern scientists now frankly admit that they are surrounded on all sides by unsolved problems, and are content , to limit their sphere of operations. Professoe J. Arthur, Thomson tells us that it is impossible to explain all that is involved in the mere act of moving our arm to turn a page, and what matter ultimately is science does not pretend to tell us. The "thing in itself" is not a subject of, scientific inquiry. Another modern writer states:

The intellect, is driven to treat the world as dead; as a fixity; for it.is but (ho mentul reflpxion of..mechanical processes; but apart from, sympathy,' from instinct, from love, which are not intellectual processes, it can never know the inner moaning of a biugle fact. Reason is all at sea if. Used to tell us what life i» in itself. The mystery , of inner being, love and sorrow.ahd the conflict of desire, courage, and regret, and "peace at last," these things are not -pen to intellectual dialysis vliii'h ' cannot indeed mako even colour conoei.-ablo.

The danger ,of . present-day philosophy is riot an exaggerated glorification of the logical process, but rather an excessive belittlenient pf t the intellect. Though this new philosophy is not itself necessarily -religious, it recognises'the importana of: religion and gives, (ample scope for the development of .the spiritual side of roan. It certainly has no sympathy with that cheap infidelity which regards faith as a oar to pro gress; Even Herbert . Spencer, the groat evolutionist philosopher of the nineteenth century, recognised that religion was a permanent element in human nature, and towards the close of his life his views on religious institutions' were greatly modified. He felt more and more strongly that the place occupied by them could never become ah unfilleo" sphere. "I have come' to regard , religious creeds," he writes, "with a sympathy based on community of need, 'feeling that dis 7 ' sent from thenfresrilts from inability to accept the. solutions offered, joined with the wish that solutions may be found." Such words from so great an authority put to shame those superficial people who talk of religion as an out-of-date superstition, and should also act as,a wholesome check upon the. tendency to regard with indifference the weakening of the influence of religious institutions upon the daily life of the community. Sir James Fitz-Jajjes Stephen, who' cannot be accused of ; having been influenced by., theological bias, has •olaced on record thj opinion that' "if wo should ever see a generation of men, especially a generation of Englishmen, to whom the word God had no meaning at all we, should get a light upon the subject'which, might be lurid enough." .. .i