Correspondence

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 131, 28 April 1891, Page 2

Correspondence

(We are not responsible for the opinions of our correspondents). THE FUTURE OP THE CHUBCH. TO THK EDITOR OF THK STAR. Sir, — Mr Grant's letter, as was his sermon, if rightly reported, is full of inconsifsteufiea and self-contradictions. He actually agrees with me that " Socialism is the very essence of Christianity," and that " The true principles of successful Socialism are taught in the New Testament." These are his own words. Yet be says "There is nothing to prove that such' a system \va9 intended to be permanent and universal." Comment here is almost unnecessary. Mr Grant maintains the "rights of property" as implied in the first part of Acts v., yet admits the tragic end of the persons who maintained those rights. Poor Annanias has, I fear many imitators in the Church at the present time, but somehow they manage to live on, nevertheless, and pretty comfortably too, some of them. Mr Grant alludes to what he calls my " admiration of the community of possessions which existed among the early Christians." Now, I did not express or even imply any admiration of this style of Communism ; Ido not admire it, though I do the spirit that prompted it, and I only referred to it as a recorded circumstance, totally different from what prevails now. Mr Grant's saying that '■ the system was not intended to be permazient and universal " I look upon as a mere subterfuge for not being able to answer my argument that Socialism, to r^fay nothing of Communism, is not now "taught and practised in the Churches.. Mr Grant is, however, reported to have said in his sermon. The great Commune is coming (the italics are mine). Now, how can I possibly reconcile Mr Grant's statements wheu he is so' glaringly contracts himself? Mr Grant refers to my question, " where are the Christians of today ?" I simply quoted this from Mr Wesley's hymn, in which he describes the early Christians. Mr Grant knows that the ideal set up by the Wesley's was that of primitive Christianity, as characterising the true followers of Christ. Surely 1 have a right to repeat the quest ' ion referred to, which I again do. " Show me where the Christians live," and I will be perfectly satisfied. I have asked this question numbers of times of persons calling themselves Christians, but as in the case of Mr Grant, I have never been answered except in a very evasive manner, or by some excuse or other. Mr Grant sets me down as a " Socialist of that visionary class who expect everything good from some uncaused and impossible change of all men's hearts" (my italics). Does he think I am such a fool as to expect anything whatever to transpire un- ! caused ? As to an impossible change of all men's hearts," Mr Grant is evidently here giving expression to his own warn of faith in the Almighty Power in which he professes to believe, and with whom we are told " all things are possible." Mr Grant is so inconsistent and self contradictory that it puzzles me to know what he is aiming at, anyhow. If he wants to remain the popular preacher I hear he is, I would '.advise him to stick to theology, and let Socialism alone in his sermons ; and let him learn a lesson from the hornet's nest which faithful Pastor Birch i^oi; into in Auckland through denouncing the cliquism, servility to wealth, and unsocialism generally of the Churches ot the present day. In conclusion, there is one question i' would ask Mr Grant, if Christianity is not the system taught in the injunctions of its alleged founder and his apostles, and. illustrated in the examples of the early Church (for Mr Grant virtually denies that it is) then what is it, and from whence is the standard to be taken ? For an answer I am anxiously Looking Forward.