CORRESPONDENCE CHURCH COLLECTIONS.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2607, 15 August 1882, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE

CHURCH COLLECTIONS.

To the Editor of the Globe, PIR, —The letter signed “W. Parker” In your paper last evening, although painting in the right direction, does not yet go far enough.

The Pews are doubtless gagged cn Sundays to let the Pulpit have full swing, like an auctioneer with his hammer; but thanks to our English Institution, a Free Press, the pews can, if they like, “ open fire ” all the week, and it is a pity they do not do so more freely, and not only a pity, but it Is a loss to the Church, and the cause of religion. In the “dark ages,” when priestcraft could “ wield it” successfully and uninterruptedly over the hordes o? ignorant bondsmen, this tything of the church led to soma tangible result, architecturally at any rate, and has handed down to posterity such a crowd of grand old cathedrals, and conventional and monastic erections, as the world will never see the like again. But nowadays, what do we see for our money ? exacted from us by the combined forces of regularly recurring pew rents, and ceaseless offertories (mis-named “voluntary contributions’’) the bag going the rounds at all services and all seasons.

The London “ Times,’’ about three or four years ago, had a capital article on this question, showing strongly its bearings in driving away from our congregations the poor and the so-called working classes. It spoke of the good old times when either pew rents or voluntary contributions were resorted to singly, and sufficed for all requirements, and monthly or quarterly collections for specific objects took place in the various churches and in dissenting chapels. But now all this is changed, and instead of people “ casting into the treasury ” (the plate or box at the doors) “of their abundance,” or according to their means, the bag is now carried round, obtrusively tbi-ust under the nose of everybody—young and old, rich or poor. And what have we to show for it ; or to what are wo to attribute it—this constant ring of the “ filthy lucre ” at all our services P Ear until this ceases it is useless for the New Zealand Synod and other bodies to prate about “ the want of interest that the working classes and the poor take in the services of the churches and chapels.” It is a sad fact, however distasteful to be told, that the preparation for service is no longer “ the adornment of a meek and quiet spirit,” but a fashionable exterior, combined with the indispensable cash in the pocket, for the support of the hundred and one objects which an ostentatious and fussy missionary spirit hai brought about, the result being the neglect of those around ns, by driving away from our own pulpits the poor and the working classes. Yours, &0.,

OBSERVANT. Christchurch, 15th August, 1888.