IS RELIGION DEVOTION OR SOLACE?

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 166, 31 July 1937, Page 14

IS RELIGION DEVOTION OR SOLACE?

Tfce niatter narrows down to tfce problem of tfce nature and funetion of religion, eays Be^nard E. Meland. If we descrifce it as it fcas generally operated in tfce common life of man, we get one answer; if, on tfce otfcer hand, we cfcaraoterise it as its best and most earnest exponents, wfco have been both thinkers and worshippeys, fcave understood it, and sougfct to malce it, we get quite another view. Eor popular religion has always been weighed on the practical side, which, in almost eyery case, fcas turned out to be tfce expedient side. The leaders of popular religion have bent religion to serve men's needs and desires. Barely have tfcey taken a realistic look at tfce religious demands of the universe, and tfcen, turning to man, said, "Measure up!" More tfcan beiug a friendly force to soften pain and to console anguish (and tfcis matter sfcould not be dismissed irreverently), religion is a rigorous route of adjustment that orients man in a world, ricfc in worthful meaning, impelling fcim toward fcis peak of fulfilment. Religion is man'a great devotion to the order of life tfcat promotes the best in fcim, and, in turn, impels him to promote tfce best in society. Religion has its sustaining side, but it is first and foremost a challenge to man. We face this fact, tfcen: that because religion, motivated by the will to console, has been weigfcted on the side of expediency, mucfc of our Teligious belief and ideology fcas been based upon patfcological experience wfcich has not been eritically examined or evaluated. Concerned to mediate fcelp to perplexed and troubled people, religious leaders have presumed to test the truth of tfceir religion by tfce testimonies of broken fcearts. It is a pragmatic test of a sort, but > exceedingly uncritical and unreliable. This distinction must be made: eitfcer we must say tfcat religion is pre-eminently a form of consolation; or tfcat it is not primarily consolation, but invigoration, an urge to live more devotedly, hence more gloriously and triumphantly, ''by coming into accord witfc all the essential facts and forces of life that affect fcuman destiny; or that it has /both functions witfc varying degrees of I emp^asis, I? Religion Only for the Sick? But we must get clear about tfcis matter. If tfce first alternative is not true, if religion is a unique form of consolation for troubled men and women, wfco need re-enforcement and Tepair, tfcen we sfcould proceed to offer it only as remedial fcelp, not to all mankind, but as in medicine, to tfcose who actually need its ministrations. If tfce second is true, then religion becomes tfce spirited dynamic for all vigorous men and women who purpose to live worthful lives. It is tfcen a matter that concerns all mankind, provided tfcat tfcey can face life squarely. As a matter of fact, fcowever, all men cannot face life squarely. Tfcerefore, I am inelined to believe that religion will accommodate itself to two aspects of fcnman nature. Religion of a sort will doubtless persist as a vital souree of consolation to many earnest men and women wfco, because of many varying and perplexing circumstances — illness, tragedy, faulty mental or^psychic development, and tfce like — have not been able to maintain tfceir psycfcic and j mental health. Sucfc religion, however, in tfce nature of tfce case, cannot be normal, vigorous religion. For it is a religious memi provided for convalescents who are on a special spiritual diet. I would not abandon that kind of religion; I would simply insist upon recognising it for what it ia— religion for tfce spiritually sick. Furthermore, such religion is not an adequate basis upon whioh to build a religion for those who are in vigorous psychio health. For they need, not consolation ? but diseipline and spirited enoouragement to live venturesomely and to respond to the "perilous open." Neitfcer is tfce religious experience of the convalescent adequate criteria for determining religious value or religious truth as it applies to the religion of the vigorously minded. For convalescent religion is not concerned with "truth" in tfce realistio or objective sense. It cannot squarely face tfcat objective couditiou. Its truth is subjective. Its crifcerion of value is not fact, but solace. Integrity in Relation to Reality. Wfcat, tfcen, is tfce basis of salutary religion? It is integrity, thoroughgoing integrity in oneJs relation to reality. It issues out of tfce firm conviction tfcat oue fcas been tfcoroughly honest witfc fcimself ■ in fcis intellectual and emotional adjustment to tfce conditions and forces wh'icfc basically aft'ect his life. His religion i3 realiam, not in tfce sense of being sfcorn of aspirational wings^ but in tfce sense of being firmly footed. There comes a time wfcen tfcese two aspects merge— wfcen tfce religion of adjustment takes on tfce aspect of solace and comfort. Wfcen one fcas lived normally and healtfcily through tfce years, and tfcen comes to tfce meiiowing season of life wfcere activity shades into animated appreciation, wfcere tfce forward look turns oecasionally to recover, musingly, memorable joys and experiences of tfce past, religion, along witfc all tfce interests of life, assumes a consoling aspect. It no longer drives or lures; it confirms and blesses and fceartens. I am not calling this kind of religion patfcological, That is tfce glorious benediction of life: the season of great blessedness for the pure in fceart for wfcich all the nears of adjustment and sfriving were lived. In fact, witfc the passing of tfce years, , tfce religion of adjustment sfcould eventuate in tfcis religion of. consolation of the health ful sort; but that religion brings buoyancy, not mere solace, for dt is founded on the integrity of jnan's relation to reality,