“LEARN HUMILITY."

Hokitika Guardian, 24 September 1929, Page 5

“LEARN HUMILITY."

THE ROOT OF RELIGION,

SERMON BY ARGHIBSHOP JULIUS

CHRISTCHURCH, September 23.

Tiie morning - service at St. Augustine’s Church, Caskineije Hills, yesterday was 'ify Archbishop Julius, who took las liis subject ‘‘.Who-, soever exalteth himself shall be abased, and he that.huinbleth himself shall be exalted.” ,*v(S i[ Luke XIV., XI). • The Archbishop described the.* customs at ancient Roman feasts'; how’the guests would scramble for the seats of honour at the banquets. “It.may have been Christchurch,” lie added. “ This was observed) JJy/,the Lord on the occasion to which the text referred and so He spoke a parable.” “Good manners,” said the Arch- . bishop, “ are near, to godliness. Here we have illustrated the principles of ■ worldly conduct as opposed to the Kingdom of. God. What Jesus observed touched not the surface hut the heart of things. The way of the world is to get the best places at the banquets, and to assert one’s rights and dignities. That is not the way of the Kingdom of God. Take a lowly place and you will have the honour and respect of those above you. The man who would become great must first learn to he a bond slave. Man’s supreme place is when he gives his‘jllfo a ransom for many. We never have that until the Kingdotti of G|>d comes in power amongst us.” / Everyone had to learn to gird himself with' humility. It was A; hard lesson but it had to be learnt. Why should such stress be laid on worldly things? If anything had injured the Church it was. its regard for position , and preference. One/only hail do see how in Christchurch,' as in the old Roman .times; the ehi&ifi 'places were sought after and the few made themselves great at the expenseof others. It \£quld doubtless be claimed . that' things had changed since ancient times. There certainly was a change in one direction, but that .did not alter the position one bit. Class distinctions did not count for as much as they did, and there wag yery little authority, hut the spirit of, self-glorification was tea • fold greater under a democracy than : under a monarchy. Why was this?

“ We are pushing, shoving and striving to let someone see our heads above the masses of the people and get our names in the papers,” said the Archbishop, i “ To-day those heads are - not cut off as they would have been under the Roman regime. We are striving to obtain a little social distinction or distinction of another kind so that we might he talked about and observed.” This attitude’was-moVe marked-in New Zealand than’it was at Home. Ore could not live ip England without coming into contact - with people much higher. In New Zealand there’was no one very 'much above' us to take the conceit out (of us, and.we gaye way.’to the old principles. •It was more common now even - than it’ was .years .pgo. The people had learned the ' value of advertising and thought that all there was to do was .to stick the wares before . the faces of everyone, no matter what their quality might be. It was then a matter of advertising oneselif. It did not matter • about' the • nature of the wares/ *' . ' • • •■ ■ ' •

“ Humility,” said . the Archbishop, “ip much discredited to-day. Anyone will say that His principles are not applicable to-day.” If Jesus had been amongst them in the present times ; -He would not have succeeded. Humiljty was discredited so much because it was so easny imitated and converted into a sham virtue. Humility was shown 'up and ridiculed in literature so that people had been warned • against it. There was one common form of mock humility—that of running down one’s neighbours. They provided food'for conversation and all the time they wpre being discussed there was the'thoughtthat the reflections'- cast 'on them ket off oneself in a better light. That*,led one to believe that a step upwards Jvpd been made. For these reasons humility had become unfashionable arid unwelcome and was regarded as a m6st nauseating thing in pretence. Humility lay at the root of religion, not equality, not advertising nor pretence.”

'The Archbishop went on to give- in- -. stances in the lives .of' great men where their genius had been buried and gone unrewarded ‘ on account 'of their humility.. The really .big man'was 'the naan was never wanted to push his ; way through lifp, but was - content in his own environment. Beferring to Bishop Patteson, of Melanesia,’ the Archbishop said that he dwelt with the poor and suffering and spent, his life among those the world despised. “Was there ever any humility like his? ” '