PIETY AND PRICES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4322, 26 September 1921, Page 1

PIETY AND PRICES.

Sir,—No doubt, your editorial comments upon the effort to beautify certain churches in Paerpa will mee* with approbation in some quarters, and I concede to you the point that “formal religion, like all/ things else, must needs have its places where men may congregate,” but when you associate these formal gatherings with “spiritual activities and values,'’ then I beg to differ from you. It was precisely. this postulate that the founder of Christianity strove so hard to disprove. It is true that, he is reported ftp have said that where two or three of his disciples were gathered together, he would be there to bless them, but he also taught men to enter into closed places and secrecy to pray to the All Father who would reward them openly. If I were a trained theologian I no doubt should be able to prove to my own, and perhaps your, satisfaction, that “Churchianity” or Christianity are one and the same thing, but being only a Layman I must content myself with sounding a long note of interrogation. “Churchianity” may be the outcome of the Pauline dictum “no,t to forsake the gathering, of themselves together,” but my preference is for the economic interpretations of Christianity taught by James, the brother of Jesus. The early Christians recognised and realised the economic imports of these teachings, but to-day the economic interpretation has given place to the theological. I beg, therefore, that you will allow me to enter my protest against ■the view that “Churchianity” and Christianity, are identical. On the front page of your issue of September 21 is an extract from a letter by a Mr R. Lawson, M.A^before the Presbyterian'- Public Questions Committee, in Melbourne, on “ The Application of Christian Principles to Modern Life,” and the view there sei forth is that Christianity is a sociology, not merely a theology. If this is so, then our .piety wil,li be best expressed in prices, not in pulpits. I have yet to learn that the ears of corn which the disciples of Jesus on a Sabbath day grew inside a church or even a temple, E.N.D. [“Economic Christianity” is about what we would judge the creed of our correspondent io be, even if he had not told us so himself. He starts off by either wilfully or from gross negligence and lack of perception to misquote the article he refers to. •“ We said nothing whatever about “formal

religion”; evidently our correspondent cannot perceive the difference between the terms he misquotes and “the formal and faithful practice” of religion. With a biassed mind full of preconceived ideas, he seizes on the word “formal,” but makes, no mention of the next word but one, “faithful.” Evidently, despite his “economic Christianity,” our correspondent sadly needs a ’lesson in fidelity ; to separate a word or clause from its context, and argue on that, is the most ancient, and mean form of controversial tactics. With equally unseemly haste our correspondent ha f s • given the wrong' interpretation tp the word “formal,” making it appear to, mean, hollowness or insincerity. Surely he, is man of affairs enough to know that in other than a purely private essemblage there must be formality, otherwise proceedings could not be conducted in a church, or anywhere else. His use of the catchword “churchianity” is his own, and not taken from our article, so we will let him have it all to himself. E.N.D.” rambles on to state that “die economic interpretation has given place to the theological,” and that “piety will be best expressed in prices.”' Until our correspondent’s letter arrived we were under the impression that the spiritual interpretation was all that mattered, and that all other things worth while would follow the spiritual expression of Christianity; even yet we are not quite convinced that “economic religion,” which has been one important factor, in bringing Russia to her present pitiable condition of economic hopelessness, is quite the best thing for-our welfare; economic, sociological, or spiritual. And finally we have seen, over and over again, Paeroa ministers of religion laboriously 'traversing over frightful roads, enduring all the mud and misery for the economic, sociological, and spiritual welfare of the respective members of their flocks, at times when “E.N.D.” was in all likelihood poring over Rationalist Press Association literature, his body reclining in a comfortable armchair, and a bright fire with a big back log on to supply physical heat in place of spiritual fervour. If cur correspondent would get down to the facts of life around him he would find them even moreilluminating than book knowledge.—Ed. “Gazette.”] '