THAT CENOTAPH CROSS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5440, 26 June 1929, Page 2

THAT CENOTAPH CROSS.

(To the Editor.)

Dear Sir, —I notice with interest that things regarding the proposed local Cenotaph have been moving rapidly—a good sign. People have their own views as to the desirability of a mere symbol or something more utilitarian. Everyone is entitled to express his own leanings. However, an expression of opinion once placed in print must stand. A mild commotion was caused locally on Friday, the 21st inst., when an announcement was made that the Rev. Mr Lowden, the local Presbyterian incumbent, intended dealing the following Sunday with the question of “Pagan Paeroa,” or something to that effect. It is just possible that a wider audience was his when,, in the issue of your paper of Monday, there appeared what, in your leader of the same issue, was described as “an astonishing and amazing letter,” dropping from the pen of the Rev. Lowden, regarding the question of the Cross. Let us take seriatim his expressions of grief, regret, and sorrow, and see where they lead. No. 1; “The Cross is the recognised symbol of Christianity,” says he, the reply to which is “Hear, hear.,’ No. 2 : "No one can touch it with irreverent hands and expect to escape.” The answer to such a gesture is that the seat of the trouble is that so many so-called Christians ignore the Cross and think that a weather-cock is a very good substitute as'an adornment for professedly Christian places of worship. No. 3 : “Men have prepared to- die rather than dishonour it,” says the reverend writer. “Yes,” comes the retort, “and many ex professo have lived as boasting Christians and ignored it. No. 4 : “To belittle the Cross is to sorely grieve the heart of Christians,” says the Presbyterian leader. The answer to which again is “Weather-cock.” No. 5 : “Aye, and rouse their ire as well,” continued the Rev. Mr Lowden. Well, Mr Lowdon, you will admit that under the circumstances we have kept our temper fairly well. No. 6 : “For the Hauraki Plains Gazette to tell us that it is not a suitable emblem to appear upon a memorial of our Chris tian dead wounds us much,” says the Rev. Mr Lowden. And to this we reply that every time we walk in reverence in the local cemetery the old wound is opened once again. No. 7 (note this please, because it is written by a responsible Christian leader !) : “I have seen memorials of various sizes, shapes, and materials, but never before have I known of one from which the sacred symbol was banned.” Oh I Surely after a visit to a Presbyterian graveyard a visit to the oculist is well overdue ! In the name of common-sense let us get down to facts. The Rev. Lowden, whom personally I very much reipeet, has laid himself open to public challenge on the question of respect for the Cross. Here is the answer : Does the Presbyterian Church, as a church, locally and wherever it has sunk its foundations, honour the <->wss by flinging it as a banner to the sides ? Will the Rev. Lowden convince us that the Cross—which has so recently caused him such deep concern as ter result in practically a demand that it crown the proposed Cenotaph, which after all is only a empty tomb—will the Rev. gentleman assure us that that sign, or symbol, is to be consistently found above the last restingplace of the average Presbyterian ? Look where you will, you will find the Cross as an emblem, if not despised and ignored, conveniently thrust aside. There need be no complaint. The Cross is to be banished, not only from the local Cenotaph alone. Remember that for centuries it has been a stranger to church roofs and spires, and costly marble stones that mark the last resting-p Pace of those who were known as Christians, as followers of Him, Who was the Leader in truth, the One Who carried and suffered and died upon the Cross JOHN T. TAYLOR, St. Mary’s Presbytery. Paeroa, June 24, 1929.