Church or Pleasure on Sundays

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 547, 27 December 1928, Page 12

Church or Pleasure on Sundays

SOME people will tell you that religion is dying out, that it has ceased to impress people, that the churches are losing their influence, that the big public takes no interest in “divine worship,” as it is called. Ts religion dying out?

Before we tackle the question let us be clear as to what wp mean by religion, then at least we shall know what we are talking about, as well, which is just as important, as what we are not talking about, says Ben Adam in the Liverpool “Weekly Post.”

•'Religion” means different things, many different things, to different Ipeople.

you must allow no tampering with it. Once you allow your adherents to question, to think for themselves, to suggest modifications, you are making an opening for the deluge. The creed follower must submit to authority as a soldier. In this respect, two creeds, one the oldest, one the newest, are models. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Christian Science Church allow the slightest deviation from their doctrine, nor permit any innovation. Indeed the younger creed goes further than the older one. The Catholic Church has successive Popes who have the power to make up-to-date alterations that do not clash with the fundamentals, but Mrs. Eddy has decreed herself the Christian Science Pope for ever. No one must add a word, no one must take away a word, from the doctrine. From the creed-business point of view I grant that’s all right and the best thing to do; but I confess it would not do for me; I decline to be slave to any man's dogmas, but must think for myself according to my conscience and my reason. Young Men at Church

it means a different thing to you, me, to those members of the vari- ; bus sects, and quite another thing altogether to the rationalists and agnostics. Once upon a time, perhaps, in the beginnings of human history, religion may have meant the same thing to all who professed it, but nan is a thinking and arguing animal, soon there would be a difference pf opinion as to items of belief and Ritual. Naturally, religion, dealing po much with the, at present, apparently insoluble mysteries of man’s brigin and fate, affords ample scope for difference and argument. You cannot argue about the multiplication tabie. There’s no room for difference t>f opinion on the matter of twice jwo being four. It is. incontestable; demonstrable. It’s there. It’s a sure fact of our earthly life. But it’s different with speculation about deities, and angels, and spirits, which are hot mathematically demonstrable, and about which, to be candid, we really know nothing definite and conclusive. What is Religion? We can argue for ever, or as near St as makes no difference, as to •whether there are three gods in one and archangels and Elysian fields in the planet Venus; we may even get excited about it, angry with . those •who do not accept our views, even to the point of compelling them to believe as we do, or else imprisoning them or burning them at the stake, or perpetrating similar neighbourly cruelties in the interests of •what we call our religion, and yet be still as far off settling the matter as ever. But whatever argument there may be about trinities, there tan be no question about f>ne and pne making two. But let us try to get a common Vrorkable definition. What do we mean by “religion?” I take it that the general meaning of the word is that phase of human thought which believes in a Creator and a hereafter, and a system of conduct built on that basis. I think that covers the ground for all creeds. We need not discuss the different creeds. They are but the vessels of religion and theology. There is all the difference in the world between religion and theology or ecclesiasticism. We may say that religion is the “water of life,” and the various creeds are merely the cups from which we drink it. Some of us prefer one sort of cup, others another. There is the Roman Catholic cup, most ancient and elaborately decorated; there is the Church of England cup, not quite so old. and with rather less ornamentation; there is the Wesleyan cup, rather new, and even less ornate; the Methodist and Baptist cups, plain drinking vessels, and many others, in our own land, as well as the Buddhist cup, and the Mohammedan and the Zoronastrian, and others abroad, with which we have nothing to do on this occasion. Rome and Christian Science Speaking merely as an historical and sociological student of the human spectacle, and not as any partisan, I must say that when Protestantism began it opened the door to infinite schisms, splits, and to rationalism and agnosticism; whether for good or ill is a matter some would argue fiercely and interminably, but it is not out theme to-day and so we’ll leave it. Yet I may say this, speaking entirely from the point of view of the creed-founder, if you start a creed

Perhaps I was a little different (had a kink if you like to put it that way —I don’t mind) from the majority of young men; and yet I don’t know. I was like them in other respects. I got plenty, of games and sports, and was (dare I confess it?) fond of the company of girls. A party, a dance, a moonlight stroll with a pretty lass knocked all the theologies and philosophies into a cocked hat and into a very back seat. Green lanes, real romance —these were life, eternity, everything. Yet there were young men I knew who were keen on religion. Some of them may have been devout attenders at Sunday school and church through various motives —ambition, business, courtship (Heaven forgive me if I misjudge these), but there were others who were sincerely religious, and very much concerned about their souls and salvation. Some of these wished to become preachers and parsons. One or two of them struck me as morbid. There was one young man who sat night after night poring over the Bible and religious literature Instead of coming out to play cricket fir football with us, till ho became as pale as a ghost and drifted toward consumption. He was a good, sincere lad, but I thought it was a pity he should thus waste himself. Yet he was happy in his hermit way. When There Was No Choice 1 suppose in every generation there is a cry about the decline in church attendance. When I was a youth there were letters in the Press about the empty churches and the decline of religion. I suppose there’s been that cry ever since people could please themselves whether they went to church or not. For you couldn’t always please yourself—-at least, our forefathers couldn’t. In the good old days, when there were such merry things as the rack and the thumbscrew and the pillory and burning of witches, if you were found playing about on a Sunday morning instead of being at church, you could be put in the village stocks. You bad to go to “divine service” or give- satisfactory reason for absence. To-day we can please ourselves, and, owing to bicycles and motors, what people call the secularisation of the Sabbath has developed tremendously in the last dozen or twenty years, especially j among the young folks. Instead of j attending church or chapel, Mary Ellen is riding pillion on Jack’s mo- * tor-bike.