The Daily News. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1922. THE CHURCH CRITICISED.

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1922. THE CHURCH CRITICISED.

At the recent Church Congress at Sheffield, the Archbishop of York (Dr. Cosmo Gordon Lang) formulated a grave indictment against the Anglican Church oh its faitare to make the best use of its opportunities. “To put the matter bluntly,” he said, “reli- 1 gion attracts, the Church repels.’’ That one of the supreme heads of the Church should have considered it necessary to proclaim that the Church, in its dulness and unreality, was a stumbling-block to real religion, indicates there is something radically out of joint in the machinery methods which carry on the work committed to the charge of the bishops and clergy. Whatever the fault may be, it is more than probable that the chief factor is the inability of the ecclesiastical body to adapt themselves to the ever-changing conditions of the times and the people. Dr. Lang asserted that the spiritual heart of the present generation was restless, not only because its nerves had been over-

strained by the stress of war, but because it was suffering from dis illusionmerit, and that p’ost-war confusions had left a taste of moral failure, which lie considered was the heart of the present problem. There appears to be some justification for that conclusion. It may reasonably be claimed that, at heart, the majority of people not only feel the need of religion, but are craving for a true religion, as never before. Do they find this need supplied by the Church ? Dr. Lang asserts they do not, and as proof of that fact he points out that anyone who knows what is passing through the minds of t’ne men and women, especially the younger men and women, is aware of the eager desire for a spiritual religion. Yet there is an evident standing apart from the Church, because it “is not a witness to the truth of its gos-. pels, but it is, in its divisions, its dulness and its unreality, a stumbling block and an offence.” It has to be remembered that religiousness is not religion. Such a serious charge cannot be lightly ignored, especially in the ease of Britain, where the Church holds equal rank with the State, and is regarded as the corner stone of religious and political liberty. It is quite possible that, had the Archbishop set forth the whole of the facts that led him to attack the Church’s work from within, he would have created a far greater sensation than by confining his remarks to practically one phase of the problem, his main purpose being to emphasise the remedy. “If,” he said, “the Church is to preach the eternal gospel to this generation, not in word, but in power, it must evangelise itself by a new, widespread and continued, effort in every diocese and parish. Bishops, clergy and people must set, themselves to think fresh thoughts about practical religion. There has never been such a time in the history of the Empire as is now the case, when the Church should endeavor to make supreme efforts to be an impelling force to assist humanity towards a higher plane of social, religious and industrial activity. Bishop Averill struck the right note in his Inglewood address when he said that “peace was a frail flower, and could not flourish eyeept where the spirit of unity and brotherhood existed.” It is by concentrating on the promotion of a greater spirit of fellowship and emphasising and inculcating the. real values in life that the Church can fulfil its true mission, and infuse true religion into the hearts of the people, thereby removing the evil of which the Archbishop of York complains.