CORRESPONDENCE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9059, 7 April 1908, Page 6

CORRESPONDENCE.

(To the Editor). Sir,—As a stranger who attended ;he lecture to men by the Rev. Thompson, in the Knox Church, yesireday afternoon, and who cannot cake advantage of his offer to meet him, I would be glad if you would grant me space to make a few remarks on his lecture. He referred to the many difficulties that presented themselves to men oi' today, who, through the dessemination of scientific knowledge, reached conclusions that did not harmonise with present day orthodoxy. In some cases, he was charitable enough to concede, honest doubt was responsible for their not attending the church; in others, apathy, the result of multifarious causes. Reviewing the advances made in intellectual thought during the past 150 years, in the scientific world, he pointed out the immensestrides that geology, astronomy and biology had made, the changed views these presented of man's position in the universe, his relation to a supreme being, and his attitude towards his fellow-man. As one holding views, that preclude me accepting orthodoxy, while not opposed to Christianity,'l was struck with his silence on the advance theology had made. While all these forces were attempting to assert themselves, what has been the attitude of the Church? Has it not been apathetic? What was its attitude toward Tom Payne, who was not an Atheist? toward the evolutionaryprinciple towards? agnosticism? towards science generally? Was it not one of hostility? Until now, when it finds its power waning, it is willing to compromise its position to retain or regain that power? While I concede there are exceptions in the Church, we must accept the attitude of the organised Church as represented by its General Assembly. While the Church has been standing still where it could not oppose, the intellectual world has been advancing by leaps and bounds, and as Mr A J. Balfour remarks, "If our outlook upon the universe has suffered modifications in detail, so great and so numerous that they amount collectively to a revolution, it is to men of science we owe it, not to Theologians or Philosophers; and if in the last hundred years the whole material setting of civilisation has altered, we owe it neither to politicians nor to political institutions, but to the combined efforts of those who have advanced science, and those who have applied it." If the Church applied the principles enunciated by Christ; if it accepted their underlying ideas, we might hope for progress from it; but so long as they teach one pet of principles and live in complete opposition to them, there is not much hope of its being successful. If brotherhood means anything, it should be lived—not merely a word without meaning, and it is thishypocritical attitude that precludes many from associating themselves with the Church. "Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only." The Rev. Thompson is trying to serve two irasters, the ones who have doubts, and those who he is afraid to speak to on these subjects, for fear of fostering unbelief, and as of old there is no middle course. Those who were his auditors must either recede, or Mr Thompson must advance. Of all forms of materialism, the worst and ths subtlest are those which masquerade as Christian reapectability, and in the text of the rev. gentleman, "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who doeth the j will of my Father which is in | Heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and done wonderful works, and 1 will profess unto them I never knew you, depart from me ye workers of iniquity." The Church to-day, as of old, is in need of a leader to teach it first principles. If the Rev. Thompson wishes his lectures to be productive of good, he must have resort to these. Love being one, it is necessary to teach man "so, and instead of bestowing love on God—the source of love, would it not be productive of more good if we bestowed a little more in our every-day life, for "if we love not our brother who we have seen, how can we love God whom we have not seen." Wishing Mr Thompson every success in his desire to understand those who cannot accept the prevailing theories, and hoping that something tangible will result.—l am, etc., CRITIC. Masterton, April sth, 1908.