RELIGIOUS REVIVALS.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume IV, Issue 274, 25 October 1902, Page 3

RELIGIOUS REVIVALS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— Having read your leader which appeared in your issue of the 18th under' the above heading with considerable interest, I must congratulate you upon your outspoken criticism, I fully endorse your statements when you say that a newspaper should exist for the purpose of leading public opinion and forming a medium tor the transmission of ideas of interest to its readers. I, as a Nonconformist, often ask myself the question, What good are the majority of our churches doing towards solving the great problem of the uplifting of humanity? and reply. Nothing. The ministers and office-bearers of the vast majority of the Nonconformist churches teach and preach such dogmas as are calculated to tickle the ears of the congregations, and simply waste time. That a great revival should be caused by two American ( passing through this colony is in itself a stigma upon the churches of New Zealand. Now, Sir, how often do the ministers or laymen teach or preach the true Christianity of the New Testament? I certainly assert, Not very often, for they invariably explain away all, or most of all, that part of the teaching of Christ especially anything affecting the social evils of society, suoh as oppressing the workers in their wages and sweating the poor. The grand fundamental principles such as “ The labourer is worthy of his hire,” and “ Do unto others as you would others should do unto you,” are absolutely ignored by the vast majority of so-called Christians of to-day in the churches. I consider the resolution passed by the Presbyterian Presbytery at Morven little better than blasphemy, because those ministers cannot, in but very few instances, sh*w any real or lasting good done by their labours. The churches are all behind the times in which we live, as the labouring poor of ■‘he Old Land clearly show, hence the establishment of what is generally known as the Labour Church, where there are taught the pure and true principles of Christ, and no attempt to explain away the altruism from the poor simply oecause they are poor. Some of the present day and rob the worker of his just•- reward and hold positions in our churches and profess to teach the workers tne way to heaven on Sunday ; and of course they in almost all instances fail in their mission, and then wonder why the Church cannot get hold of the mass of workmen in the world. You, Sir, are right when you assert that what is wanted is for the ministry to go out among the people and come to enquire into the social condition of the people, and make some attempt to grapple with their wants and their woes, and not always attempt to blunt their intelligence by cant and obsolete dogmas. I have been a member of the Nonconformist Church for the past twenty years and almost a constant , attendant, yet in all those years I have never heard a real practical address ( delivered upon the social ethics of society, except, of course, the two evils, the drink traffic and gambling, and I am very much of opinion that these two evils would not have been given such prominence had they not been forced upon the ministers and laymen of our churches by the congregations in im at instances themselves. It, Sir, is a well-known fact that wealth and position' in a wor dly sense have completely blinded the eyes of the ministry as a class to the many wrongs and sufferings of the poor almost without exception, which causes churchgoing to have become very little mere than a tribute of respectability. It has been said by a certain writer that newspapers, punphleis, books, and poems are the real working effective church of a modern countrj . Quite so. Then, Sir, here is a very large field for you to enter upon merely for the welfare of our colony and also suffering humanity. This truth is everywhere recognised as self-evident, because neither platform nor pulpit wields so great a power as does the Press. You, Sir, are quite safe in your suegestion that the ministry must be abreast of the times and ready to impart the scientific truths of the day to their flocks, and thereby show the complete workings of God; and when this is done a new religion will be embodied, and the great truth of the Bible Will win its way and become acceptable unto a large class of men who now will not submit to t! trammels of convention and Christianity. It has been written in a certain journal of some standing in this colony that what is wanted most of all is a special mission among the clergy of New Zealand to convert a few more of them to practical Christianity. Then there will not be so much regret expressed because the Church does not get a hold of the masses, because where there is concentrated wealth liberty cannot live, I hope, Sir, you will continue your leaders upon this subject, and light, drawing toward the great truth—the Fatherhood of God and the united Brotherhood of Man. Thanking you, Sir, in anticipation, I am, etc., A Nonconformist. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— l see that in your leader of October 18'h you launch forth into a discussion of religious topics. You refer to a “ resolution of thanksgiving for the recent revival of religion.” This resolution was passed lately by the “ Presbyterian Presbytery.” The referenee was, of course, to the work of Dr. Torrev and Mr Alexander. All Bible-loving Christians have indeed abundant reason for thanksgiving and encouragement on account of the great results achieved. You say that these revivalists have come “ to foist an obsolete hell on a thinking people.” There are many thoughtful people in the world, but the sad thing about great multitudes is that they will not seriously think upon religious questions. If men did they would not so lightly speak of “ an obsolete hell. Christians may perhaps differ as to some details of Dr Torrey’s teaching on this matter, but severe retribution in the future world for the wrong doing of this has been in many ages and races the instinctive conclusion of man’s conscience. If we come to the Bible we find that its supreme fountain of authority, the Lord Jesus Christ, said some of the most solemn things that have ever been said on this subject. “ These (the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” ihe original uses the same adjective in the two clauses to express “ everlasting. (See revised version.) People may say that some expressions such as “ fire and brimstone,” “ the worm that dieth not, are figurative, that they do not refer to physical anguish so much as to remorse of conscience, etc. I am inclined, *° far as I have light, to agree with this. _ But to say that expressions are figurative is far from saying that they mean nothing. When God in th" Bible uses suoh tremendous figures of speech as He does, the finally impenitent may beware. Remember, sir, that the doctrine of future retribution is a case of the survival of the fittest 5 n doctrine. Bor two thousand years it has been fiercely contested. It is opposed no the natural desires of the human heart. Almost everyone would prefer not to believe it if he could. 9 But for all that the doctrine has gained tbo support of probably 95 per cent of the great Christian churches and of the earnest Christian thinkers. They did

not like it, but loyalty to iruth and fact compelled them to accept it. As Dr Torrey said, “I bad rather believe an unpleasant fact than a pleasant fiction. ’ 1 would respectfully recommend you, sir, and those who tinnk with you to read Dr Joseph Cook’s Lectures on Orthodoxy and bis other works. He there gives in very readable form a scientific statement of the doctrine of eternal retribution along this line of thought, weighty to my mind beyond all description: character tends to final permanence ■whether for good or evil. Some men become fixed in evil habits and fall into permanent dissimilarity of character and the “ nature of things.” It is easy and cheap to talk about “ obsolete hells,” but listen to Dr Cook: “The last verity proclaimed in Scripture is thus the natural permanence of moral character, and the certainty that all crystallization of the soul into final permanence will bring with it its natural wages. The truth that I am afraid of is what all science, what all scripture, what all human experience affirm, that he who is unholy long enough will be unholy longer; he who is filthy long enough will be filthy longer ; and that inveteracy , vill lead to permanence of voluntary moral remoteness from God; and that this will be its own punishment in the j nature of things. You are at war with the nature of things.” Which shall change, you or it ? God cannot be an enswathing kiss without being also a consuming fire. It is sad to read your reference to conversion as “grovelling on the floor.” Is it not proper and right ? If a man comes to believe that he lus mightily offended against his Maker ought he not w b sorrow to confess the fact like a man? You say that nine-tenths of such conversions, presumably in revival meetings, are the result of excitement and magnetic influence! People seem dreadfully afraid of excitement in religious meetings, though tb • manage f'irly well to bear an enthusiastic war m Jting or political gathering. Why should hot religious meetings have life and fervour ? But no, they must be kept very quiet and , decorous. Then when they are quiet, as I most of them are, complaint is made of “ want 01 life,” “ dreary platitudes.” etc. How can such critics be pleased ? In some cases, no doubt, the effect of revival meetings is temporary. There are always tares among the wheat. But on the other hand, many find in conversion the beginning of life, peace and power, that make life a new thing You say that ihe effect of the mission under notice h‘a almost pas e 1 away. I earnestly believe this to be thoroughly incorrect. Hundreds and thousands have been led to serious thought, to good resolutions, to earnest efforts against their besetting sins. Reconciliations between the estranged, kinder treatment of employees, correction of crooked business methods, deliverance from blighting scepticism, generous donations to foreign missions—such are some of the fruits of the revival of which I have heard already, on excellent evidence. A Y.M.C.A. has been started in Wei ington and an Evangelistic Committee i-et on foot in Christchurch, as lasting results of the revival. Multitudes of Christians have received a powerful impulse that will tell greatly for good in tneir future efforts. Your very article is one evidence out of many that the secular press has had the subjee - of religion brought powerfully under its no ice and tuat there is a gene- al public interest in such questions, else why y„ur article at all ? I regret that one careless statement made by a memb-r of the Presbytery should have afforded a handle to you. I noted the error at the time, but did not think it worth discussion ; but as you have brought it into your article I must deal with it. A member of Presbytery reported that very few of the Sunday school teachers were prepared to undergo the examinations in scripture know ledge provided to help their efficiency. From this he drew the inference that the revival had not done the good one might expect. He did not say anything about the neglect of ministers in the matter, as far as my best recollection goes. But his argument was quite beside the mark, for the necessary study for the examination had to be begun months before the revival started. How, then, could indifference to the examination prove the slight effect of a revival starting months afterwards ? In addition, indifference to this examination does not by any means prove indifference to Sunday school work, because, as was pointed out by other speakers, the Sunday school teachers are in most cases very busily engaged in other church work, and so it is difficult for them to undertake extra tasks in the way of studying for examination, however helpful the knowledge acquired might be. You ! say, then, “ What are the churches doiog ? ” No doubt thry have many shortcomings, one must freely confess ; but still I would hardly submit that if there be, as many believe, a vast difference in kindness, refinement, virtue, and prosperity between our civilisation and that of Morocco and China, the Christian churches are responsib’o, under thetr Divine Head, for the r part of that difference. Most people ./ho decry the churches take particularly fine care not to submit their own skin to the tender mercies of (any) the Sultan of Morocco. It you will take the trouble to read up the history of Uganda for the last twenty years or s ■ you will see that the Christian churches have nude , mighty difference there. You refer to “ dogmatising,” “ dreary platitudes,” and “ exploded theories.” There is a vast deal of “ cant ” talked about dogma in these days, fur cant is by no means confined to the churches. Many speak of all accurate statement of religious tru h as “ dogma.” They would like all religious doctrine left in a pleasant, nebulous, wishy-washy, free and easy, go as you please sort of condition. Then these same critics would be the first to complain of the “loose and unscientific” character of the teaching given. The statement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is a dogma ; that is, a precise statement of a great religious truth. I should like, however, to see the editor of the Advertiser trying to run a Christian church without enforcing this dogma pretty frequently. That there is a God is a dogma, if you come to that; yet without this dogma there is not much religion. As to “ dreary platitudes " and “ exploded theories,” it is interesting to note now the greatest halls in onr cities have been lately crowded, semetimes three or four times a day, to listen to the proclamation of these same “ exploded theories.” I venture to assert that not even the Hon Richard Seddon, P.C. and Premier, could have got overflowing crowds three or four times a day for ten days in one city to listen to a series of lectures on politics. Even to-day nothing can draw and he Id such large and continuous crowds as the Gospel. No book has been “exploded” so often as the’Bible. In aU conscience it ought to be dead, but somehow it isn’t, and, as the vexed French General said at the battle about the British, it “ doesn’t know when it is beaten.” Voltaire exploded the Bible> a century ago. He said that in a hundred years it would be effete. At the lapse of that time the Bible Sosiety bought his old house in Switzerland and made it into a Bible depot. The irony of history ! Let i me note the delightful vagueness, the i primordial nebulosity of your suggestions, “ Got out among the people, feel their . needs, and then take such steps as i would suggest themselves to a sensible man.” But you do not tell us what i these wonderful steps are. “ The Church i has no hold on the men.” Only partially i true, as yon would think if you had seen i the huge men’s mooting" at Dr Torrey’s ! mission. It is sadly true in a measure

I that “He came unto His own and His own received Him not. ! ’ Women are no doubt more religious than men, and a very good thing too, for the sake of the training of their children. But the Rev Mr Kelly, of Auckland, tells ua of one congregation at least to which he has preached where the men greatlj outnumber the women. It is in the Mount Eden gaol. You speak effusively and easily about a “new form of religion embodying the great truths ol the'Bible and its matchless moral codt without men-made dogmas.” This is nc new talk, but as old as the hills. Men have often tried to separate the moral truths of the Bible from its doctrines. This was tried in England in the eighteenth century, with the result of nearly ruining Britain had not the great evangelistic revival under Wesley and Whitfield restored the Scriptural doctrines and with them given fresh power to moral truths and ethical reforms like the abolition of slavery, prison reform, etc. The testimony of history and experience is that the great doctrines of the Bible are vitally necessary as a support for its matchless moral code. I ask pardon for the length of my letter. However, you raised in your article a great many issues, and I do not often trouble your columns. —I am, etc., Amx. S. Morbison.