Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

waves that started in the saddened homes of Europe. The waters of tribulation are rushing over the whole of humanity, to wash away a lot of our industrial grime and national selfishness and personal wrong-doing.

HAS the reader pondered the meaning of the hue and cry about the efficient workman? Efficiency is talked of as tho it were to-day's most wonderful discovery. All the ills of society are to be cured through work, better work, more work, organized work, scientific work. Let us see.

The Efficiency Ideal

Work of almost any kind is a splendid thing for a man. Adam's curse was, after all, a blessing in disguise. But there are dangers and pitfalls that are sure to bedevil the single-minded worker. If he wants to be efficient he must be willing to pay the price, and that price is very high.

This is the unanimous report of experts who have been interested in some of the recent plans to raise the standard of excellence in various industries. The expert must be willing to close his eyes to many of the finest things in this enchanting world and must choose a life of monastic self-denial. And only when the object proves to be of extraordinary value can the sacrifice be justified. The Greeks exprest mingled scorn and reverence for manual labor in their conception of the crippled, limping Hephæstus. They had high ideals.

There are two classes of people who belong to this cyclopean brotherhood: the geniuses whom we revere and remember because they have chosen a single, great objective that absorbs all their attention, and the common drudges who have offered up every resource of body and soul at one shrine-the shrine of vulgar utilitarianism.

These drudges often realize that something is wrong with their scheme of living. The socialist clubs, the processions of woman-workers, the bridgeparties, the sanitaria, the jails, the divorce courts-all have their quota of tired workers who are making a frantic effort to escape from the yoke of slavery. The tread-mill routine is getting on their nerves. They try desperate means of emancipating themselves. Generally they fail.

Often they look too far afield. For the cure must be found where the disease is. Ruskin taught us that unless we find joy in our daily work we shall be unhappy forever. There is material for brain and heart and will in every man's and every woman's labor. If the work calls for early rising there is a chance to inhale the freshness of a new creation. It will be a day-long benediction. A moment spent with the sky at night brings vast returns. The barrier of work can not shut the whole luxury of the summer away from one who is determined to get a little of it for himself. No man need study botany, but he should consider the lilies; it is not obligatory to know the Greek drama, but one suffers for ignoring all the poetry of life.

The toilers are supposed to look askance at the Church. Are they not too tired to sing, and too sophisticated to pray? And is not the sermon a stupidly manufactured product, so unlike the sharp, shining, effective tool used in the work-shop? And still the peace of the place will filter through the tired bodies and soothe the fretting nerves and revive the fainting souls.

For even the mechanical-efficiency apostle is so made that if he will but open his eyes and ears to the good of this world it will minister to his wants. We and the world are as closely related as the words and the melody of a song, as bride and groom. If the toiler lets it work upon him, his efficiency advisers

will soon be out of a job. He shall be a servant or slave no longer, but a friend of a friendly universe, for he has learned to know the mind of his heavenly Father.

AN esteemed contemporary seems to be the victim of distressing dreams, in which its screams emit reprehensible heresy. The case of some readers who may have imbibed this as Christian truth calls for an immediate antidote.

A False
Alarm

Heresy is defined in English ecclesiastical law as "a public and persistent denial of some fundamental doctrine of Christianity." The present heresy is double-barreled, denying two such doctrines in italicized sentences, viz., "There is no such thing as the universal brotherhood of man." "There is no universal fatherhood of God."

That the twin truths of the human brotherhood and the divine fatherhood of all men are fundamental and plainly asserted in the New Testament no reader unbiased by medieval theology can reasonably doubt. Paul told Athenian philosophers that God "made of one (i.e., Adam, said in Genesis to be the progenitor of all mankind) every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." From this he went on to quote and reaffirm the saying of the poet Aratus, about 270 B.C., "We are also his offspring." Furthermore, the genealogy of Jesus given by Paul's companion, Luke, is traced back to "Adam, son of God."

Yet our contemporary not only repudiates the universal brotherhood of man as "a fallacy, foolish and futile," but even denounces it as "fatal-it contains a deadly poison. For if all men are born sons of one Father, God, they do not need to be born again, in order that they may be sons."

Strange that any theologian should blindly ignore a fact of so frequent experience as the distinction between physical and moral sonship. A father scandalized by the conduct of a scapegrace son sometimes exclaims, "No son of mine." It was to the unfilial that Jesus said, "Ye are of your father the devil." Yet the black sheep in a good family, however unfilial, is nevertheless his father's son, and pious parents pray that he may be born again into filial and moral sonship. Only because all men, however wayward, are God's children by natural birth is it possible for them by spiritual birth to become his children in godly character. Precisely this is Jesus' teaching in the parable of the Prodigal Son.

Calvin's studies in Roman law led him to think of God only as a sovereign, and of men only as creatures and subjects, whom Adam's fall involved in condemnation "under the wrath and curse of God." This unevangelical conclusion has fallen flat since anthropology exploded its foundation. In evident agreement, however, with Calvin our contemporary carries his heresy to this monstrous climax: "The assertion of the universal brotherhood of man denies the need of the cross of Christ, repudiates his atonement, blasphemes his blood." This might be true only if the Calvinistic doctrine were true, that "men not professing the Christian religion can not be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess." This justifies Mr. Beecher's saying, "Too much of the devil in theology." It is repudiated not only by all students of comparative religion but by John's saying of Christ, "The true light which lighteth every man"-some rays of which are found throughout the non-Christian world.

IS DENOMINATIONALISM DOOMED? Interview with Rev. Harold E. Brierley, London, England E. HERMAN, London, England

LIKE all great conceptions, the idea of church-union has suffered sorely at the hands of its friends and advocates. It has been rarefied into thin air by idle dreaming, and contracted into a crank's hobby by premature scheming. In new countries, such as Australia, where the fettering and cramping effect of denominational divisions is more keenly felt, the leaders of the churches have come together and framed a basis for corporate union which, however, itself hung very much in the air, for the simple reason that the people entirely lack that churchconsciousness which alone can make an external union something better than a mere utilitarian expedient. To merge a number of religious associations into one great organization may make for superficial efficiency; what it can never make is a united Christian Church. The reason why so many of our noblest and most clear-sighted Christian teachers and leaders have deprecated all efforts toward corporate union is that they feel strongly that before one can have a great united Church one must have churches. Only those who possess church-consciousness can unite to repair the breaches of the Christian Zion.

The present world-crisis has done much to turn the thoughts of Christian people, and notably of English Free-Churchmen, to the much-vexed subject of union, so that golden dreams and leaden schemes are alike in the air. Of all those who have sought of late to bring the great ideal of union before our minds, none has done so with more sanity of outlook and dynamic power of appeal than Rev. Harold E. Brierley, a well-known London Congregational minister and a son of that prince of religious essayists, Jonathan Brierley-"J. B." of the London Christian World-who for many years through the religious press preached weekly to a world-wide congregation. Mr. Brierley belongs to the new and rising type of FreeChurch ministers. Judged by certain time

honored conventions which are supposed to be of the essence of English non-conformity, he is decidedly out of the common, and in nothing more so than in his strong consciousness of churchmanship. Mr. Brierley flung the gauntlet down to the tyranny of denominationalism in a remarkable letter in the Christian World, and his challenge issued in an interesting correspondence, besides letting loose a flood-tide of opinion and appeal in the pulpit and on the market-place. Mr. Brierley will have nothing to do with schemes, judging that day for them has not yet come. What he stands for is the creation of a true church ideal and church-consciousness among Christian people; above all, for the creation of a spiritual passion for union. Only such a passion can make union possible and, once it is created, nothing can stay its translation into hard fact.

Mr. Brierley, who ministers to a large congregation drawn from many parts of London, has a strongly marked individuality, and not a little of his distinguished father's versatility and fertility. His claim to Huguenot descent on his mother's side has naturally given him a keen interest in French life and thought, and his early education in Switzerland made him master of the French language. In reply to my inquiry as to whether he did not think the whole question of church-union premature at this stage, he hastened to define his position.

"I have all through tried to make it clear that I do not consider the present moment opportune for any attempt at reconstruction. In a sense my attitude is destructive: that is to say, I have tried to give articulateness to the vague and unreasoned feeling in the minds of most earnest Christians of to-day that our denominational system is wrong. I have tried to point out that denominationalism is already superseded in fact, tho not in form. My contention is that our denominational divisions have ceased to have distinctive value. The specific spiritual prin

ciples and aspects of truth to which the various denominations once testified are to-day part of the common stock of the Free-Church faith. Is there a single really vital element of that faith that would be lost through the passing away of denominationalism? And if not, what justification have we for impairing our efficiency and jeopardizing the progress of the kingdom of God by clinging to what even so many of its upholders in theory count a dead letter in practise? My assertion that there are no such things today as specifically denominational principles has been challenged. I have been told that, e.g., the Congregational ideal is vastly other than the connectional, be it Methodist, Presbyterian, or if you like to go so far afield -Episcopalian (provided that a non-monarchical episcopate be meant). But is that really so? Our Congregational ideal may be exprest in one phrase 'the real presence of our Lord.' We believe that wherever two or three members of his Church are gathered together, there he is in the midst of them, ready to speak and work through each. Now Methodism or Presbyterianism may not lay the same emphasis upon this truth, or state it in the same direct manner; but surely there is nothing in the Congregational ideal to which either the Methodist or the Presbyterian could not agree-nothing which is not implicit in his own doctrine of the Church, tho it may not be explicit. With regard to matters of government, the approximation is obvious to all. Congregationalism, in the sense of Independency, has been tried and found wanting. One need only go to a new country, such as South Africa, where I spent some time a few years back, in order to see that there is no chance for small, scattered churches on the basis of Independency. There must be centralization and connection, if only to the extent of a sustentation fund. The time for constructive schemes of union does not seem to have come as yet, but it is time for taking counsel together in serious discussion."

"But do you think a discussion by leading men would be of any real use when the people are not yet ripe for union; when, for instance, it is extremely difficult even to get the members of the various churches in a given district to unite for a communion service?"

"I don't think that counts for very much," said Mr. Brierley. "People are unwilling

to attend these services for the simple reason that they know they really mean nothing. The National Free Church Council has for many years done its best to foster interdenominational unity by united meetings and services of all kinds, and what is the result? There is little more real unity among the separate denominations than there was twenty years ago when the Council began its operations. We have more united meetings, more concerted effort in certain directions, that is all. We pray and sing together and confer together on a variety of subjects, but so far there has been no sign of any inclination to sacrifice a single one of the things which keep us apart. Of course from its very nature such a body as the National Free Church Council can not speak with any real authority. Our great need is leadership. We want a man, or several men, of the caliber of the late Dr. Rainy-men qualified to lead, and prepared to lead, men of statesmanlike mind and of heroic determination-who will convince us that there is no time to be lost, that we must either unite, or perish as corporate forces."

"But," I urged, "no amount of leadership can make up for the lamentable absence of a true church-consciousness among the rank and file of our membership. Is it not the case that so long as the 'religious club' conception of the Church prevails, amalgamation for it would be amalgamation and not union-would only exhibit on a large scale and a hundred times intensified the worst features of our present type of churchmanship. If our motive is to be anything higher than the ambition to match the organic unity of the Church of England with the unity of a national United Free Church, then we must first revive the spiritual and apostolic doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ."

"I entirely agree with you, and my aim throughout is to help toward the revival of that passion for unity which springs directly from a revived church-consciousness. In one sense our people are, as you say, not ripe for union, that is, for any practical constructive scheme. But I believe the time is fully ripe for discussion of the right kind in church meetings and courts. While it is true that many of our people lack a true conception of the Church, it is equally true that they feel our denominational divisions

« PrécédentContinuer »