Letters to the Editor
RELIGION AND HAPPINESS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—May a "rank and file" Christian enter into the dis- cussion in your columns between the leaders of faith and unfaith ? I am anxious to stress one impression which the reading of the three articles against the Christian religion has made on more than one reader. It is this—that all have one point in common, namely, an assumption of infallibility which disdains arguments in favour of their ipse dixit's or proof for their statements. Apparently the mere fact that they have said a thing renders, in their view, such proof superfluous. May I take Mr. Russell's article to illustrate my meaning ?
He begins by saying that "most modem apologists (for
Christianity) have ceased to advance argument for its truth and confine themselves as a rule to the contention that it is useful." Is this statement. at all in line with the facts? I have just been listening on the wireless to an admirable discussion on "Science and Religion," by a Jesuit : the pragmatist's argument as to religion was not even referred to by him. I turn from the Roman Catholic point of view to the Anglican as expressed in the Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops : I find here not a single argument as to the " usefulness " of a religious belief, but a long and carefully considered statement of the Christian doctrine of God. I take up the current issues of the two chief Noncon- formist weekly papers and in both cases the leading article is occupied by a recent discussion on the "Historicity of Jesus." In order to be quite sure that the leaders of Christian thought are not spending their time on discussing merely the usefulness of Christianity, I turn to the latest half-a-: dozen volumes which I have been reading on doctrinal subjects and find that each of them deals with the aspect of Christian evidences for which, says Mr. Russell, Christians "have ceased to advance argument."
The next paragraph of Mr. Russell's article states that
"in every European country except Russia the Churches are• in close alliance with militarism." Here again we are con- fronted with a bare statement which is apparently made in ignorance of the fact that the League of Nations receives steady and effective support from Christian teachers, most of whom publicly pray for peace every week and from whose pulpits an appeal for peace is constantly being made. We have only to turn to the proceedings of the Lambeth Con- ference or to such assemblies as that of the Congregational Union a year ago, where a large portion of time was given up to the discussion of "Christianity and War," to see that the efforts of Christian leaders are constantly directed against the warlike spirit. I take up by chance this week's issue of a widely circulated religious paper and find in two different columns the suggestion strongly urged that all the evidences of militarism should be banished from Armistice celebrations. This does not look as if the Churches were in the close alliance stated.
I pass on to the statement that "attempts to change
economic injustice have always been opposed by the Hier- archy." If by the Hierarchy is meant the Bishops I wonder What Archbishop Temple, with his advanced social views, will make of the statement ! And I seem to remember such men as Bishops Westeott and Lightfoot and a number of others who have been leaders of the fight against social and economic injustice in their day. But Mr. Russell, in this case, adds an attempted proof of his contention by saying that "socialism on the Continent is opposed by official Christianity and is anti-Christian." That statement requires very much deduction before it can be said to be true and, even as stated, it proves nothing, as the contrary is the case in England. It has often been noted with pride, even by those who are opposed to their political principles, that almost the whole of the leaders of our Socialist Government in England are earnestly religious men.
The next paragraph speaks of "a number of false beliefs, especially in matters connected with sex, which the Churches ore doing their best to keep alive." Has Mr. Russell read the carefully weighed pronouncement on marriage and sex which was made by the Anglican Bishops at Lambeth? He goes on to say that "Christians commonly hold that children cannot be taught right living except by the help of lies on various physiological questions." One is surprised to hear it. There has been, it is true, an undue reticence not only on the part of professional Christian teachers, but on the part of most British parents on such questions, but I have yet to hear of the teacher who makes "lies" his stock-in-trade when speaking of these matters to children. And surely Mr. Russell is aware that Christian teachers are increasingly striving to give effective sex instruction to confirmation candidates and other young people in their charge.
Mr. Russell is nothing if not emphatic, and in the next paragraph he includes "practically all Church people" in the statement that "they hold that the State ought to enforce Church views as to inarriage on Christians and non- Christians alike." This is simply the reverse of the truth. Church people, it is true, who hold strict views as to the marriage tie suggest that the Church ought to impose her own rules as to divorce on her own children, but no Church people, so far as I know, have ever suggested that such laws should be enforced upon non-Christians.
. I pass by such statements as "that the Churches encourage the teaching of what they call morality by threats so terri- fying as to induce a degree of insanity," and come to the final paragraph, in which we are told that "every form of Christianity condemns what it calls mere pleasure." I was at the theatre last week in company with several of my congregation and I enjoyed to the full Miss Donaldson's company in their inimitable acting of one of Anthony Hope's comedies. I certainly do not condemn the "mere pleasure" which we all enjoyed : I doubt whether my Bishop would have done so either : if I was in any doubt on the matter I should not forget how the Gospel tells inc that my Divine Master created wine at a wedding feast in order that the "mere pleasure" of some humble folk should not be inter- fered with.
Will not Mr. Russell give us reasoned arguments in support of his unfaith instead of allegations unsupported by evidence ? I assure him that we Christians will listen to them with respect if not with assent.—I am, Sir, &c.,
GEORGE B. CHARLES.
Paddock Wood Vicarage, Kent.
Previous page
