Churches Are Failing Us

Editorial

The true fortitude of the sage places honour, which above all things it instinctively pursues, not in glory but in conduct, and aspires to be first in deed rather than in name. (Cicero, Moral Duties, 19.)

To put a wandering traveller in ’s way,
Is but to light one candle with another:
I’ve ne’er the less, for what I give. (Ennius, quoted by Cicero, 16.)

      I recently heard on television a statement from a clergyman of the United Church of Christ arguing that the Ten Commandments in the courthouse of Alabama should be removed. His argument was that the Ten Commandments were an expression of religion and might offend someone who was not a Christian. Religious expression should be private or in a church environment, he said.

      The Ten Commandments are honored by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. No religion fails to honor the Ten Commandments. Our clergyman does not know the history of the United States, or he does not accept that tradition; nor does he know that the doctrine of the separation of church and state is a recent invention of doubtful truth and is the chief instrument used by those advocating the secularization of our country. The first amendment to the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” The phrase “separation of church and state” was part of a letter of Jefferson’s and was taken up to reinterpret the first amendment. I regret having to disagree with the Supreme Court, but few will deny that our courts have become legislative institutions, contrary to the Constitution. The first amendment says the state should not support the church, any church. It did not say anything about removing religion from public life. Many clergymen, I am sure, do not agree with the present interpretation, but they are silenced by popular journalism and the secularism of our press. Having said that, I do not doubt clergymen in executive positions will lead the race to abolish religion from our basic institutions, trivializing religion with the use of pious words.

      The most sensational recent news from our churches comes from the Episcopalians who have approved the ordination of a homosexual bishop. This person was married fifteen years and became the father of two daughters before he left his wife to indulge his passions with another man. In the animal kingdom, from ants to elephants, there is no sexual deviance. That the church would even consider ordaining a homosexual is proof of its corruption. I am not concerned if sexual deviates get together with other deviates, and I am not concerned if homosexuals elect one their kind as a leader. They should do so. When, however, they demand their deviancy be legitimized and those with normal habits should approve of them and live with them in broad-minded tolerance, I object. I question if a church needs to exist which promotes and sanctifies homosexual behavior.

      What we observe in the Episcopal Church reflects a problem in many of the mainline churches. Individual clergymen may not approve of homosexualism, but that they will do anything about it is hopeless. The central offices of all denominations, or some synods, own all local churches, every brick and piece of furniture for which the local congregation paid. If the local pastor wants a new placement, he can do so only at the pleasure of the central authority. When placement of pastors is in the hands of the central authority, pastors do and say what is permitted or find employment elsewhere. If the local parish looks for a different pastor, they may only elect from candidates that are approved. Controversial ideas may be discussed, but only within the limits permitted by the central authority. Those in control always get what they want.

      The traditional Christian faith was not believed by most pastors in the early part of the 20th century. Miracles were interpreted so they did not offend common sense. Theology was dismissed as unintelligible. It was known that creeds and dogmas divided Christians for centuries to the place where they killed each other, involving nations in the conflict. Even the historical Christ was called in question by writers such as Alfred Loisy. On the other hand, the skeptic Ernest Renan traced the roots of St. Paul’s journals by following The Acts of the New Testament, proving their historicity. It was an age of uncertainty.

      Uncertainty of mind is no evil and could be an opportunity for renewal. Questioning the old faith and its traditions was a rare and wonderful opportunity to start anew. Clerics could have and should have gone back to the Bible and rediscovered how the Christian faith began. The Christian faith began as a reaction to the Pharisaism of the Judaism of the time, where the outward observances of the traditions were more important than the living faith that gave rise to those traditions. Jesus said, and the statement was fundamental, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” No faith can live without Pharisaism, but secondary behavior should not replace what is fundamental.

      The essence of the Christian faith is that our lives must be transformed with a holiness that is shown in behavior. I grew up in a church that practiced baptism by immersion. One became a member of the church only after immersion, which was the practice in the New Testament. Submitting to immersion meant pledging oneself to put off evil habits and rise to walk in newness of life. Such a practice became incompatible with sophisticated dignity, however.

      A living religion should not be intellectual except secondarily. Christians may and should theorize as they might but must not demand a universal creed that defines the faith. There must be liberty to grow and change on an individual and local basis. That churches are controlled from the center, continue to insist on universal dogmas, and do not place the emphasis on godly behavior, means they cannot be truly Christian.

      I saw a few years ago a television program that showed the religious faith of one who lived on an island somewhere in the Pacific. The lady was obviously pious. Her face shone with devotion. Just by looking you knew she was a good person. How did she come to this height of goodness? By the worship of God. And who was God? God was the huge rock on the beach, at the edge of the ocean. She prayed to this rock and sought guidance from it. We are stupid when we condemn her for her ignorance. She had something that we, with all our learning, have lost.

      The mainline churches are in decline, and have been for years. I fear the time will come when church attendance will be what it is in Europe, where fewer and fewer people retain the habits of their childhood. The old faith will certainly decline when churches condone and approve deviate behavior. At the moment the only churches that flourish are the fundamental ones. We dismiss them as ignorant, but they succeed in changing people’s lives, which is the fundamental fact.

      The United States has not had a national preacher since Harry Emerson Fosdick, who was at his height during World War II. Fosdick was a Baptist, a society of independent congregations where the statements of church officials only had effect in proportion to the wisdom as judged by the local congregation. My recollection is that John C. Rockefeller built Riverside Church in New York City for Fosdick because he was not wanted by conventional churches. In that church he became the leading preacher of the country. His sermons were always simple, practical, of simple common sense, and in understandable English. Here are some sermon titles: “Righteousness First”; “Christianity Is Not a Form But a Force”; “Our World Confronts a Child”; “Standing By the Best in an Evil Time”; “What the Law Cannot Do”; “On Being Overcome with the Gods of Our Defeated Enemy.” I heard him preach to a gathering of ministers from many denominations, and Rabbis also, in the Jewish Theological Seminary of New York. His sermon was Christian and well received by our Jewish friends. It was the presentation of a maestro. To be relevant, sensible, simple, helpful, and clear is difficult, requiring both art and work, which may explain why it is so rare.

      Perhaps the greatest preacher of the 20th century was F. W. Boreham, another Baptist, an Englishman who was ordained in New Zealand and spent the majority of his life in Australia. He was largely unknown in the rest of the world. For the last eighteen years of his life he preached before a overflowing congregation every Wednesday noon in the great Congregational Church in the center of Melbourne. People left work to hear him preach. I heard him once, just before I left Australia, and it was a great pleasure. His theology was conventional and his intellectual interest was literature. His sermons were enlivened with a gifted imagination to produce sermons that were practical, helpful, and works of art. Overhearing a young lady say she would nearly die if her boy friend did not take her to the movies once a week, he remarked “The thought this charming and vivacious young creature was so near to the gates of the grave was a poignant grief to me.” I have eight of his books and more than a hundred of his sermonettes that were published weekly in the Melbourne Age, the largest newspaper in Melbourne, but you could find some of his writings if you go to F. W. Boreham on the internet. His books are rare, all treasures, but some are available.

      Our churches are in decline because they have been swept along by popular journalism. There was a time when every newspaper and periodical had a distinct point of view, but because clear editorial opinions alienated those who did not agree with them and the goal of the paper or journal was the enlargement of circulation and increase of income and, therefore, profit, clarity of opinion was discontinued. The justifications for hiding one’s opinion was tolerance of other points of view and objective journalism. There is nothing wrong with tolerance if it means freedom of expression for different points of view, but when tolerance means promoting what one believes to be wrong, or inaccurate, tolerance means hypocrisy, or cowardice, or dishonesty. Much of present print cares little for truth if it hurts circulation. We have print and television that cultivate indecency for the sake of audience. We live in an age where anything goes.

      Tolerance means freedom, not renunciation. If periodicals ignore a clear point of view in the name of tolerance, they are without belief. The justification for tolerance is objective reporting. That means writers or television pundits are able to report the facts without prejudice. Objective reporting is baloney. There is no such thing. What a writer selects for publication depends on his point of view. His interpretation of his subject depends on his point of view. The authors he uses to bolster or refute his thesis depend on his point of view. A point of view is a reflection of who we are, what we know and don’t know, our background of belief issuing from our home, school, and experience. No one is without a point of view and it cannot be avoided. Therefore, the one who claims to write objectively, without bias, is either a fool or a liar.

      The consequence of the acceptance of tolerance and objectivity in popular television and radio means editorials from these quarters cannot be taken at face value. If bias is not clearly stated you know that bias is hidden and every statement and idea can be called in question. The only writing that is honest is that which says, “I believe this, and this is why.” He who hides his opinions under the guise of tolerance and objectivity is not to be trusted.

      The practical consequence for religion is that notions at variance with centuries of tradition that uphold civilized values are placed in the public record and treated with a seriousness they do not deserve. They undermine our country as well as our faith. Any crackpot can organize a meeting about a controversial subject and invite the press to the meeting. If salesmanship prevails, he who was thought a crackpot is given respect by advocates of tolerance and objectivity.

      Editors do not ask if a suggested idea is worthy but if it will sell. Nincompoops can be published if they have notoriety. Ideology is of secondary importance because we have been reduced to a society without serious beliefs. This is the goal of those opposed to our traditions. The majority of our citizens want to continue our traditions, but there is huge pressure to undermine them. The majority of our clergy want to continue Christian traditions, but they yield to secularists—who attack all save themselves. This is the great hypocrisy.   Ω

      We would like to thank the following people for their generous contributions to the publication of this journal: Leroy Anderson, Hale E. Andrews, William D. Andrews, Ariel, Harry S. Barrows, Gordon D. Batcheller, Arnold Beichman, Dean A. Benjamin, James B. Black, Ronald P. Bridges, Patrick J. Buchanan, Priscilla L. Buckley, Frances G. Campbell, James R. Cavanaugh, Mrs. David Cawthon, W. Edward Chynoweth, Gary W. Croudis, Robert Day, Hans Dolezalek, Eugene H. Donovan, Robert M. Ducey, Reuben M.  Freitas, Jerome  C. Fritz, Richard G. Frost, Gary Gillespie, Thad A. Goodwyn, Kenneth Graves, Hollis J. Griffin, Joyce Griffin, Daniel J. Haley, Paul J. Hauser, John H. Hearding, Don Herrman, Ray Hodges, Mary A. Kelley, William M. Keogh, Robert A. Kielin, Edward B. Kiolbasa, John S. Kundrat, Mark S. Laboe, Donald G. Lee, James A. Lee, Herbert London, Gregor MacDonald, Francis P. Markoe, Howard S. Martin, Rena Jean Middough, Henry M. Mitchell, Robert A. Moss, Joesph M. Murray, Wendell L. Nelson, James S. O’Brien, R. L. Ochsenhirt, King Odell, B. William Pastoor, Arthur J. Perry, Thad Perry, Donald J. Povejsil, Gary J. Pressley, Garland L. and Betty Pugh, Mrs. Frances S. Richardson, Philip E. Rosine, George M. Tony Sayre, Richard P. Schonland, Fred W. Schultz, Joseph K. Sherrard, Thomas E. Snee, Carl G. Stevenson, Zelig Strauss, Patrick M. Sullivan, Julian Tonning, Daniel J. Torrance, Don Coin Walrod, Glenn Ward, George M. Wheatley, Gaylord Willett, Kent S. Williams, Max L. Williamson, Lowell M. Winthrop, Miriam K. Yachnin.