CHAPTER XXVIIIRELIGION IN AUSTRALIA
In1912 there were published the statistics of the religious census for the entire Commonwealth, and they form instructive reading. The face value of the figures is considerable. They seem to show that Australia is an extremely religious nation. The vast majority of the people claim to belong to one or other of the Churches. The Episcopal Church is at the top with 1,710,443 adherents; Roman Catholics and “other” Catholics, whatever that may mean, come next with a total of 999,450 persons. Then follow Presbyterians and Methodists, each with more than half a million adherents; Congregationalists and Baptists between them number 160,000; “Undefined” Protestants, 109,861; Lutherans, 72,395; Unitarians are at the bottom of the list with 2,175 adherents; Freethinkers return themselves as numbering 3,254; Agnostics, 3,084; Atheists, 579; while over 110,000 persons declined to make any declaration whatever.
These figures are very instructive, especially when compared with the returns of the last census taken a decade ago. In ten years Anglicans have increased 14 per cent., Presbyterians 30 per cent., Methodists 8 per cent., Baptists 9 per cent., Congregationalists6 per cent., and Roman Catholics 8 per cent.Pro rata, therefore, Presbyterians stand at the top by a long way. It is interesting to note that “Freethinkers”—a very elastic term—have declined 65 per cent., while “Agnostics”—another very elastic term—have increased from 971 to 3,084. “Atheists” have doubled their numbers, rising from 274 to 579. Now, what is the value of these figures? To deal with the Atheists first. Their numbers are inconsiderable even at the high rate of increase which they show. Thirty years ago atheists were very numerous in the Commonwealth. At that time there was a propaganda led by a notorious person of very odd temperament. That phase of things has almost entirely passed away. The whole Commonwealth numbers only 579 Atheists, and one knows exactly where to find them. For the greater part they are composed of persons whose education is extremely defective and whose impertinence is unbounded. I speak of those whom I know in Melbourne and Sydney. We look for the handful of Atheists on the Yarra Bank in Melbourne and in the Domain in Sydney. To hear these gentlemen speak is not to be impressed so much with their Atheism as with their unbounded audacity, ignorance, and rudeness. Some of them display a banner containing the inscription: “No God, no masters.” One of their speakers informed his audience that the inscription was the translation of the famous “ni Dieu, ni maître,” and he pronounced it “nee doo, nee mater.” Australians laugh at the noisy group of revolutionists. We were always given to understandthat the number of Atheists was growing considerably, but the census figures came as a cold douche upon the amazing claims put forward by the sceptical party. The slump in “Freethinking” is remarkable, as is also the growth of Agnosticism. This latter, however, must not be taken too seriously. There are undoubtedly a number of estimable men of culture who are sincerely Agnostic. For these I have a real respect. Some of them I know well. Amongst them are one or two public teachers. But I am afraid the majority who label themselves Agnostics are intellectualdilettanti. The truth of this opinion may be gauged by the fact that of the many young men who have come to me with their religious difficulties—men who speak of themselves as “Agnostics”—I have not yet found one who had a real appreciation of the present trend of religious thought. They are still fighting the bogies of Ingersoll, or they are obsessed with the outgrown philosophy of Spencer, or they imagine that Haeckel represents thene plus ultraof scientific thought. There is an immense amount of educational work yet to be accomplished in Australia on the religious side.
As regards the Church figures proper, it is natural that the Anglican and the Roman communions should claim the largest numbers. But it would be interesting to know how much of the professed attachment is real and how much is purely nominal. We all know that in England men put themselves down as belonging to the National Church who have no real relation to it. It is thesame here. The real test of attachment to a Church is to be found in the number of active communicants and workers, and this information is withheld from us—rather, it was never sought.
The figures, while valuable, are quite superficial. More than four millions of people claim to belong to the Churches. If the claim were real, we should require to build many more churches than we at present possess. But, as a fact, not twenty-five per cent. of the population attend church regularly. There is much to be thankful for, but the condition of things is distinctly unsatisfactory. Abstinence from church, however, according to the census figures, is not due to the spread of Agnostic or Atheistic principles; it finds its reason in the sheer indifference of the majority of the people. One could wish there was enough of interest in religion to awaken hostility towards it, for hostility means life, while indifference means death. The indifference has no intellectual basis whatever in the vast majority of cases. In this seductive climate pleasure is the ruling passion. Men think of little else than enjoying themselves. Work (as little of it as possible), play, and sleep; this is the Australian trinity, adored by the many.
One reason for indifference or hostility to the Churches is found, as has already been indicated, in the grotesque misconceptions invented or fostered by certain Socialists. In one Labour weekly there is an incessant “girding” at the Churches. The clergy and Church members are eternally placed in the pillory. In a long paragraph headed “The Churcha Buttress of Capitalism,” this paper says: “Being blinded by superstition and sentiment, the workers have allowed themselves to be fooled and hoodwinked. They have believed what ecclesiastical diplomats, to serve ends of their own, chose to instil into their ignorant minds. They have believed, as these tricksters tell them, that they must be content to remain in the position of life in which it has pleased the Almighty to place them.” The insane charge that our Churches are the homes of grasping capitalists, the places where the poor are taught to keep their position in humble dependence upon their betters, is recklessly untrue. For one thing, Australians would not support this kind of teaching for a single hour; for another, they never hear anything remotely approaching it. Invincible prejudice of this kind is pitiful, but it has the fatal effect of keeping many people outside the churches.
The broad question of religion in Australia cannot be considered without distinct reference to the influence of climate upon modes of thought and expression.
It is not, of course, concerning religionper sethat there is any problem under the Southern Cross. Climate affects only the accidentals of our humanity; it does not touch the essentials. All that makes man man is found equally in Britain, America, Australia, the Orient, and the Islands. And the essence of religion—of Christianity—remains the same in any climate and under any conditions. Of all Christians, notwithstanding their colour, or habits,or surroundings, it is demanded that they shall obey their Master and conform their lives to His.
The problem concerns the form, or forms, which this religion shall take in a new world. The Anglo-Saxons who came out to Australia as pioneers brought with them their traditions—personal, domestic, social, religious. In the Old Land custom had decreed a certain type and standard of dress; a certain style of house; a certain mode of living. The pioneers, in transferring their bodies from Britain to Australia, transferred these styles and modes at the same time. They affected frock coats and silk hats—positive absurdities (the latter especially in a semi-tropical climate). They built many of their houses on the English plan—another absurdity. And they observed English hours of labour and business, and adopted English food—a final absurdity. This Sicilian or Greek climate demands a style of dress and a mode of life such as those which have been evolved by experience in the older countries rejoicing in a sun like ours. One day Australia will fit its Greek or Italian life into a suitable environment.
But the British who first came out also brought with them a set of traditional sentiments associated with their religion. December 21 was known to them as the shortest day of the year. Christmas was observed in a setting of ice and snow. Santa Claus was a creature of the cold, and appeared enveloped in furs. The Watch Night service was celebrated in the gloomiest time of the year. Advent was theecclesiastical season appropriate, by reason of shortening days, for meditating upon the end of all things. On the long and dismal nights of December, Spohr’s “Last Judgment” seemed a fitting work to be performed. And last, the pioneers—many of them Scotch—brought with them the Puritan spirit and austerity.
And the climate mocked these traditional sentiments. December 21 turned out to be the longest, the brightest, and often the hottest day of the year. Christmas fell in the midsummer, when frequently the heat is almost unsupportable. The familiar ice and snow were entirely absent. Santa Claus in furs appeared ludicrous. December was far too cheerful a month for the encouragement of gloomy thoughts upon the end of all things. The cricket and the frog, the ’possum and the jackass, the mina and the thrush, all threw out their defiant challenge to Spohr and his awe-inspiring work.
And the climate is triumphing. It is true the traditional “Father Christmas” appears in more than one place in Australia. But a new “Father Christmas” is arising. He does not descend chimneys, nor shiver with the cold, nor affect snow trappings. He drives along the streets in a bush wagon drawn by bush ponies. The new “Father Christmas” is an Australian, pure and simple. The children understand him and revere him—so far as Australian children revere anything. He is essentially modern. He has no ancient history behind him, and in this particular he matches the country. The new“Father Christmas” is a product of the climate. A new Christmas Day has also dawned. The dear old Christmas “at home” is—or was—a time of reunion. It was essentially a domestic festival. In Australia it is a holiday, pure and simple. Thousands of people take their annual vacation at Christmas, and thousands more leave home for mountain and seaside. The coastal steamers are crowded with passengers. At Christmastide the churches in the city are thinly attended; most of the regular worshippers are away on holiday. Again the climate has triumphed. Turkey and plum-pudding still garnish the tables, but they are doomed. It is only a question of time, and there will be celebrated underneath the Southern Cross at Christmas festival as different from that which is known “at home” as the poles are apart from each other.
A new “Watch Night” service has been created. Through dismal streets, with snow or sleet, and in the teeth of a biting wind, the old folk in the Old Country trudged to the warmed church on the last night of the year. When the clock sounded the hour of midnight everybody felt relieved. The tension was over. The corner had been turned. From that moment the days would lengthen until the height of summer. But in Australia there is nothing to suggest solemnity. The last night of the old year is a warm, delightful summer night, redolent with the perfume of a hundred balms and the stifling scent of a thousand flowers. Do what one will, it is impossible, in these conditions, to impart reality into a hymn whichspeaks of “Days and moments quickly flying.” It is the fault of the climate. The Puritan spirit is departing—yea! has well-nigh departed. A handful of folk are left who would in no wise travel on the Sabbath nor permit the piano to be used for secular purposes. The pioneers were severe, austere, rigid in their Puritanism. The original “Scots’ Church” resembled a barn. The present “Scots’ Church” in the city is a cathedral, containing one of the finest organs in Victoria—or anywhere else. The contrast between the two buildings marks the difference between the Puritanical spirit of seventy years ago and the light, gay spirit of to-day. Fathers who would on no account pay visits on the Sabbath have begotten sons who go to church when they please—which is not often—and who spend the majority of their Sundays on the golf course or on the bay. The temper of the people has entirely changed. And the climate has done it.
The climate—behold the enemy! Shall we say that, varying the phrase of Gambetta? Or shall we condemn the people for yielding to its seductions? We have amongst us a great number of people who would be irreligious in any climate and under any conditions. The climate aids and abets them, but they themselves are the chief offenders, the guilty people upon whom the chief responsibility falls. We must leave them out of our consideration. The grave question remaining is, how the Church will adapt itself to the new conditions. The climate, unquestionably, is destroying many of the English religioustraditions. A new tradition—or, rather, a new set of traditions—will have to be created. It is inevitable. A number of the Anglican clergy are realising this so far as their own Church is concerned. They openly express their conviction that the archaisms of the Prayer-book are a distinct hindrance to their work. The older people cling for dear life to the service they love. The younger generation is becoming impatient. The Anglican Church in Australia will have to follow the example of the Episcopal Church in America, and work out its own salvation. The day will come when a Governor-General from England will not be required. With his passing will also pass the Governor’s pew in the Cathedral. The native Governor, like the American President, may be a Presbyterian or a Congregationalist or a Baptist, and he will worship at his own church. The Church of England in Australia will then be the Episcopal Church of Australia, and, like other Churches, it will have to stand upon its own merits. Many of the clergy see this, and desire to be ready against the new time. The same is true of other Churches. The English type will gradually pass, and give place to an Australian type of religious life. And the climate will largely determine the form that the new type must take. The danger is that it may be superficial. The hope for Australia, religiously, lies in a united Evangelical Church, the life of which will create its own form. To use the simile of our Lord, the new wine must be put into new bottles.
*****
The Anglican Church in Australia is seriously considering its relation to the mother Church at home.
A significant discussion took place two or three years back at the Anglican Provincial Synod held in Melbourne. A resolution was moved by an arch-deacon:
“That this Provincial Synod of Victoria respectfully requests the General Synod of Australia and Tasmania to consider the advisability and practicability of taking such steps as may be necessary to obtain authority from the Church of England to enable the Church in Australia to adapt the liturgy and discipline of the Church of England to the varied needs of Australia, provided that no step be taken that will destroy the nexus between the Church in England and the Church in Australia.”
An amendment was moved by the then Dean Stephen—one of the finest Anglicans in Australia—that the last clause of the resolution be omitted; and the amendment was lost. But only for a time. Young Churchmen possessing vision are impatient with the yoke imposed upon them by Canterbury and York. They say, quite frankly, that it is ridiculous for the Anglican Church in Australia to be under the dominion of the two English provinces which legislate for conditions so entirely different from those obtaining in the new country. The view of Australian-born Anglicans is that they ought to think Imperially, and that their connection should be with the whole Episcopal communion rather than with thetwo English provinces. In fine, the Episcopal Church in Australia needs autonomy. It was noticed that the Australians almost to a man stood with Dean Stephen, while those on the Conservative side were “imported” clergymen, such as the Archbishop, good Dean MacCullagh, and others. There is no doubt about it that, sooner or later, the question of separation will have to be faced. As Australia develops its own clergy, the “imports” will be reduced, and finally they will cease, and then autonomy will be granted. The “Episcopal Church of Australia” in communion with the Episcopal Churches elsewhere will better represent the genius of the Australian people than a “Church of England” in Australia.... And sympathetic lookers-on clearly perceive that the change would be to the immense gain of the Church in Australia. The development is worth watching.
Meanwhile another movement has been started, tending in the direction of Church union. At the beginning of 1913 a leading layman belonging to the Congregational Church invited to dinner at the Grand Hotel a company of eighty leaders of the Protestant Churches, to whom he unfolded his plans. At this gathering it was decided to hold in Melbourne an unofficial Congress of the Churches in the month of September, 1913. Membership in the Congress was to be entirely personal, in order that the fullest and frankest discussion of the problems involved might be discussed, without reference to official decisions. The idea was to create an atmosphere which, in itsturn, might be expected to permeate the Church Synods and other official bodies.
To be quite frank, many of those who approved of the idea were not at all sanguine as to the ultimate result of the Congress; they thought that the scheme would end in talk, yet they were willing to go forward, if only in the interests of a finer fraternal feeling. But it soon became evident that a deeply serious spirit was at work. Men who were regarded ashors concoursrallied to the cause. The Anglicans, who at first had been tacitly left out of the reckoning, expressed a hearty desire to join in the movement. And at once I have to say, as one who sat on two of the Commissions, that, if the movement accomplished nothing further than the bringing together in friendly and frank conference men of the most diverse minds, it more than justified itself. The hours we spent together in trying to understand each other’s positions, and in seeking a synthesis of our opposing views and practices, were amongst the most sacred of our lives. In fact, we were all amazed at the discovery we made of each other’s real and essential Christianity. Men who passed each other in the streets for years without a sign of recognition, and with mutual suspicion, at last supped together, prayed together, communed together, and learned to love each other. Members of eight Churches formed the Congress, i.e. Anglican, Brethren, Baptist, Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and the Society of Friends. Three Commissions were formed: The first to consider“The Standardisation of College Curricula, and the possibility of Combined Theological Education”; the second to consider “The Union Control of Home Missions,” and the third to consider “The Difficulties and Possibilities of Organic Union.” These bodies sat during the space of four months to collect evidence, to reduce differences to the minimum, and to prepare a report for discussion at the Congress itself.
The daily Press rendered great service from the very first. It allowed representative men to write special (and lengthy) articles on Church union, and expressions of opinion were freely invited. The religious Press, it need hardly be said, was equally sympathetic. And so, long before the Congress was opened, a kindly atmosphere was created.
Thepersonnelof the Congress was remarkable. At the opening reception the Lord Mayor (a Roman Catholic) offered the most cordial greetings to the guests, which included several Anglican Bishops, Presidents of Conference, Moderators of Assemblies, and Chairmen of Unions.
The temper of the Congress was admirable—yea, perfect. It was understood from the beginning that nothing should be suppressed; that no man should, for reasons of courtesy or delicacy, conceal his convictions; that every difficulty should, as far as possible, be openly faced. A few extreme things were said—things that might well have produced irritation. But whatever was felt, no sign of hostility was displayed. Speakers were applauded for their frankness, even when the frankness stung. It wouldbe fatiguing to follow the course of the sessions; all that I aim at is to set forth the results which were arrived at.
And first with regard to Commission No. 1. The findings of the Commission were as follows: It was unanimously agreed that an effort be forthwith made to raise the standard of theological education and unite the forces available towards this end by adopting a system of co-operation in theological education such as now prevails in Montreal. This means that the students of the various theological colleges may now have common training in all great subjects, such as Old and New Testament language and literature, Church History, Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Philosophy of Religion, Apologetics, Comparative Study of Religion, Homiletics, Sociology, Missions, etc. For this purpose it was suggested that a common hall should be erected, or, failing this, that the largest available room in any of the existing colleges should be used for the purpose of giving common lectures on the subjects specified. A full and complete time-table was drawn up by the Chairman of the Commission. The wisdom of this arrangement is apparent to all. Each student will now have the advantage of the very best instruction given by the very best available professors. In place of paddling in a shallow pool, each man may now swim in the deep water. Nothing better than this will break down that provincialism which has been for too long the curse of small colleges. Australia, in particular, needs that broaderoutlook which a more generous education of the type proposed alone can give. In pioneering days simpler teaching was ample; now that the times have changed, and Australia is sharing the culture of the old world, the highest ministerial equipment is demanded.
There was no difficulty with regard to Commission No. 2. Everybody had recognised in a general way the scandal of overlapping in Home Mission districts. But the evidence collected by the Commission determined the Congress to insist upon the immediate cessation of this scandal. We heard of small “townships” (there are no “villages” in Australia) consisting of 200 people, in which two or three churches were struggling for less than a bare existence. We realised the enormous waste of energy and of money which this scandalous state of things entails. The report of the Commission was heartily endorsed that this overlapping “constitutes a problem of the most serious order, and is a reproach which the Churches are bound in honour to efface.” Pending the coming organic union in which the entire question would be immediately settled, the Commission suggested the forming of an Advisory Committee of the Churches, to which all proposals of denominational extension shall be referred, as also all questions relating to overlapping and co-operation. There is no need to enumerate the details of the scheme; it is sufficient to state the general principle.
The most serious work of the Congress was reserved for the last day, when “the difficulties andpossibilities of organic union” were discussed. Each of the Churches supplied a statement of what it regarded as essential to real union. These statements were subsequently amended (save in one case) so as to narrow the issue. Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians were seen to be in practical agreement upon all main things, and the opinion was openly expressed that there was no valid reason why they should remain apart. The real difficulties in the way to union seemed to come from the Anglican and the Baptist Churches: the one in its doctrine of Orders, the other in its doctrine and practice of Baptism. And yet in both cases the olive branch was generously held out. The Anglican representatives so modified their statement regarding the Historic Episcopate and Orders as to bring it within reasonable approach to the Free Church doctrine of the ministry. The Baptist representatives committed the following statement to writing:
“The committee think they are warranted in saying that our people generally would be prepared to leave the question of baptism quite open—for each person to receive according to his conscience—and not to make it a test of Church membership. That is to say, in the interests of a great movement towards unity, they, on their part, would not make baptism a test question, one way or another. While firmly believing that the baptism of intelligent believers in Christ is the best safeguard of spiritual Church membership, inasmuch as the candidate of his own will yields to the yoke of Christ, yet they believethat the majority of Baptists would consider the question of the unity of the Churches to be the major question, hence they would be willing ... to cease to demand the immersion of intelligent believers as asine qua nonof Church membership. They could not surrender the truth of believers’ baptism, yet they would be prepared to admit the broader basis of Church membership.... Is it too much to ask those Churches which practise infant baptism to so reconsider their position as (while guarding the ideas of infant and parental dedication) to throw greater emphasis upon that later personal dedication to Christ which the Baptist rite expresses?”
The total result of this Commission is thus summarised: “The formal obstacles to union have been more clearly defined than ever before, and the Commission believe they will be regarded as smaller than they were supposed to be.”
Such was the Congress. Without doubt it accomplished a world of good. It cleared the air, it brought us all closer together. And what now remains to be done? First of all a Continuation Committee was appointed to further the next work of the Congress, to meet in further conference, to grapple with the few remaining obstacles that lie in the path to union, and to bring the whole subject before the various Church Courts. The Congress represented theéliteof the Churches, the most thoughtful, the most advanced, the most influential. The difficulty may lie with the rank and file of the Churches, those in whom prejudice is most firmly established, andfrom whom it is with greater difficulty dislodged—the ill-informed, the uncharitable, the stubborn. To conquer these may not be easy, but it will be finally sure if we have patience. In a land like Australia, with its keen problems, its democratic life, its great future, and its freedom from hampering traditions, there should easily be established one great United Australasian Evangelical Church.