Every little while some minister wakes up to the fact that a large
proportion of the people of our cities do not go to church, and he blames
the people for this state of affairs. Nobody blames men and women if they
keep away from the theatre, from the library, from the art gallery, from
the public park; in fact, it is generally admitted that people can
exercise their own judgment in visiting these places and not be liable to
censure on the part of anybody. Not so, however, when they keep away from
the church.
Why does a man go to the theatre? Obviously because he is pleased by the
performance he witnesses there. Why does a man not go to a church?
Obviously because he is _not_ pleased with the performance he witnesses
_there_. The notion that men and women are to go to a place where they do
not like to go, where they derive no pleasure but as a matter of duty is
about all the argument for church-going that can be advanced to-day. We
admit that man should do his duty, no matter how disagreeable it may be.
We cannot shirk our responsibilities on the ground that they are irksome
or unpleasant. But _is_ it man’s duty to go to church? That is the
question. If it is, then he should go. Who is to decide the matter? Of
course priests and ministers will say that everybody ought to go to
church. But what for? Is it a man’s duty to go to _every_ church, or only
to some particular church? We are told that we shall be better for going
to church. To which church? The Roman Catholic would not admit that a man
would be better for going to a Methodist church, and the Methodist would
not advise a person to go to a Roman Catholic church to improve his mental
or moral condition. Who shall decide the matter _where_ we shall go to
church?
In going to the theatre, we do not always go to the same place, nor to
hear the same play, nor to witness the same actors; nor do we always visit
the same gallery or park when we desire to see paintings or statuary, or
to enjoy the flowers and general beauties of Nature. Why should men _join_
one church and go to it all their lives? Why should men hear only _one_
kind of religion preached? Why should men listen all their lives to the
preaching of one set of dogmas?
Supposing a man were to go once or twice a week for fifty years to see one
tragedy or comedy played, would he be a better judge of the drama than if
he had seen during that time a hundred tragedies and comedies? The man who
goes all his life to one church is made a denominational or sectarian
bigot. Is the object of churches to make bigots? That is about all they
have made up to date.
We hold that it is not man’s duty to _go_ to any church, to _belong_ to
any church, or to _support_ any church. _There are no religious duties._
Man is under no obligation whatever to worship God. Churches must be
placed upon the same ground as other places of instruction and amusement,
and if they cannot be supported by legitimate patronage then must they be
given up. If a man goes to church to hear a minister, let him pay for it
like a man, but if he is not pleased with what he hears he need not go
again.
The notion that there is anything of greater value to be had in the church
than elsewhere cannot be defended. This idea does not fool people of any
sense. The pulpit has no divine message for the world, but generally talks
about what no one knows anything about. Intelligent people who do not go
to church have come to the conclusion that they can derive more pleasure
from other sources. That is about the reason why they do not go to church.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
We cannot go ahead without leaving something behind.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
The convent is opposed to all that is sacred in human nature.