RELIGION IN AUSTRALIA
In 1912 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., Congregationalists 6
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 understand that 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 intellectual
_dilettanti_. 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 the _ne plus ultra_ of 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 the same 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
Church a 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 religion _per se_ that 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 the ecclesiastical
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 which speaks 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 religious
traditions. 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 the two 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 its turn,
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 as _hors concours_ rallied 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.
The _personnel_ of 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 would be 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 broader outlook 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 and possibilities 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
believe that 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 a _sine qua non_ of 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 the _élite_ of 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, and from 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.