OUR LONDON LETTER by M. Ellsworth Olsen

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, Cal. · Jun 6, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 22.

OUR LONDON LETTER.

By M. Ellsworth Olsen

Evangelical Free Church Council.

NEARLY two thousand representatives attended the Eleventh Annual Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, recently held in Birmingham. This powerful organization, made up chiefly of Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers, was formed about a decade ago, but has only in the last two or three years taken on national importance. Its activity in the recent elections has been dwelt upon in a previous letter; it may be of interest here to point out some of the more striking features of this its largest and most successful annual gathering.

Political Union and Social Reform.

The key-note of the meeting was without doubt social reform, considered mainly from a political point of view. One could not but notice how persistently the leading speakers returned to this subject. Thus F. B. Meyer, who is giving up his pastoral charge in London that he may have more time and strength for larger activities, stated in one of his addresses before the Council that it had become necessary to reconstruct society on a new basis. People said that he was backsliding spiritually, but he had lived long enough to see that men and women were being damned for time and eternity by abominable social conditions. Once he had thought of consecration as exclusive; now he realized that it was inclusive—that a man could live a consecrated life and still be deeply immersed in politics and business. He thought he himself had never been so really consecrated to the Lord as he had during the three stormy years just passed. It was necessary to construct anew the conception of the kingdom of God. We were to understand that the kingdom of God had come. Dr. Clifford, a very prominent Baptist preacher, spoke in much the same strain. He thought that a new sense of responsibility was pervading the churches and the country. The recent election marked the beginning of the Free Church of England. We had done with distinctions between church and church and were now banded together as one. The day of power for the church of Christ had come, and we had taken an advance step in the creation of the true modern state.

Temperance.

Temperance reform came up for some consideration. It was urged that a substitute should be provided for the public house. It was a disgrace in the twentieth century that “the tap-room, and not the Christian church, should be the social center and the chief attraction of the people.” Something of a sensation was created when Gypsy Smith, the well-known evangelist, turned his back to the audience and appealed earnestly to the ministers on the platform to become total abstainers, and thus free themselves from all complicity in the iniquitous traffic. He pleaded with them to do this: “the sake of the 80,000 fallen women of London.”

It may be noted in passing that Great Britain’s drink bill has been slowly decreasing since 1899. It amounted last year to something over £164,000,000, which was nearly £22,000,000 less than in 1899. When the natural increase of population is taken into consideration, the decrease amounts to about £34,000,000. By some this falling off in the consumption of alcoholic drinks is attributed to the hard times, and it may be partly accounted for in this way. Probably the strong stand against alcohol taken by many of the most prominent physicians, especially the members of the Medical Temperance Association, is having some effect. The wholesale fashion in which medical men in the past were in the habit of recommending alcoholic stimulants is rapidly coming to be considered unscientific and dangerous.

Sunday Observance.

Sunday observance also came up for consideration, and a resolution “viewing with grave anxiety the growing tendency to secularize the Lord’s day, and urging the Free Churches to strive to keep the Sunday free from the intrusion alike of mere pleasure and of week-day toil,” was moved by J. H. Shakespeare, secretary of the Baptist Union, and carried. Mr. Shakespeare also mentioned that a letter had been received from the secretary of the Archbishop of Canterbury inviting the Council to lend its aid in reducing the evils of Sunday desecration. This movement in favor of a more strict observance of Sunday, seems to be slowly gathering in strength. Sunday, July 1, has been suggested as a day for the preaching of simultaneous sermons in all the churches of the kingdom, and it is also proposed to hold a representative conference for the consideration of this matter next November. That the movement has some backing outside the clergy is evident from the statement of Lord Avebury in the House of Lords that 300 shopkeepers associations and a large number of corporations and trades councils have given their approval to Sunday-closing.

The Educational Question—A Certain Sound.

Naturally the education question came in for a good share of attention, and plenty of advice was given to the government on this delicate matter. As already indicated, the general tone of the gathering was social and political rather than religious. Nevertheless, one twenty-minute address was given by Principal P. T. Forsyth, of Hackney Theological College, in which timely truths were brought out. Dr. Forsyth said that in the very circles of evangelical believers a distrust of theology was spreading, and in some quarters distrust had given way to actual unbelief. The note of authority was lacking in modern preaching. Faith was not characterized by obedience. It could appreciate the spirit of Christ, but it was not abased before the majesty, the holiness, of Christ. Active religion tended to become bustling and jaunty. We were familiar with pulpit appeals for more love, more trust, more sympathy, etc. Believe, believe, the preacher urged, while largely ignoring the fact that faith and repentance and all the Christian graces were supernatural things,—were the gift of God. In religion, experience must fall to the ground unless sustained by theology. A church deprived of a well-defined belief would become a feeble church and then a worldly church. Preachers should bestow themselves upon the serious and resolute study of the Bible as the standing creator of Christian experience.

On the whole it was an excellent address, but it did not win much favor with the audience, and there was no discussion. The general current of thought was in quite another direction. Like the twelve disciples on the way to Jerusalem, the minds of the leaders were too much taken up with more material and worldly things to appreciate spiritual truth.

Matters in Parliament.

Turning our attention for a moment to Parliament, we find we are still in the vortex of social agitation. The new House of Commons has already given its approval to measures for the payment of members, the feeding of insufficiently fed school children, and for old-age pensions. It has also expressed itself unmistakably in favor of free trade. It is a people’s parliament indeed, a fact which leaked out in a significant way the other day when one of the waiters in the House of Commons restaurant was remarking on the number of shilling dinners he was called upon to serve. On the benches there is an absence of that dilettantism which had grown common under the Balfourian régime. The spirit of hard work is coming in to take its place. Democracy is lifting its head once more, and class privilege and hereditary rights are losing their hold. Thus far the Labor members have conducted themselves in a way to win the respect and confidence of their fellows, tho they have not found it easy to master the multitudinous rules of the House. They are nearly all total abstainers, and one of them has been giving some time to securing total abstinence pledges from his fellow members.

The prime minister, it may be said, is exceedingly popular in London, and, for that matter, throughout the country. He has managed things well in the House, and with his large majority can almost afford to ignore the feeble party in opposition.

A Difficult Question. A New Bill.

Of course the new government has made but a beginning. There are wiseacres who prophecy that it will yet be wrecked on the rocks of Education. This is not at all likely, tho the whole matter of the national education is indeed a difficult one to handle successfully. The Education Bill of 1902 was notoriously unfair to the Nonconformists, leaving the control of the children practically in the hands of the Roman Catholics and the state church, these two organizations happening to own almost all the voluntary schools which were subsidized by that bill. The new measure, brought in by the educational secretary, Mr. Birrell, provides that the voluntary schools, conducted by the Church of England and other denominations, in which religious instruction is given, shall be entirely cut off from public financial support. The only way in which they can become entitled to such support is by being made into public schools, and becoming subject to local authorities. There shall be no religious test for teachers, and no religious instruction shall be given by the teacher. But on two mornings in the week religious teaching may be carried on in the school by the pastor or some person appointed for the purpose, but no part of the expense of such teaching shall be borne by the taxes, and attendance shall not be compulsory.

Such is the bill as first presented. What changes may be made, either in committee or on the floor of the House of Commons, remains to be seen. Probably the most uncompromising opposition will come from the Roman Catholics and the High Church party, both of whom have expressed very strong convictions in regard to giving the children a thorough church training. The bishop of Salford (Roman Catholic) speaking at Salford the other week, said: “Our minimum is our maximum. We claim that which alone can satisfy our conscience—the retention of our Catholic, dogmatic teaching.” The Tablet, a prominent Roman Catholic organ, further explains the situation thus: “We are going to hold what we have got, and surrender nothing. The situation is wonderfully simplified by this fact.

We want Catholic teachers all the time in Catholic schools, who shall give definite Catholic teaching to Catholic children. However the Catholic teacher gets into the school, he has got to be there, and, subject to Catholic control, to give proper Catholic instruction to Catholic children.”

Needless to say, such claims are not provided for in the proposed bill. Time will demonstrate how much of this is bluff, and how much grim determination. It is not impossible that there will be some passive resistance on the other side of the fence should the present bill go through Parliament without much change. M. ELLSWORTH OLSEN.