NON-CHURCH-GOING.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."' SIR,—In the review of "Non-Church-Going : its Reasons and Remedies," which appeared in your issue of April 29th, the writer says that I, as editor of the volume, " failed somewhat" in my duty in not striking out certain remarks in the essays of Mr. F. Herbert Stead and Dr. Ballard which, in his view, are offensive. With all respect to your reviewer, I think this hardly fair criticism. I conceive it to be no part of an editor's duty to be busy with the blue pencil simply because the opinions expressed by his contributors are unpalatable to a section of the reading public. In my introduction I expressly stated that the essayists belonged to " diverse schools of thought," and that they had been allowed "the utmost latitude " in their treatment of the non-church-going problem, my object being, as another reviewer expresses it, to force the reader " to measure one opinion against another and, inci- dentally, to sift his own." Now, I should have robbed the book of its value if, under such circumstances, I had tampered with the views of my contributors.
Your reviewer thinks I ought to have deleted Mr. F. Herbert Stead's statement that the working man "reads of immense sums left by ministers of religion." Why P The assertion is made by the Warden of Browning Settlement, who has a wide experience of working men, and who, I feel certain, always writes with a full sense of responsibility. Your contributor characterizes Mr. Stead's statement as " lies, pure and simple " ; but if he has never heard of ministers of religion leaving fortunes, then I can only say his knowledge of them is less extensive than Mr. Stead's and mine. " The money, of course," adds your reviewer, "must have been made in the ministerial profession." Why "of course " ? Has he never beard of clergymen owning shares in breweries P I think I could name him a few.
Then my critic thinks I ought not to have passed Dr. Bal- lard's " very discourteous remarks " about the " childish twaddle of the average Anglican preacher." Now if such is Dr. Ballard's view, why, in the name of all that is reasonable, should he not be allowed to express it? The remark may seem objectionable to clergymen of the Church of England, but surely your contributor is not going to contend that because a remark happens to be unpleasant it is therefore dis- courteous. No doubt many Anglicans think the sermons of Wesleyan preachers "childish twaddle," but I am sure Dr. Ballard would never accuse such of being "very dis- courteous."—I am, Sir, &c., [We can quite believe after reading Mr. Forbes Gray's letter that be did his best. If he does not see the difference between thinking a sermon to be childish twaddle and saying so, there is an end. But does it not occur to him also that we should " remember so to be Christians as not to forget we are gentlemen" ? As to the fortunes, if he disputes our point, why does he not name Anglican clergymen who have amassed fortunes in their calling P (A clergyman who inherits a fortune, and dies without spending it, cannot, of course, come under his implied sneer.) What the Head of Browning Hall said to the working man is not evidence, though it may be easily and unjustly quoted to create prejudice.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
