A DAY OF HUMILIATION.
pE demand that a day shall be publicly set apart for national humiliation is being loudly pressed just now, but is not one which we believe will be endorsed by those who are at the pains to think it out carefully and seriously for themselves, and who do not consider that they should endorse any and every cry that has something good in it and' is supported by good people. We are not among those who think that we ought not to have a day of national humiliation merely because there is nothing for us to be humiliated about in regard to the present war. The war is, we believe, a just war ; but it is for ourselves in- dividually and collectively, and not in regard to the nature of the war, that a day of humiliation is required and demanded. It is not, then, because we think that a humble and a contrite heart is not needed in the nation that we cannot sympathise with the present proposal. Our objections are rather of a practical kind, though in addition we think that the proposal is one out of keeping with some of the best religious impulses of the age.
We will deal first with what we may call the practical objections. We have, to begin with, to take into account the way in which such a day would be observed, and the effect that this spectacle would produce on the people observing it. The proclamation appointing such a day would direct or suggest that there should be special services in all churches and chapels, and in all of them the direction would be obeyed, and the suggestion acted on. Every church and chapel would be open, and at many, if not most of them, there would be very large congregations. All this we do not dispute. But there is a large part of the nation which does not go to church, and would be no more likely to go on a day of public humiliation than on any other day. How are they to employ themselves while their neighbours are at church ? We assume that all work would be suspended, because to secure a suspension of work, and by consequence to leave people free to attend services, is the principal reason for making the day a matter of State appointment. Thus we should have a general holiday, and naturally all the ordinary purveyors of holiday employments would see in this an additional opportunity for plying their trade. First and foremost would come the licensed victuallers. They would see in the day of humiliation an additional Bank Holiday,—or at any rate an additional Good Friday. Next would come the railway companies, with an abundant selection of excursion trains and cheap fares, and places like the Crystal Palace to which these trains might run. The theatres might take holiday if the law allowed them to remain open—a point on which we are not quite sure —bat they would probably be opened for concerts. We have not a word to say against these methods of spending a day, nor do we grudge anybody an additional holiday. But we do not like calling an additional holiday a day of national humiliation. Before such a day as this can be secured, there must be a quite impossible amount of agree- ment as to the way in which the hours shall be spent.
The truth is that the good people who ask for a day of national humiliation forget the changes which have come over England during the last fifty years. Half a century ago the Church of England was still the national Church in a way which is quite incompatible with present ideas of citizenship. The notion that citizenship and Church- manship somehow went together was still general. The nation is no longer of one mind upon church- going, and a variety of things which are represented by churchgoing. The appointment of a national day of humiliation would send certain sections of the community to church or chapel, but it would do no more. It would, as we have said, leave the crowds outside church or chapel with time on their hands, and no means of employing it except the pleasure-taking of an ordinary holiday. Why should the whole machinery of Church and State be called into action in order to make an additional holiday ? It may be that we underrate the good feeling of these crowds and their readiness to go to church on solemn occasions ; but we would point to the case of Good Friday, and to the fact that the national observance of this day has altogether disappeared. In one sense, indeed, it is observed much better than it used to be. The services are more distinctive of the day, and the attendance at them is very much larger. But side by side with this change has been the development of amusement on a great scale, and we do not doubt that a similar development would be witnessed in days of national humiliation if it were still the custom to appoint them. Those who observed them would be in a decided minority, and they could hardly help feeling annoyed at the entire disregard of the special object of the day which would characterise the majority. It is said that her Majesty, for example, is strongly against any public action being taken in the matter, owing to her recollec- tion of the misuse of the appointed day during the Indian Mutiny and the scenes which she then witnessed at Windsor.
And all this time we should be making no use of the opportunities which lie close at hand. A day of national humiliation is only a day of humiliation for that part of the nation which is in earnest in the matter. But the part of the nation which is in earnest can easily do so without the intervention of the State authorities. The ecclesiastical authorities are quite sufficient for the object in view. What is there to hinder every Bishop from appointing a day of humiliation for his own diocese ? What is there to hinder the Nonconformists from appoint- ing, either together or separately, a day to be observed by every member of their denomination ? We should then have some assurance that the day would be piously observed, since those who would be likely to observe it in a different spirit would be engaged in their ordinary work. Even if there were any chance of bringing the pleasure•seeking majority to church, we know of no gain that could follow upon an attendance which would have no other motive than the want of any other way of getting through the compul- sorily idle hours. Churches, chapels, and congregations are not ends in themselves. They are only valuable in so far as they minister to genuine devotion. That in a time of national suffering and anxiety there is a great increase of the devotional temper we quite realise, but this increase will be hindered, not promoted, by setting free from their ordinary occupations the undevout equally with the devout.
We may seem to some to have written hardly and un- feelingly in regard to a matter which is doubtless at this moment profoundly stirring many minds, but we must risk such misconstruction of our intention. At such a moment as the present we should regard it as inconsistent with our duty to the public not to speak out against what might come perilously near to being an act of national hypocrisy, and would certainly be a conscious parade of national religious feeling. We do not doubt that at heart the nation is quite as religious as, if not more religious than, it was a hundred years ago, but it is certainly far more sensitive on such matters. As we have just said, we believe that in all the denominations there are thousands of men and women who have been drawn to a more serious and a deeper view of life and religion by the present crisis, and who, each in his or her own way, will bring the offering of a contrite heart as their help in the nation's need. Such offerings are indeed acceptable, and a true source of strength ; but can any one really suppose that that will be helped by the appointment of a special day of humiliation ? By all means let the ministers of religion bring home to our hearts the need for a spiritual- ised people. By all means let our churches and chapels be open to those who desire to join in common prayer. By all means let us take the crisis, not with pagan stoicism, but with Christian fortitude and resignation. But do not let us in our desire to show that we are still a God-fearing people—which undoubtedly we are, and of which we need no ostenta- tious and public proof—rush into an act that can only bring misunderstanding and misconstruction. It is reported that before several of the battles the Boers have been engaged in singing hymns and in public prayer. We do not doubt it, nor do we fail to be touched by the news. But are we to suppose that, because in our camp there were no such public signs of devotion, God went unre- warded, unpraised, and unimplored ? Assuredly it was not so. Just as among the Boers many soldiers joined in the prayers and hymns purely conventionally and without any touch of spiritual feeling, and, in fact, heeded not, so there were doubtless plenty among our men who were entirely untouched by solemn thought. But also among our men there were—we are as well assured of it as if we had been there—plenty of soldiers who sought God in their hearts. Were these men less true to Him than if they had bared their souls before the whole army ? Each army and race obeyed its own spiritual instincts. If, then, we do not try to imitate the customs of another epoch and engage in a great pageant of public prayer and fasting, we are not therefore to be counted as in- different or careless. Let the nation seek the aid and mercy of God quietly and unostentatiously, and let it not attempt to revert to the fashion of a former age,—good for that age, but not good for us.
Previous page
