BY J. FORBES MONCRIEFF.
IS it right, or is it wrong? This is being answered in various ways and sometimes in a very off-hand style; but it is one of those questions which the complexities and complications of modern civilisation make it difficult to answer aright without serious consideration.
This new invention or discovery is certainly most wonderful and the uses to which it may be put seem endless; but, it is to be feared, it will not prove to be an unmixed blessing. A leading newspaper published the views of a number of representative people
on the subject of broadcasting sermons on the Lord’s Day. They were mostly in favour of doing so, but, with few exceptions, those interviewed were no friends of the Sabbath.
The exigencies and so-called necessities of modern life have already done much to interfere with the religious habits of even Christian people. In no way, perhaps, is this more marked than in connection with the observance of the Lord’s Day. Almost every modern invention—gramophone, motor car, etc., has tended to increase the desecration of the day, not to speak of the ever-growing facilities and inducements to travel and to be entertained on the sacred day. The danger or temptation is a very subtle one. It seems such an innocent and even good thing to listen to a sermon by wireless, that many who do not see its true inwardness are apt to be misled. If the system should be in the hands of worldly people it is only natural that their programmes should be adapted to suit the tastes of such. It is urged by those who favour the wireless sermon that it would keep people indoors instead of wandering in the streets, and might reach many who were never within a place of worship; but, on the other hand, is there not a danger that it might lead some to stay at home who might otherwise have been in a place of worship?
In a leading article in the United Free Church Record for June we are told that there is much needless misgiving regarding the growing tendency to broadcast church services; but the article does not in any way allay this misgiving. The writer, after making a plea for the lonely and the sick, etc., and after some reflections on the nature of worship, adds these words—“When the worshipper passes on to Adoration and Intercession, the very thought of broadcasting our Christian worship as a whole becomes an incongruity and an intrusion. To this difficulty about worship falls to be added that of fellowship. Contact with our fellow-worshippers forms no small part of the spiritual inspiration found in public worship. . . . And if broadcasting be thought of in terms of the one supreme act of Christian worship and fellowship in the Holy Communion, it will be realised in a moment how insufficient and even inappropriate is the suggestion that it can ever take the place of the gathering together of the saints of God for common worship. No more than the religious literature upon our table, can ‘wireless’ be made a substitute for Christian worship in either its sacred privilege or its spiritual opportunity.”
A writer in the Free Presbyterian Magazine, referring to remarks made by an Aberdeen minister, says:—”One could have wished that there was a little more plain speaking on this new menace to the observance of the Lord’s Day. It is quite right to object to it as a purely commercial move on the part of the Broadcasting Company, but the evils connected with it should have been unsparingly condemned. What with dance music on the Lord’s Day, and other music which even the most latitudinarian cannot describe as sacred (at times broadcasted), and sermons of a milk-and-water description (as those who have heard them testify), this new and wonderful invention is being prostituted to a bad purpose, and used by the devil as a new weapon to destroy the sanctity of God’s Day. Those who have any doubt about this have only to read the broadcasting announcements in the Saturday papers to learn what is being done.”
It seems to me that the sermon on the broadcast programme is on a par with the short address sometimes given in connection with the so-called “Sacred Concerts” or “Services of Praise” now so common on the Lord’s Day. It is, as it were, a sop to please those who rightly might think the whole thing very worldly or wrong, and supplies a sort of veneer to cover the hollow pretence of the rest. If one who objected to such performances on Sabbath should be invited to come to hear the address and then to leave, he would be very much in the same position as one asked to listen to one part of the broadcast programme of the day and to that only. How this strikes others I do not know, but I could not myself consent to share in such an arrangement. I say nothing of the possible temptation to listen to more than the sermon, nor of the possible character of the sermons. I do not wish to be dogmatic or to judge others in connection with this matter. I merely desire to suggest that Christian people should think twice before encouraging or indulging in a practice which seems more than questionable.
“Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man, we shall this day, by God’s grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out.—Latimer at the Stake.
Jesus is such a King, that in a spiritual sense He makes all His subjects Kings. He hath a crown of glory for every subject “Who hath made us to our God kings and priests.” All kings, all heirs, all favourites, all sons.—Dyer.