00B.41 Chapter 34. Why Go To Worship Every Lord's Day?

XXXIV. Why Go to Worship Every Lord’s Day?

One of the most excellent articles that we have read in recent days appeared in The Living Church (Episcopalian) of October 17, 1931. The title was, "Why I Go to Mass Every Sunday," and it was written by Jarred S. Moore, Professor of Philosophy, Western Reserve University. We do not like the title, naturally, but we do like the article and most heartily commend it. It is such an unusual thing to find a teacher of philosophy in these days that attends any sort of religious services at all, to say nothing of every Sunday, that when we find one who not only attends such services, but who gives such excellent reasons for so doing and makes such a complete reply to scoffers, it cheers our spirits like a voice from heaven. Having given full credit to the author and to the paper in which the article ap­peared, we quote the article in full and add a few remarks. Read carefully what this professor of philosophy says:

Churchgoing is far from popular among those who consider them­selves the intellectual elite today. Upon those of us who follow the old customs the members of that exalted society look down with half-pitying, half-patronizing eyes, as upon a child playing with a doll and imagining it is alive. "How strange," they say, "that such an intelligent man as So-and-So in these enlightened days should believe all that nonsense and waste his Sunday mornings in church! But if it makes him any happier," they usually add, "I suppose it is all right." Now, in making this last concession, the critic is not only slighting the intelligence of the religious man, but displaying his own ignorance of the very meaning of religion. Of course, religion should console and strengthen its devotees in their daily life; but this is rather the product of religion than religion itself. In its essence religion is a direct personal relationship between man and God; and unless the emotions which accompany it are based on true conceptions, it degenerates into a contemptible sentimentalism. Intellectual pride is the curse of the scholar, and to scoff at religion is an indication, not of a superior intelligence, but of a superficial intolerance. To attempt to prove the truths of Christianity would require a treatise, and it would be absurd to make such an attempt in a brief article; but, in view of the prevalent attitude of the vast majority of so-called "intellectuals," it behooves those who claim for themselves also an at least respectable amount of intelligence, and yet are accustomed to worship God after the traditional man­ner, to give some account of themselves before their dissentient friends. This we may do by asking and endeavoring to answer two successive questions: Why do we worship? and How shall we worship?

WHY DO WE WORSHIP? The custom of worship is based on belief in a personal Deity who is the source of all goodness, who loves mankind, and who rejoices in the love of his people. If there is no such Being—if God either does not exist, or is a mere impersonal force in nature, or is a personal Being, who, however, cares nothing for mankind—the impulse to worship becomes a pitiable illusion; but if, on the other hand, there is such a Being, the urge on the part of man to seek personal relations with him naturally follows. It is as natural to seek fellow­ship with such a God, and as unnatural to neglect such fellowship, as in the case of parent or friend in whom one has confidence and of whose affection for oneself one is assured. It is far from fashion­able to accuse of sentimentality a young man who admits a love for his mother and is accustomed to greet her frequently with expres­sions of affection and gratitude, or to scoff at him for so doing; and is considered quite justifiable, on the other hand, to condemn the ingratitude of a woman who allows her husband to shower her with affection and thoughtful consideration, and rewards him with in­difference or bitter words. But to acknowledge one’s obligations to the God who is supreme love, goodness, and truth is usually to lay oneself open to sneers and ridicule from the self-appointed guardians of present-day intelligence. This attitude of intolerance and contempt is no doubt largely due to indifference on the part of the scoffers, but more frequently, I think, to the reasoned conclusion that the idea of a personal God who loves mankind is no longer tenable—that if there is a rational governing Principle in the universe, a "Power not ourselves that makes for righteousness," this must be either an entirely impersonal Principle, or else a suprapersonal Being who can have little if any concern for such a contemptible creature as man, dwelling upon such an inconspicuous planet as ours in an extreme corner of the incon­ceivably vast universe which modern science has revealed to us. As to the objection against divine personality, it is a constant source of surprise to the present writer 1o find how common it is for even intelligent persons to think that religious adults conceive of God in human, or even sometimes in corporeal, terms. No doubt many do so think of him, but certainly not those whose reflective powers are alive. The essential attribute of personality is self­consciousness, the capacity of being conscious of oneself; all other distinctively personal qualities — intelligence, self-determination, moral sense, love, and the rest—are but necessary implications of self-consciousness. Of course, as human personality is the only kind of which we have any evidence in this world, we must take ours as the most intelligible symbol within our grasp of personality as it is in God; but no human being who thinks out his beliefs at all thinks of human personality as an adequate expression of divine per­sonality. And how personality could ever have "emerged" in the phenomenal world unless it is grounded in ultimate reality, it is difficult to understand. As to the objection that the world is too large and we too small for the God of the universe to concern himself with our petty affairs, there is here also a strange confusion—a confusion between quan­tity and value. How long has it been possible to weigh love in the balance, or to measure fidelity with a yardstick? Is human love measured by the wealth, tallness, or heaviness of the beloved? What are any number of millions of light-years as compared to the yearn­ing of one human soul for spiritual perfection? As knowledge con­cerning the immensity of the physical universe advances, so should appreciation of the glory of God. But though God is Creator of heaven and earth, he is Father of human souls; and it is with this latter relationship that religion is concerned—a relationship on which quantitative vastness has no bearing whatsoever.

HOW SHALL WE WORSHIP? When we come to our second question, we find ourselves in even deeper water. Even if we confine our inquiry to Christianity, there are so many conflicting denominations, each with its own type of cultus, that the impartial observer is naturally confused, and so in­clined to be even more cynical than he is as to the more general question. Here again it is impossible to do more than offer a few broad suggestions.

Now, there are many answers that may be given which are true enough so far as they go, and which to a considerable degree avoid the difficulty just referred to. One may, of course, approach God in the privacy of one’s closet, in the solitude of the forest, in the quiet of an empty church, or even in the busy office or on the crowded sidewalk. Furthermore, if one recognizes the special value of congregational worship, and is satisfied with the popular senti­mentality that "one denomination is as good as another, since they are all aiming at the same thing," there are numerous opportunities, at least weekly, to worship God in this way. But to say nothing of the extraordinary intellectual inanity of the "one is as good as another" idea, we meet at this point with a funda­mental difference within the Christian fold as to the primary pur­pose of common services of worship. To the average Protestant this primary purpose is spiritual edification, and the value of worship is judged solely according to the spiritual benefit one feels he has ob­tained from the experience. The sermon, therefore, is the center around which all the other elements, now regarded as merely inci­dental, revolve; and the chief reason offered by those who formerly were accustomed to participate in religious exercises for having abandoned this custom is that they "got nothing from them," that the sermons were impractical or intellectually weak, etc. But this, again, is a total misconception of religion. It is not what one gets from the sermon, or the hymn singing, or what not, that counts, but what one gives out of his own heart to God. Worship is an act, not a passive state. In worship one should, it is true, receive grace from God; but in worship, as in the affairs of ordinary life, one gets out of it only in proportion to what one gives.

REMARKS The English of this article is faultless, as we would ex­pect, and the points are all perfectly clear to those who have thought on the questions; but for the sake of emphasis and in the fear that some readers of this department, not being used to such scholarly style, will overlook some fine thoughts, we here offer some comment on the following points:

• Churchgoing Is Unpopular Among the Intellectual. We all know that this is true, and we know, too, that this attitude of the intellectual has had great influence with those who can lay no claim to scholarship and very little claim to intellect. Great mobs go to the golf links on Sun­day because they think it is "smart" so to do. They think it puts them in the class with intellectuals and shows that they have outgrown old religious nonsense! Many others "sleep" on Lord’s-day mornings—not that they actually do rest and slumber—just to show that they are different, in­dependent, and freed from old foolish traditions. Oh, they are folks of ease and leisure! Others go fishing to show their "emancipation" and defiance of religious ideas!

• The author of the article says in a very beautiful sen­tence that the attitude of all these scoffers does not mani­fest a superior intellect, but a superficial intolerance. If some of these should go to church, it would take a great deal of patient preaching to give them soul and intellect enough to worship.

• The Soul Communes with God. The author shows that religion is a direct personal relationship between man and God, and "unless the emotions which accompany it are based on true conceptions, it degenerates into a con­temptible sentimentalism." The fanatical raving of igno­rant "religionists" is not true religion. Real religion in­volves man’s intellect and all else that goes into his being. Worship is the calm, serene, purposeful, meditative emotions of the soul joyfully expressed in song, in prayer, and other scriptural acts.

• God Is Personal. When we speak of God as a personal Being with any attributes that man possesses, scholars of the scoffer class cry anthropomorphism, and thus intimidate some weak worshipers who desire to be "intellectual." The author nails this fallacy and shows what the essential at­tribute of personality is. Nothing could be more logical than the conclusion that if God is a personal Being who is related to us as a Father and who loves us and blesses us, we should seek to know him and to express our gratitude and love to him. And, of course, the oftener we can com­mune with him, the better it will please us. Hence, there will never be the complaint from a true, intelligent wor­shiper that every Sunday is too often. To say that God is an impersonal force or principle or law is equal to saying that there is no God. Therefore, when men do not feel inclined to worship God and to want him in their lives, the cause is—call it what you will—atheism. They do not be­lieve in God as a loving Father. They do not believe that "he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." If they did, of course they would diligently seek after him.

• The Vastness o f the Universe Does Not Prove Man o f No Value. It is a common thing, now that we know some­thing of the vastness of the universe, to hear men say that if God made and controls all these worlds and systems of worlds he "cannot be bothered" with poor, puny man. The author’s reasoning on this point is good. He refutes the idea. How can astronomy prove the insignificance of man when man himself is the astronomer?

• We Worship to Give and Not to Get. The finest point in the whole article is the last point made. The author shows that the primary purpose of worship is not how it makes one feel; not what one gets out o fit, but what one gives into it. This is true, but it is also true that one should and will receive grace from God in true worship. This is one of those strange paradoxes where we get by giving. If we do not put our souls into the worship, remembering that "worship is an act, not a passive state.” we will get nothing out of the worship. Even when we do not sing or pray audibly, we must exert the soul. Worship is a soul act. Spiritual energy must be expended. We must "stretch every nerve." as the old hyman says.

• "Oh come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before Jehovah our Maker."