An M.R.A. Propagandist

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30348, 25 January 1964, Page 3

An M.R.A. Propagandist

[Reviewed by R.H.T.] Britain And The Beast, By Peter Howard. Heinemann. 128 pp. Mr Howard is the selfappointed champion of absolute truth and honesty. In his zeal for this cause he is not wholly scrupulous. “Britain And The Beast” is a thoroughly strained piece of special pleading on behalf of Moral Rearmament.

Like most of us, the author would like to see Britain peopled by citizens who are happy, strong in character, strong in their moral and religious convictions and proud of their craftsmanship. Like every other normal human being, he prefers world peace to nuclear warfare. Britain, Mr Howard believes, is threatened by enemies, the most serious of which appear to be homosexuality, communism, sexual immorality, and the Bishop of Woolwich. The appearance of the Bishop of Woolwich in this list may come as a surprise, but to Mr Howard, the author of “Honest to God” represents the attempts of the clergy to discredit belief in God and to question accepted morality. The issues with which the Bishop is attempting to grapple do not appear to interest Mr Howard who is bent on using rather than understanding him. It is interesting to see how often churchmen are the targets of Mr Howard’s attacks. There is the Anglican bishop who said “to a friend of mine.” the “senior cleric who told a friend of mine in the name of his Bishop,” and the "famous divine, who has often argued against absolute moral standards” who said “sneeringly” that . . .

These anonymous anecdotes illustrate the type of testimony all too typical of Mr Howard’s approach. They do not constitute acceptable evidence. Mr Howard is justified when he protests against just such smear tactics used against the M.R.A. itself.

Mir Howard's programme for the resolution of the world’s problems is blissfully

simple to understand while rather more difficult to achieve than the author appears to appreciate—the acceptance of absolute standards of truth and honesty. Britain will change when the people change; world peace will come when people are changed all over the world. To those willing to work towards this goal, Mr Howard offers the fellowship of the M.R.A., a company of people whom he describes as fearless, incorruptible, who know the meaning of change in their own lives and who are guided by the “pure passion of the Holy Spirit.” Mr Howard has no interest in issues as such, social, economic and political problems contain nothing that need be faced in social, economic or political terms. Social change is irrelevant, all that is needed is personal change and the acceptance of faith and absolute honesty by everyone. The lack of interest in issues is matched only by the author’s facility in writing slogans. “It is not honest to say . . . that everyone Left is right and everyone Right is wrong.” “We stand for nothing, so fall for everything.” “We compromise while others communise.” It is no doubt a matter of personal taste, but a little of this style goes a long way and Mr Howard becomes tedious. With artful artlessness Mr Howard plays the role of the plain man with a simple faith in God and His guidance in everyday affairs, impatient with the prevarications of the experts. His patriotic fervour is unmistakeable. “In black ink may my love for Britain shine. For indeed I love my country.” This is greatly to his credit although one would have thought that red ink might have been more appropriate. His techniques in discussion are perhaps best exemplified in the chapter in which he purports to consider the criticisms made of Moral Rearmament. The mainsprings of criticism of the M.R.A., he declares, come from “the extreme Right, the extreme Left or the extreme sexuaL”

Having attached these embarrassing labels to the

critics, he offers some anonymous anecdotes about their low moral standards. On the other hand there is a great deal of testimony to the power of M.RA. most of which is unverifiable. Mr Howard does everything with his arguments but let them stand and be examined on their merits.

It is conceded that M.R.A has its critics. This is only to be expected. Moses and the prophets met opposition too Mr Howard’s examination of these criticisms is a masterly demonstration of how to stack the cards in an argument. MR.A. members have been accused of being idealistic, of trying to stop people drinking alcohol and of. course as the late Frank Buchman had the confidence of several royal houses, some of which owed their happiness to him, it was inevitable, that he should have some enemies among the courtiers of morally defeated kings. The criticisms considered are all trivial. Of the really serious criticisms made publicly’ by reputable people, Mr Howard makes no mention Nothing is said of the report prepared for the Church Assembly by a group of laymen and clergymen of the Church of England. Nothing is said of Reinhold Niebuhr’s comments on this report published in the “Observer. Nothing is said of the criti-' cisms of Maurice Reckitt. Mr How’ard carefully set up a setj of straw men for attack and* pretended that no seriousj criticism had been made. • However, the existence of* this body of critical comment explains the author's barely veiled resentment of church’ spokesmen. Mr Howard concedes that its is difficult to “resist thet charges of lack of ability, in-* tellect and grace—knowing Uiern to be true.’’ Mr Howard is too modest. He has plenty of ability, is an extremely shrewd propagandist and knows all the tricks of the* trade. If absolute truth • is ttie panecea for all ills, as the M.R.A, appears u» claim it is to be hoped that the movement will make ai start by introducing change into its propaganda.