“A Sick Society”

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31029, 7 April 1966, Page 16

“A Sick Society”

Sir, —It is comfortable to pass by on the other side. “Citizen” might reflect how Christian leaders initiated changes benefitting mankind, not least some conditions we find good here. While, academically, sociologists must avoid “emotional-value-laden generalisations,” few people are influenced by pure logic. Shakepeare’s “Julius Caesar” exemplifies this in the funeral orations of Brutus and Antony. Allowing for some rhetorical licence, one can forgive Mr Lowe for his remarks, especially the one where he refers to Mrs Woods, a person in her own right, who for years has done valuable work in specialist' spheres, as "a parson’s wife.” “Synodsman” amusingly refers to the “emancipation” of women. Women emancipated? Synod has foul women out of 160. Negative Christianity? Devotions of praise and thanksgiving preceded Mrs Woods’s forwardlooking address in the interchurch school, and it was followed by the further example of practical co-operating Christianity in the Good Samaritan Society —Yours, etc;, ALISON TUNNICLIFFE, President, Christchurch Women's Committee of the National Council of Churches. April 6. 1966. Sir,—The headline caught my eye and disturbed me. It obviously disturbed Mrs Woods too. I have a profound respect for the work she is doing. With every other parson’s wife she is spending herself in the service of people. This is what we are in business for.- It is a ministry being shared by many other individuals and organisations. My lament to the Jaycees was the absence- of this positive and hopeful note and the recognition that, while there is sickness, there is also healing. No-one knows this better than Mrs S. E Woods. I am grateful to “Synodsman” although do not know what he or Miss W’oods mean by “manly Christianity.” The only kind of Christianity I am interested in is the kind I see in the life of Jesus. It’s a kind of life not invariably found among the orthodox or the respectable. This is as true of present-day Christchurch as it was of firstcentury Palestine.—Yours, (The Rev.) R. A. LOWE. April 6, 1966.

Sir, —To return to the subject: Mrs Woods’s “authorities” were not sociologists at all, but psychologists, who have a completely different approach. We accept society for what it is, leaving other disciplines to analyse, criticise and try to change it. Furthermore, what is passed off as the opinion of Dr. Lawrence was only the contention of a section he carefully described as “some of those who feel most pessimistic.” Mr Cohen, in his special prison environment, can be excused for occasional pessimism. 1 see little evidence over the last 40 years of any deterioration in the moral health of society as represented by the great majority of ordinary people, and this is amazing when we consider how diplomatic behaviour, once so correct. has descended to lies and insult as its principal tools, and how. this cynicism is so readily aped by so many when they achieve power of any sort Yours etc., VARIAN J. WILSON. April 6. 1966.

Sir,-As one who has spent over 20 years in full-time work with adolescents, may I say how grateful I am to Mrs Woods for the very fine work she is doing? In all my dealings with her 1 have been most impressed by her wisdom, her understanding, and her kindly concern for the young people who seek her help. To suggest as some correspondents . have done,

that she is preoccupied with sex and beer is utter nonsense. Finally, may I remind “The Press” that it has, over more than 100 years, built up a very fine reputation for honest, balanced reporting. I suggest that its latest effort to “ginger up” the local news with provocative headlines is not enhancing that reputation, and has no doubt caused much embarrassment to a very fine woman who deserves a good deal better than this.—Yours, etc., J.H.B. April 6, 1966. [‘"The Press” needs to be reminded neither of its reputation nor of its responsibilities. Like all newspapers, it has limited space in which to report the many activities of a growing community, and it must concern itself with—and direct attention to—matters of public interest while largely ignoring the commonplace. If we had headed the report, as we might have done in 1866. “Talk to Women,” and “buried” Mrs Woods’s challenging statements in the depths of a two-column report, we would have served neither Mrs Woods nor our readers well; and we might have been accused of trying to hide unpalatable facts. Mrs Woods's address, not the reporter or sub-editor, supplied the gin ger.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir, This unfortunate storm in a teacup may have arisen at a fortunate time — just before Holy Week—and may yet have blessed results Mrs Woods and “The Press” need make no apologies for the remark or the report. Our society is possibly more sick than even they realise Mrs Woods is obviously an earnest. - sincere person, and a courageous one. I hope she continues her fine work and excellent example. Yours, etc., A.M.S. April 6, 1966.

Sir,—The Rev. R. A. Lowe is endeavouring to present Christianity to those outside the church, and this has been made increasingly difficult by the image that the church presents to those people. The text of Mrs Woods’s address would not help: the damage has already been done. It is one thing to speak in committee but a different matter to speak in public where comment is interpreted as judgment. M. Archer suggests I have made a “ridiculous attack” on church women, but perhaps Mrs Woods’s “sociologist” would confirm that the breakdown of society has been aided by the emancipation of women and their consequent freedom, e.g., working mothers. I am no more a “devotee of R. A. Lowe’s brand of so-called manly religion” than Mrs Woods is a devotee of a mothers’ union brand of womanly religion. 1 hope we are both Christians —with divergent viewpoints on the presentation of the Gospel to those outside the church.—Yours, etc., SYNODSMAN.

April 6, 1966. Sir,—Mrs Woods has merely repeated, as has been said by some world leaders for the last 25 years, but in milder terms, that we require a change of thought—repentance. Thoughtful parents everywhere are concerned at the conditions in which youth now have to find their way and the negative influences which play upon them from many quarters, even in our well-endowed country, which has recently been described as a “very special place.” But the sickness need not be chronic if only we will wake up. And Easter is a good time to have another look at ourselves and the world around us—and make a fresh start.—Yours, etc., WAYFARER. April 6, 1966.

Sir, —I agree with Mrs Woods that our society is sick. But that is nothing new. As a matter of fact it seems to get healthier. Two thousand years of Christianity have done a lot to make society sick. The requirement of a licence for a man and a woman to have sex seems to become a thing of the past. There is nothing sick about that. As a matter of fact it is more natural. After all, sex is as essential for a well-balanced person as our daily food. Most women who give their babies away don’t do this because of choice but because of the pressure of

society. It is very hard in our society, full of prudish and misguided critical individuals, to live as a natural man or woman. But Mrs Woods confirms that our society is on the right track.— Yours, etc.. HOPE FOR HAPPIER LIVING. April 6, 1966. Sir, —It seems to be fashionable these days in either public speeches or in everyday conversation to drop such phrases as “Psychologists feel . . .” or “Sociologists say . . .” without fully knowing what psychologists or sociologists really are or how they arrive at their alleged conclusions. It appears that Mrs Woods has fallen into this trap. Mrs Woods certainly did supply the names of those men who declare Christchurch is a sick society, but the men concerned happen to be psychologists and not sociologists. Does that not call for an apology to the sociologists?—Yours, etc.. ISABELLA.

April 6. 1966. (This correspondence is now closed.—Ed., "The Press.”]