The Church And Dissent

Press, Issue 32345, 10 July 1970, Page 12

The Church And Dissent

Sir,—-The willingness of Bishop Pyatt to regard the Maquis and the Viet Cong in the same light betrays also a willingness to regard Marxism and communism with favour. These ideologies postulate the Revolution, or in modern practice incited unrest, violence, and terrorism. Democracy has surely better methods for registering criticism. The Bishop’s sermon ignores the terrorism inflicted upon the South Vietnamese people by the Communist North immediately after the cease-fire, thereby nullifying the provisions for the free elections to determine the South’s future. Let the Bishop beware that he is not encouraging forces designed to overwhelm democracy, Christianity, and incidentally, the Bishop himself entrapped in his own pulpit—Yours, K. A. GOUGH. July 9, 1970. Sir, —I think some of your correspondents on this subject have rather too literal minds. I can quite understand, which they evidently don’t why the Bishop compares the Viet Cong with the Maquis. Both movements dangerously thumbed their nose at a hated enemy. Both required a good deal of courage, as all underground organisations must, and both were doggedly demonstrating their own conception of an acceptable condition of society. I don’t hold with the view that Christianity is fighting atheism in South East. Asia. Instead, I believe that one faction is trying to uphold, and if possible enforce, a frightening system of human regimentation; the other to destroy this system in defence of a personal interpretation of . “freedom,” with some poweri ful assistance from mammon I just cannot see this con , flict in terms of Christian . ideals. It seems to me just . another round in the ugly i game of power politics.— . Yours, etc., I. TREW. ! July 9, 1970.

Sir, —Some years ago my wife rang Bishop Pyatt in the hope that he could protest effectively about that alleged “basinful of bombs” statement, and he said, “This dreadful thing must stop.” It is heartening indeed to read his sermon. As for Mr Mc-

Lachlan, I am afraid that he has not given the whole affair the study which it merits, to say the least.—Yours, etc., J. F. WILLIAMS. July 9, 1970. Sir, —The Bishop’s sermon is like the curate’s egg. As a one-time N.Z.B.C. commentator on world affairs, he must know the difference between Viet Cong and Maquis. The Maquis certainly fought against the Nazis. If the analogy is correct, the Viet Cong should be fighting the North Vietnamese in occupation of areas of South Vietnam—a pity they are not. The name Viet Cong means Vietnamese Communist They are the guerrilla-terrorist arm of the N.L.F. Bishop Pyatt would have us believe the Americans to be the occupiers, but could it be in fact the occupier is the North Vietnamese Army . now also infiltrating Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia? He refers to the Nixon war. If just once, he were to call for an end to aggression from the North I am convinced he could convert the whole of the “silent majority” to agitation and dissent—Yours, etc., M. J. W. DAVIS. ' July 9, 1970. Sir, —Three cheers for Bishop Pyatt, both for his courage in supporting an unpopular cause, and for his truthful statements about the so-called Viet Cong, more properly the National Liberation Front If more churchmen spoke as he does, the church might again attract the support of more thinking people than it does today. I would ask Mr Taylor what is wrong with having a bun with some of the P.Y.M.? Was not Christ abused by the self-righteous of his day for associating with “publicans and sinners?”— Yours, etc., R. J. SCARLETT. July 9, 1970. Sir,—No doubt the modern Church is now more charitable than in the time of Copernicus, but I feel there is, in fact, too much accent on dissent today, and far too little on construction. Could not the Church accept the challenge in Northern Ireland and seek to reduce dissent rather than fan the flames?— Yours, etc., C. W. D. HODGSON.

July 9, 1970. Sir,—The whirling words aimed at the Bishop’s head have no real bite. Coleridge did it much better in his little allegory on the French Revolution. In this, “a sage of sober hue,” whose position was somewhat similar to the Bishop’s, was addressed, in part, by the mob as “ ‘ You bloody-minded dog’, (cries one)/To slit your windpipe were good fun,/’od blast you for an impious son/Of a Presbyterian whore’.” I leave it to the Bishop’s critics to decide for themselves how much of the above quotation they are basically in sympathy with.—Yours, etc., J. DUGDALE. July 9, 1970.

Sir, —I feel that adherents to the Christian faith will concur in Bishop Pyatt’s inspiring sermon, “Church and Dissent,” because freedom of expression is one of the tenets held in our democratic way of life based on religious ethics. Many critics finding fault have taken a single paragraph about Vietnam out of context in a fourcolumn sermon and grossly distorted its real meaning—which is the Christmas message of peace and good will towards man. “No man is an island.”—Yours, etc., REG. H. STILLWELL. July 9. 1970.

Sir,—Although I was one of the congregation who applauded the Bishop’s fine sermon last Sunday, I do not propose to add to the debate on the accuracy of his statements. For that matter, he is a much better qualified historian and current events commentator than 1 am. The point I wish to make is that no-one who knows the Bishop could doubt the integrity and the fearless sanity of his approach to Christianity. He simply is not the man to make irresponsible or heretical statements. I should imagine that he will he exhilarated rather than perturbed by the current storm, but I think someone should say publicly that, in any circumstances,

the faith his friends have in him is too solidly based to be shaken by the intolerant clamourings of the ill-informed —Yours, etc., M. OSBORN. July 9, 1970. Sir, —The Bishop’s magnificent sermon does not cover quite all the ground. He says that the Church’s leaders are the Establishment’s leaders: is it not rather that most of the Church’s clergy and leading laymen so value the support of the Establishment that they dare not criticise it? Conformity has led the Church into an accelerating decline, which the Bishop's true words about Christian service cannot disguise. The Church, desperately needing flexibility and mobility and unable to achieve them, has lost the power to cope with dissent. At the parish and congregation level, there is no forum for down-to-earth discussion and few remain who could create one or would want to take part. We can be grateful for an honest Bishop, but he cannot, single-handed, cure the mortal sickness of the present forms of the Church. Is it from the young and impatient who, as he says, “are regrouping outside the Church” that some kind of answer may eventually come? —Yours, etc., N. H. BUCHANAN. July 9, 1970.

Sir,—The agreement drawn up by France, the Republic of Vietnam, Chin.-, Great Britain, and the United States, and signed at Geneva on July 21, 1954, stated that the introduction of foreign troops into Vietnam was forbidden. Article 17 stipulates that the introduction of all forms of war material was prohibited. The only country refusing to

sign, although a member of the convention, was America. Mr Walter Bedell-Smith, the American representative said the United States would refrain from the threat of the use of force and would view renewal of agression in violation of the agreement with grave concern. On July 22, Ngo Din Diem, Americansponsored head of the southern zone Government, repudiated the agreement and so started the present war. The so-called Viet Cong then came into being and are definitely, as the Bishop stated, the “Maquis” of Vietnam.— Yours, etc., R. J. GLEN. July 9, 1970. Sir,—I, too, strongly support the Bishop in his Vietnam statement. Philosophy apart, had the Church supported social truth and basic material Christian principles during the centuries instead of pandering to each succeeding establishment, and fought wars, poverty, exploitation, gross untruths, shams, and hypocrisy, religion would not be such a non-issue as it is today. Why, even teen-agers scoff and see through the lying propaganda today. Had not the Church supported the establishment in all its evil it would be as dead as the dodo today. But the establishment cannot do without the Church. A few more years and both the establishment and the Church will be in the museum for historical antiques.—Yours, etc., W. J. COLLINS. July 9, 1970.

Sir, —The remarks of Bishop Pyatt may sound shocking to some people. However, if we, as followers of Christ, believe our Saviour and truly follow His example, we may be called on to suffer as He who prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” His life shows that, whatever the cost, even to life itself, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is contrary to the Christian way.— Yours, etc., SADIE HAYMAN. July 9, 1970.

Sir,—Bishop Pyatt’s now historic confession, “I must admit I can never see . . .” recalls a Bible line, “Blind leaders of the blind. ’ His excellent sermon is spoilt for me by equating “profit and class distinction, and racial discrimination” as “standards which are not God’s.” If I

work longer hours than most in my one-man business and at the end of the year make a profit of $2OOO, am 1 to be sneered at more than a Bishop who may earn $3OOO or a wharfie his $4000? If he means “exorbitant profit” the Bishop should say so. But let us be honest! We all work for profits. If there were no financial rewards in either wages or profits, few would remain working in present occupations. It is time this Socialist sneer of the “profit motive” was debunked.— Yours, etc., W.J.T. July 9, 1970.

Sir, —I would like to commend the Bishop on his sermon and subsequent discussion with members of the P.Y.M. If the Church had a greater percentage of Christians of this calibre instead of canting, selfrighteous “churchians," the Church would have little need to worry about dwindling offertories. Religion could be as active today as of yore if the stuffy 80 per cent would tolerate the questioners of an acquisitive age. At present the Church is a closed club to any spawn of the devil who dares to question. If these “churchians” spent more time and effort on practical Christianity and less time dressing up in their finery, the world would be a better place with the Church’s future assured. —Yours, etc., D.J. July 9, 1970.

Sir, —In reply to "Anglican,” to refer to Christ as the first Communist, is sheer blasphemy and utter rot! How can God support an atheistic system which aims to stamp out Christianity? Soviet citizens are permitted to attend the State-controlled churches, the pastors of which must be approved by the Communists. Outside of these “show churches” religion is an offence which results in inhumane torture, years of hellish imprisonment, and sometimes death. No person under 18 is permitted to attend church and 20 per cent of Baptists in the U.S.S.R. are aged 18 to 35. After being indoctrinated with Communist atheism from their earliest childhood, how many Russians are likely to be converted in their adulthood? If “Anglican" was a Christian he would realise that Christianity and communism are incompatible.—Yours, etc., ' M.L.S. July 8, 1970.

Sir,—l applaud Bishop Pyatt’s remarks with regards to the Viet Cong, etc. What 98 per cent of Kiwis do not realise is that they owe some of their freedom to the Communist partisans in Italy and Jugoslavia who fought and died (horribly, in most cases) fighting to Keep their countries free from tyranny and corruption. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese are doing the sam e. Churchill said, “We will fight them on the beaches,” etc. “We will never surrender!" The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese are courageously doing the same.—Yours, etc., EX EIGHTH ARMY. July 8, 1970.

Sir,—Thank you for permitting this controversy. 1 thank Mr McLachlan for saying what so many think and say. I thank Mr Ardagh, prepared to go to Vietnam —the voice of experience. Bishop Pyatt speaks of social action. Has he read the subversive “socialist action,” against both National and Labour” The P.Y.M are harmless in comparison with the Socialist Action League. Jesus was not a mortal, political agitator; he was the immortal Son of God Vniirc etc INFORMED ANGLICAN LAYWOMAN. July 9, 1970. Sir,—May I, as an ordinary citizen and not a member of any pressure group such as the Church or the P.Y.M., express my abhorrence of Bishop Pyatt’s statements on the Viet Cong?—Yours, etc., NO MORE CHURCH FOR ME. July 8. 1970.

Sir.—Good for Bishop Pyatt and good for the Rev. R. Lowe! Whether they be right or wrong is surely a matter of opinion, and if this country is to continue as a democracy, are they not as entitled to express their views as freely as those who make

decisions for us? Whether they be right or wrong matters little; at least they have the courage to express an opinion, which is more than the silent majority appears to shake off its apathy long enough to do. Many things are anti-demo-cratic. Communism and fascism both are; but they are visible enemies. The cancer of democracy could well be apathy. So for democracy's sake, if for no other reason, let our churchmen raise a little healthy controversy without branding them “dissident.” Why not “democratic” and “humanitarian”? Mr Ardagh is so tragically and indisputably right, but surely the injuries inflicted by and suffered by both sides equate?—Yours, etc., ONE SMALL VOICE. July 8, 1970. Sir, —1 dissent from the passage in the sermon in question “Take the Christians out) of C.0.R.5.0., Red Cross, and 1 St John Ambulance, and they would collapse tomorrow." If they were, other good people remain to operate such good works. Religions are weakened by self-praise. “After seeing this lot,” in Belfast, “I'm an atheist,” said a British soldier, apparently taking the easy way out. He need not.—Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. July 9, 1970. Sir, —I heartily endorse Mr C. C. A. McLachlan’s, Mr Ardagh’s, and Mr Taylor’s remarks. It has been said, “Communism is a Satan-led conspiracy and all Communist leaders since Karl Marx have looked upon religion, especially Christianity, as a major goal for destruction.” Marx described religion as “the opium of the people” 100 years ago. Lenin, the No. 1 historical hero of present-day Communist leaders, said, “Every religious idea, every idea of God, even every flirtation with the idea of God is unutterable vileness.” “Communism denies and destroys every spiritual value. No church and no church member can temporise with it.” “Let us all pray daily for the unfortunate victims of communism and do all we can to get the truth out to a sleeping, brainwashed nation. The life you save may be your own!" — Yours, etc., AWAKE. July 9, 1970. [This correspondence is now closed. —Ed., “The Press.” 1

Other letters appear today on page 11.