“Pulpit politics”

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32665, 22 July 1971, Page 14

“Pulpit politics”

Sir,—A layman’s (or woman’s) reply to Mr Galr on religion and politics is that holiness means wholeness and applies to the whole person, his country and the world. The brotherhood of man becomes reality when one’s politics express one’s deepest convictions with no cleavage between the two, so Mr Gair is dead wrong. Maybe we should all read the Sermon on the Mount for guidance on every level of life and world affairs.— Yours, etc., N. BECK. July 21, 1971. Sir, —Most regular correspondents accept that "The Press’’ sometimes cuts short rights of reply for economic or other reasons of its own, but one wonders if Mr Sadler is prepared to grant the “Methodist” similar discretion. Like me, Mr Sadler is frankly not a Christian, let alone a Methodist. Were he editor of the “Keynesian,” say, I wonder how much right of reply he would give to non - Keynesian . political thinkers attempting to tise his paper as their vehicle? He appears to “pay back” these Methodists by politely insinuating that they are raving Reds. As a professed progressive, Mr Sadler might well join Mr Howell in concern for the lack of adequate management of capitalism rather than of church papers. Perhaps- he already exercises that concern, in his "tinkering” way, but with political enemies like Mr Sadler, the capitalist mismanagers and their spokesmen in Parliament have no need of friends. —Yours, etc., B. P. LILBURN. July 21, 1971.

Sir, —Mr Gair’s . recent attack on the involvement of the Church in political debate is surprising, to say the least. For too long a major criticism of the Church has been that it is no longer relevant to today’s society and is too concerned with its own narrow world of religious affairs. However, it would appear that this is where Mr Gair would prefer the interest of the Church to remain, leaving the field of politics to the professionals. His attempts, on “Checkpoint,” to justify his criticisms were ridiculous—the basis of his justification being that the Church views things in terms of black and white while politicians know that compromise is essential to politics. This, he asserts, is the reason that ministers should refrain from politics from the pulpit and limit themselves to moral questions only, implying, of course, that the two are divorced. Does

this mean that politics, and thus politicians, are immoral? —Yours, etc., L. E. JACKSON. July 19, 1971.

Sir, —It is not politics as such which worries those who are so anxious to muzzle church leaders, but rather what brand of politics. Thus Mr Gair criticises the 1 per cent overseas aid movement in the churches because it embarrasses the National Party, and Mark Sadler wants his capitalist-syndicalism to get as much consideration as economic democracy or socialism. Active concern by the churches is too little and too late already, as revealed in today’s issue, with the shocking racial ingredient in the crime wave which grips Christchurch, and the increasing school-girl pregnancies reported by the Rev. T. Cahill. The National Party is phasing out our State social conscience faster than the private-enterprise charity of the churches can mend the shameful breach.—Yours, etc., "JIM ABELSON.” July 21, 1971.

Sir, —I agree that our church men are hiding behind the pulpit. This is the reason why I do not now attend church regularly. I have seen for many years now that we have needed a minister of religion in Parliament (carrying the Cross, so to speak). More drugs, more hotels, men go off to war, etc.; they do nothing to help in stopping these things, because it means involvement in politics. They wait until people have been through the mill, and then they work on the broken parts. But we must hand it to our clergymen; they put in a lot of voluntary hours and do an excellent job.—Yours, etc., ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS. July 21, 1971.