Church failing, says Integrity’s director

Press, 17 February 1978, Page 17

Church failing, says Integrity’s director

Christchurch City Council; support for the new Cam-1 paign for Integrity would not! tie the council to the Integrity Centre’s stands on; specific moral issues, says the centre’s director (Mr N. M. Rush). According to the letterhead on its correspondence, the I centre stands for: “Absolute! honesty, purity, truth, obedience, responsibility, chastity before and faithfulness ' throughout marriage.” The centre seeks support from a wide range of com-: munity interests, and wants; the council’s blessing and promotion heip. “The churches are sup-1 posed to be doing this joo, i but they are pretty quiet at the moment,” said Mr Rush.| “They have more problems; within their own four walls! than they can handle.” This week, the policy and i finance committee recom-I mended that the Integrity! Centre’s campaign be sup-1 ported in principle. But Mr Rush said that such 1 support would not commit I councillors to support of spe-' cific viewpoints. Many of the; centre’s supporters, includ- | ing the Society for the Pro-1 tection of Community Stand-! ards, appear to be conservative. Mr Rush said the; centre, however, was “above! doctrine and denomination.” I

In spue of efforts to con->s j trol such things as marriage it breakdowns and drug abuse.lt things were getting worse. < “I do not believe the city t ihas a goal,” he said, “andis the Church is not going any- ; where. There is no sense of I destiny or purpose. Most;) people are just not con- 1 cemed. They are isolated in it i their own' little selfish ( ■ worlds.” < There had to be some ; “loose liaison” between dynamic community groups “or j we will continue to see this;; decline carry on,” he said, t I “We are not going to win 1 this war on our own." 1 Groups that normally had nothing to do with each; < other should come together i at least to talk. Even oppos-(' ling sides on controversial;: . issues could come to agree- 1 intents. i “Some think they own the exclusive right to the truth,” ! Mr Rush said. “I think a lot of the arguments are manipu- < ! >ated. We must face the issue ;not of who is right, but what 1 j is right. 1 “You have got to sit down and talk about it. When you have people in opposing i ! camps, half do not really I know what the issue is.” 1 ■ Along with the churches, • . other parts of the social system were not doing their ] share. , I “Most of the educational <

system and most of the media give the impression j that .you will not have to answer for your actions, that! there will be no consequences,” he said. That was I absolutely wrong. "AU we are wanting is to get the people addicted to honesty,” he said, “to something positive. Because the Church is so quiet, the general trend is to something: addictive." Mr Rush said it was not' possible to face the pres-I sures of life without some 1 escape mechanism, but al least an addiction to honesty would be a positive escape. Community pressures kept churches from taking specific moral stands, he said, but; "there are issues we believe I are very clear, such as sex before marriage. We hold very definite views.” One of the campaign’s main goals was “to remove this hostility between groups of opposing opinion,” he said. The Integrity Centre did not agree with the Press Council, Broadcasting Council, Indecent Publications Tribunal and Justice Department which said they could not be expected to impose unrealistic standards on the community. “We are a spiritual Civil Defence headquarters,- or whatever you like,” Mr Rush said.