THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1393, 20 March 1912, Page 4

THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

The courageous and sensible sermon delivered by Dr. Giisb at the jubilee of the foundation of St. James's Presbyterian Church in Auckland is not his first stand against an evil drift in the Churches at the present time. One can hardly pick up a newspaper in any part of the Empire nowadays without finding in it a report of some sermon advocating an alliance between the Churches and Labour, and the adoption by the Churches of the cause of Labour, as the only means of bringing "the masses" back to the churches. If they were more worldlywise, and if they had a finer faith unci courage, the ministers who are ready to wheel religion into tie political markct-placc would realise that they are the unconscious victims of a clever political game. It looks so reasonable to them, as they see tho churches slowly emptying and the waves of irreligion rolling in upon society, and, seeing it, reflect upon the oppressive urgency of "the labour problem"—it looks so reasonable to them that the Churches arc failing in their mission. They sympathise so keenly with the economic unhappincss of a section of society, and they believe so firmly that unhappinesr, should be banished somehow, that they'are swept into forgetfulness of everything but that the Churches may somehow come to the rescue. They aro constantly being told that the Churches arc offering stones to men in want of bread, and they wince under the constantlyreiterated charge that they are_"pandcring to the rich." Many of them through cowardice, but most, we are glad to think, through a deep anxiety for religion, fall into the mistake of thinking that the best thing both for religion and for tho poor is to make the pulpit a Labour platform and the Church an annexe of the Trades Hall.

Dr. Gino takes a different view— the only view that a churchman anxious for the Church, and awake to the true interests of religion, can dare to take. He sympathises with the miseries of a section of the working class, and ho declares plainly that it is the duty of the Church to speak on behalf of the, oppressed, "but," lie adds, "they must bo sure of their facts before doing so." The Church, he pointed out, stood for all classes— an obvious truth, but one, it is odd to reflect, that will sound strange nowadays. The most striking passage of tlie sermon was that which deals with the folly of surrendering to the self-socking agitators who are deluding the wage-earuers.

Ifo considered (so the report of the sermon runs) it would be folly for tho Church to identify itself with organised labour, and shut its doors to the rich, for oven if that were done ho had not such a mean omnion of the worker as to think he could be caught by fawning upon. A very large class of skilled craftsmen and casual labourers were completely outside the Church, and they would not get theiti by furthering their demands. What was more, if they could bo got by that means they were not worth the game.

This is sound sense soundly expressed. We are afraid, however, that the tendency of the Churches, or of many ministers in most of the Churches, to imagine that they can help religion and statesmanship by dropping religion and supplying a sentimental chorus to the clamour of tho demagogues will not be checked for some time to come. Those who exclaim most loudly against the juiceles. ness of religion, the neglect of the Churches to fulminate against employers of labour, are those to whom religion is of no account. They caro nothing for the interests of the Churches: they are desirous only of luring the Churches into becoming auxiliaries in a purely political movement. The average wage-earner, whether he is religious or irreligious, does not believe that the Church has failed in its duty, and does not believe that either ho or the Church will profit from an alliance between it and organised labour. _ To believe anything else is to cherish a false hope that must end in bitter disillusion.