CHURCH AND DISTRESS.

Evening Star, Issue 21881, 19 November 1934, Page 3

CHURCH AND DISTRESS.

TO THE EDITOU. Sir, —In your issue of November 15, •under the above heading, is a report of a discussion by the Presbyterian General Assembly on economic conditions. This report was presented by the Rev, J. D. Smith, who said the question was ; “ What were they to do in the face of the present world economic situation?” Then followed Mr Smith’s analysis of what he thought should pertain, and 1 think 1 shall he on safeguard if I say that, boded down, it is the church’s age-old story of whether the church’s job is to deal in spiritual or material things. Jhis brings me to a question I have asked on several occasions: “ Where "5 e . s the church draw the line and say inis is spiritual and that is material, and the one starts here and the other starts there?’ ” To give an example I would ask: “ Are the feeding, clothing, warming, and housing of human beings a material oi’ spiritual action, or both?” Mr Smith says: “It was the duty of the church to examine the position, and to present certain Christian ideals, which it must largely rely on its laymen to put into practice. He felt that in this matter the laymen of New Zealand had let them down. He did not want to press the matter, because he realised the difficulties ol laymen adopting, practical policies ■which their conscience told them should be adopted, for many of them would then be faced with ruin.” What is the interpretation one can place on this statement? To me it simply means this; That in this system of Capitalist economy, wherein (as the Rev. D. M. Martin, of Wellington, said further on in this report) we have ruthless competition, etc., it is impossible for some laymen to carry, out Christian ideals and at the same . time , prevent ruin; and I might’ also add further that the same thing might apply to some of our ministers if they-preached a_ more revolutionary, Christ-like attitude. However, I must congratulate the mover of the amendment, the Rev. Mr Martin, .and the seconder, the Rev. Mr Dodds, on their . outspokenness. This had a clearer ring about it, and one that I would have expected such an assembly of followers of the lowly Jesus to. have supported unanimously; but such was not the case, as I find fifty-two voted in favour and forty’eig'bt against. Were these forty-eight who voted against this amendment afraid they would face the ruin the Rev.! Mr Smith spoke of? On the next page of the same issue of your paper a correspondent, signing himself “ New Zealander,” sets out his earnings and how he spends them, and if the landlord (in this case the State) was to get its due, and the other local authority its ,rates,he would have exactly three-farthings left to live on. In a land of -such - abundant fertility wo adopt and support such a system as compels economies in all the things we need, because someone must get a rake-off in the form of rent, interest, and profit before those who are in need get their share. Woe he to them who add house to house and field to field! Lend and do good; expect nothing in return, _ not even the principal, but what manner of cranks are they who preach such ruinous messages? Ruinous to whom? might I ask. To the unwanteds in society, who are a continual menace to. the perpetuation of the present system? No, certainly not, but it is to those who wax rich, because some people—the many—are being denied their rightful share. They produce all,’hut are not allowed'-to even get a decent standard of living out of it. To such a pass have we come, not as a result of a scarcity, hut because the many have worked too hard and produced too much. Will this Church'Assembly just closed go back and live the life? as the Rev Mr Martin said. I sat and pondered as 1 read some of the discussions, and asked myself: “ What effect will all this have on those in need of the bare necessities of life, and how many of those in this distressful state, even if they did read them, would get much consolation therefrom?” It is a human question, says Mr Martin. ‘ls that spiritual or material?—l am, etc., P. Neilson. November 16.