AFTER-WAR SACRIFICES

Grey River Argus, 14 October 1941, Page 4

AFTER-WAR SACRIFICES

BY POSSESSOR NATIONS

Anglican Primate’s Warning

P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, October 13. Archbishop West-Watson, in an address to the Anglican Synod at a service in the Cathedral to-night, said:' “It is clear to us that national differentiation is a Divine ordinance for men, but it is also clear that the whole spirit of the teaching or Christ is opposed to the exploitation of one nation by another. With a clear conscience, the Church can call upon all peoples to prepare for sacrifices, which will be necessary to remove this stumbling block of national irresponsibility, and especially call upon nations, like our own, which have almost' come to regard their privileges and their advantages as a natural right. In regard, to world economics, the principle of equal access to natural resources, and the conservation of those sources of food and wealth in the common interest, is, surely, justified by the Christian doctrine of the equal fellowship o f all mbn in Christ. It appears to be a necessary preliminary to the abolition of war. “It will entail great sacrifices by the possessor nations, and it will present a desperate challenge to vested interests. It will call for great, sacrifices. But the sacrifices will be insignificant as compared with those that are called for by modern war.”

The Archbishop was speaking, generally, of post-war planning and the Church’s attitude towards various schemes being put forward for national or .'mternation'al reorganisation. “It is beginning to be understood that peace and progress call for sacrifices, and must be bought at a price,” he said. “We must be prepared to pay the price, and we must try to educate a public opinion that will not be surprised if some of ou” old prejudices and privileges have to be thrown on the scrap heap for the good of humanity.” He said he distinguished the function of the Church from the duty of individual laymen, who, he said, would, naturally, be free to move in this or that direction as they felt called. “The function- of the Church, as such, is to keep before mankind, those principles which it is convinced can be sustained as being in line with God’s will, revealed in Christ.” He added: “It moves on to dangerous ground when it claims Divine support or finally tor any human programme.”

INDIVIDUAL PRIVILEGES TOO ? P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, October 13. Archbishop West-Watson, speaking of the Church’s relation to social planning and programmes, in an address to an Anglican Synod service, said: “It is a thousand pities that the extravagances and excesses of the Russian experiment have obscured from us their ideal of work as a contribution to the life of community, rather than as a means to th® profit of the individual. Many of us must have felt that this Russian doctrine was uncomfortably reminiscent, of the spirit of the Gospel, and yet, perhaps, regarded it as suspect because the idea seemed to be inseparable from the system. We need the courage to cut ourselves loose from slavery to systems, and to ask ourselves frankly not ‘ls this Communism ?’, or ‘ls this Capitalism ?’, but ‘ls this Christian ?’ Otherwise what js the Church here for ? The whole question of privilege, whether , of birth or wealth, is one of the crucial points at issue in view of the hopes of a new order. Some of the privileged have regarded their privileges as implying responsibility and an opportunity for service to the community, but far the greater number have regarded them as personal property to be used for their own advantage or pleasure.”