A MODERN PROBLEM

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 3716, 26 October 1926, Page 7

A MODERN PROBLEM

THE CHURCH AND LABOR A TWO-SIDED CLAMOR The relation of the churches to the ever-present labor problem lias bsen brought into prominence by the action of the Archbishop of Canterbury ami some leaders of the Free Churches in England in approaching the Prime Minister with proposals looking in the direction of terms ol settlement ol the long-standing and bitter coal strike. However well intended that action was —and there is no question as to the disinterestedness of the religions leaders in the case—there remains the fact that so far they have been coldly received. and have had no perceptible effect in bringing the parties together, or in terminating or even alleviating the most disastrous industrial situation that England has been confronted with for many years, writes J. E. Carruthors, D.D., iii the ‘Sydney Morning Herald.’ The days have passed when the church (as such) made more than an influence in affecting social or political situations; when, in short, as in certain countries in the middle ages, she uttered her fiat, and courts and councils and kings acknowledged her supremacy in the economic and political realm as* well as in the ecclesiastical. From several quarters the demand .irises that the church should come down from the clouds and interest herself more in the mundane affairs of life. The Conservative and capitalistic side is perhaps not so much concerned in making this demand as arc those who are feeling the pressure of the inequalities of life, and arc desirous of obtaining a larger and what they think a fairer share of the leisure and treasure of the times. Nevertheless the pressure of the Conservative or capitalistic view is not altogether negligible. There is little doubt but that it has subtly but sensibly affected the attitude *of ministers personally and of the church collectively, and has induced a type of teaching and witness that has provoked a counter, and of late an almost vociferous, demand that the church should declare herself on the side of the Jess favored in life, and insist on an increase of material benefits for the body as well as for the spiritual satisfaction of the soul. And the idea has been sedulously cultivated—and in some quarters very successfully—that the church has failed in doing its duty

iii this regard. and then it is alleged j that it is this failure that is responsible for the alienation of the masses from 'the church. Here, however, I take leave to question whether this alienation is so general as is alleged. Not a few churchmen assure us that their congregations were never better, that the working classes arc wpll represented in them; and the general testimony is that church funds and church enterprises generally were never more generously supported than they are at present. Let us be true to the facts, as they exist. HAS THE CHURCH FAILED? The answer to thus question will largely depend upon what is the conception ot the office and function of the church in relation to mundane and material things. The very early church endeavored to set up an economic or- i der within itself on the most approved of modern Communistic principles— | viz., to “have all things common.’’ | Rut a very short experience served to demonstrate the impracticability of 1 that even among people so closely of | one mind as were the early Christians; and in none of the subsequent teach- j mgs in the New Testament is there any | indication that the church as such was : committed to any one social order or to i any special economic view of life. It stood for something higher. It aimed not primarily at creating or affecting conditions. Its work lay in the higher realm of character; in short, in making new men and women, who, iu turn, by their influence and effort, were to affect the society in which they moved, and act as a purifying and regenerative within it. Centuries later George Eliot voiced tho truth thus early recognised:

Not God Himself can make man’s best Without best men to help Him. In every department of life and in every age in the world it is a question of character. It is character that does it. When the ruler of the Jews (of whom we read in the Gospels) came to Jesus by night there was probably , the unspoken thought in his mind: What is your remedy for the evils of the times? To which Jesus replied with a directness that astonished his interlocutor: “You must be born | again.” New and better conditions ’ can only be brought about by new and better men. The history of all the reforms that have been brought about since the Christian era began—and 'they have been many and most beneficent —is simply the history and effort of a man or group of men who had the vision and the impulse, and were prepared to Jive and labor, and if need be die, to bring the better era in, so tar as they knew and could accomplish it. Who is there who, in view of the gravity and complexity of the industrial position of to-day, would be prepared to say that the wrong is all on one side, and the remedy is to be found in any of the materialistic methods of either Capitalism or Communism? It is easy lor orators or writers on either side to denounce vigorously the side to which they are opposed. Capitalism has been arraigned and declared to be guilty of almost ail possible wrongs and crimes. Socialism lias been pilloried a*d accused of robbery, deceit, oppression, and a lot el other things. And the trouble is that these indictments can be sustained with more or less of evidence. The truth is that no system can rise higher than the men who administer it; and. unhappily, with human nature as it is, there are grievous wrongs on both sides, and neither of them can justily a claim to be accepted as the all-loo-sure method of bringing in the “ new heaven and the now earth” for which humanity 1 is wistfully looking. Referring to the collapse of the Communist experiment from Australia to South America some years ago. the chronicler tells us that when these dreamers set sail for the promised land tiny had a stowaway on board they bad neglected to take into account human nature. And it is to he leaved that when agitators clamor loudly lor flic adoption of their schemes_ ol roform—and I here are some in the church as well as nut ol it—they, too, neglect to take into account this prime

I and over-present factor of human naj ture. j EVILS RECOGNISED. j Representatives of the churches have I not hesitated to recognise the anomal lies and injustices which arc unhappily too prevalent under existing comli- | tions. Thus, in the recent Stockholm 'Conference on Life and Work, at which all the great branches (save one) of the Church of Christ were represented, it was declared with practical unanimity: “in the sphere of economics we have declared that the soul is the supreme value, that it must not he subordinated to tiie rights ol property or to the mechanism of industry, and that it may claim as its first right the right of salvation. Therefore we contend for the free and full development of the human personality. In the name of the Gospel we have affirmed that industry should not he based solely on the desire for individual profit, but that it should be conducted lor the service of the community. Property should he regarded as a stewardship for which an account must he given to God. Co-operation between Capital and Labor must take the place of eon--1 fliet, so that employers and employed alike may' ho enabled to regard their part in industry as the fulfilment ol a. vocation. Thus alone can we obey our Lord’s command, to do unto others even as we would they should do unto us.” fu so speaking these representative divines set up a great ideal. In like manner they dealt with the moral and social problems of overcrowding, unemployment, laxity of morals, drink, and its evils, and the causes of crime. The mere mention of these things serves to emphasise that the industrial problem is complicated Gy the moral issues with which it is surrounded, and that the cure of Iho whole, if cure there is to he, must he a radical one.

WHAT CAN THE CHUKCHI DO? There are some things the church can do; there are other things it would he patently unwise for it to attempt to do. It may, il it chooses, set apart some of its agents to study the problem and to act as liaison officers between the classes and between itself and the masses; it may promote the circulation of literature of an informative character; it may (and ought) on all possible occasions to declare itself and its principles in the interests of good understanding and mutual respect and economic justice, lint only on rare occasions should it actively descend into the arena of conflict; only so when Christian principles are at stake and right and justice clamor for an authoritative representation.

But the church should aim cotv stautly and insistently on the production of good citizens. Its most potent agency for good is the testimony and influence of lives “ made sublime by faith and works.” As a recent W’ler has well said: “ There is no short cut to ideal society by a mere revolution in external conditions. . . Relievers in the brotherhood oi humanity must count the cost and be ready to pay the price if their dream is to bo realised; there -is no other way.” George Cadbury, in England, and John A. Wanamaker, in America, have shown what can be done in the way of personal character and along the line of personal service; and tiie church that produces men of that type will render service of incalculable value in solving the otherwise insoluble economic problem of the world.