CHURCH AND LABOUR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13325, 3 November 1906, Page 1 (Supplement)

CHURCH AND LABOUR.

BY DR. J. GILES. To one .who can maintain a sufficiently detached point of view in considering the engrossing social problems of the hour there is much of curious as well as weighty interest in the attempt to bring about an alliance, or at least a modus vivendi, between the Church and Labour. In such a negotiation the first, and perhaps the most significant, question is, From which party has the proposal for a better understanding proceeded? And there can be no doubt that it is from the Church, and not from Labour, that the overtures have come. This, of course, is only as it ought to be, ii the Church still regards it as her mission to seek and to save. But the question arises, How is it that after 1500 years, during which the Church* of England has had a, free hand, and the most liberal support, the great mass of the working classes, both at Home and in the colonies, still heed to be sought in this manner by an institution which for so long a period has had the opportunity of proving itself their guide, philosopher, and friend? Mr. P. G. Andrew tells us plainly enough-what in his opinion is the cause that "the Church and Labour, which should be working together for the common good, seemed to have been parted, and, in fact, become almost enemies." In a word, the Church must adopt the socialistic : movement; it must " bow to that force" that is 'behind, the Labour movement,,and must " join in that movement or bo swept aside as an ; institution of no further service to God or man." This is pretty plain and forcible talk, and its point seems hardly turned- by Bishop Neligan's counter-appeal on behalf of the pioneer settlers, to whom, when four or five can be got . together, some faithful and zealous clergyman can always be found ready to go through the mud to address them. The speaker was so moved by the thought of this devoted zeal that he roundly denounced as " an ass" some person who had been foolish enough to express the opinion that "every parso.ii is a fraud, and does no work.'' But leaving such irrelevances, when we come to look for the real substance of the Bishop's answer to Mr. Andrew, it seems to be much what we should have expected. The Church cannot take a side in politics. Her business is to hold in trust a divinely-revealed system of dogma, which she presents to all for their belief, and to preach an ethical code flowing therefrom and which all are bound to observe. And the Bishop thus summarises the Church's message to Labour:—"Never mind talking about the ethics of Christianity; there is only one ethic of Christianity Christ." Now, though there are many socialists who openly reject Christianity in any and every form, there are a good many who will believe, however erroneously, that this ;.." message" plays directly into their hands. Their thoughts will at once revert to the Carpenter reformer, with His fishermen disciples: to His denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees; to His veto : upon all such titles as " lord" and " master" among His followers; to His purging of the temple with a, scourge; and to the 'com-': munity of goods which obtained in the Church nearest to His own time. To show the working classes ; how these, teachings' and examples can be reconciled with the present state lof things 'ecclesiastical seems to be almost a necessary step if they are to be persuaded in any great numbers to register themselves in the churchwardens' book, and so acquire that "full and free right through the length and breadth of the Church" which the Bishop offers them ; though he does not make it clear what advantages or powers this right will give them in case they should wish to introduce reforms. The question is a large one, and nothing can be gained by ignoring the weight of. the arguments on either side. It would certainly not,be edifying or desirable for thei Church\ to take part in politics, or for the Synod to pa resolutions for or against Home Rule, preferential tariffs, or naval supremacy nor would many of us 'wish to see Bishop Neligan accept office as president of the Single Tax League. And yet, what is to be said to the claim made by Mr. Andrew? The social evil as set forth by him goes far deeper than any party politics, for he represents it as involved in a system of social economics that is crushing out of the working classes "all spirituality, all morality,' ana ruining them physically and morally, ' and he demands to know where, when the struggle becomes critical, "the Church is going to stand." The answer that he gets is: "Go forward in God's name, but only take care that you are doing it in God's name"—an answer suggesting rather more detachment from the interests concerned than sympathy with the aspirations of labour. But the question arises whether, if the evils of the time, by their appalling magnitude and alarming consequences, can really be shown to be caused by an economic system profoundly unjust, the Church ought not, in virtue of her loyalty to elementary morality, to take a side. Of course, I am not assuming either that the cause is obvious or the remedy - easy; but it cannot be denied that the question goes deep down to the roots of social morality, and demands all the investigation that can be given to it by those "bishops of England," who, it is pleasing to hear, are " trying to lead men to study the labour problem." And if the' mind of the Church needs instruction as to the true character of the labour movement, docs not the mind of Labour need' a little clarifying as to the true nature of that Christianity for which Bishop Neligan declined to make an apology because it needed none? In this connection I cannot help referring to the Bishop's excellent remarks on Imperialism. Amongst other things much to the purpose he says:—-"No one quite knows wherein Imperialism consists statesmen, historians, and ecclesiastics are analysing it, and endeavouring to discover its contents." If in this passage we substitute the word Christianity for Imperialism, and perhaps leave out the "statesmen," I believe we should be asserting what is strictly and literally true. No one of ordinary observation can fail to notice what varying connotation the word suggests to different minds. It is a magnificent Divine corporation commissioned to impart to all the means of grace ; a system based upon the belief in the propitiation of an offended God by the blood of a Divine victim, a divinely revealed code of ethics ; a scheme of theology contained in a special collection of books a revelation of truths handed down by tradition ; and the truths themselves which constitute its contents are variously presented and variously understood, and they are set forth in as many different methods the wise persuasiveness of calm reason, by the aesthetic hallucination of pompous ritual, and by the temporary insanity of revivalism. Is it any wonder that "Mr. Andrew should declare that "the general opinion seemed to j run through the wage-earners as a whole j that the Church had more or less lost sight .of its early aspirations and ideas?" The ; wage-earners might feel less surprised at ! this change if they would reflect that ' among the ideas of the early Church a very prominent one was that of the speedy coming of the Lord ; and prominent among their aspirations was the hope of an almost immediate admission into the coming kingdom. The enormous power of, this delusion in promoting the spread of early Christianity is not generally sufficiently recognised,. but it is not difficult to understand how the Church, disappointed of its j expectation, sought compensation in, an . earthly dominion which gradually supplant- ,: ed the rule of Rome and led to all the coni sequences of which history informs us-

But these things have had their day ; the present problems require the careful examination of. the best intellects of the time, for the urgency of the matter is hot at all exaggerated 'by Canon Scott Holland when he says, as Mr. Andrew tells us: "We stand at a critical moment when to be without ideas is to be lost, for we have reached a point when social (re ?) construction is urgent and inevitable.' It is not long ago that the socialistic movement received but little notice in the columns of the Times, but since the last English elections there has come a change. In a letter to that journal Mr. H. F. Wyatt sounds a note of alarm at the flowing tide of socialism, the cause being furthered by an active propaganda carried on "at street corners, in parks, on commons, in working men's clubs, and in too many cases now, by an unholy alliance, in Nonconformist chapels." This writer never seems to consider what vital force there may be behind the socialistic movement, but rather seems to regard it as simply engineered by assiduous work, and that its "fatal consequences" can only be averted by r an equally, assiduous counter-propa-ganda. Very ' different is the pronouncement of Mr. Albert J. Smith, who says: — "Socialism, despite the waitings and lucubrations of pessimists and fatalists, is bound to come. It is the only way out of the present industrial maze, and the only real and effective remedy for removing the frightful wrongs and burdens with which the great mass of the people are oppressed." ... No doubt it should be remembered that the word " socialism" is as capable of various connotations as Imperialism" or " Christianity," but this only emphasises the need, for careful study of the question. It is only a' deep conviction of the gravity of the question and of its importance to the higher life of our adopted country that I have ventured to offer these remarks, trusting that candid' but friendly criticism may rather promote than hinder the disposition to examine great questions on all sides. The maxim "laborare est orare" may be found to contain fruitful matter for the best consideration both of Church and Labour. ,