CHURCH AND POLITICS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22816, 27 February 1936, Page 10

CHURCH AND POLITICS

TO THE EDITOR. Sjß,—Your editorial in yesterday's issue deals with a question which is constantly being raised, but has never been finally answered —the relation between church and politics. Leaving aside the personal details which, in this instance, have brought up this question, I would like to lay down this proposition—the Christian minister as such has the right to state his mind in any sphere where there is a reference to and regulative rights over human life and conduct. The most noticeable feature with regard to discussions on this subject—church and politics—ie the confusion of issues which seems invariably to arise. It is generally agreed that a minister acting in his official capacity has no right to show any political party bias. But, having agreed to this, does it follow that as a consequence he is not permitted to take note of and make reference to what Governments are doing? Does it follow that, because he must not in hie capacity as an acting minister of the church be partisan, he must therefore be silent? Many seem to think so. In your own mind there seems to be some doubt when you say " it is for religious denominations to consider very carefully how far they may go with propriety in declaring themselves upon public questions which intrude upon the domain of politics." In so far as you have thus stated the prob !em with clarity, may I assist you towards an answer by asking these questions? What is the distinguishing characteristic of politics that they should be considered separate and_ free from the notice of religious denominations? What is the peculiar nature of religious denominations that they should be limited in their declarations to certain of life, from which politics must be excluded? Again, there seems to be confusion of thought and quite invalid inferences drawn, where, as an alternative to interference in the matters of a five-day week, direct taxation, etc., there is the statement "This is beyond their Knowledge." The only alternative _to interference in the framing of certain measures is not ignorance of the effect of these measures. There is a position between these two extremes. Personally, I cannot see that it is the function of the church to make any declaratipn upon details such as direct taxation, the length of the working week, etc., but I cannot, therefore, find ease to my conscience by ignoring how hours of labour, burdensome taxation, or lack of purchasing power may affect human life. I claim the right as a minister of religion to plead the cause of those who are suffering because of any injustice, no matter from what source that justice may be imposed. If, on the one hand, the Christian minister knows of insufficiently nourished or ill-clad people, and, on the. other, restriction of the growth of food or wool, it is idle for him to say "As a minister, I do not know anything about this; it is not in my sphere; it is aU too complicated." Such an attitude is a plain evasion of his responsibilities. Although he happens to be a minister of the Gospel these facts are quite as evident to him as they are either to an economist or a member of Parliament, His duty as a Christian minister is to help both the economist and the member of Parliament by drawing their attention to these evils and encouraging them to make any necessary alterations for the benefit ot humanity. Would you agree that to this length religious denominations " may go with propriety in declaring themselves upon public questions which intrude upon the domain of politics? " —I am, etc., Wm. W. M'Arthur. Portobello, February 25.