SOCIAL SYSTEM

Southland Times, Issue 22729, 4 November 1935, Page 5

SOCIAL SYSTEM

MR CHISHOLM’S SERMONS

“THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH” In this, the fifth and final article in a series of sermons on the existing order of social relationships preached at Knox Church, the Rev. John Chisholm takes as his subject “What the Christian Conscience Demands.” His text was: “After this manner prey ye; Our Father which art in heaven .... Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth.” Matt. 6, 9-10. The story is told of a non-Christian officer in General Feng’s Chinese Army, when that army was probably the most Christian army the world has ever seen, who said—“ You might as well be a Christian in Feng’s Army for you have to act like one anythow.” To-day, in this country of ours, we have to try and be Christian in spite of the social, economic and political order; we look forward to the time when men may be Christian on account of it. To try and bring about this new Christian Order what should the Christian conscience demand? For what I am to reply I am in debt to a little book called “Can Christ Save Society” by Principal Garvie. One cannot study the programme of Christ as we have done without realizing that God cares for the bodily needs of His children, that He has made ample provision for all, and that He expects His disciples as stewards to carry out the provisions of His Kingdom. Our country, therefore, if it lays claim to be Christian in motive and conduct should make an adequate provision to meet all the physical necessities of all its members. And the Christian Church which is looked upon as the religious guide of the nation should see that this is done. How many there are who are diseased or aged, or crippled, or blind, and cannot help themselves! No Christian State should leave such to the tender mercies of private charities. Individual philanthropy is a real Christian activity, but surely we all recognize its inadequacy, and its harmful effect on character in many cases. (1) The Christian conscience should therefore demand that those who cannot support themselves should have a claim of justice and not charity. A really bad piece of legislation by the National Government during the depression was the false economy in reducing the social services of our DoDjim/n. Economy was necessary, but to sacrifice the future welfare of the people and of the children in this way was rather deplorable. “A Living Wage.”

(2) Again “the labourer- is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10, 7). A real Christian State should see to it that a “living wage” and not a “minimum wage” be paid. “More wealth distributed as wages and salaries,” says Principal Garvie, “would mean an increased consumption, as while thrift deserves encouragement, yet a greater percentage of the wealth so divided would go to legitimate spending on the necessities comforts and refinements of life, and thus consumption would more nearly keep step with production. That there might be unwise spending bv some is not an adequate reason for with-hold-ing from others the opportunity of wise spending.” (3) no Christian community worth the name should sit still and see the gradual technical and personal deterioration of its members through unemployment. Demant in a little book called “This Unemnloyment,” says: “We are not advocating idleness, but we are urging upon Christian people the necessity for getting free from the obsession that the Unemployed Problem is a problem of finding work.” And he shows that even if we succeeded in emnloying the whole community at eight hours a day there would be still greater over-production to cope with. He says the Churchs’ task is twofold. First to insist in the name of truth and justice that the world find a way

by which the demands of human beings for goods and services be the deciding factor in the policy of production, and that it adjust its theory of work and money to this end. Secondly, that the church should equip herself to guide and direct men and women, who will thus have more leisure time, along the line of freelygiven social and economic activities. (4) Again the unique value of a human life in God’s sight is shown in the words: “What shall a man give in exchange for his life?” (Matt. 16, 26). The Christian conscience should insist that a nation that acknowledges the words of Christ as authoritative should not sit still and allow the control of wealth as capital to have such a command over the lives and labours of men and women that human life and health and character are sacrificed. The terrible and solemn warning of Jesus: “Who so shall cause one of these weak ones to stumble (or offend) it is profitable for him that ... he should be sunk in the depth of the sea should be carefully noted by many industrial and commercial circles. Many boys and girls, before their characters have become firmly established, go into occupations where it is impossible for them to serve God honourably and observe the Golden Rule. In fact some are initiated into practices that are not even honest. And all this because the Christian Church is. content to allow the present competitive system to carry on. It seems to me that the Will of God concerning mans existence in this world is clearly being frustrated by our present social system and that only as we work along co-operative lines or change towards a socialization of the economic order can the programme of Christ be carried out. Julian Huxley one of our leading scientists, in the October number of the Rotarian, says: “The possibilities opened up by science of providing abundance for all have been brought to naught by faulty economic and political machinery.” Nation-wide Collectivism.

(5) Should the Christian conscience demand a nation-wide collectivism as the solution of the problem? To many this seems to involve too sudden and too violent a change. But to this end, first, the church should form groups for the study and practice of the new Kingdom life, and she should immc ’lately and persistently instruct her young people and inspire them with the ideal. “The influence of a collective ideal imposed on the minds of the young under conditions of emotion is incalculable,” says Benjamin Kidd in “The Science of Power.”

Secondly, the co-operative spirit should be deleveloped to displace the competitive by organizing co-operatives of various types and kinds. Denmark is leading the way along this line.’ There they have no extremes of wealth and poverty. In the midst of an armed world they have voted to disarm. Kagawa has successfully instituted large co-operative settlements in Japan unde: his “Kingdom of God” movement. Thirdly, when there is a sufficient majority to make this Christian programme effective there should be no hesitation in putting it through the political order. Obviously we cannot make a Christian world if the State remains pagan. If the majority of the people stand for a Christian programme it should be put into operation by legislative enactment. . * . Finally, and above all, the Christian motive of loving one’s neighbour as oneself, kept alive by absolute love to God, must be insisted on as the only sure way to secure this new social system. Christ spoke the truth when He said to His disciples that if they sought God’s Kingdojn and His righteousness all that is needed to make life here prosperous and happy would be added (Matt. 6, 33). Here is Christ’s challenge, and to meet it self-denial and self-sacrifice must be practised by all classes. If the differences of sex, class, culture and race are not transcended and each practise some self-denial and selfsacrifice then temporary expedients to keep things going on as they are can only delay the terrible harvest of ruin which the seeds of selfishness and strife, engendered by our present pagan system, must yiel.’. It is a denial and a refusal of the authority of Jesus Christ as the Revealer of God, and Redeemer of men to allow thing to go on as they are. But there is a change coming, for the spirit of the risen Christ is making Himself felt in an age that has hitherto tended to ignore Him. There are many who perceive that Jesus’ theory of safety may be more promising than the proved failure of the opposite theory.