THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14026, 1 April 1919, Page 8

THE CHURCH AND LABOUR.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent under the above heading in you edition of March 2Gth, expresses surprise' at the sympathetic attitude of the recent Methodist Conference towards labour. His surprise can have only one explanation, namely, his complete lack of information regarding the relation of the Methodist Church to the movement for sane labour reform. This lack of information—to use a gentle term—is further evidenced in his apparently unsympathetic attitude towards the Christian Church as a whole. -le complains that “there is no real Christianity in the church,” that “every reform labour has got never received any help or sympathy from the church,” that in the tight against “the most deadly evil that any nation could tolerate, the church has voted for the liquor man . . . Notwithstanding poverty, starvation and crime." It is not my desire to attempt a complete refutation of these charges as they may be applied in part and especially in the past to some within the church, but the retaliation I would make is by pointing out the simple fact that the imperfections of individuals in the church, or a hesitant or unsympathetic policy on the part of a minor section of the church, does not colour the whole nor form any reasonable basis for contending that there is an absence or real Christianity in the church, etc. The connection of the church with social reforms in the past as in the present, is one that shows a spirit of conservative caution on the one hand, and on the other hand a spirit of hearty co-operation and enthusiastic support, without which reforms could not be realised, and it is surely unwisdom for anyone to make no distinction between the unsympathetic and the sympathetic spirit, both of which exist within the church. The present social reform in which the liquor trade is the point of attack, can very well be used as an illustration, for it is typical of many reforms. It is true that some of the churches have been marked by the cautious spirit in regard to the remedy, of prohibition; yet these have never upheld the evils, that we. seek to remedy. Vice, crime, poverty and drunkenness have received no encouragement in the teachings of these churches, and within the most cautious there have been many who ns individuals have upheld the policy of complete prohibition. At the same lime other churches have been marked by fullest sympathy and have supplied in the main the leaders, as \vcll as the majority of the rank and file in the movement, so that the prohibition movement can be classed as the church’s attack on the liquor trade with much more, validity than Mr Ernest Watson can claim when he stales, “The church has voted for the liquor man.” And the clear tendency to-day is in the direction Mr Watson would have the church as a whole to take. Everyone knows of the sympathetic attitude of Bishops Averill, Julius and others of the Anglican Church. Regarding the majority vote for State-wide prohibition in Australia, Archbishop Clarke of Melbourne stated recently that he and his church would stand solidly behind the reform. In the Roman Catholic Church, over in Canada and the United States, many of the bishops, favouring Prohibition, have been in the forefront of social reform, and here in New Zealand Bishop Cleary has not been silent concerning the undeniable evils arising out of the drink traffic. “Mount the water waggon and stay there!" is his counsel to everybody. The Presbyterian and Methodist Churches have been, for many years in the van of this reform, and the compelling impulse has been the desire to uplift, not merely labour, but the whole community. What valid ground is there, then, for Mr Watson’s complaint regarding the church and labour that the church has voted for the liquor man? It needs so much qualifying that it completely fails to convince. And in regard to other matters in which labour has just and reasonable claims on the support of the church, it can be contended with equal force that the church will not lie lacking in the recognition of her duty. Labour within the church is a very important section, and the advice of those most sympathetic would be: Cease to assume that the church is antagonistic, for the assumption is ill-based; frown on the policy of those who hold that to light Labour’s battles one must be antireligious; and if the church’s assistance is expected, as apparently it ,8, that relationship with all in the and, I may add, should ho cultivate church whose sympathy can be relied on, and that will give an opportunity for free conference and mutual assis-

tance. The object of the decision arrived at bv tiie Conference of the Method.sChurch held recently in Christchurch was to assure Labour that the church was prepared to pledge herself to give practical assistance in all the just and legitimate aims of the Labour movement. No political partisanship is suggested, nor sought on Labour’s part. ' The greatest good, however, would accrue from frank discussion, ronnd-thc-tahlo conferences and the like, in order to clear away the prejudices that undoubtedly exist on both sides, and I. for one, would relish any opportunity that might be presented of “ lolling in the sunshine.” —I am, etc., E. 0. BLAMIRES.