The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1910. POLITICS AND RELIGION.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 760, 8 March 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1910. POLITICS AND RELIGION.

New Zealand has been fortunate in having no experience of the intrusion of religious controversy into her polities or political controversy into her pulpits. When, however, we find some of our politicians using patriotism as the basis of party appeal, we cannot hope that our pulpits will always remain secure from an equal profanation. Any discussion of the relation of the pulpit to politics, therefore, must be of interest to the people of this .country. During the recent British elections: the question was kept very prominently before the public, and gave rise to a great'deal of heat and bitterness. It has recently been discussed, without heat or bitterness, by the Australian press, apropos of a statement by De. Bevan, on the eve of his departure for Adelaide, that although he had strong, views on political and social questions, he never aired them in the pulpit, which he believed should be regarded as "sacred to religious questions." To a large section of, the public Dp. Bevan will appear to.have laid down a principle that is hostile to "the modern spirit." These will bow down in company with the Melbourne Age before "the New Pulpit" ; —"a pulpit up to date and in touch with the life- of the period; interested in what is interesting, capable of refocussing religion and disengaging the Truth from orthodox dogmas, and insisting that it has its duties to fulfil in relation to society, science and the theatre, as well as the abnormal phenomena of the Occult that are recorded in the Jewish annals." A very numerous scction will probably applaud the Age's views. Their appearance of depth and broadness, however, show themselves on a little examination' to be as unsound • as much of the vague quackery 'that f calls itself "progressive thought." By most people—certainly by all those people who are educated in the sense of being ablo to weigh evidence and to distinguish truth from the show of truth (Loed Morlsy's defi-nition)---Dr. Bevan's view will be . admitted as the correct one. As an- » other Australian journal says, seeking for the most practical and mat-ter-of-fact way of putting the case, "people go to, church' because they want; religious food, and not to listen to speeches on philosophy, or science, or an interesting essay .on the higher criticism," or, we may add, least of all to speeches on politics. The British election furnished abundant evidences of the unfortunate things that can happen* when _ politics are permitted to enter the pulpit. Our readers will remember that an Anglican clergyman an-. nounCed that he would hold a special service of .thanksgiving "for the • timely deliverance of Woolwich from , the hands of the Socialists and Sab-bath-breakers"—in other words, for the defeat of Me. Ceooks. But the bulk of'the offences were committed • by the other side. For example, the following advertisement appeared in the West London Observer: "Parliamentary election. Borough of Hammersmith. Special ■ meeting for prayer on behalf of Mr. Blaiklock's candidature. All sympathisers heartily invited. Uxbridge Road Tabernacle, Sunday, January 16, at 8.18 p.m." Many Radical meetings were opened with prayer. In many churches'in which the pastors were violent Radicals the following hymn was sung:— ' . Take mv vote and let it be Consecrated, Lord, to Thee; Guide uiy hand, that I may trace Crosses in the proper place. A Nonconformist preacher was reported as having said: "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for Jesus." The. climax was reached in a leaflet entitled "The National Crisis: An Appeal in the Name of the Highest." After some political argument, the leaflet went on, under the crossheading "What would Jesus Do," and in language too painful to quote at length, to say that "if He were a British elector at tho present crisis it is simply inconceivable that He would support the encroachments of the Lords." Nobody will care to affirm that this sort of thing is good eithor for politics or for religion; yet it is the inevitable consequence of any confusing of the boundaries of religion and politics. Politics have as little to do with religion aB the theatre or any other secular interest. It is usually the weak and inefficient amongst ministers who, out of impatience and restlessness, convert their pulpits into political platforms. It is not by them that , the cause of religion is advanced, but by the strength and patience that realise the magnificence of opportunity in a lifetime of truly spiritual ministry to audiences sympathetic and receptive beyond the dreams of the most ambitious of politicians.