WAR PROBLEMS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2815, 5 July 1916, Page 6

WAR PROBLEMS

ADDRESS BY BISHOP SPROTT . THE CHURCH'S TASK "A PERILOUS CLEAVAGE" SOCIAL EVILS Anglican . Bishop of Wellington (Dr. Sprott) devoted the main part of his presidential address at .the meeting of-, tho Diocesan Synod yesterday to the • consideration of religious, moral, and social problems conneoted with the great war. The address was listened to with the deepest attention, and evoked frequent applause. The Bishop said: Fortitude. "We meet again under the shadow of the: great -war. It might seem that anyone speaking from this chair, could give Utterance to only one desire, viz., for tho ■ epeedy restoration of peace. Doubtless all men have this desire, and if peace Were forthwith declared, a sigh ot immense relief-would pass'through all the warring nations. And yet I think we are bound for the present to keep that de- ■ Bire. in abeyance. If such an instant peace were inconclusive, if it did not secure the ends for which the Allied nations aro fighting, then I think that they are riglit who ; warn us that it would necessariJy be followed by instan- : taneous preparation on a vast scale for a renowal of the war; all our sacrifices would have been fruitless, aud our children bo compelled to do the dreadful Work over again. If such would lie' the pro. bablo issue of an inconclusive peace, ■ then, surely, the most pacific of us all must feel that it. were better.to.fight on. It seems to mo that tho great need of our peoplo at this hour is fortitude—the power to endure and to persevere at all oosts and in spite of all difficulties. _ In the New Testament fortitude—disguised in our." Authorised Version under the : woefully. inadequate rendering 'patience' —is set forth as the indispensable pre. condition of all great and worthy life— 'In your patience, your fortitude, ye' shall win your souls.' One great service which' the Christian people. can render their country is to set an example of high fortitude." , The Church's "Failure." The • Bishop went on to say: "Again and' again havo'wo heard it said that the war has demonstrated the failure of Christianity'and the Church. In what sense and to what extent is this,statement true? To begin with, I take exception to the use, in this connection, of the word 'failure.' The word 'failure connotes, I think, a certain ■ finality, as of a task, once attempted, then found to be impossible, and finally abandoned. Such is' not tho plight of the Christian Church, The Church lias 'failed' only . . in the sense in which the Allied nations have 'failed' in'the war; it has not yet succeeded. Tho fact is, tho Church's task will not'be completed so long as humanity • ■inhabits this'earth, and the only perjon entitled magisterially to pronounce upon its success or failure will be the last man. The statement ' that this war discloses the failure of the Church means that she has. not yet succeeded in eo Christianising the nations of Christendom that the tie of common membership in one family of God shall be by them felt so strongly that they shail freely subordinate their particular interests to the common good; so that war, • • hs a means of settling disputes, shall no longer, be sought.

Nationality. ... "Many persons will say, 'The task you set the is impossible. The only remedy for war is the abolition of the , principle of nationality. So long'as nationality exists, universal brotherhood .and peace are the veriest dreams.' Gentlemen, you . cannot abolish nationality. The war'itself is a war of nationality against a new Imperialism. If any les- ■ son is'taught by history, it is that the ' principle of nationality, is indestructible. Is, then, ■ the Christian' hope of a. universal brotherhood a dream? Is •it true that'the; Christian Church has not only not yet succeeded, but that she ■ cannot possibly succeed, seeing that she is at war with the constitution and course of nature? I cannot think so, and the experiences of the present war afford a ground for my lope. We have seen • that the war, as all wars, oaused a sharp ■ conflict between, the claim of the nation rand the claim of the family,. Well, in order, to get the national claim- reco"-- ; idsed, bad you to abolish, the family or "' even to weaken it? Was the family feeling less strong in young men. who volun- . teered than, in those who remained at home; in. the fathers and mothers who gave their consent and blessing than .in the parents who dissuaded their sons from responding to their country's call? Wo know that it was not. We know that the families which willingly subordinate edrtheir own narrower claim to the naVtion's wider claim were amongst the most closely-knit and truest families in the '. Empire. We know, too, that the sacrifice, so far from -weakening the family, strengthened, purified, exalted it. Many a young fellow upon whom the ties of family sat lightly enongh in tho days of peace, realised, for the first time their • exceeding p'reciousness upon the heights of Gallipoli or. on tho fields of France. 'And when the last fatal telegram came to many a home, amid the agony of that hour there .was .another feeling—the feel,.ing of a noble pride of family scarce . felt before. "Here, then, we have a wonderful sub- .. ordination and reconciliation of the family allegiance to the national allegi- , nnce, by which tho family is not weaken- .; cd, but, on the contrary, strengthened, ennobled, transfigured:. I see no Teason -why there should not bo a lffco subordination and reconciliation of the national allegiance to the wider allegiance of tho universal Christian brotherhood— •,i. subordination and reconciliation which should not destroy or weaken nationality, but strengthen, purify, and exalt it. Cer•tainly it is the goal of human history > as that goal is slowly unveiled to us in the pages of the Bible; it is tho vision and the hope with which the Bible closes —the vision and tho hope of a universal society—tho City of God—in the light of which the nations shall walk and into •- which the kings of tho earth shall bring their glory. To realise it is the Church's task, not yet completed, but one day to ■bo completed. Only our own faithlessness delays its accomplishment. Let us not become faithless, but.believing. Let : the cry of the soldiers of the Cross bo < ours: 'God wills it! God wills it!' "I think the past two years has : shown us much regarding the character and condition of our Imperial and national life. It has sliown us, we thankfully acknowledge, a strength, a power of sacrifice, a heroism, which has perhaps astonished ourselves not less than otller nations. Yes, the war has shown vs much to bo thankful for; but it has also shown us other things, and of one or two of these I wish with the utmost sense of responsibility to speak.

The Cleavage of Classes. "1. Tho war has shown us that not ' anywhere have we attained a complete national unity; that there exists a deep and perilous cleavage between tho classes which together make up tlie Commonwealth. The war has not created this cleavage; it is not duo to the fact that any appreciable proportion of our people is convinced that England is waging an unjust war against a righteous foe. Probably there never has been a war in which there was a wider unanimity of feeling that the cause is just. The cleavage I speak of existed before the war, and we were awaro of it. What tho war has done is to reveal how deep the cleavage is, sincc a common patriotism and a comnnn danger have scarce availed to keep us united. 1 refer, of course. . to the cleavage between Lalxinr .and Capital. All are agreed that this cleavago is one of the problems—perhaps the . problem—which will press for solution .after tho conclusion of the war. "Such, as I understand it, is the great .. contention. It cannot be denied' that ftere is truth in it; though it may not so true now as it was a generation ago, and though it may be more true of certain parts of tho Empire than, of others, more true, 0.g., ia the Mother-

land, with her huge cities and teeming population, than in the more sparsely populated oversea Dominions. It presents a problem of extraordinary difficulty. I am not so foolhardy as to presume to oiler any solution. I refer to it because, while it remains unsolved, there can be no true unity; because it is one, perhaps tho greatest, of the problems with which we shall bo faced after tho war; and because f wish to 111' go upon Christian people that they above all men aro bound to give their best thought, and most earnest ertdoavour to secure a peaceful and a just solution. "Without attempting to solve tho problem, I would make one or two remarks:

"(a) It would, I think, somewhat, allay the bitterness felt by those who count themselves dispossessed, if they would remember that the present system of things is not wholly due to the wickedness of able and unscrupulous men, however true it is that such men have exploited it to their own advantage, as indeed such men would exploit any system. Its roots reach far back into the past, and it is the outcome of a variety of onuses ov?r which the individual, be he rich or poor, has had little control. Human' society is not static, it has not always been organised as it is It has been in a process of evolution in which the individual plays but a restricted part. "(b) It should further be recognised that not all the opposition to, or lack of enthusiasm for, certain programmes of social reorganisation which have been advocated in recent times is due to class selfishness. Some of it is due to a genuine feeling that these schemes, workable enough perhaps in a small, self-sufficient, self-contained community, such as Plato, for example, contemplated, are utterly unworkable in large communities standing in complex relations to the. whole world. Id devising a social organisation for New Zealand, you have got to take India, China, Japan, aud, indeed, the world into consideration. "(c) Opposition, or at, least lack of interest is,- 1 think, engendered by the extravagant claims made for exclusively economic schemes, as if all the ills .to which mankind is heir were duo to imperfect economic arrangements, and as if a more perfect economic . system would bring in the Millennium. The present imperfect economic system did not spring from the ground; it is the expression of imperfect human nature, and bears the imperfections of its origin. There is little hope of any radical improvement in it, apart from aud independent of a radical improvement in human character. The essential vweakness of many modorii schemes of social bettornient lies -in their inadequate recognition of the ethical factor. "(d) I would say, <jn the other- hand, to those who are in possession, that had the explicit Christian'teaching regarding property been faithfully obeyed oy all, as it has always been obeyed by some, the present problem might possibly never have arisen, certainly not in 60 acute and menacing a form. The first teachers in Christianity, as is well known, did not put forward any programme for the organisation or reorganisation of society. It is well they did not. As we have seen, society by its nature is not static, but, evolutional. It follows that a programme whioh would havo worked admirably. in Palestine in the first century A.D. would havo beconio in these later days utterly antiquated, and conld only have been an incubus and a hindrance. Christendom would have been as stagnant as Islam. What the first Christian teachers did do was to enforce a view of property equally applicable to all stages of social evolution—a view which the individual, s? little able, as we have seen,. to control the course of evolution," can at once and always apply within his own sphere. The Christian view is just this, that property is no absolute and irresponsible possession, but a trust, held under God, the only Absolute Owner, to bo administered with an ever present sense of responsibility for the common good. This Christian view is but the application to property of the ethical principle that rights and obligatians are strictly correlative. ■ 'Every right brings an obligation with it; and that not merely 'in the obvious sense that when one man has a right 'other men are under an obligation to respect it, but also in the more subtle sense:that when a man has a right he is thereby under an obligation to employ it for the general good.' This principle holds good of the rights of property as of all other individual rights, and-the observance of it is their sole justification. I do not feel competent to say moro upon this most difficult and comple.i subject;'to say less. In this supreme crisis I should count a serious, failure in duty.

Drinking Customs. "But it is not onlv the cleavage of classes that the war has forced upon our notice. It has also thrown, lurid light upon certain grave social , evils, I shall speak of only two of these:— "I. All the belligerent nations, or at least the Allied nations, hare found that the drinking customs prevalent in their midst were a serious menace to the efficiency required for 'the successful prosecution of the war.. Three at least ot these nations—England, France, Kussia —have felt compelled to adopt more or less drastic measures of. restriction. It is important to notice that other nations besides ourselves have felt this need. It at once (disposes.: of .the gibe that the agitation-amongst British peoj:ies is only one of the periodic attacks of virtue to which, as Macaulay observed, British people are peculiarly liable, but which ha.ppily do not last long. A conviction which' has taken hold of peoples so widely differing from one another—racially, politically, socially and religiously—as British, French, and Russian, cannot reasonably be put down to virtuous hysteria. Testimony to the marked improvement in national health, vigour and output, in a word, in national efficiency*, which has resulted from these restrictive 'measures, i_s borne by the Admiralty, the War Office, the Board ot' Trade, aud by municipal officers and hospital authorities. I think it'is a pity that; we in New Zealand are laggards beyond-others in this matter, and that up to this twenty-third month of the war, . though, much has been said, nothing lias been done in this direction in the interest of national efficiency and in the -interests, of our soldiers. Our own General Synod, in common with other groups of persons, has asked for early closing'of bars in hotels and clnbs during the period of tho war. Ton know how overwhelmingly this has been carried in New South Wales. That it has not, and possibly may not be done here, will, I think, convince many how wise they wero who years ago advocated the nationalisation of the liquor traffic 'as the best solution of the drink problem. Had that system been in force now, that could havp l>oen done in twcnt.v-three hours which has not; been done in-as many months. 1 think that tho opposition to the early closing movement has been ill-advised, and that the issue of it will be. to lend .many people who are not Prohibitionists to the conclusion that, the present system must be abolished in order that- the ground may be cleared for the establishment, of some system which will give the State full control of the- liquor traffic. A Problem of Extraordinary Difficulty.

"IT. But the war has forced upon publie attention an even darker evil, one whoso results are more far-reaching and more hurtful to national efficiency and well-being. Throughout the Empire this most difficult problem is causing much anxious thought. In England a Royal Commission lias just concluded an investigation extending over two years, and in Australia, a Royal Commission w, I believe, now sitting. The State, of course, cannot directly concern itself with the moral aspect of this problem; it possesses no powers by which it can attack the evil at its moral source. All that tho State can do is to check, as far as may be, its evil results. The subject. we know, is under the serious consideration of' our own Government. There are some, it would appear, who would advise the revival of certain Acts which. have been for many years in abeyance. It is a problem of extraordinary difficulty; but I would respectfully arid earnestly urge that our Government, before accepting that solution, thoroughly investigate the reasons which led the English Commission to report against the revival of those Acts. I liave iiot myself seen that report, but I learn.from an article by Sir Malcolm Morris, K.C.V.0., iii the 'Nineteenth Century and .After,' for April, that the Commission did report unfavourably, and the 'Challenge' newspaper for April 23 quotes the passage of the*.report in which the Commissioners say 'that they wish to place on record their view that the evidence they have received, which includes that of feveral Continental ex perts, points to the conclusion that no i advantage wuld accrue from ft return

to. the system of these Acts.' I submit that such an opinion expressed by such a responsible body as the English Eoyal Commission cannot simply be ignored. That urgent action is required is un4pui>ted. The Association lor Moral and Social Hygiene in England have given a weighty warning that the war, far from being a reason for delay, constitutes, on the contrary, an imperative call for urgency, inasmuch .as history :4iows that there is a peculiar liability to widespread outbreaks of the evil in the periods immediately following preat wars. But Sf.ito action, however, wise it may be, is of the nature of a palliative; for any radical treatment of the evil wo must turn to education. It is the Conviction of 6omo of our foremost educationalists that there is needed a radical change in the education of the young, especially of boys, not so much in the school as in the home.

"A Moral Equivalent for War."

"I have touched upon some .of the problems raised by the war. There are others of grave moment which I could name; and- doubtless others, which 110 inan now can name, will spring to light as in the coming years the results of the war unfold themselves. ]t<wero hardly an exaggeration to say that the task which ties before us and our children is little short of a reconstruction of tm world. We cannot liope to see the final settlement in our life time, for even when the tempest of war shall itself have subsided, the mighty ground-swell must continue to heave and roll for generations. Yes; great tasks lie before us. The late Professor Wm. James had a wonderful knack of coining sayings charged with a world of meaning. One. such of these is his remark that we needed 'tb» moral equivalent of war.' He meant, I supposo, that it was futile to oxpucc Uie cessation of war unless you hud- destroyed men's admiration of war, ''and that you could not do that until you had provided some .substitute of equal moralising power. May not that substitute be found in tlio great tasks which lie before us, war itself thus providing its own antidote? Surely these tasks are great enough to call out all Intent courage anil heroism and faith and patience aim self-sacrifice. Surely henceforth 110 one need lead - a stagnant, common-place, ignoble, selfish and aimless life. Yes, the war itself, by the mighty, problems it has raised, the mighty tasks it has set, provides its own moral equivalent. "May God of His infinite mercy make His Universal Church, and' us its humblest members, equal to the high occasion; and-so this war may prove to be, what men have hoped it would be, the end of war."