CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 257, 7 November 1901, Page 3

CHURCH AND LIQUOR.

(To the KditQr of the Tints.; Sn:, — I would be glad of space in your columns to reply in a general way to some of the remarks made by your correspondents on the above subject, and at the -same time tu make clear so far as possible the objections and dithc-uities that are in my mind about the Church interfering in a purely social question, such as prohibi-

tion, and which in it lesser degree equally

apply to local or general politics. If it is : tight for the Church to interfere in prohibition it must be conceded that it would be right for the Church to mix itself up in politics. Has it done so in the past ? bo far as I am aware it has not So, if we are to profit by the Church’s conduct during the many centuries of the past then it- should tell us that in the calm and prudent wisdom controlling the actions of our churches in the past it lias been considered unwise for the Church or its ministers to become embroiled in such

subjects as polities, much less prohibition. Hut while I refer to the logical inference that wo might fairly draw from the conduct, of the Church in the past, so as to assist us in considering if it is prudent for tile Church to become mixed in such sueial questions,

j I would like to say that it was no such i deduction as this that originally weighed j with me when I decided tu oppose prohibition, but it was to my mind a still stronger reason, that was finding not one but several ministers of religion telling deliberate lies in order to assist the prohibition cause, including my own minister and a bishop of my own church ; when I became convinced of this, which I challenge any person to deny, I then became suspicious and distrustful of the prohibitionists, and decided to probe the liquor question to the bottom, which I did, with the result that i learnt prohibition or State control would beget worse evils than drunkenness. Might I ask, under these circumstances, what kind of “ indignation and pain" (which are the words used by one of your correspondents) was awakened in me, and what kind of Hash ami blood do tho prohibitionists think I am made of if 1 did not oppose prohibition and the Church mixing itself up in tho liquor question. Does not the past justify one objecting ? I say and feol that I or an yone else would deserve to be horsewhipped if i quietly sat down and did nothing under those circumstances. With a clear conscience [ again repeat your words, that it is “ disgraceful and shocking" for any Church Synod to mix itself up in this wretched liquor question, especially when it produces and brings to light such characteristics in some of our minis-

ters of religion. Your esteemed correspondent, Canon Fox, by liis letter, in effect acknowledges the true remedy is not yet found, and says

"In God's name let us discuss together temperately what remedies there should be for the evils of drink." Now, sir, regarding the Church this is tho crux of the whole question—to discuss together temperately would he all very- well, but unfortunately they do not, or will not, or cannot discuss this liquor question temperately. The Dunedin Synod passed a resolution that State control shall be tho remedy. Other Synods previously passed resolutions that prohibition shall be tho remedy, and all that remains for members of these respective Synods is to try and force the particular reform the Synod has decided upon, regardless as to whether the particular reform begets worse evils than drunkenness. Is it not wrong for a church to advocate a new law which will produce worse evils than the one it proposes to repeal ? By the church and its ministers putting its seal on any particular reform, naturally with the ordinary lethargic person he thinks it must bo right, and would give it his support without troubling to question or inquire into tile effect of the reform; and if for no other reason than the true reform is not known the church should stand off’ from this question lest they mislead. Need I remind Canon Fox of the disgraceful condition of tho Synod that represented his diocese whon the liquor question was under discussion about two years ago. Can he say from the bottom of his heart it was thero temperately discussed ? 1 say emphatically no, lie cannot, and 1 say also that the general tone of the debate was disgraceful and shocking, so much so that the Synod would not continue tho discussion, and the question was brought to a sudden close by a member moving that the question should go to tho vote without further discussion, which was done, and of all the discussions I have ever taken part in, from a dirty Police Court case upwards, 1 regard the way this liquor question was discussed at the Synod in Napier as the most objectionable and degrading, so much so that after leaving the Synod room I, as a mark of protest, wrote out and sent in my resignation as a member, for if ever I heard insulting remarks flung about during any debate it was then. Yet with all this our friend Canon Fox says let us temperately discuss this matter together. If the Church Synod itself cannot temperately discuss it among themselves, how is it possible for the general public to discuss tho question temperately with the Church'? In fairness to Canon Fox I would like to say that he did not- take an active part in the discussion referred to. very much to my regret at the time.—l am, etc., W. Douglas Lysxar.