Dean Fitchett

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2500, 31 October 1922, Page 7 (Supplement)

Dean Fitchett

(of dunedin) On Prohibition and Christian Ethics /Letter from Dean Fitehett to the Editor of the “New Zealand Herald/’ May 6th, 1922.) 6ir, —-In supplement of year Synod report perhaps yon will allow me to give some reasons for which a minister of the Christian religion may find himaelf apposed to Prohibition in principle, , and in conscience bound to vote against ft. Our manual of Christian ethics is the New Testament. In the world of New Testament times, drunkenness was as rife as in the world of to-day. But nowhere is it suggested that this ■vice should be combated by any other . than moral forces. St. Paul, when planting Christian societies in .Gentile cities such as Pbillipi, Thessalonioa, Corinth, taught his converts, that no drunkenness had any part in the Kingdom of God, but his strongest precept on the subject went no further than: “Be not drunk; with wine, whereon is excess.” It would have been easy to say : “Drink no wine”; and, although unable to influence the State as the modern Prohibitionist hopes to do, ms authority would have availed in the Christian societies. But he did not say, “Drink no wine.”

Voluntary abstinence, yes; “it is good neither to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak*’; on principle hrk part, was -willing to no' nesn while the world standeth.” But compulsory abstinence —the idea does not seem .even to have occurred to him. True, it was presented to ham by others —there were Prohibitionists in Bt. Paul’s day; but his estimate of their “Touch not, taste not, handle not” prohibitions was that they had a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and severity to the body, but were not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh.

The early chapters of the Book of Genesis have a story which as in a parable and for all time, shows the moral position of each individual life. In the midst of the Garden stands a Tree of Temptation; two human creatures, innocent and without experience, ere exposed to its fascination. The modern Prohibitionist would have uprooted that tree and oast it out. Or, if unable to destroy it, he would have made it unapproachable. Palisades and barbed wirel So far alien aT© Prohibitionist principles from those under which our life has --been constituted by its Divine Author. St Paul, our chief authority on Chrastion ethics, had no place for compuleion. Drunkenness, in common with v vice of every name, was to be combated by the moral power of Christ s Gospel. A. It. FTTCHETT, Dean of Dunedin.