Churches And Labour

( Originally Published 1920 )

Sri, A return to what we know as the old world is not possible. When the value of every man as a soldier, whatever his social status, was found about equal the foundations of a new order of society were laid, and a redistribution of the proceeds of industry an inevitable demand. That better Labour conditions are not incompatible with the recognition of the rights of Capital (which in reality is the product of former labour, and provides the tools for present labourers) is certain. The danger is that the fallacy of the bottomless pocket is not yet apprehended, and it seems as if vast suffering and widespread unemployment, as the result of demands that trades cannot support, will alone teach that there are limits. That the demands are getting beyond reason is mainly due to the ease with which concessions were obtained during the war by those who took no actual part in its terrors.

The Church, as shown by the recent conference of bishops, recognises that it is faced with a new world, but the extent to which the repudiation of tradition and dogma has taken place in the intelligence of the average man or woman is still not apprehended.

The helplessness of Christianity and Established Churches in the terrible years of the war was astonishing even to those who have most lost faith in their power to influence character and conduct. Labour also has justification for regarding the Church as supporting class distinction, and the deference to social superiority which will be obsolete in the new world now in the making. The ecclesiastical endeavour to reconcile its traditions with modern tendencies and enlightenment must fail. What is the plain answer about the Bible ? Is it the Word of God and so infallible or do the Churches now admit we know nothing about " the Word of God " and that the Scriptures are of human origin ? Is the definite statement of St. Paul excluding women from the services of the Church canonical and binding ? Apparently not, as deaconesses with authority to preach are to be admitted. That woman have equal capacity and higher spiritual qualifications may be admitted, but where is the adaptability of the sacred writings to the convenience of the times to stop ?

The faith of the nineteenth century is impossible to those who have studied the histories of religions and creeds—" the higher criticism " and the advances of science but the need and practicability of a much nearer approach to Christian ideals as a rule of daily life would be accepted by " Agnostics," who feel there is some intelligence behind the Cosmos which, as Matthew Arnold said, " makes for righteousness," but of which, if we are honest, we have to admit we know little or nothing. The limitations of human knowledge, even though its borders are extended by a grudging recognition of the truth of some of the phenomena of spiritualism and the inutility of speculation which involves a " God " whose " cause " is beyond mortal mind to conceive, will have to be recognised in the new world which is in troubled birth under the eyes of this generation.—Yours, etc.

A NO-CHURCH CHRISTIAN.

Aug. 24, 1920.