Render Unto Caesar

The Application of Christian Principles to Politics

"To say that politics are dirty is as true as saying that all churchgoers are hypocrites," said the Hon. Mr. Marshall, addressing the S.C.M. recently. To illustrate their "clean-liness" in New Zealand he said that in all the years in which he had been a Member of Parliament nobody at any time had ever offered him a bribe!

Mr. Marshall went on to point ou the difference between religion and politics. Religion was first of all personal, whereas politics were concerned mainly with the community; religion was concerned with an ideal, perfection, and the failure to reach that perfection, whereas politics dealt with real situations in daily life. Politics he defined as the art of the possible. Thirdly, religion was concerned with eternal life and the faith that this life was not the end and had a meaning, while politics were concerned with present conditions, for no party that offered people prospects of eternal life instead of conditions of security would last long.

However, both were concerned with people. No party could ignore the sacredness of personality and its consequence in administration. The individual was more important than the state and therefore the Christian view of man was a healthy view for a politician to have.

Mr. Marshall then mentioned criminal law, for most crimes were breaches of morality which community consequences. He said the Government would be busy this year with its revision of criminal law compared with modern attitudes—property had been considered more important and people less when the law had originally been passed. In such ways the ideals of Christianity could make an impact on the application of criminal law.

He mentioned the social implications in the gospel of love illustrated—i.e., problems of war and peace—saying that liberty and the inadequacies of democracy were preferable to the limiting advantage of a benevolent dictatorship. The problem of democracy was that as a rule it was the average level that more or less governed. As soon as legislative or moral issues demanding a higher level was discussed, this problem arose.

As an illustration Mr. Marshall mentioned the T.A.B. legislation which proved a bait for discussion) where the illegal was legalised because it was thought that people would gamble anyway.

There was a place for leadership not only in politics but also in the Church, which might help to raise the level a little higher. A leader who was too far ahead of the people in his ideals would soon be lost sight of and would be admired rather than followed; leadership should be just a little way ahead of the people. Personal relations between the government and the governed, as between employers and employees, gave ample opportunity for the application of Christian principles. One should not depend on the government and the members of Parliament alone to set the standard; it was important that the Church exert its influence in these fields. A religious spirit permeated throughout the community could do a great deal to raise the standards. I believe the Church today is exerting that kind of influence," said Mr. Marshall, while stating that this was the most effective influence.

After the talk there was a lively discussion which would perhaps have lasted indefinitely had not supper brought it to a close. In answer to these questions Mr. Marshall stated that moral issues could only be solved by the Church, not by law. Attacked on the question of the party system coming into conflict with Christian principles, Mr. Marshall seemed to imply that freedom to vote on moral issues was the only thing that mattered and that collective responsibility in the cabinet usually led to the wesest decisions. He did not, however, agree that rash promises made in electioneering campaigns were reprehensible. He also said that stable government was impossible without compromise—that was the only way in which one could get the world out of bed, dressed, fed, and back to bed again.

—J. McK.