and do not seek to deal with the arbitrariness and passion in which it has its source. Christianity goes straight to the root of the matter; it seeks to eradicate the evil element in national life and thus aims at producing a complete cure.

IV. POLITICAL CHRISTIANITY

Exaggerated reliance on the coercive power of the State has given rise to a new view of the nature of Christian duty. Those who are responsible for framing any legislative measures which may bring about social reform, have not an easy task in trying to carry them through. There are probably vested interests with which they may have to contend, and there is always a difficulty in overriding private rights in order to secure an admitted public benefit. It is also certain that there will be grave differences of opinion as to the best method of dealing with any particular evil; and those, who are fully convinced of the necessity of State action, may often be much divided as to the form which that action can wisely take. Under these circumstances the bold politician feels the need of extraneous help to strengthen his hands, and is inclined to believe that he has little chance of effecting his purpose unless it can be carried through on a wave of popular feeling. In this way Mr. Lloyd George appealed to a

gathering of the clergy of all denominations at Cardiff in October, 1911, and urged that it was their chief duty as Christian ministers to rouse the public conscience to the existence of some evil, so as to give ample support to those politicians who were endeavouring to devise a remedy and to bring it into operation through the coercive power of the State. He said he had come there to help to rouse a spirit that will compel every party in its turn to deal with these social evils; "and "that," he said, "seems to me to be the sphere of "influence of the churches, not to support par"ticular parties, not to advocate particular meas"ures of reform, but to create an atmosphere in "which it will be impossible for anybody to re"main a ruler of the realm unless he deals with "those social problems. . . . The first thing we "have got to do is to create a temper, a spirit, an "atmosphere that will compel men of all parties "to deal with these problems, whichever party is "in power for the time being. The responsibility "of the churches is this. The churches of Christ "in this land guide, control and direct the con"science of the community. No interest, how

66

ever great it may be, can long withstand the "resolute united opposition of the churches. "Public opinion in this land invariably responds "to the call of the United Churches. ... He did

66

"not agree with the view that the Church was 'concerned solely with spiritual things.... "Those who held this narrow view were false to "the traditions of the Christian Church. To-day "we had greater poverty in the land in the aggre'gate than we ever had. There was a more severe "economic bondage; for labour to-day was not 'always guaranteed sustenance or security-a "condition of things foreign to the darker Middle "Ages.

66

66

66

"What was the function of the Church in refer'ence to social evils? The function of the Church "is not to engage in party brawls. It is not to "urge any specific measures. It is to create an "atmosphere in which the rulers of this country, "whether in the Legislature or the municipalities, "not only can engage in reforming these dire evils, "but in which it will be impossible not to do so."1

66

That a Cabinet Minister should express this view of the function of Christianity is natural enough. Many of the church-going public refrain from taking a very active part in party politics; but those voters, who cannot be counted upon to vote on party lines, may exercise a great influence in turning the scale if they can be induced to intervene; and pulpit addresses might be an effective means of reaching some of the doubtful 1 The Times, December 30, 1911, p. 5.

voters. It is a matter of surprise, however, that these views should have been received with enthusiasm in a large gathering of Christian ministers, since this new opinion assigns such a meagre place to Christian influence. This doctrine would have been indignantly repudiated by the leaders of any of the great religious movements since the Reformation; for the doctrine that the Church is only to be the handmaid of politicians, and to help them to carry on their work implies the degradation of the ministerial office. If the best that Christianity can do is to help the politician to carry through his crude measures for the benefit of the masses, the Church abandons the claim to inspire with high ideals, and to raise the tone of ordinary life. Neither the Presbyterians, who rated ministerial authority so high, nor the Independents, who were so eager to withdraw from the cares and entanglements of secular life, would have regarded the undignified rôle which Mr. Lloyd George assigns them as at all appropriate to the Christian ministry.

Despite his disclaimer, it may be doubted if Mr. Lloyd George really holds that ministers of religion should be content with creating an atmosphere. It is rather a futile occupation; for many years past there has been an active commendation of universal peace, and a propaganda against war

fare. Fifteen years ago the Czar took an active part in promulgating such views through the Conference at the Hague: but the energy of national life demands scope for expansion; it is not to be held back by platitudes. The war in the Far East, the war in the Near East, and the ruthless invasion of Belgium, are striking illustrations of the ineffectiveness of the solemn enunciation of humanitarian sentiment.

To produce the desired result, it is necessary not only to create an atmosphere, but to agitate it into a gale. Such agitation must almost necessarily involve the clergy in active participation in party politics, by signifying approval of the measures of one party, and denouncing the neglect of the other. Party government is, on the whole, the method by which action can be taken in democratic communities. Its disadvantages are obvious, though it has many merits which may easily be overlooked; both parties are agreed on the aims they pursue for the good of the community; they differ as to the means which it is wisest to adopt at any place or time, and as to the relative importance of certain courses of action. In all political action moral questions are involved, as to the bearing of proposed changes of the law on human relationships. There is no