The Church as a Social Force

Abstract

THE mass meeting held at the Albert Hall, London, on September 26, was convincing evidence of the keen interest that is shown in the Church as a social force, especially in view of the fact that many times more applications for tickets were made than the huge hall could accommodate. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Lord Privy Seal were supported by ambassadors, bishops and representatives of various religious bodies, commerce and industry at this meeting, which was arranged and organized by the Industrial Christian Fellowship as a sequel to the Malvern Conference of 1941. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has shown a keen interest in, and done splendid work for, the social life of the country, and has already made valuable suggestions towards social reconstruction, emphasized that the Church has both a right and a duty towards declaring and supporting those principles which should govern the order of society. This is, after all, the natural sequence to the universally recognized duty of the Church to lay down principles for the conduct of individuals, the only difference being that the Church should now extend her influence to society, that is, groups of individuals. In the past, by ignoring society, fellowship has either not been fostered or has been broken where it existed, thus resulting in gross disparity of wealth and poverty, lack of leisure and so forth. The predominant motive guiding enterprise in the past has been that of profit. In the future, this must be put in its proper place, for it is not only an expression of selfishness but is also clearly not in the general interest. For the promotion of the general welfare there are two special problems, namely, land and money. The traditional Christian principle still holds good, that the right of property was a right of stewardship-never exclusive use. Therefore the Uthwatt Report, which aims at the combination of the advantage of public ownership and ultimate control with private initiative, is to be welcomed. So far as money is concerned, banks, now more or less amalgamated, should be limited in power to the amount deposited by their clients, while the issue of new credit should be a function of public authority.