CHRISTIAXITI AND SOCIALISM. 



87 



It is the old problem of conservative reform — not using the word 

 in a purely party sense. The atmosphere of the East end is one of 

 cheerful and patient endiu*ance. But it may not always be so. 

 All around is the fonus pfcoiti. 



Lieut.-CoL Al\'ES said : The previous speaker has remarked that 

 Christianity has proved a failure in dealing with social problems. 

 But Christianity (as such) has nothing to do with such problems. 

 Its object is to call out people to foiTQ a special body to bear 

 witness by its conduct to those without it that they are not lining 

 as God intends us to live. 



One cause of failure has been the application of Xew Testament 

 laws, which form the Church of God, with those of the Old 

 Testament, under which nations live. Another cause has l>een 

 confusion l>etween the teaching of the lirst three (synoptic) gospels 

 with the fourth (the Church) gospel. 



The synoptic gospels deal with the Kingdom of Israel, which, as 

 a nation, was shortly to be broken up. Getting rid of property 

 was, therefore, only anticipating voluntarily what would, in a few 

 years, l>e compulsory. 



Professor Laxghoexe Orchard, M.A.. B.Sc. — There is no 

 doubt as to the prevalence, amongst a portion of our population, of 

 much social distress and wretchedness : nor can this be a matter of 

 indifference to a Christian. But, obviously, the misery is not a 

 result from Christianity, it is in spite of Christianity. 



Nothing can more unfair than to attempt to charge it upon 

 Christianity. The Bible bids us love our neighbours as ourselves, 

 and, as we have opportimity, do good unto all men. It is in the 

 carrying out of Uu-?^: principles that the true betterment of society 

 is to be sought. Socialism would make matters a thousand times 

 worse than they are. Socialism is the great enemy of Christianity. 

 It has l>een pointed out* that while Christianity says, '* Mine is 

 thine," Socialism Si\vs. -Thine is mine." The sole agreement 

 between the two systems Hes in a desire to ameliorate society. They 

 differ radically in aims and methods, as the author conclusively 

 shows on p. ^^2. Socialismf would make no distinction between merit 

 and demerit, between clever and stupid, between industrious and lazy; 



* By the late Dr. Adolf Saphir. 



t If we may beHeve some of its iiiduential spokesmen. 



