1. Politics
a. Korea
b. Race Riots
c. Vietnam
d. Biafra
e. Northern Ireland
f. Rhodesia
2. Social Concerns
a. Women
b. Homosexuality

1. POLITICS

      Major political issues with which Churches of Christ were concerned during the period 1950-1970 were Korea, race riots in the United States, Vietnam, Biafra, Northern Ireland and Rhodesia.

      a. KOREA

A.C., 1950, p. 340.

      There is a virile church in Korea, numbering approximately half a million members; but large areas in North Korea are still unevangelised. This Korean church has been through testing times before, and has witnessed some of the greatest triumphs of the cross in modern times. The period following the Russian-Japanese war was such a time of crisis. The victorious Japanese army remained in Korea and the proud Koreans found their independence gone. A wave of intense nationalism swept the land, and the nationalistic spirit was manifest within the church itself. The church at that time was the most influential organisation in Korea, and many urged the church to lead the people in a crusade for freedom.

      It was a time of testing for the missionaries and the Korean church leaders. Hotheads within the church allowed their patriotism to inhibit the Christian spirit, and opposed the missionaries and leaders who preached a message of forbearance and forgiveness, and even love, toward the hated Japanese. Some left the church. The Koreans who supported the missionaries were threatened with violence. Meetings were broken up by mobs, but the church as a whole stood by her leaders.

      The whole situation was complicated by the fact that arrangements had been made to transfer the leadership from the hands of the missionaries to the Koreans themselves. The promise had been made to do this, but how could the missionaries hand over the leadership to a church torn by divided loyalties and inflamed by intense national feeling?

      II. The annual week of Bible study was soon to commence. This feature of Korean church life has probably contributed more than any other single factor to the aggressive witness of the Korean church. It is a week when the church leaders gather into various centres to spend the time in intense Bible study in a similar fashion to our youth camps. Farms are left and businesses closed while God's Word is studied. The missionaries, realising the opportunity these gatherings would give to call the Christians back again to the spirit of Christ and to restore unity within their ranks, were much in prayer for God's blessing upon the gatherings.

      The first epistle of John was selected for the studies. The apostle shows plainly that everything depends upon fellowship with God. He also makes it very plain that this fellowship is dependent upon love and righteousness in the believer. This message was a challenge to all feelings of bitterness or revenge in the lives of the leaders.

      At Pyeng Yang over 1000 men were gathered for these Bible class studies in January, 1907. When the meetings began, there was unusual interest. Everyone was conscious that a crisis had been reached. For the first few meetings there was no apparent response. "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar." These passages and others were used of the Holy Spirit to bring conviction to many. Then the break came. At one meeting prayer ended in an amazing time of confession, as man after man arose and confessed his sins, weeping and seeking God's forgiveness. That meeting did not close until 2 a.m. The same thing continued the following nights, until the whole company was completely transformed and no bitterness remained, but only a wonderful feeling of unity and love toward each other and towards the Japanese invaders. That was the rebirth of the Korean church. Those leaders went back to their churches and carried the spirit of love with them throughout the whole land. Their gaze had been turned away from themselves to their Lord. From that time onwards the national interests became of secondary importance to the affairs of the kingdom of God.

      III. War has come to Korea again. The church there is, no doubt, facing another time of testing. But the present crisis, although centred in Korea, is having repercussions throughout the world and in our own land. Times of war are always times of crisis for the church. The danger is that the strong national feeling engendered will eclipse the spirit of love in the life of the individual believer.

      To fight, or not, sometimes becomes the issue, but this is not the real issue. This is a matter where we must allow liberty of conscience. But there is an issue where the New Testament speaks so plainly that there is no room for two opinions. It concerns the spirit which we manifest towards our fellowmen. Our saviour commands us, "Love one another," "Love your enemies." The Christian attitude must be one of love to all men, at all times, and under all circumstances. There is no exception to this. John says plainly, "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar." This attitude of love was demonstrated by Jesus towards his disciples, towards Judas who betrayed him, and towards those who crucified him. His utterance from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," breathes a spirit that is not of this world, yet it is the spirit his followers are called upon to manifest. If

we fail to show this spirit we are not Christian. "If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

      The real crisis facing the individual Christian in time of war is whether this attitude of love towards all men will be driven out of the heart by feelings which begin in a sense of justice and self preservation and end in bitterness, hatred and revenge. If we are resolved to remain Christian at all costs, we must decide whether this spirit can be maintained.

      Will our participation in war foster this spirit which Christ commands his followers to manifest, or will it drive it from our hearts? These are questions which every Christian must face. This crisis is facing many within the ranks of the church in our land to-day. It can best be decided from a restudy of the word of God, always remembering that love is not a matter of opinion but of command. As the Apostle John reminds us, "This commandment have we from him. That he who loveth God love his brother also."

      b. RACE RIOTS

A.C., 1964, April 7, p. 12.

      Jesus was confronted by a race crisis. It was inevitable. Men, because of their failure to live in relationships of love, have divided over many issues, and one of the persistent ones has been race. Did not the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans?

      Racism is manifesting itself today with renewed strength. It is a serious challenge to the Church the world over. In some lands it can be seen in the injustices of the white race against the colored (as in South Africa), or in aspects of nationalism of newly independent peoples (e. g., Cyprus), while in others it is viewed as the means whereby the values of the "white civilisation" may be retained (parts of the U.S.A.).

      What has Christ to say to his Church--and through his Church to the world--about the race crisis?

BE A REALIST!

      Jesus neither ignored the problems of race nor over-simplified them. Racism is not simply an issue over the color of a man's skin. There are other powerful factors to consider.

      Economic:--the poverty of one race and the richness of another. One writer could have been speaking of many non-white people in 1964 when he said of the Jews of the eighteenth century; "First, you cripple the Jews, and then you blame them for limping."

      Educational:--the differences in standards between races in one community, due not to the lack of ability of one but to the deliberate withholding of opportunities by the other.

      Institutional:--the building up of past individual prejudices into a way of life sanctioned by law. The sins of one generation are truly inherited by succeeding generations, and they are less easy to overcome than they were to acquire.

      Religious:--religious groupings may coincide with racial groupings and so reinforce them, or else religious arguments may be used to suggest divine sanction for such divisions.

ATTACK THE BASIC CAUSE!

      In his book, An American Dilemma, the eminent Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal stated: "The American Negro problem is a problem in the heart of the American. It is there that the interracial tension has its focus. It is there that the decisive struggle goes on." In being realists we must examine the factors of economics, politics, education and law, but behind all these lies the moral factor, and whatever changes occur in these fields the crisis is not overcome until there are changes in attitudes.

      Did not Christ say: "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks?"

      An evil heart is not necessarily a malicious heart. While the use of electric cattle prodders on Negroes may appear to be a sign of maliciousness, it is more likely that such action is due to something which we all possess to some degree--prejudice.

      Prejudice is not inherited, it is learned. It is, as the word implies, a pre judging of a situation on inadequate information. Roger H. Crook, a Baptist minister reared, educated and ministering in the South of the United States, claims that "most southern white people who have sanctioned the pattern of segregation have not been malicious, but uninformed. They have been prejudiced, for they have accepted as valid, without examination, the system and have been convinced that such is the only pattern for a satisfactory way of life." The same could be said of most other people where racial crises exist.

      This is due partly to a "conspiracy of silence" at the top-level. For instance, while lesser achievements of white men receive great public prominence, the singing of Marian Anderson, the poetry of James Johnson, and the public service of Ralph Bunche, who happen to be Negroes, are all but neglected by the press.

      But the major problem lies at the local level. There is a lack--even a total absence--of communication between races which breeds mistrust. Each talks loudly about the other to a third party and never with the other. Legislative action is undoubtedly desirable in many areas, but this will not touch the basic cause, which is the lack of personal relationships between people.

      Mere condemnation of racial prejudice does not solve this. Nor does the exhortation to be "color-blind." What is needed is a continuous determined effort to bring people together so that relationships of trust can develop.

LOVE IN DEED!

      The essence of the teaching of Jesus concerning race is: "Love God . . . love your neighbour." There can be constructive communication between people only when love exists. Love is not a sentimental gushing over one who is kindred in spirit, beliefs and race, but the will to accept both the lovely and the unlovely as people because they are all creatures of God.

      No doubt we would reject the idea that people of one race are all unlovely. But that is not the point. There are many who in fact do believe that. Christ speaks to these people. They are not called upon first of all to change their views of another race, but they are called upon to love what to them is the unlovely. In this relationship of love new understandings are born and men are changed.

      In other words, too often the solution of racial crises is seen in changing the views of one side. But Christ--and therefore his Church--ministers to all people, the oppressor as well as the oppressed, the greatly prejudiced as well as the less prejudiced. And he does this by setting forth again and again the truth about his own nature and about human relationships--love.

      And who bears the price? As always Christ does. Once he bore it in the flesh. Now he bears it through his Church. The way has never been easy. It has never offered easy answers to all problems. But it is the way of God.

      Last year I lived in a country that was experiencing a racial crisis. Everyone was aware of it. This year I live in another country in the midst of racial crisis. Few realise that it exists. But Aborigines are ignored, Asiatics are unwanted and the values of "white civilisation" receive the sanction of law. Here in our own land Christ still is confronted by racial crisis.

      c. VIETNAM

A.C., May 7, 1966, p. 8.

      Having lived for most of my life in two countries where conscription for overseas military service is taken almost for granted, I've had some difficulty in understanding Australian thinking on this issue. The idea, apparently widely shared among Australians, that only volunteers should be sent overseas is unique; it is not widely held in any other country. That is not, of course, to say that it is wrong; but this fact has made me cautious as I've begun to think about it.

      I've also hesitated to write about it in these columns, because my articles here are always attempts to present a Christian view (not the Christian view, but my ideas on what the Christian view should be) on world affairs; and I've found it difficult to see much connection between Christian principles and conscription as a general issue. I do see some connection, though it's rather indirect; more of this later. But now that Bishops have entered the fray, I feel bound to comment, if only on their comments.

The Bishops' Statements

      In his April 3 sermon, in Sydney, Bishop Moyes was, I think, exaggerating almost unpardonably when he compared Christ's crucifixion to the sending of National Servicemen to Vietnam. Just as the Jewish leaders had been prepared to sacrifice Christ, he said, the Government seemed to think it was expedient to sacrifice some young men in Vietnam.

      However good a cause--and I have the greatest respect for Bishop Moyes and his cause--the use of unrealistic language like this to rouse emotions illegitimately can do only harm Reason should guide emotions, not be warped by them.

      On the other hand, when the three Coadjutor Bishops who issued a counterblast statement, suggested that the Government probably knew more than it has told us, I am sure they were talking nonsense. If the Government had any information that would help to justify this war they would surely, in view of all the bitter debate, have given it to us by now. I cannot imagine any kind of information of this character that would need to be kept secret.

      I can believe that the Government feels the public does not appreciate the true nature of the situation; but this is a different matter. And are we to abdicate our judgment to the government? Some of their attempted justifications of their policy have certainly been quite implausible.

Is Christianity Relevant to Conscription?

      Has Christianity any bearing on conscription? As I've stated above, it seems to me any relationship must be fairly indirect. It must depend on the connection between Christianity and democracy, which is, surely, that since Christianity insists on the need for us all to live according to our individual consciences, it implies the need for a democratic system of government.

      But what do we mean by a "democratic system?" It seems to me there are two main aspects of democracy; (1) minimum direction by the government, consistent with adequate meeting of community responsibilities, of the life of the individual; (2) maximum participation by the people in, and control of, the process of government, consistent with adequate efficiency.

      Obviously there can be conflict between these two aspects. Some people place the greater stress on one, some of the other. Some people want much more activity on the part of the government than others, and would regard themselves as equally democratic in outlook.

Conscription and Democracy

      Because I believe the Christian stress on brotherhood implies a strong sense of community, I generally find myself among those who want to see governments playing an active role. I feel there are many community responsibilities we are not meeting adequately, many manifestations of common concern we are neglecting.

      Moreover, I feel we Australians have an unfortunate tendency to think of the government as "they" instead of "we"--to forget that we put it into power, and that it acts on our behalf. (And that if we disagree with the way it is acting for us, one way we have of showing this is to vote against it at election time).

      It is also an important principle of democracy that generally the minority must abide by the decision of the majority. On the other hand, the majority must not override the legitimate rights and liberties of the minority.

      Applying all this to the conscription issue, it seems to me that though many Australians who oppose the idea of sending conscripts overseas are stressing the "minimum direction" aspect of democracy. They seem to feel that the right to make the ultimate decision whether to risk his life in the defence of his country is an important right of every male citizen; but they who seem to be generally agreed that this right may and must be over-ridden if insufficient volunteers are available to meet the particular threat.

      Even though soldiers are still fighting in the defence of their country when overseas, the directness and seriousness of the threat is likely to decrease the further the fighting is from our coasts. The government is likely to want to commit fewer men the less immediate is the threat; and therefore the number of volunteers available is likely to match the urgency of the menace.

      Since it does appear to give an important liberty to the individual, this system seems to have a great deal to commend it, if it can be used successfully. And so far it appears to have been used successfully.

      But I still have some misgivings. Did it succeed in 1939-45 through the use of moral pressure? Was the frequent call in the C.M.F. for volunteers for the A.I.F. a form of pressure that was too strong for most men to withstand--if so, I would prefer conscription. Some have told me it amounted to strong pressure; others have informed me it did not. In my experience, once a man is in uniform the pressure upon him to conformity in thinking is enormous.

      Certainly all Christians, I believe, must strongly favor a system of exemption for those have a genuine conscientious objection to military service.

The Case of Vietnam

      All this is general comment; what about the particular present situation? I believe the government could have obtained enough volunteers for the present fighting without much difficulty, and it is most unwise and unjust to make use of conscripts, especially when so many people have genuine doubts about the justice and wisdom of the war.

      If it is thought better generally to use volunteers, why not in this case? If large numbers were required, it might have been different; but since so few are being sent it is blatantly unjust that those selected are given no choice. Especially when their dispatch is a political gesture rather than a serious military contribution.

      And Christians are concerned about injustice.

A.C., July, 1967, p. 9.

      I have often argued in these pages that one of the most helpful means to working out a Christian approach to current affairs is to treat the behaviour of nations like the behaviour of individuals. Just as Christian guide-lines for individual behaviour produce good results in practice because they are based on the realities of human relations, so the same guide-lines often apply as well to international relations, because nations behave towards each other very largely as people behave.

      The recent Israel-Arab conflict seems to me a good example.

      There was a good deal of discussion when the short war broke out on who was the aggressor; and this discussion continues in the United Nations. Many commentators have argued that the Jews were the aggressors; they attacked first. Jewish denunciations of the closing of the Gulf of Akaba as a crippling blow to their economy are, they argue, only a pretext; only about ten per cent of Jewish imports came through the port of Eilat.

      I submit that these commentators are wrong. If one follows the letter of the law they have a case. The Jews did go into military action first. But it is part of the Christian approach to behaviour that formalities are much less significant than what underlies them. It is the spirit, not the letter of the law, that counts.

      The Arabs were the aggressors, I submit, because for nearly 20 years now they have constantly threatened to destroy Israel. They have refused to discuss compensation and settlement for the Arabs who became refugees at the creation of Israel because to do so would be an admission that the state of Israel will continue to exist. Continual open hostility and the final adoption of a threatening posture, including Egypt's insistence on the withdrawal of the U.N. Force, provoked the Jews to hit first.

      This reaction was only to be expected. In international relations, as in human relations, hostility breeds hostility.

      Another Christian guide-line, as I understand Christ's teaching, is never to brood over wrongs. Perhaps the Arabs were wronged over the creation of Israel; there is much to be said on both sides of the question, and possibly the Arabs were treated unfairly in what was a difficult situation. Perhaps most of the nations concerned acted unwisely, shortsightedly, out of self-interest, and with insufficient consideration for the Arabs. (There would be nothing surprising about this).

      But two wrongs never did make a right. Israel exists, and will never be destroyed; the past is past.

      It is too easy, I know, to counsel forbearance and forgiveness to those who feel they have been wronged; but in this case it can perhaps be hoped that a reasonable and realistic spirit may be fostered partly by bitter experience. Three times now the Arabs have fought the Jews; every time they have been trounced and humiliated, and many of their young men have died unnecessarily.

      Let us hope that the Arabs now accept the existence of Israel, co-operate with the Jews and the U.N. to resettle the refugees (one difficulty the U.N. has faced in looking after them has been that in giving them an adequate food supply it has made the refugees wealthy compared with their peasant neighbours), and live and let live with the Jewish national state.

A.C., Dec. 23, 1967, p. 11.

      The attention of any person considering objecting to military service on the grounds of conscience is drawn to these points:

      1. You are exempt from all liability to render military service if your conscientious beliefs do not allow you to undertake either combatant or non-combatant military duties.

      2. You are exempt from liability to render combatant duties but liable to render non-combatant duties if your beliefs do not allow you to engage in the former but allow you to engage in the latter.

      3. Your objection need not be a religious one. The National Service Act allows objections based on humanitarian or other appropriate grounds.

      4. If you have registered under the Act and you have a conscientious objection to military service you should consider consulting a lawyer. The Conscientious Objectors' Advisory Committee, 133 Orrong-rd., Toorak, or the Conscientious Objectors (Non-Pacifist), Box 212 OT, G.P.O., Melbourne, will help you in this regard.

      5. The first step in objecting is to fill in a document called Form 7. You are required to state the facts on which you support your objection. This form may be obtained from the Department of National Service or a District Employment Agency. When completed it should be handed to the Department before you answer a call-up notice.

      6. You will in due course then be notified to appear before a Magistrate who will hear your case and decide whether or not you are to be granted exemption. You will need witnesses to corroborate you at the hearing. This is where you require the assistance of a lawyer or some person skilled in Court procedure.

      7. If you lose your case you can appeal and have it re-heard by a County judge.

      8. Even if you lose your appeal you can again apply to a magistrate (and, if necessary, appeal again from his decision) if in the meantime your views have changed. This could be by those views becoming stronger or clearer.

      9. While any application or appeal is pending you cannot be called up for military service.

      10. Even if you have commenced service you may apply for exemption under the Act, but in this event your application must be based on a conscientious objection formed after you commenced service and not before.

--Inter-Church Committee on Peace.      
Member Denominations: Anglican Church. Baptist Union.      
Churches of Christ. Congregational Union. Methodist       
Church. Presbyterian Church. Society of Friends.      

      d. BIAFRA

A.C., 1968, p. 393.

      Dark, deep and complex are the passions of human beings. Africans generally have the reputation of being happy, friendly, easy-going people, yet not long ago in the Congo, and now in Nigeria, senseless and cruel slaughter is taking place.

      Self-government and democracy did not come easily to Africa. In nearly every state democracy has broken down. A glance at Africa reminds us that democracy is a sophisticated system of government, dependent more than we tend to remember upon mutual trust and toleration, and respect for order. It can hardly endure when emotions take charge.

      Over most of Africa mutual suspicions, bottled up for many years by colonial rule, have been too deep and strong. The detribalised coastal African against the tribal African of the interior; the educated, ambitious young men against the bewildered, fearful elders; language group against language group. And

the pickings of graft and demagoguery have lain too ready for the taking. (Some writers have pointed out that democracy has never worked successfully yet where there was no middle-class).

      The tensions have long been building up in Nigeria. When the British left, they had great difficulty in designing a federal constitution that had a chance of holding the country together. If made too strong at the centre, it would be likely to blow itself apart; if too decentralised, it would disintegrate, the British feared, from centrifugal forces. They compromised, but still have been unsuccessful.

      The Moslems of the northern region, proud and conservative descendants of Semitic peoples who came out of the Sahara and imposed their emirates on the negroes, have suspected the easy going but radical Yoruba of the West--who live in large cities and for centuries have traded up and down the African coast. Both have hated and resented the Ibos--a vigorous, thrusting people who came out of the jungles of the Eastern Region with nothing to lose and everything to gain by penetrating the society of the West and North. In recent years Ibos have advanced everywhere, into positions in the civil service, the police, the army and commerce. Their political party even won seats in the West.

      Now the floodgates have burst. Impatient at the resentment against them the Ibos formed Biafra and tried to break away from their neighbours. Fierce and bitter civil war has resulted.

      It is not for us to sneer; it is not so many years ago in history that the European Crusaders, on their holy mission, sacked cities and countrysides that refused to be denuded of food. Is blind, vengeful anger in Nigeria worse than unfeeling cruelty in Vietnam? Or than the systematic annihilation of the Jews, or the cynical murders of Stalinism?

      The African states have to grow into stable political communities; and we shall have to hope and pray that there will not be too many Congos or Biafras in the process. The more quickly the African states become prosperous the sooner they will be stable; but let us hope they will develop into more sensitive political communities than ours. Meanwhile those of us who are in education (and possibly many others) frequently meet Africans touring Australia, diligently seeking better to equip themselves for the devoted, difficult, conscientious work they do in their homelands. To meet them is to learn that not all Africans are bitter and belligerent.

      e. NORTHERN IRELAND

A.C., 1970, p. 382.

      Belfast, or parts of it at least, is a dangerous place in which to live. It is even a perilous place to talk about. Recently the "Aust. Christian" published a White Paper on events in Northern Ireland and a correspondent later took the author to task for having "an anti-Protestant slant."

      It is trite to point out the paradox that, in the name of Christianity--the religion of love--people in Northern Ireland have been committing bitter acts of violence against each other. To their shame Christians have spent a large proportion of the time since Jesus was on earth, killing and burning each other in the name of Christ.

      All of us, I imagine, have had the experience of hearing bitter and hateful thoughts expressed by Christians against groups professing another form of Christianity. In Ireland such feelings are fostered by memories of injustices and fears by minorities of majorities. And bitter memories are slow to die; the present writer and, I imagine, many readers have seen blows exchanged here on the other side of the world over what happened at Glencoe 200 years ago.

      Even when there are no such memories, Christian bitterness can arise out of a feeling of need to defend and preserve a belief that seems sacred. Psychologists would say that often hostility can arise from insecurity; that the man who is aggressive against beliefs that conflict with his own may be acting this way because, deep down, he is unsure about his own beliefs.

      But does the modern tendency towards complete toleration--to argue that every man can believe what he pleases--go too far the other way? Can we approve a man's beliefs if they are demonstrably wrong? And many common beliefs are demonstrably wrong.

      Of course, it is much more to the point, and occurs much more often, that we encounter beliefs held by other people which we believe to be wrong, but which we cannot prove to be mistaken. We cannot accept them, but we cannot insist that they are wrong either. We are right to be critical of them, though only if we are equally prepared to listen honestly to other people's criticisms of our beliefs, and to examine our own beliefs, and to re-examine and analyse theirs. The main purpose of toleration is to foster penetrating discussion.

      I believe it is the duty of Christians to pressure God's truth to the limit of their ability. In a community of Christian love, such as the Campbells sought to create, people would be aided in carrying

out this duty. The climate of loving toleration would foster honest, open-minded dialogue and sensitivity to others' insights; men would be helped in sifting out the true from the false in their thinking. A utopia? Well, is the Kingdom of God, of which we claim to be citizens, a utopia, too, and to be dismissed for that reason?

      The intolerance and accompanying violence in Ireland is wrong because violence and hatred are always wrong. They do not help, but hinder, the pursuit of God's truth and understanding of his will for us.

      f. RHODESIA

A.C., 1972, p. 175.

      Your readers may be interested to learn of two reports I have received from Rhodesia--especially in the light of the defenders of the Smith regime who claim that people detained under government edict have an appeal to a Tribunal. The "appeal" by the way is not a "right," but an attempt by the government to give a legal front to a political action; the tribunal reviews the position of detainees at least every twelve months.

      The first report is from a report by a tribunal judge and two of his assessors on Feb. 8, 1971. The judge said; "Detention is not to be regarded as a punishment for what a detainee has done in the past, but as an administrative expedient designed to prevent him doing anything in the future which would imperil the safety and order of the State."

      This is democracy? Or even defensible?

      The second report concerns the nature of the tribunal: ". . . held in camera. If a detainee appears before it and later reports what has been said, even what he himself has said, he is liable to a fine of up to $1,000, or two years' imprisonment or both. Laws of evidence or procedure applicable to legal proceedings do not apply. Privileged information from informers may be given to the Judge but withheld from the detainee on the grounds that security might be imperilled if the detainee were to know who made the accusations or the content of them. No decision is announced by the Judge; he provides a report to the government 'concerning the expediency of continuing the detention.'"

      It is rather difficult to distinguish this procedure from that of a police state--which is what Sir Robert Tredgold, former Chief Justice, has called it. No wonder some detainees have been under arrest for more than eight years, without trial or even formal accusation--held for what they might do.

      Incidentally, the authorities seized documents from the Todd home dating back to 1953, no doubt in the hope of incriminating the Todds in something. The documents yielded nothing and have now all been returned.

      In one respect the Todds are lucky--at least their detention has caught the attention of the world press and created a real picture of what the Smith government does and is. Equally significant is the less publicised detention without trial of many African leaders and the recent report of a Rhodesian weekly that ten chiefs and headmen have been suspended from their jobs by the Smith regime because they dared to say NO to the Pearce Commission investigating African reaction to the proposals for settlement between the British government and the Smith regime.

      Australian M.P.'s and the Government itself are guilty of supporting this regime--some M.P.'s openly and vigorously, the government by default since it refuses to apply fully the U.N. sanctions, as it publicly claims it does. Items: granting of visas to visit Australia to Smith officials; supply of wheat to Rhodesia "on humanitarian grounds" when everyone knows the Africans don't eat wheat; refusing to prosecute or expel persons who have flouted the Customs regulations and diplomatic privilege by importing Rhodesian publicity films illegally; permitting a Rhodesian publicity office devoted to promoting the Smith cause. The American and other governments are equally at fault with half-hearted acceptance of their own sanctions undertaking. It is hardly surprising that black Africa regards our promises of any kind with cynicism.

2. SOCIAL CONCERNS

      The two social issues briefly treated in the documentation are the status of women and homosexuality. Debate also raged during the period over the question of abortion. Two pamphlets were

written on the issue: Dr. T. Banks, Abortion Law Reform, The Pamphlet Club, March 1969, No. 167 and V. Longthorp, "Morality" also came in for treatment in R.N. Gilmore, The New Morality . . . and the Old, The Pamphlet Club, Aug. 1967, No. 148.

      a. WOMEN

A.C., 1972, p. 115.

To the Editor,

      The age old discrimination against women as if they were inferior to men, is finally being exposed for what it is; un-Christian rationalisation for employing a full-time woman servant, to slave without respite for remuneration well below the basic wage. We do not only condone such inhumanity, but even in the light of Christ's example, can hypocritically claim that those who are "liberated" are indulging in sinful rebellion against our Lord's teaching. How blind we are to the truth, the truth that Christ claimed would set us free.

      Those who stand for such slavery quote as their support, verses like Ephesians 5:24. It is perfectly true that this verse, taken out of context, demands total subjection of the wife to the husband. We are always ready to condemn those who quote out of context, but in ourselves we call the fault a virtue, and live by the false teaching that results. In the same epistle (6:5) Paul entreats slaves to be obedient to their earthly masters. Yet this verse never seems to have the same effect on us. No one expects us to rush out and procure ourselves a slave, or alternatively offer ourselves to an earthly master as slaves: (unless we happen to be of the female sex of course, and then such bondage is considered duty).

      Paul, in his writing, advocates that we make the best of existing conditions; and at that time these conditions included slavery and subjection of women to the tyranny of men. The ideal conditions are shown in Galatians 3:28--". . . there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

--(Miss) Andrea Champion, A.T.C.L. (W.A).      

      b. HOMOSEXUALITY

A.C., 1968, p. 142.

To the Editor,

      G. Setsman ("A.C.," Feb. 24) raises two matters that require comment.

      1. Certainly there is some truth in his point that our Departments of Social Services lack finance and research facilities to enquire into the matter of homosexuality. Yet it is not the whole truth.

      (a) Much research has been done. But it needs to be studied, understood and disseminated by the Church.

      (b) Other denominations have commissions guided by professional laymen, digesting the material available and preparing guidelines for the Church. All at little financial expense.

      (c) Where our departments may be limited is in the availability of professional guidance, within the departments and the Brotherhood at large.

      2. In answer to my question as to what the Bible says, Mr. Setsman cites 1 Cor. 6:9 (which commonly read suggests that no homosexual will 'possess the kingdom of God'); then adds that he does not 'ignore the medical and social problems.'

      Perhaps, instead of asking what the Bible has to say, I should have said, 'What does the Word of God say?' There is a difference. The Bible is a complex set of writings of widely varying types. It is the testimony of writers of that which came to them as the Word of God. It is not a source of infallible knowledge. In the 20th century the Word of God to us will consist of different words, for God is addressing us in a different situation. It will be that living communication from him by which we find ourselves addressed and claimed for his purpose. The insights of the Bible are not to be ignored, but the insights of doctors, psychiatrists and social workers are just as surely the Word of God being spoken to us in our concern for the homosexual.

      We cannot lift a 1st century comment on such an issue and apply it to the 20th century.

      What is the Word of God for the homosexual? What is the good news? Is it that he will not possess the kingdom of heaven? Is this the good news for one conditioned by biology, physiology and environment that for him (or her) homosexuality is the expression of life? Is the good news, news of redemption and acceptance or is it a judgment on his condition?

      These are the questions that such quoting of texts will not answer.

--Alan Matheson (Vic.).      

[NOF 616-625]