What do you think?
Rate this book
Christianity and Social Order
This text asserts that it is the role of the Church to provide the teaching and enunciation of principle upon which the moral foundations of society rests. It is for people of goodwill, inspired by these ideals, to formulate practical policies to carry them into effect.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1942
5 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 15, 2019
This book is dated, and of course it is addressed to concerns that are in some cases specific to the UK. However, much of what he says applies to the Anglo world under capitalism in general, and in fact a lot of it is still surprisingly relevant. There’s some really good stuff in this book, and he explains himself well.
September 29, 2015
This is a good analysis on the social order from a christian view point. Plenty of amazing quotes.
January 11, 2023
Not a fan. It was written in the middle of WW2 and is a sort of backing-out of the Church from national life, a resignation letter in favour of more vigorous secular forces. A weak Thought-for-the-Day mood pervades the book.
Temple sees 2 things clearly: the efficiency of wartime planning, and industrial slums. Use one to abolish the other! He just about sees that Usury, which skews all negotiations in favour of one side, is the root of much of the suffering, but he doesn't do much with the idea. He doesn't see the disastrous implications for culture and for social bonds under a centrally planned economy and welfare state. And the example of the Nazis rules out any appeal to Fatherland as a moderating force to Capitalism.
Temple has 4 themes..
1. "claims of sympathy for those who suffer." This is things like bad housing, but the main ill is being cut off from society by unemployment. But what is the meaning of work, what good is work as a building block of the nation without the mutual tension and satisfaction got via a person-to-person deal between worker and hirer? Without that tension, things fall apart and the suffering Temple can see is replaced by suffering he cannot see.
2. "the educational influence of the social and economic system." istm it is 'Financial' capitalism that makes it hard to avoid alienation in work, because of the limitless power imbalances that credit money and usury allows. The Nazis set up Germany as the common good for both capitalist and worker. Temple can't go there, even though rural England was the very symbol of what was being fought for. Instead he wants to reinstall Christ as the unifier and overcomer of fallen human nature, so dog-eat-dog competition is replaced by competitive saintly emulation. How high industrial productivity ends up as praise of God, instead of Profit, is unclear, as is why the Capitalists and Communists will let the Christians take charge.
3. "the challenge offered to our existing system in the name of justice." Here Temple's priority is Liberation from all economic ties and deals, all the traditional economic arrangements that have found their form as class structures and as English culture. Since all people are equal in the sight of God, he says, I paraphrase, all inter-generational continuities are unjust and ought to be reset. The economic slate ought to be blanked at each generation: he proposes nationalising land, for instance. If society and culture and the meaning they provide are zeroed at the same time, so be it. Temple seems blind to the fierce pride, the fire of culture and society, got from economic conflict. He is not a fighter.
4. "the duty of conformity to the Natural Order in which is to be found the purpose of God." Economic self-seeking disturbs the natural equality of souls... it’s going to be the Church’s business to end the one to enforce the other, ie impose the suffering of suppressing the fallen part of human nature, in order to excise economic suffering. But you’ll still have to work. Suffering is what the Church especially offers. People should not generate and should be prevented from generating hierarchies and inequalities, even though Temple admits people have different natural endowments.
Temple doesn't like normal economic negotiations. At one extreme of the spectrum sits slavery. Maybe it’s off the end, but OK. He sees this, he sees industrial slums as another point, feudal serfdom another, so therefore the whole spectrum and everything built on top is tainted. He doesn't see that the mass outcome of all negotiations, all the struggle, the solidarity, the cooperation, the settled compromises, the rancour and humour, is what constituted the English scene, of Christendom, which he sits, or sat, on top of.
Quote:
"..why I do not simply advocate Socialism or Communal Ownership. ..in one sense we are committed to Socialism already. No one doubts that in the post-war world our economic life must be 'planned' in a way and to an extent that.. The question is how the planning authority is to be constituted and through what channels it is to operate. We can so plan for efficiency as to destroy freedom. Fascism does this. Or we can so plan for freedom that we lack efficiency. Our aim must be.."
Idiot!
Temple sees 2 things clearly: the efficiency of wartime planning, and industrial slums. Use one to abolish the other! He just about sees that Usury, which skews all negotiations in favour of one side, is the root of much of the suffering, but he doesn't do much with the idea. He doesn't see the disastrous implications for culture and for social bonds under a centrally planned economy and welfare state. And the example of the Nazis rules out any appeal to Fatherland as a moderating force to Capitalism.
Temple has 4 themes..
1. "claims of sympathy for those who suffer." This is things like bad housing, but the main ill is being cut off from society by unemployment. But what is the meaning of work, what good is work as a building block of the nation without the mutual tension and satisfaction got via a person-to-person deal between worker and hirer? Without that tension, things fall apart and the suffering Temple can see is replaced by suffering he cannot see.
2. "the educational influence of the social and economic system." istm it is 'Financial' capitalism that makes it hard to avoid alienation in work, because of the limitless power imbalances that credit money and usury allows. The Nazis set up Germany as the common good for both capitalist and worker. Temple can't go there, even though rural England was the very symbol of what was being fought for. Instead he wants to reinstall Christ as the unifier and overcomer of fallen human nature, so dog-eat-dog competition is replaced by competitive saintly emulation. How high industrial productivity ends up as praise of God, instead of Profit, is unclear, as is why the Capitalists and Communists will let the Christians take charge.
3. "the challenge offered to our existing system in the name of justice." Here Temple's priority is Liberation from all economic ties and deals, all the traditional economic arrangements that have found their form as class structures and as English culture. Since all people are equal in the sight of God, he says, I paraphrase, all inter-generational continuities are unjust and ought to be reset. The economic slate ought to be blanked at each generation: he proposes nationalising land, for instance. If society and culture and the meaning they provide are zeroed at the same time, so be it. Temple seems blind to the fierce pride, the fire of culture and society, got from economic conflict. He is not a fighter.
4. "the duty of conformity to the Natural Order in which is to be found the purpose of God." Economic self-seeking disturbs the natural equality of souls... it’s going to be the Church’s business to end the one to enforce the other, ie impose the suffering of suppressing the fallen part of human nature, in order to excise economic suffering. But you’ll still have to work. Suffering is what the Church especially offers. People should not generate and should be prevented from generating hierarchies and inequalities, even though Temple admits people have different natural endowments.
Temple doesn't like normal economic negotiations. At one extreme of the spectrum sits slavery. Maybe it’s off the end, but OK. He sees this, he sees industrial slums as another point, feudal serfdom another, so therefore the whole spectrum and everything built on top is tainted. He doesn't see that the mass outcome of all negotiations, all the struggle, the solidarity, the cooperation, the settled compromises, the rancour and humour, is what constituted the English scene, of Christendom, which he sits, or sat, on top of.
Quote:
"..why I do not simply advocate Socialism or Communal Ownership. ..in one sense we are committed to Socialism already. No one doubts that in the post-war world our economic life must be 'planned' in a way and to an extent that.. The question is how the planning authority is to be constituted and through what channels it is to operate. We can so plan for efficiency as to destroy freedom. Fascism does this. Or we can so plan for freedom that we lack efficiency. Our aim must be.."
Idiot!
July 3, 2023
Despite this book's age, Temple's diagnosis of economic and social ills within modern Western societies still rings pretty true. The fundamental principles he outlines for a Christian approach to social order are good and helpful, but his thought becomes rather nebulous when it comes time to offer suggestions for their practical application. I found it hard to tell if this was due to the book's very specific social location (1940s England), or because his political/economic aims themselves were flawed, or both. Temple was very cautious about being overly idealistic (hence his argument for the value of reform rather than revolution, and his helpful reminder of how Original Sin throws a wrench into any utopian agenda), but perhaps his lack of fervor is partly to blame for him adopting an approach that is too middle-of-the-road to accomplish any real movement toward a healthier society. Still, the book is brief and does contain some good food for thought on the theological side. Just don't expect it to be the quintessential treatment of Christian social engagement. It's merely one contribution to the conversation.
May 24, 2016
Fairly heavy going and outdated. I'm pretty sure I didn't understand at least half of what he was saying and most of it certainly didn't go in, but there were some real gems of wisdom in it too. It was interesting to see that many of the problems in society were there to a greater or lesser degree 70years ago too and the tension between the church and state in the combatting of those issues remains the same.
October 26, 2017
At times compelling and at other times dated. There are gems within this small book. The Gospel truths are what stand outside of time, and are easily relevant to all times. Temple was a great mind gone too soon.
July 30, 2020
Interesting for a) a persuasive vision of how faith can feed into politics and b) an illustration of how many issues just keep coming around and around again
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews