THE CHURCH AND WAR

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21533, 24 July 1935, Page 18

THE CHURCH AND WAR

Sir,—Why has "Watchful" kept his eyes open only part of the time since the Boer War? I Jail to see any logical connexion in his. reference to that war and the duty of the Church toward war generally. He has come to two definite conclusions: first, that race, colour, creed, and language present insurmountable obstacles to peace; and, second, that the churches would be better occupied in tackling the enemies within and leave the "scrappers" to take care of themselves! In other words until race, colour, creed, and language are either abolished or unified, it is quite useless for anyone to dream of peace and we should calmly sit down and allow all the forces of evil to run rampant! But "Watchful" has apparently completely lost sight of the fact that tackling the enemies of over-work, under-pay, misery, poverty, and distress bring the Church within measurable distance of tackling the enemies without! Modern imperialist diplomacy, which is responsible for international conflicts, to a large extent, lives upon the exploitation of the native races, and by using cheap labour for the production of goods abroad, competes in the world's markets with home workers, reducing their purchasing power and thus causing the evils at home which "Watchful" says the churches should tackle! India is a grand example of such methods. Coal miners are paid from 5d to Is 6d a day in coal workings. Numbers of factories have been built by companies with British capital, the owners of which have transported the necessary machinery from their English businesses. In China the silk filatures, owned by British, French, and, formerly Japanese, companies, employ little children of five years of age in the manufacture of silk! Does "Watchful" actually imply that it is not the duty of the Church to denounce all such practice? I can see no purpose in the Sermon on the Moimt if the Church is to remain silent on all questions of international moment. War is the natural ally of imperialism, without which it would be impossible for European nations to maintain their present imperialist policies. Last, is it a fact that race, colour, creed, and tongue present an insurmountable barrier to peace? To argue that they do is to dethrone reason, the glory of man, and to enthrone the practice of the jungle.—Yours, etc., C. R. N. MACKIE. July 23, 1935.

to urn anrroa o» thh rasas. Sir> —As predicted, the sorting-out process in this momentous issue is well under way. In your columns of Monday there appeared the gist of a sermon by the Rev. J. Lawson Robinson, in which the position was resolved or indicated—in very pith and substance —by the pregnant words of a closing sentence, which testifies not only to an outstanding comprehension and insight, but a clearly dofined determination of purpose, free from doubt or problematic and debatable nonsense. In ■ that sense it indicates the unmistakable hallmark of a spiritual guide arid leader of no mean order. The Rev. J. W. Hayward, on the other hand, in defending his case in the following day's issue of your journal, adopts the attitude more in conformity with the temporising, wait-and-see politician. By the time ho may think he has sorted out the why and wherefore, or the pros and cons, of his next anticipated international upheaval, the lid of hell will again be too far open for him to accomplish anything but to "sool others on" until it closes again, for another season. "The Sermon on the Mount," wangle or misconstrue it as we may, can never mean, or indicate, more than one thing: Either it must be: a reality or a sham! And, if in very deed and in truth, the meek are to inherit the earth, there surely can be only one method which can accomplish—and under one master only—that longprayed for, and yearned for, Divine event. —Yours, etc., E. H. C. RIDDER.

July 23, 1935. [Subject to the right of reply of tha Rev. J. W. Hayv/ard, this correspondence is now closed.—Ed. "The Press."]