THE CHURCH AND WAR

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27402, 15 July 1954, Page 10

THE CHURCH AND WAR

COMMITTEE REPORTS TO PRESBYTERY DISCUSSION OF ATOMIC WEAPONS Two resolutions, embodying the attitude towards war of the public questions committee of the Presbytery of Christchurch, will be sent to the foreign relations committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand. Permission for this was given to the committee by the presbytery at its meeting last evening, after the submission of a report from the committee’s chairman (the Rev. D. K. Boyd). The resolutions read;— “We ought not to allow international relations to drift to the stage of war.

“It is the Church’s duty to examine the causes of war and embark upon a positive type of thinking in relation to these issues, remembering that such a course is difficult without some inside knowledge of foreign affairs.” Mr Boyd said the attitude to war had been reviewed by the committee because of the advent of atomic and nuclear weapons. General meetings had been held, with the object not of issuing a statement, but of indicating the committee's way of thinking and to explore possible lines of action.

The statement that war was evil was obvious. Mr Boyd said, but the causes had to be investigated. Among these the threat of communism was not alone. “New Era Hag Begun” “A new era has* begun in which wt* are faced with the new character of war and by the direct relations between peace and political stability in the world,” said the Rev. W. van Wijngen, speaking on the resolution. “Peace is a consequence of political stability, which is not a matter of the goodwill of a big enough number of politicians, but has to do with political and economic facts, in a great measure beyond control,” he said “That is why a Christian peace movement cannot achieve a solution in itself. A committee of the World Council of Churches could not give a solution; and the Bible does not deal with international relations. It does say

something about war, but this is not enough to guide about the use of the H-bomb. Mr van Wijngen said he would emphasise two things. First, in a decision on the use of the H-bomb, whatever was done would be wrong in one way. “There are many people living under oppression whom it is oiir duty to help,” he said. “We know it would be bad to use the bomb, yet if we do not help, we are also wrong. “Second, it would not be good enough for the Church to try to make a statement against the bomb. That might weaken the front of the free countries. As long as conference is possible between potential enemies, it would be an un-Christian thing to affect public opinion in such a way as to make this conference more difficult. “We must try to encourage countries to relieve the ills which cause wars,” he said.