THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978. The churches and terrorism

Press, 28 August 1978, Page 16

THE PRESS MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1978. The churches and terrorism

Since the Salvation Army has questioned the World Council of Churches about its grant of money to Rhodesian terrorists, the council has an unusually good chance to explain its policy. When the Salvation Army suspends its membership of the W.C.C., as it did last week, the doubts of others about the wisdom of the grants are bound to be reinforced. Failure to dispose of these doubts can only compound the cynicism accorded by many to the W.C.C. generally, for its particular policy on aid to terrorists.

The argument is not about whether the terrorists of the Patriotic Front in Rhodesia have a just cause, or whether Bishop Muzorewa, Mr lan Smith, Mr Sithole, and Chief Chirau in Salisbury can manage a fair and swift transition to majority rule in their country. The chances are that an internal settlement contrived solely by the leaders in Salisbury will not succeed unless the terrorists are drawn into some agreement. Indeed, it is just as likely that Rhodesia will see no peace until the terrorists have negotiated or battled their way into control.

The W.C.C. could easily make the choice of backing the guerrilla forces. It has already declared the Patriotic Front to be “responsible people.” But the council can hardly give its full support to the front without also endorsing the front’s methods: and it is against the front’s violent methods that the Salvation Army has its objections.

Warfare has always presented a dilemma to religious leaders; it runs against their principles and it creates extreme demands for compassion and spiritual and physical relief. The World Council of Churches has set up a special fund to fight racism and finds itself supporting terrorists. While the W.C.C. insists, and presumably believes, that its grant is being used for “food, health, and educational and agricultural programmes” it seems to be deficient in evidence that such programmes even exist. The acting general secretary of the council, Mr Wesley Kenworth, has said, “We do not even try to have control over how the money is spent.” Although the council need not control the expenditure of its fund, subscribers to the fund and supporters of the W.C.C. are surely entitled to know where the money goes. It is a trivial sum when measured against the cost of running a

guerrilla war; it is a small enough amount if the intention is to improve the lives of people under the control of the Patriotic Front.

The member churches within the W.C.C. must be mindful that they, too, are active in Rhodesia, striving to raise the standards of welfare of black Rhodesians. Their missions and missionaries have been the victims of terrorist attacks and, apart from the dreadful cost in lives, their means to assist Rhodesian blacks have been diminished by at least the amount that the W.C.C. has given to their destroyers — probably many times more. The Salvation Army’s challenge to the W.C.C. concerns more than the administration of a grant of $BO,OOO. It concerns, in part, the question of whether the Patriotic Front shall receive outside support from Russia and Cuba by way of arms and little or no support in any form from Western countries. The W.C.C. may well feel that it is backing a winner in the Patriotic Front, that such standing as the churches can have among the guerrillas now will ensure a respectable place for the Christian Church in Rhodesia in the future. Perhaps even Bishop Muzorewa and the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole, in Salisbury, can see the force of this argument as black leaders in Salisbury who are still hopeful of establishing black majority rule through elections in December. They must know, of course, that terrorism’s successes will make the elections unworkable in many parts of Rhodesia. They are far from satisfied with the steps being taken to dispose of white rule in Rhodesia. Somehow the W.C.C. must weave its way through the arguments. Although is has taken the precaution to establish a special fund for its entirely proper campaign against racism, its apparent support for terrorism is such a fundamental question of principle that the niceties of accounting and the separation of contributions to the fund do nothing to relieve the council of responsibility for its policies. These policies reflect upon every member church; it is not too much to assume that what the W.C.C. is doing on any question must influence all people in their attitude to the member churches. That is but one reason why the council must grapple effectively with the Salvation Army’s threatened withdrawal from the W.C.C.