The Dominion MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1928. A CANDID PULPIT ADDRESS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 292, 10 September 1928, Page 10

The Dominion MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1928. A CANDID PULPIT ADDRESS

On Thursday last The Dominion published verbatim the text of an unusual address delivered by the Rev. J. Gibson Smith from the pulpit of his church at Eastbourne on the previous Sunday evening. As the preacher explained to his congregation, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand had appointed that particular Sunday as a special occasion for pulpit addresses on the subject of the League of Nations.

Mr. Gibson Smith said he obeyed the injunction gladly. It mav be doubted, however, whether his method of dealing with the subject will be altogether palpable to the extreme pacifist section of his Assembly. The vociferative activity of this section has involved the Presbyterian Church in a good deal of adverse criticism. It was largely with this aspect of the subject that the pastor of the Eastbourne Church elected to deal in introducing his address under the title of “The League of Nations versus the League of Nations’ Union.”

As one understands it, and as Mr. Gibson Smith very strongly emphasised it, the true function of the League of Nations’ Union is to propagandise the objects and achievements of the League of Nations. It is a lay body, having no organic or official connection with the other. Its expressed object, a very admirable one, being to educate the public, and animate strong and increasing support for the expert body at Geneva. With its Empire-wide organisation, the Union ought to be capable of doing very valuable work in maintaining the prestige of the League, and there can he no doubt that much has been accomplished in that direction by its various branches in many British communities.

i It is conceivable, however, that much haim may be done to the League by erroneous assumptions in Union Ciicles legal ding its real status, and the procedure necessarily imposed upon it tor attaining its ultimate ideal—universal peace. Those who take up service in the very valuable work the Union is capable ot doing should realise, therefore, the importance of acquainting themselves with the League’s Constitution, the scope of its authority and its very clearlv-defined procedure. They should understand that its function is formulativc, not executive. It may affirm, but, in a legislative sense, it cannot act, though the logic of its international assembly may induce the Legislatures of its constituent members to act in accordance with its recommendations. At all times its progress is conditioned by circumstances over which it has no control. Mr. Gibson Smith took strong exception to the manner in which the League of Nations’ Union in this country has, in his judgment, misinterpreted its functions. “What has actually happened to the League of Nations’ Union in this country at least,” he asserted, “is that it has fallen into subjection to a group of extreme pacifists who, instead of loyally supporting the official League of Nations, wish to dominate it and thrust upon it certain propositions and policies which the responsible League regards as impracticable or premature or foolish.” . ... It is apparently as the result of this policy that the Presbyterian Church has been led into an ultra-pacifist campaign, which is likely to be the subject of much animated debate at the meeting of the General Assembly in November.

“First,” said Mr. Gibson Smith, “came the question of conscientious objectors to military service and the clamour for the abolition of compulsory military training in New Zealand. Then came the now notorious Peace Manifesto, into which were woven a number of thoroughly ultrapacifist declarations. Happily, the fact Unit this manifesto was sent down to presbyteries for consideration during the year has proved the saving of the situation. That fact gave the time necessary for a searching scrutiny.” ,

The Presbyterian Church, of course, is not the League of Nations’ Union, though the latter may be influenced for the moment by the,presence of a strong Presbyterian pacifist element in its executive. At the same time, it is as important for the one as for the other that the implications of such activities as have been charged by Mr. Gibson Smith should be well understood. Objections to military service, the laying down of arms, and the scrapping of armaments must receive the sanction of international agreements before they can be justified. To act otherwise would be but to court, in the preacher’s own words, “sheer disaster, disgrace, and anarchy.”