Rev. W. BramwelL Scott Replies

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 184, 3 May 1934, Page 11

Rev. W. BramwelL Scott Replies

Sir, —With all the correspondence before me, Press and private, and with due regard to the limitations of space and the conservation of my time, I realise how impossible it is to deal with all the points raised. I may be accused of avoiding the issue, but,, on the other hand, the pacifist leaders mav be inclined to add another prayer to their Litany and utter, "Good Lord, deliver us from our friends,’ as they peruse some of the ideas that have been expressed. , I must protest, against words and phrases being ascribed to me that I never thought of; let alone uttered. Those who “listened-in” will bear me out when I say that in no way did I glorify war; that I stated, that the arguments “proand con” on the subject of war leaned in the direction of Christian pacifism; that I was willing to support a peacemakers programme; that I refused to join hands with the pacifist who refused under any circumstances to defend his country, which really means his hearth and his home; that the alliance between Christian and non-Christian pacifists would take no one anywhere because the real objective was not the same in each case, and. that Christ’s words did not necessarily bear the meaning usually ipven them by pacifists, because the problem that we are faced with is national, while Christ’s was personal. I quite realised that I was stirring up something in the nature of a hornet’s nest in both the theological and the military world, but I refuse to accept the suggestion that I did anything that may be deemed courageous. It has been suggested to me by a private correspondent, who appends no name, that I have made myself unpopular. That does not worry me one iota. I would not worry if I stood alone. I have declared my message and nothing that has appeared so far in the way of criticism has shaken the foundations of my belief on this matter. This morning, I opened my “Methodist Recorder” —a leading religious journal in England—to find that a similar controversy is raging there. One correspondent writes: “Mr. Porter-Goff has undergone a great change in his views since he wrote his article in the book ‘Christianity and the Crisis.* There he took the first Christian ground that only by the principle of the Cross, perhaps by the crucifixion'of a nation, could the world be redeemed from war. Now he has definitely joined the apologists for war under certain circumstances.” lam reading at present a French pacifist book entitled “The Paris Front; An Unpublished Diary, 1914-18.” Michael Corday, the novelist, is the author. He frequently refers to leading pre-war pacifists who have become intense patriots, and who declare that there must be no peace till there is victory. On page 227, dealing with the events of January; 1917, he says: “When I defend the cause of pacifism and humanity, the objection’ is often raised, ‘Well, then, would you have let them break in?’ My reply is: ‘No, I would not have let them break in. If my house and my family were attacked by. a mad and brutal neighbour.’ I should defend them, but I should feel it to be a distasteful, painful, . and barbarous duty.’" V:'I’’ 1 ’’ : Just so. That was precisely the theme of my address, and I have such faith in the men of the Dominion, both young and old, that I am sure that'in the hour of crisis they would do exactly the same thing. That crisis- may be nearer than wc imagine, hence the necessity of preparation. Because I believe this, I was moved to protest against the circulation of half-baked ideas, the application to Jesus of words that He never used, and the idea that by saying “I renounce war” it was another open sesame to the glittering jewels of peace. 1 I would commend everyone a careful reading of Dean Inge's “Christian Ethies and Modern Problems,” particularly the long essay on “War.” I had intended dealing with points raised by various correspondents, but as they chiefly indicate a lop-sided view of a mighty problem. I am holding my hand. To “Antipodes” I would point out that I used the words “violent extremist,” which, of course, makes a difference to his contention. Let me assure all my friends, both for and against, including the’gentleman (?) who privately assures me “I know it’s your living to deceive and lead men from the truth unto death,” that I am no- warmonger, but, realising how. much still remains to be done before “peace shall over all the earth its ancient splendours fling,” must we sacrifice our nation and ourselves only to realise, if any of us survive, that it has been in vain. . . , I assure you all that, I am convinced that it is only when we walk the way of Christ—many refuse the way of Christ while glibly quoting Christ’s words— • that a new spirit, will be born that eventually must win the world for God and good and peace. . It may yet come about —indeed it must do—that Christian .pacifists and Christian non-(pacWists will discover a common platform upon which to stand that will ensure world peace. In the discovery of that platform not only must the years pass before it is fully realised, but, as wc move along the upward grade toward its realisation, I cannot see how it is going to be possible to avoid the application of force, whether we deal with munitions, money, or men. Thanking you on behalf of- us all for the space you have granted for this dis(•ussion .—I flm. utc., W. BRAMWELL SCOTT. Wellington. May. 1- ... , 14 . [Limitations of space will not permit publication of further letters .on this subject. , Both sides of the question have been fully discussed and the ebrrespondence is therefore closed.]