New Zealand And The War

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 109, 1 February 1940, Page 11

New Zealand And The War

Sir, —After carefully reading "Diogenes’s” letter on the above subject, published in today’s “Dominion,” .1 am fain to confess that I do not clearly sense its relevancy. I imagine that it was written with a distinct reference to “recruiting,” but w’hether to encourage or discourage the same, I cannot determine! Perhaps “Diogenes,” taking pitv on my obtuseness, will dispel my doubts which were rather intensified when reading further. I found Our Lord classified as a “pacifist.” The reasoning which led to such a classification is, in my opinion, more ingenious than convincing, and is, I think, founded on a complete misconception of certain words of our Lord, used in certain definite circumstances, for a certain definite purpose. The words quoted by “Diogenes” as embodying a “proclamation. . . . more important than Alagna Charta,” were used really as a weapon by the Original Speaker, with which to defend Himself against an insidious attack made by wilv enemies! As “Diogenes” is no doubt aware, the incident is recorded in full by each of the three Synoptists —and in very similar terms—-and is preceded in all three accounts by a statement of certain definite teaching from the lips of Christ, which infuriated the leaders of the Government in Jerusalem, and set them feverishly plotting to stop His mouth!. Having perfected their plans, “they—d.e., Pharisees and Elders of the Sanhedrinsent out unto Him their disciples, with the Herodians (courtiers) saying, ‘Master, we know that thou art true and teachest the way of God in truth; neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of man: tell us therefore what thinkest thou?— is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?”’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, “Why tempt Ale ye hypocrites? Shew Ale the tribute money! . . . . Whose is this image and superscription? .... Render therefore to Caesar, etc.” These are not the words of a “pacificist,” nor a meek and mild milksop whose chief function—according to an apparently-wide popular conception —is to condone the failings and shortcomings of self-pitying weaklings; neither are they the proclamation of a new and never-before-uttered truth; but rather they furnish a weapon. by means of which an intelligent, witty, and fearless Alan defeats a cowardly attempt to compromise Him in the eyes of “the man in the street,” and pave the way for His arrest and death—before the appointed time! The principle implied in the words is as old as Moses —here is no “new commandment!” There is one other point which seems to emerge (not very clearly) from the concluding portion of “Diogenes’s" let' ter, and upon which I ask leave to comment. AVhile distinctly disclaiming any desire on the part of Christ to place God and Caesar (or the “State” as he renders it) in separate compartments—l imagine that is what he means by “spiritual-proof” compartment —“Diogenes” seems to do this very thing. To quote his own words — “For God, he (Christ) reserved the right of free spiritual development under God and His teachers, etc. To the State He (Christ) left the task mainly of preventing crime, keeping order, giving justice to everyone.” Further comment seems hardly necessary. Some clarification of thought seems to be indicated. God is an eternal Verity—the “State,” but an attempt to embody in a word an idea bred in the mind of temporary, evanescent man! —I am, etc., HERBERT GOERTZ. Paraparaumu, January 25.