CHURCH AND WAR

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 119, 13 February 1940, Page 5

CHURCH AND WAR

Soldier Called On To Be A Peacemaker SERMON BY ARCHDEACON The soldier today was called on. to be a peace-maker, and that was the one justitieation for the Allied forces, who were called on to make peace possible, said the Ven. Archdeacon W. Bullock, who preached on the moral use ol force in St. Peter's Church, Wellington, on Sunday night. His text was: ’‘Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.” The Archdeacon quoted from a speech made by Lord Halifax, British foreign Secretary, in the House of Lords, more than three months before the outbreak of war, in which it was said that British policy rested on twin foundations of purpose. Otte was determination to resist force; the other was the Empire's recognition of the world's desire to get on with the constructive work of building peace. •‘Let us examine these 'twin foundations of purpose,'” Archdeacon Bullock continued. "The first, ‘to resist aggression,’ is the immediate concern ot peace-loving men and nations. The second, ‘to build a constructive peace,’ is the ultimate aim of enlightened 'policy. At this latter no one will cavil. It is the former that gives us pause — ’to resist aggression.’ ’’ it. was now the determination of the Allied Governments, backed by the majority of the peoples'they represented, to use material force if and when necessary to resist material aggression. And it was just at that point that there lay the crux of the Christian man's attitude toward the present struggle. Was it right for Christians to use such force? Ou the answer a great deal depended, said the preacher, and he would try to answer the question honestly and in a spirit at once Christian and free from any criticism of those who might not agree. The idea of national suliieieney was a fit subject only for the' meanderiugs of confused and moonstruck minds. "For what is the full measure of Finnish devotion being potired out today?” be asked. “For their selfdefence, you say. Yes, but also for the defence of New Zealand and the rights we enjoy just us much as though those men stood on the f“re-

an invader. So closely are interests knit together. It is these things that we New Zealtinders have to think straight about. And do you imagine they are morally right, these Finns, in using force? Would you dare to condemn them before the bar of God’s judgment?” To speak of force as though it wi re always unrighteous and even repellent was to be guilty of loose thinking or contumacious ignorance. It was tin ideal that Christians cherished, that one day force and law might, be unnecessary, but that could only be when men generally bad substituted an inner law of loyally to God and men for the outer laws of compulsion. That time was not yet, ami they should ask themselves what would follow if all law based on force and used by either parent or Slate were withdrawn. For the child it would mean ruin; for the Slate it meant anarchy. For the Christian man there were very definite limits to the use of force. First, it should never be used for unjust or immoral ends by either parent or State. Second, it was never rlgr.t to allow outward compulsion to operate where inner consciousness and self-discipline prompted right action. “If we wish to make a garden out of a wilderness we must first clear the ground.” Archdeacon Bullock coneluded. “And he who does the clearing is not less worthy of honour than he who plants the seed and afterward enjoys the idossoms and fruit. The mon who give themselves to this task in the world today are soldiers. Their task is to clear the ground of aggression and injustice before any of us can enjoy the garden of peace.”