CHURCH AND WAR

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 36, 12 February 1940, Page 9

CHURCH AND WAR

MORAL USE OF FORCE

SOLDIERS AS PEACEMAKERS

"SONS OF GOD"

. A striking sermon on the moral use of force was preached at St, Peter's Church last night by the Yen. Archdeacon W, Bullock, who took as his< text: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5:9).

Archdeacon Bullock quoted from the speech made by Lord Halifax, British Foreign Secretary, in the House of Lords on June 29,1939, more than three months before the British Commonwealth was forced inio war; "In tlie event of further aggression we are resolved to use at once the whole of our strength in fulfilment of our pledges to resist it. Our first resolve is to stop aggression. At present the doctrine of force bars the way to any settlement. But if the doctrine of force were once abandoned all outstanding questions would be easy to solve. British policy rests on twin foundations of purpose. One is determination to resist force; the other is our recognition of the world's desire to get on with the constructive work of building peace." That, said the pi'eacher, was the most outstanding speech made by any world leader during the past twelve months, TWIN FOUNDATIONS. "Let us examine these 'twin foundations of purpose,' " Archdeacon Bullock continued. 'The first, "to resist aggression,' is the immediate concern of peace-loving riien 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 towards the present struggle. Was it right for Christians to use such force? Upon 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. FOR MORAL ENDS. It was not enough to produce a text from the New Testament. Every trained theologian knew well enough tho danger that lay in so interpreting one part of Holy Writ that it was reougnant to the whole spirit of the rest. • He would be a bold exponent of the New Testament who argued that it - did not assume that there was a right use* of force, that was. for moral ends Otherwise the Master would not have said. "Render unto Caesar." nor would S1 Paul have taulght that men should respect earthly powers and rulers as . ordained by God- If force had been ! applied for moral ends, would there have been any Manchukuo. any Abyssinia, any> swallowing up of Austria and Czecho-Slovakia? And would the struggle to which the; Allies were now committed have come upon them? Archdeacon Bullock proceeded to discuss the use of force by the State, as exemplified by the law. for the welfare of the community. Only when that force was used for any other purpose had person's the right to resist it, h.said, Nowadays no State could live to itself. It had duties and obligations to other States. The idea of national sufficiency was a fit subject only for the meandering^ of confused and moonstruck minds. "For what is the full measure of Finnish devotion being poured out today?" he asked. "For their self-defence, you say. Yes, but also for the defence of New Zealand and the rights we enjoy just as much as though those men stood on the foreshore at Island Bay ready $o reputee an invader. So closely are interests knit together. It is these things that we New Zealanders 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?" INNER LOYALTY TO GOP. To speak of force as though it were always unrighteous and even repellent was to be guilty of loose thinking or contumacious ignorance. It was an ideal that Christians cherished, that one day force and law might be unnecessary, but that could only be when men generally had substituted an inner law" of loyalty to' God and men for the outer laws of compulsion. That time was not yet, and they should ask themselves what would follow if all law based on force and used by either parent or State were withdrawn. For the child it would mean ruin; for the State it mean anarchy.

For the Christian man there were very definite limits to the use of force. Firstly, it should nevir be used for unjust or immoral ends by either parent or State. Secondly, it was never right to allow outward compulsion to operate where inner coj|sciousness and selfdiscipline prompted right action

"If we wish to make a garden out of a wilderness we must first clear the ground," Archdeacon Bullock concluded. "And he who does the clearing is not less worthy of honour than' he who plants the seed and afterwards enjoys the blossoms and fruit. The men 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.

"The soldier today is called upon to he a peacemaker, and that is the one justification for our forces, who are called upon, to make peace possible. Es there, then, not an application of my text that is fitted to this hour— 'Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God'?"