OPEN BRETHREN

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 28, 3 February 1941, Page 8

OPEN BRETHREN

TWELVE APPEALS

OPPOSED TO MILITARY WORK

BASED ON BELIEF

In general the views |Of the : sect j known as Open Brethren to war was similar to that of the Society of Friends, Mr. J. S. Burt, of Auckland, told the Armed Forces Appeal Board this morning when he appeared ,on behalf of twelve members who appealed against military service on conscientious grounds. There was. no general canon or rule on the matter, as the Brethren believed in the full liberty of conscience. The appeals were heard by Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., Mr. A. Parlane, and Mr. P. Coyle. The appellants were William Magnus I Smith, clerk; Ernest Whyte Alexander, departmental manager; Charles Athol Prentice, warehouseman; Terence Mace Tilyard, coppersmith; Edwin Rex Marshall, clerk; Dennis Hugh Bauckham, grocer; James Hamilton Greenhorn, evangelist; Richard James Currie, clerical cadet; Athol Gordon Stewart, clerk; Alfred - Edward Colin Grant, clerk; Charles Robert Grey, Civil servant; and Stanley James Ireland, baker's labourer. Grant and Grey stated that they were prepared to serve in a non-combatant way in a military unit, and the others were prepared to serve in a non-com- • batant way in any civil capacity. "WELL-DEFINED VIEWS." Mr. Burt said the Open Brethren were simply assemblies of Christians throughout the world who sought' to carry out Christianity as" it was taught by the Apostles, without any form of organisation and without any ordained ministers. They had' no formal constitution and no definite canons or ( rules to which anyone was asked to subscribe. They regarded the teachings of Scripture as the paramount and only guide in public, private, and church life. Consequently, they had no text book or official' publication dealing with their attitude towards war. There were certain well-defined views, however, and these had been set out in a memorandum prepared by members of the movement who were responsible men in the community, and presented to the Prime Minister.

This memorandum stated that. it was a general belief among the Open Brethren that the taking up or bearing of arms was contrary to their religion. This was purely a matter of belief and conscience, and in no way affected their loyalty. Their attitude was similar to .that of the Society of Friends. Mr. Burt added that the attitude of the appellants did not mean any criticism of the Government. Politics did not enter into the matter, nor was there any complaisant pacifism. They wanted to serve their country1 in any .way that would not conflict with their beliefs. v The first appellant, Smith, presented a statement, and was examined at length by the Crown representative (Mr. C. O. Bell). lie said he would not take any active part in war. vHe did not believe that he should bear arms under any circumstances or engage in work that would contribute to the taking of life. PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL. John Clement , Tilyard, a coppersmith, who appealed on behalf of his son, Terence Mace Tilyard, on the grounds/of public interest and hardship, said that he had been a member of the Open Brethren for about thirty years. He would work on Army contracts because that was part of his ordinary business. He had not appealed on conscientious grounds during the last war because he had been rejected by the medical board. Many Open Brethren had objected and some had gone to prison. Each member was at liberty to act according to his conscience, and consequently some had been prepared to serve in the forces. Mr. Tilyard, giving evidence in support of his appeal, said that there was a shortage of coppersmiths, and he could not replace his son. Mr. Bell said that in view of the work being done and the fact that Terence Mace Tilyard had been placed in Class 3 by the medical board, he j considered the father's appeal should -j be adjourned sine die. | j Mr. Tilyard also gave evidence regarding the membership of other appellants in the meetings of the Open Brethren. During the. morning the appellants Alexander, Prentice, Marshall, Bauckham, and Greenhorn were also heard. Each stated the belief that it would be un-Christian to take up arms. t Bauckham said that he had no objection to service provided he did not have to take up arms and take life. He felt that he must obey the laws of the' land, but wanted to be allowed to serve without fighting. ' Mr. Burt pointed out that the appellant Greenhorn would be an ordained minister if the Brethren had ordained ministers, and submitted that his appeal should succeed for that reason. Greenhorn said that he was prepared to lead a crusade of prayer or would accept service in a civilian capacity, but would not do any military work. Decision in these cases was reserved until others of the same kind have been heard. i