PRESBYTERIANS AND WAR

Evening Post, Volume CXXXII, Issue 128, 26 November 1941, Page 11

PRESBYTERIANS AND WAR

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —There seems to be a good deal o£ misunderstanding on the part of your readers concerning the attitude of our Presbyterian Church to the war, and in particular to the conscientious objector to military service. This may be partly due to the fact that the resolution dealing with one particular aspect of the question has been given undue prominence, and the assembly's statement as to our Church's attitude to the war overlooked or ignored. That statement reads as follows: — "The General Assembly, convinced of the justice of our nation's cause in the present war, urges the people of the Church to be ready to bear whatever sacrifices the times demand, and to persevere, trusting in God, till victory comes, and a peace settlement has been worked out.

"The Assembly offers its deepest sympathy to all who have suffered the dire effects of war, to all members of the Forces who have suffered wounds and sickness, to all prisoners of war, and most especially of all to those who have lost their dear ones.

"The Assembly gives thanks-to God for the courage and fidelity of those who are spending themselves for the common cause, especially for those who are serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and calls on ministers and congregations to pray earnestly that the Divine blessing may be upon our people and our Allies and all who lead us, that the will of God may prevail and His glory be advanced."

It will be seen from this that the Assembly does not sympathise with the attitude of the conscientious objector to war. At the same time it does offer its sympathy to those genuine conscientious objectors who are called upon to suffer because of the unsatisfactory administration of the National Service Regulations as they affect their case. Abundant evidence as to the unsatisfactory administration of the regulations concerning the conscientious objector may be found in the columns of your paper during the last few months. No good purpose would be served by quoting individual instances, but in regard to a number of cases that have come under my notice, I can only say that, having read the evij dence both of the appellant and of his ; witnesses, I cannot understand how ! anyone who recognises any right of conscience at all could doubt the genuineness of the appellant Yet in each case the appeal was summarily dismissed. Moreover, although the amended regulations make no reference to any religious body, and declare the question at issue to be a matter, of •'the individual conscience, yet members of ■the Society of Friends and of the Christadelphian sect—both of whom were mentioned in the original regulations—still seem to have their appeals granted, while members of the Churches which do not adopt the pacifist position as a Church have theirs for the most part dismissed, in spite of the evidence of their own minister as to the genuineness of their belief. It is difficult to understand why the evidence of a minister concerning the conscientious beliefs of a young man he knows intimately should be entirely ignored. We recognise that this is a question that leaves room for a great variety of opinion, but the position of our Church is quite clear. The Presbyterian Church declines to endorse pacifism, but it recognises pacifism as a view which it is permissible for its members to hold, and maintains that the State should respect the convictions of those who for conscience sake refuse military' service. Thanking you for the opportunity to make our position clear.—l am, etc., J. THOMSON MACKY, Convener, Public Questions Committee of the

Presbyterian Church of N.Z.