PACIFISTS ON THE WARPATH.

Evening Star, Issue 19856, 3 May 1928, Page 9

PACIFISTS ON THE WARPATH.

TO THE EDITOK. Sir, —I thoroughly enjoyed the reading of the Rev. Robert Wood's letter under the above heading, published in Saturday's ' Star.' It should prove a mental tonic to those ministers who have embraced the rotten principle oi "peace at any price." It is a principle that contains within its folds a curse, and when acted upon may bring about the very condition that the nation would try to avert. When Christ went into the temple and found that God's house was boing used as a place of merchandise, He threw peace to the winds He took a scourge of knotted cords, and with righteous indignation He drove the Pharisees out, saying, "My Father's house shall be called the house of prayer." That is an incident that Christian men and women should think about when, as they pass into "God's house," they see literature on sale in the vestibule. Preachers are putting forward the claim that war is a«ti-Christian. What authority have they in stating such to be the case? Did Christ ever say anything against war? Was there no military training in His clay, and did He say that men should not be soldiers? Preachers are making a veritable show of themselves these times by their meddling in matters political that essentially belong to the Government, and not to the church. One is tempted to think that they have come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has lost its ancient power, and there_ is nothing left now but to try and improve by legislative enactment the morals of the people. What a pity it is that they cannot content themselves to "preach the gospel " instead of being so much concerned with social and political questions. It is not their business. No wonder the churches are so emptied of worshippers. Men and women go to church seeking "bread," and what are they getting? A "stone." That by the way. When Christ said to His disciples, "He that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one," what was the purpose of it? Was the sword to be a mere toy, or >vas it intended for defence? Moreover, why did Christ permit _ the disciples to carry swords if war is always and necessarily antagonistic to Christianity? Who was it that drew his sword and smote the Roman servant Malchus. cutting off his ear? It was impetuous Peter, who, for his rash act, might have forfeited his life but for the graceful intervention and presence of his Master. Christ rebuked Peter, saying: "Put again thy sword into his place; for all they, that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Just so. Has Britain any fixed intention of "taking the sword"? And if a hostile nation should take the sword against Britain, and she " has no sword," where will she be? Let us away with the pious platitude that war is anti-Christian under all circumstances. The great British Empire has been largely built up through war, and yet we are all proud to belong to it—that is, true Britishers. The Government has an unquestionable right to make military training compulsory, and if the interference of ministers of the Gospel •as resented by the powers that be it would not be any more than what they deserved. I have no sympathy whatever for the tendency that exists to-day of dragging the church down to the level of a political arena. She stands for something higher than politics—the salvation of men and women. The Rev. Robert Woods's letter is a welcome contribution, and shows up the inconsistency of the Presbyterian Assembly according to its own church standards on the question ot military training and defence. If. Presbyterian students are going to be encouraged to withstand the duty that has been imposed upon them, on the ground of " conscience," then in all fairness the plea of other men who do not believe in killing anybody should not be unavailing. None of the nations to-day are acting as if they believed the League of Nations would prevent another war. for, as a matter of fact, they are all busy making preparations for what appears to be looming up and coming in the near future. ,The condition of the world at this time in no way suggests that we are approaching a warless state of existence. It is nice to think and dream about, but the end of war is not yet. It will con.j ie day, but not through the puny efforts and agency of man. The ideals of the league are liigh and lofty, but its greatest ambitions are doomed oo disappointment, and Britain wants to be ready, ever ready, to meet ie awful crash that is soon to come, for, instead of peace and security, it will be Armageddon.—l am, etc., M. May. 2.