CHURCH AND WAR

Evening Star, Issue 21966, 28 February 1935, Page 13

CHURCH AND WAR

METHODISTS DISCUSS SUBJECT STATUS OF CHAPLAINS The Methodist Church of New Zealand Conference this morning concerned itself with discussing the question of war, and the part the church plays in such a conflict. The discussion became lively, and an amendment to withdraw the church from all connection with the lighting was rejected, while a motion was carried in an endeavour to organise, a new training system governed by higher and more Christian ideals. The following resolution from the Public Questions Committee was moved and seconded:— “That as a practical gesture of our belief that war is contrary to the spirit of Jesus Christ, we urge the Government to replace the system ot Cadet military training by a citizenship training system which, while retaining many valuable features of the p.resent system, such- as physical training, discipline, and social companionship, will be completely separated from the present war system, and will be governed by the higher and more Christian ideals.” Mr R. C. Clark said that if they wanted to end war they should not prepare for it. If they wanted to be on good terms with the world it was not the i-ight thing to do to build up muscle, but to extend the hand or fellowship to others. By kindness and gentleness could they obtain that which was desired. They were suffering from lack of perspective and lack of knowledge, and should be standing for love and friendliness. He was opposed to war because he was a realist, and knew what war was. He realised that the youth of to-day must be prepared to render a service not only from a national standpoint, but from an international standpoint, and by starting the youth on a different basis, a different standpoint might be built up. The Rev. C. Eaton said that the early church people did not condemn war, and the official attitude of the church now was not the condemnation of war. He had thought a good deal and read a good deal on the subject, and thought there was a movement afoot to make more conscientious objectors who would not go to war when they were required to do so. Ihe alternative would be Anarchy, which was far worse than any war. It was of paramount importance that there should be facilities to maintain order in the world, lest it sink into a state of chaos. He regarded it as Christian to employ military forces righteously, and he was not with those who would break down the defences, and spoil the forces which the nation would need. One of the most important items in a nation was its morale, and if its defences were destroyed and if it were instilled into the minds of the young that it was not right to protect the nation, then the nation’s morale would be destroyed. Surely the church was in favour of the ideals of peace, said the Rev. E. I). Patchett, and it should teach the young people to favour those ideals too. That was what the motion sought to do. The Rev. W. A. Burley said he understood that at one New Zealand college the cadets were being taught the use of modern machine guns. He could not think of anything more harmful .to the mentality of a boy than that. He was learning to manipulate arms of war while ho was at 911 impressionable age.

Mr Clark then moved the following amendment: —“ That in view of the pronouncement of the church that it believes war to be a crime against humanity, th'at it is contrary to the spirit of Christ, and that it should be repudiated as a means of settling international disputes, the church decides :to withdraw from all official connection with the military, naval, and air forces, and will confine its services to voluntary efforts to help and assist all those suffering from the evil effects of war." He recalled the picture of war, and asked if anyone could imagine what would happen if a chaplain went to the men in the trenches and said: “ Brethren, you are going over the top. Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you.” They would simply laugh. Then again, if a man were waiting under covex' to shoot at the head of a sniper he would be shot if he turned from his purpose because the chaplain' might say it was not right to kill. The church must keep free of war. It was the only organisation that was not carried away by propaganda during the last war. At this stage the Rev. W. B. Scott loft the conference, saying that this was “ enough for him.” ’ Mr Clark continued to speak against the terms of the motion, pointing out the benefits of the amendment, and concluding by saying that no one who had felt or seen the horrors of war could help but feel as he felt. Mr Eaton; As I listened to Mr Clark I thought of that saying which goes: “More danger is done to religion by fanatics than by fools.” The Rev. P. R. Paris; I object to that statement. I ask that Mr Eaton be asked to withdraw the inference. The Rev. Mr Eaton: I maintain that the views just given were those of a fanatic. .

At this point a general _ discussion ensued, and when the chairman had brought the conference to order the Rev. Mr Eaton, continuing his remarks, said that the sacrifice one made in going to war was compatible with Christ’s ideals.

Mr H. R. French said he took the view that the Empire had worked strenuously to combat the difficulties confronting the world. The church must take; a reasonable view of the matter now before the meeting; The Rev. Mr Patchett: Ought we not to condemn every officer of the church who accepted a position in the Army? Is not that a logical argument in the circumstances? Wo are on the way to condemning every young man who takes his place in the Army. Mr J. M. Thomson said that the argument of one speaker was that because there was a defence force there must be war. Policemen were employed in this country to make arrests, but should they be sacked if they did not arrest anybody? The Rev. E. P. Blamires rose to a point of order, stating that the arguments used were beside the point. Mr G. H. Blackwell stated that the motion had been moved by a layman, and be would not like the public to think that it represented the idea of the Methodist laymen. The Rev. Mr Emmitt said there was a Iqt of truth behind what Mr Clark had said, but there was a definite work for the church among the men at war. The resolution only committed them to the idea of the various churches getting together, going to the Government, and.trying to discover the status of chaplains in the Christlike work they had to do. On a show of hands being taken the amendment was by 37 to 82, and the motion was carried.