THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1908. THE CHURCHES AND WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13779, 18 June 1908, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1908. THE CHURCHES AND WAR.

The Imperial Premier, speaking in London at the Pilgrim Club's banquet, referred eloquently to the value of such gatherings as the PanAnglican Congress in ''contributing to that better mutual understanding between men ~ . . which was the best safeguard of the peace of the world." That the influence of the churches is not only a powerful but a beneficent one, cannot be questioned by any impartial student of history, though it is not uncommon to find partial and cynical critics who would have us believe that dif ferences of religion have been among the prime causes of human woes. Nor will it be questioned, even by the cynical, that when the churches heartily and loyally combine for any great public purpose, they wield an influence more powerful, permanent, and fundamental than any other organisation. As Mr. Asquith pointed out, "the Church" destroyed slavery, and has consistently insisted that all power is held in trust; the exercise of the same great authority upon the side of peace would unmistakably assist iu " expelling the greatest scourge threatening the unity and progress of mankind." But when this has been asserted and admitted, and when it has been recognised that war is a scourge and that peace is the greatest of blessings, there still remains the disturbing fact that we live in a very practical world, and that as human society is constituted the blessing of peace is only obtained by those nations which are capable of effective defensive war. If the churches could appeal directly and impartially to all antagonistic nations, and could persuade them to submit all disputes to a Court of Arbitration, and to control all racial instincts by conciliatory sympathies, then we should be approaching the Millennium, in which swords will be beaten into pruning hooks, and none will make war any more. But since the churches can do nothing of the kind, but are strictly limited in their individual spheres of influence to the peoples among whom they have become established, it would be fatal to the national safety were they to attempt to preach peace when there is no peace, and disarmament, when national enemies are drilling and arming for attack.. All that the churches can do at the present, as at any (jiast time, is obviously, io do .what

they have long generally done: To modify the horrors of war, to minimise the danger of unnecessary war .by withstanding rash and ill-ad-t vised national action, and to preach I unceasingly the sound and Christian i doctrine that nothing should be left | undone to preserve peace with j honour, and that war is a crime un- | less undertaken in self-defence, or I as the last and unescapable resort from an unendurable position. So far from being favourable to national disarmament, peace-loving churches would be entirely justified : in preaching that peace is only praci tically possible when a nation is I able to defend itself : for this is the i truth, and no evasion of the truth has ever yet been worthy of religious ! bodies, or been fruitful of good to men and nations. We have only to read the pages of history to see how peace and order have come to the I world, and how they are preserved |in it. We have peace in New ZeaI land because the navy of England is still, supreme at sea. and because the remembrance of our national fighting prowess still impresses the world. And there is peace to-day in ! Europe because, the militant State has risen to mastery over the freebooting lords, and because any nation that marched an army across I the frontier of a neighbour would encounter such a resistance as to make success exceedingly doubtful ! even for the strongest. If all armies were to disband, well and good; if j from the Pacific to, the Atlantic and round to the Pacific again, all guns were to be destroyed, and all offensive preparations discontinued, there would be no more to be said. But as things are, for one nation to allow its defences to be weakened is to invite attack, for our civilisation to melt down its guns and to break up its battleships is to invite the resurrection of Asiatic barbarism and African savagery. It is quite true that, as Mr. Asquith says, " understandings are happily year by year minimising risks and narrowing the arc of possible contentions." But he omits to say, what every statesman evidently knows, for every "man in the street" knows it, that all bona-fide international understandings are invariably and necessarily based upon the mutual aid and support which can be given to one another, or upon the naval and military strength which can be marshalled against one another, by the countries concerned. The Empire has a tacit understanding with the Republicand we shall greet the American Fleet in Auckland waters and the Yankee sailor in our Auckland streets with the underlying consciousness, whether we express it or not) that the time of trouble may find them on our side, and. will certainly-not find them against us. Britain .has a definite understanding with Japan—which may or may not be popular—and it involves certain joint warlike measures in certain eventualities. So much is this so that our trustful ally is reported to have thought seriously of making an investigation to satisfy himself that Britain is able to make her military obligations good. We have another friend in France, and it is open knowledge that the French objection to closer relations is a mistrust as to England's military strength. ■ Finally, the result of all these British understandings, expressed and implied, with so many nations, with America and 'France, with Russia and with Italy, is to bring the German Emperor to his feet in another characteristic speech. Mr. Asquith, being an Englishman, declares that political treaties and understandings "narrow the arc of possible contention." The Kaiser, being a German, and a good German, declares of these very treaties and understandings: "It looks as if they are trying to encircle and bring us to bay." . Which is not exactly the situation, but is approximately correct from the- German standpoint. For the German navy is not being built for regatta purposes, any more than the American navy has been built to make a week's holiday for Auckland. In, the hope that some nation or other, some empire or other, may become so weak that its pieces may be had for the taking by a world-Power strong enough to hold them, the German navy is being increased beyond all reason, and the German army maintained as a firstclass fighting" machine. Nor . can anybody suppose that Japan has any other purpose in her military and naval exertions than to carve for herself, at opportunity, as much as possible of the Pacific countries. Mr. Lloyd-George touched on the defence question in moving the Old Age Pension Bill, and touched it in a manner which, should touch the colonial heart very much more than need the academic thesis of Mr. Asquith. If it is true, and it is true, that it would be fatal for the United Kingdom to so reduce its army and navy as to expose itself to the. danger of attack, as weakness always exposes a country to attack, what shall be said of New Zealand! We need not discuss other colonies. This Dominion is almost wholly dependent upon an Imperial protection, which is paid for by the people of the United Kingdom, and if the Navy were strategically concentrated in the Atlantic, to protect upon an emergency the people who pay for it, we have not enough trained defenders to constitute a single army corps in the event of invasion. This is not only discreditable to our national pride, but dangerous to our national safety. For we cannot assure our peace by urging the churches to preach it, while we can insure our peace by training the youth of the Dominion to defend against attack the land in which they were born.