CHURCH AND WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19663, 15 June 1927, Page 13

CHURCH AND WAR.

COMPULSORY TRAINING. PRESBYTERY'S ATTITUDE. STUDENT RAISES PROBLEM. REFUSAL TO DO SERVICE, The Auckland Presbytery was called upon at its meeting yesterday again to. declare its attitude on the debatable question of compulsory military training. After a discussion which was carried over from the afternoon to the evening session the Presbytery adopted a resolution expressing the view that a change from compulsory to voluntary military training should be about by pressure of public opinion, and not by refusal to obey the law. The question was raised by a letter from Mr. A. M. Richards, a student for the ministry, who has come in conflict with the law by refusing to undergo military training. He sought the Presby* tery's support for his attitude. "'As one of your students,'' Mr. Richards wrote, " I am writing to inform yoa that I am cited to appear in the Magistrate's Court to-morrow, June 15, owing to my refusal to take part in preparations for war. I have been largely influenced in making this refusal by the utterances of several of yourselves, and especially by the Assembly's resolution on the matter. If, as the Church has declared, military training is wrong in principle, it is obviously wrong to take any part in Buch training." The writer went on to Bay that he intended basing his plea on the Assembly's resolutions, and asked for a .statement from the Presbytery of its attitude to war and preparations for war. War "Wrong in Principle." Mr. Richards was invited to state his position, and said that the Assembly's resolution declared that war and preparations for war were wrong in principle. He was certain to be asked in Court what his religious beliefs wero and to what church tie belonged, and the nuriio of the Presbyterian Church would be brought into it. He thought some statement from the Presbytery was almost necessary. "Whether we agree or disagree with Mr. Richards' views," said the iiev. D. C. Herron, "we must ail admire his courage." Those views, he said, were not tbose of the speaker. Men laid down their lives m the Great War believing that somehow they were making a permanent contribution to the peace of the world. It seemed to him there were -three possibilities before them. They couid take no notice, and allow the military authorities to go on with their plans unquestioned. Secondly, they could seek to influence public opinion and do all in their power to turn the minds of the people against war. The third way was the drastic means proposed by Mr. Richards of refusing to take part in training. He did not think that was the meaning of the assemblv's resolution, and it was not the position of the Presbyterinn Church The Rev. W. L. Marsh said if Mr. Richards cited the General Assembly in support of his attitude he would be doing the Church a great injustice, and it would require to be repudiated in tho name of the Church. The assembly had not said that compulsory military training was wrong in principle. If it Had felt that, it would have called on _ its young men to refuse to undergo training, and no assembly would dare to do that. A Soldier Upholds th« Law. "There is no bone in my body that has not been crushed and bruised in war," said the Rev. Angus Macdonald, speaking with some emotion. "I loathe and detest and abominate war. Nine years of my short life has been spent on active service, but while the law of the land remains as it is, we must not support a student or anyone else on breaking that law." Mr. Richards must go forward in his own name, and not in that of the Church. The advice that if Mr. Richards felt he must take up the pacifist and Quaker position then he must follow his conscience, was given by the Rev. J. Lamb Harvey At the evening session the Rev. D. C. Herron submitted the following Resolution :—"While admiring Mr. Richards' courage and sympathising with his desire to witness his conscientious protest against oompulsory preparation 4 for war. the Presbytery believes that the mind of our Church, as expressed in the resolution advocating a return to the voluntary system of military training passed by" the last general assembly, is that this reform should be brought about by the pressure of public opinion causing our legislators to alter the law in this way so as to bring our country more into line with the spirit of the League of Nations, and not by refusal to obey the law while it continues to exist." The Rev. L. H. Hunt seconded the motion. Further Statement Made. The Rev. B. Hutson said Mr. Richards had learned onlv that afternoon that the Assembly's resolution did not cover his case. it was open to him to tell the Court that he had misunderstood the attitude of his Church and then the case would drop. The Rev. M. Richards said he believed there was a conscience clause in the Act which his son could plead. The question was then raised whether Mr. Richards had committed any breach of the -Act . . Mr. Richards was given permission to explain his position further. He said he could not leave his Church out of it because he was bound to be asked about his religious convictions. He still felt that the Assembly's resolution if carried out to its logical' conclusion did support hi? attitude because it condemned compulsorv militarv training. He "took this step to arouse public opinion on the matter, and that was the onlv reason lie took it. That the young man had mistaken the attitude of his Church and should follow Mr. Hutson's advice, was the view expressed by Mr. T. MacMillan. Regret at Mr. Richards' last utterance was expressed by the Rev. M. Miller It seemed to him that Mr. Richards had given his case away by saying he had no conscientious objections to military training. In replying at the close of the discussion Mr. Herron said they all felt that intensive preparation for war was the greatest disservice to the, cause of peace. The motion was carried without dissent.