THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1928. THE CHURCHES AND PEACE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20116, 29 November 1928, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1928. THE CHURCHES AND PEACE.

By refusing to endorse, even in an amended form, the manifesto of a Peace Committee composed of delegates from practically all the churches, and adopting in its stead a statement issued by the Jerusalem Missionary Conference, the Presbyterian Assembly has dono a very sensible thing. The manifesto of the united committee is anything but what such a declaration on international peace should be. It has already pioved highly provocative of dissension among lovers of peace,

and will probably excito further dis

sension before the last is heard of it. About tho sincerity of its framers thero need be no question: about their wisdom there has been rightly raised considerable doubt. Tho

Assembly was faced with the protests of many presbyteries; similar protests have been made in the church

courts of other denominations. These protests have ample justification. On its face, as the manifesto is scrutinised, there can be clearly read the play of conflicting motives. Tho committee was obviously ill at ease and of divided mind, and its declared "pU.tform," as an attempt to provide standing ground for all the advocates of peace, is a poor piece of verbal joinery. Some clauses

are unexceptionable; for instance, that declaring "We believe that peace can bo secured only as adequate machinery for the settlement of disputes is set up and made effective by the hearty support of the great nations, and we consider that the influence of the British Empiro is of especial significance in this respect." But other clauses, apparently contributed by other sections of tho committee than the one from which this emanated, are loosely and even inconsistently fashioned, and are phrased in language so extravagant that they are unworthy of a representative body entrusted with leadership in so grave a matter. The unquestioning acceptance of the manifesto by any deliberative body reflects seriously, on tho capabilities of that body in historical knowledge, in acquaintance with contemporary events, and in critical judgment. It

is well that the manifesto has been challenged in many quarters, thrice well that the Assembly has rejected

In the Assembly a claim was made

that the manifesto is not pacifist. The claim was too readily yielded. It is true that the manifesto contains among itii variegated pronouncements one "acknowledging with admiration the courage and self-sacri-ficc nobly displayed in past wars," but it sweepingly asserts "the sheer futility of war," applauds the doctrine that "preparation for war inevitably leads to war" —presumably including preparation for defence — and calls "on all Christ ian people to adhere to the principles of peace even at a risk of loss and humiliation." If words have any meaning, these phrases are incitements to individual—and therefore anarchical — pacifism, whatever may or may not be read into them as applied to whole peoples. They are there, to be used by the pacifist to the top of his bent. There is little merit in the scant tribute paid to the valorous dead when so emphatically and without qualification men are told that if ever they fight again they arc imbeciles and recreants to religion. The tenor and tone of the manifesto arc plainly pacifist, and to the present problem of the nations, as one speaker in the Assembly reasonably said, "pacifism is no solution." What the whole world needs at the present juncture, . what it rightly looks to the Church to help to supply, is a practicable method of promoting peace, one in close touch with things as they are as well as looking to things as they may happily become. Academic indictments of "the war system" and incidental scoffing at soldiers and statesmen as agents of the devil, are puerile. Wars are unspeakably horrible occurrences, bul; the spirit that leads t.o them will never be exorcised by idle jargon.

An endeavour was made in ihe Assembly to treat the manifesto and the statement of the Missionary Conference as indistinguishable. They are very different. One is a tanglo of ill-assorted declarations, some of tliera gross exaggerations and somo out of stop with facts. It takes no account of the preciso provisions of the covenant of the League of Nations and of the Kellogg pact with reference to international obligations and national rights. The other is clear and consistent, and is free from ignorant stumblings nmong facts dimly seen. But it is in its approach to the vexing question that the statement of the Missionary ( onforence is so vastly superior that it ought everywhere to be preferred. The manifesto is phrased in inappropriately militant terms. It seems to liave been inspired, in the main, by a bellicose mind, given to denunciation and blame. Its preamble is a challenge and its whole tone that of controversy. On the other side is the statement endorsed by the Assembly, a statement opening with calm and impressive enunciation of the bloodbrotherhood of all people?? and proceeding to urge prayerful effort to realise the implications of this brotherhood. Moreover, its details, wisely restricted, square with the I terms of the League's covenant and the Kellogg pact. It offers a promising basis for concerted spiritual effort to promote peace. Nothing is more certain than that to persist with the manifesto is to produce discord and division. It has been so torn to pieces already by the various church courts considering it thai; it is beyond repair, and the best way with it is the way that the Assembly has taken*