CHURCH AND WAR

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21845, 6 July 1934, Page 15

CHURCH AND WAR

Sir, —When ono so respected and so influential as Archdeacon Mac Murray makes such a definite attack upqn the Christian pacifist position, it comes as a challenge to those who see in the teaching and life of Christ the basis of such a philosophy. In his statement, nearly every sentence of which leaves itself open to criticism, there are some points which demand mention. (1) "Our pacifist friends" do not "expect God to work miracles to make us safe from dangers in war," but still less do they expect God to work miracles if they should use guns, gases and other instruments of slaughter to safeguard them from the dangers of war. The alternative to armed defence is not the miraculous intervention of God, but the power of love to redeem the world, the slow but sure work of Gpd in the hearts of men and women. The defence which God gives lies not in the might of arms, but in the triumph of right. Again, their trust is not "so imperfect that they would like to have a small navy and a small army to protect their persons and interests." On the contrary, they do call upon nations "to sink the navy, and disband the soldiers." This is not a wicked conception when the motive is the welfare of mankind, and surely it is not a selfish one if those who hold the Christian pacifist position are prepared to be the first to sacrifice their lives in the cause of peace, should there be another war. (2) Archdeacon Mac Murray maintains that in so far as lieth in us we should live peaceably with all men, but . . we should, while the world is animated by a spirit which is distinctly not Christian, look carefully to our defence. This is tantamount to saying that, while the world is still unchristian, we should fight them with their own weapons. But surely if Christianity is to redeem the world from its selfishness and unneighbourliness, it can do so only by remaining true to its highest principles and not by descending to the means which that misguided world uses. (3) A launch full of peaceloving men is not the only alternative to armed defence and, even if it were, it could not be more ineffective than war as a means of defence. Christian pacifism offers a positive solution in the moral power of uncompromising Christian life and action. (4) Finally, it is not a question of security, either individual or national, but a question of the difference between right, and wrong. If war is wrong and unchristian (and I believe it is), then no motive of security or expediency can justify the choice of the wrong, in conclusion, I should like to say that I am but one of a not-inconsiderable and growing body of New Zealand's youth who, because they are seeking to follow Jesus Christ and are convinced that war is quite inconsistent with His teaching and manner of life, would under no circumstances whatsoever take up arms against their fellow-men. B. M. Tasker.