THE NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22835, 20 March 1936, Page 15

THE NO MORE WAR MOVEMENT

TO THE EDITOR Sir Mr G. Steel is certainly nothing if not inconsistent and illogical. He is definitely opposed to organisations and efforts directed towards curing peace whether Leagues of Nations or No Moic War Movements, etc. His attitude is that such things are useless, as the only hope of peace and goodwill among nations is when the Almighty takes up the earthly rule. . . (March 9.) _ He is by implication in favour of continuing military preparedness (February 2 and March 17), and maintains that when Jesus returns to defeat war and take lip Hl9 earthly throne, “ then will be the time to shout die joyful fact of ‘peace, no more war, and to melt down all the guns for ploughshares ” (March 18). . . , Now, with this attitude clearly in mind, let us contrast it with the following:— “The final war of the world, however, will be ordained by the Almighty, and not left to the nations (bidding to rule the world) to choose their own date. Therefore, it is patent that even if every Briton became a ‘ no more warrior the conflict would still come. But, now, military armies are as much ‘ men and confederations ” ns are anything else, and so why reserve condemnation for the League of ‘Nations, etcA If the outcome is ordainedf then, armies are on the same footing as the League and peace societies.

Supposing the end is ordained, are we, then, to make no effort in the meantime to do what is humanly possible to avoid as much unnecessary suffering as we can by means of Leagues of Nations, etc. even though, concurrently, it is necessary to be as a strong man armed. Are we not to avail ourselves of any other means than the sword to secure “ continued national life and security” ? If a League of Nations can secure even a measure ot peace and relief from the horrors of war is it not the minimum of decency and humanity to support its efforts wholeheartedly? If the taking up of anns “be neither ungodly nor unchristian, are the humanitarian efforts of the League of Nations to be condemned as being such. If they are, then many will prefer to be ungodly and unchristian. I have offered no remarks upon biblical interpretation, but have taken Mr Steel s statements as they stand and shown their manifest inconsistency. If he replies it will be quite beside the point to quote texts of Scripture. Any quantity of them will not convert straight-out inconsistency into consistency. Logic is logic, and either Mr Steel’s position in itself is logical or it is not. If all the nations and its daughters thus membered armed themselves with that needful revival . . • all would be well, for as a triumphant shout of trust in the Almighty caused the walls of Jericho to fall so our defence would be secure with our unanimous praise and trust” (March 17). The desire of any nation to rule the world will not be its to decide, but will be “ ordained ”in a “ final ” war, therefore it is patent that even if every Briton become a ‘no more war warrior the conflict would still come.” Logically, we must also conclude: “Therefore, it is patent that even if every Briton became encased in amour the conflict would still come.” So, whatever attitude is adopted, pacifist or militarist, the conflict will ( Still come just because and when it is ordained” to do so. Again, supposing all nations” did arm themselves with that needful revival ” and made “ all things well,” what then becomes of the ‘ ordained ” final war? The needful revival making “ all things well ” can only implv the defeat of that war! Does Mr Steel really mean that a shout of trust in the Almighty, among “all nations,” would be a secure defence against that same Almighty’s “ordained” final war? That is its logical meaning, and makes it simply nonsensical. In his letter of March 9 he says definitely: “We cannot safely place all our trust in men and in tions for continued national life and security. This is only obtainable by obedience to and faith in God.” And it is for him to reconcile rationally and logically, if he can, his statements as analysed me, and 'that is something quite apart from any purely biblical question.—l am, etc., Profanum Vuloits. Dunedin, March 18.