“WA 24, 
 
 LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 HN@3 0s Gouv., S ee 
 Conference on Christian 
 
 politics, economics and 
 Christianity and war 
 
 
 
C.0.P.E.C. Commission Reports. Volume VIII 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 

 
 C.O.P.E.C. COMMISSION 
 
 Vouvume I. 
 
 a tae 
 
 REPORTS 
 
 Tue Nature or Gop AnD His 
 PurRPOSE FOR THE WorRLD 
 
 EDUCATION 
 
 Tue Home 
 
 Tue RELATION OF THE SEXES 
 LEISURE 
 
 Tue TREATMENT OF CRIME 
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 
 CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 INDUSTRY AND PROPERTY 
 Pouirics AND CITIZENSHIP 
 
 Tue Sociat Funcrion oF 
 THE CHURCH 
 
 HistoricaL IL.LusTRATIONS 
 OF THE Sociat EFFects 
 or CHRISTIANITY 
 
 
 
‘CHRISTIANITY AND 
 WAR 
 
 Being the Report presented to the Conference on 
 Christian Politics, Economics and Citizenship 
 
 at Birmingham, April 5-12, 1924. 
 
 Published for the Conference Committee by 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C. 4 
 NEW YORK, TORONTO 
 BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 
 
 1924 
 
BASIS 
 
 Tue basis of this Conference is the conviction 
 that the Christian faith, rightly interpreted and 
 consistently followed, gives the vision and the 
 power essential for solving the problems of to-day, 
 that the social ethics of Christianity have been 
 greatly neglected by Christians with disastrous 
 consequences to the individual and to society, and 
 that it is of the first importance that these should 
 be given a clearer and more persistent emphasis. 
 In the teaching and work of Jesus Christ there are - 
 certain fundamental principles—such as the universal 
 Fatherhood of God with its corollary that mankind 
 is God’s family, and the law “‘ that whoso loseth his 
 life, findeth it ’—which, if accepted, not only 
 condemn much in the present organisation of 
 society but show the way of regeneration. Christi- 
 anity has proved itself to possess also a motive power 
 for the transformation of the individual, without 
 which no change of policy or method can succeed. 
 In the light of its principles the constitution of 
 society, the conduct of industry, the upbringing 
 of children, national and international politics, the 
 personal relations of men and women, in fact all 
 human relationships, must be tested. It is hoped 
 that through this Conference the Church may win 
 a fuller understanding of its Gospel, and hearing 
 
 a clear call to practical action may find courage 
 to obey. 
 
GENERAL PREFACE 
 
 TuHE present volume forms one of the series of 
 Reports drawn up for submission to the Conference 
 on Christian Politics, Economics and Citizenship, 
 held in Birmingham in April 1924. 
 
 In recent years Christians of all denominations 
 have recognised with increasing conviction that 
 the commission to “go and teach all nations” 
 involved a double task. Alongside of the work of 
 individual conversion and simultaneously with it 
 an effort must be made to Christianise the corporate 
 life of mankind in all its activities. Recent de- 
 velopments since the industrial revolution, the vast 
 increase of population, the growth of cities, the 
 creation of mass production, the specialisation of 
 effort, and the consequent interdependence of 
 individuals upon each other, have given new sig- 
 nificance to the truth that we are members one of 
 another. The existence of a system and of methods 
 unsatisfying, if not antagonistic to Christian life, 
 constitutes a challenge to the Church. The work 
 of a number of pioneers during the past century 
 has prepared the way for the attempt to examine 
 and test our social life in the light of the principles 
 revealed in Jesus Christ, and to visualise the require- 
 ments of a Christian civilisation. Hitherto such 
 attempts have generally been confined to one or 
 two aspects of citizenship; and, great as has been 
 their value, they have plainly shown the defects of 
 
 Vv 
 
GENERAL PREFACE 
 
 sectional study. We cannot Christianise life in 
 compartments: to reform industry involves the 
 reform of education, of the home life, of politics 
 and of international affairs. What is needed is not 
 a number of isolated and often inconsistent plans 
 appropriate only to a single department of human 
 activity, but an ideal of corporate life constructed 
 on consistent principles and capable of being applied 
 to and fulfilled in every sphere. 
 
 The present series of Reports is a first step in 
 this direction. Each has been drawn up by a 
 Commission representative of the various denomina- _ 
 tions of British Christians, and containing not only 
 thinkers and students, but men and women of large 
 and differing practical experience. Our endeavour | 
 has been both to secure the characteristic contri- 
 butions of each Christian communion so as to gain 
 a vision of the Kingdom of God worthy of our 
 common faith, and also to study the application of 
 the gospel to actual existing conditions—to keep 
 our principles broad and clear and to avoid the 
 danger of Utopianism. We should be the last to 
 claim any large or general measure of success. The 
 task is full of difficulty: often the difficulties have 
 seemed insurmountable. 
 
 But as it has proceeded we have discovered an 
 unexpected agreement, and a sense of fellowship 
 so strong as to make fundamental divergences, where 
 they appeared, matters not for dispute but for frank 
 and sympathetic discussion. Our Reports will not 
 be in any sense a final solution of the problems with 
 which they are concerned. ‘They represent, we 
 believe, an honest effort to see our corporate life 
 
 vi 
 
GENERAL PREFACE 
 
 steadily and whole from the standpoint of Christi- 
 anity; and as such may help to bring to many a 
 clearer and more consistent understanding of that 
 Kingdom for which the Church longs and labours 
 and prays. 
 
 However inadequate our Reports may appear— 
 and in view of the magnitude of the issues under 
 discussion and the infinite grandeur of the Christian 
 gospel inadequacy is inevitable—we cannot be too 
 thankful for the experience of united inquiry and 
 study and fellowship of which they are the fruit. 
 
 It should be understood that these Reports are 
 printed as the Reports of the Commissions only, 
 and any resolutions adopted by the Conference on 
 the basis of these Reports will be found in The 
 Proceedings of C.O.P.E.C., which also contains a 
 General Index to the series of Reports. 
 
4! eile : 
 
 Witt 
 
 CHITA 
 
 
 
LIST OF COMMISSION MEMBERS 
 
 The Commission responsible for the production of this Report 
 was constituted as follows :— 
 
 Chairman :—THE REv. ALFRED E. GARVIE, M.A., D.D. 
 
 Principal of Hackney and New Colleges, Hampstead; 
 Ex-chairman Congregational Union of Scotland and of England 
 and Wales; President of the National Free Church Council. 
 
 Members of the Commission :— 
 
 AITKEN, Gzorcez, Esq. 
 Secretary of Scottish Federation of Union of Democratic 
 Control; Lecturer, preacher and organiser for International 
 
 Peace Movement; formerly Missionary in Livingstonia 
 Mission, British Central Africa. 
 
 APPLEBY, Tue Rev. BERTRAM. 
 
 Congregational Minister, Roydon, Essex; member of National 
 Committee of ‘‘ No More War Movement,’ and Hon. Sec. 
 of Sub-Committee for Work among the Churches. 
 
 BARBOUR, Dr. G. F. 
 D.Phil. Edin., 1910; Author of A Philosophical Study of 
 Christian Ethics, The Unity of the Spirit, Life of Alexander 
 Whyte, D.D., member of Perthshire Education Authority ; 
 member of Scottish Council League of Nations Union. 
 BATHURST, Major ARTHUR. 
 Retired Army Officer. 
 
 DAVIES, GEorcE MaiTLanp LiLoyp-, Esg., M.P. 
 Late Manager of Bank of Liverpool, Wrexham; formerly 
 Secretary of Welsh Town Planning and Housing Trust; 
 Assistant-Secretary of the Fellowship of Reconciliation; 
 M.P. for University of Wales. 
 
 DRYER, THE Rev. OLiver, M.A. 
 
 General Secretary of the International Fellowship of Recon- 
 
 ciliation; formerly Minister of the United Free Church of 
 Scotland. 
 
 ix 
 
LIST OF COMMISSION MEMBERS 
 
 GARDNER, Miss Lucy. 
 
 GRAHAM, Joun W., Esg., M.A. 
 Principal of Dalton Hall, University of. Manchester. 
 
 HALL, THe Rev. R. O., M.C. 
 Late Major, General Staff; Missionary aatLT iy Student 
 Christian Movement. Ay 
 
 JACKSON, H. L., C.B.E. 
 Paymaster-Lieutenant-Commander, Accountant Officer, 
 Royal Navy, now serving in H.M.S. Pegasus. 
 
 RAVEN, Tue Rev. C. E., D.D. 
 Rector of Bletchingley; sometime Fellow and Dean of 
 
 Emmanuel College, Cambridge; Author of Apollinarianism ;- 
 
 What think ye of Christ ? 
 
 ROUTH, R. G., Esg., M.A. 
 Headmaster, Bromsgrove School. 
 
 UNDERHILL, Tue Rev. FRANCIS. 
 Vicar of S.S. Mary & John, Oxford. 
 
 URQUHART, F. F., Esq. 
 Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. 
 
 WILSON, W. E., Esg., B.D. 
 Professor of New Testament Theology and Christian Ethics 
 in The Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham; Tutor at Wood- 
 brooke; Author of: Christ and War, Atonement and Non- 
 Resistance, The Foundation of Peace, The Christian Ideal. 
 
 The Commission is greatly indebted to Lady Parmoor and Miss 
 Evelyn Underhill for material contributed to this Report. They 
 would also like to acknowledge the help received from the iit" 
 sent in by Study Groups in connection with Copec. . 
 
 —— ws 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Basis 
 GENERAL PREFACE 
 List oF ComMissIon MEMBERS 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 Tue Causes AND Motives oF War 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 Tue Morar Prospirem: Is War Ricut or Wronc? 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 Tue Curistian Position 1n Recaro to War 
 (A) The Teaching, Method, and Example of Jesus 
 (B) Divergent Views 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 Tue Curistian’s Dury 1n 'T1mME oF War 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 xi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 to 
 
 97 
 

 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 A BRIEF introduction only is needed to this 
 Report, since the findings speak for themselves. 
 It may be well, however, to refer shortly to the 
 personal composition of the Commission, and to 
 certain difficulties which resulted inevitably from 
 that composition; and also to point out the very 
 satisfactory measure of agreement which was reached 
 in spite of important differences. 
 
 The Commission was formed of Christian men 
 and women sharing certain broad convictions as 
 to the Kingdom of God, and somewhat sharply 
 divided theologically, philosophically and politically. 
 In regard to the actual reference of the Commission 
 there was a very large measure of unanimity, as 
 will appear from the reading of the Report. It 
 was, however, impossible to reconcile fully the points 
 of view of those who take the Pacifist position and 
 of those who, while regarding war as irreconcilable 
 with: the triumph of the Gospel, cannot as yet 
 condemn it in all circumstances. Protracted and 
 sympathetic discussions helped us to go very far 
 together; each learned much from each, but on 
 certain matters unanimity could not be reached. 
 
 All agreed that the full coming of God’s Kingdom 
 on earth involves the cessation of war, but that this 
 can only be brought about .from within, by the 
 spiritualisation of man. ‘Seek first the Kingdom 
 of God”? must be the real way of attacking the war 
 problem. In a Christian social world order war 
 would be impossible, just as a murderous attack on 
 
 B I 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 his neighbour on the part of an individual Christian 
 is impossible. A Christian is not only concerned 
 with doing the best he can with the world as he 
 finds it, but with obeying the laws of the Kingdom 
 of God. He wants to make the world a place in 
 which the soul can expand fully, and develop its 
 latent energies; and Christian politics and citizen- 
 ship must serve this end, or cease to be Christian. 
 War is fatal to these ideals. 
 
 Difference arose on the interpretation of certain 
 sayings of our Lord in regard to war and resistance 
 to wrong, as well as in the conception the members. 
 of the Commission held of the value and functions 
 of the State. It will be seen, therefore, that at a 
 certain stage statements are included in the Report 
 which express the two points of view. It was felt 
 that this was the best mode of procedure. To have 
 presented a statement which contained only the 
 agreed conclusions of all the members would have 
 been lacking in courage, and largely empty of 
 value. 
 
 In spite, however, of this divergence, we believe 
 that the Report represents a real corporate advance 
 in Christian thought in regard to war. It would 
 probably have been impossible ten years ago to 
 have reached the conclusions embodied in the 
 Report by a body of Christians representing serious 
 differences in other directions. 
 
 We cannot but think that if all Christians were . 
 united in agreeing to the unanimous findings of 
 this Report, a marked advance would have been 
 made in the direction of the true Christian attitude 
 towards war. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 THE CAUSES AND MOTIVES OF WAR 
 
7 ee 
 
 . Ly, a) 
 ere “ a sp 
 1 i 
 
 PEt 4h ak 
 Oy eA? 
 
 ‘ 
 
 Bes i 
 
 : ‘3 en Aig 
 
 ‘ : at oN \ Nay 
 nt Wn re ' 
 
 y) OAL »* A Dyin 
 
 ne, 
 
 
 
CHAPTER I 
 THE CAUSES AND MOTIVES OF WAR 
 
 (A) Instincts AND INTERESTS 
 
 1. [HERE can be no treatment of the relation 
 between “ Christianity and War,” claiming to be 
 adequate, which does not go to the root of the 
 matter, the causes and the motives of war, and in 
 dealing with these one must necessarily begin with 
 the primitive instincts in man. Is war a biological’ 
 necessity, as is often alleged? Is man a fighting 
 animal, whose nature cannot be changed, so that 
 the tiger survives, and must survive in even the 
 civilised man? 
 
 (i) There are two ways of dealing with the 
 primitive instincts. There is the way of rational- 
 sation, the finding of what appear respectable 
 reasons for what are felt to be unworthy impulses, 
 as in the quasi-biological argument that man can 
 be saved from decadence only by conflict, or in the 
 plausibilities that militarism and imperialism ad- 
 vance. There is, however, also the way of sublima- 
 tion, the directing of the impulse into channels of 
 activity which will be beneficent, and not destruc- 
 tive, as when the Arctic explorer fights the ice and 
 snow of the poles, or the doctor fights the epidemic, 
 or the reformer fights the injustices or wrongs of 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 his age. Further here it may be added, that 
 acquired character is often taken for inherited 
 nature and tegarded as fixed, when indeed it is 
 very flexible. What are regarded as racial char- 
 acteristics are the results of physical, economic, and 
 social conditions and environment, and national 
 character is the product of history. It is only an 
 assumption that the black, the brown, or the yellow 
 race is necessarily inferior to the white, or that the 
 German nature is more combative than the British. 
 Even what belongs to nature can be modified. 
 The fighting animal may be changed into the 
 champion of the good cause; and the tiger in man 
 may die and be buried without any hope of resur- 
 rection, if, by education, reason and conscience are | 
 allowed to gain the sovereignty which rightfully 
 belongs to them. 
 
 (11) We must, however, look a little more closely 
 at this alleged fighting instinct. It is the error of 
 | a certain type of psychology to treat man as if he 
 were a bundle of unrelated and even conflicting 
 interests; whereas we should always regard him as 
 a unity, and seek to relate all differences to that 
 unity. Man feels either pleasure or pain; he hopes 
 for pleasure and he fears pain. He reacts to what 
 threatens him with pain, or deprives him of pleasure, 
 not only with fear as the motive of flight, but also, 
 if he believes himself capable of withstanding or 
 overcoming what threatens him with pain, or 
 deprives him of pleasure, with anger which impels 
 him to fight. He will fight to repel an injury or 
 to secure a good. In the economy of nature there 
 is no place for fighting i fighting’s sake, although 
 
— 
 
 CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 the impulse may be detached from its roots, and 
 become an independent growth, a development 
 afterwards to be considered more fully. 
 
 (uli) ‘he support for war which was sought in 
 biology is tottering to its fall. Naturalists are now 
 telling us that nature is not so “red in tooth and 
 claw ” as a crude Darwinism tended to represent it. 
 “The survival of the fittest in the struggle for 
 existence’ is not now regarded as the sole or the 
 main factor in organic evolution. Animals do not 
 fight for fighting’s sake, unless men have cor- 
 rupted them, but when vital interests are con- 
 
 cerned of self, sex, or herd. Samuel Butler, Henry 
 
 Drummond, Prince Kropotkin, Patrick Geddes, and 
 J. Arthur Thomson have shown us nature as not 
 only, or chiefly a battlefield, but a workshop in 
 which there is co-operation. Hermann Reinheimer 
 especially in a series of writings has endeavoured 
 
 ‘| to show that conflict is contrary to, and co-operation 
 
 in accord with the dominant principle of evolution. 
 
 There is no such glaring contrast between the law 
 
 of organic evolution and the law of human progress 
 as Huxley insisted on in his Romanes lecture. 
 Science, therefore, does not warrant the affirmation 
 that fighting in the form of physical conflict at 
 least is an inescapable necessity of the nature of 
 man, which will and must persist at every stage of 
 his development. Let the protection and preserva- 
 tion of the interests for which he thinks it worth 
 while to fight be assured in some other way, and 
 
 unless his nature has been perverted he will not 
 ‘keep on fighting. There are men and peoples 
 
 more easily provoked to war in self-defence or self- 
 7 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 assertion; but an inquiry would show that the 
 explanation could be found in history and not in 
 nature. Not only may the fighting instinct be 
 perpetuated when the occasion for it has ceased, 
 but the value attaching to the interests for which 
 war was waged may be transferred to war itself. 
 (iv) To this perversion we may now give closer 
 scrutiny. Man is the creature of custom: he 
 suffers from mental inertia. What has once been 
 must always be. As fighting was the way the 
 fathers took of gaining their ends, so must the sons 
 do. Civilised men would be ashamed to confess 
 such a motive, and so excuses are found for keeping 
 in the old way. Qualities of courage, endurance, 
 comradeship, sacrifice, have been developed in war, 
 which excite, and rightly excite, admiration; and 
 so war itself is shrouded in a vain deceptive glamour. 
 The chivalry and romance of war have been dis- 
 played, while its horrors and cruelties have been 
 concealed, in the records of the past. Literature 
 (fiction and poetry) as well as the Press have too 
 often fostered the illusion that war itself is splendid. 
 The love of wife and child, of home and country, 
 have so often been the motives of the heroisms of 
 war, that war itself has come to be regarded as an 
 appropriate and even necessary expression of human 
 affection. ‘The soldier and the sailor command a_ 
 regard which the miner and the fisherman do not, 
 although they too are “in perils oft.’ All this 
 false sentiment needs to be corrected by an exposure 
 of what war really is, and a proof that qualities as fine 
 can be developed and displayed for worthier ends 
 
 than any war can ever attain. 
 8 
 
CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 (v) There is a still more sinister influence on the 
 side of war. In modern warfare, especially where 
 the material instruments of destruction fill so large 
 a place, a vast industry depends on their provision. 
 In the time of war there is plenty of work, there are 
 high wages, big profits; war at the time seems to 
 ‘pay, and there are some whose eyes are so dazzled 
 by the glitter of gold that they do not see, or will 
 not look at, the blood and tears. It auld seem 
 incredible, yet it is to be feared that it is never- 
 theless true, that there are those whose greed of 
 gain makes them indifferent to the evils of war. 
 And with the greed of gain we must also admit 
 as motives of war the greed of fame and power. 
 
 2. Formidable, therefore, as are the influences 
 which make for war, yet in a cultured, civilised, and 
 even nominally Christian nation the desire for war 
 cannot be nakedly exposed; and so reasons must 
 be found that would justify the resort to arms. 
 We must now examine some of the interests for 
 which an individual or a society will fight, and 
 will even think it needful and right to fight. ‘These 
 interests may be grouped as economic, political, 
 racial, and even religious. 
 
 (i) Although the sex instinct has not been with- 
 out influence in human conflicts as it is potent in 
 animal combats, it need not now be taken into 
 account. With the self instinct (protection, preser- 
 vation, satisfaction) the economic interests are 
 closely connected; but inasmuch as in modern 
 society wars are waged between nations, and not 
 individuals, the self instinct and the herd instinct 
 here go together, and this combination may lead 
 
 9 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 to a rationalisation, which conceals the presence of 
 the self instinct. A monarch or a politician may 
 for his own fame, or a class may for its enrichment, 
 exploit the patriotism, or transformed herd instinct, 
 of a nation to cover up those selfish designs in pro- 
 voking war, which it would be a shame to confess. 
 (ii) ‘There is to-day throughout Christendom a 
 general recognition that aggressive war is wrong; 
 but it is still commonly maintained that a defensive 
 war is right; and there is even a widespread opinion 
 that a preventive war, where aggression by another 
 nation is threatened, or even only feared, can also 
 be justified. ‘The moral issue involved will be dis- 
 cussed later; the distinction is here mentioned to 
 point out that as aggression may take other forms — 
 than invasion, a war may be claimed as defensive 
 even when no invasion is being repelled. A nation 
 may feel itself attacked in its most vital interests, 
 even although no enemy may be on its soil. A 
 nation claims the right, not only to exist, but to 
 develop, and to find the opportunity for develop- 
 ment; it claims food for its growing population, 
 raw materials for its developing industries, open 
 markets for its expanding commerce, and an outlet 
 for its surplus population. ‘To limit its opportunity 
 in any of these respects is felt by it as an aggression 
 no less real than would be invasion of territory. 
 The conviction, honestly held, whether with or 
 without adequate reason we need not now deter- 
 mine, in Germany that it was being hemmed in, 
 that it was not being allowed its proper place in 
 the sun, was exploited by German militarism and 
 
 imperialism, For any nation to close the door of 
 Io 
 
CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 opportunity for another is, and cannot but be, a 
 provocation to war. 
 
 (iii) Commerce and finance are becoming inter- 
 national; all parts of the earth are mutually de- 
 pendent. Hence any selfish appropriation regard- 
 less of the interests of others by any nation will 
 bring about conditions which will sooner or later 
 result in war. Powerful groups which control 
 commerce and finance may for their own interests 
 by subtle intrigues bring about international re- 
 lations unfavourable to peace. Although in the 
 long run and on the big scale war does not pay, 
 yet a class or a group may regard it as profitable, 
 and work secretly to bring it about, or even, regard- 
 less of the awful risk run, may induce a Govern- 
 ment to use the threat of war to secure some ad- 
 vantage. In order to conceal these selfish interests, 
 the herd instinct in its more moralised form of 
 patriotism may be appealed to. Seldom is the 
 - economic interest openly confessed. It is usually dis- 
 guised as regard for national safety, power, or honour. 
 
 3. The herd instinct now claims attention. 
 
 (i) It is a social instinct, but has an exclusive and 
 not a comprehensive scope; the attraction within 
 the family, class, tribe, or nation is allied with a 
 repulsion from what is beyond. Nationality and 
 humanity may even be regarded as opposed interests. 
 In the nation struggling for its existence patriotism 
 usually assumes this exclusive form. It is the 
 nation which has won its way in the world which 
 takes and can afford to take the wider outlook. As 
 the content of nationality is varied, including all 
 
 the main interests of life, a nation will regard its 
 II 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 existence and development as bound up not only 
 with the economic interests which have already 
 been noted, but with all that is characteristic and 
 distinctive. It will struggle for its own language, 
 culture, manners, morals, and religion. Even what 
 may seem a trivial interest may acquire importance, 
 if it comes to be regarded as a symbol of the national 
 unity and independence, ¢. g. the use of the national 
 flag or national hymn. Perverse as it may seem, 
 patriotism may become the motive not of self- 
 protection and self-preservation alone, but even of 
 the subjugation of neighbouring peoples, with a 
 view to imposing on them what is regarded as of 
 special value in the nation’s own life. Europe is at 
 the present moment distracted by efforts to suppress © 
 the language and the religion of national minorities. 
 When this perversion of patriotism—the desire to 
 gain dominion over other peoples—becomes a char- 
 acteristic feature of national character and policy, 
 nationalism expands into imperialism; and still the 
 greed of wealth, or power, or fame can hide itself 
 under the sacred name of patriotism. While Chris- 
 tian morals do recognise the fact of nationality as 
 a noble factor in human progress, and the love of 
 country has been a stage in the movement from 
 the love of home to the love of mankind, and the 
 time Is not yet, it would seem, for a cosmopolitan- 
 ism which ignores and depreciates nationality and 
 the corresponding sentiment of patriotism, yet what 
 needs insistence is that the unity of mankind forbids 
 this exclusive patriotism, and that patriotism must 
 not be used as a cover for the advancement of 
 
 interests less respectable. ‘The prejudice, suspicion, 
 12 
 
CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 tivalry, and hostility of nations is a survival of the 
 herd instinct which at the present stage of man’s 
 development can no longer find any manner of 
 justification. 
 
 (11) More deep-seated and wide-reaching even 
 than national are racial differences. We should in 
 this connection attach a definite meaning to the 
 term race, and not use it as loosely as it is often 
 used. We may speak of the white, brown, yellow, 
 and black races. Whatever be the origin of these 
 differences, they are not such as to challenge the 
 unity of mankind. Whether there be natural re- 
 pulsion on physical grounds of one race to another 
 or not, it is certain that the racial feeling, which is 
 imperilling the peace of the world, has its main source 
 in historical conditions. ‘The white race has secured 
 a position of dominance in the world which has led 
 it to regard itself as superior to other races, and to 
 use its power to inflict on the other races injustices, 
 wrongs, and outrages which are provoking a spirit 
 and purpose of revolt. That benefits have also 
 been conferred cannot be denied, nor that in the 
 white race there is a growing sense of responsibility 
 for and obligation to the common good of other 
 races. But whatever promise there may be of 
 better understanding among the races, at the 
 present moment this race antagonism must still be 
 reckoned with as one of the most threatening causes 
 of war. This can be averted only as the sense of a com- 
 mon humanity prevails over this racial prejudice, 
 and becomes the motive of a policy of conciliation and 
 co-operation for common interest of the white and 
 the other races. 
 
 13 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 (iii) It would be unjust to ignore the progress 
 which has been made toward the recognition of the 
 unity of mankind, and the limitations under which 
 national and racial sentiment are legitimate in 
 subordination to, and not in conflict with, the love 
 of humanity. Men have not, however, so far risen 
 above the herd instinct in these concealed forms 
 as not to respond only too readily to what appears 
 to them even as a moral and religious appeal, when 
 the word patriotism is used, and this appeal is 
 often used to conceal wishes and aims for which no 
 moral and religious plea could be advanced. In the 
 interests of peace there must always be a searching 
 scrutiny of any causes or motives which are ad- 
 vanced as affording a justification for war. | 
 
 4. In this connection it may be useful to draw a 
 distinction between the occasions and the causes 
 of war. ‘The occasions are the definite circum- 
 stances in the relation of nations to one another 
 which are the immediate provocations to war, but 
 these are often so trivial that they would not be 
 sufficient to bring about war were there not these 
 permanent causes and motives of war waiting, as it 
 were, for the occasion. A small spark may bring 
 about a great fire, if there are explosive materials 
 about. We do not give an account of the origin 
 \ of war if we only record the events which immedi- 
 ately led up to it; we must search much more 
 deeply into the whole interplay of interests and 
 impulses which affect the relation of nations. 
 
 5. While morality and religion should provide a 
 check on primitive instincts or selfish interests, yet 
 when patriotism is appealed to, whether with or 
 
 14 
 
CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 without justification, both appear to have given 
 their sanction and approval to war. Whether 
 either the’one or the other should do so is a question 
 for later consideration, but the fact itself cannot be 
 doubted. What should be checks on war then 
 become encouragements of it. The part which 
 unhappily religion has played in the provocation 
 and sanction of war demands a fuller historical 
 treatment. 
 
 (B) RELIGION AS ONE OF THE CaUsEs 
 
 We have to remember how recent is the con- 
 ception of war as hateful to God, and therefore 
 by consequence as contrary to the spirit of true 
 religion. We constantly meet men and women 
 whose faith in God and religion has been shaken 
 or destroyed by the horrors of the late war, with 
 its cruelty and the injustices of the sufferings of 
 the innocent. ‘ Why did not God stop the war?” 
 people ask. ‘‘ How could He, as He is good, allow 
 such pain to go on?” “Surely God cannot be 
 loving, if He could see all that happened, and give 
 no sign.” 
 
 We have, thus, to consider the historical con- 
 nection of religion and war as man sees it. ‘The 
 complaints already mentioned rest upon the con- 
 viction that war with its horrible accompaniments 
 is in its nature evil, and that an omnipotent God, 
 who could have stopped it, did not stop it; and 
 further, on the corollary of the former position, 
 that organised religion ought to have been able to 
 prevent or stop the war, and that organised religion 
 
 15 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 failed in its obvious function by not doing so. 
 But great would have been the amazement of our 
 forefathers only three or four hundred years ago 
 if any such propositions had been put to them. 
 It is true that throughout the Christian ages a few 
 more enlightened persons realised and deplored 
 the horrors of war; but such advanced views were 
 unknown to the vast majority. Their view both 
 of religion and war, and their conception of God’s 
 attitude towards war, were very different. Further 
 back still, the Israelite regarded war as necessary 
 for the triumph of Jehovah: as a true means of . 
 the extension of the Kingdom of God. ‘The 
 Crusader thought of battle against the infidel as 
 the highest act of religious heroism, undoubtedly. 
 pleasing to God, and to the glory of the Church. 
 To the champion of the Reformation or the Counter- 
 Reformation war was necessary for the vindication 
 of the truth as it isin Jesus. Was not Holy Scripture 
 full of denunciations of vengeance against the heretic 
 who was the enemy of God and the Church? Was 
 not the Psalter crowded with mingled piety and 
 warfare? Was not the righteous called upon to 
 wash his footsteps in the blood of the ungodly? 
 Was anything too severe for the enemies of the 
 Faith? But we must consider some of these points 
 in somewhat more detail. 
 
 (i) The Old Testament.—Within the last few 
 years a widespread sentiment has grown up which 
 rightly regards certain passages of the Old Testa- 
 ment as unsuitable for public reading in church. 
 The savage vengeance meted out to Amalek centuries 
 after the guilty “iets ges! had passed away; the 
 
 I 
 
CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 wholesale massacres of Jehu; the cruel treachery 
 of Jael; these and many other incidents, typical 
 as they are of much of the Old Testament history, 
 shock our modern sense of right and wrong. It is 
 not only tender-hearted people nowadays who 
 refuse to share in Deborah’s exultation over the 
 death of Sisera. This new view has partly been 
 brought about and partly justified by the light 
 which modern learning has shed upon the Scriptures. 
 Man’s knowledge of God has advanced in succeeding 
 stages, so that what is horrible to the best men of 
 to-day was regarded as quite normal by their fore- 
 fathers. But it is only lately that the bearing of 
 this new teaching on war has been realised, even if 
 it is at all generally understood yet. Until a 
 hundred years ago at most, the Old Testament 
 view of war was generally regarded as in accordance 
 with God’s will, however much merciful men tried 
 to forget or explain so painful a belief. No doubt, 
 in Old ‘Testament times, as always, motives in war 
 were mixed; other elements entered in; but they 
 were all connected with religion. ‘Territorial aggres- 
 sion might be the ostensible cause of a war; but 
 was not the god himself strictly limited territorially ? 
 He could not even be worshipped off his own soil. 
 David complains that Saul is driving him from the 
 land of Jehovah, saying, ‘‘ Go, serve other gods ” 
 (1 Samuel xxvi. 19). Naaman begs that two mules’ 
 burden of earth may be given him, so that in his 
 own country he may be able to worship the God 
 _ of Israel (2 Kings v. 17). This sort of conception 
 of the god of a nation must have had a very powerful 
 influence in the making and waging of wars. ‘The 
 Cc 17 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 god himself was vitally concerned in it. Indeed, 
 the motive which comes out again and again in the 
 warfare of Israel is the triumph of Jehovah over 
 His enemies. It is in His interest and at His 
 command that wars are waged. He cannot reign 
 until all enemies are put under His feet; they 
 must either submit or be extirpated. ‘This con- 
 ception of the relation of God and war in the Old 
 Testament is in no way regarded by the writers 
 of the sacred books as a misunderstanding of the 
 will of God, who is really merciful, but misinter- 
 preted by His people. It was by the direct com- | 
 mand of Jehovah, revealed to Samuel, that the 
 hurricane of vengeance descended on the Amalekites. 
 He commands that little children and women and 
 the innocent beasts are to be massacred. He is 
 enraged because the cattle are spared by the merciful] - 
 or mercenary Saul. Whatever view be taken of the 
 attitude of our Lord towards war, there can be no 
 doubt whatever of the teaching of almost the whole 
 of the Old Testament. This teaching, hardly 
 modified in practice, has been the rule in the wars 
 of the Christian ages. Even to-day we can easily 
 find men and women, otherwise good and merciful, 
 who, during the late war, and since, have appeared 
 to regard the foes of their country not very differ- 
 ently from the way in which Samuel or Elijah looked 
 upon Amalek or Syria. ‘The idea that war is con- 
 trary to the will of God is denied by many professing 
 and practising Christians to-day, largely under the 
 influence of the Old Testament. 
 
 (ii) Greece and Rome.—It is possible only to 
 
 glance very briefly at the civilisations from which, 
 18 
 
> ome 
 
 CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 apart from that of Israel, ours is derived. What 
 was the view of Greece and Rome as to the relation 
 
 ' of war and religion? Anyone who possesses the 
 
 slightest acquaintance with the classical writers 
 
 knows that.the gods of Greece and Rome were for 
 ever at war among themselves, and were continually 
 fostering wars among men. In the Iliad and the 
 Aeneid the loves and hates of the gods are at the 
 bottom of the whole trouble. They sting and 
 goad men to battle unwearyingly. They them- 
 selves by their quarrels and jealousies initiate war 
 on earth; they interfere on this side or that, 
 fomenting disagreement when it seemed likely to 
 settle itself. Nothing is further from the will of 
 the gods than to stop war, unless by the final 
 triumph of one god or goddess over another. 
 Certainly it was not to religion that a Greek or a 
 Roman would have looked as a force preventing 
 war, even if he had thought it possible or desirable 
 to stop war at all. 
 
 (ii) The Angles and Saxons —Even more marked 
 
 .is the place held by war in the religion of our 
 | own immediate pagan forefathers. To the earliest 
 - Englishman war was religion, and religion war. 
 
 The highest fame—the only undying praise—went 
 to the warrior. Not only in this world was war- 
 fare the delight of those fierce men and their fiercer 
 gods, whose names are everywhere to-day on our 
 English countryside and preserved in the very days 
 of the week; heaven itself was the place where war 
 was crowned finally. In Valhalla the warrior per- 
 petually slew his foes, who were eternally raised to 
 life again to be slain afresh. Whatever has been 
 ” 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 the influence of pagan religions upon our civilisation, 
 it has certainly not been hostile to the spirit of 
 war. 
 
 (iv) The Crusades—We pass now to a series of 
 wars which lie near the beginning of modern times, 
 choosing them for mention because they were 
 above all wars of religion. Whatever the Crusades 
 may have been worth to ambitious kings, terri- 
 torially or commercially, these values were secondary 
 in fact as well as in idea to the religious motive. 
 The tremendous impulse throughout Europe which 
 drove men to the wars in the East was a call to - 
 arms in the name of religion, The immediate 
 necessity was to rescue the places sacred to Christi- 
 anity from the defiling dominion of the infidel. 
 If the saving of the Holy Places necessitated the 
 slaughter of the infidel, so much the better. The 
 honour of the Lord Christ must at all costs be 
 vindicated. Such was the spirit in which pro- 
 digious deeds of chivalry were performed, and 
 countless dark and horrible cruelties committed. 
 But the Saracen also was actuated by a religious 
 motive, even fiercer, if possible, than that of his 
 Christian foe. He drew his courage to resist, as 
 he had drawn his spirit of aggression, from his 
 faith. He offered religion or the sword, Islam or 
 death. His wars were in intent religious. 
 
 The Crusades, then, were wars of rival religions, 
 Christians and non-Christians, in which both sides 
 considered that God was vitally interested ; indeed, 
 in which His glory was involved, 
 
 (v) The Lhirty Years’ War—We may pass on 
 
 now over several centuries to a typical war of 
 20 
 
=, 
 
 CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 religion of a later date. The Thirty Years’ War 
 in Central Europe from 1618 to 1648 presents to 
 us a different and sadder phase in the relation of 
 war and religion. After the crisis of the Reforma- 
 tion it is no longer war between Christianity and 
 some alien religion which tears Europe into pieces ; 
 it is a series of wars rending Christianity itself. It 
 is Christian against Christian, Creed against Creed. 
 Other interests were involved, no doubt, and to a 
 greater extent than before pure material selfishness 
 entered in. But this was avowedly a war of religion. 
 The idea of religious toleration was dimly finding 
 
 its way into great minds; but in the seventeenth 
 
 century men were only gradually being emancipated 
 from the stage at which the burning of a heretic 
 was regarded as necessary for himself and the 
 Church. Wars of Christian religion were merely 
 the general expression of the same _ principle. 
 Dynastic, territorial, commercial interests may have 
 been involved in the Thirty Years’ War. But those 
 were secondary, at least in men’s minds; the 
 conflict of religion came first. Which was to 
 triumph, Rome, Wittenberg, Geneva? Men cared 
 even to the death about so great a question. Agony 
 and grief were nothing in comparison with the 
 triumph of the truth. Thrones rose and _ fell, 
 policies were framed and changed, in the interests 
 of different forms of Christianity. And because 
 neither side clearly triumphed there emerged from 
 the strife the grotesque formula, ‘“‘Cujus regio, 
 ejus religio,” ‘‘ Whoever holds the sovereignty, let 
 him choose the religion.” It was too absurd a 
 solution to hold the field for long. 
 
 21 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 (vi) The Civil Wars in England and Ireland.— 
 Contemporary with the Thirty Years’ War, and in 
 many ways parallel with it, were the Civil Wars 
 in the British Isles in the seventeenth century. 
 But beginning as they did within a few years of 
 the end of the Continental struggle, we see the 
 religious impulse less dominant. It was there, 
 clearly enough, but it was overshadowed by consti- 
 tutional rivalries and problems. In Ireland the 
 religious motive was more obvious, and the massacres 
 perpetrated by both sides in that lamentable struggle 
 have survived to exacerbate the political contro- 
 versies of to-day. 
 
 But the principle of religious toleration has made 
 way, so far at least as war and death are concerned. . 
 Religion has ceased to be a dominating cause of ~ 
 conflict between civilised states. 
 
 In these days men do not go to war about religion. 
 However they may quarrel in less violent ways about 
 their various creeds, it is no longer a cause of inter- 
 national rivalry. In the late war Roman Catholic, 
 Protestant and Jew fought side by side against 
 Roman Catholic, Protestant and Jew of a different 
 political loyalty. The religious aspect of the thing 
 took another form. Much was said on either side 
 by way of proving, or asserting, that the cause each 
 defended was just, and therefore that God must 
 approve and bless it. But the Churches took 
 neither side. How could they? They were all 
 involved on different sides. We fight to-day for 
 the control of the markets of the world, for wealth, 
 and territory which brings wealth, for coal and oil 
 
 ,and iron. Our Western civilisation has reached the 
 22 
 
Ppa 
 
 CAUSES OF WAR 
 
 stage when, partly from indifference, partly from 
 shame, religion is no longer a cause of war, and yet 
 cannot stop it. The united Christian conscious- 
 ness of Europe and America was powerless to control 
 national forces. It could do little even to soften 
 the bitterness of the struggle or to mitigate suffering. 
 It may indeed be said that the loving and skilful 
 care of the wounded owed much to Christian com- 
 passion; but two thousand years of Christianity 
 have failed to mitigate the savagery of Christian 
 nations at war. It must be confessed that the mode 
 of conducting war since 1914, and much of the 
 sentiment shown since the peace, derive far more 
 obviously from the Old Testament, even from the 
 standards of our pagan forefathers, than from the 
 Gospel of Christ. 
 
 To sum up these considerations, it must be con- 
 fessed that the history of the influence of the 
 
 | Christian Church on war is very sad reading. Men 
 believe, and rightly believe, that the Church should 
 be an international Christian Commonwealth, tran- 
 -scending all smaller divisions, and refusing to be 
 
 moved from the principles of the Gospel by any 
 lower ideals. ‘That this has not been so historically, 
 and is still so far from being so, is the great tragedy 
 of the Christian ages. 
 
i? oe) 
 Fava ¥ 
 
 vel 
 
 on > . 
 ee os wee 
 — =a < : : : 
 ae - eee Se Ate | 
 = . ~~ > ete i Lee oe =. =< = | 
 * ee Se : << 3 
 oi ee ales Re aee ee ee 
 
 me 
 a 
 
 ——S. 
 —e 
 he le, 
 
 —~ 
 
 
 
CHAPTER II 
 THE MORAL PROBLEM: IS WAR RIGHT OR WRONG? 
 
an? 
 Ca) 34 ¢ Ahi) 
 AW a uay 
 
 Brin sk 
 as ores! ? 
 yi ee 
 Pre.’ 
 i) Pol, 
 ne 
 
 i 
 { us 
 
 1, 
 
 ST 
 
 
 
 ‘ gr ‘ ‘ 
 je i. Seb ‘ 
 ftiv rh tl ae P 7. ’ : 
 PON Pay af TL oe oh ‘ we Pe 
 4! rs 4 eed whys f i 
 ag Pa Be oy rh 
 mh. 6 NaS 
 . f eo L e 
 . 
 a 
 ‘ ; [ 
 * ary 
 ee 
 5 a 
 ey ; 
 . ; e)! 
 . 
 ’ 
 : 4 
 ‘ ‘ 
 ay 
 ‘ 
 =? 
 ‘i 
 j 
 of 
 ih ¥ ) iy ‘ | i 
 , ; “ ay 
 i f w, t “ f i! , ] 
 4. a ra te q M4 
 
 
 
CHAPTER Il 
 THE MORAL PROBLEM: IS WAR RIGHT OR WRONG? 
 
 Wuite these are the causes and motives of war, 
 yet as man is a moral being, and in the measure in 
 which he is sensitive in conscience, will he feel 
 himself under obligation to justify war, or a par- 
 ticular war on moral grounds, or grounds that at 
 least appear moral. We need not concern our- 
 selves with the point of view of those who find no 
 moral problem in war, and thus see no need for 
 offering a justification for it, as no one who takes 
 the moral standpoint can for a moment entertain 
 sucha view. War may be justified on three grounds. 
 
 1. The first argument may be stated in terms 
 such as these. ‘The individual is subordinate to 
 ‘the State, patriotism demands that he should be 
 prepared for any service or any sacrifice which the 
 interests of the nation demand of him. Whatever 
 may be his own opinions or feelings as regards war, 
 if his own nation is at war, the responsibility for it 
 rests on the rulers, and his obligation is to do what- 
 ever he may be required to do in defence of his 
 country’s honour and safety. 
 
 (i) In support of this position it is contended 
 that a man ought to love, care for, and serve his 
 own country, and that the State as the organ of 
 the common action of the nation may claim his 
 
 27 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 loyalty and submission so far as conscience will 
 allow. ‘The substance of Paul’s plea for submission 
 to the Roman Government is still valid. The 
 association of human beings in fellowship, in 
 co-operation, and not conflict has been one of the 
 primary causes of the uplift of mankind, as regards 
 not only material evolution, but rational, moral, 
 and spiritual progress. Of this fellowship there 
 must be some expression, and this the sense of 
 belonging to a nation, the sentiment of patriotism 
 is. Of this co-operation there must be an organ. 
 While for many partial fellowships and co-opera- 
 tions there may be voluntary societies, yet there 
 are common interests which can be protected and 
 advanced only by one association, the authority of 
 which finds general recognition. For practical 
 purposes this association must take the form of the 
 State. 
 
 (11) It 1s contended that within its protection 
 _and by its promotion there have been produced law, 
 order, settled conditions, a continued improvement 
 of the standard of life, education, and artistic 
 culture. As individuals we could not have ad- 
 vanced to the personal liberty and responsibility to 
 which we have attained unless the arms of the State 
 had been around us to provide a secure haven in 
 which we might develop. Because of the ad- 
 vantages from this corporate life it is to the normal 
 mind a duty beyond dispute that each citizen should 
 support his State to the utmost. ‘To many minds 
 there is something peculiarly objectionable, “ un- 
 sporting,” in the attitude of the citizen who, having 
 
 taken the advantages without a question all his life, 
 28 
 
THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 when the State is in peril and conflict, appeals to 
 his individual conscience in refusing such service 
 and sacrifice as his nation may require of him. 
 The normal mind will not indulge in any fervent 
 sentiment of patriotism, it will not conceal from 
 itself the horror and the misery of war; but when 
 the country calls its manhood to the colours for its 
 own protection, or for any cause to which it is 
 pledged by its honour, it will accept any service, 
 however unpleasant or even hateful it may be, 
 because it is the decent thing to do one’s duty to 
 one’s country. 
 
 (ii) Such an argument, which does express the 
 scarcely articulated thoughts and feelings of a great 
 multitude of those who fought, suffered, and died, 
 cannot be treated without respect and sympathy. 
 But it is not a withholding of the respect and 
 sympathy due to point out some of the flaws in the 
 argument. 
 
 First of all, there seems to be too close an identi- 
 fication of the nation and the State, much as the 
 State has in the history of many a nation contrib- 
 uted to its preservation and progress. While the 
 State is an indispensable organ of the nation for its 
 corporate action, the nation’s thought and life, for 
 which such great claims can be made, is not ex- 
 hausted in the action of the State, and what is 
 best and truest in it has often been hindered and 
 not helped by the State. Patriotism as love of 
 . country has to be distinguished from loyalty to the 
 State, and may sometimes demand even defiance 
 and disobedience. No man will lightly incur that 
 responsibility, if he recognises his moral obligations 
 
 ae 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 to the society in which he finds himself, but the 
 possibility that a man may best serve his country 
 by resisting its Government must not be excluded. 
 For, secondly, the State not only may, but often 
 does fall short of what is best and truest in the 
 nation, and has most claim on the devotion of the 
 citizen. For history has shown the State as the 
 wrongdoer, as the enemy of advancement. Even 
 when the Government is dominated by public 
 opinion and popular sentiment, no such infallibility 
 can be claimed for it as to forbid the independent 
 judgment of the individual conscience, even ad- 
 mitting that that too may and does often err. Still 
 less can the State claim such absolute moral authority, 
 when the machinery of government is, as sometimes - 
 happens, being used by politicians for their own ~ 
 individual interests, or the interests of a class or 
 group possessing an influence over them. 
 Accordingly, in the third place, the progress of 
 human society has depended very largely on the 
 independent activity of the reformer, even martyr, 
 who recognises a higher law within than any laws 
 without ; and takes the risk and pays the price of 
 following conscience even when that means dis- 
 regarding Cesar. One of the greatest of the Greek 
 tragedies, the Antigone of Sophocles, presents to 
 us for our admiration a sister who performs the 
 funeral rites for her brother despite the prohibi- 
 tion of the country’s ruler. Jeremiah, one of the 
 greatest of the prophets, was regarded and treated 
 as a traitor by the rulers of his people. And as 
 the apostles asked, so in every age and land men 
 have had to ask the question: ‘“‘ Whether it be 
 30 
 
 > 
 
} 
 
 THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 \right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather 
 than unto God, judge ye.” ‘The individual con- 
 science cannot be relieved of the responsibility of 
 moral judgment and decision by loyalty to the 
 State or love of country, great and enduring as 
 ordinarily is the claim of the State to submission, 
 and of country to any service or sacrifice which 
 conscience allows. 
 
 (2) Those who justify war, or only a particular 
 war, while condemning war generally, must fall 
 back on the second argument. However bad war 
 is, in the miseries it inflicts, in the passions it lets 
 loose, in the deterioration of character and conduct 
 it involves, there are worse things than war—in- 
 justice, oppression. of the weak by the strong, breach 
 of faith, invasion and tyranny; and to prevent and 
 resist these war is legitimate. It is always evil and 
 never good; but it may be the lesser of two evils, 
 a necessity however lamentable. 
 
 (i) Those who so argue ought not to be charged 
 with delighting in or approving war. For many 
 during the Great War the decision to volunteer for 
 military service was a real moral choice. Without 
 at this stage of the discussion considering the question 
 from the Christian standpoint, the first moral 
 question which must be raised is this. Are there 
 interests so vital to the moral character and progress 
 
 of mankind that to protect and vindicate these so 
 
 great an evil as war may be incurred? ‘The moral 
 judgment of mankind generally has had no hesitation 
 hitherto in an affirmative answer. 
 
 (ii) But the further question may be raised, 
 
 | Had there been no resistance, and only submission, 
 
 31 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 would right or wrong have prevailed in the long 
 run? As the patience of the saints has worn out 
 the fury of their persecutors, would iniquity 
 allowed to have its own way at last have been 
 abashed? ‘There, again, we are only in the region 
 of probability and not certainty. It is true that 
 the victory has not always been to the good cause, 
 and thus war is an uncertain arbiter. 
 
 (iii) Once more it must be urged that to-day war 
 conflicts with the highest morality current as it 
 did not in former times. It is not possible to 
 believe that Leonidas at Thermopyle, nor the - 
 French at Agincourt, nor the Swiss at Sempach, 
 nor Garibaldi with his ‘Thousand were criminals. 
 These actions were notable examples of a morality. 
 which only differed from the universally current _ 
 practise in being more thorough, more heroic. 
 In ancient days tenderness for human life had not 
 yet been generally felt, man was not thought of as 
 a vehicle of the Universal Spirit of God, so his 
 life was not sacred, religion was not loyalty to the 
 divine in man, but loyalty to something emphatic- 
 ally different from man. Therefore human life 
 was taken at its superficial face value; it could be 
 replaced. What moral qualities did war produce 
 in ancient times? In it the foundations of courage 
 and patience and public spirit were laid. Men 
 learnt obedience to authority, learnt how to be 
 organised, learnt craft and sharp devisings. ‘They 
 also learnt cruelty, brutality, blood lust, tyranny 
 over the weak. Sympathy, which is the basis of 
 all high morality, was weakened, and the heart was 
 hardened. That is, up to a certain point, an 
 
 32 
 
ii 
 \ 
 
 THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 elementary point, fighting had ethical value, along 
 with ethical loss. But all that is now at issue in 
 conduct—sympathy and tenderness, justice, self- 
 
 \ control, a broad humanity, gentleness, what is 
 meant by the character of a gentleman or a saint, 
 reliance on spiritual forces, a disciplined and habitual 
 
 purity—all these are denied and reversed in war. 
 There you have to do to others what you would 
 
 ,not that they should do to you; upbuilding is 
 
 changed to destruction; to harm, not to help, is 
 one’s central purpose. Morally, there is established 
 a topsy-turvy world, and naturally an outbreak of 
 crime follows every war. When in doubt on a 
 moral practice it is a safe guide to find out what is 
 the type of conduct evoked among those who 
 practise it; so it helps us here to see where in 
 history war ceased to be useful. For modern 
 society actually depends for its existence on the 
 growth of sympathy, leading to co-operation, public 
 spirit and the elimination of poverty and disease. 
 War is morally a dangerous survival. Moreover, 
 modern war has left no scope for valiant personal 
 encounter, though corporate courage is needed as 
 much as ever. ‘That is, its former uses are of the 
 past, for the most part. 
 
 (iv) Lastly, we must therefore press the question, 
 Whatever the function of war may have been in 
 the past, have we reached a stage in human progress 
 when the moral ends sought by war, and missed 
 as often as gained, can be secured in some other 
 way? It will be difficult to persuade nations to 
 abandon war as a last resort altogether, unless the 
 
 | methods of promoting peace among the nations 
 
 D 33 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 become so certain and general that there will be 
 no provocation of war, and no moral grounds on 
 which a justification of war can be offered. The 
 morality, challenged by war, must meet the challenge 
 by providing the conditions of enduring peace. 
 
 3. This consideration suggests a third argument 
 offered in justification of war. 
 
 (i) It may be contended that when man’s moral 
 progress is completed, war will. be no more, but 
 that meanwhile man is not good enough to solve 
 his problems without war, and that even those 
 whose conscience is for themselves in advance of. 
 their own age or people, must bear the iniquities 
 of others in submitting to, and even participating 
 in modes of action which they cannot approve. 
 In order not to be morally a stumbling-block to 
 others, they must sacrifice the full expression of 
 their conscience in their conduct : they must act 
 on a lower level with their fellows rather than 
 separate themselves from them. When there is a 
 common peril which seems to call for a common 
 effort that it may be averted, a man must be very 
 fully convinced in his own mind to bring himself to 
 refuse any share 1n measures to protect his country 
 from invasion, or to preserve its independence. 
 Love for our fellow-men in danger, suffering and 
 struggle may seem the better part even than the 
 ‘conscience void of offence.” A regard for our 
 own moral integrity may in such an hour seem. 
 egoism, and the suppression of our scruples to do 
 and dare, endure and suffer with others may seem 
 altruism. 
 
 (ii) Such a presentation of the moral situation 
 
 34 
 
THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 makes a strong appeal to many, and one does not 
 judge those who respond to it. But two doubts 
 regarding its moral soundness at once arise. Is not 
 conscience the one good which no man has a moral 
 right to sacrifice? Admitting in all humility that 
 he may be mistaken, and judging with charity those 
 who differ from him, for each man his own con- 
 science must be the supreme moral authority. All 
 else he may in love for others surrender, but that 
 law within, for that links him to a wider moral 
 community of God and mankind, and love for that 
 is the supreme moral love. If this be so, in the 
 second place, the best gift that any man in love for 
 his fellows can bestow on them at any time is 
 loyalty to that inner law. He misses a great oppor- 
 tunity if in just such a situation he does not maintain 
 the supremacy of conscience. 
 
 4. As it is not the Christian conscience alone 
 which has pronounced war wrong, and refused any 
 part in carrying it on, for pacifism has been held 
 by many who do not confess themselves as Chris- 
 tians, we must consider the general moral grounds 
 for condemning war. 
 
 (i) Here a distinction must be recognised between 
 ' those who would say that war everywhere and always 
 
 is wrong, condemned by an universal, permanent 
 
 principle, and those who would unreservedly con- 
 /~\demn it here and now on the ground that it is 
 contrary to the stage of moral development that 
 
 in the civilised races has been realised. ‘This dis- 
 
 ‘tinction is due to the passing of ethical thought 
 
 to the evolutionalist standpoint. Morality is to 
 be thought of, not as a universal and permanent 
 35 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 law, but as relative to a growing good, of which it 
 is itself part. The man is good whose conduct 
 corresponds with and advances that growing good ; 
 the man is bad whose conduct contradicts and 
 hinders that good. We do not need to ask, Is 
 war right or wrong absolutely, but is it right or 
 wrong for us to-day in the total conditions of our 
 life, including the development of conscience? 
 Right and wrong are moral attributes and can 
 therefore only be ascribed to beings who can exer- 
 cise moral attributes. It is never the act, always 
 the agent, that is right or wrong. It is only when - 
 nearly all agents at a special place and time agree 
 in considering any act to be right or wrong that 
 the word becomes generally, though loosely, applied 
 to acts, such as lying or stealing. ‘The distinction 
 above drawn, obvious when stated, is of quite 
 cardinal importance when we are concerned with 
 acts which some think right and others wrong; 
 but it is nevertheless generally ignored. Even the 
 agreed articles of our moral code are not as universal 
 as they look. It would be possible for a romancer 
 to invent situations to which, to avoid greater 
 evil, lying and other transgressions might become 
 duties. By so putting the question, we are relieved 
 from the necessity of condemning as bad all who 
 fought in the wars of the past, the record of which 
 fill so many pages of history. We can even admire 
 
 _ their loyalty, courage, and sacrifice. One of the © 
 
 ultimate problems of all theistic thought is this. 
 Why has man evolved in this way, and not another 
 such as we can imagine more desirable? 
 
 (ii) There has been through travel, commerce, 
 36 
 
THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 colonisation, and other means a great unification of 
 the interests of mankind : the ideal of one humanity 
 has ceased to be a vision, and promises to become a 
 reality. War is a retrograde movement, opposing 
 the progress which all the conditions make possible 
 and imperative for mankind. Ona candid examina- 
 tion modern wars must be recognised as mainly due 
 to rival ambitions, military or economic, or both. 
 No one Great Power can be regarded as a total 
 villain, and none as perfectly innocent. For the 
 relations which to-day provoke war, the responsi- 
 bility must be shared by all, whose policy is selfish 
 and regardless of the interests of others. ‘That such 
 ae? are pursued in times of peace is morally 
 
 lameworthy, and condemnation cannot be reserved 
 for the one nation, or group of nations, whose 
 action is the occasion for that explosion, the materials 
 for which all nations were collecting. 
 
 But it may be said we are surely to fight when 
 our country’s “honour” is impugned. ‘The word 
 deserves consideration. For the honour of a 
 nation works at times in a way opposite to the honour 
 of an individual. An honourable man will take 
 no advantage over his neighbour, either by violence, 
 legality, or deceit. He is careful to adjust any 
 unfair advantage he may have gained. He would 
 not make a secret treaty with one neighbour against 
 another. As a trustee he would be faithful to his 
 wards. He would not exploit their property nor 
 sell concessions to do so. He would not sell a 
 poisonous drug like opium, for profit, nor grind 
 the faces of the poorest to get cheap labour. But 
 nations are rivals in the exploitations of the dark 
 
 37 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 child races for whom they are trustees. A nation’s 
 ‘honour ” too often consists 1n scoring off a rival, 
 and having to yield nothing. Individual honour, 
 then, is opposed to excessive egoism, national honour 
 is sometimes the same as satisfied egoism. We must 
 therefore scrutinise very carefully every claim ad- 
 vanced under cover of “ national honour.” 
 
 (iii) To defend all that is done in war as action 
 ‘similar to that of warding off by force an outrage 
 ‘on a woman or child, or struggling with a burglar, 
 jor as in line with the action of the policeman in 
 arresting, or the judge in sentencing the criminal 
 to imprisonment, is simply to compare things 
 altogether unlike. Few wars and few operations 
 in any war can be defended on such grounds as: 
 ‘these. Further, the use of force in an ordered 
 society is limited as far as possible. Moral obliga- 
 tions to the criminal are recognised. ‘The police- 
 man who uses unnecessary violence is censured by 
 the bench; the advocate who unfairly pressed the 
 case for the prosecution would suffer in his reputa- 
 tion. But in war, not only the use of force, but 
 falsehood, deceit, and the loosening of all moral 
 bonds are justified. The normal moral relations 
 between the civilians of the two nations at war are 
 suspended. It is thought by some misguided 
 patriots a duty to hate women and children, and 
 to demand reprisals upon them. Far as the treat- 
 ment of criminals fails to be what it ought, there 
 is not the remotest analogy between what is done 
 to them to restrain them from wrongdoing, and 
 what is done, justified, and even made a boast of 
 
 in war. ‘This is a paradox, that man in a civilised 
 38 
 
THE MORAL PROBLEM 
 
 community 40-day has been so moralised that war 
 involves a demoralisation such as it did not in 
 previous ages. 
 
 5. A consideration which must not be passed 
 over in collecting the data for a judgment is the 
 futility of most wars. They do not accomplish 
 what they were intended to accomplish, however 
 honest and honourable may have been the motives 
 of those engaged in them, or when men look back 
 upon them after a lapse of years they see that the 
 ends, so far as they were legitimate ends, might 
 have been accomplished in another way. Lord 
 Salisbury admitted that in the Crimean War, Great 
 Britain had “backed the wrong horse.” ‘The 
 Treaty signed at Lausanne stands in_ historical 
 continuity with the ‘‘ Peace with Honour ”’ which 
 the Earl of Beaconsfield claimed to have brought 
 back from Berlin, The war to end war has left 
 Europe in a condition in which, unless the hearts 
 of nations be changed, another war is being pre- 
 pared. But let us take the three most defensible wars 
 _ ef our own time. The unity of Italy was achieved 
 _ by military methods, and she has failed to realise 
 the ideals of her noblest patriot, Mazzini. With- 
 out depreciating Lincoln’s greatness, the nobility 
 and sincerity of his purpose, it must be noted that 
 _ emancipation was not the issue raised at the begin- 
 _ ning of the American Civil War, but the right of 
 States to recede from the Union. This war left a 
 _ twofold legacy of hate, the one between North and 
 _ South, and the other between white and black or 
 coloured in the South. Although there has been 
 
 an improvement in the relation of the two races, 
 | 39 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 yet in some of the States the negroes have been 
 denied the protection of the law, and the rights of 
 citizenship. » An instructive contrast is the relation 
 of white and black or coloured people in the British 
 West Indies. There emancipation was effected by 
 legislation; there is not the same colour hatred, 
 and the descendants of the freed slaves are passion- 
 ately loyal to Great Britain. Even in the United 
 States of America the problem of slavery would 
 probably before long have found an economic 
 solution, as experience has shown that free labour 
 is more advantageous than bond. If that con- 
 sideration had not sufficed, the growth of the moral 
 sentiment against slavery would certainly in time 
 have achieved a moral victory. How tragic have 
 been the results of the first Balkan War for the 
 emancipation of the subject peoples from the 
 tyranny of Turkey! This was followed at once 
 by the miserable quarrel over the spoils between 
 Serbia and Bulgaria, which produced the second 
 Balkan War, the intrigues of Austria and Russia 
 for a predominant influence, the murder of the 
 Archduke, which was made the occasion for bringing 
 the quarrel of the two Great Powers to a head in 
 the Great War. 
 
 While such divergent judgments are held by men 
 whom we must recognise as equally conscientious, 
 we cannot claim that the moral conscience of even 
 the more fully developed peoples has solved the 
 moral problem of war. Can the religious con- 
 sciousness in its highest expressions, as is generally 
 acknowledged, the teaching and example of Jesus, the 
 Christian revelation of God, meet the moral demand ? 
 
 40 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE CHRISTIAN POSITION IN REGARD TO WAR 
 
a 
 7 
 . Wee 
 eat x 
 Vey AY, 
 
 if 
 
 Psy 
 Vat a ce \ 
 a0 le 
 
 
 
CHAPTER III 
 THE CHRISTIAN POSITION IN REGARD TO WAR 
 
 (A) Tue Tracutnc, Metuop anp EXAMPLE OF 
 JEsus 
 
 ‘THERE is no direct evidence that Jesus explicitly 
 either condemned or condoned war. His view on 
 the question must be attained by indirect means. 
 In the first place we may draw inferences from His 
 general revelation of God. In the second place 
 we may examine some of His teaching which comes 
 nearest to having a direct bearing on war. 
 
 1. fesus as Revealer of God 
 
 (a) Jesus stands on the basis of the revelation of 
 God recorded in the Old Testament. The Jew 
 held firmly to certain convictions: that God is 
 one; that He is perfectly just and holy; that He 
 is the Creator and Sustainer of the world; that 
 He cares for men, and required righteousness of 
 them. All this Jesus accepted, and He based His 
 teaching upon it. But He was not bound to the 
 Old Testament. His conception of the righteous- 
 ness God requires of us went deep. “ Ye have 
 heard that it was said ... but I say unto you” 
 (Matt. v.). He did not hesitate even to repudiate 
 
 43 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 requirements of the Levitical law. The greatest 
 advance on the thought of His contemporaries was 
 in His conception of the wideness of God’s mercy, 
 the power of His love and the nature of His 
 redemption of man. 
 
 (5) ‘The Jew of our Lord’s day thought of God’s 
 care as limited practically to Jews, and to those 
 among the Jews who were earnest in the attempt 
 to live righteously according to the Law. The 
 Gentile was outside any real care of God. The 
 unrighteous Jew lay under His displeasure. Right- 
 eousness won God’s favour, the unrighteous had . 
 nothing to expect but destruction. Now Jesus 
 taught that God cares for the lost; He welcomes 
 the returning prodigal because He longs for his 
 return, loving him still in his sin (Luke xv.). He 
 seeks the lost until He finds him (Luke xv. 4). 
 And He regards His own Mission as to sinners 
 rather than to the righteous (Mark ii. 17). He 
 claimed that God showed favour, not to the good 
 as their desert, but to both evil and good because 
 of their need (Luke vi. 35; Matt. v. 45). He 
 \ broke down racial barriers, finding saving faith in 
 a heathen (Matt. viii. 5-13; Luke vii. 1-10), and 
 He cast the traders out of the outer court of the 
 Temple because they were depriving the Gentiles 
 of one of the few religious privileges which Jewish 
 ‘ exclusiveness allowed them, quoting as He did so 
 the words of the prophet, “‘ My house shall be 
 called a house of prayer for all the Gentiles” 
 (Mark xi. 17). 
 
 (c) The fact is that Jesus thought of God’s love 
 not as a reward to His chosen and righteous people, 
 
 44 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 but as a powerful force able to transform the un- 
 righteous into righteous. In other words, God to 
 Him was the Redeemer in a fuller and deeper sense 
 than the Old Testament had realised. New Testa- 
 ment writers grasped this. To them, redemption 
 is no longer, as in the Old Testament, a Divine 
 rescue of the righteous from their misfortunes and 
 their enemies, but a Divine rescue of sinners from 
 themselves and their sin. This is the very heart 
 of the Christian message. No man is hopeless. 
 The heathen can be made God’s people, and the 
 sinner can be transformed into the saint, by the 
 power of the love of God. For, as St. Paul said, 
 quite in the spirit of His Master, it is “ the goodness 
 of God that leadeth thee to repentance”? (Rom. 
 il. 4). 
 
 eg % This same sense of the wideness of God’s 
 -mercy and the power of His love accounts for the 
 difference in our Lord’s conception of the Kingdom 
 from that of His contemporaries. He thinks of 
 it as something growing (Mark iv.) ; already present 
 (Luke xi. 20); yet still to come (Luke xi. 2). The 
 ‘humble and childlike are already in the Kingdom, 
 and the Kingdom is itself spoken of as an inward 
 state (Luke xvii. 21). It would then appear that 
 Jesus thought of God as winning His control of 
 men by bringing them to repentance (a change of 
 mind), so that they inwardly submitted themselves 
 entirely to Him. ‘They became more than subjects, 
 His friends and children, because they had utter 
 confidence and dependence on Him, and inward 
 understanding of their King. Every man who 
 enters into such relations with God becomes both 
 
 45 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 consciously, and in his unconscious dealings with 
 his fellows, God’s messengers to them, leading them 
 to make a like change, and accept a like control. 
 Thus the Kingdom as an individual state of mind 
 and heart passes over into a universal reign of God 
 over all men. 
 
 The whole of Jesus’ life and actions are seen to 
 work towards this end. He made His aim the 
 change of the individual, and the appeal made in 
 life and teaching He confirmed in His death. For 
 it was because of His message, and its antithesis to 
 the ordinary standards of His day, that the opposition — 
 which led to His death arose. Both His insistence 
 on God’s love to sinners and His attitude to the 
 Gentiles brought Him into conflict with the 
 authorities (Mark 11. 17, xi. 27 ff.). And because 
 He claimed to be Messiah, while they did not 
 believe Him to be Messiah, the ruling class of the 
 Jews had Him executed. The root cause of His 
 death, then, was His message. The idea of God 
 which the Jewish rulers had was in conflict with the 
 idea He had. Their God stood for privilege, 
 favouritism, rigid nationalism, narrowly conceived 
 righteousness. His God was love, He stood for 
 the unity of all men, and for a redemptive love that 
 would make sinners righteous. Thus His death 
 confirms His message. But in another way also it 
 confirms it. Facing evil and hostility, Jesus con- 
 tinued to meet them with love and forgiveness. 
 Standing for a God of love, He must love to the 
 uttermost, and suffer the utmost that evil men 
 could devise rather than retaliate upon them. 
 Jesus loves His enemies, and dies at their hands, 
 
 46 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 because God loves His enemies and seeks to save 
 
 _ them from their sin. All this shows Jesus definitely 
 
 _ regarding love as the power which is to conquer, 
 and Himself trusting it to the end. It suggests a 
 repudiation of all exclusive nationalisms and the 
 establishment of a world-wide Kingdom of God, 
 in which love will be the motive power of life. 
 
 2. Teaching apparently Contradictory 
 
 (a) In apparent contradiction to all this about 
 love, there is a great deal in the Gospel about the 
 destruction of the wicked. ‘There is the fate of 
 those who cause little ones to stumble (Mark ix. 
 42-48)—the hell of fire where their worm dieth 
 not, and the fire is not quenched. ‘The wicked 
 husbandmen are to be destroyed because of their . 
 unfaithfulness (Mark xii. 9). We are to fear Him 
 who has power to cast into hell (Luke xu. 5). The 
 unfaithful servant is to be cut asunder and to have 
 his portion with hypocrites (Matt. xxiv. §1). The 
 unprofitable servant is to be cast into outer dark- 
 ness, “there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
 teeth ”’ (xxv. 30). And the blasphemer against the 
 Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of 
 an eternal sin (Mark ili. 29). Other passages of a 
 like character might be quoted. 
 
 (5) With these must be associated certain words 
 of Jesus sometimes held to show approval of war. 
 “Think not that I am come to send peace on 
 earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” 
 (Matt. x. 34). No one really believes that the 
 object of Jesus’ coming was to set man against 
 
 47 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 man. But everyone knows that the choice between 
 the old standards and the new that He introduced 
 does bring division, and sometimes even war. ‘The 
 words are probably a foreboding of that. Their 
 intention in this place is to let the disciples know 
 that, though the message of Jesus is glad news of 
 perfect final harmony in God’s Kingdom, the way 
 to it is through suffering, because men will not 
 accept the message. In a discourse at the Last 
 Supper, Jesus is reported to have told His disciples 
 to sell their garments and buy swords (Luke xxii. 
 35-38). A few hours later He rebuked one of the — 
 disciples for using his sword (Matt. xxvi. §2, 53). 
 So it does not look as if the words were to be taken 
 literally. ‘This statement is of such doubtful mean- 
 ing that no certain conclusions can be drawn from it. 
 
 In Mark xiii. 7, Jesus foretells wars. This is 
 simply a prediction of fact, not the expression of a 
 moral judgment. A study of the context leads to 
 the conclusion that Jesus was referring to events 
 coming very shortly, and which took place before 
 the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. 
 
 3. More Direct Teaching bearing on War 
 
 We may now turn to consider the teaching of 
 Jesus that comes nearest to having a direct bearing 
 on war. 
 
 First, Jesus both on a general principle and in a 
 particular instance forbade His disciples to fight. 
 ** My Kingdom is not of this world : if my Kingdom 
 were of this world, then would my servants fight, 
 that I should not be delivered to the Jews” (John 
 
 48 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 _ Xvitl, 36). The clear implication is that the King- 
 dom of God is not to be gained nor defended by 
 
 | fighting, but by some other and better means. 
 
 es 
 
 Jesus rebuked Peter for using his sword in defence 
 of Him (Matt. xxvi. §2, 53). 
 
 (c) We will now look more closely at two sayings 
 of our Lord which have most bearing on the matter. 
 
 '* Love your enemies”? (Matt. v. 43-48). This is 
 
 noteworthy, not only as a principle of action, but 
 especially because of the ground upon which Jesus 
 urges it. “That ye may be the sons of your 
 
 Father in heaven.” ‘The implication is that we 
 
 are to do good to all men, bad and good alike, and 
 to consider their welfare equally because God does 
 so. It may be questioned whether national enemies 
 or individual enemies were before our Lord’s mind, 
 but there is no reason to think that He would have 
 countenanced different attitudes in the two cases. 
 The reaction of love to hate is enjoined because it 
 is God’s reaction, and therefore of universal validity. 
 
 (ii) ** Resist not him that is evil”? (Matt. v. 38- 
 
 _ 42). ‘This section naturally divides into two parts. 
 
 There is first the statement of a general principle, 
 which is the direct reverse of the principle of 
 retaliation and retribution: ‘“ Resist not.” ‘The 
 second part consists of several instances of how this 
 principle is to be carried out. ‘The general principle 
 is the important matter. If that is carried out, 
 and the evil-doer is met with kindness, conciliation, 
 and love, the action taken is a comparatively un- 
 Important detail. But the instances still have some 
 importance. ‘‘ Whosoever shall smite thee on the 
 right cheek, turn to him the other also.” ‘This 
 E 49 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 clearly implies that one should rather receive a 
 repetition of the first injury than repay with injury 
 in the same way. ‘“ Let him have thy cloke also” 
 means, it is better to let one who is unfairly taking 
 one’s property have more than he asks than to 
 retaliate upon him with injury. “Go with him 
 twain” indicates that in Jesus’ estimate it was 
 better to do more than was demanded than to 
 refuse forced service. “ Give to him that asketh ” 
 indicates that the generous spirit, even to the 
 demands of a tyrant, is better than the opposite 
 attitude. [These indications, then, one and all 
 point to carrying out the principle of non-resistance’ 
 to its fullest extent. They also indicate that it 1s 
 not a negative principle, but 1s positively “ over- 
 coming evil with good,” as St. Paul phrased it. 
 
 “ Resist not”’ is put in contrast with the Jewish. 
 principle of retaliation and retributive justice, “ an 
 eye for an eye” and “a tooth for a tooth.” This 
 principle is enunciated in each of the three recen- 
 sions of the Jewish law (Ex. xxi., the Book of the 
 Covenant; Deut. xix., the reformation under 
 Josiah; Lev. xxiv., the Priestly Code). It was 
 publicly administered law, and its object, stated 
 in Deut. xix. 19-20, was to “‘ put away evil” by 
 deterring others from doing wrong. It would then 
 appear, if these Old Testament passages were in the 
 mind of Jesus, that in this place He definitely 
 intended to repudiate both the retributive and the 
 deterrent methods of punishment, and to substitute © 
 the principle of winning men by love. It is re- 
 markable that in the last few decades many of those 
 who have studied criminals and punishment are 
 
 §o 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 coming to agree with Him. They have found 
 retribution and deterrence, on balance, evil; and 
 kindness when tried has often won great successes. 
 While from the Old Testament quotation with 
 which the section opens one must assume that the 
 idea of punishment was in the mind of Jesus, from 
 the following context in the illustrative examples 
 we may conclude that another form of evil-doing 
 than that which courts of law can touch was also 
 in His mind. 
 
 The mention of forced service in Matt. v. 41 indi- 
 cates that part at least of what was in His mind was 
 the injustice and arbitrary exaction which the Jews as 
 a subject people suffered from their Roman rulers 
 and their underlings. The demands for money 
 or goods indicated in verse 42, and the legal unfair- 
 ness of verse 40, may very well also refer to the 
 same sort of circumstances. ‘This means that here, 
 as in some other places, Jesus is indicating a truer 
 attitude to the Romans, the attitude to be assumed 
 by His disciples. 
 
 (B) Divercent Views 
 
 Up to this point the members of the Commis- 
 
 sion were in agreement. But here a divergence 
 appeared between those who hold that war is in 
 all cases and circumstances wrong, and those others 
 
 who, while believing that the development of 
 
 Christianity under the guidance of the Holy Spirit 
 
 must in the end show the utter incompatibility of 
 
 the Gospel with war, yet.hold that 1t-may be not 
 
 impossible at present.to conceive of_a_religiously 
 51 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 righteous war. It seemed best, therefore, to insert 
 at this point in the Report two sections; the one 
 putting the view generally known as pacifism; and 
 the other stating the position of those who believe 
 that, hateful as war is, it cannot be absolutely 
 condemned in all circumstances. 
 
 iM. 
 é 
 
 Mee 
 
 * (a) Statement of the Position of those who do not 
 accept Pacifism 
 
 Among all Christians there should be, although 
 there are not as yet, the following common con- 
 victions about war: (i) that war is contrary to the 
 spirit and purpose as well as the teaching of Christ ; 
 (ii) that a Christian is bound to do all he can to 
 promote the interests of peace, and to prevent the 
 provocation of war; (ili) that any war of aggression — 
 of which the motive is greed, pride, selfishness, or 
 worldliness is wrong, should be unreservedly con- 
 demned, and should be opposed by all available 
 means of influencing public opinion and popular 
 sentiment, not only by individual Christians, but 
 by Christian Churches in their corporate testimony 
 and influence. (It has already been pointed out 
 that an apparently aggressive war may be preventive 
 or defensive, and here judgment is not so simple, 
 although most Christians who have really thought 
 out the question would mitigate their condemnation 
 while withholding their approval.) The issue seems 
 to narrow itself down to this. Is even a war to 
 resist invasion or vindicate justice altogether wrong, 
 evil as by its very nature we must regard war to 
 be? ‘This involves for the Christian these further 
 
 52 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 questions. Is Jesus’ teaching about non-resistance 
 to wrong authoritative for all times and places? 
 Is the redeeming grace of God in Christ the only 
 method by which God deals with sin, or has righteous 
 judgment a place in His Providence? Is Christian 
 ethics a law to be rigidly obeyed regardless of 
 varying circumstances, or is it an ideal to be realised 
 gradually in correspondence with the total con- 
 ditions of the human progress, in which the Divine 
 purpose is being fulfilled? 
 
 (1) It is generally agreed that in morals absolute 
 rules cannot be laid down; there are permanent 
 and universal principles, but their application must 
 be relative to time and place. A Christian must 
 always love, and not hate; he must ever be willing 
 to forgive and never seek revenge; he must be 
 ready for any sacrifice which love and forgiveness 
 may demand. What is not certain is whether love 
 always demands non-resistance to violence, outrage, ' 
 or wrong, and that forgiveness must be offered | 
 whatever be the attitude of the person to be for- 
 given. It is not certain that resistance to wrong 
 and holding back of forgiveness may not be the 
 sacrifice which the highest moral interests may 
 require. ‘Those who do not accept the Pacifist 
 position are no less eager for the realisation of the 
 Christian ideal, even if the problem does not seem 
 to them so easy of solution. The question a 
 Christian has to ask, if he is himself injured, is, 
 _ would he by more submission promote the moral 
 
 good of the wrongdoer, or would severity of rebuke, 
 | or even inflicting of some penalty, bring home to 
 the conscience the nature of the offence? Still 
 
 53 
 
 ee 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 more difficult is the question when it is another 
 who has been injured, or runs the risk of hurt. 
 To forgive an injury done to ourselves may be a 
 clear duty; but not so clear the duty of allowing 
 another, whom we could shield, to suffer hurt. 
 More complex even is the situation of a govern- 
 ment, with the responsibility of maintaining the 
 order of the community, and obedience to its laws, 
 of thus protecting the person and the property of 
 its subjects; if its subjects are also citizens with a 
 share in the government, that wider responsibility 
 also falls upon them. 
 
 To preserve and to protect a nation with the 
 varied treasures of thought and life that it has 
 gained in the course of its history does appeal to 
 even a Christian conscience as so sacred an obliga- 
 tion, that resistance to invasion or oppression may 
 seem an imperative, however lamentable, necessity. 
 It must be conceded that war is as inadequate and 
 inappropriate a method of fulfilling a moral obliga- 
 tion as could well be conceived ; to prevent attendant 
 evils so great as to imperil the moral good itself 
 seems impossible; to limit its scope to the fulfil- 
 ment of the moral purpose for which it may have 
 been undertaken has hitherto passed the wit of 
 man; passions are then let loose which morally 
 injure the nation in defence of which the war is 
 undertaken. Admitting all this, Christian men 
 have found themselves in a situation in which no 
 other course than war for the safety or honour of 
 the nation seemed possible. So far the Christian 
 Church generally has not understood the teaching 
 of Christ, or the spirit and purpose of the Gospel, 
 
 54 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 as to regard war as for the Christian absolutely 
 prohibited in such circumstances. 
 
 (ii) We must recognise that the teaching of Jesus 
 _was relative to time and place in its concrete appli- 
 cations of His enduring truth. Even if He had, as 
 is contended, national enemies in view, political 
 oppressors and not religious persecutors, it may be 
 argued that what was the duty of the small Christian 
 community, passive submission and not active 
 resistance, placed as it was at that time, is not 
 necessarily the duty of a nation when confronted 
 with an assault on its independence, and all that 
 liberty has meant, and still means for it. To fulfil 
 His vocation Jesus had to detach Himself from, 
 and even oppose Himself to every suggestion or 
 encouragement of the political Messiahship the 
 people craved, and His community must share His 
 attitude. He foresaw that disaster would be the 
 result of the rejection of Himself and the course to 
 which He called, and that His cause would be pre- 
 served only by His community not following the 
 policy of the Zealots. The wisdom of His teaching 
 none can in the retrospect of history doubt or 
 question; and in an analogous situation it would 
 be counsel to be followed. But is every situation 
 in which resistance to wrong may be offered anal- 
 ogous? An affirmative answer would not appear 
 always justified. 
 
 (iii) ‘he appeal to the teaching of Jesus regarding 
 |non-resistance is not conclusive; and we must 
 emphasise rather the inconsistency of war with the 
 redemptive grace, the forgiving love of God in 
 Christ. ‘That when that purpose finds its fulfil- 
 
 55 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 ment, and in the measure in which it finds its 
 fulfilment, war will be no more, is the hope of 
 every Christian heart; and this hope must inspire 
 efforts toward that fulfilment. While this method 
 of dealing with sin is the method by which alone 
 the final victory of God over sin will be achieved, 
 it does not follow that here and now it is God’s 
 only method; and that if men are to be the imi- 
 tators of God, it is the only method obligatory on 
 them. Even in the teaching of Jesus there are 
 passages which indicate another method—the judg- 
 ment of sin. ‘This teaching has the support of the 
 prophetic discourses and the apostolic writings ; 
 and the greater part of the Bible would need to 
 be rewritten if there is no reaction of God against . 
 sin in the condemnation of sin, and the expression 
 _of that condemnation in the consequences of sin. 
 The great ethical literature of the world as well 
 as the individual conscience supports the same 
 conclusion. This does not involve any incom- 
 patible attributes in God. God's love is the com- 
 munication to man of His perfection, that man 
 may be holy as God Himself is holy; and it is no 
 less love to condemn sin than to have compassion 
 on sinners. ‘That men may share God’s condem- 
 nation of sin, the evil of their sin has to be brought 
 home to their consciences in the consequences of 
 their sin to themselves and others. Love may 
 suffer the infliction of pain that it may secure 
 goodness. Merely retributive consequences of sin 
 would be incompatible with the love of God; but 
 if these consequences be deterrent, reforming, and 
 
 remedial, these may be the only ways in which love 
 56 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 ' can win its way with some. ‘To invoke the Divine 
 omnipotence is an irrelevance, as omnipotence 
 cannot solve moral problems. ‘That God’s resources 
 of love will avail at last to overcome all sin and 
 unbelief we may hope, however faintly at times; 
 that among the resources He employs as well as the 
 direct appeals of His love we may reckon these 
 consequences of sin we may also believe, without 
 doubting His love. ‘To describe these consequences 
 as natural is not to relieve God of the ultimate 
 
 responsibility for them, unless there be an order — 
 of Nature independent of His will, and even opposed 
 to His purposes. ‘That there is difficulty in harmon- 
 ising the punishment of sin as it appears in the 
 natural and moral order with the redemption in 
 Christ Jesus may be admitted; the problem for 
 thought will be solved only when the problem in 
 fact has been solved, when grace shall have triumphed 
 not over righteousness but in righteousness. ‘The 
 consciences of many Christians have been all astray ; 
 still more has Christian theology had no glimpses 
 of the truth, if there be no Divine judgment on 
 sin. 
 (iv) If God did not manifest His final purpose 
 at the beginning of His creation, but has been 
 gradually revealing it and realising it as men were 
 able to receive it and respond to it, then evolution 
 is His method, and a gradual progress in the way 
 in which the Christian ideal can alone be realised 
 in human history, man being what he is. The 
 Christian ideal does exclude war. But Christian 
 wisdom must under the guidance of the Spirit of 
 God judge whether in any situation war can be 
 
 57 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 altogether excluded, whether the stage of develop- 
 ment has been reached when this element in the 
 ideal can be fully actualised. We are forced to 
 recognise the relativity of Christian ethics in this 
 respect. It is a conclusion to which the Christian 
 thinker will come with regret and reluctance, as 
 it would certainly be more congenial to claim that 
 we must here and now give effect to all Christ 
 taught and act only in the spirit of redeeming 
 grace. ‘There are few wars which could be justified 
 from the standpoint which has been enunciated, 
 for neither in scope, purpose, nor result do wars 
 generally conform to the moral requirements 
 which the Christian conscience must affirm. 
 
 (v) About one duty there should be no doubt 
 among Christians, even those who do not accept 
 the pacifist position. If their own nation has 
 refused to submit the quarrel with another nation, 
 which is the occasion of war, to the League of 
 Nations, or some similar judicial or arbitral tribunal, 
 or is refusing to accept the decision so obtained, 
 _ they must refuse to fight, cost what it may, as no 
 moral justification for the war so pursued can be 
 offered. It has been suggested as a means of 
 preventing war, that the following pledge should 
 be taken by all who recognise how seldom a war 
 ean be justified, and who desire to do all that they 
 can do to put an end to war: “ Believing that 
 [Law must take the place of War in international 
 
 isputes, we, the undersigned, solemnly pledge 
 
 urselves to withhold service from any Govern- 
 
 ment which refuses to submit the causes of the 
 
 dispute to an international Court, or which refuses 
 58 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 to accept the decision of such Court. We will 
 fight to defend our country in the event of an 
 attack by another nation which has been offered 
 arbitration, and which has refused it, but in no 
 other circumstances.” The expediency of such a 
 pledge need not now be discussed. But surely the 
 Christian Churches could declare that they would 
 not give any sanction or support to a war for which 
 the fullest moral justification could not be pleaded? 
 And those Christians especially who are not pre- 
 _ pared to condemn war in all circumstances are under 
 a moral obligation to do all they can to prevent 
 just those circumstances in which war seems the 
 lesser of two evils. They must be not less zealous 
 than Pacifists are in their opposition to war, and 
 all policies which make for war, and in working 
 for the international relations which will promote 
 a permanent, assured peace. 
 
 (b) Statement of the Pacifist Postion 
 
 1. All recognition of duty is subjective. Un- 
 doubtedly there must be a final good which is the 
 aim of all life, and equally there must be an ideally 
 right way by which that aim may be attained, but 
 no individual has either a perfect conception of 
 the aim, nor an unerring grasp of the method of 
 its attainment. Each man must to the best of his 
 powers, using all the light he can get, follow the 
 way that to his conscience appears right, in reliance 
 upon the Spirit of truth who guides into all truth 
 those who sincerely desire to be led. Thus while 
 every man must act according to the dictates of his 
 
 59 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 own. conscience and use every endeavour to gain all 
 the enlightenment he can,. no one has a right to 
 blame another for acting according to his con- 
 science because that happens not to lead along the 
 same path as his own. What follows is then in no 
 sense meant as a condemnation of those Christians 
 who do not accept Pacifism. It is what some 
 Christians sincerely believe to be right. They 
 would greatly fail in duty if they did not strive 
 both to act upon it themselves, and as far as in 
 them lies to make it known to others. They 
 assume no moral superiority. They have none. 
 The difference between them and their fellow- 
 Christians is not one of moral attainment, but a 
 difference of opinion as to what is right. | 
 2. It is important to keep clearly in mind that 
 it is war that is under consideration, not the use 
 of force in general. War is force carried to the 
 slaughter of innocent people wholesale, organised 
 by States without any court of justice or appeal 
 to a higher power, and aiming on each side at the 
 subjugation of the opposing nation to the will of 
 the conqueror. From the very circumstances of 
 the case, when once it begins between modern great 
 States the whole of each nation is, as far as possible, 
 mobilised against the whole of the other, and 
 neither side can afford to forego any action which 
 might lead to an advantage over the other. Thus 
 it comes about, and in the nature of things is bound 
 to come about, that one after another the scruples 
 of humanity and the dictates of the Christian con- 
 sclence are thrown aside and war becomes more 
 
 and more ruthless. This in its turn leads to a 
 60 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 progressive deadening of the moral sense of the 
 nations engaged, so that towards the end of, and 
 after, a great war atrocious deeds are palliated and 
 condoned, which in the early stages of the war 
 could scarcely even have been committed, much 
 less justified. It is, in fact, these spiritual and 
 moral evil results of war that are amongst the chief 
 grounds for the Pacifist condemnation of it. That 
 war destroys men, 1n most cases innocent men, 
 wholesale; that it maims and mutilates many 
 more; that it causes the violation of women and 
 the deaths of children by famine, all these are 
 counts in the indictment against it. Yet, on the 
 one hand, if by war there were some moral and 
 spiritual advantage achieved, or if, on the other 
 hand, fighting against aggression could put a stop 
 to these evils, it might be held that, though costly, 
 war was worth the cost. But the case is otherwise. 
 Spiritual and moral degeneration sets in in all 
 nations engaged in war. Even when war is entered 
 upon in the spirit of chivalrous idealism, the neces- 
 sity for doing evil deeds sears the conscience and 
 breaks down the moral standard. And the conduct 
 of war leads the nation whose cause is just to the 
 commission of far more atrocities than its attempted 
 protection of the weak prevents. War does not 
 deliver the goods. Moreover, war greatly increases 
 the evil passions of envy, hatred, and jealousy, 
 which are generally recognised as amongst its causes. 
 Far from being similar to a thunderstorm which 
 clears the air, war loads the international atmo- 
 sphere with many more immoral passions than it 
 
 clears away. The Pacifist case against war 1s, 
 61 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 shortly stated, not merely that it means destruction 
 of life and property on a great scale, but that it also 
 necessarily implies a lowering of the whole moral 
 standard. 
 
 3. If we look upon the modern world, in which, 
 owing to the development of rapid transit, all the 
 nations are brought close together, we realise that 
 if there is to be any enrichment of life for man- 
 kind generally, it can only come about by the 
 cultivation of all that makes for mutual under- 
 standing and harmony amongst men, of sympathy 
 and the power to understand another’s point of 
 view, of sincerity, and perhaps most of all of the — 
 willingness to surrender one’s own individual in- 
 terests in deference to the wider interests of the 
 whole. Now it is these that war tends to kil. 
 It cannot proceed without the cultivation of © 
 callousness; untruth and deceptive half-truth are 
 essential methods of war-time propaganda, and 
 though the individual has often in war to learn 
 to subordinate himself to the State, a lesson that 
 has perhaps been learnt too well, what is chiefly 
 needed in modern life is the subordination of the 
 nation to the whole of mankind, and war denies 
 this. Even when a nation wages war in a just 
 cause, though the evil passions and ideas that cause 
 ageressive war may be absent from its people, the 
 process of war itself produces the moral degenera- 
 tion just mentioned, as our own recent experience 
 testifies. For it would be difficult to find any 
 nation that ever entered upon a war in a more 
 idealist spirit than that of Great Britain in 1914. 
 
 On every side we now have the testimony of moral 
 62 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 deterioration. The conclusion seems obvious that 
 war is a means that disgraces the holiest cause. 
 
 4. These considerations on the one hand, and 
 the contemplation of Jesus Christ and what He 
 stood for on the other hand, lead an increasing 
 number of Christians to deny that war can under 
 any circumstances be right. If war were a single 
 simple phenomenon, merely one case of the problem 
 of the use of coercion upon persons, it might be 
 true that no general moral principle of Christianity 
 could be urged against it. But it is a most com- 
 plex phenomenon, which, having its roots in evil 
 desires, false aims, and sinful passions of men, 
 destroys human life, blights human happiness, in- 
 creases the moral obliquity of mankind, and tends 
 to perpetuate itself by preventing the growth of 
 those spiritual qualities which are necessary for its 
 extinction and producing those that make for its 
 continuance. We agree with multitudes of our 
 fellow-Christians, a rapidly growing and vigorous 
 host, that one of the great public duties of the 
 individual Christian and of the whole Christian 
 Church must be to promote peace and to prevent 
 war. We see avenues of useful work in these 
 directions open on every hand. International 
 friendship must be encouraged ; people of different 
 countries must get to know one another better, and 
 the Christian organisations in different countries 
 must combine together for common effort for the 
 Kingdom of God. The difficulties that might 
 lead to war must be settled by arbitration, and the 
 causes that lie deeper, greed, misunderstanding of 
 real interests, mistaken Rast ts and foolish pas- 
 
 3 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 sions, must be removed by gaining a truer view of 
 life and duty. All things that make for inter- 
 national co-operation towards a better state of 
 things should have the hearty support of all Christian 
 people, and it goes without saying that all true 
 followers of Jesus Christ must refuse to support 
 their own country in any war that is aggressive or 
 unjust. ‘They must learn to criticise their nation’s 
 policy, even as they endeavour to criticise their own 
 conduct, with a view to bringing it up to the 
 Christian standard. 
 
 5. All this unites, or ought to unite, all Chris- 
 tians, but many will feel bound to go farther. 
 They will see in the Divine revelation in Jesus 
 Christ the indication of a way of life that will not 
 only if lived out take away the occasion of all wars, — 
 but will actually, if only a sufficient number of 
 people heartily accept it, even bring wars to an 
 end and establish justice in the earth. For they 
 see in the life and activity of Jesus, and in His 
 death, a method of overcoming evil which, entirely 
 repudiating all means that injure or destroy human 
 life, conquers the evil in it by good, and only by 
 good. ‘They see that returning good for evil and 
 meeting hatred with love hold promise of a victory 
 far greater than has ever been achieved in the world | 
 by might of arms, for they see that instead of 
 destroying the enemy it turns him into a friend and 
 so enriches the world. ‘They see that the weapons 
 of Jesus were reason, love, and persuasion. He 
 stood for the good of all. His ideal was such that 
 no one could see it without accepting it as his 
 ideal. His motive was in for men, desire for their 
 
 4 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 good and for the true development of their 
 characters. And He made every endeavour to 
 bring them to see and accept that ideal by the 
 appeal to conscience, common sense, and human 
 good feeling. Christians from St. Paul’s time 
 onwards have seen the whole significance of their 
 Lord brought to a focusing point at Calvary; and 
 it is surely in the light of the Cross, the supreme 
 revelation of God’s nature, that we can best in- 
 terpret the fullness of the Christ. On the Cross 
 Christ declares not only the full horror of man’s 
 sin, but God’s way of treating the sinner. When 
 Jesus went up to Jerusalem, human history reached 
 its greatest crisis; men were challenged to pass 
 judgment upon man, to choose or reject the things 
 that belonged to their peace. The whole conduct 
 of Jesus proves how fully He realised the momentous 
 character of the issue, how deeply He yearned that 
 His own might be saved from a fatal misuse of their 
 power to choose. Surely here if ever He would 
 have been justified for His mother’s sake, for His 
 disciples, His people and the world, in employing 
 coercion. The words in Matt. xxvi. 53 indicate 
 that He believed such a course within His power. 
 But in spite of the agony of it He refused to resist, 
 and chose, as He had done in His temptation, to 
 appeal only and solely by the influence of suffering 
 love. ‘Though by His decision a sword was driven 
 through His mother’s heart, though He was dis- 
 appointing the hopes and provoking the denials of 
 His disciples, He went to death rather than use 
 any form of compulsion. When they struck, He 
 reviled not; when they crucified He prayed, 
 F 65 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 ‘“‘ Father, forgive.” Bearing the effects of men’s 
 sins in His own body He did not cease to love. 
 And His love thus revealed triumphed. Pentecost 
 and the redeemed society of believers were the 
 first-fruits, being lifted up He draws all men unto 
 Him. A spiritual change unique in human experience 
 was accomplished. 
 
 6. It is on this ground that we believe love to be 
 the supreme, indeed the only, redemptive influence. 
 If this is true, and it is surely fundamental to 
 Christianity, then a complete “ transvaluation ”’ is 
 necessary, all the standards of this world must be 
 changed. If Jesus is the revealer of God, and God’ 
 is like Jesus, then the love which gives and suffers 
 is the way of life. All else will, in the nature of 
 things, ultimately fail; this alone creates and 
 regenerates. ‘he universe is so ordered that those 
 who sin against love inevitably bring evil conse- 
 quences upon the world through which the innocent 
 suffer with the guilty. But the Church exists in 
 order to carry on the work of redemption, in order 
 to love, and if need be for love’s sake to suffer. 
 And if the Master would not, surely the Church 
 cannot, contemplate any other method of over- 
 coming evil. If the Church or the Christian is 
 martyred by refusing to fight for life, did not Jesus 
 chose martyrdom, and warn His followers that they 
 also must take up the Cross? 
 
 7. That Divine love is not a mere amiability or 
 passivity is plain enough. Between the cowardice | 
 which shirks moral responsibility and yields itself 
 a victim to circumstances and the wise and pas- 
 sionate devotion which seeks and saves the lost 
 
 66 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 there is a world of difference. The Christian is in 
 a real sense called to struggle: only certain weapons 
 are forbidden him. He cannot willingly use evil 
 means to achieve good ends: such means do not, 
 in fact, accomplish their purpose. God’s love has 
 so ordered the world that consequences of awful 
 severity often fall upon those who are blind or 
 rebellious and upon the innocent victims of ignorance 
 or sin. But the right to inflict pain is surely con- 
 ditioned by love; and only rarely can any of us 
 feel so sure of our love that we dare use force to 
 express it. “‘ Vengeance is mine: I will repay,” 
 is a pre-Christian conception of God, and as such 
 perhaps inadequate; but at least it warns us that 
 we are not fit to assume the Divine prerogative or 
 to exercise a power which only love can rightly 
 use. Some have claimed that they have killed in 
 war while loving: if there are any who love enough 
 to take so great a responsibility we cannot share their 
 confidence. 
 
 8. At the same time we do not wish for a moment 
 to dispute the extreme difficulty of the problem of 
 compromise, or to deny that for the Christian the 
 conduct of life can only be the best possible under 
 the circumstances. Living in a world only partially 
 Christian and with characters and instincts largely 
 unredeemed, each one of us must constantly find it 
 bewilderingly hard to choose the right course. It 
 is easy enough to condemn those who say, “ Let 
 us do evil that good may come”: none of us dare 
 claim to have recognised or resisted the temptation 
 consistently. For the conflict of loyalties between 
 
 the full pursuit of our own convictions and the 
 67 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 obligations of love and fellowship to our comrades 
 is often intolerably hard. Especially under modern 
 conditions» where corporate life is organised and 
 complex we cannot contract out of our environment 
 so as to be free of all responsibility for the sins of 
 the society to which we belong. What is required 
 of us is that we make the all-inclusive aim, the 
 Kingdom of God, our one object in life regardless 
 of the consequences to ourselves. ‘That the follow- 
 ing of such an aim can only bring good to all men 
 in the end is obvious. If in seeking it we experience 
 hardship or suffering, we should welcome them as 
 our share of the sufferings of Christ through which 
 the world is to be won for God. But we must be 
 chary of condemning the past and ready to admit 
 the sincerity and to sympathise with the actions of 
 others whose conduct is for us impossible. Nor do 
 we deny that progress is slow, or that the full dis- 
 covery and realisation of the mind of Christ are 
 only gradually revealed, or that the Christians who — 
 have sanctioned war in the past have been wholly 
 sincere in their discipleship. But the danger of 
 excusing ourselves on these grounds is familiar to 
 us all. It is indeed the chief source of our weak- 
 ness that we slip into lower standards of conduct 
 without being able to draw the line between adap- 
 tation to circumstances and concessions of principle ; 
 and the belief that progress must be slow is probably 
 the greatest obstacle to its speed. | 
 g. Our case against war does not depend upon 
 any assumption that the use of force upon persons 
 at all times and in all circumstances is anti-Chris- 
 tian; the matter of ae apart from others. 
 8 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 We have seen in these recent years its hideous 
 meaning and effects upon victors and vanquished 
 alike; few will now claim that it purifies or per- 
 manently ennobles. We have learned how impossible 
 it is, even in a war against aggression, to judge the 
 justice or to maintain the ideals of a cause: when 
 once an appeal to arms is made, passion supersedes 
 judgment, hate is fostered and embittered, love and 
 truth are forgotten. We have been convinced that 
 “‘a war to end war” is a delusive cry: multitudes 
 who sincerely believed it must now have seen their 
 faith overthrown. We realise that every decent 
 thing for which Christian civilisation stands is 
 imperilled by it, and that its recurrence will be 
 ever more and more destructive and inhuman. 
 And if war revealed for many a comradeship and 
 romance in life such as a materialistic peace had 
 never brought, these qualities of the Spirit are not 
 those only of the fighting man, but may be shown 
 by the man who shares Christ’s outlook towards 
 service and sacrifice, and finds in the Christian 
 adventure a moral equivalent for war. Surely here, 
 in view of such lessons, we have a manifestation of 
 evil with which there can henceforward be no 
 compromise. So long as we are all content to go 
 slowly and in our hearts to encourage doubts of 
 the redemptive value or of the practical possibility 
 of love, mankind will lack the power to break the 
 chains of instincts and habits. If the Church took 
 a united stand against this particular and admitted 
 evil, the effect of the challenge would react not only 
 upon the issue of war or peace, but upon all similar 
 though less obvious cases of compromise. Ignorance 
 69 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 of the right course is so often and so truly our 
 excuse for failure to follow Christ that when the 
 alternatives are plain (as to us in this matter they 
 seem to be) we dare not refuse to take our stand 
 decisively. 
 
 10. A great task that lies before the Christian 
 Church is the abolition of war. How is this to be 
 done? Deeply rooted in the hearts and minds of 
 men is the conviction that there must be some 
 power by which sin and evil in the world can be 
 met and overcome. That power is love. There 
 is a natural law in the spiritual world, and love that 
 emanates from God is invincible. ‘“‘ The anger we 
 create will rend us, the love we give will return to 
 us. Biologically everything breeds true to its 
 type; moods and thoughts just as much as birds 
 and beasts and fishes.” If we depart even for a 
 moment from reliance on God’s methods, if we 
 step out of the narrow way, be it ever so little, hoping 
 to circumvent some difficult obstacle, by that — 
 much do we hinder and delay our approach to the 
 Kingdom. It comes to this, we cannot overcome 
 hatred by hatred or war by war, but only by the 
 opposites of these. Evil can only be effectively 
 overcome by the mightier power of love. ‘The 
 Church is the custodian of that mighty power, 
 committed unto it by Christ Himself. It will only 
 overcome the world as it makes gentleness its might 
 and love its transmuting flame. The positive duty | 
 of the Church is to help men and women to see 
 that the real struggle in life is not with external 
 enemies which may for the moment embody the 
 “spirits evil,” but within themselves ; to demon- 
 
 70 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 strate that it is possible for the power of God to. 
 work within us an amazing sublimation of all those 
 lower tendencies and to transmute our abounding 
 energies into a mighty driving power which shall 
 work in continuous harmony with the will of God. 
 Men and women of the Christian Church will then 
 seek the expression of these harnessed powers not 
 for ignoble purposes of self-interest, but in a co- 
 operative effort to remove the appalling results of 
 man’s sin, and to establish in its place a new social 
 order in which the spirit of war and hate shall be 
 unknown. They will be guided by the wisdom 
 that differentiates between the victim of evil and 
 the evil itself, and will seek to meet the wrongdoer 
 only with weapons chosen from the armoury of 
 God. This will involve a break with much of the 
 tradition of the past, but at the same time it will 
 be a return to the simple yet passionate faith of 
 the early days in the history of the Christian Church. 
 
 There must be a wholehearted acceptance of Christ’s 
 standard of values, and thus a complete revision 
 of many tragic compromises with the standards of 
 the world. 
 
 11. The acceptance of such an alternative to the 
 method of war as this calls for nothing short of a 
 Holy Crusade. ‘This Crusade must be conceived 
 as a Great Adventure on the part of the Christian 
 Church. The spirit of adventure is dependent 
 upon a mighty Faith—a faith that is willing to take 
 any risks because it is confident that God leads. 
 To those who say there is peril in an advance such 
 as this, we would reply there is an even graver peril 
 
 in standing still. ‘To-day the Church, like Sisyphus, 
 71 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 is condemned to roll uphill the war-weighted rock 
 of humanity, and to be repeatedly overwhelmed by 
 its ever-increasing weight, just at the moment when 
 the long struggle of the years appears to be reaching 
 successful culmination. What then is our duty? 
 There is only one clearly defined way for the Church 
 to go. It is the way its Founder went, involving — 
 the definite repudiation of any un-ideal method of 
 establishing the Kingdom. ls it too much to ask 
 of the Church of Christ to believe that mow is the 
 accepted time when she should once and for all 
 abandon her reliance on the method of war even to . 
 resist the wrongdoer? Let us not flinch from the 
 consequences which such an Adventure of Faith 
 might involve for us. At the heart of the world’s 
 redemption stands a Cross, and to hope that we 
 can fully and fearlessly proclaim the Gospel of 
 Reconciliation without it is to miss that strait 
 and narrow way which leads to Calvary. With 
 humble and contrite hearts we would dedicate 
 ourselves anew to the task, and in the spirit of 
 dauntless adventure set forth on the great Crusade. 
 What this adventure is has been well stated in the 
 following words :— 
 
 “What greater message of cheer and reconstruc- 
 tion could be brought to mankind to-day than the 
 assurance that all who bear the name of Christ in 
 every land have solemnly resolved to have no part 
 in war, or in preparation for war, but henceforth to 
 work unitedly for peace by peaceful means alone? 
 Shall we not make this venture of faith together in 
 the love that beareth all things, believeth all things, 
 hopeth all things, endureth all things, and that 
 
 72 
 
THE CHRISTIAN POSITION 
 
 never fails? Shall the torch of spiritual heroism 
 be borne by the Church of the living Christ, or 
 shall leadership in the utter rejection of war pass 
 from our hands to men of braver and truer spirit? 
 Which Master shall we who call ourselves Christians 
 be known by all the world to serve, the God of 
 
 Battles or the Prince of Peace?” } 
 
 73 
 

 
CHAPTER IV 
 THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
teat ot ee Pt 
 
 » 
 
 aK 
 i 
 
 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 Tur Commission having recognised that a state- 
 ment regarding the legitimacy or otherwise of war 
 from the Christian standpoint to which all the 
 members could agree was impossible, submits state- 
 ments of the two positions, as on such a matter a 
 decision one way or another by a majority was not 
 desirable. It would be a disaster if difference upon 
 this question were to divide the Christian forces, 
 when in practice a very large measure of unity can 
 be attained in working for the prevention of war 
 and the promotion of peace. We now pass with 
 pleasure from a subject on which the members of 
 the Commission were not entirely agreed, to deal 
 with the common tasks of Christians, both in a 
 time of war, if a war should ever break out again, 
 and in periods of peace. 
 
 1. Duties in time of war—The conditions during 
 war involve many moral and spiritual perils; and 
 more than ever must the Church of Christ witness 
 and labour for the Christian way of life, against 
 hatred and cruelty, and for pity and helpfulness. 
 
 (i) However intense the feelings of patriotism, 
 the Church as a universal community must never 
 lend itself to any propaganda of prejudice and 
 passion. It must be scrupulously just and even 
 
 77 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 kind in its judgment of the enemy, and conscien- 
 tiously honest in its scrutiny of its own nation and 
 that nation’ssallies. In the lying which is regarded 
 as a necessary weapon of warfare it can have no 
 part. The Church must give itself to the ministry 
 of intercession for friend and foe alike that mis- 
 understandings and enmities may cease and love 
 may prevail. It must always seek to rise above 
 national limitations, and seek at the throne of grace 
 fellowship even with those from whom war would 
 estrange. A German scholar confessed that at the 
 beginning of the war he read his New Testament 
 in the English translation in his private devotions, 
 and an English scholar that he had used the German 
 translation. Both were seeking to sustain their 
 unity in Christ. Christians in each nation, instead 
 of allowing themselves to be carried away by the 
 popular sentiment, should strive to be a leaven; 
 if that were realised national enmities would be 
 abated. It should not be regarded as treason to 
 pray for the common good under God’s hand of 
 all nations without distinction. Whatever measures 
 to prevent financial and commercial intercourse 
 between the warring nations their Governments 
 may take, all must be done that can be done to 
 maintain the bonds of Christian fellowship, and 
 Governments must be made to understand that 
 Christians must be free to obey God rather than 
 man. If missionaries of Christian love be not 
 allowed to pass from one country to another, yet 
 meetings of prayer could be arranged simultaneously, 
 and through neutrals communications, which must 
 be strictly non-political, might be maintained. 
 78 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 (ii) Not only for those whose consciences allow 
 them to become combatants, but even for civilian 
 workers, responsible servants of the Government, 
 difficult problems arise, which cannot here be dis- 
 cussed in detail. While occasions for opposing the 
 action of the nation in its emergency should not be 
 sought, and relief of conscience where it is offered 
 should not be refused, yet the conscience which 
 has been, by prayer and scrutiny, purged of self- 
 assertion, and has been submitted to the Spirit’s 
 guidance, must remain the ultimate authority for 
 each man, but must be obeyed with charity for all 
 who differ from its dictates. As the conscience of 
 the nations led by the Christian Churches succeeds 
 in preventing wars and promoting peace will the 
 Christian’s difficulty about his conduct in time of 
 war be removed. 
 
 2. The prevention of war and the promotion of 
 peace.—While under present conditions the duty 
 of preventing war must remain, yet what should 
 be the objective of Christian prayer and service, 
 should be such conditions as will promote peace, a 
 peace which no threats of war will disturb, because 
 the occasions of war have been removed. 
 
 (i) As regards the prevention of war, the duty is 
 twofold. The provision of such an international 
 authority as will be accepted as arbiter in all differ- 
 ences and disputes between nations which might 
 lead to war: and the maintaining of such a spirit 
 in all the nations as will make that agency effective. 
 In the Preamble to the Covenant of the League of 
 Nations the two objects are set side by side—or, 
 rather, the promotion of international co-operation 
 
 79 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 actually comes before the prevention of war. ‘This 
 is in accordance with the view which, with remark- 
 able prescience, General Smuts urged in December 
 1918—that the peace activity of the League must 
 be the foundation and guarantee of its effectiveness 
 in checking war. The success of these peace 
 activities has indeed been the most outstanding 
 feature of its short history. 
 
 (a) Efforts to secure a truly effective and im- 
 partial arbiter have often been made, but into their 
 history it is not necessary now to enter, for what 
 now holds the field is the League of Nations. 
 Incomplete as it still is, because Germany and ~ 
 Russia on the one hand, and the United States of 
 America on the other, are not yet included in its 
 membership ; impotent as it has sometimes appeared, 
 when the Great Powers, following their own 
 interests, withheld their support, restricted as are 
 its functions by the jealousy of nations lest others 
 should gain any control over their policies, it has 
 already accomplished much, and would accomplish 
 more, if Governments were made to feel that the 
 nations were resolved that this means of main- 
 taining peace must be used to the full. So much 
 has been published about the League, and so 
 accessible is information about it, that it does not 
 seem necessary to deal with the matter in detail. 
 In Great Britain, the League of Nations Union 
 has set itself the task of not only commending to 
 the nation the League of Nations, but of bringing 
 to bear on the League itself the public opinion and 
 popular sentiment which it can instruct and inspire 
 
 on international questions, so as to secure the fullest 
 80 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 use of its powers for the promotion of peace. By 
 discussion in the League of Nations Union, questions 
 have been prepared for the consideration of the 
 League of Nations itself. So extensive and active 
 is the propaganda of this Union, that no more need 
 be said here about it, except to commend it to the 
 cordial and generous support and service of all 
 Christian people; for whatever the future may 
 hold, the League of Nations itself is the only effec- 
 tive international machinery in the political realm 
 for the prevention of war. 
 
 (d) It is recognised even by those who have most 
 faith in the League of Nations that, left to the 
 Governments, it would fail as other international 
 efforts have failed. The people must be behind 
 the Governments, and drive them, if need be, to 
 use the League to the full. On the. Churches of 
 Christ rests a heavy responsibility, to them comes a 
 glorious privilege, by their testimony and influence 
 to form a reason and conscience in every nation, 
 which will supply this machinery with driving 
 power. As not all the nations are equally con- 
 vinced of the value of the League, so even their 
 Churches are not all of the same mind. An educa- 
 tion of the Churches of different lands is necessary 
 to secure a common Christian conscience in this 
 matter for all Christendom. But while conscience 
 can command, love alone can constrain, and accord- 
 ingly the supreme need is so clear an understanding 
 of one another, and so close a fellowship with one 
 another of the Christian Churches of all lands, as 
 will make them of one spirit, the Spirit of the 
 
 Lord, the spirit of love, forgiveness, peace. This 
 G 81 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 is the purpose for which the World Alliance for 
 the Promotion of International Friendship through 
 the Churches has been formed. As a result of Dr. 
 Jowett’s appeal, the British Council has been so 
 reconstituted as to be representative of nearly all 
 the denominations. ‘There are now Councils in 
 twenty-three nations. No Council does, or can at 
 present, exercise so great an influence on the other 
 Councils in Europe as the British; and it can 
 effectively exercise its leadership in the ways of 
 peace only as it is not merely representative of the 
 denominations, but is sustained by the mind, heart; 
 and will, the prayer, gifts, and services of all Chris- 
 tian people. What it desires is that all Christian 
 congregations shall corporately affiliate themselves 
 to it, and promise once a year to dedicate them- 
 selves in a solemn act of worship to the cause of 
 peace. If the Churches fail in their response to 
 the appeal, what other forces can be brought into 
 the field to secure the triumph of the Spirit of 
 Christ over the spirit of Cain, “who slew his 
 brother”? 
 
 (c) Another movement which might commend 
 itself to the support of many Christians needs to be 
 mentioned, since it is working very strenuously 
 and effectively for International Peace. It is known 
 in this country as the “No More War Move- 
 ment,” and is the British Section of a rapidly 
 growing War-Resisters International. It differs’ 
 from all other Peace Movements in this respect, 
 that its object is to make personal decision never 
 to take part in war the backbone of every move- 
 
 ment towards World Peace. It is equally op- 
 82 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 posed to armed force, by whomsoever used, and 
 holds that, only by the way of reason and in the 
 spirit of fellowship and goodwill can the differences 
 between classes or nations be settled. 
 
 It is carrying on a persistent campaign to this 
 end both among the Churches, in the Labour 
 Movement and in the Press, and is reaching thou- 
 sands of people outside Pacifist circles by means of 
 its monthly paper, No More War. Chief among 
 its activities have been the initiation of the remark- 
 able No More War Demonstrations which have 
 been held in the country during the last two years 
 and the responsibility for their extension to America, 
 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India and 
 eight new countries in Europe. It is now linked up 
 with similar organisations in twenty-two countries 
 and is rapidly building up through its Inter- 
 national Secretariat a world-wide movement based 
 on personal refusal to participate in war. 
 
 (d) The testimony of the Society of Friends 
 from the very beginning of its history has been 
 “against all war, and in behalf of the supremacy 
 and liberty of conscience”; and very many 
 Friends during the 1914-1918 war suffered i imprison- 
 ment as conscientious objectors. The Society was 
 not content with thus bearing its testimony. It 
 was conspicuous for the generous varied humani- 
 tarlan service which it rendered. Some 6800 cases 
 of stranded aliens were dealt with in London and 
 its neighbourhood alone. Women and children 
 were, where possible, repatriated. In the intern- 
 ment camps workshops and useful occupations were 
 Sotest A highly efficient Quakers’ Ambulance 
 
 83 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 Corps was equipped at their expense for work in 
 France. Early in 1915 the War Victims Com- 
 mittee was at work in the devastated areas in France, 
 Serbia, and elsewhere. By September 1917 relief 
 work had been undertaken in 4o1 French villages 
 or towns. In 1916 relief work was extended to 
 the refugees in Russia, and within a few days of 
 the signing of the Peace Treaty, Friends were sent 
 to Germany, and afterwards also Austria and 
 Poland, to make inquiries and to render assistance. 
 More than a million and a half pounds has been 
 collected for War Relief. The Friends have un- 
 doubtedly in these beneficent activities shown the 
 other Churches of Christ an example of how Chris- 
 tians may maintain and express the Spirit of Christ 
 in a time of war. | 
 
 (¢) The Fellowship of Reconciliation is a Chris- 
 tian International Movement, consisting of men 
 and women of different race, nation, and class 
 united in a world-wide family. Founded in rgt4, © 
 it has groups and members in almost every European 
 country, America, the British Colonies, India, China, 
 and Japan. The members desire to realise and be 
 true to their real unity together in the bonds of 
 love, especially in face of the existing barriers 
 which divide men. ‘They believe that the indi- 
 vidual can and should practise the way of love 
 even in the midst of a community that does not as 
 yet fully accept it.. They rely on the pioneer work » 
 of individuals or groups filled with the spirit of 
 service, to permeate and transform the life and 
 institutions of society. They therefore take no 
 part in war or its preparation. They would seek 
 
 84 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 to abolish from their own lives the injustice, the 
 selfishness, the desire and the power to dominate 
 their fellows, which constitute the complex evil 
 system of present-day society. ‘They have attempted 
 to express their faith through constructive acts of 
 service and reconciliation in many spheres. ‘Thus 
 they have carried on work of relief among the 
 victims of war and violence and among the starving 
 peoples of Europe. International Conferences have 
 united together as in a family gathering members 
 of twenty-two nations. Various measures leading 
 to Franco-German understanding have been carried 
 through or are in progress, such as conferences, joint 
 reconstructive work, mutual visits, organised news- 
 service between the two countries. Practical work 
 for the Armenians is being undertaken. 
 
 3. The Christian has not done enough if he has 
 given his support to the League of Nations Union, 
 the World Alliance, or any other similar organisa- 
 tions. (i) There is a movement working for inter- 
 nationalism the value of which the Christian should 
 take into account. It is true that the war did break 
 up the international organisations of labour, and 
 that it has not yet recovered its unity. But it has 
 not abandoned its aim, the solidarity of all the 
 toilers of the world. What the movement does 
 demonstrate is that the varied interests and pursuits 
 of men in many nations may be used to serve the 
 cause of peace in so far as they can be freed from 
 national limitations and can acquire an international 
 character. 
 
 (ii) It has been shown in the first part of this 
 discussion that there are economic conditions and 
 
 85 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 political relations by their very nature provocative 
 of war. Christian men will do in vain all the 
 things so far suggested in the interests of peace 
 unless they frankly and bravely face these economic 
 difficulties in all their complexity, and again sub- 
 ject the policy of their own nation to a searching 
 scrutiny, and, if need be, a scathing exposure. ‘T’o 
 hinder the development of another nation by a 
 selfish abuse of national power in making it difficult 
 to secure food for a growing population, or raw 
 materials for developing industry, or open markets 
 for expanding commerce, or homes overseas for 
 those who seek abroad what they cannot find in 
 their own land, is inevitably to provoke war. The 
 League of Nations will perpetuate injustice if it 
 prevents war without removing these conditions 
 which provoke it. If the British Empire were 
 fashioned according to the vision of that school of 
 imperialists who desire to see an exclusive com- 
 munity of nations, sacrificing to its own enrich- 
 ment the claims of all other peoples, it would 
 become the greatest outrage in human history, a 
 constant summons to war, a defiant negation of the 
 spirit and purpose of Jesus Christ. An equal 
 opportunity for all peoples, and the freest inter- 
 change of persons and property among nations— 
 these alone are the principles of international policy 
 to secure perpetual peace. Is the Christian Church | 
 going to be silent when the contrary policy of 
 national pride, greed, and selfishness is being 
 advocated under cover of patriotism ? 
 
 (iii) Much of the vision must tarry till a wiser, 
 
 better, and more Christian generation comes on 
 86 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 the stage of history; but this generation can at 
 least prepare for that coming day. While the 
 education of the young is not the sole factor in the 
 formation of the national spirit or purpose of any 
 people, yet it may weaken or strengthen tendencies 
 due to other factors, and must, therefore, have 
 place in our consideration. How far do our educa- 
 tional methods secure the conditions which set peace 
 before the growing generations as a higher ideal 
 than war? 
 
 (a) A factor of primary importance is the teach- 
 ing of history and geography; wrongly taught, 
 those opinions are formed and sentiments cherished, 
 which are the causes of war, but rightly taught, 
 the hopes and aims of youth can be enlisted in the 
 promotion of peace. This subject is dealt with more 
 fully in the Report on Education. 
 
 (b) Cadet and O.T. Corps form a more difficult 
 question than the teaching of history or geography. 
 They are definitely a preparation for war, and seem 
 to many incompatible with an educational training 
 towards peace as the higher ideal. ‘The value which 
 is claimed for them is that they teach discipline, 
 keenness, a proper pride and helpfulness to others 
 in the highest degree; they afford healthy exercise 
 and an opportunity of service. Many who encourage 
 and are active in the movement have no intention 
 to stimulate the spirit of militarism. It may be 
 doubted whether, in pre-war days, military drill, 
 uniforms, and rifles were consciously associated in 
 the minds of the Cadets with war at all. A 
 teacher tells of a boy who on the eve of going 
 to the R.M.A. Woolwich was struck dumb by the 
 
 87 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 suggestion that his choice of a profession might 
 ultimately.lead to his having to kill someone else. 
 The minds of boys were not in the least militarist 
 and war seemed too remote a contingency to enter 
 into their thoughts. That is no longer the case; 
 training has become more technical; musketry more 
 important; the bearing of it all on national defence 
 more direct. ‘This is perhaps a passing phase; we 
 may slip back into something more general, which 
 will give the pre-war benefits of willing obedience 
 and responsible leadership and initiative without 
 the militarism of the moment. If not, then it 
 will be difficult for those who consider war wrong 
 to square this cadet training with their reading of 
 Christianity. ‘‘Si vis pacem, para bellum” may 
 or may not be a sound practical maxim, it cannot, 
 when the preparations include the young, be said 
 to create an atmosphere which exalts the virtue of 
 peace. 
 
 (c) The teacher’s attitude is what leaves its 
 impression, when all that was taught has long been 
 forgotten. It can hardly be denied that our Lord’s 
 attitude to war is one of disapproval even if it 
 may be maintained that He does not emphatically 
 forbid it. ‘That attitude is not often reflected in 
 our class-rooms and our homes. Except in very 
 limited circles the rising generation is brought up 
 to accept war as necessary, and usually without any | 
 suggestion that it is evil. It is difficult to insist 
 too strongly on the effect of this; our whole out- 
 look is coloured by it. The Christian cannot be 
 content with such an attitude. Even if his faith 
 
 may allow him under certain conditions to engage 
 88 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 in war, it quite clearly, when universally followed, 
 will make war impossible by removing the causes 
 which produce it. The spirit of religion is needed 
 in every lesson and not in the religious lesson only ; 
 we are still far from having reached the stage when 
 every subject is taught from the Christian point of 
 view ; more often it is not consciously considered at 
 all. In this failure militarism finds its opportunity. 
 (iv) Another influence which may tend either to 
 strife or to friendship is that of Culture in the 
 widest sense. If a strong nation seeks to impose 
 its forms of thought and standards of taste on other 
 peoples, bitter opposition is inevitably aroused ; 
 and hardly less dangerous is the militant attitude 
 of certain small and recently liberated peoples, 
 who almost seem to pride themselves on borrowing 
 nothing from others and shutting themselves off 
 from the main stream of the world’s thought. 
 Such self-isolation is impossible, in these days above 
 all; and when it is held up as an ideal, it is a real 
 and potent cause of misunderstanding. Rather 1s it 
 needful to emphasise the truth that only through 
 the effort to understand the genius, the difficulties, 
 the ideals of other peoples can we guide our country’s 
 policy aright and make the most of our own in- 
 heritance. Not by refusing to borrow from those 
 whose aptitudes are different from our own, but 
 by borrowing wisely, can we rightly estimate our 
 own strength and correct our own weakness. 
 Examples can be found—and may well be empha- 
 sised in education—alike in literature, in history, 
 and in religion. Chaucer was not less the “ well 
 of English undefil’d”’ because he often imitated 
 89 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 the work of his Italian masters. The heroism of 
 Jeanne d’Arc or the endurance and statesmanship 
 of Washington may well appeal to English children, 
 in spite or even because of the fact that they were 
 exercised in conflict with an England which was 
 seeking to break down the freedom of others. 
 There will, indeed, be an added warmth in the 
 appreciation of heroism displayed by those who 
 belonged to the learner’s own race and country. 
 But, for those Western peoples who owe their 
 religion to Palestine and the deepest foundations 
 of their art and science and philosophy to Greece, 
 there can be no disloyalty to their own historic 
 past in the fullest and most thankful acknowledg- 
 ment of their immense indebtedness to others. 
 More than this, the larger the number of men and 
 women in any nation who set first things first, and 
 value the spiritual gifts which pass over frontiers 
 and tariff-walls unimpeded more than the material — 
 goods which lead to. strife and rivalry, the less 
 temptation will there be for that nation to plunge 
 into war. Nor can this line of thought and en- 
 deavour be better summarised than by extending 
 the scope of the apostolic injunctions, so that it will 
 read: “‘ Look not every people on its own things 
 only, but everyone also on the things of others.” 
 (v) Much is being done for the abolition of war 
 by the Student Christian Movement, especially | 
 through its afhlation with the World Student 
 Christian Federation, which is now a world-wide 
 organisation, with branches in 2600 colleges, schools, 
 and universities in over forty countries. The 
 Movement in this country is deeply interested at 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 the present time in the international implications 
 of the Gospel; it publishes books on the subject 
 and promotes study and discussion of war and its 
 causes and of international and inter-racial problems. 
 Student leaders from other countries visit the 
 annual national conferences of the various move- 
 ments (at a recent British Conference thirty-eight 
 other nationalities were represented). The World’s 
 Student Christian Federation holds international 
 conferences from time to time where students from 
 different nations meet together to discuss their 
 common problems. Most remarkable of all was the 
 Eleventh General Conference of the Federation 
 held in Peking in April 1922, when the following 
 call to action was issued to the Christian students 
 of the world: 
 
 “We consider it our absolute duty to do all in 
 our power to fight the causes leading to war, and 
 war itself as a means of settling international dis- 
 putes. ... We desire that the different National 
 Movements of the Federation should face fearlessly 
 and frankly in the light of Jesus’ teachings the whole 
 question of war, and of those social and economic 
 forces which tend to issue in war.” 
 
 This was followed by certain specific recom- 
 mendations along the lines of international service, 
 personal friendship, study and conference, which 
 have been followed up with remarkable enthusiasm 
 in all countries. ‘There can be no doubt that in all 
 countries to-day the youth of the world is ahead 
 of the average opinion of the Christian Churches in 
 its international thinking and in its determination 
 to abolish war. 
 
 gi 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 (vi) In this connection a brief mention must be 
 made of the Youth Movement in several conti- 
 nental countries, especially Germany. It is im- 
 possible to give an account of all that this move- 
 ment stands for; so great is the variety of aspira- 
 tions and efforts. It is reported that in Germany 
 there are 600 separate movements which publish 
 120 periodicals. ‘There are groups of every political 
 complexion, from extreme Communism to State 
 Socialism or Moderate Nationalism, and every 
 religious persuasion, Roman Catholics as well as_ 
 Protestants, Jews as well as Christians. Some are 
 purely humanitarian, others are intensely religious. 
 What is a common tendency is a revolt against the 
 conditions which resulted in the war, and an aspira- 
 tion for the peace of the world through world-_ 
 brotherhood. While there are extravagances which 
 excite prejudice and suspicion in the circles which 
 follow the old ways, yet on the whole the move- 
 ments give promise of a better day, when the 
 enthusiasm and energy of youth will be enlisted for 
 better international relations, which shall secure and 
 maintain the reconciliation of hitherto estranged 
 peoples. ‘That the youth of this country should 
 be brought into closer contact with the youth of 
 other lands for such an ideal is a task well worth 
 attempting; and the Churches should give such 
 international fraternisation all the encouragement 
 they can give. 
 
 (vil) Best of all would a common morality and a 
 common religion bind the nations together. Despite 
 the failures of Christendom to establish the reign of 
 Christ as the Prince of Peace, the labours of mis- 
 
 g2 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 sionaries in the spread of the Gospel and the domi- 
 nance of ‘the Spirit of Christ may be made one of 
 the most important factors in the maintenance of 
 the world’s peace. The reproach that the wars of 
 Christian peoples have brought on the cause of 
 Christ has been a serious hindrance to the works 
 of missions, and yet missions may remove that 
 reproach by so presenting the truth and the grace 
 of Christ that He shall indeed be seen to be the 
 Prince of Peace. The future destiny of mankind 
 cannot be determined by Europe and America; 
 Asia and Africa will become of increasing import- 
 ance. Hence the necessity and the urgency of the 
 call that Christ should be offered as Saviour and 
 Lord to all races and nations, for only in Him can 
 the unity of mankind be fully realised. There 
 will be in the Christian Church of the future 
 peculiarities of national morals and devotion which 
 it is not at all desirable to suppress, but the differ- 
 ences must not be allowed to become so great as 
 to repeat the divisions of the past. What is wanted 
 as the guardian of peace is the formation of a 
 common Christian conscience, which will judge 
 impartially the policy of all nations. And such a 
 common Christian conscience can be formed only 
 as, abandoning their comparative isolation, and 
 maintaining a more frequent intercourse and con- 
 stant correspondence, Christians restore the com- 
 munity of the Spirit among all communions in 
 all lands in a common witness of the Gospel, a 
 common worship of the Father, a common work 
 for the Kingdom, a common aspiration and en- 
 deavour for the higher interests of life, a common 
 93 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 judgment regarding the relations of nations to one 
 another, a2 common purpose to make all mankind 
 
 one family of God. 
 
 Signed :— 
 Aurrep E. Garvie (Chairman). 
 GerorcE AITKEN. 
 Bertram P. AppLesBy. 
 G. F. Barsour. 
 Grorce M. LI. Davies. 
 Outver Drver. 
 Lucy GarDNER. 
 Joun W. GraHam. 
 Roa0) SAT aS 
 H. L. Jackson. 
 Cuarwes E. Raven. 
 R. G. Rovutu. 
 Francis UNDERHILL. 
 
 *F, F. Urounwarr. 
 Witi1am E. WILson. 
 
 The members of the Commission who, having 
 co-operated in the preparation of the above Report 
 attach their signatures, do so as individuals and in 
 no way commit the Churches or Societies of which 
 they are members. ‘The acceptance of the Report 
 by a signatory denotes agreement with the general 
 substance of the Report, but not necessarily with 
 every detail. | 
 
 * Note of Reservation.—I agree with a great deal that has been 
 written in the Report of the Commission on Christianity and 
 War (e. g. with what is said about the “ biological argument for 
 war, about wars for national interests,” etc.), but I cannot be 
 content with the grudging admission, even of those who are not 
 
 94 
 
THE CHRISTIAN’S DUTY 
 
 “ pacifists,” that war may sometimes be permissible. So long as 
 there is no universal State capable and willing to impose a just 
 peace, war may, I believe, be the sacred duty of a nation as the 
 only means of preventing gross national injustice. On the other 
 \hand to wage an unjust war is a great national crime, and it is 
 'the duty of all Christians and all men to do what they can to 
 prevent their country from committing it—F. F. Urquuarr, 
 
 
 
 
 wb 
 

 
 mh ay 
 hee 
 ' 
 
 ”) ey 
 
 4 
 
 | AO ate ws 
 i" ‘f [ay 
 A ny 
 
 WX 
 
 A 
 
 a; iw Ay) ead ip 
 tgs “ ) Why ‘ 
 
 AVES 
 
 <a i 
 aa 
 
 PS r: 
 
 aT 
 a 
 
 _s 
 
 cs - 
 ee 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 CHAPTER V_ 
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 Js 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ae eA " i 
 igs ta VS MA Warten ms 4: et 
 ee eS ee wee, Pee Layee. 
 
vi ’ 7 
 ou) ie ¥ ‘ rit Thor r Hos re 
 
 a) Va 
 i a4 
 hy ye Roa Oh 
 
 Pata 
 4 eo): 
 
 
 
CHAPTER V 
 RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 Tue Commission will submit the following recom- 
 mendations to the Conference for adoption :— 
 
 The Conference recommends :— 
 
 1. That the Christian Churches should in their 
 public testimony and with all their influence oppose 
 all policies that provoke war, and support all con- 
 ditions in the relation of nations favourable to 
 peace, and the agencies which promote peace. 
 
 2. That they should unreservedly condemn, and 
 refuse to support in any way, a war waged before 
 the matter in dispute has been submitted to an 
 arbitral tribunal, or in defiance of the decision of 
 such a tribunal. 
 
 3. That they should exert all their authority in 
 securing protection from any form of persecution 
 for those whose conscience forbids their rendering 
 any kind of war-service. 
 
 4. That by study of the New Testament in the 
 light of the guidance of the Spirit, they should 
 seek to reach a common Christian conscience in 
 regard to war. 
 
 5. That they should cultivate such intimate 
 fellowship with the Churches of other lands that 
 through the one Church of Jesus Christ the spirit 
 
 99 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND WAR 
 
 of reconciliation shall triumph over all national 
 prejudices, suspicions, and enmities, and that the 
 churches of many lands may unitedly formulate a 
 Peace-Programme which can be commended to all 
 who profess and call themselves Christian, so that 
 Christ shall reign as Prince of Peace. 
 
 6. That the Churches should hold these principles, 
 not only in times of peace, when their practical 
 denial is not threatened, but that also, when war 
 is imminent, they should dare to take an independent 
 stand for righteousness and peace, even if the Press 
 and public opinion be at the time against them. 
 
 Maps ann PRINTED IN GREAT Britain. RicHarpD CLay & Sons, Lrp., 
 PRINTERS, BuNGAy, SUFFOLK. 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Si