The Better Way

A G.I. who was facing death in Korea said to a reporter: “Tell the people in America that there must be a better way to settle an argument than this, and if they care anything for their children they will find it.” Since this statement was made, Mr. Hershey, director of selective service, has said that it will require a whole generation to build up an adequate defensive army in America. If this is true, it means that every boy who is born faces the probability of being taken into the army when he is eighteen years of age. Will the people of America and of the world find that “better way” to settle their national and international arguments, as urged by the G.I. in Korea, or is the entire world destined to remain an armed camp for generations to come?

But what can be done about it? The Christian Century says that “since Christian people are always found on both sides of every struggle and the present conflict is no exception, the church is called to voice the agonized plea of an exploited and distracted humanity for an end of slaughter and the dawn of peace.” These are noble sentiments, and doubtless every professing Christian in the world wishes that the plea of the church might indeed put a stop to war, but there are probably very few who actually believe that the G.I.’s plea for a better way of settling arguments will be found by such a procedure.

On the first Sunday of October many thousands of churches in this and other countries observed “World Communion Sunday.” Millions of church members in many lands joined in prayer that day, a prayer for peace. Before that day of prayer arrived it looked hopeful that the Korean war would soon be brought to an end by the defeat of the North Korean army. But the millions who prayed were conscious of the fact that lasting peace could not be built upon a military victory of the United Nations army in Korea. They knew that festering sores of dissatisfaction existed in many places throughout the earth, and that any one or more of these were liable to erupt into war at any time.

They knew that the world is divided into two armed camps, the East and the West—the world back of the Iron Curtain, and the world this side of the Iron Curtain—and that there was no assurance that these two opposing sides, in what might one day become the third world conflict, would find a “better way” to settle their argument than to fight it out with all the modern weapons of war, including atomic bombs. Because of these conditions, all who prayed for peace that day felt the urgency of the situation, and earnestly hoped their prayers would be effective in helping to bring action on the part of the Creator, the God of heaven and earth.

Commenting on this day of prayer for peace, The Christian Century observed: “The possibilities are limitless providing only a spiritual rebirth, which the world cannot achieve of itself but which it can receive as a gift, occurs. For this gift we must pray.” This is an honest confession of inability to accomplish anything unless the Lord grants the gift of a “rebirth” to the world. The hope is that the God of the universe will grant such a gift if enough of his people request him to do so. But actually, would the “rebirth” The Christian Century has in mind help matters very much? A rebirth to what?

The Christian Century is apparently assuming that before Russia became communist the world was Christian—that all the nations were Christian, and as such had never gone to war against one another. If this were not the case, just what is meant by a “rebirth”? Has there ever been a time since the birth of Christianity when the spiritual condition of the nations was on such a high level that wars were out of the question?

Let us for a moment glance back through history and remind ourselves of some important facts. When Christianity was first established, the so-called civilized world was ruled by Pagan Rome, and Pagan Rome never had any notion of adhering to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount in her dealings with other countries. Pagan Rome settled arguments with nations by military might. If the church today had a rebirth of spiritual energy and became like the Early Church, she would still go unnoticed by the nations in their relationship to one another. Indeed, the Early Church did not enter into the civil affairs of the times at all.

When the church grew in numbers it began to attract the attention of Pagan rulers, and finally Emperor Constantine adopted what was by then a very diluted and distorted version of Christianity as the official religion of the state. Following that, Pagan Rome became Papal Rome. But did Papal Rome keep peace among the nations? Far from it! Some of the bloodiest wars of history were fought at the instigation of Papacy, and the warring armies fighting on the side of this church-state combine were blessed by the religious authorities in the government. A rebirth to that stage of the church’s history would not, then, bring peace.

But the solidarity of Rome did not continue. The Protestant movement was launched, and Europe was divided, although most countries still maintained their church-state forms of government. It then became a struggle between Catholic countries and Protestant countries, and also between antagonistic Protestant governments. Did peace flourish during that era? Were the teachings of the Prince of Peace acknowledged and obeyed by the various nations? Far from it. These church-state governments went to war against one another, and the clergy gave their blessings upon the wars then fought. Certainly a rebirth to that state of things would not assure peace.

When the colonial people of America were oppressed by the British Government, the use of military force seemed the only way to secure their much desired freedom, and again there was the spilling of blood. The people of that day who fought on both sides of the struggle were far more devoted in their religious life than most people are today. Then a much larger percentage of soldiers and civilians were men of prayer than is true today. Yet no better way was found to settle their arguments than to go to war. Would a rebirth to the status quo of that day assure peace? Seemingly not.

While wars continued intermittently in other parts of the world, here in America we had our own war between the North and the South. This war was fought for a righteous cause—the abolition of slavery. It was during a period of deep religious convictions on the part of the majority of Americans, but even then, and under the masterful and humane leadership of Abraham Lincoln, no better way was found to settle the argument than the spilling of blood. Would a rebirth to the religious fervor of the revolutionary or Civil War days bring peace to the world today? We doubt it.

There was failure to find a better way than war to settle this country’s dispute with Spain.

World statesmen were also unable to find a “better way” to resolve the controversies which led to the first World War. At that time there were fervent and united prayers for peace. But as far as results were concerned it was like the time when the priests of Baal asked their God to send fire to consume the sacrifice they offered to him. There was no response. Finally, when this country entered that war, the vast majority of our clergy became active recruiting agents for the army, many of them telling the boys that if they died on the battlefield they would be sure to go directly to heaven. The German and Austrian boys were told the same thing. Did the religious fervor of that day bring peace? The “better way” of settling differences still was not found. A rebirth to the viewpoint and spirit of that time, therefore, would not now avail to establish peace.

After the close of the first World War, tremendous efforts were made to evangelize the world. Millions of dollars were spent to this end. It may be difficult to appraise accurately just what was accomplished by these united efforts of the churches, but of one thing we can be sure, it did not produce a religious atmosphere of the type needed to find a better way to settle differences than by war; for when the crucial test came war seemed the only way out, and the world was plunged into the second global struggle. Would a rebirth of the religious state of the churches between the two wars assure us of peace now? There is no evidence on which to build such a hope.

Frankly, then, we are wondering just what The Christian Century refers to as a “rebirth.” How could the church, or the churches, be reborn to a condition that never existed? If the professed followers of Jesus from Pentecost until this day have never prevented war, but many times encouraged it, upon what basis can we hope for peace through the rebirth of a condition which previously existed? Apparently this idea, although beautifully, and doubtless sincerely expressed, offers no hope at all for the fear-filled world of today.

The assertion is correct, however, that unless God does something about it, there is nothing the churches or the nations can do. If the writer had gone just a step further and said that God actually intended to do something about it, then he would have stated the real truth of the matter as set forth in the Bible. God will grant a “rebirth,” but it will be the rebirth of a condition that dates much further back than the first advent of Christ. It will be a rebirth of that perfection that existed in the Garden of Eden before sin entered and selfishness became the motivating power of nearly all human activity.

In that original perfection, man was in the image of God, and had he remained thus, love—divine love, reflected through the human creation—would have been the ruling power among men. But that original perfection was lost when man rebelled against his Creator and flouted his law. However, the Creator did not cease to love his human creatures. Indeed, his love was manifested even more in their weakness, for he provided a Redeemer in order that through him all who desired might be rescued from the fall and its results. It was for this cause that Jesus came, and he will yet be the Savior of the world.

When Jesus was on earth to die for the sinful race he indicated how the divine plan would operate to accomplish the restoration of the redeemed world, that it would be through the administration of a divine rulership over men, called a kingdom—God’s kingdom. Thus he taught his followers to pray, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” God’s will was done in earth before man transgressed his law, and the Lord’s prayer indicates that the rebellion which then occurred, is to be put down, and that the divine will is again to be done in earth. Other prophecies reveal that this means the rewriting of God’s law of love in the hearts of the people. Then love will rule among the nations instead of selfishness. The Prophet Joel, speaks of it as an outpouring of God’s Holy Spirit upon all flesh.—Joel 2:28,29

This will be a rebirth, in its fullness, of the image of God in the hearts of the people. Then they will be quick to find the “better way” to settle their disputes. It will be the way of love. As a result of this, nations will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks. Then nations will not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.—Isa. 2:4

This, then, is the real way to pray for peace, for when we pray for that which God has promised, we know that our prayers will be answered.

When Conscience Speaks

IT IS a matter of deep concern to millions of patriotic and peace-loving Americans to realize that world diplomacy has deteriorated to the point where it seemingly has become necessary for the United States to maintain a standing army sufficiently large so that more than voluntary enlistment is needed to meet the military requirements. As all know, militarism has been a blight upon this old world for centuries. Countless numbers came to America from overseas in order to be free from a system of military control that claimed boys for the army as soon as they reached military age.

When, in the first World War, and again in the second, the actual needs of the war made it imperative that men be drafted, the wisdom of this world could find no serious objection. Nor is there any widespread and open opposition to conscription now, but there is a sad sense of disappointment that one of the things which made Europe so different from America is now fastening itself upon this nation, and apparently is here to stay for a long time. There is general agreement that the draft law should not be opposed. On the other hand, it is accepted, even by the lawmakers themselves, as the lesser of two evils, and as an inevitable plague resulting from a world sickness for which human wisdom is unable to find a cure.

But even so, America still stands far out in front of most European nations, even with its conscription law; for the United States government recognizes the right of individuals to have conscientious scruples against participating in war. In Greece today, for example, it is not uncommon for those who have religious scruples against war, and because of this to decline military service, to be shot. This was true in Germany before the collapse of the Hitler regime. Russia for a time made provision for conscientious objectors, but claimed that over a period of years no one took advantage of it; so this clause in the law was stricken out.

Actually, of course, the totalitarianism of the Kremlin could not allow for religious scruples against its laws; for under the ideology of communism, the state is supreme. No higher authority than the state is recognized. But this is not true in the United States. Here, while the government does not claim to be religious and the constitution provides for maintaining the separation of church and state, it recognizes the supremacy of God, and that, as a government, it has no right to demand subjection of the will to its laws, when, in the opinion of the individual, the laws of the state are contrary to the laws of God. This is a priceless heritage of freedom in the matter of religious conviction which should be truly appreciated by everyone who lives under the protection of the stars and stripes.

In what countries in the world today, for example, are the consciences of the people given such full recognition as they are in the United States—except, of course, other English speaking countries, where the situation in this respect is quite similar? There is no better example of this than the conscription law which is currently on the statute books, for this law provides for the complete exemption from military duty of those who are conscientiously opposed to war.

Because dishonesty and unrighteousness are so prevalent in the world, the just administration of the provision in the conscription law for conscientious objectors, is a difficult task. This law, like many others, is often brought into disrepute by those who would take unfair advantage of it. This, in turn, often works a hardship to those who are sincerely opposed to military duty.

However, the law makes every possible provision for those who are sincere to prove their position. Provision is made for appeals from adverse decisions of the local draft boards, and these appeals can be carried all the way to the President, under certain circumstances. Besides, the government looks with favor upon organized efforts to give legal and other advice to conscientious objectors. Propaganda designed to convince young men that they should be conscientious objectors, would of course—and quite properly so—be construed as opposing the draft and would not be tolerated. But those who truly are conscientious in their objection to military service are entitled to all the advice and help they can. obtain as to the provisions of the law and how to take full advantage of them. What could be more fair!

In Washington, for example, an organization is functioning which will render assistance to any conscientious objector who, because of his religious convictions, believes it is wrong to participate in war. It is known as the “National Service Board for Religious Objectors,” and is located at 1000 Eleventh Street, N.W., Washington 1, D.C. It publishes a paper known as “The Reporter,” in which the reader is kept informed with respect to all important developments in connection with the functioning of the draft law, and what its various provisions really mean in practice.

This national service board, while it works in co-operation with a large number of religious groups, does not attempt to give religious advice, but will refer any inquirer to the individual, or committee, of his particular group where such information can be obtained. There are a number of what are known as Historic Peace Churches, such as the Quakers, and others. All the members of these groups are conscientiously opposed to war. Similar views concerning war are held by many smaller groups. And besides, even among denominational groups which as a whole are not opposed to war, many individuals are taking this stand. For this reason in many of the larger denominations, such as the Lutherans, Methodists, and even the Catholics, are to be found conscientious objectors. Because of this, many of these larger churches have committees and advisers to help their members along this line who seek instructions.

Today the conscientious objector is not a “lone wolf,” for his rights are officially recognized by the government, and he can be a law abiding citizen, yet not engage in the taking of human life if he sincerely feels that this would be displeasing to his God. Not only is he recognized by the government, but as well by the churches. Knowing that practically all the churches are alert to the needs of the C.O.’s in their midst, The Christian Century, one of the outstanding Protestant periodicals of America, offers a brief explanation of the law pertaining to them, together with some advice to the churches with regard to their responsibility. We quote:

“If the United States is to have an armed force of three million, as the President announced in his radio address on September 1, then the question of conscientious objection to military service becomes much more acute and must be faced anew. The Selective Service Extension act of 1950 grants deferment to all men who are accepted by their local or appeal boards as conscientious objectors. They are placed in class IV-E and presumably are free to continue their normal pursuits as long as that classification stands. But the doubling of the military establishment is likely to bring demands that this be changed. If and when a change occurs, it will be made by additional legislation which may prescribe forms of civilian or alternative service. It is high time therefore that citizens who are also churchmen made up their minds concerning these forms of service and the relation of the churches to the men who for reasons of conscience feel compelled to refuse to enter military life. In the last war many men were assigned to “work of national importance” in Civilian Public Service camps. This work often turned out to he trivial or not suited to the capacities of the men required to engage in it. In spite of efforts to rationalize its nature, the work carried an element of compulsion which many men found themselves unable to endure. More successful were the detached service projects in mental hospitals, university experiment stations and the like. In many cases, assignments of individuals to food production, relief work or other constructive tasks were carried out successfully. New legislation should reflect the lessons learned with reference to forms of service prescribed. Meanwhile the churches should decide what their relationship is going to be to the type of civilian service their c.o. members may find themselves rendering. Church sponsorship of C.P.S. camps in World War II turned into a dubious and expensive headache. The element of compulsion which was inextricably involved often defeated the best efforts of church leaders to develop work for social and civic betterment. To a lesser degree, this was also true of other “voluntary” alternative service projects. So the task which the churches now face will not be an easy one. But that is greater reason for getting on with it.

The Scriptures reveal that genuine and lasting peace will come to the nations only through the administration of Christ’s kingdom. The Scriptures also reveal, through its time prophecies and its descriptions of present world events, that Christ’s kingdom is near. May it not be, then, that the growing conviction in the minds of so many that the world’s problems cannot be settled by war, is in keeping with what should be expected during this transition period, when a social order characterized by strife is giving place to the kingdom of peace?

In any event, it’s a far cry from the clergy serving as recruiting agents in the first World War to their taking an interest in the proper care of their C.O. members, now that the world is threatened with a third global struggle. And regardless of how any of us may feel individually, we can all look forward with rejoicing to the kingdom of the Lord, and continue to pray earnestly that it may come, and that his will may be done, thus assuring peace and happiness to all nations not only for an interval between hostilities, but forever.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |