THE BISHOPS AND THE WAR
By THE DEAN OF CHICHESTER (the Very Rev. A. S. Duncan-Jones)
THE assertion that the war in which we are engaged is at bottom a conflict between opposed spiritual conceptions and moral ideals is now very widely accepted. In these circumstances the kind of guidance given by those who speak in the name of the Churches becomes a matter of concern to the average citizen. In ordinary times it is probably the case that the utterances of religious leaders affect the think- ing of large circles who do not come within the active sphere of their ministrations. In these very extraordinary times, when many are groping for ethical guidance, religious leaders have an opportunity much more widely extended, an oppor- tunity that carries with it an unusually grave responsibility.
If they are able to lay down principles of action that are clear, convincing and relevant to the situation, they will be doing a great service to .the Christian cause and justifying their claim to be messengers and watchmen.
The attentive student of episcopal utterances since the war began may be inclined to doubt whether in fact, so far as the Anglican bishops are concerned, the opportunity is being used in the best possible way. The meeting of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, which took place last week, brought to light a tendency to aim at the circum- ference rather than at the centre of the problem that faces civilisation. The resolutions passed exhibit somewhat pain- fully the persistence of that mental confusion of the Churches during the last ten years in relation to the problems of peace and war which has caused their contribution to be ineffec- tive when it has not been positively dangerous.
There are three possible standpoints in regard to war. There are those who think—like Signor Mussolini and Herr Hitler—that war is a good thing. There are those who think that all war is utterly wrong, and who therefore believe themselves bound to refuse to take part in any war or in any preparations for war. And there are those who, believing that such summary and simple conclusions must be inadequate methods of dealing with so complex a human problem, are convinced that reason and morals alike demand the conclusion that there are occasions when justice demands the resort to arms, if worse consequences are not to ensue.
Few Christians, if any, would hold the first view. An earnest and convinced minority hold the second. But the majority of Christian thinkers have always declared that war, though horrible, is not necessarily unjust, and may become a duty. They have done so because they accepted the dicta of Christ and St. Paul about Caesar, which recog- nised the importance of the maintenance of order, and because they have recognised that to refuse all legitimacy to the use of force is to leave the bandit in control, as much in the international as in the national sphere.
At the International Church Conference on Life and Work held at Oxford in 1937 it became quite plain that there is no hope of reconciling the exponents of the pacifist view with those who believe in the possibility of just wars, and their statements were left starkly side by side. Unfortunately many are unwilling to face this unpleasant fact. A tYPical example of the vague phrase that obscures truth is the assertion of the Lambeth Conference of 193o that " war as a method of settling international disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ," where everything depends on the meaning of the word " settling," and the nature of the disputes in question.
Because a war does not settle everything, many people jump to the quite illogical conclusion that it settles nothing.
History is full of examples of disputes settled by war. The claim of Napoleon to dominate Europe was settled at Waterloo. Other problems were left over for a later settle- ment. Many of them were settled—and not all badly—at the Congress of Vienna. In 1918 the claim of Imperial Prussia-Germany to dominate Europe was settled by the victory of the Allied and associated Powers. Other problems were left over for a later settlement. Many were settled at Versailles—and again not all badly. The inadequacy of the statement of the Lambeth Conference was further illustrated by the demand that the Christian Church should refuse to countenance any war that contravened the Covenant or the Briand Pact, but the omission of any insistence on support for a nation fighting in defence of these treaties.
The resolution of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury suffers from similar defects. It can hardly be regarded as a trumpet-call. Its enormous length alone excludes it from such an office. What guidance will Christian people in the country extract from the statement concerning the major issue before them at the moment, which is: Are they doing right or not in supporting the Allied Governments in their prosecution of the war against Ger- many? Is Mr. Chamberlain correct when he says that this is a fight of right against wrong? Was Lord Halifax inter- preting the situation properly when he asked the House of Lords on December 5th to recognise that " there can be no merely temporary truce or patched-up armistice," because it would bring no relief so long as the doctrine of brute force continued to rule the world? If Church leaders can give no clear lead on this question to those who are offering their lives and the lives of their children, they would be wiser to be silent. The Bishops based their appeal on a declaration of Scandinavian ecclesiastics uttered at the beginning of the war, which was merely an appeal for an early peace, without any recognition of the moral issues at stake. Subsequent and very different utterances of Finnish and Swedish ecclesiastics have made this statement out of date.
The thing that will inevitably strike the reader of the appeal is that the form in which the resolution is cast suggests that the Bishops are more concerned that Germany should not be injured as a result of the war than that the law of nations should be upheld. They say they " are per- suaded that the cause on which the country is engaged is a just cause, in no way condoning crimes committed by the aggressors and convinced that justice requires the restoration of the victims of their 'crimes "; but this is a subordinate clause, a mere preliminary to a desire that Germany should not be destroyed or lose her independence The second sub- stantive resolution is one that urges the statesmen of neutral and belligerent counties " in the interests of European civi- lisation and humanity " to " watch eagerly and constantly for opportunities to negotiate a just and durable peace." It should be said in justice to the Canterbury Bishops that the resolution is a marked improvement on the original reso- lution presented to them, which urged the statesmen " to negotiate a just peace at the earliest opportunity." But, as so often, efforts to patch an ill-balanced resolution only resulted in confused utterance, which must represent very inadequately the real mind of most of the episcopate.
For the ordinary Briton principle plays a larger part in this war than it did in the last. He sees that the establish- ment of security is the first requirement of any decent or civilised order, and this, he is convinced, cannot be effected by a compromise, but only by a victory. He has a grim feeling that this first requisite will only be secured by much more severe sacrifices, sacrifices such as the Finns are making, of life, of property, of comfort—and perhaps most of all of social prejudice—than have yet been made or asked for. But, at the back of his mind, the man in the street has an uncomfortable doubt, and it is this doubt to which religious leaders would do well to address themselves. He has no hesitation in supposing that his duty is to stand by his fellow men in other countries who are suffering from the Nazi oppression either actually or potentially. What he finds difficulty in doing is to square this moral certainty with the teaching of the Christian religion. He has heard so much of the incompatibility between Christianity and war, he has had so constantly presented to him the picture of Christ the meek and gentle, and he has heard so little of Christ the Judge, that he is tempted to give up the problem in despair. He knows what he is doing is right, and he supposes that Christianity must go into cold storage. What he wants, without knowing it, is a rational and moral theology which will justify the ways of God with men, and present the belief in the one God revealed in Christ, who fulfils himself in many ways.
Theology is a matter which falls within the episcopal pro- vince more precisely than attempts to provide, under what- ever cover, an alternative political plan to that of the Govern- ment. The Archbishop of York is doing excellent service in this necessary intellectual sphere. Might not his example be more widely followed?
Previous page
