Besides frequent references to the New Testament there will be references from time to time to the following books which for the sake of brevity will be identified by their authors when referred to in the body of the pamphlet. "The Fall of Christianity," by G. J. Heering; "Christian Pacifism After Two World Wars," by Leyton Richards; "The New Testament Basis of Pacifism," by G. H. C. MacGregor; "A Sword is Sharpened," by Dr. Donald Davidson; and the booklet "Peace and War" published by Churches of Christ Social Service Department in Victoria in 1946. The latter will be referred to by its title.

      There is a wide divergence among Christians in their attitude to peace and war. As Christians we must--whatever our convictions on this question--exercise brotherly love towards each other. It would be wrong not to recognise as Leyton Richards reminds us, p. 28., "that splendid virtues flourish amid the operations of war, alongside a whole gamut of vices; war's heroisms, its self-sacrifice, its spirit of service, its camaraderie, and much else are evidence enough of that. But war could not be conducted in terms of its virtues alone, or it would cease to, be war." Having the utmost respect for Christians who sincerely believe there are circumstances in which they must participate in war, we still feel the compulsion to maintain that the teachings and practise of Jesus and war are irreconcilable.

      The present pamphlet is an attempt to help Christian people in their examination of this admittedly difficult problem of peace and war.

      If we only had the Old Testament Scriptures to guide us we could enter into war--if not light-heartedly--at least with a clear conscience. The New Testament, however, alters all that. It presents us with the figure of Christ who claims all authority in heaven and on earth; who claims to speak with the voice of God; of whom God said: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." It is Jesus who takes up attitudes as expressed in the Old Testament and says: "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time . . . But I say unto you . . . "

      We, as a people, have insisted upon the finality of the authority of Christ; in our attitude to peace and war, it is his authority that must finally decide the issue.

      This leads us to examine

      There, are some difficult passages which may seem out of character with the general teaching, attitude and conduct of Jesus.

      In Matt. 10:34 Jesus said "Think not that I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword." It is obvious that a world opposed to Christ will attempt to wield the sword of hate and persecution against Christians. Saul of Tarsus, before his conversion, did this very thing. Jesus had said earlier (verse 16) "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves." An examination of the context (Matt. 10:34-39), or (Luke 12:49-53) makes it clear that Christians could expect the sword of persecution to be used against them. Many Christians in India, for example, have experienced at the time of their conversion severe persecution even from their own families. This passage certainly does not justify Christians using the sword against others.

      Jesus tells his disciples, (Luke 22:36-38) "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one . . . And they said, 'Lord, behold, here are two swords'." Was Jesus serious in his suggestion that the disciple who had no sword should sell his cloak and buy one? If so, how can we explain his reaction, "It is enough," when the disciples revealed they had two swords? if Jesus wanted to use the sword, what success would he have had in leading a tiny band armed with two swords? As MacGregor reminds us (p. 24) the possibility is that Jesus spoke the words in a mood of "ironical foreboding." "The words 'It is enough' might then be taken as a semi-playful reminder to the literally-minded disciples. The absurdly inadequate 'Two swords' are 'enough' with which to resist the might of Rome! So far from being a summons to armed defence,

Jesus' words are rather a wistful reminder of the utter futility of armed resistance."

      Just a few hours later in Gethsemane Jesus forbade one of his disciples, Peter, to use his sword. And this when Peter thought he was defending his master! Jesus seeing the wound inflicted by Peter's sword said "Suffer ye thus far" and heals the wound. Matthew's account is even more explicit (Matt. 26:52) "Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Jesus refused to be protected with a sword. Can the sword whose protection Jesus refused for himself afford adequate protection for "the church, which is his body?"

      We are told that Jesus' use of force when he used a whip of cords in cleansing the temple (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15) justifies the use of force. It is surely straining the passage however to make it support war. Can we imagine there were any casualties requiring hospital treatment, or even first aid, as a result of Jesus' use of force on this occasion? The physical force he used that day would have been worse than useless in itself had it not been backed by a superior moral and spiritual force. The racketeers in the Temple Court were smitten with a guilty conscience as they heard Jesus declare "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations. But ye have made it a den of robbers." MacGregor comments (p. 18) "Probably the scene of the desecration was the outer court, which was open to the Gentiles. The foreigner was being robbed of his right to approach Israel's God. An incident which is so often adduced as an apology for war can in fact be read as a protest by Jesus on behalf of international goodwill."

      Jesus sometimes uses similes likening God's ascendancy over the devil to a strongly armed man who overcomes and plunders a man less strongly armed (Luke 11:21, 22). Some have used this as Jesus' approval for the use of force by his followers; but Jesus also uses similes for his own Second Advent likening it to the unexpected coming of a burglar (Matt. 24:42-44). If the former is to be used as justification for war, then the latter could be used as justification for burglary. To state it, is to reveal the absurdity of the claim.

      The New Testament leaves us in no doubt that Christ's way of combating evil is God's way. Paul reminds us "God was in Christ," that Christ "is the image of the invisible God," that "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Jesus was quite sure he was manifesting God to men. Hence if we can find Christ's way of combating evil we can find God's way. This we can find in God's Word.

      The prophets foretold the coming of Jesus as the "Prince of Peace." His Birth was heralded by the angels with a message of "peace among men in whom he is well pleased." The Jews expected their Messiah to liberate them from tribute to Caesar. Jesus accepted Peter's confession that he was the Christ or Messiah; but steadfastly refused to satisfy their expectations of setting up a kingdom like unto the kingdoms of

      this world. Indeed, he claimed that his Kingdom was not of this world else would his servants fight. His Kingdom cannot now, any more than then, be identified with any one nation, empire, or association of nations.

      The cross is the supreme example of the attitude of Jesus to evil "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." As Peter reminds us "When he was reviled,

he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but he trusted to him who judges justly" (1 Peter 2:23). The Pacifist's attitude towards evil is sometimes described by the world--and sometimes even by Christians--as "non-resistance." Take for example this passage from "A Sword is Sharpened" by Dr. Donald Davidson. (p.50). "There is for example the burning question as to whether the Christian should take part in war. Let the answer be dictated by our attitude to Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The doctrine of the Pacifist is founded on non-resistance to evil. Peace at any price! But if this had been God's attitude to evil, He would never have sent His Son into the world. Christ would never have suffered and died upon the cross!" Dr. Davidson has really given his case away in choosing the crucified Christ as his example of God's resistance to evil. It is precisely this kind of resistance for which the Christian Pacifist pleads. As Leyton Richards observes (p. 35), "It is true that Jesus refused to meet evil with its own weapons. In that sense, He did not resist. Nevertheless, He opposed evil with all the strength of His being; for He invariably met it with its opposite, which is the only effective way of opposition. Whatever the cost to Himself, He refused to make terms with human sins; and so He persistently gave good for ill, love for hate, right for wrong, blessing for cursing. In this way He opposed evil to the death; but it was His death and not the death of the evil-doer."

      Jesus does not clutter his teaching with detached commands, but brings our whole being and conduct under compulsion of this great principle of love. The application of this principle is not confined to ideal and favorable conditions only; but is made obligatory even in the most difficult situations in which Christians find themselves. "You have heard that it was said: You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy, But I say unto you, Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you, that ye may be the sons of your Father which is in heaven."

      The Apostle Paul certainly believed Christians should follow their Lord in their attitude towards their enemies. "Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. But if thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst, give him to drink . . . Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:19-21). In war, rival countries try to starve each other into submission, and the Christian who supports war must inevitably contribute to that attempt, and thus deny his Christian obligation. Lest any should seek to escape the point of the command to feed, care for, and even love our enemies, by making a distinction between public and private enemies it is well to consider Heering on this point (p. 15), "this distinction between national and private foes has no point of contact with the gospel. Even linguistically it has none; "echthros" is used in the New Testament and in the Septuagint both for the personal and national foe; "polemios" is entirely wanting from the New Testament . . . Weiss in his commentary remarks that in Matthew 5:44 'not only the public foe' is meant, although the antithesis to Lev. 19:18 brings that meaning to mind first."

      Jesus never expected that his followers would find it easy to follow him; but he did expect them to follow. "If any man would come after me let him deny himself take up his cross and follow me." Immediately prior to this Jesus prophesied his own suffering and death, and when Peter rebuked him, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you." Jesus turned on Peter with those

startling words "Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me; you are not on the side of God, but of men" (Matt. 16:23). Jesus neither reviled nor retaliated when he submitted to his cross. When we accept his invitation to take up our cross does he not expect us to accept it in a like spirit? Do we not readily identify the evil powers of the world with our enemies of the moment; whether it be Western Germany or Russia, Italy, China or Japan? All of these have been both our enemies and our allies within the last fifty years.

      It is significant that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of his own countrymen whom he loved; but with whom he could not agree. Jesus' refusal to become a military Messiah to command an army of liberation from the Roman yoke contributed to his rejection by his own countrymen and his subsequent crucifixion. It will be the duty of the Christian at times to criticise his own country, and his own contemporary society.

      The Apostle Paul's teaching on our obligation to temporal powers or the State.

      Paul declares, (Romans 13) "the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgement." It would seem that the New Testament is not concerned with the particular kind of government; whether it be republican or monarchical; democratic or despotic. The Christian is expected to obey the law and pay his taxes not grudgingly, but with cordial loyalty. In spite of this it is impossible to imagine Paul submitting to the State's demand to recognise Caesar as God. This he would never do. When the State asks a Christian to do anything which conflicts with his loyalty to Christ, then the Christian not only has the right, but the duty to refuse to obey the State.

      "Till about A. D. 170" says G. J. Heering (p. 23) "we hear nothing of the military problem in the Christian community. Harnack, that eminent scholar of the earliest Christianity, counts the chief causes of offence which the military profession gave to the first Christians:

      "1. That it was a military calling, and Christianity had absolutely renounced war and shedding of blood.

      "2. That in certain circumstances officers had to pass sentence of death, and the private soldier had to carry out whatever was commanded him.

      "3. That the soldier's oath of absolute obedience conflicted with absolute obedience to God."

      Prof. C. J. Cadoux "The Early Church And the World" (p. 55), quoted by Heering (p.23), says of this period, "No Christian voluntarily became a soldier after conversion."

      The early church father Origen is quoted by Heering (p. 27), "We [Christians] no longer take up sword against nation, nor do we learn war any more, having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus who is our leader."

      Tertullian of Carthage about 200 A. D. is quoted by Heering (p. 28), "Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs?"

      Gradually this attitude was changed, and the change was greatly accelerated under the Emperor Constantine the Great when he was converted to Christianity about 312 A. D. "Christianity began to turn toward the State for support, and became reconciled to war and the soldier's calling." Heering notes (p. 33), two factors in this rapid change "negatively by the slackening off of the first, ardent life of faith, and positively, by the much favored idea of the 'militia Christi' of the Christian warfare, which originally had nothing in common with the practical conduct of war, but was directly opposed to it."

      While Paul constantly employs military metaphors, he takes pains to tell us "our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but . . . against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12). "Paganism had a large share in the reconciling of Christianity and war." "Heathen hordes" says Harnack, quoted by Heering (p. 34), "flocked over into the Christian Church, and quickly allowed themselves to become fanatics for their new faith, and the 'holy war' was speedily proclaimed."

      In 314 A. D., the Council of Arles published its decision that "they who throw away their weapons in time of peace shall be excommunicate." Harnack writes of this, Heering (p. 35), "Thus it is proclaimed in the name of the Church that the military authority has gained full support from the new concord between State and Emperor on the one hand, and Christianity and the Church on the other. By this decision the Church completely revised her attitude to the army and war, the attitude that had prevailed until now, at least in theory. The Church had longed to win the Emperor, and now flung herself into his arms."

      Many will feel compelled to agree with Heering (p. 35), when he says "This radical change in the Christian faith, in regard to so vital a matter as war, we cannot regard as other than a disastrous fall, as a fall into a condition which primitive Christianity would not have hesitated to call a condition of sin. We believe that history justifies our view."

      It may come as a surprise to some to learn that Dr. Cox, Alexander Campbell, David King of Great Britain, and J. W. McGarvey were all Pacifists. In November 1946 the Churches of Christ Social Service Department in Victoria published the booklet "Peace and War," containing extracts from the writings of the writers named above.

      Dr. J. W. Cox says (p. 11), "Now there is the precept, 'If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst give him drink'." The command and the very spirit of war is kill, slay, slaughter your enemies and hide them in the grave. Can two precepts be more antagonistic? Can the principles of the two precepts ever be made to harmonise?

      Alexander Campbell writes (p. 34), "The precepts of Christianity positively inhibit war--by showing that 'wars and fightings come from men's lusts' and evil passions, and by commanding Christians to 'follow peace with all men.' The beatitudes of Christ are not pronounced on patriots, heroes, and conquerors, but on 'peace-makers' on whom is conferred the highest rank and title in the universe--'Blessed are the PEACE-MAKERS, for they shall be called THE SONS OF GOD."

      David King says, (p.36), "We have yet to discover that a Christian can take up life-destroying weapons and, in a contest for territory, whether at home or in the colonies, hurl his fellow creatures into eternity." The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, and,

without a doubt, the sending of a bullet through the heart of an enemy is a somewhat questionable evidence of our love for him."

      J. W. McGarvey writes (p. 38), "the first Napoleon, whose means of knowing were unsurpassed, declared that 'war is the trade of barbarians.' And, still more to our present point, the Duke of Wellington asserts that 'men of nice scruples about religion have no business in the army or navy.' If these be true; if almost the inevitable result of going to war is to abandon Christ, and ruin my soul for ever, I ask what power on earth has the right to demand of me such a sacrifice? Shall a Christian love his country more than he loves his Saviour?"

      "What would you do if . . .?" Some dire consequences are graphically imagined as happening to one's wife, mother, sister, or children if one does not take up arms to defend them through war. In time of peace women and children and the civilian population generally are reasonably safe from molestation. Once war is unleashed this is no longer true. How does one protect the civilian population in time of war? The husband and father does not stay at home with machine gun at the ready. In modern warfare he will probably contribute in some way to the launching of guided missiles containing atomic or hydrogen warheads on other civilian populations; enemy nationals will at the same time be making a like contribution to launching the same kind of death dealing missiles upon our own civilian populations.

      We have been told by those in a position to know that there is no adequate defence against the latest modern equipment for waging war. The surest way to protect our loved ones is to make every effort to prevent the outbreak of war.

      It is well to remember there are Christians in all the major nations of the world. It is their privilege and duty to be "the salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" in their own communities.

      The writings of Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr where they touch on this question have led many to reject Christian Pacifism. The argument as summarised by Hugh Martin "The Christian as Soldier" and quoted by Leyton Richards (p. 52), runs as follows: "At every step in social progress we are confronted by the necessity of compromise, . . . and we are all involved up to the hilt in the sin of the world; we therefore cannot withdraw in self-righteous isolation . . . Those who stand aside lest they commit sin are, in Reinhold Niebuhr's phrase, parasites upon the sins of others; . . . they are in fact seeking an impossible perfectionism, for it is not given to any man in this dreadful hour to do the ideally Christian thing."

      Dr. Niebuhr claims we must choose the lesser of two evils and assumes that war is the lesser of two evils. Leyton Richards points out (p. 53), this is "to substitute fallible human judgement for fixed moral principles; for it makes the legitimacy or otherwise of participation in war turn upon our own estimate of what the final consequences may be." For Dr. Niebuhr the consequences of Pacifism "means capitulation to tyranny . . . the enslavement of whole nations, the torture of individuals, etc." None can foresee what the consequences may be in any particular situation involving participation or non-participation in war. We simply do not know. As Leyton Richards further points out "by a similar process of reasoning, Jesus was responsible for the tyranny of Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem; for he refused the invitation of the Zealots to wage a Messianic war, and he even counselled his compatriots to pay their dues to the tyrant who held Jerusalem in the grip of a military dictatorship." If Dr. Niebuhr is

not prepared by the logic of his position thus to censure Jesus, why condemn the followers of Jesus who look to him for inspiration when facing like problems in the modern world?

      Further Dr. Niebuhr claims that even the sincerest Christian is quite incapable of obedience to the way of Christ. And since according to Dr. Niebuhr "human collectives are less moral than the individuals which compose them" what hope is there of practising the ethic of absolute love in a world where man's collective sin has reached such diabolical proportions? To this argument MacGregor replies (p. 101) "The New Testament has no false optimism about man, and no illusions about the radical nature of sin and evil. Yet from beginning to end it is throbbing with joy and hope, simply because its writers are conscious that a new Power has come into the world to transform it. Jesus himself can hardly have shared Niebuhr's view of human nature! . . . Even in the worst sinner he could find the hidden good and appeal to it . . . he tells us that it is when a sinner comes to himself' that he 'arises and goes to his Father'; the man's true self is that within him which responds to God."

      The New Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit and enabling grace can be placed over against man's sinful spirit. What we cannot do of ourselves God's Spirit working in us can do. Paul could say "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

      There are many other considerations which could be presented in favor of Pacifism, some of which do not come within the limits of this pamphlet. Pacifism as I have presented it here assumes that we accept Christ as Lord of every sphere of our lives; not only as he affects our attitude to peace and war. The arguments presented here will not influence nations, as such, because no nation is even predominantly Christian in practice, though it may claim to be so nominally. Neither will these arguments influence non-Christians. Pacifism is not something to be adopted to save us from physical suffering or oppression. It is to be adopted because of our obedience to Christ. Its adoption may bring us into conflict with the State; but surely not with our fellow Christians. May God guide us all--Pacifists and non-Pacifists--as humbly and sincerely we commit ourselves to follow wherever Christ our Lord may lead us.

STAN. NEIGHBOUR

left South Australia at end of 1924 to take Home Mission appointments in Queensland till beginning of 1927. Graduated from the College of the Bible, Glen Iris, in 1930. Served the churches at Essendon, Hawthorn, Oakleigh and Blackburn, Victoria, till January 1956. Director Crusade for Christian World Victoria 1948, Hon. Director, 1949-52. Graduated B.A. Melbourne University 1948. Victorian-Tasmanian Conference President 1954-55. Returned to Home State, South Australia, January 1956 to minister at Prospect.