WAR : THE CHRISTIAN'S DILEMMA [To the Editor of THE
SPECTATOR]
SIR,—It would occupy more space than you could grant adequately to indicate the Christian pacifist's view of and response to the dilemma which the Dean of St. Paul's so ably and fairly sets forth in his articles on War. But may I put one or two points which, in my judgement, enable a Christian man or woman to choose the other horn of the dilemma from that which the Dean feels bound to. accept? I can do this Jest and most briefly by quoting the Dean's words and adding comments in each case.
(t) " The Christian is a member of a community and has obligations to the . . . State which is its organ." Granted ; but we are all of us members of more than one community Is not the Dean held at this point too much by the philosophical conception of the Greek city-state within whose bounds the whole of the citizen's life and culture was comprised? In the modern world this is not so ; for our life is fulfilled in numberless associations, many of which transcend State limits. War, however, always disintegrates these larger communities ; it disrupts every kind of international society, it imposes schism upon the Church, it breaks the spiritual unity of the human family, and most of all by its exploitation of fear and hate it enthrones evil in the souls of men and so delays the triumph of the Kingdom of God. Then why must the citizen's military obligations to the State take precedence of his non- military obligations to the other communities which minister to human life and give it amplitude and value to an even greater extent than does the State? It is surely of paramount importance to maintain's one loyalty to the wider communities of which we are members ; and this can only he done as we refuse to engage in war.
(2) " Can it be maintained that the community (the Dean is referring to the State) has no right to call upon its members to defend it? " Again, the general principle is not questioned ; for it is inherent in the obligations which we owe to the social group to which we belong. But the pacifist claims that there are other and better and more Christian ways of defending the State than by war. Indeed, one of the chief dangers to which the modern State is exposed is precisely that common belief in the legitimacy of war (as a last resort) which the Dean admits ; and therefore to renounce that belief is the surest way to dissipate the danger and to defend the State. More- over, it is only by the renunciation of war for any purpose whatsoever that we can preserve the citizen's contacts with those wider communities which play so large a part in his many-sided life. Pacifism is thus the truest defence alike of the State and of the larger social groups to which the citizen belongs.
(3) " We cannot contract out of society just at the moment when it is in the greatest danger." To which society does the Dean refer? The pacifist has no wish to " contract out " of any society of which he is a member ; but what we " cannot do" (according to the Dean) is actually imposed upon us whenever the State goes to war ; for it is impossible to fulfil contradictory obligations at cne and the same time. Admittedly, as the Dean insists, "the Christian is under a tension from which there is no escape." But in claiming priority for the State does he not exalt political considera- tions above spiritual ones and put Machiavelli before Christ? The Christian is certainly called to " render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," but never at the cost of refusing to " render unto God the things that are God's." In other words, if and when the Dean's dilemma arises, it can never be resolved (as he seems to suggest) by sacrificing the larger community to the lesser ; for—like the Apostles—every Christian "ought to obey God rather than men."—Yours Carrs Lane, Birmingham.
Previous page
