For His Name's Sake.

IT would have been a far easier task upon the declaration of peace, to have written something concerning the future policy of those who adhered to the original and scriptural position once occupied by the Churches of Christ with respect to war. The further we are removed from actual hostilities the more difficult the task.

I have no wish to arouse unnecessary feeling by reviewing the condition of the Churches just prior to and during the days of conscription; but it is necessary to recall certain facts which have a bearing upon the future.

The war had not been waged very long before addresses were delivered from some of our platforms which were little less than recruiting addresses. Anti-war brethren followed on, and thus feeling ran high in the Churches. The climax was reached when conscription came into force, the consequences of which made fellowship almost impossible. It was at this period (as far as a number of Churches were concerned) that both sides could see that something must be done. So, without any formal understanding, a compromise was arrived at and considerable

restraint exercised. This, for the time being, was the only solution of the difficulty and the only means of retaining a fellowship worthy of the name. When this understanding was reached, some of the brethren declared, and emphatically too (the writer amongst them), that as soon as the war was over they should have no hesitation in teaching from the platform and in the Lord's Day School the principles of peace as taught in the New Testament. Consequences following upon such action we were willing to take. We declared this as our future policy, because we were conscious that we had neglected our duty, and were pained beyond measure to see the uninstructed and doubting young members of our Churches going forth to shed the blood of their fellows. We vowed, as far as we were concerned, that we would in the future be guiltless in this matter. As far as the writer is concerned, our present policy of well-nigh silence is a most inconsistent position to occupy, and will, if continued, bring sure condemnation. No doubt, the following question is uppermost in the minds of some who read these lines: "What reason or reasons have you for not giving effect to your declaration?" The answer, as far as we are concerned, is not far to seek, and we have a shrewd suspicion that others would give similar reasons. We have already stated that during the war fellowship in some Churches was almost impossible. When the armistice was signed, the atmosphere began to clear a little and by the time peace was declared the spirit of the Churches had undergone a change, speaking generally. Just emerging from a state of agony of mind and spirit, the partial return to a better fellowship came as a relief. In this atmosphere, even to mention our avowed intentions

was sufficient to arouse the old conflict. Be it said here, that we were not moved to partial silence by any arguments from the other side; they were too weak to be considered. We shall have occasion to refer to them later.

There are times in the history of movements when to remain silent is criminal, and in the light of New Testament teaching, together with the present condition of the Churches of Christ relative to the subject before us, and the effect of our past experiences still upon us, we should be moved to action. To remain silent much longer will indeed be criminal. The writer frankly confesses that a mistake has been made, and it would have been far better to have carried out our good intentions at the time. The arguments for remaining silent advanced by the other side have proved themselves to be wrong. We were solemnly assured that the late war would be the last war. A number of brethren with whom I conversed said that when it was over we should be in complete agreement; therefore there would be no need for some of us to advocate the principles of peace. The fallacy of this position has been proved over and over again, and on the very morning of the writing of these notes, we read in our daily papers of the movements of thousands of troops, and at the same moment human lives are being sacrificed.

Another argument for not teaching peace was to this effect: "Now that the war is over, and the bitter feeling somewhat abated for the sake of even partial peace and fellowship, it would be wiser and kinder to hold such views in abeyance." As I have already stated, this argument, so plausible on the face of it,

has influenced some, but we are convinced it has been a mistake. A glance at the condition of the Churches may perhaps bring home to us the difficulty of the task before us, but should at the same time urge us to action. It is a painful fact that the attitude of the Churches of Christ towards the late war justified war! At least tacitly! In the event of another war breaking out, involving this country, what would those of our brethren, who supported the last war, have to say? They would have no argument against war as such, all they could do would be either to justify or condemn their country's share in it. The Churches of Christ today have no message for our boys in the Lord's Day Schools. They have been shorn of their strength. They have rendered themselves impotent. Our anxiety for the future is not for those who stood the test. We can trust them for the future should they be called upon. We would as readily again follow them from tribunal to tribunal, on to their court martial and if needs be to prison. Our concern is for those who today are in our Lord's Day Schools but tomorrow may be called upon to give an answer. We have seen the guiding hand is not with those who supported the carnal weapon. The attitude we have taken up places upon us the task of leading the rising generation into the paths of peace. The task is no easy one. I am not overlooking the fact that in a few Churches we have freedom to pursue our course; all honour to such assemblies!

We are reminded in surveying the Churches of Christ as a whole in this matter, and the kind of reception such teaching may expect to receive, of Tyndale's efforts in translation work. Anticipating being granted room in the Palace

to execute this noble task, he approached the Bishop of London, but found little sympathy awaiting him. Later, he was in the house of a wealthy cloth merchant, but seeing that, even there, he was not wanted, this conviction was forced upon him: "not only that there was no room in my Lord of London's Palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England." In order to accomplish his noble work he perforce had to exile himself.

The conviction is forced upon some of us that there is only a solitary Church here and there in the land where one could find sympathy in one's efforts to teach peace. Thus, if we are to remain faithful to our conviction, there is only one of two courses left to us, either to teach within the Churches or voluntarily to exile ourselves. Far better to adopt the latter course than to prove unfaithful! Loyalty to Christ must be our first concern. God will see to the rest.