Christian ethics in the world war

Preface

The aim of this book is described in the introductory chapter. The subject has been partially treated in many books, pamphlets, and articles since August, 1914. But there is good reason why it should be discussed as a whole, a chapter in Christian Ethics. For the department of Christian teaching which is known as Ethics always contains some pages devoted to the State and the Church, and also to the place of war in the life of man. These three topics are drawn together in these pages. Each of them has been the subject of whole volumes. I have had to cut a straight path through the forest, avoiding important aspects of each, and all technical matters; concentrating directly on the main problems which disturb the Christian conscience as it struggles to live in a darkened world.

As the substance of this book was given in the

form of lectures to students in Christian Ethics,

I have ventured to retain the occasional use of

the first personal pronoun.

W. D. M.

vu

Contents

PAGE

Preface vii

Chapter I INTRODUCTORY

1. Correct statement of the ethical problem 3

2. Perplexity and Pacifism 5

3. The facts to be investigated 12

Chapter II THE STATE AND THE CITIZEN

1. Definition of a State 17

2. The State a divine institution 20

3. The State and physical force 22

4. The State and the individual 26

5. The individual and the State 27

6. The influence of religion 28

7. International life and morality 30

8. Forms of the State 33

9. The vision of a universal State 34

Chapter III THE STATE, THE INDIVIDUAL, AND WAR

1. Aggressive war and Christian morality 39

2. The moral obligation of an invaded nation. ... 41

3. Belgium as the supreme illustration 45

4. Sacrifice and force 47

ix x CONTENTS

Chapter IV THE GERMAN MILITARIST DOCTRINE OF THE

STATE

PAGE

i. "The will to power" 53

2. The good of the people 56

3. Efficiency and defects 58

4. The formation of German character 59

5. Relation of German nation to other nations. . . 61

6. The resulting doctrine of war 66

7. Criticism 69

Chapter V THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

1. The founding of the Church 75

2. Definition of the Church 77

3. The Church and the State 79

4. Christ and the State . , 80

5. The Sermon on the Mount 86

6. Can a State imitate the sacrifice of Christ?. ... 94

7. The teaching of the Apostle Paul 96

8. The ethics of the Church and of the State. . . . 100

9. War and the doctrine of love 103

10. Can we pray for the Germans? 108

11. Summary of argument 112

Chapter VI ETHICAL VALUES IN THE WORLD WAR

A. The Aims and Methods of Germany

1. Germany began the war 119

2. German policy 1 24

3. German preparation 125

CONTENTS xi

PAGE

4. German methods of warfare 128

a. World-wide treachery

b. War is between nations, therefore ruthless

c. Evacuation of conquered territories

5. German use of treaties 139

6. German practice based on theory 140

7. Is all Germany guilty? 141

Chapter VII ETHICAL VALUES IN THE WORLD WAR B. The Aims and Spirit of the Entente and the United States of America

1. Correct and incorrect forms of stating the

question 145

2. Moral value of the conduct of the Allies on

entering the war 147

3. Policy of President Wilson 151

4. The declaration of war by the United States.. . 155

5. The duty of America 156

Chapter VIII ETHICAL GAINS IN THE WAR

1. From study of the moral standing of the belliger-

ents 161

2. From the moralizing of war 164

3. From the defence of democracy 167

4. The moral standards of the soldiers 172

5. The birth of a universal State 174

6. Industrial and social reconstruction 177

7. Enthusiasm for personal service 180

8. The victory of the Sermon on the Mount. . . . 185

Index 191

"No natural instinct, nothing less than a moral obligation, can be an excuse for risking the lives of our citizens, for threatening the lives of other men."

•Frederick Denison Maurice.

Chapter I Introductory

As no war has ever been so extensive as this one, it is no less true that never before have so many men and women inquired with agony of soul into the origin and meaning of war. The numbers and the agony are beyond our ken. So much has been already gained since August, 1914. For we may perhaps dare to assume that when a sufficient number of human beings have pursued the inquiry deep enough, with grief and moral indignation, wars will cease.

1. We must make clear to ourselves the correct form in which we are to put the question. At the outset we shall refuse to consider it in this form, "Is war right or wrong ?" Later in the discussion we shall have to cite the opinion of those who say that war is necessary for the best development of human nature, and that it is the highest duty of every nation that would be strong and great to be ever perfecting itself in the art of war. Here we must point out that the question is infected with what we may call the disease of abstraction. Against that infection students of

Ethics must be continually warned. The word "war" is evidently used to cover a vast multitude of individual wars, and to include both sides in any one war. Those who answer, "War is right," are reasoning, as logicians would say, from the particular to the universal. Because some wars in some ages, and under some circumstances, have produced good results, therefore war is right. That is not convincing. The other party, who answer, "War is wrong," begin with the universal proposition that all war springs from passion and sin, and always involves the killing of men, and conclude that no nation has any right under any circumstances to engage in war. It is the purpose of these pages to prove that both methods of argument are logically fallacious and the conclusion in both cases is false.

Nor can we be satisfied with the exact form into which Sir Gilbert Murray has thrown the question: "How can war ever be right ?" * For it is clear that in any case with which we can be practically concerned, war must be always wrong on at least one side. Both sides may indeed be guilty, equally guilty, of the immeasurable crime, but there may be cases where one side is free from blame in the eyes of posterity and of God. If one side made the contest inevitable by unjust demands, if it refused the last, desperate offer of reconciliation without

1 "Faith, War, and Policy." By Sir Gilbert Murray.

bloodshed, issued the aggressive ultimatum, fired the first shot, that one is guilty; and for it that war, whatever its issue may be, can never "be right." But what of the other side? Can that war be a right war for it? That is the real question with which we are practically concerned. For there are those who maintain that there are no conceivable circumstances under which a nation has the right to engage in war. The government of a people ought indeed to maintain just and honorable relations with all others, and if its rights are invaded, it ought to protest, it ought to use all the powers of moral suasion which can be discovered, but it ought never to fight. The real question which confronts the modern man, therefore, when it is expressed carefully and clearly, is this: "Are there any circumstances in which it is the moral and religious duty of a government to engage in war?" That puts the matter in its final form, as a problem in Christian Ethics, and that is the question which it is proposed to discuss in the following pages as frankly and yet as briefly as possible.

2. There are three classes of people for whom the discussion is mainly intended. First, there is that very large class who look upon war, especially this war in all its monstrous extent and horror, with spiritual dismay. They feel rather than see that the purely pacifist attitude contains some error, but they cannot name it. They are confused by the contrast between the vast fields of carnage and destruction, and the spirit of peace and love which they identify rightly with the name of Christ. And yet they cannot bring themselves to believe and to say with the courage born of reasoned conviction that America was wrong to enter the fray. They feel that she was right, and yet feel also as if it were a sin to say so, a sin against that spirit of peace and love.

In the next place there are those soldiers, born and bred to lives of industry and honor, whose very breath was to live and let live, rather to help all others to live nobly and righteously and happily. Now they are suddenly caught into a career where they are to share in the dreadful work of killing their fellowmen. Many of these noble young men have been driven almost to madness on the field of battle by the crushing hideous facts before them, the heaps of slain, the stream of wounded carried in all degrees of shatteredness and pain, to suffer on beds of torture, perhaps to go through the long years of a life that promised sunshine and freedom and health, maimed, or halt, or blind — or mad. How can this be the will of God? That is the bitter cry of many a brave and confident soldier as he returns to billets, with a heart bruised and sick, wounded more deeply than he of the shattered frame.

In the third place there are those who occupy the position of reasoned pacifism. Several Christian sects have arisen which hold that it is wrong to make war, in the sense that it can never be right in any conceivable circumstances for a government to come to its citizens and order them to fight against an enemy. The Society of Friends, popularly known as the Quakers, is the leading exponent of this view. The movement began in England in the seventeenth century, though it had been variously prepared for in the course of the sixteenth century. It has had a most honorable history. Its members have been distinguished alike for piety and a noble philanthropy. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, John Howard, the prison reformer, Wilberforce, the triumphant worker for the liberation of slaves throughout the British Empire, are among its many illustrious names. The Government of the United States has done honor to the history and influence of the Quakers by exempting from direct military service members of that Society who adhere to its traditional interpretation of the meaning of war and of their relation to it as followers of Christ.

What is that interpretation? It can be better understood if we remember that it was preached with great success at a period when war was accepted almost as a normal condition of national life. All nations in Europe had their ambitions for self-aggrandizement, their hereditary monarchies, whose dynastic interests were matters of national concern and defence, and consequently their professional soldiers, ready and eager always for the fray. Many earnest men and women saw and felt that this was wrong. They contrasted the situation with the spirit of the New Testament, and asked how professedly Christian nations could maintain the habit of warfare, in this deliberate manner. Further, these devoted souls endeavored to apply literally the specific words of Jesus Christ to their daily conduct. They refused to take oaths in court because He said, "Swear not at all." They refused to give each other titles, even to address anyone as "Mister," because Jesus said, "Call no man Master." In the same spirit they understood the command which Jesus quoted from the Old Testament and deepened, "Thou shalt not kill." They so understood the words, "Resist not evil," and asserted that no one could obey the great and glorious law, "Love your enemies," and engage in any war for any cause.

These men were not cowards. It is foolish to say that all pacifists are "yellow," have no red blood in their veins, and are taking refuge in a religious plea to shelter a craven spirit under sacred words. Many of these Quakers of the seventeenth century were very brave, heroically enduring all manner of persecution and physical suffering rather than do what they believed to be wrong. And many of their representatives today are as noble of spirit as they.

In recent times the pacifist position has been maintained by arguments which are drawn not from Scripture, but from a certain philosophy of human nature. Man is not primarily prone to evil, but to good, it is said. He will not resist the appeal to the generosity, the humanity, that is latent in him. If you trust a man, he will respond to your trust. If you refuse to resist his physical attack, he will be ashamed and withhold the hand that was raised to strike. In the long run, it is urged, though not in every individual case, the refusal to fight will result in the greater good. It is an extension of this argument when philosophical anarchists hold that the root of all social disorder is to be found in the use of physical force by the governments of the world. The use of force, it is said, calls out and encourages the evil in man. Remove that incubus from the history of society, and the inherent goodness of human nature will spring to light. Men will be honest if you do not force them to it. Men will be pitiful if all men desist from revenge or physical retaliation.

This line of thought has gradually allied itself with the religious position described above, in a very interesting and subtle way. Assuming that human history is under the guidance of God and that in all men there is a spark of the divine, the true attitude of every reverent soul is to leave the governance of the race to the persuasive, all-pervasive Spirit of God. He who resists evil takes the scepter out of the hands of God. He smites his fellowman for a wrong done, while punishment ought to be left with Him who alone dispenses justice with unerring wisdom and absolute sympathy. Moreover, the supreme rule of God over man is through the appeal of perfect love. It is not the divine terror but the divine mercy that is the source of salvation and hope. Rather than resist evil with physical force Jesus died on the cross, and from that sublime act of self-devotion the fountain of life has sprung for all the race of men. He had faith in the power of sacrificial love to win the victory, and history is slowly but surely justifying His confidence.

From these facts, and facts they are, the conclusion is drawn that all men who follow Christ ought to make the same appeal to human nature. In the long run it will respond. Love will prove itself omnipotent. The most selfish and most cruel fiends will at last give way before the irresistible appeal of innocence that remains meek, and lovingkindness that refuses all resistance or revenge. If any one nation would wholly disarm and pursue no policy but that of purest honor, no other nation would dare to attack it. Its courageous helplessness

INTRODUCTORY n

would disarm its foes. But since no government has yet been found Christian enough to accept this as its law of life and rather die as a government than fight an assaulting foe, there is nothing left for individual followers of Christ, and the communities which they compose, but to refuse obedience to any government which would enlist them in even a defensive war against the most indefensible and wicked assault by another people.

The argument of reasoned pacifism might be elaborated, but these are its fundamental positions, and I have tried to put them as fairly and sympathetically as I can. I hope it may not be too personal a matter, but may help the reader himself, if I say that I who write at one time occupied this position. In boyhood I was brought directly and indirectly under powerful and gracious Quaker influence. In young manhood I gave much thought to the problem of Peace and War, and was proud to have some of my public statements reproduced, with compliments that a young man welcomes, in The Herald of Peace, of London, England. As I look back I can remember that, strange to say, the first stirrings of doubt arose when I was reading Tolstoi. His sheer individualism in religion, his arbitrary and wayward dealing with the New Testament and even with the teaching of Him whom he accepted as his supreme Authority and Master, led me at last through other lines of thought to see that the argument outlined above, persuasive and pious as it is, rests upon foundations that are too narrow to carry the weight of the worlds life. Gradually it became clear that the following fundamental matters must be reconsidered.

3. First, war must be considered as a function of national government. The ordinary puzzle put to pacifists, "What would you do if a man assaulted you?" is irrelevant. Even the further question, "What would you do to a man who tried to murder your wife?" does not present an exact parallel, but only a partial illustration of what is meant by war. War is a national act; and its moral significance can be studied only by investigating what we mean by the State, what its nature and functions are, and what those duties are which rest upon the individual as the citizen of a definite country, ruled by a definite government.

Second, the Christian man is not by his conversion separated at once from all secular relations and obligations. He remains a member of a family, perhaps a family of unbelievers. He remains the citizen of a country, where he lives and whose government both protects him and exacts from him certain duties, even although it be not a professedly Christian government.

Third, the Christian man is a member of the specific organization or community called the Church. From the beginning, from the hour when

Jesus deliberately founded and taught and ruled this community in His own lifetime on earth, on, through its fuller establishment after His death and resurrection, into its rich and multiform history in the world, it has found itself related to the State in many intricate ways. The one institution has acted upon the other continuously. At times they have seemed to be rivals. One has sought to subdue and absorb the other. At the best they have been but imperfect coadjutors in the great task of perfecting the conditions and the character of human history. Today, in most countries of the world, they are recognized as separate, complementary institutions, each having its own sphere of influence, its characteristic work to do.

The problem of war which we are discussing in these pages can only be solved, if solved at all, by means of a careful consideration of these two supreme institutions in human life. What is the meaning (or telos) of each? How does each stand related to the will of God? How does the spirit of the one affect the spirit of the other? What does each do for the individual, and what shall the individual do for each ? These are some of the questions which we must investigate if we are to have any chance of answering the main inquiry which we have set before us.

Chapter II

I. When we speak or sing of "my country," we are thinking primarily of the territory or region where we and the nation to which we belong are established. It is our "fatherland. " Its "templed hills" and valleys are in our mind, and all peoples speak with thrilling love of the scenes where their fathers died and their own life is spent. When we speak of the "nation," it is the inhabitants whom we have in view. We picture all the classes which compose it, from the highest to the lowest, the rulers and the ruled, the rich and the poor, the dweller in the city and the laborer on the farm, the men and women, parents and children, home and friendly circle. They compose the nation. When we speak of the "government," our eye is upon those on whom authority rests for the ordering of the life of the nation, the protection of the land from invasion. When we speak of the "State," we summarize all these in a conception which includes them all. The State is the name we give to a mass of human beings occupying a definite territory, among whom there is an ordered life resting on a certain form of government, and who stand in recognized relations with other similar masses of human beings, occupying their own territory and exercising sovereignty over their own life. When each State is looked at in relation to the one life of its whole people and in relation to the life of other States, it takes the form of an idealized individual. It is looked upon as having a character of its own, interests of its own, a will of its own. Hence there has grown up in the process of time even a system of law known as "international law," which seeks to determine the moral conditions under which States may act toward one another. This system seeks to guide and restrain the conduct of nations as if they were individuals capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, responsible for their actions towards one another, liable to reproof and correction for wrongdoing.

The State has existed from the beginnings of human history, and has assumed innumerable forms. Its changes can be traced through the patriarchal to the tribal form. The growth of the independent and rival Greek cities led to the identification of the State with the individual city, in which all the freemen had an equal voice in the making of laws, bearing the burden and directing the external policy of the community. The rise in modern times of nations, which comprised cities and rural populations, created the more extended forms of monarchical and republican government. The combination of republican and monarchical ideals gave rise to what are known as limited or constitutional monarchies. The sway of one ruler or one centralized government over peoples who had enjoyed an independent national life gave rise to the fact, and the theory, of the Empire. All these classes of state organization have existed in forms too numerous to be named or described in these pages.

That which stands out as an indubitable fact is that some kind of State, some measure and form of centralized government, is essential to the well-being and the moral development of mankind. Even if men were sinless, agreements would have to be reached, arrangements formally made and publicly announced, operations would have to be directed, from a central authority for the organization of the activities of men in their united concerns. The alternative to state government is not freedom, but chaos.

When we remember that man is inherently self-seeking, that this gives rise as a well-observed fact to universal selfishness, with all its results in vice, cruelty, deceit, greed, and their miserable consequences, we see that a central authority, which means a recognized tribunal of justice, the execution of penalties upon wrong-doing, is absolutely essential. Only so can order of the most primitive character be established and those conditions secured in which the moral progress as well as the physical well-being of man can be made possible. Hegel, in an interesting passage, has used the illustration of a house. As wind and fire and water are used to build the house, whose object is to defend the dwellers in it against these natural forces, so the State is erected out of the passions and desires of the individual to defend the nation against them. Undisciplined, they are destructive of the nation; coordinated and controlled by law and force, they contribute to its richer life. 1

"The principle of the State is the idea of Right. This does not mean that the State is the sole administrator of justice on earth; justice has also a place in the family and its discipline, in the Church, and in the life of the individual* But it administers public right, and has to express it by means of compulsion and with the certainty of a national force." 2

2. From the very beginnings of history the existence and authority of the State have been connected with the religious faith and life of every people. All kingly prerogatives have been traced to the will of the god whom the tribe or the nation

1 Hegel, "Philosophy of History." Trans, by Sibree, pp. 28, 29.

2 Dorner, "Christian Ethics." Trans., p. 558.

worshiped. It is natural that in the course of thought upon the subject it should become clear that much superstition was mixed up with this idea. Low ideas and primitive ideas of man and of his relations to the Creator and Lord of his life must color his conception of the State and its function. But this does not lead inevitably to the conclusion that the will of God has no relation to the existence and work of the State. It is true, we cannot hold that the chief of his tribe is in direct communication with the divine, from whom he receives immediate revelations of his duty and of the coming fortunes of his people. Nor can we fail to see defects in the view held by ancient Israel concerning the nature of the theocracy under which the noble leaders and inspired prophets of that race strove to guide the destinies and mould the character of that people. The view that God Himself announced in a supernatural way all the explicit and detailed laws of a nation cannot be maintained. But this by no means implies that the State exists outside the will of God, nor that the will of God has no relation to the development of its political and legal system. 3

It must be insisted that any principle of con-

8 The State as a Divine Institution: "The State is neither a divine creation of God nor something that is wholly secular; but it is a human product resting on a divine basis, and thus has both a divine and a human side." Dorner, "Christian Ethics." Trans., P- 555- duct which springs from the nature of man and of that world in which he lives is essentially divine. It is an ordinance of God. The working out of that principle is indeed largely in the power of man. It is the very law of his nature that he can do what he ought to do and become what he ought to be only by discovering the needs of action and the ideals of character, by the exercise of his mind, by response to his inherent instincts and impulses and appetites. But it is also a law of his nature that the discovery of his ideals, the control and right use of his instincts and appetites, the development of his character, have never been possible without some vision of the divine law and the consciousness of relation to the divine will.

3. The State exists as the organization of a people, for the promotion of their entire well-being. Its form may change, but the end must always be the same. When this aim is lost sight of and the well-being of a dynasty or a regnant class is promoted at the cost of the community as a whole, the rulers will in course of time be overthrown and either new men take their place, and do better or worse, or the very form of government may be changed in hope of a worthier result for the mass of the people. Tyranny exercised by an autocracy, or corrupt government conducted by a representative legislature and executive, always interfere with that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which are the fundamental rights of the people as a whole. The extent of that interference, when we take account also of the intelligence and virility of the nation, determines the hour of a revolution. At some point the intolerable limit is reached, and the seats of the mighty are cast down. History abundantly proves that such changes, whether violent or gradual and orderly, arise from the judgment of the people, from the working of their deep, instinctive demand for justice, freedom, and peace, that they may enjoy the fruits of their labor and secure the ideals of happiness which they cherish.

The State, then, must exist for the good of the individual and the mass of individuals which compose it. These must be protected against one another and against their enemies from without. Laws are made and executed, not to destroy, but to establish the freedom and selfhood of the citizen. Right laws are not restrictive, except upon selfishness and criminal intent. They are intended either to forbid wrongdoing or to lay down the rules, mark out the relations, which will enable all the citizens most fully to develop their individual powers and attain their lawful ambitions.

Now the fact that men are selfish and so many are vicious makes it necessary for the State to use physical force to secure the ends for which it exists. In an immoral world it is the moral duty of the State to use force. It is basic to all other functions of government, is named in every law where penalties are defined, is visible to the public in every policeman, and in fact pervades the entire civilized order in which we live. Without it there would be chaos. 4