Most urgent among the religious problems of the day is the q

Produced by Chris Pinfield, Dave Kline and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This

file was produced from images generously made available

by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

RELIGION AND THE WAR

RELIGION AND THE WAR

BY MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY OF THE

SCHOOL OF RELIGION, YALE UNIVERSITY

EDITED BY

E. HERSHEY SNEATH, PH.D., LL.D.

[Illustration]

NEW HAVEN

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

MDCCCCXVIII

COPYRIGHT, 1918, BY

YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

PUBLISHED ON THE FOUNDATION

ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF

JAMES WESLEY COOPER

OF THE CLASS OF 1865, YALE COLLEGE

The present volume is the second work published by the Yale University

Press on the James Wesley Cooper Memorial Publication Fund. This

Foundation was established March 30, 1918, by a gift to Yale

University from Mrs. Ellen H. Cooper in memory of her husband, Rev.

James Wesley Cooper, D.D., who was born in New Haven, Connecticut,

October 6, 1842, and died in New York City, March 16, 1916. Dr. Cooper

was a member of the Class of 1865, Yale College, and for twenty-five

years pastor of the South Congregational Church of New Britain,

Connecticut. For thirty years he was a corporate member of the

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions and from 1885

until the time of his death was a Fellow of Yale University, serving

on the Corporation as one of the Successors of the Original Trustees.

Not in dumb resignation,

We lift our hands on high;

Not like the nerveless fatalist,

Content to do and die.

Our faith springs like the eagle's,

That soars to meet the sun,

And cries exulting unto Thee,

"O Lord, Thy will be done."

When tyrant feet are trampling

Upon the common weal,

Thou dost not bid us bend and writhe

Beneath the iron heel;

In Thy name we assert our right

By sword, or tongue, or pen,

And e'en the headsman's axe may flash

Thy message unto men.

Thy will,--it bids the weak be strong;

It bids the strong be just:

No lip to fawn, no hand to beg,

No brow to seek the dust.

Wherever man oppresses man

Beneath the liberal sun,

O Lord, be there, Thine arm made bare,

Thy righteous will be done.

--JOHN HAY.

PREFACE

Religious interests are quite as much involved in the world war as

social and political interests. The moral and spiritual issues are

tremendous, and the problems that arise concerning "the mighty hopes

that make us men,"--hopes that relate to the Kingdom of God on

earth,--are such as not only to perplex our most earnest faith, but

also to challenge our most consecrated purpose. It is the sincere hope

of those who have contributed to this volume that it may prove helpful

in the solution of some of these problems.

E. H. S.

Yale University,

August 21, 1918

CONTENTS

PAGE

I. Moral and Spiritual Forces in the War 11

Charles Reynolds Brown, D.D., LL.D., Dean of

the School of Religion and Pastor of the University

Church

II. God and History 22

Douglas Clyde Macintosh, Ph.D., Professor of

Theology

III. The Christian Hope in Times of War 33

Frank Chamberlin Porter, Ph.D., Professor of

Biblical Theology

IV. Non-Resistance: Christian or Pagan? 59

Benjamin Wisner Bacon, D.D., Litt.D., LL.D.,

Professor of New Testament Criticism and

Interpretation

V. The Ministry and the War 82

Henry Hallam Tweedy, M.A., Professor of Practical

Theology

VI. The Effect of the War upon Religious Education 105

Luther Allan Weigle, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of

Christian Nurture

VII. Foreign Missions and the War, Today and Tomorrow 122

Harlan P. Beach, D.D., F.R.G.S., Professor of the

Theory and Practice of Missions

VIII. The War and Social Work 141

William Bacon Bailey, Ph.D., Professor of

Practical Philanthropy

IX. The War and Church Unity 151

Williston Walker, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of

Ecclesiastical History

X. The Religious Basis of World Re-Organization 161

E. Hershey Sneath, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of

the Philosophy of Religion and Religious Education

I

MORAL AND SPIRITUAL FORCES IN THE WAR

CHARLES REYNOLDS BROWN

In one of our more thoughtful magazines we were favored last February

with an article entitled, "Peter Sat by the Fire Warming Himself." It

was a bitter, undiscriminating arraignment of the ministers and

churches of the United States for their alleged lack of intelligent,

sympathetic interest in the war. It was written by an Englishman who

for several years has been vacillating between the ministry and

secular journalism, but is now the pastor of a small church in

northern New York. The vigor of his literary style in trenchant

criticism was matched by an equally vigorous disregard for many of the

plain facts in the case. His tone, however, was loud and confident, so

that the article secured for itself a wide reading.

"What became of the spiritual leaders of America during those

thirty-two months when Europe and parts of Asia were passing through

Gehenna?" the writer of this article asked in scornful fashion. And

then after listing the enormities of the mad military caste which

heads up at Potsdam, he asked the clergymen of the United States, "Why

were you so scrupulously neutral, so benignly dumb?" His main

contention was to the effect that the religious leaders of this

country had been altogether negligent of their duty in the present

world struggle, and that the churches were small potatoes and few in a

hill.

It has been regarded as very good form in certain quarters to cast

aspersion upon the ministers of the Gospel. When the war came men

began to ask, sometimes with a sneer, and sometimes with a look of

pain, "Why did not Christianity prevent the war?" It never seemed to

occur to anyone to ask, "Why did not Science prevent the war?" No one

supposed that Science would or could. It was the most scientific

nation on earth which brought on the war.

It never occurred to anyone to ask, "Why did not Big Business, or the

Newspapers, or the Universities prevent the war?" No one supposed that

commerce or the press or education could avert such disasters. These

useful forms of social energy are not strong enough. They do not go

deep enough in their hold upon the lives of men to curb those forces

of evil which let loose upon the world this frightful war. It was a

magnificent tribute which men paid to the might of spiritual forces

when they asked, sometimes wistfully, and sometimes scornfully, "Why

did not Christianity prevent the war?"

The terrible events of the last four years have taught the world a few

lessons which it will not soon forget. They have shown us the utter

impotence of certain forces in which some shortsighted people were

inclined to put their whole trust: The little toy gods of the

Amorites--Evolution, with a capital E, not as the designation of a

method which all intelligent people recognize, but as a kind of

home-made deity operating on its own behalf! The Zeitgeist, the Spirit

of the Age, all in capitals! The "Cosmic Urge," whatever that

pretentious phrase may mean in the mouths of those who use it in

grandiloquent fashion! The "Stream of Progress," the idea that there

are certain resident forces in the physical order itself which make

inevitably for human well-being and advance quite apart from any

thought of God!

All these have shown themselves no more able to safeguard the welfare

of society than so many stone images. They broke down utterly in the

presence of those forces of evil which now menace the very fabric of

civilization. The forces of self-interest unhallowed and undirected by

any finer forms of spiritual energy have covered a whole continent

with grief and pain. They have written a most impressive commentary

upon that word of the ancient prophet, "The wicked shall be turned

into hell, and all the nations that forget God." Men are saying on all

sides that unless hope is to be found in religion, in the action of

the spirit of the Living God upon the lives of men, then hope there is

none. What other guarantee have we that the greed and the lust, the

hatred and the ambition of wrong-hearted men may not again wreck the

hopes of the race!

But still that question presses for an answer--Why did not these

spiritual forces for which Christianity stands prevent the war? I have

my own idea about that. It was because we did not have enough of

Christianity on hand in those fateful summer days of 1914, and what we

had was not always of the right sort. In certain countries the

churches had been emphasizing the personal and private virtues of

sobriety, chastity, kindliness and the like; they had been preparing

the souls of men for residence in a blessed Hereafter. But they had

not given adequate attention to the organized life of men in political

and economic relations. They had not sufficiently exalted the

weightier matters of justice, mercy and truth in the social organism.

These things they ought to have done, and not to have left the other

undone.

The founder of our faith in the first public address he gave there in

the synagogue at Nazareth struck the social note clearly and firmly.

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he hath anointed me to

preach good tidings to the poor. He hath sent me to bind up the

broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at

liberty them that are bruised, and to proclaim"--in all the high

places of the organized life of the race--"the acceptable year of the

Lord."

This was the platform on which he stood. This indicated the spirit and

method of his mission. Organized and corporate righteousness was to be

an essential element in the Gospel of the Son of God. The leaders of

our Christian faith should have been voicing that same demand for

social righteousness all the way from Berlin to Bagdad, and from

London to the uttermost parts of the earth. The only Christianity

which can avert similar disaster in the future is that Christianity

which, like the Apostles of old, goes everywhere, preaching and

practising the Gospel of the Kingdom, the sway and rule of the Divine

Spirit in all the affairs of men.

It was highly significant, however, that the one nation in Europe

which had gone farthest toward an atheistic materialism, toward a

philosophy of force, a complete reliance upon physical efficiency and

mental cleverness quite apart from any moral considerations, toward a

flat indifference to all those manifestations of the religious spirit

which are found in public worship, in missionary effort, and in the

cultivation of a humble, devout spirit--it was the nation which had

gone farthest in that direction which did more than any other nation

to bring on the war.

And, conversely, it was that nation which had gone farther than any

other nation in Europe toward making the religion of Jesus Christ a

power for good in public and in private life which did more than any

other single nation in those fateful July days to avert the war, and

when war came it was that same nation which did more than any other

nation to resist the encroachments of lawlessness and crime as we have

seen them in Belgium and in northern France. We have had abundant

reason to thank God for the Christianity there was in the lives of

such men as Herbert H. Asquith, Arthur J. Balfour, and David Lloyd

George, and in the lives of the brave men and women who have nobly

sustained them in their righteous contention. We could only have

wished that the world had been possessed of a hundred times as much of

that sort of Christianity; that would have prevented the war.

And when war came these spiritual forces still had something to say

for themselves. Christianity had been pressing home upon the hearts of

men those more vital principles until nine-tenths of all the earth was

ashamed of the war. Not a single nation was willing to stand up and

accept responsibility for bringing it on--not even Germany. That

military caste in Potsdam has tried by all manner of intellectual

shuffling to save its face by seeking to make it appear to its own

people that the war was one of self-defense thrust upon them by

unscrupulous enemies. The claim was so absurd that the whole world

laughed it to scorn, even before the striking revelations were made by

Prince Lichnowsky, the German ambassador at London in the summer of

1914. The effort did, however, serve to make plain the fact that the

German Government has not entirely lost the power of being ashamed of

itself.

One hundred years ago it was not so. The Napoleonic wars dragged out

their weary length for twenty-two sad years, but it never occurred to

Napoleon or to France to apologize for those wars which were, for the

most part, frankly wars of aggression and conquest. War was taken as a

matter of course. It was costly, irrational, inhuman, then as it is

now, but it did not have arrayed against it the moral sense of the

race as that moral sense has come to be arrayed against this method of

settling international difficulties in this twentieth century. In

these days war is looked upon by all right-minded nations as the

devil's own business, only to be accepted by right-minded nations as a

last dire necessity when thrust upon them by governments which scruple

not at either honor or right. It is something for the spiritual forces

of earth to have accomplished that.

Moreover, when the war came never before in all its history had the

world seen so much done in the way of humane service. It has been done

to relieve the pain of wounded soldiers and to meet the necessities of

those helpless people whose homes have been destroyed by the ravages

of war. It has all been done in the name of the Red Cross--the name is

significant, as is the spirit behind it. It is the flowering out, not

of Buddhism or Mohammedanism, not of some fancy brand of atheism or

some philosophy of force--men do not gather grapes of thorns nor figs

from thistles. It is the flowering out of the religion of him who died

for men upon a cross.

The people of this country alone came forward and in a single week by

voluntary contributions gave one hundred millions of dollars for this

humane service. Then within less than a year the same people

contributed a further fund of one hundred and seventy millions of

dollars for the relief of wounded soldiers and for the relief of

stricken people in Belgium and Poland, in Serbia and Armenia, whose

names we do not know, whose languages we cannot speak, but whose

sufferings we have made our own in warmest sympathy. It was the

response of a nation to the words of its Master--"I was hungry and ye

fed me. I was naked and ye clothed me. I was sick and in prison and ye

visited me. I was a stranger and ye took me in." It is something for

the spiritual forces to have thus enthroned the spirit of humane

service in the hearts of men.

More than that, never before in military history has so much been done

to safeguard the moral welfare of the young men who have been called

to the colors. The officers of our own army and of those armies with

whom we are allied have by personal example and by public utterance

struck a clear, firm note for sobriety and clean living, which cannot

be matched in the history of any other war.

The Young Men's Christian Association by its work for the soldiers has

leaped at a bound into a place of national and international

significance. And the Young Men's Christian Association is simply the

Christian church functioning in a particular way. Its honored head,

John R. Mott, was converted in and is now a member of the Methodist

Episcopal Church. Its secretaries and other workers are drawn, all of

them, from the membership of our churches. And the money which makes

possible its world-wide activities is given mainly by the people of

the churches. The people of this country were asked for thirty-five

millions of dollars, and in a single week they oversubscribed the

request, giving fifty millions of dollars to carry on this fine form

of Christian effort. It was the act of a nation saying to the young

men under arms, "Fight your good fight but keep your faith, and finish

your course with honor, that there may be laid up for every man of you

a crown of rejoicing."

And more than that, the spiritual forces at work in this broad land

have kept the motives of our country high and fine. We have not

entered into this war with any selfish desire for conquest--as God

knows our hearts, we do not covet an acre of territory belonging to

any other power on earth. We have not entered this war with any sordid

desire for material gain. We were already becoming disgracefully rich

in the manufacture of munitions and in furnishing supplies to the

belligerent nations. If they could have fought it through without our

help, it would have been money in our purse to have stayed out--as it

is, it will cost us no one can say how many billions of dollars. We

have not entered this war in any spirit of touchiness because our

national honor has been offended--it has been offended most

grievously, but we are too strong and too sane to plunge a whole

country into war for that.

We are not undertaking to punish Germany, greatly as we believe the

present government of Germany needs punishing. We remember who it was

who said, "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, saith the Lord," and we

are content to leave the matter of penalty in his powerful hands. We

are not undertaking to dictate to the German people what sort of

government they should have. We are willing they should have any sort

of government they like, so long as they keep it for home consumption.

We believe here that all governments derive their just powers from the

consent of the governed. We confess to a frank preference for the

methods of democracy, and we could wish no happier lot for any land

than to live under the reign of the common people. We like to remember

that in the year of our Lord 1815, Great Britain and her Allies put a

certain island on the map--they put the island of St. Helena on the

map by banishing to that island the disturber of the peace of Europe.

And if in the year of our Lord 1919 the United States and her Allies

should in similar fashion put some other island on the map by

banishing to that island the present disturber of the peace of Europe,

nine-tenths of all the human race would rise up and thank God.

We entered upon this war because we were not willing to stand by and

allow other nations to be crippled and broken in the resistance they

were offering to lawlessness and crime, and in the defense they were

making for those principles of justice and freedom which are the glory

of our own national history. And so we have come forward to do our

part and to fill up that which is lacking in the sacrifices which

other nations have been making for the sake of principle.

As I move about among my fellow citizens, north, south, east and west,

these are the questions which I find engaging their minds: Is might to

be allowed to usurp the place of right, or are we here to see to it

that in the long run right is the only might? Is international good

faith only an empty phrase, or is it a magnificent reality in the

moral world to be upheld at any cost? Is that body of usages and

agreements slowly built up by centuries of effort, which constitutes

our international law, to be trampled under foot by any nation for the

sake of some immediate advantage, or is it meant to be obeyed? Is the

whole world to be permanently at the mercy of any military caste which

may undertake to impose its will upon the rest of mankind by the

practice of frightfulness, or is there possible some such World League

of Nations as shall have both the mind and the power to keep the peace

and good order of the world?

These are moral questions. They are religious questions, where there

is a will of God to be ascertained and realized. And because our

people have vision for the full recognition of the place spiritual

forces have in the making of history, this struggle enlists the

complete moral support of the nation.

It was the moral idealism of the war which brought Great Britain and

all her distant colonies promptly into line the moment the moral

quality of the German Government stood revealed in all its hideousness

by its outrage upon Belgium. It was the moral passion of Britain which

enabled her to raise by voluntary enlistment an army of more than five

millions of men.

It was the moral idealism of the war which brought all sections of our

own country strongly to the support of the President when the fact was

made plain that it was a fight for the right of free peoples to live

and move and have their being in honor. It was the moral idealism of

the war which brought the choicest youth of our land, the sons of good

fortune and the sons of toil, the young men of the colleges and the

young men less privileged, to stand shoulder to shoulder in this

struggle for righteousness. We have seen it on the Campus here at

Yale, as other men have seen it in all the colleges and universities

of the land. The spirit of our youth has been nobly expressed in those

lines on "The Spires of Oxford":

I saw the spires of Oxford

As I was passing by,

The gray spires of Oxford

Against the pearl-gray sky;

My heart was with the Oxford men

Who went abroad to die.

The years go fast in Oxford,

The golden years and gay.

The hoary colleges look down

On careless boys at play;

But when the bugles sounded war

They put their games away.

They left the peaceful river,

The cricket field, the quad,

The shaven lawns of Oxford

To seek a bloody sod;

They gave their merry youth away

For country and for God.

God rest you happy, gentlemen,

Who laid your good lives down,

Who took the khaki and the gun

Instead of cap and gown.

God bring you to a fairer place

Than even Oxford town.

It was a great Christian statesman, it was William Ewart Gladstone,

prime minister of Great Britain, who said more than thirty years ago,

"The greatest triumph of the twentieth century will be the

enthronement of the idea of public right as the governing idea in the

affairs of Europe." We are here this day to assist with the last ounce

of our strength and with the full might of our moral purpose in the

enthronement and the coronation of that idea of public right as the

governing idea in the affairs of the whole world.

The moral values which are at stake in all this national and

international action have been made so clear in the fierce red light

which has beat upon the world that the very conscience of the country

has put on khaki. The moral sense of the whole nation has become

militant. The brave men and women of this land are working and

fighting for human betterment with their eyes upon that social order

which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God. And because we

feel that our cause is just, we feel in our arms and in our hearts,

each man of us, the strength of ten.

May we not believe that this country, strong and brave, generous and

hopeful, is called of God to be in its own way a Messianic nation in

whose mighty unfolding life all the nations of the earth may be

blessed? Hear these words of an ancient prophet and make them your

own! "What people has God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in

all things that we call upon Him for? Has God assayed to take him a

nation from the midst of another nation by signs, by wonders and by

war, as the Lord hath done for you? Did ever a people hear the Voice

of God speaking out of the midst of the fire as thou hast heard? What

nation has statutes and judgments so righteous as the law which I set

before you this day? Keep therefore and do them, for this is your

wisdom and your understanding among the nations."

It is for this country to keep its motives high and fine, to set its

affections upon those principles of action which are above the dead

level of self-interest, and to so bear itself in the service of the

higher civilization that in its purposes and methods all the nations

of the earth may be blessed.

O beautiful my country, ours once more,

What were our lives without thee,

What all our lives to save thee!

We reek not what we give thee,

We will not dare to doubt thee,

But ask whatever else and we will dare.

II

GOD AND HISTORY

DOUGLAS CLYDE MACINTOSH

Most urgent among the religious problems of the day is the question as

to the relation of God to the events of current history. As was to be

expected, many erroneous notions are prevalent concerning divine

providence and the present war. Some of these errors are owing to

intellectual confusion; others, however, impress one as due to an

almost wilful perversion of the impulses of religious faith. In any

case, most conspicuous among the erroneous doctrines of the day with

reference to divine providence is that voiced by the German Emperor,

in speaking of the Teutonic triumph over disorganized Russia. His

words are reported as follows: "The complete victory fills me with

gratitude. It permits us to live again one of those great moments in

which we can reverently admire God's hand in history. What turn events

have taken is by the disposition of God." One could scarcely be blamed

for inferring that the Kaiser imagines, or affects to believe, that

the Almighty has entered into a favored-nation treaty of some sort

with Germany. But even this would seem to fall short of what is

claimed. We quote further from the same theological authority. "The

year 1917 with its great battles has proved," he asserts, with almost

incredible simple-mindedness, "that the German people has in the Lord

of Creation above an unconditional and avowed ally on whom it can

absolutely rely." This curious reversion to religious tribalism in the

case of the German Emperor is not without its parallel in the belief

of his subjects. Assiduously taught, as they have been, that they are

fighting a justified defensive war, and praying, as they have been,

for victory over their enemies, their conviction has come to be,

pretty generally, what a German-American in the early days of the war

expressed in these words, "If Germany doesn't win this war, there is

no God!" Well, in view of what the world knows as to the causation and

the conduct of this war on the part of Germany, the only answer so

preposterous a doctrine deserves is that given by ex-President Taft,

"Germany has mistaken the devil for God!"

But the Germans are not the only ones who are cherishing mistaken

notions as to the providence of God in human affairs. We and our

Allies reject the idea of a national God, and any notion of the "Lord

of Creation" being our "unconditional ally." The morally perfect God

is too just and impartial to have any favorites among the nations,

whether Jewish, or German, or British, or American. Might does not

make right, we know; and no more is might an infallible index to God's

will. God is not necessarily "on the side of the heaviest battalions."

On the contrary, the true God, as the God of righteousness, must be,

we feel sure, on the side of right and justice, whichever side that

may be. Being confident, therefore, of the justice of our cause, we

feel that we have the best of reasons for believing that we are

fighting on the side of God, as well as for the true well-being of

humanity.

So far, good; but many among us proceed to put two and two together

and find that they make five. If we are on the side of human rights

and the will of God, and if God is sufficient for our religious needs,

is it not clear that we may be absolutely certain of winning the war,

whatever temporary reverses may have to be encountered? Moreover,

especially since we have had our days of prayer for victory, are we

not entitled to sing,

Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,

And this be our motto, "In God is our trust"?

Indeed, so satisfied are we with the logic of our position that

multitudes of us would agree with the sentiment expressed by a

British-American in the early days of the war, "If Germany wins this

war, there is no God."

But there are reasons for doubting the correctness of this view. Right

makes God's will, surely enough; but is it certain that the side whose

cause is just will win the war, simply because it is the side of right

and of God? Ultimately, we may be sure, right must prevail, for wrong

is not the sort of thing that can permanently succeed; it contains

within itself the germs of its own ultimate destruction. But nothing

in history can be surer than that this ultimate judgment upon evil

does not necessarily involve the defeat of all unjustified military

undertakings. The side with the greater moral justification has not

always won its battles, nor even its wars. It is not enough to have

justice on our side; we must use our might on the side of right. Right

has to be worked for, and sometimes it has to be fought for. That is

the kind of world that--not unfortunately for our development,

probably--we are living in. And the fighting is no sham battle. Its

issue is not predetermined. It is being decided while the fighting is

going on.

Moreover, with reference to prayer as a military factor, it is only

fair to note that in the present war many sincere and believing

prayers for victory have been offered on both sides. It is not

intended to deny that religion of a certain sort is an important

military factor; sincere and believing prayer for a cause that is

regarded as sacred and just undoubtedly helps morale, both in the army

and throughout the nation. But it is a factor which in this war has

operated on both sides. Man has the capacity for misusing not only

physical, but even spiritual forces. But, on the other hand, when

prayer and religious faith encourage an easy-going attitude, and are

thus made to some extent a substitute for effort, such prayer and

faith cannot but prove a serious military hindrance, no matter how

just the cause may be that they are designed to support. They may even

conceivably make enough of a difference on the wrong side to lead to

the defeat of righteousness.

These notions as to God's providence in war, which we have criticized

as manifestly mistaken and dangerously misleading, are symptomatic of

confused and muddy thinking on the whole subject of the providence of

God in human history. How does God secure his adequate providential

control of the course of history? One theory is that he has secured it

by having absolutely predetermined from the beginning all events of

nature and history, so that all process is the simple unfolding of

what has been eternally decreed. There are the strongest ethical and

religious reasons for refusing to accept this unproved and unprovable

dogma. On the one hand, it would mean that man's consciousness of free

agency and moral responsibility would have to be regarded as quite

illusory, since what has been decided and made inevitable before man's

life began cannot have been originated by man himself. On the other

hand, this predestination doctrine would mean that God should be

regarded as the real and responsible cause of all evil, including what

we call human sin. No such God would be moral enough to be trustworthy

or deserving of human adoration.

Another theory as to how God secures his adequate providential control

of the course of events is that it is by various sorts of arbitrary or

unconditioned interventions in external nature, as well as in human

life, in order to realize the ends he may desire to accomplish from

time to time. It has often been suggested, for instance, that a

miracle of this sort took place at the Marne, preventing the German

entry into Paris. But this theory is open to the objection that it

raises three unanswerable questions. In the first place, how can we be

sure that such interventions have taken place, particularly in the

external world? How do you suppose it will ever be established

sufficiently for confident rational belief, that only by special

miracle were the German armies turned back from Paris in 1914? In the

second place, if such special miraculous interventions do take place

for the sake of preventing evil, why do they not take place oftener,

especially in these times of unprecedented disaster to human life? A

miracle like that of the Marne, such as would have turned the Turks

back from the helpless Armenians, would have been much appreciated.

But, for a third question, if such miracles were to take place as

often as this theory of providence would seem to call for, what would

become of the order of nature, and how could man learn what to expect,

or how to adjust himself to his environment?

As against these theories of absolute predetermination and arbitrary

intervention, we may point out that God secures his adequate

providential control of the course of history in two principal ways,

viz., by _enough_ predetermination of events to give man a

dependable universe to live in and learn from, and by _enough_

intervention to admit of a response to man's need of the religious

experience of salvation, that is, of being inwardly or spiritually

prepared to meet in the right way and with triumphant spirit the very

worst that the future may bring. The predetermined order of the laws

of nature and mind exhibits the _general providence_ of God. By

means of this order, or in the light of consequences, God is teaching

man both science and morality, that is, how to adapt means to the

realization of ends, and what ideals and principles of action must be

employed if the most desirable results are to be obtained. The

"intervention enough" of which we spoke--if indeed it is to be called

intervention--or, in other words, the response of the divine Reality

to the right religious attitude on the part of man, is an exhibition

of the _special providence_ of God. When one has found the right

relation to God and gained access to the divine power for the inner

life, one is virtually prepared for whatever can happen to him. But,

as we have indicated, his preparedness is primarily inner, spiritual.

He is in a position to meet danger with moral courage, to gain the

victory over temptation; to make the most of opportunities for

service; to endure hardship, pain and privation, as a good soldier,

with patience and cheerfulness; to face death--his own or that of

others--and whatever there may be after death, with faith and

equanimity.

There are two possible ways, then, in which God may exercise his

providence in the events of human history. There is his shorter and

preferred method, and his longer and more roundabout method. If the

individuals concerned come into the right relation to God, there is

the best possible guarantee that they will be made ready for all there

may be for them to do and to experience, and thus conditions will be

most favorable for the speedy realization of the will of God. But if

this shorter, preferred method cannot be employed, because men fail to

rise to the occasion as they might if they would rightly relate

themselves to God, the divine providence will still be exercised,

although necessarily in the less desirable, more roundabout way. God

will let man choose the wrong way, through thoughtlessness or

wilfulness, and then let him take the bitter consequences of failure,

that he may finally learn to guard against similar mistakes and faults

in the future.

Let us now return to the more particular question of the relation of

the providence of God to the present war. Before discussing again the

question with which we started, viz., as to the final outcome of the

conflict, we may deal with some other aspects of the problem. In the

light of what has been said of the two possible methods of divine

providence, it may be denied that the war was providentially caused by

God in order to curb other evils, such as softness and idleness, or

the selfish pursuit of wealth and pleasure, or drunkenness and vice,

or thoughtlessness and irreligion. It is true enough that in the face

of war conditions some of these evils have been decreased, and the

martial qualities of self-sacrificing courage and fortitude have been

stimulated. But it is notoriously true that the advent of war

introduces a host of evils, in some cases necessarily, in others

almost as inevitably. Drunkenness tends to increase greatly, unless

stern measures are taken for its repression. Vice, with the resulting

transmissible diseases, ordinarily becomes much more prevalent.

Hatred, cruelty, and even the most fiendish brutality are given ample

opportunity to develop, and in many instances they become relatively

fixed attitudes and attributes of character. So far from the

biologically fittest tending to survive, under modern war conditions

these are the very ones who, for the most part and to the incalculable

detriment of the future of the race, are killed off, even granting

that of those who are "fit" enough to get to the front, the weakest

are those who have the poorest chance of survival. And finally, when

the stress of war conditions becomes acute, innumerable enterprises

for social betterment are constrained to be given up, at least for the

time being. In view, then, of all this, not to dwell upon the

unspeakable suffering, physical and mental, on the part not only of

combatants, but of noncombatants as well, and considering the merely

problematical nature of the good to which the crisis involved in a

state of war may prove a stimulus, it must be regarded as incredible

that a God good enough and wise enough to be worthy of absolute

dependence and worship could have ordered so stupendous a catastrophe

as a possible means of human salvation. Neither is it reasonable to

suppose that God is prolonging the war, in order that some social

evils, such as drunkenness, may be eradicated before victory is

finally secured. This might, perhaps, be the outcome, if the war were

greatly prolonged; but it could not be at all certain beforehand that

any such improvement would be permanent enough to offset the evils

involved in the continuation of the war. We cannot suppose anyone who

was wise enough and good enough to be God would be so far below our

best human standards as to will either the existence or the

continuation of the war as a whole, with all its attendant evils, in

order that final good might abound. Any God who might be thought of as

doing so would be a false God; his condemnation would be just.

Understanding, then, that in so far as human hatred, selfishness and

stupidity have been factors in leading to the war, it has been

originated, not by the will or in the providence of God, but against

his will and providence; understanding also that in so far as it has

been prolonged by human inefficiency or stupidity, or by the

efficiency of evil wills, or of wills in the service of wrong, its

continuation has not been in accordance with but in opposition to his

will and providence, let us turn to the more positive aspect of the

divine providence in connection with the war. It may be said to begin

with, that in so far as going into this war has been correctly judged

by any party to it to be the necessary alternative to national

perfidy, or ignoble servitude, or any other evil greater than those

involved in passing through the ordeal of war, and in so far as the

task has been accepted as a solemn duty and entered upon in brave and

self-sacrificing spirit, the act of going to war is to be regarded as

in accord with the will of God. Indeed, if we may regard the divine

spirit as immanent where we find the divine qualities present in human

life, we may go further and say that such righteous participation in

the war is the work of God within the soul of man, fighting against

the forces of evil. Moreover, in so far as the war is prolonged by the

fortitude of men of good intentions and their fidelity to a just

cause, the war may similarly be said to be prolonged in accord with

the will and even by the work of God in and through the good will and

work of men.

But of providence in relation to the war as a whole, it can only be

said that man's evil choice has compelled God to use the long,

roundabout method. It is the second best method, although the best

possible under the circumstances. The sinful choices of men and

nations were not, of course, divinely predetermined. What has been

divinely predetermined, we may well believe, is the law-abiding order

of nature and of individual and social mind, according to which the

disasters and sufferings incidental to war are the inevitable

consequences of certain forms of individual and corporate wrong doing.

In this roundabout way certain reforms may be providentially forced

upon the nations by the war. The evil consequences of certain former

evils tend to be more acutely felt under the strain and stress of

severe and prolonged warfare. Let us suppose that in order to win the

war we and our Allies may yet find it necessary to take drastic steps

to eradicate drunkenness with its attendant evils, or even to prohibit

the waste of food-stuffs and fuel involved in the manufacture of

alcoholic beverages. This would not mean that the war had been

divinely caused in order to realize this end, but only that it was and

always is the divine will that man should learn the lessons of the law

of consequences, which lessons are in some instances more readily

learned in time of war.

But what God is teaching most directly through the law of consequences

in connection with the war is the necessity of correcting certain

immoral international relations. He is teaching the nations through

bitter experience how imperative are international righteousness and

some practicable and adequately democratic scheme of world-government.

But we must not close our eyes to the possibility that through our

failure to do our part, God may be forced to take the long, sad,

roundabout way of exercising his providence in connection with the

end, as he had to in the beginning of the war. What we must wake up to

is this, that _in spite of the justice of our cause, in spite of its

being the cause of humanity and in essential accord with the will of

God, and in spite of our days of prayer and our optimistic religious

faith_, GERMANY MAY WIN THIS WAR! If our consciousness of

being right and our religious optimism make us so complacent that we

shall fail to exert our utmost strength on behalf of our righteous

cause, they may be the very factors that will turn the tide of war

against us. We have resources enough for the winning of victory. If we

fail it will be a moral failure. If we fail to rise to the moral

demands of this great occasion, God may have to let us fail to win the

war and then learn what we can from the bitter consequences of this

failure. We and future generations may have to learn through tragic

experience how imperative it is that right be not left to enforce

itself, but that we devote our full might to the cause of right, and

that before it is too late.

At the time of writing these words--in the early days of May,

1918--it seems not yet too late, however critical the situation,

for the winning of victory for the cause of liberty and justice.

But the surest way of providing for success would be for all who

recognize the right so to surrender themselves to the will of God

for self-sacrificing service, and so to depend upon the indwelling

power of God for inner preparedness for whatever may have to be

faced and whatever may have to be done, that their whole might may

be made use of in this warfare for the right. Our primary need is

_morale_--morale in the government, morale in the shipyards,

morale in the munitions factories, morale among all our people in

their business and home life, as well as fighting spirit in our

army and navy abroad. Enough religion of the right sort may make

enough difference in morale to make all the difference between

defeat and victory as the outcome of this war. And if in this way

victory for the right should come as a result of religion, it would

be not only a crowning example of the short and preferred method of

divine providence; it would be, literally speaking, victory by the

Grace of God.

In any case, the situation for the Western Allies is such that neither

faith without works nor works without faith can accomplish what waits

to be done. There must be, if we would win, faith and works together.

Before leaving this topic of God and history, a word may be said on

the question of what, on this interpretation of providence, we may

expect to be the final outcome of this war for the future of the race.

Will the result be more harm than good, or more good than harm? It is

very certain that the war will need to be the occasion of an immense

amount of good to balance up to the race the evils that have been

involved in it thus far and that will be involved in its prolongation.

Much possible evil will be avoided if the immoral Prussian

militaristic ideal is finally crushed. Moreover, there will be the

tendency for humanity to learn, at least temporarily and as an

intellectual conviction, the undesirability of war and of the

conditions that make for war. But attention and moral effort will be

necessary to retain this lesson with sufficient impressiveness, and to

put it into effect, and the best power of thought will be needed to

determine just how this putting it into effect may be most fully and

lastingly secured. There seems real danger that the human race on

earth will be permanently poorer and worse off, spiritually and

socially as well as biologically and economically, as a result of this

nearest approach to racial suicide. Undoubtedly it will be so, if the

nations fail to learn and to put into effect the lesson of the

necessity of international righteousness and a just and efficient

system of world-government.

It is perhaps still possible for the race to learn enough from this

period of strife and carnage for the resultant good to out-balance the

total evil. But even then no one would have the right to credit the

war with having been the means of greater good than _could_ have

been accomplished without it. All its moral evil at any rate will be

regrettable forever. And the only possible way of guaranteeing

beforehand greater good than evil as an outcome of the war, even

supposing the side of justice and liberty to be victorious, will be

for individuals and groups so to relate themselves to truth, to right

and to God that flagrantly immoral international relations will become

practically impossible. The only safety of the race lies in an

essentially Christian international morality, and the only adequate

guarantee of this is an essentially Christian personal religion. The

only failure of essential Christianity of which the war may fairly be

regarded as evidence was its failure to be given an adequate trial;

which means, of course, not a failure of Christianity as an ethical or

as a religious system, but a failure of the human will to be

adequately Christian.

III

THE CHRISTIAN HOPE IN TIMES OF WAR

FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER

Of Paul's three things that abide, hope is the one of which we are now

most conscious of our need. Never before in our experience has hope

been so much the center of our inner life and the heart of our

religion. Our mood alternates between hope and depression, hope and

fear; and we look to our religion to make hope strong, and turn to our

sacred book to seek secure grounds and satisfying expressions for our

hope. We hope for the winning of the war. We hope for the safety and

the home-coming of those we love. We hope for a new world-order

organized to make war impossible, inspired by a spirit of cooperation

and good will between classes and between nations. We hope as never

before for an assured and abundant life after death. We put these

hopes in some relation to each other, weighing one against another,

subordinating one to another. And when we seek their right

relationship and look for their ultimate grounds, we ask what

Christianity has to say and to do about them. What is Christian in

these hopes that are filling the mind and heart of the world? The

importance of this question is very great. The future of the world

depends on the truth and the strength of the hopes that now inspire

and direct men's purposes and efforts. The future of the Christian

religion turns in no small measure on its ability now to keep the hope

of mankind high and pure, free from self-seeking and from material

interests, and true to the ultimate reality of things, and to give

this hope confidence and prevailing strength.

Religion and the War · 第 1 / 14 段