In the first place, it is essential in the Christian concept of vocation
that the “call” is from the Spirit speaking in the heart of the believer.
And the believer must always remain in a position where he can be free
to respond to the prompting of the Spirit. But how can this be under a
conscription regime? The position of Jehovah’s Witnesses that they cannot
submit to conscription because they must always be free to “witness” to
the faith, is in this respect surely a strong and impressive one. It has
a bearing also, incidentally, on what we said some paragraphs earlier
under general observations about Christian vocation. It seems to me that
Christian pacifists need to give much more thought than they have done
to the question whether in this particular respect the Witnesses, so far
from being eccentric, are not taking the clear and consistent, centrally
Christian, stand. The fact that the Witnesses can hardly be classified as
pacifists in the usual sense of the term does not affect the relevance
of this question for pacifists and indeed for Christians generally.
Furthermore in Mennonite thought, government, the State, though it is “an
ordinance of God” to curb sin, is itself by definition also sinful, not
Christian, not a part of “the order of redemption.” Where, then, does the
State get the competence, or the mandate to determine, of all things, the
_Christian_ vocation of a _believer_? And particularly the war-making
arm or department of the State? If the war department or its adjunct,
Selective Service, is qualified to determine Christian vocation as part
of its conduct of, or preparation for, a war, then why should not the
labor department in peace time tell Christians where to work?
There remains a third possible position, namely, that the State is
undoubtedly doing an evil thing in taking the individual out of the
work to which he feels God has called him but that the principle of
non-resistance to evil then comes into operation and submission to this
evil becomes the vocation of the persecuted Christian. Given certain
premises, there is logic in this position, but it is nevertheless open to
serious question. In the first place, non-resistance to an evil should
not mean cooperation with it. “Depart from evil and do good,” is the
law. Pacifists in general, and Christian pacifists in particular, have
to ask whether in conforming with any of the provisions of a draft law
and especially in rendering conscript service regarded as of “national
importance” by a war-making state, they are not helping conscription to
run smoothly, helping thus to force conscription on millions of youth and
thus in turn promoting war, since conscription is an integral part of
an armaments race. The phenomenon of increased tension between nations
when they lengthen the compulsory service period for youth is a familiar
one. This, of course, raises the whole question of our evaluation of the
meaning and role of military conscription, to which we shall return
later.
In the meantime, one or two other comments need to be made on the phase
of our problem under discussion. If what is really happening is that
the war-making state is inflicting an evil on people, forcing them away
from their vocation, subjecting them to a measure of persecution, then
it seems we ought to keep this clearly in our own minds and ought not
to let the government or public assume that we think otherwise. The
expressions of “gratitude” which we have sometimes heard addressed to
government for “permitting” pacifists to render alternative service seem
inappropriate. We cannot have it both ways: accuse the State of the grave
sin of invading the realm of Christian vocation and at the same time
thank it for doing us a “favor” by making the invasion less than total.
The State is not doing God or Christian people a favor in recognizing
conscience, though that is what most United States Congressmen think they
are doing in making some provision for COs. The pacifist who in any way
encourages this notion is in danger of helping to give currency to the
idea that conscience is a private whim which legislators may see fit to
indulge for prudential reasons, as long as those who are afflicted with
this peculiarity are very few in numbers. If non-resistant pacifists
get off the high ground of patiently bowing the neck to Caesar’s yoke,
letting Caesar inflict the scourge of civilian conscript service upon
them, they are immediately on the low ground of bargaining for indulgence
for a small and, in that view, not too principled or brave a minority.
Standing on that lower ground they have very little bargaining _power_
and the results will reflect that fact—and pretty much did during World
War II. On the other hand, both in Great Britain and in the United States
the sufferings which the COs endured in World War I when there was
virtually no legal or social recognition of them, were, according to all
competent observers, largely responsible for the fact that fairly liberal
provisions for COs were made in World War II. The Army did not want to
“be bothered with these fellows again.”