Doctrines of Prayer, Faith, and Peace by James Hastings: Hastings, James - Doctrine of Peace: 51. Chapter 13: War

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Doctrines of Prayer, Faith, and Peace by James Hastings: Hastings, James - Doctrine of Peace: 51. Chapter 13: War



TOPIC: Hastings, James - Doctrine of Peace (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 51. Chapter 13: War

Other Subjects in this Topic:

WAR.

1. THOUGH we believe that we may use physical force, it does not follow that we must approve of war. Martineau, a strong advocate of war, says: “If coercion be allowed at all for the attainment of moral order, there seems to be no reason, beyond the rational calculation of efficacy, for stopping short at one degree or form of it rather than another. All merely physical powers are at the rightful disposal of the ends, human and divine, that are higher than themselves; and if they can be made available for the enforcement of just restraints upon lawless passion, whether at home or abroad, I know of no principle which antecedently precludes resort to them. It is henceforth a question of gradation and detail alone. There is no intelligible ground of distinction between what is absurdly called “moral compulsion” and physical; between pain to the body and torture to the mind; between simple constraint and active infliction; between forfeiture of liberty and forfeiture of life; between the execution of national law by police, and of international by armies.” [Note: J. Martineau, National Duties, 70.]

But this is a mistake. The use of force on a small scale may be beneficial and on a large scale hurtful. Fire is force, and we use it to warm our rooms and cook our food, but we do not feel logically driven to burn down our house, or set fire to a forest.

Charles Lamb, in one of his delightful essays, tells us that the virtue of “roast pig” was discovered by the accidental burning of the building in which “a fine litter of new-farrowed pigs” were housed. Thereafter, “as often as the sow farrowed, so sure was the house of Ho-ti to be in a blaze.” At last “a sage arose, like our Locke, who made a discovery, that the flesh of swine, or indeed of any other animal, might be cooked (burnt, as they called it) without the necessity of consuming a whole house to dress it.” [Note: Charles Lamb, Essays, 246.]

2. In order to show that if we allow the use of force at all we approve of war, it has to be taken for granted that the use of force under any circumstances and in any degree is evil. Dr. Oman says: “The man who covets his neighbour’s field and seizes it is doing exactly the same in principle as the King of Assyria who gathers the nations as one gathers eggs, and the magnitude of the latter crime in no way alters the identity of principle.” [Note: The War and its Issues, 28.] But the objection to war may be not that it invokes force to check evil, but that it does so in an entirely crude and ineffective fashion. If the amount of suffering and loss caused by war is out of proportion to the good attained; if punishment falls on the innocent as much as, or more than, on the guilty; and if there is no guarantee that the final result will be the vindication of right and justice, then war is condemned as war, but the condemnation does not carry with it the rejection of force under all circumstances.

I saw prevailing throughout the Christian world a licence in making war of which even barbarous nations would have been ashamed; recourse being had to arms for slight reasons or no reason; and when arms were once taken up, all reverence for divine and human law was thrown away, just as if men were thenceforth authorised to commit all crimes without restraint. [Note: M. A. Mugge, The Parliament of Man 9.]

The committee of the Peace Society received in response to their request for Peace sermons one significant reply. I can quote it, for the witty individual who wrote it had wit enough not to sign it. He wrote: “It is not my intention to preach a Peace sermon, believing that bullies, whether national or individual, are all the better for a good thrashing.” Now do you seriously believe that in modern war the people who do the bullying are the people who get the thrashing? [Note: C. F. Aked, Changing Creeds and Social Struggles, 245.]