The following essay is the result of some research I have done over the last four years. I have been thinking particularly about how a Christian might love his neigbours in a time of war, and how he might bless the nation, even if he won't fight for it. A copy of this essay was sent to my local MP.
In medieval times wars were fought privately through the funding of kings and were mostly disputes over territory. Because there was a limit to the king’s funds, and there was usually a specific territorial goal, wars were not as extensive as they became in the 20th century. Generally speaking civilians were not involved in the king’s conflicts. World War I (1914-1918) was the first war in the history of Great Britain, in which a general, nation-wide conscription was enacted. World War I was a much more ideologically motivated conflict than previous wars, with the USA entering the war in 1917 to advance the cause of democracy.
In the United Kingdom, as British men (and women) were now directly involved by being called upon to either fight, or work in munitions factories, the question of conscience and the right of a man to live by his convictions came into sharp focus. Conscientious objectors were often considered to be ‘shirkers’, and increasingly, army leaders (who believed they could tame lions) were frustrated that they couldn’t ‘make lambs fierce.’ Many conscientious objectors were imprisoned, and a good number were subjected to torture when they were handed over to the army because their appeals for exemptions were denied. Some were even sentenced to death.
World War I was also the first war where large-scale propaganda was employed to persuade people that it was a man’s duty to enlist. Some of this propaganda was subtle, as in the posters below, or through novels - like The 39 Steps. Other propaganda was more overt (such as the giving of white feathers).
When the First World War broke out, only the Society of Friends (Quakers) was organised for action. Anglicans were largely untroubled by their consciences because the 37th of the Church of England’s 39 Articles states “It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.” In contrast, the Quakers made the following declaration on the war in November 1914:
All war is utterly incompatible with the plain precepts of our Divine Lord and Lawgiver, and with the whole spirit and tenor of His Gospel, and that no plea of necessity or of policy, however urgent or peculiar, can avail to release either individuals or nations from the paramount allegiance which they owe unto Him who said ‘Love your enemies.’…. To-day many of our fellow-countrymen are impelled to enlist by a sense of chivalry towards the weak…To-day again the members of our Society, especially the younger men, are entering upon a time of testing. We can well understand the appeal to noble instincts which makes men desire to risk their lives for their country. To turn from this call may seem to be a lower choice. In many cases it means braving the scorn of those who only interpret it as cowardice. To not a few it means the loss of employment. The highest sacrifice is to contribute to a more Christlike idea of service. Those who hear the call to this service, who respond to it, will be helping their nation in the great spiritual conflicts which it must wage.
John William Graham, in his volume Conscription and Conscience took the definite view that the government had certainly known - when declaring war on Germany - that it would need to introduce conscription. The first step towards conscription came in July 1915 in the form of a National Registration Scheme, a type of census which recorded the occupations of men and women between the ages of 15 and 65. The information gathered under this scheme showed that there were around 1.8 million men of fighting age who were neither enlisted nor involved in vital ‘war work.’ The scheme played right into the hands of the pro-conscriptionists and Lord Northcliffe, owner of both The Times and Daily Mail, used the findings to demand, via his newspapers, that these ‘slackers’ be forced to serve.
On 27 January 1916 the Military Service Act became law in Britain. The Act applied to every unmarried man between the ages of 18 and 41, exempting eight classes of men. Any man who did not fit into one of these classes was ‘deemed to have enlisted for the period of the War’ as of Thursday, 2 March, 1916. Note that men did not have to go and enlist, they were deemed to have enlisted, and had to attend a tribunal hearing if they wanted to be exempted. Between 750,000 men applied for an exemption to the tribunals between January and July 1916, and the sheer weight of cases, along with national sentiment compelling men to go to war, meant that the Tribunals usually gave short shrift to all applicants. Only 350 total exemptions were granted by the time the war ended.
While Christians took (and still take) differing approaches towards war, this paper is focussing on those who refused to fight, and often, refused to take part in any form of war-work. It should be noted that some Quakers and other Christians joined The Friends’ Ambulance Unit which provided relief and medical aid to soldiers and civilians caught up in war in France. In the light of the World War I, and later World War II, experience how can Christians serve their nation, loving both their neighbours and their enemies? Especially when they often find that their neighbours have become their enemies because the Christian is holding to his conviction that his allegiance to the Kingdom of God is greater than his allegiance to the United Kingdom, and his obedience to Jesus Christ is greater than his obedience to the State.
If living in a democracy truly means that a man is free to think as he believes, and that he is not subjected to the tyranny of a totalitarian state compelling him to do things with which not only does he not agree (but, in this case, completely abhors) then there must be a place for Christians and other conscientious objectors within a society at war.
How might a Christian conscientious objector be identified?
A democratic State, for its part, will no doubt wish to acknowledge that a free society allows for freedom of conscience, but will not want to allow individuals feigning faith. Especially in times of war, the State wants its citizens to swear their highest allegiance to it. Those individuals disobeying a direct command of the State will always be viewed with suspicion, particularly if that command involves sending a man to ‘defend’ the State, and he refuses. Thus, before considering what kind of work a Christian conscientious objector might do for his country, the genuine Christian conscientious objector will need to be identified. The following list might help form a useful definition for the State.
i) Can the applicant, in an effort to prove that he is opposed to war based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, produce a Baptism certificate, or the written or verbal evidence of at least two witnesses, that he has been baptised, as evidence of his faith and obedience to the Lord (Matthew 28:19)?
ii) Can the applicant produce a letter, or signed statement, from a vicar, minister, pastor, or church elder, confirming that he is a member, or regular attendee, at a Christian church, chapel, or congregation (Hebrews 10:24-25)?
iii) Can the applicant provide a clear statement, either verbal or written, explaining in his own words why he believes Jesus Christ forbids him to fight (Luke 9:54-56: John 18:36)?
What kind of work might a Christian conscientious objector do?
Some Christians who hold to Jesus’ command ‘Love thy enemies’ will feel, according to their conscience, that they cannot assist the State in any form of work which may be connected to war. Others however, may feel that as long as they were not being directed by non-Christians (on the grounds that no man can serve two masters) they might be willing to serve the nation in some particular capacity.
The unwavering example of conscientious objectors in World War I meant that when World War II ‘broke out’, the pacifist position was better established. Although men who didn’t enlist still faced hostility from their neighbours, friends and colleagues, there were different areas in which some felt they could serve their country. 465 men, for instance, joined bomb disposal teams during the course of World War II. Over 6,000 conscientious objectors served in the fourteen companies of the Non-Combatant Corps. Many thousands who were exempted from war duty were given exemptions on the condition that they served in land units.
Early in 1940, Henry Carter, a Methodist Minister, set up Christian Pacifist Forestry and Land Units (CPFLU) to answer the needs of conscientious objectors looking for work on the land. One of these, James Hanmer, who had been a teacher before the war, was given conditional exemption provided he worked the land. He joined a CPFLU at the village of Bardney, Lincolnshire, and later wrote:
There were twelve people, managing themselves, feeding themselves, one would be a cook for three months and then somebody else would take a turn if he wanted to be a cook for three months, self governing. Now this man who organised this was very wise - he’d have half Methodists to provide a kind of basis, this was the normal pattern, and then there’d be Quakers, Salvation Army, Plymouth Brethren, one Anglo-Catholic. It was open to anyone.
Conclusion
Government officials are fond of employing the phrase ‘lessons will be learnt from this [disaster/tragedy/department failure etc].’ It would be prudent therefore, in a time of war, if the State had prepared itself by reviewing and preparing an even-handed, non-coercive policy towards conscientious objectors. In many cases these men will be acting courageously as they stand against the popular current of war fever. It is the opinion of this writer (who has been a Christian for over 40 years) that the best placed men to organise themselves to serve their neighbours, to love the widow and the fatherless, are the Christian men themselves (as opposed to some over-seeing governmental department). With men (and to a lesser extent, women) involved in military duties, fewer men will be available for those essential industries which provide food and fuel for the nation, industries such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. The government could, in a time of war, call for older Christian men to volunteer to organise a small unit of men to do work which, if they did not do it, would not be done. These older volunteers could then respond to the government and say, “I will put together a team of [x] men who will do [y] work. I will manage them, and take responsibility for their well-being, while they carry out an essential service in the district of [z].”
Such a policy would relieve the State of trying to encourage lambs to be lions, and free its resources into other areas. Meanwhile, older Christian men would be able to employ their intellect, skills, and network of contacts, to find useful work (and perhaps, in some cases, accommodation) for those who men who wish to love their neighbours and their enemies by not picking up arms against them.
For instance, the author of this paper has contacts who live near Loch Tay, Scotland, who have a property with many trees that need felling. The wood would be mostly useful as firewood (as opposed to use for furniture etc), but a team of men could go there, harvest and prepare the wood for sale, and then the wood could be sold to those who need it, either locally, or in Westmorland (where the writer resides), or in other English counties. Thus the work would be funded by the sale of the wood, would not require government funding or oversight, while simultaneously providing useful work for the conscientious objector and serving the nation in a time of hardship.
No doubt there are many Christian men throughout the country who, although unwilling to take the life of men they don’t know (at the command of men in London whom they also don’t know), if asked, would be willing to use their talents for the support of the nation, in their various counties, and among their own neighbourhoods. All the State needs to do is ask for help, for as Jesus Christ teaches his disciples, ‘Whosoever asks, receives.’
