'C , 
 
 
 V a_t. 
 
 £ YVY - 
 
 «£31K(£g3ig& 
 
 The 
 
 Churches and World Peace 
 
 A Syllabus of Topics, 
 Problems, and Suggestions 
 for Study Groups 
 
 The Continuation Committee 
 of the 
 
 National Study Conference on the Churches and World Peace 
 
 Reverend Sidney L. Gulick, Secretary 
 105 East 22nd Street 
 New York, N. Y. 
 
 25 Cents each 
 Ten for $1. 
 
 
 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 “The National Study Conference on the Churches and World Peace” was held in Washington, D. C., 
 December 1-3, 1925. In preparation for the Conference three Commissions submitted in advance com- 
 prehensive and searching questions calculated to promote thought and to stimulate discussion of the three 
 purposes of the Conference: 
 
 To Study: The Christian Ideals and Attitude 
 What the Churches Ought to Do 
 
 To Plan: A Nation-wide Campaign of Education Through the Churches. 
 
 The Conference 
 
 The Conference consisted of 1 60 
 bodies: 
 
 officially designated delegates from the following communions and religious 
 
 Northern Baptist Convention 
 Southern Baptist Convention 
 Church of the Brethren 
 Christian Church 
 Churches of God in N. A. 
 Congregational Churches 
 Disciples of Christ 
 Friends (4 bodies) 
 
 Greek Orthodox Church 
 Mennonites (2 bodies) 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South 
 
 Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. 
 Presbyterian Church in the U. S. 
 Reformed Presbyterian Church 
 Protestant Episcopal Church 
 Reformed Church in America 
 Reformed Church in the U. S. 
 Salvation Army 
 Seventh Day Baptist Churches 
 United Brethren Church 
 United Presbyterian Church 
 American Unitarian Association 
 Universalist Church 
 
 The Message to 
 
 Three full days of intensive discussion resulted in 
 (1) the “Message to the Churches” and (2) the 
 formation of the “Continuation Committee”, to carry 
 out the educational program recommended in the 
 Message. The publication of the Message, the con- 
 veying of this Message to all the Churches of the 
 
 the Churches 
 
 United States for their appropriate actions, the in- 
 auguration of the educational procedure recom- 
 mended and the issuing of this Syllabus are the 
 first steps of the Continuation Committee in carry- 
 ing out the instructions of the Conference. 
 
 The Purpose of this Syllabus 
 
 The purpose of this Syllabus is to suggest in a 
 general and unbiased way, with a view to promoting 
 intelligent discussion and to securing effective action, 
 the vast range of considerations which men of good- 
 will need to study. The problems must be clearly 
 understood and the stupendous task and urgent duty 
 of abolishing war need to be determinedly under- 
 taken. 
 
 It is not expected that any group will be able to 
 
 deal with all the questions here raised. The group 
 might well choose for itself six or eight major topics, 
 —one for each discussion period. It would prob- 
 ably be better to discuss a few topics carefully than 
 to attempt to cover too many at the cost of super- 
 ficial consideration. The group might well agree 
 not to read the Message until its own discussions 
 have been practically completed and its own “find- 
 ings” drafted. Comparison with the Message may 
 then be helpful. 
 
 The Conduct of Discussion Groups 
 
 In making use of this Syllabus the adoption of the right procedure is highly important. The following 
 suggestions may be helpful: 
 
 1. The Chairman should secure and carefully nue, N. Y.; $ .25). Here is described the distinc- 
 
 study “The Why and How of Group Discussion” tive technique of the discussion method and of 
 
 (H. S. Elliott; Association Press, 347 Madison Ave- “group thinking”. 
 
 [ 2 ] 
 
2. The success of the discussion group depends 
 quite as much on the cooperative spirit of the group 
 as on the leadership of the Chairman. “In group 
 discussion, each comes ready not only to contribute 
 his best thought and experience on the question 
 involved, but also to hear and understand in turn 
 the viewpoint of others.” Such a procedure will 
 promote “group thinking”. 
 
 3. The topic for discussion should be a “live 
 question” on which there are divergent views. 
 
 4. The purpose of the discussion should be: 
 
 (1) To see how far divergencies of view are 
 due to a differing use of words, to insuffi- 
 cient knowledge of facts, and to differing 
 emphasis on principles 
 
 (2) To find, if possible, a larger view com- 
 prising the truth in all the varying view- 
 points. 
 
 5. Constant effort should be made by the Chair- 
 man and also by the group to avoid mere random 
 talk, to exclude trivialities or irrelevancies, and to 
 prevent mere matching of wits by clever talkers. 
 To this end the discussion topic should be clearly 
 
 defined, the discussion should proceed from point to 
 point in logical order, and an effort should be made 
 to frame the result in “findings” or statements com- 
 bining what all agree is the larger and more ade- 
 quate viewpoint. In this process the use of a black- 
 board will help much. 
 
 6. It may happen that one form of statement may 
 not satisfy all. Two or three statements may be 
 needed, more or less in contrast or even in conflict, 
 in order to express the mind of the minority as well 
 as that of the majority. 
 
 7. In carrying on the discussion and in framing 
 the “findings”, the legalistic or parliamentary pro- 
 cedure of resolutions, amendments, tablings, pre- 
 vious questions, etc., is to be avoided. This pro- 
 cedure is confusing and distracts attention from the 
 real issue. There is a distinct technique for dis- 
 cussion groups (cf. 1 above) which the Chairman 
 and, if possible, one or two leaders should seek to 
 master in advance. 
 
 8. Remember that a discussion group is not a 
 debating society in which one side seeks to gain a 
 victory over the other, but a group in which all are 
 seeking together to find the truth, to think out a 
 problem of thought or of conduct. 
 
 Suggested Discussion Topics 
 
 Discussion I. 
 
 What were the teaching and the spirit of Jesus 
 with regard to peace and war? Was Jesus a patriot? 
 Was Jesus a pacifist? Can a pacifist be a patriot? 
 Or a patriot a pacifist? 
 
 Discussion II. 
 
 Do or do not the Churches of the United States 
 have a duty and a responsibility in the program 
 to abolish war? In either case, why? If the 
 Churches deal in any way with the problems of 
 peace and war, are they or are they not invading 
 the function of the State? 
 
 Discussion III. 
 
 Is it ever morally right to use physical force in 
 the maintenance of right and of justice? For an in- 
 dividual? A city? A nation? A combination of 
 nations? Are the use of violence and slaughter in 
 war the same in principle as their use by police? 
 Define the differences between the principles and 
 procedures of a police force and those of an army. 
 
 Discussion IV. 
 
 What programs for creating goodwill between 
 nations might and should the Churches of the United 
 States adopt in their program for the abolition of 
 war? Consider how far they are practicable. 
 
 Discussion V. 
 
 Should or should not the United States promise 
 to submit every threatening dispute, whatever its 
 nature, to some international tribunal for peaceful 
 settlement? Should or should not the United States 
 unite with other nations in declaring aggressive war 
 a crime and in accepting obligations to help restrain 
 or punish an aggressor nation? Should the United 
 States help establish a world police system? 
 
 Discussion VI. 
 
 Should or should not the United States become 
 a member of the League of Nations? If with reser- 
 vations and conditions, what should they be? 
 
 Discussion VII. 
 
 Is or is not a warless world necessarily stupid, 
 cowardly, unheroic? What programs, activities and 
 objectives can be held out to young people calling 
 for courage, devotion, self sacrifice, — a “moral equiv- 
 alent for war”? 
 
 Discussion VIII. 
 
 What is your church, — local, community, na- 
 tional,— actually doing to help abolish war? Is it 
 doing its full duty? What more can and should it 
 do? 
 
 ] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 THE PRIOR QUESTION 
 
 There are those who believe that the Churches as Churches have nothing to do in the matter of abolish- 
 ing war, while other Christians hold that Churches as such have inescapable duties and responsibilities in 
 the program. 
 
 Seven Differing 
 
 1. The Church is the divine institution for pro- 
 claiming the love of God to sinful men. Its ex- 
 clusive duty is in the realm of religion — the 
 reconciliation of man to God. It is not its func- 
 tion to deal with matters of war and peace. 
 Moreover, accepting the Old Testament Scriptures 
 as a part of the Word of God, it cannot declare 
 war a crime and seek to abolish it, inasmuch 
 as, according to these Scriptures, wars have 
 been waged by the direct command of God 
 as one way of disciplining unfaithful nations. 
 
 2. The Church, being purely religious, has as a 
 Church nothing whatever to teach or to do about 
 war. In its teaching function it should indeed 
 inculcate the universal principles, ideals and 
 spirit of Jesus, but it should do this without any 
 specific application or reference to their bear- 
 ing on concrete social, political or international 
 relations. In proportion as men generally become 
 Christian, the whole social and international order 
 will improve and war will naturally disappear. 
 
 3. The Church should teach definitely that 
 war is wrong because contrary to the spirit and 
 teachings of Jesus, but it should not adopt or 
 teach any concrete proposals or advocate any 
 definite political policies or plans looking to the 
 abolition of war, because such plans and policies 
 would inevitably go beyond the realm of religion 
 and enter into that of politics. 
 
 4. The Church, as the Prophet of God to Nations 
 and Governments, as well as to individuals, should 
 unfold those principles of the Gospel which enjoin 
 national submission to Jesus Christ, the Prince of 
 Peace and the Reigning King, as the primary condi- 
 tion of peace and prosperity. It should not only 
 frankly declare that war is the great negation of 
 Christianity and the great moral issue before the 
 world, but also seek to educate its membership 
 and the public in regard to constructive plans 
 and policies. It should not, however, seek to 
 
 Conceptions 
 
 mass its members in a political campaign in 
 support of any given plans or proposals. 
 
 5. The Church as the teacher of men and nations, 
 the divinely established organism for bringing in 
 the Kingdom of God on Earth, should not only in- 
 struct the people in the principles of the Kingdom 
 and inspire them with its ideals and spirit, but 
 mass them in campaigns for constructive poli- 
 cies and measures for permanent world peace. 
 Yet it should not go so far as to refuse, in time 
 of war, to support the Government or have 
 anything to do with the war. 
 
 6. The Church should boldly announce its con- 
 demnation of war and the war system; it should, 
 nevertheless, recognize that each individual is free to 
 follow the judgment of his own conscience without 
 loss of church membership or good standing, what- 
 ever that judgment may be. It should declare that 
 it will never, as a Church, approve or support an- 
 other war nor assist in recruiting soldiers from its 
 membership. It should insist that every program 
 for the abolition of war, though political in one as- 
 pect, is in another profoundly moral and therefore 
 the concern of the Church; and it should, as a con- 
 sequence, throw its entire power as <a church 
 into training and guiding citizens intelligently 
 and unitedly to seek the adoption by the nation 
 of those constructive policies and programs by 
 which it is believed war may be abolished. 
 Thus and thus alone, it is contended, can the Church 
 assert its appropriate moral leadership of the na- 
 tions in the overthrow of their greatest common foe. 
 
 7. The Church as such should “excommuni- 
 cate” war and should teach that henceforth all 
 war of every kind and for any purpose is al- 
 ways and absolutely wrong and contrary to 
 God’s will; that it is sin, not only for the nations 
 that resort to it (on whichever side right and justice 
 may lie) but also for the individuals that participate 
 in it. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Do these seven attitudes adequately and accurately 
 state the various positions taken? Are there other attitudes? 
 
 2. How do those who take the first three positions defend 
 themselves against the charge that they fail to understand 
 Christ’s teaching regarding the Kingdom of God on Earth, 
 for which Christians are to work and pray? 
 
 3. How do those who take the other positions defend 
 themselves from the charge that they are confusing religion 
 
 and politics, the functions of the Church with those of the 
 State? 
 
 4. Try to frame a brief statement regarding the duty of 
 the Church — the local church, the national Church and the 
 Church Universal — in the program to abolish war by 
 creating and maintaining the spirit, the institutions and the 
 procedures of peace. 
 
 Note 
 
 The remainder of this Syllabus is based on the assumption that the Churches as Churches do have responsibilities and 
 duties in regard to the establishment of peace and the abolition of war. 
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN IDEALS AND ATTITUDE 
 L The Spirit and the Teaching of Jesus 
 
 A genuine Christian, in struggling with any problem, seeks to learn what Jesus taught and did in regard to 
 it. If it is clear that He did not deal with the specific problem in question, the Christian then asks what 
 Jesus’ teaching would probably have been, judging from His spirit and the general principles that underlie 
 His Gospel and His entire life. What then was the teaching of Jesus with regard to peace and war, direct 
 or implicit? 
 
 1. In the Sermon on the Mount was Jesus think- 
 ing of the relations of nations? If not, what bear- 
 ing, if any, does the Sermon have on the problems 
 of peace and war? 
 
 2. In Matthew 5:44 (Love your Enemies) and 
 5:39 (Resist not him that is evil) is Jesus teaching 
 the doctrine of absolute non-resistance? If not, how 
 should the teaching of these passages be paraphrased 
 in order to bring out clearly just what he meant? 
 
 3. Does the record of Christ’s driving the money 
 changers out of the temple (Matthew 21:12-13) 
 modify our understanding of His teaching regarding 
 the use of force? 
 
 4. Do the burning words of Jesus in denouncing 
 the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33) 
 throw any light on the right attitude of modern 
 Christians toward instigators of national and racial 
 passions and conflicts? 
 
 5. Just what did Jesus mean when He told His 
 disciples that if any one did not have a sword he 
 should buy one (Luke 22:36), even if it might be 
 necessary to sell his cloak for the purpose? Is this 
 passage correctly used in proving that Jesus jus- 
 tifies war? If not, why? 
 
 6. In His declaration (Matthew 10:34) that He 
 came “not to send peace, but a sword” was Jesus 
 thinking of war? Just what was He teaching? Are 
 interpreters justified in using this passage to prove 
 that Jesus was not a “pacifist”? 
 
 7. In declaring that “all they that take the sword 
 shall perish with the sword” was Jesus intending to 
 
 teach His disciples a universal lesson in regard to 
 war? If not, what was He seeking to inculcate? 
 
 8. Did Jesus ever face, directly or indirectly, the 
 question of a national uprising of His people against 
 the rule of Rome? What passages in the Gospel 
 throw light on this question? On what grounds did 
 He oppose such an uprising? 
 
 9. Did Jesus’ reply to Pilate (“If my kingdom 
 were of this world, then would my servants fight.” 
 John 18:36) teach or imply that His disciples should 
 never fight for any cause? 
 
 10. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray that 
 the Kingdom of God might come on earth as it was 
 in heaven (Matthew 6:10) and that only they who 
 do the will of the Father shall enter into His King- 
 dom, did He include in His thought the duty of 
 Christians to work for world peace and for the aboli- 
 tion of war? If not, do these teachings bear in any 
 way on the problem of our study? If so, in what 
 way? 
 
 11. Do some of the specific teachings and acts of 
 Jesus appear to be at variance with His underlying 
 spirit and purpose? If so, how may they be recon- 
 ciled? If not reconcilable, which should prevail? 
 
 12. What is to be said of the contention that, in 
 carrying out the spirit of love and service, it may 
 sometimes be necessary to resort even to war? 
 
 13. Is it possible to summarize briefly just what 
 the teachings and underlying principles of Jesus were 
 as they bear on the modern problem facing His dis- 
 ciples in regard to peace and war? 
 
 II. Some Special Problems 
 
 In order to help clarify the situation and to make the problems stand out distinctly in all their difficulty 
 and importance, five groups of questions may well receive special attention. 
 
 A. The Use of Military Force 
 
 Questions are raised today regarding the moral right to the use of physical force, even in self-defense against 
 aggression. A few questions will suggest the points at issue. 
 
 1. What has been the historic attitude of the 
 Church in regard to war? Before Constantine? 
 Since? How shall we explain the change? Is it 
 justifiable on Christian principles? 
 
 2. Does the teaching of the Old Testament in 
 
 regard to war afford a rational and moral basis for 
 modern war? 
 
 3. Is an individual entitled, under the moral law 
 and on Christian principles, to defend his life or 
 the honor and life of his family against a robber 
 
 [ 5 ] 
 
or murderer? Should he resist the aggressor even 
 to the extent, if necessary, of killing him? 
 
 4. What bearing on this question has Jesus’ teach- 
 ing (Matthew 5:39) regarding non-resistance? 
 
 5. Is a nation entitled, under the universal moral 
 law, to resist aggressor individuals and nations, even 
 to the extent of destroying their property and tak- 
 ing their lives? If so, why? If not, why? 
 
 6. In defense of the helpless and in the main- 
 tenance of justice is a Christian individual or nation 
 entitled to use force, even to the taking of life when 
 
 necessary, in restraining a brutal bully or a “mad 
 dog nation” from carrying out murderous purposes? 
 In either case, why? 
 
 7. Is a nation that really needs more territory for 
 its people or more economic resources for its in- 
 dustrial enterprises entitled to secure them at the 
 cost of coercion and even, if necessary, of war? In 
 other words, is a nation ever justified in aggression 
 against another nation? Why? 
 
 8. Is the use of an international police force 
 equivalent to war? Give reasons for and against. 
 
 B. The Individual and the State 
 
 The mutual relations, rights and duties of the individual and the State have from ancient times proved to 
 be perplexing questions for all thinkers. 
 
 1. Is the authority of the State over an individ- 
 ual member absolute and unlimited? If it is lim- 
 ited, by what authority or principles? 
 
 2. Has the individual certain essential rights as 
 over against the State? If so, what are they? How 
 may they be discovered and enforced? 
 
 3. Is or is not the individual as a soldier under 
 orders morally right in doing in time of war what it 
 would be morally wrong for him to do under ordi- 
 nary conditions? Why? 
 
 4. Has the State the moral right to conscript the 
 individual and compel him to participate in war in 
 
 C. The Church and the State 
 
 The question of the respective spheres of activity 
 thoughtful men. 
 
 1. Is the distinction between the Church and the 
 State, as dealing respectively with matters religious 
 and secular, adequate? If not, why? 
 
 2. Are there matters in which the State has the 
 unquestioned right to control or limit the teachings 
 and activities of the Church? Specify. 
 
 3. Are there matters in which the Church has 
 the unquestioned right to control or limit the poli- 
 cies and activities of the State? 
 
 4. When Jesus stated that the Jews should “Ren- 
 der therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s 
 and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 
 22:21), was He thinking of the relations of State 
 
 violation of the dictates of his conscience? If so, 
 on what grounds? 
 
 5. Can a Christian who believes that personal 
 participation in war is absolutely forbidden by the 
 principles and teachings of Jesus, rightly participate 
 in “works of mercy and relief” by which the war 
 is made less intolerable and also possibly prolonged? 
 Give reasons for and against. 
 
 6. Can a Christian who is a thorough-going “paci- 
 fist” pay taxes and otherwise support a Government 
 that is making vast war preparations? In either 
 case, why? 
 
 and authority of Church and State has long perplexed 
 
 and Church or of a foreign ruler and religion? If 
 the latter, does this text throw any light on the 
 true relations of Church and State? If so, what? 
 
 5. Is the State to be regarded by Christians as a 
 human invention and institution without divine sanc- 
 tions or authority, and the Church as a divine in- 
 stitution with superhuman authority as it faces both 
 the individual and the State? If so, on what 
 grounds? If not, on what grounds? 
 
 6. If the mutual rights and authority of Church 
 and State, of religion and government, are not clear, 
 how should the Churches proceed to clarify the situ- 
 ation? 
 
 D. National Sovereignty and International Relations 
 
 In thinking on the nature of the State, some extremists have declared that it is a “natural” entity of power, 
 possessed of absolute sovereignty and unlimited authority, not only over its own members but in its dealings 
 with other nations. It is the might of the State that creates its right; briefly, “might makes right”. Its 
 aggressions against neighbor States are right if it has the power to carry them out. A weak State has no 
 inherent rights against a powerful State. It is the natural right of strong States to swallow up weak States 
 just as it is the natural right of big fish to eat up little fish. A State is limited in what it may do only by 
 its might. This idea of absolute and unlimited national sovereignty has been held by not a few thinkers in 
 many lands. 
 
 1. Are there Americans who hold this view of 2. In the judgment of the Churches, is a gnation 
 
 absolute national sovereignty? an absolutely free, unlimited, sovereign entity, at 
 
liberty to do what it will and can to other nations? 
 If not, by what principles is its sovereignty limited? 
 What should the Churches teach? 
 
 3. Is a nation merely a being of “power” and 
 therefore under no moral obligations? If it is un- 
 der moral obligations, what are they? 
 
 4. Is a nation competent to be sole judge of its 
 
 acts, rights and duties in relation to other nations? 
 If not, who are competent? 
 
 5. Do the foregoing questions and considerations 
 throw any light on the duties of States and Govern- 
 ments to cooperate in finding and maintaining inter- 
 national right and justice, in removing the causes of 
 war and in establishing the institutions and proce- 
 dures essential for world peace? 
 
 E. Participation or Non-Participation in War 
 
 We now take up the personal question regarding the duty of a Christian in case his country becomes in- 
 volved in war; — should he or should he not participate? If he should, on what grounds? If he should not, 
 on what grounds? 
 
 It is assumed in this section that the person whose duty is being studied is a real Christian and also a 
 loyal patriot. It is also assumed (although at present it is far from being the case) that long before the out- 
 break of war the Christian patriot has made vigorous and continuous effort on behalf of peace; that his 
 church and denomination have taken more or less vigorous part in the program to outlaw and banish war. 
 He has urged the adoption by his country of those international principles, policies and procedures which 
 he believed would prevent war. War has nevertheless come. What, then, is his duty as a citizen and as a 
 Christian? Under these conditions, has the Church as such a duty to perform? 
 
 (A) The First Alternative — Participation 
 
 The Christian patriot may decide that, though war is the most terrible calamity that can come to his 
 country, and though as a Christian and a patriot he hates war with absolute hatred, with a hatred not less 
 than that of a thoroughgoing “pacifist”, nevertheless it is his duty, both as a Christian and as a patriot, to 
 stand by his country and to help it if possible to win the victory. The reasons given for this decision may 
 differ greatly with different individuals, but they may perhaps be summarized in the following paragraphs: 
 
 1. Because this is a war in self-defense. It was 
 the enemy that threw down the challenge, made the 
 attack, committed the unforgivable crime, and there 
 was no course left in honor but to accept the chal- 
 lenge and punish the foe. 
 
 2. Because the Government honestly and sincere- 
 ly made every effort to avert war. It offered many 
 extraordinary concessions. It even offered to sub- 
 mit the dispute to arbitration. The enemy, how- 
 ever, believing it could win by war, refused to listen 
 to any plan that might avert it and wantonly at- 
 tacked us. 
 
 3. Because the real interests of the entire world — 
 moral, political and economic, — will be best con- 
 served if we win and the enemy is defeated. Our 
 victory will help to end the war-system and estab- 
 lish honor, justice and righteousness, while victory 
 by the enemy would but perpetuate the reign of 
 violence and wrong. 
 
 4. Because the mutual relations of the individual 
 and his people constitute such a unique solidarity 
 that it is impossible for either to exist without the 
 other. The nation is an organic unity. It is not 
 made up of the mere aggregation of its citizens, as a 
 heap of sand is made up of the aggregation of its 
 sand particles. It is rather a living organism, an 
 essential unity, in which all live in and by and for 
 all. The very existence and even the nature of the 
 individual are due to the existence and nature of his 
 people. There are, therefore, mutual obligations 
 
 which neither is at liberty to repudiate. If repudi- 
 ated in words and in attempted acts, the relations 
 and obligations still remain. 
 
 5. Because when war comes the very existence 
 of the nation is the issue, and when this issue arises 
 every other issue disappears. Liberties and privi- 
 leges which the individual enjoyed as a matter of 
 right in times of peace, disappear in times of war. 
 Questions of right and wrong in the transactions and 
 relations that preceded the outbreak of war are now 
 irrelevant. Freedom of speech, assembly and travel 
 are no longer possible. The entire energy of the 
 nation must be given to the one supreme effort to 
 maintain self existence. No individual citizen, there- 
 fore, has the right to choose whether or not he will 
 support his nation. Refusal is equivalent to taking 
 sides with the enemy. Refusal is treason and de- 
 serves only one result — death. 
 
 6. Because every principle of loyalty to Christ 
 and to country requires the Christian and the patriot 
 to serve to the uttermost and to give even life if 
 need be for those whom he loves. 
 
 7. Because the issues involved in the war, and 
 the circumstances under which it took place, are 
 such that the fundamental principles and ideals of 
 Jesus are imperiled and can be maintained only by 
 war. Loyalty to Christ, therefore, impels the Chris- 
 tian to support his country in the war; he has no 
 other option. 
 
 [ 7 ] 
 
Questions 
 
 1. What other reasons may be given by a Christian 
 patriot for participating in a war in which his country is 
 involved ? 
 
 2. Do any of the reasons given above for personal 
 participation appeal to you as not valid? Why? Would 
 you state in some other form your reasons for participation? 
 Are some of the reasons valid? Which? Why? 
 
 3. In advance of the occurrence of war, has a Christian 
 patriot the moral right to sign a solemn pledge that under 
 no circumstances whatever will he ever participate in any 
 war? If not, why? 
 
 4. Is or is not a Christian patriot entitled to determine 
 his attitude toward a war in which his country is already 
 
 engaged by consideration of the circumstances that produced 
 it? In either case, why? 
 
 5. When war takes place, are all questions of right and 
 wrong regarding the causes of the war irrelevant? Do all 
 rights of an individual disappear in time of war? If not, 
 what rights remain? 
 
 6. Is it right or wise for a church, local or national, to 
 take action as a church for or against participation? In 
 either case, why? 
 
 7. Is the question of responsibility for war (war-guilt) 
 irrelevant to the Christian patriot? If so, why? If not, 
 why? 
 
 (B) The Second Alternative— Non-Participation 
 
 The Christian patriot may decide that although he has made every possible effort to persuade his country 
 to adopt those courses of action which would have averted the coming of war, now that war has nevertheless 
 come, it is his Christian and also his patriotic duty to refuse to participate in it in any way whatever. The 
 reasons given may be one or more of the following affirmations. 
 
 1. Because the Government in resorting to war 
 is clearly in the wrong. 
 
 (1) It has followed for many years a policy of 
 selfish disregard of the interests of other 
 lands 
 
 (2) It has steadily filled its neighbors with sus- 
 picion of its motives and fear of its purposes 
 because of its ever enlarging program of mili- 
 tary preparedness 
 
 (3) It has refused to cooperate with other na- 
 tions in general plans and measures for the 
 peaceful settlement of all disputes and the 
 outlawing of every war 
 
 (4) It has refused to submit the particular dis- 
 pute involved in this war to some competent 
 impartial tribunal, on the false assumption 
 that a nation is competent to be its own 
 plaintiff, sheriff, witnesses, jury, judge and 
 executioner in a matter involving its interests 
 
 (5) It is in fact the aggressor. 
 
 2. Because the Government should have followed 
 the spirit of Jesus and the methods of peace to the 
 end. It did, indeed, reduce its military and naval 
 preparations to some degree. It did cooperate with 
 the nations in establishing a World Court of Justice 
 and other tribunals and procedures for settling every 
 dispute by methods of law, arbitration and concilia- 
 tion. It did, in general, adopt conciliatory policies 
 and it did offer to submit the dispute in question to 
 the World Court of Justice or to arbitration. But 
 when the enemy, accepting none of our efforts for 
 a peaceful settlement, wantonly attacked us, even 
 then the Government should not have opposed force 
 to force. It should have displayed the spirit of 
 Jesus to the end, and in the end its moral triumph 
 would have brought the beginning of a war-free 
 world. 
 
 3. Because it is impossible to know the full truth 
 regarding the cause of the war. All modern govern- 
 ments and big business interests conceal important 
 facts, release “inspired” but misleading alleged news, 
 and make it impossible for the private citizen to 
 know the justice or the guilt in any given war. War 
 makers in each land represent their own country as 
 the victim of wrong and appeal to the nation’s pride 
 and patriotism to fight for the alleged cause of jus- 
 tice, liberty and national honor. 
 
 4. Because the only way by which finally to bring 
 the nation and the world to abandon war is for mul- 
 titudes of individuals in many lands to refuse to par- 
 ticipate, even at the cost, if necessary, of sacrificing 
 their lives in the cause. 
 
 5. Because non-participation is in reality the high- 
 est form of patriotism — for the non-participator is 
 seeking for his country a spirit and a method in 
 dealing with international relations, problems and 
 disputes that are essentially right and in the end far 
 more profitable even economically than the method 
 and the spirit of war. 
 
 6. Because war is intrinsically, absolutely and al- 
 ways wrong. War violates every Christian ideal and 
 principle. It disregards the plain teachings as well 
 as the spirit of Jesus. A Christian who participates 
 in war personally repudiates his Master and his 
 Master’s teaching regarding 
 
 (1) Universal human brotherhood 
 
 (2) The responsibilities of universal love, com- 
 passion and mercy 
 
 (3) The obligations of sincerity and truthfulness 
 
 (4) The privileges of unselfish service 
 
 (5) The intrinsic value of human life 
 
 (6) The sacredness of personality. 
 
 [ 8 ] 
 
War is, therefore, the supreme collective sin of 
 humanity. The individual Christian should have no 
 part in it. The only possible Christian attitude 
 
 toward war is absolute hatred of it, opposition to it, 
 and refusal to support it or participate in it in any 
 way whatever. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. What other reasons are actually given by those who 
 advocate non-participation ? 
 
 2. Of the reasons given above for non-participation, which 
 appeal to you as valid? Which appear to you to be fal- 
 lacious? Why? 
 
 3. Can a man be morally right in refusing to support his 
 country in a war in which he judges the enemy to be clearly 
 the aggressor and his own Government in the right? If so, 
 why? If not, why? 
 
 Suggestive 
 
 THE EIEIiE AND UNIVERSAL PEACE, G. H. Gilbert; 
 1914; Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York. 
 
 WHAT DID JESUS REALLY TEACH ABOUT WAR?, 
 
 Edward Leigh Pell; 1917; Fleming H. Revell Company, New 
 York. 
 
 CHRIST AND WAR, William E. Wilson; 1913; James Clarke 
 and Company, London. 
 
 CHRIST AND THE WORLD AT WAR, Sermons by Twelve 
 British Church Leaders; 1917; The Pilgrim Press, Boston, 
 Mass. 
 
 CHRIST OR NAPOLEON — WHICH?, Peter Ainslie; 1915; 
 Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 
 
 WAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OP 
 JESUS CHRIST, David Low Dodge; 1905; Ginn and Com- 
 pany, Boston, Mass. 
 
 CHRIST OR MARS?, Will Irwin; 1923; D. Appleton and 
 Company, New York. 
 
 IS CHRISTIANITY PRACTICABLE?, William Adams 
 Brown; 1916; Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND THE STATE, S. Parkes Cadman; 
 1924; The Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 4. Does the phrase “My country, may she ever be right, 
 but right or wrong, my country” express the true spirit of 
 patriotism? If so, why? If not, why? 
 
 5. Does an individual citizen have the right, after declara- 
 tion of war, to reject the judgment of his government? If 
 not, why? If so, why? 
 
 6. In dealing with these questions would it help to lay 
 down definitions of patriotism and loyalty? If so, how 
 should they be defined? 
 
 Literature 
 
 WHAT THE WAR IS TEACHING, Charles E. Jefferson; 
 1916; Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 
 
 WHY NOT TRY CHRISTIANITY?, Samuel Zane Batten; 
 1923; George H. Doran Company, New York. 
 
 WHY CHRISTIANITY DID NOT PREVENT WAR, 
 
 Isaac J. Lansing; 1918; George H. Doran Company, New York. 
 
 WAR AND THE SOUL, R. J. Campbell; 1916; Dodd, Mead 
 and Company, New York. 
 
 THE CHURCH IN TIME OP WAR, A. F. Winnington 
 Ingram; 1915; The Young Churchman Company, Milwaukee, 
 Wis. 
 
 THE ABOLITION OP WAR, Sherwood Eddy and Kirby 
 Page; 1924; George H. Doran Company, New York. 
 
 CHRISTIAN INTERNATIONALISM, William P. Merrill; 
 1919; The Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 WAR ABOLITION, Harry P. Gibson; 1925; Robson and Adee, 
 Schenectady, New York. 
 
 TOWARD THE UNDERSTANDING OP JESUS, Vladimir 
 G. Simkhovitch; 1921; The Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 CHURCH AND COLLEGE DENOUNCE PACIFIST 
 PLEDGE; 1924; The National Civic Federation, New York. 
 
 [ 9 ] 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 WHAT THE CHURCHES OUGHT TO DO 
 
 It is assumed in this Syllabus that all Christians desire to have the menace of war removed and the entire 
 war-system of the nations completely abolished. Essential to this end is the realization that the existing war- 
 system of the nations is in principle a pagan institution, the method of savages and bullies for securing group 
 ends, regardless of the rights and sufferings of others. To abolish war the nations must Christianize their 
 relations, their conception of national rights and duties, and their procedures in maintaining even their un- 
 questioned rights. They must definitely and determinedly set themselves to devise and establish the world 
 institutions essential for world justice, for the peaceful settlement of all disputes and for cooperation in peace 
 as a substitute for war and preparations for war. Permanent world peace can never be established on any- 
 thing less than a reconstructed world-order based on the principles and ideals of the Kingdom of God. 
 
 The firm establishment of world peace as an effective system of international relations is, therefore, one of 
 the essential objectives of the Christian Church. The questions to be considered in this chapter concern the 
 concrete proposals and programs by which it is hoped to secure this end. More explicitly, what international 
 policies should the Churches adopt, teach and advocate, looking toward a warless world? 
 
 I. Programs for Creating Goodwill 
 
 The creation and general adoption of a world-peace system in place of the existing war-system is, in the 
 final analysis, a matter of developing in the minds and hearts of the nations a new spirit: a spirit of mutual 
 consideration and respect, and a willingness to see the defects and wrong doings of one’s own nation. 
 
 This part of the constructive program for world peace is in no sense political ; it is distinctively a procedure 
 in education and falls without question within the scope of the teaching duty of the Churches. This pro- 
 gram has been appropriately called the “disarming of the mind”. Positively it seeks to create goodwill and 
 confidence between nations and races. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Do verbal professions of friendship between nations 
 and governments have any value in producing mutual good- 
 will? If so, give reasons. 
 
 2. Were the return to China of the Boxer Indemnity and 
 to Japan of the Shimonoseki Indemnity, and the gift of 
 millions for famine, fire, flood and earthquake relief in 
 Russia, Europe and the Orient of any positive result in 
 international relations? Can you prove your belief by con- 
 crete illustrations? 
 
 3. What, if any, beneficial effects on international rela- 
 tions have been produced by foreign missions, aid to foreign 
 educational institutions, fellowships and scholarships for 
 foreign students, the exchange of professors, and friendly 
 treatment of foreigners dwelling in our midst? Give specific 
 instances. 
 
 4. What are the advantages of the “project method” of 
 
 training in international goodwill over the usual methods of 
 lectures, study classes and reading? Should or should not 
 the Churches promote special studies in regard to those 
 nations with whom our relations are more or less strained 
 — Mexico, Russia, Japan? How can they do this most 
 effectively ? 
 
 5. What is your local church doing in these practical ways? 
 Does it compare in energy and financial expenditures with 
 what it does to meet its own wants — music, architecture, 
 entertainments, etc? 
 
 6. What is your communion doing along these lines? What 
 more can and should it do? 
 
 7. How far do international and inter-racial activities 
 promote understanding and goodwill — e.g., world conferences, 
 the Olympic games, the League of Nations, etc.? Should or 
 should they not be fostered because of these by-products? 
 
 II. Programs for the World Cooperation of Churches 
 
 At the outbreak of the world war the churches of Christendom were severely condemned for their failure 
 to prevent the war and also for such complete identification of religion and patriotism that the Christians 
 in each land were virtually worshipping tribal gods. 
 
 Many have felt that the criticisms were justified and that the situation disclosed is intolerable. They have 
 accordingly sought to bring the Churches of different lands into relation with one another, in the hope that 
 such a world cooperation of Christians and of Churches might develop as would bridge the chasm between 
 nations, secure mutual understanding and goodwill across national frontiers, and become a powerful agency for 
 international justice, for national cooperation and for world peace. 
 
 It is urged that in times of international strain and irritation the Christians in each land will work for 
 peace with more zeal if the Churches are in close contact and especially if they mutually know that fellow- 
 Christians in other lands are also vigorously working for the same ends. Even in times of war, it is urged 
 that Churches should have freedom for intercourse, under proper precautions, and that such freedom would 
 have many beneficial results, in ameliorating the passions, in preventing hatreds and possibly in shortening 
 the war. 
 
Questions 
 
 1. Does the ideal suggested above have elements of value 
 for our general program in working for a world-peace- 
 system and for preventing war? Specify. 
 
 2. Would the nations be more likely to agree on world 
 peace programs if the Churches within the various nations 
 could agree on and work for the same concrete objectives? 
 If not, why? 
 
 3. What steps, if any, have the Churches already taken 
 in these directions? 
 
 4. What influences, if any, for world peace, have been 
 exerted by such world gatherings as the Pan-Presbyterian, 
 Pan-Methodist and Pan-Anglican World Assemblies? By 
 the Edinburgh Missionary Conference? By the relations 
 of Mission Churches in non-Christian lands to their respect- 
 ive supporting Churches in Christian lands? 
 
 5. What, if anything, has been accomplished for world 
 
 peace by the World Alliance for International Friendship 
 Through the Churches? By the Universal Christian Con- 
 ference on Life and Work held at Stockholm? 
 
 6. Have significant contributions toward international un- 
 derstanding, goodwill and peace been made by such Chris- 
 tian organizations as the Young Men’s Christian Associa- 
 tion, the Young Women’s Christian Association, the World’s 
 Sunday School Association, the Federations or Councils of 
 Churches in various lands? Specify. 
 
 7. Do such international contacts and cooperation run 
 the risk of weakening patriotism or of bringing harm to 
 the countries involved? If so, how? Is there need of guard- 
 ing against such possible dangers? How? 
 
 8. How may these international contacts and relations of 
 Churches and Christian organizations be made more effective 
 for the specific programs for world peace? Specify as con- 
 cretely as possible. 
 
 III. Programs for the World Cooperation of States 
 
 We propose now to consider rapidly the various concrete plans for the cooperation of Governments, the 
 universal adoption of which is believed by many to be essential to the overthrow of the war-system and war 
 psychology of the nations and to the enthronement of justice and law, right, reason and goodwill in the 
 life of the world. In connection with each of these plans we need to ask what the attitude of the Churches 
 should be. 
 
 Throughout history preparations for war, threats of war, and acts of war have constituted the one final 
 resort for nations in the settlement of their disputes. If war is really to be abolished it is evident that the 
 nations must devise, and cooperate in creating and maintaining, a substitute method of settlement. Several 
 proposals and achievements along this line are now before the world. 
 
 A. The League of Nations 
 
 The League of Nations consists of fifty- five gov- 
 ernments which have agreed, in a remarkable Cove- 
 nant, to abstain from war and to submit all their 
 disputes to peaceful settlement by the use of various 
 methods. 
 
 This League of Nations is the first instance in 
 history of multitudes of nations entering into a 
 league, the declared object of which is universal 
 peace. Its activities cover a wide range, including 
 
 the industrial, hygienic, social and moral welfare of 
 all nations and races. 
 
 Except for Russia, Germany, Mexico and the 
 United States, all the important nations of the world 
 are members of the League. 
 
 The League is in process of development. It is 
 dealing with world problems, determining world his- 
 tory, and developing international law at a rapid 
 rate. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Is the League actually helping to solve difficulties be- 
 tween nations? Is it actually providing other methods than 
 war for the settlement of disputes? Name some instances. 
 
 2. What effect, if any — good or bad — is the League having 
 on the development of world consciousness, world standards, 
 world conscience and world goodwill? 
 
 3. What responsible proposals are there, if any, for an 
 Association of Nations as a substitute for the League? 
 What are its prospects? 
 
 4. What are the causes, if any, of the relative weakness 
 of the League of Nations in outlawing and preventing war? 
 
 5. What are the reasons given for and against the United 
 States becoming a member of the League? Summarize these 
 reasons? What are their respective merits? 
 
 6. Would American membership in the League strengthen 
 it as a general agent for world peace? 
 
 7. Does the League rely on the sanctions of military force 
 
 to secure its cohesion and to enforce its judgments? If 
 not, what are the forces that are making it effective? 
 
 8. Should and could an effective and universal League of 
 Nations rely exclusively on public opinion and mass good- 
 will, absolutely refusing the use of military force? 
 
 9. Has your church or communion taken any action deal- 
 ing with the League or American membership therein? 
 
 10. Should the Churches of America express any opinion 
 on the desirability of the United States joining the League? 
 
 11. If they should, should such an opinion be or not be 
 qualified by specified reservations? If so, what should be 
 the reservations? 
 
 12. Should the Churches of America express any judgment 
 on the attitude thus far taken toward the League of Nations 
 by the government of the United States? If so, what? 
 
 13. Should or should not the League of Nations be re- 
 garded as in some measure expressing the Christian ideal of 
 the Kingdom of God? In either case, specify reasons. 
 
 [ 11 ] 
 
B. The Permanent Court of International Justice 
 
 Through the activities of the League of Nations a 
 plan for a World Court of Justice was drafted by 
 the leading jurists of the world, one of whom was 
 an American, and sent to the nations for their con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Forty-eight nations have now by their separate 
 and independent ratifications established the Court. 
 It rests on their direct authority and not on that 
 of the League. 
 
 Nearly one-half of the nations have accepted its 
 compulsory jurisdiction in the four classes of diffi- 
 culties that are recognized by international jurists 
 as capable of judicial settlement. 
 
 The United States Senate voted (January 27, 
 1926), 76-17, to adhere to the World Court Protocol 
 with five reservations and two resolutions. The 
 reservations must be accepted by the forty-eight 
 member nations of the Court before we shall actually 
 join it. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Does the World Court of Justice help to provide a 
 substitute for war? How and to what degree? 
 
 2. Will American membership strengthen the Court as 
 an agent for settling international disputes? In what ways? 
 
 3. Were the limiting reservations and resolutions really 
 necessary? Do they help or hinder the effectiveness of 
 the Court? 
 
 4. Should the United States accept its compulsory juris- 
 diction in all justiciable matters? If she should do so only 
 on certain conditions, what should these conditions be? 
 
 5. What merit is there in the contentions that the Hague 
 
 C. The Codification of International Law 
 
 Experience shows that one important procedure in 
 the establishment of peace is the adoption by the 
 nations of regular principles and procedures in the 
 conduct of their affairs. 
 
 A treaty between two nations, so long as it exists, 
 constitutes a law by which to regulate their conduct. 
 General treaties adopted by groups of nations con- 
 stitute that much international law for them. 
 
 The treaty of Versailles constitutes a great body 
 of new international law accepted by the fifty-five 
 nations in the League. Very large sections of that 
 Treaty were also mutually adopted by the United 
 States and Germany. 
 
 The Covenant of the League of Nations forms a 
 new basis for international law specifically designed 
 to prevent war and to promote world peace. 
 
 Court of Arbitration is better than the Permanent Court of 
 International Justice? That the World Court is merely the 
 special attorney of the League of Nations? That the Per- 
 manent Court cannot be a World Court unless absolutely 
 severed from the League? 
 
 6. Summarize reasons given for and against American 
 membership in the World Court. What are their respective 
 merits? 
 
 7. Did your communion take any official action regard- 
 ing American membership in the World Court? If not, 
 why? 
 
 During the past five years nearly nine hundred 
 treaties between two or more Governments have been 
 made and registered with the League of Nations; 
 these constitute an enormous body of international 
 law. 
 
 Various Commissions and Committees of the 
 League are constantly drafting new codes and proto- 
 cols, covering specific international interests. These 
 become international law to the extent that they are 
 ratified by the nations. The League of Nations has 
 recently instituted a committee of international jur- 
 ists to study the question of the further codification 
 of international law by reducing to general terms 
 those principles and procedures which are already 
 embodied in treaties and practice. It plans thus to 
 promote the clarity and authority of international 
 law with respect to the matters treated. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. To what degree is International Law codified and 
 available for the use of the World Court ? Does the Supreme 
 Court of the United States ever apply International Law? 
 
 2. Should the United States refuse to consider a proposed 
 general treaty merely because it has been drafted and sent 
 to the United States by the League? 
 
 3. Does the United States register its treaties in the office 
 of the League of Nations? If not, why? 
 
 4. Should the United States summon a convention of the 
 
 nations to draft a code of international law? In either 
 case, why? 
 
 5. What steps might the Churches take to promote the 
 enactment, ratification and enforcement of international 
 law? 
 
 6. Should or should not the Churches urge our Govern- 
 ment to ratify the League’s proposed “International Conven- 
 tions” or treaties for the “Suppression of the Traffic in 
 Women and Children” and for “the Suppression of the Cir- 
 culation of and Traffic in Obscene Literature”? 
 
 [ 12 ] 
 
D. Security and Disarmament 
 
 The maintenance of armaments by the nations is 
 due, in the opinion of many, to suspicion and fear. 
 Each believes itself to be insecure and liable to 
 invasion, or at least in danger of having its rights 
 violated and its interests ignored unless it is pre- 
 pared to fight. Fear creates ever-growing arma- 
 ments and growing armaments create increasing fear 
 — a vicious circle. But colossal armaments also cre- 
 ate serious economic difficulties in every land. They 
 require vast expenditures on unproductive enter- 
 
 prises, to the loss of productive industry; they 
 lower the standards of living and have disastrous 
 effects on every national interest. 
 
 General disarmament, however, on any extensive 
 scale, it is widely asserted, will be possible only 
 when a general sense of security arises, and a sense 
 of security will be possible only when nations learn 
 to settle their disputes without resort to war or 
 threat of war, and to stand together against a law- 
 less nation. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Should or should not the United States cooperate with 
 the other nations of the world in establishing a world- 
 system for the peaceful settlement of every dispute? 
 
 2. Should or should it not include compulsory arbitration? 
 Economic sanctions? Military sanctions? In each case, 
 why ? Why not ? 
 
 3. Should or should not the United States unite with 
 other nations in assuring security to the peace-loving and 
 law-abiding nations? If it should, by what methods? 
 
 4. How can the United States best help all nations to 
 unite in a program for universal disarmament? 
 
 E. The Outlawry of War 
 
 Two plans for abolishing war have been proposed. 
 
 1. The Borah-Levinson Plan proposes that all 
 nations shall first adopt a resolution that all war 
 is illegitimate and criminal (except in self-defense) ; 
 that the nations which adopt such a resolution shall 
 appoint representatives to a world conference to 
 provide for the codification of international law; 
 that, when this code has been adopted by the na- 
 tions, a World Court shall be established, with com- 
 pulsory jurisdiction; and that the only force behind 
 this system and this World Court shall be public 
 opinion. 
 
 2. The Geneva Protocol Plan was unanimously 
 recommended by the official representatives of forty- 
 
 5. Can the other nations establish a world-peace system 
 without the United States? If so, how? If not, why? 
 
 6. In the absence of a world-peace system, how can 
 world peace be assured? Specify plan. 
 
 7. What would be the probable effect of another world 
 war? Could the United States keep out of it? 
 
 8. Do or do not the geographical position, the wealth, 
 the strength and the moral advancement of the United 
 States place upon her peculiar responsibility for leadership 
 and even for sacrifice in these matters? Why? 
 
 9. What duty, if any, have the Churches in these matters? 
 
 eight Governments at the Assembly of the League 
 of Nations on October 2, 1924. It proposes that 
 all “aggressive war” be declared a crime; that, in 
 case a war occurs, the proof as to which nation is 
 the aggressor shall be the willingness or unwilling- 
 ness of the nations concerned to submit the case for 
 final settlement to the World Court of Justice or to 
 some procedure of arbitration described in the Pro- 
 tocol; and that all the Covenant-keeping nations 
 shall come to the defense of the nation attacked. 
 
 On the basis of these principles and procedures, 
 elaborately stated, it was believed that the nations 
 would soon develop a sense of security and a willing- 
 ness to adopt general plans for disarmament. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Which of these two plans to outlaw war is the more 
 practicable? Give reasons? 
 
 2. Should or should not the United States cooperate with 
 other nations in establishing an effective system to outlaw 
 war, to make compulsory the peaceful settlement of dis- 
 putes and to bring to court a law-breaking, aggressor 
 nation ? 
 
 3. If the United States should help in these matters, 
 should that help be limited to moral support? Or should 
 
 it, if necessary, include economic pressure, and, in extreme 
 cases, also military force? 
 
 4. Are the two plans mentioned above mutually exclusive? 
 If they are more or less in agreement, point out their re- 
 semblances and their differences. 
 
 5. Should the Churches take interest in these matters as 
 vital to the program for a warless world? Give reasons for 
 and against. 
 
 6. Has your church expressed its mind on the Outlawry 
 of War? If not, should or should it not do so? 
 
 IV. Programs for Eliminating the Causes of War 
 
 The causes of war are many and subtle. Practices by one nation or by the citizens of one nation in deal- 
 ings abroad oftentimes quite unconsciously create ill-will, suspicion, indignation, fear, wrath — in a word, 
 war-psychology. Many of the programs for abolishing war call attention to these “causes of war” and make 
 concrete proposals for their removal. A single, brief Syllabus is wholly inadequate for dealing with all the 
 varied social, economic and political factors that tend to produce war feelings. Some indication, however, 
 
 [ 13 ] 
 
of their character and scope may well be given in this general survey of proposals for the abolition of war. 
 They deal with such matters as the following: 
 
 1. Foreign markets and investments promoted and protected by the Flag 
 
 2. Monopolistic national control of raw materials essential to modern industry 
 
 3. Pressure of population on food supply and restriction of migration 
 
 4. A sensation-mongering, jingo press: a press directly and indirectly controlled by big munition or other 
 financial interests 
 
 5. Protective and differential tariffs 
 
 6. Race discriminatory legislation 
 
 7. Oppressive treatment of political or religious minorities 
 
 8. Invasion of Oriental and primitive peoples by Occidental industrialism 
 
 9. “Unequal treaties”, “Extra-territoriality” and “Concessions” in China. 
 
 In connection with each of these matters many programs have been suggested for rectifying the wrongs 
 and promoting the right. Are these matters which the Churches should study and concerning which they 
 should advocate definite policies and procedures? If so, how can they deal with them wisely and effectively? 
 If not, what prospect is there of really abolishing war? 
 
 V. Matters Distinctively American 
 
 In addition to the general problems and programs suggested above, there is a group of questions distinct- 
 ively American. What, for instance, should be the attitude of the Churches in regard to 
 
 1. The proposal to make Hawaii the most powerful naval base in the world, the “Gibraltar of the Pacific” 
 
 2. The proposal to build great naval bases at San Diego, San Francisco, and Puget Sound 
 
 3. The proposal of the Army to increase by 10,000 the number of trained soldiers regularly located in the 
 Hawaiian Islands 
 
 4. The proposal of the General Staff of the Army to have an annual Muster Day for the entire manhood 
 of the nation — otherwise named Mobilization or Defense Test Day. If the plan is wise, what day should 
 be set aside for the purpose? 
 
 5. The virtual annexation of the little countries of the Caribbean under the aegis of the “Monroe Doctrine” 
 
 6. The activities of the Army and Navy in training the students of our colleges, universities and high 
 schools by means of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps and the Citizens’ Military Training Camps 
 
 7. The tendency in Army and Navy circles and in the so-called “patriotic” organizations to brand as 
 
 disloyal all who do not actively support or those who even question their enlarging plans of military and 
 
 naval preparedness 
 
 8. The proposal to remit in whole or in part the war debts of the allies to the United States. 
 
 Questions 
 
 1. Do these policies and proposals help or hinder the 
 peace program of the World? Or do they have no relation 
 to it? 
 
 2. How far, if at all, is it the duty of the Churches to 
 follow, to scrutinize, and either to accept or to reject the 
 policies of the General Staff of the Army and Navy? 
 
 3. Do or do not certain propaganda activities of the Army 
 and the instruction given in the Reserve Officers’ Training 
 Corps and the Citizens’ Military Training Camps tend to 
 militarize the minds of our youth? 
 
 4. Should military training in “land grant colleges” be 
 compulsory or optional? Are students who refuse to take 
 such training to be upheld, or condemned as “unpatriotic”? 
 
 5. Do the Defense Test and Muster Day doings of the 
 Army increase or decrease the war psychology of the nation? 
 What effect do they have on the attitude of trust in or 
 distrust of us, on the part of other nations? 
 
 6. Are the Churches and Christians under patriotic obli- 
 gations to accept in obedient silence every plan proposed by 
 
 high military and naval officials? If not, on what grounds 
 and to what extent are they entitled to express their judg- 
 ments? 
 
 7. Should Congress or the Departments of War and Navy 
 be guided in their preparedness plans by officially expressed 
 judgments of the Churches? If so, or if not, on what 
 grounds? 
 
 8. Should or should not the Churches of America advocate 
 the dismantling by joint agreements between the United 
 States, Japan, Great Britain and other countries of all 
 fortifications on the islands of the Pacific, in order to have 
 — as on the United States, Canadian frontier — freedom from 
 bristling fortifications? 
 
 9. Should or should not the Churches oppose actions of 
 our Navy or of Congress tending to discredit and destroy 
 the Four Power Pact for Peace in the Pacific? 
 
 10. Should the Churches of America express any judg- 
 ment regarding the war debts of the Allies to the United 
 States? If not, why? If so, what should it be? 
 
 [ 14 ] 
 
VI. Miscellaneous Questions 
 
 1. Did the action of Congress in over-riding the 
 recommendations of Secretary Hughes and President 
 Coolidge regarding the Japanese exclusion question 
 in May, 1924, help or hinder peace in the Pacific? 
 Give reasons for your judgment. 
 
 2. Should or should not the indignation and re- 
 sentment of Japanese, Chinese and East Indians, due 
 to our race discriminatory legislation, which they 
 regard as insulting and humiliating to them, cause 
 us to modify our legislation? 
 
 3. Should or should not the Churches advocate 
 the practical exclusion of Asiatic immigration? In 
 either case, why? Can it be secured by laws free 
 from racial discrimination? How? 
 
 4. Should the final decision in regard to declar- 
 ing war be left to the people themselves by a nation- 
 al referendum? Is such a procedure practicable? If 
 so, why? If not, why? 
 
 5. Should or should not the Churches adopt a 
 policy in regard to chemical or disease-germ war- 
 fare? If so, what should it be? 
 
 6. Do or do not huge private corporations for 
 the manufacture of military and naval munitions 
 and supplies have a sinister influence on prepared- 
 ness programs, on legislation, on international poli- 
 cies and on syndicated news? Should the Churches 
 have a declared policy in regard to these matters? 
 
 7. Do or do not the colossal economic interests 
 involved in the existing war-system of the nations 
 play any part in maintaining this war-system? Spec- 
 ify reasons for and against. 
 
 8. What attitude, if any, should the Churches 
 take in regard to the private manufacture of and 
 foreign trade in war munitions? 
 
 9. What attitude, if any, should the Churches of 
 America take toward the Youth Peace Movement of 
 the World? 
 
 10. What duty, if any, have the Churches of 
 America regarding China’s demands for tariff au- 
 tonomy and the abolition of “unequal treaties” and 
 “extra- territoriality ” ? 
 
 11. Have the Churches of America any duty re- 
 garding the essential injustices of the Versailles 
 Treaty, the alleged “sole guilt” of Germany for the 
 war, and the “recognition” of Russia? Are there 
 moral aspects of these issues on which the Churches 
 should express their judgment. What are they? 
 
 12. Should the Churches of America urge Con- 
 gress to enact a suitable law regarding the rights of 
 the “Conscientious Objector”, of whatever commun- 
 ion he may be a member? 
 
 13. In addition to the many definite problems and 
 the programs for their solution mentioned in the 
 foregoing pages, are there still others which the 
 Churches should consider? If so, name them. 
 
 14. Among the many proposals for action looking 
 toward a warless world, which are the most impor- 
 tant? Are there some to which the Churches should 
 give immediate attention? Which? 
 
 15. If the Churches are to take any real part in 
 the stupendous program of outlawing and abolishing 
 war, can they be satisfied with general resolutions 
 embodying fine sentiments and abstract principles. 
 If they should do more, how shall they proceed? 
 How secure wise leaders? What specific courses of 
 action should they adopt? 
 
 Suggestive Literature 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADE FOR A WARXjESS 
 WORIiD, Sidney L. Gulick; 1923; Federal Council of the 
 Churches of Christ in America, New York. 
 
 WORLD MISSIONS AND WORLD PEACE, Caroline At- 
 water Mason; 1916; Central Committee, West Medford, Mass. 
 
 THE MAZE OF THE NATIONS AND THE WAY OUT, 
 
 Gaius Glenn Atkins; 1915; Fleming H. Revell Company, New 
 York. 
 
 LEAGUE OR W AS?, Irving Fisher; 1923; Harper and 
 Brothers, New York. 
 
 LEAGUE OF NATIONS YEAR BOOK, 1925; World Peace 
 Foundation, Boston, Mass. 
 
 AMERICA’S INTEREST IN WORLD PEACE, Irving 
 Fisher; 1924; Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York. 
 
 THE TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES, William I. Hull; 
 1908; Ginn and Company, Boston, Mass. 
 
 THE A B C’S OF DISARMAMENT AND THE PACIFIC 
 PROBLEMS, Arthur Bullard; 1921; The Macmillan Com- 
 pany, New York. 
 
 THE WORLD COURT, Antonio S. de Bustamente; 1925; The 
 Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL 
 JUSTICE AND THE QUESTION OF AMERICAN 
 PARTICIPATION, Manley O. Hudson; 1925; Harvard 
 University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 
 
 [ 15 
 
 WAYS TO PEACE, TWENTY FLANS SUBMITTED TO 
 THE AMERICAN PEACE AWARD, Introduction by 
 Esther Everett Lape, Preface by Edward W. Bok; 1924; 
 Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 
 
 THE PREVENTION OF WAR, Philip Kerr and Lionel 
 Curtis; 1923; Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS, 
 
 U. Mitrany; 1925; Oxford University Press, England. 
 
 CROSS CURRENTS IN EUROPE TODAY, Charles A. 
 Beard; 1922; Marshall Jones Company, Boston, Mass. 
 
 EUROPE TURNS THE CORNER, Stanley High; 1925; The 
 Abingdon Press, New York. 
 
 THE RECENT FOREIGN POLICY OF THE UNITED 
 STATES, George H. Blakeslee; 1925; The Abingdon Press, 
 New York. 
 
 THE REAWAKENING OF THE ORIENT, Lectures by 
 Sir Valentine Chirol, Yusuke Tsurumi and Sir James Arthur 
 Salter; 1925; Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 
 
 ORIENTAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE FAR EAST- 
 ERN PROBLEM, Lectures by Count Michimasa Soyeshima 
 and President P. W. Kuo; 1925; Chicago University Press, 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 SYLLABUS ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (A 
 
 full compendium of books and magazine articles on Inter- 
 national Questions), by Parker Thomas Moon; 1925; The 
 Macmillan Company, New York. 
 
 ] 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CHURCH PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION FOR WORLD PEACE 
 
 It is important that each Church should know what is actually being done to educate its membership and 
 especially the young people in its Sunday Schools, academies and colleges to understand world problems and 
 to work constructively for world peace. 
 
 The local church groups in each communion should, therefore, familiarize themselves with the facts and 
 also consider carefully what more the Churches, both national and local, should do. 
 
 1. Does your communion have an officially estab- 
 lished committee, commission or department to 
 which is assigned the specific duty of promoting an 
 educational program on peace among your churches, 
 Sunday Schools and other church institutions? If 
 so, when was the action taken, who are those re- 
 sponsible, how often do they meet, and, in brief, 
 what have they done? 
 
 2. Does your communion provide a budget for 
 this peace educational program? How much? Is 
 it enough really to do what needs to be done? 
 
 3. What steps, if any, have been taken in your 
 communion to find out the attitudes of children and 
 youth which may be regarded as favorable or un- 
 favorable toward securing world peace? 
 
 4. What programs of training are in operation 
 to counteract undesirable attitudes and to create 
 those that are desirable? 
 
 5. Do you know what proportion of your pastors 
 and churches observed Armistice Sunday (Novem- 
 ber 8, 1925), as suggested by the Federal Council 
 of Churches? 
 
 6. Has the religious press of your communion 
 made any special efforts to inform its constituency on 
 the world problems of war and peace and on the 
 responsibilities of Christians and Churches to sup- 
 port our Government in its efforts to adopt Christian 
 policies in international relations? Specify instances. 
 
 Suggestive 
 
 THE MESSAGE TO THE CHTJBCHES OF THE UNITED 
 STATES— NATIONAL STUDY CONFERENCE ON 
 THE CHURCHES AND WORLD PEACE; 1925; Con- 
 tinuation Committee, 105 East 22nd Street, New York. 
 
 WHAT PASTORS AND CHURCHES CAN DO IN THE 
 CRUSADE FOR A WARLESS WORLD; 1924; Federal 
 Council of the Churches of Christ in America, New York. 
 
 A FIVE POINT PROGRAM FOR CHURCHES — WORK- 
 ING FOR A WARLESS WORLD; Federal Council of 
 the Churches of Christ in America, New York. 
 
 MOBILIZING FOR PEACE, Edited by Frederick Lynch; 
 1924; Fleming H. Revell Company, New York. 
 
 BOOKS OF GOODWILL: VOL. I. THROUGH THE 
 GATEWAY (A collection of Stories, Poems, Pageants, Games, 
 Projects and Prayers); 1925; National Council for Prevention 
 of War, Washington, D. C. 
 
 7. Did the local congregations of your commun- 
 ion taken any action during the past year or two 
 regarding adhesion by the United States to the Per- 
 manent Court of International Justice? If so, ap- 
 proximately how many? Has your religious press 
 taken interest in this question or commended it to 
 its readers? Name the editors. 
 
 8. Are there any books on world peace questions 
 which have had special popularity in your commun- 
 ion? Give titles and authors. 
 
 9. Of the various available courses on peace for 
 study groups do you know from experience of ac- 
 tual use which have proved most acceptable? Name 
 them. 
 
 10. Has your communion adopted the “Interna- 
 tional Ideals of the Churches” as suggested by the 
 Federal Council of Churches? If not, was this due 
 to some opposition to its declarations of faith and 
 purpose? Or to some other reason? 
 
 11. Has your church adopted the “Five Point 
 Program”? Can it really do what it should without 
 some such method? 
 
 12. In case replies to the above questions are 
 chiefly negative, must we conclude that the pastors 
 and church members of your communion are in- 
 different to the problems of war and peace? Or is 
 there some other explanation? 
 
 Literature 
 
 BRAVE ADVENTURES (Stories for Children), Katharine 
 S. Cronk; 1925; Central Committee, West Medford, Mass. 
 
 WORLD FRIENDSHIP THROUGH THE CHURCH 
 SCHOOL, John Leslie Lobingier; 1923; University of Chicago 
 Press, Chicago, 111. 
 
 PROJECTS IN WORLD FRIENDSHIP, John Leslie Lo- 
 bingier; 1925; University of Chicago Press, Chicago, III. 
 
 “ON EARTH PEACE”, Edited by Rhoda McCulloch and 
 Margaret Burton; 1925; Federation of Women’s Foreign 
 Mission Boards and the Council of Women for Home Missions, 
 New York. 
 
 CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP AMONG THE NATIONS, 
 
 Jerome Davis and Roy B. Chamberlain; 1925; Pilgrim Press, 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
 CHRISTIAN YOUNG PEOPLE AND WORLD-FRIEND- 
 SHIP, Erwin L. Shaver; 1925; University of Chicago Press, 
 Chicago, 111.