Madness of War – Book Review

Was Jesus a Pacifist?

PRESIDENT COOLIDGE’S Armistice Day speech, the proposed cruiser increase in our navy, the Kellogg Peace Pact and our growing commercial rivalry with England have, in the last few months, focused the attention of our citizens upon international relations. In less pleasant phraseology, this means that the attention of the public is being turned toward the age-old crime of war. On the one hand we have preparation for it as seen in the cruiser bill, and on the other a move to abolish it, as seen in the Kellogg Treaty. It is inevitable under such circumstances that the churches should be aroused.

This was quite in evidence at the recent Rochester Convention of the Federal Council of Churches. It is inevitable, too, that the old, old question of Christ’s teaching upon this subject should again be debated. Was Jesus a pacifist? Must a true follower of His refuse to bear arms even in wars of defense? It is such questions as these which are discussed by the Very Reverend Harold S. Brewster, D. D., Dean of Gethsemane Cathedral in Fargo, North Dakota in a vigorous, challenging book, “Madness of War.”

Superpatriotic Americans will not relish Dean Brewster’s discussion, for he traces much of our foreign policy to the desire for gain on the part of powerful self-seeking groups. American wars, as well as European, have been waged for base motives. There was the Mexican War to increase slave territory, and our war with Spain to make Cuba safe for American sugar interests.

But super-Marxian economists will not be much more favorably impressed for the author does not advocate social revolution as the only or final solution. What he does do is to face realistically the fact that deep down in human nature there is the desire for revenge, there is blood lust and other unseemly survivals of our animal inheritance. Deep down within us there lurk those evil spirits, always waiting and ready to be called up by the war mongers.

The heart of his attack is found in his insistence that Jesus was utterly and completely opposed to all war. Dean Brewster believes that one of the two outstanding teachings of Jesus is the sinfulness of using physical compulsion to accomplish moral ends. Here, he asserts, the real meaing of the cross is to be found. Only through love and self-sacrifice can moral gains come. No matter how good and righteous the cause, methods of physical compulsion will bring but husks of achievement. Dean Brewster would call the Church to repudiate war and all its works. He minces no words: “Failure to accept the peace of God as Jesus taught it, therefore, is a collapse of faith. A Church that encourages or even condones war under any circumstances is an apostate Church. It has repudiated the Faith.” And he would call the individual followers of the Prince of Peace to refuse to bear arms for any earthly consideration whatsoever.

Now, of course, this is radical teaching. Not all scholars would agree that this was the teaching of Jesus. But enough evidence can be marshaled for it to make it necessary for men and women prefessing to follow the Nazarene to weigh that evidence most carefully. The American citizen who is neither a jingo nor a Communist may well read and ponder. The old book of “Diamond on War” gives the argument for Christian pacifism in more detail, but Brewster’s book is more effective in its appeal to our generation.

Madness of War, by Harold S. Brewster: Harper.

Source: Outlook, 2 January 1929

International Relations

Relations with Other Nations

Recent trends show the United States alternating between isolation and independence, between sharply marked economic nationalism and notable international initiative in cooperation, moving in a highly unstable and zigzag course. Immigration restrictions and high tariffs on the one hand, and a World Court, a League of Nations, and outlawry of war on the other. Some signs point in the direction of independence and imperialism of a new Roman type, reaching out aggressively for more land or wider markets under political auspices; others toward amiable cooperation in the most highly developed forms of world order. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that these opposing trends will continue to alternate sharply in their control over American policy. In any case there can be little doubt that the trend will be in the future as in recent years in the direction of more intimate relations through developing modes of intercommunication and through economic interchange and on the whole toward an increasing number of international contacts; and this, whether the future pattern of action is predominantly imperialistic or cooperative in form and spirit.

Whether the United States is growing more or less militaristic must also be judged in the dubious light of conflicting theories and conduct. Traditionally insisting upon the supremacy of the civil over the military power, we have held to that doctrine and have played an important part in all movements for the curbing or abolition of war, including participation in a “war to end war.” On the other hand, out interest in foreign markets and loans has greatly increased, and the need of a strong hand in economic diplomacy has been emphasized. Our military and naval establishments have grown, and systems of military training have been expanded. Our soldiers have fought in Asia, Europe and Latin America. Powerful propagandas both for militarism and pacifism have been set in motion, and their clashes have been frequent but inconclusive. The outlawry of war and the strong was establishment have doubtless been accommodated by many minds as a practical version of Theodore Roosevelt’s dictum to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” The trends in short are conflicting and confusing, with the problems of war remaining as imminent and as grave as in the past.

Source: Recent Social Trends in the United States, an examination of the social state of the United States at the end of the 1920s undertaken at the direction of President Herbert Hoover.