Christians should be definitely concerned with the peril the world faces in this day of war risks. Nuclear weapons, if used to their full extent, would have a devastating effect upon all mankind and civilization. With such a possibility, is it any wonder that Christians ask themselves what they can do to help prevent such a catastrophe and establish a basis for real peace among nations? Surely Christianity has the answer to this problem. But what is it, and how can it be put into effect?
Specifically, our immediate threat is Soviet Russia. The United States and Russia are the chief military powers today, and in their mutual antagonism and arms race lies the potential of a world war, despite the fact that both peoples fear and would avoid such war. Regardless of the numerous economic and political elements that lead to conflict, war itself results from a decision on the part of the ruler of a state to launch his military forces against a nation which he considers his enemy. The latter has only two choices: to fight or to surrender. Unless the ruler on the aggressive side makes the decision for war, there is no war, except in cases where a subordinate military commander has precipitated action through panic or mistake. In the United States such a risk is slight because of the precautions that have been taken against the danger. Far more likely is the event that extreme difficulty of keeping a defensive force or nation on the alert may some day lead to a relaxation of watchfulness, thereby offering to Russia her opportunity for successful surprise attack.
The Soviet And War
The danger of nuclear war results from the possibility that Soviet leaders will some day launch their armed forces either directly against the United States or against some object which the United States wishes to defend. To these Soviet rulers, war, when favorable to them, is a legitimate and necessary means of action.
The means by which they have gained and maintained their own political positions and control over their own people reveal the nature of these men. They have proven to be ruthless criminals—murderers, thieves, traitors—in spite of the fact that they hold positions of prestige and great power. Khrushchev survived Stalin’s bloody purges only to participate himself in and profit by them. The social amenities and diplomatic phrases of these leaders have been merely a cloak over their real character. They have demonstrated their true disposition in past dealings with other nations, a fact that is known to all who read newspapers. The pages of history are full of tyrants and conquerors. Soviet leaders are no different. Communism is the ideology or propaganda that motivates these men, and by it they justify their actions. Their actions, acceptable by Communist standards, have been violent, deceitful, and ruthless. Any American policy that views Khrushchev and his kind as other than the most treacherous of criminals is endangering not only the United States but the whole noncommunist world.
Strategy For Peace
Undoubtedly the Soviets consider American military power, bases, and alliances to be a threat to themselves. Nevertheless, can we avoid recognizing the fact that the only reason the United States spends billions of dollars on such projects is out of a fear inspired by past Soviet aggressions, subversions, broken promises?
To return to our original question, what can be done to preserve peace, let us consider some of the ideas that have been advanced by men of authority.
One argument holds that nuclear weapons have outmoded war. This statement probably assumes that because war would only result in destruction of both sides, neither will go to war. Such reasoning is hazardous. One nation, prepared to wage nuclear war against an unalert nation, could fully expect to defeat its victim with one massive strike of nuclear weapons, or by the threat of attack compel the latter to surrender. To rest in a belief that war is outmoded would inevitably put the United States in the role of the sacrificial lamb offered on the altar of Soviet tyranny. And who would doubt that rulers, who have so little concern for their own people, would not hesitate to destroy millions of Americans in order to gain their own ends?
As a corollary to the first idea is another that maintains we should unilaterally reduce our armaments in order to demonstrate good will and both lessen Soviet suspicions toward us and reduce our own burdens. The fallacy of such a premise should be obvious when we consider that the Russian rulers care little for our good intentions. They seek their own objectives, and unilateral reduction of American armaments would mean a great reduction of risk to the Communists in their endeavor to strike the United States. By unilateral disarmament we mean a reduction of military strength on our part that is not accompanied by equivalent disarmament in Russia. Were the Russians to agree to disarm without displaying definite and effective means of doing so, it would leave us open for disaster.
A third idea, suggested by Soviet leaders, is that we should transfer our cold war to an economic and social competition which would include aid to backward nations. Aside from the fact that we are already up to the hilt in such competition, this suggestion rather implies that the criminal who has his knife at our throats will be willing to put it away and settle the difference by a game of billiards. If that method worked, wars would have been eliminated long ago. Furthermore, if the United States were to gain a major advantage in the trade war, it might even be an incentive to the Soviet to use force to gain what they could not gain by trade.
Another proposal is that by acquainting the masses of Russian people with our peaceful and friendly intentions we would make them dissatisfied with their status and they in turn would compel their rulers to change their objectives and tactics. That such action has had some effect is seen in the efforts Soviet leaders have exerted in jamming American broadcasts. However, it must be remembered that propaganda is successful only where the actual conditions in a given country spur the people to believe indictments of their own government and arouse in them the desire to rebel against it. There is to this date no indication of any such situation in Russia.
Some persons propose that we rely more on the United Nations for our security. Should the noncommunist states sympathize with the United States in this, could the U.N. accomplish anything worthy in a Security Council where Russia has the veto power, or in an Assembly which proved its impotence a few years ago with regard to Hungary? Even if the veto power were to be eliminated, how would the U.N., without resorting to war, compel Russia to obey its commands? And could the United States be certain of the sincere, effective support, to the point of war, of completely self-interested nationalistic governments? Nothing in years past would indicate an affirmative answer. The question is largely academic anyway, because in case of war some of the many nuclear weapons would probably be aimed at the heart of New York and destroy among other things the U.N. headquarters and all persons in it.
The preceding approaches to world peace are essentially pacifist. Were the United States to reject war and refuse to arm or fight, then we would have to accept passively all the acts of a Communist tyranny. With sincere respect for persons who, for reasons of conscience, believe in pacifism and are willing to suffer the consequences of their belief, their individual convictions would not save our country from war, because the new rulers would not be pacifist. They would be tyrannical, and would employ war whenever they chose. So national pacificism would initiate an overthrow of all that we hold dear, and in the end it would not gain peace.
It is to be noted that many of the pacifist ideas mentioned above appear in some form in the reports and recommendations of the Fifth World Order Study Conference held by the National Council of Churches in Cleveland in November, 1958, as reported in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. That such ideas should be seriously advocated by leaders of this organization is incomprehensible. The best that can be said for these men is that they are incredibly naive. It is to be fervently hoped that pastors and laymen of the NCC who are able and willing to think independently will see the facts realistically, and will repudiate such disastrous proposals.
Contrary to the foregoing pacifist proposals is the thought that we can gain peace only by a powerful military force constantly ready to retaliate with deadly effect. Any force of less strength than this is ineffective. But is not military power only a deterrent against Soviet attack? It possibly has the advantage of putting off war until the time domestic conditions in Russia cause a change in the kind of rulers there. This is faint and not very dependable hope. An armament race causes psychological and financial tensions which cannot endure indefinitely. Eventually explosion occurs. Were the strength of nuclear armaments to give hope for victory, such a victory would be of doubtful value.
Christ The Hope Of Peace
The fact of the matter is there never has been a human way of gaining and maintaining peace. If men who call themselves Christians would believe the plain language of the Bible, which is the sole basis of Christian faith, they would understand the reason for men’s futility. It is sin, the sin of rebellion against God, the determination to live independently of him, and in enmity with their neighbor. Therefore, God has given them up to those moral evils which cause war among men (cf. Rom. 1:18–31). Men cannot undo what God has done. The Bible tells us clearly that our civilization will come to a disastrous end, involving, among other judgments, terrible wars, famines, disease, death, and destruction (cf. Matt. 24; Rev. 6–18). Our Christ-rejecting civilization is doomed (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7–9). The only hope for a peaceful world is in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Any attempts to find other solutions by efforts of human will and action will be futile.
What can Christians do in view of this analysis? First, we can surely use whatever influence we have to see that our country deals honestly and, as far as possible, peacefully with other nations. Second, we ought to warn people of the coming judgment of God which will fall inevitably on wicked humanity, including our United States. Third, we must spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of individuals from that final and eternal judgment of God, of which earthly sufferings and tribulations are only a vivid warning. Fourth, by God’s grace we should live in a way that proves that we have conviction in our preaching. Finally, we may pray for peace in the hope that God will delay his judgment on it.
The very dangers and fears of our times should convince those who refuse to believe the plain declarations of Scripture that the world is living in sinful and deadly error. If the Bible were not the true Word of God, man would have no divine revelation of truth and would be left to his own speculations. In his guesses, how could he be sure he was getting near to the truth: What is more futile than the blind leading the blind? What is more vain than for a man who denies objective divine revelation to profess that he can perhaps inform us about the things of God and his purposes for mankind? If the current world situation does not convince men who reject Christ and his Word of God’s judgment on unrighteousness, then only one course remains to them: Prepare to meet thy God, for our God is a consuming fire (cf. Amos 5:12; Heb. 12:29).
END
In the long months of the latter part of the Armistice negotiations when peace hung in the balance in Korea, Lt. General William K. Harrison (U.S. Army), now retired, served as senior United Nations delegate at Panmunjom. At that time Chief of Staff of the Far East Command, this distinguished Protestant layman carried the anxieties of a war-weary world. In this article he speaks his heart about the search for peace.
