The Church and Civil Defense

America must face realistically the menace of world communism and possible destruction in case of massive military attack.

Around 70 per cent of the American people are members of some church. Therefore, in a tangible sense the Church must face this same threat and decide what its role must be in time of wholesale disaster.

It would certainly appear that whether or not it is desirable, the State and the Church must meet this threat together. The problem is, How can the Church give the fullest possible cooperation without submitting to government regimentation?

This question was uppermost in the minds of editors of representative religious magazines who were asked by the U.S. Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization to confer with defense leaders in Battle Creek, Michigan recently. Some editors declined an invitation lest they encourage government encroachment on religious freedoms either in principle or in practice. Such unwillingness to confer on such a crucial problem is deplorable.

The Role Of The Church

The role of the Church in Civil Defense is a live issue not only at the national level but also at the community level. Every pastor and every local church must decide what to do when government comes knocking at the door with its defense program. What principles and practical problems are involved?

There is no doubt about the possibility of direct attack should the cold war between the United States and Soviet Russia reach an ultimate crisis. With the development of long-range aircraft, which can be refueled in flight, atomic-powered snorkel submarines, jet propelled space rockets, guided ballistic missiles, and 20-megaton hydrogen bombs there is nothing to hinder the enemy from destroying major centers of population throughout America. A massive attack could affect 70 per cent of the population. Civil defense leaders at Battle Creek said that a 20-megaton bomb falling on Saint Louis, for instance, would not only wipe out that city, but its deadly fall-out would kill multiplied thousands in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and endanger millions in an even wider area for weeks or months. Those who survive the attack would have to be hospitalized or face the problems of burying the dead, caring for the injured, providing uncontaminated food, water and shelter, and carrying on some measure of organized community life.

Every precaution against such an attack is being taken by the government, but defense experts admit there is little possibility of providing protection to the populace such as during World Wars I and II. Destruction and havoc are inevitable.

In such an emergency the Church can be of immense assistance in ministering to spiritual need, creating a favorable psychological atmosphere, and providing the necessities of life.

At Battle Creek practical suggestions were made for Church action in case of such emergency. Burial of the dead. Spiritual ministrations to the dying and injured. Reuniting separated families. Use of church buildings as shelters or hospitals. Construction of church buildings to withstand nuclear attack. Combatting emotional disturbances among survivors and imparting hope for the future. That this work might be more effective and not overlap or interfere with other government and military activities, a measure of organization and cooperation would be essential, of course.

The Government’S Plan

The government has set up a community-wide defense program. In the larger metropolitan centers it has been in operation for some time. Its religious aspects are in charge of a Religious Affairs Service. This involves (1) the Church Activities section and (2) the Chaplain Service.

The purpose of the Church Activities section is, in brief, to make provision for the civil defense readiness and activity of each local congregation. The Chart recommends that a congregational disaster committee exist in every congregation with the clergyman as the chairman.

Depending on the location of the church the activities for which the people and their facilities may be used will vary. If the church is in a target area it will undoubtedly be destroyed together with the rest of the city. If it is in an outlying area chances are that it may survive. The building may then serve as a shelter against radioactive fallout, and/or lodging and medical care. It is recommended that members of the congregation be in charge of services rendered within their facilities. There is to be a supervisor of Personnel Safety. This means that plans will be made for the care of people gathered in the church building at the time of an attack. It may mean teaching and training the members of the congregation and members of the Sunday School to participate in an orderly evacuation. It may mean training in going to the safest place of refuge within the building in case of an attack. It will also mean first-aid training.

The congregational plan is to include provisions for Training and Education. Much of this will be carried on under the direction of the minister who is best suited to give the congregation moral and spiritual understanding of the dangers that confront the nation. It may include instruction of lay people to help the minister in the discharge of his pastoral duties. It would also imply training in home protection, so that members of the congregation will learn through their church how to sustain themselves, not only physically, but also morally and spiritually in time of disaster.

Whereas the Church Activities branch or division of the Religious Affairs Service may be occupied both in the pre-attack, that is, in the preparatory period, and in the post-attack phase, the Civil Defense Chaplain service is designed for action only after a disaster has struck. Obviously the organization of this plan and training for it, the gathering of equipment and other needs, will have to take place before an attack, if the plan is to be operational after an attack.

The Civil Defense Chaplain Service is a plan in which clergymen will have freedom in the exercise of their ministry in time of a disaster. This does not imply that a clergyman not in the Civil Defense Chaplain Service will be prevented from the exercise of his ministry, but it means that an organized plan will be of assistance to clergymen so that they will be provided with access to areas, with identification and transportation, with communication facilities, and generally will know where to go and what to do in order to render the most effective ministry to the most people.

By means of a process which the local clergymen may work out to suit themselves, one of the local clergymen will be designated as the Chief of the Chaplain Service. This will be done on a rotation basis or some other way satisfactory to the local clergy.

Congregational worship will have to be planned. In some cases this might be arranged jointly between certain denominations. In other cases separate denominational services will need to be set up. It may be that members of a certain faith will move into an area where there is no corresponding church building. Provision will be made for public worship for all people.

The Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization is aware that the government is treading on dangerous ground here. Its leaders are quick to disclaim any federal desire to regiment or control the churches. They say the sanctity of the churches is to be preserved. They insist that no activity is to interfere with the distinctive spiritual ministry of any sect or denomination. To avoid any semblance of State authority over the Church, each community is to set up its own Religious Affairs Service in a completely democratic manner. Generally the Civil Defense Director will contact the “leading clergymen,” discuss the need with them. Then these clergymen will call together all the clergy of the community and “ask them whether they wish to render a service.” If they decide they “wish to participate” in an emergency program “alongside the government” they can then “decide on a form of organization.” An Executive Committee would then choose a Religious Affairs Chief. Then comes the implementation of the organization chart furnished by the OCDM. The Church Activities Branch of the Religious Affairs Service is then set up with its Chaplains and a Chief of Chaplains. The program has been worked out in great detail and if successfully implemented requires immediate action in setting up numerous meetings for educational and operational study.

There should be no question as to the deep concern of the Church both for the Nation and for every person in it in times of crisis as well as in peacetime. The Church is primarily concerned with life—the saving of life for eternity and the guarding, guiding and comforting of all mankind. Long before there was any Civil Defense program the Church was at work for the amelioration of the ills of mankind. It will not be found wanting now.

Yet it is easy to understand how the suspicious Protestant can visualize grave dangers which might arise from the type of collaboration of Church and State proposed by the OCDM. We need to face these possibilities frankly.

Protestant Fears

The educational and propaganda features of the program early came under fire from the national Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Said these Baptist leaders, “As loyal American citizens we share with the Federal Civil Defense Administration in its concern for adequate preparedness for national emergencies. However, we believe it is the function of the churches in their own way to provide ideological and spiritual instruction for their members. We believe that the churches have done and will continue to do an efficient work in informing their people of the evils of atheism, materialistic philosophies and other ideologies that are inimical to our religious heritage and American way of life. This function should remain with the churches and should not become a function of government.” A large sector of American Protestantism would agree with this pronouncement.

There are forces at work in America favorable to the union of Church and State. Protestants are irrevocably committed to the absolute separation of Church and State and wrote that principle into the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Many have envisioned the possibility that a Roman Catholic priest might be made the head of the local, regional or national Civil Defense set up, and that he might exercise undue authority over Protestant pastors and churches or make emergency rulings which would limit in some way the free exercise of their religious freedoms. These critics also foresee that amicable relations with such a Civil Defense officer in peacetime might psychologically encourage a weakness toward the strict American Protestant doctrine of the separation of Church and State.

Also in the Church-State field is a growing fear of “big government” intrusion in religious affairs. There is now scarcely any area of life upon which government does not encroach in some way or other. Religion has hitherto successfully resisted penetration. Would a “permanent emergency” government program such as Civil Defense proposes eventually result in a community social life virtually controlled by welfare agencies of the government? Would the churches later be told what was legal for them to do in other areas of community life?

Promoters of world peace are disturbed. These not only include the Quakers, the Mennonites and the pacifists in the larger Protestant denominations but thousands of others who are stout for “defense.” There is quite general agreement that the Church should work for “peace in our time” just as the Hebrew prophets did for peace in their time. This strong element in Protestantism fears organized governmental propaganda spreading rumors of war, inducing a war psychosis, and constantly emphasizing horror, death, and destruction. These advocates of peace fear that the Civil Defense program might so regiment our minds and our activities as to destroy our will to peace.

The Higher Strategy

Certainly the Church should face the present crisis with a much more constructive and optimistic program than that commonly envisioned by the OCDM. Many churchmen, while believing that the picture the OCDM paints concerning impending debacle is fully justified, think there is another face to the program. This group of leaders feels that the Kremlin has no desire to reduce America to an atomic wasteland. They believe the Red dictators are more interested in infiltrating our institutions with Communist doctrine, weakening our morale and engineering a political coup d’etat which would deliver them an America that is an economically and socially “going concern.” These observers think the Church can better employ itself in fighting the atheistic Marxist philosophy of communism. Not only democratic government, the highest form of political order offering the greatest degree of individual and group freedom which guards the right of all, but religion itself is challenged by a godless, totalitarian tyranny. The Church must of necessity enlighten its own constituency concerning the Red threat. It should also seek to enlighten all our citizenry concerning the reality of God and obedience to His revealed will as essential to the preservation of their freedoms. This is the kind of Civil Defense in which the Church can major and might well prevent debacle.

All true Protestants would unite in declaring that the Church’s supreme business is to declare the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. This imperative takes precedence over propaganda against communism and over any government program of Civil Defense. The impact of the Gospel alone expressing itself through twice-born men in our society can do more to challenge the forces of evil than any strategy devised by men.

Time For Action

So goes the discussion whenever and wherever this Civil Defense problem is raised in the churches. Still the urgency of an effective government program is overwhelmingly apparent not only in case of war but in devastating disasters such as earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and fires. Protestants might argue until doomsday and be totally unprepared to do their Christian duty to God and humanity. Something must be done now.

It is my conviction that we should willingly respond to the call of the Religious Affairs Office of the OCDM and go as far as we can in good conscience to cooperate in our national defense program. I believe we can have faith in the personnel in charge. On the other hand the Church must be true to her calling and preserve her freedoms under the Constitution. She must be alert to detect any loophole or “small print” that would weaken her strong position in American life unhampered by government regimentation. It would appear that the OCDM’s current proposals in the field of Religious Affairs should remain under study and discussion until proper safeguards against evident dangers have been provided.

America must never allow her fears to be the means of her enslavement. In civil defense, as well as in all crisis problems which face us, we need to do a great deal of sound and balanced thinking if our freedoms are to be preserved.

END

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.