What Are the Churches and Others Saying?

Religion​—A Force For Peace Or For War?

WE LIVE in an age of science and technology. Yet religion still is a powerful force in the lives of people and in world affairs. Most people still belong to one religion or another. And it still is commonly believed that all religions work for the good of mankind.

At times the different religions come together to talk about peace. For example, in August 1979, 338 delegates from 47 countries met in Princeton, New Jersey, at the Third Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace. They represented all the major religions of the world: Buddhist, Christian, Confucian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shinto, Zoroastrian and others.

At such meetings the religious leaders express their concern for world peace. And much is said about each religion’s contribution to it. However, time and again the speakers hit on a common note: not all practice what they preach.

Speaking on Hinduism’s role in world peace, Swami Ranganathananda of Calcutta, India, said: “A study of the aims and objects of religion reveals it to be essentially a discipline for peace. Yet even a cursory study of the history of religion shows that all the religions of the world have contributed to war as much as to peace in varying degrees.”

Professor K. G. Saiyadain of New Delhi, India, said: “In the history of man, so many conflicts and persecutions have been provoked and so many wars precipitated in the name of religion that many quite well-meaning persons have turned away from it and are unwilling to seek its cooperation in their efforts for peace.” Then, regarding the Islamic religion, the professor, himself a Muslim, continued: “When I speak of Islam and its contribution to peace . . . I am not offering any defense of misguided or irreligious Muslim rulers or others who may have strayed away from the path and defied Islam’s insistence on peace as the only right way of life.”

Speaking of Christendom’s role in world peace, clergyman John H. Burt of Ohio, U.S.A., said that the actual record of Christians is “a record that is full of unhappy and unfaithful chapters when it comes to war.”

These are indeed thought-provoking statements. But even more thought-provoking is the question: Is religion a force for peace or for war? What do the facts show?

[Blurb on page 3]

Religion is discredited by the many wars fought in its name

What Do the Facts Show?

Religion​—A Force For Peace Or For War?

THOUGH the world at large appears to be at peace, “more than two dozen small wars flicker and rage around the globe . . . taking thousands of lives,” says an Associated Press dispatch. Closer examination reveals the “dismal truth that probably half or more of the wars now being fought around the world are either openly religious conflicts or involved with religious disputes,” says newspaper columnist C. L. Sulzberger. For example:

In Lebanon, one of the battlegrounds of the Crusades, Christian and Muslim political factions are still engaged in what the Associated Press dispatch called “wars rooted in age-old enmities.” The fighting is principally between the Maronite Christians and the Sunni Muslims. But also involved are Greek Orthodox and Uniate Christians, Shiah Muslims and Secret Druzes. The death toll since 1975 is at least 42,000. Considering the size of the country, this could well be one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

“People killing people in the name of religion in Northern Ireland has cost 2,079 lives in 12 years; 144 of those policemen,” says the Los Angeles Times. Though the basic issue is civil rights​—the rights of the Catholic minority versus that of the Protestant majority—​religion is deeply involved, and both sides have resorted to a militant solution. The result? The country has been transformed “from a quiet backwater and stronghold of strict moral standards to a free-living, mid-20th century society, corrupted and changed by violent words and deeds,” writes Barry White in the Toronto Star.

In the Philippines “the Defense Ministry has offered rewards of $4,000 [U.S.] each for the capture, dead or alive, of two Filipino ‘rebel’ priests,” reports the New York Times. Another news dispatch says that “four Roman Catholic priests who abandoned their parishes . . . have been seen leading communist insurgents in skirmishes with government troopers.” While “activist priests have taken to carrying guns” in the north, according to Newsweek, Muslims in the south are fighting their ‘holy war’ against Catholic majority rule.

Conflicts involving religion are by no means limited to these few places. There are the struggles between Turks and Greeks on Cyprus, between Hindus and Muslims in India, between Arabs and Israelis in the Middle East, between Christians and Buddhists in Burma, between Muslims and Coptics in Egypt. And there is clergy involvement in political and guerrilla movements in Central and South America. Of course, there are other factors involved in such wars. But why is religion involved? And why is religion unable to stop them?

[Map on page 5]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Trouble Spots

El Salvador

Northern Ireland

Cyprus

Egypt

Lebanon

Pakistan

Cambodia

Philippines

[Picture on page 4]

Religious youths in Ulster with gasoline bombs

[Picture on page 5]

Religious Filipino insurgents at training session

Why Religion Is Involved

Religion​—A Force For Peace Or For War?

FACED with the fact that the involvement of religions in war is an undeniable reality, the inevitable question is: Why? Many persons feel that the fault lies, not with the religions, but with those who fail to practice what their religions teach. They feel that if more people would apply their religious belief in their daily lives, peace would be attainable.

While there may be some truth in this, let us not overlook the fact that many of those engaging in religious wars do so with such zeal and conviction that they put soldiers in ordinary warfare to shame.

Over the centuries the notion of “holy,” or “just,” war has had an immense influence on the followers of many religions. The Crusades of Christendom and, on the other side, the jihad of Islam are notable examples. Promoters of the Crusades have customarily referred to the Bible to support their arguments. But it is acknowledged by historians that “the view was widely prevalent in the early Church that war is an organized iniquity with which the Church and the followers of Christ can have nothing to do.”​—Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

In later times, however, prominent church leaders such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas argued strongly for the case of “just” war. “Augustine (early 400s) created the first great synthesis of Christian faith and the practice of war,” writes theology professor Robert Culver in Christianity Today. This “became the standard position of all major branches of the church from that day to this.”

The doctrine of “just,” or “justified,” war starts with the premise that rulers have the God-given duty and power to maintain law and order in an imperfect society by forcible means​—police, courts, prisons and gallows—​when necessary. If so, then they are also justified in using the army, navy and whatever else to maintain national peace and security when necessary.

It can be easily seen why such a doctrine would meet with great favor among the ruling class. But it also met with popular acceptance because it relieved the ordinary person of the burden of making conscientious decisions. All he needs to do is follow what the state tells him. His cooperation, in fact, may make him feel that he is doing God’s will or that God is on his side. Is this not how practically every soldier at war feels?

Misconception of Millennial Kingdom

“The search for the Millennium, often led by a messianic figure, has sparked numerous revolutionary movements many of which have produced significant political and social innovation,” writes Gunter Lewy in Religion and Revolution.

An especially interesting and illuminating example is the Taiping Rebellion of 1850-64 in China, during a time of foreign oppression and internal corruption. The cult was a strange mixture of Confucianism and Christian Evangelism. The leader, Hung Hsiu-Chuan, claimed that, as a son of God and brother of Jesus, he was sent by God to earth to establish the Tai-ping Tien-kuo, the Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace. The movement eventually penetrated 16 of the 18 provinces, captured some 600 cities and occupied Nanking, making it the “heavenly capital” on earth. It has been called “the greatest pre-modern mass movement in history,” and with its downfall went possibly as many as 40 million lives.

In other places and at other times there were the Maccabeans and the Zealots of Judaism, the political Buddhist monks of Burma and Ceylon, the Fifth Monarchy Men of the Puritan Revolution in 17th-century England, the Mahdists of Islam in Sudan, which led to the infamous siege of Khartoum​—the list can go on and on.

Religious leaders continue to call for interreligious cooperation for the sake of world peace. Evidently they feel that if only they can work out their religious differences, peace will be assured. But the facts show that few wars are fought solely over doctrinal differences. Rather, they have much to do with social, economical, territorial, political and numerous other issues. But rather than preventing such wars, religion has become involved in these issues and, in the hands of some misguided clergy, infused multitudes of ‘the faithful’ with such fervor and zeal that they take up arms.

Clearly, religion has failed as a force for peace. But what about God’s Word, the Bible? Is it really a force for peace?

[Box on page 6]

“Religious wars tend to be extra furious. When people fight over territory for economic advantage, they reach the point where the battle isn’t worth the cost and so compromise. When the cause is religious, compromise and conciliation seem to be evil.”​—Roger Shinn, professor of social ethics, Union Theological Seminary

True Religion​—A Force for Peace

Religion​—A Force For Peace Or For War?

THE Bible inspires peace not in words only. To those who follow its teachings, it is a powerful force for peace.

The early Christians not only talked about peace but also were known for their firm neutral stand in military and political affairs and for the mistreatment they endured because of it. “From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army,” writes historian Roland Bainton of Yale University. “It is quite clear that prior to about A.D. 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers,” adds Guy Franklin Herschberger.

What about in our day? Is the Bible still a force for peace in the lives of those who wholeheartedly follow its teachings?

In his book A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson wrote about the activities of the churches in Nazi Germany during World War II and said: “The bravest were the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who proclaimed their outright doctrinal opposition from the beginning and suffered accordingly. . . . Many were sentenced to death for refusing military service . . . or they ended in Dachau or lunatic asylums. A third were actually killed; ninety-seven per cent suffered persecution in one form or another.”

More recently the following remarks appeared in a leading newspaper in a South American country: “Religious freedom is denied to several thousand Jehovah’s Witnesses in this country because their religion does not allow them to salute the flag, sing the national anthem or bear arms. Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses have, in consequence, been arrested, have complained that they have been beaten and their children have been expelled from schools and denied education.”

Last April the Arkansas Gazette published an article about the Cuban refugees in Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. According to it, one refugee, when asked why Jehovah’s Witnesses in Cuba were treated as outcasts, replied: “I know of no Witness in Cuba who was in the militia. . . . That’s not true with any other religion in Cuba.” He also said that the reason the Witnesses had so much trouble was “their neutral stand.”

Benefits of Pursuing Peace

What has been accomplished by their “neutral stand”? Some may feel that it has brought them nothing but troubles. However, their firm stand by Bible principles has also brought recognition and commendation. Here are a few such instances:

After reading an account on Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nazi concentration camps, a Jewish rabbi who survived the Sachsenhausen camps wrote: “Knowledge that there were men and women [Jehovah’s Witnesses] who chose death rather than sacrificing their innermost faith and their deeply held convictions will forever remain for me one of the truly inspiring and ennobling experiences of my life.”

The London Times published a letter from Dr. Bryan Wilson of Oxford University concerning the neutral position of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Zambia and other African countries. In part, Dr. Wilson said: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most upright and diligent of the citizenry of African countries. Were the values that they endorse and by which they live so consistently more widely diffused in Africa, some of the worst social problems from which African countries suffer would be considerably mitigated.”

Regarding the Cuban Witness refugees in Fort Chaffee, the report in the Arkansas Gazette said: “They were the very first to be relocated into new homes because their American ‘brothers and sisters’​—fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses—​sought them out. . . . When Witnesses call their spiritual counterparts in any land ‘brothers and sisters,’ they really mean it.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses, by putting their trust in God’s kingdom, testify to the fact that true religion, based on the Bible, is a powerful force for peace when it is consistently followed.

[Blurb on page 8]

“The weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”​—2 Corinthians 10:4