Motivation for Conscientious Objectors

What are the motivating factors to conscientious objectors? The answer to this is not far fetched for the religious objectors. The New Testament they will say. Their Christology which is deeply rooted in the New Testament motivated conscientious objectors to adopt their position. Interesting enough is the insight given by Yoder¹⁸⁸ who stated that right in the Old Testament and specifically Exodus 20:5-8 there was a provision for exempting some group of people from war.

It is worthy of note that conscientious objectors are pacifists and when one is discussing conscientious objection one will be addressing the two. He/she will be dealing with pacifism and how some pacifists are living out their pacifism. Although not all pacifists could be conscientious objectors but all conscientious objectors are pacifists. It does not mean that all conscientious objectors are members of Historic Peace Churches because being a member of the Historic Peace Churches and a pacifist are two different things. Lamar Gibble in his paper entitled “The World Council of Churches and the question of Conscientious Objection” presented at the International Conference of European Churches and Conscientious Objection to Military Service a Contribution to the conciliar process for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation held at Loccum in 1988, states,

186 John Drescher, Why I am a Conscientious Objector: A Christian Peace Shelf Selection, (Ontario:

Herald Press), 1982:29.

187 Drescher, p.18.

188 John H. Yoder, “Conscientious Objection,” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement ed. Nicholas Lossky and others, (Geneva: WCC Publications), 2002:245-246.

127

While rejection of war appears in the experience and writings of the ancient Hebrews, Chinese, Indians, and Native Americans, the unconditional rejection of war seems to have arisen first from the teachings of Jesus and was deeply ingrained in the beliefs and practices of the Christians of the first three centuries AD. This response of the early Christians and the pacifist stance of Jesus is, however, not without debate. There were times when our Lord spoke and acted aggressively and a few biblical passages, if taken quite literally, which puzzlingly seem to approve of self defense (like the passage of the two swords). But the cumulative message of Jesus is overwhelmingly that he does not sanction violence against persons or the taking of human life and continuously witness to love and forgiveness in human relationships. The nonviolent character of Jesus’ life, teachings, and ministry are overwhelming.¹⁸⁹

This quotation stresses the position of the Historic Peace Churches on conscientious objection. When assessed critically the statement of Gibble on his interpretation of the words of Jesus Christ to his disciples on the two swords that Jesus seems to approve of self defense, the Historic Peace Churches have a different interpretation as discussed above. To give further strength to the position of the historic peace churches on that portion of Scripture, the context needs to be taken into account.

However, looking at Churches that hold on to pacifism, such churches are on the minority. Although pacifists are found within and without churches that hold to pacifism, but pacifists are few and Conscientious Objectors are a very little segment of human society as such, Conscientious Objectors had suffered persecutions and more hardship than any other group of people in times of war. The words of Cadoux is relevant here when he discusses on conscientious objectors, he says,

Pacifism has been an unpopular minority position in every war making society. Even in the two relatively democratic nations, England and the United States, pacifists had a very difficult time during World War 1. Those who were of draft age, in England and America, were treated with great severity. In Britain out of 16,100 known conscientious objectors, at least 5,793 were court-martialed.

Thirty-four men were sent to the frontlines in France, virtually a sentence of death; others were paraded through the streets, where they were hissed, jeered, stoned, and injured by hostile crowds.

There was also harsh treatment for objectors within the United States, unless they were members of well-organized peace

189 Lamar Gibble, “The World Council of Churches and the Question of Conscientious Objection” Paper Presented at the International Conference of the European Churches and Conscientious Objection to Military Service, Contribution to the Concillar Process for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Held at Loccum, 1989:11-27:12.

128

Churches such as the Society of Friends, Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren. The non-historic-peace-Church objectors were forced into the army, sent to military prisons, and brutally treated.¹⁹⁰

The quotation clearly confirms the previously presented positions on pacifism, pacifist and conscientious objectors. First, conscientious objectors just as are pacifists were and still are in a minority position. Secondly, many of conscientious objectors are not members of Historic Peace Churches, and thirdly, they suffered harsh treatment.

However, just as pacifists could not easily let go of their pacifist stance so too conscientious objectors could hardly renounce their conviction. This is seen from the description of the achievement so to speak of the conscientious objectors during the First World War by Cadoux when he says, “The revulsion against war during the post-war period, plus the suffering of conscientious objectors during the war, helped to remove the popular stigma from the word ‘pacifism.’ Pacifists gained a measure of respectability during the period between World Wars, and prior to World War II they had become an important force in both British and American Churches.”¹⁹¹

The researcher presents the position of the Church of the Brethren in America on Conscientious Objection since this is the Church that gave birth to the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria. Most Church of the Brethren historians hold to the position that though the Church is a Peace Church, however, the Church was unprepared for the World War I. World War I was fought from 1914-1918, while the Second World War was fought between 1939-1945. Another fact is that both World Wars were started in Europe but America joined due to her alliance and friendship with Great Britain and France. The proof that the Brethren were not prepared for the First World War was as a result of the fact that when America entered the War in 1917, it soon began the draft. Although it granted those of draft age from the Peace Churches to perform non-combatant service, historical records show that the ideas of Brethren leaders varied with some feeling that it is not right for a Christian to serve in the military in any way, even as a non-combatant, while some of the leaders saw nothing wrong with non-combatant duties. This ended up misleading the young men of draft age resulting in some of them joining the non-combatant service, while others refused to join the military and ended up in prison. However, others joined the

190 Cecil John Cadoux, Christian Pacifism Re-examined, (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.), 1972:5.

191 Ibid., p. 6.

129

military and carried guns. When the Brethren leaders took note of this confusion, they decided and acted. The Church of the Brethren called a special Conference in the city of Goshen where they passed a statement maintaining their peace heritage declaring that all war is wrong. Durnbaugh gave the outcome of the Conference and the reaction of the American government thus:

In the meantime, a special Conference was called in Goshen, Indiana, in January 1918. The purpose was to reach consensus on the Brethren attitude to the world conflict and the military demands. Those attending drew up a comprehensive statement, which consisted of resolutions to be sent to the heads of the government, a strong theological justification for the refusal to bear arms, and a procedure for organization to represent the church in these matters. The Goshen statement was printed and distributed to the Churches. It soon found its way to the offices of the War Department in Washington as draftees produced it to answer the question why they would not fight.¹⁹²

That historic special Conference attracted a threatened attack and prosecution by the American government of the Conference leaders who were lucky as the war soon ended in 1919. However, the threat worked as the statement was withdrawn which averted the leaders possible trial and imprisonment but with the expensive price of what seems to be a rejection of the official peace position of the church.

The experience of the war did have some impact on the Brethren in the United States and they started sending relief materials to people in other countries. From that relief work came the Heifer Programme The Brethren leaders after World War I started looking ahead to avoid being cut unprepared in an event of another war. This led them into meetings with leaders of other churches who are also opposed to war and trying to work out alternative plan for conscientious objectors instead of serving in the military. This preparation helped the Church as their stance during the Second World War was more defined.

In 1940, America having joined the war began the draft for young men within the draft age. The peace church who had their plans already presented their plans to the American government requesting the government to allow conscientious objectors to serve their country under civilian direction and not in the military a plan which the

192 Donald F. Durnbaugh, “Recent History” in The Church of the Brethren Past and Present, ed. Donald F. Durnbaugh, (Elgin. Ill. : The Brethren Press), 1971:31.

130

American government graciously approved. The government and the church worked together and came up with the Civilian Public Service.

However, with all the Brethren preparation for the Second World War, non-pacifists or those not belonging to the Historic Peace Churches will be shocked to discover that many of the brethren still went into full combatant service. The startling revelation by Brethren historians as summarized by Hackman though Hackman considers it as strength but not a strength as such attest to my position above, he says,

In 1941, America officially entered the War. The CPS camps offered Brethren young men the chance to serve their country without carrying a gun. However, the evil practices of Adolf Hitler, the German dictator, also led many Brethren young men to join the military and fight in the war. The War ended in 1945 and the draft in 1947. By then, 1,386 Brethren chose the CPS camps. However, more than 21,000 Brethren went into full combatant service.

Another 1,484 Brethren men went into noncombatant service.¹⁹³

From the above discussion, the dilemma that war could throw the Church in, even the peace churches is evident. Despite the preparation, plan and the position of the government of the United States, when the number of young Brethren who chose the CPS and those who went into noncombatant is put, they are 2,870 young men as against 21,000 who joined the military as combatants. This is a minority of the minority voice, one could imagine if the Brethren had not prepared before the Second World War, the number would have been inconsequential. This further shows that even the Historic Peace Churches could be in a dilemma when it comes to war times. In what does the dilemma consists? The dilemma is in the fact that with a long history of peace as a major heritage of the church, when come face to face with the reality of war, not many could be Conscientious Objectors. Would this position then be considered irrelevant? The researcher opines that it is not irrelevant and still very much needed, there are instances that success is not recorded only when there is numbers but even with few.

193 Galen R. Hackman, Introduction to Brethren History, (Mubi: TEE College), 1992:79.

131