# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1958_S36
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

36 Proceedings of the Forty-fifth Convention

success. At any rate the conscientious objector refuses to take
up arms and goes to prison, confident that he is doing right. His
action would take courage of the highest order and if done in
a selfless spirit might be a magnificent demonstration of his faith.

The man of the opposite party is utterly impatient with him,
however. He also believes that he is following the Bible in going
to war. Does not the apostle say that the government bears
the sword? Did not Christ predict wars and rumors of war?
Is not Luther on his side? Furthermore, the patriot considers the
welfare of his church. It would suffer in reputation if all its mem-
bers refused to fight for the country that protects them. It would
be closing its eyes to wonderful missionary opportunities that
might arise out of a war. As for the injustices that are an inevitable
part of war, would it not be better to take part in it and help to
prevent some of them than to refuse to go and thereby lessen
one’s chance of doing good? The man who believes in a justifiable
war is sure that he is right in following his country’s call to arms.

Analyzing the situation, we might say that the conscientious
objectors have been motivated by the thought of the injustices,
the war party by the thought of the challenges that are a part of
every war. Those of the first group do not care to accept challenges
that might entail sinful action, believing that in the long. run the
kingdom of God will be more firmly established on earth by
Christians who strictly uphold its principles and do not com-
promise. Those of the second group are so impressed by the
challenges that they close their eyes for the time being to the
evils that accompany them. Anyway, those evils are always
present; in a war:they only seem to be a little more spectacular.
The two groups will certainly be going separate ways during the
war, Ought they to break their fellowship in the church and keep
on going separate ways thereafter?

If they do, the chances are that other matters besides those
of the main issue will also be operative. Personalities and perhaps
the mounting friction of past years will play their part. The peace
party: may have been getting increasingly impatient with what
they consider the fault-finding, non-co-operative ways of the war
party, their habit of arbitrarily ruling out anything new, even
though it might represent a step forward in Christian morals.
The war party, on the other hand, may have been just as annoyed
by what they consider the showy, patronizing airs of the peace
lovers, their way of getting ‘things done quickly and efficiently,
then taking credit for them and looking down their noses at those
who do not agree with them. Thus both sides may secretly be
welcoming a real issue that will provide reasons for a break. Both
groups, I might add, seem to agree that their association — or
synod, or Synodical Conference, if you wish—is essentially a
human organization that was formed by the free will of Christians
who had compatible views and that when those views are no longer
compatible, it may be dissolved without sin; so long as the law
of Christian love is not transgressed.

I am not going to carry this imaginary case any farther. But
I will ask two more questions. Is the deep bond of faith that
originally impelled these Christians to form an association — or
a synod, or a Synodical Conference — something higher than mere
compatibility? Ought this bond of faith, so long as it is based on