4s T
December, Í945
self on the matter of world peace any more than the late President Roosevelt. The San Francisco Security Con ference was his baby—the child of his mature political skill and his highest hopes and fears. No man in mod ern times has ever made world peace sound more plaus ible, more desirable, and more possible than he. But in an interview a few weeks before his death, which many may have missed, he was pinned down by certain re porters who insisted upon knowing just how fully he was convinced that permanent world peace was possible and probable through a world security council such as the nations intended to set up at San Francisco. Mr. Roose velt Was forced to bring his dreams down to earth and to radically qualify his- previous assurances by saying in effect, "If we can all agree on a form of organization, and if the nations are determined to make it work, we can have peace at least for a generation." A ll of our great political leaders, when pressed for proof or particulars, inevitably qualify and neutralize their statements by saying that if everybody works to gether we shall have peace. Of course, but that is no news; we know that already. The whole question is will everyone work together? On what historical basis may anyone rightfully hope that the nations w ill work, to gether? They never have! So the thing that is to be proved—the possibility of' permanent peace—is, in the end, simply assumed. ( Continued on Page 459)
‘‘Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:3). “The Lord peace himself give you peace always” (2 Thess. 3:16). “Being also King of Salem which is King of peace” (Heb. 7:2). “Peace with you all that are in Christ Jesus” (1 Pet. 5:14). “Grace and peace be multiplied to you through the knowledge of . . , Jesús our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2). “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you” (John 14:27). Perpetuating Poison Propaganda From what gross misunderstanding has this passage suffered! How often has it been made the pretext of the pious poison that the church’s chief business is to bring peace on earth, by spreading good will toward men! This Christmas, millions of Christmas cards will pro claim this uriforturiate mistranslation as the theme of Christmas—the mission of Christ and of His Church, Thousands of editorials, articlés, radio speeches, etc.,' will ring the changes on this phrase “peace, good will toward men.” From thousands of pulpits preachers, who should know better, w ill continue to spread this miscon ception. Even fundamentalists, who do not believe in world peace through human means, w ill do their part by continuing the misquotation, so that their congrega tions \vilT have no'answer for those who hold unscrip- tural ideas on world peace, largely based upon this text. How' tragic that, in the crucial hour when men are blindly striving, f e get the world at peace without the Prince of Peace, we cannot once and for all correct the centuries-long misquotation of this verse! We would thus help to emphasize the true scriptural message that Christ’s coming was to bring peace only to men upon whom the favor of God rested because of their faith in the Saviour’s redeeming blood! A Fantasy and a Fallacy It requires no documentation to prove to an Ameri can reader that many men in high places, in this and other lands, have been responsible for a great deal of extravagant talk about permanent world peace in radio speeches, press releases, and articles. Again and again I have heard reputable and informed men shift from news reporting, or from solid logic in a speech, to the fantasy of illogical wishful thinking concerning the pos sibility of a permanent peace. They go from fact to fancy with no apparent realization of such a transition. Of course, the main theme song is, “This is the war to end wars. We must not make the mistakes that we made after World War I and we shall not! This is, and must be, the last war!” Actually such statements are no more than a pep talk. ' No evidence is given to prove that World War II is or w ill be the last war; the state ment is made in the form of an assertion which, in some cases, sounds more like a plea of one who dares not think of the alternative to a permanent peace. Thát alternative would be a war of such terrific destruction that no thoughtful person can reasonably consider that civilization could survive it. And now, to all the dread forebodings previously present, there must be added the awful specter of supersonic atomic bombs! How men who know the facts can say what they do about world peace, without tongue in cheek, is beyond the grasp of my reason. They are well aware of the terrific and in volved dangers of international relations. Presumably it is considered good for morale to set high the nation’s sights. An Enduring Peace? Possibly no man in recent years, not even excepting Winston Churchill, has taken the lead in expressing him
" C A N S T T H O U S E N D LIGHTNINGS. T H A T TH EM M A 9 6 0 , A N O S A U U N TO T H E E , H£Ñ£ WE ARE/ “
c h i r m u c h e r ^
Made with FlippingBook HTML5