ESCENARIO IP

I believe this study has shown that, despite the variations within the Brethren movement, it is possible to identify patterns of behaviour in relation to the state. At all times they based their attitude on the Bible, and a respect for authority in the form of the "powers that be" has been common to all streams of Brethren. There was also a strong emphasis on the need for separation from the world, both as "strangers and pilgrims" and as those who wished to be separate from evil. Until the period between the two world wars this resulted in minimal involvement in the political process.

This study has shown that these two basic themes co-existed within the movement, until the demands of modern war exposed the tensions between the two. Another strong characteristic, that of evangelism, was also present, and further complicated the picture; because of their desire to see people "saved", Brethren did not wish to withdraw entirely from society. Indeed Brethren are very hard to "label": none of Wilson's categories fit them neatly.1 While I believe he is correct to classify Exclusive Brethren as introversionist, mainstream Brethren are really a combination of introversionist and conversionist. The pressures of war brought the differences between those who inclined to one or other response into the open.

This was in spite of the fact that they had an exceptionally well-developed theology of the church and its place in the world, and the framework of dispensationalism as a structure for their thought. It seems as though their preoccupation with ecclesiastical concerns ("church truth") and the believer's personal mode of life, combined with the relative stability of society before the First World War, blinded them to wider considerations of social change.

While my investigations show that accurate statistics of Brethren participation in the world wars are impossible to establish, what figures I have been able to find, and the opinions of respondents, make it possible for me to make some general observations. Early Brethren had a tradition of non-involvement in war. In the First World War, many

1 _{Wilson, B R, Religion in Secular Society (Watts, 1966), p. 224: "Sectarian movements ... [may be}

distinguished] ... in terms of their broad response to the wider society ... In western society four principal responses can be recognised, which we might conveniently label as conversionist; revolutionist;

Brethren were conscientious objectors (or in Australia, non-participants) - in some areas of Britain, and New Zealand, probably most Brethren came into this category. On the other hand there is evidence of enlistment, reluctant or otherwise, in some places. In the Second World War, the commonest choice appears to have been non-combatance - probably 50 to 60% made this choice. Since then, the issue has not been a live one, with lack of resistance to Vietnam conscription denoting changes within the Brethren and increasing respectability.

I have shown that the Brethren reaction to war does not fit within the pacifist tradition as colloquially understood, nor for instance with a Quaker definition, "based ultimately on the conception of 'that of God in every man'".2 _{It was not in the true tradition of non-}

resistance either. Some responses, especially in the Second World War, were what Ceadel calls "exemptionism" (a refusal to fight or kill, but not an insistence that others should do the same).3 He points out that it is sometimes hard to distinguish this from pacifism, "since it is itself a matter of conscience and normally related to a self-denying sectarian life-style".4

Other responses were what the British Brethren theologian Summerton calls a "vocational" reconciliation of the tendency to non-violence in the teaching of Jesus with the Biblical acceptance of the need for government (involving some coercion and punishment) in a fallen world. The essence of this sort of response, which I have tended to call "separatist", was to "recognise war as a legitimate instrument of state, but to deny that the Christian may participate in it."5 It is easily recognisable in Brethren conscientious objectors. Those who chose to fight based their views on the "just war" argument, or as Summerton puts it, the "Augustinian" resolution of the Biblical dichotomy.

It is always difficult to stand out against the norms of society. Macdonald's study of conscientious objectors in Melbourne in 1939-1945 goes so far as to call it deviancy, and identifies the key questions as "how the deviant conceives the world around him, what motivates him to reject societal mainstreams, and how ... he overcome[s] the pressures of non-conformity."6 It is clear that the Brethren had a definite conception of the world around them as being under God's judgement; that they were motivated to

2 _{G. Nuttall, Christian Pacifism on History (Oxford, 1958), p. 64.} 3 _{M. Ceadel, Thinking About Peace and War (Oxford, 1989), pp. 139-140.} 4 _{ibid, p. 140.}

5 _{N. Summerton, "The just war: a sympathetic critique", in O. R. Barclay (ed.), Pacifism and War (Leicester, 1984),}

p. 196.

6 _{I. M. Macdonald, "Deviency [sic]: The experience of the Conscientious Objector in Melbourne, 1939-45", La}

reject "societal mainstreams", when they did, by the thought that they were "aliens" in their country and world; and that their strong family and church links and Biblically- based teaching enabled them to withstand the "pressures of non-conformity".

Ian Hamilton, an imprisoned non-Christian conscientious objector in New Zealand, may have the last word. Although he is speaking of pacifists in general, his words apply to the Brethren as well: "The actual quarrel ... is between himself and his own herd. Sooner or later ... he'll have to recognise the fact, ... and come to grips with the problem and find a direction out of the conflict between himself and the herd7 _{... it seems that the}

belief in something outside yourself, outside the world of perception, is a necessity before you can enter into any sort of balanced relationship with [your] world."8 _This

thesis has tried to throw some light on the Brethren quest for that balanced relationship.

7 _{I. Hamilton, Till Human Voices Wake Us (Auckland, 1984 [1953]), p. 12.} 8 _{ibid, p. 216.}