Anglicans and the Bomb

General Synod gives cautious approval to nuclear deterrence

"This debate is about the end of the world and about how we may best delay it." So said Stuart Blanch, the Archbishop of York, last week as the Church of England became the latest denomination to struggle with the morality of nuclear deterrence. British clergy judged the General Synod's deliberations to be the church's most important debate on public policy since World War II. The meeting occurred in Church House, adjacent to Westminster Abbey, where Parliament met in 1941 after German bombers had damaged the House of Commons.

At the climax of the nationally televised debate, which lasted nearly five hours, the bishops, priests and lay delegates to the General Synod rejected, 338 to 100, a proposal that the church endorse unilateral disarmament. The alternative pro-deterrence motion that carried the day, 387 to 49, was offered by the Bishop of Birmingham, Hugh Montefiore.

Montefiore put the Christian's moral dilemma in succinct terms: "For the deterrent to be credible, we must be prepared to use it. But to use it would be catastrophic and immoral. The objection is formidable, but not overwhelming. If it is effective, [the force] will deter and never be used. That is the justification. To be determined to use it in response to nuclear attack has ensured so far, and I believe will continue to ensure, that there is no nuclear aggression."

While backing Britain's nuclear arsenal as a means of preventing war, the church delegates also decided that the first use of nuclear weapons could never be justified, even though the threat to do so is part of NATO's policy to discourage a Soviet conventional attack. The church's final statement also called for multilateral nuclear disarmament.

The opposing view was advanced by a six-member "working party" of the church in a report that had added to the growing national debate on the subject when it was released last October. The panel, led by Bishop John Baker of Salisbury, called upon the government to abandon its nuclear arms. Reason: nuclear war is so potentially disastrous that disarmament is worth even the risk of "blackmail and defeat" by an enemy.

In his speech to the synod, Baker attacked as a fallacy "the belief that mutual nuclear deterrence is a reasonably stable condition and likely to remain so." On the contrary, he said, "the overwhelming evidence is that it is becoming less stable year by year, and so less plausible as a means of keeping the peace."

The most dramatic response to Baker was delivered by Robert Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and spiritual leader of the world's 65 million Anglicans. Runcie, who won the Military Cross for valor as a lieutenant in a Scots Guards tank battalion during World War II, contended that unilateralism would "undermine" disarmament negotiations in Geneva and have a "traumatic effect" on NATO, which he credited with establishing "the peace and stability of Europe" since World War II.

"I cannot accept unilateralism as the best expression of a Christian's prime moral duty to be a peacemaker," declared Runcie. The delegates, who cried out "Hear, hear!" during the speech, went on to endorse his view as the Anglicans' contribution to the deepening, worldwide debate on nuclear morality. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.