*1.2. The National Service Act*

On 24 November 1964, the Australian government amended the NSA to provide for the selective conscription of young men turning twenty years old during 1965 (Parliament of Australia 1964). A ballot was conducted, which involved the drawing out of a number of birthdates. This was subsequently undertaken every six months. If a man's birthdate was selected, he was liable for call-up and subject to a satisfactory medical examination. The number of birthdates selected each six months depended on the required number of conscripts desired by the army. The government also amended the Defence Act 1903 during May 1965 to allow for conscripts to be integrated with regular army personnel (Parliament of Australia 2016). On 8 March 1966, it announced that military units, which involved conscripts, were to be sent to fight in Vietnam. (Australian Government. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 1966). This was euphemistically called "special service overseas" (Langford 1997). Australia had not declared war on anyone (Parliament of Australia 2010).

With the introduction of selective conscription, a young Christian man of nineteen or twenty years was faced with the same moral dilemma as any other. Does he register for National Service with the Department of Labour and National Service (DLNS), as mandated by the government? If he does, then he has complied with the NSA and now waits for the results of a lottery ballot to see if his birthdate marble is selected. If it is he now has to decide whether he continues his compliance by reporting for the mandatory medical examination, and if passed, to obey the call-up notice and be conscripted into the army. Alternatively, he can apply to be registered as a conscientious objector and be granted exemption from combatant and non-combatant military duties, or exemption from combatant duties only (Parliament of Australia 1964, s.29A).

If a man did not register under the Act, he breached it and was liable to sanctions. If this was intentional, it was an act of non-compliance. If it was a matter of conscience, religious or humanist, he was a CNC. The strength of his conscience was often demonstrated by repeated acts of non-compliance, which under the NSA attracted more severe sanctions.

The NSA made provision for "automatic" exemption from military service for a number of categories. One of these was theological students, ministers of religion, and members of religious orders. This had been the case since the passing of the Defence Act 1903 (Parliament of Australia 1903, s.61A). The justification for this is difficult to discover. This has also been acknowledged for America. It has the same exemption and it has been discussed within its legal framework (Smith 1970). It acknowledged that the legislative purpose of the exemption was not clear. It was suggested it probably involved deference to both the spiritual needs of the people and the inherently peaceful nature of religious ministry. This probably also applies for Australia. The question of whether the exemption is an aid to religion at a personal and institutional level, and therefore unconstitutional, has never been tested in Australia. Smith concluded that the exemption was unfair and unconstitutional (Smith 1970, p. 1003). During the Vietnam War years, 553 eligible men were granted this exemption in Australia (Langford 1997).

Graham Jensen from Sydney was a theological student at Wesley College, Sydney University. As such, he would have been "automatically" exempted upon registration under the NSA. Graham refused to register for the July 1968 intake because he believed the Act to be immoral. He informed Minister Bury of the DLNS of his non-compliance (Peacemaker 1969a, p. 5). He said he "was a Christian pacifist and that the law was immoral as is anything which mandates that a man must fight and possibly kill another. This is against the will of God". On 29 January 1969, Graham was convicted and fined with the prospect of twenty-five days imprisonment if he failed to pay the fine. He decided not to pay the fine. He was arrested on 30 July 1969 and taken to Long Bay Jail in Sydney to serve twenty-five days.

Obviously, Graham was opposed to the Vietnam War and stated that, "I am concerned that we celebrate Anzac Day and forget what our soldiers believed they were dying for—peace; we talk about our fight for peace and yet we are not willing to give it to the Vietnamese" (Peacemaker 1969c, p. 6). On 6 May 1970, he was again convicted under the NSA for refusing to attend a medical examination and was fined. He was also imprisoned for seven days because of his refusal to give an assurance that he would obey a future notice to take the medical examination. Graham remained a peace activist and non-complier until the suspension of the Act in 1972.

The original Defence Act of 1903 allowed for conscientious objection to be based on religious pacifism only, and it was confined to those churches doctrinally opposed to war and military service (Parliament of Australia 1903, s.63A). Interestingly, it allowed for conscientious objection to a particular war. Just prior to WWII, it was amended to disallow this. It was also amended to allow pacifist conscientious beliefs that were nonreligious. Again, it was amended so that religious pacifism was no longer confined to those religious institutions doctrinally opposed to war (Parliament of Australia 1939). The NSA of 1964 incorporated these amendments. Obviously, the Act did not permit a conscientious objection to itself, but that military conscription was unjust and constituted a violation of human liberty.

Despite the amended provision about a particular war, there were a few Christian conscientious objectors who applied for exemption from military service on the grounds that the Vietnam War was unjust. A prominent case from that time was John Zarb, a Catholic from Pascoe Vale South, Victoria (Peacemaker 1968e, p. 1). John was a postman. He registered under the NSA and then made application to be exempted from all military duties as a conscientious objector. Magistrate Elvish heard his application on 2 November 1967. The magistrate stated he was satisfied that John was sincere in his beliefs and that he was a conscientious objector. He dismissed the application because the NSA did not permit him to grant an exemption based on an objection to a particular war. John then appealed and adopted non-compliance. He was convicted on 14 October 1968 at the City Court, Melbourne for failure to obey a call-up notice and was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Pentridge, a civil prison in Melbourne. During the prosecution John repeated what he had stated at his original court hearing. He had a conscientious objection to aiding and abetting what he regarded as an unjust and immoral war, the Vietnam War. He indicated that he was not a pacifist and was prepared to undertake military training. This was tested in the High Court of Australia but it unanimously dismissed all grounds of John's appeal. He was released early from his sentence on 21 August 1969. The government portrayed this as an act of compassion given his parents' poor health. A close reading of the cabinet minutes suggests that it was undertaken for political reasons (National Archives of Australia 1969). John had become an embarrassment to the government.

## *1.3. Christianity and War Violence*

Table 1 shows the number of adherents for each Christian denomination in Australia according to the 1966 census (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1966). The population of Australia in 1966 was 11.6 million. It reveals that an overwhelming number of Australians claimed affiliation with a Christian denomination. Less than 1% of the population belonged to a non-Christian religion, and less than 1% claimed no religion.

If a large denomination is defined as having 10% or more adherents, then four denominations dominated in 1966. They were the Church of England at 37.99%, Catholic at 29.75%, Methodist at 11.01%, and Presbyterian at 10.22%.

A review of important "official" statements from the denominations reveals their teaching about war and under what circumstances a Christian may participate. A Christian man in responding to military conscription is likely to have sought from his denomination guidance and support. It is supposed he had an advantage if he belonged to an historic peace church, which usually includes The Society of Friends (Quakers), Brethren, and Mennonites. In contemporary Australia, they represented a tiny proportion of Christian adherents. Only the Brethren were considered important enough for census purposes to be identified as a denomination, even then they only accounted for 0.15% of Australian Christians.


**Table 1.** Australian Christian Adherents 1966.

The Quakers in Australia explain their position on war and violence, "the Quakers believe that there is a spirit within each of us that joins us all together—some call it 'that of God'. It follows that we cannot deliberately harm or kill another person without damaging that spirit. That was as obvious to 17th Century Quakers as it is to us today" (Quakers 2021). They also make the point that "pacifism is not just *thou shalt not kill*. It is an active process of removing situations where violence and war may occur. It is also a complex process of understanding how different forms of violence are related and of accepting that peace does not come overnight". The Brethren (Brethren 2021) and Mennonites (Mennonites 2021) share this view, but express it more strongly in their doctrinal statements and expect it be accepted and followed by their adherents. Christadelphians have sometimes been described as a peace church. This is consistent with its official Statement of Faith, which "forbid its members to participate in war in any form" (Christadelphians 2021).

Jehovah's Witnesses teach "that as Jesus disciples they obey his command to be no part of the world (John 17:16) by being strictly neutral in political matters, including participation in the military". It shares with other Christians "the imperatives to beat their swords into ploughshares (Isa. 2:4), to not take up weapons of warfare (Matt. 26:52) and by accepting that in the early church being a Christian and a soldier was irreconcilable" (Jehovah's Witnesses 2021).

The Church of God was strongly pacifist at its beginnings but has gone through much iteration over the following decades. This waned over the years. There is now little official reference to war and military service except in general terms. For others, they remain strongly pacifist. It observes that "God alone confers life (Gen. 1:1–31); therefore, we are responsible to God to care for our physical life and that of others. If the circumstances require, we must be prepared to risk our life in the service of our neighbour (John 15:13); but the general rule is that we must respect our physical life and employ every worthy means to maintain it" (Church of God 2021a, 2021b).

The Seventh Day Adventist church is unusual in that it opposes a combatant role for its adherents but finds a non-combatant role consistent with Christianity. It states that, "this partnership with God through Jesus Christ who came into this world not to destroy men's lives but to save them causes Seventh Day Adventists to advocate a non-combatant position, following their divine Master in not taking human life, but rendering all possible service to save it" (Seventh Day Adventist 2021).

All the denominations referred to above represented a very small proportion of Australian Christian adherents during the Vietnam War years.

Authoritative statements from the large denominations on war and Christian participation usually affirm the desirability of peace and non-violence for the Christian. The statements usually move to qualifications and exceptions to that affirmation. The theory of

a just war or similar construct are common in this discussion on exceptionalism. They ultimately conclude that whether an adherent participates in war is a matter of their individual conscience with God.

The Lambeth Conference is an opportunity for the world-wide member churches of the Anglican Communion to present their thinking on Christian life. The 1930 conference passed resolution twenty-five which stated strongly that, "the conference affirms that war as a method of settling international disputes is incompatible with the teaching and example of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Lambeth 1930). However, resolution twenty-six acknowledged that peace will never be achieved until international relations are controlled by religious and ethical standards, presumably after the manner of Jesus Christ.

The 1998 Lambeth Conference made a number of points on war, including abhorrence of the evil of war but did not commit to pacifism (Lambeth 1998). Article thirty-seven of *The Articles of Religion* found in the 1662 Prayer Book, which is affirmed by all ordained clergy of the church, makes one short statement about Christian participation in war. It states "it is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars". It is may, not must, wear weapons. Ultimately it is a matter of conscience.

The Catholic Catechism of 1965 discussed the moral question of war when dealing with the Ten Commandments. (Catechism 1965, 4, 2, 5). Article five of that section examines the fifth commandment *You should not kill.* War is not prohibited so long as it is defense against an aggressor. The authorities have the right to impose obligations on citizens to participate in that defense and they must fight honorably. The catechism makes explicit reference to Just War Theory.

It also expressly states that "public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way". In a separate area of the catechism, it deals with moral conscience where it teaches "a human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience" (Catechism 1965, 3, 1, 1, 6).

Other denominations share a similar view that war is contrary to the life and teaching of Jesus, but in an imperfect world lacking the necessary moral and ethical standards, it is often the lesser of two evils. The decision to participate is left to the individual's conscience. Such ambiguity was likely to generate anxiety for the Christian man attempting to come to terms with his conscience during the Vietnam War years.

## **2. Materials and Method**

#### *2.1. Research Purposes*

The primary purposes of the research are to: first, identify Australian Christian conscientious objectors to war during the Vietnam War years; second, examine the grounds for their conscientious beliefs; third, describe how these conscientious beliefs were acted upon; and fourth, assess what impact, if any, their actions had on societal change.

Specifically, the research was guided by a series of questions which included: what do we know about these Christian conscientious objectors as individuals? How numerous was this group? Are any denominations over-represented or under-represented amongst the group? Who complied and who adopted non-compliance with the NSA? What were the specific grounds justifying their conscientious objection? What denomination did each identify with and is there any evidence they referenced denominational teachings in explaining their position? Were their arguments different from those not identifying as Christian? Were Christians treated differently under the Act than non-Christians, and if so, did it impact their response to it? How did the Christian objectors impact on societal change, specifically the end of Australia's participation in the Vietnam War and the end of military conscription?

#### *2.2. Research Scope*

The scope of the research is narrow and is confined to known Australian Christian conscientious objectors during the Vietnam War years. The term "Christian conscientious objector" means eligible young men under the NSA who self-identified as a Christian. It includes those who complied with the Act by registering and, at a later time, made an application for exemption from military service by a court. These are conscientious objectors by decision of a court (CODC). It also includes those who refused to comply with the Act for their Christian conscience sake, the CNC.

The focus is on individuals, their personal stories, and their non-violent response to conscription for it. It does not report on the non-violent movement of churches and other groups. These existed, and it became more important over time. Many Christian conscientious objectors were part of this. It is an area in need of greater research.
