The Big Question pondered in a trench

[George Armstrong Custer]

As we are now into Christmas Eve, it might not be an inappropriate moment to post what I think is one of the most profound reflections to come out of the Great War on the human condition, the curse of war, and their relationship to the idea of a Creator and the role of organised religion.

It was written in the trenches on the night of 23 January 1916 by Temporary Captain Matthew Roach, MC, 225th Tunnelling Company, Royal Engineers.

As Roach relates, his mood was set that night by a combination of seeing a bloodied casualty stretchered in as he came back from mining duties, reading some old newspaper reports of 'Intercession Day Services' in England, and his contemplation from his position in the trenches of the planets in a cold and frosty night sky.

What becomes clear is that Roach certainly believed in a God, or Almighty Force, as creator - but one who watched His creations exercise their free will and conscience from a non-interventionist distance. Roach was, however, completely disillusioned by the response of the organised religions of all nations to the war.

Roach was no pacifist - he clearly believes in the justness of the cause for which he is fighting and the citation for his MC is testimony to his personal courage: "On learning that the enemy were about to blow in a mine gallery, he awaited them (underground) with his revolver. Later he was ordered to blow in the enemy trenches; at great risk he carried the charge with lighted fuse and placed it in position. Later, at further great risk, he descended to ascertain results. He was incompacitated by fumes and drawn up. He refused, however, to leave the trench before the ordinary relief". None of which prevented Roach from viewing the concept and reality of war as a barbaric anachronism. Nor from angrily rejecting the idea that war was ever a part of God's plan and/or that God would intervene in response to the prayers and supplications of one side or the other.

I first came across Roach's account thanks to Peter Barton's inspired use of it as the Prologue to his wonderful Passchendaele Unseen Panoramas of the Third Battle of Ypres. Reading Roach's opening paragraphs, in which he deftly conjures up the creation of the Universe, one is gripped by the image of this obviously thoughtful man sitting in a trench, so eloquently pouring out his feelings under the stars on a cold and frosty night in late January 1916. Sadly he was to be killed in action by a trench mortar shell less than six months later on 2nd July 1916, aged 28. He has no known grave and is one of those commemorated on the Arras Memorial (he is also named on his parents' gravestone in Paul Cemetery, Sheffield Road, and on a brass plaque in the Methodist Church, both in Mousehole). Here is what he wrote:

Sunday night in the trenches. A great big, peaceful placid moon is climbing majestically up from the dim shadowy east flooding the sleeping earth with her pure white light. There is a suspicion of frost in the air. The sky is cloudless and clear and the stars hang like suspended arc-lamps in the shimmering heavens. It is a perfect night, nature is tranquil and calm.

And somewhere up behind those wondrous systems, galaxies and clusters of mighty worlds, circling in majestic unity through eternity’s of time and space there is, we are told, a Being, a God, a force that directs and controls, creates and destroys as suits His purpose or His whim. He brought these mighty orbs into being...He sees the cooling of the whirling spheres, the crusting and the shaping. He sees at last the beginnings of life, He watches as the senseless protoplasms gradually fashion into organisms, though subject and submissive to His great eternal laws, grow into many various and wonderful shapes. And then as he watches, immutable and unseen, the fires of the planets cool, and the life that thrilled and throbbed on their verdant faces wither and die, the splendid forests and the grassy plains bleach naked and sear until only jagged rocks remain. And then, as the ages roll on, the great central sun that bred these ancient worlds also grows cold and lifeless and as its power wanes so the lesser worlds stray farther and farther from their dying parent until one by one, drawn by some force more powerful, some sun more virile, they leave the orbit in which they have circled since the beginning and leap off into the measureless infinities of space, perhaps to collide with other worlds and form a new nebula, and Matter commences the Great Circle all over again.

And so the Almighty Force works out his inscrutable will from the Beginning to the end.

So say the scholars and the seers. The priests and prophets do not quite concur. Their vision is hardly as comprehensive or as clear. They are more concerned with inspiration than with logical and rational thought. They profess an intimate and comradely acquaintance with the All Highest, but these other worlds exist only, for them, “to give light unto the earth”. And so they maintain that the Great Force with whom they are in daily communion is mainly concerned with this little pin-headed planet upon which we microscopic maggots live and love, and breed and fight and die. They claim that we are the supreme creations of the Great Potter who, when He fashioned us, did so “in his own image”, made us the culmination of and the masterpiece of His omnipotent handicraft (How God must laugh)....Why some of our priests and prophets, those we pay to expound to us the will and wishes of the almighty, profess to be on terms of the closest intimacy with Him, knowing His wishes, interpreting His desires, stating positively His likings and aversions, His intentions and plans. Unhappily there is no unanimity amongst them but each warring sect has a large following who have implicit faith in their leader’s perfect understanding of the Great Omnipotence. Lacking unanimity they even sometimes enter into acrimonious controversy concerning the attributes and purposes of the Divine and waste much bitter invective on each other.

So much for the Priests and Prophets.

About a year and a half ago the nations of the earth declared war on each other. Not for many years had the cannon of contending armies been heard in Western Europe and the people’s rulers, with the arrogant ambition which comes of full bellies, accumulated power, and much wealth were eagerly anxious to draw the long white swords which they were wont to rattle so threateningly when dealing with the humble and the meek, and which were rusting in their scabbards. And so they went to war. They, the people, proceeded to kill each other wholesale with the terrible engines and machines which they had been busily perfecting during the long years of peace. The best brains of civilisation had been engaged on the invention and manufacture of these machines, for great wealth and honour accrued to him who could devise and construct improvements in the man killing equipment of the armies, and each nation jealously competed with the other in the provision of these things. The success of these marvellous engines of war has been astounding and the numbers of lives lost, and the amount of blood shed, far transcending anything in history, has provided ample testimony of the cleverness of the human race in devising means for the extermination of humanity.

Each nation, of course, invoked the aid and sympathy of the Almighty in this horrible business and the priests and prophets of the various peoples interpreted the intentions and purposes of the Almighty to their credulous flocks. And to each side he was, for the time being, a very real God who would surely intervene and smite the Assyrians, their enemies. Nevertheless, not being quite sure in their innermost hearts they continued to pile up a colossal plenitude of the engines of war so that, if it eventually happened that God should definitely favour the other side, they would still have the comforting consciousness of the power and omnipotence of their Big batteries. Up to now the Almighty certainly seems to have favoured the “big gun” side, but the others are fast making up their deficiencies in this respect and will soon be able to claim a decided advantage. Perhaps the Almighty, perceiving the trend of affairs, will soon transfer his favours, and the great victories which are expected this year will be attributed by the priests and prophets of what has hitherto been the losing side, to His divine intervention and proclaim exultingly to a watching world as conclusive proof of the righteousness of their cause.

I don’t know what has impelled me to write the foregoing. Most people will consider it blasphemous and irreverent. But I make no apology. I have simply recorded the unbidden thoughts that have flitted through my mind this Sabbath night. As written they are a satire on the attitude of Christianity towards the war. It is surely no worse to write than to think, and I do not believe that Christianity today is expressive of the teachings and precepts of its founder.

Very unmartial and unsoldierly thoughts too, some may think. Perhaps so, but I think every man in the trenches is, more or less, a dual personality, a sort of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. He will go over the top with a red film over his eyes and the lust of killing in his heart, but in the cold calm hours of his sentry duty at night he realises the wanton futility, the savage, senseless wickedness of it all. The “common soldier” (a rotten expression) thinks deeper thoughts than he is ever credited with, he is no “dumb driven cattle”, he is a philosopher, but he is inarticulate, he cannot express his profoundest convictions and perhaps would not if he could, but his brain is quietly active and when this war is over I am looking for a revolt against all that makes war possible such as has never been seen before.

Coming in from the mine just now I passed the stretcher-bearers carrying a limp and bloodstained form to the dressing-station – or the burial ground, I do not know which. Probably the latter for he had been hit in the head. His face was covered with blood save where patches of white skin gleamed ghastly in the moonlight. His arms swung limp over the side of the stretcher and his head lolled from side to side in horribly suggestive fashion. No uncommon occurrence but it set me thinking and explains the mood which prompted me to write the foregoing.

The attitude of Christianity toward the war is, to me, entirely out of keeping with the teachings and admonitions of the meek and lowly Jesus. God has no chosen race. I would not want a God that had. God has, I believe, a great love and pity for all this seething and writhing world of maggot-like humanity, pitying most those who have erred most, concerned most with those who have strayed farthest. And I believe that He looks down upon this welter of universal hate and carnage with eyes of infinite compassion. That He has planned or pre-ordained the conflict, I refuse to believe. That He soils His omnipotent Majesty by descending to aid or abet either side, I refuse to believe. War is the capital crime of nations. War is the Great Sin of Communities. And just as God looks down on individual sin so He looks down on the great collective sin of war, with pity and commiseration I believe, but with no power to intervene. Man must work out his own salvation for he has been endowed with the gifts of conscience and free-will which make him the arbiter of his own destiny. And so he climbs a little in a century of peace only to drop back again into the mire of his primitive state of war in a year or two of war, and the net gain of his progress is pitifully small. Almost hopeless it seems to talk of progress when all the most progressive nations are clawing an hacking at each others throats. I have before me an old newspaper with reports of the Intercession Day Services throughout England. And the leaders of Christianity throughout the land offered up long and eloquent prayers for the favour and assistance of the Almighty in the breaking and exterminating of the German nation. To me it is nauseating that Christianity can give us nothing greater than this. I believe that, according to our circumscribed understanding our cause is just, but for pity’s sake let us keep God out of it. Let us retain something that is not steeped in blood. Let us keep our conceptions of the Divinity above the carnage. The slaughter, and the wickedness of it all. Let us keep our Great Ideal unbesmirched.

I cannot claim to have the faith that will move mountains. I do not claim to be one of the elect on the highway to Heaven. But I would rather denounce the little faith I have and become an atheist, heretic, anything, than have a God whose hands were dripping with the blood of my fellow-creatures, however vile they may be. It may occur to some that I am doing what I accused the orthodox of – making God in my own image, according to my own ideals. Perhaps so, but at least I am convinced that my God is a greater, higher, grander God than theirs.

Just one more thought as the preachers say. I have heard of the spread of religious thought and feeling among our men fighting in the trenches. I have looked for it in vain. I do not believe that it exists. Men here live hard, curse hard, and die hard. I have seen many going out on the Long Trail, torn and bleeding by bullet or shell but they spoke no word of religion. Some of the things they say are unwritable. Yet they are splendid fellows, men who have been for months face to face with the dark realism of war, men free from hypocrisy and cant, and if they die cursing they die game, game to the last. I must confess that I like the cursing sorts, the virile, devil-may-care type best.

Occasionally among the scores of letters I have to censor every day, I come across one from the praying type. They are generally unpleasant reading with their selfish, cowardly egotism and fear of death. I trust the dear Lord will bring me safely through, preserve my life, guard me against danger, etc, is the burden of their supplications. Their one obsession seems to be the safety of their own paltry skins. If Christianity can do no more than this for men then Christianity has failed.

[squirrel]

GAC,

thanks for posting this - thought provoking indeed.

[salesie]

Very apt, George. Roach clearly shows us that in his experience, and contrary to popular belief, most men do not become more religious in times of great peril, and that "independent" thinking is not stifled at such times - indeed, a good argument could be made to say that dire peril brings thoughts of the "big question" to mind more than at any other time. I also like the way he talks of "the arrogant ambition which comes of full bellies, accumulated power, and much wealth", and how he sees this "arrogant ambition" as being the result of many years of peace in Western Europe, and how religion is used as a tool by both sides, how each side's priests and prophets interpreted "the intentions and purposes of the Almighty" to justify the wholesale slaughter of their enemies.

However, I do have some unease with Roach's reasoning. Firstly, he fails to recognise that although there had been several decades of peace in Western Europe, the full bellies, accumulated power and much wealth had come at the expense of much suffering and strife in other parts of the world. Secondly, and much more importantly, it is true that religion, any religion, is rife with hypocrisy - but, by lesser or greater degrees, so is everyone who lives, has ever lived, and who is ever likely to live. And, to his credit, Roach acknowledges this in himself when he says that "It may occur to some that I am doing what I accused the orthodox of – making God in my own image, according to my own ideals." But, unfortunately, he then goes on to say that "Perhaps so, but at least I am convinced that my God is a greater, higher, grander God than theirs", which is precisely the root of the problem i.e. all the different interpreters of "the intentions and purposes of the Almighty" believe that their "God" is a greater, higher, grander God than the other interpretations.

It seems to me, as an atheist, that Roach's stance, as attractive as it first appears, is no different, in essence, to those he criticises.

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

An interesting analysis, John. I too picked up the corollary of what he says about his personal vision of God perhaps being that his view is essentially no different in its 'certainties' than those of the organised religions which he criticises. I think, though, that there is an important difference - particularly in the context of war. That is that Roach's God is one which is non-interventionist in the affairs of men, but rather watches - albeit compassionately - from a distance as men freely deploy their reason and consciences for good or bad. Roach also dismisses the idea that God directs calamities such as war as part of a masterplan which we are not privy to - as he says, he would rather be an atheist if he thought that God devised such events, or would bloody His hands by intervening in response to the prayers or supplications of one side or another. This clearly sets Roach's concept of a God or an Almighty Power apart from that of mainstream organised religions, with their 'Intercession Day Services' asking for God's direct intervention on behalf of a national victory - an idea which Roach dismisses with contempt. For Roach, believing in God does not equate with a get-out clause from mankind taking responsibility for its own actions.

[squirrel]

salasie and GAC - excellent analysis from both of you.

[PhilB]

Any religious or atheist belief necessarily demands a leap of faith in order to believe something that's not provable. That means that basically you can believe whatever you want. Or not. Roach (or anyone else) trying to figure out the workings of the universe is probably like my dog trying to work out what went wrong on the forum site yesterday.

[bruce]

Now this is one of the wonders of the Forum......threads like this one.....fascinating, thought-provoking, apt, and well worth a second and maybe a third read.

Thanks

Bruce

[salesie]

An interesting analysis, John. I too picked up the corollary of what he says about his personal vision of God perhaps being that his view is essentially no different in its 'certainties' than those of the organised religions which he criticises. I think, though, that there is an important difference - particularly in the context of war. That is that Roach's God is one which is non-interventionist in the affairs of men, but rather watches - albeit compassionately - from a distance as men freely deploy their reason and consciences for good or bad. Roach also dismisses the idea that God directs calamities such as war as part of a masterplan which we are not privy to - as he says, he would rather be an atheist if he thought that God devised such events, or would bloody His hands by intervening in response to the prayers or supplications of one side or another. This clearly sets Roach's concept of a God or an Almighty Power apart from that of mainstream organised religions, with their 'Intercession Day Services' asking for God's direct intervention on behalf of a national victory - an idea which Roach dismisses with contempt. For Roach, believing in God does not equate with a get-out clause from mankind taking responsibility for its own actions.

I agree with much of what you say here, George. That's why I was careful to say "in essence" when pointing out the similarities between Roach's faith and those he criticises. After all, it could be argued that the 'Intercession Day Services' were in line with the Bible's message that God needs to be openly praised and worshipped otherwise God will forsake them; thus, each side, by employing such methods, were simply trying to show God that they loved him more than the other side and thus curry his favour. Roach, on the other hand, seems to be saying that actions speak louder than words when carrying out God's teachings i.e. he says "I do not believe that Christianity today is expressive of the teachings and precepts of its founder" and "The attitude of Christianity toward the war is, to me, entirely out of keeping with the teachings and admonitions of the meek and lowly Jesus". But this would seem to be at odds with his being there. Surely, if believing in the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ, then he would turn the other cheek and refuse to fight at all? His own actions would seem to speak louder than his own words.

That said, it seems to me that what we have here is a man well on the road to an atheist "Damascus" - for, in my opinion, the only way his argument would be valid was if it came from an atheistic stand point. Perhaps if not dying early, his thoughts would have evolved to that?

Cheers-salesie.

[PhilB]

That said, it seems to me that what we have here is a man well on the road to an atheist "Damascus" - for, in my opinion, the only way his argument would be valid was if it came from an atheistic stand point. Perhaps if not dying early, his thoughts would have evolved to that?

Cheers-salesie.

More probably to an agnostic Damascus rather than the equally unprovable atheist extreme?

[truthergw]

I think that most atheists would say that since a believer posits the existence of God, then it is for the believer to provide the proof. I don't have to prove that there is no ghost of Joseph Marley sitting watching me type, it would be for the person who says there is and desires me to share that belief to provide evidence which he thinks amounts to proof. A Christian's belief is just that, a faith. I need prove nothing to reject that belief.

[salesie]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 24 2008, 03:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More probably to an agnostic Damascus rather than the equally unprovable atheist extreme?

Phil, I see a flaw in your argument that religion, agnosticism and atheism are all equally not provable. If there is a God, and an after-life, then one day we will all be confronted with the proof, won't we? And, there have always been established religions (Christianity being one of the later ones to emerge) that have attempted to prevent their laws and beliefs being openly challenged (usually by fear of execution and/or persecution), but as long as there are those who challenge the established religion of the time, and seek another answer to creation, then it is not factually correct to say that atheism is not provable - it is only true to say that at this time we don't have the proof. If the history of mankind has taught us anything then it must be that not knowing the answer to any problem doesn't mean that one doesn't exist - religious blind faith, and statements such as yours, only serve to delay the quest for answers.

Cheers-salesie.

[PhilB]

Not provable at present! Also not provable at the time people have made their leaps of faith. Someday? Who knows?

[salesie]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Dec 24 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not provable at present! Also not provable at the time people have made their leaps of faith. Someday? Who knows?

Which brings us nicely back to the point Tom made (which I was saving for later).

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

A little mirth to lighten up the thread:

Have you heard about the agnostic dislexic insomniac? He sat up all night wondering if there is a dog!

Cheers-salesie.

[John Gilinsky]

Thank you GAC for posting this thoughtful reflective writing from a participant.

John

Toronto

[George Armstrong Custer]

That said, it seems to me that what we have here is a man well on the road to an atheist "Damascus" - for, in my opinion, the only way his argument would be valid was if it came from an atheistic stand point. Perhaps if not dying early, his thoughts would have evolved to that?

My own interpretation, John, is that the key to Roach's line of thinking is that he is not questioning the existence of God - which he accepts - but rather the interpretation of God as an interventionist, partial being as presented by organised religion.

His point on finding religious types being afraid for their own skin in the letters he censored is an interesting one. A wartime volunteer, Roach had risen from the ranks himself - he therefore knew whereof he spoke as far as OR's opinions were concerned. I think, however, that his suggestion, based on his own restricted experience of censoring his own units letters, that the majority of religious references would come from those asking for God's intercession for less than altruistic reasons may be less sustainable. I've read many wartime letters quoted in which the writer does not fear his own death precisely because of his religious beliefs and therefore feels better prepared to make that ultimate sacrifice for what he believes is a just cause. Roach's observations on the general lack of overt religious allusions in letters home and from wounded and dying men are, however, an interesting addition to our understanding of the role of religion amongst the troops of that time.

[truthergw]

I believe that in times of mortal danger, given time, men will generally make their own peace in a way that suits their belief. Whatever that belief. A Christian will commend his soul into the safe keeping of his God and Mohammedans, Jews and followers of the myriad faiths will set their own house in order, in whichever way suits their practices. An outright atheist may seek some kind of fatalistic acceptance that what will be will be. All of them are trying to put a mortal and natural dread to one side in order that they can act in a rational manner and not allow their judgement to be clouded.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I think that pretty well puts it in a nutshell Tom. When facing the prospect of death we each have to reconcile ourselves to our own mortality according to our own lights - not all of us manage it as eloquently as Roach, of course.

[salesie]

My own interpretation, John, is that the key to Roach's line of thinking is that he is not questioning the existence of God - which he accepts - but rather the interpretation of God as an interventionist, partial being as presented by organised religion.

His point on finding religious types being afraid for their own skin in the letters he censored is an interesting one. A wartime volunteer, Roach had risen from the ranks himself - he therefore knew whereof he spoke as far as OR's opinions were concerned. I think, however, that his suggestion, based on his own restricted experience of censoring his own units letters, that the majority of religious references would come from those asking for God's intercession for less than altruistic reasons may be less sustainable. I've read many wartime letters quoted in which the writer does not fear his own death precisely because of his religious beliefs and therefore feels better prepared to make that ultimate sacrifice for what he believes is a just cause. Roach's observations on the general lack of overt religious allusions in letters home and from wounded and dying men is, however, an interesting addition to our understanding of the role of religion amongst the troops of that time.

I too find it hard to believe there was no increase in religious belief amongst front-line troops, albeit temporary, during the war - and I agree that Roach's assertions on this matter are highly interesting to say the least.

I also agree, George, that Roach clearly accepts the existence of God but is criticising the contemporary interpretations of organised Christianity. However, on top of the contradictions in his argument I highlighted earlier, I can see a fundamental flaw in his divine non-interventionist argument. He clearly believes that organised Christianity has wandered well-away from the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ - which forms his main criticism of the established Church, and strongly implies that he believes in a return to fundamental Christianity, a return to the core message of Jesus. This is, of course, as I said earlier, at odds with his being at the front in an active fighting role, but, also, it throws his non-interventionist argument into turmoil i.e. Jesus, as the son of God sent to earth, is clearly the purest form of intervention that God could exercise; God sacrificing his own son in an attempt to save mankind is interventionism writ large. If truly the Son of God, this was a serious attempt at divine intervention, which, unfortunately, throws Roach's non-interventionist reasoning, when coupled with a belief in the core teachings of Jesus, into question. Consequently, if not on the road to an atheist "Damascus", then the only other explanation, as far as I can see, is that he was on the road to a new, non-interventionist, religion.

What I see, is a highly intelligent and articulate man caught up in dire circumstances of epic proportions - in his words in the opening post, I see a snapshot of his confusion. I see a man trying to rationalise lifelong faith with what he actually experiences in the war; in reading post #1, I see him parked in a lay-by on a road he's never travelled before, trying to decide which route to take when not fully understanding where he is going, only knowing that he cannot turn around and go back to whence he came. Or could he? With his early death, we will never know where his thoughts would have taken him, forward or back - which means, of course, no definitive answer is possible; any of us could be right, or just as wrong, about the intellectual journey of this thinking-man.

Cheers-salesie.

[salesie]

I believe that in times of mortal danger, given time, men will generally make their own peace in a way that suits their belief. Whatever that belief. A Christian will commend his soul into the safe keeping of his God and Mohammedans, Jews and followers of the myriad faiths will set their own house in order, in whichever way suits their practices. An outright atheist may seek some kind of fatalistic acceptance that what will be will be. All of them are trying to put a mortal and natural dread to one side in order that they can act in a rational manner and not allow their judgement to be clouded.

Couldn't agree more, Tom.

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I can see a fundamental flaw in his divine non-interventionist argument. He clearly believes that organised Christianity has wandered well-away from the teachings of its founder, Jesus Christ - which forms his main criticism of the established Church, and strongly implies that he believes in a return to fundamental Christianity, a return to the core message of Jesus. This is, of course, as I said earlier, at odds with his being at the front in an active fighting role, but, also, it throws his non-interventionist argument into turmoil i.e. Jesus, as the son of God sent to earth, is clearly the purest form of intervention that God could exercise; God sacrificing his own son in an attempt to save mankind is interventionism writ large. If truly the Son of God, this was a serious attempt at divine intervention, which, unfortunately, throws Roach's non-interventionist reasoning, when coupled with a belief in the core teachings of Jesus, into question. Consequently, if not on the road to an atheist "Damascus", then the only other explanation, as far as I can see, is that he was on the road to a new, non-interventionist, religion.

Yes, I pretty much agree with you that we cannot know in what direction Roach's reasoning on these issues would have taken him if he had lived longer or even survived the war, any more than we can know for sure - particularly without more detailed information on his background - what changes the war had made to Roach's pre-war religious sensibilities. But it seems to me that by the time he wrote down his thoughts in January 1916 that he was satirising the response of many professing Christians to the war by contrasting it to the teaching of Jesus. Roach himself, though, seems to me to have left Christian orthodoxies behind whilst retaining a belief in an Almighty Power. So whilst Roach is highlighting the hypocrisy of organised Christianity to the war in contrast to the precepts of its founder, his own position is one which allows him to take part in a war for a cause which he believes just. He is under no illusions though that the evil of war itself and those evils which arise from it are anything other than a product of mankinds' own failings. In other words one of his central points is a rejection of the idea that God is the ultimate mover behind such events. As noted before, he is equally dismissive of any idea that suggests that God is a being who would or could respond to the supplications of believers on the side of one or other of the combatants.

[salesie]

I see no satire in Roach's words, George - I see irony, but none of the witty, sarcastic language needed to turn irony into out and out satire. But that is, perhaps, mere semantics, and if so, Roach's words, and yours, deserve more than me playing around with them.

After reading his words yet again, I still see intellectual confusion, still get the impression of a man attempting to throw off the shackles of lifelong faith in order to rationalise new experience, but who has paused on his journey in order to organise his thoughts. I too, when dealing with deep abstract notions such as these, can never fully understand where my own thoughts are leading until organising them in written form - perhaps that is what separates the great thinkers from us lesser mortals?

All of which reminds me of what happens to me when writing fiction. I form the story from start to finish in my head before sitting down to write, I never do a written plan, and believe that I have it sussed. But the finished story is never the one I started out to write; the characters, themselves, take over and lead me in a different direction and to quite a few re-writes. And I can only see Roach's words as being a draft on the road to the finish. What a pity we can't discuss this with the man himself?

Cheers-salesie.

[George Armstrong Custer]

I first posted the extensive quote in the first post on this thread on Xmas Eve two years ago, and I still think it is one of the more thoughtfully appropriate ruminations from the Great War for this time of year. I still think, too, that Messrs Barton and Banning were inspired to Preface their Passchendaele: Unseen Panoramas of the Third Battle of Ypres with this less than obvious extended reflection from a man sitting in a trench beneath the stars on a night in 1916.

George

[phil andrade]

this little pin-headed planet upon which we microscopic maggots live and love, and breed and fight and die

This is especially poignant, isn't it........ coming as it did from a man engaged in that most harrowing and intensely frightful form of warfare that required the setting and explosion of mines ?

I wonder how the Reverend George Duncan, Haig's chaplain, might have viewed this rumination from such an eloquent "microscopic maggot" !

Happy Chistmas, folks, and all the best for the New Year.

Phil (PJA)

[George Armstrong Custer]

I wonder how the Reverend George Duncan, Haig's chaplain, might have viewed this rumination from such an eloquent "microscopic maggot" !

Duncan, of course, was a theological scholar as well as an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland. After the war he succeeded to the Chair of Biblical Criticism at the University of St Andrews - where Haig was successively Rector and then Chancellor until his death in 1928. Duncan was appointed Principal of St Mary's College, St Andrews, in 1940. In the same year he was also Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Duncan was a New Testament scholar of international renown. It was said of him that academic eminence never distanced him from ordinary people, whether soldier or former serviceman, parish minister, parishioner, or student. I think he would have relished a thoughtful discussion with Roach. Duncan died in 1965.

George