Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
True Christian Pacifism vs. Wishful Thinking
On the fifteenth anniversary of the September 11 Attacks last Sunday, my church held a joint outdoor service with the church next door. It wasn’t set up specifically as a remembrance service, but the timing was on everyone’s minds, including both pastors’. Our pastor may or may not be a liberal — I hadn’t had any inkling before — but he’s never brought up politics, or issues too close to politics, in church. Yesterday, though, he followed his initial memories of the attacks with a critique of those who call for violence in response. He wasn’t talking about revenge against Muslim civilians in this country, mind you, but about our military response.
This prompted a lot of discussion between my wife and me. There are plenty of people who regard themselves as pacifists of one stripe or another and, of those among my religious friends, I think most of them would say that their pacifism comes from their Christianity. The arguments I usually see from pacifists in general are that that the world would be a better place if we did not fight back against this sort of evil. That retaliation leads to further violence, with each side claiming justification for another round of never-ending reprisals; that diplomacy and discussion are the superior and more successful ways of resolving disputes; that by not fighting back, we will somehow be safer. The Christian pacifists I know seem to make the same arguments and might extend Jesus’ admonishments for us individuals (“Turn the other cheek”) to whole countries.
But I don’t see that these arguments are consistent with what we actually observe in the world. Not that I advocate going to war over every small issue, but the idea that violence is never a solution, or that it always makes things worse (the claims of convinced pacifists) are clearly wrong and strike me as nothing more than wishful thinking. Of believing so much in your theory that you’re unwilling to compare its predictions with observation.
There is a pacifism I could respect, if not necessarily hold: That is a pacifism that would be truly grounded in Christianity (or Judaism) and admits that violence can solve issues, that fighting back when you are attacked can produce a lasting peace with justice… but which holds that we might be called to be martyrs. That God wants us to sacrifice ourselves, and that the goal is not our earthly well-being, but our ultimate salvation, even if we die in the process.
It disappoints me that I do not hear any of my friends making this argument, because that’s the only kind of pacifism that is realistic and has its eyes open to the world. It’s the only one I could consider supporting.
Published in Foreign Policy, Religion & Philosophy
Obviously, one mistake about pacifism is the idea that it’s a clever inverse strategy. That is, you’ll eventually gain victory by not fighting back. Most of the time, with any Christian theory of non-violence, you’re implicitly accepting defeat and suffering. You may feel that retaining your virtue or integrity is more important than anything you might suffer, but if the only reason you’re not defending yourself is because you think it will magically prevent the suffering, you’re just not paying attention.
There was a Buddhist group who bought a run down place out in the woods as their new Ashram. The place had been neglected for several years, and had quite a lot of wildlife in the buildings. So, these believers in the sanctity of all life were capturing spiders and insects and everything they found and taking them out to be released in the woods. The individual I know who was part of this group was helping as this went on. She walked into another room where one little old lady had a rolled up magazine and was swatting the bugs as she kept repeating, “Back to God! Back to God! Back to God!”
Sometimes, you just need to send some lifeforms back to God.
I LOVE this!!!
many martyrs die with a bloody sword in their hand.
King David. Jesus beating the holy crap out of the merchants in the temple. Get a grip.
There’s a rational argument for passivism that involves that the massive and obvious negative externalities of war and the unpredictable and not obviously positive consequences of almost all wars.
So, it’s not that violence always makes things worse, it’s that it practically always does and given a fair assessment of wars it can be argued that passivism should at least get a very high presumption.
The first half of this video shows the numbers on the global war on terror and argues that it is irrational (not simply immoral) to fight it.
If you find yourself getting angry at the first half, maybe the second half will somewhat redeem the speaker for you.
Peace is that brief interlude between violence, when one side has convinced the other that further conflict just isn’t worth it.
My least favorite deacon gave the sermon yesterday. He said we “should do anything for peace.” Really?? Anything? Renounce Christ and convert to Islam?
I find pacifists to be unclear thinkers.
Expectations are destiny. If everyone believed this (like people use to) everyone would be looking for the next world war (since it was “obviously” inevitable) and there would be as much violence as there use to be.
Or maybe they just want to live in peace without having to go through all of the hassle of making peace.
The homily I heard this weekend got at that exactly…That passivity (close kin to some kinds of pacifism) can be a shield for objective evil…As well, the idea that prayer is not as passive as might be supposed, as a way of making peace…
Sometimes you need to have your pastor, or priest spell out and define Peace. For example is it:
Russians United for a Ukrainian Peace
or is it:
Russians United for a Ukrainian Piece
One is not the same as the other.
To restate my main argument more succinctly, I respect a pacifism that admits that pacifism might sometimes get you killed and your country destroyed. I don’t respect the pacifism that thinks pacifism will always make life better in practice.
Now, to be clear, I think that most of us are in between the absolutes of war-monger and pacifist. Most of us aren’t going to reject diplomacy in every situation or reject war in every situation. There’s plenty of room for debating the merits of diplomacy and war in individual cases (often changing our approach as time goes on in a given crisis), even if we might have our biases one direction or the other. So I wouldn’t call someone a pacifist who errs towards diplomacy but is willing to fight in some real-world scenarios. I’m thinking of the ones who simply reject war as a valid response.
@mikeh—I’ll have to watch that TEDx talk when I have some time. I usually don’t bother with videos, but I’ll try to take your recommendation. From your summary, it sounds like he’s arguing the merits of the outcome in a given situation—the Global War on Terrorism—rather than as an absolute rule (say, Poland in 1939), so I don’t know that he’s the kind of ideological pacifist I’m thinking of.
I just thought of this: Remember Todd Akin’s remarks about rape and abortion in the 2012(?) Senate race that got everyone so embarrassed? He’d been asked about abortion in case of rape, and he said—basically—that that’s not going to be much of an issue, because women’s bodies have a way of miscarrying babies that come from rape.
Leaving aside his subject (it turns out there actually is some evidence for this, but probably not nearly as much as he thinks), I remember that one of us, perhaps Peter Robinson or Jonah Goldberg, had said that his disappointment in Akin’s response was that Akin was acting as if there wasn’t much reason to wrestle with the moral or ethical problem of abortion after a rape—that he was ducking the issue entirely by acting as if that situation simply won’t come up. It would have been better if he’d addressed it directly and admitted that this would be a tough situation, but argued that abortion was wrong even then. You could respect him for taking it head on, whether or not you agreed with his answer.
I feel the same about pacifists. I think many of them believe there’s no reason to wrestle with what to do when pacifism fails to protect you, because they think it will always protect you if you do it right. If you’re getting invaded, it’s because you practiced peace wrong.
Hm. They’re probably Socialists too. Because that seems to be the way most people think Socialism works. Or doesn’t.
The explanation of Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek that seems to jive best with the rest of scripture and common sense is that the blow Jesus had in mind was more of a slap than a punch. In other words, he was telling us how to respond to insult, not violence.
As @simontemplar noted above, Jesus is a man who showed up at the Temple one day, saw the commercialization of the holy precinct, thought about it and said to himself, “Who says violence never solved anything? This is a problem that a little violence will solve.”
If the Palestinians adopted Gandhi’s tactics of nonviolent resistance, they would have gotten an independent state two decades ago.
If the Israelis adopted Gandhi’s tactics of nonviolent resistance, there would be no Israelis.
Whatever the cheek turning meant it was aimed at individual behavior, not whole nations or any kind of collective. Collectives are different and morality does not pertain to them. On the other hand, one does not have to exercise violence if one is perceived as unambiguously the most powerful and lethal. Still one must somehow establish the perception of will to use power. I had an undergraduate professor of international relations who would say, it’s not balance of power it’s preponderance that fosters stability if the preponderant power is a status quo power.
They are confusing the church with the government. The church isn’t called to use violence in achieving its mission. The government is.
Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
We were told to turn the other cheek when our own dignity is at stake, not when the lives of our loved ones or security of our nation is at risk. To “reject violence” at the expense of your child makes self-righteousness insignificant by comparison.
Also, non-violent resistance can work when either your adversary or those who have power over him have some sort of operable moral code or conscience. Gandhi and MLK made their opponents or other observers feel guilty about what was going on.
It’s obvious with much of what they’ve done that neither al Qaeda nor ISIS would ever feel guilty about anything they could do to an infidel.
If you seek peace prepare for war.
From the Catechism, a preamble to the Just War Doctrine:
After watching the video, I can say that the speakers argument is inspired but deeply flawed. You presented the video neutrally as an alternate viewpoint if I am not mistaken, but I hope you see that it does not prove either viewpoint.
The evidence the speaker used was highly biased toward terrorism not being a major issue.
However, some of the numbers would still support his argument even after being adjusted, but we do not have a counter factual number to compare to in the case that we had done nothing after 9-11.
Also, doing nothing militarily surely does not mean not increasing security at airports etc. This leaves what I would argue as one of the highest costs of terrorism of a government that feels the need to spy on it’s people in order to protect them.
In the end, I do not agree that fighting terrorism was irrational, but maybe there were better ways than invasion.
This, definitely. It was becoming worse.
Does your pastor object to your community’s having a police force to prevent the thieves and murderers from preying on his flock?
Seems to me Ghandi and MLK Jr gave a lot of people the wrong idea about pacifism. Their pacifism worked because they were operating under the rule of Great Britain and the United States, two “civilized” nations with a relatively free press and a self-image as a force for good. When they engaged in passive resistance, acts of aggression against them, whether by the state or citizens, were shown to the world by the free press. The citizenry, thinking themselves good, were repulsed by what they saw, and took the side of the passive protesters.
Had the same men tried the same tactics in Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, or Kim’s Korea, they would have failed horribly. Pacifism can only work when your enemy has a sense of decency. Tiananmen Square grabbed the attention of the West, but had little effect on a brutal Chinese regime. I don’t think it mattered if the protesters were Christian, so long as their oppressors were not.
valid points all. And I’ll add that much of europe was christianised by fighting pagans, and then defended by armies from muslim invaders.
The priest owes his present career and religion to his ancestors fighting for it.
Comment of the Week.
The thing about violence / war is that it should not be entered into lightly. It is always more destructive, more damaging, more horrible than anybody ever conceives. It changes all it contacts, the world around it, the past, the present, the future, the victor and the vanquished. It should be avoided whenever possible. But there is a peace on the other side of war. It may be a peace of victory or a peace of death but it is a peace. Sometimes war must be embraced because the current suffering, the future suffering is greater than the horror of war in all its gruesome splendor. So war must be waged to obtain the peace that is on the other side of it in hopes of a future without the suffering.
which also begs the question: Is the the pacifism really just about making you look good? In which case it can be regarded as vanity/ego/apathy to the plight of others/treachery against ones own people
In keeping with my usual bumper sticker mentality, I saw one yesterday that asked “Who would Jesus Bomb?”. I so wanted to cross out Jesus and scribble in “Mohammed”.