Jan 02
The perils of pacifism – a rant
I seem to have annoyed a few pacifists, by spelling out both the thinking of the 39 articles, and the thinking of the mainstream tradition about just war. I seem to have particularly annoyed Peter Kirk who describes himself as “very attracted” to pacifism. Despite this attraction to pacifism, he has retaliated 
by selecting various quotations from my posts, and extracting them from the argument in which they were embedded to make his point.
By contrast I offer the following observations about Christian pacifism as I have encountered it:
- It is often unutterably smug in claiming the moral high-ground, and implying that it is a superior form of Christianity. I suspect half the annoyance with my posts is that I’ve deliberately put the boot on the other foot.
- It is hermeneutically naive in thinking that you can apply Jesus’ teaching on non-retaliation and non-violent resistance in any direct way to the conduct of government, politics and international relations.
- It is similarly naive in thinking it has proved itself to be traditional Christianity by producing a catena of pre-Nicene quotations, when the pre-Nicene tradition simply didn’t deal with the political relations any more than the New Testament did.
- It appears crypto-Marcionite in the way it sidelines the Old Testament, which does address the concerns of political life, within a particular sense of a national vocation.
- It verges on the immoral by suggesting that any government should say to another country, “you may do what you like to your own citizens, and we will stand by and let you do it. Actually, you can come here and do it to ours as well.” The patterns of non-violent resistance have little to say to international relations. In so far as they have often approved of sanctions, they have acquiesced in punishing the impoverished population of a country, while leaving its tyrannical leadership untouched.
- It seems to me to be increasingly buying into an exclusively Girardian diagnosis of sin and redemption, which is seductive, but in the end fails to take any proper account of alienation from God. Girardian models would work as well if there were no God. I think that makes them an inadequate account.
I can see a place for individual prophetic witness to pacifism as a reminder of the eschatological peace to which we are all summoned, and by which we should measure our own lack of peace today. I do not wish to disrespect the individual, or the monastic community that sees such a witness as their vocation. My complaint is with all of those who try to urge it not only as policy for the whole Church, but who wish to claim it is the only Christian policy at all. In rejecting their views, I have probably gone over the top, but sometimes overstatement makes the point more forcefully, and a blog rant is not a reasoned argument.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Doug,
To respond point-by-point:
*It is often unutterably smug…
**This is an inherent danger in accepting any tradition or interpretation over any other, really. You accept Anglicanism and reject Oriental Orthodoxy or Pentecostalism or Sunni Islam, etc. for certain reasons which essentially boil down to some superiority of your chosen tradition. I will concede that there is a certain smugness that radical philosophies will lend themselves to (either radical “left” or “right;” there is an abhorrent smugness in, say, the Westboro Baptist Church), which is not as apparent in more mainstream or centrist approaches.
*It is hermeneutically naive in thinking that you can apply Jesus’ teaching on non-retaliation and non-violent resistance in any direct way to the conduct of government, politics and international relations.
**Naive? I’d be interested in figuring out which teachings are practical and which aren’t. Furthermore, I don’t know how I can be personally a pacifist in my own convictions, but hit the “off-switch” whenever I enter the halls of parliament. If I believe personally that violence is wrong, I really don’t see how I can justify it on a mass scale under the aegis of a state.
*It is similarly naive in thinking it has proved itself to be traditional Christianity by producing a catena of pre-Nicene quotations, when the pre-Nicene tradition simply didn’t deal with the political relations any more than the New Testament did.
**I agree that this is true, but I also think that political relations are dealt with in the New Testament. The immediate texts that come to mind are The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder and the Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David W. Bercot (only the former is actually dealing with Scriptural text, though.) Mark Kurlansky gives what I find to be a compelling, if not systematic or comprehensive argument for Christian pacifism in Non-Violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea. I freely admit that I cannot make that systematic argument, but I think that the weight of evidence is clearly in favor of pacifism, including (in particular?) warfare.
*It appears crypto-Marcionite in the way it sidelines the Old Testament, which does address the concerns of political life, within a particular sense of a national vocation.
**This is a definite tendency, and it is part of a larger Christian antinomianism. I can’t really speak for Peter in how he personally addresses the violence of the First Testament, but I think it is also true that all of us come to terms theologically with ancient Hebrew violence (e.g. is it okay to stone adulterers?) There is some extent to which all Christians (and modern Jews) either reject some ancient violence - in which case they must resort to some “rejection” of those Scriptures - or they must accept that violence, which is a far more radical rejection of the Sermon on the Mount, if you ask me.
*The patterns of non-violent resistance have little to say to international relations.
**It’s odd you should say that as you and I were witness to a dozen non-violent revolutions against Communism in Eastern Europe. And this is to say nothing of Spain and Portugal in the 1970’s, India in the 1940’s, the gains of the civil rights movements among blacks in America, etc. It is one thing to sit idly by and quite another to engage in passive non-resistance. To use an example outside of Christianity, Gandhi thought that even violence was preferable to cowardice. And this is to say nothing of the inadequacy of violence as a solution. It seems like you have made two common assumptions about pacifism: 1.) that it means doing nothing and 2.) that violence actually solves something in a more scientific or predictable manner than non-violent resistance. Neither of those points are clear to me, and, again, quite the opposite. That would have no real bearing on some approaches to pacifism anyway, as these kind of consequentialist arguments would simply be irrelevant to moral decision-making if violence is, in fact, unethical per se. I understand that these considerations are worth bearing in mind, though, and not everyone is willing to reject consequentialist ethics as I am.
*It seems to me to be increasingly buying into an exclusively Girardian diagnosis of sin and redemption…
**I can’t really speak to this point. You mean Rene Girard? If so, I am too ignorant of his work to offer any kind of response.
Lastly, as you point out yourself, “sometimes overstatement makes the point more forcefully” and it might be the case that a pacifist witness - although one you personally and ultimately reject - is just as forceful and authoritative as your rant was for your position and understanding of proper Christian faith.
-JAK
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Hi Doug,
You state at the outset that your comments are directed towards Christian pacifism “as I have encountered it”. I am curious about where exactly that is. Who are these smug naive pacifists that you have encountered? Are these just personal encounters or have you actually read John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, or other major expositors of Christian pacifism?
In the main, your objections to pacifism are fairly standard. They’re not much different from Reinhold Niebhur’s perspective which has been roundly critiqued, esp. by Yoder. I would be more interested in criticisms of pacifism that were really conversant with the actual positions and arguments exposited by the best spokespeople of that tradition. As it reads now it just sounds like you’ve had encounters with some fairly minimally-read pacifists who rubbed you the wrong way.
-Halden
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Doug, thanks for clarifying that this was a rant, an overstatement to make a point more forcefully. Since Justin has done a good job of answering you point by point, I will add little.
I accept that there are issues concerning the Old Testament here. My own take on them would be that the OT teachings on political relationships, including war, were intended for the people of Israel through whom God was working in a particular way at that time. I would hold that the New Testament people of God has succeeded the Israelites but is not organised in the same way. Therefore the OT teachings on politics and war do not apply literally to Christians. This is not a novel position; I forget what it is called, but not “crypto-Marcionite”.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 pm
It is often unutterably smug in claiming the moral high-ground, and implying that it is a superior form of Christianity. I suspect half the annoyance with my posts is that I’ve deliberately put the boot on the other foot.
Why, Doug, you took the words out of my very mouth!
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
A while back I documented why I’m not a pacifist — in the end it boils down to practicality. It just doesn’t seem very practical. But I can appreciate a good majority of the things you said in this post, especially the words that you apparently stole from Esteban.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Thanks all for your replies. I do recognise that there is a lot in what Justin says in his point by point response (with which Peter concurs, I think) which is worth engaging with more thoughtfully than a rant allows me to. I’m not sure when or if I shall find the time to do so in the near future.
It’s been a long time since I read Yoder, and he almost seduced me, before I found myself getting very annoyed with him.
For the general underpinning of the viewpoint I take, argued far more carefully, knowledgeably and eirenically, I recommend Oliver O’Donovan’s The Desire of the Nations, and The Just War revisited. I haven’t yet read his more recent The Ways of Judgement though I understand to develop the politics more specifically than the general theology of the first mentioned book.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
A further note to Halden (sorry, just recovered your comment from moderation hell). I have read some Yoder and some Hauerwas. I do not charge them with smugness. I do find them ultimately unconvincing, and arguing with Hauerwas always feels to me like wrestling with jelly. With Hauerwas it is underlying presuppositions of church, society and hermeneutics I disagree with as much as his views on peace and war.
The smugness jibe was directed at individuals in personal encounters, and some blog posts (which I will leave unnamed, partly from kindness, and partly from a lack of detailed memory)
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:07 am
Doug:
I posted a response to you at Peter’s site, then came over here and found you had already responded to at least one of the points I’d made.
I’m glad you’ve read Yoder and Hauerwas and I suspect you hit the nail on the head when you say that ‘With Hauerwas it is underlying presuppositions of church, society and hermeneutics I disagree with as much as his views on peace and war’. Truly the theology of nonviolence and love for enemies is based on a theology of the church’s calling in relation to the society around it. If you buy the ‘established church’ model of church and society, with the church as chaplain to the culture, then nonviolence and love for enemies seems unworkable. If however you accept that the church is a peculiar people with a distinct vocation in the world, then love for enemies and nonviolence is part and parcel of that calling.
You say that ‘the pre-Nicene tradition simply didn’t deal with the political relations any more than the New Testament did’. Personally I think that Yoder has answered that criticism, especially in ‘The Politics of Jesus’. But if you mean the relationship between church and state in a so-called ‘Christian country’, I think this makes the pre-Nicene tradition even more relevant to us in a post-Christendom world.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 am
Thanks for the clarification, Doug. In regards to this statement: “With Hauerwas it is underlying presuppositions of church, society and hermeneutics I disagree with as much as his views on peace and war.“, ironically enough that pretty much describes my opinion of Oliver O’Donovan!
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I think, Halden, that actually points to why the “dialogue” on this issue often goes nowhere. There’s a huge theological hinterland about creation, church, society, and eschatology that is the real matter in dispute and questions about pacifism are the symptoms rather than the cause of a wider disagreement. It is the tectonic plates we need to explore more rather than the specific outcroppings
January 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
First: you did not succeed in putting the boot on the other foot in your previous post.
Jesus refused to join forces with the Zealots, and refused to respond to violence with violence. Any believer who wishes to argue that the Church can advocate war is arguing against Jesus.
Among disciples of Jesus, the benefit of the doubt is on the side of pacifism: nothing you say can change that. The onus is on those who, like you, would prove otherwise.
Second:
• It appears crypto-Marcionite in the way it sidelines the Old Testament, which does address the concerns of political life, within a particular sense of a national vocation.
It’s easy to marginalize people who disagree with you by casting a label over them.
Anyway, it seems to me that the Old Testament is ambivalent about violence. Consider Jehu: commanded to go and slaughter the Baal worshipers, and later condemned for the zeal with which he carried out his task!
Similarly David, who fought YHWH’s battles — so the Old Testament seems to say. And yet David was forbidden to build the Temple because of the bloodiness of his hands.
So which is it? Does violent bloodshed meet with the Lord’s approval in the Old Testament, or doesn’t it? It is an error to pit the Old Testament against the example of Jesus, as if the Old Testament consistently approves of violence.
Consider the prophets. In my view, they were abandoning (1) Jewish nationalism, (2) the notion of YHWH as a god of war who would fight on Israel’s behalf, and (3) the smug assumption that YHWH was bent on the destruction or subjugation of the Gentile nations.
So don’t accuse pacifists of crypto-Marcionitism: maybe they read the Old Testament in a more nuanced fashion than the just-war crowd does.
Finally:
• The pre-Nicene tradition simply didn’t deal with the political relations any more than the New Testament did.
Maybe there’s a message in that fact.
St. John says there was an element within Israel who would have seized Jesus and made him king — and Jesus wanted no part of it. He went out of his way to offend those folks (John 6) to discourage them from any such notion.
Then, at the end of John’s Gospel, we find Jesus telling Pilate that his kingdom was “not of this world”. The statement is consistent with the view that Jesus had no interest in assuming political power. He opposed the rulers — civil (Roman) and religious (Jewish) alike — but he made no effort to supplant them.
So don’t point us to the Old Testament, which “does address the concerns of political life, within a particular sense of a national vocation.” That’s precisely the point: Jesus, following the example of the classical prophets before him, repudiated Jewish nationalism and wanted no part or parcel of political power.
Hence the absence of any Christian political theory prior to Constantine. You need to reconsider the significance of that data.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Fascinating how aggressive pacifists sound when you question their beliefs. Of course, it could just be the unfortunate side effect of blog comments creating a false tone.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:27 am
Doug,
Why is it fascinating that pacifists should be aggressive? Does the abdication of violence necessarily presuppose that one be gentle, soft-spoken (or written), and weak?
Your use of facile caricatures severely damages your argument.
- Christian
January 5th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Christian, what drivel. If I’d said “assertive” then your claim might have some merit, but I said “aggressive” which is quite different.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Doug:
If I sounded aggressive, it’s because of the tone of your post. You describe it as a rant, so I guess that excuses you labelling pacifists “crypto-Marcionites” and caricaturing those with whom you disagree:
“You may do what you like to your own citizens, and we will stand by and let you do it. Actually, you can come here and do it to ours as well.”
You conclude,
“I have probably gone over the top, but sometimes overstatement makes the point more forcefully, and a blog rant is not a reasoned argument.”
Although you didn’t like the tone of my comment, I did in fact present a reasoned argument.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Stephen quoted this from Doug, which is supposed to be part of the pacifist position:
Actually this is not just the pacifist position but also the standard position under international law. Each country has the sovereign right to do what it wants within its own borders. Other countries have no right to interfere militarily, although of course diplomatic pressure is allowed. The only exceptions are with the specific approval of the UN, and I think then only in cases of genocide or specific breaches of treaties.
The few recent cases of more or less authorised foreign military intervention in the internal affairs of other countries have mostly proved disastrous. I think immediately of Iraq, but that is hardly an advertisement for militarism.
So this is not a issue of pacifism, it is an issue of sovereignty.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I’m not entirely convinced how soundly based international law as a concept is, but I grant you that the principle of sovereignty as an excuse for non-interference goes back a long way — “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer of course is “not if he lives abroad.” As the man said: “That was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead.”
January 5th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
doug-
i’ve left a lengthy response here which might be of interest about this:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/12/who-decides-wha.html#comment-95979192
peace–
scott
January 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Well, Doug, if you don’t like international law as a concept, try a rant against that, not against pacifism which is not guilty on this point. But your Bible quotation is out of context, because Cain as well as God knew that Cain was guilty. Of course it is my problem if I cause genocide in another country, but otherwise it is not, for God has not appointed me, or anyone else including the US President, as policeman, judge, jury and executioner for the rest of the world.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Doug,
By your definition are we to take it that aggression = violence? If that is the case then I would certainly agree with you that pacifism is perilous. However, the burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate how any sort of aggression will inherently be violent. I think it would be difficult to read the narratives of Jesus and the letters of Paul without encountering them being aggressive. But that does negate the fact that they embodied an ethic of non-violence.
Calling my claim drivel may not be violent, but it is certainly dismissive, and therefore demonstrates your deficit in imagination and charity.
- Christian
January 5th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Christian, I can’t tell from your name whether English would be your first language, although it raises the possibility that it is not. I quote the Chambers English dictionary:
I have always understood the word “aggression” to connote violent acts or attitudes, and it was in that sense I used it.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Doug, can we then take it that you understand “aggressive” to connote perpetrating or at least threatening violent acts or attitudes? And in that case what is your evidence for your accusation (which on this interpretation is libellous) “Fascinating how aggressive pacifists sound when you question their beliefs”? I fail to see any evidence that anyone has threatened you or anyone else with violence. Some of us have simply presented our views assertively. If on the other hand you were using “aggressive” in the weakened sense of “hostile”, your comment is not objectionable, but you seem to have gone out of your way to redefine it in an objectionable way.
January 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Doug,
Yes, but that is not the whole of it. The words aggression or aggressive can also be used to denote competitive, boldly assertive, and according to Webster’s Dictionary: “more severe, intensive, or comprehensive than usual especially in dosage or extent.” Also, the word aggressive is synonymous with words like pugnacious and militant, words that are not inherently violent, although this is how we most always understand them.
Again, I don’t think pacifism and aggression are semantically at odds. Rather I think it is our standard, common-sense usage that determines such a dichotomy.
Perhaps thinking outside of the confines of what passes as common usage is what you mean when you say that arguing with Hauerwas is like wrestling with jelly.
Oh, and your implying that English is my second was a clever dig. Smug, but clever.
- Christian
January 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I’m sorry you took it as a dig, Christian, it was a genuine question, since your name raised the possibility in my mind.
January 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Doug,
Thanks. I suppose my name is more common in non-English speaking countries… I haven’t really thought of that.
But, is it possible that we can expand the semantic range of words like aggression and aggressive?
In other words, can there be a militant pacifist? It seems to me that there can, and has been.
- Christian
January 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I’m sure there have been “militant” pacifists in the sense of those who are very committed to struggle for it. I’m also sure that words change their meaning with usage. Persoanlly, in this particualr case I’d find it confusing.
As you know, I’m obviously not a pacifist. Nonetheless I think in all individual situations, and in a wide range of internal politics, and when possible in international relations, we should encourage all sorts of positive non-violent action. But I would prefer to use words like “assertive” rather than “aggressive” to describe them.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
So would all of us, probably. But it was you who first used the term “aggressive” in this thread, to refer to the assertive, possibly hostile, but certainly non-violent comments by pacifists.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
[...] have come out passionately (too passionately?) for a position bordering on pacifism. Those who disagree with me have consistently appealed to the [...]
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
[...] at best. It’s little things like this that force me to agree with Doug Chaplin when he says: “Christian pacifism as I have encountered it is often unutterably smug in claiming the moral [...]