Peace and Justice Support Network of Mennonite Church USA
http://peace.MennoLink.org
What Do Pacifists Believe?by Anne Meyer BylerI am a pacifist and am outraged at the actions of whoever was responsible for killing so many innocent people through the forced airplane crashes of September 11. The question we all face is: How do we respond? Sometimes people explicit criticize pacifism, but misrepresent it. I hope to contribute to an informed and respectful dialog. For Christians, the simplest reason for pacifism comes from the one who gave Christianity its name: Jesus Christ. Jesus said: "Do not resist an evildoer (some interpretations read "with evil")….Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt.5:38,44). The Beatitudes include: "Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God." (Matt. 5:9). Christians, at least, have to take seriously what Jesus said about violence and peacemaking. In addition to what Jesus said, there is the question of what he did. Surely this must be the basis of the popular Christian question today "What Would Jesus Do?" and must have some impact on what a Christian should do today. Would Jesus be waving an American flag or blessing troops of any country that are bombing the people of another in revenge? Would he be sitting on the sidelines while this was going on around him? The Bible is clear that Jesus did not choose violence. Neither did he run away from conflict. He turned over tables in the temple courts, where merchants were extorting money from pilgrims, and chased out people and animals. He spoke forcefully on numerous occasions, but when he could have called the angels to his defense in the Garden of Gethsemane, He didn't. He even scolded Peter for cutting off a soldier's ear and healed it, saying, "Put your sword back…; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52). Christian pacifists believe that Jesus' nonviolent lifestyle was central to his good news to the world around him, then and now. Jesus was put to death, having defended himself with the words and the Spirit of God, but not with violence. Yet his resurrection showed that love is stronger in the end. This is the faith of the Christian pacifist. What was "good enough" for Jesus is surely "good enough" for us, as those who call ourselves by his name. How are we to treat enemies? Like God treats us and like Jesus said to. Paul wrote, "While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of this Son..." (Rom. 5:10). Jesus lived saying, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you." (Luke 6:27) Jesus died saying, "Forgive them, for they know not what they do." Peter refers to Jesus as a model for us. (1 Pet. 2:21). Paul wrote later, "Do not repay anyone evil for evil….If your enemies are hungry, feed them…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12:17-21) This is quite clear, but certainly not easy. Throughout history Christians have thought of reasons why they shouldn't do what Jesus did and asked his followers to do, but these scriptures cannot be taken lightly. But Jesus' words were for Christians, not for governments. Very few first century Christians were part of the government or the army. So what can Christian pacifists say to those institutions? That violence often doesn't "work" to bring about peace or justice, and it may even have the opposite affect, leading to a cycle of violence in which everyone loses. Violence can kill; it can beat down the opposition; and it can terrorize, but then you are left with grieving, beaten down, terrorized opponents--who can't wait for revenge. Historians say that after World War I, the losing regime was ravaged and left in such a humiliated state that the stage was set for the rise of the Nazi party. How often, when an older sibling beats up a younger one, does the younger one change his or her behavior to suit, having "learned a lesson"? Rather, violent acts lead to more violent acts until there is no way to "pay back" the other for all the damage inflicted. Ireland, the Middle East, and Rwanda are all examples of this. Nonviolence may be costly, but the violence of war has a horrible track record, not to be underestimated. Of the many countries attacking other countries in 1990, it was Iraq attacking Kuwait that brought our full armed forces into action, killing over 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Following our victory, we have supported economic sanctions against the Iraqi people for 11 years, as well as regular bombing raids. UN officials have resigned over this misguided policy and report 5,000 children dying every month in Iraq from the effects of the sanctions and bombing; 500,000 people so far. This news doesn't even get into our newspapers. People near there (mostly Arabs) think that we don't value human life and are angry, like the little sibling who's being pounded physically by an older one with no end in sight. It is the really angry ones who respond back with violence, as we witnessed on Sept. 11. Another example of armed violence begetting more violence is our current war with people we armed a few years ago. We armed Osama bin Laden and his network and trained them in camps to fight against the Russians in the 1980's. With the Saudis, we gave them $4 billion. And now we are fighting the very fighters we armed earlier and also punishing the innocent Afghan people who have already endured decades of war lived under war for years and years. We bombed 31 places in the first night and have continued for weeks, wreaking untold havoc, but are no closer to apprehending the individuals involved. Will this lead to peace? Pacifists and nonpacifists alike need to ask creatively about other ways through conflicts. Violence is not always the only way to fight violence and injustice. Few know about the 1774 Pennsylvania proposal for an American branch of Parliament that lost by one vote. Oddly enough, it lost partly because the colonies weren't ready to give up autonomy to an inter-colonial group, which is what happened anyway. We take it for granted that the Revolution was the only way to gain independence from Britain. But Canada and Australia got their independence without a war at all. In World War II, Denmark's King Christian X was an outspoken opponent of the Nazis. Citizens disregarded the call to turn in Danish Jews. With two days of notice, the Dane's peaceful resistance hid and ferried almost 8,000 Jews to Sweden and safety. Gandhi led a major country-wide revolution among the Indian people that brought England to its knees, giving India its independence. What were his weapons? Only his loincloth of homespun Indian muslin, his insistence on nonviolence, his belief that God is in every person, and his willingness to fast from food. Nelson Mandela, in South Africa, also led an amazingly peaceful transition from power in what could have been a bloody conflagration. After 27 years in jail Mandela's message was forgiveness, not retribution, for the white class who had subjected the Africans and Coloreds to unrelenting degradation. Are pacifists cowards, afraid to give their lives for their beliefs? "Pacifism" and "passive" are two entirely different words, with different roots. Pacifism is an active form of peacemaking. There are pacifists as well as soldiers who are willing to die for their cause. Consider the lives--and deaths--of Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. These people, all pacifists, were not cowards. They had the moral strength not to fight back. Martin Luther King, Jr. suffered physically and mentally during his many arrests, protest marches, and jail sentences, yet his message was always that violence was not the answer. Was he "successful"? Would his message have been nearly as powerful if he had resorted to violence to make his point and armed all his followers with rifles, grenades, and bombs? He was killed, but his movement, like Jesus', was not defeated. Some say that pacifists live to enjoy their privileges because others fought for them. On the contrary, the right to conscientious objection in this country was not fought for by anyone, except those who suffered and died in military camps during WWI for their religious beliefs and those who campaigned for these rights until they were granted in 1935. Did Jesus, Gandhi, or King enjoy the "right" to refuse to fight because others fought for them? Conscientious objectors do appreciate it when the right to love enemies and not kill them is recognized as a religious freedom. And they have paid dearly when it is not. They serve their countries both by doing alternative service when it is allowed and by holding fast to their convictions when it is not. As we discuss national and international issues and what makes for peace and justice in the world, let us model healthy conversation and respectful dialog with each other, for this is democracy at its best. Your Sunday School Class for Bible Study group might wish to discuss the following questions:
For a response to questions about war in the Old Testament and in the early church see:
|