Page 1 of 3
Pacifism
Pacifism is the refusal for conscientious reasons to fight in wars or submit to military discipline.
While complete, enduring peace is the goal of all pacifism, the methods of achieving it differ. Some groups oppose international war but advocate revolution for suppressed nationalities; others are willing to support defensive but not offensive war; others oppose all war, but believe in maintaining a police force; still others believe in no coercive or disciplinary force at all.
Pacifism, some argue is closely linked to, but distinct from, the practice of non-violent action. They classify pacifism as solely linked to war or military discipline.
Motivations
One of the strongest motivations in the promotion of peace has been religion, the objection to war being, in general, based on the belief that the wilful taking of another human life is wrong. Buddhism especially denounces war and advocates non-resistance. There has also been a strong pacifistic element in Judaism and in Christianity. The Sermon on the Mount, in particular, contains a strong exhortation to peace. The church in general has voiced opposition to war as such (with the notable exception of the Crusades) and later groups - especially the Anabaptists, Quakers, Moravians, and Mennonites – who have elevated non-resistance to a doctrinal position. Some of these churches identify the opposition to war is a reason to separate from the ‘fallen’ world (Mennonites) while others believe that this is a reason to engage with the world (Quakers). The Quakers, though pacifist, are frequently to be found in the midst of all manner of peacemaking activities and are often at the forefront of theatres of war.
Other motivating forces in pacifism have been on humanitarian grounds with the destruction caused by war. However economic motives have also played a part in pacifist arguments; pacifists condemn the economic waste of war, which they claim is avoidable. International cooperation and pacifism are closely connected, and pacifists usually advocate international agreements as a way to insure peace.
Scripture and the Church
Jesus is often regarded and portrayed as a pacifist – apart from overturning the money tables, and his claim that he came to bring a sword and not peace (Matt 10.34) – He is often perceived as a radically different, to the point of being a subversive eschatological prophet. The theology of pacifism goes beyond the obvious NT statements: Not to resist evil (Matt 5.39), to turn the other cheek (Luke 6.29) to refuse to take up the sword (Matt 5.39), to love enemies and pray for persecutors (Matt 26.52). - John Robinson (1919-‘83) has shown how Paul developed this theology of Jesus’ own non-violence. He sees Jesus’ Passion as a struggle with supernatural powers controlling this world (1 Cor 2.8; Col 2.15, Eph 2.1-2, 6.12). These ‘principalities’, ‘dominations’, and ‘powers’ always want violent resistance from any opponent, because violence is something they understand and can deal with. These supernatural powers are governed by what Augustine called the ‘lust for domination’. What they cannot understand, and are literally disarmed by, is absolute non-resistance to the point of death. Jesus saves his own life by losing it, refusing to fight on their terms, and thereby giving them the slip. He offers them his own death and paradoxically cheats them out of the one thing they wanted: victory by force. Paul argues (Eph 6) that to be one with Christ in his struggle against the powers of this world, the Christian has to offer the opposite of what the ordinary roman soldier is trained for: violence. To ‘put on the armour of God’ and wield the ‘sword of the spirit’ rather than the Roman soldiers armour and weapons. His mission: to prepare people for the imminent expected world-to-come by examining their innermost motivations an actions, rather than enabling them to live permanently in the world, exerted a great influence on the early church.
Within the whole history of Christian pacifism, there is a constant tension between the two opposing impulses of sectarianism and accommodating with the state. Jesus’ teaching addressed a people excluded from full participation in the idolatrous paganism of Rome, and was of necessity a sectarian appeal. The early church’s pacifism was part and parcel of this. But as Christianity spread, its pacifism became less absolute. People with authority and status were becoming Christians and hence pacifist apologists like Tertullian and Origen felt it necessary to remind fellow-Christians of their obligation to reject the idolatry and bloodshed that was essential to this Imperial army. But they were pleading a losing cause: for another fundamental Christian teaching: catholicity – the claim to ‘go out and make disciples of all nations’ was revealing itself. Catholicity involved not only converting individuals but also the institutions that constitute human civilisation. How could this be done without joining the powers that rule this world?
However, Constantine ensures that the empire itself becomes Christian and Augustine gave reluctant expression to this with his teaching that the use of military force could be justified provided it was conducted for the common good by legitimate public authority.
Rise of 20th Century Pacifism
WWI: Conscription had become the norm in most continental Europeans states but not in Britain or the US at the turn of the century. But when the high rate of casualties in WWI made conscription unavoidable, it was felt necessary to provide for those ‘conscientious objectors’. Some people convinced tribunals of their sincerity and avoided conscription, while others faced imprisonment as a consequences of their absolute pacifism. After the war, with a hoped-for era of peace, Christian pacifist principles gained an increased influence in both the churches and the political sphere. The 1920 and early 30s marked the peak of pacifist thought and activity, but this was soon checked as the shadow of fascism fell across Europe. But, in the Second World War, conscientious objectors were appreciated better. So the hatred of war, although engendered in 1914-18, had now made pacifism almost respectable. But fascism, seen as the new ‘dominations and power’, engulfed the respectable mainstream church’s pacifism. Former pacifists like Reinhold Niebuhr felt obliged to join the military struggle. Dietrich Bonhoeffer felt obliged to support the assassination of Hitler.
Post-1945: consent to strategies of mass ‘terror’ and ‘nuclear deterrence’, saw a new ‘nuclear pacifism’ emerge. In 1963 Pope John XXIII representing catholic universalism, appeared to come out in support of ‘nuclear pacifism’ writing that ‘atomic power – the modern world’s boast – had rendered war itself no longer apt for putting right the violation of rights’ (Pacem in Terris, 127). In 1965 Vatican II had accepted an individual’s conscience against state conscription. By the mid 1990s the papacy had gone further in addressing the UN, in its rejection of nuclear deterrence itself as a policy for keeping international peace.
A classification of Pacifist
Pacifist groups have tended, in general, to seem to be stronger on conviction and emotional commitment than on theological foundations. Christian pacifist can be grouped under three headings: pacifist of principle, of pragmatism, and selection.
Christian pacifists of principle, base their stance on their interpretation of Jesus’ ministry, claiming that that alone justifies it over any other consideration. Whatever suffering encountered to exercise pacifism, this must be endured as a means to the desired peaceful end. This takes Jesus’ death as a supreme role for ultimate peace. ‘Taking one human life to save however many others’ is therefore never contemplated since it is not allowed in principle. This view appeals to idealists of all kinds, not least the young. Its principle difficulty is that noble though it appears, it seems to fly in the face of common sense: Few would believe that the morality of our actions can be so divorced from a consideration of the desirability of the consequences to which they give rise. Christian ‘principle’ pacifists would claim that their way of life is a vocation that is appropriate only for the few, and a witness to all of a higher order of things.
Pragmatic pacifists claim that their position is only justified at any time by the consequences of their actions. They hold that violence is in its nature, destructive and therefore counterproductive, while non-violence aims at a productive outcome. Mahatma Gandhi is often cited as an example of a Pragmatic pacifist, although it is argued by some that his actions were more of anti-violence, in order to gain social objectives.
Selective pacifism is a version of pragmatic pacifism. It selects what things to be pacifist about and issues not to take a pacifist stance on. Nuclear pacifism is a clear example of this: many who would not call themselves pacifists in the first two senses would be prepared to contemplate war-fighting with conventional hand weapons, but would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
The central problem for all types of pacifists is whether or not, and under what circumstances, responsible citizenship is compatible with a pacifist stance in a largely non-pacifist world. A world where the peace and the freedom of conscience on which pacifism depends, is largely shaped by military action in one form or another. But pacifists would broadly identify three important contributions of their stance.
- They help politicise peace issues keeping them in the public arena.
- They contribute to ongoing scholarly debate about war and peace.
- They constantly remind the non-pacifist world that war is the terrible thing that it is.
… as such the role of the ‘conscientious objector’ remains as salient as ever to a feuding world.