Pacifism
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1. They help politicise peace issues keeping them in the public arena.
2. They contribute to ongoing scholarly debate about war and peace.
3. 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.