Unfortunately, I have no set plan for these posts. I’m afraid it’s going to be laid out a bit “stream of consciousness” style. Maybe later on I can try to present my thoughts in an orderly way after we’ve discussed some of this. Thanks, by the way, to all who commented yesterday; excellent feedback that is very helpful to me in my thinking.
As we start talking about pacifism, let’s begin to define it by saying what it’s not. One of the big criticisms I hear of pacifism is “So you don’t think we should do anything about evil?” I think some people get confused by the sound of the word, thinking that pacifism comes from passivity. It’s pacifism, not passivism. Pacifism isn’t about “not doing anything”; it’s about choosing a different set of weapons for the war on evil.
There are great examples of pacifists who have performed great feats of heroism during wartime. Mark Edge posted a story on his blog about four Quaker women who stood up to the Nazis. There were men like Max Kampelman who volunteered for the Minnesota Starvation Experiment during WWII, allowing themselves to be starved for one year so that scientists could learn better how to help those subjected to extreme starvation. Shane Claiborne traveled to Baghdad when the U.S. began bombing that city, carrying a message of peace and Christian love to those suffering attack. There is nothing about pacifism that is inherently passive. Groups like the Mennonites and the Society of Friends have a long history of active peacemaking.
I’ve commented before about how troubling it is to me when Christians belittle the role of prayer in fighting evil. I’ve heard men who claim to be Christian accuse pacifists of “sitting around singing Kum Ba Ya” in the face of violence. Some of the greatest stories in the Bible are stories of men who dared to pray in times of crisis. It’s because of a lack of belief in prayer (or in God’s power!) that men scoff at its use.
So during this discussion, please do your best to remember the difference between pacifism and passivism, I mean passivity.
Interesting line of thought. Sorry if this stirs up the pot too soon, but I was wondering where you’d put Jesus’ cleansing of the temple: active pacifism or a more non-pacifist approach? I’ve been a little confused about the line between a pacifist and non-pacifist worldview. At what point does active opposition to evil leave pacifism behind?
One of the best books I’ve read that really opened my eyes to the difference between passivism and pacifism, as you put it here, was Walter Wink’s The Powers That Be. Still sorting out what I think about the topic, but that book was a mind-changer.
Barry,
I’ve debated the temple cleansing with some in the past. They claimed that Jesus used the whip on the merchants there, though I see no support for that in the text. I see Jesus’ actions as assertive and forceful, but not warlike.
As for the last question, I don’t think the end ever justifies the means. We never stop being who we are. I don’t know that we are ever called to “live by the sword.” The early church never felt compelled to resist Rome with armed opposition.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
It is difficult to imagine the “cleansing” of the Temple court without imagining an angry Jesus, but note of the accounts claims he was angry.
I do find it complicating that the only time that the text says that Jesus got angry, it goes on to give his action: “Let the little children come to me.” (He also looked with anger before healing the man who had been let down through the roof.)
Tim,
Have you read John Howard Yoder’s “What Would You Do?”
–guy
No, Guy, the only Yoder I’ve read is “Politics of Jesus.”
Adam, I’ve been intrigued by Wink’s book from what others have said. I did some posts on “the powers” a while back, dealing with some of the issues Wink raises. However, I haven’t read it for myself.
Jay,
I can think of another time that the text says Jesus was angry, in Mark 3:5. That time his “angry action” was to heal a man.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
You definitely need to read “What Would You Do?” There Yoder deals just specifically with the stereotypical counter example–“Yeah, but what if you saw someone attacking a little girl. Obviously the right thing to do is violently defend her.” The book addresses just that very directly, and the middle section is devoted to recorded examples of people in similar circumstances using alternatives to violence in successful ways.
It’s a fairly short book and an easy read. But probably the best i’ve read on the subject altogether.
–guy
Tim,
Don’t you think there’s something telling about the mistake between pacifism or passivism? It suggests that the objector thinks there’s only two alternatives: be violent or do nothing. And surely THAT frame of mind is far more critique-worthy and morally-shocking than any version of pacifism.
–guy
is a woman being raped morally superior to a woman standing over a dead rapist with a smoking gun in her hand? had that statement shared with me recently from a retired cop, christian, who is also anti-war.
Well Tim the “Politics of Jesus” is a powerful book. You may want to add Lee Camp’s Mere Discipleship to the reading list too. Challenging book. William Willimon & Stanley Haurwas’ Resident Aliens is a challenge to the church as well.
But I commend you for stating up front that pacifism is anything but “passivism.” Those who have no desire to actually wrestle with the issues and would rather deal with caricature make such an accusation. How Ghandi could be called passive, or MLK Jr could be, or how … Jesus could be is beyond me.
Jesus is the model of non-violence. His pacifism is certainly far from passive behavior as Jesus knowingly embraces the cross to suffer for and with God’s creation. And by the way…Jesus calls his followers to the cross as well. So following in the non-violent steps of Jesus is most certainly not a call to become passive in the world.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Brian,
i think that assumes that utilitarian assessments based on states of affairs is the correct way to assess the situations. It may be the best state of affairs that everyone in the world keeps their promises, but that doesn’t imply that it is my responsibility to make sure everyone keeps their promises. Best states of affairs are not biconditional with the responsibilities of agents or the moral permissibility or obligatory nature of actions.
–guy
Guy,
I was struck by a similar thought when teaching about Just War Theory last week. One element is that the war must be a last resort. We’ve reached the point where violence is far too often the first resort.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Brian,
I understand the question, but I also think that one reason the debate over non-violence is so emotional is because the tag of “morally superior” tends to be applied to one side or the other. And objected to.
Tim
Bobby,
I required Mere Discipleship in my Christianity and Culture class two years ago. It’s an excellent book. I’ve read Resident Aliens as well. (Just have to mention that I’ve read those two, since everyone keeps mentioning books I haven’t read)
Tim
i wasn’t agreeing with the about rape, but the brother who mentioned it to me said it was an argument used by Gun’s rights folk.
I would defend my family to the death of someone else or myself, but I am not convinced that is the right way.
I object to the “morally superior” language, that’s a power play and akin to the “what if someone is in a place with no water and wants to be baptized, or has a heart while responding to the gospel” garbage
Really, guys? You’re NOT saying that the pacifist approach is morally superior?
Then what in the world ARE you saying? What’s the point of the exercise?
A guy who chokes demons (Mark 1:27, setting the tone for the further encounters with demons) and tells storms to “shut up and settle down” is not a pacifist. He just has his cross-hairs fixed on the real enemy. A guy who says, “I didn’t come to bring peace,” (Matt 10:34-39; cf. Luke 12:49-53) probably didn’t.
If pacifism is the utter rejection of violence, then I must place myself under the altar with the martyrs who plead for God to hurry up and do what He promised.
Nick,
A big part of this exercise is for me to sort through my views on this. I know that some object to my doing that in a public forum. But, to some degree at least, this public forum belongs to me and I feel that I can set some guidelines. Surely the title of the blog suggests that ideas are still in the processing stage here.
As much as anything, it’s the ring of “morally superior” that I don’t care for. If I find that a certain practice leads to greater holiness, teaching that opens me to the “holier than thou” accusation.
Here’s a good quote from the Two Friars and a Fool blog:
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Does the author not see, though, how the final sentence undermines his entire claim of humility on the matter?
Tim,
The closing phrase of my comment: (He also looked with anger before healing the man who had been let down through the roof.) is the Mark 3:5 story. It says that he “looked at them with anger, being grieved. . . ” before he healed the man. That is a bit milder than Jesus’ emotional reaction in Mark 10:14, which almost every version tones down.
There is also an interesting alternate reading in many manuscripts in Mark 1:41. It is easy to imagine why the majority of the copyists would have preferred “compassion.” Again, if he is angry, his actions are not violent but benevolent. In none of these cases does his anger cause him to act out violently against anyone; in every case he helps and blesses others. Odd utilization of anger.
There could be a connection with Jesus’ examples and Paul’s command to “Get angry.” in Eph 4. I know of no passage which says, “Get passive,” or “Get apathetic.” I guess some could interpret “being meek” in ways that come off as passive and apathetic, but if the meekest man was Moses, it takes some interpretive manipulations.
LOL That’s because “indignant” is the dumbest word ever invented. But words about anger have to be beautified in order to be in our Scriptures. I think Mark Driscoll goes way overboard with his Cussing Preacher material, but if your Jesus never gets pissed off, he’s not the Jesus of the Bible.
And I have a hard time believing that Paul’s command in Eph 4:26 is to “Be angry,” when in 4:31 he instructs us to “let all… anger… be put away from you.”
And if Moses wasn’t meek in Exodus 4 (PLEASE PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP, SEND SOMEONE ELSE!), I don’t know what he was. And we forget that Aaron was the one who actually stuck his neck out with the Hebrews. Once everybody was on Moses’ side, THEN he went to Pharoah.
Moses certainly had his tongue-tied moments, and Numbers 12:2 appears to be another of them, but he also successfully led a couple of million through 40 years of miserable conditions. With all their grumbling and infighting, there were probably moments that he would have preferred herding cats. There weren’t a lot of volunteers to climb the mountain with him, and he seems to have stood alone in breaking the tablets and destroying the golden calf and many other confrontational moments. Somewhere along the line he must have begun to fear men less than he feared God. He certainly had grounds to get the big head and proudly lord it over the others. Miriam and Aaron wanted a larger role in the leadership, but I don’t see the problem as coming from Moses. His killing the Egyptian is certainly hard to fit under the umbrella of meekness.
Nick,
As to anger in Eph. 4, I don’t believe that we should cultivate anger, but work to get rid of it and do so quickly, before the sun goes down. It probably would be easier to smooth over if Paul hadn’t written an imperative, but, whether or not we like it, that seems to be what he wrote.
Being Christ like has to include moments of anger when we are confronted by injustices and suffering. I will assume that there are not 2 Gods, one of the OT and another loving one in the NT. It looks like God got pretty worked up with his people and the people around them all through the Old Testament. How that plays out in the heart of a man on the street is what we see in “God on earth.” Jesus got angry. When he was angry, his actions did not harm others, but were a blessing. He also does not appear to have gotten angry over what was done to him. With the crucifixion, he certainly would have had grounds for some calling down of the legions of angels or at least a little fire from the sky.
But that’s my point, Jay – the narrative presented to us by the Scriptures is more complex and challenging than most of either the hawks or the doves want to admit.
Meekness describes those who don’t speak up for themselves or act on their own behalf. That’s the clearest idea I can get from Numbers, and it fits the whole of Moses’ life. He killed the Egyptian when his fellow Hebrews were threatened (but he made sure he wasn’t going to get into trouble first); he fought the other shepherds when the women at the well were threatened. The one time he acts to “defend” his own honor, he ends up stealing God’s.
Likewise the Beatitude, which Jesus borrows from Psalm 37. It is the one who does not fret himself over evils done to him, who does not retaliate against personal attacks that is called meek, and is promised the inheritance of abundant peace.
That also fits in well with the description of the Suffering Servant, who will not speak up for himself or retaliate against his attackers.
Non-retaliation is a far more Biblically justifiable position than the total rejection of all forms of violence (or even the more limited position of rejection of all forms of physical violence, or the even-more-limited position of rejecting all forms of physical violence except corporal punishment of children).