Tag Archives: pacifism

Pacifism, not passivism

26 Replies

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.

Is pacifism on the rise?

16 Replies

Is pacifism on the rebound within churches of Christ? It certainly seems so to me. Just as the period between World War I and World War II saw a return to pacifism, so I think cultural conditions in recent years have allowed for a similar rise.

Barring an actual enemy invasion of U.S. territory, I think that pacifism can only grow within our brotherhood here in the U.S. The generation most vehemently opposed to pacifism is the World War II generation, followed closely by their children.

I want to spend some time exploring some topics related to pacifism and violence/non-violence. Some will tire of this discussion, and that’s fine. I long ago gave up any illusions of writing a wildly popular blog. I’m well aware that there is lots of reading material out there on the Internet, so if someone wishes for a change of topic, they will have more than ample opportunity to find something. If nothing else, just follow some of the links on the right side of this page.

But writing these things out helps me to think them through. And the response I get often steers me back on course when I opt for a disastrous path. So I’ll be thinking out loud for a bit.

The Decline of Pacifism in Churches of Christ: Cordell Christian College

8 Replies

Yesterday we looked at government censure of the Gospel Advocate during World War I. This was a serious blow to pacifist thinking within churches of Christ. Another setback was the closing of Cordell Christian College in Oklahoma.

Cordell was headed by a man named J.N. Armstrong. Armstrong held to what Richard Hughes calls “an apocalyptic worldview.” This viewpoint was fairly common in our brotherhood in the late 19th century, putting a strong emphasis on the Kingdom of God vs. the kingdoms of this earth. Among other things, such a view typically leads to a refusal to participate in war.

This apocalyptic thinking became common among the faculty at Cordell Christian, a fact which did not please the pro-war community around them. In particular, the Selective Service board felt that Cordell was not giving sufficient encouragement to its students to enlist in the military. When faculty member S.A. Bell published an anti-war article in the Gospel Herald, that was perceived to be the final straw. The Selective Service board intervened, demanding the resignation of Armstrong, Bell and all faculty members who held to a pacifist viewpoint. Rather than accede to these demands, Cordell Christian College closed its doors.

How could I have forgotten about this incident? (BTW, Bobby V. reminded me in the comments yesterday that there was an entire chapter on this closure in his book Kingdom Come) How could we as a brotherhood have forgotten? I hear people talk about their fear that government might someday tell preachers what they can and can’t preach. We’ve already been there! And we as a brotherhood acquiesced, bowed our heads and quietly muttered, “Hail, Caesar!”

I know that it’s easy to judge what has happened in the past. You really have to have been there to have known what really happened. But I can’t help but see this as one of the low points for our brotherhood. Even if we don’t agree, we should be willing to stand and defend a brother’s right to preach what he sees in Scripture. I pray that history will not repeat itself on this matter.

“And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness” (Acts 4:29)

(Bobby V. was gracious enough to share with me the chapter that he contributed to a book that was published in memory of Mike Casey. Bobby’s article was titled “‘David Lipscomb of Texas’ Vs. David Lipscomb of Nashville: R. L. Whiteside’s Rejection of Lipscomb’s Pacifism”)

The Decline of Pacifism in Churches of Christ

26 Replies

OK, so I was wrong. Wrong with a capital R. I know that surprises no one, but it’s frustrating to me because I wasn’t wrong so much out of ignorance (like normal), but wrong out of forgetfulness.

I forgot about Cordell Christian College. And World War I. OK, maybe I didn’t forget about WWI, but when I said that the churches of Christ were predominantly pacifistic up until WWII, I was forgetting the first world war. (Which wasn’t really the first world war, but they’re not going to change the history books now)

On my shelves, I have the book Decades of Destiny: A History of Churches of Christ from 1900-2000. I’ve read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. So how could I forget that Lynn McMillon’s chapter on 1910-1920 is titled “The End of Pacifism”?

So let’s back up a bit. During the Civil War, the Restoration Movement found itself divided, both geographically and philosophically. Generally speaking, the churches in the North supported the war, while those in the South discouraged their members from fighting. (I’m painting with broad strokes, I know) More than doctrine, this is what led to the split between the Disciples of Christ and the churches of Christ (a scenario which played out in many other religious groups).

Leaders like David Lipscomb took strong stands against Christians joining the military. When the Spanish-American War came, it wasn’t hard for Christians to see through the pretenses behind the war and refuse to get involved. But then came World War I.

By the time World War I arrived, churches of Christ no longer found themselves on the wrong side of the tracks. [You might read Mike Casey’s article “From religious outsiders to insiders: the rise and fall of pacifism in the Churches of Christ.” Not sure how long that link will be valid, but you can read the article there for now.] Now an accepted part of society, they felt a stake in the preservation of that society.

What’s more, the government saw to it to persecute Christians who dared use their influence to discourage others from participating in the war. Two large targets were attacked directly. One was the Gospel Advocate, a publication long known for its pacifist views. During the Spanish-American War, the magazine had republished a letter presented to the governor of Tennessee during the Civil War which declared that the churches of Christ “believe that all Military Service or connexion with Military Service is entirely incompatible with the Spirit and requirements of the Christian religion.” During World War I, Caesar, err, the government threatened to arrest J.C. McQuiddy under the Espionage Act if he didn’t stop publishing pieces promoting pacifism. In July 1917, the Advocate stopped publishing peace articles for the rest of the war. McQuiddy also helped the government persuade preacher Price Billingsley to stop denouncing pro-war Christians.

Tomorrow I’ll do my best to retell the story of Cordell Christian College. Those who know it better than I can be prepared to chime in. And you’re always more than welcome to offer comments and corrections on the story thus far.

Consistent Life Ethic

9 Replies

I came across the Consistent Life Ethic a few years ago while doing research for a class I was teaching in the course “Christianity in Culture.” The idea was new to me. I found it to be a surprising take on some important issues, especially because it seemingly cuts across the traditional divisions of left and right, conservative and liberal.

Apparently, this ethic was first articulated by Joseph Bernadin, a cardinal in the Catholic church. He sought to tie together all issues that have at their core the value of human life. He urged people to take a consistent approach to these questions, stating that: “When human life is considered ‘cheap’ or easily expendable in one area, eventually nothing is held as sacred and all lives are in jeopardy.” In another speech, Bernadin said, “The spectrum of life cuts across the issues of genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the care of the terminally ill.”

The Consistent Life Ethic condemns abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. It opposes the death penalty and economic injustice. Bernadin condemned what he called “unjust war,” but the Consistent Life movement today (which was once called the Seamless Garment Network) has embraced pacifism. The mission statement of Consistent Life expresses:

We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today’s world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a ‘consistent ethic of life’. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected.

They go on to describe their purpose as follows:

We serve the anti-violence community by connecting issues, building bridges, and strengthening the case against each kind of socially-approved killing by consistently opposing them all.

I’m not ready to align myself with any movement other than the Kingdom of God, but I find this idea to be very intriguing. What do you think? Can you see some value in seeking consistency on these issues? Or is this approach misguided?