Todo Tiene Su Como-Se-Llama

Okay, question(s). Is this a compete life of non-violence? In other words, instead of getting a draft number, file to not be included for religious reasons? Never join the police, military, FBI, etc., any job that may see violence of any kind? And off of that, should we as Christians never take up arms in defense of our and other nations again horrid tyranny? A specific example would be WWII, as on most other more recent conflicts, we will most likely enter arguments of what should have at all happened. Thoughts?

Well, first of all, keep in mind that I'm not advocating the same stance as Adin Ballou and Leo Tolstoy. That's crazy talk. Martinez complained about "inaction," "indifference" and the attitude that "nothing is worth fighting for," and I happen to agree. To be effective, the non-violent approach has to be at least as active and resistant to evil as the violent one. My belief is simply that the results will pretty much always be more positive and effective through the non-violent route.

Violence is never the only way, but should it ever happen to be the lesser of two evils, it should never be used lethally. Lethal violence is never the best answer, regardless of the question. If you find yourself in a situation where you feel you have no choice but to employ lethal violence on another human being, you've already done something wrong to arrive at that point. I believe that, yes, that translates into Christians claiming conscientious objector status if they are drafted. It certainly means no joining up for war of your own volition. I'll come back to this in a second, though . . .

Law enforcement is a different matter entirely. There are all sorts of ways to be a part of those organizations and not only not practice violence, but prevent violence. For example, I've been watching this TV show, "Standoff," that comes on right before "House" on Tuesday nights. The main characters are hostage negotiators whose job is to bring tense situations to a peaceful conclusion. They constantly butt heads with the captain of the local SWAT team, whose job is to bring tense situations to a violent conclusion (while preventing loss of "innocent" life). Needless to say, peaceful conclusions are always better than violent ones, and this would certainly be a worthy occupation for a Christian in law enforcement . . . just one of dozens of examples that leap to mind.

Now, I suppose I both hate and like the WWII example. I hate it because it is constantly and mightily abused. It is, to my mind, the one war in all of human history that anyone who wants to undercut pacifism (and a lot of other positions) will point to and say, "What about that?" Frankly, it's a cop-out. It is also a situation the likes of which the world had never before faced and likely never will again.

However, I like it because it gives me the chance to show once again that my position is not static, idealistically naive or impracticable by sane, everyday people. If another country attacks yours and you feel that you have the ability and moral obligation to help defend your country, then who am I to say no? I'm not too sure about it, myself, but there it is. Here's the problem, remember what fry said about the professor who set aside his convictions about war and was unable to pick them back up again. I believe that WWII put the United States (and especially Christians in the United States) on a very slippery slope, both in terms of our views towards armed conflict and in terms of our foreign policy.

Also, in keeping with what I said about law enforcement, there are positions in the armed forces that are not about violence: chaplains, medics and the like. Some pacifists would say that you are aiding in the machinery of war and therefore you should abstain, but I'm not too sure about that.

As far as horrid tyranny and the violent defeat thereof, there are two problems. 1) People have all kinds of strange ideas about what constitutes "horrid tyranny." The American Founding Fathers, for instance, slapped that label on those who inflicted "taxation without representation." At what point does mere inconvenience, annoyance or mild injustice become horrid tyranny which ought to be overthrown by means of a violent revolt? 2) Assuming we have a bonafide case of "horrid tyranny" on our hands, who should get involved in removing it and how should they go about it? Is it the whole world's business to take care of it? Does it merit a violent response? I would suggest to you that non-violent resistance to a tyrant will always have more satisfying and lasting effects than a violent rebellion . . . just look at Gandhi.

I would like to challenge you for just a moment: Having dealt with WWII as an anomaly, set it aside for just a moment. Name me one other American war in all of our 230-year history which was a good war and which you, as a Christian, would have felt obligated to be involved in.

If you'll allow me to butt in briefly, I'd like to observe that I think the WWII "anomaly" is useful to us precisely because it is an extreme example. Pacifism, unlike my form of aversion to war, is an absolute negative; therefore, it is only useful to us if it applies in such extreme circumstances. I think World War II is the very first thing for pacifism to address, because it (unlike many other situations) separates your view from mine.

Also, while many Americans adopted a more militaristic position after WWII, that was hardly inevitable. It is entirely possible that such horrors would persuade us to work harder for peace.

As for other American wars ... well, unlike many other nations, we have a pretty good geographic position, so most of our wars have been unnecessary -- at least for self-defense. However, I think it could be argued that the UN intervention on behalf of South Korea was a legitimate and successful war to defend innocent people (despite its MacArthurian hiccups). Also, I suspect that our intervention on behalf of Kuwait was just. In both cases, we used deadly force to protect innocent people from the deadly force of an aggressor, under circumstances in which we had a reasonable chance of success.

I would add the American invasion of Afghanistan and the brief Marine expedition to Tripoli, but I suspect those would be more contentious in this discussion.

"For example, I've been watching this TV show, "Standoff," that comes on right before "House" on Tuesday nights. The main characters are hostage negotiators whose job is to bring tense situations to a peaceful conclusion. They constantly butt heads with the captain of the local SWAT team, whose job is to bring tense situations to a violent conclusion (while preventing loss of "innocent" life). Needless to say, peaceful conclusions are always better than violent ones, and this would certainly be a worthy occupation for a Christian in law enforcement . . . just one of dozens of examples that leap to mind."
Um...I don't think this supports your point incredibly well. Yes, a negotiator is an excellent job, both in general, and for a Christian. But two things bug me about this. First, that's a pretty unprofessional police force...those people ought to be working closely together; the negotiator should actually be the best judge of when might be the time for the SWAT to go in, since they're kind of talking to the criminals. Second, there are going to be situations, a lot, where no matter what the negotiator does, they can't actually help the hostages. At that point, the SWAT has to act. That's kind of what they're for. I'm sorry Jared, but using a television show as a reference for real life like that....no dice. I bet the whole "butting heads" bit is solely thrown in for drama. The force designated to deal with hostage situations has to work together smoothly, or more people die. It's that simple.

Oh, I wasn't trying to compare it to reality in any way. It's not even that great (or realistic) of a show, honestly . . . It was an example of something, and if it doesn't work for you, move on. My point remains the same and remains valid: Law enforcement is important because anarchy is bad. There are tons of roles in law enforcement where one can both avoid and prevent violence, and I don't see that as a problem. You could be a traffic cop, or sit behind a desk, or be a detective . . . in tense and dangerous situations (should you have a job that brought you in contact with them), your non-violent approach might bring about a peaceful resolution where someone else would have shot first and asked questions later.

In short, I really don't see how my example being drawn from a crappy TV show makes the position any less valid.

More in a sec . . .

I'm not saying that non-violent roles in law enforcement are bad at all. Please don't take anything I've said to demean non-violent/combat positions are bad, or less good/important than others. But my point about the SWAT still stands; there are points when violence will happen; and SWAT's decision is how it goes down. I'm sure that they don't always try to kill hostage-takers; but it happens. That doesn't mean they or the negotiator did something wrong at all; the perp(s) could have just been totally loco, someone you couldn't reason with at all. In that case, I see two choices: let the perp(s) kill a whole bunch of hostages, or take down the perp(s). My point here is that if it's bad for us, as Christians, to ever be the one to do the takedown, then it's probably just wrong, and we shouldn't support it. If violence is always bad for Christians, then I would bet it's always bad, period. What with sin and all.

This is precisely the sort of response I am looking for, challenges from any and all angles. I will do my best to answer, with one small caveat. It is only my best response, not the best response that pacifism has to offer, and I am not necessarily in total agreement with everything I may throw out there.

I think the problem that you and a lot of others are having is that you regard pacifism as an absolute negative when it doesn't have to be. Even being a partial pacifist is a step in the right direction which could have an enormous impact on the world around us. Approaching every potential conflict (and here I turn to your own blog, Wilson) with violence and war as the absolute last possible alternative, barely to be considered. If it is, in the end, picked up as the course of action that must be taken, drop it like a hot potato as soon as you're done.

I don't really understand your statement about heightened post-WWII militarism not being inevitable. Whether or not it was seems to be rather beside the point since it did, in fact, happen. And now, all sorts of perfectly valid anti-war stances get "the lessons of WWII" thrown at them. It doesn't change the validity of pacifism, that's not the problem. It muddies the waters for the undecided . . . that's the problem. I think pacifists can more easily see when a war would be absolutely and unquestionably unavoidable and necessary because they more than anyone else will be searching for alternatives. For far too many others, if war can be justified in one case then it becomes the easy answer all the time.

Nevertheless, I think there is a case to be made against Christian involvement even in something so "clear cut" as WWII. I've already glancingly mentioned a few such reasons. My basic problem, though, is this . . . I feel that, whatever I may ultimately decide about this stance, the idea of pacifism itself is being brushed aside far too glibly. This is what Tolstoy complained about. I don't think the issue is whether there is such a thing as a just war, nor is it really "would/should you ever engage in violence" per se. What I want to know is, what is the most excellent way and how far should Christians pursue it?

However, I'm getting a bit scattered, so I'll pause for response for awhile.

you regard pacifism as an absolute negative when it doesn't have to be. Even being a partial pacifist is a step in the right direction which could have an enormous impact on the world around us.

It may be true that partial pacifism would make the world a better place -- in fact, I think it would -- but I'm not sure how that validates pure pacifism in a debate with a partial pacifist like me. Convincing me of the virtues of partial pacifism only puts me right where I already am ... which is to say, not an actual pacifist.

I understand, of course, that you may writing less with me in mind than with your rather more aggressive readers. If so, perhaps it does make sense to encourage them to listen carefully to the claims of pacifism and not dismiss it so "glibly."

On the other hand, perhaps you are making my job harder. Because when I say "this war is unjust," a lot of people think I'm saying "no war is just." And then, predictably, they do invoke Munich.

By the way, if you haven't already, you might want to read Niebuhr's Irony of American History. I believe MEL has a copy, or you can find it here.

Now, I suppose I both hate and like the WWII example. I hate it because it is constantly and mightily abused. It is, to my mind, the one war in all of human history that anyone who wants to undercut pacifism (and a lot of other positions) will point to and say, "What about that?" Frankly, it's a cop-out. It is also a situation the likes of which the world had never before faced and likely never will again.

I suppose I'm unclear as to which aspect of World War 2 it is that you feel is historically unique as is relevant to the discussion on pacifism. Surely you're not arguing that this is the first time a government has attempted to eradicate a large number of innocent people?

I would like to challenge you for just a moment: Having dealt with WWII as an anomaly, set it aside for just a moment. Name me one other American war in all of our 230-year history which was a good war and which you, as a Christian, would have felt obligated to be involved in.

While I can think of several, the vast majority of those, like the Civil War, for instance, would draw a protracted debate... so I'll just go for Gulf War I. While one can certainly argue the self-serving nature of US involvement in the war, from the standpoint of an involved Christian, it is simply a matter of assisting a friend in a war of self-defense.

I am reticent to dismiss pacifism out of hand but, like Wilson, I am also reticent to embrace the absolute of pacifism. While there is a clear Biblical mandate to avoid violence where at all possible, there is an equally clear mandate to defend those who cannot defend themselves, and to that end, sometimes other options cease and violence is the only answer, especially when defending the helpless against the wicked.

"Having dealt with WWII as an anomaly, set it aside for just a moment. Name me one other American war in all of our 230-year history which was a good war and which you, as a Christian, would have felt obligated to be involved in."
Me, as a Christian? I'll bite. American War for Independence. Possibly 1812 (I've not looked at that war for a long time, or really in depth, so I'll leave myself an out there). Civil War. Probably Korea. Gulf War 1.
Let me chime in with something, because I know the fact that I'm taking a bit of a "devil's advocate" position here may mask it. I don't think violence is the first and only solution to any problem. I too believe other options should be exhausted before it occurs. However, I also believe some situations pretty much exhaust themselves of all options pretty quickly. That said, please don't think me a raving, bloodthirsty war-monger who wants nothing but violence.

Having dealt with WWII as an anomaly, set it aside for just a moment. Name me one other American war in all of our 230-year history which was a good war and which you, as a Christian, would have felt obligated to be involved in.

I think that you can make the case for our involvement in World War I. After all, we only joined the war after the Germans had sunk many of our ships with their submarines and threatened our national security with their plot with Mexico. And Wilson tried other means first, even negotiating a hiatus of unrestricted sub warfare which kept us out of the conflict for at least a year. Based on such evidence, I think it is obvious that a Christian could see it as ok to defend our country in such a circumstance.

And now for the serious part of my post. My point is that most Christians who fight in wars have what they considered a moral imperative for doing so. A person looking at the development of our involvement in World War I could make the same conclusion I argued above. A person fighting in the Civil War could easily find a moral imperative in fighting to end slavery. To find such an imperative is not simply looking for a justification; there really were valid reasons to go to war that Christians found in most of our conflicts. Regardless of what we now "know" about the actual "causes" of various wars with our historical hindsight, the cause of ending slavery in the Civil War or the protection of our fellow citizens and nation in World War I remain valid.

What I am attempting to say is that moral reasons for fighting usually exist. As Scholl pointed out, do we really think that World War II represented the first time a government participated in mass murder or something equally heinous? The enemies of our country in our 230 year history have been humans, after all, and susceptible to committing horrible acts - and if you really think slavery (Civil War), mass abuse and persecution of a native population (Spanish-American War), or unjust invasion of a weak neighbor (First Gulf War or Korean War) do not constitute such acts, then we need to have a chat about common definitions of horrible. Wheeler, you’re absolutely that the idea of pacifism and peaceful solutions have been brushed aside way too glibly in the past; I think it is also fair to say that atrocities have also been brushed aside glibly because of lethargy and laziness described as pacifism. In the end, I think that we, as Christians, should consider long and hard whether or not the moral reasons we might see for fighting are truly important enough to merit our actions - and let’s be frank, the decision to kill some poor shmuck in a different color uniform for a cause is a big decision. I do not think a Christian is ever obligated to join the army, but neither do I think it is wrong if they do so for a good and well-considered cause.

As a final thought/question, is volunteering to serve in para-military support, such as medical support or transport, really any morally better as you are still aiding the progress of a war?