From a religious standpoint, I think John Howard Yoder argues for pacifism (see here, here, here to start) better than anyone. At least I am convinced. I am also convinced that pacifism is not politically viable, which is why I am glad to live (at least theoretically) in a society the separates church and state. I would not be quite as hard-lined and vocally upset about Constantinianism as some, but it is a serious problem.
Politically, I am for the closest feasible position to pacifism, non-interventionism. Strong borders and a strong defense (as opposed to preemptive offense) are necessary. Filling the role of Europe's army and the world's police, not so much. Americans give themselves too much credit if they think the world would be much worse off without our worldwide military and political presence. I'll take actual strength concentrated at home than the appearance of strength at the risk of over extension. If we did a better job of protecting liberties at home, perhaps then we could lead by example and speak out with greater moral authority while other countries determine their own destinies.
I would suspect that most would disagree with either one or both of my positions above, but the economics of empire don't look good, either. (Hat tip to Washington's Blog for the rest of this post.) Global Insight, perhaps the most respected economic forecasting company in the world, recently studied the economic toll of defense spending and war:
The impact of higher spending will not be directly proportionate in these economic models. In fact, it should be somewhat more than proportionate, but if we just multiple the Global Insight projections by 3, we would see that the long-term impact of our increased defense spending will be a reduction in GDP of 1.8 percentage points. This would correspond to roughly $250 billion in the current economy, or about $800 in lost output for every person in the country.
The projected job loss from this increase in defense spending would be close to 2 million. In other words, the standard economic models that project job loss from efforts to stem global warming also project that the increase in defense spending since 2000 will cost the economy close to 2 million jobs in the long run.
For all the economic and political costs, and for the loss of innocent life on all sides, where are the trade offs of value? For any argument that could be made in favor of our recent foreign policy, an equally valid argument could be made that the Iraq war has increased the threat of terrorism. (See this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.) Eight years after 9/11, and we still can't prevent an act of guerrilla warfare from happening on a military base in our own country.
23 comments:
Two very quick observations:
1) While I always appreciate the humility to which you call us and often illustrate beautifully through irony, juxtaposition, etc., I don't think the Fort Hood reference is particularly apt in this case. Pacifism and political correctness taken to its extreme (i.e. avoiding the conflict right in front of our noses) was a significant enabler of last week's massacre. I don't quite follow the point you are trying to make.
2) The call to non-interventionism begs the question, timely to be sure, of where East Berliners (and East Europeans of all nationalities, for that matter) would be without American projection of power abroad. I am sure there is a good and plausible answer. It will probably be concomitantly too glib for my liking and too sophisticated for my attention span.
I agree with pacifism for individuals and non-interventionism for nations, but you have to allow for exceptions in either case. As an individual I believe that in most cases there is no need to respond to an offense (physically or otherwise) against yourself. However, when you add other people to the equation, sometimes pacifism is not an option. I would find pacifism a weak excuse for not intervening in situations where other people are being oppressed. I would apply that both individually and nationally. At the same time neither an individual or a nation can intervene in every such situation. Each case is different and the merits of one do not necessarily qualify or disqualify another.
On a separate point, were you intentionally noting the war in Iraq vs. Afghanistan? Because Afghanistan was a direct response to an attack on our soil, not a pre-emptive offensive strike, and Iraq was an extension of that defense. Now certainly whether that extension was viable or an appropriate response is open for much discussion, as is the application of our defense, but I firmly believe that to do nothing in the wake of 9/11 is not an appropriate response.
To JB's point 2), I assume you are referring to WWII and the situation with the holocaust. We entered WWII as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor and Germany's decalaration of war on us, so I'm not sure it would count as an example against non-interventionism.
JB, you raise great points, and I'll try to clarify my position:
1) A common response I get from war hawks is that by engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan we have ensure the war stays "over there," which they value as a worthy trade off. If one view's the Ft. Hood attack as an act of warfare, then this line of reasoning is no longer accurate. I am not arguing for political correctness in any way, and was clear in delegating pacifism as a religious position, not a political one.
2)A segment of the Berlin wall was on display across the street from my office yesterday, and I admit to being shocked at how moving a chunk of concrete can be. I can't answer the question as to where East Berliners, East Germans, or East Europeans would be without America, but my glib answer is that it doesn't really pertain to my point, as I am speaking out against war and violent empire, not power. The (probably not sophisticated but) longer answer is that I am for a strong America, politically and militarily. When the world's rulers and military leaders think of America, there should be admiration, respect, and yes, a little fear. America's power and moral authority went a long way in keeping the cold war from becoming another bloody world war, and paved the way for the triumph of democracy over socialism, but America was at its best when it used that power to avoid war instead of to start it. A prime example would be the Berlin Airlift. The fact of the matter is that socialist and communist governments are destined to always fail from both economic and political science standpoints. America's leaders had confidence in this and guided a mostly bloodless revolution (in terms of international conflict) by playing a 40-50 year game of chicken. This is markedly different than our current war against Islamic extremism. I am only suggesting that we would do well to follow our previous generations' leaders and have confidence that such an intolerant, violent, corrupt, and anti-modern movement as Islamic extremism is destined to fail from within. And yet we actually fan their flames of passion, lend credence to their claims, and ensure the ranks of jihadists grow exponentially. As I stated in the post, if America were to remain a resolute beacon of liberty, we could act and speak with greater authority, and effect greater change through channels outside of war.
Hanbellover,
I agree that it is dangerous to make blanket statements, and if I did it was not my intention, as I do recognize tension and potential exceptions. I think an interesting place to start exploring this tension from a Christian standpoint would perhaps be Luke 22:36) [He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.] We see later on that Christ was taken into authority without resistance, and instructed his disciples not to use their swords at that time. Were the swords perhaps for the disciples to protect themselves against the brewing anti-Jesus crowds? Hmmm...
As to Afghanistan vs. Iraq, I will share my humble opinion. I can justify responding to 9/11 by seeking to punish or bring to justice those involved: Osama Bin Laden, the Al Qaeda leadership, and even the Taliban leaders that gave him support and protection. Outside of capturing, eliminating, or disrupting those targets, I can not justify long term occupation, nation-building, placement of political leaders, etc., especially since the people of Afghanistan were never our enemies. Once we stopped focusing on the specific players involved, we stopped defending and started offending. This would include the entire Iraq effort. And from a pragmatic standpoint, we are stuck in wars we cannot win. So, (again this is only my opinion) does America's pride and arrogance keep us there indefinitely, and breed further contempt, or do we exit and admit defeat? Neither are great options, but the second is inevitable, so the sooner we get out the better.
I do not accept that America must fight a war everywhere it sees injustice. If so, we should be at war with China, Iran, Philippines, Sudan, Colombia, Cuba, etc... There is a role we can (and should) play in each of these countries without resorting to war, but instead using humanitarian aid, economic support (and free trade), and political courage.
Justus, I'm not sure the verse you cite in Luke is of any instruction here. I can't make heads nor tails of the instruction to buy a sword, particularly in light of what happens later (as you observe). I don't think Jesus was inviting revolution or even forceful self-defense any more than he was advocating consumerism, materialism, or bribery (see the portion relating to purses and bags). But that's about the only disagreement I have with your post. This passage is cryptic to say the least.
I concur in your observations about our position in Afghanistan and Iraq, and further agree that war is not the answer to injustice. One can fight against injustice without violence and gain success, as history has proven time and time again. In fact, to your point about where East Berliners, East Germans and Eastern Europeans would be without American support, I would say they'd be exactly where they are. The reason the oppressive communist regimes fell in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary is because the people themselves rose up and claimed it for themselves. I wouldn't ignore the importance of American support, but by and large peaceful protest carried the day and crippled the communist block (although there was some violence in East Germany and particularly in Hungary) American influence was important, but it was far from determinative in 1989.
Finally, I'm not sure what to make of JB's statement that pacifism and political correctness were culprits in the shootings in Fort Hood. The tendency to assign blame is always strong in the aftermath of an inexplicable tragedy, but that's human nature. I think the single most appropriate explanation is that a single man, wrestling with some kind of internal evil I can't begin to fathom and he himself may not have even recognized, lost control and took it out on innocent people surrounding him. This is a dangerous world we live in, even for, nay, especially for the innocent. And that fact will never change, no matter how forceful or politically incorrect we become.
Dr. RosenRosen,
Vague as that verse is, I have to think there is a good reason he told them to get their cash money and sword up, and a good reason it was recounted and recorded. I don't want to use a single verse out of context to prove any point, only suggest it as an interesting starting point for discussion.
The one thing I would take issue with you on, and you echoed Obama's otherwise good speech at Ft. Hood, is the term "inexplicable tragedy." Yes, he wrestled with evil and lost, but short of demon possesion of the full body control variety, the guy made choices to act the way he did. I see a fairly easy explanation, that of an act of warfare. For it to be anything else a lot of evidence would have to be ignored. Now, we may never know or understand the reasons this guy switched sides or entered the military duplicitously, but that is another topic altogether.
Please define "pacifism" so that we are all on the same page.
Justus - maybe you could propose a counterfactual of the proper way for us to "play chicken" with the current enemy. Lest we forget, Reagan placed missiles in Europe to deter the Soviets. And Kennedy's version of "playing chicken" nearly landed us in a nuclear war. I think you are a bit too cavalier about what it took to dismantle and defeat the Soviets. One major difference, it now seems, is that we were dealing with rational actors in the Soviets, whereas not so much with people that voluntarily blow themselves up. I'm not sure what that says about the effectiveness of our current strategy (smarter people than me think about these things). But I wonder if disengagement is really the best way to deal with evil that tends to act even when unprovoked.
With respect to political correctness and pacifism, the more we learn about what happened leading up to the massacre (agreed, not a "tragedy"), the more it appears that political correctness led countless observers to avoid any sort of confrontation with the very clear and present danger that Hasan represented. Such behavior, whether intentional or not, can be fairly characterized as pacifist.
Dictionary definition of "pacifism" in 5-4-3-2...
Prof, I'd define pacifism as the active use of non-violence. Essentially, a refusal to allow those who employ violence to dictate the terms of any engagement. That may not be a satisfactory definition, but that's as good as I can do.
And JB, pacifism, at least as I see it, is nnever avoidance of confrontation. Quite the contrary: pacifism is itself a means of engagement, not the absence thereof. But you're exactly right that pacifism cannot be a license for willful ignorance in the face of of danger. I wouldn't classify the actions of those who ignored the threats presented by Maj. Hasan as pacifism. In fact, the use of the word pacifism to describe military personnel is incongruous to say the least. Instead, I'd call their actions irresponsibile, negligent, and malfeasance.
Political correctness, on the other hand, is its own separate issue - there's no reason to be intentionally offensive to another person particularly for their race, ethnicity or creed, but if we can't call out the actions, behavior and even tendencies we see in our neighbors, then we are either (a) cowards, (b) overly-sensitive, or (c) both. So I certainly agree there.
As for the appropriate response to those who are willing to blow themselves up to do us harm, I don't advocate disengagement, I only advacote engagement of another sort. I certainly don't have an answer, but have we really even thought about, much less tried any non-violent approach yet? I'm not sure we have and I'm hopeful that is what is going on in the West Wing right now. By the way, I didn't hear or read POTUS's remarks at Ft. Hood, but I'm glad to see he's following my lead.(That was humor, folks, sheesh...)
Finally, one last thought regarding the passage from Luke. It is at least possible that Jesus is employing irony. Remember his earlier instruction to his followers to take nothing with them but their cloak. Then he tells them in Chapter 22 to sell the cloak for a sword, but hark, they already have 2 swords right there with them! And this even after being instructed to carry nothing with them as they go! Did Jesus catch his deciples in a trap? Was he hammering home the point he had just made where his deciples are arguing about their own greatness without seeing their own failures(especially after all his preaching about being servants)? I honestly don't know - many commentators are similarly confused by this passage. I do know that taking this one passage literally as a call to arms would negate great swaths of his teaching, particularly the Sermon on the Mount/Plain. Maybe that was his intent, but I would find that approach hard to reconcile with the overarching thrust of Jesus' public ministry. I only bring this up to illustrate that I'm not sure this passage is a call to arms, and, as with my reference to Paul a few posts earlier, to illustrate the problem inherent in cherry-picking verses from the Bible.
By the way Justus, my last comment regarding "cherry picking" was unnecessary as you'd already pointed that out. I would have know that if I'd read your comment above more carefully. Sorry to step on your toes.
I approve Dr. RosenRosen's comment above as he touched on many of the points I had planned on getting to before my day was derailed, and did a better job than I could have, specifically regarding pacifism, political correctness, and engagement vs. disengagement.
JB, I concede to being cavalier, among many other faults. The point I was trying to make is that totalitarian regimes fail, usually from within, whether economic, political, or religious in nature. Extremism hardens around threats to a way of life or thought, whether those threats are real or only perceived. I think you may be guilty of a little glibness yourself in assuming the actions of Islamic extremists would be the same even if we did not provoke them and worked a little harder in addressing/managing/overcoming their concerns.
Before suggesting which non-violent engagement strategies should be employed, it would first be important to look at our present situation (8 years of war, 5,200 dead soldiers and another 23,000 wounded, 100,000 civilian deaths, a cost of $944bn, etc.) and compile a list of positive results. Only then can we effectively compare the potential costs, risks, and benefits of any non-violent approach. I would be a little biased to take a negative slant, so perhaps you would like to compile a list of positive outcomes?
JB,
After reading my last comment, please go ahead and add snarky to my list of faults.
In my opinion, a policy of containment, principled non-violent opposition, international pressure on extremists groups and their funding, increased investigation/intelligence gathering, and US foreign policy reassessment, or some combination thereof, would have been preferred in lieu of a doctrine of preemptive war. While many of these steps have been taken in conjunction with war, my position is that these efforts would have been much more effective were it not for the overwhelming net negatives created by the war.
My next post will be Exhibit A.
Justus,
I have a question. This is getting nitpicky...and might steer us into a different direction. And if you choose to address this in a later post, that is fine with me.
As a christian who beleives in pacifism totally religiously and as close as possible politically, how do you feel about the christian serving as an infantryman in the Army?
I think the Luke 22 passage, albeit difficult to understand, is understandable.
I do think He was warning His disciples that times were about to get very difficult, and I personally find it instructive as far as self defense. However, I think the answer is contained in the previous verse, 35 "...When I sent you without a purse, bag or sandals..." This is a reference to Luke 10:4. The people of that time always traveled with bags, sandals, arms, etc. It was a very difficult and violent time. Bandits were prevalent.
Jesus' instructions to them in ch. 10 was unusual to them. As they generally carried such things. So, vs. 36 merely says you better return to your standard traveling supplies, not the unique standards that had been instructed.
In other words, Jesus' advice to take up sandals, arms, and bag was not changing their travel supply to something unusual, it was actually returning the supply order to normal. And, I think it was a warning that He would not be with them much longer and that they need to be prepared, not only spiritually but also temporally.(sp?)
Lumbee,
My honest answer is that I don't know how to answer. Since you asked specifically about an army infantryman that could be asked to kill on demand, I would personally not be comfortable in such a role. But I speak only on a personal level, and would not presume to judge or know what is right for others. What I do believe is that God's grace is available to all, those who serve in the military included. I hope you don't view that as an evasion, I just don't have a better answer.
In broader terms, I do feel that the Christian church, using the analogy of the Hauerwas/Willimon book, is called to be a colony of "Resident Aliens," the living body of Christ witnessing as a radical minority in contrast to a lost world. From an organizational standpoint, this implies as much separation between church and state as possible. But reality is that the church is "in" the world, and Christians participate on all spheres public and private. Throughout history Christians of deep faith and conviction have dutifully served in government, often with great results. Who am I to know their hearts or judge God's will for them?
In the end, I don't know if there is a correct answer, or if any answer is as important as recognizing the tension in asking the question.
Justus, I was a little surprised by your answer, which may speak to my ignorance. You stated earlier that you believe in a strong defense, a display of military power (see Cold War), and that you are convinced that pacifism is not viable politically. Without an infantry (or military in general) how could that be accomplished? Personally I go back to my previous statement that pacifism is good for an individual, but agree with you it is irrational and dangerous for a nation. It also cannot be applied unilaterally as a person. I refuse pacifism as viable if my friends or family are in danger. A nation also has a call to protect its citizens, and its citizens have a responsibility to serve in that capacity. The problems arise at the misuse of this "protection" and this is where the danger of proactive military action comes in. Switzerland has a history of peace, but they also have a strong military (and mountainous terrain). I highly doubt it would serve any nation well to test their peaceful nation.
As far as the Scriptures go, it does not advocate abstinence or opposition to the military as far as I know. There is a time for peace and a time for war. Christ leads his hosts into war in Revelation, and reading the entirety of God's Word would hardly support political pacifism or aggressive imperialism, but to reject one extreme does not mean we have to embrace the other. War is horrible, and displays the worst man's nature has to offer. It should be avoided at all costs, but without a doubt there are times when the most horrible things are necessary to provide the opportunity for us to hold our pacifism.
Anonymous, a brief response:
"You stated earlier that you believe in a strong defense, a display of military power (see Cold War), and that you are convinced that pacifism is not viable politically."
Yes, per human nature and a fallen world.
"A nation also has a call to protect its citizens, and its citizens have a responsibility to serve in that capacity."
Yes, but Christians are dual-citizens. Citizenship in the kingdom of Heaven has its own responsibilities, many of which run counter to human nature.
"Reading the entirety of God's Word would hardly support political pacifism"
I suspect early Christians prior to Constantine may disagree, as would the pacifist tradition that has continued since then (including founders of the Baptist tradition, the Anabaptists and Mennonites). It depends on how scriptures should be read in light of the Kingdom of Heaven that Christ brought forth in the New Testament, and which part of the Bible you take literally, Christ's sermons in the Gospels, or dream sequences in Revelation.
As I said before, I don't claim to have a satisfying answer on the matter, and I respect that people may see the issue differently.
Justus,
One of the litmus tests, including religious, philosophies is "does it work where the rubber hits the road"?
The problem with pacifism is that it relies on those who are not pacifists! In order for it to even exist requires the sacrafice of those who are willing to put their lives on the line.
If it is wrong, and I respect your position of still trying to determine this, to serve in the military as a Christian because you might kill someone...then that means that it is wrong for anyone to serve in the military. It means that God views these actions as evil! Here is where your arguement breaks down, if you can only exist in your religious pacifism by living in a country that allows such "evil", then you not only condone such "evil" but, in fact you require it.
You see there are different ages and times in God's plan.
Again, I come back to it. I suggest that the reason that these things are unclear to many Christians are because they cannot decide which portions of scripture are literal or not. The only way to make sense of the Plan of God from Genesis to Revelation is literally!!
The age of the absence of war is the Milennial Kingdom that Christ speaks of in, yes, the Gospels and also in Revelation. As well as the O.T. and many of the epistles. We are not in this kingdom yet. We are representatives of Christ to a lost and dying world. These wars culminate and lead into these prophetic passages. However, if you choose to look at these passages as only dream sequences and fantasy stories then you cannot have an accurate understanding of prophecy. This is why many Christians cannot understand questions such as when to turn the other cheek.
If your religious point of view is not doable in righteousness (I vehemently say that a Christian can still be perfectally righteous, even filled with the Spirit, and justifiably kill another human being)by all parties, including governments, then your religious point of view is wrong.
Sorry to use strong language. And I recognize that you are not saying it is un-Christian to, lets acknowledge the elephant in the room, kill another man in war, but you are headed in that direction.
If a Christian cannot defend his country, then his faith is not livable, and therefore, is wrong.
Lumbee,
I respect your positions, as I spent many years defending them to crazy people without realizing I was slowly going crazy myself! That said, please don't misrepresent my position. In reference to Revelation, I perhaps should have used "sequence of visions" in place of "dream sequence" but nowhere do I refer to it as fantasy.
I'll also respectfully sidestep a discussion on prophecy, eschatology and redemptive history. I think the main point is that in addition to a kingdom yet to come, which I think we agree on, I also believe the church to be the spiritual kingdom that has already come.
So if my belief in both a present and future kingdom is correct, there would be an inherent tension for those that find themselves a citizen of God's spiritual kingdom as well as a citizen of any country in a world ruled by evil.
But regardless of belief, you are correct, the proof is in the rubber when the pudding hits the road.
How can we know non-violent protest will work unless it is tried? And if it has been tried, would that reveal anything? Say, for example, the Independence of India from British rule or the fall of communism in Czechoslovakia? How did the litmus test perform?
I simply don't understand your last sentence. Isn't there irony in the fact that Christ came at a time when Israel was under the dominion of the Roman Empire? Didn't many Jews rejected him as Messiah precisely because he did not advocate political and military revolution, only spiritual?
Of those Jews and Gentiles that did accept Christ as Messiah, I find no evidence that they rose up against Rome to defend their countries, nor can I find instruction by any of the Bible's authors on how to properly defend themselves. In fact, all I see is instruction not to resist persecution, to have hope and patience in their suffering, and that to live is Christ and to die is gain.
Justus, I am a big fan of the following quote...
"the proof is in the rubber when the pudding hits the road"
Justus, I will retract my comment "reading the entirety of God's Word would hardly support political pacifism". You are correct, that is my understanding of it, but it does not follow that it is everyone else's.
I'm also not sure I completely understand your position, so am backing up a little bit for clarification. There seems to be a qualification of government or military being "human nature" that is a necessary evil due to sin, and something that should be used (e.g. defending a country, responding to Osama Bin Laden), but is a question as to whether a Christian should support or participate in it. I'm not sure I'm picking up on how you're relating or differentiating this as it pertains to the necessity for a military (for defense purposes) and a Christian's responsibility.
Would an appropriate question be is serving in the military a sin? Perhaps two separate questions based on wartime vs. peace, but in my opinion that distinction can't be made.
Justus, non-violent response is counter intuitive to human instincts, but is certainly the example of Christ. I still stand by my original comment that I favor pacifism as a personal response and non-interventionism as a political rule, so we agree on that point.
I suppose the discussion is whether or not that can be applied unilaterally, or if there are ever exceptions, and if so when.
We've focused primarily on war, and that makes sense based on our current situation and war's extreme nature. But if we are discussing the value of pacifism or non-violent response, we should include a much broader range, and extend it outside the parameters of war and to our personal lives. I suppose that is the question at hand - is there ever an appropriate time for a Christian to become physically involved in any conflict?
On one end of the scale we have murder. Clearly wrong. On another end of the scale let's remove the life and death aspect. I don't think anyone is saying physical confrontation is okay as long as you go up to the "kill" line. If someone punches you what do you do? Well, turn the other cheek could certainly be an appropriate response, and one I would recommend. Usually it is only one's pride and ego that causes them to strike back. What if someone punches someone other than you? Would any of us say God requires us not to step to the aid of our family? I don't think that was where Christ was going with his teaching (or where you were going).
So if we allow that physical confrontation is not always sin, the question is where is the line? Are we back to where we started? I find this an interesting discussion, and would like to continue if you do.
Handbellover, I really can't be of much help when it comes to understanding when to make exceptions and where to draw the line. I will continue to mull it over and whether it is on future posts or offline I too hope we can continue the discussion.
As to my reference to government being dependent on human nature, I failed to explain it correctly or failed to read your comment correctly, because it seems a bit reversed, so let me take one more quick shot:
The FA Hayek quote at the top of this blog is: The spiritual and the temporal are different spheres which ought not to be confused.
As a Christian, I may be held accountable to temporal authority, but I best not forget that of far greater importance is my spiritual and ultimate accountability to God.
From a structural standpoint, the secular representative democracy we find ourselves in, however, answers only to its citizens.
Both the leaders and citizens of government are susceptible to human nature and a primary element of human nature (beyond susceptibility to evil) is an intrinsic thirst for justice, retribution, or restoration in response to (perceived) injustice. This is why we have governments, police, courts, and militaries in the first place.
In such a system, it quickly becomes clear that pure pacifism may not be politically feasible (at least not in the present) for a government required to retain the confidence and consent of its people, especially when it finds itself a victim of violence.
Perhaps I shouldn't compromise at all, but with the understanding of a government that answers to fallen humans, and finding myself in support of such a form of government, I compromise by recognizing the expediency of a strong defense and a policy of non-intervention that is nonetheless able to defend its borders and people if war is unavoidable.
As to whether a Christian should serve in the infantry, the border patrol, or Congress, that is a matter for each individual in working out their salvation to understand their spiritual accountability to God above all else, and then act accordingly. I can not answer that for anyone but myself.
Clear as mud?
Post a Comment