Pacifism is So Confusing (the essay that was supposed to be "Why I'm Am a Pacifist [no offense Mr. Lewis]")

About six months ago I told some people that I was going to write an essay about why I am a pacifist and the aforementioned people got very excited. The basic set up for the essay was that I was going to defend the pacifist stance Biblically and (at least in some way) go against what CS Lewis wrote in his essay "Why I Am Not A Pacifist." It was going to be bold, daring stuff. At least that is what I dreamed. But then I started doing some examining of the issue and of my own writing and came to the conclusion that I'm not all that bold of a writer. I rarely say anything that shakes things up. Generally I'd say that my thoughts are so obvious they sound new, but rarely do I write anything that would offend people. But no matter what I write here I am going to offend someone, which might be the reason people found this topic more interesting than most others that I have written.

While in Chicago I went to a theological conference where renowned professors examined different theologians' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. One professor (I think he was from Duke or something like that) did his lecture on Karl Bart and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's pacifist agenda that they drew back to Christ's teachings in Matthew 5-7. This professor (who's name I am sure smarter people would remember) explained that, according to his understanding of both the theologians in question and his biblical understanding, a Christian has no Biblical support for responding in violence towards a violent attacker, especially if that attacker is not a Christian who's eternity is secure. It would be better for a Christian to die passively and go to Heaven then for that Christian to respond in violence and kill someone who would be damned to eternity. This included responding in violence should family members be attacked and their lives be in danger.

The interesting thing about hearing a committed pacifist explain his love for all people (inspired by care for their eternal souls) that inspires him to never respond in violence is that it made so many people angry. Most of the conference speakers read their papers, answered a few questions and then left the stage. After this session the question and answer time lasted nearly as long as the actual lecture. Granted, the professor probably prodded people a little, but all the same it was amazing to see people get so upset about pacifism. One attendee came up to the mic and looked visibly agitated and ready for a rhetorical brawl. he could hardly get out his question, his emotions were causing him to trip over his words as they made their way out his mouth. The professor seemed to be enjoying this. Finally (with some "ums" and "uhhhs" and a few deep exhales and guffaws) he asked "so what you're telling me is that if a man broke into YOUR house, while YOUR family was sleeping, and took YOUR children and YOUR wife, and knowing you had the ability to stop him, he put a gun to THEIR heads..." before he could finish the sentence the lecturer dropped this little bomb that sucked the air out of the room (it was more like a declaration): "Well I suppose they would have to die!" The guy tried to retort, but before he could the lecturer elaborated, "Listen, I know this isn't easy, that it goes against our instincts, but if we really believe that these people have souls that go onto eternity how can we as Christians, in good conscience, send them to hell?! Would it not be better to give up your own life than to take theirs?!"

Hearing that, the pacifist agenda made so much sense. Its a romantic, anti-cultural perspective that feels almost cool to hold. How much guts does it take to believe and say what that professor did? To have views that consistent, that unorthodox, and that grounded in conviction seems really bold and cool. Unfortunately I am just not that bold, or cool, or consistent, or grounded enough in my convictions, or able enough to see the world in black and white that I can't, in all honesty, hold this view. I want to, I really do, but there are just too many factors that I'm sure a professor from Duke can argue against, but I can't right now in my own heart.

The first major problem for me (and the main thing that made me nervous to write this essay for the last six or so months) is that I know a pacifist stance stands at odds with so many of my friends, at a very practical and personal level. Personally I can take this stance, but I can't mandate it on a universal level because then what do I say to my friends in the military, who are giving up parts of their lives for my country? Do I tell them it is sin to take the lives of those with whom our country is fighting when it is Biblical for them to honor their leaders and follow their directions? Does this force them into a moral dilemma where, under my convictions, they are forced to get out of the military? I don't think I could call anyone to that. I was fearful in writing this that I would alienate and insult them. They don't deserve that. This issue of pacifism and military action is not written in black and white, there are awkward shades of grey I am not fully able to process or help other to.

I suppose I can say that I decided a long time ago that I would not join the military, and if I were drafted I would even risk prison time and be a conscientious objector, rather than fight (or I could have become a Quaker, which would have saved me from prison but would have forced me to be a Quaker... no plan is perfect). But that is my personal conviction.

There are those who do not hold my view and I commend them for being consistent in their conviction to follow their government and defend their country, especially in the face of tyranny. That is another of the difficult things about this, while we're on the military aspect of this argument. I cannot speak badly against people fighting to save innocent lives from oppression and tyranny. Clearly God despises those things and calls the able to free the oppressed and deliver them. Sometimes this is accomplished through diplomacy, but I am not naive enough to say that military action is never needed or warranted. And I am sure that God can use Christians to this end (Bonhoeffer, himself a dedicated pacifist was a part of one of the assassination attempts to kill Hitler.). I just know that I am not one of those people. So while I am a pacifist when it comes to military action I do not believe pacifism can be mandated.

On to this issue of defending wives, kids, pets, etc. In my heart what that professor said makes so much sense to me. How can I take part in delivering a person to Hell, or even punishing him for his actions when the Lord so clearly states that that is His department and not mine? I want to believe that I would trust the Lord with my loved ones' souls and sacrifice them to give a potential murderer one more chance to understand the hope and joy that I have found, but I don't think I completely can. While I am not married and have no kids I know how I feel about my family and friends, and I am confident that I will brave Hell itself to keep them safe and unharmed. I will gladly die for any one of them, but I cannot give any one of them up passively, even if theologically it makes sense to do so. Perhaps its a natural instinct given to us by God, or maybe it is selfishness, I'm not sure, but I just couldn't bring myself to even think about standing and doing nothing while my family is taken from me. Life just isn't that simple for me to be able to say that. Even watching my family or friends get hurt in even the smallest of ways makes me capable of doing things I wouldn't do on a regular day, I just don't imagine that in that moment of my family being in danger I could be thinking about anything else other then protecting them from harm.

One professor I had spoke about pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount and said that the actions Jesus is talking about are not life threatening. We are told to turn the other cheek when someone slaps us or to give someone our shirt when they ask for our coat, but we are not told to give up our lives. I'm not sure if this totally makes sense to me. I still have a problem with the idea of sending a murderer to Hell by killing him myself, but it seems like something that needs to be mentioned in the exploration of pacifism: that Jesus' stance on pacifism was held on the basis of non-lethal violence. Why no apostle (who heard this sermon in person) fought back when they were lethally attacked wasn't really addressed in that lecture.

Onward we go to another issue, and that is when pacifism means letting yourself get walked all over by anyone and everyone. I admit I am kind of a passive person to begin with, which is probably why pacifism appeals to me in the first place. Proactive guys who dream of spearing boars in their free time probably don't think about it as nearly as much as I do (okay, there is probably no one who thinks about this as much as I do), good for them. But I hate being walked all over and taken for granted. This feeling has grown as I have gotten older and gotten sick of being taken advantage of. I have learned to fight for myself and make sure that I am not anyone's door mat. It is a horrible feeling to be objectified or used. And a person who is passive (which is not always the same as being a person who is a pacifist-who's stance comes from theological or philosophical conviction rather than from not having any spine to speak of) will never get anything and spend most of their lives bitter and disillusioned. This isn't what I want for myself or for anyone I love. When I think about my nephew getting picked on or mocked (even as an abstract concept) it gets me upset. I want him to know how to stand up to bullies and fight for truth and justice. I don't want him to go through the hurt that comes with never fighting for what he believes in or defending his own or his family's or loved one's honor.

If someone is trying to use me for their own gain without consideration of how that will affect me I have to stand up to them in order to save my own spine from becoming gelatinous. I, and every person, am deserving of more than that and I cannot allow it. It would be a horrible way to live if I did. I cannot be a person who takes every fight that is offered to me, but I also can't be a person who avoids every fight because I am afraid.

This view probably runs contrary to the true pacifist and I may be wrong in holding it, but I can not do otherwise. If someone is doing something wrong to a loved one it must be stopped. If someone is proclaiming false doctrine and misleading people then I cannot just allow it to happen, I have to call it out and fight against it. There is no option of saying "well he has his views, who am I to judge?" If someone is misleading innocent people they have to be called out (I'm looking at you emergent and health and wealth gospel people). If someone is taking advantage of me or my friends to get what they want I have to put my foot down and not allow that to happen ever again. I suppose that would make me a bad pacifist, or not a pacifist at all, and I'm okay with that.

I'm not sure where that leaves me. Maybe I can call myself a sight-specific-pacifist, where my pacifism ebbs and flows based on the circumstances. I know that isn't consistent or rock solid, but its the best that I have. In my heart I cannot imagine hurting anyone (although I am certainly capable, which is a different sort of issue all together), and I hope I am never forced to. But I can't be consistant in pacifism because its just too complex of an issue, with too many variables. You could, reasonably, respond "oh Tyler, I wish that you where either cold or hot, but since you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth." Well said hypothetical person. I sit in the middle of men who are solid in their convictions: C.S. Lewis (among others) who was clearly no a pacifist and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (again, among others) who clearly was. Someday when I go home perhaps the three of us can talk it out.

A day later:

I have received some comments that show the shortcomings in my essay. I didn't think I was so much claiming pacifist dogma as much as I was showing my sympothy towards it while also showing some of its pit falls. I'm not a pacifist. I more wanted to examine the issue than write an essay that gave a solid answer about what position is right.

So here are some thoughts I received that might be helpful to consider as either an alternative to mine or a more complete thought (this first comment brings God's sovereignty into the issue, which is sadly something I didn't think of but it helps complete the argument and show the weakness in what that Duke professor was teaching:

As someone who believes in the sovereignty of God, I'd argue that we cannot send anyone to hell. When everyone stands before Christ at the final judgment, I do not believe anyone will be able to say, "If only I'd had a little longer. If only that person had spoke up. If only someone had told me. If only...." Rather as in the story of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), it would not matter what someone experienced or how much time they were given. In the story, Abraham is in the afterlife and responds to the rich man who is pleading with him to send a sign to his brothers who are living wrongly on the earth, and Abraham responds saying, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16.31). If God loves someone enough to send His own Son to perish that they might be saved, then I believe He will do everything in His power to see to it that people freely respond to his gracious initiatives. In the end, the only reason people will truly go to hell is because "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thes 2.10).

Here is someone going into military:

But since I'm joining the army, my ideals obviously differ. I understand the concept of letting yourself be harmed and not reacting with violence in order to promote a more peaceful world or not wanting to harm the individual. But I can not let myself refrain from killing another if that is the only way to stop them from killing another innocent individual. But it was nice to see a different point of view, don't want to always be hearing things I already agree with.