By Miles Williams
In my last post, I played pacifist; not because I'm absolutely certain that I hold such a position, but rather to give voice to the position. Not to be biased, and to further give equal voice to an alternative position, the essay which follows is a critique, more or less, of John Howard Yoder's brand of pacifism. Once again, I don't hold a sure position on this issue, so take the sincerity of this post for whatever you think it's worth.
Two Points of Contention
Though I find many aspects of Yoder’s arguments for pacifism compelling, I cannot yet totally commit to the notion that pacifistic approaches to violence are always required by God. I specifically would like to push back on two components of Yoder’s case which I think are the greatest shortcomings or weakness with his argument: (1) Yoder’s pacifism makes sense in the case of self-sacrifice vs self-defense, but not in the case of sacrifice of another vs defense of another; (2) in contrast to what Yoder posits, the fact that “just war” [war done for the sake of justice; not for the sake of interplay between the egoistic desires of states] seems an unlikely occurrence is not solid grounds for casting aside the entire concept.
Regarding 1, my primary qualm with Yoder is more or less a personal misgiving I have for neglecting the use of violence when its use might serve to defend an innocent victim. Perhaps my concern is a consequence of having watched too many superhero movies, but I feel this concern is the most common objection among many who hesitate to adopt pacifism wholesale. For instance, what would be the best course of action if a serial rapist/murderer were to break into my home and attempt to assault my wife? Should I just sit idle, justifying my inaction upon the premise that my wife has been given occasion to “accept innocent suffering without complaint” as Christ did on the cross (Yoder, 124)? I must say “no”! Yoder quotes 1 Peter 3:14-18, which states: “It is better to suffer in well-doing…than for doing wrong. For Christ also died for our sins…He, the just, suffered for the unjust” (124). I cannot conceive, though, of what good my wife’s suffering would do in the above scenario. If anything, I am most inclined to say that I would be the one doing wrong for not acting to defend my wife against the injustice about to be done to her. I believe the nature of Christ’s suffering was of the sort that served to benefit others; and though we could say that her suffering would benefit the rapist/murderer, the beneficence would not be of a worthy or just nature. Under such circumstances, even if I would have to kill the man attempting to assault my wife, I would consider inaction the greater sin.
Regarding 2—a point which I think we might appropriately conceive as an extension of point 1—Yoder states the following: “The doctrine of ‘just war’ is an effort to extend into the realm of war the logic of the limited violence of police authority—but not a very successful one. There is some logic to the ‘just war’ pattern of thought but very little realism” (204). Contextually speaking, Yoder is writing in reference to Romans 13:1-7, a passage whereby many Christians have justified their participating in military action and police action for the benefit of the state. While Yoder believes that this Romans passage may be suggesting that limited police action might be a role to which a Christian could be subject, he believes war does not apply. However, if, as Yoder himself indicates, “just war” is nothing more than an international form of police action, what is there to distinguish it from police action within national borders? Moreover, what is there to distinguish “just war” from the sort of defense to which I allude in point 1? If I am correct that violent defense may be justified under certain interpersonal circumstances, then it may also be the case that such action can be taken in international circumstances as well. Moreover, though there is a fair amount of reasonableness to Yoder’s assertion that the occurrence of a “just war” is implausible, implausibility is not sufficient grounds for dismissing the entire concept.
Paul says in Romans 12: 18, “If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (NRSV). This passage is surrounded by admonishments from Paul to the Christians living in Rome to live peaceably and lovingly with one another. Paul also tells them to bless their persecutors, to not overcome evil with evil, and to let God be the arbiter of vengeance. Verse 18 stands as the only potential exception to the entirety of Paul’s message; one not mentioned by Yoder and one which, I think, gives leeway to for considering that indiscriminate pacifism may not always be warranted.
Source
- Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994. Print.
