The Other Side of the Pacifism Debate

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.

Reconciling Pacifism with Old Testament Violence

By Miles Williams

What you see below does not necessarily represent my position on pacifism. I simply don't have a strong position on the issue, because, well, I'm not certain whether or not I agree with all its tenants. I'm more so posting this article to (1) start stirring the pot a bit and (2) to give voice to a position which I think, regardless of my beliefs about it, needs to be wrestled with and thought about by the Christian community. I wrote this essay for one of my classes, where I had to pretend I was responding to a letter from a friend who questioned how I could possibly maintain a pacifist position given the violence found in the Old Testament. Even though this essay may make me sound like a pacifist, I'm only pretending to be one for the sake of doing the assignment (once again, I don't know whether or not I agree with pacifism or not).

Dear friend, 

Your question regarding how I could possibly maintain a pacifist position, given the violence in the Old Testament, is understandable.  I hope the following argument will adequately demonstrate the veracity of my position, or at the very least, I hope that the following will clarify the matter for you. 

Many people mistakenly approach the Old Testament as if it held some pertinent answer to the question of “whether the taking of human life is morally permissible or forbidden under all circumstances?”  An ancient Israelite would never have conceived of such a modern question.  As John Howard Yoder indicates in his book The Politics of Jesus, “rather than reading with the modern question in mind, whether it confirms certain moral generalizations or not, the Israelite read it [the Torah] as his or her own story, as the account of his or her own past throwing light on who he or she was” (76).  As modern people, therefore, we ought to not neglect the intended meaning of the Old Testament—that it is narrative.  Though, of course, I do not mean to say that the Old Testament stories fail to convey moral truths.  However, if we want to gain a clearer understanding of what the violent stories in the Old Testament should tell us about morality, and about the nature of God, we need to first consider what the Israelite saw as significant about these stories.

            

According to Yoder, “one of the traits of the Old Testament story, sometimes linked with bloody battles but also sometimes notably free of violence, is the identification of YHWH as the God who saves his people without their needing to act” (76).  The Exodus story, for example, serves as a harrowing tale of God saving his people from captivity, without any need on their part to act.  The Israelites’ only call from YHWH was to believe and obey, while God did the work of defeating the Egyptians. 

            

Further on in Exodus, in chapter 17, we see the Israelites in battle with the Amalekites.  To the Israelite reader, the story is portrayed in such a way as to demonstrate the power of God; not the glorification of violence.  Moses, out of his own frustration with the Israelite people, endeavors to attack the Amalekites.  Yoder indicates, “this time Moses and Joshua respond in their own way to the Amalekites’ attack; they fight their own battle.  Yet the battle goes against them when Moses’ tiring arms lower the symbolic ‘rod of God,’ and they prevail only as the rod is again held aloft” (77; emphasis mine).  God, thus, gets the credit for victory; not the military prowess of Israel.

           

Sometimes, too, we see war portrayed as a negative consequence of Israel, or of its kings, failing to trust in YHWH.  In 2 Chronicles 16, we see King Asa chastised by a prophet for allying with the king of Syria rather than relying on God.  Asa is told by the prophet, “from now on you will have wars” (Yoder, 80).  War, then, can be a potential negative consequence of failing to trust YHWH.

            

While we as modern readers may look at the above stories and say “see, God does condone violence,” such is not what an Israelite would say.  The Israelite, instead, would look at the above stories and say “see, God saves his people when they believe in him and are obedient to his commands.”  These stories are not intended to offer us normative ethics regarding violence.  They rather convey the truth that God saves his people when they believe in him and obey him.  We moreover see, post Babylonian Exile, the emergence of a belief in YHWH as the miraculous preserver of the Israelite people—both in stories wherein military activity is used, and wherein no weapons are required.  “YHWH is an alternative to the self-determining use of Israel’s own military resources in defense of their existence as God’s people” (Yoder, 83).  Pacifism, therefore, is a position whereby I am simply saying that I will trust and obey God, and let him fight my battles for me.  Such was the perspective held by the Israelites who were always outnumbered and outmatched by superior enemies.  If you are still intent on the use of violence, however, there is good Biblical precedent for taking a sling and a stone to a machinegun fight.

Source:

• Yoder, John Howard.  The Politics of Jesus.  2^nd Ed.  Grand Rapids:  William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.