On Christian Pacifism

Halden at the blog Inhabitatio Dei has posted a a very thoughtful piece concerning Christian pacifism, a piece that caused me to begin to articulate some of my long-held but little-articulated feelings about pacifism in particular and Christian morality in general.

This is a part of a comment I left on Halden's blog:

I’m in full agreement with your post. But I’ve always felt that there is no coherent warrant for pacifism.

Let me explain. I ground this assessment in my feeling that being a Christian is an inherently paradoxical thing to be. Based on my reading, the position I think I’m articulating is close to Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture in Paradox. (But I could be misreading Niebuhr here.)

Let me be more concrete. The logic of pacifism is basically this: I would die before killing. But why stop this analysis at issues of force? Wouldn’t a Christian apply this logic to their house and food intake as well? That is, should I not give up my house if there is a homeless person? Or give up my last meal if someone were hungry? Isn’t this what Christ would do? Is this not what we are called to do?

Most would agree that this kenostic impulse is the Christian witness. But pushed logically kenosis entails (free & loving) self-annihilation. Thus my conclusion: To exist as a Christian is inherently paradoxical.

And if you step back and look at all the debates about pacifism or simplicity they all reach this point: “If you make that contention about pacifism/simplicity then where do you stop? Self-annihilation?”

I guess I’m arguing that to be a Christian is to exist as an antinomy. That is, I agree with your post and I claim that it is Christian. But in my view that means I also embrace its paradox and know that any defense of pacifism (or the defense of anything Christian) will end in paradox.

To summarize, I think I've come to the following conclusion: To exist is to be morally compromised.

At some point your existence will be used against you, effectively, in a moral argument. At the nadir of the discussion your choice will be framed thusly: Your life or theirs? If you answer Christianly you'll not exist at the end of the thought experiment. You'll have allowed the killer to kill you (in the pacifist discussions) or given away your last morsel to save someone from starvation (in the poverty discussions). The point is, the Christian ethic implies seeking your non-existence.

But, you might counter, we aren't called to actively seek out our non-existence. Of course, when presented with a terrible choice we should choose heroic self-sacrifice. But we are not called to actively seek out those situations.

Really?

Why aren't we giving away our things while people are dying of hunger?

But if we start giving it all away where do we stop? Let's say we reach the bottom, the point of minimum sustenance. Still people will be dying. Have we not reached, by sheer logic, the very nadir scenario presented earlier? Isn't the Christian moral vision driving us to that outcome?

But does this analysis apply to pacifism? Not as cleanly, but I think the parallel is close. Like hunger, there is violence in the world. And we can either participate in fending off that violence or withdraw and let others do the dirty work. Either way, you are morally compromised. The only way to maintain moral coherence is to directly confront the violence as a pacifist. To find the violence and lay down your life in front of it to stop it. Again, the logic of the Christian witness leads to non-existence.

In short, if you exist you are morally compromised. Consequently, if you are a pacifist or someone committed to Christian simplicity then, at some point in the argument, the paradox of your existence will be used as moral leverage against you. And, as far as I can see, the leverage is legitimate. My mere existence means I'm compromising something, morally speaking.

Now don't get me wrong. I am a pacifist. (Well, let me clarify. To date I'm just a theoretical pacifist. I argue for pacifism. How I'd actually respond in some of these "a killer is hurting my child" scenarios I have no idea. My suspicion: I might not be a pacifist. Just being honest here.)

My point isn't an argument against pacifism. It's an argument against arguments for pacifism. I don't think you can argue a pacifist position that isn't compromised by your mere existence. If you are not compromised I'm assuming, at the very least, that you are riding with policemen tonight with plans to throw yourself in front of the bullets during any gun fights. You are either throwing your own life into the line of fire to stop the violence or letting other people do that work for you. If the former, you won't be around long. If the latter, you're compromised.

So here are my conclusions. If pacifism is paradoxical and morally compromised then what can we say?

#1. I think pacifism cannot be argued for. Rather, I think pacifism is a calling. You don't argue for it. Those arguments, as I've suggested, will always lead to an impasse. No, you don't argue for pacifism. You evangelize. You seek people who feel called to it.

The implication, as I see it, is that we see pacifism as less a moral issue than one of vocation. I'd compare it to monasticism or celibacy. To choose the cloister or sexual purity isn't more moral. It is higher, but not more moral.

#2. Since pacifists are, as I've argued, morally compromised (as we all are) they cannot make the the claim that they stand on morally superior ground. Rather, in this world, pacifism must be dialectical. Those called to pacifism stand in critique of the Powers and the violence that supports them. But a dialectical pacifism grants that pacifists benefit from and are even complicit in the violence. No one is uncontaminated. Rather than pretending that there is no paradox in the pacifist position, dialectical pacifists grant the paradox. They fully recognize that they are staking out an untenable position, by some accounts. They are, rather, living out among us a calling they have embraced. I would grant that the pacifist calling is a higher calling, more spiritual but hard to say if more moral. For pacifism only works, as all would agree, in the perfect world. As such, pacifism is less about moral perfection in this world than about pointing toward a wholly other, more perfect world. Pacifists are living out the resurrection in our midst. Their arguments do not, will not, "make sense" this side of the eschaton. How could they? Pacifism is a paradox. It doesn't belong here.

Consequently, all Christians should stand in solidarity to rejoice that many are called.