Quaker 2.0

Hi Chris:

The Christian peace testimony “works” when it is solidly grounded in the work of Jesus. It is a commitment to live in a way consistent with how we were saved. It’s the idea that Jesus did not overcome or resist evil with violence and neither should we.

It would take a lot of space to explain why evangelical Friends have left this behind (short answer: enculturation) but we should note that the “hippie” type Friends have left this understanding of peace behind as well. Our peace testimony does not assume that people want to be good if they’re given the chance, nor that there is “that of God” which is longing to express itself in each of us. Our testimony believes that bad people do bad things but that we shouldn’t use the carnal weapons of violence to resist them.

So in that sense, this not a two sided issue, and nor is it merely a matter of one’s “message” or “position” - it must be embodied in a community. So the real question is not so much what we say but what we do.

And with this second point, I want to say in a very nice way that I’m surprised that you didn’t make that point yourself. Your questions and your framing of the issue seem very “Modern” to me, but then maybe that’s just me.

I’m not sure it’s really our job to prove anything to the world– faithful Christians will be misunderstood and mocked. It’s okay to appear as fools for Christ.

I would argue that one reason Liberal Quaker peace activists are marginalized is our desparate desire to be taken seriously. Fearing we’ll be seen as hippies or fools, we use State Department language and talk knowledgably about arcane points of public policy. We project a professionalism that downplays religious conviction. When you talk like a public policy wonk you are a public policy wonk. The quest for respectibility is perhaps the greatest snare to true gospel ministry.

The response to Friend Tom Fox’s kidnapping and killing showed what being a fool for Christ might look like. Many bloggers said he was an idiot, a hippie, an idealist. But the witness was powerful. It was there. It was real. It was the tradition of Jesus. Is this why many of the enculturated mainstream Quaker peace groups didn’t know how to respond meaningfully? I talked about this some on my post Why Would a Quaker Do a Crazy Thing Like That?

I haven’t been a Quaker for very long, so I don’t know if the Aotearoa/New Zealand Friends are evangelical, liberal or what, but their 1987 statement says it all to me:

http://quaker.org.nz/whoweare/peace.htm

This statement is not public policy wonkery, nor is it rooted in escapism or utopianism. These Quakers state clearly the source of their motivation and strength:”Peacemakers are also empowered by that of God in them. [...interesting in light of the discussion currently going on about this term: "that of God" is interpreted here as a sort of "inward agent," a driving force for good] Our individual human skills, courage, endurance, and wisdom are vastly augmented by the power of the loving Spirit that connects all people.”

They effectively counter the charge that pacifism is synonymous with passivity: “Refusal to fight with weapons is not surrender. We are not passive when threatened by the greedy, the cruel, the tyrant, the unjust. We will struggle to remove the causes of impasse and confrontation by every means of nonviolent resistance available.”

Another thing that distinguishes these Quakers from many other peaceniks is their refusal to hate their opposition: “We may disagree with the views and actions of the politician or the soldier who opts for a military solution, but we still respect and cherish the person.”

But what I see that really distinguishes them from other anti-war demonstrators is their detatchment from the results:

“There is no guarantee that our resistance will be any more successful or any less risky than military tactics. At least our means will be suited to our end. If we seemed to fail finally, we would still rather suffer and die than inflict evil in order to save ourselves and what we hold dear.”

In other words, they are utterly obedient to the will of God, whether or not they see the fruits of their efforts in their lifetime. This flies in the face of the philosophy of “instant gratification” so rampant in our modern society. If something doesn’t yield results in the next quarter or before the next presidential elections, forget it! Don’t negotiate — drop bombs NOW! Hey, at least we’ll be doing something!

Most of all, the A/NZ Friends are determined to remain faithful even if it costs them their lives.

Their stance seems to me to avoid the self-righteousness of the “right” by the insistance on respecting, even cherishing those who think differently, by choosing resistance over coercion, and by devotion to our human connectedness rather than nationalism. At the same time, they’re realistic about the cost and don’t need to see victory to be convinced they’re doing God’s will … which is something I’m not real sure about when it comes to some of the groups on the “left.”

Two days later, my post above seems a little thin, especially in light of the two very thoughtful and engaged posts that followed.

For a better take on the questions, take a look at this week’s post from Johann Maurer: http://maurers.home.mindspring.com/2006/07/rhetoric-of-righteousness-vs-priority.htm

Bob – it’s good to see you post here! Tell your son “What’s up?” for me.

Immediately after I posted this, Amy (my wife) said to me, “You don’t really sound like you at all on Quaker 2.0.” I told her that it probably comes from my attempts to facilitate discussion rather than blast everyone with my diatribes. How’s it working? Comments, on the other hand, are fair game…

First off, it takes a lot to be called a hippie in my household, and usually it involves digging a giant hole in your yard to create a welcoming place for spirit beings. Short of that, I’m pretty open-minded.

In my discussion with Wess at Lucky Baldwin’s about all of this, I suggested that pacifism is a long-tail proposition that, for Christians, is tied directly to the identity and gospel of Jesus, defined in Isaiah’s hope for God’s Kingdom through the Messiah…

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” Luke 4:18-19

…and finding its practical implications in Christ’s crucifixion. If that’s the case, then Christian pacifism, at its core, is about spiritual and physical restoration, not just holding a message or position. It also requires us to take seriously that, if we want to be part of God’s peaceful kingdom, we must take up our cross, wear it next to Christ, and be done with our notions of safety and comfort. We can no longer reasonably act out of fear for our own safety or the safety of our nation. So with that, I’d say Bob and I agree that worthwhile pacifism is borne through community. By the way, that was an excellent link to Johan Maurer’s post.

Martin, when you and I look at Tom Fox, we don’t see a fool but rather someone who lived out committed pacifism in realistic and earthy ways. Why are able to see that when others seem to see his death as ‘one less goofball wasting my tax money?’ I think it comes from our own experiences with pacifism and also that we were taught about the long-tail reality of living out peace and the realized benefits that last beyond one lifetime. Without both the examples of pacifism and the explanation, would we have ever seen Tom’s sacrifice make sense? I doubt it. I think that’s why there are those in EFCSW, like Robert Gonzalez, who are actively challenging our Yearly Meeting to consider how we teach our children and members that Christ’s message wasn’t just about heaven and hell, but also includes a commitment to God’s will for peace being done “on earth as it is in Heaven.”

Liberata, I love the line:

“We may disagree with the views and actions of the politician or the soldier who opts for a military solution, but we still respect and cherish the person.”

I love that it gives us leave to love Israelis and at the same time suggest to our American Orthodox friends that moving into a “settlement” isn’t a good idea for both long-term peace and their own family’s safety. It also allows us to welcome the boys who come home in uniform to our meetings with open arms, while still being clear about their enemy’s role in God’s family.

But I think what I wanted to get at with my question was this – what is it that we, who are converging, can bring back with us to our branches? Are we only finding common ground (which is really enough for me) or are we seeing fresh, important ways to live our God’s peace, ways that we need to bring back to our communities?

As others have said, I refuse to use violence because Christ refused to use violence. As a Christian, I am called to follow and imitate Christ in all that I do, and if this means facing death before harming another I will do so. I consider it a privilege to know Christ and to follow him, and pacifism is not only the right thing to do but my absolute obligation as a follower of Christ.

As for the rest of the world, I believe that they first must know Christ- who is the source of all peace- before they can know peace. Pacifism doesn’t make logical sense. It doesn’t bring about rewards in this life. It cannot be justified except on the grounds that it is an imitation of Christ. Therefore, I believe that evangelism, not preaching pacifism without preaching the Gospel, is what will bring peace to the world. Once someone knows Christ and has heard his good news, he will inevitably be called to follow Christ in the same way that we all have been called.

Hope that made sense.

Hi JT,

While I couldn’t agree more that Jesus taught us not to resist evil with outward weapons, I’m afraid that there are a lot of Christians who consider it their Christian duty to fight and kill the infidels in the name of Christ.

60 million copies of the Left Behind series (featuring a violent and blood-drenched version of the Lamb’s war) have been sold to date, and the film versions are being distributed to churches. See:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=news.display_article&mode=C&NewsID=5485

So, which version of the message of Christ is the one to preach?

I haven’t seen those movies, so I can’t really comment, but I think that the people who take an apocalyptic/literalist view of Revelation believe that war will come after the second coming, right? And that article mentions that the movies contain very few references to the Gospels.

I honestly think that the pro-war crowd just gets most of their information about Jesus from ’secondary sources’ and spends little, if any, time actually reading the Gospels. I don’t think it would be possible to really study the Gospel and still think it’s your Christian duty to fight or kill anyone.

Here’s a good article on this:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0603&article=060351&cookies_enabled=false

The cultural marginalization of Friends is nothing new. Whether is is “ok” is a matter of debate - if one appears to be a “fool” for anyone or anything (even our Lord) it may block from speaking to others’ condition, but what can one *do* about it? Or perhaps it is as the poster said, and don’t worry about that aspect of it since doing right and dying is sometimes what happens?

There are two sorts of violence, physical and non-physical. While it is easy to see the physical violence, the more common sort is non physical, and indeed is much more difficult to avoid. Sometimes through our desire to avoid physical violence we become proud and exclusive thorugh our ‘pacifist’ labels and egos. When not spirit led as is the case many times - can our avoidance of physical violence spawn the more insidious non physical ‘violence’ as well? What can a well meaning person do about it?

Bromo33333 (I can’t help but see that as “dark grey”) - I really appreciate your comment about the pride of pacifism and counter-cultural identification. Quaker “plain living” (I’m not talking about archaic language and dress) is supposed to act as a constant reminder that while we live a life with a clear identity, we never get the option of showboating our own “achievements”.

“Plain living” needs to follow into our activism as well. We need to act in ways that people can understand, even if they’re outside of our community. I’m not talking about only embracing popular projects, I’m talking about thinking through the depth and width of our social agenda and then acting in consistent ways that, when seen from outside, show a clear mind and a loving heart.

The best example I can think of is Martin Luther King Jr. His murder, even at the time it happened, was understood by everyone to be one of the consequences of living radically, but I don’t think that people consistently thought he was a fool. There were whites who grew up and believed in racism and with no connections to blacks that considered him a hero. Why was that? I think it was because he lived consistently, plainly and took measured steps that, when viewed from outside of the civil rights community, could be understood by people throughout the world.

I NEED HELP

interestingly wierd ok thanks thats my RE homework