A Place to Stand: Do Quakers Still Hold to the Peace Testimony?
I suspect that only a fairly small minority of Quakers today still accept the peace testimony. The majority combine the some version of the traditional Catholic just war theory with a heightened distrust of the rationales offered by our political leaders to justify their wars.
Most Quakers today oppose most or even all of the wars the United States has fought in their lifetimes, but they do so only because they reject the specific justifications offered by our leaders. They do not reject all war without qualification or exception. But they do actually oppose actual wars, so isn’t the modern Quaker position on war functionally equivalent to the traditional peace testimony? No, it is not. And our tradition of speaking the plain truth should make us face the difference.
I was in high school and college during the Vietnam War. While I felt the challenge of Jesus’ call to radical obedience, just war theory appealed to my rational side. My father had served in World War II and the fight against Hitler seemed right to me. Wars were often, perhaps normally unjust, but to reject all war seemed too extreme. Like the majority of Christians for the past two thousand years I decided that Jesus was wrong and that “common sense” required the rejection of pacifism. The use of deadly force in self-defense, whether at the individual level or at the national level, was legitimate. A responsible person was very slow to use violence but the option should never be taken off the table.
It has only been in the past decade or so of my life that I find myself coming to reject just war theory as a worldly compromise with divine Truth and, somewhat to my surprise, accepting the undiluted peace testimony. The peace testimony, like the simplicity, truth and equality testimonies, is not a philosophical position. They are not something you come to believe by considering the arguments pro and con. The testimonies represent a single unified way of living. They are called testimonies because those who enter into this way of life discover that they are fundamentally changed in the process over time and then are in a position to testify to its Truth. I capitalize “Truth” here because I am not talking about the literal truth of statements, however noble or abstract, but rather about the experience of living in the Truth. As you live more simply, you find yourself called to live more peaceably. As you live more truthfully, you find yourself treating others more equitably. It is a life that draws you in, changes you, radicalizes you, and makes compromises with the world seem less and less attractive.
As a philosopher I can debate with people who try to debate the relative merits of pacifism and just war theory interpreted as philosophical positions. I’m not interested in doing this. Doing good philosophy is much harder than it looks and the arguments that ordinary folk come up with are usually just terrible, but the more fundamental reason is that such argument misses the point. The peace testimony is a testimony not a philosophy. It is something to be lived, if you choose or not if you choose not. But in either event it is not something to be argued about.
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2008
Do Quakers Still Hold to the Peace Testimony?
Most Quakers today oppose most or even all of the wars the United States has fought in their lifetimes, but they do so only because they reject the specific justifications offered by our leaders. They do not reject all war without qualification or exception. But they do actually oppose actual wars, so isn’t the modern Quaker position on war functionally equivalent to the traditional peace testimony? No, it is not. And our tradition of speaking the plain truth should make us face the difference.
I was in high school and college during the Vietnam War. While I felt the challenge of Jesus’ call to radical obedience, just war theory appealed to my rational side. My father had served in World War II and the fight against Hitler seemed right to me. Wars were often, perhaps normally unjust, but to reject all war seemed too extreme. Like the majority of Christians for the past two thousand years I decided that Jesus was wrong and that “common sense” required the rejection of pacifism. The use of deadly force in self-defense, whether at the individual level or at the national level, was legitimate. A responsible person was very slow to use violence but the option should never be taken off the table.
It has only been in the past decade or so of my life that I find myself coming to reject just war theory as a worldly compromise with divine Truth and, somewhat to my surprise, accepting the undiluted peace testimony. The peace testimony, like the simplicity, truth and equality testimonies, is not a philosophical position. They are not something you come to believe by considering the arguments pro and con. The testimonies represent a single unified way of living. They are called testimonies because those who enter into this way of life discover that they are fundamentally changed in the process over time and then are in a position to testify to its Truth. I capitalize “Truth” here because I am not talking about the literal truth of statements, however noble or abstract, but rather about the experience of living in the Truth. As you live more simply, you find yourself called to live more peaceably. As you live more truthfully, you find yourself treating others more equitably. It is a life that draws you in, changes you, radicalizes you, and makes compromises with the world seem less and less attractive.
As a philosopher I can debate with people who try to debate the relative merits of pacifism and just war theory interpreted as philosophical positions. I’m not interested in doing this. Doing good philosophy is much harder than it looks and the arguments that ordinary folk come up with are usually just terrible, but the more fundamental reason is that such argument misses the point. The peace testimony is a testimony not a philosophy. It is something to be lived, if you choose or not if you choose not. But in either event it is not something to be argued about.
11 Comments:
I don't think so. Conservative Friends are pretty similar to liberal Friends--unprogrammed, generally liberal politics, etc. We are just a bit more theologically conservative (more Christian and little less individualistic). Evangelical Friends are more politically conservative and many of them just drop the peace testimony entirely or almost. The people in my meeting who are just war theorists are originally from liberal Northern meetings.
Could you do me a favor? Would you ask around for me and see how many of the liberal Friends think that fighting in WWII to defeat Hitler seems like the right thing to do? Don't worry if they don't use the term "just war" or not. What matters is if they think that participation is some wars is OK. If that is what they think then they accept some variant of just war theory.
I have heard just war doctrine many times in response to my own absolute pacifism. I have never once heard it from a Friend.
Living the peace testimony is far more than being opposed to war. We are more FOR something -- treating other human beings with compassion and respect -- than we are AGAINST anything. We need to strive to build institutions and solutions that promote peace, not continue to ask the same either/or questions that lead, inevitably, to the decision to go to war.
People do sometimes make choices between the lesser of two evils. While that might be the best choice they could imagine in that situation, I think those choices indicate a lack of creativity, perhaps an error in defining the problem.
It's more that we're afraid of the simplicity of a full anti-war stance. To just say "war is wrong, period" is to look naive and foolish. I think that's fine. I'm sure everyone thought Jesus was a fool and he certainly spent a lot of time talking about the meek and the children.
But a lot of Friends today have a burning desire to be relevant. We put out these learned minutes on peace and strategy, as if the Pentagon is really going to take notes on what some ragtag Quakers think. I don't think this armchair general-ship does us much service. It hides the power of our message, that war is wrong and that it's noble to be the lamb when we live in the age of the Lamb's War.
I suspect that many of the strategizing Friends, the ones who talk Just War, are really more consistent pacifists than they let on.
I do know that I see profound differences both in ways of thinking and in ways of life between what I will call the Quaker subculture and more mainstream cultures, including non-Quaker academia. And I've had several intensive immersion experiences in Quaker subcultures in different geographical locations over many years. In those experiences, I got used to a way of talking and thinking about peace issues, but then found that those ways of talking did not work at all in non-Quaker academia!
But I continued to find understanding, solace, and encouragement back in my Meeting. Maybe it is an error for me to conclude that this is because most, if not all, members of my meeting hold to the peace testimony. But it is what I have thought. I will check on this.
Meanwhile, what you say about argument is interesting as well. I do agree that the peace testimony is a commitment and a way of life, but I also believe that "conversion" is possible, and that argument and persuasion can play a role. But experiential learning has a more powerful effect. When people learn through practice how to tap into sources of personal power other than those based on fear or threats, and come to experience how powerfully effective this can be for solving problems and disputes, then they are inspired to keep trying that approach, and in so doing, increasingly live true to the peace testimony.
Having members who were COs during WWII is a clear indication that the peace testimony is held in your meeting. WWII is the litmus test. Maintaining the peace testimony in the face of Hitler is about as hard as it gets. And youre right we have to continue to educate people that pacifism doesn't mean "passivism." We are saying yes to peace--actively and creatively and in ways that involve risk and suffering.
Martin,
I agree that too many Quakers seem to confuse being well-informed and well-educated with being spiritually well grounded. The Lamb's War isn't won by being smarter than other people.
CS,
Yes, please do ask around your liberal Northern meeting. You probably will have to ask some probing questions to get at the truth. It's popular in Quaker circles to complain about wars so we naturally tend to hear that most of the time. However, as I noted, when someone complains about Iraq that doesn't tell you whether they are opposed to all wars or only to most wars. And the difference between all and most is important. Asking specifically about Hitler may be the best way to get at the truth.
I don't think conversion to the peace testimony makes sense as I understand the peace testimony at this point in my life. The original statement of the peace testimony goes something like this (in my own paraphrase): We know by personal experience that Christ teaches us. One thing he teaches us is not to go to war. Since God does not change we are confident that God will not change his mind and someday decide to tell us to go to war. Notice that this does not say: we used human reason and came to the conclusion that we should not go to war. It says we have been taught this by God and believe that God won't change his mind about it. So it's fundamentally an argument from religious experience which then is confirmed as you continue to live by the Light of this teaching. It starts with experience and continues with experience. This is why it is a testimony and not an argument. There's no way to talk people into the testimony. They need to experience its truth for themselves.
In my own very Liberal, very large urban meeting, a good many Friends claim the peace testimony as part of their Quakerism... but as you point out, I fear they miss the Root:
There is little spoken ministry, in or away from worship, about being changed inwardly in such a way that they are spiritually convinced that the way to the Kin(g)dom is through loving our neighbor.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
You said, "I don't think conversion to the peace testimony makes sense...," and so I wonder what you mean by conversion? It sounds like you are arguing that people cannot be logically persuaded. I do not see logical persuasion as the same as conversion.
By "conversion" I only meant that people who once did not accept the peace testimony may later accept it.
Logical persuasion may be one means to conversion -- you do not think that that can do it, in this case, whereas I do actually hold open the possibility that this might work in some cases.
But what both you and I go on to discuss are other means to conversion: experiential and God-given.
So, am I correct that you do believe that those who don't accept the peace testimony sometimes do become converted (i.e., change their hearts and mind on this), but your point is just that it is not through logical persuasion that they do?
Yes, I find that the majority of Quakers today shy away from claiming that they have been changed by the power of God working in their lives. I suspect that a lot do experience that power and feel the change but hesitate to claim it for fear of sounding arrogant. It's just not very fashionable to say things like "I once was lost by now I'm found was blind but now I see." I remember very well how I used to cringe at those lyrics from Amazing Grace. I can appreciate them much more now.
CS,
Yes, by "conversion" I meant a change of mind not a change of heart. I do think that a change of heart is the essence of accepting the peace testimony. Someone who accepted it in their head wouldn't really "get it" in my opinion.
I think it's difficult to answer because what we now call the Peace Testimony is properly understood a testimony against participation in war, at least in its original historical manifestation. It didn't refer to holding an opinion about military or foreign policy -- it was an existential behavioral command. And it certainly wasn't understood to be a mere restatement of the Golden Rule and being kind and fair to everyone (though Quakers certainly believed in this).
But what does this actually mean during a time of volunteer armies? Does non-participation in war have any meaning to a non-soldier?
Early Friends certainly saw the connection between certain forms of taxation and participation in war, and many of them (as directed by their yearly meetings) refused to pay war taxes that were clearly denominated as such and suffered the consequences. (There's a lovely passage from the Old Discipline that warned Friends that the testimony against paying war taxes applied even to taxes designated as being for drums and flags since that was an obvious ruse.) Similarly, Friends during the American Civil War were directed that paying $300 to a substitute as the draft law permitted was tantamont to personally participating in the war and was condemned. (Many Quakers disregarded this advice, of course, finding defense of the Union and liberation of slaves to be a just cause that trumped the testimony -- so perhaps the "still" in your question poses a dubious premise.)
It is more difficult, of course, when war taxes are "in the mix" with everything else and can't be as clearly segregated. (E.g., are funds spent for educational benefits provided to military veterans via the GI Bill of Rights "war taxes"? How about medical rehabilitation of wounded vets? Reasonable people can answer these questions both ways, I believe.)
So while I believe that nearly all Friends would agree that our Christian duty is to not participate in war of any kind, what constitutes "participation" (not to mention what constitutes "war") is an unsettled question. Short of enlistment in the military, it is not at all clear to me that Friends have a common position as to what is permitted, other than respect for a wide range of individual responses; there is little corporate guidance that I know of. (I do know that New York YM, has recently toughened its testimony against payment of war taxes in recent years to be a stronger encouragement of non-payment, and not merely a respect for those who come to that position as individuals. But even that direction leaves a lot of room for individual discretion.)
My own take on it is that, to make sense of the Peace Testimony in modern times, we have to rediscover its roots in an even more ancient testimony against idolatry. That is, to make war, the state requires total allegiance of its citizenry, and to Quakers (and all Christians) who proclaim that Jesus is Lord, this pledge of allegiance is not possible.
In early Christian days, the Romans didn't require Christians to serve in the army, but they did require them to recognize Ceasar as Lord by dropping incense on the altar in front of Caeser's image; Christians who refused to do this symbolic act (and most of them did refuse) were severely punished. Similarly, it was the Friends' indifference to the kingdoms of this world -- so much indifference that they wouldn't raise a hand either in rebellion against or in support of the king -- that got them in hot water in England with regard to participation on the military.
So, to me, the question is, "What are we asked or required by law to do that reinforces the authority of the state in areas that ought to be the domain of individual conscience, the family, or the church? Do we refuse to do those things?
This is an extraordinarily difficult question in the modern totalitarian state where practically every aspect of life is claimed by the state as being under its ultimate authority, and where economic and political life is inextribly bound up. (Is my purchase of a shirt sewn in China from cotton grown in Egypt and transported her in a ship fueled with oil guaranteed by U.S. military power supporting the immoral policies in those countries? Is there anyway to clothe [or feed, or house, or transport . . . ] myself without implicating myself in the totalitarian global state?)
I have been wondering for a long time whether modern-day Friends' gradual acquiesence to the supremacy and authority of the state in so many areas of life -- we expect the state to provide education, health care, economic security, and even such things as enforcing acceptable child-rearing techniques and proper nutrition -- hasn't eroded our ability to testify against the same state when it extends its imperial rule overseas.
I wonder, then, whether our friends in the Anabaptist tradition -- especially the Amish -- whose biblically-sound theology of nonresistance and aloofness from government aren't the more faithful stewards of the Peace Testimony as our Quaker ancestors understood it. (I say this knowing full well that the many early Quakers -- including Fox, Margaret Fell & Wm Penn, among many others -- were politically engaged, but that that engagement had more to do with defending their right to practice their faith freely than in influencing general governmental military or economic policy.)
(I should also acknowledge that I know I'm speaking from a North American perspective; I don't know whether there's a military draft in Kenya, Rwanda, El Salvador, Cuba, and other places were there are a lot of Quakers. If there is, then how those Friends respond to the draft provides a more traditional way to answer your question.)
I'm sorry if I've drifted away from your original question . . . .
You drifted from the topic a bit but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I do like to keep my posts focused but the discussion that follows sometimes takes on a life of its own.
First, when there is a volunteer army Quakers can easily choose not to serve in the military and nearly all Quaker do in fact choose not to serve. However, many of their children do volunteer. When this happens it brings the just war vs strict peace testimony question home to these Friends and they often, in my experience, choose the just war option at that point. Many, perhaps most, North American Friends today are convinced Friends. They come to Quakerism from other churches and are attracted by Quakerism but rarely buy into all of it all at once. Since most of them come from churches that hold some version of just war doctrine these newly convinced Friends often hang on to the just war theory. Sometimes they hang on to it for decades. When this happens, as I note, it is often tough to spot because they will combine just war theory with the actual rejection of current actual wars. So there will be no live issue to bring the difference to the fore. Also the peace testimony exists in a fairly attenuated form among pastoral Friends in North America. There are probably a very large number of just war theorists among pastoral Friends.
The question that interests me is: How many modern North American Friends in unprogrammed meetings are opposed to all current actual wars but open to participation in future wars provided that they were "just wars."? Recall Scott Simon claiming to be a Quaker on the pages of the Wall Street Journal while he praised the war in Afghanistan and ridiculed the peace testimony as naive. Scott Simon evidently never adopted the peace testimony but fit in with a liberal meeting because his just war theory was combined with a generalized suspicion of actual wars up to that point.
I'm less interested in the war tax resistence issue. Taxes these days go into a general fund to pay for a wide variety of services some of which I can approve and others which I do not. I don't think paying taxes under these conditions violates the peace testimony.