Quakers and The Lamb’s War: A Hermeneutic for Confronting Evil
A paper presented at the International Historic Peace Church Consultation
Bienenberg Theological Seminary, Switzerland, June 25-28, 2001
Bienenberg Theological Seminary, Switzerland, June 25-28, 2001
By Gene Hillman
As they war not against men’s persons, so their weapons are not carnal nor hurtful to any of the creation; for the Lamb comes not to destroy men’s lives nor the work of God, and therefore at his appearance in his subjects he puts spiritual weapons into their hearts and hands; their armor is the light, their sword the Spirit of the Father and the Son, their shield is faith and patience, their paths are prepared with the gospel of peace and good-will towards all the creation of God; their breastplate is righteousness and holiness to God, their minds are girded with godliness, and they are covered with salvation, and they are taught with truth. And thus the Lamb in them, and they in him, go out in judgment and righteousness to make war with his enemies, conquering and to conquer. Not as the prince of this world in his subjects, with whips and prisons, tortures and torments on the bodies of creatures, to kill and to destroy men’s lives, who are deceived, and so become his enemies; but he goes forth in the power of the Spirit with the Word of Truth to pass judgment upon the head of the Serpent which does deceive and bewitch the world. (Nayler., pp.106-7)
The Quaker peace testimony must be seen within the context of all the testimonies (or "our Christian testimony," in the singular, as was the common usage). The first generation of Friends saw their testimonies as weapons in "The Lamb’s War," a form of what many today would call "spiritual warfare." Our Christian testimony was a form of nonviolent resistance to the hypocrisy and evil that early Friends found in the world. This was not non-resistance, but an active struggle against evil. I relate briefly a few incidents from our early history in an effort to show that, since its early articulation, our peace witness has been an assertive, if not aggressive, witness to the Truth.
The Religious Society of Friends arose in England in the mid-seventeenth century, during a period of great social, economic, political and religious turmoil. Diggers and Levelers questioned the social and economic system; a civil war resulted in regicide and abolishment of the monarchy in favor of a Commonwealth dominated by Puritans. Early Quakers confronted the perceived hypocrisy of those who professed to be Christians, particularly others in the Puritan wing of the Reformation, who while professing Christ did not possess his Spirit. Though Friends were not silent, this was done in large part through witness acted out in what were known as the testimonies.
The first articulation of the Quaker peace testimony usually cited was in 1651, though at this point it was not yet a corporate testimony. George Fox, generally considered to be the founder of the Quaker movement, was being held in Derby jail on charges of blasphemy. He was approached by Commissioners of the Commonwealth army who offered him release and the rank of captain in that army "because of [his] virtue." He declined, throwing the word "virtue" back at them "But I told them I lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars, and I knew from whence all wars did rise, from the lust according to James’s doctrine." (Fox, 65) James’s doctrine to which he referred is contained in the first three verses of the fourth chapter of the Epistle of James (a letter which early Friends cited in support of other testimonies as well). In this epistle James attributes wars to the "lusts" (KJV), "appetites" (REB), or cravings (NRSV). Fox explains , "I was come into the covenant of peace which was before wars and strife were." (Fox, 65)
This covenant of peace, or state of perfection, was expressed by Fox in an earlier, 1648, opening in which he saw himself return to the state of Adam before the fall. He wrote in his Journal, "now I was come up in spirit through the flaming sword into the paradise of God. All things were new and all the creation gave another smell unto me than before, beyond what words can utter. I knew nothing but pureness, and innocency, and righteousness, being renewed up into the image of God by Christ Jesus, so that I say I was come up to the state of Adam which he was in before he fell." (Fox, 27) He felt himself taken back to before the fall and original sin.
This doctrine of perfection held by early Quakers, though few actually claimed perfection for themselves, was central to the message of George Fox. It stood in contrast to the doctrine of human depravity held by the Puritans, and with the Anglicans and Roman Catholics which were seen to emphasize ritual that had become empty. The commissioners to whom he was speaking at Derby jail would have been the former. Fox was confronting the commissioners with the hypocrisy of their position in professing Christ while not possessing his spirit.
It was in 1653 that Fox went to a military garrison in Carlisle for the purpose of speaking to the troops and specifically addressed violence. He said he "turned them to the Lord Jesus Christ their teacher, and warned them of doing violence to any man, and that they might show forth a Christian’s life, and turned them from the darkness to the light and from the power of Satan unto God." (Fox, 157) The objective here seems to have been convincment (conversion) and leading them to an openness to the inward teacher, but it was not explicit that the teacher would lead them from doing violence.
Hence the first characteristic is the conviction that it is possible to assertively live a life of peace. We do not have to passively give in to the lusts and cravings of which James speaks. The Sermon on the Mount is practical guidance for our lives.
Related to this is the second characteristic of the Quaker peace testimony. Friends believe that when we engage an adversary in the love and Truth of God, we can elicit that self-same divine spirit in the adversary’s response. George Fox is often quoted as admonishing Friends with
. . . a charge to you all in the presence of the living God, be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come; that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them. Then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone; whereby in them yea may be a blessing, and make the witness of God in them to bless you. Then to the Lord God you will be a sweet savour and a blessing. (Fox, 263)
Not only is perfection possible, and to be sought, its seed is in everyone and can be elicited in others. Fox wrote to Friends held prisoner in Algiers on several occasions telling them to speak to that of God in their (Muslim) captors.
The third characteristic is community. Our witness is not that of an individual. We are part of a faith community that guides us and supports us in our witness, and often joins with us in that witness. In witness to those traditional testimonies we find in our books of Faith and Practice support should be automatic. This would include in particular non participation in the military. Other acts of civil disobedience are usually handled differently, through the clearness process.
The traditional clearness committee, long an ad hoc committee named to determine clearness for membership, or clearness for marriage (in both cases the clearness had to do with prior entanglements), has been extended to now include clearness to proceed with a course of action. Clearness here is defined as a clearness of discernment or understanding. Clearness committees are appointed, usually by the Monthly Meeting (local congregation) at the request of the one who feels called to the action, to aid in discernment for those called to travel in the ministry or to witness in a way not traditional in our Religious Society. This might involve civil disobedience. If the committee unites with the individual(s) that the proposed action is a valid leading of the divine spirit, and if there is a request for support from the Monthly Meeting (prayer, money, transportation) the committee will report back. Monthly Meeting will then discern its degree of support. Only then will the Friend have the corporate support of her or his Meeting (faith community). As we will see below, the support of the community goes far beyond the organizational.
The Restoration and the Corporate Peace Testimony
With the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 the civil power was no longer held by Puritans with whom some common understanding could be expected to be found. Quaker witness changed in response to the new situation. The new Cavalier parliament was suspicious of dissenting sects and many members of these sects, including Quakers, were arrested. In January 1661 (1660 by the calendar then in use, hence the name "Declaration of 1660") Friends issued the famous letter, "A Declaration from the Harmless and Innocent People of God called Quakers," to distance themselves from the more radical and violence prone groups, in particular those who would attempt to establish Christ’s kingdom by force of arms. After citing the example of Peter in the garden being told by Jesus to put up his sword, and other examples from the gospels, it goes on to say
The Spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we certainly know, and testify to the world, that the Spirit of Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world. (Fox, 379)
The peace testimony was now stated as a doctrine in its own right based on scripture and the guidance of the Spirit of Christ. After the Toleration Act of 1689, for which leading Friends including Margaret Fell Fox "lobbied," the peace testimony became less something by which we would convince others and more an expression of our corporate self-understanding.
But Friends were not confined to renouncing war for themselves at this point. The peace testimony has had a political expression and embodiment since the seventeenth century. Around the end of the seventeenth century Friends were publishing their vision for a world without war, more specifically a vision of European unity. In 1693 William Penn published his Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe, by the Establishment of an European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates, and in 1710 John Bellers published Some Reasons for a European State, Proposed to the Powers of Europe. (See Brock for a fuller discussion of the political expression of the peace testimony.)
The Holy Experiment in Pennsylvania
By the end of the seventeenth century Friends were turning inward, both socially and spiritually. In 1681 William Penn was given the land on which he would build the "holy experiment." Pennsylvania government was to be an experiment in and demonstration of the practicality of Christian civil society. It worked well when allowed to by the crown and by surrounding powers. The fighting common on the western frontiers of the other colonies was largely absent from Pennsylvania. The government was dominated by Quakers until 1756 when, during the "French and Indian War" (Seven Years War in Europe), most Friends withdrew from the Assembly rather than impose a war tax required by the crown. While many Friends were comfortable with paying taxes which included moneys for defense, "in the mix" a tax specifically for war was another matter. Two expressions of the peace testimony date from this period. John Woolman, better known for work against slavery, played a major part in raising both of these "concerns."
First was the payment of taxes which went to support war-
making activities of the civil authorities. It was the matter of war taxes that caused most Friends to withdraw from the Assembly in Pennsylvania in 1756. Payment of taxes which included support for the military "in the mix" (part of a general tax) was generally accepted, and in fact, as Woolman observed in 1755, "scrupling to pay a tax on account of the application hath seldom been heard of heretofore." (Woolman, 83) But he went on to author a letter, signed by twenty other Friends, which called on Friends to refuse the payment of a tax which included warlike purpose as a substantial part of the mix. (Woolman, 85-86) Tax refusal of that portion of the tax estimated to go to military purposes (a figure now computed yearly by the Friends Committee on National Legislation in the United States) is a significant form of Friends peace witness today. Several Quaker employers in the United States support those employees who elect such a witness, but to my knowledge only after the Friend has gone through the prayerful clearness process with her or his faith community as described above.
While tax resistance is not practiced by many Friends, it is an important witness and has come to be observed in a much more visible (and assertive) way in the twentieth century. It was felt to be effective in interfering with the functioning of the war machine during the Vietnam war. An example is the woman who claimed twenty Vietnam orphans as dependents (and therefore deductions from her tax liability, effectively bringing it to zero) on the grounds that the United States government had made them her dependents in the war. Of course she lost when finally taken to court, but she did cause it to go to court. Such actions may open one to a fine for having filed a frivolous tax return in addition to the interest and fines which are usually imposed for the basic action of tax refusal.
The second expression of the peace testimony which John Woolman raised is related to the stewardship of economic resources. John Woolman in his 1770 essay "A Plea for the Poor" tells us
Oh! that we who declare against wars, and acknowledge our trust to be in God only, may walk in the light, and therein examine our foundation and motives in holding great estates! May we look upon our treasures, and the furniture of our houses, and the garments in which we array ourselves, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in these our possessions, or not. Holding treasures in the self-pleasing spirit is a strong plant, the fruit whereof ripens fast. (Woolman, 255)
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.