Thanks for the reminder. There are a range of beliefs, attitudes, and practices that can be described as pacifist, and different “pacifist” groups have embraced various combinations. But broadly speaking, there’s a difference between the Christian “pacifism” of the Mennonites and the “God and Country” Christianity so often in evidence here on First Things.

Not all Mennonites believe that their position can be accurately described as “pacifism”. Another position–which has a theological pedigree going all the way back to the Schleitheim Confession of 1527–is that Mennonites recognize the right of the state to bear the sword, but are to be separated from all aspects of the world’s political and social life, including the use of the sword.

I for one do not regard this as pacifism, which has always been a *worldly* attempt to gain the same fundamental goals of political-social action, but “peacefully.” (See the OED, Supplement, s.v. “pacifism” on this point.) Whether or not pacifism is possible or desirable is another question, but in my considered opinion is NOT an accurate description for the position of the Schleitheim Confession, or the historical experience and practice of the Mennonite Church up to, say, 1970.

No, it doesn’t.

You can use what Gandhi wrote about Pearl Harbor instead, if you like. You still don’t have an answer.

Pacifism inescapably requires that we let aggression go unchecked.

The ethically correct response when one is confronted with bullying is to intervene on behalf of the victim. Standing on the sidelines doing nothing is not virtuous.

And if it turns out that the bully you stop turns out to be a far more horrific bully than you knew at the time when you stepped in – if it turns out that this bully was in fact doing unbelievably ghastly things – how does that change anything? It doesn’t. It just proves that you were right to step in.

And finding concentration camps full of various persecuted minorities – finding that the Nazis were worse than we thought – proves that we were right to ignore the pacifists.

Gandhi’s advice to the Jews still stands as evidence that pacifism is both stupid and evil.

It presupposes, wrongly, that ‘we’ went to war to save the Jews. It is blind to the actual history of WWII but also to the foundation that Christians prepared Hitler in WWI.

As to ‘plan B’ as opposed to ‘war,’ there were many like Corry Ten Boom’s family.

In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation toanswer was: “What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?” I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the “you’re another” type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer’s GANDHI AND STALIN. According to Mr.
Fischer, Gandhi’s view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which “would have aroused the world and the people of
Germany to Hitler’s violence.” After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way.

I do not think it is noble to refuse to stand up for others when they are threatened or oppressed, so I do not see why it is that I should be humbled by the Amish or the Mennonite on this score.

We must do what is right, and if it were self-evident what that means, there would be no disagreement among Christians of good faith. When Jesus tells us to ‘turn the other cheek’, what is he asking us to do? I think everyone agrees it means we are to forgive rather than seek revenge; also that we are to forgive rather than be obsessive about counting our grievances and protecting our interests. But does that mean we should do nothing in the face of evil?

Just how far are we to trust God and just where are we to be God’s tools ourselves?

We have an obligation to protect what is good. I do not know where the line is between protecting a thing vs. being aggressive on its behalf. But taking a simplistic position – one that entails a willingness to sacrifice other peoples’ children casually – is not IMO something I owe respect to.

I have been told that he has tempered that as of late. The odd juxtaposition certainly struck me at the time, however.

For one who would care to be informed on the topic, whether he agrees with the conclusion or not, a good starting place would be C. John Cadoux’s The Early Christian Attitude to War [free on the internet].