Pacifism is often
rejected because it is not effective. Sometimes it has been very effective and
other times it has not been. War has a similar track record. Sometimes it seems
to have been effective and other times it has not been. Perhaps we could ask which
is usually more effective, pacifism or war? Of course this raises up the
question of how we define “effective”. Within the context you are talking is it
simply stopping the blood-shed? If this is all we are talking about why do we not
evacuate the whole area and let ISIS take the land? My guess is most of us will
reject this idea. Which means that “effective” means more than just stopping
the killings. So what is effective? Freedom and peace would part of those
answers for me.
Second pacifism is to be
rooted in love. Sure too often people use pacifism as an excuse for cowardice. But
I will leave that alone for right now. Pacifism is rooted on Jesus’ command to
love our enemy. Certainly there are difficulties. Like how we do love our
enemies and love the victims of our enemies? But as followers of Jesus this problem
needs to be wrestled with. In cannot be simply ignored. Is it love to drop a
bomb on someone? Is it love to stand by and let someone be killed? Both
questions need to be asked. Both need to be dealt with. We cannot ignore one
because it is hard to answer. I do believe all simplistic answers are removed
when struggling with these questions.
Now for the record (and
this is why I am not a good pacifist) I think I believe that violence can be
used to restrain evil. However I am completely convinced that it cannot bring
peace.
A couple of comments on
WWII. First, we should note that WWII is the direct result of a “successful”
war, WWI. Second, people automatically assume that pacifism would not have
worked in this situation. Why is that true? Is there any evidence? An example
of a non-violent approach being taken in against the Nazi reign is the Rosenstrasse protest. Which were “effective”.
Just because we cannot imagine non-violence working in WWII does not mean we
right. After all I grew up in the 1980s when no one could imagine non-violence
would over throw any communist nation.
What should we do with
ISIS? Not 100% sure. Pray. I find it interesting that many believe they would
be more “effective” with a gun then on their knees.
There are a couple of
questions that I do ask regarding this though. Why is this the most pressing
issue right now? I have friends who tell about their families being killed and
murdered in their countries. And this has been happening for years. No news
reports. No outcry from Christians that we should invade. Why not? Is it
because we have no economic stake in their countries? Which leads me to ask is
ISIS an issue because they kill people or because they may possibly threaten
our economic status? Where did ISIS come from? They are the result of our invasions
into Afghanistan and Iraq. Our “effective” and “successful” wars has led to a
problem. Perhaps we should tread very carefully before simply saying invade
once again.
