The majority of people opposed to nonviolence I seem to encounter never get past the idea that nonviolent people are passive people. Every discussion concerning pacifism seems to involve someone asking “how can you stand by and do nothing?!” or something strikingly similar. The truth is that real pacifists are not apathetic or passive but instead are aggressively nonviolent.
I’ve admitted before that pacifism is poorly named because it makes one immediately think of passivity. For this reason many nonviolent advocates refrain from the label of pacifism. It seems to me that even the term nonviolence has come to be synonymous with passivity in the minds of many who disagree with the lifestyle.
I’ve yet to meet a nonviolent Christian who would not protect others or fight injustice. I’m yet to meet a passive pacifist (though this does not mean cowardly people do not exist under the label pacifist).
Pacifists aren't passive & apathetic as non-nonviolent people are not violent & hostile.To all of those who do, please stop assuming we’re cowardly, passive, unjust, overly optimistic idealists who care only about our own self-proclaimed higher morality. We care about protecting the innocent, fighting for justice, and working aggressively towards peace both on small and large scales and assume that those who do not label themselves pacifist or nonviolent can care about the same things.
It just so happens we care about these things so much that we aren’t willing to use means that are contrary to our ends. We believe it is illogical to fight fire with fire and remember that our parents told us two wrongs don’t make a right. Simply because we are unwilling to kill or destroy does not mean we do not care or that we are unwilling to act. It means we care very much and that we will find creative ways to act. If you are not convinced then so be it. But if you really care to ask how pacifists can believe what they do then perhaps it is best to drop the assumptions and believe us when we say:
Being a pacifist does not mean being passive.
Comments (39)
Case in point. That wasn't a very passive article...or violent. :)
This is an incredibly important distinction. Thanks for writing this.
I still don't understand really, maybe you could give us some examples of what you mean? I like the idea of nonviolence and for the most part I generally am but there have been times in my life when the only way to prevent someone being killed was to hurt the person who was trying to kill them. By the way and totally unrelated but fighting fire with fire is not illogical at all it is quite effective and a tried and true method of stopping brush fires to set a fire break and use fire to stop fire. (Spent 6 years living in the home of a fire chief in California).
I'm not a pacifist, because I don't see it as necessarily a Scriptural position, but I have a lot of respect for consistent and thoughtful pacifists. (I have encountered a few.) They are far more engaged in political and social issues than most of the rest of us and aren't afraid to stand up for what they consider truth and justice. True peace often is the result of working through conflict, not avoiding it, and the pacifists I have met are more aware of that than the average citizen.
However, I find it ironic that a significant percentage of the pacifists I know seem to be very angry people. Some are actually quite vindictive when it comes to justice issues, and don't see the inconsistency with their stated commitment to peace.
@tsh44 -Some examples of resolving conflict & fighting injustice without violence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Let me know if these help (10 may be the best). If these don't help clear up your confusion just let me know and I'll expand..
"there have been times in my life when the only way to prevent someone being killed was to hurt the person who was trying to kill them"
Not to bring any judgment on your personal experiences, because I don't know them, but I've never found myself in such positions. I mean, I've found myself at gun point, threatened, in need of protecting others from kidnapping, and more yet never employed violence and always found success. I'm persuaded to believe that bringing violence against someone is never the only way to resolve conflict. Perhaps you could share your stories? I'd love to hear them.
@Roadkill_Spatula - "True peace often is the result of working through conflict, not avoiding it,"
I agree. A serious nonviolent Christian will seek out conflict in order to make peace. Unfortunately, sometimes people grow a hardness in the process. There's a lot to be angry about. I think there is an equal or larger amount in this world to be sad about. Sometimes they go hand in hand. At times one has to be angry to seek peace but it has to a righteous anger. Even then, love has to lead the way. Love is the compass for all Christian peacemaking. All wars on earth could be ended by a man but if he didn't have love he'd be nothing. All that to say I pretty much agree lol.
@TheGreatBout - I am starting to share them in my blog one by one trying to cleanse my mind of the memories. Somehow I don't think anyone will love hearing them.
Being a pacifist does not mean being passive.
That isn't the point. For clearly, pacifists care and act. The point is that some situations require violence in order to avoid annihilation or grave injury.
So while the pacifist sits there caring and acting ineffectually, someone else has to get the job done.
@fallingraindrop - Do you notice that your language perpetuates this idea? You surround the word "acting" with "ineffectually" and "while the pacifists sits there." Then it's followed by claiming that only the other camp can "get the job done." It's sneaky (even if not intentional).
"The point is that some situations require violence in order to avoid annihilation or grave injury."
Avoiding annihilation or grave injury is not always the end goal. Sometimes it is a goal, but faithfulness to the Almighty God is always the goal. God is not always concerned with our protection (or the protection of others) but with his will. Sometimes our suffering/death (or the suffering/death of others) is the best catalyst for his kingdom to come to earth. Thus, it is as Tertullian said, the seed of the early church is the blood of the martyrs. Death is not the greatest tragedy to avoid. Separation from our King and his kingdom is.
As I said in an above comment, I currently don't believe that violence is ever the only way to resolve conflict.
@TheGreatBout - Death is not the greatest tragedy to avoid. Separation from our King and his kingdom is.
Pacificism is essentially nihilistic because it denies life in favor of an erroneous ideal.
If you wish to subject yourself and your loved ones to slaughter, that is your business.
But civil society must survive and continue. Allowing the insane murderer to have his way millions and millions of people is unreasonable and murderous in itself.
@TheGreatBout - Do you notice that your language perpetuates this idea? You surround the word "acting" with "ineffectually" and "while the pacifists sits there." Then it's followed by claiming that only the other camp can "get the job done." It's sneaky.
My language perpetuates the idea because the idea is true. Pacificism is ineffectual when violence is necessary to get the job done.
I'm not being sneaky. My language is bold and clear.
@fallingraindrop - "Pacificism is essentially nihilistic because it denies life in favor of an erroneous ideal."
What do you see as the erroneous ideal here?
@fallingraindrop - "Allowing the insane murderer to have his way millions and millions of people is unreasonable and murderous in itself."
Again, pacifists aren't for allowing injustice. That doesn't mean injustice won't occur. Neither violence nor nonviolence will by themselves end injustice.
@TheGreatBout - God is not always concerned with our protection (or the protection of others) but with his will.
That is both a nihilistic statement and an erroneous one. God is ALWAYS concerned with our protection.
@TheGreatBout - Again, pacifists aren't for allowing injustice. That doesn't mean injustice won't occur.
Allowing millions to be slaughtered is not a mere injustice. It is a craven sin of abetting mass murder.
It is frustrating, how right you are.
@tsh44 - Fighting fire with fire might work, but it is problematic if you are opposed to the use of fire in the first place.
@Roadkill_Spatula - I'm surprised thegreatbout didn't quote Stanley Hauerwas: "I'm a pacifist because I'm a violent son of a bitch."
@stephenandginny - LOL except the lightning strikes where it will with little regard for our opinions on fire.
I agree, it's an unfair stereotype (not unlike the non-pacifists who are considered war mongers who resort to violence at the slightest provocation). It also impedes meaningful dialogue between disagreeing sides.
I can see that if violence were held to be evil inherently (at least when acted out by a Christian), two wrongs don't make a right would apply.
I don't believe it is necessarily wrong to use violence in certain situations, but suspending that conviction for a moment, I still find it to be a very uncomfortable thing for violence to be taken off the table as not being an option. For instance, I generally have an easy time saying lying is wrong, but I think of hiding Jews (or Israelite spies, tee hee) and part of me thinks, "It's not that simple." I have a hard time treating it as such a black-and-white issue where enacting violence is unacceptable, no exceptions.
@stephenandginny - I almost did. lol
@fallingraindrop - So, maybe I'm missing something you're saying but I'm going to ask again, and maybe you can rephrase it if you feel you've all ready answered this question but, what is the erroneous ideal here?
[This is going to seem initially off-topic...]
On a side-note, Batman took a vow to never kill, even to save himself. However, he used violence only to stop those who would not yield to any other means. But in many instances, he used BRAINS, sensibility, and compassion even on the most violent and ruthless of criminals before he took to using fire to combat fire. (Firefighters will sometimes burn a section of the forest in order to stop the fire from having more fuel to continue past that point. Literally, fighting fire with fire.)
I guess my point here is that combatants do not always use their fists to bring about justice and truth. Some use it as a last resort, some don't use it at all, and others use it because it's the ONLY way in the worst of circumstances to begin with.
But using alternative methods to fight does not mean weakness or a willingness to let the evils continue.
Batman fought with his mind against the Riddler and The Joker but used his fists against Bane and Mr Freeze. It would be easy enough to knock them all out with his fists, but Batman subscribes to methods that don't lower his standards but simply gets the job done appropriately.
Pacifists do not sit back to let the evil run wild...they're sitting down planning out a creative way to stop the evil where it's weakest: evil doesn't think rightly or doesn't think at all.
(Bring in the soldiers with guns if there's a direct need to stop the evil, but let the heart and mind join the battlefield, too.)
Great post... I get into debates quite often with some friends about non-violence. They always go over the hypothetical situations, and I think the hardest part for them is they think I would allow them to be killed, and it isn't the case at all. I just wouldn't be violent to stop violence. Once people understand that, I think it will be easier to understand the non-violent position.
@stephenandginny - I haven't read much Hauerwas. I hate reading pacifists. Subscribed to Sojomail (online Sojourners) for a while but got fed up with the slant.
@Roadkill_Spatula - Sojo is difficult for me too at times.
@TheGreatBout - Simply because we are unwilling to kill or destroy does not mean we do not care or that we are unwilling to act. It means we care very much and that we will find creative ways to act.
That is the erroneous ideal. A homicidal manic is not subject to creativity. He needs to be stopped toute suite.
Likewise and army of homicidal maniacs. They must be annihilated so that they are not allowed to slaughter the innocent.