I can hear Jack saying now, “With all due respect professor, I must torture this terrorist in order to save innocent lives. I’ll kill him if I have to.” I can see Dr. Hauerwas shaking his head and saying, “We were not created to kill one another, we were created to commune with each other.” I’ve heard it said over and over from theologians to professors to pastors that we want theology to be accessible to the common man. Well friend, this is what it looks like – great theological figures in imaginary dialogue with fictional television characters. I’ll refrain from that but here’s what I am thinking.
At ephiphaneia’s Amidst the Powers Conference, Dr. Hauerwas asked, “What would the pacifists do if they got a world in which they wanted?” I have spent two weeks falling in love with that idea and I like that image more and more.
He also asked, “When was the last time you went to see a movie that was about peace?” I think for me, it was when I took Susan to see “He’s Just Not That Into You” around Valentine’s Day. I am grateful he didn’t ask, “What were the last three movies you saw about peace?” And if I’m being honest (which is one of the vows, I decided not to make for Lent), my first answer probably doesn’t even suffice because that movie is not about peace, it’s a chic-flick void of physical warfare.
I’ll tell you the truth, though it would mean that I would go to less movies, I would gladly trade my beloved Braveheart and your beloved Star Wars if it meant that we could eliminate the war narratives and their violent results that have permeated our culture. While I’d like to imagine refocusing our imagination and efforts from warfare to addressing some of our other world crises, I know this is not our present circumstance. Discovering how it could be is obviously a long unending discussion that I am not ready to dive into here.
The strength of Dr. Hauerwas’s message was how we as a “civilized” people have moralized war. It may be helpful to insert here that I am not a pacifist but like most people, I hate war. I do believe there is righteousness in just-war theory. I do not equate the pre-emptive strike in Iraq. I do credit the Bush administration with the safety of our country of having no terrorist attacks since 9-11. I pray against living in a situation like Israel where I would think twice of taking my wife and son out to the grocery store. This imperfect, self-contradicting reality comes with significant prices and I think all of us need to have the integrity of not over-simplifying the problem.
While it may bother me that Hauerwas writes these words from the safety of his office at Duke Divinity School, and I get to write these words from the safety of my home and you get to read these words in the presumed safety of your workplaces and coffee shops, this is where we should remember Jack Bauer. Jack Bauer makes it possible for us to believe in pacifism. Further, I am not sure one can truly be a pacifist if they live in the safe police-protected middle class American suburbs. The point of this post is not to give license of who can and who cannot be a pacifist under what circumstance. That would be even more self-righteous than I already am (and I am trying to cut back on that). But seriously, if a Palestinian citizen tells me he/she is a pacifist, I’ll listen.
To be fair to people like Dr. Hauerwas, it is that Palestinian or that Rawandan that he’s speaking for but here in the West it’s become too convenient to identify with being a pacifist. Would we be pacifists though if the opposite views were not symbolized by characters like George W. or Jack Nicholson’s’ Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men? Would we be pacifists if our enemies were attacking our soccer games on Saturday mornings? Would we be against all forms of torture if we had a terrorist in custody that admitted to planting a bomb in our elementary school but refused to disclose its actual location. Meanwhile our children are learning their multiplication tables … perhaps for the last time. On that day, I am praying for Jack Bauer.
Again, I mention this because if we are being honest, it’s easy to be a pacifist today here in the West in 2009. I want to know if you’re still one when the serial killer is trespassing through your home and is not interested in your material wealth, he just wants to see you and your family suffer. On that day, I wish I was Jack Bauer.
This season on 24 has been entertaining. Hauerwas’ words echo as we watch Jack suffer and lament the many people he has killed and the person he has become. As I think about this, I think it’s just as fair to ask what if Jack became convicted at Stanley’s lecture during “Amidst the Powers”. What if Jack Bauer became a pacifist? (If this has already happened, know that I haven’t’ watched every season. If it did, umm, he’s regressed). I can picture him sitting in between Evan and I hanging in his head as Dr. Hauerwas told the story of his friend Roger who explained that killing and then being asked to return to normalcy was the hardest part of war.
What would it look like if Jack Bauer became a pacifist? It’s almost comical because I cannot divorce the violence from him. He’s a one-dimensional character. I cannot see Jack taking up gardening and discussing Wendell Berry with Thom. I am not even sure he can enjoy going to a baseball game for the paranoia of vulnerability would drive him crazy. Nor could I see him opening a coffee shop with Tony Almata. They would have a back up in line and Jack would yell into his Bluetooth, “Chloe I need more espresso beans NOW!”
This is Hauerwas’s point. War robs too much from men and women. Survival, though obviously significant, is only part of them dilemma, re-acclimating is truly another part. That is something that we can agree on, pacifists and non-pacifists. Some days, I am not sure if there can be a compromise between the two. Being “only a little violent” or “non-pacifist when necessary” are among the reasons for the creation of just-war theories. Perhaps another post, I’ll speculate on what Dr. Hauerwas means when he says, “The Christian alternative to war is worship” and “Because of the cross of Christ, war was abolished.” It seems we can learn a lot from Dr. Hauerwas and even Jack Bauer but I find it difficult to think of one and not the other. Who knows, maybe Jack would be relieved by the ideas that people like Hauerwas promote and maybe he’d say to Stanley, “Thanks.”
brilliant, Tim. Great post. coming from a “peace church” tradition, I can relate very much to what you’re saying here…. how can I claim a pacifist stance when i enjoy the safety and freedom that I do? I pay my taxes. I am grateful for the police officers who drive up and down our streets, for the guys with guns who protect us… it’s a cognitive dissonance that I live with every day.
And you are so right to bring up the damage that our country does to military men and women. It’s impossible for them to live normal lives ever again (whatever normal is). yet, is it possible for us to do without a military? really? in this world? I don’t know….
I hold my pacifism lightly, and I try to live with the inner conflict honestly. It’s difficult and humbling. Thanks for making me think about it all again.
Tim, I’ve got to be honest, I really disagree with a good deal of your assessment of pacifism. There were several lines addressing pacifism that I thought warranted a thoughtful response and challenge.
“Jack Bauer makes it possible for us to believe in pacifism.”
I realize that you’re probably saying this with a bit of tongue in cheek, but the sentiment is common. The premise is that the United States military makes pacifism possible either by 1. “Fighting for our freedom” to hold pacifist opinions or by 2. removing violence from our daily lives so that being a pacifist demands nothing of us because we never encounter a situation where it would be tested.
Both are lies. To the first point, as Christians we realize our freedom is granted to us through Christ and not by national laws. And even the “freedoms” or “rights” granted to us as American citizens, absolutely none of them are granted by the military. Rights are won FROM the government by civil rights activists, not generously gifted TO us by soldiers.
To the second point, the American military does not remove violence from our lives, but so meticulously interweaves violence into our entire society that we are all touched by it, if not guilty for it due to our apathy. When over half of our tax dollars go towards the military, any of us paying taxes are funding war, which is why so many of us struggle with just such an act. (http://is.gd/qSFI) I buy gas for my car, and in so doing am participating in a system of violence. The military does not insulate us from violence, it simply removes the violence from our vision so that we can sleep at night.
“Further, I am not sure one can truly be a pacifist if they live in the safe police-protected middle class American suburbs.”
This interests me. Either you are admitting that simply by living in our society we are participating in outsourcing our violence (which I would agree with), or you are saying that the authenticity of pacifism lies in how much violence you encounter day to day, not in a conviction that this is the way of Christ and it must be followed no matter what your circumstance.
“But seriously, if a Palestinian citizen tells me he/she is a pacifist, I’ll listen.”
This makes me think you’re saying pacifism is only authentic if you are in danger.
“…here in the West it’s become too convenient to identify with being a pacifist.”
This deserves more discussion. Are you saying that it has become trendy to call yourself a pacifist? If so, who are you hanging out with, the Amish? The reaction I have received has been much less than welcome. My pacifism has all but wiped out my relationship with my father, seriously hurt my job prospects in my Evangelical denomination, and constantly calls into question the kinds of purchases I make, where I live… pretty much everything. Pinkberry (http://is.gd/1Msk) is trendy, pacifism is not. If I didn’t believe that I was imitating Christ and practicing for the ways of His Kingdom by non-violence I would not bother with the trouble.
“…if we are being honest, it’s easy to be a pacifist today here in the West in 2009. I want to know if you’re still one when the serial killer is trespassing through your home and is not interested in your material wealth, he just wants to see you and your family suffer.”
If you’re talking about trendy, celebrity, pinkberry kind of “anti-war” sentiment… then sure, that’s easy. If you’re talking about a commitment to non-violence out of a deep conviction to follow the ways of Christ then, no, that’s not easy and it’s not popular (even among Christians!). Pacifism is on the one hand, turning the other cheek and you correctly assess that no one is slapping us… but what I think you’re missing is this. It’s WE who are doing the slapping. That’s why pacifism isn’t just “possible” as a Christian living in America, it’s absolutely necessary.
@KrissAnne – Appreciate your words and for understanding the struggle.
@Charlie, thank you for such an intelligent and sincere comment. Originally, I was going to create a few parts to this, so you may have encouraged me to do that.
I’ll give a better response soon but I wanted to approve your comment and say that I also do not like my assessment of pacifism.
Charlie, thanks again for your comment. It’s well thought out and well-written and though we have only had limited interactions, I am grateful that you took the time to read and respond. Know that I respect your perspective and find a good deal of agreement. Further I appreciate your tone. It encourages me to continue the conversation and reinforces my participation in the emerging church discussions.
The first part of your response:
I concur that the freedom that Christ gives us to be free people of His kingdom can never be taken away but I hope we can agree that we enjoy a different type of freedom than that of our brothers and sisters in say, Muslim-controlled countries. I do not envy the persecution that they endure. My parents immigrated from Egypt for the reason of religious freedom, a decision I will forever be grateful for. We did not flee because we were doing the slapping (nor did my parents’ community retaliate). I am not reading that you feel the opposite of that, I only mention that to define my context a little more.
To your point however,
“And even the “freedoms” or “rights” granted to us as American citizens, absolutely none of them are granted by the military.”
I do think it’s worth mentioning that our American rights, liberties and freedoms were the result of the Revolutionary army. But to our rights as Christians, again, I agree, it is through Christ.
To your second point (“but so meticulously interweaves violence into our entire society that we are all touched by it, if not guilty for it due to our apathy … simply removes the violence from our vision so that we can sleep at night”) though worded stronger than I would, I can agree with its spirit.
As mentioned in the original post, I have no intention of granting license to who can be a pacifist or not, but regarding the (Christian or non-Christian) Palestinian who claims he/she is a pacifist is a very compelling story for me. The violence they have endured is beyond which I can imagine. Is pacifism only authentic if you are in danger? It seems to me that your convictions take a different and profound shape in that context. (This is not to say that our views are dismissed since we are not experiencing a similar violence however.)
For the sake of continued discussion, I retract my use of “trendy” pertaining to pacifism. From your comments, I think we are both annoyed by the same pinkberry mentality. I do not know any Amish people personally (lol), though I am inspired by the forgiveness their community has demonstrated.
I can only shake my head in agreement that you have limited your job opportunities in your evangelical denomination. That is a shame for them because the evangelical community needs a plurality of voices and good people like you. However, in fairness, if/when the time came for you to hire someone, would you exclude the person that does not consider him/herself to be a pacifist? Every so often, I suspect that I will find myself in a similar situation when a well-qualified resume of a neo-calvinist will drop on my desk. The humor of God! If it means anything, my emergent ideas have been called into question by sincere-hearted people within my community and I have reason to believe that I was disqualified from other opportunities for some of my beliefs which are frustrating for me, because they do not go against church doctrinal statements, they go more against church culture. We all pay the price for conviction and for the worthy ones, I am humbled to pay it.
My heart was touched when you wrote of your relationship with your father. Being a new father, this is hard for me to imagine but I think the grief I feel is more as a son. May you both be given the grace necessary to be able to reconcile.
Please know that I respect pacifism, and I think that’s evidenced by the words I said about Dr. Hauerwas. You were right to say that I wrote that it a little tongue-in-cheek however.
The problem for me is I do not think pacifism is enough nor do I think violence is always evil. Matters of sport (like the NFL) and self- defense should be considered. But I also see defending the weak from a violent attacker as to be morally justified (Perhaps your pacifism allows for that).
In any case, I’m enjoying our discussion. Thanks again for your comment and I look forward to grabbing a cup of coffee some time.
Tim,
You know we disagree on this point so that’s fine. I’ll be quick.
re: “Further, I am not sure one can truly be a pacifist if they live in the safe police-protected middle class American suburbs.”
I think you could say the same thing about those who believe in just-war. It’s easy to say a war is “just” when you believe YOU are the “just” ones. If Iran attacks America because it allows abortion (for sake of the argument, let’s agree this is wrong), then, couldn’t they say that they are just? Who determines who is and isn’t just? In many cases, Jack Bauer is NOT just. But should we say the ends justify the means and move on? To many, Jack is a hero because he saves AMERICAN lives. But he’s not a hero to the terrorists who believe they are “just.” So, to them, Jack is unjust and those like him should be put to their form of justice, which is violence. If one thinks he or she is just, it’s easy to believe in just war.
[You and I have been over this point before so I’ll just do the Christian thing and blog against you or talk about you with Charlie behind your back. :) ]
@Tim,
Thanks for your response, and most especially for your tone. Not that I would expect anything less than awesome from you! It’s just so rare to have this discussion without having it devolve into an ALL CAPS SHOUTING MATCH. ;)
You are absolutely right that as Americans we enjoy a different kind of freedom than people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or China. I do not envy the kind of persecution those Christians face either.
But I don’t believe that we owe America anything for not persecuting us. A simple, “Thanks for not killing us for Worshiping God in the way of Jesus! We like it here.” would suffice for me. But I encounter many Christians who feel like we OWE something to America for not being killed by America. Namely, we owe America loyalty. And it’s based on this premise – America can only GIVE us this kind of freedom by means of violence. Therefore we cannot object to that kind of violence, because without it we could not freely worship God in the way of Jesus.
I find a few problems with this perspective. Firstly, the colonies worshiped God however they pleased while they were still under the King’s rule. Religious freedom hadn’t begun with the revolutionary war, it was already a part of colonial America. Secondly, the English eventually also allowed more religious freedom. War was not necessary to worship God as we like.
But more seriously is the example of Israel in exile. The people of God were conquered and hauled off to foreign lands under the rule of foreign Kings who worshipped false Gods. Daniel and his friends lived at peace with their foreign conquerers but when the King demanded their loyalty they refused – to the point of death.
It is this kind of uncompromising loyalty to God alone that I’m seeking to live out as a Christian pacifist. So when we enjoy certain liberties as Americans, I can appreciate that. When the line we are given is that these liberties are “won” for us by our military and therefore I should compromise the way of Jesus in this one little way, by either supporting or by not questioning the American military… because after all I couldn’t even worship Jesus if it wasn’t for the military – it is then that I object.
When we get down to the nitty gritty of pacifism, I’m talking about intent to kill or injure, etc. I would have to problem throwing some punches to defend a friend being attacked, but I’m not going to stab the attacker. Aggressive physical contact, like the NFL or Hockey are as beautiful to me as they are to any red-blooed dude. My pacifism is about Jesus’ path to the Cross and his refusal to return violence with violence. Therefore I see it mostly in terms of killing enemies, not in terms of aggressive physical contact.
As for my job opportunities being limited in my evangelical denomination due to my pacifism. One, I’m smart enough not to make that an issue in a job interview. Like many things I think these conversations happen best within friendships. But if I were ever asked to leave a church or not hired because of my pacifism, then so be it, I’m don’t regret it at all from my point of view.
Would I only hire a pacifist, if I were leading a church? Good question. I think I would only hire someone who was entirely loyal to God in the way of Jesus, and then just hope that I could convince them over years that pacifism is part of “the Way.” But I want to serve with people who are loyal to Jesus more than I want to serve with people who share my doctrine and theology.
@Evan,
I agree, that Just War Tradition (JWT) has become a way to JUSTify the wars we want to fight against them. JWT is never used to show how justified our enemies might be in fighting against us. This of course completely strays from the intent to restrain war, not to give a spiritualized rubber stamp to it.
I think a critical component of Hauerwas’ pacifism, which he doesn’t always make explicit, is that it is primarily concerned with our own will to power or desire to control situations, of which physical force is merely a subset.
This means that you don’t need to live in Palestine or Somalia to encounter temptations towards “violence” because this desire to be in control is all around us.
Most of the “what would you do if…” questions err because the nature of the question assumes that war proponents and pacifists have the same goal, which is to control the outcome of an event. So the problem isn’t so much about physical force as it is our desire to make things end up in our favor.
Getting back to war, most Xian proponents begin with the assumption that we know exactly what God wants (a dangerous assertion), and it is our job to make the world align with how we think God wants it to be.
Christian nonviolence begins with the assumption that our job is rather to witness and confess to who God is, and what God has done, and is doing. This is where Christ’s death on a cross has political significance that extends beyond substitutionary atonement and the passage “take up your cross and follow me” has new meaning.
Or as Hauerwas would say, “I do not have a foreign policy. I have something better–a church constituted by people who would rather die than kill.”
@Charlie
I too agree that we do not “owe” America anything. Your knowledge of American history is very insightful. Contrary to popular belief, the Revolutionary War didn’t bring religious freedom. The colonists already had it. The Revolutionary War was for more secular reasons than Christian (by a long stretch).
The problem is, in America, we believe we were justified to break away from England. I’m not so sure how “justified” we were. I’m appreciative of my liberty, but that doesn’t mean “the ends justify the means.”
“Just war” believes that war is only “just” when it is in defense of the innocent. Would anyone justify going to war against the government now because of outrageous taxes? No. Would anyone suggest going to war because I’m not given a proper avenue to voice my opinion? No. But we think the Revolution was just? Sounds strange to me. Americans subconsciously believe war to be good because that’s how we got America – through a war – so war must be good!
I don’t mind if you mind if someone sees war as the last resort. I can even live with the assassination attempt of Hitler. But “just war” has become something that simply justifies our wars, not others. The Taliban could easily make the same arguments for the wars they begin.
@Tim
Lastly, if you finding pacifism under fire as more compelling, then let us look at Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, or Martin Luther King, Jr. Many would say responding to beatings and hosings with violence would be “self-defense” and therefore justified. However, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King, Jr., offered another way out – love, turning the other cheek, kindness.
And I (personally) think Jesus offers the same.
Sorry
“I don’t mind if you mind if someone sees war as the last resort” should say “I don’t mind if someone sees war as the last resort.”