Problems with pacifism

So I've concluded my summer of reading John Howard Yoder as a part of a seminar led by Prof. Stanley Hauerwas. It was one of the most enjoyable aspects of my Th.D. program so far. Yoder's thought, combined with the insight of Dr. Hauerwas and the conversation with friends who were in the seminar, has made it a superb experience.

Yoder has some themes that he returns to time and again, and perhaps the one that is most consistent (and the one he is most known for) is his pacifism. I wrote on that issue in this blog post back in June. Unlike some streams of Mennonite thought, which are content to argue that pacifism is a Mennonite tenet of faith, Yoder argues that pacifism should be a tenet of faith for all Christians. Because of the tightness of his argumentation and the closeness of his biblical reading, he makes a compelling case. (See his position on pacifism in The Politics of Jesus, The Original Revolution, or He Came Preaching Peace; for fair treatments of different types of pacifism, check out Nevertheless; for a generous treatment of the just war tradition, see When War is Unjust.)

Yoder's Christology is wrapped up in the notion that a non-violent Son of God calls us to a life lived in the context of a community defined by that love. And since that love is one of sacrificial servanthood, our community (the church) must also be of a sacrificial and servant character. No room for violence there.

But despite the strength of Yoder's argumentation (and Prof. Hauerwas' own pacifism, which, he admits, is largely the result of Yoder's influence on him), I find myself unable to fully commit to Christian pacifism as a way of life. Here's why:

The Bible is consistent in its injunctions to protect the widow, the orphan, and the alien (Exod 22:21-22, Deut 10:17-19). We are called to a special care for the weak in this way, because we know their experience from our time as Pharaoh's slaves in Egypt. So Psalm 82:3-4 says, "Give justice to the weak and the orphan; maintain the right of the lowly and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Because of the brokenness of this world, and because of the sin of human beings, I take it as a sad fact of our existence that sometimes the protection of the weak will have to be done with force, even violent force. If the greatest love we can have is in following the new commandment of Jesus, which is to love one another (the mandatum novum), then our present condition suggests that such love will sometimes have to involve the protection of the weak through forcibly stopping their oppressors.

My struggles with this issue are due to the fact that I take Yoder (and Hauerwas) very seriously. And of course, even if I cannot commit to absolute pacifism, the extent of Jesus' commands to love have a profound and far-reaching impact on how violence can be used. Pacifist or not, Christians are called to think about violence differently.

As a sidenote: Yoder used to include some version of the line, "Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur," in his writings. It translates, "Our lamb has conquered, let us follow him." Since taking Latin has been the other main preoccupation of my summer (besides reading Yoder), that phrase has stuck with me. What a beautiful statement, and a beautiful challenge.