I am no Longer a Pacifist
I’ve been a Mennonite for twenty years and a Mennonite pastor for 3 years. But after a trip to Israel and Palestine this summer, I can no longer call myself a pacifist. I blame Christian Peacemaker Teams for this.
In August I spent two weeks with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and Palestine, and came out of the experience unable to use this pacifist label for myself any longer. And this is why: Pacifist mean to oppose war and violence. And I’m tired of opposing things. I want to be for something.
After spending just a few short days in Hebron, a tense city in the West Bank, I realized that opposing war–being a pacifist–is a position of privilege. It’s easy for me to say that I oppose something like war and violence. I live a pretty safe and secure life. Opposing peace and violence while living a middle class life in the city is easy to do; it is a privilege to declare myself a pacifist.
In Hebron, Palestinians have to go through checkpoints every day of their lives. Their bags are subject to search in these checkpoints, and they can be stopped on the street by soldiers to show their papers to any military person who wishes to see it. There are places in the city that they are not allowed to be, places that settlers can drive their cars but Palestinians cannot. They live in an apartheid system.
After being stopped by military or border police several days in a row, while my Palestinian friends had to show their papers and explain where they were going, I could feel my blood pressure rise, and my fists clench. How can I simply be against war and violence when this is happening right in front of me!
I understood at that moment why Palestinians threw rocks at Israeli soldiers. Or worse. If my blood was boiling just watching this happen to Palestinian friends a few times, how much harder would it be to experience that personally every day.
And then I met Hanee. Hanee is not a pacifist. But he has chosen the path of nonviolence. Hanee, a Palestinian man, lives next to an Israeli settlement in Hebron, and faces daily threats from settlers and soldiers as he walks to and from his home. He’s been denied water to his home. He’s been delayed at checkpoints to discourage him from going to mosque to pray. His olive trees and cars have been burned repeatedly, and his property is littered by trash that settlers throw in his yard.
He realized at a certain point that fighting back was not working. Non violent resistance was the only thing that seemed to be effective. So, when his son was beaten up in front of him by soldiers, Hanee did something quite counter intuitive. He filmed it instead. And he sent that video the international news organizations who highlighted Hanee’s situation. That had more of an impact than armchair pacifism or violent intervention ever could have. Hanee intervening with violence in his son’s beating would have meant that both of them would have been jailed, and imprisonment would have economic ramification for his whole family. Videotaping the beating sent a message to the soldiers and to the government that this would not be tolerated.
It’s then that I realized I’m not a pacifist. Because I’m not just against war, I’m for peace. I’m for finding creative ways to solve deeply entrenched problems. I’m for standing in the way of violence which means my beliefs have to be active.
Too often pacifists are accused of being cerebral, but offering no actual solution to violent situations. And, I can’t disagree with this criticisms. Those of us who believe in peace, must be more than simply against war and violence. We must be peacemakers, and actively resist violence.
Pacifist is not a word that really fit for Jesus. He was pro-peace, pro-action, pro-people. And he used his words and his body to show us these things. He didn’t philosophize about war and violence. He stood with people. He confounded the powerful by sitting where he wasn’t supposed to sit, and touching those he wasn’t supposed to touch. That’s active non-violent resistance, not pacifism.
I reject the word “pacifist” as a label for my own beliefs. It is stricken from my vocabulary. Instead, I believe in active non-violent resistance. I believe in peace. And like Hanee, I’m willing to use my voice, my body and my creativity in seeing a non-violent solution come to pass.
25 Comments
Ruth White says: Very thoughtful commentary! Will cause me to rethink that label for myself as well. Thank you!
Amy says: That sounds rather Old Quaker…. an historic people who’s actions and legacy I have come to greatly respect, especially William Penn. I have identified myself as Mennonite for 26 years, but it is the Old Quakers’ style of peace that I really want to emulate. Not that I do, yet… It can be difficult to live a life of active peace without pointing fingers, but finger pointing does not help much with peace making. “Bless those who persecute you.” Science even shows that when we think calmly, better thoughts arise.
Muriel Edgerton says: I am so grateful for your post, Amy. I have long considered myself a pacifist, and I agree with your responses to the experiences you describe here. I have always considered pacifism to include a belief in active non-violent resistance, a belief in seeking peace, “using my voice, my body and my creativity in seeing a non-violent solution come to pass.” So, use whichever “label” you choose, but don’t automatically exclude those of us who are still easy with calling ourselves “pacifists” from seeking peace through non-violent resistance. Muriel Edgerton
Michael Smith says: While I understand the sentiments expressed, I have a big problem with Amy’s facile acceptance of the world’s “take” on pacifism, equating it with “passive-ism”. Like Amy, “I believe in active non-violent resistance. I believe in peace. …I’m willing to use my voice, my body and my creativity in seeing a non-violent solution come to pass.” That, not some “cerebral” or passive though that peace would be a really neat thing, is how I understand pacifism. It is that pacifism that has lead both my wife and me to active peacemaking, whether with Christian Peacemaker Teams, in our own community or wherever we may be. It is, however, probably a nice “hook”.
Sarah Witter says: Amy, People often think Pacifists are passive. They are not. But they are against violence and war. Ghandi called himself a pacifist but he was also a very active person who worked to bring about the end of injustice and violence. M.L.King was also a pacifist. If you think of any others known to be a pacifist, you know of them because of their actions of nonviolence towards injustice.
Kathleen Lenshyn says: I used to be leaning towards the Israelis side in this “dare I call it an issue”. Until I researched and learned what exactly is going on. Now I am way over on the Palestinian side of this issue. I believe what Israel as well as the rest of the developed world is doing/has done is unconscionable. No words can express the utter horror and sorrow I feel whenever I think about what is going on in the Middle East. I too used to label myself a pacifist. Somewhere along the way I stopped using that label too.
Helen Lapp says: Amy, you say it well for me – thanks.
Hi Amy. Thanks so much for sharing. I hear you speaking with powerful conviction that makes me want to sit up and listen. If I may, I don’t understand from what you’ve said here why you feel you must make a choice. Why not join the long line of pacifists who fought for justice nonviolently? I’m thinking of folks like Lucretia Mott, Alice Paul, George and Lillian Willoughby, Movement for a New Society, the War Resister’s League, Bayard Rustin, Philip and Daniel Berrigan, A. J. Muste, and the list goes on. I’m sure you would be welcome alongside these folks. But wait, what am I talking about? You just returned from a Christian Peacemaker Teams delegation. When Ron Sider spoke at the Mennonite World Conference in 1984 and inspired the creation of CPT, he said, “Unless we . . . are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we never really meant what we said, and we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands filled with injustice. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce conflict, we should confess that we never really meant that the cross was an alternative to the sword . . .” Sounds to me like you might already be joining the ranks of radical nonviolent pacifists that I mentioned above. Thanks for challenging me to do the same. By the way, come hear Mary Walton talk about Alice Paul next week at Swarthmore College. http://bit.ly/waltonpaul
Amy says: Lee, I have trouble with the pacifist term because it feels more like an ideology, and one that is against something, than it does being for something. Part of what the Anabaptist tradition is built on is being against things–war, idols infant baptism, church hierarchy etc. Pretty much anything the Catholics liked, we were against. I’d love to see the tradition move to define itself as something that it believes in rather than something it doesn’t believe in. Pacifism, by definition, is being against war and violence. And I am against that. But I’d like to frame my beliefs in terms of what I am for. Being “for non-violent resistance” still doesn’t quite capture what I’m looking for, but it’s the closest thing I can get to it right now.
Amy, I hear what you are saying about the term within Anabaptist traditions. That’s unfortunate. Maybe it turns out there are advantages to not having grown up within Mennonite churches? I’m sure I have my own baggage.
However, I can’t help but want to privilege those pacifists (as the tradition is not merely Anabaptists’) who have had a more robust understanding of peace, justice, and power (along the lines of Ron Sider’s comments — incidentally a Mennonite).
Also, I can’t buy the notion that pacifism simply means being against war and violence (as important as that is) and not FOR peace and justice. There has been a long famous debate within peace studies over whether or not peace is best defined as the absence of war and violence or the absence of injustice and “structural violence.” I feel pretty confident that the pacifists I mentioned in my message above embraced the latter definition and the need to actively engage in conflict and wage peace by challenging injustice nonviolently. I think I can also say that it has also become most prominent within peace studies.
So, if pacifism (from the root pax) is about peace, then may it be FOR peace. Now, I wouldn’t argue with an etymologist, but apparently pacifism comes from pax/peace + facere/to MAKE. John Linscheid is right that words take on different meaning in different places and different times, and making peace might have been interpreted in some camps as BEING passive, but I think we should claim the idea that one must MAKE/pursue/be FOR peace. And we are by no means alone historically in that position.
You said, “I’d love to see the [Anabaptist] tradition move to define itself as something that it believes in rather than something it doesn’t believe in.” Well, a tradition doesn’t do things itself. Again, congratulations my friend, you’re doing it, and you’re not alone. See http://www.swarthmore.edu/Library/peace/
Rev. Bup Ahn says: Well said, indeed! As a Buddhist minister who cherishes “ahimsa” (harmlessness), I, too, am grieved by the knowledge that many people equate pacifism with apathy. Let’s all continue our efforts to achieve peace, understanding, and equality through non-violent means.
I read your blog today with interest. I met my huasbnd just before he entered into the British Army…hard but interesting life. He came out after being injured and worked until quite recently for a Bank and we went all over the world. He retired at 6o last year and we have been married for 38 yrs this Christmas. The Army/Forces changes your attitude for the rest of your life for good and bad but l am glad there are people like your huasbnd and mine who help to keep us all safe.Tony and l both have a box/case full of stuff from those days too! lynda
Victor says: My Mennonite Dad always ferociously insisted that Mennonites were not pacifists. “Fight the *good* fight” was what he felt to be their traditional belief.
Charles says: I think in the debate about what constitutes a pacifist, Amy’s thesis statement has been lost: “…I realized that opposing war –being a pacifist– is a position of privilege… Opposing peace and violence while living a middle [really ‘upper’] class life in the city is easy to do; it is a privilege to declare myself a pacifist.”
How many things in life are colored by our being in the upper class? Americans are afraid to admit that by the world’s standards they are in the upper class. I worked for 10 years among an indigenous group in Latin America. When they read James 5:1-6 they say, “Yes! God’s gonna get those rich people who cheat us and lie to us and take our land and mistreat us!” Upper class Americans say, “Should we take James literally here?”
Orlando Redekopp says: I am glad you were shocked by your experience with CPT. It sounds as if you are entering on a long journey of activism. I went on a CPT delegation to Palestine/Israel over ten years ago, and remember someone telling me: “On the first visit, people want to write a book to explain the horrendous history; on the second visit, they may reduce that to an essay; and on the third, a poem is the best response.” May your journey and identity not stumble on reactions to new experiences, but be deepened as you know you have a legacy to leave–one who never quit joining the struggle for freedom.
How about ‘peace activist’? Like, acting for peace. I’m genuinely asking for input – I’ve been thinking about using this label for myself. I guess you can say I want a succinct but accurate label for myself. Would love to hear pros and cons and other suggestions.
Cory says: Amy, someone I did CPT training with sent this post to our training group and I’m so glad she did. Thank you for coming to Hebron, for grappling with the reality here, for looking at your own privilege, and especially for sharing some of the wisdom that you’ve gained (as I’m sure you have more to share) from your openness to all of the above. I, too, choose to focus (most of the time) on what I’m for rather than what I’m against (except in my last blog post aptly titled Objection!) that way I spend my energy putting good into the world rather than trying to eliminate bad. It was wonderful to spend a little time with you in Hebron and I hope our paths cross again, maybe as we continue our journeys of non-violent resistance. Many blessings.
Benjamin says: Amy, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us in this blog post.
It’s moving to see how you allowed your encounters with the people you met to challenge your preconceptions.
May you continue on this road and may you find ways to embody Jesus’ positive call to us.
Maybe we will meet in Hebron some day..
Pablo Paz says: Somehow you spent 20 years among Mennonites and did not learn that the word is Pac-ifist (from Pax, peace-making) not passivist. Of course Anabaptist tradition can permit one to idealize the privileged, blind-eye-turning, avoidance type of pacifism, but i’m dismayed that anyone after Gandhi still seriously thinks it means just standing by. The Bible says: Thou shalt not stand silently by thy neighbor bleeds. There are two warnings there: standing and silence. We are called to act and speak up. Filming and posting the video is a kind of speaking up and a classic nonviolent direct action.
And as you become an activist, i hope you learn that peace is not just the absence of armed conflict; it is a real, positive condition of resolving the inevitable conflicts of human diversity and living in proximity; it is something that requires constant effort and learning; it is the first step in Building the Commonwealth of Divine Peace (a.k.a. Malkhut Shamayim – Kingdom of Heaven)
Amy says: Pablo, I am writing here about what this word has become to me, and what it means to the wider culture. When we are against war, our pacifism can stop there. I’ve seen that happen too many times in this Anabaptist tradition. I’ve felt that in the recent and ongoing Syria crisis. When we engage with folks who are not pacifist, and we say “no!” to war–rightfully so. So then, where do we put our “yes!”. We must go further than our no, as Ghandi, Dr. King and so many others did.
It’s important that we evaluate our beliefs as we grow and develop. This is part of that evaluation for me. I’ll choose a different word, but I still believe what you believe. But, because of my experiences, most recently in Israel and Palestine, I have to say it differently.
Blessing to you on your journey.
Dave says: Phew! Amy, when I read your “I am no longer a pacifist,” heading and started in on your entry, I thought, “Oh, no!, where is this going?!,” because I always have equated being a pacifist with being (and speaking and working) actively for peace and goodwill and against killing and war, channeling Jesus, Gandhi, MLK, Lennon, etc. I was so relieved as I read the rest of the way through your blog, that you are not forsaking non-violence, but that you are adjusting your self dial to more active non-violent resistance, because of your very real life experiences and that you want a different label for yourself to reflect the change in you. I don’t agree with your sense of what “pacifism” means to the wider culture, but more power to you in your commitment and very real work, and thank you. … Dave (still trying to be a better pacifist)
I’ve never felt I could truly own that word either, Amy. Pacifist is too uncomfortably close to passivist. “Active non-violent resister.” Thanks you for giving me words.
Melissa says: I don’t know if you’ve seen this. The performer is an Israeli and he’s singing about the conflict with Palestine. It’s inspiring.
http://youtu.be/WRmBChQjZPs
Lindy Backues says: Maybe we need a new word (often new words help.) Not instead of, but alongside the historic word ‘pacifist’. Perhaps you are a ‘peace-ist’?
Thanks for this thought-provoking article. I too feel the real message of peace is getting lost in the struggle to define a word. Instead of needing to find a new word for what most of us Mennonites (now and historically) believe – which is to actively work for peace in the world – let’s just live that action! I am hurt by the idea that I, as a pacifist, am someone who sits in a comfy armchair doing nothing but philosophizing about violence and war.
To me it does little good to reject the word “pacifism.” I’ve grown up in Mennonite churches that have always promoted the word to mean a very real, active role in resisting violence and promoting peace. Which is exactly what your friend did in videotaping the attack. To me, he is a pacifist. Let’s talk instead about how this beautiful word is big and wide enough to encompass all of those things – creative, counter-cultural action – instead of spending our energy rejecting the word itself.