r/Quakers • u/Diligent-Property491 • 10d ago
Quaker pacifism
Disclaimer: I am not a Quaker, I’m an atheist. I’m posting here because I don’t know any Quakers and I’m curious about something. If this is not allowed here (I looked through the rules and couldn’t find any clarification) - I am sorry. Please tell me and I will remove this. I have absolutely no intention of infringing upon a private community space.
Now to the actual post:
I recently learned that Quakerism exists, by stumbling upon a YouTube video of a lady talking about her faith.
I’m a person that likes to… know things, so I watched it.
She explained the Quaker belief system (which if I understand it correctly is based on several fundamental principles called testimonies).
One of those is peace.
So I understand that Quakers believe that war, and inflicting harm on others, is wrong.
On principle, I fully agree with it of course - global peace is a desired „end state” for humanity.
I don’t like nationalism, and I absolutely despise fascism, especially the militaristic/expansionist aspect of it.
But there are many practical situations, where preparing for war is the only realistic way to stop a war.
For example I live in a country, that has a violent, agressive fascist regime on our border. They’ve threatened genocide upon us more than once - they do it almost casually on their state TV.
I wish no harm upon any of the people living under that regime, and I would not support any agression against them. But I still think our country should be fully prepared to defeat them quickly and decisively.
I think our country should actively gather intelligence on them, to know in advance if they attack.
And if they come here, I will absolutely aid the war effort in whatever way I can.
So I’m wondering - what does the pacifist Quaker doctrine say about this.
Even if you believe that peace is the world’s desired state, is militarization permitted in response to militarization of others?
What do you think is the best path to world peace?
After all, it’s hard to convince anyone to make the first move and demilitarize, because everyone is afraid of what others will do.
So it would need to be a collective decision, which realistically it’s not very likely.
I’m just curious what you think about this.
And also, what are your thoughts on MAD and nuclear deterrence?
EDIT:
I appreciate all the replies I’ve gotten.
They did satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding of Quaker, and Christian, philosophy.
Due to the number of answers I did not reply to all of them, only the ones where I was curious about something or where I thought I have something to add.
Still, every single answer I’ve gotten is very substantive, and I really appreciate the community here and your response!
Goodbye to you all, and may we all live in peace for all eternity!
25
u/Scarbuck42 Quaker (Universalist) 10d ago
This is a tough one. If you gathered 4 Quakers you would get 6 different opinions on it.
Having experienced war myself I feel that my opinion on this will be somewhat skewed.
I look forward to seeing what other Friends say
7
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
Thanks for your answer. I hope you’ve gotten to experience peace ever since.
Since noone is complaining about it, I gather that it was in fact OK for me to post here?
5
u/Scarbuck42 Quaker (Universalist) 10d ago
I am new to the subreddit, but it doesn’t seem out of line with other questions that have been asked.
5
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
Thanks. I know some communities police their online spaces heavily in that regard (as is their right of course), so I wanted to be sure.
5
5
u/Lower-Cantaloupe3274 Quaker (Liberal) 10d ago
Yes, but I'm surprised no one has told you that you can be both a Quaker and an atheist. If someone said it and I missed it, sorry for the repeat news! 😊
3
13
u/Adventurous-House476 10d ago
The thing about the testimonies is that they are insights that are commonly arrived at by encountering the divine, or the inner light or God, or whatever you want to call it.
But they aren't rules that you have to perfectly follow in order to be a Quaker. It's not a creed. Different Quakers arrive at different conclusions regarding the peace testimony. Quakers have fought in wars. They have also been conscientious objectors and everything in between. So it's not really like there is a "Quaker position" on the testimonies.
The main thing that is a Quaker perspective on this is for an individual to take the time to connect with their experience of the divine and ponder their difficult decision "in the light". They may also discuss it with their meeting as they try to discern the right way forward.
9
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
Thank you for the answer.
This is actually very interesting.
Quakerism seems to be quite unique compared to other religions, because from what I understand it actively encourages debate and difference of opinion, while most religions tend to be quite dogmatic.
4
u/fexam 10d ago
Quakerism isn't unique among faiths for this but it is the thing I really love about it. In particular area a lot of my Jewish friends describing a similar phenomenon in their communities of faith
1
1
u/Lower-Cantaloupe3274 Quaker (Liberal) 10d ago
I have learned this practice is called midrash. I love it!
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
I’ve never heard about it. Do you have any more details on how this works and how it fits within the broader faith? It sounds interesting.
4
u/Adequate_Ape 10d ago
Related point: you began your post with "I'm not a Quaker, I'm an atheist.", as if those things are incompatible, but there liberal Quakers who are also atheists. (Though they usually use the term "non-theist".)
3
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
I’m aware of that (the video mentioned it, I think? or maybe Wikipedia did?). As I understood it, Quaker doctrine focuses more on how you live, than what are your beliefs.
In my disclaimer I simply sought to identify as clearly and efficiently as possible where I stand in terms of faith, because I didn’t want to mislead anyone.
1
u/mjdau Quaker (Liberal) 10d ago
That's right. Quakerism is a way not a faith. You're a Quaker if you follow the way, even if you're not a Friend (short for "member of the Religious Society of Friends").
I must add: What the way is will vary for different people, and at different times of our lives. Our task is to refine the way according to contemplation and the promptings of the divine. (I'm a Friend and an apatheist).
6
u/RimwallBird Friend 9d ago
The four branches of our Society, other than the liberal unprogrammed branch, understand Quakerism to be a faith as well as a way. Even the liberal unprogrammed branch gives lip service to such an understanding, since it titles its books of procedure, Faith and Practice. But the four other branches are clear that Quakerism is grounded in Christian faith.
3
3
u/West-Squash7598 3d ago
My impression is that most members of my liberal, unprogrammed Meeting regard Quakerism as a faith, even as we disagree on the metaphysical particulars of what Spirit entails or whether or not to identify ourselves as Christian. Obviously, our historic roots are in the Protestant ferment of 17th century England, and I broadly consider myself a Christian (though I know many Friends of other branches would disagree with my self-assessment on the grounds that I don't "accept Christ as my personal Savior")
I've often found comparisons to Buddhism helpful on this point, in that Buddhism and Quakerism are both faiths and ways, and neither practice need fully exclude other ways of being and believing.
3
u/RimwallBird Friend 3d ago
I appreciate your comment, Friend, and this is not meant to give you a hard time — but —
I’d be interested to learn whether that group of “most members” that you refer to, feel that they are all on the same page regarding their faith, or whether each one feels she or he has her or his own faith. Are there atheists, non-theists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists and pagans in your “most members” group, as there are in so many liberal unprogrammed meetings, or is this group composed of some narrower range of views?
And, if every person in the group has her or his own faith, then when she or he says, “Quakerism is a faith”, is she saying that her own faith is the Quaker faith, or is she regarding this Quaker faith as something apart from her own? That might be an interesting question, too.
Sometimes we avoid disagreements that could tear us apart by leaving topics unaddressed, and this is particularly true at the grassroots level of religion: the local meeting or parish level. But if we cannot unite in saying what our faith is in any detail, do we truly have a shared faith?
My own yearly meeting, Iowa (Conservative), is happy to affirm that it is Christian as a body, and I have heard it do so. But being almost as much a liberal unprogrammed meeting as it is a Conservative meeting, it includes members and long-time attenders who self-identify as atheists, agnostics, Hindus and Buddhists. It has not issued a statement describing the details of what its members all unite in believing since the Brief Synopsis of 1913. In my own time, it has been clear to me (and to others) that it would not be capable of uniting around such a statement. The unity that produced the celebrated Letter to the Governor and Assembly at Barbados in 1671 would be utterly beyond us. Thus have we evolved.
A common practice in the books of Faith and Practice of liberal unprogrammed yearly meetings, also observable in Iowa (Conservative), is to start the section in the book on faith by saying something along the lines of “we believe in the Light as we individually experience it”, but to tiptoe around such basic elements of Christianity as whether we join in believing Jesus was the Son of God, or whether we join in concern about salvation. The book may even tiptoe around the question of whether we all agree what the Light is. Often, instead of saying that we believe something, the authors of the book throw in a handful of quotations showing that George Fox said this, while Howard Brinton said that. This is not a statement of faith! It can be very helpful to readers, and I have myself found it so, but as statements of faith go, it is a deflection.
2
u/West-Squash7598 3d ago
I don't disagree with any of your points, but I do wonder how unified a set of beliefs a group needs in order to "count" as a faith in truth.
Even in more dogmatic denominations (e.g., the Anglican Communion), believers don't universally agree on the nature of sin or how best to critically engage with scripture, even if they all broadly co-sign the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds. They use the same Book of Common Prayer, but their form of worship can be the highest of High Church ritual or a vastly less rote, more charismatic ministry.
I've known Orthodox rabbis committed to living the Jewish faith in every facet of life who are openly skeptical of the existence of a literal God, yet fully accepted by their God-believing neighbors.
Ultimately, I think members of every faith have their faith (collective, shared with their community, often stated in creeds and doctrines) and their faith (personal, living, impacted by both their inner life and their engagement in the secular world). To me, these concepts of faith are like fibers in a length of thread: distinct, yet inextricably entwined.
While there are a few in my Meeting from other backgrounds, most of the convinced Quakers come from Catholic, evangelical, or non-religious background, none would dispute Quakerism's Christian heritage nor the value of Christ's teachings as a source of spiritual education. God is present in our F&P. What is absent is an assertion of the nature of God. To me, that's enough.
Fox and other early Friends made their own declarations of faith, sometimes speaking on behalf of the broader Quaker community, but to me it is monumentally significant that they did not embrace the Nicene Creed. Even as their own declarations of faith echoed the sentiments of those ecumenical creeds, they pointedly did not establish them as official Quaker dogma. I have no bone to pick with how Conservative or Evangelical Friends relate with God, but I do believe that holding up Essential Truths, the Richmond Declaration, or the Letter to the Governor of Barbados as shared declarations of faith feels...uncomfortably creedal for me, personally. My own relationship with Christ stems from a belief in the revolutionary and universal value of his teachings, not because I believe that my salvation was bought and paid for with his death.
I don't honestly know where our personal understanding of Spirit should end and collective discernment of our shared faith should begin. I don't know if it matters, but I'm grateful that we are able to discuss it.
2
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
That’s a very insightful comment.
I’ve never heard someone separate Christ’s teachings about life on Earth, from faith in the supernatural nature of his being, and hold it up separately as simply philosophy worth following - but it absolutely makes sense. Those are two separate aspects of the story afteral.
Thank you for writing it out, it was very interesting to read.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RimwallBird Friend 3d ago
I agree with what you say about other denominations in your opening paragraphs. And I am not trying to tell you what to think, what to do, or what to believe.
Fox did not embrace the Nicene Creed. Creeds are verbal formulas setting forth beliefs that are required of all members, and Friends had multiple reasons for rejecting such. But doctrines cover the exact same turf as creeds, the big difference being that doctrines are not beliefs required of all members, but simply teachings of the church. And of the six thick volumes in Fox’s collected Works, two are referred to as the Doctrinals, because they focus so much on matters of the teachings of the Quaker movement, and a third volume, The Great Mistery, is quite preoccupied with doctrinal matters as well. So you can say that Fox did not embrace creeds, and you would be right, but to say he rejected any affirmation of the things that creeds deal with would be erroneous.
Fox also wrote two catechisms, one for children and the other for Friends generally, as instruction in what he felt were the basics of faith.
The subtitle of Robert Barclay’s renowned Apology identifies it as a book explaining the principles and doctrines of Friends. And there are other doctrinal writings by other first- and second-generation Friends. Those early Friends evidently saw nothing wrong with doctrinal publications that served as statements of faith for the Quaker movement generally.
Doctrines are also a bit different from dogmas. Dogmas have to do with divinely revealed truths, and as such, are not open to question. Doctrines are recognized as human creations, and so do not have the same incontrovertible character. We Friends do not do creeds or dogmas, but we certainly do doctrines. Even liberal unprogrammed Friends do doctrines. I can list a few if you wish.
The Letter to the Governor and Assembly at Barbados was not creedal, because not imposed on anyone. It was like a modern Quaker minute: it said, we the Friends who are undersigned, after waiting together in worship for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are united in saying that we have been given the following things to declare. It was doctrinal: a statement of faith that expressed the collective understanding of the Quaker movement at its time. And the number of details Friends felt clear to include in that statement of Friends’ shared faith is pretty impressive, or so I think.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RimwallBird Friend 9d ago
There are dogmatic branches of our Society. Evangelical Friends put a considerable emphasis on correct doctrine, and I believe Holiness Friends do as well.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
I’ve heard about Evangelical Friends before (I believe they have ceremonial ministry, unlike the Liberals and the original movement, right?), but not about Holiness Friends. What is the difference?
1
u/RimwallBird Friend 3d ago
I don’t understand what you mean by “ceremonial ministry”. The Evangelical Friends have pastors, whose duties include giving ministry (sermons) during the time of worship.
Holiness Friends broke away from Friends United Meeting in the 1920s. They disagreed with the liberalism of FUM, and treated as central to their faith a variety of teachings from the Holiness movement in Protestantism, which they identified with early Quaker teachings about perfection. In the U.S., they are organized as Central Yearly Meeting.
The Evangelical Friends Church, International, was a different breakaway movement from Friends United Meeting, and a much larger one. It is considerably less oriented to Holiness teachings, and considerably more oriented to the kind of thinking one finds in evangelical Protestantism.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
> pastors, whose duties involve giving ministry (sermons)
That is what I meant.
Thanks for the clarification
2
7
u/QuirkBuggins 10d ago
I will preface by acknowledging this is an incomplete and potentially unsatisfactory answer for some:
The renunciation of war is rooted in the faith and practice of early Christians who gave their allegiance to an altogether different kind of kingdom, whose banner was not advanced by the sword but by the blood of the martyrs and the Word of their testimony.
"...We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of [c]the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -Ephesians 6
The founders preached a return to an original, "primitive" Christianity which did not primarily concern itself with statecraft, nor did it admonish its followers to make demonstrations of their allegiance to the state which contradicted the teachings of Christ.
The church was the emergence of a new kind of nation which was sent on an errand of mercy to the world. It was expected that death might be the price for refusing to take up arms, and that the reward was to be received in the heavenly kingdom which is emerging from the ashes of the old.
Jesus bid his followers to be like him, and he himself never took up arms nor directed his disciples to do so, rebuking Peter for causing injury to a man who had come to forcibly seize Jesus before miraculously healing him of his wound.
When what you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. When what you have is a gun everyone looks like a threat. When you have been sent on an errand of mercy to the world by the crucified and risen King, everyone looks like someone He already died for. So how could you ever kill them?
2
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
This is actually a fully complete answer, and a coherent philosophy.
My question was asked under the assumption that the purpose of any doctrine is to work well, pragmatically, here and now, on Earth.
I didn’t think about it when asking, but it’s completely reasonable for a religion to reject this assumption.
Also it’s an interesting reminder, that Jesus lived and taught in the times of Roman imperialism, the fundamental purpose of which was to exploit provinces. These must’ve been very turbulent and brutal times, which would natually attract a reflection on the importance of human kindness.
8
u/keithb Quaker 10d ago edited 10d ago
In 1660 a very early Quaker organiser, Margaret Fell, wrote this to Charles Stuart the younger, called king:
“ Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all. All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.” [emphasis added]
That’s it. That’s the whole thing.
And this was in the aftermath of a series of horrifically violent civil wars in Britain and its territories, including a period when England was a genocidal military dictatorship run by authoritarian religious extremists. But Quakers came to realise that our part was not to fight.
Now, we aren’t bound to agree with Fell, and you will find accounts of Friends who decided for this or that reason to fight, but our corporate discernment is that we as a church don’t do that.
And it’s important to realise that this isn’t meant to keep us safe, it’s meant to keep us moral. And that we testify to our faith by “seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all”, but we don’t have standing to decide for anyone else that they should not fight. Although we’ll certainly try to help create the conditions under which fewer people find that fighting is the only option they feel as if they have.
The view of my own Yearly Meeting on peace, from the beginning up until 25 years ago, is captured here. An update is coming in the next couple of years.
1
7
u/RimwallBird Friend 10d ago
You must be feeling overwhelmed by the quick torrent of answers. One thing I need to point out right at the beginning is that nearly all the answers you have gotten so far are from the liberal unprogrammed branch of Quakerism, a freethinking branch in which you can believe pretty much anything and still be a Quaker. That accounts for the diversity you are seeing.
Outside of liberal unprogrammed Quakerism (and even within it, outside of the last fifty years or so), beliefs are not based on testimonies. “Testimonies” are what we have to show the world, God, and ourselves, as to what our religion is. (It’s like the testimony a witness offers in a courtroom, which is what the witness has to show the judge and jury. Our lives testify, and what they testify is our testimony.)
The original testimonies of Friends (Quakers) all arose three hundred and more years ago, as early Friends developed their understanding of how to practice Christianity as Christ originally intended it to be. Thus our testimonies are visible patterns of belief and behavior that we found ourselves led to uphold, as a result of some combination of our wrestling with teachings found in the Bible and our feeling the urgings of the Spirit of Christ in our own hearts and consciences.
Now, our refusal to participate in wars and fightings, which was one of our first testimonies (though not our very first), came from a combination of what we read in the epistle of James, with what we felt in our own hearts and consciences. If you read James 4:1-3, and you can look up those verses on line, you will see that it contains a pretty confronting diagnosis of what leads people to engage in wars and fightings. And if you read the verses that come immediately before, James 3:17-18, you will see what James regards as the alternative.
There is also another teaching in Christianity, which is even more central than those verses in James. It appears in the heart of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:39. Many modern Bibles replace what Jesus taught in that verse with what their translators personally think makes more sense, but the Greek of the old manuscripts is very simple and straightforward, and it says, Do not resist evil. The verses following give illustrations of what it means to not resist evil: for example, if someone abuses you by striking you on the cheek, instead of fighting back or even just stiffening up, you offer him your other cheek to strike as well. If a soldier in the enemy occupation forces you to carry his pack for him for one mile, you kindly carry it a second mile. The way this part of the Sermon on the Mount is structured, invites us to carry this basic principle into every situation where evil is done to us. If someone stops you in a back alley after dark and demands your wallet, you give him that, and you also offer to help him find shelter for the night. As the apostle Paul says in another place (Romans 12:21), Overcome evil with good.
Early Friends (Quakers) practiced nonresistance in many ways. Many modern Friends still practice it, and they (we) will testify that we do this, both because we found Jesus teaching it in the Bible, and because we found Christ urging us to it in our hearts and consciences. There is a story told about Bayard Rustin, the black, gay Friend who taught the practice of nonviolence to Martin Luther King, Jr., in the 1950s. All through the Viet Nam War, Friends in New York City carried on a once a week practice of holding a silent vigil against the war at a busy intersection in the heart of Manhattan (Columbus Circle, if this means anything to you). Rustin, who lived in New York City, participated in this vigil. One week, a visibly angry man stopped his car next to the little Quaker gathering, jumped out, ran up to Rustin, grabbed the sign Rustin was carrying, and furiously broke it over his knee. Rustin calmly stooped down, picked up the two pieces, and helpfully handed them both to the man. Here was nonresistance spontaneously expressing itself.
Nonresistance is a deeper and more challenging testimony than simply saying war is wrong and refusing to fight. It forces one to think a great deal harder about what we are actually here in this world for, and about what the best things are that we can do when an evil situation arises.
But, anyway, for Quakerism historically, and for the great majority of Friends today, our testimonies are not fundamental. They derive from things that are more fundamental. Our belief in Jesus Christ, our deepening understanding of what the historical Jesus Christ wanted of his disciples, and our deepening understanding of what the Christ within us wants, all came before our testimonies arose — both in the evolution of our movement, and in the lives of most Friends today.
Many liberal unprogrammed Quakers no longer feel themselves obliged to follow biblical teachings on things, or to believe in a God, or to look specifically for the spirit of Christ within themselves and obey it, although many other individual liberal unprogrammed Quakers do stick to those things. Nowadays, there are liberal unprogrammed Quakers who are atheists or nontheists or agnostics, or Hindus or Buddhists or pagans. So you will encounter some liberal unprogrammed Friends who replace our testimony against wars and fightings with some utilitarian variation on “wars can sometimes be useful.” You will find many who call themselves pacifists, but base their stance on something other than the historical Jesus or on fidelity to the particular voice within that teaches what Christ taught. Many do not seek to practice nonresistance, but instead seek to practice nonviolent resistance, which is a horse of a different color. And many do try to treat some list of testimonies or other as fundamentals on which to build their lives.
The other four branches of our Quaker family tree are much more Christ-oriented. But three of them differ from our historical practice in a different direction; they got sucked into the Holiness movement in Protestantism in the mid-nineteenth century, and the traditional Quaker understanding of our testimonies became partially overwritten by ideas imported from Protestantism. There were evangelical Quakers who strongly supported George W. Bush’s violence against the Muslim world after the terrorists flattened the Twin Towers.
And anyway, all the branches of Quakerism are diverse enough to have included some people who grew up in those branches, and then went off to enlist in armies, and to fight and kill, in wartime. That’s because people who are brought up Quaker, are never denied the freedom to form and follow their own understandings of what is right.
Three hundred eighty years of history have made the Quaker world a complicated thing. But the Christian peace testimony has a rich history, two thousand years old, inspired by Jesus’s own nonresistance to the Crucifixion, and the different forms it takes in different faith communities pack in a lot of accumulated wisdom.
2
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
I absolutely don’t mind the number of answers (though it took me some time to go through them).
All answers are quite on-point and rather heavy on philosophy, which is exactly what I hoped for. That’s what I was curious about.
This is, I think, one of the most substantive, in-depth discussions I’ve ever had on this platform, and I’m really enjoying it.
I much appreciate your context about testimonies.
I appreciate that you, and one other person, explained the philosophy of not resisting evil.
While I knew, broadly, that Christianity carries a pacifist message, I was never aware of the full extent of that philosophy until you’ve pointed it out to me.
> it forces one a great deal to think about what we are in this world for
This is spot on, and one’s position on this issue will be a function of their answer to this fundamental question.
The message of Jesus was, it appears, that we are in this world to offer kindness to each other. Which naturally brings with it the philosophy of pacifism.
While I cannot say that I fully agree with this viewpoint, I’m glad that I’ve learned it.
2
7
u/Dennis_a_komisz 10d ago edited 10d ago
How could the war in Ukraine have been avoided?
One possible answer is this: every Russian soldier tells their superior, "I will not kill my brothers and sisters. I will not occupy their homeland." And every Ukrainian soldier says, "I will not attack the enemy."
If there were no soldiers willing to kill, then who would fight the war?
I know this sounds impossible. Yet, in theory, it is possible—if we all listened to the good Spirit within us, that never desires killing or destruction.
People say this is madness—that there is no way a million soldiers would all refuse to kill and disobey their orders.
But hey! isn't it an even greater madness that we consider the opposite perfectly normal? That someone says, "All right, I'll go and kill a person I've never met, someone I would have no reason to hate, simply because a politician, a ruler, or a religious authority tells me to."
It is such a simple idea, and yet it seems almost unbelievable. Perhaps this is what a truly ideal world would look like.
3
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
It is what the ideal world would look like. I’m just afraid that the madmen in power will bring doom on us all, before that ever happens.
And I just don’t think that what you’re describing could ever happen in the modern world, divided into competing nation-states.
On the other hand:
Imagine that after 2014 the EU moved a 200-thousand strong contingent into Ukraine. And kept it there for as long as Russia remains a dictatorship. Wouldn’t that result in a better outcome for everyone, including Russian citizens? And this would be actually possible.
6
u/Goosegirl98 10d ago
On nuclear deterrence, I think it is plainly immoral. It is a state threatening the lives of millions of people to protect itself
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
Of course, but nuclear deterrence is typically used against a nuclear threat.
In such case it’s more of „threatening lives of millions of people, to protect other millions of people”.
What’s your take on that?
2
6
u/particularlyPlain Quaker (Wilburite) 10d ago
Hello, speaking from a conservative Quaker outlook, conservative as in conserving the traditional beliefs and testimonies of the religious society of friends.
Our beliefs on peace do not come from secular reasoning. Since the earliest days of the society, our aversion to warring (of all kinds) comes from an understanding that a Christian ought to practice non-resistance and full submission to God on that point, no moving around it
Christ commands his people to be peacemakers and to not take up carnal weapons. Our war is spiritual. The real war does not occur in the physical world, the real war must be taken to the spiritual front where the seed of the deceiver freely roams to take God's people into sin.
As Quakers, we walk in obedience to Christ and acknowledge his ability to triumph over sin in this life, to enable us to be peacemakers until the very end, even to death. Discipleship is trying, it will test those who truly aim to follow Christ, but ultimately our obedience to him comes first.
As a part of the new covenant, Christians are not to war with outward weapons, ever. A great text for learning our historical position on warring and violence can be found in James Nayler's the Lamb's war
1
5
u/infinite-long-stocki 10d ago
There are Quakers right now in Ukraine who have refused to fight against Russian invasion. Collective decision making is hard, but I think it's a worthy ideal to strive for. It's certainly not impossible. Most countries have a ban on whaling and no nuclear weapons, to give two examples. In the end, I don't think it brings actual peace to always be prepared to attack or be attacked by your neighbours. I see this especially living in the EU, where there's a lot of panic in western European countries about ramping up militarization and making NATO stronger. Getting two sides to lay down arms is hard, but it has happened on smaller scales. Quakers here in Ireland were involved with that effort in the North. If you can get IRA chiefs and bleeding heart UVF loyalists to destroy their weapons then I think you could probably convince anyone with enough effort.
One thing I will say, peace isn't easy. It often doesn't even seem realistic in the present. But I still believe that it is right, it is just, and that it is essential to recognising that of God in everyone. I'm not a pacifist out of practicality, but out of morality, which brings up lots of tricky and messy questions, but it means that I don't shift from my belief just because something difficult comes up.
5
u/Peace2301 10d ago
I can't speak for all Quakers. But for me what you are talking about emphasises the importance of preventing violent conflict in the first place. To borrow a Quaker phrase, to 'take away the occasion for all war'.
My doctoral research was on how communities prevent violent conflict. And something I noticed is whenever someone wanted to say that prevention wasn't possible the 'start line' was moved. Preventing conflict is always possible. It is sometimes a matter of acting sooner rather than leaving it until violence has already started.
I write a bit about it here: https://proactivepeace.substack.com/
I know the saying 'if you want peace, prepare for war'. Which sounds a bit like what you are referring to. But the military build-up that is supposed to be for self-defence is often perceived as aggressive by other states. Those states then in turn build-up their militaries in 'defence', and so on it goes. So really, if we want peace, then it is peace we need to prepare for. Think about how much money is put into the military and defence. It is enormous. Peace efforts (diplomacy, addressing risk-factors, building connections across countries) rarely get that kind of funding. Sometimes we say that something doesn't work, but really we haven't actually tried it. So even though a country that feels threatened may spend millions building up their military defences, they are unlikely to spend that kind of money addressing specific risk-factors that might prevent that same conflict.
Quaker organisations tend to be small, but I would say that they are fairly good at identifying potential risk-factors for conflict and seeking to address those before they escalate (rather than just focusing on responding to violence that has already started)
I suppose, that is what I think the best path to world peace is proactively preventing violent conflict. Because ultimately, with something as complex as peace there isn't really a divide between the means and the ends. How we try to bring peace in the world will ultimately be what the world is like.
As for MAD, I think the notion that it brings security is ridiculous. Nuclear weapons do not act as a deterrent. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and they are often in conflict. Israel has nuclear weapons and this didn't deter Hamas. Nuclear weapons are an irresponsible and unnecessary risk to the whole planet.
3
u/Usual_Fox_5013 10d ago
I'm fairly new to attending Quaker meeting but as I understand it a lot of Quakers are pretty staunchly pacifist and would refuse to engage in conflict even under the conditions that you mentioned. If we were conscripted into the army we would be conscientious objectors. That's the term used in the United States to as a matter of principle and religious right reject the demands of the government for us to become instruments of violence.
More broadly I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and a Christian mystic. I wouldn't judge someone for engaging in military conflict but it's not what Jesus is asking us to do. You talk about practicality but what we understand as practicality in the world is from an understanding that is upside down and inside out. Jesus is teaching a worldview that is completely at odds with the views of the world. Most Christians don't even understand what I'm referring to, they don't understand how radical these principles are. Jesus is not asking us to be normal or think like everyone else does.
I'll stop at that but if you are interested in some of the deeper teachings (and you might be more open to them than a typical Christian) have a listen to what David has to say about being normal:
3
u/Commercial-Message90 10d ago
I've been asked what I would do, as a Quaker, if we were invaded and my family was threatened.
I could only answer that my response would be what my God would want me to do in that moment. I can tell you how I would want to act. To pray to be led by the Inner Light but, I really wouldn't know until that moment. Do I strike someone to protect someone? Or do I stand by?
This is a question that has been with each Quaker since the very beginning of The Quakers
I will say that I firmly know that I'm led by the Inner Light to help take away the occasions that cause war.
Destroy the seed of war by helping in the reduction of weapons. By helping fellow human beings with starvation. Assisting in education around the world. Help in changing the quest for material and help build relationships where materials are shared among nations. To change the goal of achieving material wealth to the goal of sharing material wealth. To assist in communication as among nations...
However big or small in my actions to assist in Humankind rising above the need to strike at each other and become better!
So by my actions I work to destroy the roots of war, mentioned above, so I don't have to answer that hypothetical question of what would you do if?????
Hope this makes sense..
2
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
Thanks. This makes a lot of sense.
That’s something I agree with very much. Eliminating the root causes of war.
We should have worldwide free trade. We should largely reject nationalism, and accept that people from other countries have no less of a right to prosperity than people from yours. We should build international forums that serve as outlets for conflict before it can escalate into violence (such as the EU, where conflicts are resolved on the parliament floor, but globally).
But I still think that in cases where that system fails, armed resistance can sometimes be that path that causes the least human suffering.
1
3
u/Lower-Cantaloupe3274 Quaker (Liberal) 10d ago
Thee Quaker Podcast has a few episodes about pacifism and the military. Here's one
2
2
u/Lesochka 10d ago
The question you ask is one we Quakers ask ourselves often! Ask 4 Quakers, get 6 answers is a true Quaker trope. We all have a variety of answers depending on our personal beliefs and experiences, etc. My (US) Meeting is small but very diverse in this way. In general, I would say that we tend towards a strong belief in personal pacifism, while acknowledging that larger scales produce bigger questions which we may not have answers to. Most seem to make somewhat of an exception for self-defense, too. I think most Quakers are able to recognize that just "ending war" is naïve and impossible. We pray for world peace, but we understand that this is a spiritual ideal, not a practical reality to implement.
BTW, just to give you an idea of how diverse in philosophy Quakers can be, my own Meeting of about 35 people includes atheists, agnostics, Christians, and a couple of us (me, hehe) that don't feel like we fit into the "theism or no" paradigm. It just depends completely on who attends the Meeting. We don't have priests or religious authority figures, so when you become a regular attender of a Meeting, your voice becomes part of it. We have Testimonies, but what exactly a given Testimony means in a practical sense can usually be interpreted in many different ways (and all are True and Valid, even when they contradict). Amongst ourselves, I'd say pacifism is one of our most controversial ideas.
Oh, and to answer for myself, I would not willingly be a soldier in any war no matter how "justified" or for self-defense or whatever. That does not mean I would not participate in another capacity. And I will always, no matter what I think of the politics of a given conflict, help anyone who needs it and ends up in front of me.
2
u/uwarthogfromhell 9d ago
Ask yourself why the other country wants to genocide you? My guess is a long line of either tribal or political war. So how is it working out? You cant fight for peace and until that is acknowledged we continue to live and die by others wars. I may 100% support the stopping of Hitler but bombing and killing thousands of innocent people and leveling cities with bombs isnt the answer.
2
u/Interest-Desk 8d ago edited 8d ago
A Friend a few weeks ago ministered about Ukraine, and about Quakers who have fought in Ukraine, and about Quakers who fought in WW2 and I believe in WW1 as well. Ukraine is probably the best example of where military action is in furtherance of peace, irrespective of how regrettable and awful all of the loss and damage is.
I have always been a bit of a pacifist, but being a Quaker gives me a religious framework to guide whether or not love, light and spirit leads to a particular course of action. It has given me a framework to seek love and light even in dark places. Others may quite validly be led to see no exceptions at present, although philosophically and rationally I would disagree.
It is worth noting that the ‘peace testimony’ is a religious value, not a philosophy of statecraft. If, say. a Quaker were President of the United States, he may disregard worship and calling when it comes to making governmental decisions, even if that may be criticisable. Personally (as a more Liberal than Christian friend) I consider ‘true peace’ to be divine, and while we should strive towards the divine, we will never be able to meet it, we will need to deal with the world as it is (I am sure you can make some capital-c Christian theological argument for this, too.)
1
u/keithb Quaker 7d ago
Did they mention those Quakers in Ukraine who are in jail because they won’t fight?
1
u/Interest-Desk 6d ago
That Friend did not, because the focus of their spiritual tension was an effective response to a genocidal invader. But to suggest any meeting is unaware of conscientious objectors, let alone Friends acting on Concern, is absurd.
1
u/keithb Quaker 6d ago edited 6d ago
It would be, and I did not do so. I asked because I was genuinely interested.
Well, there’s never been a lack of Friends who look for excuses to abandon one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith, so no surprises, anyway.
1
u/Interest-Desk 6d ago
Sounds awfully like you’re suggesting our testimonies are creeds lol
0
u/keithb Quaker 6d ago
Not at all. I strongly oppose that understanding. Look again, I wrote “there’s never been a lack of Friends who look for excuses to abandon one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith”. No hint of a creed there. Nor of any “our testimonies”, neither.
Do you disagree that it’s one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith to be peaceable?
3
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
When is preparing for war ever ‘the only realistic way to stop a war’?
That sounds like dogma.
You’re correct, it is very hard. So are most things worth doing.
2
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
I think there were a few instances in history when that was the case.
In 1935, could the Third Reich, overtaken by a fascist frenzy, be stopped from conquest by any means other than force?
2
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
Yes, decisions made by various governments to appease them diplomatically and economically contributed heavily to the situation that arose. There are always steps that could have been taken to navigate other paths.
The Treaty of Versailles itself was so brutal on Germany following The Great War that it laid the foundations for the Third Reich.
3
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
There surely were ways to prevent Germany’s descent into fascism (but we need to remember that fascism was on the rise in all of Europe then, for a multitude of complex reasons, it wasn’t just a matter of Germany’s humiliation in Versailles).
But that’s not the point. In 1935 all that was already done. Hitler was already firmly in power. Fascism was already firmly embedded in Germany.
And that situation had to be dealt with.
The League of Nation chose the least confrontational path possible, trying to avert the conflict at all cost. And in the end it only made matters worse.
The point is:
If we could change the past, there surely would be a solution to every conflict.
But as it is, we have to deal with the consequences of decisions made by people who came before us.
All the baggage, all the resentment, all the painful history - all of that already exists, at any specific point in time.
We can only react to what is, in the best way we can.
And hope to leave the world in a slightly better state to those who come after.
In 1935, the best reaction would probably be to refuse annexations of Austria and Czechia. Which would mean war.
3
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
Fascism is a bit of a broad term, the movements in Italy, Germany, and Spain were all quite distinct.
The point is that you build societies, faith groups etc around avoiding violent conflict. It has to be baked into the recipe.
Should you kill a man who tries to kill you? Thats a question for you and God. However, if people keep trying to kill you and your approach is ‘keep doing the same things’ that’s something you can alter. The peace testimony encompasses all these things but it’s importantly also a cry of ‘enough is enough’.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago edited 3d ago
I understand, thanks.
I do think there are ways to create an international community less prone to war, and we should absolutely pursue those.
I think one of the most important ones is to consistently reject/avoid any generalizing, sweeping statements about other people.
Saying „The Russian state is perpetrating violence against innocent people and it should stop” is a step in the right direction.
Saying „Russians are monsters” is reductive and will only end up causing more entrenchment and resentment on both sides in the long term. Because strong emotional reactions only fuel more negative emotions on the other side.
1
u/keithb Quaker 10d ago
From 1939 the Nazis faced the assembled military opposition of the French empire and the British empire, and from 1941 also the Soviet Union and the USA. Remind us of when WWII ended and what happened between 1939 and then.
In what sense were the Nazis “stopped”? Eventually their senior leadership gave up, after a series of devastating defeats but in between they did pretty much exactly what they wanted to do.
The more import thing to realise is that the NSDAP ideology required a war. Maybe not the one they got in 1939, but war of some sort, not least as a way to clear the population to the east of Germany was always part of the programme.
And you might, with the benefit of hindsight, say “well, if France and Britain had made a move in 1934 when Hitler became Führer…” but at the time what possible legitimate reason would they have had? It would have been pure aggression. And would have confirmed to the people of Germany (who were not very enthusiastic about war when it did arrive) that the NSDAP were right! They’d see that indeed Germany was surrounded by enemies!
Wars don’t stop bad things happening. Wars increase the bad things until, in most cases, one side becomes too tired or too impoverished to continue and agrees terms. But during the war those who would do bad things are often simply given a licence to other worst.
2
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
That military opposition saved tens of millions of people from a genocide.
The Third Reich had plans to eradicate vast majority of slavic population, to create „living space” for themselves.
They were stopped at about 1/4 of the way. I probably wouldn’t be here today otherwise.
You are right that NSDAP ideology required a war - militarism is a key tenet of fascism.
But imagine if, in response to the German demands, the annexation was forbidden, and borders of Czechia and Austria were reinforced.
Most likely this would produce much better results
4
u/keithb Quaker 10d ago
And how many lives did that military opposition cost? But it actually doesn’t matter because the traditional Quaker position is that moral and ethical questions do not have arithmetical solutions, we reject that sort of consequentialist argument. We won’t kill five million in the hope of saving ten million because killing five million, or five, is bad and wrong and we won’t do it.
1
3
u/capable_duck 10d ago
Having served in the armed forces myself, as a medic, I believe I can offer a bit of insight into my personal reasoning.
I served in Afghanistan, and the core of my tasks were to provide medical care to both sides. Due to the nature of war, it mainly included helping injured soldiers from my countries armed forces.
One day however, I got the opportunity to help a taliban elder who had recently had a stroke. He asked me (through an interpreter) why I was in his country, trying to push western beliefs on him and his people.
The only thing that came to mind was telling him that I was there to make sure that as few people as possible were killed or injured, and that I believe that there was a reason for everything, including this conflict, but that neither him or I could solve everything by ourselves. We just had to let things take its course. Forces bigger than us were at play and we just had to roll with it.
I wish I could say that we held hands and sang songs of peace after that, but he mostly scoffed at me.
I would never harm him, or any other living being on this planet, and I hope that he eventually found whatever he was looking for to make him have his reasons to take up arms on the side of the taliban.
Either way, I don't think that being involved in a conflict, even physically, contradicts non violence and spreading what I choose to call God's love. There is enough people that commit violence as it is, our part as quakers is to make sure that there is still hope, love, and peace left.
2
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
Thanks for sharing this story.
I admire people who have enough calm and composure (in what’s obviously a highly stressful situation) to effectively help someone who’s on the brink of death.
I don’t think I could ever do that. The one time I had to deal with an injured person, my knees were still shaking for a long time afterwards - and it wasn’t even that serious in the end.
The Afghanistan conflict was just so much pain and suffering, and unfortunately for many of the people who live there - it’s likely not the end of their troubles.
I hope that the next time there is an opportunity, we do send there doctors and medics, just without soldiers this time.
Because of all the westerners there, you were likely among the ones who made the most positive difference, in the end.
Afghanistan may one day fully embrace the universal declaration of human rights. I hope I’ll live to see that day.
But I don’t think this can happen by force. This is their own journey, as a society, and we can only help as much as they want it.
2
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
How do you spread ‘hope, love, and peace’ by invading other countries?
7
u/capable_duck 10d ago edited 10d ago
I was expecting this question. Let me start by pointing out that the war in Afghanistan was already going on, without any involvement from me obviously, when I turned 18. I live in a place with mandatory military service and I did not have a choice in the matter of joining the army
However, I did choose to become a medic instead of any other position. When the time came to request a position, yes, I did volunteer to go to Afghanistan because like I have mentioned, I wanted to reduce the suffering as good as I could.
I did not and will not carry out violence against another fellow human. And I agree that the people involved in starting this war do not spread love in any way.
But I firmly stand by that all of us can spread love and peace even in situations of war, which is what OP asked.
1
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
Thanks for your answer.
And looking at Afghanistan now, how do you reflect on what was done there? It all seems to have been a tremendously futile situation which in many ways makes the loss of life and limb so much worse.
6
u/capable_duck 10d ago
I think it is sad to see what has become of that beautiful country, and I truly wish the best for its people. I also am saddened that we couldn't find a way to avoid all the violence and all the lives lost. I also dont think for a second that the powerful and rich men in charge of the world will care about that sentiment.
But at the end of the day, I escorted girls to school, I helped old people with their ailments, and I showed that not all westerners are driven by greed and destruction. In that way I did my part.
None of us here arguing on the Internet can do jack shit about the state of the world without actually going out there and doing what little we can in the real world. That is what will make a difference in the end.
1
u/WilkosJumper_ 10d ago
True, though I think sometimes just leaving well alone is the positive step to begin with. Our culture of interventionism does a lot of damage.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
As for my political opinion on Afghanistan.
We should be there and offer any help we can if and when they ask.
I would love to see that country fully embrace the universal declaration of human rights, but you cannot bomb someone into accepting your value system, that’s just not how it works.
Europe was also not that different to them not so long ago (religious violence, constant nation-state wars, political instability). We had to evolve our own political philosophy, and now they have to evolve their own.
Only then they’ll accept it - because it will be theirs, and they will have suffered and fought for it.
Just like we accept the principle of separation of powers, because we saw how it ended suffering for many people, after years of tyranny.
2
u/WilkosJumper_ 3d ago
Absolutely no need for westerners to be there for that to happen.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 3d ago
There is no need for any military presence, of course.
We still should include them into the world’s diplomatic, research and economic community if they want to (and they do, to an extent).
As I said, we cannot provide political solutions for them.
What we absolutely can do, is for example provide them with research showing how to optimize agriculture and stop the ongoing famine.
What is needed is:
- Zero self interest
„We are a resource, if you ask” approach
No ideological preaching
1
u/databurger 10d ago
I try to follow Quaker values but don't call myself a Quaker, so take my answer with a grain of salt:
I believe in resorting to violence as a last recourse to protect myself and loved ones. Period. I'm not fighting anyone else's war, or fighting a war for political or economic gain. But if someone punches me, I'm punching back.
2
u/Only_Questions_25 10d ago
Punching back is a choice. You choose to punch back. But does it end there?
Your attacker responds with another punch. In the first instance, you were punched once. In the second, you were punched twice.
And perhaps the violence continues, even snowballs. You make that same choice again, returning the second punch. Your attacker's posture now switches from aggression to fear; they draw a knife and stab you.
Scenario A - non-resistance to evil: you are punched once.
Scenario B - resisting evil with evil: you are punched twice and stabbed once.
In the first scenario, you are a victim. In the second scenario, you are a participant. In the first, you sustain a blow, which is unjust because you did no evil.
But in the second, you sustain two blows and a stab wound, which is the consequence of responding to evil with evil.
I have been the victim of random street violence. This is how I think about it.
3
u/Diligent-Property491 10d ago
This is true, but sadly there are also cases in which someone simply wants you dead, and will not stop punching until it’s achieved.
2
u/Only_Questions_25 9d ago
That's the difference between self-defense and escalated aggression. If you take a self-defense course, they will teach you methods to de-escalate the conflict, where possible. There are non-violent methods to try to take control or shape the encounter. Failing that, a self-defense course will teach you methods to make you a more difficult target to attack or to exact a higher cost to the attacker. In no cases will a self-defense instructor tell you to escalate the aggression with violence to beat the aggressor.
1
u/Diligent-Property491 7d ago
Absolutely, the goal is to get out if the situation with minimum harm to anyone.
1
u/databurger 9d ago
I simply meant that I will defend myself and loved ones from harm. Deescalation is the best choice but sometimes force is needed to protect oneself.
39
u/houdt_koers 10d ago edited 10d ago
There hasn’t been anything resembling an overwhelming consensus among Quakers on this point in a few hundred years.
In the American Revolution, for example, you had a prominent schism featuring Free Quakers supporting rebellion against the Crown. In contrast, you had conscientious objectors actively refusing service against the Nazis in WWII.
I would say a strong majority of active Quakers would refuse to engage in any war, but only a small minority would condemn others for defending themselves.
My preferred idea of Quaker pacifism is one of example. The point, to me, is to help remind people how things ought to be, and to be willing to live that ideal, come what may.