I no longer consider myself a Christian, although I did spend almost two decades in the Episcopal Church and the Orthodox Church of America. My wife is still devoutly Christian. And there is much I respect about Christianity. Most of my fellow member of the Religious Society of Friends consider themselves Christian, and their pacifism derives specifically from their understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
When I glanced this morning at the editorial pages of The Boston Globe, I encountered a column by H. D. S. Greenway entitled Hope in times of war which I commend to you. This diary is the result of reading his column, and of my further reflection upon it. Since I am not wealthy, it is all I can bring to the manger, or to collection of offerings under the communal tree.
After reviewing the status of America's current two overt wars, Greenway reflects that
Alas, the world has not yet been made safe for pacifism. War and resistance were midwives to American nationhood.He goes on to quote Patrick Henry, certainly no pacifist, and acknowledges the special role in American memory and folklore held by the Revolution, the Civil War, and World War II, the last of which he describes as "America's last, uncomplicated victory." Greenway writes from the perspective of one who as a journalist for almost 5 decades has covered a half dozen conflicts and many aspects of international relations. From that perspective he observes
I have become pessimistic about the American imperium, and America's militarization of foreign policy. During the overarching struggle of the post-WWII generation - the Cold War - America was most successful when force, necessarily preserved and at the ready, was not actually used. In the other geopolitical earthquake of our time, the end of European colonialism, again, we were most successful when we led by example rather than forcing our ideals upon a reluctant world. Americans are not good empire builders.
Greenway is far from being a pacifist. He thinks the original UN mission in Korea was justified, although MacArthur's move to conquer North Korea (and perhaps thereby threaten and intimidate China?) were a disaster causing thousands of unnecessary deaths. He also thinks the original and limited international mission under the first President Bush to eject Iraq from Kuwait was justified. He is not so generous towards the American effort in Indochina, nor our current efforts in Iraq, viewing both as propping up regimes that were the byproduct of European imperialism, French and British (and thus one might argue hardly exemplars of our greatest ideals, although he does not say so explicitly). He offers clear examples to illustrate the contrasts one can make. For example
If the most hopeful stories I ever covered were Anwar Sadat's visit to Jerusalem and the fall of the Berlin Wall, my most depressing was a visit to Baghdad under American occupation.and he explicitly describes the 1991 Iraq endeavor as a good use of force while calling the current American expedition "the worst" use of force.
Here I must acknowledge that I had troubles with what happened in 1991. That is, my troubles go back earlier, and I was seriously bothered that our failure to assert against Saddam Hussein our intent to oppose any effort on his part to expand his regime led to his invasion - he believed we would not oppose his efforts, and he was clearly shocked when we organized an international effort against him. Perhaps that effort was necessary, because we could not let is naked aggression and expansionism stand. But at the time it was clear to me that we did not care about his aggression per se when it suited our needs: after all, we assisted his efforts against Iran. What we sought was a divided Gulf where no one power - not Iraq and not Iran - we be dominant over the great concentrations of oil. Yes, after Kuwait Iraq represented a potential threat to Saudi Arabia. But the deaths that came about from the first Gulf conflict were clearly because we - and other nations with whom we were allied - were unwilling to allow any one nation to have a stranglehold over the oil upon which our economies depend. I could not at the time fully explain my revulsion at the course of events, but in my gut I knew the overall path was one that reeked of immorality and hypocrisy.
That brings me to the two final paragraphs of Greenway's column. He is not a pacifist (nor in fact am I completely so). He is very much of an internationalist. Let me offer both paragraphs before I offer more of my own thoughts.
American idealism can, and has, done much good in the world. But seldom have the benefits been worth the costs when liberty, democracy, free markets, and the American way of life were imposed on the point of a bayonet. Mostly this has led to great loss of life and treasure with little to show for it except for a loss of American prestige - and, therefore, a loss of ability to make the world a better place.America needs to keep engaged in the world, and isolationism is not the answer. But I am forever haunted by Graham Greene's lines to the "Quiet American" who thought that bombs could bring democracy. What people want, says Greene's weary old journalist, is "enough rice. They don't want to be shot at. They want one day to be much the same as another. They don't want our white skins around telling them what they want."
"...imposed at the point of a gun." This is the imagery upon which I want to focus. And I want to step back and attempt to provide a broader perspective, one that will certainly be personal.
Although I am now a Quaker, I am far from a total pacifist. I tell my students at the start of the year that it is my responsibility to ensure their safety on three levels. Of course there is physical safety, to which I will return anon. There is also intellectual safety: if I want them to take risks I have to ensure all of them that while their ideas and expressions are subject to challenge, while an idea may be foolish or undeveloped or even ridiculous, that does not translate to allowing them to be described as stupid. And that is because the thrid kind of safety is emotional and psychological - no one should bully or abuse or mock. We know far too well that those who feel subject to emotional bullying may well resort to a more physical response, to wit, what happened at Columbine. That does not justify the violence that occurred, but those who allow an environment of such bullying also bear responsibility for the tragic occurrences.
I teach in an outside classroom, as I did during the period of the Washington snipers. Thus when I tell my students that I am prepared to use deadly force to keep them safe because they are entrusted to my care I do not say that as a vague ideal. I may choose not to use force to ensure my own safety or life, but I take as a sacred responsibility to protect my students. If I could protect them by merely sacrificing my own life, as did Liviu Librescu by holding the door to his classroom so his Virginia Tech students could escape by the window, I would. But if that were insufficient I would do whatever I could, even as I acknowledged the necessary evil that I did.
But it is not the big gestures that really matter. If we wait until those appear it is often too late. It is the small acts, it is the toleration of the smaller indignities, that lead to the necessity of greater violence. Those who are more 'weighty Friends" - more deeply rooted in what it means to be a Quaker than am I in my half of decade of commitment - always point out that our Peace testimony requires us to live it fully, at all levels. If I curse a driver who cuts me off on the road, I am not living the Peace testimony, even if s/he never knows of that curse. If I profit by the suffering of others so that I can purchase "stuff" more cheaply, I am not living a life committed to peace. If I can tolerate the suppression of the rights of others, economic or political, to ensure my own safety and comfort, I am not answering that of God in those upon whom I allow such indignities to be perpetuated. Not in my name, not by my government without my protest. And not by my acquiescence in what I buy and eat and wear.
I see this as a matter of politics as well. If our politics is one of violence, whether of word or of action, we have taken steps in the direction of rationalization and justification, that the end we seek justifies the means that we use. I worry that we will inevitably have to utter the words offered by Pogo in a different context, "we have met the enemy and he is us." And I again find myself drawn to one of the most clear expressions of the idiocy of imposition of what we believe to be correct. They are words offered in an opinion finding mandatory participation in Pledge of Allegiance ceremonies to be unconstitutional. This will be the third time this month I have had occasion to repeat them. Robert Jackson wrote his magnificent opinion in West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, in 1943, in the midst of what we now sometimes call "the Good War." There were those who justified focing a possible violation of the conscience of students in the name of patriotism, which while without guns or bayonets is somewhat the equivalent of imposing the American way upon another nation by sue of military force. Let me offer those words from Jackson:
To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds.
If we believe that what we as a nation offer to other nations is of such value, perhaps we ought to consider that we should invite by our actions, not impose by our will. And in fact, when we impose by force, economic and/or military, we violate the ideal on whose behalf we assert that force.
To me that applies to our politics as well. Many of us who participate here are strongly opposed to the politics we have seen practiced: the use of intimidation, personal destruction, casting aspersions on the patriotism of opponents, belittling and ridiculing those of a different political perspective. If we cannot in the name of freedom remove people's ability to freely reject what we offer - and we cannot and still claim to be offering "freedom" - we should be very careful about our use of verbal violence in our exercise of politics in the name of opposing the perceived violence of others. I do not want to be in the position of the American officer in Vietnam who said that in order to save the village we had to destroy it. And in Christian expression I cannot help but think of Mark 8:36:
For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?
Today for many is a day of family, of celebration, of sharing. It is noble that many of us will take the time and offer the resources to enable some without the same material means to have some joy and pleasure in thei lives: we give to Toys for Tots, or support a soup kitchen, or perhaps even invite someone to join our festivities. I can remember my days in a small orthodox parish in suburban Philadelphia. The people knew I had not family with which to share the holiday. Two families made sure I was never alone, one inviting me for their Christmas eve Holy Supper, the other to Christmas Day dinner. Leaves on the Current came from a Christain family and in the years before we were married I would also spend time with her family's celebration. All of this is good, and I in no way denigrate similar actions, in fact I praise them.
And as one no longer overtly Christian, perhaps it seems a bit arrogant of me to offer thoughts on what this day could mean. I acknowledge that arrogance, but as a blogger I am already arrogant in believing that the words I post are of any importance or value to someone else. And yet ... in our sharing of what we perceive, we acknowledge that we are not alone. And so long as we are willing to consider the perspectives of those that are different from us, our outreach may in fact temper our arrogance, and work towards finding a commonality upon which we can build peace.
For those of us in the Religious Society of Friends, the Quakers, there is one Psalm line that is always a part of our consciousness. Psalm 34:14 tells us to
Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
Seek peace, and pursue it. As Quakers we become accustomed to the practice of using Queries, questions designed to cause us to reflect upon our words and thoughts and actions. This Psalm line easily leads to the formulation of such a query. Let me offer one possible phrasing thereof:
How do the words and actions in which I participate advance peace and healing and love?
I would suggest that it is not too much to wonder about some form of that query in our own political efforts and expressions. How do they really advance the ultimate cause we claim to seek?
At the end of Psalm 19, we read in verse 14:
May the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,
be acceptable in thy sight,
O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
For those who do not base their ethics upon a belief in a deity, these words can still be applicable. Think of the Lord as the Good, the ideal to which you aspire.
However you celebrate this day, or not, may you find it helping you move towards Peace as you know it.
PEACE.