QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Jim Wilson]

Dear Friends:

I find this discussion resembles threshing sessions I have participated in. I think it is a valuable discussion. In some ways I think Quakers who have participated in war resemble the proverbial elephant in the living room that no one quite knows what to do about. Personally, I think it is time to lead the elephant out of the house; he doesn't belong there.

Kiahanie: It's not that I lack respect for those who disagree with me. It has more to do with what I consider to be the integrity of the Quaker tradition as a whole. What I don't understand is why those who want to engage in war remain in the Quaker tradition. There are numerous religions that allow for participation in war based on just war theory; so why not align with one of those religious traditions? Why subvert a central view of Quaker faith and practice?

Recently Goshen College, a Mennonite institution, went through a process that I think is applicable here. Because the anabaptist tradition considers many state ceremonies a form of oath taking (as do traditional Quakers), Goshen College did not play the national anthem at their athletic events. The absence was notable to visiting teams and caused friction between Goshen athletes and the athletes from other Colleges. This had been going on for many years. Last year, the College decided to allow an instrumental version of the anthem to be played as a kind of compromise. It was felt that the words of the national anthem were basically in praise of war, a warrior's song, but that just playing the melody would be OK.

This generated a reaction and there was much discussion back and forth. Recently the governing board of Goshen rescinded their decision and Goshen will return to not playing the national anthem. Substitutions are being considered, including playing 'America the Beautiful' (the 'amber waves of grain' song).

Note that one of the primary objections to the national anthem is that our national anthem is a pro-war anthem. It glorifies war. That was why Goshen originally decided not to use it, in line with their anabaptist heritage.

I enjoyed watching this threshing and discernment from a distance and while doing so I felt that a similar process should happen in the Quaker community over its Peace Testimony because, in my opinion, the Peace Testimony has been consistently undermined by those willing to put it aside and not honor it.

Again, it is not a matter of disrespecting those who feel inclined to war. At Goshen I did not observe people trivializing each others' positions. But what I have observed is that it has become too easy, in my opinion far, far too easy for Quakers to advocate for war without getting any of the kind of feedback that I observed at the Goshen College discussion. I was very put off by the Quaker poster at Daily Kos and his support of Obama's illegal attack on Libya. Frankly, I don't think it would take much discernment to find this war utterly unnecessary and beyond the pale of support by any Quaker who had even a glimmer of understanding of their own tradition. Yet I doubt that Quakers who support the illegal U.S. attack on Libya will feel even slight community pressure to reconsider; I don't see a mechanism in the Quaker community for bringing this to the foreground in the way the Mennonites did at Goshen. I think that is a great loss and will serve only to weaken the Quaker community as a whole and the great gift it has to offer the world.

Anthony: Thank you for your kind remark. I'm glad for your presence here, you often speak my mind.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[Anthony]

[Gracie]

Well, Anthony, I'm a Christian Quaker and I agree with you that the Spirit would never advocate for war or violence of any type and nations or armies or individuals who believe "God is on our side" in a conflict are projecting...which is why both/all sides tend to believe God is on their side.

On the other hand, I also understand what Kihanie and others are saying about those individuals who go to war with a heart-felt belief that the personal sacrifice they are making is good and necessary. I don't believe it comes from the Light/Spirit, but it can certainly be the product of conscience and an admirable sense of responsibility, and I can respect the determination to suffer to protect others, even if I think it's misguided. And I know that many, many go to war "knowing" they will be required to kill, but find that actually killing another human being carries a self-knowledge one can never ever escape. Perhaps the one benefit that comes of war is that it produces pacifists.

My own father served in the US Army Air Corps (later the Airforce) from 1939 to 1960 and he and my mother sacrificed much for that determination to serve, and I can respect that. On the third hand, I can also admit that the fact that my father was in a support role (mechanics/hanger work) makes it easier for me. And yes, I know his work enabled others to fly missions that resulted in deaths; I'm aware of my own fluffy reasoning.

Heroism in battle, just war theory, and, for Americans, wild west ideology are so tightly woven into our cultural fabric, right along side -- heck, all around -- the slender threads of Christ's non-violence. Those slender threads are so easy to lose track of, I guess.
_________________
http://sowingmildoats.wordpress.com

When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Eleanore Roosevelt

[Jim Wilson]

Friend Anthony:

In some ways I understand your surprise at your defense not being more supported. Your view is the traditional Quaker view. It is the view that lead to the Peace Testimony to begin with. It is the view that lead to people placing Quakers together with other 'peace churches' such as Mennonites, Brethren, and Amish.

But I think there are several explanations. First, as I mentioned in a previous post on this thread, this forum is dominated by non-Christian Quakers with a primarily secular outlook. My observation has been that traditional Quakers don't feel very at home here and simply drift away. Quaker style, they do not announce their dissatisfaction, they just quietly disappear. I can understand this; it's debilitating to have to defend one's core views with those who do not share the core. It takes a lot of energy to do so and it is doubtful that there will be any payoff for the effort.

It is an odd situation today; there is no doubt that the Quaker founders, and for at least 250 years after that, took the view you present for granted. Today, however, those who share the views of the founders often find themselves on the defensive, as if they are the odd one's out. Well, maybe they are.

The second reason is a little less clear to me. It is closely related to the first. It is what I think of as the shadow side of universalism. It has to do with my growing feeling that Quaker universalism isn't really universalistic; instead it has its own doctrines, views, and forms but it doesn't own up to this. What I'm getting at is that universalism is, paradoxically, a particular religious expression, just as particular and unique as Christianity or Taoism, etc. The result is a kind of disconnect between the rhetoric and how this plays out in actual interactions with others. It can be very confusing.

Just some thoughts to share.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[Anthony]

Dear Grace and Jim

thank you for your very welcome and considered posts. I found them encouraging and informative. If I am labouring this point I will heed your advice.

I think that the although the vast majority of UK Quakers may be liberal I have yet to hear of any British Quaker considering that the Inner Light would or could ever lead one into war. If war happens then it is fighting like with like and Jesus said, the "'Devil' cannot be divided against Himself." Violence is sin, therefore, cannot defeat itself but only change its tactic whilst laying dormant, waiting for another opportunity.

The problem with violence is that it seems to work and thereby it reinforces itself. I would ask where in the world the use of violence has resulted in the end of wars? Considered what happened after the two world wars. The victory of war is not the peace of God but the victory of the carnal mind, the creature lays in wait.

I claim that if we believe in, and heed, the power of God - that His message is in the still small voice within, we would not have to resort to violence. Violence is a failure to listen and follow the leadings of the Spirit, proactively, and not wait until a crisis response is the only option. Unfortunately, this is not the way that politicians and men of carnal power think - we only have to observe and listen closely when the military and politicians are involved in peace ceremonies: we still have the posturing, weapons and the war talk.

[CelticNorth]

I think the peace testimony of Quaker nonviolence and opposition to war had a unique and qualifying voice in Issac Pennington, who argued individual pacifism required protection from civil governement through military institutions. What should we make of Issac Pennington ? While he acknowledged the idealsim and spiritual basis of nonviolence, he nontheless seemed to favor the right of civil institutions to defend it. Pennington's writing on this subject, I have alwasy thought, helped explain why some Quakers participated in the Revolutionary, and, Civil War.

[bradleyp]

Hypothetical question, I am using Canadian current affairs as an example. Suppose a Canadian Quaker decided to help in flood ravaged parts of Manitoba, and the volunteering he/she does is co-operative with the Armed Forces sent to do their work, would a Quaker have a real need to feel off put in building a sandbag wall to defend against the rising waters with a member of the army?

I suppose they wouldn’t because the Forces aren’t asking them to join, but would there be any, even vague objection to cooperating with them here if a Friend felt lead to help?
_________________
Bradley P.
Somewhere along the pathway back, the pathway forward, wherever it leads, I wish for an interesting walk.

[Kiahanie]

Not from me, and most probably not from my Meeting, either.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[CelticNorth]

There are always opposite sides to the same coin. When I was very young we were doing a tour of Lancaster County, enjoying a draft horse auction, and stopped in a resturant for a late lunch before heading home to Bucks. A conversation ensued at the next table about how beautiful and lovely the Amish community was, when someone inserted the comment, well yes it is- as a fairy tale should be. A older man proceded to comment that everything which sustained the Amish community in Lancaster County was the work and burden of others, and that their unique freedom of religious expression was something not earned or fought for by them, but granted to them on the backs of others who fought for democracy and paid the ultimate sacrafice on their behalf. He was an "old coot" from the Normandy business, and said he did not mind the Amish being pacifist, but only wished they would have landed too, and "sucked up" some of the fire which was being dished out to the other boys " in a peaceful manner", and maybe while keeping thier spirits "pure", could have at least offered up their bodies as human sand bags to sheild others from the fire. I think of sand bags today in an entirely different manner, but also know the tension between pacifism and military service is very real, and often painful to address. I think that man was addressing his personal pain while looking over the manicured farms of Lancaster County , not only as a source of pride that it existed, but bitter at who bore the cost of keeping it so.

[Jim Wilson]

It feels to me that there is a kind of elevating of the individual above community feedback and/or tradition. What I'm getting at, and I want to approach this with kindness and consideration, not always easy to do online, but what I'm getting at is I wonder why the individual conscience should be sufficient unto itself, which seems to be the position advocated by some.

For example, if someone had a sincere leading to harass his neighbor, to, for example, steal from them, shout at them, spread rumors about them, perhaps to physically attack them, wouldn't we, as Quakers, question that leading? Wouldn't we wonder about the quality of the leading?

I want to add here, that I'm suggesting this based on my experience as a Prison Minster. I worked among people who had 'leadings' that told them to do that which is highly problematic. So I'm not being abstract or hypothetical. What if such a person appeared at your Meeting and had such a leading? Would you accept it if they had thoughtfully considered it?, if they said they were guided by the inner light?

If the answer is that you wouldn't, or even that you would be hesitant, then I would ask why the same hesitancy doesn't apply in the case of going to war, for isn't war simply our anger, hostility, our impulses to envy and jealousy, writ large?

Your Friend,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[james]

The wisdom of following a tradition or the expectations of a community depends entirely on the wisdom of that tradition or community, and not on the principle of obedience itself. Some, in fact many, of the greatest horrors of all time directly resulted from obedience to flawed traditions or communities. Inversely, the better models of community have inspired much compassion and peaceful coexistence. One way to look at this--perhaps your way, Jim--is that one should pick the best model one can find and stick to it without fail. The way I look at it, though, is that, where conscience and community expectations come into serious conflict, it is a moral imperative to reject those expectations and serve conscience.

It is certainly easier to follow social expectations, to do what the rules say one should do. No thinking or moral struggle is required, only obedience. In the simplest situations this often works out for the best, but there are times when obedience simply will not do. One cannot discern those times unless one accepts, in principle, that conscience is not secondary but primary.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Anthony]

[CelticNorth]

One realization which I obtained over the years was that the peace testimony and opposition to war was not the sole and singlar province of one merely being a good Quaker, but is a moral position which transcends Quaker faith tradition and is held in common with others of like mind and spirit. As a matter of individual conscience, I fully appreciatate the torment and suffering that those who have served must feel and endure in their life times for their participation in war. My coming of age coincided with the mandatory draft, where "Grettings from the President " letters were often construed as a death sentence, with very few CO's being granted unless one was already established in a CO faith community. I saw many a good soul and spirit have no choice but to serve, the dissent and options of the Berrigan Brothers and others far out of their reach, or capacity to entertain due to race, as a viable alternative. Many of today's Quakers under age 50 have come of age in an era of voluntary military service, and cannot appreciate, me thinks, how a mandatory draft tears at the soul of every community. I am forgiving of those who endured those mandatory call ups for service, and fully understand a self pride that they possess for "being there", when we ourselves were not. Todays all volunteer army is totally different, in that one makes a clear and voluntary decision to enlist and serve. The sense I feel is that those returning from war must be fully embraced with love and devotion when retuned to us, for we have no other choice than to assist with their healing. That, I think, should not divide us. I think what I heard in Lancaster County when I was very young, was the process of that healing being played out in the reliving of personal pain, endured by one who's choices I knew entirely nothing about.

[Anthony]

[james]

I have heard Friends distinguish conscience from the inward light in that way before, Anthony, but I find it unconvincing. My conscience is definitely more than the product of my conditioning, though conditioning plays a part. It is also the natural outcome of being a creature with feelings, and recognizing that other creatures have feelings, too. Once a person recognizes that obvious truth at a deep level, conscience becomes far more than conditioning; it becomes as natural as hunger, as fear, as breathing. Following it can be difficult, but all of us recognize it when we pay attention to our own hearts.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org