A question for Peace Church people

[willing dwarf]

(cross-posted at Christian Liberals/Progressive People of Faith Group)

I'm a Quaker Catholic whose drifting back to the Society of Friends again. But while so much of Friends' practices speak to me, I'm feeling surprisingly less settled in my commitment to the peace testimony.

As an abstract idea and as an ideal, the example of love we have from Jesus its so clear. I've understood his witness and the conviction that we all have a share the inner light of God's love. --These are the basis Friends' commitment to the Peace Testimony.

But when I think about the present economic crisis and imagine a variety of potential scenarios of where it might lead (fascist genocide, military takeover of our country by a foreign power, complete breakdown of social order-- rioting & mayhem) I feel a terror that seems to take over my ideal commitment for peace. I want my children to be safe. I've never believed that a gun would keep us safe, but I'm wondering what would in the circumstances described above.

And so, recognizing that my present moment fears are simply still just fears, I'm left with the more abstract question of where I stand in relation to the peace testimony. Can I really embrace such a high minded perspective when I'm recognizing the limits of my own confidence in that approach?

Are there others who struggle with this question in this way?

[terisan]

1. The goal of pacifism is to be neither a victim nor an executioner. I think your sense of

need to keep your children safe becomes the question upon which you await an answer and the silence of Quaker worship is the medium through which your question will be answered -either directly to you or through another in the meeting.


From time to time I think about the interchange between William Penn and George Fox--the one in which Penn, the recent convert, states that he doesn't think he can give up his sword and Fox tells him to carry his sword as long as he can. Eventually Penn is able to give up his sword in his own time following the imperatives of his own conscience. By persistently being open to the inner light within and recognizing the same in others he can no longer carry his sword.

I think of myself as an aspiring pacifist. There are many ways of carrying a sword. Some people experience a dramatic moment of enlightenment and become conscientious objectors when in military service but many people first let go of other "swords" -words and deeds that stand in the way of building a peaceable kingdom. All of these changes are participating in peace testimony.

Possibly you are more of a working pacifist than you realize and the possibility that you might someday in a moment of crisis engage in force to protect your children does not negate what you are doing to build the conditions for peace.



on edit--my thoughts only and thanks for raising this question.

[willing dwarf]

3. I'm very grateful for your reply

It's interesting how (at least in Philadelphia) there is such a strong social norm against calling any aspect of the peace testimony into question that one can't raise these questions in the community where they would be most commonly known.

I really appreciate the community of others who care about concerns similar to mine (like a Friends Meeting), but when people know each other and there's so much "goodness" in the air, it's very difficult to raise the curtain on one's darker thoughts. I'm glad to be able to do it here. Thank you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. You are not responsible for what other people do, only for what you do

You have to decide for yourself.

I'd have trouble killing under any circumstances, but on a sliding scale, I could possibly kill to protect someone else's life, but unlike some of the gun crazies in this country, I would not kill to protect property.

In an economic crisis, you might be the victim of looting. (The Sermon on the Mount response would be to offer to share what you had.) But it is unlikely that anyone would try to kill you or your family unless they somehow saw you as responsible for their troubles.

[willing dwarf]

4. I guess I wanted to move it back from the acutal into the theoretical

I agree with you, I have never been able to bear killing bugs. The thought of killing the chickens we eat is too much for me so I take them to someone else to butcher them. So on a practical level, I am pretty sure I would have trouble with killing. And as for property, we have so little that I've never worried about defending it. My treasure is my family and I guess its thinking of them that I feel my resolve tested.

How do you cling to the theoretical concept of non violence when/if you can imagine using violence if put to the test.

I guess the idea of an "aspiration" is really what it's about.