bonhoeffer and pacifism.

[2eclipse]

i have been thinking recently about the nature of my pacifism.
i believe that a government that subscribes to pacifism wouldn't be a government very long...but i feel the damage people do to themselves by acting violently as real as my own heartbeat. i look around at the way we treat others and i think people are killing their souls. it hurts me in a very deep way that we do not publicly acknowledge the truth of the damage we do to ourselves when we hurt others. everyone thinks, "sucks to be the guy who was hurt," but no one talks about the evil and the suffering present with the perpetrator. i don't say this because i want us to make excuses for people who commit evil, but because i want us to think about our own actions and the damage we do to ourselves with our lack of perspective.
i am pacifist in large part because i am deeply afraid of that kind of damage. i believe in its power. i believe that God made us for community with one another and that when we harm each other, we go against our very purpose in a way that kills a part of us.
i like bonhoeffer's theology because it seems to me that he understands this. i also like bonhoeffer's theology because it challenges me to push past my own fear and stay in conversation with God instead. i am challenged by his act to acknowledge that there are things worse than the soul death of one person. i may not be able to think of an occassion where i might justify acting violently, but bonhoeffer forces me to acknowledge that if i live my life in flat accordance with principle, then i am living my life by principle and fear of doing wrong, and not necessarily by the will of God.
i don't think there has ever been a just war. not even world war II. but i do think bonhoeffer's assassination attempt on hitler may have been one of the only just uses of violence in the history of mankind. i plan to continue to adhere to pacifism as a moral stance because i like the perspective it gives me and i think i need the discipline. the struggle is going to be staying in tension about it....because i am beginning to see how faith, if it is going to stay a relationship; if it is going to stay true to the goal of understanding God and being faithful to God, has to go two ways. obedience to a principle is one-way only. relationship is about staying active and keeping the conversation alive.

There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared, it is itself the great venture, and can never be safe. Peace is the opposite of security. To demand guarantees is to mistrust, and this mistrust in turn brings forth war. To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself. Peace means giving oneself completely to God's commandment, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of Almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes. Battles are won, not with weapons, but with God. They are won when the way leads to the cross. - Deitrich Bonhoeffer

what do you think?
x-posted to christiangeekand christianleft

Comments

if you really wanna know...

[patchhat.livejournal.com]

i think it's not enough... or at least, it's closing your eyes. if everyone had the same beliefs, or lived by the same code, i would agree 100%, it -would- be that simple... but they don't, and i don't feel it is.

don't get me wrong, i whole heartedly respect anyone with a strong moral stance that is willing to, and is able to, defend it logically. in that light, though i don't fully understand it, and i wouldn't be able to live that way myself, it's inspiring to me that you choose to live that way, and you have my respect. i do believe that by closing your eyes, you actually perpetuate the problem you're protesting.

i personally don't believe that there is just one law... or more precisely, no law that can be interpreted is absolute. there are so many beliefs in the world, so many points of view, and though they all mostly preach "do no harm", they can't even agree in what harm is or who is deserving of "no harm". (the devil is in the details)

pacifism... hmmmm... i think as long as you do your best to "do no harm", you're on the right track... but that doesn't mean you should lay down and die because someone else says you should, because they will. in my opinion, nobody can or should try to control or suppress another, but every organized religion sets up "the bad guy" to be fought against... which allows for violence. so long as someone thinks they're justified to do harm to another individual, there will be no peace. fighting may not be -the- answer, but doing nothing in the face of violence is "laying down"... what is accomplished?

i don't know what the answer is. if there was an answer, everyone would have the same beliefs or live by the same code (back to the beginning of this circular argument). in my opinion, in today's world, pacifism can only exist because someone else is doing the violence for the pacifist. damage happens when ideologies collide. to be afraid of that damage is to be afraid of diversity. even if everyone was exactly the same, there would probably still be collision.

fear of the unknown or unfamiliar leads to alot of that collision damage. perhaps elimination of fear would allow for universal acceptance of differences and pacifism would be "normal" because there would be no urge to destroy. *shrug*

personally, i don't fear difference, i'm fascinated by it... do i feel that makes me any better than those afraid?... no, fear is natural and -i'm- the oddity for not fearing. does that make me a threat to those that do fear?... yes, because i invite change. therefore i'm at risk of being eliminated by a fear that i don't possess. if i didn't defend against that elimination, my lack of fear would be destroyed and the world wouldn't be any better for it.

in short, i would have to take fear in without being afraid so as not to be hurt by fear... messed up. is that like "nature abhorring a vacuum"? fear will crush that which does not contain fear... whoa... deep.

[keisolo.livejournal.com]

<-- thoughtful