A question for peace church people

[willing dwarf]

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?

[Critters2]

1. I'm not a member of a peace church. Peace is just one of several issues

where the UCC talks a good game, but doesn't walk the talk. I keep hoping that'll change, but I digress.

I've been committed to a peace testimony for a long time, but my discovery of the work of Rene Girard in the last two years has given me a much clearer umm, structure to that testimony. What I've come to realize is that the teachings of Jesus emphasize empathy for victims--victims of the differences between wealth and poverty, victims of all kinds of injustice, and especially victims of violence. The challenge for us is that the minute we pick up a weapon, no matter how justified we feel, no matter how frightened we are, the minute we pick up a weapon against another, we become the oppressor and they become the oppressed, the victim. And at that moment, we are called to feel empathy--the very fear that our victim feels at that moment. If we do truly empathize with our victims, we are motivated to move out of the role of oppressor, to set aside our violent actions.

Girard emphasizes the role of the mob in scapegoating victims, including Jesus. We are called to choose NOT to participate in the mobs that form, that call for violence as the solution to our problems. Girard also talks about the role of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit in assuring us that there is something beyond whatever we're frightened of. Years ago, as an undergrad, I took a philosophy class in which the professor pointed out the difference between "everlasting" and "eternal". If something is eternal, it not only lasts forever within time (that's what "everlasting means"), but it is outside of time and space, beyond the effects of creation. Jesus promises us eternal life, a contact with the eternal now, not just some day in the future (Tillich actually wrote a book entitled _Eternal Now_ that explains this idea in detail). Girard says that, at moments of fear and violence, believers know the presence of the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, and feel assured of living an eternal life, one that moves beyond the violence of the world.

The more I read of Girard and those influenced by him, and read scripture in the light of these insights, the more I feel that I could stand against the violence of the world if I need to. I do know that I've had more courage to take controversial positions publicly, that I worry a lot less about conflict in my congregation, the prospect of being fired, etc. I see a greater purpose to all of this, and I do my best to avoid lashing out, reacting out of vengeful feelings, anything that creates victims rather than caring for victims. I've also started studying Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication, which I recommend as a help in living the values Girard lays out theoretically.

I know this is rambling, and I hope it makes sense. Ultimately, peace is the only reality that matters. Violence only causes more violence and protects no one. Violence is motivated by a fear of death. Once you move beyond that fear, or feel assured of something deeper than this life, violence seems much less like a solution.

I hope this is clearer than I think it is! :)

[Kat45]

3. I think you're making a lot of sense.

I think I'll come back and read it again when I'm not so tired. Do you have a recommendation of a Girard book for someone who has never read him before?

That's very interesting about the words/concepts "eternal" and "everlasting." I tend to think of time as a somewhat artificial construct that only applies on this planet. People look at me funny if I start relating these thoughts to them.

[Critters2]

9. I usually recommend _The Scapegoat_ as an intro to Girard.

It's a fairly easy read. For a much more detailed read, I suggest S. Mark Heim's _Saved from Sacrifice: A Theology of the Cross_. I studied under Heim at Andover Newton, but before either of us were Girardians. It's interesting that we live 1000 miles apart, had pretty much lost touch, but both found our way to Girard--me, in large part due to his book, which I bought largely because "Huh. Look. My old academic adviser has a book out." That book opened my eyes, though I was moving in this direction, more slowly, anyway. Mark now teaches courses on Girard, and let me use a syllabus for his Atonement course to more fully and systematically study non-violent atonement theory.

Girard is a prolific writer, having written literary criticism, anthropology, and sociology works. Other books that are helpful in understanding his religious thought are _Violence and the Sacred_, _Things Hidden from the Foundation of the World_, _I See Satan Fall Like Lightening_ and _Job, the Victim of his People_.

[willing dwarf]

5. Your thoughts are very helpful

I'll need to read some of Rene Girard's work. It sounds very interesting. I am curious about your use of the word Paraclete. I thought that term was simply a sort of Orthodox church title. As you use it here, it has the sound of the Holy Spirit. I will look into this idea too. I've read a lot of Tillich's work and have considered him a major influence on my thinking.

What you say about compassion is so true. It makes me see that in my fears it's fear of being treated as part of a mob, being dehumanized, not being able to distinguish individuals and to touch their hearts -- and of course in one's imagination, it's hard to envision how individuals would respond to each other.

All my adult life I've relied on the ability to appeal to people on a person to person basis as a way to remain safe and undefended in the world. And it has worked. I've been in tense situations which have been defused by this simple honest appeal to the heart. So out of that I trust continuing to walk the way of peace is possible.

At the same time, I need to say that there seems no real place of peace when one lives and breathes in a space that is completely protected by missiles etc. We "benefit" by the defense systems that give us a place to explore peace, but how do we move beyond that? But that is a separate question altogether.

[JerseygirlCT]

2. I don't imagine anything worth striving for

loses that worth when your striving isn't perfect. Fear is pretty universal; so are the desire to protect loved ones. And unfortunately, so is the human tendency toward violence - it seems so simple and effective at first.

Sounds to me like you're being thoughtful - which, personally, I couldn't possibly think of as a bad thing. I think there's a difference between embracing and attaining, and most likely humans aren't going to attain.

[willing dwarf]

6. That's good insight

I guess we can only try to hold open the possibility of being peace people because we don't know how we'll respond when the next moment arrives.

I guess prayer is a way to prepare for what comes next.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. You are not alone, and the Peace Testimony is not absolute...

If it wasn't in the middle of the night I might remember the name of the early Quaker who said something to the effect of "There are times when you are a coward if you fight, and there are times when you are a coward when you don't fight." Not only are there different amounts of the Light in different people, but the Light comes and goes in individuals, making many decisions all the more difficult.

BTW, George Fox did some of his best recruiting in the barracks of Cromwell's, later Charles II's, armies and rarely suggesting his converts change careers.

The Peace Testimony was never intended to be a prescription for how we should live our lives, although it may have been a worthy goal to be pacifists. the Testimony, like all Quaker testimonies was a statement on where the signers had come to in their faith. It was also, modern Quakers prefer to forget, a bit of a kissup to Charles promising not to interfere with any of his wars so they would be left alone.

American Quakers have done vast amounts of soul-searching during wartime, and while there was general agreement about such thing as the Western Indian slaughtering being a Very Bad Thing, the Revolutionary and Civil wars tore Meetings apart. Many Quakers signed up to fight what they considered the greater evil than war itself and some Friends were disowned by their Meetings, some Meetings were disowned by their Yearlys, and so it went... Smedley Butler, the Marine general who won two Medals of Honor and then retired to decry war, was a Quaker who never renounced his faith.

The Peace Testimony became a pacifist manifesto some time between the Spanish-American War and WWI, although WWII was another one where some Friends signed up, but not nearly in the numbers of prior wars. Curiously, German Friends possibly were the most courageous in standing up to Hitler and refusing to fight for or accede to the Nazis.

So, should you continue your drift back to the RSOF, as I hope to see you do, see the Peace Testimony, as all testimonies and your YM Faith and Practice, as part of the journey, and not as a doctrine, but as a guide for you to find your own path.

[willing dwarf]

7. I appreciate your long view.

Thanks very much.

[shrike]

8. This has little to do with your post, but I so admire the Quakers

and their history. If I weren't a Catholic, I'd probably be a Quaker myself.

[willing dwarf]

10. Well I think it's possible to be both

The common tie is the mystical experience of the Holy Spirit.

[Rabrrrrrr]

11. I think we have a right to give up our own lives; I don't think we have a right to force others to.

Which is to say, it's okay for me to be a complete pacifist, and allow anyone to kill me who wants to, without me raising a finger.

But it's morally wrong for me to stand by and watch someone else get killed or injured without interfering to stop that violence.

Which is to say, I can be a pacifist - but if my community (or family or whatever group) is attacked from the outside (or the inside), I have a responsibility to defend the weak; watching the slaughter while I stand idly by on the laurels of my pacifist stance might seem holy and noble, but it's cowardly and evil.

Unless every member of that community has decided that violence is never an option, of course. I can't see any group of people more than a handful deciding that. Certainly never an entire nation.