(Reposting from my Tumblr) Over on Friends Journal, the head of Sidwell Friends School on Quakers and pacifism is getting some attention, in part I think because it’s not absolutist on pacifism:
Quakers are short on dogma and long on discernment, a process that calls individuals to interrogate circumstances, seek truth, and act upon their conscience. Over the centuries individual Quakers have engaged in warfare provided they deemed the cause just. Somewhere between thirty and fifty percent of eligible U.S. and British Quakers fought in World War I, and approximately three-quarters chose to bear arms in World War II.
History is history, of course, and Friends’ attitudes have actually been more fluid than our peace testimony would let on. The first rejoinder online comes from Don Badgley:
So, let us be clear; without the direct and present leadership of the Divine Source, our so-called “testimonies” crumble to dust. Absent that One Source these “testimonies” are little more than religio-political posturing, relics — and impossible to justify, especially within the context of the actual evil we see in the world today. Alternatively, when we testify to the whole world about the life-altering Truths that originate in our Experience of the Divine Presence, that ministry is imbued with a vital, even miraculous power.
As in most things Quaker, I find myself intellectually in agreement with both of them (we’ve got a complicated history). I’m personally quite pacifist. Even defensive wars kill innocents and liberatory good guys have become tyrants over and over again in history. But I have to admit I’ve been quite grateful to see Ukrainians successfully holding the Russian army at bay. I think it’s possible for pacifists to be strategic and even have an edge of realpolitik as we question war-making, both philosophically and tactically.
Friends Journal