Because of the tender mercy of our God,
the dawn from on high will break upon us,
to shine upon those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace.
(Luke 1:78-79, New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition)
The last few years have sorely tested many Quakers’ pacifism.
Many Friends have told me about debates within their meetings concerning the ongoing violence in Gaza. Some feel that the Israeli government has the right—perhaps even the duty—to do whatever it deems necessary to protect its people after the October 7 attacks by Hamas. Others say the military response has long since passed the limits of justifiable self-defense. In my own quarter, the last meeting for business spent several minutes arguing about whether a minute could use the word “genocide” to describe the systematic campaign of violence against the Palestinian people.
But the test didn’t start there. Ever since Russian forces crossed the border into Ukraine in 2022, Friends have struggled to discern an appropriate response. Do the Ukrainian people have a right to defend their sovereignty against a foreign invader? Or should they turn the other cheek, come humbly to the negotiating table, and let Russia take as much of their land as the global community will allow?
Beyond the specific details of either conflict, what can any of us do to defend ourselves against encroaching authoritarianism? Or any other violence committed against us?
In 1660, George Fox and several other of “the harmless and innocent people of God called Quakers” shared some thoughts on the subject. Their statement left no room for ambiguity. “The spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth,” they wrote, “will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward Weapons, neither for the Kingdom of Christ nor for the kingdoms of this world.”
Surely, though, Friends could defend themselves if attacked? Nope:
“Men come against us with Clubs, Staves, Drawn Swords, Pistols cocked, and do beat, cut, and abuse us, yet we never resisted them; but to them our Hair, Backs, and Cheeks have been ready.”
And just in case people didn’t get the point, the statement continued:
“If you oppress us as they did the Children of Israel in Egypt, and if you Oppress us as they did when Christ was born, and as they did the Christians in the Primitive times, we can say, The Lord forgive you, and leave the Lord to deal with you, and not Revenge ourselves.”
(Photo courtesy Friends Meeting at Cambridge)
If people know anything about Quakers, they probably know the gist of this peace testimony.
They may not know the specific origins of Friends’ rejection of violence, but they know we reject it. Or we try to, at any rate. I know I don’t always live up to the peace testimony, though I wish I could. Not that I run around getting into fights. But I don’t always reject the notion of violence with my full heart.
I came to Quakerism as a not-quite-middle-aged adult, steeped in decades of an all-American form of Christianity that said, in essence, “War is wrong… except when it becomes absolutely necessary for the good of the country.” Like, say, throwing off the yoke of British oppression, or putting the Confederacy in its place, or turning back the Nazis. So as a boy I cheered when Indiana Jones punched Nazis—and, as an adult, I could not stop myself from smiling when I watched footage of a masked protestor punching white supremacist Richard Spencer in the head on the streets of Washington, D.C.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought about what the future holds, particularly in the United States of America. I cannot rule out the immanent possibility of violence—against trans and queer folks, against people of color, against Jews and Muslims—and as a child of the late twentieth century, I’ve had the poetic version of Martin Niemöller’s “First they came…” confession drilled into my consciousness. So I know I’ve got to speak out against evil at the first opportunity, at the risk of becoming a target myself. (My queerness likely already took care of that, anyway, and I can’t see myself recanting to save my skin.) But I also grew up listening to punk bands like the Clash, and the opening lyrics of “Guns of Brixton,” in particular, have gotten stuck in my head: “When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come? With your hands on your head, or on the trigger of your gun?”
The question held real weight for George Fox and his contemporaries in the political and social chaos of late seventeenth-century England. It may become a practical matter for us in the near future. Under such circumstances, would I have the conviction to allow the Spirit of peace to guide me? I don’t have a gun, and I doubt I’ll get one any time soon. But, broadly speaking, would I resist evil with force—or with love? What would you do?
I think it is important to also remember the phrase “take away the occasions for war” as a critical part of our Faith and Practice. Working to remove the Fear of the “other,” Hate, and Greed, which are among the roots of war is, in my opinion, the way to create Peace. I also have enough faith in the ways of Jesus, John Woolman, Ghandi, ML King, etc. who have demonstrated peace making to accept that the path to peace is not through violence.
To live in the peace testimony with true non-violence/ pacifism requires personal, spiritual discipline. Our models can be early or contemporary Friends, Jesus, Mohandas Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, M.L.King, and even Alexei Navalny. To avoid reacting to violence with violence, we must be in command of our emotions of fear, anger, distress & our hateful thoughts. Mindful self awareness requires mental, emotional and spiritual restraint rooted in love for ourselves & other. I’ve found that daily meditation cultivates mindful response rather than automatic reaction to threats. Before attending a demonstration or non-violent resistance, I find it helpful to do a water fast for 24 hours prior to the action.
I spent 10 years working with an international human rights group inGuatemala many of whose founders were Quaker. The work of the team and the committee that supported it was to accompany human rights defenders. The primary requirement for acceptance for accompaniment was that the person or individual had to be a pacifist. The Maya were the primary targets of the Guatemalan government and the military who carried out their orders for subduing the Mayan “insurgents”. What I witnessed then and what these groups had been doing for 40 years of civil war, was nonviolent, pacifist resistance. The government said you can’t protest or demonstrate and they demonstrated peacefully anyway. The government buried their villages and disappeared and killed and they remained nonviolent and pacifists until the peace accords were signed in the late 1990’s. They showed me the power of what we call the Quaker peace testimonies. They are my teachers for remaining committed to the testimonies.
I’m grateful to be aging, as the closer I come to the end of my life, the less I fear losing it. I have become a practicing Buddhist along with my Quaker faith. I understand that for peace to come, we must practice non-violence in all of our life, and that could mean laying down our life for the cause of peace. No peace is ever obtained through the practice of violence. Only a temporary cease fire comes from fighting war to obtain peace…until the next conflict over who wins. Our nations seldom settle anything, they just re-negotiate. What we see in true non-violent communication is the healing of old wounds, the forgiveness of ills against each other, and new covenants. These are not “deals” but building of community. Politicians are seldom willing or patient enough to work for true peace. We must be willing to stand through our faith in total commitment to the cause of peace. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Even though the early Quakers stated what has become known as our Peace Testimony, they also believed and stated that the Magistry had the right to deal with evildoers. I think it is one thing to apply the principles of non-violent direct action to social justice reform and another thing to defend oneself or your loved ones against threats or direct violence to your well-being, hopefully by using non-lethal force; this is what I stated to my draft board when seeking my Alternative Service. I feel the Ukrainians have a right to defend themselves and their country from invasion by the dictator of Russia, and I believe this applies to all other groups of people when similar circumstances are present. Personally, I will not participate in war because of the physical, social, and psychological harm it does to those involved, because it destroys a functioning society, and because it causes moral injury to all participants.