C. S. Lewis: Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Lewis’s approach to this subject is interesting. The issue of whether or not a Christian should fight in a war is indeed a difficult one. Lewis first considers if there be in human intuition, conscience, or reason a valid argument for refusing to participate in a war, and concludes there is none.
Lewis then turns to consider authority. Human authority has universally opposed pacifism and sanctions going to war; and history shows it to be a necessity. If peoples had not fought to maintain their identity, they would have lost their freedom and become enslaved. Lastly, he turns to consider divine authority but, instead of first closely considering Biblical statements, he refers to statements in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church and leading Theologians that sanction what they regard as righteous wars. Finally, looking at Christ’s statements against any retaliation, he concludes they are simply meant to stifle any urge towards “egotistical retaliation for hitting back.”
Has Lewis made an air-tight case?
If you as a Christian were to write an essay on this subject, how would you begin it? Would you not look to Scripture first and ask how certain passages speak to the issue? For instance:
The Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not murder.”
Matt. 5:38 - 42: “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to you, Do no resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right check, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.”
or: Matt. 26:52: “. . . all you who take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
or: Rom 12:17: “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.”
Yet other Scriptures could be listed. But Lewis chooses to minimize these and in their stead defer to human reason and governmental authority.
He has said early on, however, that an informed voice of individual conscience is to the honored. To me, if the authority of an individual’s conscience together with a careful honoring of Biblical statements forbids taking up arms with an intent to kill, such conviction should have preeminence. Lewis makes a strong case for his position, but ought he not to have recognized and honored earnest pacifist convictions as well?
I remember myself as a young man during World War II wrestling with this issue. I was a college student, working hard at my studies, and my scholarly record earned me deferment. But, as I considered the possibility of entering the armed services, I was pleased to learn that they honor non-combatant attitudes, and that there are several opportunities to enlist in non-combatant activities, such as the medical corps. Had I been drafted, that would have been my choice. This is certainly not in any way to diminish the honor due to veterans of wars. But I do feel conscientious pacifism should be honored as well.
ANY THOUGHTS? WHAT ARE YOUR REACTIONS?
Comments
What I found interesting was his comment on the potential effectiveness of abolishing war by pacifism 'It consists in assuming that the great permanent miseries in human life must be curable if only we can find the right cure..but I have received no assurance that anything we can do will eradicate suffering." I believe this is because the idea that pacifism , or anything else one might try, can never overcome the sin nature of man. If it were able to do so, then we could "work" our way into a heaven of sorts--but we know from Scripture that we can do no such thing.
Scripture does sanction war in specific instances--indeed God Himself commanded it at times. The commandment to submit ourselves to the governing authorities seems also to support ones going to war when called to do so. However, if a government does permit non-combative service for those who feel truly called to resist fighting on the basis of Scripture, reason, or intuition, I see no problem with one taking advantage of such an option either. Pragmatically, those strongly opposed to fighting would likely not be the best of soldiers and might use their gifts better in other pursuits.
My guess is that Lewis was addressing a whole lot of people who had suddenly developed "Christian conviction" when faced with the possibility of going to war. It seems to me that he was speaking largely to this group, people who were operating out of I-spirit and calling it Holy Spirit. We know he mediated on this at length in The Screwtape Letters.
What I think I see Lewis arguing against is "being a Pacifist"; naming yourself universally as one who believes war is always wrong and there is never a time that military force ought to be used. I think he would be interested to know how firmly those Pacifist views would hold up if the Germans were at the door, when what was at stake was MY . . . children, BMW, bank account, right to peace and quiet, etc.
I know that for myself, my view of the thing has evolved because I have become close to people who live in a much more brutal world than I do. Is it OK to use force to stop a father from raping his daughter, for example? Where are the boundaries? If a "Lord's Resistance Army" like the one in the Congo pops up here and starts stealing children to make them soldiers and sex-slaves, what happens to Pacifism? I guess my point is not to take straw-wars and create a universal principal, but to agree with Lewis when he says that the prospect of going to war can strongly influence people to fool themselves into believing they hear their conscience speaking. I would also agree that the Bible does not provide a definitive position on this matter.