By Andrew Chase-Ziolek

Managing Editor

At this time in the history of the United States, perhaps the image most used since that terrible event on September 11 has been that of Pearl Harbor. This image hearkens back to the second World War, embodying the same kind of national rage and disillusionment.

This image seems to accurately describe the atmosphere of our country. Nearly 90 percent of the population favors military action against these vile acts, according to USA Today. 76 percent said that they would favor military action even if they knew that five thousand American troops would loose their lives. Sen. John McCain noted ``God may have mercy on these terrorists, but we will not.'' Perhaps he has forgotten ``Be perfect, even as your father is perfect.'' (Matt. 5:48.)

As Christians, however, particularly as Christians within the reformed tradition, we must critically examine our reaction. Certainly we have all felt a great deal of rage, fear and anger as a result of this attack, which has probably led to the widespread consent to war. Yet I think that we need to explore other avenues of action, and moreover develop a social ethic that can help us in more general matters. To my mind, this ethic is Christian pacifism.

Christian pacifism grows from a number of sources. It can grow out of a reverence for life, that strange thing called `humanity' that we have not yet been able to grow in a test tube. It can grow out of the example of the early Church, from the pacifist teachings of Jesus, Origen and Tertullian, and from the ultimate pacifist resistance shown on the cross. It may simply come from the fact that violence begets violence, no matter how strongly some protest that they can ``go in and fix things'' (and if history has taught us anything, we can rarely fix things for longer than our armed occupation.)

Or Christian pacifism can surface out of a belief in moral realism - a belief that the morality of an action is not entirely contingent on the circumstances, but that some actions are wrong in all circumstances. As Aristotle would say, one cannot commit matricide at the right time, in the right place, under the right circumstances. Christian pacifists would say the same of taking any life.

Many Christians have rightly suggested Christian pacifism as a path to take at this point in our national history. Christian pacifism, however, contains a number of responsibilities. The most common objections that face Christian pacifism are not a result of flaws in this ethical prerogative, but rather a misunderstanding of the breadth of Christian pacifism.

Christian pacifism is not a position to be held only in times of war. Christian pacifism requires a lifetime of civil disobedience. It also requires a Calvinistic model of government - one cannot argue that Christianity and the government are `protected from each other' by an impenetrable wall. Christian pacifism fundamentally relies not simply on the ability of the individual to resist the governmental pressure to kill another person (which is simply a rewarmed pietism), but rather on a community of Christians actively acting to redeem society and influence governmental and societal stances through dialogue and social disobedience.

Christian pacifism means writing to your congressman and telling him that you do not support going to war. Christian pacifism means being involved in the democratic process, using your citizenship as leverage for your views. Christian pacifism means being a conscientious objector. In some cases, Christian pacifism may mean withholding taxes, writing petitions and planning protest marches. I believe that Christian pacifism means influencing others by voicing your opinion, as I am doing here. Christian pacifism always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Many have been skeptical of pacifism in general and Christian pacifism in particular. Others argue that it is impossible to fulfill our obligations for social justice without the use of war. Let us take the example of Nazi Germany. Some critics of pacifism point out that the sheer number of lives lost points to a need for military intervention. They strongly believe that diplomatic stances would not have worked.

But let us consider the roots of that particular radical nationalism in general. Christian pacifism, as I argued earlier, is not something to do simply when war breaks out or human rights violations surface. Rather, it was the responsibility of the citizens of Germany to resist the radical nationalists and the anti-Semitism that followed them with every ounce of strength that they had. In the same way, I feel that Christians in the United States should actively resist institutions (I believe that the death penalty is one of them, if anyone would question my consistency) and social trends (e.g. white supremacy) that will ultimately end in tragedy. Moreover, few remember that the radical nationalism of Germany rose out of the proverty and anger that came from the last war which we fought with Germany (which started as a result of Prussian militarism and a war previous to that.) Let's give credit where credit is due.

But even when we are thrust into a situation where violence seems to be the only solution, Christian pacifism requires us to restrain ourselves. War is not some kind of valiant self-sacrifice, even if - and this has never except in hypothetical situations - war could be done without ``collateral damage.'' War inherently endangers more lives than Christian pacifism. Michael Kelly of the Washington Post wrote an angry editorial this past Wednesday on ``pacifist claptrap,'' arguing that pacifism is inherently wrong because it is asynchronous (it helps one side more than another). Yet, for Christians, shouldn't ``Innocent'' and ``aggressor'' be irrelevant categories? All require salvation, in both the physical and spiritual sense of the term.

Kelly also argues that a position of pacifism is ultimately evil, as it will simply encourage the terrorists to attack again. Are we supposed to think about the exemplary peace-keeping ability of war? Israel has had one of the most bloody anti-terrorist campaigns ever seen, and terrorists don't seem to be intimidated by them! Anyone with a decent grasp of history knows that wars don't solve the deep tensions that cause violence between communities. (I should point out that although I find this argument invalid on other grounds, e.g. its utilitarianism, I'd like to point that it doesn't work even under a utilitarian ethical system.) War ultimately begets more war. It may temporarilly discourage fighting, but it is plain that the resulting hatred is grafted into the younger generations, resulting in situations like Afganistan and Kosovo. Our only hope is to diffuse the situation. Pacifism provides this mechanism.

This does not mean that we ignore social justice. We simply rule out war as a means to any end. This, in turn, forces us to be more creative as to how we effect social justice. When Christians of the world realize that social justice does not necessarily involve bloodshed, they will be far more eager to act in the best interests of others.

We have now a global community that did not exist in the ancient world. Our position as a dominant economy gives us economic ties that can be used with just as much precision as our military arms. Our sharing of information with other law enforcement groups on terrorists is certainly more useful than simply flattening a country for harboring them. Although we should be careful in our use of such power (keeping in mind the Western cultural and economic imperialism that has gone on for so long,) these are options which may help us deal with such events even after it is too late to stop the gestation of another Hitler.