Is Christianity a Pacifistic Religion?

[vulcanlogician]

My ancestors were Quakers and as such were pacifists. They left England because they refused to fight in the English civil wall and persecuted for that stance. They didn't participate in the revolutionary war and cared for the wounded of both sides without prejudice. As abolitionists living in the South Carolina, they avoided participating in the American Civil War by moving to Illinois. I try not to judge the difficult decisions of people in the distant past, particularly decisions on a scale I've never had to face. Nevertheless, letting evil persist and spread seems like shirking an important duty. So personally, despite their noble convictions, I think they got this one wrong. IMO the verses about "turning the other cheek" speak more about actively reaching out and confronting those who are against you with generosity (giving them your second coat, etc) rather than letting yourself be victimized and walking away.

I am quite moved by the story about your Quaker ancestors, Neo, and I personally think they got it right. It's not like (when war broke out) they hid in a corner and shivered like cowards. They took risks, and helped those who were injured by senseless violence. So many people regard pacifism as an expression of weakness. But it isn't. It is an expression of moral strength. Do you think MLK and Gandhi were pussies? I don't. In a world where people often try to win power and wealth by slaughtering each other, those who refuse to participate (and rather commit themselves to healing and restoring victims of a world gone mad) seem special... perhaps indispensable... to me. It seems like you want to disown them.

Let's look at things philosophically for a moment. We could run pacifism through the Kantian categorical imperative (aka "what if everyone did that?") and see that it passes that moral litmus test with flying colors. A world full of pacifists would be ideal. There is no doubting that. And what about hedonistic ethics? Those who commit themselves to the wellbeing of all and injure none (like your Quaker forebearers) are moral exemplars according to a hedonistic ethics. Name one philosophical system of ethics which names pacifists as immoral. There are very few. From deontology to utilitarianism, pacifism is logically deduced to be moral behavior. You must bring in fringe theories which we both reject (such as ethical egoism or moral relativism) to begin to argue against the moral strength of pacifism.

Pacifism is distinct from submission. Many equivocate the two and thus don't see the real strength behind passivism. Passivism can be practiced without any submission at all; passivism can, in fact, be a refusal to submit as it was with your Quaker ancestors.

Even in the Gospel of Matthew, one is advised not to "throw your pearls before swine." To me (and Tolstoy) this simply means not to let people walk all over you. Don't let your moral strength be trampled upon by those who would take advantage of it. In Matthew, it says precisely who the swine are: those who would trample your pearls (your moral offering) underfoot, and "then turn and trample you." So many Christians interpret the verse to mean that anyone whom they don't like (all nonbelievers, any who challenge them, or whomever they desire, really) are swine. But I disagree with this interpretation. It says it right there in the text: swine are those who trample your pearls and then trample you." If someone comes in peace and does not trample your moral pearls, they are not swine according to the Gospel. Even someone who comes at you with violence, but does not wish to take advantage of your moral treasure, is not swine. "Lord forgive them. They know not what they do." Therefore, even from the perspective of Biblical authority, a distinction is made between submission and pacifism. You can refuse to obey evil, but you ought not repay evil with evil. Instead, repay evil with good. That is the message that Tolstoy hears in the Gospels.

My Tolstoy quote was probably too long to be actually read by anybody. In this (short) excerpt, Tolstoy addresses your concern:

Now I understood that the whole force of the teaching lay in the words ‘do not resist evil,’ and that the entire context was but an application of that great precept.  I saw that Christ does not require us to turn the other cheek, and to give away our cloak, in order to make us suffer; but He teaches us not to resist evil, and warns us that doing so may involve personal suffering.  Does a father, on seeing his son set out on a long journey, tell him to pass sleepless nights, to eat little, to get wet through, or to freeze?  Will he not rather say to him, ‘Go, and if on the road you are cold or hungry, do not be discouraged but go on’?  Christ does not say ‘Let a man strike your cheek, and suffer,’ but He says, ‘Do not resist evil.  Whatever men may do to you, do not resist evil.’  These words, ‘do not resist evil’ (the wicked man), thus apprehended, were the clue that made all clear to me, and I was surprised that I could have hitherto treated them in such a different way.  Christ meant to say, ‘Whatever men may do to you, bear, suffer, and submit; but never resist evil.’  What could be clearer, more intelligible, and more indubitable that this?  As soon as I understood the exact meaning of these simple words, all that had appeared confused to me in the doctrine of Christ grew intelligible; what had seemed contradictory now became consistent, and what I had deemed superfluous became indispensable.  All united in one whole, one part fitting into and supporting the other, like the pieces of a broken statue put together again in their proper places.

And please tell me you've read the Letter from a Birmingham Jail. If you haven't, I insist that you do.