Do we polarize militarism and pacifism?

by Marlene Epp 
I'm looking forward to touring 1812 CO (conscientious objector) sites with Jonathan Seiling and the Mennonite Historical Society of Ontario on June 16.

I've just finished reading a novel titled The Absolutist by Irish writer John Boyne which has caused me to think about the gray areas between militarism and pacifism. The novel is about young -- far too young -- men who are soldiers on the European battlefront of the First World War. As the plot unfolds, what gradually emerges is the different motives that drew these young men to join up and also their varying responses to the horrors of hand-to-hand combat that characterized that war.

The centre of the story is the 'coming out' of a soldier as a conscientious objector and the questioning of others about the ethics of war. And also the 'coming out' of another soldier as gay and the uncertainty about the sexual orientation of another. Both of these identity issues reveal that pacifism and sexuality are most often situated on a continuum and only a few experience these as black and white issues.

I wonder if peace church Mennonites, myself included, are often too quick to polarize militarism and pacifism. Were there soldiers fighting in the war of 1812 who felt burdened to speak against the war? And were there Mennonites who questioned the CO position during that conflict?


 

Are peacemakers called to CREATE conflict?

Stouffville has made national news in the past few weeks, as the local peace churches have strongly opposed plans to celebrate the War of 1812. (lots of coverage by CBC's As it Happens)

Watching from afar, I've been admiring this bold witness to peace my brothers and sisters are making, especially with the whole country watching.

It's a little tempting to use the Stouffville actions as a model for faithful witness today, given the huge attention given to this community. These are the bold peacemakers for Christ!

Yet, I know there have been many other faithful witnesses to peace in our history, and yes, today as well.

An equally faithful group of peace witnesses have been raising questions about how the War of 1812 is celebrated down in Niagara. Their commitment has led to inspiring engagements like this blog, and an 1812 bike tour to conscientious objector sites.

For the most part, the Niagara peace churches have not made the news. Stouffville peace churches have. The difference?

Conflict.

The Niagara churches have tried to offer an alternative voice to the 1812 conversation in Niagara. I think they've done that rather well.

The Stouffville churches, on the other hand, directly opposed specific plans by specific people. Conflict created. And where there's conflict, there's media.

This is not to suggest that we peacemakers should constantly seek out the attention of the media.

But the media is an important tool in grassroots peacemaking and forming public opinion. More people talking about war, militarism and peace can only be a good thing.

Maybe it's time the peace churches start picking more fights in order to create peace???

Peace in the news!

Take a look at this Globe and Mail article which talks about peace and commemoration of the war of 1812:
"Bicentennial Military events an affront to Stouffville, Ont's pacifist roots".

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bicentennial-military-events-affront-to-stouffville-onts-pacifist-roots/article2423730/

A river runs through it

by Carol Penner

Look at the land here…does the land on one side look any different than the land on the other side?  It’s a picture taken from Queenston Heights…the land on the right is the United States, the land on the left is Canada.

I’ve been reading a book about the Battle of Queenston Heights, and it says that the communities on either side of the river were very connected socially.  For a long time the only portage around Niagara Falls was on the American side; everyone used it.  People in Youngstown on one side of the river and Newark on the other had parties and were constantly going back and forth.

Of course the declaration of war in 1812 changed all that. For the non-resistant Christians, they refused to buy into the declaration of war…no one was their enemy.  They had friends on both sides of the border, and tried to treat everyone the same.

But how good have churches been at keeping up those connections? It used to be that Mennonites had strong connections with Mennonite churches on the other side of the river.  But gradually over time, we too have divided into national churches, rather than cross-national church bodies. I know and have visited churches all over Ontario but I find that I know almost nothing of my Mennonite neighbours in New York State.

While we never believed in enemies, how has the division between countries influenced how we work as a church?

An interesting article

Check out this interesting article by Mags Story at Christianweek.org, entitled "Christians questioned war response in 1812, too".
http://www.christianweek.org/stories.php?id=1938

Preaching helped fuel war of 1812

by John Longhurst

When it comes to war, religion is often one of the first to enlist -- or be conscripted. That was certainly true 200 years ago, during the War of 1812.

That war, which ended with both sides claiming victory, will be the focus of many commemorations, conferences, re-enactments and other events during this, its 200th anniversary.

           

As a history buff -- and as someone who grew up near some of the old battlefields in the Niagara region -- I've read a lot about the origins, strategies, battles, heroes and outcomes of that conflict. But I can't recall ever hearing anything about the role of religion during the war. What impact did it have?

           

A big one, as it turns out, especially in the U.S.

CO experience foreign to my generation

Can historical remembering bring about a new witness to peace?

I think so. But it has to move us forward in our witness as historic peace churches. Unfortunately, I think we'd rather relive the same old story.

As a twenty-something born and raised in Canada, I have absolutely no experience of what it means to be faced with the decision to engage in warfare.

To be honest, I have hard time imagining that ever happening in my lifetime (though I suppose my forebears before me must have thought the same).

So reflecting on past Conscientious Objectors' experience does little to motivate me to a life of peace witness today. And I'm not alone.

One young adult put it this way, in the Brethren in Christ publication Shalom:

“I suspect that most young people are really not interested in talking about what happened decades ago in a world we no longer inhabit…. [They] are a little disgusted with boomer-ism. Almost everything the ‘hippie generation’ tried to do has been unsatisfying, and brought on a world that younger people will have to live in and clean up. So, hearing stories about being a C.O. [conscientious objector] is not productive.”

To be sure, the 1812 CO experience goes well beyond the hippie generation, yet it is one event in a long history of peace churches saying NO to war, yet failing to provide a captivating YES alternative.

The most popular stories told and retold in peace church mythology are those who refused to give up their right to refrain from warfare. These are inspiring stories of courage, no doubt. I look forward to reading more on this blog.

But where are the stories of peacemakers courageously creating peace?

With little likelihood of being asked to serve in war today, I need stories that provide me a captivating YES for why we choose peace over violence. Whether abstaining from war is morally superior isn't enough. I also need to see what can happen when people band together in the way of peace. You know, glimpses of the peaceful kingdom of God.

Without them, our critics are right. We pacifists reap the benefits of those who fight for freedom on our behalf, while celebrating the heroes of bygone eras.